Pleading Created by Zach Coughlin Volume 1

Declaration under penalty of perjury:
Everything in here (that Coughlin is asserting on his own behalf, not the reproductions of the
lies and attempts to mislead contained within the 121!12 "#"C#$ or %2&12 Complaint or
e'certps of the sworn testimony of witnesses other than Coughlin or (anel commentary, etc)* is
true, + declare under penalty of perjury, Dated:
,!1& s -ach Coughlin
-ach Coughlin, Declarant in .2&&/ and .1&%& and other cases
(lease see the &,0,! page 11/12 production by the 123 to Coughlin at:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,1&,2114/4124020!4.2&&/4+nde'4to42ates41tamped4&42004
(age41cr4105424c4(roduction4by41bn46ith41cribd4$in7
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,10&.114/4124020!4.2&&/42ates414to4&40,!41tate42ar4of4
3evada4E'cuse4for4"ailing4to4#bey41C84105424c
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,2,0,241&41&4020!4.2&&/48#94Digiti:ed4;ersio4of41234s4
2ates41&/&4to41.,,46ith454<ranscript4(ages4=issing4<a7en4#ut4;ol4/4to4,4020!4.2&&/4114
1!4124<ranscrip http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,&0%%241&41&4020!4.2&&/48#94
Digiti:ed4;ersio4of41234s42ates41&/&4to41.,,46ith454<ranscript4(ages4=issing4<a7en4#ut4
;ol4/4to4,4020!4.2&&/41141!4124<ranscrip
+3DE> <# 123 C#31#$9<+#3 2#> #" &,200 (9?E1 #" D#C@=E3<1 +31<E9D #"
9CC#8D+3? C#@?A$+3 A+1 8+?A<1 @3DE8 1C8 105(2*(C* +3C+DE3< <# (93E$
CA9+8 #8DE8 #" 10&12:
3evada4E'cuse4for4"ailing4to4#bey41C84105424c
2ates 3o: Description of Documents
1 4 .1% Pleading Created by Zach Coughlin Volume 1
2 4 , 22112 CoughlinBs 3otice of 9ppearanceC =otion to Dismiss in
8C8201240.5.&0 (11!12 arrest ordered by 8(D*
10 4 !% 0&0512 CoughlinBs 3otice of 9ppearance as Co4Counsel and =otion to Dismiss in
criminal trespass case before 8=C Dudge 6illiam ?ardner in 11 C8 2.!05 (.1,01*)
!5 +nde' to E'hibits to &512 filing page &. of !0 on fa' header
!. E'hibit 1 cover page
!/ page &% of !0 of fa', Certificate of 1ervice of 11111 by AillBs #ffice
!% page !0 of !0 of fa' (so page &, was ommitted, where such page consisted of 6C1# Civil
Division 1upervisor $i: 1tuchellBs admission that Deputy =achenBs 9ffidavit of 1ervice
alleging he Epersonally servedF eviction order to Coughlin on 11111 was false*
!,412. 11&011 3otice of 9ppearance, =otion for Continuance in 8=C 11 C8 221/. (see
1!!2
.0%&%*
12/ <> 8eport (8=C serves 8C9 by email, yet ta7es issue with Coughlin utili:ing email* by
D! 8=C of 121511 Dudge Aoward #rder re: emailing
12%4151 page 1 of 2! "a' Cover 1heet fa' header of 121.11 followed by CoughlinBs 3otice
of Denial of 1ervice, +"( 9pplication, etc) in 221/.
15241/0 for no apparent reason, the E'hibit 1 cover page to CoughlinBs 121&11 3otice of
9ppeal, =otion to ;acate, =otion for 8ecusal with hand interlineated E%,& pages plus CD of
5 files from 8eno City 9tty (2 videos* E9(F, codec to view files, 1 recording of Dohn Ellis
6almart retaliationF in 221/.
1/14&,! CoughlinBs &/12 3otice of 9ppeal of 1ummary Contempt #rder, =otion to 8eturn
(ersonal (roperty Confiscated by 8=C, =otion for 3ew <rial and to 9lter or 9mend
1ummary Contempt #rder in 8=C 11 <8 2.%00 before Dudge Aolmes (22! page fa' of
1:5%pm consisting of 5! page =otion and 1.. page E'hibit 1*
&,54.12 &,12 12&%pm 21% page fa' of =otion to 8eturn Cell (hones, =otion to 1et 9side
1ummary Contempt #rder, 3otice of 9ppeal of 1ummary Contempt #rder in 2.%00)
.1&4.1% email from Coughlin to 8=C Chief =arshal 8oper of 121!11 re Complaint about
=arshal =en:el and never receiving copy of 11&011 Contempt #rder, and 8=CBs ;eronica
$ope: failing to fa' such as she had agreed to)
.1, Pleading Created by Zach Coughlin Vol 2
.20 email from Coughlin to 123 Ging of !1.12 1ubject: =r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12
letter
.25 page 2 of .& page fa' of 10&12 at (,:2. am from Coughlin to 123 of =otion for #1C in
.0%&%*
.%. fa' cover sheet page 1 of preceding .& page fa' from Coughlin to 123 stamped
EreceivedF by 123 10&12 (indicating there should be at least such a stamped EreceivedF fa'
from Coughlin of ,1%12 consisting of CoughlinBs =otion to Dismiss, though there is no such
document in the 123Bs &,0,! page production, which is dubious given the salient importance of
such in light of CoughlinBs argument that DC8 1&(&* provides that GingBs failure to oppose
such may be ta7en as an admission thereof)
.%% page 1 of !0 page fa' from Coughlin to 8=C of &512 fa' header 10:5. am 3otice of
9ppearance as Co4Counsel and =otion to Dismiss in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05 criminal trespass case
before Dudge 6) ?ardner
/02 page 15 of CoughlinBs &512 =otion to Dismiss in 2.!05 (proving & 5 12 020! 2.!05
=otion to DismissBs page 1. e'cised from 11 / 12 123 production between bates /02 and /0&
detailing burglary by Aill, 6C1#, 8(D, ?ayle Gern, EsH), 3evada Courts 1ervices, (ar7
<errace, 3orthwinds 9partments, 1uperior 1torage, etc, incident to failure to accord 2! hours
to tenant from receipt of loc7out order per 381 !0)25&*
/0& page 1/ of CoughlinBs &512 =otion to Dismiss in 2.!05
/2! illegible page &, of !0 page fa' to 8=C from Coughlin with 6C1# 1tuchellBs admission
that Deputy =achenBs 9ffidavit of 1ervice is incorrect where it alleges Coughlin was
Epersonally servedF where version included by Ging in !1.12 2& E'hibit presentation to
33D2 1creening (anel e'cised such page)
2!!2
/2.4/.0 page 1 of &5 page fa' from Coughlin to 8=C in 11 C8 2.!05 trespass case Dudge 6)
?ardner 3otice of 9ppeal, =otion to ;acate, =otion for 8ecusal, +"( (with such page listing
Coughlin as an EEsH)F with his 3; 2ar 3umber above caption*, responding to 2212 #rder
granting 8=C defender (uentesB =otion to 6ithdraw)
/&& +nde' to E'hibits to CoughlinBs 21.12 =otion indicating E') 1 consists of 2. pages of
correspondence between Coughlin and (uentes detailing the burglaries on CoughlinBs former
home law office by Aill, 6C1#, and 8(D)
/.1 page 1 of % of CoughlinBs fa' to 8DC in 8C8201240.5.&0 3otice of 9ppearance, =otion
to Dismiss that 8DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori <ownsend emailed to 123 on !1112)
/., duplicate of preceding % page fa'ed =otion to 8DC by Coughlin duplicated for no apparent
reason)
///4%11 CoughlinBs 21&12 fa' header 2:5/ pm to 8=C of &5 page 3otice =otion to was
duplicated inadvertently by CoughlinBs fa'ing such again on 21.12 in trespass case before
Dudge 6) ?ardner)
%124%!. CoughlinBs 21.12 fa' header %:10 am &5 page 3otice =otion in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05
criminal trespass case Dudge 6) ?ardner
%!/4%%5 CoughlinBs !0 page fa'ed motion to 8=C of &512 header 10:5. am with 8=C
2allard certification)
%%! page &% of !0 of CoughlinBs fa'ed =otion (note page &, of !0 is missing in light of page
%%5 being page !0 of !0, with such e'cised page being 6C1# 1tuchellBs 21212 admission in
an email to Coughlin that Deputy =achenBs 9ffidavit of 1ervice indicating Coughlin was
Epersonally servedF the Eviction #rder in the summary eviction handled by AillBs firm was
actually merely posted on CoughlinBs door, and not personally served on 11111*)
%%5 page !0 of !0 of fa'ed =otion to Dismiss in 8=C 2.!05)
%%.4,25 page 1 of !0 of CoughlinBs &&12 fa' header &:0, pm fa' to 8=C of same !0 page
3otice of 9ppearance, =otion to Dismiss immediately preceding with 8=CBs providing to
123 li7ely indicative of annoyance as receiving same fa' twice, though is not clear whether
one copy was fa'ed to chambers for 8=CBs convenience or if Coughlin was simply having
problems adjusting to his new ;o'o' fa' des7top computer internet based fa'ing application)
,2! page &, of !0 page fa' to 8=C by Coughlin of &&12 consisting of 2/12 emailed
admission by 6C1# 1tuchell that she considers posting an order on CoughlinBs law office door
when no one is present to be Epersonal serviceF)
,2.4,2% apparently inadvertently sent by 8=C to 123 materials form =andi 6olf and (atric7
(ar7er relating to their traffic matters in the 8=C
,2,4100& page 1 of /. page fa' header %02 am to 8=C of 121.11 fa' cover sheet
indentifying Coughlin as attorney followed by 1upplemental to 3otice of 9ppeal=otion to
;acate in 8=C 11 C8 221/. (.0%&%* before 8=C Dudge Aoward)
1002 page /! of /. per fa' header (ie, page /5 of /. was e'cised in considration of incongruity
between 123 bates stamping of 11 / 12 and pagination per fa' header of 121.11 fa' from
Coughlin to 8=C where (age /5 was CoughlinBs E+nde' to E'hibitsF*
100& page /. of /.
100!410,& page 1 of ,2 of CoughlinBs fa'ed to the 8=C on 121,11 fa' header 5:2! pm
3otice of Denial of 1ervice, #pposition to City of 8enoBs 3otice of Denial of 1ervice, etc)
&!!2
where at bates 1,052 is CoughlinBs C;0%401/0, filing before 2DDC Dudge "lanagan (page 50 of
,2 page fa'* and bates 1,0%2 is filing by Coughlin before 3;2 Dudge 2eesley in 3;24104
0510! Cadle Co) v) Geller)*
10,! CoughlinBs 22!12 fa' header 10:1! pm 8=C 8ecord 8eHuest dated reHuesting copy of
Contempt #rder file stamped 22/12 in 8=C 11 C8 221/. (.0%&%*)
10,5 Case Doc7et from 8=C in 11 C8 221/. (.0%&%* before Dudge Aoward)
10,.411/1 page 1 of /. page fa' from Coughlin to 8=C of 22!12 fa' header ,:00 pm file
stamped 22/12 at %:1! am same day at traffic citation trial leading to summary contemtp
incarceration of 5 days by Dudge 3ash Aolmes in 11 <8 2.%00 listing 1!22 E) ,
th
1t) I2 as
CoughlinBs address where Aolmes had 22%12 Contempt #rder ("AE!* sent to 121 8iver 8oc7
address she 7new Coughlin had been evicted from)
11/2 CouglinBs 121.11 2! page fa' header to 8=C /:!1 am in 8=C 11 C8 221/. (.0%&%*
with fa' cover page to 8C9 8oberts followed by CoughlinBs 3otice of Denial of 1ervice)
11,2 page 21 of 2! of such fa'
121. last page of portion of CoughlinBs 121&11 filing in 8=C 11 C8 22/1. lac7ing a fa'
header version hand delivered to 8=C
121/ page 2 of 2! page fa' filed with the 8=C from Coughlin 121.11 3otice of Denial of
1ervice with 8=C 2allard Certification where page 1 of 2! was e'cised where such was a fa'
cover page listing Coughlin as an attorney and providing his 3; 2ar 3o) in a fraudulent
attempt by 8=C, 2allard, and 123 to support bogus +"( allegations)
1.55 RMC Justice Court Docs folder
1.5. 111511 3otice 1etting <rial date of 11&011 in 8=C 11 C8 221/. (.0%&%*
1.5, cover sheet for 11 CR 2217 RMC Judge !en "o#ard D$ from RMC %ac&age
1..2 8=C =arshal =oser report of 121&11 harassment of Coughlin by =arshal =en:el
1.5! 8=C =arshal =en:el report of 121&11 court as police state approach of 8=C =arshals
1./1 CoughlinBs email to Ging and (eters of 10&11 detailing fears related to providing his
physical address
1./2 8=C Court 9dministrator Dac7son sends an 1C8 111 letter for .1,01 on .2112 where
she failed to in .0%&% for 11&011 conviction, much less for either Ecriminal contemptF
Ecriminal convictionsF
1.//4/, fa' from 8eno City 9ttorney to 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), that Aill provided to 123
consisting of 2DDC Dudge ElliottBs #rder dismissing CoughlinBs appeal of criminal trespass
conviction in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05 (.1,01* & pages from ,1012 containing %2/12 #rder in
C812412.2
1.%0 8=C Dudge AowardBs 11&011 #(1C twice, both times lac7ing any Certificate of
=ailing
1.%! CoughlinBs 121&11 5:01 pm filed 3otice of 9ppeal, =otion to ;acate or 1et 9side,
=otion for 8ecusal in 8=C 11 C8 221/. (.0%&%* lac7ing entirety of e'hibit 1Bs %,& pages
which was emailed for filing to 8=C (by permission from D) 2allard, which she fraudulently
failed to include in 8#9 transmitted to 2DDC*)
1.,! 8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes &1&12 #rder 1tri7ing "ugitive Document filed on &/12
!!!2
(CoughlinBs +"( =otion9ffidavit in 1upport of and 8eHuest for 9udio of 22/12 trial before
Aolmes in 11 <8 2.%00 (3?1240!&!*
1/01 &1212 #rder by Aolmes in 2.%00 that became "AE5
1/0/ 11&011 CoughlinBs 3otice of 9ppearance =otion for Continuance in 8=C 11 C8
221/. (.0%&%*
1/%5 8C9 Aa:lettBs =otion to Continue trespass trail in 8=C 2.!05 because 8ichard ?) Aill,
EsH), witness, will be on vacation)
1/,0 10 10 11 3otice 1etting trial for 11 1! 11 Coughlin notates =arshal =en:elBs bullying
behavior 221/.
1/,2 11&011 #rder Continuing <rial by 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner in trespass case 11 C8
2.!05 (.1,01* ma7es no sense for it to be within folder for Dudge Gen Aoward
1/,& Cover 'heet for folder titled (Zachary Coughlin Case no 11)R2*++ Judge D, -ash
"olmes De%artment .
1/,! &1&12 1ua 1ponte #rder Denying 8elief 1ought in +mproper Document in 2.%00
1/,& &1&12 #rder 1tri7ing "ugitive Document "iled on &/12 2.%00
1%0! &1212 #rder in 2.%00 with clear and convincing language
1%10 22%12 #rder in 2.%00
1%1. 8=C Donna 8ae 2allard 1tatement describing 121&11 e'change with Coughlin and
=arshal =en:el
1%2! Cover 'heet for Case -o, 11CR2217 Judge !en "o#ard De%artment /our
1%&/ &2112 8=C stampe on &1512 2DDC Elliott #rder 9ffirming 8uling of the 8=C 221/.
20.!
1%.5 8=C Donna 2allard 9ffidavit to 123 of !1112 221/. 2.!05
1%./ 8C9 Aa:lettBs =otion to 1tri7e =otion to Dismiss Complaint
1%/1 only %ages 2 and . of Coughlin0s . %age filing of 121!12 of a =otion to (roceed +"(
and 9ffidavit in 1upport of filed by fa' and email which Donna 2allard provided e'press
authori:ation of, not even clear which case such is in, but regardless, Coughlin had notified
court he was an attorney already in both cases in addition to doing so in the emailed version of
these two +"(1 in 221/. and 2.!05, and li7ely in the fa' cover sheet as well
1%/141%/& out of order all three pages of & page 121!11 fa' submitted =otion to (roceed +"(
in 2.!05 2allard notari:ed and provided to the 123 though she failed to indicated she had
given permission to file by email to Coughlin and that both CoughlinBs email and fa' cover
sheet identified him as an attorney, and regardless, all departments of the gossipy 8=C were
well aware of that fact, even beyond Coughlin already having stated it on the record, in court
on 11&011 in 221/. and at the arraignment on 111!12 to Dudge 6) ?ardner for 2.!05)
2000 9rrest 8eport and Declaration of (robable Cause 1heet by 8(D #fficer Chris Carter Dr)
filed with Criminal Complaint for trespass by 8ichard ?) Aill in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05 on
111&11 listing Coughlin as an attorney, further vitiating 123 and 8=CBs fraudulent assertion
5!!2
that Coughlin failed to disclose fact he is an attorney)
20!!420!5 where 123 Ging e'cised 6C1# 1tuchellBs 2/12 emailed admission to Coughlin
that her office views Epersonally servedF to included posting on door of CoughlinBs former hom
e law offiwhen nobody was present therein, the 2! hour loc7out eviction order, in violation of
381 !0)25&, coverup smo7ing gun, (at Ging should be disbarred) (3#<E: where is fa'
headers from CoughlinBs fa' filing of such to the 8=C that is present in every other appearance
of such &&12 or &512 3otice of 9ppearance, =otion to Dismiss by CoughlinJ*
21//421/% 6here the (roof of 1ervice ought be for the 11&011 Dudgment of Conviction and
Court #rder by 8=C Dudge Gen Aoward, of course, there is none to be found, which is
particularly noticeable for that which is not satisfied by any ErenditionF standard, ie, the alleged
11&011 #rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt in 8=C 11 C8 221/., all fraudulently ignored
by the 123Bs Ging, at best)
1ates Descri%tion
2/01 /ormal "earing /ile '1- v, Zachary 1, Coughlin
2/0242/,& 2rievance /ile 3-2124+$.5 67 Zachary Coughlin8 9s:, 27 Judge Dorthy ;sic<
-ash "olmes
2/05 Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !2/12 email 1ubject: @pdate and a 8eHuesting
2/0. Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !1,12 email 1ubject: 8E: =r) GingBs assertions in his
&1.12 letter wherein Coughlin denies all allegations
2/1. 2rian ?onsalves email referring to other attorney fee awards ma7es curious GingBs only
reHuesting Coughlin pay AillBs landlord clientBs award in GingBs closing argument)
2/1/ GingBs 1C8 111(.* (etition in .0%&%, placed in 3?1240!&! ma7es no sense
2/1% 8DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori <ownsends !1112 email to Ging containing documents
from 8C8201140.&&!1 (Dudge 1ferra::a* and 8C8201240.5.&0 (Dudge Clifton* 8DC Chief
Civil Cler7 told Coughlin Dudge Clifton told her not to respond to CoughlinBs 10&012 1C8
110 subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
2/20 8=C Dudge Aoward (11 C8 221/. conviction leading to .0%&% temp) suspension*Bs
!!12 email to Ging regarding E@4tubeF postings E9 1ampling, Events at 8=C &1212C City
of 8eno =arshal Aarley, 9llison #rmaasC 8=C bounced by 8eno =arshalsF apparently
Coughlin was at the 8=C on &1212 and just did not 7now the trial in 2.%00 was continuing)
2/21 8=C Court 9dministrator Cassandra Dac7son email to 8=C Dudges fa'ed by 3ash
Aolmes just page 2 of & of &2212 1:1/ pm fa' apparently to 123
2/22 list provided to 123 by 8=C detailing CoughlinBs offenses between ,,11 and 11212
.!!2
2/2& email of !1012 to 123 from 8C9 Dan 6ong regarding 123 will be unable to get
CoughlinBs criminal history
2/25 is missing
2/2. Aolmes fa' to 123 of &2212 1:1/ pm page & of & containing CoughlinBs &2212 "#+9
8eHuest and 1econd 8ecord 8eHuest for audio of 22/12 trial indicating 2allard indicated
CoughlinBs first reHuest for such audio was not processed, and see7ing anything related to the
confiscation of CoughlinBs personal property on 22%12 from the 6ashoe County jail,
reHuesting chain of custody information, 8=C =arshalBs reports, etc)
2/2/42/&2 has dis%lay issues li7ely 8=C defender (uentes 11/12 =otion to 6ithdraw
from criminal trespass case before Dudge 6) ?ardner in 11 C8 2.!05
2/&&42/&! &2/12 #rder in C;1140&.2% 2DDC Dudge "lanagan appeal of summary eviction
with Aill and 2a7er as opposing counsel Denying AillBs 2a7erBs 12112 =otion for #rder to
1how Cause after hearing on &2&12 and &2.12
2/&. =8C Cover 1heet with E$ist of documentsF attached &1&12 details five documents from
traffic case before Aolmes: 22%12 #rder (contempt*C &/12 3otice of 9ppeal, =tn for 8eturn
of (ersonal (roperty Confiscated by 8=C =arshals (22! pages*C &1212 =otion to 8eturn
Cell (hones (21% pages*C &1212 #rder (5 pages*C &1&12 #rder 1tri7ing "ugitive Document
filed on &/12
2/&%42/&, !1.12 fa' from 8=C Dept) 2 (Dudge 6) ?ardner* 1 and 2 of 2 9rrest 8eport and
(robable Cause 1heet for 111&12 custodial criminal trespass arrest with (C 1heet by 8(D
Carter and AillBs Criminal Complaint
2/!04!1 8=C =arshal ED(F Dean4(ierre =oster report from 121&11 =arshals Dames =en:el,
=atthew <hompsonC 6itness 1 Donna 2allard, 6itness 2 <om 2artoldo:
2/!242/!! 8=C =arshal Dames =en:el incident report detailing CoughlinBs filing a 3otice of
9ppeal and or =otion for 3ew <rial and see7ing a copy of the audio of the 11&011 trial in 11
C8 221/. (.0%&%*, references gossip with 8DC Chief 2ailiff =ichael 1e'ton, well paid city
and county =arshals and 2ailiffs really donBt li7e wor7ing until closing time
2/!542/!% 8=C =arshal 1cott Coppa and =atthew <hompson incident reports detailing
CoughlinBs &2212 visit to 8=C filing counter to file 1econd 8eHuest for 9udio of the 22/12
trail before Aolmes in 11 <8 2.%00, which begat 3?1240!&!)))Dudge Aolmes immediately
fa'es 123 CoughlinBs "#+9 8eHuest in her desperate fear that her misconduct will be e'poses
incident to 8=C =arshals violating "ourth 9mendment at her direction in retrieving from jail
on 22%12 what had already been boo7ed into CoughlinBs persona property (where =arshal
Coppa pulled Deputy Cheung into bac7 room of sally bay at jail to discuss such confiscation*
2/!, &2212 email from Coughlin to Ging 1ubject 8e Aello from -ach Coughlin referencing
?essin and Christiansen
2/5& CoughlinBs !212 email to Ging R97 my attem%t to be %rovided access to the
grievances filed today see&ing materials from 2*++ and clarification regarding whether
Judge L. Gardner herself filed grievance,
2/5! GingBs email to Coughlin detailing & grievances, lying about -2124+$.$ being a
grievance received (from Judge 2ardnerF, Ging announces he is reneging on his previous
indication that Coughlin would be afforded a review of the materials submitted in connection
with the grievances, references 8=C =arshals Coppa and <hompsonBs &2212 report to 123
/!!2
2/5. Coughlin email to 123 (eters of &2.12 referencing domestic violence he has
e'perienced and concomitant obstruction of his mail
2/5/ CoughlinBs &2.12 email to 123 memoriali:ing GingBs refusal to allow access to
grievance materials previously offered
2/5, CoughlnBs &2,12 email to 123 indicating Ging had made no reHuest for any written
response to any grievance by ?ardner or Aolmes, CoughlinBs detailing manipulative use of his
si:e by Ging, which Ging lied about at 1!1& <(# e'tension hearing in 8DC 8C(20124
000.0/)
2/.04 $ots of emails between Coughlin and the 123 Huite cooperative and responsive to any
an all 123 reHuests for information or cooperation in any investigations whether relating to
Aill, ?ardner, or 3ash Aolmes, etc)
2//2 CoughlinBs email to 6C1# detailing Deputy =achenBs burglary with AillBs associate
2a7er of 11111, =achenBs false affidavit regarding Epersonally servingF Coughlin 2! hour
loc7out order on 11111 burglary by AillBs associate 2a7er of that date
2/,0 CoughlinBs &1.12 email to Ging indicating he has yet to finish sending everything in
response to AillBs grievance)
2/,2 @1(1 Certified =ail <rac7 K Confrim ending in .5/% for GingBs mailing of &1.12
(purported letter from Ging to Coughlin that Ging was too afraid toconflicted over to see7
admission thereof at 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing* that was Eundeliverable as
addressedF given domestic violence abuser housemates obstruction of CoughlinsB mail in
conjunction with ?ayle Gern, EsH)
2/,& GingBs &1.12 letter to Coughlin indicating the #2C Ehas received several grievances
concerning your conduct as a lawyer)))+ will ma7e available for your review and inspection the
supporting documents and audio recordingsF
2/,! /=RM6> P>96D?-2' /?>9
2/,542/,. 10,12 9ffidavit of $aura (eters (3#<E: incongruously placed at the most recent
filing in this Eformal pleadings fileF where such 10,12 9ffidavit of $aura (eters bares a file
stamped obviously prior in time to the filings placed immediately before it in what is otherwise
the typical reverse chronological order (most recent filings on top* law officefiling office wor7
in progress case file (before the 8#9 is then reconstituted in correct bates stamped first in time
to most recent filing chronological order*)
2/,/4,, #rder of 10&112 by (anel Chair Echeverria (CoughlinBs 10&112 file stamped (re
Aearing =otion to Dismiss1ummary Dudgment=emorandum of $aw should have been
included here by the 123 as such was placed in its possession at !:!5pm on 10&012, and,
therefore, could have gone out with the materials Ging alleges were sent to the printed on
11112*
2%00 #rder of 10&012 #rder 9ppointing "ormal Aearing (anel by 33D2 Chair D) <homas
1usich, EsH)
2%02 123 GingBs 102!12 #pposition to 8espondentBs =otion to 2ifurcate Aearing, =otion to
Dismiss
2%0. CoughlinBs 101.12 =otion to 8eview+nspect 2ar 8ecords, =otion to 2ifurcate, =otion
%!!2
to Dismiss, etc)
2%!, CoughlinBs =otion for #rder to 1how Cause
2,11 CoughlinBs =otion to Dismiss
2,15 page ! of 5 of CoughlinBs =otion to Dismiss where 123 e'cised E'hibit 1 to CoughlinBs
filing, a tell tale give away being the incongruous placement of page 5 there from with a bates
stamp of 2,1! where page ! thereof is given 123 bates stampe 2,15, which consisted of an
+nde' to E'hibits (1) E'hibit 1: , , 12 $etter to 1usich and Ging* where 123 e'cised that letter
Coughlin attached as E'hibit 1 thereto)
2,1.
2,2. page & of & of 11&011 Dudgment of Conviction and Court #rder from 8=C Dudge
Aoward in 11 C8 221/. with Huasi4(roof of 1ervice of E' 8efused (illegible initials only*
11&011 L 20:2&F following preprinted form in blan7 following E+ understand and promise to
obey this order) DefendantF*, which 123 Ging fraudulently e'cised from the version he
included in his 2& E'hibit presentation to the 33D2 1creening (anel, which underscores the
8=C and 123Bs fraudulent approach vis a vis the non service of the 11&011 #rder (unishing
1ummary Contempt which formed "AE11)
2,5! %2&12 9ffidavit of 1ervice of Complaint by (eters attached to Complaint
2,55 2rievance /ile 3-2124+2+$ 67 Zachary Coughlin 27 Richard "ill8 9s:,
2,5. Copy of envelope @1(1 Certified =ail I /010 2/%0 000& 5!2, .5/% 123 sent to
Coughlin on &1.12 with @1(1 yellow stic7er EUNABLE TO FO!A" FO E#$E!F
dated &&112
2,5% &1.12 letter from 123 Ging to Coughlin regarding Eseveral grievancesF oddly placed
with AillBs grievance file when &1.12 letter references EDustice CourtF (so, there, Ging, li7e
with the Dudge $) ?ardner EgrievanceF in 3?1240!&5, is caught lying again in asserting
Esupporting evidenceF for grievances the #2C EreceivedF consisting of CoughlinBs filing in
EDustice and District CourtF (in an obvious attempt to e'tend the scope of his hit piece beyond
just Aill and the 8=C*
2,5, RMC Judge Nash Holmes' grievance letter to the SBN (why on earth such is placed in the
folder for Hill's grievance other than !eing another attempt at o!fuscation !y "ing is not
clear at all#
2,.1 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial, "AE& compare E5F in E15F of
E8eceived =ar 15 2012F to other versions (ditto*
2,/5 .2512 #rder by 2DDC Dudge "lanagan in C;1140&.2% M!2,0.5 attorney fee award
(3#< 9 193C<+#3*
2,/, 123 2ar Counsel Clar7 forwards on CoughlinBs 12&12 self report of conviction in
.0%&% to Ging and (eters
2,%1 "AE/ CoughlinBs &,12 fa' to 123 reg 21!12 letter from Ging only received on &,12,
re:uesting all corres%ondence be co%ied via email and fa@ due to obstruction of
,!!2
Coughlin0s mail ;#hich8 of course8 !ing8 Peters8 and the '1- fail to do,,,so much for that
'=>6C9 %rogram8 huhA<
2B*. '1- !ing0s 2C1$C12 letter to Coughlin
2,%! 123 GingBs letter to Aill regarding grievance Aill purportedly emailed to Ging, compare
to the letter Ging sent Coughlin refusing to investigate CoughlinBs grievances against 8=C
defender $oomis and 6C(D Dogan)
2,%5 GingBs email to Clar7 and (eters detailing youtube video of %2011 8(D misconduct in
wrongful arrest of Coughlin at issue in 8DC 8C8201140.&&!1 containing AillBs forward to
Ging of CoughlinBs email to 6C1#, 6C(D, 8C9, AillBs associate 2a7er, etc) of 21012
detailing 2a7er and 6C1# Deputy =achenBs burglary of 11111 in 8ev20114001/0%, C;114
0&.2% at 121 8iver 8oc7
&00! CoughlinBs 11!12 #pposition to =otion for 9ttorney "ees in C;1140&.2% detailing
AillBs misconduct incident to CoughlinBs 11212 jaywal7ing arrest in front of 121 8iver 8oc7
former home law office)
&01&4&01/ AillBs 11!12 email to Ging, five page grievance, unsigned, unsworn (interstingly,
either Aill failed to really include such EdisclosuresF or Ging e'cised such, inappropriately,
from this &,0,! 1C8 105(2*(c* production of 11/12, causing much prejudice to CoughlinBs
defense)
&01%4&0!& 2rievance /ile 3-2124+$.$ 67 Zachary Coughlin 27 Judge >inda 2ardner
&01, 4&0!& purported printout of &1512 regarding prosecutorial misconduct in various states
summaries thereof from http::achcoughlinesH)wordpress)com
with header that reads E(age 1 of 10,!F and a stamped E"N+F seemingly superimposed on the
first page) (3#<E: nothing to indicate anything was received from 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner*)
&0!! Zach Coughlin 111 Petition
&0!% CoughlinBs application for legal defender and 102/11 8=C Dudge Aoward #rder
Denying $egal Defender
&050 8C9 (amela 8oberts, EsH) #pposition to =otion for 3ew <rial of 122111 in 11 C8
221/. (.0%&%* (3#<E: lac7s the actual e'hibits to such motion, and instead is misleadingly
followed by the E'hibits to GingBs 101511 1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01
&055 E'hibit 1 to GingBs 1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01
&0.5 1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01 of 101512
&0// .0%&% #rder of <emporary 1uspension and 8eferral to Disciplinary 2oard of ./12
&0%0 1C8 111(.* (etition in .0%&%
&0,1 5%12 stamped @1(1 Domestic 8eturn 8eceipt (1 "orm &%11 .0%&% Certified =ailing
/010 2/%0 000& 5!2, ./52
10!!2
10 4 !% 0&0512 CoughlinBs 3otice of 9ppearance as Co4Counsel and =otion to Dismiss in
criminal trespass case before 8=C Dudge 6illiam ?ardner in 11 C8 2.!05 (3#<E: the fa'
header from CoughlinBs filing to the 8=C indicates this filing is !0 pages long, with 123
GingBs bates stamping for this filing beginning on bates !, and the fa' header atop what is
GingBs bates !% indicating it is Opage !0 of !0O of the fa'ing by Coughlin of that filing to the
8=C (page O&, of !0O is missing from GingBs production, as GingBs bates !/ is, according the
to fa' header atop CoughlinBs original filing with the 8=C, page O&% of !0O) <his means that
the same 2/12 emailed admission to Coughlin from the 6C1# Deputy =achen who filed
fraudulent 9ffidavits of 1ervice (11/11 for the 11111 summary eviction loc7out with AillBs
associate Casey D) 2a7er, EsH) and the &/12 9ffidavit of 1ervice for the 22/12 service Aill
paid for upon Coughlin at the 22/12 Osimple traffic citationO trial before 8=C Dudge 3ash
Aolmes in 11 <8 2.%00 wherin 6C1# Deputy =achen had 8=C =arshal Aarley smir7ingly
enter a conference room within Courtroom 2 of the 8=C where 8eno City 9ttorney Coughlin
and #rmaas were engaged in plea bargaining, and personally served Coughlin Dudge "lanaganBs
2%12 #rder to 1how Cause in the summary eviction from CoughlinBs former home law office
to which Aill was opposing counsel) =arshal Aarley grew very worried upon Coughlin
immediately cross4e'amining him about his inappropriate, courthouse sanctuary doctrine
violating, appearance of impropriety creating, harassment of Coughlin) "urther, that same
second of three pages from CoughlinBs E'hibit 1 to his &512 filing in the 8=C (which was the
2/12 emailed admission from 6C1# Deputy =achenBs Civil Division 1upervisor $i:
1tuchell wherein she admits that =achenBs 11/11 9ffidavit of 1ervice is a misrepresentation,
at best, where 1tuchell admits that =achen merely tape those three #rders to the front door of
CoughlinBs former law office while nobody was home, despite =achenBs 11/11 9ffidavit of
1ervice indicating that he Opersonally servedO the 102511 Eviction Decision and #rder and
the 102/11 "indings of "act, Conlusions of $aw, and #rder for 1ummary Eviction, and the
102/11 #rder for +nspection of CoughlinBs law office by Dudge 1ferra::a in 8DC 8ev20114
001/0%* is curiously missing from E'hibit & to 33D2 Chairman 1usichBs .1%12 1C8 11/
(etition in .0,/5, indicating a either a conspiracy between the 8=C, 33D2, and the 123, or
that someone with the 8=C has systematically removed that
3#<E: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age /1:10 to /1:20* =8) ECAE;E88+9: + %elieve
the issue that this &anel has to determine is what the degree' if an(' of &unishment should %e
for the conduct that (ou have alleged to have %een involved with' in terms of candor to the
court' candor to counsel' candor to witnesses' com&etenc( to &ractice law) =8) C#@?A$+3:
+ncluding 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: + believe those are the issues that this panel should focus on)
But $ do not intend to in an( wa( limit what (ou thin) should %e im&ortant)F
9nd, right there, Echeverria admits the clearly reversible error underlying the
(anelBs and 123Bs entire approach to this formal disciplinary matter) +t see7s to leverage
offensive collateral estoppel where none is to be found instead of actually proving its case,
even where the decision by Dudges "lanagan, Elliott, 6) ?ardner, $) ?ardner, G) Aoward, etc),
etc not to contact the Eappropriate authorityF in light of their view that no such Eappropriate
actionF was indicated provides a strong basis for applying defensive collateral esto&&el (and its
well settled that defensive collateral estoppel should be more readily applid than offensive
11!!2
collateral estoppel given the balance of the eHuities and the dangers associated with a
deprivation of due process attendant to applying offensive collateral estoppel, especially in
disciplinary matters) +n re 1trong* to GingBs various allegations, which are just that, allegations)
Ging, the (anel, and Echeverria chose to s7ip the fact finding phase wherein the Huestion of
whether Coughlin was guilty of anything alleged beyond the conviction for petty larceny and
the conviction for criminal trespass was to be determined (ie, whether Coughlin was guilty of
any of the alleged violations of the 8ules of (rofessional Conduct so vaguely set out and
unsupported by any specifics in GingBs Complaint (especially where Ging desescrated 1C8
105(2*(c* at every opportunity li7e the cheap weasel cheater he and Echeverria are*) 1o, while
Chair Echeverria might claim that he does Enot intend to in any way limit what you thin7
should be importantF, his saying so hardly changes the fact that he did, in fact, repeatedly, ad
nauseum, to a ridiculous e'tent, limit that which was deemed admissible whenever Coughlin
sought to introduce anything into evidence (its not even clear that Coughlin was able to get one
singular piece of documentary evidence admitted, and CoughlinBs scant 15 minutes to testify in
his own case in chief (Coughlin was denied the opportunity to cross4e'amine himself for 15
minutes* barely rendered any actual testimony, what with Echeverria and GingBs constant
interjections, objections, and sua sponte argumentation and interrogation (which largely
focused on doing GingBs job for him and helping Ging out of the fraudulent mess he made vis a
vis whether service of the Complaint was sufficient, in addition to whether the process that was
the Complaint was itself sufficient (see the dismissals of CoughlinBs lawsuits against 6$1 et al
in .0&1/ and .0&02 for just such Elegibility issuesF as Ging fraudulently sought to overcome in
attempting insert a cleaner, legible version of E'hibit & to his %2&12 Complaint into "AE1Bs
alleged reproduction of such)
;irtually the entire fraudulent approach by Ging and a (anel led by ElcanoBs
Eboyhood chumF Echeverria (whose fatherBs law firm 2DDC Dudge Elliott ("AE12, "AE1&*
wor7ed for shortly after all three Echeverria, Elcano, and Elliott attended 1tanford in the late
1,.0Bs out of 3orthern 3evada (see CoughlinBs 121212 E<he <hree EBsF email to 6C(D,
123, etc* can be summed up in the following e'change, where Coughlin forces Echeverria into
ma7ing the very arguments that Echeverria had been ruling against when made by Coughlin
throughout the entire hearing (where such entail the offensivedefensive collateral estoppel
(claim preclusion* issue arising form orders in Eprior proceedingsF whether in the nature of a
EconvictionF (criminal or civil* or not, whether occurring in a civil case, a criminal case, or a
simple traffic citation or otherwise) (such is especially true when considering the failure to
view as indicated the ta7ing of any Eappropriate actionF by referring the matter of any alleged
misconduct by Coughlin to the 123 (Eappropriate authorityF* as providing a defensive
collateral estoppel bar in CoughlinBs favor where (anel Chair Echeverria continually insisted on
attempting to characteri:e non4sanctions, even in civil cases ("AE2, "AE&* or civil orders in
criminal settings ("AE!, "AE5, "AE10, "AE11* as somehow providing an offensive collateral
estoppel (or worse, 1C8 111(5* conclusive EproofF of a EconvictionF of alleged 8(C violations
sufficient to obviate any reHuirement that 2ar Counsel actually meet the Eclear and convincing
evidenceF burden of proof with actual admissible evidence (especially where Echeverria had
Huashed CoughlinBs subpoenas, in line with GingBs arguments in support of pursuant to a view
that one may not Huestion a judge about their decision ma7ing processes in matters they
12!!2
presided over)))which ma7es 2eesley and 3ash Aolmes testimony worthless, even more so than
the fact that the EordersF in "AE2,&,!,5,10,11, etc are not EevidenceF)))meaning, Ging
essentially was unable to put a single thing into evidence to support his attempts to meet his
1tuhff Eclear and convincing evidenceF burden of proof)))well, save some truly fraudulent
EtestimonyF by an Ee'pertF witness whom was doubling as the grievant in 3?124020!, 8ichard
?) Aill, EsH),)))especially where, beyond the fact that 2eesleyBs Edecision ma7ingF Emental
processesF were inadmissible (to say nothing of his tac7y violations of 1C8 105)5 and Coe
1wobe name dropping, which annoyed Chester C) to no end, let me tell you* both 2eesley (and,
really, the 123Bs failing to provide 2eesleyBs letter to Coughlin, ever, despite 2eesley
indicating such was sent to the 123 in mid49pril 2012, adn where 2eesleyBs testimony was in
no way put forward for Eimpeachment purposesF in violation of 1C8 105(2*(c*** and ElcanoBs
Ee'pertF testimony was completely inadmissible (beyond the fact that neither were Hualified as
e'perts and were the (anel is not permitted to forgo its fact finding duty or substitute in the
characteri:ations and impressions of non4e'perts (whom usually need to be EuninterestedF
rather than, say, an opposing party in a pending litigation, li7e Elcano* and ElcanoBs testimony
was inadmissible were the 123Bs willful violation of the reHuirement to disclose such as
witnesses with E&0 days written noticeF (much less disclose the substance of the matters to
which they would be testifying to, identifying how such specifically supports some specific
basis for alleging Coughlin had committed any sort of violations worthy of discipline, to say
nothing of the reHuirement to provide Coughlin with the evidence of such (especially where
2eesley could not remember anything much more specific than Coughlin had filed some
documents in a ban7ruptcy case (reallyJ* that, vaguely, in general, may were not so great
(though 2eesley completely failed to conte'tuali:e such, ie, indicate whether he 7new them to
be an attorneyBs very first filings in his first ban7ruptcy case, or whether they were the wor7 of
someone who had been at it for years in such setting and just could not put out a decent product
no matter how many chances they had*)
<AE "$#8+D9 298 v) C988+C98<E, /&& 1o)2d ,/5 (1,,,*: E9s is evident
from 8espondentBs argument, his attac7 on the refereeBs finding boils down to a Huestion of
credibility) Aowever, OPtQhe referee is in a uni*ue &osition to assess the credi%ilit( of
witnesses+ (3#<E: such reasoning provides support for the view that a defensive collateral
estoppel bar should apply where the judges entering "AE2,&,! (arguably 3ash Aolmes failed to
refer Coughlin to the 2ar until after the &1212 hearing, and not even after the &/12 and
&,12 filings submitted by facsimile by Coughlin (though &,12 being a "riday, it may be that
Dudge Aolmes did not view such &,12 facsimile submission until &1212** ,, and his
judgment regarding credibility should not be overturned absent clear and convincing evidence
that his judgment is incorrect)))
8espondent ne't argues that the referee's finding that he revealed confidential
information in e'cess of that necessary for the defense of the litigation between him and the
companies is erroneous (Coughlin is going !eyond that in arguing such is also inadmissi!le
and su!$ect to a defensive collateral estoppel !ar# %ecause none of the circuit or district court
-udges involved in that litigation found that his defense of the litigation involved an(
wrongdoing and never referred an(thing to The Florida Bar for disci&linar( action) Nota!ly
however, res%ondent does not contend that the &ro&riet( of his actions in defending that
1&!!2
litigation was ever raised during those &roceedings or s&ecificall( addressed %( an( of the
-udges involved)F
#f course, given that the Epropriety of (CoughlinBs* actionsF absolutely was raised in
the matters from which "AE2, &, 10, 11, 12, 1& and the criminal conviction at issue in .0%&%
and attached as E'hibit 1 to GingBs %2&1& Complaint stem) <o be clear, the 8=C and its
Court 9dministrator Cassandra Dac7son, Chief Cler7"iling #fficer 1upervisor Donna 2allard,
and 8=C Dudge AowardBs Cler7 of Court ;eronica $ope: all failed to comply with 1C8
111(&* (see the 11/12 production at bates 1./2 8=C Court 9dministrator Dac7son sends an
1C8 111 letter for .1,01 on .2112 where she and or the 8=C failed to in .0%&% (and who
7nows how many other instances of an attorney being convicted of a crime despite 1C8 111(&*
reHuiring that Ethe cler7 of any court in which an attorney is convicted of a crime)))shall
transmit a certified copy of proof of the conviction to the supreme court and %ar counsel
within 10 days after its entryF* for 11&011 conviction, much less for either Ecriminal
contemptF Ecriminal convictionsF not only refer anything from the criminal case in which the
petty larceny conviction reported by the 1tate 2ar in .0%&% (which Coughlin arguably timely
self reported under 1C8 111(2* given three intervening wrongful arrests disoriented him some,
in addition to being forced to move in late December 2012 due to, yet again, the landlordBs in a
wee7ly studio rental asserting they were entitled to unlawfully enter CoughlinBs rental at any
time whatsoever, at the 1ilver Dollar =otor $odge, which is indicative of the climate in
6ashoe County as to tenantBs rights*)
"urther, Dudge Aoward at no time ever referred anything from the petty larcency cae
in 8=C 11 C8 221/. from which both the petty larceny conviction at issue in the 1C8 111(.*
(etition in .0%&% and the "AE11 11&011 E#rder (unishing 1ummary ContemptF spring)
"urther, there is :ero indication that 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner, whom presided over
the criminal trespass conviction at issue in the 1C8 111(!* (etition in in .1,01, ever referred
anything related to Coughlin to the 123 or bar counsel, meaning, GingBs reference in his
%2&1& Complaint to the &512 filing therein by Coughlin of a =otion to Dismiss, must
necessarily arise from the inclusion of such in the Ebo' of materialsF Dudge Aolmes admits to
putting together for bar counsel in her "AE% &1!12 grievance letter against Coughlin to the
123) Aowever, Dudge Aolmes was not the fact finder in the cases before Dudge Aoward and
Dudge 6) ?arnder, and a referral by her relative to those cases, is not at all appropriate) <he
fact that neither of the judges whom actually presided over those cases felt it necessary to ma7e
any such 3CDC Canon 2, 8ule 2)15 referral to the Eappropriate authorityF 123 only
underscores the impropriety in Dudge AolmesB rapacious and injudicious approach here (which
included another inappropriate 3CDC Canon 2, 8ule 2)15 referral to the 123 of "AE& from a
family court case that was three years old at the time where such "AE& #rder 9fter <rial had
the attorney fee award therein (which was not a sanction anyways* vacated by the .1,0, final
Decree of Divorce that ambitious and fau' industrious Dudge Aolmes really now will need to
claim to be unaware of given how inappropriate her submitting such to bar counsel in some
attempt to willfully mislead such into believing that #rder 9fter <rial in "AE& had not had the
attorney fee award therein vacated (and, therefore, ma7ing a legal nullity any of the alleged
EcriticismF of CoughlinBs wor7 therein*)
<AE8+9@$< v) D)1) K ?) 91(A9$<, +3C), .1/ 1o)2D !&/ (1,,&*: O<AE
1!!!2
(8+=98N 193C<+#3 sought by the Defense is for the Court to specifically refer this matter
to the "lorida 2ar for further investigation and disciplinary action if appropriate) The .ourt
finds that %ecause the conduct com&lained of did not in fact occur %efore the .ourt and
further that the Defendant may also directly petition the "lorida 2ar with reference to this
matter, that it would %e ina&&ro&riate for the .ourt to ta)e further action)O
?iven +n 8e Carricarte and 3CDC Canon 2, 8ule 2)15, just e'actly what is included
in the folders Ging and the 123 assigned to each grievance within the &,0,! page production
its finally made to Coughlin four judicial days before the formal hearing where the 123
steadfastly refused to accord Coughlin any 1C8 105(2*(c* access whatsoever during the start of
the twenty seven day period during which Coughlin was absolutely entitled to EinspectF all
such materials pursuant to 1C8 105(2*(c*)
Dudith 9) =c=orrow, Dac7ie ?ardina, and 1alvatore 8icciardone) OJudicial
%ttitudes &oward Confronting %ttorney Misconduct' % (iew )rom the Reported *ecisions+O
Aofstra $aw 8eview &2, (200!*: 1!2541!/!)
2ut, see, +n re Eicher, ..1 3)6)2D &5!, &/0 (1)D) 200&* (Aolding that the failure of
judges in individual cases to report charges of attorney misconduct to the bar did not indicate
that charges lac7ed merit, particularly where each judge Oonly had one incident before themO
and the present court had Othe benefit of an e'tensive record with multiple complaints )))
1howing similar inappropriate conduct)O*)
+n re Eicher, ..1 3)6)2D &5!, &/0 (1)D) 200&* ("inding that where the trial judge
receives information indicating substantial li7elihood that a lawyer has committed a violation
of the code of professional responsibility, Osimple communication with the lawyer satisfies the
judgeBs ethical dutyO*C Covington v) 1mith, 5%2 1)E)2D /5., //2 (6) ;a) 200&* (Aolding that
the court has a duty under judicial canon &D(2* to refer matters of attorney misconduct, here
neglect of case, to the #ffice of Disciplinary Counsel*C cf +n re $aprath, ./0 3)6)2D !1, .&
(1)D) 200&* (O9mong the administrative responsibilities imposed on a judge in Canon &,
therefore, is that of ta7ing or initiating appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or
lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware) <hus, a judge
e'poses himself or herself to the disciplinary action for failure to report the misconduct of other
judges or attorneys to attorney disciplinary bodies and judicial conduct commissions)O*)
Dudge Elliott (whom violated Canon 2, 8ule 2)15, especially in his "AE12, and
"AE1& #rders in failing to report the willful misconduct of Dudge Aoward in his willfully
violating the 200% +ndigent Defense #rder in denying pre se indigent Coughlin his 1i'th
9mendment right to counsel (see .0%&%* and in failing to report 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs
willful failure to transmit CoughlinBs timely under 381 1%,)010 3otice of 9ppeal in the
criminal trespass matter of .2%12 (see .1,01* and the dubious chronology related to Coughlin
resubmitting another 3otice of 9ppeal of such .1%12 conviction for trespass on /1012 while
in jail, with Dudge 6) ?ardner forcing through a Huic7 denial of CoughlinBs .2.12 tolling
motion (which is arguably the functional eHuivalent of a 3otice of 9ppeal* in the same matter,
with his /1112 #rder denying such where the 6ashoe County jail then failed to file Coughlin
/1012 3otice of 9ppeal until /1/12)) see 8=C 11 C8 2.!05 and the appeal in C812412.2
and Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs supervisory capacity over ultra shifty Dudicial 9ssistant $isa 6agner*
did presided over a multitude of matters wherein Coughlin was a criminal defendant, in
15!!2
addition to the wrongful termination suit Coughlin brought against 6$1, C996, and <ahoe
6omenBs 1ervices in C;11401,55 (see .0&1/* and never once made any such referral of
Coughlin to the 123: 1ee 6ade, %&, 9)2D at 5.5 (Dohnson, D), Concurring* (O+ndeed, we
recogni:e that it is difficult for trial judges to ma7e complaints to the (rofessional
8esponsibility (rogram against lawyers with whom they have to wor7 on a day to day basis)
<hat neither defense counsel nor the trial judge here chose to ma7e the referral does not mean
that this Court should also decline to do so) 6e are more removed from the wor7ing
relationship between district court judges and the attorneys practicing before them) + am,
therefore, referring this matter to the (rofessional 8esponsibility (rogram for further
investigation and appropriate action) O*)
=any of the proposed triggers would be applicable in civil actions as well) +n
addition, disHualification (as a 7ey to conflict4of4interest concerns* and dismissals for failure to
prosecute, pursue an appeal once filed, or appear at a hearing (as a 7ey to competence and
diligence* might be added) +n the latter regard, see D)=D)8) .02 ((roviding for the fining of
attorneys who fail to appear, or are late for a proceeding, or fail to file a timely status report,
and reHuiring referral to disciplinary counsel if more than two such fines have been imposed on
an attorney in a five4year period*) # =any of the proposed triggers would be applicable in civil
actions as well) +n addition, disHualification (as a 7ey to conflict4of4interest concerns* and
dismissals for failure to prosecute, pursue an appeal once filed, or appear at a hearing (as a 7ey
to competence and diligence* might be added) +n the latter regard, see D)=D)8) .02 ((roviding
for the fining of attorneys who fail to appear, or are late for a proceeding, or fail to file a timely
status report, and reHuiring referral to disciplinary counsel if more than two such fines have
been imposed on an attorney in a five4year period*)
Consider that in the conte't of 6C(D 2iray Dogan, EsH)B1 failure to appear at the
arraignment of 21!12 for the very gross misdemeanor (in violation of 381 1/%)&,/* <hat
8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes references in her "AE% &1!12 greivance letter to the 123 against
Coughlin, and in GingBs %2&12 Complaint in .2&&/ at para) % 9nd ,) "urther consider the
8DCBs covering for Dogan and failing to refer such failure to appear to the 123, in addition to
GingBs 121&12 letter to Coughlin refusing to even open a grievance against Dogan, non4
sensically referencing some uncited to authority pertaining to civil litigation (3#<E: GingBs
,!12 letter to Coughlin refusing to investigate CoughlinBs grievance against 8=C court
appointed defense counsel Geith $oomis, EsH) was rejected by Ging via a nearly verbatim form
letter as well*)
GingBs 121&12 letter to Coughlin reads: E8E: ?rievance 2iray Dogan, EsH)
8eference 3o) N./01/223
Dear =r) Coughlin: (lease allow this letter to ac7nowledge receipt of your recent
grievance to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada regarding attorney 2iray Dogan) 9 review of the
information &rovided indicates that your grievance involves issues best addressed in the
appropriate court settings) <he #ffice of 2ar Counsel and the disciplinary boards of the 1tate
2ar are not substitutes for the court system) <he 4tate Bar has no authorit( to ta)e an(
action which could affect the outcome of an( civil dis&utes or litigation) 9ccordingly, your
allegations are, at this time, more appropriately handled in the proper judicial forum) <herefore,
the grievance has been dismissed) 9s such, please consider this matter closed) +f a court ma7es
1.!!2
any findings that clearly establish professional misconduct, you may submit that information
with any supporting documentation for reconsideration) <han7 you for bringing this matterto
the attention of our office) 1incerely, s (atric7 #) Ging, 9ssistant 2ar Counsel (#Gl&F
GingBs ,!12 letter to Coughlin reads: E1eptember !, 2012 -ach Coughlin ()#) 2o'
&,.1 8eno, 3evada %,521 8E: ?rievance Geith $oomis, EsH) 8eference No+ ,-.,/01
(3#<E: the lac7 of an E3CF, much less an E3?F before the number assigned to this matter*
Dear =r) Coughlin: (lease allow this letter to ac7nowledge receipt of your August
02' 05/0, grievance to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada regarding attorney Geith $oomis, EsH) 9 review
of court records and the information &rovided indicates that your grievance involves issues
best addressed in the appropriate court settings) <he #ffice of 2ar Counsel and the disciplinary
boards of the 1tate 2ar are not substitutes for the court system) <he 4tate Bar has no
authorit( to ta)e an( action which could affect the outcome of an( civil dis&utes or litigation)
9ccordingly) Nour allegations are) 9t this time, more appropriately handled in the proper
judicial forum) <herefore, the grievance has been di smissed) 9s such, please consider this
matter closed) + f a court ma7es any findings that clearly establish professional misconduct, you
may submit that infonnation with any supporting documentation for reconsideration) <han7
you for bringing this matter to the attention of our office) 1incerely, s (atric7 #) Ging
9ssistant 2ar Counsel (#GvhF
Ging e'cuse ma7ing is particularly fraudulent where he suggests that the E4tate
Bar has no authorit( to ta)e an( action which could affect the outcome of an( civil dis&utes
or litigation+ where such rationale certainly never applied to any of CoughlinBs cases
(including the Ecivil disputesF allegedly the subject matter of AillBs grievance against Coughlin
in 3?124020! relative to the summary eviction proceeding an appeals thereof in 8ev20114
001/0%, C;1140&.2%, C;1140&051, .0&&1, and .1&%&*) "urther, both CoughlinBs grievance
against 6C(D Dogan and 8=C court appointed defender $oomis related to their fraudulent
failure to :ealously advocate on CoughlinBs behalf and worse in a criminal defense setting, not a
Ecivil disputeF)
Even though "AE& was not a sanction, where is it misrepresented as such (and even
though such "AE& has been vacated (in addition to the fact that the attorney fee award therein
was for less than M1,000*, and had been at all relevant times in .2&&/* consider: O9s mentioned
at the outset of this section, California not only reHuires lawyers to self4report criminal and
disciplinary sanctions imposed upon them, it also reHuires reporting the imposition of most
court4imposed sanctions and certain lawsuits in which the lawyerRs professional behavior is
called into Huestion) (C9$)2@1)K(8#")C#DE S .0.%(o**)
6ith respect to court4ordered sanctions, a lawyer must report EPtQhe imposition of
judicial sanctions against the attorney, e'cept for sanctions for failure to ma7e discovery or
monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ;D18+++<) +d) S .0.%(o*(&*C see, e)g),
8iordan, 5 Cal) 1tate 2ar Ct) 8ptr) at !/T!% (sanctioning lawyer for failure to follow this
provision*)
2/0242/,& 2rievance /ile 3-2124+$.5 67 Z, Coughlin8 9s:, 27 Judge -ash "olmes
2/05 Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !2/12 email 1ubject: @pdate and a 8eHuesting
2/0. Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !1,12 email 1ubject: 8E: =r) GingBs assertions in his
1/!!2
&1.12 letter wherein Coughlin denies all allegations
2/1. 2rian ?onsalves, EsH) (C+1<ahoe 6omenBs 1ervices attorney in C;11401%,. (where he
appeared despite his client not being a named party* (see .0&02* and in C;11401,55 (see
.0&1/* email referring to other attorney fee a#ards ma&es curious !ing0s only
re:uesting Coughlin %ay "ill0s landlord client0s a#ard in !ing0s closing
argument)
2/1/ GingBs 1C8 111(.* (etition in .0%&%, placed in 3?1240!&! ma7es no sense
2/1% 8DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori <ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging containing documents from
8C8201140.&&!1 (Dudge 1ferra::a* and 8C8201240.5.&0 (Dudge Clifton* 8DC Chief
Civil Cler7 told Coughlin Dudge Clifton told her not to respond to CoughlinBs 10&012
1C8 110 subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
2/20 8=C Dudge Aoward (11 C8 221/. conviction leading to .0%&% temp) suspension*Bs
!!12 email to Ging regarding E@4tubeF postings E9 1ampling, Events at 8=C &1212C
City of 8eno =arshal Aarley, 9llison #rmaasC 8=C bounced by 8eno =arshalsF
apparently Coughlin was at the 8=C on &1212 and just did not 7now the trial in 2.%00
was continuing)
2/21 8=C Court 9dministrator Cassandra Dac7son email to 8=C Dudges fa'ed by 3ash
Aolmes just page 2 of & of &2212 1:1/ pm fa' apparently to 123
2/22 list provided to 123 by 8=C detailing CoughlinBs offenses between ,,11 and 11212
2/2& email of !1012 to 123 from 8C9 Dan 6ong regarding 123 will be unable to get
CoughlinBs criminal history
2/25 is missing
2/2. Aolmes fa' to 123 of &2212 1:1/ pm page & of & containing CoughlinBs &2212 "#+9
8eHuest and 1econd 8ecord 8eHuest for audio of 22/12 trial indicating 2allard
indicated CoughlinBs first reHuest for such audio was not processed, and see7ing anything
related to the confiscation of CoughlinBs personal property on 22%12 from the 6ashoe
County jail, reHuesting chain of custody information, 8=C =arshalBs reports, etc)
2/2/42/&2 has dis%lay issues li7ely 8=C defender (uentes 11/12 =otion to 6ithdraw from
criminal trespass case before Dudge 6) ?ardner in 11 C8 2.!05
2/&&42/&! &2/12 #rder in C;1140&.2% 2DDC Dudge "lanagan appeal of summary eviction with
Aill and 2a7er as opposing counsel Denying AillBs 2a7erBs 12112 =otion for #rder to
2/&. 8=C Cover 1heet with E$ist of documentsF attached &1&12 details five documents
from traffic case before Aolmes: 22%12 #rder (contempt*C &/12 3otice of 9ppeal, =tn
for 8eturn of (ersonal (roperty Confiscated by 8=C =arshals (22! pages*C &1212
=otion to 8eturn Cell (hones (21% pages*C &1212 #rder (5 pages*C &1&12 #rder
1tri7ing "ugitive Document filed on &/12
2/&%42/&, !1.12 fa' from 8=C Dept) 2 (Dudge 6) ?ardner* 1 and 2 of 2 page 9rrest 8eport and
(robable Cause 1heet for 111&12 custodial criminal trespass arrest with (C 1heet by
8(D Carter and AillBs Criminal Complaint
2/!04!1 8=C =arshal ED(F Dean4(ierre =oster report from 121&11 =arshals Dames =en:el,
=atthew <hompsonC 6itness 1 Donna 2allard, 6itness 2 <om 2artoldo:
2/!242/!! 8=C =arshal Dames =en:el incident report detailing CoughlinBs filing a 3otice of
9ppeal and or =otion for 3ew <rial and see7ing a copy of the audio of the 11&011 trial in
11 C8 221/. (.0%&%*, references gossip with 8DC Chief 2ailiff =ichael 1e'ton, well paid city and
county =arshals and 2ailiffs really donBt li7e wor7ing until closing time
2/!542/!% 8=C =arshal 1cott Coppa and =atthew <hompson incident reports detailing CoughlinBs
1%!!2
&2212 visit to 8=C filing counter to file 1econd 8eHuest for 9udio of the 22/12 trail before Aolmes
in 11 <8 2.%00, which begat 3?1240!&!)))Dudge Aolmes immediately fa'es 123 CoughlinBs "#+9
8eHuest in her desperate fear that her misconduct will be e'poses incident to 8=C =arshals violating
"ourth 9mendment at her direction in retrieving from jail on 22%12 what had already been boo7ed
into CoughlinBs persona property (where =arshal Coppa pulled Deputy Cheung into bac7 room of sally
bay at jail to discuss such confiscation*
2/!, &2212 email from Coughlin to Ging 1ubject 8e Aello from -ach Coughlin referencing
?essin and Christiansen
2/5& CoughlinBs !212 email to Ging R97 my attem%t to be %rovided access to the
grievances filed today see&ing materials from 2*++ and clarification regarding
whether Judge L. Gardner herself filed grievance,
2/5! GingBs email to Coughlin detailing & grievances, lying about -2124+$.$ being a
grievance received (from Judge 2ardnerF, Ging announces he is reneging on his
previous indication that Coughlin would be afforded a review of the materials submitted
in connection with the grievances, references 8=C =arshals Coppa and <hompsonBs
&2212 report to 123
2/5. Coughlin email to 123 (eters of &2.12 referencing domestic violence he has
e'perienced and concomitant obstruction of his mail
2/5/ CoughlinBs &2.12 email to 123 memoriali:ing GingBs refusal to allow access to
grievance materials previously offered
2/5, CoughlnBs &2,12 email to 123 indicating Ging had made no reHuest for any written
response to any grievance by ?ardner or Aolmes, CoughlinBs detailing manipulative use
of CoughlinBs physical stature si:e by Ging, which Ging lied about at 1!1& <(#
e'tension hearing in 8DC 8C(20124000.0/)
2/.04 >ots of emails bet#een Coughlin and the '1- :uite coo%erative and res%onsive to
any an all '1- re:uests for information or coo%eration in any investigations
#hether relating to "ill8 2ardner8 or -ash "olmes8 etc,
2a7er of 11111, =achenBs false affidavit regarding Epersonally servingF Coughlin 2!
hour loc7out order on 11111 burglary by AillBs associate 2a7er of that date
2/,2 @1(1 Certified =ail <rac7 K Confrim ending in .5/% for GingBs mailing of &1.12
(purported letter from Ging to Coughlin that Ging was too afraid toconflicted over to see7
admission thereof at 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing* that was Eundeliverable as addressedF given
domestic violence abuser housemates obstruction of CoughlinsB mail in conjunction with ?ayle
Gern, EsH)
2/,& GingBs &1.12 letter to Coughlin indicating the #2C Ehas received several grievances
concerning your conduct as a lawyer)))+ will ma7e available for your review and
inspection the supporting documents and audio recordingsF
6hat is included in the EfoldersF for the other two grievances is necessarily salient to
CoughlinBs defensive collateral estoppel arguments as well, in addition to being rather, uh, curious'
2,55 2rievance /ile 3-2124+2+$ 67 Zachary Coughlin 27 Richard "ill8 9s:,
2,5. Copy of envelope @1(1 Certified =ail I /010 2/%0 000& 5!2, .5/% 123 sent to
1,!!2
Coughlin on &1.12 with @1(1 yellow stic7er EUNABLE TO FO!A" FO
E#$E!F dated &&112
2,5% &1.12 letter from 123 Ging to Coughlin regarding Eseveral grievancesF oddly
placed with AillBs grievance file when &1.12 letter references EDustice CourtF (so, there, Ging,
li7e with the Dudge $) ?ardner EgrievanceF in 3?1240!&5, is caught lying again in asserting
Esupporting evidenceF for grievances the #2C EreceivedF consisting of CoughlinBs filing in
EDustice and District CourtF (in an obvious attempt to e'tend the scope of his hit piece beyond
just Aill and the 8=C*
2,5, RMC Judge Nash Holmes' grievance letter to the SBN (why on earth such is placed
in the folder for Hill's grievance other than !eing another attempt at o!fuscation !y
"ing is not clear at all#
2,.1 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial, "AE& compare E5F in E15F of
E8eceived =ar 15 2012F to other versions (ditto*
2,/5 .2512 #rder by 2DDC Dudge "lanagan in C;1140&.2% M!2,0.5 attorney fee award
(3#< 9 193C<+#3*
2,/, 123 2ar Counsel Clar7 forwards on CoughlinBs 12&12 self report of conviction in
.0%&% to Ging and (eters
2,%1 "AE/ CoughlinBs &,12 fa' to 123 reg 21!12 letter from Ging only received on
&,12, re:uesting all corres%ondence be co%ied via email and fa@ due to
obstruction of Coughlin0s mail ;#hich8 of course8 !ing8 Peters8 and the '1- fail
to do,,,so much for that '=>6C9 %rogram8 huhA<
2B*. '1- !ing0s 2C1$C12 letter to Coughlin
2,%! 123 GingBs letter to Aill regarding grievance Aill purportedly emailed to Ging,
compare to the letter Ging sent Coughlin refusing to investigate CoughlinBs
grievances against 8=C defender $oomis and 6C(D Dogan)
2,%5 GingBs email to Clar7 and (eters detailing youtube video of %2011 8(D
misconduct in wrongful arrest of Coughlin at issue in 8DC 8C8201140.&&!1
containing AillBs forward to Ging of CoughlinBs email to 6C1#, 6C(D, 8C9,
AillBs associate 2a7er, etc) of 21012 detailing 2a7er and 6C1# Deputy =achenBs
burglary of 11111 in 8ev20114001/0%, C;1140&.2% at 121 8iver 8oc7
&00! CoughlinBs 11!12 #pposition to =otion for 9ttorney "ees in C;1140&.2%
detailing AillBs misconduct incident to CoughlinBs 11212 jaywal7ing arrest in front
of 121 8iver 8oc7 former home law office)
&01&4&01/ AillBs 11!12 email to Ging, five page grievance, unsigned, unsworn (interstingly,
either Aill failed to really include such EdisclosuresF or Ging e'cised such,
inappropriately, from this &,0,! 1C8 105(2*(c* production of 11/12, causing much
prejudice to CoughlinBs defense)
&01%4&0!& 2rievance /ile 3-2124+$.$ 67 Zachary Coughlin 27 Judge >inda
2ardner
&01, 4&0!& purported printout of &1512 regarding prosecutorial misconduct in
various states summaries thereof from
http::achcoughlinesH)wordpress)com
20!!2
with header that reads E(age 1 of 10,!F and a stamped E"N+F seemingly
superimposed on the first page) (3#<E: nothing to indicate anything was
received from 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner*)
&0!! Zach Coughlin 111 Petition
&0!% CoughlinBs application for legal defender and 102/11 8=C Dudge
Aoward #rder Denying $egal Defender
&050 8C9 (amela 8oberts, EsH) #pposition to =otion for 3ew <rial of
122111 in 11 C8 221/. (.0%&%* (3#<E: lac7s the actual e'hibits to
such motion, and instead is misleadingly followed by the E'hibits to
GingBs 101511 1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01
&055 E'hibit 1 to GingBs 1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01
&0.5 1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01 of 101512
&0// .0%&% #rder of <emporary 1uspension and 8eferral to Disciplinary
2oard of ./12
&0%0 1C8 111(.* (etition in .0%&%
&0,1 5%12 stamped @1(1 Domestic 8eturn 8eceipt (1 "orm &%11 .0%&%
Certified =ailing /010 2/%0 000& 5!2, ./52
9lso, the following e'change from the transcript of the 111!12 formal disciplinary
hearing (aside from managing to reveal how completely in the can and biased (anel Chair
Echeverria actually was against Coughlin and in favor of Elcano, 2eesley (Eyou havenBt live in
3evada long enoughF said 2eesley upon Ging mispronouncing EcheverriaBs name*, and
Aolmes (whom, rather than Coughlin (as Echeverria fraudulently Econcluded* was the one
Eengaging in bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processF (not that EcheverriaBs attempts to
summarily tac7 such a chargeconviction of such a charge (based upon some apparent
amendment to GingBs Complaint that Echeverria saw fit to ma7e, sua sponte, at some point
during the hearing or thereafter, even, 1C8 11, Etranscript reHuests must be made to 2ar
CounselF be damned* also manages to elucidate the e'tent to which, li7e Ging, the (anel and
Echeverria were just too plain la:y and corrupt to even begin attempting to prove, via the
admission of admissible evidence, any of the violations of the 8ules of (rofessional Conduct
they accused Coughlin of committing)
9s such, they were left comparing 1tephen 8) Aarris, EsH)Bs apples
(misappropriating M/55,000 form clients he represented before 3;2 Dudge 2eesley, whom
served as character witness for Aarris, somehow, at Aarris disciplinary hearing* to CoughlinBs
oranges (patently devoid of due process criminal conviction of Epetty larcenyF of Ea candy bar
and some cough dropsF from a monolithic retail monopoly in a 6al4=art located on land it
rents from the 8eno 1par7s +ndian Colony, incident to a wrongful arrest by a Etribal police
officerF violative of both 381 1/1)1&. and 381 1/1)1255 (where the 8eno City 9ttorney
prosecutor (amela 8oberts, EsH), committed willful prosecutorial misconduct in so
countenancing, especially in light of her compounding such misdeeds by then suborning the
perjury of 81+C #fficer Cameron Crawford and 6al4=artBs <homas "rontino incident to their
21!!2
lies that Coughlin failed to provide the 81+C #fficer sufficient EidentifcationF, such as a
3evada driverBs license, sufficient to allow for an e'ception to the bar against ma7ing such an
arrest, and conducting a search incident thereto (where the Efruit of the poisonous treeF is
hardly EfruitF given the half a foil page of Duract Cough =elts recovered from CoughlinBs
poc7ets incident to such search belonged to the very Duract Cough =elt pac7age (same @(C,
e'actly* that appeared on the receipt for M%&)%2 worth of groceries that 6al4=art admitted
Coughlin purchased immediately prior to the arrest (especially where 6al4=artBs "rontino lied
about that as well, where "rontino testified that Coughlin made no such purchase of Duract
Cough =elts incident to such receipt for M%&)%2 worth of groceries, despite the fact that the
@(C of just those Duract Cough =elts appears on that very receipt for the M%&)%2 worth of
groceries Coughlin purchased immediately prior to the wrongful arrest)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages /!:11 to /5:/* E=8) ECAE;E88+9: <he issue here,
sir, as + understand the supreme courtBs order with respect to your conviction of theft, and the
issues here with res&ect to the other grievances that have %een filed against (ou are to the
e6tent as to what' if an(' should %e the &unishment that (ou should sustain as a result of
(our conduct. 7. .OUG8L$N9 :et this is entered into evidence) =8) ECAE;E88+9:
<his is whatJ =8) C#@?A$+3: <his order has been entered into evidence) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: E'hibit 2 has) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2ut itBs not pled in any complaint) Dudge
"lanaganBs not a grievant) + wasnBt noticed that that was the purpose of this hearing to some
e'tent today) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou were noticed that the issue of your conviction of
trespass was an issue, that your handling of that case was an issue, and itBs relevant as to that)
3ow, if you have some more Huestions of =r) Aill, please as7 them, and letBs move on)F
9nd, those apples and oranges just do not compare all that well, revealing the
incestuous, immoral, and corrupt cess pool that the 33D2 and 123 have become, and may
well have always been where, as the email from 1ilverman that Coughlin copied into his
101.12 =otion for #rder to 1how Cause ma7es clear, the failure to even temporarily suspend
Aarris, and his ultimate mere three month suspension from the practice of law truly provides a
E6<"F moment, indeed) (and, to be sure and clear, this is not anti41tephen 8) Aarris, he is a
good guy, and a very talented attorney (as nearly ever single last attorney who managed to pass
the bar e'amination in 3evada necessarily had to be* who has overcome a lot and is an
inspiration*) <his is anti4(at Ging, Dohn Echeverria (and the dead weight, at best, along for the
ride with him on the (anel*, (aul Elcano, 2eesley, 8ichard ?) Aill, Aolmes, Aoward,
1ferra::a, etc), etc)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 1,:, to 20:12* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Dudge 2eesley,
did you testify on behalf of 1tephen 8) Aarris recentlyJ =8) G+3?: #bjection) 8elevance)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: <he relevance, =r) CoughlinJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + didnBt hear Dudge
2eesley again) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hat doesnBt matter) =8) C#@?A$+3: +t doesnBt matter
that (at can hear him, but + canBt hear himJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o) + canBt hear the judge
either, because you interrupted him) =8) C#@?A$+3: Dust nowJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nes)
<hereBs an objection as to relevancy as to whether or not what relevancy 44 =8) C#@?A$+3:
+ objected) + didnBt interrupt him) =8) ECAE;E88+9: + as7ed you to e'plain the relevancy)
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) +Bm trying to remember the Huestion) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he
Huestion was did he testify on behalf of =r) Aarris) <he relevance of that issue in this
22!!2
proceedingJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, + thin7 it provides a basis for me comparing Dudge
2eesleyBs response to me being evicted to his response to =r) AarrisBs issues) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: #verruled 44 +Bm sorry, sustained) 3e't Huestion, please)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 1,:, to 20:12* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Dudge 2eesley,
did you testify on behalf of 1tephen 8) Aarris recentlyJ =8) G+3?: #bjection) 8elevance)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: <he relevance, =r) CoughlinJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + didnBt hear Dudge
2eesley again) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hat doesnBt matter) =8) C#@?A$+3: +t doesnBt matter
that (at can hear him, but + canBt hear himJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o) + canBt hear the judge
either, because you interrupted him) =8) C#@?A$+3: Dust nowJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nes)
<hereBs an objection as to relevancy as to whether or not what relevancy 44 =8) C#@?A$+3:
+ objected) + didnBt interrupt him) =8) ECAE;E88+9: + as7ed you to e'plain the relevancy)
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) +Bm trying to remember the Huestion) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he
Huestion was did he testify on behalf of =r) Aarris) <he relevance of that issue in this
proceedingJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, + thin7 it provides a basis for me comparing Dudge
2eesleyBs response to me being evicted to his response to =r) AarrisBs issues) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: #verruled 44 +Bm sorry, sustained) 3e't Huestion, please)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &0:1 to &1:.* =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6e too7 that
testimony under consideration of your objection) $etBs hear your objection, =r) Coughlin) =8)
C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) 6ell, + believe Dudge 2eesley was identified in a supplement to =r)
GingBs, +Bll call it a Dow1oE, and + hope the panel will 7now what + mean, designation of
witnessBs summary of evidence) +Bve shortened it in my filings) 6hich, incidently, 1C8 1052(c*
is one of the few procedural rules in the supreme court rules designed to afford attorneys or
suspended attorneys, such as myself, some due process) <hat rule reHuires that the Dow1oE be
served in the same manner in which the complaint is served upon the respondent by the panel
with at least &0 days notice, or at least &0 days prior to the hearing) <his panel wasnBt even
empaneled until, + believe the order was #ctober &0th) =r) Ging purports to have sent the
Dow1oE himself rather than in some separation in accord with the rule, but he sent it himself)
#n #ctober 12th he filed material suggesting that he sent a certified mail #ctober 12th, and in
that way itBs completely violative of the rules) Completely) 9nd 1teve Aarris, who the judge
testified to, who was 44 he admitted to misappropriating %00G) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r)
Aarris is not the subject matter of this hearing) Nou are) =8) C#@?A$+3: Ae got David
?rundy) 9nd he got his Dow1oE sent by the panel) 9nd he got his full &0 days) 9nd + sent that
forward 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm not concerned with =r) Aarris)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &1%:12 to &20:!* =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) 6e have
heard today a multitude of reasons why these, Huote4unHuote, convictions are just not
appropriate, a basis for this panel to issue any further punishment than that which has already
been felled and lived through) +0m a licensed 44 ?0ve been a licensed %atent attorney #ith the
Enited 'tates Patent and )rademar& =ffice) (3#<E: Coughlin is a licensed patent attorney
with the @1(<#, and has not ever been, nor is he currently (obviously* suspended by the
@1(<#, which spea7s to the 1C8 11! analysis: https:oedci)uspto)gov#EDC+geo8egion)doJ
regionV3E;9D9Kregion+DV3; * <hereBs a couple of those, maybe, in town) (3#<E:
Coughlin was not very well informed on that count, as there is twenty4si' licensed patent
attorneys listed for 8eno, 3;C however, that is hardly dispositive of whether each is actively
2&!!2
engaged in the practice of law, much less patent law, and the District of 3evada has recently
been made part of a select group of courts included in a (ilot (rogram for patent litigation:
http:nvbar)orgarticlescontentnevada4selected4patent4pilot4program4jurisdiction *
8espectfully, your Aonor, +Bll just note that one of the bases for recently reinstating =r) Aarris
was Dudge 2eesley testifying that heBs one of the very few Chapter 11 ban7ruptcy attorneys in
town who has a certain level of s7ill and acumen 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, 7r.
8arris;s situation is not %efore us, and + would li7e you to address your situation) =8)
C#@?A$+3: + am, sir) +Bm only mentioning that, because it seems to be a factor 44 =8)
ECAE;E88+9: $t;s not in evidence even) (3#<E: strange, Echeverria failed to point out that
GingBs merely arguing something failed to put it in evidence)))* (lease proceed) =8)
C#@?A$+3: <he law decisions, you can cite to other discipline matters, published or not with
respect to) 9nd it seems as though in that case the e'tent to which that respondent offered the
public something which it would not have were he not there was relevant) <he fact that +Bm a
patent attorney, + believe 44 + donBt 7now, but + thin7 + still might be an attorney, because the
@nited 1tates (atent and <rademar7 #ffice says so) +n fact, a suspended attorney may still
practice in some ban7ruptcy courts, even if they only have one 1tate 2ar license, and itBs
suspended, thereBs a wealth of authority that says theyBre still an attorney who is licensed to
practice before the federal court) 2ut regardless, + believe on that basis to the e'tent that that
respondent, who +Bm friends with, + 7now him, + see him on <hursdays, a basis for his
reinstatement was the rarity of what he offered to the public given his e'pertise and acumen in
a Chapter 11 conte't) =8) ECAE;E88+9: A&&arentl(' $;m not ma)ing m(self ver( clear. $
would reall( li)e (ou to address (our situation' and not 7r. 8arris;s situation, Could you do
that for usJF
"urther, at one point during the trial from which "AE& stems, 2DDC Dudge $)
?ardner warned Coughlin that he might be held in contempt) Aowever, ultimately he was not
held in contempt) Aow then can the 123 and (anel purport to find "AE& provides a basis for
finding Coughlin to have violated the following (ie, where the (anel purports the two Ecriminal
contemptF orders provide some offensive collateral estoppel bar to the admissibility of any
e'cuplatory materials Coughlin sought to put into evidence as to even the allegations that
Coughlin violated 8(C &)5 (conduct disrupting a tribunal*, how then can not Dudge $)
2ardner's failure to hold Coughlin in contempt (much less her choice not to ta7e any
Eappropriate actionF via reporting any perceived misconduct by Coughlin to the 123 (the
Eappropriate authorityF* per 3CDC Canon 2, 8ule 2)15 (especially vis a vis the (anelBs
Econclusions of lawF that "AE somehow buttresses concluding that Coughlin violated 8(C 1)1
ECompetenceF and 8(C &)5)not provide a defensive collateral estoppel bar to the very same
approach the panelBs purported Econclusion of lawF that CoughlinBs EconductF in the trial from
which "AE& springs attempts to ta7e (particularly where "AE&, especially as to the false
allegation that a EsanctionF was entered therein in light of the fact that nor jurisdiction e'ists to
enter any sanction under 381 /)0%5 other than that provided in 381 /)0%5(2*, which spea7s
only to Epapers or pleadingsF Coughlin filed, and not to and EconductF or Epresentation of the
caseF that Ee'tended a civil action or proceedingFJ
(<he (anel concluded that E?m%artiality and Decorum of the )ribunalW
(++* 8(C &)5(d* states O9 lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disru&t a tribunal
2!!!2
(DD* <he disruption must have occurred in the courtroom) =ne cannot disru%t a tribunal
#ith conduct outside of the courtroom) +n re =ichael 1tuhff, 10% 3ev) .2,, %&/()2d %5& (1,,2*
(GG* <he record overwhelmingly, clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin
repeatedly conducts himself in a manner that is disruptive of the tribunal while in the courtroom)
($$* <he various orders <NOTE9 where ,orders+ differ from the ,-udgments of
conviction+ involved in ,criminal convictions+= of contempt or im&osing sanctions issued by Dudges
"enneth ?ardner, Linda Gardner, Dorothy 3ash Aolmes and (atric7 "lanagan each describe a similar
pattern of conduct and behavior that is intentionally disruptive of the tribunal) 1upra (ara) !, /, 10, 21
and 0> (E0>. Dudge ?ardnerBs order in the Doshi matter indicated that .oughlin had
conducted no discover( in the case and failed to present any documentary evidence at the trial of the
matter on behalf of his client =rs) Doshi) 1ee Aearing E'hibit ( 12, $ !4.) (E9t trial, =r) 1pringgate
stated that =r) Coughlin had conducted no discovery in this case) +n addition, =r) Coughlin failed to
present one documentary piece of evidence at trial on behalf of =s) DoshiBs claims) =r) Coughlin
argued incessantly with the Court)))3*
#bviously, the (anel attempts to mislead in its paraphrasing of the above citation to Dudge $)
?ardnerBs #rder, as Dudge $) ?ardner is an old e'acting tennis player (li7e Coughlin and 2DDC Dudge
"lanagan, whom, some might say, is still smarting from some of the whoopings Coughlin put on him as
a twelve year old tennis prodigy in the <uesday 3ight Caughlin Club =enBs <ennis $eagues circa
1,%%4,0 where CoughlinBs uncle, legendary 2ellevue, 6ashington condominium construction defect
plaintiffBs attorney 2o 2ar7er, EsH), played tennis for the @niversity of =ichigan and semi4pro in
Europe for a time* (some might say, put it this way, thereBs a reason she is a district court judge and her
older brother is a municipal court judge (who still needs to learn when to bac7 up off of it and set his
cup down* and why she was a star athlete and he was)))meh)))and, of course she is annoyed with his
ta7ing a vacated three year old attorneyBs fees award (not a sanction* order she provided him in "AE&
only for him to then attempt to wrec7 municipal court shop with it instead of do his job (or, as 6)
?ardner purported, to have passed such to his fellow 8=C judges, including 3ash Aolmes, whom,
totally unbe7nownst to him (in an echo of Dudge DilworthBs indications that Dudge 3ash Aolmes had no
damn business purporting to spea7 for him and all the other municipal court judges in her "AE%
&1!12 grievance letter regarding Coughlin sent only to the 123* the provided such to the 123 as part
of the Ebo' of materialsF reference in "AE%*, and would never enter any such order EconcludingF that
Coughlin Ehad conducted no discovery in the caseF when she 7nows very well such was not an issue in
the EcaseF (ie, not actually litigated, and not at issue in the trial or EnecessaryF to the judgment or
decree therein entered*)
Aow humiliating must it be, some might say, for a Ementally illFFHuic7ly decompensatingF
thirty si' year old temporarily suspended attorney whom she alleged Emay be living in his carF to
completely destroy her as a member of the judiciary and former duly elected 6ashoe County District
9ttorney on cross4e'amination in less than ten minutes despite a completely in the can (anelJ
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 15!:& to 15!:25* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Did you or anyone with
the 8eno =unicipal Court transmit or otherwise deliver Dudge $inda ?ardnerBs order for sanctions to
the 1tate 2ar of 3evadaJ 9 (D@D?E 391A A#$=E1* +Bm sorry) + didnBt hear all that) Did + whatJ
NouBll have to repeat the Huestion) U Did you or anybody with your court, the 8eno =unicipal Court,
transmit or otherwise deliver Dudge $inda ?ardnerBs 9pril 200, order sanctioning me to the 1tate 2ar
of 3evadaJ 9 +Bm sorry) Deliver to whomJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he 1tate 2ar, Dudge) <AE
6+<3E11: #h) 9fter 44 let me e'plain Huic7ly) =y trial was my first e'perience in e'posure to =r)
Coughlin) 9fter everything happened, and + held him in contempt, then Judge Gardner told me that
his sister' Judge Gardner' has a life e6&erience with 7r. .oughlin' and he &rovided me a co&( of
her o&inion from a cou&le (ears earlier) %nd that may have !een in the pac4age 5 forwarded to the
25!!2
court , + forwarded ever(thing + could possibly include that would show 7r. .oughlin;s a%ilit( to
&ractice law) +ncluding =r) CoughlinBs 2004page motion that he fa'ed to the court)F*)
#f course, its not li7e the #2CBs (atric7 #) Ging, EsH), and E+nvestigator(aralegalF $aura
(eters get paid actual money to Ereasonably investigateF such allegations, rightJ <hey are volunteers,
rightJ 6npaid volunteers7 3oJ <hey get paid for the drec7 they have produced in this matter ma7ing
a dumpster grease fire of a broad cross4section of the judiciary in 6ashoe County with their malignant
negligenceJ #h, my)
3onetheless, where Dudge $) ?ardner merely indicates that E9t trial, =r) 1pringgate stated
that =r) Coughlin had conducted no discovery in this caseF, the (anel commits its own 8(C %)2
violation in engaging in Ebad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processF where it attempts to mislead
the Court by misHuoting such citation as indicating that E Dudge ?ardnerBs order in the Doshi matter
indicated that .oughlin had conducted no discover( in the case+. 1uch is the falacious non4sense
that Echeverria and his ragtag crew of miscreants (;ellis, Gent, Dohnson, and (earl* attempt to pull
over on everyone)
9dditionally as can be found in CoughlinBs 102%0, (etition for 6rit of =andamus (which was
provided to the (anel and the #2C well prior to the 111!12 formal hearing, where such reads:
E+n adversary ban7ruptcy proceeding to have debt, which was incurred as result of motor
vehicle accident, declared nondischargeable, debtor would not be entitled to attorneyBs fees where,
although attorney for plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support finding that debtor was
operating motor vehicle while legally into'icated, he did present evidence of at least colorable claim, in
that claim had some legal and factual support since debtor testified that he did consume alcohol during
evening preceding accident, and where attorney for plaintiffs was somewhat limited as to evidence by
prior order of court prohibiting plaintiffs from calling any e'pert or other witnesses at trial, and from
introducing at trial any documentary evidence other than judgment of state court due to attorneyBs
failure to comply with pretrial order setting discovery deadlines, so that attorney for plaintiffs did not
act in bad faith, ve'atiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons in bringing adversary proceeding) ?n
Re Cou%e, (1,%5, 2C 3D #hio* 51 28 ,&,)
=r) Coughlin was seriousl( limited in what evidence he could &roduce %( the "istrict
.ourts ruling' in res&onse to a misstatement of Nevada law %( 7r. 4&ringgate' that 7s. Joshi would
not %e allowed to admit an( evidence whatsoever of domestic violence' for &ur&oses of either a
distri%ution of &ro&ert(?de%t or alimon( calculation' des&ite the fact that Nevada law allows for such
evidence to %e introduced (not for the purposes of a fault analysis !ut for earning capacity issues as
well as intimidation and control of finances arguments, amongst other reasons*) 6heeler v) @pton4
6heeler, 11& 3ev) 11%5, ,!. ()2D 200 (1,,/*C and Ore%etitive acts of %hysical or mental abuse by
one s%ouse Fcausing a condition in the inGured s%ouse #hich generates e@%ense or affects that
%erson0s ability to #or&) 8odrigue: v) 8odrigue:, 11. 3ev) ,,&, ,,%4,,, 1& ()&D !15 (2000*)
"urther, =r) Coughlin did &ut on a multitude of evidence in su&&ort of 7s. Joshi;s claims)
=s) Doshi testified as to the factors in an alimon( and or &ro&ert( distri%ution anal(sis so well that
the "istrict .ourt was moved to award her alimon( and a lesser &ortion of the communit(
de%t)))9fter the the District Court had sanctioned (3#<E: actually, "AE& was not a EsanctionF but
Elcano and 6$1 were so obstructive during the scant time Coughlin had to prepare this, his first
(etition for 6rit that his analysis suffered* =r) Coughlin for not putting on a colorable claim in either
regard))) <he District Court made the seemingl( incongruous ruling in its Final Order awarding 7s.
Joshi alimon( and a lesser de%t a&&ortionment after =r) Coughlin had ceased representing =s)
Doshi)F
(Consider: Com%etence
2.!!2
(A* 8(C 1)1 states O9 lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client)
Competent representation reHuires the legal 7nowledge, s7ill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation)O
(+* <he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin lac7s the
com%etency to represent clients, including himself)
(D* "irst, the record demonstrates severe criticism (3#<E: 6hatJ 3o characteri:ation of
"AE& as a EsanctionFJ* by the trial court in the handling of the Joshi (3#<E: "AE&, Dudge $)
?ardner* matter, including CoughlinBs lac) of understanding of a %alance sheet, his failure to conduct
discovery, his lac) of )nowledge of the rules of evidence and trial &rocedure) 1upra 25 (E0>. Dudge
?ardnerBs order in the Doshi matter indicated that .oughlin had conducted no discover( in the case
and failed to present any documentary evidence at the trial of the matter on behalf of his client =rs)
Doshi) 1ee Aearing E'hibit ( 12, $ !4.) (E9t trial, =r) 1pringgate stated that =r) Coughlin had
conducted no discovery in this case) +n addition, =r) Coughlin failed to present one documentary piece
of evidence at trial on behalf of =s) DoshiBs claims) =r) Coughlin argued incessantly with the
Court)))3*)
"+3D+3?1 #" "9C< 93D C#3C$@1+#31 #" $96 of 121!12 in 123 v) -achary
2ar7er Coughlin, 3?124020!, 3?1240!&!, and 3?1240!&5 reads:
O<A+1 =9<<E8 came before a designated "ormal Aearing (anel of the 3orthern
3evada Disciplinary 2oard (the O(anelO* for hearing on 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012) <he
(anel consisted of Dohn () Echeverria, EsH), ChairmanC $ay4=ember Garen (earl, 1tephen
Gent, EsH), Clar7 ;) ;ellis, EsH), and =ichael G) Dohnson, EsH )) <he 1tate 2ar of 3evada (the
O1tate 2arO* appeared and was represented by Deputy 2ar Counsel, (atric7 #) Ging, EsH)) <he
8espondent, -achary 2ar7er Coughlin, 3evada 1tate 2ar 3o) ,!/& (the O8espondentO or
OCoughlinO* appeared in propria persona)
/?-D?-2' =/ /6C)
2ased upon the pleadings filed, the documentary evidence admitted as Aearing E'hibits
1 through 1., and the testimonial evidence of the Aonorable Dudge 2ruce 2eesley
1
, 8ichard
Aill, EsH), (aul Ecano, EsH), the Aonorable Dudge Dorothy 3ash Aolmes, -achary 2) Coughlin,
EsH) and =ary 2ar7er presented at the hearing of these proceedings, the (anel ma7es findings
of facts as
follows:
1) Coughlin is an attorney licensed to practice law in the 1tate of 3evada)
At all relevant times &rior to and at the time of the filing of the .om&laint in this matter, the
es&ondent;s &rinci&le office8 as filed #ith the 'tate 1ar of -evada in accordance #ith the
Rule of Professional conduct ;FRPCF< 7B;1<;a<8 #as Post =ffice 1o@ .B18 Reno8 -V
*B5+5) 1ee Aearing E'hibit 1 at 0001, lines /410 (1tate 2ar of 3evada vs) -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH), Case 3o: 3?124020!, 3?1240!&5, 3?1240!&!, .om&laint at @ / (filed
9ugust 2&, 2012*) (3#<E: such citation yields only: O-9CA98N 2) C#@?A$+3, E1U), 2ar
3o) ,!/& 8espondent) ($E91E <9GE notice that pursuant to 1upreme Court 8ule (O1C8O*
2/!!2
105(2* aO*)
(3#<E: Coughlin denied by ;erified 9nswer and or 8esponse all the allegations in
the Complaint, as such, it is impermissible for the "#"C#$ to rely on or cite to the Complaint
(as Coughlin denied each and every charge the "#"C#$Bs citation to the Complaint as
OevidenceO is error) Autchens, /! 16 &d ,/.) (and arguably the same goes for citing to
fugitive documents where no right to confront the OaccuserO were utili:ed and or offered into
evidence, especially where the Complaint failed to attached such, see "AEs 2, &, 10, 11*
2) Coughlin was admitted as a member of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada on =arch
25, 2005) 1ee Aearing E'hibit 1 at 0001, lines /4% (1tate 2ar of 3evada vs) -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH), Case 3o: 3?124020!, 3?1240!&5, 3?1240!&!, Complaint at (1 (filed 9ugust
2&, 2012*) (O-9CA98N 2) C#@?A$+3, E1U), 2ar 3o) ,!/&F*)
&) #n 1eptember ,, 2011, Coughlin sho&lifted a cand( %ar and cough
dro&s from a !al17art store with an a&&ro6imate value of fourteen dollars <A/B.55=) #n
3ovember &0, 2011, =unicipal Court Dudge Genneth 8) Aoward found Coughlin guilty of the
offense of (etit $arceny, a violation of 8=C %)10)0!0) Coughlin a%%ealed the -udgment of
conviction) #n =arch 15, 2012, the Aonorable District Court Dudge 1teven () Elliott affirmed
the -udgment of conviction on appeal) 1ee Aearing E'hibit 1 at 0002, p) 5, lines 11415C (1tate
2ar of 3evada vs) -achary 2) Coughlin, EsH), Case 3o: 3?124020!, 3?1240!&5, 3?1240!&!,
Complaint at (2 (filed 9ugust 2&, 2012*)
(3#<E: CoughlinBs 121&11 3otice of 9ppeal appealed both the 11&011
EDudgment of ConvictionF and the 11&011 #rder (unishing Contempt in the +mmediate ;iew
and (resence of the Court and read: E+ went to the filing office at the 8=C a couple times
recently, including today, and sent in another written reHuest see7ing an audio tape of the <rial
in 8=C 11 C8 221/. +C 110.2/ 81+C but was told by a Cler7 that + would need to pay for the
entire <rial to be transcribed, and only then would + be allowed to read it, and that + would not
be allowed to access the audio of the hearingJ +s this correctJ + need to have the audio of the
<rial to finish my 8ule 5,, .0, and =otion for 8econsideration =otions))))+ will pay for the
audio) + have received many audio cddvdBs from both 8eno Dustice Court and 6ashoe District
Court, and it was announced in court that the trial was being audio recorded, as such, + hope
you will afford me a copy) <oday, + called the 8=C and spo7e with ;eronica, who sounded
very angry with me and dismissive) + was summarily sentenced to & days in jail at the end of
the trial in this matter, even where + had been denied my 1i'th 9mendment 8ight <o Counsel,
after a Contempt committed in the courtBs presence finding was announced, in addition to a
guilty verdict in the underlying action) ;eronica informed me that she was at the trial and that
the 8=C had failed to mail me or otherwise serve me with a copy of the written #rder, either
for the guilty conviction in the underlying case or the contempt order)
+ was forced into handcuffs so Huic7ly ater Dudge Aoward concluded issuing his oral
ruling that + was not even able to save my notes on my computer, it was literally apparently that
e'igent a situation to handcuff me))))<hen a few =arshalls place some pieces of paper in front
of me and demanded + sign them, and became angry, li7e ;eronica and li7e =arshall =onte, +
believe, was at the arraingment, when + as7ed a simple Huestion related to due process,
something many at the 8=C do not seem all that enamored with) + as7ed if + could even read
the papers they were demanding + sign right then and there) <he curtly and loudly said no, then
2%!!2
dragged me away before + could read the papers, much less sign them) ;eronica snarled at me
that that was all the service of the #rder of Contempt and ?uilty ;erdict that + would get, but
that she might fa' it to me, however, no fa' has arrived, despite my illustrating the e'igencies
of receiving the #rder in preparing my 8elief "rom Dudgment =otions) ;eronica continue to
curtly refuse to provide me any copy of any of the previously filed #rders of the Court unless +
paid for them, despite my apparently not having been provided a copy of such orders in the first
place) + have no idea what those papers were (they certainly were not in the property given to
me upon my release from jail* and have received nothing in the mail, despite updating the
8=C with my new address of: %1/ 3) ;irginia 1t) I2, 8eno 3; %,501 and filing an official
Change of 9ddress with the @1(1 shortly after + was summarily evicted (despite there being
only a 3o Cause 1ummary Eviction notice against my commercial lease, something entirely
probibited against under 381 !0)25&)
3ot only was + denied my 1i'th 9mendment 8ight to Counsel where jail time was a
possibility (and where, +, in fact was jailed, immediately*) +n re 6hitney, 1! Cal)!<h 1 3ote:
6e also accept the commissionBs conclusion that Dudge 6hitneyBs refusal to appoint counsel to
assist indigent defendants at the arraignment constituted willful misconduct in office, but
conclude the remaining acts constituted, at most, conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice (1ee 9dams v) Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,,5* 10 Cal)!<h %.., %//4%/%
P!2 Cal)8ptr)2D .0., %,/ ()2D 5!!QC ?ubler v) Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%!* &/
Cal)&D 2/, !.4!/, 5, P20/ Cal)8ptr) 1/1, .%% ()2D 55) Gloepfer v) Commission on Dudicial
(erformance (1,%,* !, Cal)&D %2., %&%T%.&, 2.! Cal)8ptr) 100, /%2 ()2D 2&, Pwillful and
prejudicial misconduct for failing to protect the rights of defendants, and abuses of power
involving contempt procedure, orders to show cause, and bench warrantsQC Cannon v)
Commission on Dudicial Uualifications, supra, 1! Cal)&D ./%, .,&T.,!, 122 Cal)8ptr) //%, 5&/
()2D %,% Pfailure to follow the law regarding contempt proceduresQ)*
+ was denied a continuance in this matter despite a written assent to one by 8eno
City 9ttorney (am 8oberts and despite the fact that the ) 8eno City 9ttorney was given one by
my supposed appointed counsel $ew <aitel (whom is Oassociated withO
( http:www)nevcs)comattorney)html * an entity that + happen to be suing 3evada Court
1ervices, incident to the same eviction proceeding for which =r) <aitel did grant, and the 8=C
did grant, a continuance in the other 8=C case against me, the trespass action that was set for
trial on December 1&th, because 8ichard ?) Aill, who + am also suing in connection with the
wrongful eviction against, was going to be on vacation and the 8=C apparently found that a
good reason for a continuance, compared to the 8=C feeling my being eviction on or around
3ovember 1&th, then wrongfully arrested in connection with the eviction, under a trespass
charge, and incarcerated for a number of days, all while 8ichard Aill applied an unlawful rent
distraint upon many e'culpatory materials that would spea7 to a stated and e'press retaliatory
motive on the part of 6almart and the 81+C, and other e'culpatory materials being wrongfully
withheld under an unlawful rent distraint by 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), the same person =r) <aitel,
the 8eno City 9ttorney, and the 8=C decided deserved such sanctity applied to his monthlong
vacation from <han7sgiving to 3ew NearBs to grant a continuance, with no input from me)
"9+$@8E <# 9""#8D 1+><A 9=E3D=E3< 8+?A< <# C#@31E$ #8
?893< DE=93D "#8 D@8N <8+9$C another DE=93D "#8 D@8N <8+9$ AE8E2N
2,!!2
=9DE +3 E;E3< #" 3E6 <8+9$, 1+=+$98$N 8EU@E1< "#8 +3 "#8=9
(9@(E8+1 1<9<@1 AE8E2N =9DE 93D 1@((#8<ED 2N 9<<9CAED +"(
(E<+<+#3F
+t is completely pathetic and shameful to deny Coughlin court appointed criminal
defense counsel in such a setting where the Eseriousness of the chargeF was amplified by the
1C8 111(.* EseriousF offense nature of the crime and CoughlinBs being a then licensed
attorney, which Coughlin made 8=C Dudge Aoward well aware of) Coughlin had never
wor7ed on a single criminal law matter in all his e'periences in the law at that time) "urhter,
CoughlinBs 102.11 9pplication for Court appointed counsel met the per se indigency
reHuirements of the 3) 1) Ct)Bs 200% +ndigent Defense #rder of 1!0%, and +n re 6hitney,
(1,,.*, 1! Cal) !th 1 P5. Cal) 8ptr) 2d /05, ,22 ()2d %.%Q, and *iscipl+ Counsel v+ 8lum 9:9
N+8+ -d -;9 establish that such willful refusal to obey such #rder by the 8=CBs Dudge Aoward
is willful judicial misconduct, as such a Claiborne 1C8 11! (so lac7ing in fundamental notions
of due process* type of approach is in order)))further the @1(<# has indicated that it does not
view such Ecandy bar and cough drops petty larceny convictionF to be a EseriousF offense
under its analog to 1C8 111(.*)
&2 Aofstra $) 8ev) 12!5 Aofstra $aw 8eview 1ummer 200! $egal Ethics
Conference: ODudging DudgesB EthicsO 9rticles <AE $+3E 2E<6EE3 $E?9$ E88#8 93D
D@D+C+9$ =+1C#3D@C<: 29$93C+3? D@D+C+9$ +3DE(E3DE3CE 93D
9CC#@3<92+$+<N
9dditionally, all the attendant circumstances ma7e Dudge AowardBs conduct even
more suspect (including 8=C =arshal =en:els castigating Coughlin at the 101111
arraignment held in violation of 381 1/%)!05 where 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner refused to
disclose to Coughlin the names of prospective court appointed counsel, which resulted in
Coughlin being assigned counsel, $ew <aitel, EsH), whom is a business partner of the
unauthori:ed practitioners of law, 3evada Court 1ervices, that Coughlin was suing at the time
in C;1140&051, a case involving the very same wrongful summary eviction from CoughlinBs
law office as the criminal trespass matter in which <aitel was appointed for a time)))but, to be
clear, it was in the 6almart candy barcough drops petty larceny case that 8=C Dudge Aoward
denied Coughlin counsel in his 102/11 #rder denying CoughlinBs 102.11 9pplication for
Court 9ppointed Counsel)
C#3C$@1+#3 Defendant9ppelant Coughlin here%( res&ectfull( re*uests all
Orders' .onvictions' Judgments' .onte m&t Findings, whatever, stemming from the
3ovember &0th, 2011 <rial be ;acated or 1et 9side or 8econsidered)) E
1omehow, the #2CBs Ging thought 8=C Dudge AowardBs 121511 #rder in the
matter that became .0%&% supports the 123Bs case, when, in reality, it does nothing more than
illustrate the injustice in both denying Coughlin court appoint counsel where he met the 200%
+ndigent Defense #rderBs per se less than 200X of the federal poverty standard guideline
(Coughlin listed his yearly income at appro'imately M10,000, which was 100X of the federal
poverty guideline, so, far below the 200X benchmar7)
Aowever, all "AE 10, 8=C AowardBs 121511 #rder serves to do is illustrate how
&0!!2
com&letel( out of control and ina&&ro&riate Judge 8oward;s a&&roach was in that matter'
and terri%l( %iased towards the cit( attorne(' and vindictive towards .oughlin s&ecificall( it
was to %oot, where such reads:
E#n 3ovember &0, 2011, Defendant Coughlin was found guilty of the offense of
(etit $arceny, a violation of 8=C %)10)0!0) <hereafter, 9ppellant filed his 3otice of 9ppeal
on December 1&, 2011) 9dditionally, Defendant Coughlin filed a =otion to ;acate andor 1et
9side, =otion for 8econsideration, 7otion for ecusal and 7otion for @u%lication of
Transcri&t at @u%lic E6&ense
0
) 9ppellant .oughlin re*uested that he %e &rovided the trial
transcri&t at &u%lic e6&ense on the %asis that he was indigent) #n Y ((sic* 3#<E: actually,
such +"( =otion by Coughlin was filed on 121!11, and followed CoughlinsB original 102.11
+"( 9pplication for court appointed counsel*, Defendant .oughlin filed a 7otion to @roceed
$n Forma @au&eris wherein he see)s a waiver of certain fees due to his asserted indigence)
9) "9+$@8E <# (8#(E8$N 1E8;E C+<N 9<+#83EN 6ritten motions are to
be served u%on each of the %arties) 381 1/%)5%2) 1ervice upon the attorney or upon a party
must be made in the manner provided in civil actions) 381 1/%)5%!) A&&ellant has chosen to
serve the .it( Attorne( with these various @leadings via electronic mail) <here is no
provision in the 3evada 8evised 1tatutes or the 8ules of Court which denotes electronic mail
as an appropriate means of service of process) <his alone is a basis for non4considerationdenial
of 9ppellantBs various reHuests)
1, M=)?=- /=R PE1>?C6)?=- =/ )R6-'CR?P) 6) PE1>?C
9HP9-'9 and M=)?=- )= PR=C99D ?- /=RM6 P6EP9R?'
Defendant .oughlin cites to N4 /0.5/> As authorit( for allowing him to issue
Can(' necessar( writ' &rocess' &leading or &a&er without charge' with the e6ce&tion of -ur(
fees %ecause $ lac) sufficient financial a%ilit( to &roceed without this waiverC. A&&ellant
.oughlin;s reference to N4 /0.5/> $s mis&laced as that &rovision refers to civil &rocedure)
He cites no other authority for his re<uest) <his case has gone to verdict and the defendant was
found guilty) $t is difficult to see what additional costs will %e incurred %( A&&ellant
.oughlin other than the trial transcri&t) <his is not a com&le6 case with numerous factual or
legal issues) =r) Coughlin is a licensed attorne(1at1law who im&lied during trial that his
incarceration for contem&t would adversel( affect his clients) Iet8 Mr, Coughlin8 in his
Faffidavit of %overtyF does not indicate any income from his %ractice of la#, =f note8 Mr,
Coughlin %osted cash bail during the litigation of the instant matter, )his Court has not
been %rovided sufficient information to determine Mr, Coughlin0s indigency status and
#ill not grant him carte blanche authority to continue the fishing e@%edition he conducted
during the trial of this matter, 6%%ellant0s motion to further %ursue this matter at %ublic
e@%ense is denied)
C, M=)?=- )= V6C6)9 6-DC=R '9) 6'?D98 M=)?=- /=R
R9C=-'?D9R6)?=- 6-D M=)?=- /=R R9CE'6> )) B
These motions will not %e addressed as "efendant .oughlin has not su%mitted a
%asis for their consideration) +< +1 AE8E2N #8DE8ED that Defendant CoughlinBs =otion to
(roceed +n "orma (auperis and =otion for (ublication of <ranscript at (ublic E'pense isW
DE3+ED) +< +1 "@8<AE8 #88DE8ED that the =otion to ;acate andor 1et 9side, =otion
for 8econsideration and =otion for 8ecusal are presently DE3+ED) D9<ED this 15th day of
&1!!2
December, 2011) 1 Genneth 8) Aoward, DudgeO
EDraper v) 1tate of 6ash) 1upreme Court of the @nited 1tates, &/2 @)1) !%/ (1,%&*)
Defendants were convicted in 1uperior Court, 1po7ane County, 6ashington, of robbery and
applied for free transcripts) <he 1uperior Court found that the assignments of error were
patently frivolous and denied free transcripts) #n review by certiorari, the 6ashington
1upreme Court, 5% 6ash)2D %&0, &.5 ()2D &1, Huashed the writ) <he 1upreme Court granted
certiorari, and, spea7ing through =r) Dustice ?oldberg, held that the conclusion of a trial judge
that an indigentRs appeal is frivolous is an inadeHuate substitute for full appellate review
available to nonindigents in the state of 6ashington, where effect of the finding is to prevent
appellate e'amination based on a sufficiently complete record of the trial proceedings
themselves) 8eversed and remanded) =r) Dustice 6hite, =r) Dustice Clar7, =r) Dustice Aarlan
and =r) Dustice 1tewart dissented) )))Ae contended, therefore, that petitionersR motions for free
transcripts and statements of facts should be denied because Zthere is nothing here to support
any substantial claim of error whatsoever)R))) )))+n Es7ridge the Huestion was the validity of
6ashingtonRs long4standing procedure whereby an indigent defendant would receive a
stenographic transcript at public e'pense only if, in the opinion of the trial judge, Zjustice will
thereby be promoted)R)))
1ee, also: Aardy v) @)1) 1upreme Court of the @nited 1tates, &/5 @)1) 2// %! 1)Ct)
!2!) ?riffin v) +llinois 1upreme Court of the @nited 1tates 9pril 2&, 1,5. &51 @)1) 12 /. 1)Ct)
5%5 Defendants, who had been convicted of armed robbery, and whose motion to have copy of
record including transcript furnished them without costs on ground of their poverty had been
denied, filed petition under the +llinois (ost4Conviction Aearing 9ct, 1)A)9)+ll) Ch) &%, 1s %2.4
%&2) <he +llinois 1upreme Court affirmed dismissal of this petition, and defendants brought
certiorari) <he 1upreme Court held that dismissal of the petition was error)F
!) CoughlinBs conduct during the trial of the petit larceny case on
3ovember &0, 2011, in which Coughlin a&&eared in &ro&ria &ersona, was so disru&tive that
Dudge Aoward found Coughlin in direct contem%t of court and sentenced him to -ail that
same da( to %e released on "ecem%er D' 05// at %:00 (=) Judge "o#ard s%ecifically found
Coughlin0s conduct to be disorderl( and #as either contem&tuous or %ehavior insolent
toward the -udge in that Coughlin refused:
O))) to obey directives of the Judge8 continuing lines of in*uir( after %eing advised %( the
.ourt to refrain from doing soJ demeaning the Court #ith statements such as FK=KF in
res%onse to court rulingsJ laughing during testimony and further :uestioning the court
and its authority)O
1ee Aearing E'hibit 11 #8DE8 "#8 1@==98N (@3+1A=E3< #" contem%t
C#==+<<ED +3 <AE +==ED+9<E ;+E6 93D (8E1E3CE #" <AE C#@8<, 3ovember
&0, 2011)
&2!!2
(3#<E: 1uch "AE 11 lac)s a .ertificate of 4ervice &age' and this is done
on &ur&ose, as the 8=C refused to provide such #(1C to Coughlin upon his being
released from jail (Coughlin called the 8=C and spo7e with 8=C Dudicial 9ssistant for
Dudge Aoward, ;eronica $ope: the =onday following his release from jail on 12&11*,
and such was not provided to Coughlin at jail or upon his release, and attempts to obtain
such after from the 8=C, and specifically ;eronica $ope: were rudely rebuffed) 9lso,
such was made in absentia of both Coughlin and the prosecutor, and as such, the
deadline to appeal it has not even started to run, given no notice of Entry of #rder for
such #rder has been filed and served) "urther, lines 1.41/ of page 1 of such #1(C
reveals the e'tent to which such #rder failed to find any such EbehaviorF (lines 2.42%
and the colon after the word EconductF between lines 2.42/, and the failure of the 8=C
to chec7 such blan7, combined with the chec7 on the blan7 on line 1, where E%ehaviorF,
rather than EconductF is referenced, ta7es such out of the purview of any admissible
evidence of a 8(C &)5 violation)
9dditionally, the entirety of such 11&011 (apparently the 8=C can obtain a
file stmape for #rders submitted after !:&0 pm, but not attorneys or litigantsJ* #(1C is
violative of =cCormac7 and the 1i'th 9mendment where Dudge AowardBs 102/11
#rder denied Coughlin court appointed counsel and failed to rule that -ail time was not
a &ossi%ilit() 9igersinger)
E9ttorneyBs conduct in c ontinuing to cross1e6amine &olice officer after
Gudge had ruled that %olice log #as not admissible was not contem&t where attorney
claimed that he was trying to impeach witnessesB memory, not lay foundation for
admission of log, so that his conduct could not be said to be willful) Enited 'tates v
2iovanelli, (1,,0, C92 3N* %,/ "2d 122/) 8esort to summary disposition of criminal
contem%t proceeding under 8ule !2(a*, "ederal 8ules of Criminal (rocedure, is
&ermissi%le onl( when e6&ress re*uirements of rule are met and when there is
com&elling reason for immediate remed( or when time is of essence) <hus, attorne(;s
conviction for criminal contem&t in &ursuing line of *uestioning for%idden %( court
would %e reversed' since record showed that there was no com&elling need for
immediate remed( provided by 8ule !2(a*, "ederal 8ules of Criminal (rocedure, and
that trial court, by its own actions, did not consider time to be of essenceC trial court
should have observed OnormalO procedureO of notice and hearing, provided by 8ule
!2(b*, "ederal 8ules of Criminal (rocedure) E,', v, Moschiano, .,5 ")2d 2&., 12 "ed)
8) Evid) 1erv) 12! (/th Cir) 1,%2*) 1ee @nited 1tates v <urner, (1,%/, C911 9la* %12
"2d 1552, S 1!)F (page 2, of CoughlinBs .1%12 =otion for $eave in .0%&%, the matter
within which GingBs 1C8 111 (etition resides, a document which, along with other
filings by Coughlin in the 31C<, were attached as e'hibits (usually on a disc, but not
always* to a multitude of the documents Coughlin submitted for filing with the 123Bs
Cler7 of Court in 3?124020!, etc)
(see, also, the transcription Coughlin provided therein between pages &54%5,
which clearly reveal the patent lac7 of due process attendant to that trial (denial of 1i'th
9mendment (as to both the petty larceny trial and the EtrialF on the summary contem%t
EfindingF made ten minutes into the petty larceny trial (the failure to immediately render
&&!!2
a summary contem%t order with Aouston (see, also, the 2012 =arshall case, especially
where Dudge Aoward is clearly punishing Coughlin for EbehaviorF occurring outside the
immediate presence of the court, whether or not his 11&011 #(1C admits to that or not,
which includes CoughlinBs rancorous interactions with =arshal =en:el at the 101011
arraignment (the hold of which violated 381 1/%)!05 in light of the then pending ,/11
#rder for Competency evaluation of which the 8=C was made aware, in writing in*,
similar interactions with 8=C filing office counter cler7s and supervisors incident to
their refusal to allow Coughlin to access even the 9rrest 8eport and Declaration of
(robable Cause until after the 101011 arraignment, etc*, and CoughlinBs 112%11
=otion to specificity brings =cCormac7 into play, and the possibility of jail time for
such contem%t reHuired the appointment of counsel as well*, failure to apply the
e'clusionary rule to EevidenceF (despite Coughlin having a receipt proving he purchased
the very Duract Cough =elts found in his poc7et* where both 381 1/1)1255 and 381
1/1)1&. were violated, therefore ma7ing such arrests and searches incident thereto
illegal arrests reHuiring application of the e'clusionary rule*, prosecutorial misconduct
( Deputy 8eno City 9ttorney (amela 8oberts, EsH), put on testimony she 7new to be lies
given the very video provided to her by 6almart and or 81+C (olice clearly show
Coughlin providing his driverBs license to #fficer Crawford*, witness misconduct
(numerous instances of perjury by both 6almartBs "rontino and #fficer Gameron
Crawford*, and a to per se indigent under 200% +ndigent Defense #rder, abuse of
contem%t power, violation of (engilly and =cCormac7, failure to grant a continuance
where e'cuplatory evidence was being wrongfully withheld by and opposing counsel
whom had burglari:ed CoughlinBs former home law office with both the 6C1# and
8(D (8ussell v) Galian, 381 !0)25&(5*, =ayes v) @;+, +orio v) City of 3ew Nor7*, and
denial of a continuance to Coughlin (despite one being agreed to in writing by 8C9
8oberts* is particularly suspect given the failure, then, to accord CoughlinBs right to a
speedy trial (which he did not waive* where Coughlin, whom bailed out on ,1011 was
not afforded a trial within !5 days as an out of custody defenant, and where the 81+C
refused to release to Coughlin even the 9rrest 8eport and (robable Cause 1heet until
after the 101011 arraignment, wherein 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner refused to reveal to
Coughlin, then a licensed practicing attorney, the names of the four possible court
appointed defense counsel sufficient for Coughlin to perform a conflict chec7 prior to
agreeing to such confidential information being released to whichever allegedly
randomly assigned court appointed counsel would get such (and it may be law of the
case that CoughlinBs right to such counsel was recogni:ed at such time, ma7ing Dudge
AowardBs subseHuent #ctober 2/
th
, 2011 denial of 9igersinger and the 1i'th 9mendment
even more suspect*)
(E<his action was brought against all three defendants, alleging negligence 44
against City =arshal 8ichard =) 1chwart:, for damage to plaintiff tenantRs personal
property in the course of an evictionC against <uscany Aolding Corp), because as
landlord it hired the marshal to perform the evictionC and, against the City of 3ew Nor7,
on the theory that the marshal acted as agent, servant andor employee of the City of
3ew Nor7) 2y an earlier order of this court, the complaint against the marshal was
&!!!2
dismissed for lac7 of jurisdiction)
E9 party at whose instance a warrant is duly issued is not responsible for the manner
in which a 1heriff or marshal e'ecutes the warrant) <he 1heriff or marshal only becomes an
agent if the warrant is irregular, unauthori:ed or void) (+de v "inn, 1,. 9pp Div &0!C <reiber v
=ouriocourt, 1!& =isc /!1, /!2)* <he party procuring issuance of the warrant confers only an
implied authority consistent with that conferred thereby, and, is not liable for a trespass
committed by the officer unless he authori:ed it) (+de v "inn, supra, p &1!, citing 6elsh v
Cochran, .& 3N 1%1C see Drin7house v (ar7a, & 3N2d %2, ,1C "ults v =unro, 202 3N &!, !2C
1chrier v 1haffer, 12& 9pp Div 5!&C 2ach v 3ew, 2& 9pp Div 5!%C Gorman v =acy K Co),
1!2 3N12d !55C $iberty +nd) (ar7 v (rotective (ac7aging Corp), /1 =isc 2d 11., 11,C (ollac7
v =acombs +nwood Corp), 52 =isc 2d 5.&)*
+n re 6hitney, 1! Cal)!<h 1 3ote: 6e also accept the commissionBs conclusion that
Dudge 6hitneyBs refusal to appoint counsel to assist indigent defendants at the arraignment
constituted willful misconduct in office, but conclude the remaining acts constituted, at most,
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (1ee 9dams v) Commission on Dudicial
(erformance (1,,5* 10 Cal)!<h %.., %//4%/% P!2 Cal)8ptr)2D .0., %,/ ()2D 5!!QC ?ubler v)
Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%!* &/ Cal)&D 2/, !.4!/, 5, P20/ Cal)8ptr) 1/1, .%%
()2D 55) Gloepfer v) Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%,* !, Cal)&D %2., %&%T%.&,
2.! Cal)8ptr) 100, /%2 ()2D 2&, Pwillful and prejudicial misconduct for failing to protect the
rights of defendants, and abuses of power involving contempt procedure, orders to show cause,
and bench warrantsQC Cannon v) Commission on Dudicial Uualifications, supra, 1! Cal)&D ./%,
.,&T.,!, 122 Cal)8ptr) //%, 5&/ ()2D %,% Pfailure to follow the law regarding contempt
proceduresQ)*
1ince plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment underlying the warrant e'ecuted by
the marshal, plaintiff cannot now collaterally attac7 the warrant) 9nd, nowhere in his papers
does plaintiff demonstrate by evidentiary facts that the warrant was irregular, unauthori:ed or
void, or, that either defendant participated in the eviction or did anything to cause damage to
any property of plaintiff in the course of or as a conseHuence of the eviction) (Days v Aall, ./
3N12d 2&%)* E
+orio v) City of 3ew Nor7 et al), ,. =isc)2D ,55, !10 3)N)1)2D 1,5 (1,/%*)
Certainy CoughlinBs 21112 email to 6C1# 1upervisor $i: 1tuchell in response to 1tuchellBs
2/12 email to Coughlin, which either the 8=C and Ging or both e'cised from the !1.12
EE'hibit ,F presentation of an altered reproduction thereof (while the page 1. of !0 missing
from the first appearance of such &512 =otion did appear)))the fa' header for all pages was
e'cised, ma7ing less noticeable the e'cision of 1tuchellBs 2/12 email (ie, not pae &% of
!0)))hey, whereBs page &, of !0 as paginated in the fa' header moment for the 1creening (anel,
by design)))ma7ing Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs &2012 E#rder I1F at E'hibit 10 in such 2& E'hibit
(resentation Huite dubious (especially where the page 1. (in terms of the pagination on
CoughlnBs &512 =otion at the bottom center of each page* and Epage &, of !0F (in terms of
the fa' header therein* spea7 volumes to rebut Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs contention that CoughlinBs
motion Elac7s merit* negates the following authority, as does his .2.12 email to the 8DC and
1tuchell as well: O)))9 party at whose instance a warrant is duly issued is not responsible for
the manner in which a 1heriff or marshal e'ecutes the warrant) <he 1heriff or marshal only
&5!!2
becomes an agent if the warrant is irregular, unauthori:ed or void) (+de v "inn, 1,. 9pp Div
&0!C <reiber v =ouriocourt, 1!& =isc /!1, /!2)* <he party procuring issuance of the warrant
confers only an implied authority consistent with that conferred thereby, and, is not liable for a
trespass committed by the officer unless he authori:ed it) (+de v "inn, supra, p &1!, citing
6elsh v Cochran, .& 3N 1%1C see Drin7house v (ar7a, & 3N2d %2, ,1C "ults v =unro, 202 3N
&!, !2C 1chrier v 1haffer, 12& 9pp Div 5!&C 2ach v 3ew, 2& 9pp Div 5!%C Gorman v =acy K
Co), 1!2 3N12d !55C $iberty +nd) (ar7 v (rotective (ac7aging Corp), /1 =isc 2d 11., 11,C
(ollac7 v =acombs +nwood Corp), 52 =isc 2d 5.&)* 1ince plaintiff did not appeal from the
judgment underlying the warrant e'ecuted by the marshal, plaintiff cannot now collaterally
attac7 the warrant) 9nd, nowhere in his papers does plaintiff demonstrate by evidentiary facts
that the warrant was irregular, unauthori:ed or void, or, that either defendant participated in the
eviction or did anything to cause damage to any property of plaintiff in the course of or as a
conseHuence of the eviction) (Days v Aall, ./ 3N12d 2&%)* )))O 9 commercial tenant failed to
overcome the presumption of regularity, as reHuired to support a claim against the marshal who
effectuated an eviction with a vacated warrant, absent a showing that the marshal had
7nowingly or negligently e'ecuted an invalid warrant) 8odrigue: v) 1!1!41!22 #gden 9venue
8ealty Corp), &0! 9)D)2D !00, /5% 3)N)1)2D !& (1st DepBt 200&*) 5/ 9m Dur 2d, =unicipal,
1chool, and 1tate <ort $iability S %,C /0 9m Dur 2d, 1heriffs, (olice, and Constables S .,,
6here the condition of a marshalBs bond is that the marshal himself or herself, and his or her
deputies, must faithfully perform all the duties of the office, a marshal is liable in damages on
his or her bond for an assault committed by his or her deputy in e'ecuting a writ of replevin)
(almer v) Ging, !1 9pp) D)C) !1,, $)8)9) 1,1.D, 2/%, 9m) 9nn) Cas) 1,15C, 11&, (9pp)
D)C) 1,1!*) 9s to the 6C1# failing to service process timely on 6$1 in .0&02: 3eglect or
failure to e'ecute regular legal process is an official default for which the sureties of a sheriff or
constable are liable) (appe v) $aw, 1,&! #G !2/, 1., #7la) 15, &5 ()2D ,!1, ,5 9)$)8) ,&,
(1,&!*) 9 law enforcement officer who levies e'ecution on property owned by a person other
than the judgment debtor named in the writ may be held responsible for the damages suffered
by that innocent third person as a conseHuence of the wrongful levy) 2ethel v) Dunipace, 5/
#hio 9pp) &D %,, 5.. 3)E)2D 1252 (&d Dist) Aancoc7 County 1,%%*) 9s to persons liable on
bonds indemnifying those liable for wrongful e'ecutions, generally, see 9m) Dur) 2D,
E'ecutions and Enforcement of Dudgments S .0%) 9m) Dur) 2D 1heriffBs S .!) Dustification
under writC writ regular on face 9 sheriff, constable, or other such officer may justify his or her
acts by showing that in performing them he or she acted pursuant to the command of a writ
regular upon its face and issued by a court of competent jurisdiction,P"31Q even if the
judgment or order was erroneously issuedP"32Q or otherwise void)P"3&Q <he common4law rule
may be codified by statute)P "3!Q 9 peace officer is similarly protected and justified in
e'ecuting process fair on its face, where he or she is subseHuently charged with false arrest or
imprisonment)P"35Q P"31Q =ar7s v) 1houp, 1%1 @)1) 5.2, 21 1) Ct) /2!, !5 $) Ed) 1002, 1
9las7a "ed) /02 (1,01*C Deffres v) Countryside Aomes of $incoln, +nc), 21! 3eb) 10!, &&&
3)6)2D /5! (1,%&*) P"32Q <eddyBs Drive +n, +nc) ;) Cohen, !/ 3)N)2D /,, !1. 3)N)1)2D
/%2, &,0 3)E)2D 2,0 (1,/,*) P"3&Q 8einec7e v) 1heehy, !/ =ich) 9pp) 250, 20, 3)6)2D !.0
(1,/&*) P"3!Q 2rotherBs Distributing Co), +nc) ;) Aeidtman, &5! ") 1upp) 20& (1)D) "la) 1,/&*,
9ffBd, !%0 ")2D ,22 (5th Cir) 1,/&* (1tatute setting forth the duty of a sheriff to levy upon
&.!!2
property described in a writ may specifically grant immunity from suit to sheriffs levying
attachment on the property*) P"35Q 1ee, generally, 9m) Dur) 2D, "alse +mprisonment) Aowever,
particularly where the loc7out orders of &1512 and .2/12 indicate 2! hours from the tenantBs
receipt of such orders must pass (and the loc7out of 11111 arguably is subject to constructive
notice of such reHuirement given the ubiHuity of 381 !0)25& <o what the Civil Division of the
6C1# does day in day out*, the above authority is unavailing)
9lso from such .1%12 =otion in .0%&% at pages 2,4&0: EO6ith respect to
matters which may bring into doubt the validity of the conviction in the trial court
judgment in 8=C 11 C8 2.%00: +n the appeal to the District Court in C811420.!, Dudge
Elliot utili:ed a civil statute in e'cusing the 8=C from its failure to forward to the
District Court a copy of the transcript of the audio recording of the trial and to forward
such to the District Court within ten days of the filing of the notice of 9ppeal) "urther,
Coughlin made numerous attempts to order such a transcript and was thwarted in his
attempts to do so by the 8=CBs e'press dictate that only the 8=CBs transcriptionist of
choice, (am Dongoni, would be permitted to perfrom the transcribing duties, and =s)
Dongoni hung up the phone on Coughlin and refused to provide information related to
where and in what method of payment Coughlin could pay for the transcript and assure
its production) "urther, the 8=C refused to timely provide Coughlin a copy of the audio
recording of the trial until well after the deadline for filing tolling motions or a notice of
9ppeal had passed, and further, the 8=C failed to notate in the certified doc7et (which
is not available to litigants during these matters, and attempts by Coughlin to so obtain
such a doc7et has resulted in the City of 8eno =arshals threatening Coughlin and
forcing him to leave the courthouse and writing disengenous letters to 2ar Counsel)O
9lso served on 2ar Counsel and amongst those materials that the 123
wrongfully failed to transmit with the 8#9, andt he (anel wrongfully failed to consider
(especially given the 123Bs fraudulent assertions that it was copying all five (anel
members with the entirety of every one of the documents Coughlin submitted for filing,
including the discs attached thereto as e'hibits* was the entirety of the 8#9 transmitted
by the 8=C to the 2DDC from 11 C8 221/. and the entirety of that in the record in the
appeal thereof in C811420.! (in addition to all of CoughlinBs correspondence with the
8C9 and 8=C regarding such matter, and the materials that the 8=C fraudulently
failed to include within the 8#9*, amongst such materials:
CoughlinBs 11211 =otion for 8econsideration of 8=C Dudge AowardBs
102/11 #rder Denying =otion for 9ppointment of Counsel, at page 1 thereof:
E<revino v) 1tate 555 16 2d /50 "ormerly 1107.!1 2(!*, 11#7.!1)2 <e')Crim
9pp),1,// Criminal defendants +n misdemeanor cases are entitled to counsel if there
e'ists a possibility that imprisonment may be imposed Dudge ?ardner refused to tell the
undersigned the last names of the four attorneys who might be appointed counsel)
9ccused has a right to 7now that, +ts important to chec7 Hualifications and e'perience)
"urther, Dudge ?ardner touted their abilities by mentioning some, or all, of them were
former prosecutors) <he 3"$ doesnBt hire to many offensive coordinators, to coach
defense) + feel the same about criminal defense) The arrest did not occur in the
&resence of the &olice officer. There was no consent to search. Officer made
&/!!2
statements conditioning whether arrest would %e made u&on whether consent to
search was given' there are other im&ermissi%le acts...F
9dditionally, while page 1 contains a EcertificationF by 8=C "iling #fficer
1upervisor (whom regularly refuses to file documents even in criminal matters based on
unwritten ElegibilityF rules she applies*, there is no indication such EcertifiedF copy
contained the E01.%2F %ates stam& apparently later applied by Ging) 1uch "AE11
should be e'cluded from the admissible evidence based on such prejudicial inclusion by
Ging of such %ates stam&ing, especially where Ging subseHuently argued that Coughlin
should be prevented from having the entirety of such 11/12 production by the 123 of
a &,0,! page 1C8 105(2*(c* consolation pri:e:
11 C1$ C12 "96R?-2 ((age &02:. to &02:12* E=8) C#@?A$+3: 1orry,
your Aonor) <here was just one other thing $ was ho&ing to offer into evidence) +t will
only ta7e a second to as7 to do it) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat is thatJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: + would li7e to 44 but the file. And then the su%&oena that $ tried to get
the sheriff here and 444 ;ol) +, ((age &0!:1% to &0!:2&* E=8) C#@?A$+3: + would as7
that + would be allowed to be a little bit more specific) 7r. Eing got me a %ig %o6 of
stuff) +Bm only see)ing to &ut in 44 and it was bro7en up into about four different things,
each one 7ind of had a cardboard thing and a rubber band holding it together)O
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &0!:25 to &05:1* 9nd itBs Bates stam&ed)O AE98+3? 4 ;ol)
+, ((ages &05:. to &0.:1/* <his is not just the pleadings) There;s some stuff in here $
never even saw %efore' li)e an affidavit %( Laura @eters that s&ea)s to things li)e the
service of the com&laint. $t;s filed. $;m wondering wh( didn;t $ get a co&( of it if it has
a file stam& on itF That;s )ind of strange) 1o + do thin7 44 ? #ould as& that ? be able
to admit this into evidence) =8) G+3?: + donBt 7now what that is) 9nd + object to it at
this stage, &roffering a %unch of &a&ers that haven;t %een discussed' haven;t %een
admitted' no foundation laid) Dust to say they are going to go up to the supreme court, it
doesnBt ma7e sense) =8) ECAE;E88+9: + tend to agree) <hese are all 44 the pleadings
themselves, as we now understand it, are going to go 44 would be part of the record the
supreme court reviews) Khat you0re offering a%%ears to be a stac& of documents
three inches thic& that $ have no idea what;s in there) =8) C#@?A$+3: =ay + 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6e donBt have time) + would really li7e to afford you an
opportunity to address the issue that + as7ed) 1o +Bm going to sustain the objection) +Bm
not going to permit those e'hibits to be entered into at this stage) Nou had all day in
which to do that, and identify specific pieces and proffer specific pieces) +nstead you
chose to spend a great deal of time attempting to get in videotapes and transcripts) 1o +Bm
going to overrule that objection to the e'tent these are factual documents) <o the e'tent
there are pleadings in there that are part of the official record, they are going to go up)
+tBs now a Huarter to 5:00) NouBve heard the Huestions that the panel is interested in
having addressed in the final arguments) =r) Ging) =8) G+3?: <han7 you very much)F
6hether or not 2DDC Dudges $) ?ardner, "lanagan, or Elliott too7 any 3CDC
Canon 2, 8ule 2)15 Eappropriate actionF by contacting the 123 (Eappropriate authorityF*
about Coughlin is completely relevant to CoughlinBs defensive collateral esto&&el
&%!!2
claims, in addition to thoroughly undermining GingBs offensive collateral estoppel
claims, and, arguably, revealing GingBs fraudulent 2omer worthy approach here)
9lso, the e'tent to which Ging flat out admits he manipulates the record is an
embarrassment to this Court and the 2ar: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age &0!:1 to &0!:/* =8)
G+3?: +n other words, everything =r) Coughlin sent, oftentimes with these multiple
ca&tions where heBs sending them to many people, he might ca&tion as a &leading' it
doesn;t ma)e it a &leading) ?t has to be something that #as sent to us8 filed in8 and
that #ould be a %leading) 9nd if there was such a thing as file stamped with the
supreme court, it will go up)F 1ounds very similar to Ging allegedly he does not control
the ECler7 of CourtF during the ,2512 interaction with Coughlin detailed in CoughlinBs
=otion for #rder to 1how Cause (served on the 123 and submitted for filing with the
123 Cler7 of Court on 10112 in .0%&%, and submitted at that time in 3?124020! as
well, though apparently never filed stamped by the 123, yet ruled on in the (anel
ChairBs 10&112 #rder, which indicates such was filed in on 101.12, which absolutely
entitles Coughlin, even more than Cler7 (eters ,1112 assertions respecting the
permissibility of Coughlin filing (and therefore serving on 2ar Counsel* by facsimile*)
5) #n Dune /, 2012 the 1upreme Court of the 1tate of 3evada upon petition
of 2ar Counsel pursuant to 1C8 111, ordered Coughlin temporarily suspended from the
practice of law in 3evada) <he #rder further directed that the matter be referred to the
9ppropriate disciplinary board, as mandated by 1C8 111(%*, with directions for the board to
institute a formal hearing Obefore a hearing panel in which the sole issue to be determined shall
be the e'tent of the discipline to be imposed)O +n the =atter of Discipline of -9CA98N 2)
C#@?A$+3, EsH), 2ar 3o) ,!/&, 3o) .0%&%, Dune /, 2012)
.) #n 3ovember 15, 2011 Coughlin was arrested (3#<E: actually,
Coughlin was not arrested, he was simply issued three traffic citations at that time* and
charged with three violations of the 8eno =unicipal Code) <he charges of "ailure to (rovide
Evidence of 1ecurity or +nsurance (a violation of 8=C .)0.)555(a** and "ailure to (rovide
;ehicle 8egistration (a violation of 8=C .)0.)5.0(a** were dismissed at arraignment) #n
"ebruary 2/, 2012 a trial was held in 8eno =unicipal Court before the Aonorable Dudge
Dorothy 3ash Aolmes on the remaining charge of a 8ight of 6ay 1top 1ign violation at an
intersection (a violation of 8=C .)0.)1/0(a**) Coughlin again appeared in propria persona) <he
trial commenced at & p)m) and was concluded by the Court at !:&0 p)m), without a verdict, after
the court held Coughlin in criminal contem&t of court for his %ehavior and activities
committed during the course of the trial and in the &resence of the .ourt) 1ee Aearing
E'hibit !) #8DE8 "+3D+3? <AE DE"E3D93< +3 contem%t #" C#@8< 93D
+=(#1+3? 193C<+#31)
6labama 'tate 1ar v, Caffey, ,&% 1o) 2d ,!2 (9la) 200.*: O&he State Bar
argues that Ethe trial courtBs judgment finding Caffey guilt( of direct contem&t of court
is conclusive evidence that esta%lishes a &er se violation of ules . ,1 ;6<8 . ,2 8 . ,5 ;C<8
$ ,$ 8 PE9s we noted in footnote &, the 4tate Bar dismissed the charge relating to ule
B .B))))FQ * ,$ ;6<8 * ,$ ;D<8 and * ,$ ;2<'...[)) Court had found Caffey guilty of contempt of
court for being Edisrespectful and contemptuous toward the Court in such a way as to
diminish and impair the respect due to judicial tribunals and further to interrupt the due
&,!!2
course of this trial)[ (ursuant to the 9labama 8ules of Disciplinary (rocedure, prior
adjudications establish a lawyerBs misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding
when a law(er commits a serious crime) fn1! Caffey, however' was found guilt( of
contem&t of court' which is not a crime) 1ee 9labama 1tate 2ar v) <ipler, ,0! 1o)2D at
12!1 (Ecourt;s im&osition of civil or criminal contem&t is not the e*uivalent of a
conviction for a crime ))[*) <hus, we do not find support for the State Bar's argument
that a trial court's $udgment of criminal contempt is conclusive evidence that esta!lishes
a per se violation of the ))) 8ules of (rofessional Conduct))))"n& <he formal charges filed
by the 1tate 2ar also asserted that Caffey had violated 8ules !)! 9nd %)2) <he 1tate 2ar
later dismissed those charges)O ))) finalit( of the contem&t order does not' however' &er
se e*uate to a violation of the ules of @rofessional es&onsi%ilit( made the %asis of
the formal charges)))Caffey can offer a defense regarding the elements of the formal
charges,)))fn1& (fn 1&) <he State Bar also asserts that the summary judgment entered by
the Disciplinary 2oard Ewas not clearly erroneous where there was no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the undisputed evidence esta!lished that Caffey Phad violated the
9labama 8ules of (rofessional ConductQ)F ))) Aowever, in its brief in support of this
proposition, the 'tate 1ar argues that(the conduct ;-=)97 the 123 consistently
failed to point to any specific instances of actual conduct* and state of mind elements
necessar( to &rove the violations of the ,,, Rules of Professional Conduct as found by
the Disci%linary 1oard are su%sumed in the -udgment of direct criminal contem&t,
because by its very definition, it reHuires proof of purposeful, deliberate, or intentional
conduct) +n other words, the mental state necessary to prove a violation of ules D ./ <A='
D .0 ' D .> <.=' B .B G4icH' 2 .B <A=' 2 .B <"=' and 2 .B <G=' ))) +s no greater than that re:uired to
sustain a Gudgment of direct criminal contem%t) <herefore, the judgment finding
Caffey guilty of direct criminal contempt supplied both the conduct and mental state
elements necessary to support the Disciplinary 2oardBs summary judgment)F 4tate Bar;s
%rief, pp) 2!425)
<hus, it appears that the 4tate Bar is essentiall( rel(ing on the -udgment of
contem&t as sufficient to esta%lish conclusivel( a violation of ules D./<A=' D.0' D.><.='
2.B<A=' 2.B<"=' and 2.B<G=) (3#<E: such is e'actly what 123 Ging sought to do)))pic7
the low lying fruit of a conviction as conclusive evidence sufficient to meet his 1chaefer
burden, so much so, that Ging actively sought to hide the truth in ardently fighting
against CoughlinBs attempts to get the transcripts of the proceedings and complete copies
of every document filed in every action involved in any tangential way with the 123Bs
Complaint, into the record, going so far as to lie about whether the (anel was being
provided the discs on which Coughlin attached as e'hibits such voluminous materials,
ocrBd in pdf format, and audio recordings made by the respective courts* :Even if we
were to assume that the 1tate 2ar is not essentially relying on the judgment finding
Caffey guilty of contempt, it has not met its burden to demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact as to state of mind (8ules &)1(9* and &)5(C** and
justification (8ule &)2*, 6hich in this case are relevant to determining prejudice to the
administration of justice (8ule %)!(D** and fitness to practice law (8ule %)!(?**) Dennis
v) 3orthcutt, ,2& 1o)2D 2/5, 2/,4%0 (9la)2005* )))O O 9labama 1tate 2ar v) Caffey, ,&%
!0!!2
1o) 2d ,!2 (9la) 200.*)
(Dudge 3ash AolmesBs 22%12 #rder "inding Defendant +n Contempt and +mposing
1anctions in 11 <8 2.%00 ("AE! 81/.,4/2* reads:
O9 trial was held in 8eno =unicipal Court on "ebruary 2/, 2012 on
a traffic citation issued to the defendant, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3)
Ae was initially charged with three offenses alleged to have occurred on
3ovember 15,2011 in the City of 8eno) 9t the onset of the trial it was
determined that "ailure to (rovide Evidence of 1ecurity or +nsurance (a
violation of 8=C .)0.)555(a* and "ailure to (rovide ;ehicle 8egistration (a
violation of 8=C .)0.)5.0(a* were %oth dismissed at arraignment after the
defendant esta%lished that he had com&lied with %oth code sections (3ote,
where such arraignment was held on 11,12, Coughlin provided his then
current address of 1!22 E) ,
th
1t) I2 to the 8=C, ma7ing the mailing of the
22%12 #rder to the very E121 8iver 8oc7F address of the former home law
office Coughlin was evicted from fairly curious, especially where Coughlin
detailed AillBs misconduct so e'tensively to Dudge Aolmes that "AE! notes:
E5* defendant0 s re%eatedly trying to insert Fichard 8illF into his
:uestions and statements when such &erson was not relevant to the
&roceedings and the defendant had been ordered to sto% discussing thatCF
81//0:2542%** but simply had not carried the documentation with him in the
vehicle on that day) (3#<E: which is a way of glossing over the fact that Aill
was wrongfully withholding CoughlinBs wallet incident to Aill burglari:ing
CoughlinBs former home law office, but, hey, 8(D 1argent Dohn <arter Egave
Coughlin a brea7F by not citing him for only having an e'pired copy of his
then valid driverBs license, where <arter was informed that Aill was wrongfully
withholding it, so thereBs that, which is nice* During trial8 the officer also
testified that he could have cited the defendant with failure to carr( his
Nevada "river;s License in his %ossession but gave him a %rea) by not
citing him for that) as well) <he remaining charge, a 8ight of 6ay 1top 1ign
violation at an intersection, 7nown as a O2oulevard 1topO (rolling through a
1top 1ign and not stopping completely*, a violation of 8=C .)0.)1/0(a*, was
the subject of the trial)
<he City of 8eno was represented by Deputy City 9ttorney 9lison
#rmaas) defendant, a licensed attorney, represented himself) 8eno (olice
1ergeant Dohn <arter was the sole witness) <he court had the defendant sworn
at the %eginning of the trial' stating that the court has found that most self1
re&resented defendants tend to testif( a great deal as the( cross1e6amine
o&&osing witnesses' so the defendant would %e under oath from the start' too)
(Coughlin finds City of 8eno prosecutors tend to testify Huite a bit themselves,
especially in their closing arguments with respect to matters they failed to raise
prior to the close of evidence, that is, when they are not busy violating 1C8
12&, li7e 8C9 Aa:lett41tevens, in citing to an unpublished <3 case, 1tate v)
!1!!2
$ovins, during the criminal trespass trial at issue in .1,01* 3o e'hibits were
mar7ed or admitted)
<he matter was called at appro'imately &:00 p)m) and concluded
without a verdict about !:&0 p)m) after the court held the defendant in
criminal contem%t of court for his %ehavior and activities committed in the
direct &resence of this court during the trial)
<he court finds that defendantBs contemptuous conduct consisted of
his rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic,
deceitful, disru&tive ;-=)97 =ne cannot disru&t a tribunal #ith conduct
outside of the courtroom, ?n re Michael 'tuhff8 1+* -ev, 2B8 *.7P,2d *5.
;1BB2<<, argumentative and childish behavior during trial, all of which
appeared to be done to ve= and annoy the court, the witness, and the opposing
party, and to disru&t the trial process) <he court finds that the following
occurred, and constitute contempt: 1* defendantBs mime4li7e, clownish antics
of ma7ing faces at the courtC sagging down into his seat and hanging his headC
loo7ing behind himself and inside his coat as if searching for a better way to
as7 a HuestionC rolling his eyesC and mimic7ing others wordsC 2* defendantBs
incessant arguing with the court, tal4ing over the court, and interru&ting the
courtC &* defendantBs re&eatedl( restating matters after being told by the court
to Omove onO or Oas7 the ne't HuestionCO (3#<E: see, supra Huotation from
(age 22 of ,5 from CoughlinBs filing in Doc7et .0%&% Document 201241%,.2))
!* defendantBs repeatedly in$ecting allegations of bribery, perjury, and police
retaliation into the matter after the court instructed him not to' and directed
him to limit himself to issues &ertaining to the facts of the O2oulevard 1topCO
5* defendantB s repeatedly trying to insert >Richard Hill> into his <uestions and
statements when such person was not relevant to the proceedings and the
defendant had !een ordered to stop discussing thatC .* defendantBs
disregarding the rules of evidence and court &rocedure %( continuall(
&osing im&ro&er *uestions after %eing directed %( the court to &ro&erl(
&hrase his *uestionsC /* defendantBs continually accusing the court of
den(ing him the right or a%ilit( to as) *uestions and telling the court to Ogive
me a list of Huestions you want me to as7CO %* defendantBs suggesting that the
court Otell me what would ma7e you happyCO ,* defendantBs l(ing to the court
in response to direct *uestions posed by the court with regard to his recording
the proceedings (3#<E: tal7 about not providing anything in the way of
specifics as to what they Huestions were and what the responses were, and just
how such was tantamount to El(ing to the courtF and upon just what evidence
the court met the Ebeyond a reasonable doubtF standard applicable to the
purported Ecriminal contemptF C and 10* defendantBs failing and refusing to
&ro&erl( e'amine the witness, despite numerous admonitions by the court to
sto% re&eating *uestions, misstating answers, in$ecting irrelevant material,
arguing with the witness and mischaracteri:ing the testimony)
<he court finds that the defendantBs actions were intentional and
!2!!2
done in utter disregard and contempt for the court, and in the &resence of the
court, for purposes of disru&ting and delaying the proceedings and
dishonoring the rule of law and this court, and constitute the misdemeanor of
criminal contempt, a violation of N4 00 .5/5) ?ood cause appearing
therefore, the following sanctions are imposed:
+< +1 #8DE8ED, pursuant to N4 00 ./55, that the defendant be
incarcerated at the 6ashoe County 8egional Detention "acility for the term of
five (5* days, from the time he was ta7en into custody on this courtBs order on
"ebruary 2/, 2012, and that sentence shall not be reduced for any reason) $n
the alternative' the defendant may pay a fine of M500 to the 8eno =unicipal
Court)
Dated this 02 th day of "ebruary, 2012) s <he Aon) Dorothy 3ash
Aolmes, 8eno =unicipal Court Dudge)O*
6here "AE5, the &1212 #rder indicates E<he trial was continued on "ebruary 2/,
2012, when, after appro'imately an hour and % half, the defendant was held in criminal
contempt by the court for his antics and misconduct during the trial) Ais behavior is noted in
detail in the courtBs #rder entered on Fe%ruar( 0I ' 05/0+ (8#9 1/2&:1%421* it is patently
inaccurately, on its face, in several regards) ("AE5 8#9 1/2!:.4/ E<he document purported to
appeal this courtBs #rder holding him in direct criminal contem&t.F*
#ne "AE! is file stamped 0 ?02 ?/0, not 22/12 (com%are that to the /"911
11C.+C11 =rder for 'ummary Punishment by RMC Judge "o#ard ;though such =rder
lac&s a Proof of 'ervice in any of the settings in #hich is has a%%eared (.0,/5 attachment
to 1C8 11/ (etition, in the 8#9 from the 8=C in the 2DDC appeal in C811420.!, as E'hibit
2 to GingBs %2&12 Complaint, and as "AE11* entered versus rendered, and the #rder as
rendered is substantially different than the #rder as entered the following day, t#enty four
hours later8 at .7$7 %,m), which is so long after the fact (especially considering the 8=C
=arshal returned to the 6ashoe County jail the day after CoughlinBs arrest on 22/12, where
CoughlinBs smartphone, micro sd card, cell phone, etc) were boo7ed into his personal property
and would reHuire a written court order or warrant to allow the 8=C =arshals to retrieve it
therefrom on 22%12 and return to the 8=C with it) "or all her E+ thin7 you probablyF did this
or that, considering the 8=C confiscated the very Etwo recording devicesF for &/ days, and
returned them to Coughlin with all the data on them wiped, where;s the %eefJ 1eriously, where
is the proof that Coughlin EliedFJ Nou confiscate the alleged Erecording devicesF and find Eby
clear and convincing evidenceF that the attorney EliedF about 9nd, what, specifically was the
ElieFJ
(3#<E: it is completely untrue and disengenous for the (anel to ma7e this Efinding
of factF especially where, subseHuently, in its own Econclusions of lawF the (anel fails to
identify either civil contempt order as a Ecriminal convictionF under and 8(C %)!(b* analysis)
+n a criminal case a sentence is a judgment) +n re Clar7, 2! 6ash) 2D 105, 1.& ()2D 5//
(6ash) 1,!5*) (ie, an #rder for 1ummary (unishment li7e Dudge Aowards "AE11 or Dudge
AolmesB "AE!Bs #rder are not EjudgmentsF nor are they EconvictionsF)* "or the 123 to 7eep
!&!!2
a straight face while attempting to argue that this EconvictionF is sufficient to provide an
offensive collateral estoppel bar vis a vis accusations that Coughlin violated a smorgasbord of
8(CBs is so 2omer worthy)
<he alleged intimidation of juror in wash room by accusedRs friend was not a
contempt in presence of court, and court should not have followed a summary course against
friend, but should have entered a rule against him to show cause why he should not be punished
for contempt of court) Aadley) 6here the court is in session it is present in every part of the
place set apart for its own use and for the use of its officers, jurors and witnesses, and any
misbehavior in such place is misbehavior in the presence of the court, and constitutes a direct
EcontemptF of court) (eople v) Aadley,1/, +ll) 9pp) &D 152, 155, 5&! 3)E)2D &,5, &,/ (1,%,*)
CD1 Contempt s , , Direct contempt49cts in presence of court or near thereto)
OAadley,))) was near the door of the court room at the time the recess was ta4en and
went into the corridor and then into the wash room some distance awa( from the main court
room) (3#<E: the rest room Coughlin used during the one brea& during the 2C27C12 )rial
is not an RMC e@clusive restroom8 and it is located about seventy five yards from the
bench in court room 1 #here such trial #as held8 it is a shared facility used by all in the
Mills 1, >ane Justice Center in Reno8 #hich is a building that houses three different
courts8 and the KCD60s =fficer8 a self hel% center8 a C66K run )P= 6dvocate0s =ffice8
and %robation entities*) <he corridor and wash room were used by the jurors and the
witnesses in the case) +t is contended by the (eople in this case that the plaintiff in error had a
conversation with the juror in \!!. this wash room and attempted to intimidate one of the
jurors named =c3ichols by threatening him with physical violence if the jury did not find each
of the defendants not guilty) <he $uror told the sheriff what he claimed that Aadley had said to
him) <he sheriff and the -uror then informed the -udge of what had been done) <he judge
called in the attorneys interested in the trial, a juror was withdrawn and the case continued) <he
ne6t da( the court directed that a warrant be issued commanding the sheriff to arrest the said
Aadley to answer))) for and concerning the crime of criminal contem&t) Aadley obtained
counsel, came into court, and as&ed that the #rit be :uashed8 because there #as on file no
com%laint8 affidavit or %etition to su%%ort the #rit, and he also as7ed that the plaintiff in
error be discharged) <he court denied the motion, heard the evidence relative to the charges,
found the defendant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to imprisonment in the
county jail for &0 days)))<he count( court was in error in &roceeding in a summar( manner
without giving the defendant an o&&ortunit( to &urge himself of the charge of contem&t) <he
authorities hold that #here the court is in session it is %resent in every %art of and %lace set
a&art for its own use and for the use of its officers8 Gurors8 and #itnesses8 and any
misbehavior in such &lace is misbehavior in the %resence of the court8 and such
misbehavior has been uniformly held to constitute a direct contem%t of court) +t is not in
every case of direct contempt of court that the court can proceed against the alleged offender in
a summary manner as was done in this case) +n +n re 1avin, 1&1 @) 1) 2./, <he court in
discussing the proceeding for contempt of court, say: E+t is true that the mode of proceeding for
contempt is not the ? 11: same in every case of such misbehavior) 6here the contempt is
committed directly under the eye and within the view of the court, it may proceed Zupon its own
4nowledge of the facts, and punish the offender without further proof, and without issue or trial
!!!!2
in any formR whereas, in cases of misbehavior of which the judge cannot have such personal
7nowledge, and is informed thereof only by the confession of the party, or %( the testimon(
under oath of others, the proper practice is, by rule or other process, to re<uire the offender to
appear and show cause why he should not !e punishedF for such contempt)
+n the case of the (eople v) Cochrane, &0/ +ll) 12., +n which the 1avin case, supra,
and many others are Huoted, Dustice Cartwright e'presses the view, Ethe presence of the court
means in the ocular view of the court or where the court has direct 7nowledge of the
contempt)F <he court in this case had no 7nowledge of his own upon which to base a
judgment but had to rely solely upon the testimony of witnesses for the facts, and under the rule
as laid down in (eople v) Cochrane, supra, such contempt was not in the presence of the court)
(eople v) 8ongetti, &!! +ll) 10/) "ollowing the rule as laid down in the cases as stated above, it
is manifest that the correct procedure against the defendant Aadley would have been to enter a
rule against him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court) @nder the
circumstances in this case the court was not justified in following a summary course, thereby
depriving the defendant of the right to answer or purge himself of contempt if he could) O
(eople v) Aadley, 1/, +ll) 9pp) &D 152, 155, 5&! 3)E)2D &,5, &,/ (1,%,*)
#nly allowing Coughlin, ridiculously, fifteen minutes to testify in his own defense
on direct prevented Coughlin from being able to more fully e'pound on that allegations by the
8=C =arshals (made via the hearsay testimony of a Dudge 3ash Aolmes who either could not
remember much, and, even if she could, refused to testify about it, in an attem&t to o%struct
-ustice*) +t is reprehensible that Coughlin has never been provided any proof, or even specific
factual allegations, by Dudge Aolmes and or the 8=C respecdting her allegations in "AE! and
5)
9s to punishment for contempt, generally, see CD1 9tty and Client S &%) OB9n order
adjudging a person guilty of contempt in the immediate view and presence of the court must
recite facts showing acts which constitute a contempt) (Code Civ) (roc), J 1211)* <his is
jurisdictional ))))BO (;aughn v) =unicipal Court, 252 Cal)9pp)2D &!%, &5/ P.0 Cal)8ptr) 5/5Q)*
9n attorney is subject to being disciplined by the appropriate authorities) 3ev)]+n re 6atson,
/1 3ev) 22/, 2%. ()2D 25!, 5& 9)$)8)2D &01 (1,55*) Uuasi4criminal character of discipline
2ecause an attorneyBs suspension is a Huasi4criminal punishment in character, any disciplinary
rules used to impose this sanction on attorneys must be strictly construed, resolving ambiguities
in favor of the person charged) @)1)]@)1) ;) 2rown, /2 ")&D 25 (5th Cir) 1,,5*) 9s to
initiation of contempt proceedings for ethical violations, see S &%) (CD1 9tty Client*
The utiliJation of disci&linar( rules to sanction an attorne( who criticiJes the
-udiciar( ma( violate the First Amendment of the United 4tates .onstitution,P5Q and an
attorne( ma(' without su%-ecting himself or herself to disci&line' attac) the &ro&riet( of a
-udicial act) P.Q 9n attorney may attac7 the integrity or competence of a court or judge in a
proper manner and through appropriate channels, without being subject to discipline,P%Q
P"35Q #7la)]1tate e' rel) #7lahoma 2ar 9ssBn v) (orter, 1,%% #G 11!, /.. ()2D
,5% (#7la) 1,%%*) E'tent of "irst 9mendment right 9 lawyer has a "irst 9mendment right to
critici:e judges and courts after a case is concluded, so long as the criticisms are made in good
faith with no intent or design to willfully or maliciously misrepresent those persons and
institutions or to bring them into disreputeC there is no "irst 9mendment protection, however,
!5!!2
for such improperly motivated misrepresentations, the ma7ing of which will subject a lawyer to
disciplinary sanctions) <enn)]8amsey v) 2oard of (rofessional 8esponsibility of 1upreme
Court of <ennessee, //1 1)6)2D 11. (<enn) 1,%,*) #verbroad rule 9 local rule prohibiting
conduct that impugned the integrity of the court was overbroad, for purposes of determining
whether it violated free speech guarantees, since it purported to punish a great deal of
constitutional speech, including all true statements reflecting adversely on the reputation or
character of federal judges) @)1)]1tanding Committee on Discipline of @)1) Dist) Court for
Cent) Dist) #f California v) Nagman, 55 ")&D 1!&0 (,th Cir) 1,,5*) P"3.Q Gan)]1tate v)
3elson, 210 Gan) .&/, 50! ()2D 211 (1,/2*) ))) P"3%Q Gan)]1tate v) 3elson, 210 Gan) .&/,
50! ()2D 211 (1,/2*)
Contem%t of court) 6hile contempt of court may constitute ground for disbarment,
P10Q ordinarily disbarment will not be ordered for contempt of court unless the contempt is of
so gross a nature as to render the attorney unworthy of the office)P11Q) P"310Q 3)N)]?lenning
v) 3ew Nor7 1tate 2ar 9ssBn, 5& 9)D)2D ,/%, &%5 3)N)1)2D .!1 (&d DepBt 1,/.*) 1)C)]
=atter of Clar7son, 2/1 1)C) 5, 2!! 1)E)2D 512 (1,/%*) 9s to institution of contempt
proceedings against attorneys, generally, see S &%) +ndirect criminal contempt 9n attorneyBs
conduct in ma7ing profane statements to a judicial assistant over the telephone after receiving
an unfavorable response to a Huestion, for which the attorney was found guilty of indirect
criminal contempt, violated ethical rules prohibiting an attorney from committing an act that is
unlawful or contrary to honesty or justice and from violating rules of professional conduct) "la)
]<he "lorida 2ar v) 6asserman, ./5 1o) 2D 10& ("la) 1,,.*) P"311Q $a)]$ouisiana 1tate
2ar 9ssBn v) 1pencer, 25% $a) 110, 2!5 1o) 2D &/! (1,/1*) 3)D)]+n re +sserman, , 3)D) &1., %%
9)2D 1,, (1,52*)
9lso 8#9 at 15,, and 1/!,:.41%: E"urther, caplow &02 p)2D /55 made unnecessary
the seemingly fraudulent &%12 affidavit of service by wcso machen, by way of rmc marshal
harley (judge nash holmes &1212 comments in court seem to indicate Osummar( criminal
contem&tO finding %remised u%on C&ee&ing TomC st(le &eering through restroom stall walls
by 7. 7arshal 8arle( ;or some other 7arshal' li)e 4cott .o&&a8 involved in the
im&ermissi%le Csearch incident to arrestC %( 7. a a full da( after attorne(;s &ro se
criminal defenant;s smart &hone and micro sd card %oo)ed into !.". &ro&ert( on
0?0I?/0 ))) Violates state v diaL ))) 6ny#ays8 no Csummar( contem&tC finding based u%on
allegations of FdissessemblignF smart%hone in restroom stall8 ;-=)97 the (#ash roomM
reference in 'tate v, "adley< where no RMC Marshal Harley or Coppa or otherwise signed
an affidavit detailing facts supporting contempt, ;-=)97 -R' 22,+.+;2<< ?n re oliver
re:uires such contem%t be8 in every element8 in the Fimmediate vie# and %resence of the
courtF 'i@th 6mendment right violated8 nrs 1*B,+1+4+5+ Violated8 etc ,, 9tc, 6nd most of
this ng124+$.5 involves Judge -ash "olmes denying Coughlin right to a%%eal final
a%%ealable summary criminal contem%t finding from 2C27C12,8 ?n re oliver8 denied si@th
amendment right to counsel8 and Coo&8 27 us 517 at 5. )))@lus in rmc // tr 0K255 -udge
nash holmes violates nrs /23.5/5 B( refusing to transmit record on a&&eal and transcri&t in
response to Coughlin filign a notice of a&&eal on D?I?/0 (rmcBs garder, brother to Dudge $inda
?ardner, #hose 6%ril 2++B =rder got Coughlin fired from Kashoe >egal services ;+.+1
+.17 case in n, ', Ct,<8 4he &assed her order to her %rother' he &assed it to Judge Nash
!.!!2
8olmes8 she filed ng 124+$.5 on behalf of all rmc Gudges8 and a%%arently family court
Judge >, 2ardner ;Coughlin filed mandamus to that order in 5$*$$<)F
/) Dudge 3ash Aolmes ordered Coughlin into custody on "ebruary 2/, 2012
and to be incarcerated at the 6ashoe County 8egional Detention "acility for the term of five
(5* days) Alternativel( Coughlin could pay a fine of M500) <he CourtBs sentence was based on
its detailed findings regarding CoughlinBs conduct in his own defense)
O<he court finds that defendantBs contem%tuous conduct consisted of his
rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic,
deceitful, disru%tive, argumentative and childish behavior during trial,
all of which appeared to be done to ve' and annoy the court, the witness,
and the opposing party, and to disru%t the trial process) <he court finds
that the following occurred, and constitute contem%t: 1* defendantBs
mimeli7e, clownish antics of ma7ing faces at the courtC sagging down
into his seat and hanging his headC loo7ing behind himself and inside his
coat as if searching for a better way to as7 a HuestionC rolling his eyesC
and mimic7ing others wordsC 2* defendantBs incessant arguing with the
court, tal7ing over the court, and interrupting the courtC &* defendantBs
repeatedly restating matters after being told by the court to Omove onO or
Oas7 the ne't HuestionCO !* defendantBs repeatedly injecting allegations of
bribery, perjury, and police retaliation into the matter after the court
instructed him not to, and directed him to limit himself to issues
pertaining to the facts of the O2oulevard 1topCO 5* defendantBs repeatedly
trying to insertO 8ichard AillO into his Huestions and statements when
such person was not relevant to the proceeding and the defendant had
been ordered to stop discussing thatC .* defendantBs disregarding the rules
of evidence and court procedure by continually posing improper
Huestions after being directed by the court to properly phrase his
Huestions /* defendantBs continually accusing the court of denying him
the right or ability to as7 Huestions and telling the court to Ogive me a list
of Huestions you want me to as7CO %* defendantBs suggesting that the
court Otell me what would ma7e you happyCO ,* defendantBs lying to the
court in response to direct Huestions posed by the court with regard to his
recording the proceedingsC and 10* defendantBs failing and refusing to
properly e'amine the witness, despite numerous admonitions by the
court to stop repeating Huestions, misstating answers, injecting irrelevant
material, arguing with the witness and mischaracteri:ing the testimony)O
1ee Aearing E'hibit #8DE8 "+3D+3? <AE DE"E3D93< +3 contem%t #"
C#@8< 93D +=(#1+3? 193C<+#31) (3#<E: see, supra Huotation from (age 22 of ,5
from CoughlinBs filing in Doc7et .0%&% Document 201241%,.2*
%) <he trial of the matter was continued to =arch 12, 2012) Coughlin failed
to a&&ear and failed to contact the court to e'plain or e'cuse his absence) Aowever, after
!/!!2
serving the five4day contem%t of Court sanction and after being released from custody,
Coughlin fa'4filed a 22!4page document entitled Onotice of 9ppeal of 1ummary contem%t
#rderC =otion to 8eturn (ersonal (roperty Confiscated by 8eno =unicipal Courts and +ts
=arshallsC =otion for 3ew <rial and to 9lter or 9mend 1ummary contem%t #rder)O 1ee
Aearing E'hibit 5, #8DE8, ( 2, lines 14.)
(3#<E: Contempt of court in the form of filing a false pleading did not constitute a
contempt committed in the Oimmediate presence and view of the courtO as such term was used
in a statute authori:ing summary punishment for such a contempt) E' parte Collins, &2, =ich)
1,2, !5 3)6)2d &1 (1,50*)
9s to Efailing to appearF, one there does not appear to be anything in the record (not
that the 8=C would let Coughlin view it* to suggest Coughlin was noticed in writing with
respect to the date and time of such &1212 continuation of the traffic citation trial suspended
on 22/12 by Dudge 3ash Aolmes summarily incarcerating then practicing attorney Coughlin)
"urther, the enormit( of the distur%ance to .oughlin;s life and law &ractice occasion %( such
summar( incarceration dictated ta)ing a %it more seriousl( the avoidance of &re-udice to
client;s matters than the federal case a municipal court judge and her croo7ed, thuggish
marshal were trying to ma7e of a Esimple traffic citation trialF)
During that period of time, such client;s fires needing addressing were numerous)
"or instance, there was pressing concerns in the Geller case (3;2 1040510!*, the ?essin
adversary proceedings (3;2 114050// and 114050/%*, Eastman (2DDC C;11400%20*, the
@+"19 and custody case for Aarris (";054 and ";114*, custody case for 2ell (";1140!.2%*,
foreclosure defense for the Carpteniers (C;0%4 *, the matter of an CoughlinBs own 8eply 2rief
coming due while in the summary eviction from his former law office involving as opposing
counsel the very same 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), whom attempted to have Coughlin served (despite
Caplow and his being an e4filer* the 2%12 #rder to 1how Cause in the appeal of that summary
eviction (such #rder to 1how Cause hearing was resolved in CoughlinBs favor in Dudge
"lanaganBs &2/12 #rder, which Ging was provided*, by the same 6C1# Deputy =achen
whom burglari:ed CoughlinsB former home law office on 11111 with AillBs associate 2a7er
(and =achen again burglari:ed one of CoughlinBs rentals on .2%12 while purportedly
attempting to conduct a loc7out without the passing of 2! hours from the tenantBs receipt of any
such summary removal order in 8ev201240010!%)))at which point Deputy =achen also arrested
Coughlin in 8C820124./,%0, a case which the 8DC and 6CD9 let drag on for nearly a year in
a transparent attempt to leverage such (which they always intended to dismiss given the
enormity of the problems associated with the .1!12 5 Day 3otice allegedly posted (but not
mailed, much less with a @1(1 Certificate of =ailing* listing, pursuant to 381 !0)25&(&*(b*(&*
E1par7s Dustice CourtF as the court which Coughlin must file his <enantBs
9nswer9ffidavit)))where Coughlin timely submitted such <enantBs 9nswer for filing with the
1par7s Dustice Court and a reHuest to proceed in forma pauperis to which the 1par7s Dustice
Court cler7s committed misconduct in failing to file in or otherwise apprise Coughlin of any
deficiencies incident thereto, and then to set such matter for hearing, but rather, the 1DC simply
forwarded CoughlinBs .2.12 <enantBs 9nswer (which was a =otion to Dismiss for lac7 of
jurisdiction* to the 8eno Dustice Court in a fa' at 11:05 am on .2%12 (which the 8DC has
subseHuently removed from the file in the matter which is opened, 8ev201240010!% upon
!%!!2
3evada Court 1ervices submitting a landlordBs affidavit (which was deficient anyways, and
which indicated it had rented Coughlin a Edwelling unit or apartmentF only to then indicate
Coughlin had somehow breached the rental agreement that such affidavit referenced as
attached thereto, but which was not, and is still not attached thereto in the 8DC file in that
matter (also e'cised from the 8DC file in that matter is the .2.12 email to the 8DC and its then
Chief Civil Cler7 Garen 1tancil, $i: 1tuchell of the 6C1# Civil Division (=achenBs
supervisor*, a member of the 8eno (D, and the 8DCBs general email address)))which is odd
considering, clearly, such email was, at one point, part of such file, on the left hand side
thereof, under the doc7et)
"or instance, with ?essin, for whom Coughlin filed an #pposition to =otion for
1ummary Dudgment on &1,12 (just ! days after being burglari:ed by the 6C1# and ?ayle
Gern, EsH), on &1512 incident to the too early summary loc7out* there is now a decision
detailing such time period from the @nited 1tates 2an7ruptcy 9ppellate (anel of the 3inth
Circuit: 3;4114050/%) ,)uscourts)govdatastorebap 201&05 ?essin =emo 124
1&&0 )pdfO http:cdn)ca , )uscourts)govdatastorebap 201& 0& 05 ?essinX 20 X 20 =emoX 2012 4
1&&0 )pdf E#n "ebruary 21, 2012, <aitano filed her =1D based on the state court judgment, the
arbitratorRs findings of fraud and the doctrine of issue preclusion) On 7arch /3' 05/08
attorney Zach Coughlin8 filed a late o%%osition11 on debtorRs behalf) <he opposition, of
which we have ta7en judicial notice, covered a number of grounds) First' it addressed the role
of .oughlin, who apparently was listed as the attorney of record in the adversary, but who was
actually ghost writing debtorRs pleadings) (3#<E: this is rather interesting, given 8ichard ?)
Aill, EsH), purportedly emailed the 123 an unsigned EgrievanceF against Coughlin ma7ing
such baseless and negligent Eghost writingF accusations, which Coughlin so thoroughly
eviscerated to the 123 that such was not even an accusation in the 123Bs %2&12 Complaint
(and, really, the purported email, unsigned grievance by Aill, whom astoundingly is on the
33D2 (anel (which says just about all one ever need 7now about such (anel* was apparently
so completely defenestrated by Coughlin that the 123 was too embarrassed by it to even see7
to admit it into evidence, despite the failure to do so 7ind of undermining the attempt to
establish Eby clear and convincing evidenceF that Coughlin somehow violated 8(C %)1, so
much so, that the 123 and (anel were reduced to ma7ing some lame arguments that CoughlinBs
receiving a letter from Ging, which Ging purports to have sent on "ebruary 1!
th
, 2012 (and
which Eing;s com&laint falsel( asserts Eing or the 4BN ever emailed to .oughlin*, but which
Coughlin, due to issues stemming from ?ayle Gern, EsH)Bs chicanery, that of her Eassociat
Coughlin sought to withdraw) 3e't, the opposition contained Epoints and
authoritiesF under which numerous cases addressing breach of fiduciary duty under S 52&(a*(!*
were cited with little analysis or discussion) <hird, debtor reHuested the ban7ruptcy court
vacate the state court judgment based on his counselRs failure to E:ealously advocateF debtorRs
position during the arbitration hearing, contending this was e'cusable neglect under Civil 8ule
.0(b* (incorporated by 8ule ,02!*) "ourth, debtor asserted that the arbitrator had e'ceeded his
jurisdiction because he ruled on real property matters) "ifth and last, debtor reHuested the
judgment be vacated because of newly discovered evidence)12 (footnotes: 11 <he actual title of
the document was E=otion for E'tension of <ime to "ile #pposition to =otion for 1ummary
!,!!2
Dudgment for DischargeabilityC or, (lead in the 9lternative, #pposition to =otion for 1ummary
Dudgment and =otion to 6ithdraw as Counsel)F 6e ta7e judicial notice of debtorRs opposition
to <aitanoRs summary judgment and his supplement with attached e'hibits which were
doc7eted and imaged by the 2an7ruptcy Court in this case) 9twood v) Chase =anhattan =ortg)
Co) (+n re 9twood*, 2,& 2)8) 22/, 2&& n), (,th Cir) 29( 200&*) 12 <his evidence consisted of
numerous affidavits of individuals who wor7ed with Christina Ao, debtorRs e'4girlfriend and
the mother of his son) AoRs co4wor7ers declared that Ao had entered into a conspiracy with
<aitano and 8issone to defraud debtor and ruin him financially) +t does not appear that these
affidavits were filed in the arbitration proceeding nor is there any indication that debtor moved
to vacate the judgment in the state court with this newly discovered evidence)* #n =ay !,
2012, the ban7ruptcy court heard the =1D, but the transcript reflects that no substantive
arguments were made with respect to the motion) <he ban7ruptcy court stated on the record
that it would grant the =1D based on the preclusive effect of the state court judgment) <he
court reHuested <aitanoRs counsel to file certified copies of the state court judgment and record
and too7 the matter under submission) #n Dune %, 2012, the ban7ruptcy court entered an order
granting <aitanoRs =1D on the grounds that the state court arbitratorRs award established every
element under S 52&(a*(2* and thus the doctrine of issue preclusion prevented debtor from
relitigating those elements in the ban7ruptcy court) Debtor timely appealed))))+++) +11@E
6hether the ban7ruptcy court erred in deciding that the state court judgment was
nondischargeable under S 52&(a*(2* based on the doctrine of issue preclusion)F
,) Dudge 3ash Aolmes observed that the pleading filed by Coughlin failed
to address most of the topics listed in the caption) 8ather, she observed, the document
contained rambling references to CoughlinBs personal life, his fatherBs football career in collegeC
do:ens of pages of string citations ta7en from the internet and other unrelated references) Dudge
3ash Aolmes found the pleading to be disjointed and incoherent and a Opathetic demonstration
of what might once have been legal and academic prowess that appears to now be greatly
damaged)O 1ee Aearing E'hibit 5, #8DE8, (2, lines ,415C (2, lines 1.420)
10) Dudge 3ash Aolmes also found that Coughlin, after being released from
custody following the "ebruary 2/, 2012 contem%t of Court incarceration, filed other
nonsensical pleadings including a 21% page document:
O)))purported to be yet another motion in this case entitled O=otion to 8eturn
Cell (honesC =otion to 1et 9side 1ummary contem%t #rderC and notice of
9ppeal of 1ummary contem%t #rder)O 6ith scant discussion of, or relevance
to, the above captioned matter, said document mostly argues against Dudge
Aoward in a Department ! case and again contains more than 200 pages of
string legal citationsC lyrics to roc7s (sic* songsC =r) CoughlinBs personal
family historyC discussion of an eviction case and another contem%t caseC
disjointed legal citations and other nonsensical matters that have no apparent
relevance to his traffic citation case)
50!!2
11) 9fter observing that CoughlinBs conduct had been inappropriate, bi:arre,
dishonest, irrational and disru%tive, Dudge 3ash Aolmes concluded, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Coughlin had committed numerous acts of attorney misconduct, including, but
not limited to, violating 8ules of (rofessional conduct %)!(c*, %)!(d*, &)&(a*, &)1, &)2, &)!(c*,
1)& and 1)1) 1ee Aearing E'hibit 5, #8DE8, (,&, lines 2542.C (!, lines 542&)
12) Dudge 3ash Aolmes also concluded that Coughlin violated 3evada 1upreme
Court 8ule 22,, section 2(b*, as amended by 9DG< !!, on 9ugust 1, 2011 by surreptitiously
recording the traffic court proceedings without advance permission and lying to the court when
Huestioned regarding the matter by denying that he had done so) 1ee Aearing E'hibits,
#8DE8, (,!, lines 2!42%)
1&) Dudge 3ash Aolmes ordered, among other orders, that the traffic court matter be
continued and all proceedings relating to the traffic court matter be tolled pending referral of
the matter to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada) 1ee Aearing E'hibit 5, #8DE8, (,!, lines /4 1%,
1!) #n =arch 1!, 2012, Dudge 3ash Aolmes referred the matter of Coughlin to 1tate
2ar Counsel David Clar7 and suggested the matter had some urgency) 1ee Aearing E'hibit %,
$etter dated =arch 1!, 2012 from 8eno =unicipal Court Dudge Dorothy 3ash Aolmes to
#ffice of 1tate 2ar Counsel, 3evada 1tate 2ar)
15) Dudge Aolmes testified at the hearing of this disciplinary matter that one of the
purposes of her =arch 1!, 2012 #rder was to provide the panel to hear this matter with clear
and convincing evidence, based on her e'perience and bac7ground as an attorney, prosecutor
and judge that Coughlin had violated numerous provisions of the 3evada 8ules of (rofessional
conduct) 1ee <ranscript of (roceedings of 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1&/, $ 22 4(
1&%, $ ,)
1.) @)1) 2an7ruptcy Dudge 2ruce 2eesley was called to testify at the hearing
of this matter) During the time frame 2011 to 2012, Coughlin appeared before Dudge 2eesley
two or three times as an attorney representing clients in a ban7ruptcy matter) #n one occasion
Coughlin appeared wearing a <4shirt and a tie and no jac7et) 1ee <ranscript of (roceedings of
6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 10, $ 1041.) Coughlin had filed a pleading in the
ban7ruptcy matter, on behalf of his client) Dudge 2eesley testified that the pleading was
Olengthy, didnBt ma7e any sense, and just sort of rambled through a great deal of irrelevant
stuff)O 1ee <ranscript of (roceedings of 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 10, $ 2! 4( 11, $
1) #n other occasions, although Coughlin appeared polite and intelligent, his pleadings and
arguments didnBt ma7e any sense) 1ee <ranscript of (roceedings of 6ednesday, 3ovember
1!,2012, ( 11, $24/
1/) Dudge 2eesley became concerned, wrote a letter to the 1tate 2ar
e'plaining his e'perience with Coughlin and indicated that he did not believe Coughlin, in his
current state, was able to adeHuately represent his clients) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing
6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1&, $ 2! 4 ( 1!, $ /)
1%) +n Dudge 2eesleyBs opinion, Coughlin is not competent to practice law)
1ee <ranscript of (roceedings of 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, (15, $ 11 415)
1,) 1tate 2ar Counsel called attorney 8ichard Aill to testify at the hearing of
this matter: =r) Aill has been a member in good standing #ith the 'tate 1ar of -evada
for // years) 1ee <ranscript of (roceedings of 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( &., $ 22 (
51!!2
&/ $ !) =r) Aill was retained by Dr) =erliss to assist Dr) =erliss in a landlord tenant dispute
with his tenant Coughlin) 1ee <ranscript of (roceedings of 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, (
&/, $1! 420) 7r. 8ill re&resented "r. 7erliss in eno Justice .ourt and 6ashoe County
District Court and two appeals to the 3evada 1upreme Court in the matters involving Dr)
=erliss and Coughlin) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( &,, $ 1&
42!) =r) Aill has also reviewed filings in of a case in which Coughlin is involved with 6ashoe
$egal 1ervices) 1ee <ranscript of (roceedings 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( &,, $ 25 (
!0, $ &)
(OAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &.:22 to &/:!* U Could you state your name and spell
it for the record) 9 8ichard Aill) A4+4$4$) U 9nd could you e'plain to the panel how long
youBve been practicing law, and if you are in good standing with the 1tate 2ar of 3evadaJ 9 +
have been practicing for && years and am in good standing)O
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age &/:1! to &/:20* U 9nd how did you first come into
contact with =r) CoughlinJ 9 6ell, + was hired by a Dr) =atthew =erliss) =y office was to
remove a tenant from a home at 121 8iver 8oc7 in 8eno) Dr) =erliss had been going bac7 and
forth with =r) Coughlin for several months) =r) Coughlin had not paid any rent for, at that
point + believe it was 44O
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age &,:1& to &,:2!* U Could you describe to the panel in a
chronological manner some of the events that you have personal 7nowledge of that e'hibited
this behavior that formed your opinionJ =8) C#@?A$+3: #bjection) 8elevancy) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: #verruled) <AE 6+<3E11: +Bve read virtually everything that =r) Coughlin
has filed, not only in the Department / eviction case, and %efore that the eno Justice
.ourt;s eviction case) AeBs now got 44 had two appeals to the 3evada 1upreme Court in that
case, and +Bve read virtually everything that heBs done)O
OAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &,:25 to !0:&* +Bve also followed the filings that heBs
had in his dealings with 6ashoe $egal 1ervices) 9nd +Bve followed the filings that he had in the
supreme court discipline matters)O*
20) +n the eviction proceeding between Dr) =erliss and Coughlin, =r) AillBs
firm obtained an eviction order allowing Coughlin one wee7 to vacate the premises)
@ltimately, Coughlin failed to comply with the eviction order and was convicted of criminal
tres%ass) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( !1, $ 1% 4( !!, $ 12)
(E"96R?-2 4 Vol, ?8 ;Pages $1 7 17 to $$ 7 12* 2N =8) G+3?: U Did
you end up getting an eviction order removing =r) Coughlin from Dr) =erlissBs
homeJ 9 (8ichard ?) Aill, EsH)* 6e did) U 1ubseHuent to the eviction order, was
=r) Coughlin removed from the homeJ 9 +Bm sorry) <here was an order issued in
court that gave Mr, Coughlin a wee) to vacate) + believe it was 3ovember 1 that my
wife, my associate 44 and my associate, went to the home with the sheriff and
conducted a loc)out) <he front door loc7s were changed) <he bac7 door loc7s were
changed) =8) C#@?A$+3: #bjection) =8) ECAE;E88+9: E'cuse me) #bjection
whatJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Aearsay) =8) ECAE;E88+9: AearsayJ #verruled) <AE
6+<3E11: 9nd the whole thing was videotaped) <he ne't day + went to the home to
videotape the place to preserve what was there to prevent any arguments later,
because %( that &oint in time we )new what we were dealing with) + get there, and
52!!2
the front door is loc7ed, but almost all the windows are closed but unloc7ed, and the
bac7 door is unloc7ed) 9nd +, of course, go through, loc7 everything, ma7e sure the
place is secure, videotaped it) 9nd + went bac7 and read m( wife and m( associate
the riot act, and they both said no, the doors were loc7ed) #7ay) + go bac7 the ne't
day, same thing) 2ac7 doorBs unloc7ed, windows are unloc7ed) This continues for
the ne6t two wee)s) =r) Coughlin is sending out e4mails to us %ut will not'
a&&arentl(' read the e1mails we;re sending to him saying we have to get your stuff
out of here) 3o response) Two wee)s after the eviction on a 4unda( "r. 7erliss
comes to town and says, + want to see the house) + meet him about 10:&0, 11:00
oBcloc7 on a 1unday morning at the house) 6e go in) 2ac7 door is open) There;s food
wra&&ers on the counter that;ve %een there that weren;t there the last time $ was in)
6indows are open again, and itBs a very e'acerbating situation) 6nd he says8 ? #ant
to chec& the basement, ? didn0t &no# there #as a basement in the house, )here0s
things %iled in the stair#ell to get do#n into the basement8 tool &its8 and heavy
stuff, Ke get it out of the #ay, Ke get do#n there, 6nd ? can see #hen he %ushes
on the door8 and he turns to me' and he sa(s' C$t;s %arricaded'F from the inside, ?t
#asn0t loc&ed8 it #as barricaded, !e )now what;s going on, 4o we call the &olice,
)he %olice come over, The( tr( to get Lach out of the %asement8 whoever was in
there at that &oint, )he police !ang on the door >Come on out @ach+ Aolice+ Bou
have to go,F -o res%onse, The( turned to us and sa(' we;re going to leave,
;-=)97 does that not sort of vitiate any subse:uent finding of %robable cause to
arrest #here the %olice clearly do not feel Gustified in %ursuing such alleged
illegal activityA< Kait a minute, ?0m the o#ner, Iou have the authority to brea&
the door do#n, FKe don0t do that,F 'o Dr, Merliss goes do#n to the bottom of
the stairs, "r. 7erliss )ic)s the door o&en' and the &olice officer stic)s his head
around the corner and &ulls his gun out' and here;s 7r. .oughlin down there, =r)
Coughlin voluntaril( came u&stairs with his dog and was &laced under arrest) 9fter
he left, we went downstairs) Mr, Coughlin had a d#elling set u%, "e had #ater,
"e had food, "e had a hot %late8 a micro#ave8 had his com%uter set u% do#n
there, "e had the dog, )here #as dog food8 dog %oo%, "e had a bed and his
com%uter system set u% do#n there, 8e was arrested and was su%se*uentl(
convicted of criminal tres&assF*
21) #n behalf of his client Dr) =erliss, Mr, "ill sought and o%tained an
order in favor of "r. 7erliss and against .oughlin awarding "r. 7erliss attorne(;s fees in
the amount of D$28+5,5+) 6ashoe District Court Dudge (atric7 "lanagan entered the order on
Dune 25, 2012) (3#<E: this use of the term EsanctionF is noticeably absent from this EfindingF
and the following e'cerpt from the transcript cited to, further, despite such e'cerpt being only
two lines long, it does manage to reveal that Dudge "lanaganBs #rder granted E=erlissBs motion
for attorneyBs feesF)))which, when one considers that =erlissBs !1,12 filing was titled E* 1ee
<ranscript of (roceedings of 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( !/, $ &4/)
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age !/:& to !/:/* EU +n this order did Dudge
"lanagan accept that by granting the full amount of fees reHuestedJ +f you read the
last sentence of (age &) 9 (8ichard ?) Aill, EsH)* Nes) O9ccordingly, =erlissBs
5&!!2
motion for attorne(;s fees is granted in the sum of M!2,0.5)50)F*
(3#<E: !ell' so whatJ 1ince when do 381 .,)050 Eprevailing
partyF attorney fee awards warrant a summary disbarment proceedingJ Aave
some respect for yourself, 123, 33D2) 9s far as this Efinding is concerned,
and the e'cerpt of the transcript it cites to, such Eaward of attorneyBs fees may
well have been nothing more than an award of the Eprevailing partyF attorneyBs
fees of appeal from a justice court civil action pursuant to -R' B ,+5+, where a
EjudgmentF is involved, that AillBs associate, Casey D) 2a7er, EsH), cited to as
providing a basis for such a fee award (never mind that 381 !0)!00 ma7es
389( controlling, meaning only 389( &% would provide such a basis for any
fee award, and 2reliant limits the adjucatory boundaries, right (though he failed
to cite to any such authority for such proposition, that was the gist of 2a7erBs
argument that CoughlinBs failing to specifically cite to 381 !0)&%5 in any filing
(2a7erBs 1&12 #pposition to CoughlinBs 12&011 381 !0)&%5 citing =otion to
1tay incorrectly asserts that Coughlin first cited to 381 !0)&%5 in CoughlinBs
12511 filing in the justice court when, actually, CoughlinBs 112&11 filings
e'pressly cites to 381 !0)&%. and CoughlinBs 101511 written correspondence
with 2a7er e'cerpts the following from the E$andlord <enant Aandboo7F
distributed by the 9#C: E<he drawbac7s to summary eviction are: 1) Nou
cannot get a money judgment as part of your actionC &) <he tenant may be able
to file an appeal, and remain in the unit until the appeal is heard by posting a
bond with the court that may be cheaper than that reHuired in the formal eviction
process))))F)
"urther, it is worth noting that AillBs own associate, 2a7erBs !1,12
=otion for 9ttorneyBs "ees lies where it reads: E2) Coughlin filed his first notice
of appeal in the eviction case on 3ovember &, 2011, two days after he was
&ro&erl( and lawfull( loc)ed out of the &ro&ert() 8#9, ;ol) +++, pp) 22,42&&F
given the fact that 2a7er, Aill, and the landlord =erliss actually burglari:ed
CoughlinBs former home law office, so, uh, its rather a stretch to taunt 389( &%
by asserting that Coughlin Ewas properly and lawfully loc7ed out of the
propertyF in addition to the fact that 2a7erBs own 102012 fa' to 8DC Dudge
1ferra::a admits there is an issue as to whether CoughlinBs 101/11 filing of a
3otice of 9ppeal divested the 8DC of jurisdiction ot even hold the 102511
Ocontinuation of the 101&11 summary eviction proceedingO, much less for
Dudge Clifton to deny CoughlinBs 101/11 Emergency =otion to 1tay, fil *
'ee "earing 9@hibit 2 8 P . 8 > 1+ 4 11, ;(6ccordingly8 Merliss0s 7otion for
Attorne(;s Fees is 2R6-)9D in the sum of D$28+5,5+,M<
(3#<E: Dudge "lanaganBs .2512 #rder in 0&.2% ("AE2* reads:
E=RD9R C;1140&.2% D/ Currently before this Court is 8espondent =9<<
=E8$+11Bs (O=erlissO* Motion for %ttorney's )ees filed on 9pril 1,, 2012)
5!!!2
$n the a%sence of an( o&&osition from 9ppellant -9CA98N 298GE8
C#@?A$+3 (OCoughlinO*, =erliss submitted this matter for decision on
=ay ,, 2012) Aowever, on Dune ,, 2012, Coughlin filed a Supplement to
Cpposition to Motion for %ttorney's )ees+ +n response, =erliss filed a Reply
to Supplement to Cpposition to Motion for %ttorney's )ees on Dune 1!, 2012,
and submitted the matter4again4that same day) =erliss reHuests this Court to
award attorneyBs fees in the amount of M!2,0.5)50 against Coughlin in the
underlying summary eviction matter pursuant to 381 .,)050 and 381 /)0%5
=erliss and his counsel aver these fees are reasonable, particularly given
CoughlinB OdeliberatePQ ))) pattern of abusive, ve'atious, and most
importantly, e@%ensive behavior in both this appeal and in the case below Pin
8eno Dustice CourtQ)O (=ot) at p) 2* (#riginal emphasis) =erliss avers
CoughlinBs litigation strategy Owas simply to 7eep the fight goingO and
OreHuire substantial additional wor7 by =erlissB counsel, far beyond anything
in a BnormalB eviction)B (=ot) at p) &)* =erliss asserts this additional wor7 was
necessary because he Ocould not ris7 the court accepting some random
citation in CoughlinBs papers and entering an adverse ruling because PheQ had
not opposed it)O (=ot) at p) 5)* "urther, =erlissBs counsel, 8ichard ?) Aill,
alleges these fees Odo not include substantial amount of editing and other
activities performed by P=r) AillQ in this case)O (=ot) a p) .C =ot) E') !)*
=erliss contends OPiQt is hard to imagine a more appropriate case than this in
which to award the ma'imum amount justified by the substantial evidence
before the court)B (=ot) at p) .)* =erliss goes even further and states:
9s proven above and below, the frivolity and ve'atiousness of
CoughlinBs maintenance and e'tension of this matter has been so
beyond reason, and so outrageous, and the ne'us of his behavior to
the fees incurred by =erliss so direct and indisputable, that nothing
less than a full award of those fees should even be considered by the
court) <o not impose the full measure of the harm Coughlin has
caused would reward and encourage his ve'atiousness in this and
other cases) <here needs to be a day of rec7oning for CoughlinBs
antics) (=ot) at p) %)*
3evada law provides for Oa reasonable attorney fee to be fi'ed and
allowed by the district court for all services rendered in behalf of the prevailing
partyO on appeal from justice court) 3E;) 8E;) 1<9<) S .,)050) +n addition,
381 /)0%5 reHuires the district court to order an attorney personally to pay
reasonable attorneyBs fees incurred as a result of the filing, maintaining or
defending of civil action where Osuch action or defense is not well4grounded in
fact or is not warranted by e'isting law ))))O 3E;) 8E;) 1<9<) S /)0%5(1*(a*)
<he same applies to attorney who has OPu Qnreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended
a civil action) O 3E;) 8E;) 1<9<) S /)0%5(1*(b*)
+f grounds e'ist to award attorneyBs fees, 3evada courts follow the
55!!2
lodestar analysis) 1huette v) 2ea:er Aomes Aoldings Corp), 121 3ev) %&/, %.!,
12! ()&d 5&0, 5!, (2005* (O<he lodestar approach involves multiplying the
number of hours reasonably spent on the case by reasonable hourly rate)O*
(Uuotations and citations omitted)* +n determining the reasonablenes of the fee
award, the district court should consider the following four factors: (1* the
advocatesB HualitiesC (2* the character of the wor7C (&* the wor7 performedC and
(!* the result obtained) 1ee, 2run:ell v) ?olden ?ate 3atBl 2an7, %5 3ev) &!5,
&!,, !55 ()2d &1, && (1,.,* (citation omitted*C 2arney v) =t) 8ose Aeating K
9ir Conditioning, 12! 3ev) %21, %2,, 1,2 ()&d /&0, /& (200%* (per curiam*
(applying the 2run:ell factors*)
6fter revie#ing Merliss0s moving %a%ers4including the detailed and
thorough summary of fees and his counselsB accompanying *eclarations.and
after considering all of the &arties; arguments, this Court concludes =erlissBs
attorneyBs fees reHuest is authori:ed by 3evada law) <his Court also has
considered the factors set forth in 2run:ell, supra+ 9fter analy:ing those factors,
and given the uni*ue features of this case, this Court concludes =erlissBs fee
reHuest is reasonable)
9ccordingly, =erlissBs Motion for %ttorney's )ees is ?893<ED in
the sum of M!2,0.5)50) +< +1 1# #8DE8ED) D9<ED this 25th day of Dune,
2012) s (atric7 "lanagan District DudgeF*
The motion see)ing attorne(;s fees was based on CoughlinBs conduct in the defense
of the eviction matter, which conduct was characteriJed ;-=)97 this is an obvious attempt
to mislead by Echeverria, as he fails to indicate who it was who made so Ocharacteri:edO
CoughlinBs conduct (it was AillBs associate 2ar7erBs !1,12 post4judgment sanctions motions
that failed to comply with the 21 day safe harbor provisions in 38C( 11 incorporated into 381
/)0%5, which does not even apply anyways, however, given that 381 !0)!00 ma7es 389( &%
controlling)))but regardless, Dudge "lanagan made no such OfindingO or OconclusionO that
CoughlinBs OconductO was Ofrivolous and ve'atiousO, thus the use of the word OpresumablyO,
though as Echeverria leaves such reference to Ocharacteri:edO unattributed, one may be
confused and thin7 this OfindingO is indicating that it was unclear whether Dudge "lanagan
merely so Ocharacteri:edO CoughlinBs conduct as such in dicta, or whether he specificially
identified such characteri:ation as a OfindingO)))alas, Dudge "lanagan did neither, but
EcheverriaBs attempt to confuse the reader is obvious* as frivolous and ve'atious and
&resuma%l( so found %( Judge Flanagan) 'ee "earing 9@hibit P 28 > *41.J P .8 > $411)
(O(=ot) at p) .)* 7erliss goes even further and states: 9s proven
a%ove and %elow, the frivolity and ve@atiousness of CoughlinBs maintenance
and e6tension of this matter has been so beyond reason, and so outrageous, and
the ne6us of his %ehavior to the fees incurred by =erliss so direct and
indis&uta%le, that nothing less than a full award of those fees should even be
considered by the court) <o not impose the full measure of the harm Coughlin
has caused would reward and encourage his ve6atiousness in this and other
5.!!2
cases) <here needs to be a day of rec7oning for CoughlinBs antics) (=ot) at p)
%)*O ("AE2, (2, $ %41&**
CoughlinBs 101%12 emailed grievance to the 123 (which was also sent via @1(1
mail, 123, so donBt try your whole Oa grievance of over twenty pages in length may not be
submitted via our online portal or emailO that you just 7now they will throw up against the wall
at some point to e'plain why the 123 has not responded or countenanced in any way
CoughlinsB various grievances (li7e those of &1.12 against (eter 1) Christiansen and Gevin
Gelly, of !1.12 against ?ayle Gern, EsH), of multiple dates against 6C(D Dim $eslie, and of
multiple dates against 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), and his associate Casey D) 2a7er, EsH*, save a
letter from Ging indicating he would not pursue grievances against either 6C(D 2iray Dogan,
EsH)(despite a per se violation of 8(C 1)1, 1)1, and 1)& in violating 381 1/%)&,/* or 8=C
court appointed counsel Geith $oomis, EsH)
O1ubject: bar grievance against 8ichard Aill, Casey 2a7er, and Geith $oomis,
8oberto (uentes, $ew <aitel
"rom: -ach Coughlin (:achcoughlinLhotmail)com*
1ent: <hu 101%12 %:02 9=
<o: laurapLnvbar)orgC patric7Lnvbar)orgC rosecLnvbar)orgC glennmLnvbar)orgC
davidcLnvbar)orgC tsusichLnvdetr)orgC complaintLnvbar)orgC complaintsLnvbar)orgC
shornsbyLnvdetr)org
"rom: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com
shornsbyLnvdetr)org
1ubject: $+<+?9<+#3 A#$D 3#<+CE rev20114001/0% cv1140&.2%, .0&&1 .1&%&, 123 v)
Coughlin C91E 3@=2E8 3?124020!, 3?40!&5, 3? 0!&!
Date: 6ed, 1/ #ct 2012 1.:5,:5/ 40/00
Dear #ffice of 2ar Counsel, +nvestigator (eters, Chairman 1usich, et al,
(lease find important attachments supporting the assertions herein here:
https:s7ydrive)live)comredirJresidV !&0%!.&% " &2 " 5 " 2% ^ &5%/
(lease donBt try to old Omy +< guy said + couldnBt open it, because of viruses and
stuffO) <hat is no more plausible an e'cuse for reviewing materials material to your
investigation than would be suggesting your fear of Oanthra'O potentially being mailed to you
prevents you from opening your paper mail)))Nou have my personal guarantee that there is no
virus or other harmful items in any emails + send you or any paper mail, either, for that matter)
+ submit these materials respectfully and as7 you to consider how being wrongfully
incarcerated ten times in one year following a divorce of sorts would affect our tone, behavior,
or personality)
>oomis refused to advocate at all on my behalf8 refused to sub%oena material
%erci%ient #itness Merliss8 and refused to ma&e argument directed to issue ? %rovided
#ealth of su%%ort on8 ie8 the invalidity of the eviction order where the loc7out occurred
outside of the Owithin 2! hours of receiptO window in the statue, and where technical service
reHuirements were not met, vis a vis 381 !0)!00, 38C( .(e*, and 38C( 5(b*(2*, and where
5/!!2
$oomis acted on matter during pendency of Competency Evluation in cr1240&/.)
9lso, will you please have the 3?4 grievance or case numbers for all of the
grievances and complaints + have filed this year provided to me in writing, including the new
grievances found herein against 8ichard ?) Aill, Casey 2a7er, and Christopher Aa:lett4
1tevensJ
3ote: please forward this written correspondence on to 2ar Counsel Ging and
+nvestigatorCler7 of Court (eters in light of their apparent and sudden, somewhat technical
OissuesO with emails from Coughlin, which in no way is interpreted as providing indications
that they now see7 to sully the 123Bs image %( attem&ting to add .oughlin to their %loc)ed
sender list or otherwise prevent any further duty accruing on their part to actually investigate
CoughlinBs claims, in some manner that at least a colorable argument can be made that the 123
treats CoughlinBs and others allegation with anywhere near the urgency it treats those of Dudge
3ash Aolmes or 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH) (in contrast to the whole Oattac7 dog for the rich and
powerfulO image, some might say, the 123 has built up))))
+t is ironic, that Aill and 2a7erBs own writing in their 3ovember 21st, 2011
#pposition to CoughlinBs 3ovember 1.th, 2011 =otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty lien may
now be used against them, in light of the staleness, voidness, and invalidity of the #ctober
25th, 2011 and #ctober 2/th, 2011 Eviction Decision and #rder and "indings of "act,
Conclusions of $aw and #rder for 1ummary Eviction in 8DC 8ev20114001/0%) 1ee 6illiams
v 3agel, .!& 3)E) 2d %1. and 6olf4$illie, 50! ") 1upp 1) 2a7er wrote on AillBs behalf:
OAere, Coughlin filed his first motion pursuant to 381 11%94!.0 on 3ovember
1.,2011) <hat motion was timely) Aowever, when the court attempted to set the hearing,
Coughlin refused to cooperate or communicate with the court to get the hearing on calendar,
despite repeated reHuests from =erlissB counsel that he do so) 9s a sole and direct result of =r)
CoughlinBs refusal to cooperate with the court to set his own hearing, that hearing never
happened) <he 10 days in which to hold the hearing under 381 !0)25&(%* have now e'pired)
=r) CoughlinBs motion is stale, and the relief he see7s is now time4barred) 2ecause he
abandoned that motion, it was, effectively, denied)O
<o 2a7erBs 3ovember 21st, 2011 #pposition (how clever, 2a7er writes it so he can ma7e
rec7less allegations that arenBt true in it that Aill would not be so free to ma7e, given he was
there during the 3ovember 12th, 2011 arrest*, is attached the signed, sworn, 3ovember 21st,
2011 Declaration of 8ichard Aill, which reveals at the least an intent to mislead the tribunal by
Aill, and also reveals Aill and =erliss contributed to a false arrest to a material e'tent) <hat
Declaration reads:
O!) #n #ctober 2/, 2011, this court signed a summary eviction order, and on
3ovember 1, 2011, the 6ashoe County 1heriffs Department served that order) <he notice was
posted on the door of the home by the 6ashoe County 1heriffs Department in the manner
customary in 6ashoe County for evictions) <he loc7s on the front door and bac7 door were
changed, and we retained all 7eys to the home)
5) 9fter that date, + began to notice that it loo7ed li7e somebody had been getting
into the home) #n appro'imately 3ovember !,2011, + became concerned about the
home and its contents) + entered it and was able to confirm that OsomebodyO had been getting
in) + thought + had secured the means of entry being used by whoever it was that
5%!!2
was getting in) Aowever, on later visits to the home, it was clear that the home was still
being surreptitiously accessed)
.) #n 3ovember 1&, 2011, Dr) =erliss came to 8eno because he wanted to
inspect the home) @pon entry, it was clear that somebody had again accessed the home)
/) 6e tried to enter the basement and found the door was barricaded, not loc7ed,
from the inside) De were concerned that whoever had !een accessing the home was inside so
we called the police)
%) 6hen the police arrived, they agreed with us that it was very li7ely that somebody
was barricaded in the basement) <he police tried to coa= the person to come out, but without
success)
,) 6hen the police declined to brea7 down the door, Dr) =erliss did so) <he police
loo7ed inside and discovered the defendant, -achary Coughlin, and his dog)
10) Coughlin came out peacefully, went upstairs and was placed under arrest by the
police for trespassing)
11) 9fter Coughlin was ta7en to jail, Dr) =erliss and 5 tried to videotape the
contents of the !asement where Coughlin had !een hiding+ 5t was too dar4 to effectively
videotape, but we were able to ascertain that Coughlin and his dog have been living in th
basement of the home for :uite some time, li)el( even %efore the loc)out) + observed that
Coughlin had a bed set up) Ae had several computer monitors) Ae had a store of food
and water) Ae had electric space heaters)
12) 1ince the eviction order was served, m( associate' 7r. Ba)er' and $ had sent
numerous emails to Coughlin, in which we both repeatedly made it clear to him that he was not
to be at the borne without our prior permission) 3o such permission was given)
=r) Coughlin had no reason to &ossi%l( thin) he was &ermitted on the &ro&ert() 6e had
tried to coa6 him to cooperate on getting his possessions out, without success, or even a
response)
1&) 9s a result of =r) CoughlinBs brea74ins, Dr) =erliss has incurred a bill of M1,0.0
with a licensed contractor to secure the premises) <hat does not include the cost of the door that
was bro7en in order to get Coughlin out) <hat does not include the numerous hours of me and
my staff to deal witb =r) CoughlinBs repeated brea74ins at the home)
1!) + am no e'pert, but + believe =r) Coughlin is what is called a Ohoarder)O Ae has
many car seats throughout the house) Ae has many dead televisions) Ae has a bo' of car
window servo motors) <he attic, which can only be accessed through a very narrow
opening, is full of items, including dead electronic devices)
15) !e have found drugs at the home) 6e found a bag of what loo)s li)e marijuana
on the 7itchen counter) $ found a crac) &i&e) <he contractor found what he said was a large
*uantit( of &ills)
1.) =r) Coughlin has been harassing and stal7ing me, and possibly, my staff)
#n 3oyember 15, 2011, he burst into my office and created a scene) <hen, he was parading up
and down the sidewal7 across the street with a video camera screaming obscenities at
me and my staff)O
3ow, if one reads that Declaration by Aill, then watches the videos Aill too7 of the
moments before, during, and after CoughlinBs arrest for criminal trespass on 3ovember 1&th,
5,!!2
2011)))well, one must conclude Aill and =erliss lied, and bro7e the law, resulting in profound
reputational damage to Coughlin and vast damage to his family and career) <hey should do
time for this, period) 6here, in that Declaration, so soon after the arrest it is almost an Oe'cited
utteranceO is 1usich or Gings allegation of Obrea7ing and enteringO and the Oloc7s being
bro7enOJ 6hy wouldnBt Aill just say that in the Declaration if it was trueJ 6here is the video
of the basement that Aill mentions attempting to ta7e) <here wasnBt one provided in the
materials Aill gave to the city attorney, which were discovered to Coughlin) 6hy doesnBt Aill
correct his client when he lies, in front of the police, just before the handcuffing moment, in
response to CoughlinBs Huery as to who e'actly, in anyone, had told Coughlin to leave, or
issued a OwarningO) <hat basement was fi'ed up to be, basically, a studio apartment addition to
the main floor for over a year before the eviction, and Aill admits this appears to be the case in
another filing) Aill misleads the court above where he fails to mention the numerous times
Coughlin indicated he had added A+ll to his Obloc7ed senders listO and or indicated he did not
consent to any form of electronic service or notice of anything, and where 2a7er was on
vacation in early 3ovember) <he videoBs Aill too7 title -achBs arrest 000/4001!, found at the
above lin7, show particularly well the fraud and criminal conduct by =erliss and A+ll including
lying to effectuate a false arrest and criminal trespass and invasion of privacy)
6hat is actually stale' invalid' void' null' e6&ired' or otherwise ineffective is the #ctober
25th and 2/th 1ummary Eviction #rders by Dudge 1ferra::a in light of the 6C1#Bs admission
that on 3ovember 1st, 2011 (allegedly at !:&0 pm*, Deputy =achen bro7e into CoughlinBs
former home law office with Aill or 2a7er in tow (and probably one of those lawyers legal
assistantvideographers whom drive a new =ercedes 1$4.00 convertible coup))))the 7ind with a
;412 engine)))thatBs right, a ;412, M1&0,000 new, three times the engine found in CoughlinBs
four banger 1,,. Aonda 9ccord $> (at least its not a D>, rightJ* with 110,000 miles on it*:
9ll the case cited below are relevant, and most are terrible, for Aill, 2a7er and
=erliss, in addition to ma7ing the criminal trespass conviction e'tremely suspect:
+orio, !10 3N1 2d 1,5
8ussell v Galian, !1! 9)2d !.2
2urhams, %, ()&d .2,
8oswic7, 2&1 28 %!1
Aammond, 515 1E 2d 1%2
9lbert, !,0 3N1 2d ,51
2.!05 and 0&.2% trespass case:
Enused8 untimely eviction #arrant needs to be reissued: ?reen, &!! 1E 2d 50/,
6oods 1, 3N1 2d .%&, 8egan !25 3N1 2d /25, +orio, !10 3N1 2d 1,5, 8ussell v Galian, !1!
9)2d !.2)
9@%ired #arrant for eviction no good: $eese v Aorne, !/ ()2d &1., 2urhams, %,
()&d .2,, 8oswic7, 2&1 28 %!1, Aammond, 515 1E 2d 1%2, 9lbert, !,0 3N1 2d ,51, #B2rien
v) @)1), !!! 9)2d ,!., 1tate v) =Ernar, /%. 9)2d 1!1 (01*, Canavan v) 1tate &% 1o) &d %%5,
Dordan ;) 1tate, %02 1o) 2d 11%0 (01*, 1tate v) 9sh, 12 16 &d %00 (<3 B,,*) Dordan v) 1tate
110 ()&d at !/, 6illiams v) 3agel .!& 3E 2d %1., Goenig, /!2 ()2d .!,,3elson, ,0, 3E 2
.!2, claim of right #Bbanion 51, 1E 2d %1,, 2ean !.5 ()2d 1!!1)))
Can0t Goin in same %roceeding a disbarment and contem%t %roceeding:
.0!!2
Dic7erson v) 1tate 1/, 16 &2!)
Dudge 3ash Aolmes continues to refuse to allow Couglin to appeal the Osummary
criminal contemptO #rder, even though, given the incarceration was served, it is a finally
appealable order, see ?ilman 2/5 ;) Comm !/!, .5/ 1E 2d !/!)
1ifurcate disci%linary matters: +n re (orep (3ev) 1,!1* 111 ()2d 5&&, +n re
Gaemmer, 1/% 16 2d !/!, <errell v) =iss) 2ar .&5 1o 2d 1&//, =att of 2riggs 502 3E 2d
%/,, +n 8e Aines !%2 9) 2 &/%, triem ,2, ()2d .&!, 1mith %5 () 52!, +n re "insh 2/ 9) &d !01,
+n re Character, ,50 3E 2 1//, <oledo v) Coo7 %% 3E 2d ,/&(B0/*, Cohn, 151 16 &d !// (B0!*,
+n re Crandell, /5! 36 2 501, +n re Cobb, %&% 3E 2d 11,/, +n 8E ?insberg .,0 36 2d 5&,,
3orth Carolina 2ar v) 8ogers, 5,. 1E 2d &&/) 1nyder /,2 9) 2d 515
JoinderC%reGudice to Coughlin: 25, ()2d /, +n 8e 8ichardson .,2 9) 2d !2/
2$+5 and +.2* tres%ass case:
Enused8 untimely eviction #arrant needs to be reissued: ?reen, &!! 1E 2d 50/,
9)2d !.2:
e@%ired #arrant for eviction no good: $eese v Aorne, !/ ()2d &1., 2urhams, %,
()&d .2,, 8oswic7, 2&1 28 %!1, Aammond, 515 1E 2d 1%2, 9lbert, !,0 3N1 2d ,51, #B2rien
v) @)1), !!! 9)2d ,!., 1tate v) =Ernar, /%. 9)2d 1!1 (01*, Canavan v) 1tate &% 1o) &d %%5,
Dordan ;) 1tate, %02 1o) 2d 11%0 (01*, 1tate v) 9sh, 12 16 &d %00 (<3 B,,*) Dordan v) 1tate
110 ()&d at !/, 6illiams v) 3agel .!& 3E 2d %1., Goenig, /!2 ()2d .!,,3elson, ,0, 3E 2
.!2, claim of right #Bbanion 51, 1E 2d %1,, 2ean !.5 ()2d 1!!1
(lease indicate in writing what you have done to investigate 8ichard ?) AillBs
allegations, as set forth in his Danuary 1!th, 2012 grievance against me, in writing, including,
but not limited to AillBs allegations vis a vis the criminal trespass arrest of me in on 3ovember
1&th, 2011, leading to a custodial arrest, and three traffic citations by 8(D 1argent <arter
following my release on 3ovember 15th, 2011 when + ventured to AillBs office to retrieve my
state issued driverBs license, wallet (credits card, money*, and my clientBs files and my own files
and hard drives and other materials) <his is a formal, written grievance against 8ichard Aill
and Casey 2a7er, in compliance with my 8(C %)& obligations respecting their failure to turn
over my hard drives, driverBs license, clientBs files and my own files, their impermissibly
influencing the 8DC to fail to give me a hearing on my 3ovember 1.th, 2011 filing of a =otion
to Contest (ersonal (roperty lien within the 10 days reHuired by 381 !0)25&(/*4(%* (hearing
only too7 place after 8ichardBs si' wee7 vacation, on December 20th, 2011, in accord with
8ichardBs written indication to me that he would be able to get the 8DC to wait that long on his
account))), an impermissible suggestion by 8ichard that he could improperly influence a
tribunal, as was 8ichard threats that he would have me given the Dordan v) 1tate Ove'atious
litigantO treatment if + 7ept up my opposition to his nefarious aims)
O1ubject: 8E: 6C1# Deputy =achemBs Opersonally servedO 9ffidavit of 1112011
Date: <ue, / "eb 2012 11:!0:&, 40%00
"rom: $1tuchellLwashoecounty)us
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com
.1!!2
CC: m7andarasLda)washoecounty)us
=r) Coughlin,
#ur records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served by Deputy
=achen by posting a copy of the #rder to the residence) <he residence was unoccupied at the
time)
$i: 1tuchell, 1upervisor, 6C1# Civil 1ectionO (3#<E: this is the email from 6C1# Civil
Division 1upervisor $i: 1tuchell that both Ging (in his !1212 presentation of a 2& E'hibit
pac7age to the 1creening (anel* and 33D2 Chair 1usich (in his 5&112 1C8 11/ (etition in
.0,/5* e'cised from the copies of CoughlinBs &512 filing of a =otion to Dismiss in 8=C 11
C8 2.!05, the criminal trespass prosecuti
9dditionally, this is a grievance against Aill and 2a7er concerning their lying under oath at
the Dune 1%th, 2011 criminal trespass from my former law office trial in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05)
(lease review the Claiborne decision for support for the contention that neither 2ar Counsel
Ging, 123 +nvestigator (eters, or the 123 will find availing any argument that no
investigation was reHuired on their part respecting those allegations (particularly during the 5
months period between AillBs Danuary 1!th, 2012 written, but unsigned, grievance to (at Ging
and the conviction on Dune 1%th, 2012)))certainly, the 123 has ta7en an interest in my pending
criminal matters)))*) +n Claiborne, the 123 was ta7en to tas7 for ma7ing such a suggestion that
no duty to investigate on their part was present, where the Court ruled it clearly was)))
(lease review the sworn Declaration by Aill attached to his 3ovember 20th, 2011
#pposition to CoughlinBs =otion to Contest (esonal (roperty $ien and that #pposition itself,
especially the bit in AillBs Declaration where he fails to allege the 8(D identified themselves as
law enforcement or issued an Olawful orderO for Coughlin to Oemerge from theO ObasementO
(which never had an outside loc7 to begin with* prior to landlord =erliss 7ic7ing the door
down (and isnBt is interesting that the 8(D did not feel it had authority to 7ic7 a door
down)))suggesting they also felt they did not have authority to issue a Olawful orderO or
warning, pursuant to 8=C %)10)010 to Coughlin to leave the premises) + am complaining of an
unlawful trespass and invasion by Aill, 2a7er, and =erliss, especially where in the other videos
provided to 8eno City 9ttorney Chris Aa:lett41tevens (and this is a formal grievance against
Aa:lett41tevenBs as well, especially considering the e'tent to which he put on perjured
testimony, failed to hold Aill to a subpoena, in violation of CoughlinBs right to a speedy trial
(during the same . wee7 vacation by Aill that resulted in the 8DC failing to give Coughlin a
timely Aearing on his 3ovember 1.th, 2011 filing of a =otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty
$ien in the eviction matter from CoughlinBs former home law office in the 8DC, 8E;20114
001/0%)))a =otion for Continuance was filed by city attorneys Aa:lett, which CoughlinBs then
8=C appointed defense Counsel $ew <aitel failed to timely inform Coughlin of and agree to
(despite Coughlin, at that time, having filed a lawsuit against 3evada Court 1ervices, on
#ctober 1,th, 2011 in C;40&051, C;1140&051 -9CA C#@?A$+3 ;1) =9<< =E8$+11
E< 9$ (D1*) 1,4#C<42011)
"urther, any writings or filings by 2ar Counsel Ging and or Chairman 1usich that
suggest or indicate Coughlin committed a Obrea7ing and enteringO of his former law office, or
.2!!2
that the Oloc7s were bro7enO is totally unsupported and rec7less and contradicted e'plicitly by
the videos Aill himself filmed and his statements therein) (lease correct any such filings and
alert the Court to your transgressions)
2a7er lied and violated 38C( 11 in his 3#vember 21st, 2011 #pposition where he
alleged the 8(D identified themselves as law enforcement and issued a lawful order for
Coughlin to emerge from the ObasementO or leave the property:
OEven though he had a wee7 to do so, Coughlin did not remove his personal
belongings from the property prior to the loc7out) +n fact, he did not even remove himself from
the property) @nbe7nownst to =erliss or his counsel, Coughlin continued to live in the
basement of the property until he was discovered sHuatting there on 3ovember 1&) 2011 4
3early two wee7s after he was legally loc7ed out) Coughlin had barricaded himself, his dog,
and some of his presumably more cherished possessions in the basement) 6hen Coughlin
refused to emerge from the basement after being ordered to do so by the police, =erliss was
forced to 7ic7 down the door to gain access to his own property) Coughlin was arrested and
charged with trespassing) Due to CoughlinBs criminal activities, the security of the house was
compromised) 9s a result, =erliss was forced to incur costs in the amount of M1,0.0)00 <o
secure the property in order to protect it and CoughlinBs belongings) 9 true and correct copy of
the bill from the contractor is attached hereto as E>A+2+< 2)O
2a7ers 38C( 11 violation in his filing of 3ovember 20th, 2011 in 8DC 8ev20114
001/0% occurs at pages 14&, where he attempts to mislead the tribunal in suggesting that
Coughin failed to cooperate in setting a Aearing on the =otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty
$ien, even where Coughlin responded to AillBs then email informing him of such a hearing, by
Coughlin emailing Aill O8ich, you are aware the files can be on hard driveBs, rightJO in
response to A+llBs email of a Aearing (Coughlin subseHuently revo7ed (and had made e'press
previously written indication that no such acceptance of such electronic service or notice would
be availing respecting communications with Coughlin, and A+ll was added to CoughlinBs
Obloc7ed sender listO on CoughlinBs Aotmail account, as such, Coughlin did not receive AillBs
emails from #ctober any implicit authority Aill may assert to provide Coughlin notice via
electronic means, and therein is vitiated any of AillBs testimony at the trespass trial that the
OwarningO against trespass was relayed in AillBs various attempts at emailing Coughlin during
the first few wee7s of 3ovember, including the period where 2a7er was on vacation and
somethings appear to have slipped through the crac7s at the Aill law firm respecting notifying
Coughlin in an accepted means of service*) Coughlin did not receive any emails from AillBs
rhillLrichardhillaw)com address between AillBs email of 9ugust 1.th, 2011 and 3ovember
1%th, 2011, this Coughlin swears pursuant to 381 5&)0!5 under penalty of perjury:
"rom: -ach Coughlin Pmailto::achcoughlinLhotmail)comQ
1ent: =onday, 3ovember 21, 2011 &:15 (=
<o: rhillLrichardhillaw)com
1ubject: 8E: 8iver roc7
8ich, you are aware that OfilesO can include things on hard drives, rightJ
.&!!2
-ach Coughlin, EsH)
121 8iver 8oc7 1t)
8eno, 3; %,501
//5 &&% %11%
$icensed in 3evada
"rom: rhillLrichardhillaw)com
1ubject: 8iver roc7
Date: =on, 21 3ov 2011 1!:5&:0& 40%00
=r coughlin 4this confirms a voicemail left for you
+ now have your drivers license K what + thin7 are your client files)
DonBt 7now, didnBt loo7 that closely 4 your privacy K all)
6ill release them to you at the hearing tomorrow)
(lease confirm that the hearing is on calendar
8ghO
Coughlin appeared at the 8DC for the Aearing he was noticed on for 3ovember
22nd, 2011 pursuant to the 3ovember 1.th, 2011 filing by Coughlin of the =otion to Contest
(ersonal (roperty lien in 8DC 8E;20114001/0%) Aill failed to appeared) "urther, Aill
continued to lie about his Ooffering to provide CoughlinO his client files, including those files
on CoughlinBs hard drives) "urther, at least one of CoughlinBs hard drives, upon their finally
being returned to Coughlin on December 22nd, 2011 (with one of the e'pensive laptop screens
completely crac7ed)))* indicated a video card driver was loaded to the hard drive, including one
on December .th, 2011, during the period from CoughlinBs arrest of 3ovember 1&th, 2011 to
AillBs and 2a7erBs finally returning CoughlinBs clientBs files and hard drives to him on December
22nd, 2011 (unless you count the instance where Aill playfully set down a bag of trash and
indicated to Coughlin Ohere is your clientBs filesO at the time when Aill finally returned
CoughlinBs state issued driverBs license one full wee7 after Coughlin had demanded it, on
3ovember 22nd, 2011, something that Aill lied to the courts and the police about his
willingness to do so up to that time absent a coercive demand that Coughlin sign away his
rights, including those to his damage deposit) "urther Aill violated 3evada law in placing
demands upon Coughlin that Coughlin remove his property in the e'act manner and order that
A+ll demanded (Aill reHuired Coughlin to appear with certain vehicles and a OcrewO of movers,
and insisted Coughlin must remove all the property on the former home law officeBs e'terior
prior to Coughlin being allowed to Ocherry pic7O the items within that were of the most value,
reHuirements for which there e'ists no support in 3evada law for Aill to ma7e, including
within 381 11%9)!.0, all to the detriment of CoughlinBs clientBs concerns and the reputation of
the 2ar in 3evada and beyond) <he 8DC never needed CoughlinBs permission previously to set
Aearings, including the one on 3ovember /th, 2011 that Coughlin was served an impromptu
notice of while he was at the filing office on 3ovember &rd, 2011, nor did the 8DC need
CoughlinBs permission to to set the #ctober 1&th, 2011 summary eviction proceeding date, the
#ctober 25th, 2011 O<rialO, or the December 20th, 2011 Aearing date)
.!!!2
"urther rec7less and lac7ing in foundation mentions of Obrea7ing intoO the former
law office and Obro7en loc7sO despite the fact that no factual support e'ists for such an
allegation, there were no Obro7en loc7sO ever mentioned by anyone (and if Aill is willing to
ma7e up finding a Obag of weed and crac7 pipeO along with describing what AillBs own videos
show to be vitamins as a Olarge Huantity of pillsO, then you 7now 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH) would
have been all over any Obro7en loc7sO at the former home law office, yet, there simply were
none, not that that would stop (at Ging or D) <homas 1usich from cobbling together such an
allegation in the 1C8 11/ (etition in .0,/5* along with something about Coughlin being
subject to a custodial arrest for Ojaywal7ingO by the 8eno (olice Department while Coughlin
was filming 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH)Bs contractorBs crew loading up a dump truc7 with items of
personal property then located in CoughlinBs former home law office (the arrest occurred
shortly after Coughlin discovered that AillBs contractor, (hil 1tewart, had used CoughlinBs own
distinctive plywood to OsecureO or Oboard up the propertyO in December 2011, for which the
landlord was ultimately awarded costs, M1,0.0 of which were based upon 1tewartBs invoice for
Osecuring the propertyO, which included the cost of plywood, and Ofi'ing a lea7 in the
basementO despite 381 11%9)!.0 only allowing costs for Omoving, storing, and inventoryingO
a tenantBs personal property*, which Coughlin was unable to remove during the scant 1& hours
he was afforded to do so by the 8eno Dustice CourtBs #rder following a Aearing on CoughlinBs
3ovember 1.th, 2011 =otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty $ien (the Aearing was not set or
conducted with the O10 daysO reHuired by 381 !0)25&(/*4(%* because 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH)
needed to go on a si'4wee7 vacation shortly after CoughlinBs 3ovember 1.th, 2011 filing (in a
matter now on appeal in 1C8 .0&&1 and .1%&%, wherein, somehow, a commercial tenant,
Coughlin (whom was both running a law practice and Coughlin =emory "oam, a foam
mattress business from his home, which was previously utili:ed for commercial purposes by a
drug and alcohol rehabilitation counseling business and is :one for mi'ed use purposes* was
summarily evicted based upon a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice only (ie, the non4payment of rent
was neither noticed, pled, nor argued by the landlord* despite the clear dictate against the use of
summary eviction proceedings against commercial tenants not based upon the non4payment of
rent (2ench 2oo7 stuff* set forth in 381 !0)25&)
<he December 21st, 2011 #rder O8esolvingO CoughlinBs =otion to Contest (ersonal
(roperty $ien actually reHuired Coughlin to pay the e'act same amount of rent for 1/ days
(3ovember 1 to 3ovember 1/th, 2011*, M!%0 (ie, pro4rated from the M,00 per month rental
agreement* as Coughlin would have under a Ofair rental valueO, for the Ofull use and occupancy
of the premisesO despite the fact that Aill somehow signed a Criminal Complaint for <respass
9gainst Coughlin, on 3ovember 1&th, 2011 despite any 1ummary Eviction #rder not being
served in accordance with 381 !0)!00 (and therefore 38C( 5 and .(e* vis a vis the Owithin 2!
hoursO of OreceiptO of the loc7out order, and, therefore, any such loc7out that had occured being
rendered a nullity or pursuant to a void #rder* and where the 6ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice
Civil (rocess 1ervice 1upervisor $i: 1tuchell has admitted in writing that the 9ffidavit of
1ervice filed 3ovember /th, 2011 by Deputy =achen, attesting to having Opersonally servedO
the 1ummary Eviction #rder on 3ovember 1st, 2011, was, in fact, purportedly merely posted
to the door of CoughlinBs former law office while Coughlin was not home, at which point a
1oldal v) Coo7 County violating illegal loc7out occurred) +n a "ebruary /th, 2012 written
.5!!2
correspondence to Coughlin, 1tuchell wrote: O=r) Coughlin, #ur records indicate that the
eviction conducted on that day was personally served by Deputy =achen by posting a copy of
the #rder to the residence) <he residence was unoccupied at the time) $i: 1tuchell, 1upervisor
6C1# Civil 1ectionO)
<he te't of 381 !0)25& spea7s to service of $oc7out #rders: E<he court may
thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant
within 2! hours after receipt of the order)))F is inapplicable to this situation, where an #rder
?ranting 1ummary Eviction was signed by #ctober 2/th, 2011 (though not mailed to Coughlin
until after the 3ovember 1, 2011 loc7out had allegedly already occured*) <hat language is only
found in situations inapplicable to the one incident that in the summary eviction from
CoughlinBs former home law office) 381 !0)25&(&*(b*(2*, and 381 !0)25&(5*(a* are the only
sections of 381 !0 where this Ewithin 2! hoursF language occurs, and those situations only
apply where, in: !0)25&(&*(b*(2*: E &) 9 notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: )))(b*
9dvise the tenant: _) (2* <hat if the court determines that the tenant is guilty of an unlawful
detainer, the court may issue a summary order for removal of the tenant or an order providing
for the nonadmittance of the tenant, directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove
the tenant within 2! hours after receipt of the orderF and, !0)25&(5*(a*: E5) @pon
noncompliance with the notice: (a* <he landlord or the landlordRs agent may apply by affidavit
of complaint for eviction to the justice court of the township in which the dwelling, apartment,
mobile home or commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in which
the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever has
jurisdiction over the matter) <he court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or
constable remove the tenant within 2! hours after receipt of the order)F
<he way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in 8eno Dustice
Court presently shoc7s the conscience and violates 3evada law) <here is not basis for
effectuating a loc7out the way 6C1#Bs Deputy =achem did in this case) <he reHuirements
attendant to serving 1ummary Eviction #rders and conducting loc7outs are found in 381
!0)25& in two sections containing the Ewithin 2! hours of receiptF language are inapplicable, as
those situations do not invo7e the present circumstances, where the <enant did file an 9ffidavit
and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen) <o reHuire 3evadaBs tenants to get up and
get out Ewithin 2! hoursF of Ereceipt of the orderF (what does that even meanJ <he use of terms
li7e ErenditionF, ErenderedF, Enotice of entryF, EpronouncedF, is absent here, and this Ereceipt
of the orderF language is something rarely found elsewhere in 3evada law4see attached D=;
statutory citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a Complaint within
,0 days of EreceiptF of a 8ight <o 1ue $etter, a situation which follows 38C( 5(b*, and 38C(
.(e* in imputing receipt of such a letter, when actual receipt is not shown, by applying a
Econstructive noticeF standard that relies upon the days for mailing e'tension of time for items
served in the mailing, etc)*) +n 9braham v) 6oods Aole #ceanographic +nstitute, 55& ")&d 11!
(1st Cir) 200,*, the record did not reflect when the plaintiff received his right4to4sue letter) <he
letter was issued on 3ovember 2!, 200.)
<he court calculated that the ,04day period commenced on 3ovember &0, 200.,
based on three days for mailing after e'cluding 1aturdays and 1undays) +n order to bring a
claim under either <itle ;++ or the 9D9, a plaintiff must e'haust administrative remedies and
..!!2
sue within ,0 days of receipt of a right to sue letter) 1ee !2 @)1)C) S 2000e45(f*(1*) 1ee
2aldwin County 6elcome Center v) 2rown, !.. @)1) 1!/, 1!% n)1, 10! 1)Ct) 1/2&, %0 $)Ed)2d
1,. (1,%!* (granting plaintiff an additional three days for mailing pursuant to 8ule .*))))F
"urther, as seen in the 9nvui case, there is some argument respecting not effecting a loc7out
for at least 5 days where a lease has not e'pired by its terms, as CoughlinBs arguably had not)
Aowever, in his Danuary 20th, 2012 1econd =otion for #rder to 1how Cause,
8ichard ?) Aill, EsH) did not get all bogged down in legal research and stuff, instead he just
pointed out: O"9C<1 1A#6+3? C#3<E=(< #" C#@8< .) E>A+2+< 1 (the 1ummary
Eviction $oc7out #rder* was served on Coughlin on 3ovember 1, 2011 by the 6ashoe County
1heriffs Department in its customary manner, by posting same on the front door of the property
in the manner customary for evictions in 6ashoe County) <he loc7s to the premises were
changed at that time, thereby ejecting and dispossessing Coughlin of possession of the
(roperty)O Aill went on to lie again in that Danuary 20th, 2012 =otion when he eHuated his
offer to let Coughlin get some of the personalty Coughlin was unable to remove, due largely to
Aill failing to remove the chain lin7 padloc7 from the bac7yard gate that Aill had only just
installed in time for the 1& hours Coughlin had to remove his property in e'change for
Coughlin waiving his rights to the M/00 damage deposit Coughlin provided upon moving in,
where Aill spins it: O12) #n "riday, December 2&, 2011, Coughlin had a crew of helpers, and
made progress) 3onetheless, Coughlin failed to remove all of his belongings from the (roperty)
Coughlin failed to remove his things despite having been given additional time to do so after W
the time set by the 8eno Dustice Court in its order of December 21, 2011 (E>A+2+< 2* had
e'pired)O
9pparently, to Aill, at least one has O failed to remove all of his belongings from the
(roperty) Coughlin failed to remove his things despite having been given additional time to do
soO where Aill threatens to have one arrested for criminal trespass or larceny (of their own
stuff, arguably* if one is on the property one minute past 5 p)m), unless one waives any right to
their damage deposit (which neither Aill nor the $andlord eve did return, nor did they comply
with the reHuirement that they provide an itemi:ed statement indicating an application thereof
justifying such a failure to return such deposit within &0 days))))and Aill does not want to get
into whether his conduct is violative of the "DC(9 or whether he is licensed a as debt
collector*) +n that =otion, Aill continued on: O1&) #n December &0, 2011, Coughlin moved this
Court for a temporary restraining order to prevent =erliss from disposing of the items he
(Coughlin* had abandoned on the (roperty) CoughlinBs motion was fully briefed, and the Court
entered its order denying the motion on Danuary 11, 2012) 9 true and correct copy of this
CourtBs Danuary 11,2012 order is attached hereto as E>A+2+< &) 1!) #n <hursday, Danuary 12,
2012, in accordance with E>A+2+< 2 and E>A+2+< &, a licensed contractor hired by =erliss
began cleaning up the (roperty and disposing of the abandoned items still remaining there) 15)
Early that afternoon, while the contractor was hauling the first of several loads of abandoned
property to the transfer station (dump* for disposal, Coughlin stopped the contractor in traffic
and attempted to prevent him from carrying out his tas7) 1.) 1pecifically, Coughlin stood in
front of the contractorBs vehicle in an effort to prevent him from proceeding to the transfer
station) Coughlin threatened to sue the contractor) Coughlin climbed up on the contractorBs
vehicle) Coughlin then called the police and falsely told them that the contractor had stolen his
./!!2
possessions, and that the contractor had tried to run him over) CoughlinBs acts were specifically
calculated to prevent the contractor from disposing of the abandoned property, and to frustrate
and interfere with =erlissB compliance with this CourtBs Danuary 11, 2012 order) 1/) 6hen =r)
Aill of the undersignedBs office was notified of the foregoing, he went to the transfer station and
presented E>A+2+< 2 and E>A+2+< & to the police) <he contractor was then allowed to
proceed) 1%) Aowever, before the contractor could return to the 8iver 8oc7 (roperty, Coughlin
was there) Ae had his video camera and was wal7ing up and down the street screaming and
yelling at the police, the contractor, and =r) Aill, once =r) Aill arrived) 9t the instruction of
the police, =r) Aill then obtained a temporary protective order (O<(#O* against Coughlin from
the 8eno Dustice Court) Coughlin ended up being arrested and ta7en to jail that day as a result
of his antics at the transfer station and the (roperty)O
<he thing is, and Coughlin would sure li7e to get the ,11 tapes (or, more li7ely, with
Aill, any recordings that may e'ist of Aill calling somebody in particular he may have had in
mind with the 8(D* of calls by Coughlin (and if 6al4=art can call ,11 over a candy bar, or a
s7ater board over an i(hone he seems to have set down on the concrete ground in downtown
8eno, then s7aterboarded off some 100 yards away for sufficiently long period of time to seem
to have been pretty much the only person not to have heard somebody who pic7ed it up
threaten to throw it is in the river if it went unclaimed can call ,11 (and ma7e up a bunch of lies
on the spot for the purpose of manipulating the police into assuages the s7ateboarders own
negligence vis a vis the i(hone* is it unreasonable for Coughlin to call ,11 upon happening,
totally by chance, to cross paths with AillBs contractor while driving, catching site of a huge
dump truc7 full of CoughlinBs personal property headed towards the town dumpJ Aill admits
the #rder denying CoughlinBs =otion for a <(# (and hey, family heirlooms are pretty fungible,
rightJ 6ho needs a <(# for thatJ
9nd its not li7e the landlord could just accept rent in the meantime, or that the
property still remains unrented to this day, some 11 months after the loc7out, and apparently,
some M.0,000 worth of attorneyBs fees paid to Aill for a two bedroom home that appraises at
around M,0,000 currently, if that) 9nd AillBs fantastic legal wor7 (Owrong site surgeryO and all*
was surely worth the ris7 of a wrongful eviction lawsuit (and chec7 out those potential damages
under 6inchell v) 1chiff, 12! 3ev) ,&%, 1,& ()&d ,!. (200%*, not that the loss of a patent
attorneyBs career could amount to all that much*) 8egardless, its not all that colorable for Aill to
allege Coughlin was violating some #rder entered on Danuary 11th, 2012 by CoughlinBs
conduct of Danuary 12th, 2012 when 38C( .(e* provides that & days for mailing is to be
accorded to account for the service of filings, even filings electronically served on registered
efilers li7e Coughlin) +ts similar to Aill wanting a criminal trespass arrest where 38C( .(e*Bs
three days for mailing where no personal service was accomplished (by way of 381 !0)!00*
and AillBs et al did not even comply with the constructive service reHuirements of mailing the
summary eviction loc7out order prior to AillBs brea7ing into CoughlinBs former home law office
on 3ovember 1st, 2011, with the help of the 6C1#, in violation of 1oldal v) Coo7 County
where Coughlin was not accorded the O2! hoursO cushion after CoughlinBs OreceiptO of the
loc7out order mentioned in this CourtBs own pac7ets on the service of $oc7out #rders, which
Aill himself attached as a subseHuent e'hibit recently)))+t gets funnier)
<he civil division of the Dustice Court and the 1heriffBs #ffice thin7 that whole
.%!!2
Owithin 2! hoursO language in 381 !0)25& means Owithin 2! hoursO of the 1heriffBs OreceiptO of
the #rder from the Dustice Court)))6hile otherBs thin7 it is Owithin 2! hoursO of the tenantBs
receipt of the #rder from the 1heriff)))and this CourtBs official forms and instructions seem to
imply that Oat least 2! hoursO from OreceiptO of the loc7out #rder must be accorded to a tenant)
6ho 7nowsJ 2ut, it is not clear, as Aill suggests, that the Ousual custom and practice of the
6ashoe County 1heriffBs #fficeO is blac7 letter law upon which 2ar grievances, custodial
criminal trespass arrests, multiple =otion for #rder <o 1how Cause, tens of thousands of
dollars in attorneyBs fees sanctions against a pro se appellant, etc) are warranted) 1omehow the
District Court found a way to sanction Coughlin with M!0,050 worth of attorneyBs fee in that
appeal of the summary eviction without holding a single hearing, well, other than the Aearing
on Aills #rder to 1how Cause, which was denied when Coughlin destroyed AillBs contractor
(hil 1tewart on cross4e'amination) (8eally, (hilJ 8eallyJ Nou could fell Oa depressionO in your
2 ton loaded to capacity dump truc7 upon Coughlin allegedly Oclimbing up on itO, though you
indicated you had already Oalighted from the vehicleO, but, wait, you could see CoughlinBs head
above the tailgate walls in your rear view mirror (which doesnBt seem to be there on any the
many videos of the events of that day)
9nd even if such a mirror where present on 1tewartBs truc7, that doesnBt really
e'plain how all the personalty stac7ed up so high in the truc7 bed (replete with speciali:ed add4
on high stac7 retaining walls* wouldnBt obscure any purported view of CoughlinBs head high
above the area above the speciali:e hydraulic dump truc7Bs tailgate, confirming 1tewartBs mere
suspicion that Coughlin climbed on his truc7) Coughlin swears under oath he did not climb on
1tewartBs truc7) Aill needed a little OfactO to spice up his =otion to 1how Cause just enough,
and OCoughlin climbed up on the truc7O was Ojust the tic7etO, and 1tewart did not mind going
along for the ride, so long as))) 9nd none of the many videos from that day actually show any
of the Nosemite 1am cartoon villian type behavior Aill attributes to Coughlin in his
wonderfully imaginative =otion for #rder to 1how Cause and or 9pplication for #rder of
(rotection concerning the events involved in the jaywal7ing custodial arrest Aill had Coughlin
subjected to on Danuary 12th, 2012)
=uch li7e AillBs contractor, (hil 1tewart, flat out lying in an affidavit when he swore
Coughlin Oclimbed up onO his truc7, Aill similarly lied in an affidavit about Coughlin,
apparently while OengragedO ma7ing Ophysical contactO with Aill) #n (age 2 of AillBs 9ffidavit
attach to his =otion for #rder to 1how Cause, Danuary 20th, 2012, Aills attests: O5) #n "riday,
December 2&, 2011, we unloc7ed the house at ,:00 a)m) as ordered) 6e overloo7ed the chain
on the bac7 gate) <here was nobody at the house when we were there) 9t appro'imately noon,
my staff informed me that an enraged =r) Coughlin had called the office screaming that he
could not get in the bac7 yard) 6hen + finished the meeting + was in, + immediately went over
and unloc7ed the bac7 gate) Coughlin had a small crew) Ae charged at me and made physical
contact) Ae was enraged) 6e left) 6hen we returned at 5:00 p)m), =r) Coughlin was screaming
and yelling obscenities) Ae drove off in a small @ 4Aaul) Ais crew remained) 6e wal7ed the
property with them) <he inside )ground floor was mostly cleared of all but a big <;) <he
basement had been cleared somewhat, but there was still a lot of Ojun7) O 6e could not access
the attic) 6e went outside) + told CoughlinBs crew they could remove anything and everything
outside, if they would only try to rehang the gate that =r) Coughlin had ta7en off the hinges
.,!!2
before we could get over to unloc7 it) + told them + would loc7 the gates in the morning)
<hat is really interesting) Compare the above to the following e'cerpt from page &
of Aills Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition in C;1140&.2%, the appeal of the summary eviction
#rder: O12) 6hile at the property to remove the padloc7, Coughlin, on more than one occasion,
screamed profanities at =erlissB counsel, and, at one point, charged =r) Aill and attempted to
physically intimidate him) 9t least the audio of this incident was captured on tape) 1&)
3evertheless, at 5:00 p)m) on "riday, December 2&,2011, counsel granted Coughlin and his
agents additional, unfettered, and unlimited access to the outside of the property to remove any
remaining items)O 6hereas in his Danuary 20th, 2012 sworn Declaration Aill goes so far as to
indicate Coughlin Omade physical contactO (which is a damn lie anyways*, in AillBs then
associate Casey 2a7er, EsH)Bs 38C( 11 signed Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition, A+llBs associate
2a7er will only go so far as to say that Coughlin, Oat one point, charged =r) Aill and attempted
to physically intimidate him)O 2a7er was standing directly ne't to Aill during the interacation
wherin Aill swore, under penalty of perjury, that Couglhin Omade physical contactO with Aill*)
1ounds li7e Casey 2a7er, EsH) was not Huite willing to Ospice upO the story line as Aill himself
was) Casey probably did not have enough reason to sign on to the lies about Coughlin
Oclimbing onO the contractorBs truc7) +n AillBs 9pplication for a (rotection #rder against
Coughlin Aill slips up and claims that Coughlin was Oclimbing on the contractorBs truc7,
pic7ing through the contentsO bac7 at CouglinBs former home law after the interaction at the
Otransfer stationO (town dump*, whereas AillBs contractor indicated in his 9ffidavit that the
alleged OclimbingO on his truc7 occurred at the Otransfer stationO) Aowever, both Aill and his
contractor, (hil 1tewart indicate that the 8eno (olice Department OreHuestedO that Aill filed a
(rotection #rder 9pplication against Coughlin) +f that is true, its improper)
<he 8(D can provide individuals information about see7ing one, but when the 8(D
goes a step further and starts urging individuals to file protection order applications, or, as has
recently been the case with 8(D #fficer 9lan 6eaver and 1argent #liver =iller, whom, upon
information and belief, urged 3orthwindBs apartment maintenance man =ilan Grebs to sign a
fraudulent criminal complaint against Coughlin for Odisturbing the peaceO on Duly &rd, 2011,
and again urged 1uperior =ini 1torageBs =att ?rant to sign a similar baseless Odisturbing the
peaceO criminal Complaint against Coughlin on appro'imately 1eptember 21st, 2012 then there
is more than a little indication that the 8(D is out of control and attempting to incite members
of the public to sign fraudulent criminal complaints based upon a retaliatory animus by the
8(D towards Coughlin) #fficer 6eaver and 1argent Dye showed up to an unnoticed Duly 5th,
2012 bail hearing for Coughlin, presided over by Dudge $inda ?ardnerBs brother 8=C Dudge
6illiam ?ardner (whom received CoughlinBs timely 3otice of 9ppeal of the criminal trespass
conviction, under 381 1%,)010, yet failed to forward it on to the District Court, which
somewhat recently dismissed CoughlinBs appeal in that matter, wherein 1argent Dye and
#fficer 6eaver testified under oath, with City 9ttorney Dill Dra7e singing bac7up, the the
effectd that, despite bail only being valid based upon one reason in 3evada (to secure the
defendantBs attendance at trial* the Opublic health and safetyO dictated increasing the cash
reHuired to bail out Couglin <E3"#$D, from a bondable M1,!15 to a C91A #3$N M&,000)
ConseHuently, upon Dudge ?ardner so impermissibly raising CoughlinBs bail,
alleging a Opublic health and safetyO rationale for so doing, Couglin was forced to spend 1%
/0!!2
days in jail, wherein the opportunity to timely contest the M!0,050 attorney fees award to
8ichard Aill incident to the summary eviction appeal ran, all while Coughlin was denied any
opportunity to access justice or file documents from jail, and where Coughlin sustained
signficant damages, financial and otherwise, and where the jail refused to transport Coughlin to
a hearing on a landlord tenant matter wherein he was a named party) <he e'tent to which local
law enforcement is willing to play O7ic7 the canO with an attorney, particularly where 2ar
Counsel (at Ging is so willing to join the chorus, is troubling, and indicates the judiciary need
issue a clarion call out to announce the e'tent to which such misconduct can not, and will not,
be tolerated) 1uch a retaliatory animus towards Coughlin by the 8(D is li7ely due to his
1eptember /th, 2011 Complaint with respect to a wrongful, retaliatory, and fraudulent arrest by
8(D #fficer 3icholas Duralde, which was accompanied by e'tortionate threats by 8(D
#fficer 8on 8osa that if Coughlin didnBt cooperate they would Ocall the 3evada 2ar and let
them 7now how you cooperated with our investigation) AowBs that runninB for yaJO
6hile Duralde testified that he did not hear or recall 8osaBs coercive threats to
Coughlin just prior to the arrest, the fact that Duralde echoed those threats by saying O3ow, +
can arrest you for larceny) 3ow, + can do a search incident to arrest) AowBs thatJO tends to
undermine DuraldeBs contention that Ohe doesnBt recallO hearing anything li7e what #fficer
8osa was capture on tape saying to Coughlin just prior to the arrest) @pon ma7ing a "ourth
9mendment violating arrest completely lac7ing in probable cause, and smugly Ojo7ingO to
Coughlin about the ObenefitsO associated with charging Coughlin with a OfelonyO, (at the time
of the 9ugust 20th, 2011 arrest, the felony larceny amount limit was M250 and above*
compared to a misdemeanor (under some half ba7ed Ogrand larcenyO of an allegedly lost or
mislaid or abandoned three year old i(hone &? that the alleged victim testified was only then
worth Oabout M%04100O on e2ay or Craigslist*, ie, search incident to custodial arrest possible
where probable cause lac7ing to arrest, or even reasonable suspicion missing to do a pat down,
where alleged crime occured outside officerBs presence, after / p)m), and no citi:ens arrest
immediately effectuated, particularly where Coughlin himself made a ,11 call prior to #fficerBs
arriving and where video from minutes prior to officer arriving reveal Coughlin suggesting the
%412 hostile late teens to early twenties s7ater boarders rela', stay peaceful, refrain from
assaulting and battering Couglin, and wait for the police arrive so a lawful, peaceful resolution
could be attained (with Coughlin even cautioning the youths about a then recent tragic death
occurring not far from that location*)
"urther Aill just flat out lies in his Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition to 9mended
=otion for Emergency 8estraining #rder) 6ell, he did tell the truth when he wrote, on page &:
O11) #n "riday, December 2&,2011, counsel for =erliss neglected to remove the padloc7 to the
bac7 gate of the property)O <hat is true, he did do that, and it did prevent Coughlin from
removing all his property during the scant 1& hours Coughlin had to move it) 2ut, when Aill
swears, on page &, that: OCoughlinBs access to the house itself was never hindered):O he is just
OsippinB dran7O or something, as, obviously failing to remove a loc7 on a gate gonna tend to
have that effect, now)))and when Aill swears: O 1&) 3evertheless, at 5:00 p)m) on "riday,
December 2&,2011, counsel granted Coughlin and his agents additional, unfettered, and
unlimited access to the outside of the property to remove any remaining items) <he only
condition placed on that access was that CoughlinBs helpers agreed to replace the gate on its
/1!!2
hinges as best they could) Coughlin and his agents failed to remove the remainder of CoughinBs
property from the yard that night, and failed to put the gate bac7 on the hinges)O Coughlin was
never made aware of any such OofferO by Aill, and, even if he had been, hey, itBs the Ooutside of
the propertyO, 8ich, people generally put their valuables inside, you 7nowJ
<hen the Aill prevarication and obfuscation e'press 7ic7s into overdrive, when, in his
Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition he continues on: OC) Coughlin is 3ot Entitled to 9 1tay Coughlin
claims to have deposited M250 with the justiceBs court pursuant to 381 !0)&%5, although he has
not provided any proof in support of his claim) 9ttached hereto as E>A+2+< 10 is a true and
correct copy of the justiceBs courtBs doc7et as of December 1,, 2011) <hat doc7et shows that
Coughlin paid a filing fee for his appeal on December 12, 2011, in the amount of M21.)00)O
6ell, actually, Dudge 1ferra::a waived the Dustice CourtBs M2!)00 filing fee, and the M21.)00
represents the District CourtBs filing fee, and its not really clear whether that date is when the
chec7 was cashed by the District Court, or whether the Dustice Court held on to the chec7 for
Huit!e awhile before shipping it along with the 8#9 to the District Court, etc), etc) Aill
continues: O+t is entirely unclear from the following entries of that doc7et whether or when
Coughlin ever paid an additional M250)00 under 381 !0)&%5)O <hat might, technically be true,
8ich, to the e'tent that you wrote it on Danuary &rd, 2012, and are snea7ily indicating that you
are loo7ing at an old doc7et from the Dustice Court from December 1,th, 2012, even though
Coughlin made a big deal to you and the Dustice Court, in writing, that he was depositing the
M250)00 supersedeas bond mentioned in 381 !0)&%5, on December 22nd, 2011, a fact which
Aill himself mentions in his own filings)))1o, 7ind of a lac7 of candor to the tribunal there to
ma7e all this argument based upon some old doc7et and the e'tent to which it fails to reveal or
Oma7e clearO matters to which Aill had ready written notice of via his own e4"le' account and
service of filings upon him connected thereto, in addition to CoughlinBs fa'es, emails, and there
might have even been a service of a 3otice of (osting 1upersedeas 2ond (need to chec7 on that
more*, etc) in connection with the depositing on December 22nd 2012, the M250 reHuired for a
stay during appeal of a summary eviction in 381 !0)&%5) 9nd, actually, Aill slipped up a bit
there, in light of the following: 9nd, actually, Aill, in his Danuary 20th, 2012 filing, admitted
that Coughlin sent him that December 22nd, 2011 email notifying him of the posting of the
M250 supersedeas bond see7ing a stay, when he admits, on page &: O11) (ursuant to E>A+2+<
2, Coughlin was provided access to the (roperty on <hursday, December 22, 2011) <hat day,
Coughlin sent an email to the undersigned and Dudge 1ferra::a, in which he essentially
announced that he was entitled to a stay, and to return to and continue in possession of the
(roperty) Dudge 1ferra::a Huic7ly responded by email, and reminded =r) Coughlin that the
stay had been denied)O "ound in E'hibit 1 is the December 22nd email to AillBs #ffice that
alerts them to the posting of M250 , specified as a Osupersedeas bondO, with a citation to 381
!0)&%5:
AillBs Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition continues, on page %: OEven if Coughlin
eventually paid some amount toward an appeal bond, it was not in time to stay the eviction
during this appeal) <o do that, a proper motion must be made and granted, and the bond posted,
prior to the loc7out) <he loc7out here occurred on 3ovember 1, 2011) 2y the time Coughlin
managed to find that statute and pay any money to the court, he had been loc7ed out of the
property for si' wee7s) 9s such, any reHuest for a stay was, and is, moot) 9t this point,
/2!!2
Coughlin does not have any rights in either the real or personalO) #ddly, 9nvui saw a stay
granted after a loc7out was conducted, and Aill (8(C &)1 Omeritorious contentionO issues* cites
to no legal authority for his contention that Oto stay the eviction during this appeal)))a proper
motion must be made and granted, and the bond posed, prior to the loc7out)O CitationJ 3one)
Despite AillBs strange approach of not actually indicating that his office did not get an
December 22nd, 2011 email notifying them of the posting of M250 for a supersedeas bond
see7ing a stay under 381 11%9)&%5 (but rather, Aill focuses on what one cannot glean from
loo7ing at a dated doc7et)))*, AillBs #ffice was made aware of such matters, in writing, in the
following December 22nd email to AillBs #ffiee: O)))"urther, this is all moot at this point as +
have filed a 1upersedeas 2ond of M250, and according to 381 !0)&%5, + automatically get a
stay of eviction and am entitled to return to the property and continue in possession) <he statute
sets the 1upersedeas 2ond (which yields a stay* at M250 if rent is under M1000, unless the Court
wishes to rule that + am a commercial tenant) Aowever, if the court does rule that + am a
commercial tenant, the 3o Cause Eviction 3otice in this case, under 381 !0)25& ma7es a
1ummary Eviction (roceeding impermissible, as 1ummary Eviction (roceedings are not
allowed against commercial tenants where only a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice is filed) +ts one or
the other, but =r) Aill and 2a7er cannot have it both ways) "urther, the Courts #rder of
December 21, 2011 is just that, and #rder, its not an agreement, its not a settlement, etc, etc)
and the audio record clearly reflects that) 381 !0)&%5 1tay of e'ecution upon appealC duty of
tenant who retains possession of premises to pay rent during stay) @pon an appeal from an
order entered pursuant to 381 !0)25&: 1) E'cept as otherwise provided in this subsection, a
stay of e'ecution may be obtained by filing with the trial court a bond in the amount of M250 to
cover the e'pected costs on appeal) +n an action concerning a lease of commercial property or
any other property for which the monthly rent e'ceeds M1,000, the court may, upon its own
motion or that of a party, and upon a showing of good cause, order an additional bond to be
posted to cover the e'pected costs on appeal) 9 surety upon the bond submits to the jurisdiction
of the appellate court and irrevocably appoints the cler7 of that court as the suretyBs agent upon
whom papers affecting the suretyBs liability upon the bond may be served) $iability of a surety
may be enforced, or the bond may be released, on motion in the appellate court without
independent action) 2) 9 tenant who retains possession of the premises that are the subject of
the appeal during the pendency of the appeal shall pay to the landlord rent in the amount
provided in the underlying contract between the tenant and the landlord as it becomes due) +f
the tenant fails to pay such rent, the landlord may initiate new proceedings for a summary
eviction by serving the tenant with a new notice pursuant to 381 !0)25&) 1incerely, -ach
Coughlin, EsH)O) #h, and Aill and 1tewart admit to this in a video) 8ichard AillBs contractor, for
some strange reason, removed a ladder Coughlin owns from the property, preventing
CoughlinBs access to the attic upon his being allowed that scant 1& hours to remove his property
(and the attic had been renovated to allow for storage of a considerable amount of property) +f
Coughlin was Aill he would have called the 8(D to report the OlarcenyO of his ladder by Aill,
in a 8+C# thing with his contractor) 2ut Aill escaped prosecution that time, over they whole
ladder deal) +t never was made clear why the contractor removed the ladder from the property,
other than, perhaps, li7e the applying of a loc7 to the bac7yard gate, ma7e it even more
unli7ely that Coughlin would be able to remove all he needed to, especially given the limited
/&!!2
funds for moving vehicles and hired help, in the scant 1& hours allowed under the December
21st, 2012 #rder)
9lso, this is a complaint against Aill and his contractor for petty larceny of the ladder from
CoughlinBs former law office, admitted to on tape on December 22nd, 2011 by Aill (though the
issue of whether they intended to Opermanently depriveO Coughlin of the use and enjoyment
thereof may be grounds for debate, Aill should get to spend the ne't 12 months defending
himself as Coughlin has from the onslaught of 123, 6CD9, and City of 8eno prosecutor
investigation)))otherwise)))gee, doesnBt it 7inda being to mind CoughlinBs Huestion to 8(D
#fficer Chris Carter, Dr) while Coughlin was in cuffs during the custodial arrest of 3ovember
1&th, 2011 when Coughlin as7ed #fficer Carter: Oare you on 8ichard AillBs payroll tooJO)
Coughlin has faithfully reported on e'actly what #fficer CarterBs response was, however ill4
advised a sarcastic response he may claim it to have been) Aill has failed to faithfully report on
just what he meant where he filed documents attesting to have found Oa crac7 pipe and a bag of
weedO, a Ovial of some sortO, and Oa large Huantity of pillsO and OdrugsO in CoughlinBs former
home law office)
8especting CoughlinBs written communications to A+llBs office concerning
CoughlinBs e'press refusal to accept electronic notice or service of anything from A+llBs #ffice,
includes the following:
1ent: =onday, 3ovember 21, 2011 !:10 (=
<o: cdba7erLrichardhillaw)com
1ubject: 8E: =erliss v) Coughlin
Casey, couldnBt open them, and even if + could, + donBt consent to service
by email of pleadings, nor by fa') + have told you that many times) + will file a =otion for
1anctions if you do not cease attempting to circumvent the procedural protections accorded
tenants) <he only matter for which + consent to having you or your office contact me by email,
is to tell me if and when + can get my e'igent clientlaw practice materialsstate issued
identification, etc) + refuse to accept service of pleadings and motions you wish to sling
through the courts at warp speed while withholding my mail and wallet) Come on^ Nour better
than this^
-ach Coughlin, EsH)444444444444
<o: patric77Lnvbar)orgC davidcLnvbar)orgC nvsccler7Lnvcourts)nv)gov
1ubject: $+<+?9<+#3 A#$D 3#<+CE rev20114001/0% cv1140&.2%, .0&&1 .1&%&
Date: =on, 15 #ct 2012 1/:0&:&! 40/00
=r) Ging,
<his writing memoriali:es, in part, our conversation about your failure to
investigate, in any real way, the criminal trespass allegations, in violation of the Claiborne
decision) @pon my as7ing you pointed Huestions, you hurriedly filed a 1C8 111 (etition in an
attempt to e'cuse your failure to as7 any of the pointed Huestions + have previously put forth to
you regarding that criminal trespass matter, further you admitted to being unaware (allegedly*
/!!!2
of the familial relation between Dudge 6illiam ?ardner and Dudge $inda ?ardner (despite that
being Huite clear in my recent filings to you*)
Nou might want to loo7 at 9222. and the Committee on the Dudiciary notes from
=arch &1, 2011)
<his correspondence reminds you of and further places you on notice of that the fact
that you have been placed on a $+<+?9<+#3 A#$D 3#<+CE) <AE ;+DE# "+$=ED 2N
8+CA98D A+$$ #" <AE 8E3# (#$+CE DE(98<=E3<B1 CA8+1 C98<E8 93D
198?E3< $#(E- +3 <AE <+=E (8+#8 <# <AE $93D$#8D, =E8$+11 9$$E?ED$N
G+CG+3? D#63 <AE D##8, +1 #" =9<E8+9$$N 8E$E;93CE <# 1E;E89$ C+;+$
$961@+<1 93D C8+=+39$ (8#CEED+3?1) 8+CA98D $+ED +3 C#@8<, @3DE8
#9<A 6AE3 AE <E1<+"+ED <A9< <AE 8(D 933#@3CED <AE=1E$;E1 91 $96
E3"#8CE=E3< 93D #8DE8ED C#@?A$+3 <# C#=E #@< #" <AE 291E=E3<
(8+#8 <# <AE D##8 2E+3? G+CGED +3) 8+CA98D 1E3D1 <AE 1<9<E 298 #"
3E;9D9 $E<<E81 #3
"@8<AE8, #""+CE8 C98<E8B1 (#$+CE 8E(#8< +1 DE=#31<89<ED <#
2E "@$$ #" $+E1 2N <AE ;E8N ;+DE#1 <A9< A+$$ (8#(#@3DED <# <AE C+<N
#" 8E3# (8#1EC@<#81, (98<+C@$98$N 6+<A 8E1(EC< <# 6AE<AE8
C#@?A$+3 8E"@1ED <# $E9;E 9"<E8 2E+3? 6983ED #8 <#$D <# D# 1# 93D
<AE E><E3< <# 6A+CA C98<E8 691 @392$E <# +11@E 9 C+<9<+#3 #8 8E$N
#3 9 1+=($E 6983+3? +3 $+?A< <AE8E#") C#@?A$+3 9C<@9$$N 91G1
C98<E8 +3 <AE ;+DE# A+$$ "+$=ED 6AN AE D#E13B< D@1< +11@E 1@CA 9
6983+3? #8 C+<9<+#3) <hen, Carter goes on to attempt to offer his views on OserviceO,
however rudimentary they may be) being careful to note to Coughlin OyouBre not the victim
here)O <o the e'tent that Aill and =erliss trespass into CoughlinBs former law office on this
date, with the help of the 8(D, 1oldal v Coo7 County has been violated, and Carter and $ope:
have violated 6heeler v Coss)
9ny Eviction #rder signed by Dudge 1ferra::a was stale in light of the failure to
have the loc7out order served upon Coughlin and a loc7out performed Owithin 2! hoursO of the
1heriffBs receipt of the #rder of both #ct 25th, 2011 (the simple one page #rder signed by
Dudge 1ferra::a and notated in his own handwriting* and or the #ctober 2/th, 2011 "indings of
"act, Conclusions of $aw, and #rder for 1ummary Eviction* both of which were received by
the 6C1# well over 2! hours from when the loc7outBs were conducted, and therefore, both
such #rders were stale, and therefore, 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH) committed trespass upon
CoughlinBs former home law office, threw away a great deal of CoughlinBs personalty (some of
it very sentimental*, and both Aill and 2a7er have lied repeatedly in court filings in indicating
that Coughlin was served the 1ummary Eviction #rder on 3ovember 1st, 2011 were they also
admit that Coughlin was not at his former home law office at the time 6C1# Deputy =achen
posted it on the door thereof and effectuated a loc7out (and =achen lied under oath in his
3ovember /th, 2011 filed 9ffidavit of 1ervice attesting to have Opersonally servedO Coughlin
the 1ummary Eviction #rder on 3ovember 1st, 2011 (6C1# Civil Division 1upervisor
admitted as much to Coughlin in writing:
381 !0)25&: 5) @pon noncompliance with the notice: (a* )))<he court may thereupon
issue an order directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 2!
/5!!2
hours after receipt of the order) <he affidavit must state or contain:
"urther where is my damage deposit (either M500, or, arguably M/00 given the e'tent
to which the 1tandard 8ental 9greement afforded me the choice with respect to how cleaning
was to be done and the e'tent to which Aill and 2a7er have failed to comply with
=r) 2a7er, you have committed professional misconduct (and Aill filed a grievance
against me in a letter to the 123 dated Danuary 1!th, 2012 purporting to be sent on your behalf
in Ofulfilling your 8(C &)% obligationO)))simpy put, =r) 2a7er, in your #pposition to =#tion to
constest (ersonal (roperty $ien in 8ev20114001/0%, on page 5, you lie where you write Owhen
Coughlin refused to emerge from the basement after being ordered to do so by the police,
=erliss was forced to 7ic7 down the door to gain access to his own propertyO) Nou 7now that
that is not true) <he 8eno (olice Department did not identify themselves as law enforcement or
otherwise issue an lawful #rders directing Coughlin to Oemerge from the basementO) Nou have
demonstrated a lac7 of candor to the tribunal in that regard in conspiracy with 8ichard Aill) +n
a videotaped interview, 8(D 1argent $ope: admits that neither she nor #fficer Carter, nor
anyone else that day, identified themselves in any way to Coughlin in the ObasementO or
otherwise issued him any sort of Owarning to leaveO or Oorder to emergeO of any sort,
whatsoever) =r) 2a7er, you were not even there) Net, you viewed the video ta7en by 8ichard
Aill of the moments in Huestion where the 8(D were at the basement door prior to Dr) =erliss
7ic7ing it down, including those moments where Dr) =erliss is seen in one video whispering to
8ichard Aill) +f there really was all this identifying themselves as law enforcement and issuing
Coughlin an order to emerge which went unheeded, then why the whisperingJ 6hy did
8ichard fail to include the he too7 of the moments where the 8(D were at the ObasementO door
an failed to identify themselves or issue any lawful #rdersJ Aow would Coughlin 7now that
any voices that may have been audible did not simply belong to more of the goons Aill and
2a7er routinely hire from 3evada Court 1ervices to trespass behind CoughlinBs former home
law officeBs bac7yard gate, visiting in pairs, threes times a day, one ringing the door bell
repeatedly for &0 minutes at a time, while the other (8) 6ray, Doel Durden, and other licensed
process servers* trespasses behind a a latched bac7yard gate and bangs on windows and peers
through closed blinds while issuing threats intended to indicate they are being made by
someone with color of law behind their words, while dressed up in an outfit specifically
intended to confuse the public into thin7ing these process servers are 1heriffBs DeputiesJ
8egardless, the real fly in the ointment is the fact that 8(D 1argent $ope: admitted
that neither she, nor Carter, nor anyone else identified themselves as law enforcement and or
issued Coughlin an order to emerge from the ObasementO) +ndeed, in AillBs Declaration in
8Ev20114001/0%, filed a scant / days after the arrest, Aill certainly fails to mention any such
alleged moment where the 8(D identify themselves as law enforcement and issue Coughlin an
order to emerge prior to =erliss 7ic7ing the door in) Aill writes letters to the 123 accusing
Coughlin of having a Ocrac7 pipe and bag of weedO and Olarge Huantity of pillsO (the videos Aill
too7 that day reveal those OpillsO are vitamins, something Aill fails to clarify with the 123, and
Aill never has provided any sort of indication of what the Ocrac7 pipe and bag of weedO loo7ed
li7e e'actly, nor has he responded to reHuests for photographs thereof, or made indication why
he did not call the police, given the fact that he has involved law enforcement at every other
/.!!2
possible turn)
Aill and 2a7er have continued to fail to deliver CoughlinBs security deposit, and in doing so,
where they failed to provide the reHuisite correspondence within &0 days of any such eviction,
have violated 3evada law:
381 11%9)2!2 1ecurity: $imitation on amount or valueC surety bond in lieu of
securityC duties and liability of landlordC damagesC disputing itemi:ed accounting of securityC
prohibited provisions)mm
=rBs) 2a7er and Aill, would you not say it more accurate to characteri:e the situation in
rev20114001/0% as one fitting under the 381 11%9)&55 heading, particulary where the 8DC, at
the time of that summary eviction O<rialO had, according to Dudge 1ferra::a, no Olocal ruleO or
Omechanism by which tenants may deposit rent withheld under paragraph)))O and therfore
ac7nowledging the brilliance in CoughlinBs DC8$; 8ule !! corollary in the 8DC argumentJ
Certainly, under the 381 11%9)&55 analysis, after one strips away the agreed to M&50 for
weeds maintenance (which 7ind of amounts to a waiver of term in the 1tandard 8ental
9greement that Dudge 1ferra::a interprets to reHuire such OcareO of the Olawn and surrounding
groundsO (which, to the Court, apparently, included OweedsO*, doesnBt itJ*, and the agreed upon
credit for fi'ing the stairs, well, then, and other amounts fit Huite nicely into the Ofi' and
deductO approach set forth in 381 11%9)&.0) 2ut, regardless, you proceeded under a 3o
Cause Eviction basis, but against a commercial tenant, a fact you are stuc7 with, as the <enantBs
9nswer, numerous phone calls to 2a7er, and many, many instances throughout the filings in
that matter ma7e clear thta this was CoughlinBs home law office, a commercial lease which the
1tandard 8ental 9greement specifically allows for) 9nd ta7e a loo7 at that 200% 6inchell v
1chiff seafood business goes under because of wrongful eviction case wherein damages
accounting for the loss of oneBs entire business (and what is a patent attorneyBs business worth,
do you thin7, Dr) =erlissJ* are allowable under 3evada law) (lease remit M!50,000 to me
within / days of this email being sent to you in satisfaction of this dispute against you, Dr)
=erliss) 8ichard and Casey, + will deal with you later, but your liability is on par with Dr)
=erlissBs, no doubt, and that is before the "DC(9 stuff and the fact that your office is not
licensed as a bill collector) 4-ach CoughlinO
22) 1ased on Mr, "ill0s e@%erience and bac&ground8 his review of the
&leadings in the litigation bet#een Dr, Merliss and Coughlin and his review of the
&leadings in .oughlin;s litigation with !ashoe Legal 4ervices, =r) Aill is of the opinion that
Coughlin is not com&etent to &ractice law) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember
1!, 2012, ( &,, $ 1412)
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age &,:1 to &,:12* U 9nd as a result of your dealings with
=r) Coughlin, did you form an opinion as to his com&etenc( to %e a law(erJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: =bGection, .alls for a legal conclusion. E6&ert testimon(, ? don0t believe Mr,
"ill is :ualified, =8) ECAE;E88+9: #verruled) <AE 6+<3E11: Nes, + did) 2N =8)
G+3?: U 9nd letBs start with your conclusion, and then wor7 bac7wards) +s =r) Coughlin
competent to be a lawyerJ 9 3o, he is not)F*
(3#<E: 6hile the 5&112 1C8 11/ (etition that 33D2 Chairman 1usich filed
//!!2
(which largely copied and pasted, li7e GingBs %2&12 Complaint, the purported 11!12
unsigned, unsworn grievance Aill purportedly emailed (only* to Ging* might plead such, GingBs
%2&1& Complaint neither alleges, nor is this formal disciplinary hearing the setting for, an
e'amination of whether Coughlin is Ecompetent to practice lawF or Ecompetent to be a lawyerF)
<he (anel and Ging consistently violated 8(C &)1, &)&, and &)!, in addition to 8(C %)1 in
failing to approach the 8(C 1)1 (duty to provide competent representation to clients, where,
unli7e, say, a bar e'amination, the inHuiry is not a general one reHuiring a practitioner to
demonstrate broad scale competency at the practice of law, but, rather, targeted and focused on
determining whether in some particular, specific instance, an attorney failed to provide a client
representation that met the reHuirement to do so under 8(C 1)1) <he 123 offered absolutely
no evidence that Coughlin ever provided any such representation to any client (3#<E: "AE&Bs
(and all other e'hibits such Efindings of factF* are not EevidenceF and the (anel committed
reversible error in so characteri:ing or treating such as EevidenceF in the burden of proof
calculus) +n 8e 1antosuosso, +n re 6eiss)*)
2&) Based on Mr+ Hill's e=perience in litigating (3#<E: Aill actually was
forced to admit that his associate, 2a7er, handled the summary eviction in 1/0% in the justice
court as well as the appeal thereof to the district court, with Aill alternating between allegeing
in his Declarations in the appeal in support of a fee award that he had only reviewed 2a7erBs
filings, only to then alleged at the disciplinary hearing of 111!12 that he had read Evirtually
everythingF Coughlin filed, only to to later (upon being caught in a lie he has told again and
again, ie, that Coughlin Efailed to raise the issue in the trial courtF respecting the
impermissibility of utili:ing summary eviction procedures under 381 !0)25! against a
commercial tenant where such summary action was not brought upon an allegation of non4
payment of rent* allege that he EwasnBt thereF in the trial court and had not read or listened to
the transcript (despite Coughlin providing his firm with copies of all the audio of every hearing
in the trial court in 1/0%)))so)))as far as AillBs simply answering EnoF to GingBs overtime
Huestions regarding whether Coughlin was EtruthfulF with the court or opposing counsel, with
nothing in the way of specifics, being somehow sufficient to support a Efinding of factF much
less a Econclusion of lawF that Coughlin violated any particular 8(C)))well, such says more
about the (anel than anything, really* with Coughlin, Coughlin was not truthful #ith either
counsel or the court) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 5&, $ .41.)
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 5&:5 to 5&:1.* 2N =8) G+3?: U $et me restate the
Huestion) <he Huestion is: 9s an attorney, having a responsibility to be truthful and to have
candor with opposing counsel, was =r) Coughlin truthful, and did he use candor with youJ 9
(8ichard ?) Aill, EsH)* 3o) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Mr, !ing8 #ra% it u%8 %lease, Iou0re
limited to 15 minutes) 2N =8) G+3?: U 1pecifically relating to =r) CoughlinBs candor to
the court, did he show candor to the courtsJ 9 3o)F*
=r) Aill felt that CoughlinBs filings were abusive, at one point calling =r) AillBs
associate a lichen) (3#<E: actually, CoughlinBs email to Aill utili:ed the term El(canF, as in
some type of werewolf to describe Aill and 2a7erBs 8ambo $itigator approach and the
damaging, in appropriate nature thereof)))which is far different than calling one a ElichenF*
Coughlin has accused 7r. 8ill of %ri%ing the eno @olice "e&artment to have Coughlin
arrested) =r) AillBs staff is terrori:ed by Coughlin) 1ee 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 5!,
/%!!2
$ !415)
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 5!:& to 5!:15* 2N =8) G+3?: U 6ith regard to a
person perhaps 44 to the e'tent that =r) Coughlin may have e'hibited these bad behaviors, was
he otherwise 7ind in his dealings with you and Dr) =erlissJ Could you e'plain, just briefly, to
the panel his actual demeanor with regard to his dealings with you and your clientJ 9 Ais e4
mails, his filings were abusive, to say the least) Calling my 44 he called my associate a lichen)
+Bll admit we all had to retreat to the dictionary on that one) Name calling) AeBs accused me of
bribing the 8eno (olice Department to have him arrested) =y staff is absolutely terrori:ed by
this man)F*
AillBs referring to Coughlin as E6ac7y -ac7y on Crac7yF during a conversation
with Coughlin ma7es AillBs objection to the characteri:ation of his style of litigation as lycan4
esHue rather pu::ling, though, certainly, the purported 11!12 email from Aill to the 123
contains some truly dubious lies by Aill (E.) 6hen the house was secured after CoughlinBs
arrest, we found a crac7 pipe and a bag of what appeared to be marijuana) <he contractor also
reported finding a bo' of pills and a vial of some sort) !e understand .oughlin has
unsuccessfull( tried the Law(ers .oncerned for Law(ers &rogram' and that he has a histor(
of su%stance &ro%lems)F (age ! of 5 of such 11!12 E$etter to (atric7 Ging, EsH):, that Ging
was too embarrassed by to see7 to enter into evidence*) (consider the videos that Aill
and his landlord client filmed during their burglary of CoughlinBs former home law office (at
which time they also lied to and with 8(D #fficers to effectuate a false arrest* on 111&11,
particularly in the following beginning at the seven minute mar7, wherein the alleged Elarge
Huantity of pillsF are revealed to be vitamins: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV%.-Ctr.E#i!
) "urther, Aill never has responded to CoughlinBs mutltiple reHuests to provide something,
anything, in the way of support (a picture, the items themselves, etc)* to support his assertion
that Ewe found a crac7 pipe and a bag of what appeared to be marijuanaF)))+nterestingly, a bag
EappearingF to be marijuana did not result in Aill ma7ing any assertion as to whether any such
alleged EbagF held the aroma of marijuana therein or any other specifics or supporting facts*)
9 review of the 11!12 E$etter to (atric7 Ging, EsH)F that Aill purportedly emailed
only to the 123 (somehow fa'ing a signed, sworn Dudicial Discipline Commission Complaint
to =r) 1arnows7i met with no action (Ewe donBt accept fa'esF*, yet an emailed, unsigned,
unsworn EletterF from Aill is given the 9ct of Congress treatment* reveals an interesting thread
running throughout the matter now on appeal in .2&&/: =c?eorge 1chool of $aw 1,//
classmates 6$1Bs (aul Elcano, 3;2 Dudge 2eesley, and 8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes)
<here is just so many reasons why Ging was forced to forgo see7ing to enter into
evidence the purported 11!12 unsigned, unsworn, emailed only, five page grievance letter by
Aill to Ging: the undeniable impression that a whole lot of impermissible e'tra4judicial
communications may well be going on, AillBs imploring the 2ar to contact various court staff
individuals (by name even* certainly lends an impression that Aill has, or is implying, an
improper ability to influence a tribunal, AillBs allusion to $awyers Concerned for $awyers is
not only more than a bit tac7y)))it ma7es 3;2 Dudge 2eesleyBs testimony in that regard even
more curious (1C8 105)5 confidentiality touting and all, so say nothing of 1C8 12&(&*, in
addition to the patent fact that AillBs purported five page grievance is plainly full of lies and or
attempts to mislead, evincing the highest level of a lac7 of candor to the tribunal (where, per
/,!!2
6aters, the 123 is an Earm of the courtF*, lac7 of Ecandor to opposing counselF (the rule
relates to Efairness to opposing counselF, but that did not stop Ging or Echeverria from delving
into such)))*, much less fairness to opposing counsel, to say nothing of respect for the rights of
third parties (former 8DC Chief Civil Cler7 e'pressed significant dissatisfaction to Coughlin
(about AillBs so doing* as to AillBs invo7ing some purported offerings AillBs letter indicated she
would provide the 123 as to Coughlin upon Coughlin informing 1tancil of such purported
writings by Aill to the 123)* 9dditionally, such five page grievance also manages to
misrepresent whether and when CoughlinBs lease Ee'piredF (see the e'treme significance of
such characteri:ation in the conte't of the holdover proceeding or no cause summary eviction
(AillBs letter consistently fails to identify such as EsummaryF in nature, and evinces complete
and utter fraud as to the its assertions respecting CoughlinBs 12&011 =otion for <8#, )))), or,
in the alternative, =otion for 1tay, and the associated EenclosuresF AillBs letter purpots to have
been attached thereto (though, interestingly, nowhere in the &,0,! page production by the 123
on 11/12 to Coughlin purporting to somehow ma7e up for the egregious violations of 1C8
105(2*(c*, is to be found such EenclosuresF))) http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,10&.114/4124
020!4.2&&/42ates414to4&40,!41tate42ar4of43evada4E'cuse4for4"ailing4to4#bey41C84105424c
1o, for all Coughlin 7nows, Aill provided incomplete documents therein (whether he
provided the 123 the eleven e'hibits to his 1&12 #pposition to CoughlinBs =otion for <8#
or 1tay (Aill consistently characteri:es such as only a =otion for <8# as to the dumping of
CoughlinBs personalty, which Aill alleges Coughlin EabandonedF (funny, filing a =otion for
<8# to stop the dumping, and or a =otion for 1tay of the eviction itself (especially where such
12&011 =otion, and, even more so, the 1512 8eply to the #pposition Hill's associate Ba4er
filed thoroughly sets out in cogent legal analysis (especially considering the circumstances
under which such was performed* the terribly suspect aspects of the positions that AillBs
associate maintainedF)))of course Ging does not want to be (or have E+nvestigatorF (eters be*
subpoenaed for forced to testify, especially as to the 381 !0)&%5 supersedeas bondstay of a
summary eviction against a commercial tenant (the use of the summary procedures in 381
!0)25& under such circumstances is barred (a jurisdictional bar per ;olpert, Davidsohn, 9i7ins,
etc)* by 381 !0)25!)
(<here are a number of, uh, interesting appearances of documents that involve Aill
in the bates stamped &,0,! page production to Coughlin by the 123 on 11/12 (four judicial
days before the formal hearing in this matter (so, (anel Chair Echeverria certainly did not seem
to have any problem with such untimel( disclosures, even where he failed to consider
CoughlinBs (or even allow such to be admitted into evidence, apparently* 111&12 or 111!12
filings (AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 102:15 to 10&:1&* <AE 6+<3E11: 1C8 105Bs been
thrown out the window) NouBve ruled on motions before +Bve even had a chance to oppose them
or file a reply to an opposition) Nou claim that 38C( is applicable here) Net under 38C(
when + file a motion to bifurcate, and he filed an opposition, and + get three days for mailing
under .4C, and he purports to file it on the 2!th, and you rule on it whenJ #n the &0thJ DonBt +
get five days, plus three for mailing to file my opposition to preserve for appealJ MR,
9C"9V9RR?67 'o should we disregard the motions (ou filed without giving the 4tate Bar
the o&&ortunit( to res&ond timel(A ? had t#o motions shoved under my door last night,
'hould those be disregarded under your legal reasoningA Because (ou did not offer the
%0!!2
4tate Bar the o&&ortunit( to res&ond, =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, that 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9:
Nes or no, =r) CoughlinJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +tBs not a yes or no) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nes, it
is) =8) C#@?A$+3: &hat would entail figuring out whether or not /E days prior to the
hearing 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: $etBs focus on the issues bac7) NouBve made a motion now to
reHuire me to recuse myself)F*)
9mongst the bates stamped entries involving Aill (see +nde' thereto Coughlin had to
create, and, oddly, though the 123 and 8=C managed to copy the same filings by Coughlin
over and over, and over (never digitally of course, though the 8=C will cry EresourcesF, all
whilst refusing efiling (e'cept where 8=C Donna 2allard lies about that, naturally* the 123
failed to include in such &,0,! production to Coughlin any indication (much less actual copies
thereof* of just what such EenclosuresF purportedly provided by Aill to Ging entailed (given
such was purportedly emailed to Ging, it would have been very easy and economical for Ging
to forward such email on to Coughlin, however, for the most part, the 123 and Ging have
steadfastly refused to utili:e email in any meaningful way, especially where doing so would
deprive Ging or the 123 of the unfair advantage it consistently garners in the time is of the
essence approach it ta7es to cheating 8espondents out of their 1C8 105(2*(c* rights))))(see
2olesB 2rief and 8eply 2rief* in the 11/12 &,0,! production to Coughlin by the 123 of
11/12: 1.//41./, fa' from 8eno City 9ttorney to 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), that Aill provided to
123 consisting of 2DDC Dudge ElliottBs #rder dismissing CoughlinBs appeal of criminal trespass
conviction in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05 (.1,01* & pages from ,1012 containing %2/12 #rder in
C812412.2
41/%541/%, 8C9 Aa:lettBs =otion to Continue trespass trail in 8=C 2.!05 because 8ichard
?) Aill, EsH), witness, will be on vacation)
4200042002 9rrest 8eport and Declaration of (robable Cause 1heet by 8(D #fficer Chris
Carter Dr) filed with Criminal Complaint for trespass by 8ichard ?) Aill in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05
on 111&11 listing Coughlin as an attorney, further vitiating 123 and 8=CBs fraudulent
assertion that Coughlin failed to disclose fact he is an attorney)
42/&&42/&! &2/12 #rder in C;1140&.2% 2DDC Dudge "lanagan appeal of summary eviction
with Aill and 2a7er as opposing counsel Denying AillBs 2a7erBs 12112 =otion for #rder to
42/&%42/&, !1.12 fa' from 8=C Dept) 2 (Dudge 6) ?ardner* 1 and 2 of 2 9rrest 8eport and
(robable Cause 1heet for 111&12 custodial criminal trespass arrest with (C 1heet by 8(D
Carter and AillBs Criminal Complaint
an all 123 reHuests for information or cooperation in any investigations
loc7out order on 11111
an all 123 reHuests for information or cooperation in any investigations whether relating to
Aill, ?ardner, or 3ash Aolmes, etc)
%1!!2
loc7out order on 11111 burglary by AillBs associate 2a7er of that date
42/1. <ahoe 6omenBs 1ervices (see C;11401,55, .0&1/* attorney 2rian ?onsalves, EsH)Bs
email referring to other attorney fee awards ma7es curious GingBs only reHuesting Coughlin pay
AillBs landlord clientBs award in GingBs closing argument) (really disgusting how old former
stooge for the ban7s foreclosure mediator Ging (?iles sued him in that role, but apparently the
briefs for such were ta7en down* seems only interested in getting Aill and or AillBs neurologist
landlord who can afford to blow M.0G (at least* pursuing a spite summary eviction* rather than
pursuing addressing some attorney fee award to an shelter for abused womenchildren:
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age &&1:14.* E=8) G+3?: )))9nd + believe it would be
appropriate since you heard evidence on the issue of the court order that he pay Dr) =erlissBs
fees) <hat any reinstatement, if you donBt disbar him permanently, would be he would be
reHuired to follow that court order to pay those fees) <han7 you)F
<o be fair, Ging may have just wished to avoid the Canon 2, 8ule 2)15, etc) issues
associated with 2DDC Dudge Elliott (see the appearance of Dudge ElliottBs #rder in all of the
EordersF affirming CoughlinsB criminal convictions)))* failing to recuse himself, much less
divulge the fact that he was the (resident of C996Bs E'ecutive 2oard where 6$1, C996,
and <ahoe 6omenBs 1ervices were all co4defendants in CoughlinBs wrongful termination suit
presided over by interested party 2DDC Dudge Elliott (for shame* in C;11401,55, bringing the
legitimacy of any rulings on any cases involving Coughlin by Dudge Elliott into serious doubt
(and ma7ing the 112.12 #rder by Dustice Cherry dismissing CoughlinBs appeal in thereof in
.0&1/ worthy of reconsideration of some sort, particularly where good cause for any alleged
failure to timely file a (etition for 8ehearing is manifest from the scheduling associated with
the 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing and the 111,12 and 112012 trial dates 8DC Dudge
1ferra::a insisted on for the i(hone case in 8C8201140.&&!1*)
"urther, the dictates of 1C8 105(2*(c* vis a vis timely disclosing anticipated
witnesses and the facts to which the 123 intends to have them testify, and the evidence
supporting such testimony provided another really good reason for Ging to avoid see7ing to
admit it the purported 11!12 emailed grievance by 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), to Ging where such
demonstrates Huite clearly that Ging and the 123 7new for Huite some time (11 months, at
least* of both the matters to which 3;2 Dudge 2eesley might testify, in addition to those to
which 6$1Bs Elcano might weigh in, where such 11!12 letter reads (see from the 11/12
production to Coughlin by the 123 of &,0,! bates stamped pages at bates &01&4&01/ AillBs
11!12 email to Ging, five page grievance, unsigned, unsworn (interstingly, either Aill failed
to really include such EdisclosuresF or Ging e'cised such, inappropriately, from this &,0,! 1C8
105(2*(c* production of 11/12, causing much prejudice to CoughlinBs defense
3evada4E'cuse4for4"ailing4to4#bey41C84105424c *:
Danuary 1!, 2012 ;+9 E=9+$ #3$N patric77Lnvbar)org (atric7
%2!!2
Ging, EsH) 9ssistant 2ar Counsel 8e: -achary 2) Coughlin, EsH) 3evada 2ar 3o)
,!/&
=r) Ging:
Nou and + have &reviousl( discussed =r) Coughlin) =r)
Coughlin, due to his mental instability, lac7 of integrity, and complete
incompetence, constitutes a danger to the public if he is allowed to continue to
practice law) <his letter is written to discharge my and m( associate;s re&orting
o%ligations under @. 2.D) (lease consider the following:
1) 8issone v) ?essin, C;10401&!1) 6lthough not among
Mr, Coughlin0s most significant ethical violations8 it %resents a good
microcosm of his derelictions) Mr, 2essin #as a client of our office) Ae
defrauded the plaintiff, as is his modus o&erandi in dealing with women)
9ppro'imately one year after judgment was entered and the case concluded, =r)
Coughlin interjected himself in the case on behalf of ?essin, trying to collect on a
sanction award against opposing counsel) +t turns out that because he had filed
ban7ruptcy, ?essin no longer owns this claim) +f you loo7 at the file, you will see
that Coughlin a%%eared and then filed a biLarre F%artial #ithdra#alF
document on December %, 2011)
1ubseHuent to that time, Coughlin has been ghostwriting documents
that &ur&ort to %e from Gessin' individuall(' and e1filing them for Gessin, 8e is
using the C?s?C for Gessin;s signature, )hese are clearly not documents that are
signed or &re&ared %( 7r. Gessin' and the fact that some%od( <.oughlin= e1files
them confirms he is ghostwriting #ithout the re:uired disclosure) +n addition, it
a&&ears that Coughlin has facilitated the filing of what ma( %e a fraudulent
ban7ruptcy on behalf of ?essin) CoughlinBs lac7 is demonstrated in the ?essin case
by the fact that he does not understand the effect on the ownership of ?essinBs
potential claims from ?essin having filed a %an)ru&tc(, (i)e), the claims now
belong to the ban7ruptcy trustee, not ?essin)*
9s with all of the matters referenced below, + strongly suggest that you
contact the 4econd Judicial "istrict .ourt and get e1filing access to the cases
mentioned so you can loo7 at the documents yourself) ?lade Aall, EsH), is
opposing counsel in that case and may be of help to you)
2) $ am informed and believe that Mr, Coughlin #as recentl(
convicted of a theft crime in eno 7unici&al .ourt) 5 am further informed that
the matter arises out of shoplifting at 6almart) <hat case is presently on appeal to
the district court in case number C811420.!) =r) Coughlin is representing himself)
&) =r) Coughlin is presently facing criminal charges regarding the theft
of an i(od) <hat is pending in 8eno Dustice Court as case number 8C820114
0.&&!1) + have reviewed the file) =r) Coughlin got into some sort of argument
with his public defender) 9s a result, he was referred out for a competency
evaluation)
!) 6e represent Dr) =atthew =er+iss, a physician from Chico,
%&!!2
California) Dr) =erliss owns the property at /0/ iver oc) 4treet, 8eno, 3evada)
2eginning in =arch 2010, the property was leased to =r) Coughlin and his then4
girlfriend) <he lease e6&ired in )e!ruary -E,,) <he girlfriend left the community
in appro'imately =ay 2011) Dr) =erliss contacted us in appro'imately 9ugust
2011 to assist in evicting =r) Coughlin) Coughlin had not paid rent or utilities
since =ay) Ae contended that there were habitability issues with the property that
-ustified his withholding rent) 9ll of his claims were decided adversely to his
position at the eviction hearing) Dustice of the (eace (eter SferaFFa ordered
Coughlin evicted from the premises effective Novem!er , -E,,) On that date, the
Kashoe County 'heriff0s De%artment &erformed their normal eviction
&rocedure: loc&s #ere changed and the eviction notice was &osted on the front
door) Ke videota%ed the home and its contents at that time) @pon inspection
over the ne't few days, it became apparent that OsomebodyO was brea7ing into the
home on a regular basis)
#n 1unday, 3ovember 1&, 2011, Dr) =erliss came to town, and + met
him at the home on 8iver 8oc7 1treet) 9s we wal7ed through the home, it was
obvious that someone been in there since + had last been in several days before) Dr)
=erliss discovered that the basement door was barricaded (not loc7ed* from the
inside) <he 8eno (olice Department was summoned) )hey tried to coa6 whoever
was in the %asement out, without success) 9fter Dr) =erliss had to 7ic7 the door
down, it #as discovered that Mr, Coughlin had %ro)en in and #as in the
basement) Ae was arrested and is &resentl( facing criminal tres&ass charges in
eno 7unici&al .ourt) 1ee case no) 11 CR 2$+5 21) Ae is also facing a
contempt motion in front of Judge SferaFFa in the eviction case) 1fera::a has
stayed that matter pending the resolution of the criminal trial) <hat was scheduled
for Danuary 10, 2012, but was continued at the reHuest of =r) CoughlinBs new
attorney)
5) <he eviction order is now on appeal to the 1econd Dudicial District
Court) 1ee case C;l140&.2%, pending in Department /) 9s part of the eviction
process, a lien was asserted against the personal property that Coughlin left behind
at the home) #n Novem%er /K' 05//, Coughlin filed a motion to contest the
landlordBs lien in the Reno Justice Court) )he court tried to &rom&tl( set a
hearing8 but Coughlin refused to coo&erate in setting the matter8 and the court
too) it off calendar) Coughlin then reinitiated that process and a hearing was held
in *ecem!er, at which time the court heard evidence of .oughlin;s lac) of
coo&eration in setting the Novem%er hearing) :ou ma( also want to contact
eno Justice .ourt staff' and in &articular' chief cler) Earen 4tancil, about =r)
CoughlinBs abusive treatment of her and her staff) 9fter the hearing, the court
issued an #rder granting Coughlin a two4day time window to remove his personal
property) <he first day was <hursday, December 22, 2011) 9fter Coughlin was
allowed into the home that first day, he sent out an e4mail to the effect that because
he had a&&ealed Judge 'feraLLa0s order, he was entitled to a sta( of &roceedings
and #as going to resume living in the home) 9s a result, he did very little to
%!!!2
remove any of his personal property that day) #n "riday, December 2&, 2011, after
he learned, again, that his sta( had been denied, Coughlin assembled a small crew
and they were able to remove a substantial amount of his personal property) (Nou
need to understand that Mr+ Coughlin is a hoarder) !e have the &hotos and videos
if (ou would li)e to see them)*
Aowever, =r) Coughlin did not get all of his property out) "or e'ample,
+ counted 1& car seats that he had somehow managed to get down into the
basement) 8aving failed to remove all of his %elongings, =r) Coughlin then
moved before Judge /lanagan for a tem%orary restraining order to &revent
the dis&osal of his a%andoned &ro&ert( in accordance #ith Judge 'feraLLa0s
order) 9ttached is =r) CoughlinBs motion, my officeBs opposition, and =r)
CoughlinBs reply) )hese documents demonstrate Mr, Coughlin0s com%lete and
utter incom%etence as an attorney)
#n Januar( //' 05/0, Dudge "lanagan denied =r) CoughlinBs reHuest
for a tem&orar( restraining order) #n Januar( /0' 05/0, the contractor hired to
clean the house commenced wor7) =r) Coughlin flagged the contractor down in
traffic when he (the contractor* was on his way to the dump with the a%andoned
&ro&ert( from the house) Coughlin called the police, who arrived at the transfer
station) Coughlin was falsely asserting that the contractor had tried to run him over)
Ae also told the police
that the contractor had stolen his possessions) 9fter + presented the court orders to
the &olice, the contractor was allowed to proceed) %t their instruction, + have now
had a <(# issued against Coughlin by 8eno Dustice Court)
Aowever, before the contractor could get bac7 to the 8iver 8oc7 house,
Coughlin was there) Ae had his video camera and was wal7ing up and down the
street screaming and yelling at the police, at the contractor, and at me' when $
arrived) =r) Coughlin ended up being arrested and ta)en to -ail) <he police
informed me that because of the number and ty%es of contacts they have had
#ith him, he is no longer eligi%le for citations in the event of infractions)
Enclosed you will find a co%y of a su&&lemental document filed by
Mr,
Coughlin on January 1.8 2+12, and sent to my staff and + by email from Coughlin
that morning) Please note that the attorne( designation on the first %age
indicates that it is being filed by Coughlin as appellant) Nou will note that the
caption is from a different case) +t is unclear in which case Mr+ Coughlin intended
to file this document, although, because of the case number and the caption, it
appears to have ultimately %een routed to the Carpentier case (C;0%401/0,* and
not the eviction appeal case (C;1140&.2%*) + am told that counsel in the
ca&tioned case ma( also %e in the &rocess of filing a %ar com&laint against
.oughlin)
.) 6hen the house was secured after CoughlinBs arrest, we found a
crac4 pipe and a !ag of what appeared to !e mari$uana) &he contractor also
reported finding a bo' of pills and a vial of some sort) !e understand .oughlin
%5!!2
has unsuccessfull( tried the Law(ers .oncerned for Law(ers &rogram' and that
he has a histor( of su%stance &ro%lems)
/) =r) Coughlin has filed two lawsuits against his former em&lo(er'
!ashoe Legal 4ervices. Ae has sued all of the !oard of directors and the
management of the company) 2oth cases have now been dismissed) 1oth cases
demonstrate his lac& of com%etence) ? suggest you contact Jose%h 2arin8 9s:,,
in $as ;egas, as he was counsel for the defendants in that case) Iou may #ant to
contact @aul Elcano' Es*.' the director of !ashoe Legal 4ervices)
%) =r) Coughlin has a habit of initiating cases and as7ing to proceed in
forma pauperis) Ae has done so in cases against me, my office, my client, and
6ashoe $egal 1ervices) Iou #ill find them if you run a search for .oughlin L
on the 4econd Judicial "istrict .ourt we%site, <he courts that have reviewed the
documents have generally denied his reHuests) 6hat is of note is that his
re%resentations in the a%%lications to %roceed in forma %au%eris are
inconsistent #ith and contrary to the re%resentations that he has made to
Judge /lanagan in the conte@t of see&ing a tem%orary restraining order) #n
the one hand, he tells the court he is bro&e and has no %ro%erty, and on the
other hand, he is telling the court that he has a great deal of valua!le property at
the home that needs to !e protected) <his demonstrates a gross lac4 of candor with
the tri!unals with which he deals)
,) Coughlin has also tried to file a case against me8 my associate8 my
client8 and others8 including the Reno Justice Court) +t is also to be found on
the #ebsite) Dudge 1teinheimer has ruled that he did not comply with 38C( %)
10) CoughlinBs behavior was unusual to start, and has become more and
more bi:arre during the time we have been dealing with him) Ae serves papers he
does not file, and files does not serve) Ae consistently signs certificates of service
that he has mailed to us, but we have never received from him by mail) "e has
%osted videos of the eviction service attem%ts and %arts of the trial on
Iou)ube8 including some recordings he secretl( made in court with his
cell&hone,
11) 9nother e@am%le of his incom%etence is that he does not
understand what orders are' and are not' a&&eala%le) Ae does not understand
that filing a notice of a%%eal divests the lower court of -urisdiction) + am
confident that once you loo7 into this matter, you will agree that =r) Coughlin
should not be practicing law) Ae is a danger to the community)
'incerely8 CsC Richard 2, "ill 8?A:7n Enclosures: 4Coughlin
9mended Emergency =otion for 8estraining #rder 4=erliss #pposition to =otion
for <8# 4Coughlin 8eply to #pposition to =otion for <8# 41uppleinental 8eply
to #pposition dated 11&12
(3#<E: the header to each of the five pages of this purported 11!12
letter by Aill to the 123 reads: E$etter to (atric7 Ging, EsH), Danuary 1!, 2012F*)
2!) 1tate 2ar Counsel called attorney Paul 9lcano to testify at the hearing of
%.!!2
this matter) =r) Elcano is the e'ecutive director of 6ashoe $egal 1ervices that &rovides legal
services to indigents) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( %%, $ 25 4(
%,, $ 1!) (EAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages %%:25 to %,:1!* EU (G+3?* =r) Elcano, could you
state your name and spell it for the record, please) 9 (aul Elcano) E4$4C49434#) U 9nd how
are you employedJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm sorry) +f + can just Huic7ly interject) + donBt mean to
ta7e up time) <he second of three witnesses is one who was only noticed about four, five days
ago, so + will object to that) +Bm standing on ceremony with 1C8 1052(c*) =8) ECAE;E88+9:
#verruled) (roceed) 2N =8) G+3?: U Could you tell the panel how you are employedJ 9
+Bm currently the e'ecutive director of 6ashoe $egal 1ervices, a 501(c*&, that provides legal
services to indigents)F*
Coughlin was employed by 6ashoe $egal 1ervices from 9ugust 2,, 200/ to =ay
11, 200,) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( ,&, $ 1/ 420)
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age ,&:1/ to ,&:20* U + believe + as7ed you if the 6ashoe $egal
1ervices had employed =r) CoughlinJ 9 9ccording to our records, he was employed about
9ugust 2,th, 200/, to =ay 11, 200,)F*
=r) Elcano %ecame aware of an order entered by Judge 2ardner on A&ril /5'
0553 in the matter of Doshi v Doshi and, as a result, reviewed the ta&ed transcri&t of the
hearing) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( ,!, $ 22 4( ,5, $ .)
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages ,!:22 to ,5:.* EU (G+3?* 2ac7ing up to what activities did you
personally see or witness that formed the basis of your opinion that he is not competent to
practiceJ 9 (E$C93#* <he first one was the order entered in the Doshi case by Dudge
?ardner wherein he was sanctioned for various things which are listed in the order) 9s a result
of that, + reviewed the tape of the hearing) U 1o you actually listened to the hearing itselfJ 9
Nes) + went through the hearing transcript)F*
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 11,:1/ to 122:15* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U 6hatBs
your understanding with respect to the position ta7en by me in that trial vis4a4vis the majority
viewpoint of law on setting off or offsetting domestic duties li7e alimony or child support with
third4party debts in a property settlement or debt settlement conte'tJ 9 +Bm still not sure +
understand the Huestion) 2ut there were no children, as + recall, so child custody had no issue in
it) 9nd in terms of the offset, + donBt 7now what law you proffered) U 6ell, a duty li7e
alimony) 9 domestic duty) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <o me thatBs an incomplete Huestion) 6hatBs
the complete HuestionJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + guess +Bm trying to ascertain =r) ElcanoBs
awareness of the position) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U 6hatBs your understanding of the
permissibility of setting off a debt with a duty, a domestic dutyJ =8) G+3?: #bjection)
+rrelevant) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 1ustained) =8) C#@?A$+3: Did you say relevancyJ =ay +
respond to it, your AonorJ Dust to the e'tent =r) Elcano is here today purporting to critiHue my
wor7 in that regard, + thin7 it is relevant to ascertain whether or not he has any sort of
conception of permissibility of setting off a domestic duty, li7e alimony, with some debt) =y
point) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9re you finishedJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Neah) 9nd + didnBt end it
very well, but + didnBt want to give away what + feel the answer is or the majority viewpoint of
9merican law) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he objection is sustained) =r) Coughlin, itBs now 11:!1)
Nou have five more minutes) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) 8eallyJ <he relevancy objection is
sustained) Ae gets to testify as to how clueless + am) 9nd this when + as7 to see if he has any
%/!!2
sort of 7nowledge in this area, itBs not relevantJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: AeBs testified on a
number of issues as to your competency, your demeanor in the courtroom, your conduct toward
witnesses, toward judges, your ability to follow the judgeBs directions) =8) C#@?A$+3: <hey
are all relevant when he was tal7ing about them) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hose issues are, sir)
6hether or not he 7nows the intricacies of some fine point of law to me is irrelevant) 3ow, if
you have some Huestions to address to =r) Elcano, please do so, and letBs not argue) =8)
C#@?A$+3: #7ay) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U =r) Elcano, for you to have any sort of
legitimate informed bases for the opinion you proffered here today with respect to my
competency incident to my wor7 in that Doshi case, wouldnBt you need to 7now whether or not a
domestic duty is accorded greater significance and protection in the law than is a third4party
debt 44 9 3o) U 44 thereinJ +tBs not permissible to do essentially what Dudge ?ardner tried to
force on my client, which is accept a settlement, whereby a setoff is made whereby my client
waived her alimony in e'change for =r) 1pringgateBs client saying he set it off by the debts, by
ta7ing them on, even though they could never get at her anyway because he was the sole
signatory) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +s there a Huestion there, =r) CoughlinJ <AE 6+<3E11: +
donBt understand) =8) ECAE;E88+9: #r is that a statementJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +t is a
statement) + thin7 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hen as7 a 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: AeBs tal7ing about
things he doesnBt 7now about)F*
25) Judge Gardner;s order in the Doshi matter indicated that Coughlin had
conducted no discovery in the case and failed to %resent any documentar( evidence at the
trial of the matter on behalf of his client Mrs, Joshi, 'ee "earing 9@hibit P 128 > $ 4) (E9t
trial, =r) 1pringgate stated that =r) Coughlin had conducted no discovery in this case) +n addition, =r)
Coughlin failed to present one documentary piece of evidence at trial on behalf of =s) DoshiBs claims)
=r) Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court)))3*
9fter commenting on various negative as&ects of .oughlin;s re&resentation of his
client 7rs. Joshi' (1ee "earing 9@hibit P 128 > B 4P 1.8 > $* Judge Gardner s&ecificall(
held:
O<he most troubling aspect of this case was =r) CoughlinBs rude' sarcastic and
disres&ectful &resentation at trialC =r) CoughlinBs ina%ilit( to understand a
balance sheetC his failure to conduct discoveryC and his lac4 of 4nowledge with
regard to the rules of evidence and trial procedure) 9ll of this was compounded
with a continuousl( antagonistic &resentation of the case that resulted in a
shift from a fairly simple divorce case to a contentious divorce trial lasting an
e6cessive amount of time)O 'ee "earing 9@hibit P 1.8 > 5 41+) (Huoted above*
2.) Dudge ?ardner sanctioned Coughlin personally and awarded attorne(;s fees to
7r. Joshi in the amount of M,&! to be paid personally by Coughlin within &0 days of the order)
'ee "earing 9@hibit P 1.8 > 1$ 417) (E2ased upon the foregoing, =r) 1pringgateBs reHuest that
=r) Coughlin personally pay =r) Doshi !)15 Aours at the rate of M225 per hour for the cost of
the trial is ?893<ED) =r) Coughlin shall submit a chec7 to =r) Doshi in the amount of M,&!
within &0 days of this #rder)F*
+n re ?ygi, 5!1 ()2d 1&,2, 1&,. , #r): +n disciplinary proceeding, the 1upreme
Court held that collateral estoppel was not applicable, as standard of proof in disciplinary
proceeding was higher than that in previous)))
%%!!2
+n re 1antosuosso, &1% =ass) !%, (1,!5*: 4+n proceeding by way of inHuiry into
alleged misconduct of a member of the bar, evidence consisting of record in a civil case based
upon alleged corrupt conduct on part of defendant attorney who was present and represented by
counsel was admissible)
49 judgment at law or final decree in eHuity resting upon finding that attorney has
been guilty of corrupt conduct in civil case was not conclusive as to unfitness as a member of
the bar in a proceeding by way of inHuiry into alleged misconduct)
4"indings of material facts made by judge in civil suit upon which judgment based
upon alleged corrupt conduct on part of attorney rested were not admissible on inHuiry into
alleged misconduct of such attorney as a member of the bar, since they are not evidence but
merely constitute the substance of conclusions made by judge from the evidence, and are the
foundation upon which decree rests)
4"inding of material facts should not only not contain a report of the evidence, but is
not evidence)
(6e are unwilling to attach such conclusive effect to a judgment at law or a final
decree in eHuity, based upon alleged corrupt conduct on the part of a defendant attorney, where
the judgment or final decree entered rests upon findings that the attorney has been guilty of
corrupt conduct) +t may be observed that this was the position ta7en by the single justice in the
present case in connection with his action in overruling the demurrer to the respondentRs
answer) 6e concur therein) 2ut we are of opinion that the evidence in the proceeding in eHuity
in Huestion is admissible in an inHuiry such as the present, and li7e any other evidence is to be
given such weight as the single justice shall deem NN1+* proper, when considered together with
all other evidence that the respondent may produce at the hearing, in the course of which he
must be heard with full opportunity to present all relevant evidence that he may wish to adduce)
Uh' no. Actuall(' Judge L. Gardner has never sanctioned .oughlin) 2ut, nice job
of demonstrating what a clown of an 9sst) 2ar Counsel you are, Ging, and what an
abomination of an O+nvestigatorO you are, paralegalCler7 of CourtCustodian of 8ecords
(eters) 8ow man( law(ers lives have (ou ruined with (our fraudulent' laJ(' entitled' corru&t
a&&roachJ
<he 123Bs receiving on &1!12 within the Ebo' of materialsF 8=C Dudge 3ash
Aolmes provided the 123 in connection with her grievance letter to the 123 (1ee "AE %*
2DDC Dudge $) ?ardnerBs "AE& was simply not sufficient to satisfy the #2CBs duty to conduct
a reasonable investigation prior to putting Coughlin and his family and clients through this
barbaric spectacle) Doing so was a shameful e'ercise by Ging, (eters, and, most importantly,
the #2CBs David Clar7) <he 33D2 1creening (anel ought be subjected to some level of
inHuiry to determine what, if any, steps it too7 to determine whether "AE& was even an
operative order, if whether it had been bac7ed up off of by Dudge $) ?ardner once she reali:ed
the primrose path 1pringgate sought to lead her down, and how very fraught with persuasive
authority for the positions Coughlin argued such path was)
6here a sufficient factual basis for action is presented to it,P&Q and information
acHuired by a court with respect to professional misconduct is not sufficiently definite to
authori:e formal charges without further inHuisition,P!Q a court may be authori:ed to order an
investigation)P5Q: P"3&Q 3)N)]=atter of City Club of 3ew Nor7, 2&& 9)D) &51, 25& 3)N)1)
%,!!2
100 (2D DepBt 1,&1*) P"3!Q @)1)]1wanson v) <he "lorida 2ar, &%1 ")2D /&0 (5th Cir) 1,./*)
"la)]<he "lorida 2ar v) =assfeller, 1/0 1o) 2D %&! ("la) 1,.!*) P"35Q +nd)]1tate e' rel)
9valon 9partments Co) #f ?ary v) 1ammons, 220 +nd) &1,, &% 3)E)2D %!. (1,!2*, cause
dismissed, 220 +nd) &1,, !2 3)E)2D .2. (1,!2*) <enn)]E' parte Chattanooga 2ar 9ssBn, 20.
<enn) /, &&0 1)6)2D &&/ (1,5,*) #rder in e'cess of jurisdiction 9r7)]Davis v) =erritt, 252
9r7) .5,, !%0 1)6)2D ,2! (1,/2*) +t is highly debatable whether the #2C even had any
jurisdiction to bring such 3?1240!&5 (or 0!&!, depending on when one as7ed Ging and (eters
and how hard they were still trying to sell the idea that the 123 EreceivedF from 2DDC Dudge
$) ?ardner a EgrievanceF, especially where Ging and (eters, for a time, 7ept trying to maintain
that 8=C Dudge Aolmes had not been the provider to the 123 of "AE&)
6here no specific complaint had been made) =c?rath, 1&5 ()2d 1)
"rom: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com <o: cindy)"ladagerLwashoecourts)@s
CC: joey)AastingsLwashoecourts)@sC jgarinLlipsonneilson)ComC
judge)AardyLwashoecourts)@sC david)AardyLwashoecourts)@sC
aocmailLnvcourts)3v)?ovC bhutchinsLjudicial)1tate)3v)@sC
dfsarnows7iLjudicial)1tate)3v)@sC 7pic7eringLnvcourts)3v)?ov 1ubject: D;0%4
011.% issues Date: <hu, 22 9ug 201& 12:!/:50 40/00
=s) "ladager, + have a couple of Huestions) + am writing to complain
about the fact that the 6CD9 DD9 Noung has had greater access to the 8#9 in
several cases, including C81&40.1! than +, a non efiler, have been accorded)
6hereas Noung has access to a digital copy of the over 500 page 8#9 in C81&4
0.1! Coughlin has been refused a digital copy thereof, and, despite the fact that
numerous counter cler7s have indicated to Coughlin that all criminal defendants are
entitled to one free copy of every filing in their cases, =ichelle (urdy and Dulie 6ise
have order cler7s not to allow Coughlin such a free copy of filings in his cases,
including the 8#9 (or ODustice Court 9ppealO* in C81&40.1!) 9s to D;0%4011.%,
and the removal of Coughlin from the list of those afforded e"le' access during a
very e'igent time, how does such comport with 6DC8 2&:
KDCR Rule 2., 6%%earancesJ substitutionsJ #ithdra#al or change of
attorneys)))) 2) Counsel in any case may be changed: (a* 6hen a new attorney is to
be substituted in place of the attorney withdrawing, by the written consent of %oth
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 actionC or (b* B( order of the
court, u&on motion and notice as &rovided in these rules, when no attorney has
been retained to replace the attorney withdrawingC )))
9sst) Cler7 of Court 6ise and =ichelle (urdy (and, formerly 9ppeals
Cler7 $ori =atheus* ta7e an incredibly strict (and, inventive, even* approach to
technical rules when it comes to Coughlin, yet, the 6CD9Bs #ffice and +nside
2aseball power players li7e 6ashoe $egal 1ervices Elcano, get a pass, some might
say)
Khy is K>' able to have Coughlin Fsubstituted outF #ithout the
Fsignature of both attorneysF #ithout any motion8 etc,A "urther, problematic is
the fact that the efle' number accorded to CoughlinBs 5200, 8eply in that Doshi
,0!!2
matter is numerically subse:uent to the =rder denying the Motion) 9nd, there
does not seem to be a 8eHuest to 1ubmit sufficient to have CoughlinBs !&00,
=otion and 1pringgateBs 5120, #pposition put to Dudge $) ?ardner, and certainly
not soon enough for her to craft a / page #rder) 9dditionally, CoughlinBs 5200,
#pposition (which was filed using the dropbo' reHuired by 6DC8 10 that the 2DDC
continues to fail to provide in what some might say is an impermissible arm twisting
attempt to ma7e litigants sign up for e"le'* has two file stamps on it, one crossed
out)
9dditionally, can you please indicate why you sent Coughlin an email of
.2%0, reHuesting that he resubmit his Complaint against 6ashoe $egal 1ervices
and indicate whether there was some impermissible attempt to game the random
assignment of cases sufficient to result in 2DDC Dudge Elliott being assigned C;114
01,55 in CoughlinBs lawsuit against C996 and 6$1 where Dudge Elliott sat on
C996Bs E'ecutive 2oard, and never disclosed such to Coughlin and failed to recuse
himselfJ Certainly, these peculiarities in D;0%4011.% and the ensuing wrongful
termination litigations in C;114 01%,. and C;11401,55 are noteworthy given the
spate of Efle' rejections of CoughlinB filing in the first Huarter of 2012 (1, of 2&
filings rejected at one point, many of which were of an e'igent nature and submitted
in the two Coughlin v) 6$1 wrongful termination suits* combined with the 6ashoe
County 1heriffBs #ffice failure to timely serve the defendants in C;11401%,. despite
Coughlin having an +"( on file, where .0&02 (and .0&1/* reveal the e'tent to which
those cases were largely gutted due to such failure to timely serve the defendants
where CoughlinBs =otions for E'tension of <ime <o 1erve (which both too7
appro'imately five attempts to get 9ppeal Cler7 $ori =atheus to accept for filing*
were denied, to CoughlinBs e'treme prejudice (no matter whether the #rder indicated
such dismissals were Owithout prejudiceO where the running of the ,0 days from
Oreceipt of EE#C right to sue letterO occurred in the interim and arguably, effectively
foreclosed CoughlinBs refiling such Complaints)
+nterestingly, that same OreceiptO concept became e'ceedingly relevant
incident to the 6ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice numerous burglaries of CoughlinBs
former home law offices and rentals (see 8ev20114001/0%, 8ev20124000&/!,
8ev20124 0010!%, 8C8201240./,%0, 8=C 12 C8 12!20, etc* given the Owithin 2!
hours of receipt of the orderO language in 381 !0)25&(5*(a* with respect to how
summary eviction loc7outs are to be carried out in the conte't of a summary removal
order within a summary eviction case) (erhaps not so surprisingly, 2DDC Dudge $)
?ardnerBs brother 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner, did not find CoughlinBs arguments
compelling in the criminal trespass case against Coughlin (see .1,01 1C8 111(!*
(etition in 3) 1) Ct* incident to opposing counsel in C;1140&.2% burglari:ing
Coughlin former home law office with the 6C1# in tow on 11111, and again, but
with the 8(D along for the fun, on 111&11 (not to mention the similar burglaries by
the 6C1#, li7e that of &1512 (just an hour before the very 2:&0 p)m), hearing
before 3;2 Dudge 2eesley in 3;241040510!, Cadle Co) v) Geller that Dudge
2eesley testified with regard to during the 111!12 formal disciplinary matter from
,1!!2
which the proposal to permanently disbar Coughlin is now on appeal in .2&&/ before
the 3evada 1upreme Court*, and that of .2%12 incident to the fraudulently obtained
and patently invalid summary eviction order in 8DC 8ev201240010!%, at which time
the 6C1# further violated 1oldal v) Coo7 County, 50. @1 5. (1,,2*, in wrongfully
arresting Coughlin in 8C82012]0./,%0* 8ussell v) Galian, !1! 9)2D !.2) +orio v
City of 3ew Nor7, ,. =isc)2D ,55) =ayes v) @;+)
1pea7ing of -CJC Canon 28 Rule 2,15 and reporting misconduct (there
by 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner* to an Oa%%ro%riate authorityO, 2DDC Dudge $)
?ardnerBs apparent failure to contact the 123 or otherwise ta7e Oa&&ro&riate actionO
;#ell8 unless one counts %oisoning the #ell of RMC Judges via im%ermissible
e@tra Gudicial communications against Coughlin in 11 CR 2217 ;see +*.*<8 11
CR 2$+58 11 )R 2*++ ;see 2..7<8 12 CR ++B8 12 CR 12$2+ as ta&ing
Fa%%ro%riate actionF8 to #hatever e@tent %assing the $C1.C+B =rder 6fter )rial
;/"9. at Coughlin0s 11C1$C12 formal disci%linary hearing< to her o#n brother
;an Fa%%ro%riate authorityFA<)
/urther8 a really detailed revie# of the Certificates of Mailing in all
filings in DV+*4+11* subse:uent to Coughlin0s removal from the list of those
allo#ed to access it on e/le@ reveals some rather8 uh8 interesting8 things)
9dditionally, the doc7et entry in ";0,400%%. @ribe v) ;alde:, indicating 6ashoe
$egal 1ervices 2oard (resident G) 2rec7enridge ordered, on !100, the audio
recording of a &120, <(# hearing wherein Coughlin represented a male victim of
domestic violence (where Coughlin complained to Elcano that 6$1Bs 1ternlicht told
a room full of individuals see7ing services, which included two males, that Omales
cannot be victims of domestic violenceO*, which is particularly interesting timing
considering 6$1Bs E'ec) Director ElcanoBs indications in his letters to Coughlin on
510, and 5/0, as to e'actly why (with limiting language* Coughlin was
suspended and then fired on 51!0,) +nterestingly, despite 2DDC Dudge $)
?ardnerBs .1,0, #rder vitiating ElcanoBs rationale for firing Coughlin where such
order vacating the attorney fee sanction that 1pringgate was able to garner in
invo7ing 381 /)0%5 +n his closing argument (the incorporation of 38C( 11 therein
ma7ing problematic 1pringgateBs failure to serve any filing ready sanctions motion,
much less allow the passing of the reHuired 21 day safe harbor*)
#f course, AillBs and 2a7erBs burglary entails an 8(C %)& burden as well)
Aowever, Elcano still showed up to CoughlinBs 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing
(where the 123 violated 1C8 105(2*(c* in only constructively noticing Coughlin
that Elcano was to be a witness the day before the hearing, rather than providing the
reHuired O&0 days written notice* and testified as though the !1&0, #rder 9fter
<rial had not been superseded by the .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce)
+nterestingly, another case involving Coughlin, 1pringgate, and 2DDC
Dudge $) ?ardner illustrates one of the very reasons why entering into the proposed
settlement agreement that 1pringgate accused Coughlin of being Ove'atiousO for
failing to coerce his client into accepting) +sa7son, D;0,4001.&) 1omehow between
1pringgateBs 5210, (roposed Decree and 8eHuest for 1ubmission thereof (in which
,2!!2
1pringgate, whom failed to serve such on Coughlin indicates that 6$1 saw no
problems with such 5210, (roposed Decree, which includes an attorneyBs fee
sanction and failed to award =rs) Doshi alimony (whether Coughlin is not considered
a OpartyO under 6DC8 , does not stop the 123 from attempting to apply offensive
collateral estoppel to a vacated !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial, sufficient to OproveO by
clear and convincing evidenceO that Coughlin violated a multitude of 8ules of
(rofessional Conduct incident to successfully obtaining alimony for =rs) Doshi) +
appreciate your response to these matters) 1incerely, -ach CoughlinF
9s to the #2CBs Ging and O+nvestigatorO (eters prosecuting Coughlin, and so far
being well on their way to getting him permanently disbarred, in part, in connection with an
allegations that a since vacated !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial (considering the .1,0, "inal Decree
of Divorce in such matter, D;0%4011.%, and the direction in "AE& that 1pringgate prepare
such Efinal decreeF (8#9 1/./:1%422: E5) @re&aration of the "ecree4 =r) 1pringgate sha+l
prepare the decree of divorce consistent with this memorandum decision) 7r. 4&ringgate
shall tender his &ro&osed decree to 7r. .oughlin. @ursuant to !". 3' within 05 da(s from
the date of this order, ?##D C9@1E 9((E98+3?, +< +1 1# #8DE8ED,OF (3#<E:
1pringgate failed to so Etender his proposed decree to =r) CoughlinF, much less within the 20
days reHuired by "AE&, much less comply with the dictate that Coughlin be afforeded 5
judicial days, per 6DC8 ,, so indicate his objections to such)))1pringgate only providing
Coughlin a copy of the 5210, (roposed Decree he attached to a 5210, 8eHuest for
1ubmission upon Coughlin writing 1pringgate on 52!0, and demanding such* sanctioning
Coughlin ("AE&* (8#9 1/5541/.%* (noting 8#9 1/.1:,410 (O=r) Coughlin cited an AL
article regarding communit( de%t and stated his client Odoes not have much for the creditors to
ta7e)O 9lso, note that lac7 of awareness of 8(C &)/ 9t 8#9 1/.1:1/422*
"urther, it was reversible error to admit "AE&, much less in its entirety) 9ll of the
"indings of "act section therein is not OevidenceO and cannot be used to allege the
1chaeffer1tuhff Oclear and convincing evidenceO burden of proof was met)
+n re 6eiss, !.0 =ass) 1012 (2011*: 1anctions by (robate and "amily Court in
underlying case reHuiring attorney to resign his appointment as guardian for an elderly woman,
forgo fees attorney claimed to have earned, and pay certain sums to guardianship estate did not
preclude, due to res judicata, subseHuent attorney disciplinary proceedings arising out of
conduct in same underlying caseC bar counsel was not a party to underlying guardianship
proceedings, and, while the conduct described in bar counselRs petition for discipline may have
come to light and been e'amined by the judge in the conte't of the guardianship proceeding,
and while there were evident adverse conseHuences for the attorney in that proceeding, the
separate Huestion whether the attorneyRs conduct warranted professional discipline was not for
the guardian ad litem to prosecute or for the probate judge to adjudicate))))OAowever, Eit creates
no privity between two parties that, as litigants in two different suits, they happen to be
interested in proving or disproving the same facts)F 1turbridge v) "ran7lin, 1.0 =ass) 1!,, 151,
&5 3)E) .., (1%,&*))))<he duties and prerogatives of bar counsel and the board]and this
courtRs power to superintend the bar and impose discipline when appropriate]are not
preempted or compromised in any way by the decisions of other counsel (here, the guardian ad
litem* or the judge in the underlying litigation)O
,&!!2
(E=r) Doshi reHuested that =r) Coughlin personally pay his attorneyBs feel for !)15
Aours of trial at the rate of M225 per hour pursuant to 381 /)0%5) Mr, '%ringgate testified
=r) Coughlin had not conducted any discovery, had produced no evidence regarding =rs)
DoshiBs community debts other than her "inancial Declaration )))presented no evidence
regarding alimony, and had acted in a ve'atious and unreasonable manner in representing =rs)
Doshi in this divorce proceeding)F* (3#<E: interesting, O=r) 1pringgateO OtestifiedO, huhJ
9pparently, Coughlin was not permitted any opportunity to OtestifyO as to that which was not
even being litigated (ie, whether 1pringgate or his client should be awarded attorneyBs fees
under 381 /)0%5 (much less whether Coughlin had committed any professional misconduct
therein)))to say nothing of the lac7 of privity issues, dangers of allowing the sort of offensive
collateral estoppel 2ar Counsel see7s to assert here, whether he characteri:es it as such or not*,
Especially where 1pringgate only first made such motion in his closing argument)))1o much for
Coughlin being the one whom either could not grasp or willfully refused to follow Osimple
procedural rulesO)
Ging and (eters did not manage to OinvestigateO anything about Dudge 3ash
AolmesB, er) Dudge 6illiam ?ardnerBs, er, 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardnerBs "AE& O#rder 9fter <rialO,
and as such, despite Coughlin ma7ing such patently clear and providing them every filing in
the case, in addition to his =andamus (etitions and filings therein in 5&%&& and 5!%!!, Ging
and (eters were successful in their Olets put earmuffs and blindfolds on ourselves as to all this
stuff Coughlin is showing us that prevents us from brown nosing those in powerO approach,
sufficient to violate 38C( 11 and 381 /)0%5, see7ing to disbar Coughlin based on a non4
e'istent attorney fee sanction by Dudge $) ?ardner) )hese clo#nfrauds attem%ted to disbar a
domestic violence attorney for a legal aid organiLation for his successfully obtaining a
Decree a#arding his client alimony) $et that sin7 in) 1ay it out loud) 3ow, e'plain to me
how (at Ging or $aura (eters can remain employed by the 1tate 2ar of 3evada (an Oarm of the
CourtO under 6aters* for another second longer) 1eriously)
9nd, actually, Ging will now have another reason to investigate the Doshi case a bit
more, considering this filing is also being submitted as a grievance against K>'0s 9lcano
and John '%ringgate8 9s:) +ts tough to decide whose approach is more suspension worthy,
considering 1pringgate filed an %!12 =otion for #rder to 1how Cause (the since elminated
attorneyBs fees award ordered Coughlin to pay 1pringgate directly, which tells you something,
right there* see7ing to have Coughlin held in contempt for failing to pay an attorney fee award
that no longer e'isted, whereas Elcano collects a chec7 as the OE'ecutive DirectorO of 6$1,
yet testified as to the e'istence of an attorneyBs fee award that does not e'ist anymore, even
where Elcano and Coughlin are engaged in an ongoing wrongful termination litigation
involving just that very Doshi case in D;0%4011.% and ElcanoBs claim that an attorneyBs fee
award that was vacated somehow, all by itself, justified CoughlinBs firing) 9nd, Ging and
Echeverria purport to find that Aill and Elcano provided Oe'pertO testimony) +f by Oe'pert
testimonyO Ging meant they provided so much negligent jac7ass claptrap, then,
yeah)))sure)))they provided Oe'pert testimonyO) 9ctually, that is not fair) <heir -ac)ass
cla&tra& was fraudulent, rather than negligent)
9nd David Clar7 has some BsplaininB to do, too, especially if what 6C(D Dim $eslie
attributes to Clar7 is true respecting $eslieBs contention that the 123 coddled him into ignoring
,!!!2
his duty of confidentiality to his then client Coughlin)
<here is not any sanctions order of any legally operative effect in e'istence that so
holds) 6hat is sanctionable is Ging and Dudge 3ash Aolmes presenting such (and perhaps
Dudge $) ?ardner and her !rother 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner for giving such to Dudge 3ash
Aolmes, though, clearly, Dudge 6) ?ardner e'pressed surprise to hear that such "AE& that he
received from his sister and passed around to his fellow 8=C Dudges had been provided to the
123 by Dudge 3ash Aolmes (echoing the lac7 of permission to spea7 on his behalf that 8=C
Dudge Dilworth e'pressed disatisfaction with respect to during the trial incident to the wrongful
8(D arrest of /&12 in 8=C 12 C8 12!20*) 6hether Dudge 6) ?ardner was negligent in
providing such inoperative "AE& to Dudge 3ash Aolmes is a matter for =r) 1arnows7i, and
perhaps the courts, given judicial immunity is not Huite such an impenetrable defense when it
comes to courts of limited jurisdiction)))1ee, $ippis, or maybe its ?la:ier)
<he e'tremely apparent behind the scenes voodoo, +nside 2aseball, shenanigans
engaged in between 6ashoe $egal 1ervices, 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner, 1pringgate, and the 2DDC
"iling #fficeBs =ichelle (urdy (whom manages to 7eep a straight face when alleging that
Coughlin somehow twists her words* is especially evident upon reviewing the circumstances
surrounding CoughlinBs timely 5200, 8eply to 1pringgateBs 51&0, #pposition to CoughlinBs
!&00, =otion for 8econsideration, etc): 3#<E by Coughlin: despite having a 5200, filing
stamped date, which made timely CoughlinBs 8eply to 1pringgateBes 51&0, #pposition to
CoughlinBs =otion for 8econsideration, Dudge ?ardnerBs 5210, #rder Denying CoughlinBs
=otion actually has a numerically prior efle' number assigned to it, owing to the 2DDC
originally rejecting CoughlinBs filing just long enough to snea7 Dudge $) ?ardnerBs 5210,
#rder through, to wit, efle': D;0%4011.%410/,.2/ (#rd Denying )))*)(df D;0%4011.%4
10%&20. (8eply)))*)(df)*)(df D;0%4011.%410%&20. (8eply)))*)(df
Aow all this influence peddling and abusing the power in oneBs position by failing to
abide by the duties inherent thereto is much different from ta7ing bribes is not readily apparent
to most) Aowever, what it clear is that a long line of former 6ashoe County District 9ttorneyBs
#ffice prosecutors turned judges have brought the same dirth of prosecutorial ethics they culled
in their years there to their time on the bench, and they usually seem to be surrounded by filing
office cler7s who augment their, uh, approach) +n D;0%4011.%, 1pringgateBs 51&0,
#pposition to CoughlinBs !&00, =otion for 8econsderation violates 8(C &)1, &)&, 9nd &)! +n
misstating 381 /)0%5 (6hich, contrary to 1pringgateBs assertion, does not have language Every
similar to 38C( 11F but, actually, specifically incorporates 38C( 11, which highlights the
ve'atiousness in 1pringgate moving for sanctions Epursuant to 381 /)0%5F +n his closing
arguments at trial where he had failed to comply with the procedural reHuirement within 38C(
11 that one serve on the opposing party a filing ready sanctions motion and allow a 21 day safe
harbor period of time to pass before filing or ma7ing any such motion for sanctions)
1pringgateBs 51&0, #pposition in the matter from which "AE& stems (D;0%4
011.%* reads:
E#((#1+<+#3 <# 8E#@E1< "#8 8EC#31+DE89<+#3 C#=E1 3#6 the
(laintiff, 91A6l3 D#1A+, by and through his counsel of record, D#A3 () 1(8+3??9<E,
E1U), and opposes the =otion of -ac) Coughlin, EsH), representing himself, for
reconsideration of the #rder 9fter <rial) <his opposition is made and based upon the attached
,5!!2
=emorandum of (oints and 9uthorities, and all the papers and pleadings on file in this action)
D9<ED this 1&
th
day of =ay, 200,) 1 Dohn 1pringgate, EsH)
M9M=R6-DEM =/ P=?-)' 6-D 6E)"=R?)?9' =r) Coughlin, via e4
filing, filed a reHuest for reconsideration and e'tension of time to respond) 9 stipulation to
e'tend the time for filing a motion for reconsideration was already granted to 6ashoe $egal
1ervices, which is the attorney of record for =s) Doshi) 9s =arc 9shley, EsH), or Caryn
1ternlicht, EsH), #f 6ashoe $egal 1ervices are representing =s) Doshi, 7r. .oughlin;s motion
is addressed herein onl( insofar as it concerns the sanctions assessed individuall( against
him under N4 I.52>) 9 Court has the inherent authority to reconsider its prior orders) <rail v)
"arreto, ,1 3ev) !01,5&. ()2D 102. (1,/5*) <hat authority is further provided by local rule, in
our case, 6ashoe District Court 8ule 12(%*) Aowever, the 3evada 1upreme Court has held that
points or contentions not raised in the first instance cannot be raised on rehearing) 9chrum v)
E'pressway (la:a $td), 112 3ev) /&/, /!2, ,1/ ()2D !!/ (1,,.*, and that failure to ma7e the
arguments in the first instance constitutes a waiver) 1ee, also, Chowdhry v) 3$;A, +nc), 111
3ev) 5.0, %,& ()2D &%5 (1,,5*)
=ore importantly, rehearings are appropriately only where Osubstantially different
evidence is subseHuently introduced, or the decision is clearly erroneousO) =asonry K <ile
Contractors 9ss Bn) ;) Dolley, @rga K 6irth, $td), 11& 3ev) /&/,,!1 ()2D !%. (1,,/*) 9nd, the
trial judge has great discretion on the Huestion of rehearing) AarveyBs 6agonwheel, +nc) ;)
=ac1ween, ,. 3ev) 215, .0. ()2d 10,5 (1,%0*) =r) Coughlin puts forward no new facts, or
new law, which would justify any change in the CourtBs prior decision) (rior (roceedings: <he
parties previously appeared before the Aonorable 1cott Dordan, and attempted to settle the
matter at a 1ettlement Conference in #ctober, 200%) 9t that time, the parties left with a draft
settlement, which would have been along the same lines as that proposed at trial, to4wit: that
=r) Doshi would ta7e essentially all of the community debt, and would not pay alimony) =s)
Doshi rejected that settlement, and at trial, the parties again tried to settle for appro'imately one
and one4 +++ 424 half hours of their allocated trial time) 1ettlement was unavailing, and the
parties proceeded to trialC due to the loss of trial time, the trial was continued to another day for
conclusion) <he 9rgument for 8econsideration) =r) CoughlinBs points and authorities in
support of his position are essentially unavailing because they address a different issue)
<he cases, when read, address the issue of whether a party can alleviate a pre4
e'isting alimony debt or arrearage by paying outstanding bills to a third party, and claim a Oset
offO of the amount due the obligee) 6hile those cases would be in agreement with 3evada
practice, this was not the situation presented herein) =r) Doshi and =s) Doshi had appro'imately
M1.,000)00 of community debt that was due and needed to be paid to third parties) 9s =r)
Coughlin c#l<ectiy points out on page 1/ of his =otion, Ocreditors of such community debt are
unaffected by anything in a divorce decree from pursuing either of the parties for repayment)O
<he community creditors could pursue either =s) Doshi or =r) Doshi) +t appeared from the
evidence at trial that =r) Doshi was paying the vast amount of the outstanding community debt)
Ae proposed to the Dudge that in lieu of paying alimony, the Court utili:e the after4ta'
differential between their incomes to pay that community debt) <his would be a benefit to both
parties, reduce their joint debt, and improve both of their credit scores) =r) CoughlinBs position
at trial, which both judges tried to dissuade him from, and which he re4argues in his =otion, is
,.!!2
incorrect in that it was based upon a flawed premise) Ae seemed to be arguing for a eHual
distribution of debt, with the 7nowledge that =s) Doshi would essentially be judgment proof
because of her limited assets and income) <hus, in =r) CoughlinBs world, she would continue to
receive alimony, but would not have to pay her share of the community debt) <his argument is
essentially grounded in bad faithC =rs) Doshi is arguing that she should be attributed debt, with
no intention of paying, 7nowing she will still receive alimony) Aowever, beyond the bad faith
argument, the true flaw in the argument is revealed at page 10, where =r) Coughlin argues that
should =s) Doshi have been ordered to pay half of the community credit card debt, and that any
subseHuent failure on her part to do so Ocould li7ely not be used as a proper basis to set off any
alimony award received)O <his is incorrect) 9s =r) 4&4 Coughlin notes previously, the third
party creditors would not be restrained by the divorce decree) <hus, should =s) Doshi fail to pay
her attributed share of community debt, they would proceed for collection against =r) Doshi) +f
=r) DoshiBs monthly payments increase, due to her failure to pay the debt, he could most
certainly move the Court for a modification of his alimony award to reduce the same, based
upon the fact that his monthly e'penses had increased) 9limony is modifiable based upon a
change of circumstances, and that change in attribution of debt would most clearly be a change
of circumstance affecting his ability to pay) 1ee, 381 125)150) Aer fail`@Be to pay the )Debt
would also affect her perceived Oneed,O the other half of the alimony eHuation) +n order to
protect =s) DoshiBs potential claim to alimony, in the event that =r) Doshi should be unable to
pay these community debts that he was assuming, it was 1enior Dudge DordanBs suggestion at
the 1ettlement Conference that her right to alimony be secured by M1)00 (er year for five (5*
years, so that ifthere was a default in the payment of the community debts, she would stil+ have
an alimony award, and she could move for a modification and increase ofthe alimony) <his
format was urged upon by the Court at trial, and memoriali:ed in the #rder 9fter Aearing) <he
Court recogni:ed the sense of this proposal, in that the great li7elihood would be that if =r)
Doshi was unable to pay the community debt he would have to file ban7ruptcy, and were that to
happen, =s) Doshi would have to file ban7ruptcy as well) 8espectfully, counsel misunderstands
the law in this matter and has not thought through his position) 1iragusa v) 1iragusa, 10% 3ev)
,%/, %!& ()2D %0/ (1,,2* clearly holds modification of an alimony award would be
appropriate based upon a discharged property settlement agreement) CounselBs position has
been throughout that =s) Doshi should be awarded alimony and the community debt) Aowever,
he has made it clear that she would discharge or be non4collectible on her debt, not recogni:ing
that either =r) Doshi or the debtors would come after her for the balance of the payments) =r)
Doshi, under 1iragusa, could certainly use that as grounds for any modification of any alimony
that he was otherwise awarded to pay) +n lieu of all the above, he offered to pay the debt and
not pay her alimony) +++ +++ 4!4 1anctions) 381 1%)010 (rovides that the Courts can liberally
construe 381 1%)010(2*(2* in favor of awarding attorneyBs fees in all appropriate situations)
<he $egislature e'pressed an intent that the Court award attorneyBs fees and impose sanctions
under 38C( 11 in all appropriate situations in order to punish and deter frivolous or ve'atious
claims and defenses, due to the burden such claims and defenses placed onjudicial resources)
1ee, also, <rustees othe (lumbers K (ipe fitters @nion $ocal 525 Aealth K 6elfare <rust (lan
v) Developers 1urety K +ndemnity Co), 120 3ev) 5.,.&,%! ()&8d 5, (200!*) <he language
of381 /)0%5 +s very similar to that of38C( 11, and the intent of the legislature is clear)
,/!!2
C#3C$@1+#3 =rs) DoshiBs pursuit of this matter was frivolous or ve'atious, in that it was not
grounded under e'isting law, and in fact, was essentially urging a distribution of debts and
assets in bad faith) @nder any set of circumstances, we would end up in the same place: =r)
Doshi will end up paying the vast majority of the community debt, and that was what he
proposed to the Court) +n the event that the parties have to discharge those obligations, =s)
DoshiBs right to alimony would be maintained) <he award was straight forward, reasonable,
acceptable, both to the 1ettlement Dudge, the <rial Dudge, and counsel for =r) Doshi) +t is
regrettable that =s) DoshiBs counsel did not recogni:e the validity of that position, and continues
to argue that his view of the facts and law is accurate) Aist#lN and e'perience would suggest
that he is not correct, and his motion for reconsideration is more of the same) 6herefore, the
#rder should be maintained, and the 8eHuest for 8econsideration denied, so that this matter
may move to conclusion) D9<ED this :/ day of =ay, 200,) CE8<+"+C9<E #" 1E8;+CE
(ursuant to 38C( 5(b*, + hereby certify that + am an employee of<AE $96 #""+CE1 #"
D#A3 1(8l3??9<E, and that on this date + personally served at 8eno, 3evada, a true copy of
the within #((#1+<+#3 <# 8E#@E1< "#8 8EC#31+DE89<+#3, fully addressed to:
-ac7 Coughlin, EsH) ,!5 6est 12th 1treet 8eno, 3N %,50& Caryn 1ternlicht, EsH) 6ashoe
$egal 1ervices 2,, 1) 9rlington 9venue 8eno, 3; %,501 ' for mailing by first class mail,
postage prepaid by personal delivery by telephonic facsimile by "ederal E'press or other
overnight delivery by placing a true copy thereof for collection and delivery by 8enoCarson
=essenger 1ervice on this date) 9""+8=9<+#3 (@81@93< <# 381 2&,2)0&0 <he
undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the social
security n@mbaany person) Dated this 1&th day of =ay, 200,)F
1ubject: D;0%4011.%J "rom: "ladager, Cindy (Cindy)"ladagerLwashoecourts)@s*
1ent: 6ed 5200, !:1% (= <o: (urdy, =ichelle (=ichelle)(urdyLwashoecourts)@s*
Cc::achcoughlinLhotmail)Com Aello =ichelle: "orwarded to you for a "iling #ffice response)
-ach Coughlin, bar ,!/&, stated he is still attorney on case D;0%4011.% and should be able to
view images, however, he has been ended as attorney of record and cannot access documents in
e"le') 91A6+3 D#1A+ ;1) 2A98<+ D#1A+) + copying him on this email and suggested that
he phone you at &2%4&10/ directly for resolution) <han7 you, Cindy "ladager 2usiness
1ystems 9nalyst ++ Court <echnology 1econd Dudicial District Court
cindy)"ladagerLwashoecourts)@sF
<he #rder of ./12 by this Court (or three members of it, one of whom recused
himself from the matter involving Coughlin and 6$1 in .0&02, which is even more relevant
now that Elcano was one of four witnesses called by the 2ar, and where a second witness (Aill*
purportedly offered Ee'pertF testimony related to that 6$1 matter in .0&02 and where in the
related case in .0&1/, in the trial court matter appealed therein, 2DDC Dudge Elliott committed a
per se violation of a Canon of the Code of Dudicial Conduct in failing to disclose his 2oard
(residency for one of 6$1Bs co4defendantBs therein, C996, in CoughlinBs wrongful
termination suit (there are some curious matters related to the Erandom assignmentF of that
case, filed .&011, as well, given the emails from 2DDC Cindy "ladager reHuesting that
Coughlin refile
E8E: D;0%4011.%J "rom: -ach Coughlin (:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com* 1ent:
,%!!2
<hu 52%0, 10:51 9= <o: michelle)(urdyLwashoecourts)@s Aello =s)
(urdy, + am still affected by this case considering the attorney feeBs sanction that was levied
against me personally) 9dditionally, + have filed an 9ppeal=andamus (etition in that regard) +
feel it is arguably fair and or necessary that + continue to have access to all materials in this file
via e"le' and as7 that you consider granting me such access) 1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH)
<el: //5 &&% %11% ,!5 6) 12<h 1t) 8eno, 3; %,50& 1ubject: 8E: D;0%4011.% Date: <hu, 21
=ay 200, 0/:!1:1% 40/00 "rom: =ichelle)(urdyLwashoecourts)@s <o:
Cindy)"ladagerLwashoecourts)@s CC: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com =r) Coughlin was
substituted out of the case by 6ashoe $egal 1ervices on =ay 1!, 200,) =ichelle (urdy Deputy
Cler7 +++ 2nd Dudicial District Court, "iling #ffice E 0,49(84200, 10:!1 9= \\ 3otes )) Entry:
CD 2@83ED AE98+3? D9<E 0&4124200, K 0&4 1/4200, 8EU@E1<ED 2N -9CA98N
2) C#@?A$+3 C9$$ED "#8 (+CG @( 0&41/4 200,D9
204=9N4200, 11:!0 (= 8eply)))Coughlin, EsH), -achary Entry: 8E($N <#
#((#1+<+#3 214=9N4200, 11:2/ 9= #rd Denying ))) Entry: 8EU@E1< "#8
8EC#31+DE89<+#3 4 <ransaction /%5/// 4 9pproved 2y: 3#8E;+E6 : 054214
200,:11:&5:0% 214=9N4200, 11:2/ 9= 8eHuest for 1ubmission Complet Entry: none) 214
=9N4200, 11:2/ 9= 8eHuest for 1ubmission Complet Entry: none) 214=9N4200,
11:2/ 9=8eHuest for 1ubmission Complet Entry: none) 214=9N4200, 0&:0& (=
1upreme Court 8eceipt for Doc Entry: 1@(8E=E C#@8< C91E 3#) 5&%&&
8ECE+(< "#8 D#C@=E3<1 (+3C$@DE1 9$$ ! 3#<+CE #" 9((E9$1* 214=9N4200,
0&:0! (= \\1upreme Court Case 3o) ))) Entry: 1@(8E=E C#@8< C91E 3#) 5&%&&
214=9N4200, 0!:0. (= 8eHuest for 1ubmission 1pringgate, EsH), Dohn () Entry:
D#C@=E3< <+<$E: "+3D+3?1 #" "9C<, C#3C$@1+#31 #" $96, K
DEC8EE #" D+;#8CE (98<N 1@2=+<<+3?: D#A3 () 1(8+3??9<E, E1U)
D9<E 1@2=+<<ED: 5220, 1@2=+<<ED 2N: C(981$EN D9<E 8ECE+;ED
D@D?E #""+CE: 2.4=9N4200, 02:0& (= 8eHuest for 1ubmission Entry:
D#C@=E3< <+<$E: 8E($N <# #((#1+<+#3 (98<N 1@2=+<<+3?: -9CA98N
C#@?A$+3, E1U D9<E 1@2=+<<ED: 052.0, 1@2=+<<ED 2N: D3 D9<E 8ECE+;ED
D@D?E #""+CE:
2DDC Dudge $) ?ardnerBs 2250, #rder reads: O#8DE8 8E (8E<8+9$
(8#CED@8E <his matter is set for trial on =arch 12, 200, at 1:&0 p)m) ?ood cause
appearing, +< +1 AE8E2N #8DE8ED that, if a &art( intends to offer more than ten trial
e6hi%its' the &ro&osed e6hi%its must %e %ound' ta%%ed and inde6ed. @laintiff;s e6hi%its will
%e mar)ed in al&ha%etical se*uence and "efendant;s e6hi%its will %e mar)ed in numerical
se*uence. Each &art( shall su%mit two co&ies of the &ro&osed e6hi%its to the .ourt and one
co&( to the o&&osing counsel) Counsel shall contact =artha CasiHue49ndrews at //54&254.//,
to schedule a time with the Cler7 to organi:e and mar7 e'hibits) "or trials set for one full day
or more, counsel shall meet with the Court Cler7 no later than &:00 p)m) on the "riday prior to
trial to mar7 the trial e'hibits) "or trials which are scheduled for less than one full day, e'hibits
shall be mar7ed immediately prior to the convening for trial, and counsel shall arrive at least 15
minutes before the scheduled time of trial) (rior to meeting with the Court Cler7, counsel shall
meet and discuss the admissibility of proposed e'hibits) 9t the time of mar7ing the e'hibits
,,!!2
with the Cler7, the Cler7 shall be told which E'hibits may be admitted without objection) 9t
the opening of trial, counsel shall inform the Court which e'hibits are being admitted without
objection) Each party must file with the Court a trial statement, financial declaration and
@CCD9 declaration) Courtesy copies of the trial statement shall be hand4delivered to opposing
counsel and Dudge ?ardnerBs chambers by no later than 5:00 p)m) five (5* days prior to trial)
"ailure to timely deliver these documents may result in sanctions against the offending party as
set forth in 38C( &/) +f the financial circumstances of a party have changed substantially since
the filing of the most recent financial declaration, that party is to file an updated financial
declaration at the same time as filing the trial statement) Dated this ))ay of "ebruary, 200,) s
$inda =) ?ardnerO
2DDC Dudge $) ?ardnerBs /150, #rder reads: O #8DE8 DE3N+3? =#<+#3 <#
1<8+GE +3 (98<C #8DE8 ?893<+3? =#<+#3 <# 1<8+GE +3 (98< #n 9pril 1&,
200,, the Court entered an #rder 9fter <rial specifying its findings of fact and conclusions of
law based upon the divorce trial that too7 place =arch 12 and =arch 1/, 200,) #n =ay 12,
200,, a 3otice of 9ppeal was filed by -achary Coughlin, EsH), specifying he was appealing the
#rder 9fter <rial entered 9pril 1&, 200,) #n =ay 1&, 200,, a =otion to 1tri7e was filed by
Dohn () 1pringgate, EsH), alleging the 3otice of 9ppeal filed on =ay 12, 200,, was untimely
filed pursuant to 389( &9) 1pecifically, 7r. 4&ringgate argued there was no final -udgment
entered in this matter (et as the Order After Trial had not %een memorialiJed into a Findings
of Fact' .onclusions of Law' Judgment and "ecree of "ivorce1) (fn1 9 Decree of Divorce
was entered in this case on Dune 1,, 200,)* #n =ay 2/, 200,, a 8eHuest for 1ubmission was
filed by =r) 1pringgate) #n Dune %, 200,, =r) Coughlin opposed the motion and argued it was
not clear whether the #rder 9fter <rial was a final order, and OPiQt certainly is not worth ris7ing
the deadline for filing an appeal) ) ) #pposition 2:1&42:1!) #n Dune %, 200,, a 8eHuest for
1ubmission was filed by =r) Coughlin)
@pon review of the pleadings and papers filed herein, the Court finds and #rders as
follows) +nsofar as =r) Coughlin is appealing the award of attorneyBs fees, the Court finds the
#rder 9fter <rial entered 9pril 1&, 200,, was a final order from which =r) Coughlin may
appeal as the Court did not intend the award of attorneyBs fees to be included in the Decree of
Divorce) 9ccordingly, =r) 1pringgateBs =otion to 1tri7e is denied with respect to the
appealability of the #rder 9fter <rial as it pertains to the award of attorneyBs fees) 6ith regard
to appeal of the issues pertaining to the Doshi marriagedivorce, the Court finds the #rder 9fter
<rial was not a final order from which =r) Coughlin may appeal as the Court intended all
issues &ertaining to the Joshi marriage?divorce to %e se&arate and a&art from the award of
attorne(;s fees) (3#<E: then, certainly, it made little sense to mi' the two in one !1&0, #rder
9fter <rial, but regardless, the .1,0, final Decree of Divorce (especially when view with the
7nowledge that 1pringgateBs 5210, (roposed Decree contained an attorneyBs fees award
provision, and where the /220, 9ccordingly, =r) 1pringgateBs =otion to 1tri7e is granted
with respect to the appealability of the issues pertaining solely to the Doshi divorce) ?##D
C9@1E 9((E98+3?+ +< +1 1# #8DE8ED) Dated: Duly 15, 200, s $inda =) ?ardner
District Court DudgeF
CE8<+"+C9<E #" =9+$+3? (ursuant to 38C( 5(b*, + certify that + am an
employee of the 1econd Dudicial District Court, and that on the j fry day of Duly, 200,, +
100!!2
deposited for mailing, first class postage pre4paid, at 8eno, 3evada, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing document addressed to: Document: #rder Denying =otion to 1tri7e in (artC
#rder ?ranting =otion to 1tri7e in (art -achary Coughlin, EsH) ,!5 6) 12th 1treet 8eno, 3;
%,50& + hereby certify that on the 15 day of Duly, 200,, + electronically filed the foregoing with
the Cler7 of the Court system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Dohn 1pringgate, EsH) =arc 9shley, EsH) s 1tephenie 2roome 9dministrative 9ssistant 4
Dept) 1!O (3#<E: there is an inconsistent approach ta7en by the 2DDC, 1pringgate, and 6$1
in only serving certain selected filings or orders in D;0%4011.% on Coughlin upon his being
terminated by 6$1)
1pringgateBs letter to Coughlin supports the Consent Decree argument, to whatever
e'tent any fees were even still part of any operative #rder or Decree given 1pringgateBs
(roposed Decree of 5210, contained a section e'pressly providing for such fees, where the
"inal Decree 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner entered on .1,0, (which nobody served on Coughlin,
conveniently* contained all of 1pringgateBs (roposed Decree save the paragraph . therein
providing for an award of attorneyBs fees) "urther, Dudge $) ?ardnerBs #rder of /150, further
supports the position that there was no longer any attorney fees award, as a sanction or
otherwise (li7ely due to a recognition of the legitimacy of CoughlinBs argument with respect to
1pringgate having failed to comply with 38C( 11Bs 21 day safe harbor provision (incorporated
into 381 /)0%5 by the e'press language of such statute* in addition to the fact that the !1&0,
#rder 9fter <rial relied upon a position that alimony was not indicated, and, therefore,
Coughlin had litigated ve'atiously, where the "inal Decree ultimately entered did, in fact,
award alimony to CoughlinBs former client) "urther support for this position resides where
6$1 and 1pringgate arguably entered into a Consent Decree even further vitiating any finding
that attorneyBs fees were awarded) 1pringgateBs letter to Coguhlin of 12%0, reads:
EDecember %, 200, ;+9 E=9+$ -achary Coughlin, EsH) /&1 "orest 1treet 8eno,
3N %,50, Dear -ach: + have received the 1upreme CourtBs #rder Denying (etition for 6rit of
=andamus) 9ccordingly, you still owe me fees from the 1econd Dudicial District Court matter,
and are in contempt for not paying them) =y offer to ma4e a to4en donation to Casa de (ida
or alternatively the )ood Ban4 of Northern Nevada remains in effect) <hey need the help and
+ would be happy to put this case behind me) (lease advise as to your intentions) ;ery truly
yours, D#A3 () 1(8+3??9<E, E1U)O
<he /220, filing in D;0%4011.% reads: E1<+(@$9<+#3 <# 9=E3D DEC8EE
#" D+;#8CE C#=E 3#6 the parties hereto, 91A6+3 D#1A+, (laintiff, by and through his
counsel of record, D#A3 () 1(8+3??9<E, E1U), and 2A98<+ D#1A+, by and through her
counsel of record, =98C 91A$EN, E1U), of 6ashoe $egal 1ervices, and hereby stipulate
and agree to an #rder 9mending the Decree of Divorce in the following regards: +n response to
=s) DoshiBs motion, the .ourt amended the &ro&osed Findings of Fact to include a finding of
ONE "OLLA <A/.55= &er (ear alimon( for 7s. Joshi. "o#ever8 the Decree8 as amended
by the Court8 did not include a term, )he %arties had originally agreed or suggested a
term of five ;5< years and they therefore sti%ulate and agree that this 'ti%ulation and
=rder thereon shall amend the Decree of Divorce to include =-9 D=>>6R ;D1,++<
alimony for five ;5< years in favor of Ms, Joshi, D9<ED: /200, s Dohn 1pringgate,
EsH), s =arc 9shley, EsH)O
101!!2
2/) 2ased on the order and CoughlinBs conduct in the Doshi matter, Coughlin was
terminated by 6ashoe $egal 1ervices) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!,
2012, ( 110, $/4%) (EAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 110:/ to 110:,* (E$C93#*: E)))=r) Coughlin
to do that) 2ecause of the Doshi matter he was terminated, and + didnBt have any further contact
with him)F*
2%) +n =r) ElcanoBs opinion, Coughlin is not competent to practice law) 1ee
<ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( ,!, $ & 4%) (AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +,
((age ,!:& to ,!:%* U (G+3?* +Bll first as7 what that opinion is, then wor7 bac7ward as to why
you feel that way) 6hat is your opinion currently of =r) CoughlinBs ability to practice lawJ 9
(E$C93#* Currently + donBt believe heBs competent to practice law based on the information +
have)F*
2,) 1tate 2ar Counsel called Coughlin to testify at the hearing of the matter)
Coughlin was Huestioned with regard to a letter dated "ebruary 1!, 2012 from 9ssistant 2ar
Counsel Ging to Coughlin in which 2ar Counsel forwarded to Coughlin correspondence
received from 8ichard ?) Aill) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, (
1.&, $ 1& 4( 1.!, $ 2&) 1ee Aearing E'hibit .) CoughlinBs response, dated =arch ,, 2012,
as7ed for additional time in which to respond) 1ee Aearing E'hibit /) 3o evidence was
presented that Coughlin substantively responded to 2ar CounselBs letter of "ebruary 1!, 2012
prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter) Coughlin failed to directly respond to 2ar
CounselBs Huestions inHuiring if Coughlin ever subseHuently responded to 2ar CounselBs letter
of "ebruary 1!, 2012) 1ee 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1.,, $ 1& 4( 1/2, $ 1.)
&0) Coughlin also failed to directl( res&ond to :uestioning regarding
#hether or not he had su%stantivel( res&onded8 &rior to the filing of the .om&laint in this
matter, to a letter forwarded to him from Bar .ounsel regarding the letter received %( the
Nevada 4tate Bar from Judge "oroth( Nash 8olmes and dated 7arch /B ' 05/0) 1ee
<ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1/!, $ 1& 4( 1%0, $ !) 1ee Aearing
E'hibit %) (3#<E: there is nothing in the record to su%%ort the (findingM that Coughlin
received such letter from 1ar Counsel, in fact, Coughlin testified to 2ar CounselBs chicanery
in that regard, and certainly Ging should not be allowed to EtestifyF to sending Coughlin some
letter that Ging refused to even see7 have admitted into evidence, especially where Ging
successfully moved, on an e' parte basis, to Huash CoughlinBs subpoenas on Ging and 123
Cler7 of Court (eters, not to mention 8(C &)/, etc))
"urther8 there is nothing in the record to indicate when Coughlin first saw such
&1!12 grievance letter that 8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes sent to the 123, not Coughlin (GingBs
constant trumpeting of the Ebates stampsF that he had affi'ed to the bo' of &,0,! pages
delivered to Coughlin four judicial days before the hearing (in flagrant violation of all of 1C8
105(2*(c* references the bates stamps found on the Aearing E'hibit %)))and where Ging admits
such letter did not have any such bates stamping on it to begin with, its inappropriate for Ging
to have successfully had admitted such version with GingBs 11/12 production of &,0,! pages
worth of bates stamped 1C8 105(2*(c* materials (none of which include any Canon 2, 8ule
2)15 letters from the Dudges whose orders Ging offered as evidence of CoughlinBs professional
misconduct, such as Aearing E'hibit 2Bs Dudge "lanagan #rder of .2512 in the appeal of the
summary eviction from CoughlinBs former home law office that 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH),
102!!2
burglari:ed while managing to get Coughlin wrongfully convicted of criminal tres%ass (see
.1,01* by AillBs lying to, and with, the 8eno (olice Department*) 1ome Eclear and
convincingF evidence of when Coughlin received or viewed such letter would be pretty
important to support the (anelBs EfindingF that Coughlin Efailed to directl( res&ond to
:uestioning regarding #hether or not he had substantively res%onded8 &rior to the filing
of the .om&laint in this matter, to a letter forwarded to him from Bar .ounsel+ directl(
res&ond to :uestioning regarding #hether or not he had substantively res%onded8 &rior to
the filing of the .om&laint in this matter8 to a letter forwarded to him from Bar .ounsel+
where EwhenF and Eprior to the filing of the ComplaintF ta7e on similar importance to the fact
that there is no evidence that 2ar Counsel even forwarded Coughlin such letter to begin with
(boy was the (anel Chair mad that Coughlin could not honestly testify on behalf of the 1tate
2ar as to when, if ever, he received such letter from the 123)))it would have helped so very,
very much alleviate all the messy issues that would be associated with putting the &1.12 letter
from Ging to Coughlin (notice the 123 did not present any copy of any such letter with some
Certificate of =ailing slip to prove Coughlin ever received it, and Coughlin testified
e'tensively, and offered a great deal of proof as to the fact that he was not regularly receiving
his mail when such letter was sent, including offering copies of numerous envelopes (several
sent to CoughlinBs by the 8=C even* that Coughlin only received much later, after senders
notified him of such being returned to them, or after the @1(1 finally releasing such to
Coughlin, replete with, in many instances, several of the small yellow stic7ers indicating a
variety of reroutings and Erecipient temporarily unavailableF messages incident to the domestic
violence and mailbo' tamperinglease disputeswrongful summary eviction by ?ayle Gern,
EsH) (whom also had CoughlinBs former home law officer burglari:ed with the help of the
6C1#, just an hour before the very &1512 hearing in 3;2 1040510! that Dudge 2eesley
testified about*
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 1/!:1& to 1%0:!* O2N =8) G+3?: U Do
you recogni:e that letter thatBs been identified as E'hibit % that purports to be
written to 7r. "avid .lar)' Office of Bar .ounsel' from Judge "oroth( Nash
8olmesJ 9 +t is the one that has a received =arch 1!th date on itJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: +tBs the one thatBs mar7ed E'hibit %) 2N =8) G+3?: U <he one +
just handed you) Did you see that letterJ 9 + donBt see it mar7ed E'hibit %) +tBs not
mar7ed) U +tBs mar7ed up here, =r) Coughlin) 9 <hatBs why + was as7ing for
clarification) =arch 1!th) U <he Huestion is: Do you recogni:e that letterJ 9
Nes, sir) U 9nd 44 9 )his is the letter #here she alleges a com%etency issue8
and then goes on to say8 but ?0m still trying to hold a trial8 ?0m trying to get this
trial set right a#ay8 in violation of -R' 17*,$+5 #hich states you stay
%roceedings #hen you feel a defendant has a com%etency issue, Iou don0t
%lunge right ahead, )hat letter8 yeah8 ? recogniLe it) =8) G+3?: +Bm going to
as7 that E'hibit 3o) % be admitted) <his is the letter that Dudge Aolmes sent to the
#ffice of 2ar Counsel that she testified about during her testimony) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: 9ny objection, =r) CoughlinJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + donBt thin7
so) 6ell, relevancy) 9nd + donBt believe this is pled in the complaint) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: #verruled) (E'hibit % admitted)* 2N =8) G+3?: U =r)
10&!!2
Coughlin, you received that because 2ar counsel forwarded it to youC is that
correctJ 9 + donBt remember how + received this) + imagine it would 44 + donBt thin7
a stranger sent it to me) + donBt 7now) U Did you respond to the allegations to 2ar
counsel, the allegations made in the letter by Dudge Aolmes, and the accompanying
documentsC did you respond to that investigationJ 9 9ctually, +Bm trying to
remember 44 did + get this letter attached to li7e an 1C8 11/ petitionJ Can you help
me outJ Did + get it soon after 44 + thin7 you were 7ind of coy about this, actually,
(at) 8ightJ Nou 7ind of 44 you were 7ind of coy about having it) Nou didnBt just get
this letter, and then + donBt thin7 you mailed it to me on =arch 1!th) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, the Huestion is did you reply to itJ <AE
6+<3E11: + donBt 7now 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm sorry) <he Huestion is: 6as
it forwarded to youJ <AE 6+<3E11: <hatBs what + was e'pounding upon) +Bm
trying to remember when did + first get this letter) 2ecause this is li7e a gut punch if
youBve devoted your life to becoming an attorney) 9nd, in fact, + didnBt get her
=arch 2%th letter 44 + mean her =arch 2%th order that was entered) + didnBt even get
that until + saw it attached to an 1C8 11/ disability petition in case number .0,/5) +
guess + 7ind of figured she just wasnBt going to ma7e an order, you 7now) 9nd she
mailed this one, the one for "ebruary 2%th, she mailed it to the old 8iver 8oc7
address where + was evicted from, despite the fact it appeared, at least a couple
other departments in her court had a more recent address for me) 9nd then + have 44
if + had been noticed on this 44 + have a lot of these letters) + meticulously 7ept the
envelopes) + 7ept the change of addresses) + thin7 + might have sent (at these with
the yellow 44 + had a lot of the yellow stic7ers on my letters, you 7now, where they
were li7e 44 and the court, the court had these too) <he muni court) 9nd + had a big
ordeal with the post office incident to they didnBt want to give me a 7ey to the
mailbo') <his eviction, the evil wor7 that you sanctioned, (at, that + mentioned
earlier, it has a fallout necessarily) +n my opinion 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r)
Coughlin, e'cuse me) Do you remember the HuestionJ <AE 6+<3E11: Nes) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: 6hat was the HuestionJ <AE 6+<3E11: Did + receive this) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: 9nd the answerJ <AE 6+<3E11: +Bm wor7ing my way through
it mentally as to how + got this) =8) G+3?: +f +Bm not mista7en, weBre past that)
Nou said you did receive it) Ae doesnBt recall how) 9nd my follow4up Huestion was:
Did you respond to the allegations by Dudge Aolmes that are contained in that letter,
and by the accompanying documentsJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, if you
could focus on answering that Huestion, that would be helpful to the panel) <AE
6+<3E11: #ne, this letter is not to me) + would li7e to read it) 9gain, thatBs where
the notice part of due process is 7ey, you 7now) +f + was noticed on the idea that +
didnBt respond to this 44 and +Bll enter my objection) + would li7e to see where in the
complaint it says =r) Coughlin failed to respond or cooperate with 2ar counsel) +t
might) +Bd just li7e to be sure) 6here does it say where 44 was + noticed the import
of today was going to include, the relevant inHuiry today that + have been put on
notice for, was going to include the idea that + didnBt appropriately respond to thisJ
1o if + go to the complaint, +Bm just wondering where in the complaint might + be
10!!!2
put on notice that + would be e'pected to 7now when + got this today, and respond
intelligently in that regard) (E'hibit , mar7ed)* =8) G+3?: =r) Chairman, may +
move onJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou may) <AE 6+<3E11: =ay + answer as best
as + can remember thenJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: +f you will answer the Huestion, it
would be helpful) 2ut these rambling discourses are not helpful) <AE 6+<3E11:
<heyBre not winning any points on notice and due processJ =8) ECAE;E88+9:
<his is a preliminary investigation) 2ar rules reHuire attorneys to cooperate with the
preliminary investigation) 9s + understand, =r) Ging is trying to establish whether
or not you did so) <hatBs an issue that + believe is relevant to the determination of
the degree of punishment, if any, that should flow to you as a result of your
conduct) 1o, =r) Ging, move on, please) =8) G+3?: <han7 you) <AE 6+<3E11:
Nour Aonor, can + just Huic7ly attempt to more thoroughly address that issueJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: + thin7 youBve been afforded adeHuate opportunity to do so) Aow
you choose to respond is up to you)O
"AE %, Dudge AolmesB &1!12 grievance against Coughlin addressed to
the 4BN onl( (to what, and upon whose reHuest was Coughlin supposed to Oprovide
some informationO per 8(C %)1 as to 3?1240!&!, much less 3?1240!&5J "urther,
the portion of the transcript Echeverria cites to in no way supports the finding
Echeverria made, it fails to even establish that the 123 ever as7ed Coughlin to
responde, much less Oprovide some reHuired informationO not subject to 8(C 1)., to
the 123 in response to Dudge Aolmes "AE % letter* and hand delivered to the 123
along with a Ebo' of materialsF reads:
E)))<his letter constitutes a formal complaint of attorney misconduct
andor disability against -achary 2ar7er Coughlin) <he accompanying bo' of
materials demonstrates some of the problems with the practice of this attorney
being e'perienced by myself and the other three judges in 8eno =unicipal Court)
=y two most recent #rders in what should be a simple traffic citation case are
self4e'planatory and are included, together with copies of massive documents =r)
Coughlin has fa'Wfiled to our court in this case) 9udio recordings of two of my
hearings in this matter are also included) Ae failed to appear for the second one
this past =onday)
+ have another traffic case pending trial with him that was re4assigned
to me based on our Department 1 judge being out for surgery) 6e have multiple
addresses for =r) Coughlin and canBt seem to locate him between cases very
easily) 6e are setting that case for trial and attempting to serve him at the most
recent address we have (1!22 E) ,th 1t) I2 8eno 3; %,512*, although ? heard
today he ma( %e living in his vehicle somewhere) 6e do have an address for his
mother, however, as she recently &osted &art of a fine for him)
Dudge Gen Aoward, Department !, had a case on =r) Coughlin late last
year that is now on appeal to the 1econd Dudicial District Court) Dudge 2ill
?ardner, Department 2, also has a matter currentl( &ending in his court with =r)
Coughlin as the defendant) + have enclosed some copies of documents from those
105!!2
matters, in chronological order, simply because they appear to demonstrate that
he is *uic)l( decom&ensating in his mental status) #ur staff also made you some
audio tapes of Coughlin in the matters in Departments 2 and ! so you can hear for
yourself how this attorney acts in court) Nou can see his behavior in my traffic
citation case does not appear to be an isolated incident)
+t is my understanding that 8eno Dustice Court also has a matter
pending on this attorney) My Judicial 6ssistant #as contacted by the Kashoe
Public Defender in /ebruary #hen ? had Mr, Coughlin Gailed for contem%t of
Court and they stated that they re%resent him in a 2ross misdemeanor
matter in RJC, ? have no other information on that,
:ou will have the full coo&eration of m(self' the other -udges' and
the staff of eno 7unici&al .ourt in (our &ursuit of this matter) =r) Coughlin
has &ositioned himself as a ve6atious litigant in our court, antagoni:ing the staff
and even our %ro tem% Gudges on the most simple traffic and misdemeanor
matters) + do thin7 this is a case of some urgency, and + apologi:e for ta&ing t#o
days to get this %ac&age to youC our +< person was ill and could not ma7e the
copies of the audios of =r) CoughlinBs hearings until today, and + felt it was
important that the audios be included in the materials to be considered by the 1tate
2ar) =n /ebruary 27 8 2+12 8 Mr, Coughlin told me he #as actively %racticing
la# and had a%%ointments #ith clients) + do not 7now if that was true, but if so,
he could be causing serious harm to the practice of law in 3orthern 3evada and
could %e -eo&ardiJing someone;s freedom or &ro&ert( interests.O
(3#<E: no matter how hard he may try, Coughlin could li7ely never
be Ejeopardi:ing someoneBs freedom or property interestsF as regularly and
thoroughly as does Dudge 3ash Aolmes, es&eciall( where she damaged such ver(
interests of .oughlin;s clients u&on den(ing a sta( of an( sort to a then
&racticing attorne( (something that is pretty much verboten in 9merican
jurisprudence* (immune from arrest while going to, attending, or leaving court,
and Coughlin maintained such at the time, and therefore did not waive any such
right, meaning, even had Dudge 3ash Aolmes and her crew of =arshals managed
to conduct a lawful search incident to arrest of CoughlinsB smart phone, micro sd
card, cell phone, and electric shaver, rather than the unlawful confiscation of such
a day later after those items had already been boo7ed into CoughlinBs property
(such items were returned to Coughlin with all the data thereon erased, and
!.4O "e&ut( 8odge admitted to .oughlin on 7arch /3
th
' 05/0 that the
!ashoe .ount( Jail had released to the 7. 7arshals such items alread(
%oo)ed into .oughlin;s &ersonal &ro&ert( on 0 ?02 ?/0 ' and that such were still in
the &ossession of the 7. on D ?/3 ?/0*
+n a ridiculous attempt to assert some impropriety on CoughlinBs part,
li7e that done by Dudge 3ash Aolmes in her &1&12 #rder 1tri7ing "ugitive
Document that Ging was too embarrassed by to admit in its entiret( into the
record, %ut which is mista)enl( included the .ertificate of 7ailing thereto
along with the &artial &ur&orted filing %( .oughlin admitted as F8E 3 (81/%!4
10.!!2
1/%.* where 81/%. is the 7.;s .ertificate of 4ervice that Eing mista)enl(
forgot to e6cise from F8E 3 ' (which does indicate that such Crder (its important
to note that the #rder from which Ging pulled pages 2 and & of & of CoughlinBs
&/12 filing in 2.%00 before Dudge 3ash Aolmes is not the same as the orders at
presented in "AE ! (which Dudge 3ash Aolmes testified, spontaneously upon
sensing Ging need her to help out with the problems associated with Coughlin not
being served the #rder of 22%12, that she Ehad him served at the jailF, which
certainly is not supported by the Certificate of =ailing on such 22%12 #rder at
8#9 11/2, which indicates such #rder was mailed to Coughlin at the very E121
8iver 8oc7 1t)F address from which Dudge 3ash Aolmes and several Departments
of the 8=C 7new Coughlin had been evicted from by the very 8ichard ?) Aill,
EsH), referenced at 8#9 11/0 lines 2!42% (E E* where such Certificate of 1ervice
fails to include a chec7 ne't to E6ashoe County DailF and instead seems to
indicate only that such #rder was fa'ed to some unspecified fa' number, though,
Coughlin can attest, he certainly was not fa'ed any such #rder (the 8=C has
steadfastly refused to e'tend any such courtesies to Coughlin from the very
beginning, despite there being a multitude of instances where Certificates of
1ervice between the 8=C and the 8C9 and the 8=CBs court appointed defender
allow for service between each other by email or fa', even where Coughlin
pleaded with the 8=C to at least copy him on such #rders due to the domestic
violence based interference with his mails he was facing during the times in
Huestion at 1!22 E) ,
th
1t) I2 (not to mention the misconduct of the @1(1 ?olden
;alley 1tationBs 2uc7 Ayde, and <erri (assot, and ?ayle Gern, EsH), and her
EassociateF 1usan Ging of 6estern 3evada =anagement (property manager*)
+nterestingly, the Certificate of 1ervice for a &%12 #rder by Dudge Aolmes
denying CoughlinBs =otherBs reHuest for a return of the M100 she paid to have
Coughlin released from the summary 5 day incarceration one day early (doing
Ethe old switcherooF the 8=C too7 CoughlinBs motherBs money, then concocted a
ridiculous scheme where a jail deputy removed Coughlin from his cell and wal7ed
him down, in chain the entire time, to the boo7ing des7, and announced he was
having an Ead boo7F done, then immediately returned Coughlin to his cell) (insert
complete te't of ridiculous &%12 #rder in 2.%00, where CoughlinBs mother, well
over one year after such #rder was entered, mysteriously and Huitely was mailed
such M100 by the 8=C, which also appears to have mailed Coughlin the M120)00
bail he was forced to post when he could ill afford to, on 11212 incident to
8ichard ?)Aill, EsH), getting Coughlin arrested for jaywal7ing while Aill obtained
he on command <(# from 8DC Dudge 1chroeder in less than forty minutes time in
8C(2012400001%, sufficient to obstruct CoughlinBs ability to film any more the
fact that AillBs contractor, 32+Bs (hil 1tewart, had via AillBs filings, submitted bilsl
to courts see7ing to charge Coughlin M1,000 to board up CoughlinBs former home
law office with CoughlinBs own plywood, and other misconduct by Aill) 9ll of
Dudge 1ferra::aBs tal7 about retaining contempt power incident to the 122011
Aearing on CoughlinsB =otion to Contest (ersonal (ropertly $ien was entirely
10/!!2
directed to scenarios wherein Coughlin would be accused of damaging the
property in some way, and in now way allowed for what ultimately occurred,
where Aill and 2a7er obstructed CoughlinBs ability to remove his possessions by
placing a padloc7 on the bac7 yard gate and refusing to remove it until midway
through the second day of moving, and by removing CoughlinBs own ladder from
the property (petty larcenyJ* which Coughlin needed to remove items from the
storage area in the attic* then AillBs associate 2a7er lied in his 1&12 #ppsoition
to Coughlin 381 !0)&%5 =otion to 1tay of 12&011 in alleging he and Aill and
entered some agreement with Coughlin to allow Coughlin more access to remove
his belongings in e'hange for a waiver of the security depositcleaning fee of
M/00 that remains unreturned despite their failure to provide a written account
within &0 days and especially where collateral estoppel ought prevent any
assertion of rent being owed incident to the abandonment of the non4payment
summary initial of two cases brought in 8ev20114001!,2)
9lso, the 123Bs convenient manner of bates stamping obscures some
real problems for the 123, includign the fact that all pages of "AE& had a footer
that completely undermined GingBs and ElcanoBs assertions as to the foundation
and authenticity of that "AE& #rder (one which Ging and Elcano 7now full well
ws undone by Dudge $) ?ardnerBs .1,0, final Decree, which the 2DDC,
1pringgate, and Elcano and 6$1 failed to serve on Coughlin, and which
completely vitiates the rationale Elcano provided for firing Coughlin, which he
reiterated in his shady testimony, where Coughlin was prejudiced in not being
permitted to call Elcano in his case in chief and e'pose the e'tent to which
ElcanoBs testimony was fraudulent in s7irting the facts presented by the .1,0,
final Decree superseding the !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial in "AE&) <he footer on
such "AE& read: ECopy of the original on file with the 1econd Dudicial District
Court)F (and actually the bates stamping of the 21&1& 8#9 does not obscure
such (so much for having provided a Ecertified copyF, huh, GingJ 9nd so much
for ElcanoBs providing Ea foundationF or authenticating such, much less providing
Ee'pert testimonyF relative to it)
9lso, its awfully odd for the bates stamping (which the new bates
stamping on the 21&1& 8#9 obscures* for the 11/12 production of documents
that was presented as "AE%, and "AE, contain some 1,2.0 pages between the
two where "AE% purportes to be Dudge 3ash Aolmes grievance letter against
Coughlin addressed to the 123 and "AE, is an fraudulent presentation of a
partial e'hibit to an #rder of Dudge 3ash Aolmes from &%12 (bates 01.,,* ,
where "AE% is dated &1!12(11/12 bates 02,.0*)
<he inclusion in "AE1 at 8#9 1/&. of an unsigned, unsworn, really,
unattributed, Huasi affidavit of attempted service, was entirely prejudicial,
particularly where there is no proof such was an attachment to the 10,12 3otice
of +ntent <o <a7e Default immediately preceding it, which, again, the 123 failed
to serve on Coughlin (which further undermines any Econclusion of lawF that the
(anel did or did not ma7e (a close reading of such reveals the (anel only made a
10%!!2
Efinding of factF that Coughlin was EservedF the Complaint, yet stopped short of
ma7ing a Econclusion of lawF to that effect)
Aowever, it is the abscence of the bates stamp E01,01F at page 1/2/
that is truly fraudulent) <he version of such &1212 #rder that Ging purports, in
his "AE1, was attached to his %2&12 Complaint actually contained, for just that
page 5 of such #rder at 8#9 1/2/, the bates stamping Ging had applied to all
pages of the &,0,! page production to Coughlin on 11/12 (pages 1 through ! of
such EversionF of the #rder Ging included in the Epac7etF in "AE1 purported to
be an accurate copy of the version of such &1212 #rder attached as E'hibit & to
GingBs Complaint, when, in fact, Ging and 1usich used the same blurry, illegible
copy of such #rder in both GingBs Complaint and the version attached as an
E'hibit in .0,/5 that Coughlin as7s this Court ta7e judicial notice of now (ie, a
legible copy without the 11/12 bates stamping*)
9lso, at the conclusion of CoughlinBs E'hibit 15, at 8#9 1%,1,
whereas the copy of the "ormal Aearing E'hibits Coughlin obtained from
1unshine $itigation contains two full page pictures of the dics Coughlin attached
to such e'hibit, and which Coughlin submitted to be mar7ed as an e'hibit (the
Chair is not permitted to refuse to even have e'hibits mar7ed, yet he and the 123
conspired to e'cise such from the 8#9, in addition to refusing to even have
mar7ed the complete copy of the &,0,! page production to Coughlin by the 123
on 11/12 (so essential to defensive collateral estoppel analysis*) 6hereas 8#9
1%,241%,& should be the full page pictures of the discs Coughlin attached thereto
as e'hibits (along with the actual discs themselves, which should be, but have not
been, transmitted with the 8#9 by the 123, instead, 8#9 1%,2 proceed directly
to "AE1.)
9dditionally, the EversionF of the &1212 #rder in "AE5 that Ging
attached to the EversionF of his %2&12 Complaint within "AE1 (8#9 1/224
1/2/* lac7s a ECertificate of 1erviceF page, in addition to the or "AE 5was fa'ed
to the jail, but certainly does not indicate anything about the jail providing such to
Coughlin, and Coughlin has never been provided any #rder from any court by any
jail, ever* though Ging did manage to fraudulently e'cise Epage 1 of &F of the
&/12 filing by Coughlin (the page that would have come right before the
E9ffidavitF found at 81/%!*, a page which clearly indicates Coughlin is an
attorney (to whatever ridiculous e'tent the 8=C and Ging are alleging they were
not already aware that Coughlin was an attorney, including where CoughlinBs plea
for a stay of the 5 day incarceration order on 22/12 included (as GingBs own
stupid pleadings have recounted, duh* the prejudice to CoughlinBs client upon
Dudge 3ash Aolmes going against the overwhelming majority viewpoint in
american jurisprudence essentially reHuring a Dudge refrain from summarily
incarcerating an attorney for contempt (E81/%24%&, especailly 81/%&, which
ma7es all the more fraudulent what Ging presented on the very ne't page of the
8#9, where he clearly violated (8C &)&, &)!, and &)% in removing the first page
of the &/12 filing by Coughlin in 2.%00, along with the &1&12 #rder 1tri7ing
10,!!2
"ugitive Document by Dudge AolmesB (the #rder to which the Certificate of
1ervice found on page 1/%. goes to* that attached said filing of &/12 by
Coughlin (which further conceals the e'tent to which the 8=C attempted to
prevent Coughlin from accessing the recording of that 22/12 EtrialF in 2.%00, as
Coughlin also filed a E8ecords 8eHuestF on the form the 8=C hold out for such
purposes, directed towards obtaining the audio transcript of all hearings in that
matter, including that of 22/12, which the 8=C refused to respond to)))which is
why Coughlin had to stealthily have his momma go obtain to the audio transcript
from the 8=C, in addition to the EversionsF which Ging and the 123 finally
provided Coughlin in late Dune 2012, which Ging, curiously, alleges to be Enot
certifiedF and apparently lac7ing in foundation and probably not all that truthful,
apparently (if that0s so8 then #hy isn0t someone investigating the RMC for
%roviding (alteredM audio transcri%ts to the '1-J*)
&1) #n 7arch I' 05/0 Coughlin caused to be filed an O9ffidavit of (overty
in 1upport of =otion to (roceed +nforma (auperis)O 1ee Aearing E'hibit ,) +n his 9ffidavit,
Coughlin represented that he was self4employed as a ODac7 of all <rades)O 1ee Aearing E'hibit
,) <he Affidavit does not identif( 7r. .oughlin as a law(er or identit( an( income from the
&ractice of law) 1ee Aearing E'hibit ,)
(3#<E: why not see "AE% too, especially the sentence in Aolmes letter addressed onl( to the
4BN which reads: O #n Fe%ruar( 0I ' 05/0, =r) Coughlin told me he was activel( &racticing
law and had a&&ointments with clientsO*)
&2) <he record also indicates that Coughlin had also filed a motion on Novem%er /B,
2011 to proceed +n "orma (auperis in case number 11 C8 221/. pending in the 8eno
=unicipal Court before Dudge Genneth 8) Aoward) 1ee Aearing E'hibit 10, ( 2, $ 1,42&)
(EMr, Coughlin is a licensed attorney4at4la# #ho im%lied during trial that his
incarceration for contem%t #ould adversely affect his clients, Iet8 Mr, Coughlin8 in his
Faffidavit of %overtyF does not indicate any income from his %ractice of la#) #f note, =r)
Coughlin posted cash bail during the litigation of the instant matter)F*
(9lso, the O8ulingO of the municipal court was affirmed on appeal in C811420.!, with
the #rder pointing out a failure to cite to pages in the record supporting the arguments in the
2rief) (ermission to file by email was granted to Coughlin therein by 8=C "iling #fficer
1upervisor 2allard (see attached e'ampled of 1upervisor 2allard file stamping a subpoena that
was submitted via email only) 1uch permission to file be email was withdraw at the earliest, on
121,11 (constructive notice to Coughlin thereof*) Aowever, the 8ecord on 9ppeal in C8114
20.! fails to contain the clear, one page per page emailed filings, rather, in some instances,
completely illegible ! page per page versions were submitted (despite e'press indications to the
8=C filing office that the email version ought be included in the 8#9*)
EO"wd: 9ttached +mageJ Donna 2allard (2allardDLreno)gov*9dd to
contacts112,11 <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com "rom: Donna 2allard
(2allardDLreno)gov* Nou moved this message to its current location) 1ent: <ue 112,11 !:!/
(= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com #utloo7 9ctive ;iew 1 attachment (!!)0 G2*
0..1b001)pdf Download Download as :ip <han7 you) + am ta7ing it up to the Department now)
Donna 44444#riginal =essage44444 "rom: O=@3+ C< 1st "loor Cler7sO ccanonLreno)govd <o:
110!!2
OD#339O cballarddLreno)govd Date: <ue, 2, 3ov 2011 1/:!2:2% 40%00 1ubject: 9ttached
+mage Donna 2allard 1enior Court 1pecialist 8eno =unicipal Court 1 1outh 1ierra 1treet
8eno, 3evada %,501 (//5*&&!4&101F
EE+"( "+393C+9$ +3U@+8N 9(($+C9<+#3 "rom: -ach Coughlin
(:achcoughlinLhotmail)com* 1ent: 6ed 121!11 12:22 9= <o: %allarddMreno.govN
renomunirecordsMreno.gov 2 attachments .oughlin $F@ and Financial $n*uir(
A&&lication 8=C 11222011 // . 0KB5> 2+)pdf (&%1), G2*, .oughlin $F@ and Financial
$n*uir( A&&lication 8=C 11222011 // . 00/IK 2+)pdf (&/2)0 G2* Lach .oughlin' Es*.
%1/ 3) ;irginia 1t) I2 8eno, 3; %,501 tel: //5 22,4./&/ fa': ,!, ../ /!02
-achCoughlinLhotmail)com Nevada Bar No9 3BIDO*
(3#<E: Coughlin reHuest judicial notice be ta7en of the error in the date assigned to
such +n "orma (auperis motion, incorrectly identified as filed on 111!11, when, clearly, from
the copy thereof attached as E'hibit . to 33D2 Chairman 1usichBs 5&112 1C8 11/ (etition
in .0,/5, such was actually filed after the trial in such matter of 11&011, wherein Coughlin
pleaded for a stay, citing concern for his clientBs affairs, to no avail) 1usich, li7e Ging, ta7es the
fraudulent callow approach in his E'hibit . to e'cising page 1 of & from CoughlinBs & page
121!12 =otion to (roceed in "orma (auperis and 9ffidavit of (overty +n 1upport of =otion
to (roceed +n "orma (aupers (see, Epage 2F mar7ing at the bottom of the page on the first &age
of such EE'hibit .F) 1uch clownsmanshi& by 1usich and Ging must not stand, its an
embarrassment to the 1ar and the -evada 'u%reme Court8 and the 'tate of -evada as a
#hole* Dudge AowardBs #rder denying CoughlinBs motion specifically noted that CoughlinBs
Oaffidavit of povertyO did not identif( an( income from the &ractice of law yet Coughlin had
implied to the court when sentenced to incarceration for contem%t that his incarceration would
adversely affect his clients)
(3#<E: how terribly difficult it is for a 8=C former prosecutor turned judge to imagine
that any attorney not a prosecutor or former prosecutor turned 8=C defender could possibly
yield any benefit to any client, or to admit, in any way, the importance of attorneys to the
judicial system* 1ee Aearing E'hibit 10, ( 2, $ 1, 42&) (3#<E: too bad GingBs Complaint did
not identify some alleged failure to Eidentif( an( income from the &ractice of law+ basis for
arguing some professional misconduct, but, rather, fraudulently asserted E1/) 8espondent filed
9ffidavits of (overty in 1upport of his =otion to (roceed +nforma (auperis, wherein he fails
to disclose that he is a licensed attorne( and instead under Employment and 1elf4Employment
he identifies himself as a ODac7 of 9ll <radesO) 1%) Despite a claim of poverty in the above
mentioned affidavits, 8espondent told the Court that his incarceration for contempt would
adversely affect his clients)F
<he 8=C initially approved, in writing, CoughlinBs submitting filings via email
(subseHuently, without any prior notice, the 8=C fraudulently failed to included such filings
submitted via email in the 8#9 for the very petty larceny conviction resulting in CoughlinsB
current temporary suspension, which is an abominably embarrassing miscarriage of justice, in
C811420.!*, and CoughlinBs submission on 121!12 clearly defeats the vague at best
EaccusationsF made with respect to any =otions to (roceed +n "orma (auperis or 9ffidavits
connected thereto (whether pled in GingBs Complaint or only added later by the (anel in a
desperate attempt to shore up its insipied 121!12 "#"C#$*:
111!!2
&&) 9lthough Coughlin claims to suffer the impairment of attention deficit disorder,
for which he is prescribed medication and which medication he too7 on the day of his hearing,
he does not feel he needs any additional help) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday,
3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1,,, $ 1& 4( 20!, $ ,)
&!) #n 9ugust 2&, 2012, the 1tate 2ar of 3evada filed its Complaint in this matter
and served it upon Respondent Coughlin by Certified =ail to his address then registered with
the 1tate 2ar of 3evada) 4ee "oc)et. Complaint)
(3#<E: <he 8#9 of 21&1& in .2&&/ lac7s any sort of EDoc7etF to EseeF
whatsoever, and CoughlinBs numerous reHuests to see any such EDoc7etF were rebuffed by the
12333D2(anel, and Cler7 of Court (eters) 9dditionaly, 123 Cler7 of Court (eters own
10,12 9ffidavit of $aura (eters completely disclaims the very 9ffidavit of 1ervice by (eters
herself attached to the %2&12 Complaint)
1ee CoughlinBs =otion for
&5) Not having received a res&onse to the .om&laint, (3#<E: what about the
,1%12 =otion to Dismiss Ging and (eters admitted to having received where both proceeded
past any ministerial function in refusing to file such submission by Coughlin
(http:www)lawlessamerica)cominde')phpJ
optionVcombcontentKviewVarticleKidV510:judges4and4court4cler7s4violate4the4law4when4
your4court4filings4are4denied4or4disappearKcatidV,%:litigation4helpK+temidV225 * on #ctober
,, 2012 the 1tate 2ar of 3evada filed and served on es&ondent .oughlin' %( certified mail, a
O-otice of +ntent to (roceed on a Default 2asis)O <he notice attached an additional co&( of
the .om&laint (3#<E: that is odd because the 21&1& 8#9 does not reveal an Oadditional
copy of the ComplaintO OattachedO to the 10,12 3#+<D, which, of course, was not OservedO
on Coughlin Oby certified mailO where the @1(1 would not release such to Coughlin but rather
returned it to sender with counter attendant O<imO at the downtown 8eno (ostal 1tation
notating, in front of Coughlin, in his own handwriting O8eturn to 1ender, (ostage +nsufficientO
where the 132 had affi'ed an insufficient M1)25 in postage to a Certified =ailing reHuiring at
least M5)25 in postage, all of which Coughlin notified the 123 of immediately, where the 123
engaged in Obad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processO in laughing off CoughlinBs
$itigation Aold 3otice to retain such envelope baring the insufficient postage and counter
attendant O<imO handwritten notation thereon* and indicated that unless a res&onsive &leading
to the Complaint was received by the 1tate 2ar by #ctober 2!, 2012, the matter would proceed
on a default basis) 4ee "oc)et, -otice of +ntent to (roceed on a Default 2asis)
(3#<E: 1ee CoughlinBs 111112 email to the 123 and (anel copying such on the
11,12 Everified responseF that Coughlin personally, and timely, delivered the the 123 on
11,12)*
1
: E)))please find attached %* %age 9mergency 9@ Parte Motion to Dismiss or
1 E9mergency 9@ Parte Motion -2124+2+$8 +$.$8+$.5
1ent: 1un 111112 !:1& 9=
<o: (s7entLs7entlaw)com* (s7entLs7entlaw)com*C (mi7eLtahoelawyer)com*
(mi7eLtahoelawyer)com*C (nevtelassnLsbcglobal)net* (nevtelassnLsbcglobal)net*C
(patric77Lnvbar)org* (patric77Lnvbar)org*C (fflahertyLdlpfd)com* (fflahertyLdlpfd)com*C
(davidcLnvbar)org* (davidcLnvbar)org*C (complaintsLnvbar)org* (complaintsLnvbar)org*C
112!!2
Ouash or =ther#ise Challenge 'ufficiency of 'ervice and of Process8 of Com%laint and
-otice of ?ntent to )a&e Default and DoK'o9J and Preserving for 6%%eal =bGection to
6ll other Due Process ViolationsJ and E-D9R PR=)9'),,,R9'P=-'9 )=
C=MP>6?-) submitted for filing #ith the 'tate 1ar of -evada on -ovember Bth8
2+12,,,) 11 , 12 response under protest 020! and various motions and notices 020! etc)pdf )))F
(1uch 7nowing shenanigans by the 123 vis a vis "AE1 and GingBs attempts to
mislead the tribunal at the formal hearing into thin7ing the 123 had actually complied with the
service reHuirements of such 3#+<<D (8(C &)59, (eters e'pressing to Coughlin that any such
3#+<<D would only issue after a second attempt at serving the Complaint via Certified
=ailing, as admitted to in the 10,12 9ffidavit of $aura (eters, especially where (eters admits
she and the 123 failed to ever attempt any such second Certified =ailing of the Complaint)
1ee CoughlinBs 11212 email to the 123 and (anel where such notes: E9lso, + never
received any 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default from the 123, and herein lodge my objection to
(tsusichLnvdetr)org* (tsusichLnvdetr)org*C (jeLeloreno)com* (jeLeloreno)com*C
(cvellisLbhfs)com (cvellisLbhfs)com*
from:
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
tel and fa' ,!, ../ /!02
+ do not consent to service or notice of anything electronically in this proceeding, but + do
appreciate being copied on such things via email and fa'*
Emergency E' (arte =otion 3?124020!, 0!&!,0!&5
please find attached %* %age 9mergency 9@ Parte Motion to Dismiss or Ouash or
=ther#ise Challenge 'ufficiency of 'ervice
and of Process8 of Com%laint and -otice of ?ntent to )a&e Default and DoK'o9J and
Preserving for 6%%eal =bGection to 6ll other Due Process ViolationsJ and E-D9R
PR=)9'),,,R9'P=-'9 )= C=MP>6?-)
submitted for filing #ith the 'tate 1ar of -evada on -ovember Bth8 2+12
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
<el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
-achCoughlinLhotmail)com
-ach has a file to share with you on 17yDrive) <o view it, clic7 the lin7 below)
11 , 12 response under protest 020! and various motions and notices 020! etc)pdf E
11&!!2
any #rder by this (anel that cites thereto) 9dditionally, 123Bs (eters has indicated no other
respondents have ever been made to pay witness subpoena fees, and further (eters and the 123
have repeatedly failed to adhere to agreements they have made with Coughlin (including the
failure of the 123 to resend a certified mail copy of the 1C8 105 Complaint incident to the
agreement between (eters and Coughlin on or about 1eptember 11th, 2012)F
1ee CoughlinBs 11.12 email to the 123 and (anel)
&
1ee, as well, CoughlinBs
111212 email to the 123 and (anel (E1ubject: $+<+?9<+#3 A#$D 3#<+CE ($E91E
8E<9+3 9$$ E;+DE3CEF*)
!
1ee, also, CoughlinBs email of 11.12: (E1ubject: ;-o 'ubGect<M<,
5
;(,,,<here is a
big problem with respect to when the 1tate 2ar of 3evada actually sent the 8espondent,
Coughlin the Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence (Do61oE* (and Coughlin
has yet to received a file stamped version of that Dow1oE) "urther, Coughlin has never
received any 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default (3o+<D* from the 123) 9s such, the notice
and other procedural safeguards attendant to the Aearing set for 111!12 are severely
deficient)))F*)
1ee 11212 email from Coughlin to 12333D2 (anel (F'1- still has not
%rovided Coughlin access to the materials he is entitled to to %re%are for 11C1$C12
"earing<F
.
) 1ee, also, CoughlinBs 111&12 email to the 123(anel (E1ubject: 123 and or
(anel will be brea7ing the law by holding a hearing tomorrow)))F*)
/
1ee, also, CoughlinBs
111%12 email (E1ubject: 8E: does 8ichard Aill have standing)))F*)
%
1ee, also, CoughlinBs
112&12 email to 123(anel: (E1ubject: $+<+?9<+#3 A#$D 3#<+CE #ctober ,th, 2012
certified mailing of 3otice of +ntent to ta7e Default*)
,
<he 123 failed to include in the 8#9 at least two filings by Coughlin that would
Hualify as a Eresponsive pleadingF submitted prior to the deadline indicated in Chair
EcheverriaBs 11/12 #rder (where such #rderBs Certificate of 1ervice indicates it was mailed
via @1(1 mail only to Coughlin, ie, 38C( .(e*, constructive service of such #rder was not
even effected until after the 11,12 deadline to file a Eresponsive pleadingF referenced therein)
1uch was typical of EcheverriaBs poor e'cuse for being a (anel Chair)
&.) #n #ctober &1, 2012 (anel Chair Echeverria issued the (anelBs #rder denying
CoughlinBs O=otion to DismissO filed Octo%er /K' 05/0C Denying CoughlinBs O=otion for #rder
to 1how Cause 8egarding +mproper 9ttempt by 2ar Counsel and, (ossibly, 33D2 to Delay
and #bstruct Aearing 8eHuired by Courts (sic* Dune /, 2012 #rder in Case 3o) .0%&% and
CoughlinBs 1C8 102(!*(d* (etition in Case .1!2. filed #ctober 2, 2012C Granting (3#<E: if
you say so* CoughlinBs =otion to 8eview and +nspect 2ar 8ecords filed #ctober 1., 2012 and
"en(ing .oughlin;s 7otion to Bifurcate 8earing and 7otion to "ismiss for <sic= .om&laint
<sic= Failure to 4ufficientl( 4tate the .harges with 4&ecificit( and 4u&&ort and for Utter
Failure of Bar .ounsel to @erform easona%le $nvestigation.O 1ee #rder Dated #ctober &1,
2012) +n that #rder, Chairman Echeverria further ordered that the "ormal Aearing would
proceed on a default basis unless Coughlin filed a ;erified 9nswer to the Complaint by
3ovember ,, 2012) 'ee =rder Dated =ctober .18 2+128 P 28 > 741+) (EO+< +1 "@8<AE8
#8DE8ED that the "ormal Aearing in these matters will proceed on a default basis pursuant to
the 1tate 2arBs 3otice of +ntent to (roceed on a Default 2asis filed #ctober ,, 2012 , unless =r)
Coughlin prepares and files a ;erified 9nswer to the 1tate 2arBs Complaint by "riday,
11!!!2
3ovember ,, 2012 ) <he 1tate 2ar is prepared to proceed with aO*
9s to the prejudice and clear error attendant to denying CoughlinBs =otion to
2ifurcate and CoughlinBs reHuest to bifurcate the proceedings (especially due to the disputes
with respective to the sufficiency of services and process as to that addressed in para) &5* upon
33D2 Chairman 1usich (to which he copied the 123*, see Coughlin 101012 correspondence
see7ing just such a bifurcation from the 33D2 Chair 1usich (E1ubject: 8E: pending final
disposition of disciplinary proceedings))))language 1C8 111(/* versus 1C8 111(%* and the Dune
/th, 2012 #rder of the 3;) 1) Ct)F* and the 123Bs response purporting to have the decision
ma7ing authority as to whether or not to bifurcate the hearing)
10
GingBs purporting to have the authority to rule on CoughlinBs reHuest for a
bifurcation is competely inappropriate (and arguably violative of the stricture against implying
unlawful ability to influence a tribunal*, considering 33D2 Chairman 1usichBs /2/12 letter to
Coughlin indicating Ging actually possessed such, and Chair EcheverriaBs 11212
communication to Coughlin indicating substantially the same or similar, reveals fully the
abdication of its responsibilities, much to the prejudice of 8espondent Coughlin, by 1usich and
Echeverria, which is only made further inappropriate by the 123 Ging and Clar7 being listed
as representing the 33D2 and 123 (resident "laherty in .210! (or is it .!12.)))the 111!12
=andamus (etition case and the case wherein the %1&12 1C8 111(/* ?ood Cause (etition for
Dissolution of <emporary 1uspension was filed in (where Coughlin believes he also attempted
to file such in .0%&% or that such should be considered therein where the /2!1& #rder in
.0%&% fails to, despite characteri:ing CoughlinBs .1112 or .1%12 or 10512 filings therein as
such a 1C8 111(/* motion or petition attempting to show good cause for such, etc) (especially
where Coughlin filed a grievance and motion to disHualify Ging with (resident "laherty, and
Ging purports (resident "laherty to have given him a direction (or, perhaps such is merely
implicit by the attachments to GingBs 122012 6or7place Aarassment <(# 9pplication in
8C(20124000.0/*)
O"rom: (atric7GLnvbar)org <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com CC:
DavidCLnvbar)org
1ubject: 8E: pending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings))))language 1C8
111(/* versus 1C8 111(%* and the Dune /th, 2012 #rder of the 3;) 1) Ct) Date: 6ed,
10 #ct 2012 1.:!!:2/ Y0000
Dear =r) Coughlin,
6hen you met with me and David Clar7 to discuss the Complaint and the
process) =r) Clar7 e'plained that since there was a conviction, Ethe sole issue to be
determined was the e'tent of the disciplineF) 3ot if you committed the crime, since
that was already determined beyond a reasonable doubt) +t is that conte't that we are
reading the rule) 3ot that the state bar is precluded from bringing additional
allegations against you) 9ny additional allegations that have not already resulted in
criminal convictions will need to be proved by Eclear and convincingF evidence) 9s
such, at the hearing, on the issue of your criminal convictions, the only issue for the
panel to decide is the appropriate discipline) Aowever, + will be providing evidence
as to the other allegations in the Complaint) <he (anel will decide if the state bar
115!!2
has met its burden of proof as to those allegations in the complaint, other than the
criminal convictions, and will decide the appropriate discipline on the totality of the
case, including mitigating and aggravating factors that may be presented at the
hearing)
9s such, + do not intend bifurcate these proceedings) + thin7 to do so
would cause unnecessary confusion, undue time and e'pense and would be
prejudicial to the administration of justice)
+ am advised that you have not yet filed an 9nswer to the Complaint) +
have sent you a notice of intent to proceed on a default basis) <he hearing date is
e'pected to be 6ednesday 3ovember 1!, 2012) + will be sending you a notice of
hearing, along with a list of witness, and evidence that + intend to introduce at the
hearing)
(atric7 Ging, 9ssistant 2ar Counsel)O

O"rom: -ach Coughlin Pmailto::achcoughlinLhotmail)comQ
1ent: 6ednesday, #ctober 10, 2012 .:1% 9=
<o: tsusichLnvdetr)orgC David Clar7C $aura (etersC (atric7 Ging
1ubject: pending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings))))language 1C8
111(/* versus 1C8 111(%* and the Dune /th, 2012 #rder of the 3;) 1) Ct)

Dear Chairman 1usich, 2ar Counsel, and Cler7 (eters,
+ am writing formally reHuest a bifurcation of sorts, consiering:
1C8 111(/*)ee1uspension on certification)ee@pon the filing with the
supreme court of a petition with a certified copy of proof of the conviction,
demonstrating that an attorney has been convicted of a serious crime, the court shall
enter an order suspending the attorney, regardless of the pendency of an appeal,
pending final disposition of a disciplinary proceeding, which shall be commenced by
the appropriate disciplinary board upon referral by the supreme court) "or good cause,
the court may set aside its order suspending the attorney from the practice of law)
+ thin7 2ar CounselBs argument that the OproceedingO call for in the CourtBs
Dune /th, 2012 #rder (which Huotes 1C8 111(/* may include some 1C8 105
Complaint (ie, a 123 v) -achary 2) Coughlin Complaints bringing in all sorts of
matters, including pending criminal actions, and wearing pajamas, and #rders by
Dudges purporting to ta7e away this or that right of CoughlinBs to practice this or that
in some court (an #rder which (atric7 Ging reference to me and Chief 2ar Counsel
Clar7, and, apparently, to a client of mine in early =ay 2012 (the client is the only
other place + have ever heard of such an unpublished O#rderO purporting to have said
effect* despite the dictate against 2ar CounselBs doign so in 1C8 121 (the 1C8 111
(etition was not even filed at that point, and one has to wonder if some deal between
that client, 2ar Counsel, and the new attorney that client can now magically afford
was wor7ed out, with nothing said of any torts that client committed against Coughin,
etc), etc), much less criminal law violations, which Coughlin just put up with*))))F
9dditionally, the enormity with respect to the levels of prosecutorial and judicial
11.!!2
misconduct that Coughlin has been subject to since "AE& in 200,, and with a great increase
thereof beginning in 9ugust of 2011, had provided more than sufficient a basis for showing
good cause for such a bifurcation)
11
1ee, also)
12
&/) 9gain on 3ovember /, 20 12, Chairman Echeverria, in an #rder ?ranting the
1tate 2arBs =otion to Uuash certain 1ubpoenas reminded Coughlin that unless a ;erified
9nswer to the Complaint was filed by 5:00 p)m) on 3ovember ,, 2012 the panel would proceed
on a default basis) 1ee (leadings Doc7et #rder Dated 3ovember /, 2012, ( 2, $ % 41&)
&%) "ollowing a lengthy attempt to determine whether or not Coughlin believed he
had filed a timely verified answer or response to the 1tate 2arBs Complaint, Coughlin
attempted, at the hearing of the matter, to transform a pleading previously filed in the 8eno
=unicipal Court into a O3ew ;erified 8esponse (sic* (re4Aearing =otion to
Dismiss1ummary Dudgment, =emorandum of $aw (1ee Aearing E'hibit 1!* and to transform
an OEmergency E' (arte =otion to Dismiss ))) O previously dated 3ovember 12, 2012 and
altered at the hearing to reflect a date of 3ovember 1!, 2012 into a ODeclaration and ;erified
8esponse)O 1ee Aearing E'hibits 15 and 1.) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember
1!, 2012, ( 2!!, $ 1. 4( 2/0, $11)
1&
&,) During the course of the hearing of this matter Coughlin continued to
demonstrate a pattern of conduct similar to, if not identical to, conduct in other forums for
which he had repeatedly been sanctioned) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember
1!,2012) (leadings in this matter filed by Coughlin were e'ceedingly lengthy, demonstrated a
lac7 of focus and understanding of the issues involved, were rambling and incoherent and
contained discussion of irrelevant issues) 1ee, e)g Aearing E'hibits 1!, 15, 1.) See also
(leadings Doc7et =otion for #rder to 1how Cause ))) O dated #ctober 2, 2012C O=otion to
8eview and +nspect 2ar 8ecords ))) O "iled #ctober 1., 2012C (leading entitled O6ell 6ould
Nou $oo7 at <hat ))) O dated 3ovember /, 2012C OEmergency E' (arte =otion <o Dismiss or
Uuash ))) O "iled 3ovember 1&, 2012)
!0) CoughlinBs conduct at the hearing included conduct not reflected in the
transcript of
the proceedings by way of facial gestures, body language, voice intonation and volume) 1ee
<ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1%1, $ 1,4( 1%2, $ 1)
C=-C>E'?=-' =/ >6K
2ased on the foregoing "indings of "act, the (anel hereby issues the following
Conclusions of $aw:
(9* <he (anel was designated by the northern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard Chair to
adjudicate the Complaint filed by the 1tate 2ar of 3evada against -achary 2) Coughlin, Case
3os) 3?124020!, 3?1240!&5 and 3?1240!&! and to determine the e'tent of the discipline to
be imposed pursuant to

the 3evada 1upreme Court #rder of <emporary 1uspension and
8eferral to Disciplinary 2oard entered in Case 3o) .0%&%, +n the =atter of Discipline of
-achary 2) Coughlin, EsH), 2ar 3o) ,!/&, entered Dune /, 2012)
(2* <he (anel has -urisdiction over the es&ondent and the su%-ect matter of these
&roceedings) 1ee 3ev) 1up) Ct) 8) ,,)
(C* ;enue in this matter is properly with the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard
and
in
11/!!2
the County of 6ashoe, 1tate of 3evada) 3ev) 1up) Ct) 8) 105)
(D* Coughlin received notice and a copy of the .om&laint, notice of his right to
respond, as well as notice of the evidence and witnesses upon which the State Bar intended to
rely at a formal hearing) (3#<E: thatBs not e'actly a verbatim restatment of 1C8 105(2*, and
1C8 105(2*(c*, now is it, as such e'cises the whole bit about how Coughlin is entitle to Oup to
& days prior to the hearingO +nspect (Oall of which may be inspectedO* the Osummary prpeared
by bar counsel of the evidence against the attorney (this is something Ging never provided at
all, as GingBs 101212 Do61oE in no way satisfies such reHuirement* , and the names of
witnesse bar counsel intends to call for other than impeachment (the entirety of GingBs
e'amination of 2eesley was devoid of any OimpeachmentO evidence, same with ElcanoBs
testimony, and Ging offered absolutely nothing in the way of justification as to why such
witnesses were not timely disclosed, or other e'plain how these witnesses could possibly be
view as ones that Obecame 7nown to bar counsel thereafterO (after the passing of the O&0 days
written noticeO of the identify of such prior to the 111!12 formal hearing date*) "urther, the
(anel fails to here conclude that the 123 provided Coughlin (or afforded his his right to
inspect Oup to & days prior to the hearingO any Obrief statement of the facts to which each
(witness* will testify*) Ging offered aboslutely nothing in the way of such Obrief statement of
the facts to which each (witness* will testifyO aside from a woefully deficient 101212
Do61oE that actually failed to specify that Aill would testify as to matter in the summary
eviction proceeding (such statement of the facts to which Aill would testify was limited an one
sentence indication that Aill would testify as to CoughlinBs conduct in C;1140&.2%, which was
the appeal of the summary eviction proceeding, an entirely different case than the summary
eviction proceeding, different case number, different time frame, different circumstances
involved, etc)*
(3#<E: nothing about anything about the manner in which CoughlinBs formal
hearing or this matter in general was handled is acceptable under any due process standard*)
1!
Notice of the formal hearing was served on Coughlin) Coughlin appeared in the
matter, filed numerous motions, appeared at the hearing of the matter, cross1e6amined
witnesses ;-=)97 here Chair Echeverria conveniently glosses over the fact that he refused to
allow Coughlin to call any of the 123Bs four witnesses in CoughlinBs case in chief, despite
Coughlin providing the Ohalf hourBs noticeO Echeverria reference earlier in the hearing as a
reHuirement for Coughlin to so call such witnesses, though Dudge 2eesley simply was too busy
to be subject to such recall for CoughlinBs case in chief) 8#9 111!12 <ranscript (starting at
8#9 page 1&.. ((age %&:1, to %&:25*, ((age 2&.:1 to 2&.:5** and testified on behalf of the
1tate 2ar and on his own behalf) Accordingl(' the 4tate Bar com&lied with the &rocedural
re*uirements of 4. /5>)
<he 12333D2(aneland 123 Cler7 of Court all willfully violated the duties
placed upon them and descreated the procedural rules attendant to these matters, reHuiring a
mistrial and or ma7ing the entirety of the 121!12 "#"C#$ void for lac7 of jurisdiction
(especially where such violations where neither EadministrativeF, EdirectoryF, nor
EaspirationalF, but firm reHuirements of due process attendant to these scurrilous attempts to
ta7e from Coughlin his "ourteenth 9mendment protected due process rights)
15
(E* Coughlin was afforded am&le o&&ortunit( to &re&are a verified answer or
11%!!2
res&onse to the allegations of the Complaint and failed to timel( do so) 1ee "indings of "act
&!, &5 and &.) 9ccordingly, the matter could &roceed on a default %asis and the allegations of
the .om&laint deemed admitted) 1C8 105(2* -ot#ithstanding the fact that the matter
could have been decided on a default basis, the (anel permitted the 1tate 2ar and Coughlin
to present evidence)
(3#<E: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 25&:10 to 25&:11* =8) ECAE;E88+9: 4o we
have not conducted this hearing as a default hearing, in deference to you)F +t is completely
dishonest and opportunist to conduct an entire hearing, e'cise the two pages wherein Coughlin
notes his is a Especial appearanceF to contest jurisdiction based upon, amongst other things,
insufficient service of process of the Complaint, and then to enter a Econclusion of lawF that
CoughlinBs violations of various 8(CBs were admitted or proven as a matter of default*)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 25!:% to 255:5* E=8) C#@?A$+3: + filed this) +
prepared this to be basically a motion for a new trial in the trespass case) But $;ve %een
o&erating on little slee& &re&aring for a &ett( larcen( trial' &re&aring for this. And $ started
to get scared that $ wasn;t getting something in the record on this. And so $ -ust said' (ou
)now what' (ou;re crossing that out' and (ou;re filing this in the 4tate Bar so (ou get
something) 1o $ thin) this could %e characteriJed as a verified res&onse) And $ do a&&reciate
the e6tent 11 $ %elieve (ou made a law of the case now that (ou;re not tal)ing a default on me
here) 9nd + believe 44 +Bd li7e to loo7 at my records more, but + believe + was told 5 could fa=
file at least, if not also e4mail file %( .ler) @eters) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat you filed with
the 1tate 2ar is one thing) Nou as7ed me earlier if + had consented to being served by e4mail,
and + have not) Nou as7ed, and + have 44 nor have + consented to being served by fa') $ %elieve
all documents that (ou need to file should %e filed with the 4tate Bar' and then the( can
&rovide them to us.F (eters and Ging are in no way trustworthy enough to allow for such an
arrangement where they control the flow of information so completely, from no allowing
respondents to even 7now the names of those on the (anel under si' days before the formal
hearing, to indicating to respondents that they are to submit documents for filing with the Cler7
of Court for the 123 and that complete copies of such (including all e'hibits attached thereto*
will be provided to 2ar Counsel and all members of the (anel*, to deciding what gets in the
8#9 and what does not (big problems with page &2, and 21. of the 8#9, numerous 7ey
filings of CoughlinBs are missing from the 8#9, even where E'hibit 15 itself demonstrates a
10&112 filing stamp for the document Coughlin refers to in the portion of the transcript
above)))really, how could the 123 possibly thin7 it appropriate or that it would go unnoticed
that such document was not included in the 8#9J 9nd the version of such document
submitted to the 123 on 10&112 was entirely of the one page per page variety, in constrast to
the Enew*)
("* 4u%mitted to the &anel for decision are the following issues (3#<E: if its really
true that the Efollowing issuesF were Esubmitted to the panel for decisionF then why the
multitude of instances where Chair Echeverria ruled as inadmissi%le an( evidence of an( sort
that .oughlin offered for the &ur&ose of dis&roving the ,issue+ of his guilt+ (over and
beyond the EissueF of whether his EguiltF had been Econclusively establishedF with respect to
the two criminal convictions involved herein (where Chair Echeverria constantly attempted to
characteri:e any order involved herein as a EconvictionF disclosing any EinHuiryF or EdecisionF
11,!!2
as to CoughlinBs EguiltF with respect to the alleged 8(C violations at EissueF here (ie, all the
EthatBs already been litigated)))the (anel has a mandatespecific order from the 3evada 1upreme
Court in this case)))F nonsense spewed by the washed up EcheverriaF*J 9ll the following
EwhetherFBs clearly evince the patent fraud displayed by Echeverria and the (anel in their
constant inadmissibility rules as to anything material to such purported EwhetherFBs, ma7ing
1C8 10. inapplicable to their willful fraudulent conduct (see law review article on the
difference between mere mista7es of law and willful judicial misconduct*:
(1* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C 1)1 (Competence*)
(2* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C 1)2 (Diligence*) (3#<E: actually,
8(C 1)2 is E1cope of 8epresentation and 9llocation of 9uthority 2etween
Client and $awyerF, and 8(C 1)& is EDiligenceF, so, just who is it alleging
a Huestion of ECompetenceF, againJ Neah)*
(&* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C &)1 (=eritorious Claims and
Contentions*
(!* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C &)& (Candor to the <ribunal*)
(5* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C &)! ("airness to #pposing (arty and
Counsel*
(.* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C &)5 (+mpartiality and Decorum of the
<ribunal*
(/* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C &)59 (8elations with #pposing
Counsel*
(%* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C !)1 (<ruthfulness in 1tatements to
#thers*
(,* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C !)! (8espect for the 8ights of <hird
(ersons*
(10* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C %)1 (Disciplinary =atters*
(11* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C %)2 (Dudicial and $egal #fficials*
(12* 6hether Coughlin violated 8(C %)! (=isconduct*
(1&* <he e=tent of the discipline to !e imposed %ursuant to 'CR 111 as a
result of CoughlinBs conviction of the OseriousO crime of (etit $arceny)
+n re Discipline of 1chaefer, 25 ()&D 1,1 (3ev), 2001*: 8ule of professional
conduct prohibiting lawyer, in representing a client, from directly contacting represented
party without consent of partyBs counsel was vague as a&&lied to attorne( who re&resented
himself in litigation at issue, in light of non4binding nature of formal opinion of state barBs
1tanding Committee on Ethics and (rofessional 8esponsibility determining that rule applied
to a lawyer appearing pro se, together with e'istence of conflicting authority from other
jurisdictions) 1up)Ct)8ules, 8ule 1%2)
(3#<E: Coughlin was forced to appear without counsel in all of these summary
eviction matters due to his indigency (thus, "AE2, and, really, where 6ashoe $egal
1ervices did not but attempt to obstruct CoughlinBs ability to defend himself in the Doshi
matter, and certainly would not arrange for any representation to defend Coughlin against
such potentially far reaching, long acting conseHuences of "AE&, Coughlin was similarly
forced to appear without representation, as was, obviously, the case in "AE! and 5
120!!2
(especially where CoughlinBs &/12 filing was a =otion to (roceed +n "orma (auperis,
which, of course, Dudge 3ash Aolmes struc7 from the record, then proceeded to violated
381 1/%)!05 by way of 381 5)0/1 in holding the &1212 trial date from which "AE5
issued)
1imilarly "AE10, the 121511 #rder by 8=C Dudge Aoward was entered where
Coughlin was denied his 1i'th 9mendment rights (and "AE12 purported to Eaffirm the
ruling of the 8eno =unicipal CourtF (where Dudge Elliott apparently failed to adjudicate
CoughlinBs appeal of such 11&011 "AE11 #rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt, where,
given it is unclear whether such civil contempt order was against Coughlin the indigent
criminal defendant (and thus appealable* or against Coughlin the attorney (and thus,
seemingly, under (engilly apparently only addressable by way of a (etition for
E'traordinary 6rit (=andamus** where "AE12 and "AE10 are actually rather embarrassing
to the judiciary when read together as "AE10 denies Coughlin (whom Hualified under the
200% +ndigent Defense #rder as a per se indigent upon CoughlinBs filing a sworn Declaration
on 102.11 in the 8=C see7ing court appointed counsel and a 121!12 =otion to (roceed
+n "orma (auperis see7ing publication of the transcript at publicBs e'pense
1.
, where Dudge
Aowards ridiculous and shameful "AE10 #rder ta7es issues with Coughlin citing to a civil
+"( statute in 381 12)015*)
<he majority of alleged violations of the 8ules of (rofessional Conduct in this
matter are levied against Coughlin were he was forced to appear (its not even clear that
Coughlin was ErepresentingF himself in the sense of an attorney4client relationship, and,
certainly, where Dudge 3ash Aolmes claims that at the outset of the 22/12 Esimple traffic
citation trialF that she had Coughlin EswornF as she Enoticed that most self represented
defendants tend to do a lot of testifying while e'amining witnessesF, its hardly fair to
hamstring Coughlin with such reHuirement that anything which the (anel or 2ar (or the
8=C* are now alleging was some misconduct by Coughlin committed in an attorney role,
where the opposing counsel in such case was not forced to be EswornF at the outset of the
traffic citation case (such prosecutor being 8C9 deputy 9llison #rmaas, EsH), whom
Coughlin noted on the audio record of the 22/12 trial that Chair Echeverria was so 7een to
e'clude from evidence was sharing whispers into each otherBs ears during the trial with
8=C =arshal Aarley, as both apparently feared that Coughlin had captured some of their
rampant misconduct on tape (with 8C9 #rmaas, just li7e 8C9 Chief Criminal Deputy
6ong did during the 11,12 arraignment with Coughlin* flatly indicated she would not
notate, document, or follow up in any way on CoughlinBs reporting to her, verbatim what
8(D #fficer Chris Carter, Dr) said to Coughlin upon arresting Coughlin for criminal trespass
on 111&12, which Coughlin indicated he had reported to 8(D 1argent <arter immediately
prior to <arter telling Coughlin to leave AillBs law office on 111512, where Coughlin had
gone to retrieve his wallet, state issued identifcation, clientBs files, hard drives, and 7eys,
where <arter then proceeded to pull Coughlin over as Coughlin was leaving and issue him
three traffic citations (and the (anelBs "#"C#$ is inaccurate where it indicates Coughlin as
subject to a custodial arrest at such time* at some point in the long wait prior to the trial
while Dudicial 9ssistant =arilyn <ognoni mused at how unusual (one the record she said
this during the matters preceding CoughlinBs on the 1:00 p)m), stac7ed doc7et where 2.%00
121!!2
started at &:&0 p)m)* it was the neither she, nor anyone with the 8=C could locate Dudge
3ash Aolmes, whom left the bench after clearing every other case on that stac7ed doc7et,
save for CoughlinBs, for appro'imately one hour prior to the start of the trial in 2.%00 at &:00
pm)
1/
(3#<E: Aow odd it is that Chair EcheverriaBs "#"C#$ here completely departs
from the approach he too7 in constantly ruling as irrelevant or inadmissible any testimony or
evidence Coughlin offerred to defend against all the myriad allegations of misconduct that
were not accompanid by a EconvictionF (and, in the case of the 101512 1C8 111(!*
(etition in .1,01 for the then necessarily non4 EseriousF criminal conviction for criminal
trespass the 3) 1) CtBs decision to refrain from responding to such 1C8 111(!* (etition by
referring the matter to a disciplinary panel provides a defensive collateral estoppel bar to
Ging and the (anelBs hail mary attempt to characteri:e such criminal trespass conviction as a
basis for permanently disbarring Coughlin (and the lac7 of any such 1C8 111(%* referral
(and GingBs own defining his (etition in .1,01 as one (in contrast to his (etition in .0%&%,
which curiously departs from 2areBs (etition in the 381 1,,)2%0 +n 8e 2ec7ett matter)))*
arguably precludes pleading such conviction for criminal trespass at all as supporting an
allegation of a violation of 8(C %)!(a*4(d*, (much less that sua sponte attempts by
Echeverria to graft such criminal trespass conviction and the testimony by 8ichard ?) Aill,
EsH), that Echeverria ruled to be admissible (of course, only so far as such EevidenceF
favored GingBs case* surrounding the circumstances of such criminal trespass conviction
(which Echeverria, again, sua sponte, argued provided support for and notice4pleading to
Coughlin that "AE2 (the Eprevailing party attorneyBs fee awardF Gsanction3 etc) would be
not or inclusion in any way in a 1C8 105 Complaint) (ie, jurisdiction is in Huestion in that
regard*)
1%
(?* <he 1tate 2ar must prove by clear and convincing evidence ;-=)97 it also
need be (admissibleM evidence
1B
< that Coughlin violated 8(C 1)1,1)2,&)1, &)&, &)!, &)5, !)1,
!)!, 59 (sic*,%)1,%)2,and %)!) 1ee 3ev 1up) Ct) 8) 105(2*(e*C ?n re 'tuhff, 10% 3ev) at .&&4.&!,
%&/ ()2d at %5.C ?entile v 1tate 2ar, 10. 3ev) .0, .2, /%/ ()2d &%.,&%/ (1,,0*)
Defending $awyers in Disciplinary (roceedings, &1 9=D@8 <8+9$1 .&&): O)))1ec)
!%) 9videntiary considerations)
20
9dmissibility and interrelated issues vis a vis CoughlinBs
defensive collateral estoppel arguments and Ging and the (anelBs fraudulently attempts to graft
1C8 111(5* onto situations where even an offensive collateral estoppel argument would be
unavailing, were central to the reversible error committed herein by the (anel)
21
Com%etence
(A* 8(C 1)1 states O9 lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client)
Competent representation reHuires the legal 7nowledge, s7ill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation)O
(+* <he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin lac7s the
com%etency to represent clients, including himself)
(D* "irst, the record demonstrates severe criticism (3#<E: 6hatJ 3o
characteri:ation of "AE& as a EsanctionFJ* by the trial court in the handling of the Joshi
(3#<E: "AE&, Dudge $) ?ardner* matter, including CoughlinBs lac) of understanding of a
%alance sheet, his failure to conduct discovery, his lac) of )nowledge of the rules of evidence
122!!2
and trial &rocedure) 1upra 25
(G* 1econd, Dudge 2eesley testified that the pleadings filed by Coughlin on behalf of
his client in a ban7ruptcy case were Olengthy, didnBt ma7e any sense, and just sort of rambled
through a great deal of irrelevant stuff)O Dudge 2eesley also testified that CoughlinBs pleadings
and arguments on behalf of his client OdidnBt ma7e any sense)O 1upra B 1. Dudge 2eesley
became concerned enough about CoughlinBs competency as a lawyer that he contacted the 1tate
2ar) 1upraB 1/
($* <hird, Dudge 3ash Aolmes Huestioned CoughlinBs competency as a lawyer and in
her #rder finding Coughlin in contem%t of Court noted that Coughlin disregarded the rules of
evidence, continually imposed improper Huestions, failed to properly e'amine witnesses,
repeatedly as7ed the Huestion, misstated answers, injected irrelevant material, argued with
witnesses and mischaracteri:ed testimony) 1upra / (3#<E: 6here the punishment for
contempt is limited to a fine or imprisonment, an attorney may not be disbarred as a
punishment for contempt of court) E' parte 8obinson, %. @)1) 51&)*
(=* "ourth, Dudge 3ash Aolmes found that CoughlinBs pleadings failed to address
topics listed Bin the caption, contained rambling references to CoughlinBs personal life and other
irrelevant material, were overly lengthy, disjointed and incoherent) 1upraB , K 10
(3* "ifth, the 1tate 2ar called two judges and two practicing attorneys (Elcano is not
listed as an Oactive attorneyO at www)nvbar)org, nor has he been for over 5 years*, each with
significant e'perience with Coughlin and each of whom rendered an e'pert opinion regarding
CoughlinBs competency as a lawyer) Dudge 2eesley testified that in his opinion, Coughlin was
not competent to practice law) 1upra f 1%) Dudge 3ash Aolmes testified that in her opinion,
Coughlin violated numerous 8ules of (rofessional conduct including his lac7 of competency
to practice law) 1upra f15) 9ttorney 8ichard Aill also testified that in his opinion Coughlin is
not competent to practice law) 1upra f 22 9ttorney (aul Elcano, who once su%ervised
Coughlin as a lawyer and ultimately terminated him from 6ashoe $egal 1ervices, also testified
that, in his o%inion, Coughlin is not competent to practice law) 1upraf 2%)
(9s to the ludicrous idea that Elcano is an Ee'pertF (especially as to the law of
domestic relations, with an emphasis on the interplay between domestic violence, ban7rupty,
and alimony* as to that to which he was called to testify: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 11,:1/ to
122:15*
22
(#* 1i'th, the record establishes that Coughlin offered no e@%ert o%inion or
evidence as to his com%etency)
(3#<E: #h, on the contrary, the transcript bleeds through with Coughlin e'tremely
high level of competency, as do all of the filings he attached as e'hibits to his filings, in
addition to his filings in this disciplinary matter themselves, as well as the audio transcripts,
and certified transcripts Coughlin attached as e'hibits to his various filings and offered attached
to "AE1!,15*)
Diligence
((* 8(C 1)2 states O9 lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and %rom%tness
in representing a client)O <he record is less clear as to whether or not Coughlin violated 8(C
1)2 on more than on occasion)
(8* Dudge Aoward, in the Doshi case, certainly found that Coughlin failed to
12&!!2
conduct discovery on behalf of his client in that matter) 1upra 25
(1* <he record and (leading Doc7et in this case establish that Coughlin failed to
%rovide a verified res%onsive %leading even in the defense of his o#n disci%linary action)
1upra &%
(<* <he record and (leading Doc7et in this case establish that Coughlin habitually
files numerous, untimely and repetitive motions)
Meritorious Claims and Contentions
(@* 8(C &)1 in pertinent part states O9 lawyer shall not %ring or defend a
proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a %asis in law and fact for
doing so that is not frivolous' which includes a good faith argument for an e6tension'
modification or reversal of e6isting law)O
(;* <he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin continuousl( and
re&etitivel( files irrelevant pleadings) pleadings unrelated to the issue at hand and continuously
and repetitively injects irrelevant matters into proceedings) (3#<E: o7ay, howBs about a
citation to something in the ErecordF which Eclearly and convincingly BestablishesBF thatJ*
(6* Dudge 3ash Aolmes found, for e'ample, that Coughlin re&eatedl( in-ected
allegations of bribery, perjury and police retaliation in a simple traffic case involving the
failure to stop at a stop sign) 1upra para) /) 1he also found that Coughlin re&eatedl( in-ected
attorne( ichard 8ill into *uestions and statements when 7r. 8ill was in no wa( involved in
the traffic citation trial) 1upra para) / 1he also found that pleadings filed su!se<uent to
Coughlin's incarceration were lengthy (more than 200 pages* contained scant discussion of, or
relevance to, the matter and contained irrelevant discussion of facts unrelated to the
proceedings at hand) 1upra para 10)
(10) Dudge 3ash Aolmes also found that Coughlin, after being released from
custody following the "ebruary 2/, 2012 contem%t of Court incarceration, filed other
nonsensical pleadings including a 21% page document:
O)).&ur&orted to %e (et another motion in this case entitled O=otion to Return
Cell AhonesC =otion to 1et 9side 1ummary Contem%t #rderC and 3 otice of
9ppeal of 1ummary C ontem%t #rder)O 6ith scant discussion of, or relevance
Aoward in a Department ! case and again contains more than 200 pages of
string legal citationsC lyrics to roc7s (sic* songsC =r) CoughlinBs personal
family historyC discussion of an eviction case and another contem%t caseC
disjointed legal citations and other nonsensical matters that have no apparent
relevance to his traffic citation case)*
(3#<E: 9pparently Dudge Aolmes e'pected attorney Coughlin to
be really, really focused on a traffic tic7et for a Eboulevard stopF over AolmeBs
judicial misconduct in, without a warrant, having her =arshal return to the
6ashoe County Dail the day after CoughlinBs property had been boo7ed into
his own personal property, and removing three items (CoughlinBs smart phone,
a &2?2 micro sd card, and CoughlinBs flip style cellular phone*) 1uch was not
a Esearch incident to arrestF, and thus violated Dia: from the ,
th
Circuit, and
12!!!2
presents an scenario where 3;2 Dudge 2eesley arguably had a Canon 2, 8ule
2)15 duty to report Dudge Aolmes, rather than affect some fau' concern for
Coughlin while having him removed from GellerBs case via a %&012 #rder
that misstates what occurred in Court on %2%12 in 3;241040510!, and
countenancing the ban7ruptcy court cler7s failure to file in CoughlinBs %2012
=otion3otice therein, in addition to presiding over such matter (where
arguably he now has a vested interest in using CoughlinBs former client Geller
as a pawn in much the way 8=C judge Aoward and Aolmes arguably did
incident to denying any stays whatsoever in connection with their outlandish
and shameful summary incarcerations* or deciding the case in GellerBs favor
based upon the very few arguments and authority Coughlin put forward that
his replacement (atricia Aadfield did not copy an paste out of CoughlinBs
previous filings (li7e that of 112&11 and !1/12, especially where Aadfields
!1&1& =otion for 1ummary Dudgment e'pressly provides that she and Geller
are not withdrawing such !1/12 =otion by Coughlin, especially where such
=otion clearly disposes of the Cadle CompanyBs case in short order in 3;24
1040510!*)
(>* <he record establishes that in the =erliss eviction action, CoughlinBs conduct
was so ve'atious and frivolous as to result in substantial sanction of attorneyBs fees) 1upra para
21 1ee Aearing E'hibit 2, ( 2, $ % 41&C (&, $ ! 411)
(N* <he Pleading Doc&et in this matter establishes also that Coughlin0s filings8
even in his o#n defense of the disci%linary matter8 inGect lengthy8 irrelevant facts and
legal issues into this %roceeding) (3#<E: here, Echeverria, chuc7s up this hail mary upon
reali:ing the 2ar failed to put any admissible evidence whatsoever in support of the allegation
of a violation of 8(C &)1, and that offensive collateral estoppel is utterly unavailing to the 2ar,
particularly with respect to what it purported to be the best e'amples of CoughlinBs so violating
8(C &)1 (ie, "AE2, &, ! (especially where such is purported to be a EcriminalF matter, 8(C &)1
e'pressly identifies itself less broadly applied in such circumstances, and regardless, there is
nothing in "AE! that spea7s to 8(C &)1, but rather Echeverria attempts to graft that which only
tangentially invo7es 8(C &)&, &)5 and !)! onto the anemic 8(C &)1 allegation*)
(/) Dudge 3ash Aolmes ordered Coughlin into custody on "ebruary 2/, 2012 and to
be incarcerated at the 6ashoe County 8egional Detention "acility for the term of five (5* days)
Alternativel( Coughlin could pay a fine of M500) <he CourtBs sentence was based on its
detailed findings regarding CoughlinBs conduct in his own defense)
O<he court finds that defendantBs contem&t uous conduct consisted of his
rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic,
deceitful, disru%tive, argumentative and childish behavior during trial,
all of which appeared to be done to ve' and annoy the court, the witness,
and the opposing party, and to disru%t the trial process) <he court finds
that the following occurred, and constitute contem%t: 1* defendantBs
mimeli7e, clownish antics of ma7ing faces at the courtC sagging down
into his seat and hanging his headC loo7ing behind himself and inside his
125!!2
coat as if searching for a better way to as7 a HuestionC rolling his eyesC
and mimic7ing others wordsC 2* defendantBs incessant arguing with the
court, tal7ing over the court, and interrupting the courtC &* defendantBs
repeatedly restating matters after being told by the court to Omove onO or
Oas7 the ne't HuestionCO !* defendantBs repeatedly injecting allegations of
bribery, perjury, and police retaliation into the matter after the court
instructed him not to, and directed him to limit himself to issues
pertaining to the facts of the O2oulevard 1topCO 5* defendantBs repeatedly
trying to insertO 8ichard AillO into his Huestions and statements when
such person was not relevant to the proceeding and the defendant had
been ordered to stop discussing thatC .* defendantBs disregarding the rules
of evidence and court procedure by continually posing improper
Huestions after being directed by the court to properly phrase his
Huestions /* defendantBs continually accusing the court of denying him
the right or ability to as7 Huestions and telling the court to Ogive me a list
of Huestions you want me to as7CO %* defendantBs suggesting that the
court Otell me what would ma7e you happyCO ,* defendantBs lying to the
court in response to direct Huestions posed by the court with regard to his
recording the proceedingsC and 10* defendantBs failing and refusing to
properly e'amine the witness, despite numerous admonitions by the
court to stop repeating Huestions, misstating answers, injecting irrelevant
material, arguing with the witness and mischaracteri:ing the testimony)O
1ee Aearing E'hibit #8DE8 "+3D+3? <AE DE"E3D93< +3 contem%t #"
C#@8< 93D +=(#1+3? 193C<+#31) (3#<E: see, supra Huotation from (age 22 of ,5
from CoughlinBs filing in Doc7et .0%&% Document 201241%,.2**
(3#<E: the judiciary in 6ashoe County and 8eno, particularly those in the ?ardner
family, are really ta7ing a lot of liberties with the concepts of Emeritorious claimsF and whether
a motion Elac7s meritF:
<he 6C1#Bs #ffice burglari:ed CoughlinBs former home law office rather than
conduct a loc7out, which ma7es the criminal trespass conviction against Coughlin in .1,01
(2.!05* incident to that very burglary by Aill, the 6C1#, and the 8(D, an enormous
embarassment to the judiciary in 3evada, as is the fraudulent activity with respect to pages 1.
and &, in that !0 page filing by Coughlin of &512 in 2.!05, the =otion to Dismiss Ging
references in his Complaint) +orio v) City of 3ew Nor7 et al), ,. =isc)2D ,55, !10 3)N)1)2D
1,5 (1,/%*)
2&

Certainly CoughlinBs 21112 email to 6C1# 1upervisor $i: 1tuchell in response to
1tuchellBs 2/12 email to Coughlin, which either the 8=C and Ging or both e'cised from the
!1.12 EE'hibit ,F presentation of an altered reproduction thereof (while the page 1. of !0
missing from the first appearance of such &512 =otion did appear)))the fa' header for all
pages was e'cised, ma7ing less noticeable the e'cision of 1tuchellBs 2/12 email (ie, not pae
&% of !0)))hey, whereBs page &, of !0 as paginated in the fa' header moment for the 1creening
(anel, by design)))ma7ing Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs &2012 E#rder I1F at E'hibit 10 in such 2&
12.!!2
E'hibit (resentation Huite dubious (especially where the page 1. (in terms of the pagination on
CoughlnBs &512 =otion at the bottom center of each page* and Epage &, of !0F (in terms of
the fa' header therein* spea7 volumes to rebut Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs contention that CoughlinBs
motion Elac7s merit*
Consider the following appearances of CoughlinBs &512 =otion to Dismiss in the
criminal trespass case in 2.!05 compared to that apparently presented to the 1creening (anel
on !1.12 in GingBs 2& E'hibit presentation: at bates 10 T !% 0&0512 CoughlinBs 3otice of
9ppearance as Co4Counsel and =otion to Dismiss in criminal trespass case before 8=C
Dudge 6illiam ?ardner in 11 C8 2.!05 (.1,01*) (3#<E: the fa' header from CoughlinBs filing
to the 8=C indicates this filing is !0 pages long, with 123 GingBs bates stamping for this
filing beginning on bates !, and the fa' header atop what is GingBs bates !% indicating it is
Opage !0 of !0O of the fa'ing by Coughlin of that filing to the 8=C (page O&, of !0O is missing
from GingBs production, as GingBs bates !/ is, according the to fa' header atop CoughlinBs
original filing with the 8=C, page O&% of !0O) <his means that the same 2/12 emailed
admission to Coughlin from the 6C1# Deputy =achen who filed fraudulent 9ffidavits of
1ervice (11/11 for the 11111 summary eviction loc7out with AillBs associate Casey D)
2a7er, EsH) 9nd the &/12 9ffidavit of 1ervice for the 22/12 service Aill paid for upon
Coughlin at the 22/12 Osimple traffic citationO trial before 8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes in 11 <8
2.%00 wherein 6C1# Deputy =achen had 8=C =arshal Aarley smir7ingly enter a
conference room within Courtroom 2 of the 8=C where 8eno City 9ttorney Coughlin and
#rmaas were engaged in plea bargaining, and personally served Coughlin Dudge "lanaganBs
2%12 #rder to 1how Cause in the summary eviction from CoughlinBs former home law office
to which Aill was opposing counsel) =arshal Aarley grew very worried upon Coughlin
immediately cross4e'amining him about his inappropriate, courthouse sanctuary doctrine
violating, appearance of impropriety creating, harassment of Coughlin) "urther, that same
second of three pages from CoughlinBs E'hibit 1 to his &512 filing in the 8=C (which was the
2/12 emailed admission from 6C1# Deputy =ac henRs Civil Division 1upervisor $i:
1tuchell wherein she admits that =achenBs 11/11 9ffidavit of 1ervice is a misrepresentation,
at best, where 1tuchell admits that =achen merely tape those three #rders to the front door of
CoughlinBs former law office while nobody was home, despite =achenBs 11/11 9ffidavit of
1ervice indicating that he Opersonally servedO the 102511 Eviction Decision and #rder and
the 102/11 "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw, and #rder for 1ummary Eviction, and the
102/11 #rder for +nspection of CoughlinBs law office by Dudge 1ferra::a in 8DC 8ev20114
001/0%* is curiously missing from E'hibit & to 33D2 Chairman 1usichBs .1%12 1C8 11/
(etition in .0,/5, indicating a either a conspiracy between the 8=C, 33D2, and the 123, or
that someone with the 8=C has systematically removed that)
=eanwhile, at bates !5 one finds the +nde' to E'hibits to &512 filing page &. of !0
on fa' header only to discover at bates !. the E'hibit 1 cover page and at bates !/ page &% of
!0 of fa', Certificate of 1ervice of 11111 by AillBs #ffice, while at bates !% one sees page !0
of !0 of fa' (so page &, was omitted, where such page consisted of 6C1# Civil Division
1upervisor $i: 1tuchellBs admission that Deputy =achenBs 9ffidavit of 1ervice alleging he
Epersonally servedF eviction order to Coughlin on 11111 was false*)))))))
Aowever, bates .%% reveals (age 1 of !0 page fa' from Coughlin to 8=C of &512
12/!!2
fa' header 10:5. am 3otice of 9ppearance as Co4Counsel and =otion to Dismiss in 8=C 11
C8 2.!05 criminal trespass case before Dudge 6) ?ardner referred to in GingBs %2&12
Complaint as follows (8#9 1* (and where Ging failed to see7 introduction of either of the very
filings of =otions to Dismiss by Coughlin that he cited in his Complaint, such mut be ta7en as
an admission not only that such contention lac7ed merit, but that CoughlinBs arguments and
contentions within such documents were, in fact meritorious, which only results in GingBs
attempting to characteri:e the trespass conviction as some basis for finding a violation of the
various rules of professional conduct Ging and the (anel so to so grafter thereonto, utterly
ve'atious in GingBs own right*:
E10) 8espondent was arrested on 3ovember 1&, 2011 by 8eno (olice Department
and charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor, for which he was later convicted)
11) <he circumstances leading to the above4mentioned arrest are as follows: at an
hearing Dustice of the (eace (eter 1ferra::a ordered that 8espondent vacate the home he was
renting effective 3ovember 1, 2011) 9fter the loc7s were changed and the notice was posted on
the front door the owner, Dr) =erliss, discovered that someone had bro7en into the home and
was barricaded in the basement) <he 8eno (olice tried to coa' whoever was in the basement to
open the door) Dr) =erliss was forced to 7ic7 open the door where the 8eno (olice found
8espondent) 8espondent had bro7en into the home and living in the basement) 8espondent was
arrested for criminal trespass and was subseHuently convicted of that charge)
12) 8espondent, representing himself as co4counsel, filed a &.4page motion to
dismiss on =arch 5, 2012) <he motion was denied by Dudge 6illiam ?ardner and was
determined to be without merit) <he motion, on its face, demonstrates that 8espondent lac7s
competence to practice law)F
6hich ma7es particularly troubline the fact that at bates /02 (age 15 of CoughlinBs
&512 =otion to Dismiss in 2.!05 (proving & 5 12 020! 2.!05 =otion to DismissBs page 1.
e'cised from 11 / 12 123 production between bates /02 and /0& detailing burglary by Aill,
6C1#, 8(D, ?ayle Gern, EsH), 3evada Courts 1ervices, (ar7 <errace, 3orthwind
9partments, 1uperior 1torage, etc, incident to failure to accord 2! hours to tenant from receipt
of loc7out order per 381 !0)25&*, 6hich, contrary to 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs judicial
misconduct display in ruling such motion Elac7s meritF, actuall( e6&oses the Nev. .onst. Art.
B 4ec 0/ violations that the -udiciar( in !ashoe .ount( and eno have %een countenancing
in doing much more than turning a %lind e(e to the state s&onsored %urglaries %( the
!ashoe .ount( 4heriff;s Office in failing to accord tenants the ,0B hours from+ the tenant;s
,recei&t of the+ <summar( removal= ,order+ &rior to the !.4O conducting a loc)out
incident to a summar( eviction' where &age /K thereof <which' again' was e6cised %( either
the 7. in &roviding such to the 4BN' or %( the 4BN' %ut clearl( not %( .oughlin in fa6ing
such to the 7. as the fa6 headers and &agination therein tell the tale and loc) the 4BN
and 7. in a finger &ointing contest where such e6cised &age /K is highl( e6cu&lator(' not
to mention su&&ortive of a mitigation anal(sis.
0B
Candor to the )ribunal
(-* 8(C &)&(a*(1* states O9 lawyer shall not 7nowingly: (m*a7e a false statement of
fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement )of material fact or law previously
made to the tribunal by the lawyer)O
12%!!2
(99* <he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin violated 8(C
&)&(a*(l* when he lied to Dudge 3ash Aolmes as to whether or not he was surreptitiously and
without permission to record the proceeding) 1upra f / #f note, Coughlin did not deny that he
had lied to Dudge 3ash Aolmes) +nstead, his cross e'amination of Dudge 3ash Aolmes focused
on how she had learned of the true facts) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!,
2012, (1&,, $104(1!.41!)
(22* 9ttorney 8ichard Aill testified that based on his e'perience in litigating with
Coughlin, Coughlin was not truthful with either counsel or the Court) 1upra (aragraph 2&)
(CC* <he record also establishes that Coughlin was less than candid with the Court
in two separate applications to proceed in forma pauperis, when he failed to disclose his true
occupation as an attorney and instead indicated he was self4employed as a ODac7 of all <radesO
failed to identify any income from the practice of law after having represented to the court that
his incarceration would adversely affect his clients) 1upra ff &1 K &2
/airness to =%%osing Party and Counsel
(DD* 8(C &)!(c* states O9 lawyer shall not: (7*nowingly disobey an obligation
under the
rules of a tribunal e'cept for an op en refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
e'ists)O
(EE* <he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin has a clear and
continuing &attern of )nowingl( ignoring and diso%e(ing instructions from the Court)
(9ttorneyBs conduct in continuing to cross4e'amine police officer after judge had
ruled that police log was not admissible was not contempt where attorney claimed that he was
trying to impeach witnessesB memory, not lay foundation for admission of log, so that his
conduct could not be said to be willful) @nited 1tates v ?iovanelli (1,,0, C92 3N* %,/ "2d
122/) 8esort to summary disposition of criminal contempt proceeding under 8ule !2(a*,
"ederal 8ules of Criminal (rocedure, is permissible only when e'press reHuirements of rule are
met and when there is compelling reason for immediate remedy or when time is of essence)
<hus, attorneyBs conviction for criminal contempt in pursuing line of Huestioning forbidden by
court would be reversed, since record showed that there was no compelling need for immediate
remedy provided by 8ule !2(a*, "ederal 8ules of Criminal (rocedure, and that trial court, by its
own actions, did not consider time to be of essenceC trial court should have observed OnormalO
procedureO of notice and hearing, provided by 8ule !2(b*, "ederal 8ules of Criminal
(rocedure) @)1) v) =oschiano, .,5 ")2D 2&., 12 "ed) 8) Evid) 1erv) 12! (/<h Cir) 1,%2*) 1ee
@nited 1tates v <urner (1,%/, C911 9la* %12 "2d 1552, S 1!)F from page 22 of ,5 of the
Doc7et .0%&% Document 201241%,.2 Coughlin provided both the (anel and #2C*)
(""* +n his #rder of contem%t, Dudge Aoward found that Coughlin refused to obey
directives of the Dudge and continued lines of Huestioning after being instructed to refrain from
doing so) 1upra !
(??* Dudge 3ash Aolmes, in her #rder of contem%t, found that Coughlin
incessantly argued with the Court, interrupted the Court, repeatedly restated matters after
having been admonished to refrain from doing so, disregarded directives to as7 properly
phrased Huestions and disobeyed nwnerous admonitions by the court to stop repeating
Huestions, misstating answers, injecting irrelevant material, arguing with the witness and
12,!!2
mischaracteri:ing testimony) 1upra f / tribunal)O
repeatedly conducts himself in a manner that is disru%tive of the tribunal while in the
courtroom)
(AA* <he transcript of the hearing in this matter clearly demonstrates that Coughlin
repeatedly and incessantly interrupts witnesses, counsel, (anel members and (anel Chairman
and refuses to heed admonitions to refrain from doing so) 1ee generally of 6ednesday,
3ovember 1!, 2012)
?m%artiality and Decorum of the )ribunalW
(++* 8(C &)5(d* states O9 lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disru&t a
tri!unal)
(DD* <he disru%tion must have occurred in the courtroom, =ne cannot disru&t a
tribunal #ith conduct outside of the courtroom) ?n re Michael 'tuhff, 10% 3ev) .2,,
%&/()2d %5& (1,,2*,
(GG* <he record overwhelmingly, clearly and convincingly establishes that
Coughlin repeatedly conducts himself in a manner that is disru&tive of the tribunal while in
the courtroom)
($$* <he various orders of contem&t (3#<E: there is a great deal of reliance upon
alleged conduct in a Ewash roomF in "AE! and "AE5, or through a fa' machine, apparently
while the court was not even open for business, all not Ein a courtroom* or im&osing sanctions
issued by Dudges Eenneth Gardner, Linda Gardner, Dorothy 3ash Aolmes and (atric7
"lanagan each describe a similar &attern of conduct and behavior that is intentionall(
disru&tive of the tribunal) (3#<E: that statement is true to the e'tent is refers to the conduct
and behavior of the judges involved, but not true as to Coughlin* 'u%ra $8 78 1+8 21 and 25,
(!) CoughlinBs conduct during the trial of the petit larceny case on 3ovember &0,
2011, in which Coughlin appeared in propria persona, was so disru%tive that Dudge Aoward
found Coughlin in direct contem%t of court and sentenced him to jail that same day to be
released on December &, 2011 at %:00 (=) Judge "o#ard s%ecifically found Coughlin0s
conduct to be disorderly and #as either contem%tuous or behavior insolent to#ard the
Gudge in that Coughlin refused:
O))) to obey directives of the Dudge, continuing lines of in*uir( after being
advised by the Court to refrain from doing soC demeaning the Court with
statements such as O6#6O in response to court rulingsC laughing during
testimony and further Huestioning the court and its authority)O
1ee Aearing E'hibit 11 #8DE8 "#8 1@==98N (@3+1A=E3< #"
contem%t C#==+<<ED +3 <AE +==ED+9<E ;+E6 93D (8E1E3CE #" <AE
C#@8<, 3ovember &0, 2011)
(3#<E: AowardBs #rder for 1ummary (unishment (which has never included a
Certificate of 1ervice attached to it, not in 33D2 2oard Chair 1usichBs use of it as E'hibit .
to his 5&112 retreated of AillBs associate 2a7er and GingBs machinations in the 1C8 11/
.0,/5 (etition, not in GingBs attaching one version of it (with a different EcertificationF by
8=C E"iling #fficer 1upervisorF Donna 2allard* within what Ging purported to be a true
and accurate copy of his Complaint (but which included a far more legible copy of Dudge
AolmesB &1212 #rder (li7e the version thereof that became "AE5* and that attachments to
1&0!!2
it, and not in "AE11, the same 11&011 #(1C by 8=C Dudge Aoward))non e of which
have a Certificate of 1ervice (notice no harping on how the appeal turned out by the (anel
Chair for either of the Ecriminal convictionF for contempt)))indeed, where 8C9 8oberts was
not even present for the additional three minutes on the record occurring at %:&0 p)m), when
Dudge Aoward had Coughlin brought bac7 into the court room in handcuffs, such was
rendered in absentia and the deadline to appeal such therefore (and Aoward attempted to
convince Coughlin he had not right to appeal such contempt order, whilst specifically
informing Coughlin of his right to appeal the petty larceny conviction* does not even run
until the 8=C or 8C9 finally files a 3otice of Entry of #rder, etc) (the use of the term
ErulingF by Dudge Elliott in "AE12 now ma7es more sense* failed to chec7 the bo' in that
form order that Ging needed to be chec7ed to have any chance of the offensive collateral
estoppel he is see7ing to apply here, which results in the defensive variety of such
controlling)))not to mention the fraudulent misrepresentation of whether Coughlin had any
right to appeal, the fact that the 8=C failed to ever serve Coughlin a notice of Entry of
#rder for that #1(#C, made in absentia of either or both Coughlin and 8C9 (amela
8oberts, EsH) (whom everybody can than7 for turning our legal community into as big a
roc7 fight in the street as she could**)
(see, supra Huotation from (age 22 of ,5 from CoughlinBs filing in Doc7et .0%&%
Document 201241%,.2*
<he 123Bs &,0,! page production to Coughlin of 11/12, from bates .1& to .1%
contains a highly telling and instructive email e'change between Coughlin and the 8=CBs
Chief =arshal Dustin 8oper of 121!11)
25
/) Dudge 3ash Aolmes ordered Coughlin into custody on "ebruary 2/,
2012 and to be incarcerated at the 6ashoe County 8egional Detention "acility for the term
of five (5* days) Alternativel( Coughlin could pay a fine of M500) <he CourtBs sentence was
%ased on its detailed findings regarding .oughlin;s conduct in his own defense)
O<he court finds that defendantBs contem&tuous conduct consisted of his
rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic, deceitful,
disru%tive, argumentative and childish behavior during trial, all of which appeared
to be done to ve' and annoy the court, the witness, and the opposing party, and to
disru%t the trial process) <he court finds that the following occurred, and constitute
contem&t: 1* defendantBs mimeli)e, clownish antics of ma7ing faces at the courtC
sagging down into his seat and hanging his headC loo7ing behind himself and inside
his coat as if searching for a better way to as7 a HuestionC rolling his eyesC and
mimic7ing others wordsC 2* defendantBs incessant arguing with the court, tal7ing over
the court, and interrupting the courtC &* defendant;s re&eatedl( restating matters
after %eing told %( the court to Cmove onC or Cas) the ne6t *uestionCO !*
defendantBs repeatedly injecting allegations of bribery, perjury, and police retaliation
into the matter after the court instructed him not to, and directed him to limit himself
to issues pertaining to the facts of the O2oulevard 1topCO 5* defendantBs repeatedly
trying to insert Oichard 8illO into his Huestions and statements when such person
was not relevant to the proceeding and the defendant had been ordered to stop
1&1!!2
discussing thatC .* defendantBs disregarding the rules of evidence and court procedure
by continuall( &osing im&ro&er *uestions after %eing directed %( the court to
&ro&erl( &hrase his *uestions /* defendantBs continually accusing the court of
den(ing him the right or a%ilit( to as) *uestions and telling the court to Ogive me a
list of Huestions you want me to as7CO %* defendantBs suggesting that the court Otell
me what would ma7e you happyCO ,* defendantBs l(ing to the court in response to
direct Huestions posed by the court with regard to his recording the proceedingsC and
10* defendantBs failing and refusing to &ro&erl( e6amine the witness' des&ite
numerous admonitions %( the court to sto& re&eating *uestions' misstating
answers' in-ecting irrelevant material' arguing with the witness and
mischaracteriJing the testimon()O
1ee Aearing E'hibit ! #8DE8 "+3D+3? <AE DE"E3D93< +3 contem%t
#" C#@8< 93D +=(#1+3? 193C<+#31) (3#<E: Ging failed to attach "AE ! to his
Complaint)*
10) Dudge 3ash Aolmes also found that Coughlin, after being released
from custody following the "ebruary 2/, 2012 contem%t of Court incarceration, filed
other nonsensical pleadings including a 21% page document:
O)))purported to be yet another motion in this case entitled O=otion to
8eturn Cell (honesC =otion to 1et 9side 1ummary contem%t #rderC and notice
of 9ppeal of 1ummary contem%t #rder)O 6ith scant discussion of, or relevance
Aoward in a Department ! case and again contains more than 200 pages of string
legal citationsC lyrics to roc7s (sic* songsC =r) CoughlinBs personal family historyC
discussion of an eviction case and another contem%t caseC disjointed legal
citations and other nonsensical matters that have no apparent relevance to his
traffic citation case) (3#<E: GingBs Complaint faile to notice plead any of the
above, much less incorporate it by reference or even attach it as an e'hibit: O1!) +n
the case of City of 8eno vs) -achary 2ar7er Coughlin, Case 3o) 11 <8 2.%00 21,
a trial was held on a traffic citation issued to 8espondent) <he matter was called at
appro'imately &:00 p)m) and concluded without a verdict at about !:&0 p)m) after
the court held 8espondent in criminal contem&t of court for his behavior and
activities committed in the direct &resence of the court during trial)O
21) #n behalf of his client Dr) =erliss, =r) Aill sought and obtained an
order in favor of Dr) =erliss and against Coughlin awarding Dr) =erliss attorneyBs fees in
the amount of M!2,0.5)50) 6ashoe District Court Dudge (atric7 "lanagan entered the
order on Dune 25, 2012) 1ee <ranscript of (roceedings of 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!,
2012, ( !/, $ &4/) 41ee Aearing E'hibit 2, ( &, $ 10411) <he motion see7ing attorneyBs
fees was based on CoughlinBs conduct in the defense of the eviction matter, which
conduct was characteri:ed as frivolous and ve'atious and presumably so found by Dudge
"lanagan) 1ee Aearing E'hibit ( 2, $ %41&C ( &, $ !411)
25) Judge Gardner;s order in the Joshi matter indicated that
Coughlin had conducted no discover( in the case and failed to %resent any
documentar( evidence at the trial of the matter on behalf of his client Mrs, Joshi) 1ee
1&2!!2
Aearing E'hibit ( 12, $ ! 4.)
9fter commenting on various negative aspects of CoughlinBs representation of his
client =rs) Doshi, (1ee Aearing E'hibit ( 12, $ , 4( 1&, $ !0* Judge Gardner specifically held:
O<he most troubling aspect of this case was =r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic and
disrespectful presentation at trialC =r) CoughlinBs inability to understand a balance sheetC
his failure to conduct discoveryC and his lac7 of 7nowledge with regard to the rules of
evidence and trial procedure) 9ll of this was compounded with a continuously
antagonistic presentation of the case that resulted in a shift from a fairly simple divorce
case to a contentious divorce trial lasting an e'cessive amount of time) O
'ee "earing 9@hibit . 8 P 1. 8 > 5 4 1+:
(O9t trial) =r) 1pringgate stated that =r) Coughlin had conducted no
discovery in this case) +n addition, =r) Coughlin failed to present one
documentary piece of evidence at triall on behall of =a) DoshiBs claims) =r)
Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court throughout trial and made sarcastic,
derogatory remar7s to the Court, =r) 1pringgote, and =r) Doshi throughout trial)
<he Court notes that there were well overr !0 objections during four (!* hours of
trial) =r) 1prlnggateBs objections were well4founded and continuously sustained
e'cept in one instanceO*)
(3#<E: Ging failed to attach ?ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial
("AE&* and failed to incorporate it by reference either, in his Complaint, and the
above e'cerpt was not amongst the portion of such #rder Ging did Huote in his
Compliant*
(3#<E: just as Coughlin was Enot a partyF for purposes of appealing
any part of the #rder 9fter <rial (or anything else in the case* that was not
superseded by the .1,0, "inal Decree, so to is Coughlin not Ein privityF with his
former client, =s) Doshi, or Ea partyF sufficient to provide an offensive collateral
estoppel bar for the 123 obviating its burden to prove, by clear and convicing
evidence, any alleged professional misconduct is alleges is proven by doing
nothing more than citing to a mere small portion of such superseded "AE& (failing
to incorporate by reference such order or to even attach such to the Complaint, not
to mention failing to produce a certified copy, which made especially dubious
Chair EcheverriaBs allowing 6$1Bs Elcano to provide foundations for or
authenticate that produced by Ging in "AE& where Echeverria refused to provide
such treatment to Coughlin and his motherBs attempts to authenticate and or
provide foundation for the audio recordings (one purchase directly from the 8=C
by CoughlinBs mother, one provided to Coughlin by the 123, whom purported
such to be a true and correct copy of the audio transcripts provided to it by the
8=C* for both the 22/12 and &1212 trail dates resulting in, respectively, "AE!,
and "AE5*)
Dudge $inda ?ardnerBs "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw, and
Decree of Divorce ("#"C#$D#D* in D;0%4011.% of .1,0, held:
2DDC Dudge ?ardnerBs .1,0, final Decree of Divorce e'cised only from
1pringgateBs 5210, (roposed Decree the attorneyBs fees award detailed in paragraph si' of
1&&!!2
4&ringgate;s @ro&osed "ecree, (the language Dudge $) ?ardner e'cised therefrom read: E.)
6))=R-9I0' /99': <he Court has the discretion to award attorneyBs fees in a divorce
action, pursuant to 381 125)150(&*, and $ove v) $ove, 11! 3ev) 5/2, ,5, ()2d 52& (1,,%*)
<here is further authority for fees pursuant to NRS ,;+E,E(-#(B# , and 381 /)0%5) Based on the
a%ove and foregoing' former counsel for the "efendant is ordered to &a( attorne(;s fees in
the amount of A3DB.55 within thirt( <D5= da(s of this Order and "ecree)F*)
+nstead, Dudge $) ?ardnerBs .1,0, final Decree of Divorce operated to amend and
or supersede her !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial (the 111!12 formal disciplinary hearings 3?124
0!&5, "AE&* to not contain vacate any such attorney fee award (and all the language the 123
GingBs Huoted therefrom in his !1&0, Complaint* where such final Decree of Divorce vacates
(or, effectively does by superseding and e'pressly departing from the 5210, (roposed Decree
and "AE&Bs own dictate that 1pringgate (repare such a "inal Decree consistent with "AE&)))*)
2.
(==* <he transcript of the proceedings in this matter reveal a continuation of a
similar pattern of conduct by Coughlin despite his having been sanctioned twice with an
adverse award of attorneyBs fees and twice by incarceration) 1ee generally of 6ednesday,
3ovember 1!, 2012) (3#<E: no, not good enough Echeverria to go O1ee generallyO, see,
getting specific) "urther, the "AE 2 #rder awarding attorneyBs fees failed to specify such as
being against Coughlin in his role as his own attorney, versus against Coughlin as the litigant
incident to "lanaganBs void application of a Oprevailing partyO attorney fees statute that only
applies to plenary judgments anyways (381 .,)050*)
Relations #ith =%%osing Counsel
(33* 8(C &)59 states O6hen a lawyer 7nows or reasonably should 7now the
identity of a lawyer representing an opposing party, he or she should not ta&e advantage of
the la#yer by causing any default or dismissal to be entered #ithout first in:uiring about
the o%%osing la#yer0s intention to %roceed)O (3#<E: this is particularly rich, considering
the (anel then attempts to find that Eas a matter of defaultF variosu Eviolation(s* may be
deemed admitted)))F, especially where GingBs 10,12 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default was not
served on .oughlin*
(##* 9lthough the 1tate 2ar pled a violation of 8(C &)59 in its Complaint, no
evidence was &resented that Coughlin ever violated the rule) (3#<E: great, now is 2DDC Dudge
$) ?ardner going to sanction Ging, whom, by the way, failed to conduct not just any discovery,
but any Ereasonable investigationF despite having a duty to do so under 1C8 10!, 105, and
8(C &)%J* 9ccordingly, the (anel finds that the 1tate 2ar failed to meet its burden of proof on
this issue as an evidentiary matter but finds that as a matter of default the violation may be
deemed admitted)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 25&:10 to 25&:11* E=8) ECAE;E88+9: 1o we have
not conducted this hearing as a default hearing, in deference to you)F ((lease apply this to
every such assertion hereafter*)
)ruthfulness in 'tatements to =thers
(((* 8(C !)1 (a* states O+n the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not
7nowingly: (a* (m*a7e a false statement of material fact or law to a third person)O
(UU* 9lthough the evidence established that Coughlin 7nowingly made false
statements to Court and Counsel (1ee ff (99*, (22* and (CC* no evidence was presented that
1&!!!2
Coughlin 7nowingly made false statements of material fact or law to a third person)
9ccordingly, the (anel finds that the 1tate 2ar failed to meet its burden of proof on this issue as
an evidentiary matter but fmds that as a matter of default the violation may be deemed
admitted) (this is a nonsense argument, especially where the (anel and 123 pat themselves on
the bac7 for, allegedly, providing sufficient due process to Coughlinfulfilling 1C8 105)))its
one or the other)))but the (anel doesnBt get to purport that Coughlin defaulte where it is also
trumpeting the feats of due process it enabled))))*)
Res%ect for the Rights of )hird Persons
(88* 8(C !)!(a* states BO+n representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that
have no substantial purpose other than to em%arrass' dela(' or %urden a third &erson))) O
(uh)))li7e AillBs allegations of finding a Ocrac7 pipe and a bag of weedO or a Ovial of somethingO
and Oa large Huantity of pillsOJ 9ctually, even that would not fit sHuarely under the 8(C
!)!(a* heading becuase Coughlin was a EpartyF therein, not a Ethird personF)))and that same
rationale applies to the landlord =erliss)))and the (anel fails to cite to anybody else whom
would Hualify as a Ethird personF to whom Coughlin has somehow subjected to a violation of
8(C !)!(a*, and such would certainly not apply to the 8eno (olice Department #fficer Chris
Carter, Dr) and 1argent =arcia $ope: whom assisted Aill and landlord =erliss in burglari:ing
CoughlinBs former home law office that day based on a "#"C#$#1E that, on itBs face, failed to
contain the Esummary order for removal of the tenant within 2! hours of receipt of the orderF
language reHuired by 381 !0)25&(5*(a*) 8egardless, there was never any valid loc7out done
by the 6C1#Bs #ffice where its only attempt to do so was done without complying with the
reHuirement that the 6C1# 7nows full well attaches to each and every summary eviction in
3evada (that, at the very least, the sheriff posts the summary eviction loc7out order to the
tenantBs door and allows 2! judicial hours to pass prior to conducting such loc7out* V, no matter
which county such occurs in, not matter how codependent and sic7 a relationship the local
judiciary has with law enforcement, no matter how little regard the Dudges of 8eno and 6ashoe
County have for the statutes the legislature passes in reducing the will of the people of 3evada
to blac7 letter law*)
(11* <he record establishes clearl( and convincingl( that in the =erliss eviction
action, Coughlin conducted himself in a manner that was a%usive' ve6atious and for &ur&oses
of dela() <he matter was a simple eviction action (apparently all evictions are EsimpleF in
3evada, huhJ* that apparently lasted through several proceedings at the =unicipal Court level,
an appeal to the District Court and two appeals to the 3evada 1upreme Court and which also
resulted in CoughlinBs conviction for criminal tres%ass) 1upra 1, and 20
CoughlinBs conduct in the proceedings was so egregious that Dudge "lanagan
ordered .oughlin to &a( (3#<E: notice such is not referred to as a EsanctionF and does not
specify whether Coughlin the litigant or Coughlin acting as his own attorney was the capacity
in which such EorderF was issued)))but regardless)))such is irrelevant beyond establishing the
defensive collateral estoppel bar to all the various 8(CBs the 123 and (anel 7eep trotting out
with such EorderF in an attempt to s7ip straight past even establishing any such violation by
way of meeting a burden of proof via the introduction of actual evidence (rather than hearsay
via an interested party dressed up as Ee'pert testimonyF* (Aill, Dudge 3ash Aolmes, Elcano**
Dr) =erliss M!2,0.5)50, an amount that is still unpaid) 1upra 21
1&5!!2
(<<* <he record also establishes that Coughlin habitually %rolongs %roceedings
unnecessarilyJ files lengthy8 irrelevant8 nonsensical %leadings re*uiring court' staff and
counsel to s%end unnecessary effort in evaluating andCor res%onding to the %leadings)
1upra ff !, /, %, ,, 10, 11, 1., 21, 2&, 25, 2/, &, and !0 (3#<E: neither EcourtF, EstaffF, nor
EcounselF are Ethird partiesF to which and analysis of 8(C !)!(a* flows) 6hose competency is
being Huestioned, againJ
Disci%linary Matters
(@@* 8(C %)1(b* provides, in pertinent part, O ))) a lawyer ))) in connection with a
disciplinary shall not: (b* ))) &no#ingly fail to res%ond to a la#ful demand for information
from an admissions or disci%linary authority)))F
(;;* <he record clearl( and convincingl( esta%lishes that .oughlin )nowingl(
failed to res&ond to the 4tate Bar;s re*uest for information in the disci&linar( &roceeding and
failed to timel( file a re*uired verified res&onsive answer or &leading to the Com%laint)
(66* /irst8 Coughlin as&ed for an e@tension of time to res%ond to the letter of
/ebruary 1$8 2+12 regarding the Richard "ill Com%laint then failed to res%ond at all,
1upra 2,)
E2,) 1tate 2ar Counsel called Coughlin to testify at the hearing of the matter)
Coughlin was Huestioned with regard to a letter dated "ebruary 1!, 2012 from 9ssistant
2ar Counsel Ging to Coughlin in which Bar .ounsel forwarded to .oughlin
corres&ondence received from ichard G. 8ill) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday,
3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1.&, $ 1& 4( 1.!, $ 2&) 1ee Aearing E'hibit .) CoughlinBs
response, dated =arch ,, 2012, as7ed for additional time in which to respond) 1ee
Aearing E'hibit /) No evidence was &resented that Coughlin su%stantivel( res%onded
to 1ar Counsel0s letter of /ebruary 1$8 2+12 %rior to the filing of the Com%laint in
this matter, Coughlin failed to directl( res&ond to Bar .ounsel;s *uestions in*uiring
if .oughlin ever su%se*uentl( res&onded to 1ar Counsel0s letter of /ebruary 1$8
2+12) 1ee 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1.,, $ 1& 4( 1/2, $ 1.)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 1.&:1& to 1.!:2&* O2N =8) !ing7 U =r)
Coughlin, +Bm handing you whatBs been identified as E'hibit 3o) .) 6ould you please tell
me if you received that letter from meJ 9 +s this the letter in its entiretyJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: <he Huestion is: Did you receive that from =r) GingJ <AE
6+<3E11: <his letter, he saidJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: + donBt 7now what it is) 9ll +
7now is itBs E'hibit ., and the Huestion is, did you receive E'hibit . from =r) GingJ
<AE 6+<3E11: 3o, that wasnBt the Huestion) Ae said did you receive this letter) 9nd +
need to 7now 44 2N =8) !ing7 U <he ne't Huestion may be about attachments) 2ut the
Huestion is: Did you get this letterJ 9 + need to 7now what is entailed in the term Oa
letter)O U <his document that + handed you) Did you receive this document either alone
or as part of a pac7ageJ Did you receive this document 2ates stamped 02,%&J 9
6ithout the 2ates stampJ U + believe it did not have the 2ates stamp when it was sent
to you) 9 Nes) + thin7 so) +Bm not sure) + thin7 + received something longer) =aybe
thatBs the attachments youBre referring to) U 1o is that a yesJ 9 9ctually, + might have
ultimately received this) 2ut + recall there being an issue) + was a victim of domestic
violence during this time, and my mail was being 44 there was some issues with it) 1o +
1&.!!2
thin7 ultimately + did receive this, =r) Ging) 2ut maybe this isnBt going to your Huestion)
Nou didnBt as7 me when) 1o yeah, + thin7 + received this one)O
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 1.,:1& to 1/2:1.* EU My :uestion is7 Did
you send a subse:uent letter or e@%lanation to the 'tate 1arJ +n other words,
youBre as7ing for additional time) Did you ever send 44 9 6hat you do is evil, (at)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin) <AE 6+<3E11: 6hat you do is evil) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, + have cautioned you about interrupting on numerous
occasions) 2ut apparently a pattern of behavior has been the subject of at least three
court orders that we have seen so far) 9nd + would as7 you to, in your best interests,
to attempt to resist yourself, allow the Huestion to be completed, and then ma7e
whatever objection you wish) <he Huestion directly to you, and if itBs not direct
enough, let me as7 it) Did you ever s%ecifically res%ond to the letter of /ebruary
1$th8 2+128 9@hibit A )"9 K?)-9''7 ? res%onded to it) 1pecifically) +Bm not
sure e'actly what that means) + believe + cooperated with 2ar counsel) + donBt have a
thousand pages of stuff) (3#<E: the transcript contains an error there in that Couglin
actually said: E+ 7now + provided the 2ar thousands of pages of stuff and)))videos,
audios transcripts, etc)F) <his is confirmed by GingBs own admission in the transcript
and only further underscores the e'tent to which Echeverria conducted the hearing
li7e a total fraudster wor7ing overtime to get over his agenda*) Videos, 6udio) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: <he Huestion is: #n "ebruary 1!th you were sent substantial,
a&&arentl(, correspondence from 8ichard Aill alleging professional misconduct) Nou
were as7ed to ma7e a s&ecific res&onse within ten days) +t appears that you did not do
so, unless you have some evidence to the contrary 44 <AE 6+<3E11: + didnBt get this
letter) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm sorry) + continue to tal7 while youBre trying to
interrupt) =y Huestion is: Did you ever respond specifically, %rior to the institution
of the com%laint, to =r) AillBs comments and reporting to the 1tate 2arJ Did you
ever address those issues raised by =r) Aill prior to the filing of the complaintJ <AE
6+<3E11: 7a(%e it would hel& if $ had the 7r. 8ill attachment. $ %elieve $ did)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hen did you do thatJ <AE 6+<3E11: There;s a multitude
of instances where $ wrote or res&onded or communicated with 7r. Eing. (E'hibit %
mar7ed)* =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hen was the first timeJ <AE 6+<3E11: 6ell,
probably this time in as7ing for more time, because + didnBt get this letter very soon
after it was sent) + rented a room off Craigslist) 9nd there was some ill will that built
up, the people + rented it from) 9nd + didnBt get this letter 44 basically + thin7 + got it
this day, and + threw this together) + was obviously very upset to see that the 1tate 2ar
had wanted to hear from me, and given me ten days) + thin7, obviously, it had already
passed by this point) 1o right when + got that letter 44 and + thin7 if + had been noticed
on this, + would have given you the envelope that shows that there was some 44 li7e
the post office wouldnBt let me 44 + forget e'actly what happened) 2ut + thin7 + gave
(at this stuff 44 =8) !ing7 6ith the chairBs permission, +Bll move on) <AE
6+<3E11: 44 legitimate reasons why + didnBt get this that evince a lac7 of culpability
on my part) 2ut thatBs consistent with what (at does) Ae puts on stuff he 7nows is
baseless) =8) ECAE;E88+9: E'cuse me, =r) Ging) =r) Coughlin, + donBt believe
1&/!!2
you answered the Huestion) +t was a direct Huestion) 6hen did you first respond
substantively to =r) AillBs complaintsJ + have not heard an answer) <he response 44
<AE 6+<3E11: Neah) =8) ECAE;E88+9: E'cuse me) Nour response is
argumentative) =r) Ging, go ahead with your ne't Huestion) =8) !ing7 <han7 you)
<AE 6+<3E11: + can answer it) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, thereBs not a
Huestion pending) <AE 6+<3E11: 2ut it sounded li7e you said + didnBt answer the
last Huestion) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hat was my observation)F
(>>* 1econd, Coughlin failed to res&ond to a su%se*uent letter from the 1tate 2ar
regarding the .om&laint filed with the Bar %( Judge Nash 8olmes) 1upra (ara) &0
;-=)97 funny how there is no date mentioned for such mysterious OsubseHuent letter from
the 1tate 2arO, which, again, the (anel was not presented with by Ging or the 123)))bringing to mind
the same Huestion as that presented by the 123Bs being forced to refrain from see7ing to admit any
purported written grievance from Aill (the lac7 of which left GingBs 21!12 2 page one page letter to
Couglin, "AE., loo7ing awfully lonely)))one thing is clear, there is no way the 2ar proved Coughlin
Ofailed to respondO or to OcooperateO*
(O&0) Coughlin also failed to directly (3#<E: apparently, to (anel Chair Echeverria,
Coughlin attempts to reHuire Ging to prove that which he would rather not get into (ie, all the stic7y
wic7ets for Ging associated with his choice to avoid see7ing admission of any purported &1.12 letter
from 2ar Counsel to Coughlin, which apparently revealed so much misconduct on GingBs part and
trapped him in so many lies, that he would rather hope for Chair Echeverria to ma7e something out of
the mess (at made for the 2ar instead* respond to Huestioning regarding whether or not he had
su%stantivel( responded, prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter, to a letter forwarded to him
from 2ar Counsel regarding the letter received by the 3evada 1tate 2ar from Dudge Dorothy 3ash
Aolmes and dated =arch 1!, 2012) 1ee <ranscript of Aearing 6ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1/!,
$ 1& 4( 1%0, $ !)
(OAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 1/!:12 to 1/,:.* 2N =8) G+3?: U Do you recogni:e that
letter thatBs been identified as E'hibit % that purports to be written to =r) David Clar7, #ffice of 2ar
Counsel, from Dudge Dorothy 3ash AolmesJ 9 +t is the one that has a received =arch 1!th date on itJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +tBs the one thatBs mar7ed E'hibit %) 2N =8) G+3?: U <he one + just handed
you) Did you see that letterJ 9 + donBt see it mar7ed E'hibit %) +tBs not mar7ed) U +tBs mar7ed up here,
=r) Coughlin) 9 <hatBs why + was as7ing for clarification) =arch 1!th) U <he Huestion is: Do you
recogni:e that letterJ 9 Nes, sir) U 9nd 44 9 <his is the letter where she alleges a competency issue,
and then goes on to say, but +Bm still trying to hold a trial, +Bm trying to get this trial set right away, in
violation of 381 1/%)!05 which states you stay proceedings when you feel a defendant has a
competency issue) Nou donBt plunge right ahead) <hat letter, yeah, + recogni:e it) =8) G+3?: +Bm
going to as7 that E'hibit 3o) % be admitted) <his is the letter that Dudge Aolmes sent to the #ffice of
2ar Counsel that she testified about during her testimony) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9ny objection, =r)
CoughlinJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + donBt thin7 so) 6ell, relevancy) 9nd + donBt believe this is pled in the
complaint) =8) ECAE;E88+9: #verruled) (E'hibit % admitted)*
2N =8) G+3?: U =r) Coughlin, you received that because 2ar counsel forwarded it to
youC is that correctJ 9 + donBt remember how + received this) + imagine it would 44 + donBt thin7 a
stranger sent it to me) + donBt 7now) U Did you respond to the allegations to 2ar counsel, the
allegations made in the letter by Dudge Aolmes, and the accompanying documentsC did you respond to
that investigationJ 9 9ctually, +Bm trying to remember 44 did + get this letter attached to li7e an 1C8
11/ petitionJ Can you help me outJ Did + get it soon after 44 + thin7 you were 7ind of coy about this,
actually, (at) 8ightJ Nou 7ind of 44 you were 7ind of coy about having it) Nou didnBt just get this letter,
1&%!!2
and then + donBt thin7 you mailed it to me on =arch 1!th) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, the
Huestion is did you reply to itJ <AE 6+<3E11: + donBt 7now 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm sorry) <he
Huestion is: 6as it forwarded to youJ <AE 6+<3E11: <hatBs what + was e'pounding upon) +Bm trying
to remember when did + first get this letter) 2ecause this is li7e a gut punch if youBve devoted your life
to becoming an attorney) 9nd, in fact, + didnBt get her =arch 2%th letter 44 + mean her =arch 2%th order
that was entered) + didnBt even get that until + saw it attached to an 1C8 11/ disability petition in case
number .0,/5) + guess + 7ind of figured she just wasnBt going to ma7e an order, you 7now) 9nd she
mailed this one, the one for "ebruary 2%th, she mailed it to the old 8iver 8oc7 address where + was
evicted from, despite the fact it appeared, at least a couple other departments in her court had a more
recent address for me) 9nd then + have 44 if + had been noticed on this 44 + have a lot of these letters) +
meticulously 7ept the envelopes) + 7ept the change of addresses) + thin7 + might have sent (at these with
the yellow 44 + had a lot of the yellow stic7ers on my letters, you 7now, where they were li7e 44 and the
court, the court had these too) <he muni court) 9nd + had a big ordeal with the post office incident to
they didnBt want to give me a 7ey to the mailbo') <his eviction, the evil wor7 that you sanctioned, (at,
that + mentioned earlier, it has a fallout necessarily) +n my opinion 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, e'cuse me) Do you remember the HuestionJ <AE
6+<3E11: Nes) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat was the HuestionJ <AE 6+<3E11: Did + receive this)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 9nd the answerJ <AE 6+<3E11: +Bm wor7ing my way through it mentally as
to how + got this) =8) G+3?: +f +Bm not mista7en, weBre past that) Nou said you did receive it) Ae
doesnBt recall how) 9nd my follow4up Huestion was: Did you respond to the allegations by Dudge
Aolmes that are contained in that letter, and by the accompanying documentsJ =8) ECAE;E88+9:
=r) Coughlin, if you could focus on answering that Huestion, that would be helpful to the panel) <AE
6+<3E11: #ne, this letter is not to me) + would li7e to read it) 9gain, thatBs where the notice part of
due process is 7ey, you 7now) +f + was noticed on the idea that + didnBt respond to this 44 and +Bll enter
my objection) + would li7e to see where in the complaint it says =r) Coughlin failed to respond or
cooperate with 2ar counsel) +t might) +Bd just li7e to be sure) 6here does it say where 44 was + noticed
the import of today was going to include, the relevant inHuiry today that + have been put on notice for,
was going to include the idea that + didnBt appropriately respond to thisJ 1o if + go to the complaint, +Bm
just wondering where in the complaint might + be put on notice that + would be e'pected to 7now when
+ got this today, and respond intelligently in that regard) (E'hibit , mar7ed)*O 1ee Aearing E'hibit %)O*
GingBs email to Coughlin (and Coughlin attached all the emails between Coughlin, and the
12333D2(anel to his filings and e'hibits and properly authenticated all such attachments and
e'hibits* fells whatever failure to respond to the Dudge $inda ?ardner 3?1240!&5 grievance where
such specifically mentions only the grievances by Aill and Aolmes and no other evidence was offered
by the 123 as to it ever reHuesting a response to such or even identifying such where GingBs email
reads:
E8E: =r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12 letter "rom: (atric7 Ging ((atric7GLnvbar)#rg*
1ent: <hu !1,12 2:2% (= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com (:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com* 9pril 1,,
2012 -ach Coughlin
Dear =r) Coughlin, 9 screening panel of the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary (anel met on
<uesday 9pril 10, 2011 to address the grievances filed against you) <he panel directed me to proceed
to a formal disciplinary hearing) 9s such, + will be preparing a formal Complaint) + understand from the
e4mail below, that you do not believe you should have been found guilty of the theft at 6al4=art and
that you should not have been found in contempt of Court) Aowever, it must concern you that you were
found in contempt of Court by more than one Dudge in two different trials) Nou wanted to 7now how +
learned of or obtained a copy of Dudge ?ardnerRs #rder after trial that was filed in 200,) +t was sent to
me by the cler7 of the court at my reHuest, pursuant to my investigation) +t would help me and perhaps
1&,!!2
yourself, if you would respond and e'plain why you were convicted of theft and why you were held in
contempt of Court) Nou may be well served to e'plain what remedial measures you are ta7ing to ma7e
sure you do not repeat the conduct complained about) + cannot give you legal advice) Aowever + can
suggest you cooperate with 2ar counselRs investigation and that you respond specifically to the
allegations contained in Dudge Aolmes and 8ichard AillRs grievance letters to the office of 2ar Counsel)
(atric7 GingF
9ttorney violated professional conduct rule prohibiting a lawyer from 7nowingly failing to
respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority and bar rule reHuiring a lawyer to
cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, where attorney did not respond to repeated attempts to
obtain information regarding grievance and did not filed an answer in disciplinary proceeding) 8ules of
(rof)Conduct, 8ule %)1(b*C ?overnment of the 2ar 8ule ;(!*(?*) Dayton 2ar 9ssn) v) 6ilson, 20104
#hio4!,&/, ,&5 3)E)2d %!1 (#hio 2010*)
9ttorney violated ?overnment of the 2ar rule reHuiring a lawyer to cooperate in a
disciplinary investigation, where attorney received a copy of a letter of inHuiry from Disciplinary
Counsel forwarding clientBs grievance and failed to respond, and attorney agreed to provide additional
information regarding his malpractice insurance and clientBs complete case file to 2ar Counsel
following attorneyBs deposition, but failed to do so) ?overnment of the 2ar 8ule ;(!*(?*) Disciplinary
Counsel v) #hlin, 20104#hio4&%2., ,&! 3)E)2d &2& (#hio 2010*)
(3#<E: GingBs Complaint notice4pleads the following in relation to 8(C %)1 (note, the
121!12 "#"C#$ gets all specific in citing to 8(C %)1(b*, yet GingBs Complaint just generically
referenced O8(C %)1O, and sections (a* and (b* thereof are Huite differnet, yeiled a deficiency in GingBs
notice4pleading prejudicing Coughlin impermissibly: O1) =ultiple grievances were received by the
#ffice of 2ar Counsel between the period of Danuary 1! and =arch 15, 2012, concerning 8espondent)
Due to the serious allegations of misconduct, grievance files were opened and an investigation was
initiated by 9ssistant 2ar Counsel (atric7 Ging) 2) 8espondent was advised of the grievances via @)1)
mail, e4mail and by a brief meeting with =r) Ging at the 1tate 2ar #ffice in 8eno) 8espondent did not
cooperate with the investigation and rather than respond to the grievances as reHuested, 8espondent
sent non4responsive and disparaging e4mails) )))/) +n light of the forgoing 8espondent violated ))) 8(C
%)1 (Disciplinary =atters*CO
(NN* <hird, Coughlin ignored 1C8 105(2* when he failed to timely file a verified
response or answer to the Complaint, des&ite several warnings to do so) 1upra (ara) &!, &5, &.,
&/, &% Coughlin compounded this violation when he attempted, during the course of the
hearing in this matter, to transform a &leading &reviousl( filed in eno 7unici&al .ourt
(3#<E: actually, the file stamp that is crossed out on the "AE1! referenced here is that from
the 1tate 2ar of 3evadaBs Cler7 of Court $aura (eters, which Coughlin personally eye4
witnessed $aura (eters affi' thereto at !:!5 pm on 10&112, which is particularly troubling
considering such document is missing completely from the 21&1& 8#9 in .2&&/ (and the
Echange a single blade of grassF Enew thingF represented in "AE1! differs from that filed on
10&112 in that (amongst some other slight differences, such as E3ew ;erified 9nswerF being
interlineated on "AE1!, etc* the filing of 10&112 was strictly a Eone page per pageF ultra
legible document that had its own e'hibit attached* in that the version into a O3ew ;erified
8esponse (sic* (re4Aearing =otion to Dismiss1ummary Dudgment, =emorandum of $aw %(
crossing out the original ca&tion and handwriting the CnewC ca&tion) 1upra f&%)
Coughlin also attempted, during the hearing, to transform a &leading he had filed
the da( %efore the hearing entitled CEmergenc( E6 @arte 7otion to "ismiss ... C %(
1!0!!2
handwriting the words C"eclaration and #erified es&onse ... C onto the caption of the
pleading) 1upra &%
(--* <he conduct described herein not only demonstrates a lac) of coo&eration
with the 1tate 2ar, but a lac4 of competency as well+
(3#<E: noticeably the (anel is bac7ing off its lame attempt to characteri:e its views
on "AE1! and "AE15 as evidence of some fraud on CoughlinBs part or an attempt to EalterF a
document in a fraudulent sense*)
(3#<E: in terms of where along the way Coughlin failed to cooperate or respond,
with specific factual allegations as to just when and how such was reHuested of Coughlin, and
as to what, e'actly, rather than the conclusory allegation by Ging (whom was not sworn to
testify, and where CoughlinsB subpoena on Ging was Huashed* in his complaint and any
argument made at the hearing, as GingBs !1,12 email to Coughlin certainly should e'cuse
Coughlin from any allegation that he failed to respond to anything with respect to "AE& and
3?1240!&5, the grievance EreceivedF from 2DDC Dudge $inda ?ardner, according to GingBs
!212 email to Coughlin, where such !1,12 email form Ging to Coughlin reads: E"o#ever ?
can suggest you coo%erate #ith 1ar counselPs investigation and that you res&ond
s&ecificall( to the allegations contained in Judge 8olmes and ichard 8illOs grievance
letters to the office of 1ar Counsel)F Aowever, nothing in Dudge AolmesB Egrievance letterF
("AE%* references the "AE& #rder (and the use of the term E#rderF in "AE&Bs E#rder 9fter
<rialF necessarily demonstrates that the EfinalityF reHuirement is missing sufficient to warrant
any offensive collateral estoppel approach that Ging never really argued for (rather, Ging either
completely whiffed on the collateral estoppel issue, or fraudulent sought to misapply 1C8
111(5*Bs Ea conviction is conclusive proof of guiltF to even orders in civil proceedings wherein
Couglhin was not even a party# by 2DDC Dudge ?ardner that had already been vacated*)
GingBs !1,12 email to Coughlin was included amongst the collection attached as
an E'hibit (along with all emails between Coughlin and the 123 to mutliple documents
Coughlin submitted for filing (no wonder the 123 refused to transmit the E'hibits to
CoughlinBs submissions)))and the 123Bs certainly did not failure to transmit its own e'hibits to
its own filings in the 21&1& 8#9* reads (witness GingBs attempts to mislead Coughlin by
leaving out the fact that the initial !1012 presentation to the 1creen (anel was not met with a
direction to Ging to Eproceed to a formal disciplinary hearingF, but, rather, as evinced in
33D2 Chair 1usichBs 5&112 1C8 11/ (etitionBs statement in .0,/5, the 1creening (anel met
regarding Coughlin on !1.12 (and the 2& E'hibit collection or presentation inde'ed at bates
01,.5 of the &,0,! page production to Coughlin by the 123 contains numerous 9ffidavits
signed E!1112F, ie, necessarily after the !1012 meeting of the 1creening (anel Ging
references, and the !1112 email to Ging with three attachments (which seem to form E'hibits
/ to , in such 2& E'hibit apparent !1.12 presentation by Ging to the 33D2 1creening
(anel*:
E8E: =r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12 letter "rom: (atric7 Ging
((atric7GLnvbar)#rg* 1ent: <hu !1,12 2:2% (= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com
(:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com* 9pril 1,, 2012 -ach Coughlin
Dear =r) Coughlin, 9 screening &anel of the Northern Nevada "isci&linar(
@anel met on Tuesda( A&ril /5' 05// to address the grievances filed against you) &he
1!1!!2
panel directed me to proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing) 9s such, + will be
preparing a formal Complaint) + understand from the e4mail below, that you do not
believe you should have been found guilty of the theft at 6al4=art and that you should
not have been found in contempt of Court) Aowever, it must concern you that you were
found in contempt of Court by more than one Dudge in two different trials) Nou wanted to
7now how + learned of or obtained a copy of Dudge ?ardnerRs #rder after trial that was
filed in 200,) +t was sent to me by the cler7 of the court at my reHuest, pursuant to my
investigation) +t would help me and perhaps yourself, if you would respond and e'plain
why you were convicted of theft and why you were held in contempt of Court) Nou may
be well served to e'plain what remedial measures you are ta7ing to ma7e sure you do not
repeat the conduct complained about) + cannot give you legal advice) Aowever + can
suggest you cooperate with 2ar counselRs investigation and that you respond specifically
to the allegations contained in Dudge Aolmes and 8ichard AillRs grievance letters to the
office of 2ar Counsel)F
Aowever, the true violators of 8(C %)1 are 8DC Dudge 1ferra::a, Dudge 3ash
Aolmes, the 33D2 (anel, Ging123 Cler7 of Court (eters, and all those who failed to
comply with CoughlinBs lawfully issued 1C8 110 subpoenas)
2/
Judicial and >egal =fficials
(999* 8(C %)2(a* states O9 lawyer shall not ma7e a statement that the lawyer
7nows to be false or with rec7less disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the
Hualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer) ))
(222* During the course of the hearing, Coughlin accused Dudge 3ash Aolmes of
lying during her testimony) Coughlin has e'pressed similar views concerning Dudge 3ash
Aolmes in various pleadings filed in this proceeding as well as others) Coughlin has also
uttered other derogatory remar7s about various judges with whom he has interacted)
(CCC* <he 1tate 2ar presented scant evidence on this issue and no evidence from
which the panel could conclude that the e'pressions were 7nowingly false as opposed to an
e'pression of opinion) 6hile the conduct displayed is, in the view of the (anel reprehensible,
the (anel concludes that the 1tate 2ar failed to meet its burden of proof on the issue as an
evidentiary matter but finds that as a matter of default the violation may be deemed admitted)
Misconduct
(DDD* @. 2 .B provides (in pertinent parts*:
+t is professional mis conduct for a lawyer to :
(a* ;iolate or attempt to violate the 8ules of (rofessional conduct)))
(b* Commit a criminal act that reflects adversel( on the la#yer0s
honest(' trustworthiness or fitness as a law(er in other res%ectsC
(c* Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentationC
(d* Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice)
(EEE* <he (leadings, Aearing E'hibits and <ranscript of these proceedings
overwhelmingly, clearly and convincingly establish a repeated, unrelenting and obstinate
pattern of misconduct by Res%ondent Coughlin evincing numerous and re&eated violations
of several %rovisions of RPC *,$ (3#<E: this conclusion lac7s any specificity whatsoever* in
1!2!!2
violation of 8(C %)!(a*) (1o, would that not be something not noticed or plead in the
Complaint, and therefore, only appropriate in some future disciplinary hearing, if anyJ
#therwise, is that not transmogrifying what is reHuired to be a plenary hearing into one of a
summary natureJ*)
("""* Coughlin was convicted of &etit larcen( on 3ovember &0, 2011, a violation
of RAC ; +1 (!#) 1uch violation is sufficient alone to trigger application of 1C8 111) <he 3evada
1upreme Court referred the matter to the appropriate disciplinary panel for a determination of
the e'tent of punishment that should follow from the conviction) 1upra para) 5
(3#<E: the @1(<# has indicated that it does not view CoughlinBs petty larceny
conviction, given the totality of the circumstances therein, to be a EseriousF crime) "urther,
certainly not every conviction for petty larceny is violative of 8(C %)!) "or instance, if one
stole a loaf of bread from a isolated small town grocery to see that a small child avoided dying
of starvation where e'igent circumstances reHuired doing so, would that really be an Ecriminal
act that reflects adversely on the lawyerBs honesty, )))F etc)J
Q 1..,Khat constitutes moral tur%itude Citation: &2 9m) Dur) 2d 9liens and
Citi:ens S 1&.&: O9 determination that a crime involves moral turpitude must be based upon
the moral standards generally prevailing in the @nited 1tates)&#ne of the criteria adopted to
ascertain whether a vicious motive, corrupt mind,!or malicious intention)59 crime of Omoral
turpitudeO is and serious,.either in terms of the magnitude of the loss that it causesO) 6hat
constitutes Ocrime involving moral turpitudeO within meaning of S 212(a*(,* and 2!1(a*(!* of
+mmigration and 3ationality 9ct (% @)1)C)9) S 11%2(9*(,*, 1251(a*(!**, and similar
predecessor statutes providing for e'clusion or deportation of aliens convicted of such crime
Citation: 2& 9)$)8) "ed) !%0 (#riginally published in 1,/5*)))1ection 11PgQ "ootnotes:
P"35,Q <he refusal to differentiate between grand and petit larceny has been critici:ed in
several dissenting opinions) <illinghast v Edmead (1,2,, C91 =ass* &1 "2d %1, infraC <utrone
v 1haughnessy (1,5%, DC 3N* 1.0 " 1upp !&&, infra) 4 P"3.0Q 9lthough the court in this case
indicated that there might be an e'ception Oin unusual circumstancesO from the rule that larceny
always involves moral turpitude,))) <illinghast v) Edmead, &1 ")2D %1)))O + am not prepared to
agree that a boy who steals an apple from an orchard is guilty of Binherently base, vile, or
depraved conduct)R 6here the larceny is petty, + thin7 the circumstances must be inHuired into)
Z<he evidence as it stands about the crimes for which Edmead was convicted does not seem to
me to prove moral turpitude) 6hile she does not appear to be a very desirable citi:en, she is not
on that account to be denied her legal rights)Z + agree with those views) +t seems to me
monstrous to hold that)))O S 22)Crimes involving moral turpitude Citation: 21 9m) Dur) 2D
Criminal $aw S 22) AealthCriminal Conviction or ChargesC Effect of 9cHuittal 1tatute defining
Eunprofessional conduct,F for which physicianBs certificate may be revo7ed, as including
conviction of offense involving moral turpitude, Ein which case the record of such conviction
shall be conclusive evidence,F does not ma7e such record conclusive that crime charged
involved moral turpitudeC that Huestion being for court to determine) 8ev)Code 1,2%, S 255,
(9)8)1) S &241!52*) Du ;all v) 2d) #f =ed) E'aminers of 9ri:ona, !, 9ri:) &2,))))
3#<E: see e'plication of $ope:4(astrana elsewhere herein)
3#<E: 91 "#8 DE"E31+;E C#$$9<E89$ E1<#((E$ and 1C8 11!
arguments, the @nited 1tates (atent and <rademar7 #ffice has indicated with respect to the
1!&!!2
conviction at issue in .0%&% that: E8E: 5 @)1)C) 55%(C* ))) "rom: =c2ride, <homas
(<homas)=c2rideRE'P)=,2=V* 1ent: 6ed 21&1& 2:2& (= <o: -ach Coughlin
(:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com* )))
Dear =r) Coughlin, ))) +n response to your Huestion below, we are presently in 11)22
+nvestigation (see &/ C"8 11)22 ("* and (h**) <here are three types of general discipline at the
(<#, including direct, interim, and reciprocal) <he direct 11)22 <ype is focusing on direct
discipline related to everything ta7en as a whole) )he interim disci%line ty%e under 11,25 is
only for serious crimes as defined in //./ P And &ett( theft does not a&&ear significant
enough for the P)= to ta&e interim disci%line on that alone) <he reciprocal discipline type
under 11)2! (Especially 11)2!(E* and related &/ C"8 10)2&(C*(5** reHuires final adjudication,
not interim, from another jurisdiction such as 3evada)))1incerely, 4<om <om =c2ride Dr)
#ffice of Enrollment and Discipline @nited 1tates (atent and <rademar7 #ffice)F
Coughlin has not been suspended, even temporarily by the @1(<#:
https:oedci)uspto)gov#EDC+geo8egion)doJregionV3E;9D9Kregion+DV3;
(???* <he record also establishes that Coughlin was convicted of criminal
tres&ass in the prolonged eviction proceedings involving Dr) =erliss, a violation of @.
2.B<%=) 1upra 20)
(3#<E: GingBs 1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01 provides a defensive collateral
estoppel bar or party opponent admission that the dubious criminal trespass conviction reported
therein somehow supports an attempt to permanently disbar Coughlin in .2&&/: E&) 9s
evidenced by the documentation submitted herein, 8espondent has been convicted of a crime
#hich triggers the re%orting re:uirements of 1ar Counsel under 'CR 111 ; $ <F) "urther,
GingBs failure to file any such 1C8 111 (etition (whether one under (!* or (.** for the alleged
EcrimesF the 121!12 "#"C#$ characteri:es the Ecriminal contemptF convictions to be
provides a further defensive collateral estoppel bar)
9s evidenced by the documentation submitted herein, 8espondent has been
convicted of a crime which triggered the reporting reHuirements of 2ar Counsel under 1C8
111(!*) +n addition, 111(/* and*(%*, state that upon receipt of a petition demonstrating that an
attorney has been convicted of a serious crime, the Court shall enter an order suspending the
attorney, pending the final disposition of a disciplinary proceeding, in which the sole issue to
be determined shall be the e'tent of the discipline to be imposed)
+ndeed, compare the language Ging used in his 1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01 for the
criminal trespass conviction with that he employe in .0%&% in the petty larceny conviction: E9s
evidenced by the documentation submitted herein, =r) Coughlin has been convicted of a
misdemeanor crime under the 3evada 8evised 1tatutes) "o#ever8 that conviction #as for
Ftheft,F <he follo#ing language8 as set forth in 'CR 111;<8 dictates that Res%ondent0s
crime constitutes a serious crime:
Definition of Oserious crime)O <he term Oserious crimeO means (1* a felony and (2*
any crime less than a felony a necessary element of which is, as determined by the statutory or
common4law definition of the crime, improper conduct as an attorney, interference with the
administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file an
income ta' return, deceit, bribery, e'tortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a
1!!!!2
conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a Oserious crime)O PEmphasis added)Q
C=-C>E'?=- K"9R9/=R98 1ar Counsel res%ectfully brings this matter to
the Court0s attention and re*uests that the .ourt enter an Order tem&oraril( sus&ending
es&ondent from the %ractice of la# and referring this matter to the Northern Nevada
"isci&linar( Board for further disci&linar( &roceedings8 in accordance #ith 'CR 111;7<
and ;*<) F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age &2/:2 to &2/:.* (Coughlin*: E6ell, it could consider the
trespass thing certain, rightJ 1ut 1ar counsel filed an 'CR 111,$ %etition recently, Khat
does that meanA ?t means 1ar counsel themselves admit that that #as not a serious
crime8 a serious offense as elucidated under 'CR 111,F 9s such, the (anel clearly erred
where it concluded that the criminal trespass conviction in .1,01 is a violation of 8(C %)!(b*,
as the decision not to bring a 1C8 111(.* (etition by bar counsel and the decision not to ta7e
any of the steps set out in 1C8 111(/*4(,* by the 3evada 1upreme Court establishes that such
criminal conviction is one for which there is not Ea necessary element)))as determined by the
statutory or common4law definition of the crime,F that involves Eim&ro&er conduct as an
attorne(' interference with the administration of -ustice' false swearing' misre&resentation'
fraud' willful failure to file an income ta6 return' deceit' %ri%er(' e6tortion'
misa&&ro&riation' theft' or an attem&t or a cons&irac( or solicitation of another to commit a
Cserious crime)F 9s such, the (anel is barred from concluding that such criminal trespass
conviction is, in any way, and instance where Coughlin could be said to E(b* Commit a
criminal act that reflects adversel( on the la#yer0s honest(' trustworthiness or fitness as a
law(er in other res%ectsM,*
(AAA* <he Complaint in this matter alleges that Coughlin has been arrested and is
awaiting trial on a larceny charge involving a cell phone and on a charge of abusing ,11
emergency procedures) Aowever, no evidence was presented on these charges %ut as a matter
of default the allegations ma( %e deemed admitted and would constitute additional violations
of 8(C %)!(b*)
(DDD* <he record, as described at length above, establishes several violations of 8(C
%)!(c*)
1ee ff (99*, (22*, (CC*, (999*, (222* and (CCC*)
(GGG* The entire record in this matter is re&lete with instances demonstrating
that .oughlin;s conduct is &re-udicial to the administration of -ustice) (3#<E: here
Echeverria is just not content to have gutted every bit of due process reHuired of this hearing,
and instead wants to glom on some summary disciplinary order on top of all his crimes against
jurisprudence* Coughlin has been re&eatedl( sanctioned monetaril( and by way of
incarceration for his conduct, has repeatedly filed lengthy, irrelevant and nonsensical pleadings
reHuiring staffs, courts and counsel to e'pend needless and unnecessary time in responding to
such pleadings, has repeatedly disru%ted proceedings and failed to follow instructions and
admonitions of the courts) <he record establishes that the pattern of conduct continues despite
the severe sanctions administered and continues up to and during the disciplinary process and
hearing of this matter)
(3#<E: the instances that (anel finds support such conclusions are plainly not
sanctions*)
2%
1!5!!2
)he 9@tent of the to be im%osed %ursuant to 'CR 111 6s a Result of Conviction
of the F'eriousF Crime of Petit >arceny,
($$$* <he matter of the referral from the 1upreme Court was considered in
conjunction with the allegations in the Complaint filed by the 1tate 2ar) 6hile the conviction
at issue in the 1upreme Court #rder of Dune /, 2012 may not alone warrant the discipline
recommended in this (anelBs recommendations, ta7en as a whole and in conjunction with the
numerous and repeated other violations of the 8ules of (rofessional conduct, warrant, in this
(anelBs view, the discipline recommended herein)
(3#<E: actually, not one second of the eight hour plus hearing was at all devoted to
that which the ./12 #rder in .0%&% ordered in referring the matter to a disciplinary panel)
Ging put on not one shred of evidence, or argument even, respecting the Enature and e'tent of
the punishmentF appropriate for such conviction) "urther, (anel Chair Echeverria continually
obstructed CoughlinBs right, under 1C8 12& and $aub, etc) to compare his case to others (li7e
the very same 1tephen 8) Aarris, EsH), that Dudge 2eesley testified so glowingly about during
=r) Aarris disciplinary hearing (which was given more time (and ?rundy got to file a 5! page
brief therein* despite =r) Aarris only being charge with two 8(C violations, ones to which he
admitted to, even, plus, =r) Aarris was provided with the E&0 days written noticeF by the (anel,
after the (anel was chose, rather than, as occurred in this matter, the 123Bs Ging slapping
together a notice and a laughably s7int Dow1oE, then having $aura (eters lie in her Certificate
of =ailing respecting when it was mailed, then hold a formal disciplinary hearing si' judicial
days after the #rder appointing the (anel was even constructively noticed to Coughlin
(especially hard to address those matters 123 (resident "laherty spo7e to in his 2251&
(etition in 9DG< 0!%2 or get a 1C8 10&(.*, etc) conference or addres 1C8 110(!* issues
where 33D2 1usich refuses to communicate with Coughlin in any manner, as was also the
case with Echeverria, on top of the 123 providing all the misdirection and lies it could muster)
"urther, by E7itchen sin7F4ing it, here, the (anel fails to do that which the Court
ordered it to do, where it does not specify the Enature and e'tentF of the punishment for the
conviction in .0%&%, but rather lumps everything together in a ridiculously overwrought, and,
fran7ly, enormously fraudulent ErecommendationF*)
Aowever, clearly, especially where Coughlin is actually innocent, a conviction for
shoplfiting Echocolate bar, cough dropsF is not at all a Eserious offenseF, though there is some
argument that the dictates of 1C8 111 were not followed were the Ecough dropsF
(De'tromethorphan, D>=* may be viewed as invo7ing the reHuirement that such be referred
for a (anel determination prior to any application of 1C8 111(.* being availing)
2,
D9C?'?=- 6-D R9C=MM9-D6)?=-
+n assessing the fonn of discipline to recommend, the (anel has accounted for a number
of aggravating and mitigating factors that must %e considered) <he (anel finds that the 1tate
2ar has shown %( clear and convincing evidence the &resence of at least eight of the eleven
aggravating circumstances to be considered in accordance with the provisions of 1C8 102)5(1*)
(3#<E: so the 123 shows Eby clear and convicingin evidenceF the mere EpresenceF of a hint
of one of the aggravating factors, such is sufficientJ "or instance, was the criminal trespass
Eclearly and convincingly done Eto &reserve an unlawful tenanc(J #r, was the completely
understandable belief held by Coughlin that he was absolutely entitled to be at his home law
1!.!!2
office that day (especially considering the holding ins +orio, 8ussell, =ayes, etc) and the fact
that every other county in 3evada follows 381 !0)25&(5*(a*Bs (law must apply even throughout
the states under 3; Const) 9rt !) 1ect) 21* reHuirement that the passing of 2! hours from the
tenantBs EreceiptF of the summary removal order, and further, where the 6C1# failed to accord
such to Couglhin and at no time did the 6C1# return to properly conduct such loc7out)
"urther, pursuant to 381 !0)&%5 and 8DC Dudge 1ferra::aBs ruling on 102511,
CoughlinBs Erent escrow depositF was being retained by the 8DC as his Esupersedeas bondF
(which, by the way, was nearly ten times the amount actually reHuired for such a supersedeas
bond under 381 !0)&%5)))and Dudge 1ferra::a and the 8DC as a wholeBs complete refusal to
ta7e accountability for their actions and arguably willful failures to apply the law, especially vis
a vis landlord tenant matters (not to mention 1ferra::a ignoring Clifford v) 1tate, and
1hepp1taab in the i(hone petty larceny case* reveal much in e'plaingin why Dudge 1ferra::a
has consistently received the lowest (by far* scores in the 6C29Bs survey of judges (with
approval ratings sometimes in the &0X range, where the ne't lowest rating for one of his fellow
Dustices of the (eace in the 8DC was some !5X higher#+ 2eyond that is the basis for not
viewing the criminal trespass conviction as done Eto preserve an unlawful tenancyF (and its not
as if Ging or the (anel actually cite any law to support such characteri:ation as an aggravating
factor* presented by the fact that CoughlinBs 101,11 3otice of 9ppeal in such summary
eviction proceeding clearly divested the 8DC of jurisdiction prior to the holding of the
E<rialFer, Econtinuation of the summary eviction proceedingF on 102511, as well as where
CoughlinBs 102.11 filing of a =otion for 1tay (which Dudge 1ferra::a never ruled on (see
DC8$; !0 where an automatic stay inures upon the filing of such a motion, and DC88< 2,
which ma7es the Emotion once made cannot be made againF approach Dudge 1ferra::a asserts
(by way of (ost4+t 3ote #rders that he fails to ever serve on anyone* is inapplicable as the
DC88< do not apply to Elandlord tenant mattersF* and CoughlinBs 11&11 =otion for a 1tay
under 381 !0)251(&*4(!*, which provides that an automatic stay of five days from 3otice of
Entry of any #rder denying such a stay where the tenant alleges a disability as to any loc7out*,
in addition to the fact that per 381 !0)&.0, where CoughlinBs lease had not Ee'piredF, Coughlin
was entitled to an automatic stay of five days from 3otice of Entry of such 102/11
"#"C#$#1E (where no such 3otice of Entry was even mailed under after the 6C1# and Aill
had already burglari:ed CoughlinBs home law office on 11111 in their too early effectuation of
a loc7out)))and where 3evada law reHuires that the 1heriff or Constable only perform such
loc7outs, the landlord and Aill are precluded from asserting their subseHuent conduct somehow
effectuated such a loc7out)*)
#f course, while Chair Echeverria allowed Ging to elicit testimony from Aill as to
EslippersF and EpajamasF and other EevidenceF in support of such Eto preserve an unlawful
tenancyF aggravating factor (without Ging ever ma7ing the argument that such was offered for
that purpose*, Coughlin was uniformly precluded from putting on any testimony or
documentary evidence (especially as to the apparent refusal of the (anel to admit the discs
attached to CoughlinBs "AE1!,15*, which was clearly reversible error by the (anel)
&0
<he filings Coughlin submitted on 11/12 but which were not approved for filing
by the 31C< Cler7Bs #ffice for months, but which were served on bar counsel and the (anel
contemporaneous to the 11/12 submission (which are filings whether the Cler7 stamped them
1!/!!2
or not*, etc)))
"irst, while there have been no formal prior disciplinary proceedings by the 1tate 2ar,
the record establishes that Coughlin has been disciplined %( wa( of sanctions on at least four
&rior occasions)
2eyond the fact that "AE2 is not a EsanctionF, and the fact that "AE& was not a sanction
to begin with, and was vacated by way of the .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce in such matter,
neither the 123 nor the (anel offer an citation to authority supporting the apparent contention
here the a civil contempt order is a EsanctionF)
1econd, the record reflects, at least with respect to the 7erliss matter and the two
criminal trials (3#<E: herein the (anel admits that a Etraffic citation trialF is not a Ecriminal
trialF thus underming its contention that the "AE! civil contempt order was a Ecriminal
convictionF (and the use of the term E#rderF in "AE5 vitiates any argument (which the 123
never even made anyways* that claim preclusion or 1C8 111(5* apply to both obviate the need
for the 123 to prove any and of the alleged 8(C violations it implicitly alleges contain
identical or sufficiently similar enough, elements to a Ecriminal contemptF conviction as to
provide an offensive collateral estoppel bar to admitting any evidence or argument by Coughlin
defending against such allegations of guilt* that the pattern of conduct was for selfish reasons:
to preserve an unlawful tenancy and to delay and prolong criminal convictions)
<hird, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that the pattern of misconduct is
consistent ;-=)97 too bad Ging failed to notice4plead an allegation tha Coughlin dispalyed a
pattern of continuing misconduct in his Complaint* and includes, without limitation: the
disru&t ion of the proceedings (3#<E: the (anel fails to cite to any specifics here because the
fa' filings by Coughlin that "AE5 ta7es issue with do not occur Ewithin the courtoomF, and as
such, under +n 8e 1tuhff are inadmissible for supporting such contention*C the refusal to heed
the directions and admonitions of the court (which EcourtFJ 6here no support for such
contentions (conclusions of law* via citations to the record, such must be discounted*C the
injection of irrelevant material and mattersC the filing of lengthy, irrelevant and nonsensical
pleadingsC the willingness to lie (3#<E: even had a Ewillingness to lieF been proven, such is a
different animal than actually lying, and where the (anel is alleging a EconsistentF and
EcontinuingF pattern here, there e'ists nothing in the record accusing Coughlin of ElyingF other
than a conclusory one word response by Aill (occurring well after GingBs fifteen minutes were
up, and where (anel Chair Echeverria consistently refused to allow to as7 any such EovertimeF
Huestions of 2eesley, Elcano, Aolmes, or even Aill, really* to GingBs Huestioning him as to
whether Coughlin displayed EcandorF to opposing counsel of the court (especially where GingBs
Complaint failed to notice4plead the summary eviction in 8ev20114001/0% and appeal thereof
in 0&.2% (or CoughlinBs conduct or advocacy therein* in any way whatsoever and where GingBs
Do61oE limited AillBs testimony to only CoughlinBs EconductF in the appeal in 0&.2%, where
Aill (in addition to testifying about the 6$1 wrongful termination lawsuits, laughably* focused
his testimony on that before the appeal in the summary eviction proceeding in justice court in
1/0% (which Aill claimed not to have attended or listended to the transcripts provided to his
firm upon being cornered in his lie that Coughlin Efailed to raiseF the jurisdictional bar
presented by AillBs associate 2a7er utili:ing the summary procedures of 381 !0)25& by way of
the no cause summary eviction basis set forth in 381 !0)25! against CoughlinBs use of the
1!%!!2
premises, in part, for commercial purposes (which the lease e'pressly authori:ed* where non4
payment of rent was not included amongst the basis for see7ing such a summary eviction in
any iteration of the ElandlordBs affidavitF*, Dudge AolmesB testifying that she thin7s Coughlin
E&ro%a%l(F lied (so much for the Ebeyond a reasonable doubtF reHuirement for a EcriminalF
conviction, much less the Eclear and convincing evidenceF she obviously does not understand
present a higher burden than the EprobablyF standard inherent to a Epreponderance of the
evidenceF civil proceeding standard)))which goes to the approach 1ferra::a and Aolmes ta7e,
ie, the decide what they want the result to be, then allege whatever standard is necessary (or
what they ineptly believe the standard to be* to get to the result the desired to have been met* to
her about some vague, unspecified aspect of his responses (which arguably included an 8(C
&)5 Eopen refusalF to respond to her improper abuse of contempt power sua sponte
interrogations of Coughlin immediately following his return from the one restroom brea7 in
such 22/12 trial)))where it is especially unclear just how the =arshal Aarley whom Aolmes
order to escort Coughlin to the restroom (where Chief =arshal 8oper admits that Aarley
EcommunicatedF what Dudge AolmesB testified he told her at any point in time between such
trip to the restroom by Coughlin did not go into the restroom with Coughlin and that Aarley
escorted Coughlin bac7 to the courtrrom and remained there for the trial* to court and counsel
and the inability to understand and follow the rules of evidence and procedure)
1ome might say it is luc7y for Dudge Aolmes that she is a judge because she certainly is
not smart enough to operate in any setting where she does not hold all the cards and apparently
have unchec7ed power, which she apparently is freely allowed to abuse, given the glaring,
amateur hour inconsistencies and logical fallacies in her account of the events of 22/12)
Aowever, (engilly and =cCormac7 await her)
"ourth, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin has
committed multi%le violations of the Rules of Professional conduct8 as more full( discussed
a%ove)
"ifth, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin engaged in a
bad faith obstruction of the disci%linary %rocess %( failing to file the %leading re:uired by
'CR 1+5;2< and instead filing several lengthy, irrelevant and nonsensical pleadings (3#<E:
since when is that the standard for Ebad faithFJ*, mostly pleadings filed in other matters, and
refiled in the disciplinary action under a similar but different caption) +n some instances,
Coughlin simply crossed out the case name and hand wrote the names of the parties in the
disciplinary proceeding) (3#<E: where the (anel and Ging constantly sought to apply some
offensive collateral estoppel1C8 111(5* approach (even though Ging and the (anel never
actually said the word EestoppelF or EpreclusionF or really ever actually enunciated such
arguments (and, further, to whatever e'tent such argument was made, it was made sua sponte
Echeverria, which is completely inappropriate, see 2reliant and the limiting of the
Eadjudicatory boundariesF to that to which the parties have provided arguments and citation in
support thereof)
1i'th, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin has refused to
ac4nowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct despite having been sanctioned on at least
four prior occasions)
1eventh, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin has shown a
1!,!!2
com&lete indifference to ma)ing restitution and has so far ignored orders to do so) (3#<E:
what EordersFJ E8estitutionF is not a concept applicable to a Eprevailing party attorneyBs fee
awardF such as "AE2, further "AE&Bs non4sanction attorney fee award was vacated, duh, and
as to the Ecandy bar and some cough dropsF the (anel apparently believes monolithic mega4
retailer 6al4=art is entitled to, there e'ists a civil remedy under 3evada law in that regard, and
6al4=ar, by way of its apparently unauthori:ed to practice law in 3evada E2ennett $aw
CorporationF (a very shady entity, indeed, apparently based in @tah* has chosen not to pursue
such, so surely collateral estoppel applies there where is allegedly applies against Coughlin
everywhere else in this matter) "urther, Coughlin did not steal anything from 6al4=art,
period, and it would be morally wrong to provide such entity, which countenances the perjury
of its Eloss prevention associateF <homas "rontino and partners with the corrupt 8eno 1par7s
+ndian Colony #fficers Gameron Crawford and Donnie 2raunworth to violated 3evada law
(with the blessing and assistance of corrupt 8eno City 9ttorneys (amela 8oberts, Daniel
6ong, and Dohn Gadlic*)
Eighth, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that some of CoughlinBs
mis conduct involves illegal conduct that evinces fraud and dishonesty) "or e'ample, he was
convicted of one instance of petit larceny and is awaiting trial on a second) (3#<E: there is
absolutely no support or citation presented by either the (anel or #2C that a Epetty larcenyF
conviction Einvolves Efraud and dishonest(F, and the balance of 9merican jurisprudence (not
to mention the mandatory authority in Claiborne* establishes that the majority viewpoint is
such that the panel may not rule that a conviction conclusively establishes whether or not the
crime Einvolves illegal conduct that evinces fraud and dishonestyF or is otherwise a EseriousF
crime or offense or supportive of a 8(C %)!(b*4(c* violation*)
9ctually, in the 3inth Circuit, per $ope:4(astrana, shoplifting or petty larceny is not
a EseriousF crime: @)1) v) $ope:4(astrana, 2!! ")&d 1025 (,th Cir) 2001*)
(3#<E: see, Doc7et .1!.2 Document 2012425!1. and the filing of same date,
%1&12 in .0%&%, both of which were served on (anel and 123 (contrast that with GingBs
vague contention that Coughlin was Eprovided with these documentsF (such as "AE2, &, !, %,
10, etc) where the relevant inHuiry is not whether such were Ebates stampedF amongst some
&,0,! pages delivered to Coughlin four judicial days prior to the formal disciplinary
hearing)))but whether 1C8 105(2*(c* was complied with (this is not that hard to do Ging and
(eters, really, have some respect for yourselves, or at least for the 2ar and Court*, which
includes providing a Esummary of the evidenceF, with E&0 dayBs written noticeF prior to the
hearing, not just dumping a bo' of &,0,! pages on Coughlin four judicial days prior to the
hearing)))(lus, GingBs fraudulent approach shines through again in the following portion of the
transcript where he attempts to mislead the (anel (which, obviously with as biased as (anel as
was present in this matter, was hardly necessary* by suggesting that documents li7e "AE2, and
"AE& were somehow Efiled documents with the supreme court in terms of motions)))F only to
then reference the non4seHuitur presented where the 123 Emade copies of the dis7s of court
proceedings for himF (audio dis7s only*, or that Eand those e'hibits were attachedF where
absolutely none of the Edis7sF (again, audio dis7s only were provided to Coughlin* nor any of
the Ee'hibitsF EattachedF to anything the 123 filed (Ee'hibitsF reHuire a filing, not a dumping
of &,0,! pages days before the formal hearing that the 123 strenuously argued should not be
150!!2
included in the 8#9 in contrast to CoughlinBs attempts to offer such into evidence*, nor any of
the two, count them, two total filings by the 123 in any matter involving Coughlin (the two
1C8 111 (etitions in .0%&% and .1,01, which had attached thereto only E'hibit 1 to the
%2&12 Complaint (as found within "AE1, comprising the 11&011 EDudgment of Conviction
and Court #rderF (though not the 11&011 #rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt* in 8=C 11
C8 221/. (.0%&%* and the &1512 #rder 9ffirming 8uling of the =unicipal Court found in
"AE12* as e'hibit to the 1C8 111(.* (etition in .0%&% and where the 1C8 111(!* (etition in
.1,01 attached only "AE12 and "AE1&, though neither was admitted into evidence at the
111!12 disciplinary hearing, despite Ging being afforded five and half hours to put on his
case where Coughlin was only afforded two hours and fifteen minutes to put on his)
9nd, to be clear, "AE12 and "AE1& were only EservedF on Coughlin in the conte't
of being attached to the 1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01, whereas Coughlin EservedF all the
various materials he refernces herein on Ging and the (anel in the instant matter, as
attachments to filings therein as well as were a great deal of those attachments were filings
served on the 123 in .1,01, .0%&%, .1!2., .210!, or where all the filings in 5&%&& and 5!%!!
were attached to Coughlins filing in the matter at issue in .2&&/ (this case* where such
intimately related to the matters address in the Doshi case (D;0%4011.%, see .0&02, .0&1/*
from which "AE& and 3?1240!&5 spring*) Ging simply failed to even meet the standard of the
=irch approach in failing to Eincorporate by referenceF or Eattach as an e'hibit "AE2,&,5,%,10
to the Complaint or in any way reference such in (not that doing so meets the due process 1C8
105(2* notice4pleading standard, but still)))* his Designation of 6itnesses, 1ummary of
Evidence, which, while Cler7 of Court (eters Certificate of 1ervice thereto indicates was
Edeposited for mailingF (though failing to include the =i7ohn standardBs reHuired language
indicating that such was Eto be pic7ed up for mailing this dayF etc)* was proven by CoughlinBs
attaching the @1(1 <rac7 K Confirm printouts for the Certified =ailing number the 123
associated thereto, to only be first scanned into the @1(1 trac7ing system on 101.12, and
only first made available to Coughlin by the @1(1 on 101.11, where Coughlin, in every way,
fully complid with 1C8 /, vis a vis timely updating the 123 and 33D2 (the (anel was not
even announced until wee7s later, naturally* with his #fficial @1(1 Change of 9ddress (which
Coughlin submitted to th downtown 8eno (ost #fficer in person on 10512 (li7ely causing the
somewhat e'tended five days in transit associated with the 101212 file4stamped 123Bs
Dow1oE (which, again, was not deposited for mailing until much later (the @1(1 <rac7 K
Confirm indicates a first scanning of the Certified =ailing number thereof as occurring on
101.12* owing to CoughlinBs #fficial @1(1 Change of 9ddress being processed by the @1(1
(providing yet another reason why Ging and (eters negligent approach (born of a cheating
desire to obtain some Huic7 stri7e advantage over Coughlin, whom they assumed was homeless
at the time* in attempting to jam Coughlin into an overly soon hearing date (unbifurcated, mind
one* by 7nowingly brea7ing the rules in 1C8 105(2*(c* in usurping the (anelBs duty to provide
E&0 daysB notice of the hearingF where the 123 sent out such 3otice on 101.12, for a
111!12 formal hearing date, where the (anel was not even announced until 33D2 Chair
1usichBs 10&012 #rder 9nnouncing "ormal Aearing (anel*)
"urther, Coughlin confronted (eters and Ging about their refusal to accord him the
access to and right to EinspectF all materials permitted under 1C8 105(2*(c* for the twenty
151!!2
seven days reHuired thereunder) Coughlin further confronted Ging and (eters regarding the
fact that the 3otice of Aearing that is file stamped 101212 and to which (eters signed a
Certificate of =ailing (which lac7s the reHuired Eplaced in the mail for pic7up to go out on this
dateF =i7ohn language* that identifies 101212 as the date of mailing despite the fact that the
@1(1 <rac7 K Confirm for such Certified =ailing indicates such was only first scanned into
the @1(1 trac7ing system on 101.12, and only first made available to Coughlin (through no
fault of CoughlinBs* by the @1(1 on 102212*) (eters, Ging, and the 33D2 all failed to
reschedule or continue the hearing despite CoughlinBs demands that such be done in light of the
e'treme prejudice this deprivation of CoughlinBs 1C8 105(2* and 105(2*(c* rights this
engendered) +nstead, Ging started up with his ridiculous Estay awayF letters and demands that
Coughlin Ecall ahead to the 123 fifteen minutes before attempting to file anythingF and (eters
began her Ethis is harassmentF histrionics, where both attempted to coerce the 123Bs (aula
Campbell into joining their fraudulent approach vis a vis CoughlinBs completely placid,
uneventful interaction with Campbell while submitting a filing on 11.12) <his tac7y cheatinB
weasel approach permeates everything (atric7 #) Ging and $aura (eters do)
9nd, what all of this really illustrates is that Ging and (eters 7new the case against
Coughlin was garbage from day one, but they wanted to ma7e their masterBs happy (33D2
member Aill, Dudge 3ash Aolmes and longtime 123 fi'ture and former 123 (resident 3;2
Dudge 2eesley* and upon .oughlin catching %oth @eters and Eing in several material lies (vis
a vis (eters communications to Coughlin about whether the %2&12 9ffidavit of 1ervice
attached to the Complaint would be asserted by the 123 to satisfy 1C8 10,, and whether
(eters announced to Coughlni he may submit filings via facsimile and so serve such upon the
123 by doing so (causing Ging to panic upon CoughlinBs 10.12 email pointing out the DC8
1&(&* application GingBs failure to oppose CoughlinBs ,1%12 =otion to Dismiss deserved*, and
upon the calamity of the 123Bs affi'ing insufficient postage thereto (where the @1(1 refusd to
release such Certified =ailing to Coughlin* and only mailing such (or in any way transmitting
such to Coughlin, where the 123 steadfastly eschewed copying Coughlin on filingsorders via
email and facsimile* via one method (ie, Certified =ailing, departing from the indication in all
other 123 CertificateBs of =ailing that such documents were being sent via both Certified =ail
and copied via first class mail as well* failing to serve Coughlin the (8(C &)59 and (eters
,1112 representations to Coughlin as to the reHuirement that the 123 so serve such 3#+<D
upon a 8espondent following the second attempt to obtain a signed 8eturn 8eceipt 8eHuested
@1(1 form from a 8espondet under the policies1C8 105(!* adopted procedural rules the
12333D2 has attached to 3#+<<DBs* 10,12 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default)))as well as
Couglin catching Ging and (eters in their lies that "AE&3?1240!&5 was a grievance
EreceivedF from 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner where such was merely included amongst the Ebo' of
materialsF provided by Dudge 3ash Aolmes on &1!12)))
@pon being caught in their lies, and reali:ing their case was garbage, Ging and
(eters panic7ed, began accusing Coughlin of EharassingF them and whining about benig
EfrightenedF and went for a Huic7 cheap power grab by attempting to jam Coughlin, and a
completely underinformed group of pathetic e'cuses for panel members into a formal
disciplinary hearing where an overly vindictive and overcompensating Ging was forced to
dredge up Elcano and 2eesley on short notice just days before the hearing, and where Ging was
152!!2
forced to put Dudge "lanaganBs "AE2, essentially, in the clean4up hitter role despite his earlier
choice to completley e'cise such from his %2&12 Complaint in light of the fact that GingBs
%&012 email to Coughlin attached the %2%12 #rder by Dudge "lanagan that made even more
clear that the .2512 #rder awarding a Eprevailing party attorneyBs feesF award to AillBs client
was, most definitely, not a EsanctionF) Aello 8(C &)% violation, allow me to introduce you to
(atric7 Ging, and lets not forget about GingBs venturing unprotected outside the co:y confines
of 1C8 10. in his =ay 2012 attempts to sabotage CoughlinBs law practice by violating 1C8
12&(&*Bs confidetiality provisions in communicating a falsehood to CoughlinBs then client, (eter
Eastman falsely purporting that 3;2 Dudge 2eesley had banned Coughlin from practicing or
filing anything in the 3;2)
+n order for respondent in 2ar disciplinary proceeding to use common4law Hui tam
remedy to prosecute his former lawyer and compel an investigation of the lawyers employed by
2ar 9ssociation, respondent was reHuired to possess, as a private individual, a legal or
justiciable right to act for the public to prosecute public wrongs of the nature that were raised
by his pleadings in disciplinary proceeding) 1tate e' rel) #7lahoma 2ar 9ssBn v) =othershed,
2011 #G %!, 2.! ()&d 11,/ (#7la) 2011*, as corrected, (#ct) 1%, 2011*)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages !/:1/ to 50:1,* =8) G+3?: +Bm sorry) + meant 8=hi!it
-) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9ny objection, =r) CoughlinJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, is it
truly a certified copy has been 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hatBs what heBs represented) =8)
C#@?A$+3: +s that trueJ =8) G+3?: + have certified copies of all the orders that are going
to be admitted) =8) C#@?A$+3: + donBt believe this was provided earlier) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: Do you have an objection, =r) CoughlinJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 5 don't !elieve
it was noticed) +t wasnBt included in the summary of evidence) =8) G+3?: +f you ta7e a loo7 at
the bottom right4hand side) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Aave you seen this orderJ (3#<E: Aere
again Echeverria sua sponte attempts to put in wor7 for the 123 by see7ing to confuse the 1C8
105(2*(c* and due process (notice and opportunity to be heard* inHuiry by focusing on whether
Coughlin has Eseen this orderJF) 1ome might say Echeverria is just a three card monty street
corner hustler)))actually, thatBs not fair)))most street corner hustler did not grow up with the
silver spoon in their generations of 1tanford legacies mouthBs li7e Echeverria did* =8)
C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 5t's admitted) (E'hibit 2 admitted into evidence)*
=8) C#@?A$+3: 5 $ust didn't 4now it was for this hearing) =8) G+3?: Nour Aonor, if you
loo7 at the bottom right4hand side of any documents + present, you'll see a Bates stamped
num!er) <he entire file was actually copied at the 1tate 2arBs e'pense, and 2ates stamped and
provided to =r) Coughlin to avoid any suggestion that he didn't receive copies of these
documents or 4now that 5 intended to introduce them) (3#<E: 9pparently the Ging did not
care whether there was well more than a EsuggestionF that Ging cheated the system by failing
to let Coughlin E7nowF Ging Eintended to introduce themF where Ging in no way whatsoever
referenced "AE2 in his %2&12 Complaint (while 1C8 105(2* reHuires that Ethe com&laint
shall %e sufficientl( clear and s&ecific to inform the attorne( of the charges against him or
her and the underl(ing conduct su&&orting the charges+=, and where GingBs Designation of
6itnesses, 1ummary of Evidence (1C8 105(2*(c* reHuires E.+ days0 #ritten noticeF from the
date of th hearing where such Enotice shall be accom%anied by a summary %re%ared by bar
counsel of the evidence against the attorney8 and the names of the #itnesses bar counsel
15&!!2
intends to call for other than im%eachment8 together #ith a brief statement of the facts to
#hich each #ill testify8 all of #hich may be ins%ected u% to . days %rior to the hearingF*
=8) ECAE;E88+9: + had earlier granted that portion of =r) CoughlinBs motion to have
access to the 1tate 2ar file) 9nd are you representing, =r) Ging, that the 1tate 2ar files were
copied, 2ates stamped and delivered to =r) CoughlinJ =8) G+3?: Nes) =8) ECAE;E88+9:
+n the lower right4hand corner this document bears the 2ates stamps 2,/5 to 2,/%) 9nd was
this order included in the group of documents delivered to =r) CoughlinJ =8) G+3?: Nes, it
was) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +tBs admitted) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, may + respond to
thatJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: 1ure) =8) C#@?A$+3: <he rule says +Bm to have no less than &0
days from service of the notice of the hearing to inspect, up to within three days of the hearing,
these materials) =r) Ging refused to let me see these materials for months, going all the way
bac7 to =arch) 9ll of a sudden heBs rigged this system so that + donBt get &0 daysB notice of the
hearing) <he panel is coming into this hearing) 1cant amount of days to prepare and inculcate
themselves with an idea of what this case is about) 9nd further, + get a big bo' of about, + want
to say about one of the M&0 bo'es, and + get it on the %th for a hearing thatBs on the .th) 9nd
that somehow 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he hearing is on the 1!th, =r) Coughlin) =8)
C#@?A$+3: +Bm sorry) 1i' days from the %th) <hat somehow complies with the ruleJ 9nd
what + got was sent out on 3ovember 1st) 1o + didnBt get anything, any access to inspect the
file, inspect the doc7et from 3ovember 1st to 3ovember %th) "urther, + only got the si' days,
not the &0) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, as + view it, you got more than access, you got
copies) E'hibit 2 is admitted) =8) G+3?: Just for the record8 ? #ould also li&e to res%ond
to the suggestion that #e didn0t &rovide Mr, Coughlin #ith these documents, Kell in
advance of the time #e had these 1ates stam%ed he had come to the 4tate Bar office man(
times, ? even made co&ies of the dis)s of the court &roceedings for him at his re:uest, Ke
filed documents with the su&reme court in terms of motions, "e #as served #ith co%ies of
all of those8 and those e6hi%its #ere all attached,F
GingBs negligent failure to ever attach "AE2,&,!,%,10, etc),etc) <o the Complaitn or
to even note such as being Eincorporated by referenceB a la =irch has some truly serious
conseHuences here to the detriment of the 123Bs case)
<he @anel finds few &otentiall( mitigating factors to %e &resent) 6hile the (anel finds
that there is a lac& of %rior %ublic disci%line by the 'tate 1ar, the (anel notes that Coughlin
has been &u%licl( criticiJed in the Doshi matter (3#<E: interestingly, the (anel fails to
characteri:e "AE& as a EsanctionF here*, has been heavily sanctioned with an adverse award of
substantial attorneyBs fees in the =erliss matter, and has been incarcerated at least twice for
criminal contem&t of court) (Echeverria, reaching hard for an 1C8 111(5* conviction is
conclusive proof of guilt approach, here, which he also attempts to bootstrap on to to his
approach to avoiding any analysis or fact finding vis a vis the various alleged violations of
8(CBs the 123(anel view as having elements that are e'actly the same as a Ecriminal
contemptF chargeconviction*) Although there has %een an a%sence of &rior &u%lic disci&line
%( the 4tate Bar, there have been multiple instances of judicial censure and sanction)
(9ctually, neither of the alleged EsanctionsF ("AE2, "AE&* are EsanctionsF) "AE& was undone
by the final Decree of .1,0,) "AE2 was never a EsanctionF, it was a Eprevailing party
attorney fee awardF per 381 .,)050 (and even that is a void order given such statute applies
15!!!2
only to appeals of EjudgmentsF in plenary Ecivil actionsF, not appeals of Esummary eviction
ordersF, and, regardless, 381 !0)!00 ma7es 389( &% the only basis for a fee award, which
neither "AE2 nor the !1,12 =otion for 9ttorneyBs "ees such was predicated upon managed to
mention, at all) "urther, no judge has EcensuredF Coughlin nor has Echeverria or the (anel
(much less the #2C* offerred any authority to define what is entailed in a EcensureF in the
legally operative sense)*
9lthough Coughlin suggested at the hearing that he ma( have &ersonal or
emotional &ro%lems or a mental disa%ilit(8 he denied that he needed further hel%)
"urthermore, no medical evidence was presented regarding the potential impact of a mental
disability, no evidence that the disability was the cause of the mis conduct , no evidence of
recovery by rehabilitation and no evidence that a recovery has arrested the mis conduct and that
a recurrence is unli7ely to occur)
<he (anel and Ging wish to continue playing stupid with respect to the events of
9ugust 2011, which Coughlin e'plained in great detail, and the ensuing challenges in
becoming local law enforcementBs favorite can to 7ic7 around for a couple years (and the
concomitant codependent relationship local law enforcement has with the judiciary*)))its not a
case an attorney refusing to ta7e his medication, or refusing to get diagnosed, or refusing
treatment) <he attorney had his rent stolen by his e', could not afford his medications, received
the typical complete and utter lac7 of assistance from family upon as7ing for help in such dire
circumstances, and was subseHuently wrongfull( arrested twice within 1/ days less than three
wee7s after, due to an inability to pay for such forced .oughlin to a%ru&tl( go off %oth an
A"8" medication and an anti1de&ressant)
2ut, to be clear, Coughlin did not steal anything) 2oth of those petty larceny arrests
were wrongful, and the circumstances surrounding such fail to reveal any wrongdoing on
CoughlinBs part, and plenty thereof on the part of the officers involved, the prosecutors, bar
counsel, and the court appointed defenders (e'cept in the 6almart petty larceny, as 8=C
Dudge Aoward, willfully violated the 200% +ndigent Defense #rder in refusing to per se M10,000
yearly income indigent Coughlin counsel)
"urther, !ing0s a%%roach in essentially running a#ay from Coughlin0s
%roviding him e@tremely detailed information ;Coughlin %rovided the '1-8 !ing8 and the
Panel a com%lete %rintout of every single %rescri%tion he has filled at any %harmacy since
2++*8 revealing e@actly #hat Coughlin testified to8 that he abru%tly cease ta&ing 6derrall
and Kellbutrin on or about 6ugust 2
nd
8 2+11 (where the first arrest (i(hone abandoned
property about to be thrown in the river ridiculously charged as Epetty larcenyF (well, actually
charged as Eooooh, thatBs a felonyF grand larceny by 8(D #fficer 3icholas Duralde, where
Duralde referred to the Ecertain benefits to charging it as a felonyF (such as doing so getting
around the prohibition against ma7ing a misdemeanor arrest between /pm and /am for an
alleged misdemeanor occurring outside the officerBs presence per 381 1/1)1&. (where such
statute also barred the second arrest 1/ days later on ,,11, the 6almart petty larceny of Ea
candy bar and some cough dropsF (the Ecandy barFBs @(C revealed such was an Eice cream
barF, indicating 6almartBs <homas "rontino was lying where he alleged he Epersonally eye
witnessedF Coughlin Eselect and consumeF such Ecandy barF from the unrefrigerated Ecandy
isleF and where the U@. of the same half of one &ac)age of "uract .ough 7elts recovered
155!!2
from .oughlins; &oc)et upon the 8eno 1par7s +ndian Colony tribal police officer violating
both 381 1/1)1&. and 381 1/1)1255 recovered from CoughlinBs poc7et matched e'actly the
@(C on the receipt for the M%&)%2 worth of groceries 6al4=art admits Coughlin had just
purchased (ie, the e'act same Duract Cough =elts were listed amongst the items 6al4=art
admits Coughlin purchased)))even where 6al4=artBs "rontino lied in testifying that Coughlin
had not just purchased such a pac7age of Duract Cough =elts (as "rontino laughably alleged
he peered from thirty yards away each and every item Coughlin purchased and that such did
not include a pac7age of the very Duract Cough =elts that was, in fact, listed amongst those
items Coughlin purchased (the @(C thereof and the description* on the receipt for M%&)%2
worth of groceries, where such purchase was made immediately prior to the wrongful arrest)
Coughlin failed to e'presss sorrow and a big mea culpa because he did not do
anything wrong, and he certainly did not commit a EtheftF crime, period)
C oughlin emailed <and &rovided in hard co&(= Eing and the 4BN T!$.E' such
com&lete certified &rescri&tion histor( &rintout of all medications ta)en since 0552' and
Eing' in an Jul( //' 05/0 in &erson meeting with .oughlin fraudulentl( attem&ted to get
.oughlin to cease &roviding him such materials) Ging wanted to %e a%le to freel( allege
.oughlin had failed to do this or that &er 4. //I or otherwise address an( &ro%lems (not
being able to afford medications has now become 339=A1 finally agreeing to pay for such
medications where, in 9ugust 2011 it refused to upon Coughlin twice inHuiring as to such
possibility*:
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &0%:2& to &0,:15* <his is a circumstance where in the
complaint we recogni:ed it) !e have a &olic( at the 4tate Bar that if an attorne( has a crisis
in their life, whether it be 44 heaven forbid, you can have a death of a child or a wife) Nou
could have a disease) Nou could have a stro7e) Nou could have even drug or alcohol problems
or some sort of an addiction) 9nd the 1tate 2ar wants attorneys to get help and to maintain their
law license, and thatBs that we wanted for =r) Coughlin) +nstead' he did not acce&t his
condition. And he hasn;t toda() 9nd when you are as7ing those probing Huestions, leading as
they were, did you feel !ad when you conducted yourself this wayJ <here wasnBt an immediate
yes, and +Bll never do it again, and +Bm sorry, and +Bm falling on my sword) -o# that ?0ve tal&ed
to my %sychiatrist he0s going to try new medications) 3one of that has occurred)F
(3#<E: 9s is the essence of (atric7 #) Ging, EsH), its always a tough call as to
whether he is just plain stupid, la:y, or lying or some malevolent combination of all three)
1uch is that case with GingBs inaccurate depiction of the circumstances under which CoughlinBs
tribulations occurred, where Ging refers to EheBs going to try new medications)))F) <he whole
point was that Coughlin could not afford the medications he was already ta7ing in 9ugust of
2011, and that the abrupt cessation thereof contributed to CoughlinBs difficulties, especially in
terms of interpersonal interactions, which resulted in Coughlin being wrongfully arrested in a
retaliatory manner incident thereto twice within 1/ days just two wee7s after a%ru&tl( ceasing
to ta)e to &owerful &(schoactive medications' Adderall and !ell%utrin' on August 0' 05//)
+ts not a case of trying EnewF medications, or for Coughlin to finally Eacce&t his conditionF, or
that one needs to be on some medication(s*, and (at Ging 7nows that, or should, and his
attempts to weasel around that are despicable, and typical of GingBs usual modus operandi)
Ging tried to leverage an inordinately improbable confluence of cataclysmic life
15.!!2
challenges Coughlin faced in 9ugust 2011 resulting in nothing more serious than a conviction
for petty theft of Ea candy bar and some cough dropsF from a monopolistic monolithic retailer
in the age of the M/50 million dollar bailouts of the mega4ban7s that (atric7 #) Ging, EsH), the
foreclosure mediation program mediator that ?eof ?iles, EsH), sued in his capacity as a
mediator therein (and where Ging harangued Coughlin for two hours one day in Duly 2011
during a sit down at Double 8 about the depravity of those with viewpoints opposing those of
the mega4ban7s*)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age &10:5 to &10:2!* <hatBs our 3evada 1upreme Court
saying, if you are going to behave this way, you donBt get to practice) 3ow come before a
disciplinary panel) And had 7r. .oughlin come %efore (ou' which he did not' and said' $
have a mental &ro%lem or some other issue' and $;m wor)ing on getting it resolved' and $
need to throw m(self at (our merc(' and give me a chance to go through this designed
treatment &rogram that $ am wor)ing on) 9nd in four years or three years 5 want to have an
opportunity to come !ac4 and prove myself that would have !een thrilling+ %nd 5 would have
!een glad if that was the case+ 5 encouraged Mr+ Coughlin to ta4e that approach+ 5 e=plained to
him 5 can't give you legal advice !ut this is my opinion+ %nd he said no way+ He suggested 5
pac4 my !ag and go to %riFona+ !hat was the theft &art ofF !ell' 7r. .oughlin said whatF
$ went off m( meds' and then $ got m(self arrested' and then $ had all these series of crimes.
!hat date did he give (ou for when he went off his medsF 05// +3
(3#<E: <he above represents GingBs misrepresentations to Coughlin vis a vis Ging
attempting to shift the 1chaeffer clear and convincing evidence burden of proof placed upon he
and the #2C onto Coughlin upon Ging selling his 1C8 11/ sna7e oil (and, believe, Ging was
not touting any Ethree or four yearsF while Coughlin was 7ic7ing tires on the lot, but rather,
indicating a very brief period of time would be involved, and emphasi:ing (or attempting to
apply coercive pressure* to Coughlin that Eeverything is paused)))all the disciplinary matters are
paused if you voluntarily sign on to a 1C8 11/ Disability (etition with the 2arF*)
"unny, 1tephen 8) Aarris, EsH), admits to misappropriating M/55,000 from clients
and for the first time in his life admits to the 2ar to suffering from an addiction to se' and
alcohol, and the 123 does not even file an 1C8 102 (etition for a temporary suspension in
AarrisB case (thus, ?ary 1ilverman, EsH)Bs %1!12 email to Coughlin (howBs that for an e'pert
witness*, an e'cerpt of which begins CoughlinBs 111!12 (etition for 6rit in .1!02: E?ary
1ilverman, EsH) email to Coughlin %1&12: OIou do seem to be a good la#yer8 ho#ever, 6t
bottom8 'teve "arris too& hundreds of thousands of dollars and had no tem% sus%ensionJ
you stole a candy bar ;at #orst<, !TF ,O "urther, 3;2 Dudge 2eesley voluntarily appears as
a character witness as AarrisB formal disciplinary hearing) 9dditionally, 3;2 Dudge 1lea:ley,
er, Dudge 2eesley had a salient role in the E=irchingF that Coughlin referred to during the
formal hearing (AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 10!:20 to 105:&* E=8) C#@?A$+3: ))) 2ut the
cloc7 chimed 1& times) 9nd if + donBt put into the record what is it going to say on appealJ
<hey are trying to merge (EMirchF* me here) $etBs be honest) 1o if itBs a merging (E=irchingF*
thatBs going on here, +Bm going to preserve everything for the record) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm
going to overrule your motion for recusal)F*
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age &15:1. to &15:2&* =8) G+3?: 2ecause of that, it is not
appropriate in my opinion, under these circumstances with =r) CoughlinBs conduct it #ould
15/!!2
be totally ina%%ro%riate to suggest that #e0re merely going to give him a sus%ension
%ending some sort of none6istent recover( efforts8 some sort of an effort that he could
reestablish himself8 get on medications, reta7e the 2ar e'am and the professional
responsibility)))F (3#<E: 9gain, Ging with the Eget on medicationsF rather than Eget %ac) on
his medicationsF) Ging is creepy charlatan soulless carpetbagging drip from California 7nown
chiefly for being la:y and dishonest)))just as7 Dames 2oles, EsH) (see
http:www)scribd)comdoc15!%2,/!&1141.4124020!4.11/042oles48eply42rief4Detailing4
1234"ailure4to4+nvestigate *)
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &20:15 to &21:2* =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm really sorry,
=r) Coughlin) 2ut + would li7e you to assist the panel in following our directions) +Bve as7ed
you to address, one, whether or not youBre competent to continue to practice law) <wo, ho#
should #e deal #ith the su&reme court;s mandate that we are to consider the nature and
intent of &unishment as a result of that theft conviction and other misconduct, and if you
believe punishment is warranted, what the nature of that punishment should be) 5f we can focus
on those issues it would help this panel do its job a lot better than trying to understand =r)
AarrisB situation or some other lawyerBs situation) Could you focus on that for me, pleaseJF*)
=ega4hypocrits li7e Echeverria really do not li7e confronting the incongruity of their money
plays approach to life and law) Aowever, 1C8 12&(&* and the $aub decision hold otherwise)
3ote, there again Echeverria admits to the fact that he perpetually sought, all
throughout this matter, to misapply 1C8 111(%* and the 3) 1) CtBs ./12 #rder in .0%&% to
eviscerate the reHuirement under 1chaeffer that Ging must prove each individual act of
misconduct Coughlin was alleged to have committed by Eclear and convincing evidenceF)
Every single time Coughlin offered any evidence or testimony that went to defending against
the myriad of vaguely formed and unsupported by any actual admissible evidence allegations
of misconduct made by Ging, Echeverria ruled such testimony or evidence offered by Coughlin
was EinadmissibleF or EirrelevantF in light of his contention that Ging did not need to prove
Coughlin committed any such misconduct (well over an above limiting such narrowing to 1C8
111(5*Bs Ea conviction is conclusive proof that the 8espondent committed the crimeF)))which
itself is far from establishing EconclusivelyF that either the petty larceny or criminal trespass
convictions at issue in the only two 1C8 111 (etitions Ging filed involving Coughlin are
EseriousF offenses, or that the circumstances attendant to such convictions and that alleged acts
underlying such were EconclusivelyF irrelevant, immaterial, or inadmissible*)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &15:2! to &1.:1!* =8) ECAE;E88+9: NouBre telling
us what is not appropriate) +Bd really li7e to hear what is appropriate) =8) G+3?: Disbarment,
6nd disbarment is very serious8 because it0s %ermanent, 6nd so the reason ? felt to say
#hat isn0t a%%ro%riate is $ want (ou to understand that $ ac)nowledge there are going to %e
great o&&ortunities for some%od( to ta)e a leave' get hel&' come %ac), Mr, Coughlin is not
that character) 6hen he is out there, he is hurting people, he is ma7ing life difficult for
people, heBs not even measuring up to the lowest standard of a lawyer) 9nd so + thin7 under
these circumstances the answer should be, =r) Coughlin, %ecause of (our conduct over these
past years, and (our refusal to recogniJe it or see) hel&, )))F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 20&:. to 20!:10* =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm going to ta7e
your failure to answer my direct Huestion that (ou;re not claiming some form of im&airment.
15%!!2
.an we conclude thatJ <AE 6+<3E11: 3o, + guess + am) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hatBs that
impairmentJ <AE 6+<3E11: <here is a shame aspect to it) 2ut + am, + guess, diagnosed with
attention deficit disorder) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Aave you sought treatment for thatJ <AE
6+<3E11: Ieah) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Aave you %een &rescri%ed medication for thatJ
<AE 6+<3E11: Uh1huh) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Do you ta7e itJ <AE 6+<3E11: $ do. The
-ail won;t let me ta)e it when $;m in -ail. But when $;m outside' $ do ta)e it) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: Aave you ta7en it todayJ <AE 6+<3E11: Neah) 2ut 44 =8)
ECAE;E88+9: 6hat are you ta7ingJ <AE 6+<3E11: Do + have to answer thatJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: 3o) <AE 6+<3E11: )here0s Gust a lot of stigma to it, 'o much so that
#hen you go to Gail they #on0t let you ta&e it, <hen you have to 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: Do
you feel you need additional hel% in dealing #ith your %roblemA )"9 K?)-9''7 -ot
really) =8) ECAE;E88+9: #7ay)))F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 2%/:20 to 2,1:1%* =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin,
+Bm as7ing you specifically) Do you wish to present any evidence with respect to the supreme
courtBs directive that this panel is to determine the nature and e'tent of any punishment you
should suffer (3#<E: it is beyond well established the purpose of disciplinary matters is not a
punitive one, so the choice of the word Gsuffer3 spea7s volumes to the bias with which
Echeverria approached his role as (anel Chair* as a member of the 1tate 2arJ =8) ;E$$+1:
#r any mitigation) =8) ECAE;E88+9: #r any mitigationJ =8) C#@?A$+3: =itigation)
5've !een diagnosed and treated with %**+ 5 hate admitting this on the record+ %lso ma$or
depressive disorder) My girlfriend of $ 1C2 years8 my domestic %artner8 in 6ugust 44 no, 'he
finally graduated in June 44 no8 May 15
th
;2+11<, )#o days later she moved out, 'he
hadn0t told me for at least8 ? believe May and June8 she too& the rent %ortion that ?
normally gave her and she #ould for#ard on8 and instead she &e%t it and started a ne#
life #ith it #hen she moved out,
? #asn0t a#are of that until sometime in 6ugust, 6ugust 11th the landlord sent
me an e4mail, ? #as arrested on 6ugust 2+
th
;2+11< for the iPhone thing that there0s a trial
on the 1Bth, 17 Days later ? #as arrested on the Kalmart thing, 6ugust 2nd ;2+11< $
canceled an a&&ointment with "r. :asar' m( &s(chiatrist' %ecause $ couldn;t afford it or the
medications. $ reached out to m( famil(. There was some ill will incident of the %rea)u& of
m( domestic relationshi&. $ didn;t receive an( hel& from an(%od(. $ went off m( medications
%ecause $ couldn;t afford them, ? did ma&e several calls to --6M"' ;-ote7 -orthern
-evada 6dult Mental "ealth 'ervices<8 but given the sensitivity of being on these
medications and a la#yer8 a %rofessional8 and the %reGudice attendant thereto8 and the
fact that even if ? #ent to --6M"' they #ouldn0t cover the 6DD medication8 and they
#ould cover the antide%ressant8 #hich is also some#hat of a dual4use medication, 1ut
long story short8 ? #as running out of money8 and ? decided a lot due to money8 some due
to desire to ta&e a medication holiday, Just see8 #hen you ta&e these things long enough8
sometimes you #ant to see #hat it0s li&e not ta&ing them,
$ went off those medications' &ro%a%l( too a%ru&tl(' at the start of August, MR,
9C"9V9RR?67 Khat yearA MR, C=E2">?-7 011, !ithin li)e 05 da(s all of a sudden
the i@hone arrest that0s %ending right no#, and + maintain my innocence on that) +t
sounds li7e a ridiculous law school effect pattern) 2ut essentially if this is a hypothetical e'am
15,!!2
in law school, it would be some guy finds an i(hone on the ground in a s7ate pla:a in
downtown 8eno at 11:15 at night on a 1aturday, and holds it aloft offering it up to the deni:ens
of the s7ate pla:a) Then he sa(s something to the effect of' come on' some%od(' claim this.
$;m going to throw it into the river) 9nd at that time people will allege that + claimed the
phone) %nd then there's some suggestions .. there's some am!iguity some might say as to
whose phone it is at that point+ Dhether it would !e in the river is that lost mislaid property
as larceny) Does a police officer have a right to coerce you into consenting to search) <here is a
video 44 + gave you a video of the arrest 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: Could you focus for us on 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: <he mitigation)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 44 the factors 44 let me as7 this Huestion) "o (ou %elieve that
an( of the issues that (ou have descri%ed im&air (our a%ilit( to &ractice law and ade*uatel(
re&resent clientsJ =8) C#@?A$+3: $ %elieve when $;m not under such 11 getting arrested'
s&ending si6 da(s in -ail' getting out' finding an eviction notice on m( door. An eviction
which $ would maintain is against the law' a summar( eviction' where non&a(ment of rent is
not &ledged against a commercial tenant. There;s laws against that for a reason' %ecause it
can murder (our %usiness' and it;s a huge fallout &ersonall(. 4o $ get arrested. 4&end si6
da(s in -ail. $ maintain it;s a wrongful arrest) + might not have done everything perfect, but +
do believe if you loo7 at it, loo7 at the criminal law, you might agree with me the arrest was
wrongful) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =y Huestion was not whether that arrest is valid or invalid,
!ut whether or not the conditions that you descri!ed you feel you suffer from impair your
a!ility to practice law andHor represent ade<uately represent clientsJ =8) C#@?A$+3: No+
No+ %nd 5 thin4 if you had !een with me through all this you would !e impressed 44 =8)
ECAE;E88+9: Do you have 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: 44 %( m( dedication to m( clients and the
level of wor) &roduct $ churn out' es&eciall( considering the remuneration $;ve received
from those clients. $ have %asicall( wor)ed for minimum wage doing &eo≤s custod('
&eo≤s foreclosure defense' adversar( &roceedings in %an)ru&tc(. And there was a
noncom&ete case + thin7 44 +Bm not happy with how my life has gone) +Bm not happy with all
this drama and problems with the courts) 2ut 44F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 2,.:2 to &00:12* =1) (E98$: Nou made more sense in
the last 15 minutes than you did all day) 9nd + have an enormous amount of respect for you)
NouBre very intelligent, and + would have you represent me tomorrow in the behavior you had
just in the last &0 minutes) +Bm very proud of you to do that) =ay + as7 you a HuestionJ And
when (ou were going through all of these trials and tri%ulations with the -udges and the
contem&t charges' were (ou on medication at the timeJ =8) C#@?A$+3: !ell' the
medication was 11 $ went off %oth of them in August. $ got arrested 11 August 0nd $ went off
%oth of them. $ got arrested August 05th. Then $ got arrested on the i@hone thing' $ got
arrested August 3th on the !almart thing <NOTE9 this a&&ears to %e a t(&o as the date of
the !al17art cand( %ar arrest was 3?3?// not ,August 3th+=. The da( after the !almart
thing $ got %ac) on one of the medications' %ecause $ felt $ couldn;t afford %oth. And so $
was on that medication while $ got the contem&t charge with Judge 8oward on Novem%er
D5th. $t wasn;t until %asicall( getting 11 the Fe%ruar( 0Ith contem&t charge with Judge Nash
8olmes' same deal' onl( on one of the medications. $t;s somewhat not a controlled stud('
%ecause $;m getting evicted' and m( life is chaos in the meantime. 4o Judge Nash 8olmes'
1.0!!2
that;s another contem&t. And then it wasn;t until 11 by the way, + need to say this)
<here was 44 + want this to be in the record) <here was three different competency
orders this year) <here;s a rule that sa(s &roceedings must %e sta(ed for the &endenc( of
those. 7( &roceedings )e&t on rolling through the &endenc( of all three of those) 1o all three
of these convictions could be thrown out as void given that trial settings were 44
=1) (E98$: $et me add a Huestion to what your statement was just now) Iou0re
saying that you #ent through the com%etency hearings8 and (ou admit that (ou have A""
and some de&ression issues. ?sn0t it your res%onsibility as an attorney to go to the 1ar and
say8 loo&8 ?0m going through some tough times right no# that is not 44 you0re not 44 it0s not
your fault that you have a disease8 that you0re needing the medication 44 that you could get
a sus%ension of your license until you can get %ac) into a regimen of &ills and bac& in
acting li&e this court and the su%reme court is as&ing you to act, Can0t you do thatA ?sn0t
there a rule of order that says8 loo&8 ? need a tem&orar( sus&ension #ith no bad mar&s on
my record until ? can get my act bac& together8 and then #or& on thatJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + didnBt want that) + didnBt want that, because thatBs an out for all
of the misconduct, all the police misconduct, all the prosecutorial misconduct, and some might
say all the judicial misconduct that +Bve come up against this year 44 =1) (E98$: 6hy did you
do thatJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 44 it;s alwa(s Lach;s &ro%lem' the mental case &ro%lem. And it;s
too much of an out for misconduct %( all these others 44 =1) (E98$: +Bm done) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 44 +Bm a domestic violence attorney) Mental health care is the first tool the
tyrant leverages, =h8 #e0re going to 44 and it comes to this all the time, Ke0re going to get
you some mental health, Iou0re not acting li&e #e #ant8 buddy8 #e0re going to get you
some mental health, )hat0s #hat tyrants and abusers do)
=1) (E98$: <hatBs not my Huestion) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm not saying it is) =1)
(E98$: +Bm not trying to be disrespectful) <here is nothing wrong with it) 6hat +Bm as7ing
you is why put yourself in jeopardy of losing your license altogether rather than trying to get it
togetherJ =8) G+3?: + thin7 heBs as7ed and answered that) =8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 it 44
Aat no!ody else has spo4en from this panel the whole day from the chair and you're going to
o!$ect) =8) G+3?: =r) Coughlin 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: ?o ahead, answer the Huestion)
6eBre running out of time) =8) G+3?: 44 e@%lain #hy he didn0t avail himself of Rule 117,
Ke have encouraged him u% the ying4yang to get treatment8 ta&ing advantage of that rule
44 =8) C#@?A$+3: $ don;t trust @at Eing at all) =8) G+3?: 6ould you mind if + as7ed a
follow4up HuestionJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: (ardon meJ =8) G+3?: =ay + as7 a follow4up
HuestionJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: +n a minute) Aave you finished your HuestionsJ =1) (E98$:
Nes) 9nd + than7 you for the answers) =8) C#@?A$+3: <han7 you) + appreciate it) =8)
G+3?: =r) Coughlin, did + on many occasions, including with David Clar7, encourage you to
read and ta4e advantage of Rule ,,:J =8) C#@?A$+3: @at' $ -ust don;t trust (ou at all) =8)
G+3?: <he Huestion is did we encourage you toJ =8) C#@?A$+3: $f (ou did' @at' it came
as nothing more than' he(' ma)e m( -o% eas(. 4ign on this deal. Oh' it &auses ever(thing' it
&auses ever(thing. $t will all come out in the wash when (ou come %ac). And' @at' $ -ust
don;t trust (ou' man. $ don;t. =8) G+3?: &hat's o4ay) 2ut was what was said, that it would
pause everything 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, + didnBt say that either, (at) :ou had (our time to
&rove that' and (ou didn;t use (our case for it' and now (ou;re not going to use m( case to
1.1!!2
&rove that)F
CoughlinBs <6+CE provide Ging with such prescription history information in
emails (along with providing hard copy copies of such emails and the attachments thereto*:
/&112 -ach Coughlin resending this "6: 9pology and -ach Coughlin prescription
medications informationC 51!12 -ach Coughlin 9pology and -ach Coughlin prescription
medications information:
E(6%ology and Zach Coughlin %rescri%tion medications
information
1ent: =on 51!12 12:&/ (=
<o: tcoughlinmdLhotmail)comC davidcLnvbar)orgC
patric77Lnvbar)orgC glennmLnvbar)orgC marybar7bar7Lyahoo)com
1 attachment
-ach Coughlin r' history since "ebruary 200%)pdf (11.&)& G2*
Dear Dad, 2ar Counsel, =om and =elissa,
+ am sorry for all the hurtful things + have said and done in the
last year) ? haven;t %een on m( !ell%utrin?Bu&ro&rion antide&ressant for
:uite a#hile ;? &ulled m( &harmac( records recently to try to learn from
some things<, ? have ta&en anti4de%ressants since ? #as 1* years old) +
wasn't on either my Dell!utrin or %dderall for all of %ugust -E,, until
Septem!er ,1 -E,,) + was arrested on 9ugust 20th, 2011 and 1eptember
,th, 2011) <he 6almart arrest involved chocolate and cough drops) <he
cough drops have de'tromethorphan in them, which is a dissociative in high
enough doses) Chocolate (sugar* is, of course, an old time palliative) <hey
banned cough drop (the melt or dissolve ver( *uic)l( and contain D5 mg in
each one...so rather than &owering through a whole %ottle of cough s(ru&
to ta)e D55 mg of "7' one could eat /5 cough dro& melts rather easil(
and *uic)l(*) <hese drops were pulled from shelfs for awhile when they
first came out a few years ago, + believe %ecause of the a%use &otential or
dangers of %eing a%le to ingest that high a *uantit( of a &owerful
dissociative so *uic)l( (the cough syrup version of de'tromethorpan is
e'tremely difficult to just drin7 a whole bottle of, whereas the sugary cough
melts are pretty much similar to candy*)
+ went off the Adderall on a&&ro6imatel( August 0' 05//. $
went off the !ell%utrin in Jul( 05//' right after the %rea)u& of a four and
half (ear relationshi&) #7ay, $ went and found the records and am
attaching them to this email) + wondered whether the switch from ;yvanse
to 9dderall coincided with my getting fired from 6ashoe $egal 1ervices,
but actually, it does not appear to have) + was suspended on 9pril 20th,
200, from 6$1) <hen, my termination date was =ay 12th, 200,) + only
started ta7ing 9dderall instead of ;yvanse on Dune 1&th, 200,) + was
wondering if + became more irritable upon starting 9dderall instead of
;yvanse and though maybe that cause the problems with the family court
1.2!!2
Dudge during the =arch 200, trial and then with 6ashoe $egal 1ervices) +
am actually 7ind of relieved to see their does not appear to be a causal
connection given the chronology) + thin7 + just felt 6$1 was a bit of a dead
end job for me, was ruining my wor7 ethic and motivation, and was,
perhaps, an environment where white males had to conform to a certain
prototype to fit in, one which + was not entirely at home with)
Nou can see + filled one prescription for Campral) 1ee this forum
for evidence that tolerance to %dderall is sometimes thought to !e
counteracted !y a class of medications that includes Campral,
*e=tormethorphan (D= is also being used to treat chronic &ain patients in
some e'perimental studies*, etc):
http:addforums)comforumsshowthread)phpJtV&.0/%
http:www)ncbi)nlm)nih)govpubmed10%/5/2!
+ recall researching this in an attempt to be ultra cautious in my
use of 9dderall)
=y chronic &ain levels seem to %e much' much' more
managea%le when $ am ta)ing !ell%utrin and Adderall) + believe that the
chronic u&&er %ac) &ain $ dealt with for (ears was due' in &art' to
emotional?mental stress related to not a&&ro&riatel( addressing m( A"8"
and the s&ott( use of antide&ressants $ e6hi%ited during those (ears (if my
Dad and + were getting along, $ would get !ell%utrin from him for free' if
we weren;t' $ would rarel( secure m( own health insurance or &a( out of
&oc)et for that antide&ressant, but would rather Orough itO to save money*)
6hen $ went off the !ell%utrin and Adderall' the chronic &ain
returned' &lus' $ was %asicall( in the earl( stages of a CdivorceC from
7elissa <whom $ dated and lived with since A&ril1ish 055I until 7a( /Ith'
05//) =elissa and + had been fighting since we moved into the home?office
on 8iver 8oc7 on "ebruary 20th, 2010) "rom probably Dune 2010 until she
moved out on =ay 1/th, 2011, we fought almost daily, sometimes in a
fairly hostile way ($ was never &h(sicall( violent with her' %ut she got a %it
with me*) + was e'isting on M!00 a wee7 in unemployment benefits,
receiving them for ,, wee7s) + actually wor7ed Huite hard the entire time) +
learned a lot about a lot of different things, including some things related to
the business of law, practice management, employment law, computers,
software, hardware, cars, home improvement, + did focus on music for about
. months straight (though + always continued to apply for jobs and send out
resumes during this ,, wee7s)))Dashoe County had ,0I unemployment
during those / years and $o!s were in short supply and starting my own law
practice seemed overly ris7y*, and + was basically =elissaBs maid and helper
with proofreading her schoolwor7 for a couple years (in my mind at least, of
course she may have a vastly different view of things*) 1he wor7ed a
significant amount of hours and was in school full time and was irritable,
e'tremely emotional, and stretched pretty thin)
1.&!!2
+ implemented the O+ pay for dinner one time, then you pay for
dinner one timeO rule for going out to dinner, and, of course, that too7 a lot
of the romance out of things) + thin7 + became very insecure about money
and my career and getting fired from DJS was very very discouraging)
2ut, + wor7ed there for 1% months) (revious to that my longest tenure of
employment at any job whatsoever was literally ! months at Aale $ane) +
am tal7ing 93N job, my whole life) $ realiJe m( father has concerns
a%out someone in recover( ta)ing a controlled su%stance li)e Adderall'
%ut $ have e6hi%ited s(m&toms consistent with a strong case of A"8" m(
entire life' and feel the &otential for su%stance a%use inherent to untreated
A"8" &resents a great ris) than does ta)ing Adderall8 though8
admittedly8 it is something that one must #atch and realiLe that it can
effect one0s behavior and mood8 sometimes in good #ays8 sometimes in
bad #ays) 2ut so can drin7ing or not drin7ing water) 1o can ta7ing or not
ta7ing insulin) 1ame with coffee)
1o, in some ways $ consider adding the Adderall to the
!ell%utrin a success )))
))) 7elissa also made off with at least one and &ossi%l( two
months of m( rent contri%ution that $ gave her to give the landlord' &lus'
she didn;t &a( the landlord her contri%ution for 7a( 05//' June 05//,
etc)))
'=M9)"?-2 PR9))I ?-)9R9')?-2:
)))5 am very startled to see that from 0H1H,, to 0H-,H,, 5 would
have !een out of Dell!utrinHBuproprion+ Melissa and 5 !ro4e up and she
moved out on 0H,:H,,)))
$ then went off m( !ell%utrin?Bu&ro&rion from I?0>?// until
B?02?/0))"rom filling the 2uproprion at a cost of M20 in Dune of 2011 until
recently filling the prescription in late 9pril 2012, the cost has gone up
&00X) <hat medication has been off patent for some 20 years now, it
should not be rising in price, especially during a period where the economy
has struggled so mightily)))) + simply could not afford it though on at least
two occasions + called up 3orthern 3evada 9dult =ental Aealth and
inHuired about the possibility of getting the cost paid for by the state or
subsidi:ed)))
$n that time &eriod $ was &ut in -ail 2 times and' essentiall(
evicted D times and fought with and alienated myself from my entire family,
lived a very secluded, reclusive life, etc))) e6hi%ited &oor im&ulse control' a
tem&er' and s(m&toms consistent with untreated 7a-or "e&ressive
"isorder <7""= and &erha&s some t(&e of hoarding %ehavior or
O%sessive .om&ulsive "isorder, including tiling the 8iver 8oc7 home
office, collecting car seats, recarpeting the entire home office with scraps in
a patchwor7, and tiling the crumbling front steps, and putting green carpet
on the dirt lawn)
1.!!!2
+ was arrested on:
%2011 for petit larceny (the lost mislaid i(hone thing where the
finder said he would Othrow it in the river if someone doesn't claim it right
awayO*) / days in jail)
,,11 for petit larceny at 6al4=art of a chocolate bar and two
!o=es of the cough medication dropsHmelts with *e=tromethorphan /E mg
per melt) 1 day in jail)
111211 for criminal trespass at my former home law office (i
was issued & traffic citations days later when + went to the opposing attorney
who signed the criminal trespass complaints office to retrieve my wallet and
driverBs license and was told to leave by the 8(D) 6hile driving away the
8(D pulled me over and charged me with a OCalifornia 8ollOfailure to
come to a complete stop and a couple fi' it tic7ets, that were ultimately
fi'ed*) & days in jail
11&011 for summary contempt during the trial for the 6al4=art
chocolate bar and cough medication dro&s <rial before Dudge Aoward in
8=C 11 C8 221/.) 1 day in jail)
11212 for $aywal4ing while filming personal property at my
former home law office being placed in a dump truc7 for hauling to the
dump) 1 day in jail
11!12 for Omisuse of ,11 where no actual or perceived
emergency e'ists*, a gross misdemeanor incident to the domestic violence $
was victimiJed %( on E. 3th 4t. %( m( housemates) & days in jail
22/12 for summary contempt during the trial for the 111511
traffic citations OCalifornia 8ollOfailure to come to a complete stop at stop
sign deal))))5 days in jail
B?/3?/0 for contem&t' $ %elieve' for failing to full( &artici&ate
<concern for &rivac( rights' shame' etc= in the ordered com&etenc(
evaluation that Judge Elliott ordered $ undergo with the La)e;s .rossing
doctors. $ s&ent I da(s in -ail)
? am feeling better and better since starting to ta&e my
antide%ressant8 Kellbutrin again8 and no# realiLe ? need to be much
more diligent in filling that %rescri%tion in a timely manner and ma&ing
%re%arations for situations #here ? might not be able to afford it) + %lan
to #rite many a%ology letters, including to judges, bar counsel, opposing
counsel, etc) + always fought and wor7ed hard for my clients though for an
e'tremely competitive price)
1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH)F
Aowever, such inconvenient information Gust did not fit comfortably into the
narrative !ing #ished to %ush onto these %roceedings in the ram%ant %ursuit of his
unethical social climbing (ma7e a bunch of Dudges happy, including longtime 123
stalwartfi'ture 2eesley* and pursuit of a career utterly devoid of any heavy lifting whatsoever,
where he can bring his dog to wor7 everyday, and leave at &:&0 pm regularly, all while
1.5!!2
engaging in unfathomably unethical ego trips Huite freHuently along the way)
<hese potentially mitigating factors are wea7 at best and do not e'cuse the well
esta%lished (3#<E: 6ell, which is it, EcheverriaJ 6as all of the alleged EmisconductF
already proven conclusively sufficient to rule as inadmissible any of the e'culpatory evidence
(testimonial, documentary or otherwise* that Coughlin offered, or were such allegations merely
Ewell esta%lished+J Does not the use of the term Ewell establishedF undermine the position that
Echeverria sought to establish via ad nauseum staying on message that numerous and repeated
violations of the 8ules of (rofessional conduct and do not outweigh the aggravating
circumstances established overwhelmingly by the 1tate 2ar)
R9C=MM9-D6)?=-'
<he (anel recommends that the 8espondent be ordered:
(1* +rrevocably disbarred by the 1upreme Court) 6hile irrevocable disbarment is
clearly the harshest form of discipline, the unusual circumstances here, compounded by the
repetitive nature of the misconduct prior ) to and even during the disciplinary process and
hearing, clearly warrant the level of punishment recommended)
(2* <hat his temporary suspension be continued pending final resolution of this
matter)
(&* 6ithin three (&* days of the effective date of disbarment, to demonstrate to 2ar
that he has placed all his 3evada clients with other counsel, otherwise concluded the
representation, or with the assistance of 2ar Counsel thereafter attempted to e'peditiously aid
any
remaining client in finding new counsel)
(!* <o pay the costs associated with these proceedings pursuant to 1C8 120) O
?-D9H =/ "96R?-2 9H"?1?)' ;'1- 0' 1 )= 1. < Coughin0s 1$ 4 15 Chair0s 1
1 4?nde@ of Documents 'elected for "earing Pac&et by 123Bs (at Ging in attempt to
s7irt his lie that he lac7ed a certified copy of every #rder attached to filings contained
therein and containing numerous fraudulent (roofs of 1ervice by the 123 %age ...
4 %, .. 5 pages of what Ging purports 8(C e'cerpts (1)2, &)1, &)&, &)!, &)5, &)59, !)1, !)!,
%)1, %)2, %)!*
4 %, .$1 %2&12 Com%laint 123 v) Coughlin:
49@hibit 1: 11&011 8=C Dudge Aoward Dudgment of Conviction and Court #rder in 221/.
candy bar &1512 Dudge Elliott #rder 9ffirming 8uling of the 8=C in appeal C811420.!
49@hibit 2: 11&011 8=C Dudge Aoward #rder for 1ummary (unishment of contem%t
Committed in ;iew and (resence of the Court in 11 C8 221/.
49@hibit .7 &1212 8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes #rder of &1!12 with Oclear and convincingO
language)
2 46ttorney /ees =rder of D $2 8+5+ by Judge /lanagan in C;1140&.2% .2%12 pursuant to
!1,12 =otion for 9ttorneyBs "ees by 8ichard ?) A+ll, EsH), within appeal of summary
eviction in 8DC rev20114001/0% by Dudge 1ferra::a %age .*7
& 4=rder 6fter )rial by Judge >inda 2ardner of !100, in D;0%4011.% that 6$1 cited as
the sole reason for firing Coughlin from domestic violence attorney position %age .B2
1..!!2
! 4contem%t =rder 2 2% 12 Dudge Aolmes 2.%00 #rder "inding Defendant in contem%t and
+mposing 1anctions8 %age $+7
5 4=rder attached to Com%laint & 12 12 Dudge Aolmes attached to Complaint #rder 2.%00
fed clear and convincing burden for 8(C standard by 123 %age $12
. 4>etter dated /ebruary 1$ 8 2+12 to Mr, Coughlin from Mr, !ing 2 1! 12 partial letter
from 123 Ging e'cised AillBs 1 1! 12 ng124020! grievance, so no notice of it, not pled %age
$1B
/ 4)#o4%age letter dated March B 8 2+11 from Mr, Coughlin to 'tate 1ar CoughlinBs & , 12
fa' to 123 regarding delayed receipt of 2 1! 12 letter from Ging re AillBs grievance %age $21
% 4)#o %age letter dated March 1$ 8 2+12 from Judge "olmes to '1- -orthern =ffice & 1!
12 complaint against Coughlin to 123 3orth %age $2$
, 46ffidavit of Poverty & / 12 9ffidavit of (overty lac7ing caption or certification by 8=C
D& page !2/
104=rder in Case 11 CR 2217 RMC Dudge Aoward 12 15 11 #rder denying +"( for
<ranscript (reparation and 3ew <rial and 8ecusal %age $.1
114 =rder for 'ummary Punishment 8=C Dudge Aoward 11 &0 11 #rder for 1ummary
contem%t incident to defense of .0%&% conviction %age 5$.
124=rder 6ffirming Ruling of RMC Dudge Elliott & 15 12 #rder 9ffirming 8=C Dudge
AowardBs conviction in candy bar petty larceny C811420.! %age $.B
1&4=rder 2ranting Res%ondent0s Motion to Dismiss 6%%eal Dudge Elliott % 2/ 12 C8124
12.2 #rder Dismissing 9ppeal of tres%ass Conviction by Dudge 6illiam ?ardner in 8=C 11
C8 2.!05 page !!!
1!4-e# Verified Res%onse Coughlin 11 1! 12 3ew ;erified 8esponse after Chair
EcheverriaBs threatening misstatements of the law re default %age $$*
154Declaration Verified Res%onse #ith t#o DVD discs CoughlinBs 11 15 12 Declaration and
;erified 8esponse %age 5+B
1.49mergency 9@ Parte Motion Chair EcheverriaBs 11 1! 12 incomplete and secretive e'hibit
entered sua sponte, in his attempt to one up Dudge 3ash Aolmes as to transmogrifying a plenary
formal disciplinary hearing into a summary contem%tdisciplinary hearing, where no copy of
E'hibit 1. was presented to Coughlin at the time E'hibit 1.Bs admission, and copy incomplete
lac7ing discs %age 5$. and where that which is represented in E'hibit 1. is an incomplete copy
of the filing itself (an OeditO, 2ar Counsel Ging might say, if Coughlin was see7ing itBs
admission, where the E'hibits that were attached to what E'hibit 1. purports to be, are not
present (because neither the 123 nor the (anel Chair (and (anel =ember Gent indicated he
wouldnBt care to review any materials on an attachments in cddvd form ever submitted by
Coughlin anyways* seem to be able to burn a cddvd very easily, much less review the
materials collected therein and presented by Coughlin in various filings*,
* C2. C12 '1- V, Z, C=E2">?- 'CR 1+5 C=MP>6?-)8 -2 12 4 +2+$ 8 +$.$ 8 +$.5 7
1./!!2
O($E91E <9GE notice that pursuant to 1upreme Court 8ule (O1C8*105(2* a
;E8+"+ED 8E1(#31E #8 9316E8 to this Complaint must be filed with the #ffice of 2ar
Counsel, 1tate 2ar of 3evada, ,!5. Double 8 2oulevard, 1te) 2, 8eno, 3evada, %,521, within
twenty (20* days of service of this Complaint) (rocedure regarding service is addressed in 1C8
10,) Complainant, 1tate 2ar of 3evada (O1tate 2arO*, by and through its 9ssistant 2ar Counsel
(atric7 #) Ging, is informed and believes as follows:
-achery Coughlin (O8espondentO*, 2ar number ,!/&, is a member of the 1tate 2ar
of 3evada admitted on =arch 25, 2005) 8espondentBs date of birth is 1eptember 2/, 1,/.) <he
address that 8espondent has on file with the 1tate 2ar of 3evada, in accordance with 8ule of
(rofessional conduct (O8(CO* /,(1 *(a* is (ost #ffice 2o' &,.1, 8eno 3; %,505) 8espondent
engaged in acts of misconduct warranting the imposition of professional discipline) <he 1tate
2ar alleges as follows:
1) =ultiple grievances were received by the #ffice of 2ar Counsel between the
period of Danuary 1! and =arch 15, 2012, concerning 8espondent) Due to the serious
allegations of misconduct, grievance files were opened and an investigation was initiated by
9ssistant 2ar Counsel (atric7 Ging)
2) 8espondent was advised of the grievances via @)1) mail, e4mail and by a brief
meeting with =r) Ging at the 1tate 2ar #ffice in 8eno) 8espondent did not coo&erate with the
investigation and rather than res&ond to the grievances as re*uested, 8espondent sent non4
responsive and disparaging e4mails)
&) 8espondent has not made a reHuest to be placed on disability status, nor has he
ac7nowledged that he may have mental infirmity, illness, or addiction)
!) <he investigation of the grievances against 8espondent shows a serious pattern of
misconduct)
5) #n 1eptember ,, 2011, 8espondent shoplifted a candy bar and cough drops a
6al4=art store with an appro'imate value of fourteen dollars (M1!)00*) #n 3ovember &0,
2011, =unicipal Court Dudge Genneth 8) Aoward found 8espondent guilty of the offense (etit
$arceny, a violation of 8=C %)10)0!0) 8espondent appealed the judgment of <he judgment of
conviction was affirmed on appeal) 1ee E'hibit 1)
.) During the trial 8espondentBs conduct was so disru%tive that Dudge Aoward
8espondent in direct contem%t of Court and sentenced him to serve three (&* days in 1ee
E'hibit 2)
/) #n 9ugust 20, 2011, 8espondent was arrested on a second larceny charge for
stealing a cell phone) <hose charges are currently pending in 8eno Dustice Court)
%) 8espondent was again arrested on Danuary 1&, 2012, for allegedly abusing ,11
services, a gross misdemeanor)
,) #n "ebruary 21) 2012) 8espondent filed a document entitled, notice of
9ppearance Entry of (lea of 3ot guilty , 6aiver of 9rraignment, =otion to Dismiss, etc) in
one of his pending criminal matters, Case 3o) 8C842012 0.5.&0, City of 8eno v) -achary
Coughlin) <he document clearly shows 8espondentBs unprofessional, disru%tive conduct, and
lac7 of respect for the court and opposing counsel)
(3#<E: 381 1/%)&,/ made 6C(D DoganBs non appearance at the 21!12
1.%!!2
arraignment of Coughlin on a gross misdemeanor a basis for an ineffective assistance of
counsel mistrial, not an 1C8 105(2*(c* Complaint against Coughlin and the #2C GingBs curt
letter to Coughlin dismissing his grievance against Dogan: 381 1/%)&,/ per Dogan in .5.&0
3evada
2ean v) 1tate, %1 3ev) 25, &,% ()2d 251 (1,.5* ] 5
Aoff, 9pplication of, %0 3ev) &.0, &,& ()2d .1, (1,.!* ] &, 10PbQ((1!**
8ainsberger v) 1tate, %1 3ev) ,2, &,, ()2d 12, (1,.5* ] &, /PaQ, %PbQ
;ictoria v) Noung, %0 3ev) 2/,, &,2 ()2d 50, (1,.!* ] &, 10PbQ((1!**C 3ote: S &1:10)
9ttachment of right to counsel](reliminary hearingsC 9rraignments
<he 1upreme Court in Aamilton v) 1tate of 9la), &.% @)1) 52, %2 1) Ct) 15/, / $) Ed) 2d 11!
(1,.1*, has held that arraignment is a Ocritical stageO of the proceedings in those states in which
arraignment affords the accused an opportunity to plead certain defenses before trial or lose
those defenses) +n these states where arraignment is a critical stage preceding trial, the
defendant has a 1i'th 9mendment right to the presence ofF counsel)))9ccusedBs right to
assistance of counsel at or prior to arraignment, 5 9)$)8)&D 12., ) 3ote: 1ee 31C< case
.2&&/ 6C(D Dogan 381 1/%)&,/ ;iolations, DoganBs failure to appear at gross
misdemeanor 21!12 arraignment in 8C8201240.5.&0 and 8eno Dustice Ct Dudicial 1ecretary
$ori <ownsendBs subseHuent vindictive email to 1tate 2ar of 3evada of CoughlinBs 22112
=otion to Dismiss filed therein pointing out 6C(D DoganBs failure to appear in violation of
381 1/%)&,/,(lease in 123 complaint in .2&&/) 1ee GingBs %2&12 Complaint at 8#9 2 and
1/0. (lines 214& : O%) 8espondent was again arrested on Danuary 1&, 2012, for allegedly
abusing ,11 emergency services, a gross misdemeanor) ,) #n "ebruary 21, 2012, 8espondent
filed a document entitled) 3otice of apearance, Entry of (lea of 3ot ?uiltv, 6aiver of 8ight to
9rraignment: =otion to DismissO in one of his pending criminal matters, Case 3o) 8C842012
0.5.&0, City of 8eno v) -achary Coughlin) <he document clearly shows 8espondentBs
unprofessional, disruptive conduct, and lac7 of respect for the court and opposing counsel)O*)
10) 8espondent was arrested on 3ovember 1&, 2011 by 8eno (olice Department and
charged with tres%assing, a misdemeanor, for which he was later convicted)
11) <he circumstances leading to the above4mentioned arrest are as follows: at an
hearing Dustice of the (eace (eter 1ferra::a ordered that 8espondent vacate the home he was
renting effective 3ovember 1, 2011) 9fter the loc7s were changed and the notice was posted
on the front door the owner, Dr) =erliss, discovered that someone had bro7en into the home
and was barricaded in the basement) <he 8eno (olice tried to coa' whoever was in the
basement to open the door) Dr) =erliss was forced to 7ic7 open the door where the 8eno (olice
found 8espondent) 8espondent had bro7en into the home and living in the basement)
8espondent was arrested for criminal tres%ass and was subseHuently convicted of that charge)
12) 8espondent, representing himself as co4counsel, filed a &.4page motion to
dismiss on =arch 5, 2012) <he motion was denied by Dudge 6illiam ?ardner and was
determined to be without merit) <he motion, on its face, demonstrates that 8espondent lac7s
competence to practice law)
1&) #nce 8espondent was evicted, an order was obtained to remove his belongings
from the home) 8espondent interfered with the contractor who was hired to remove
8espondentBs personal belongings) <he police were called and after tal7ing with 8espondent
1.,!!2
they recommended that he find something else to do) 8espondent refused to their advice and
was subseHuently arrested by the 8eno police)
1!) +n the case of City of 8eno vs) -achary 2ar7er Coughlin, Case 3o) 11 <8 2.%00
21, a trial was held on a traffic citation issued to 8espondent) <he matter was called at
appro'imately &:00 p)m) and concluded without a verdict at about !:&0 p)m) after the court held
8espondent in criminal contem%t of court for his behavior and activities committed in the
direct presence of the court during trial)
(3ote: 1EE .2&&/ .0%&% an untold instances of such abuse of contempt power by
8DC Dudges 1ferra::a, Clifton, (earson, and 8=C Dudges Aoward, 6) ?ardner, and 3ash
Aolmes please copy 123 on this 8ather, the commission correctly concluded that erroneous
contempt rulings, which also demonstrate a long4standing abuse of contempt power, may be
properly considered as willful misconduct) 1ee, e)g), \\1&5 Cannon v) Commission on Dudicial
Uualifications, 1! Cal)&d ./%, 122 Cal)8ptr) //%, 5&/ ()2d %,% (1,/5*C ?oldman v) 3evada
ComBn on Dudicial Discipline Citation: 10% 3ev) 251) #te: 8ather, the commission correctly
concluded that erroneous contempt rulings, which also demonstrate a long4standing abuse of
contempt power, may be properly considered as willful misconduct) 1ee, e)?), \\1&5 Cannon
v) Commission on Dudicial Uualifications, 1! Cal)&D ./%, 122 Cal)8ptr) //%, 5&/ ()2D %,%
(1,/5*C =atter of Del 8io, !00 =ich) ..5, 25. 3)6)2D /2/ (1,//*, appeal dismissed, !&! @)1)
102,, ,% 1)Ct) /5,, 5! $)Ed)2D /// (1,/%*C =atter of Nengo, /2 3)D) !25, &/1 9)2D !1
(1,//*) 1ee also, Aague, &15 3)6))) 1ee 381 1,,)&!0)*
15) +n a =arch 12, 2012 #rder, =unicipal Court Dudge Dorothy 3ash Aomes found
by Oclear and convincing evidenceO that =r) Coughlin committed numerous acts of attorney
misconduct) 1ee E'hibit &) Dudge Aolmes e'plained in her #rder that after 8espondent served
his five4day contem%t of court sanction imposed by the court on "ebruary 2/, 2012,
8espondent fa'4filed to the court a 22!4page document) Dudge Aolmes found that the document
contained rambling references to his personal life and was incoherent)
1.) +n her #rder, Dudge Aomes found by clear and convincing evidence that
8espondent violated 8ule of (rofessional conduct (O8(CO* 1)1 (Competence*, 8(C 1)&
(Diligence*, 8(C &)1 (=eritorious Claims and Contentions*, 8(C &)2 (E'pediting $itigation*,
8(C &)&(a* (Candor toward the <ribunal*, 8(C &9(e* ("airness to #pposing (arty and
Counsel*) 8(C %)! (c* (Engaging in Dishonesty) "raud) Deceit or =isrepresentation* and 8(C
%)!(d* Engage in conduct that is (rejudicial to the 9dministration of Dustice*)
1/) 8espondent filed 9ffidavits of (overty in 1upport of his =otion to (roceed
+nforma (auperis, wherein he fails to disclose that he is a licensed attorney and instead under
Employment and 1elf4Employment he identifies himself as a ODac7 of 9ll <radesO)
1%) Despite a claim of poverty in the above mentioned affidavits, 8espondent told
the Court that his incarceration for contem%t would adversely affect his clients)
/3. #n =arch 22, 2012, 8espondent appeared at the 8eno =unicipal Court wearing
(smiley face* flannel pajamas) 8espondent became argumentative and =arshals were called to
were called to as7 him to leave)
0>. #n 9pril 10, 200,, District Dudge $inda ?ardner of the 1econd Dudicial District
Court e'ecuted an O#rder 9fter <rial,O in case 3o) D;0%4011.%) +n that case, 8espondent
represented the DefendantCounter Claimant) +n her #rder Dudge ?ardner e'plained
1/0!!2
8espondentBs inappropriate behavior in part as follows: E<he most troubling aspect of this case
was =r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic and disrespectful presentation at trialC =r) CoughlinBs
inability to understand a balance sheetC his failure to conduct discovery and his lac7 of
7nowledge with regard to the rules of evidence and trial procedure) 9ll of this was
compounded with a continuously antagonistic presentation of the case that resulted in a shift
from a fairly sim%le divorce case to a contentious divorce trial lasting an e'cessive amount of
time)F
2/) +n light of the forgoing 8espondent violated 8(C 1)1 (Competence*C 8(C 1)2
(Diligence*C 8(C &) 1 (=eritorious Claims and Contentions*: 8(C &)& (Candor to the
<ribunal*: 8(C &)! ("airness to #pposing (arty and Counsel*C 8(C &)1 (+mpartiality and
Decorum of the <ribunal*C 8(C !) 1 (<ruthfulness in 1tatements to #thers*: 8(C !)! (8espect
for the 8ights of <hird (ersons*C 8(C 19 (8elations with #pposing Counsel*C 8(C %)1
(Disciplinary =atters*C 8(C %)2 (Dudicial and $egal #fficials*C and 8(C %)! (=isconduct*)
6AE8E"#8E, Complainant prays as follows:
1) <hat a hearing be held pursuant to 3evada 1upreme Court 8ule 105:
2) <hat 8espondent be assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceeding pursuant to
1upreme Court 8ule 120(1*C and
&)<hat pursuant to 1upreme Court 8ule 102, such disciplinary action be ta7en by
3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard against 8espondent as may be deemed appropriate the
circumstances)O
?-D9H )= 9H"?1?)' * C2. C12 Com%laint '1- v, Coughlin8 -2 12 4 +2+$ 8 -2 12 4 +$.$ 8
-2 12 4 +$.5:
1 , 9@hibit 1 : 411&011 8=C Dudge Aoward Dudgment of Conviction and Court #rder in
221/. candy barC 4&1512 Dudge Elliott #rder 9ffirming 8uling of the 8=C in appeal C8114
20.!
2 , 9@hibit 2 7 11&011 8=C Dudge Aoward #rder for 1ummary (unishment of contem%t
Committed in ;iew and (resence of the Court in 11 C8 221/.
. , 9@hibit . 7 &1212 8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes #rder of &1212 with Oclear and convincingO
language)
1/1!!2
1 Dear Court 8ecorder for (residing Dudge -ive and (residing Dudge 2eesley, Aello, + am
writing to respectfully reHuest that the audio of the hearings identified herein be designated
for availability electronically on pacer)?ov pursuant to the following:
http:www)(acer)?ovannouncementsgeneralaudiobpilot)Atml which provides that:
EDigital audio recordings are now available to the public via internet access to the (9CE8
system) +n =arch 2010, the Dudicial Conference approved the plan to ma7e digital audio
recordings available on (9CE8 after a two4year pilot project showed significant public
interest in accessing these files)))) <he presiding judge determines if the audio recording will
be posted on (9CE8) Digital audio recording is used in most ban7ruptcy and many district
courts (where magistrate judges account for most of the usage*) <he following courts
provide access to audio files through the (9CE8 system: ))) <he @)1) 2an7ruptcy Courts in
the ))) District of 3evada))))F (Digital audio recording has been an authori:ed method of
ma7ing an official record of court proceedings since 1,,,, when it was approved by the
policy4ma7ing Dudicial Conference of the @nited 1tates) * "or case number 3;241040510!
(Cadle Co) ;) Geller* + am reHuesting that all those hearings be designated for availability
for audio download hearings on the following days (in order of importance*: 12/11,
&1512 (please ma7e sure that such includes the portion starting at appro'imately 2:&0 pm
with opposing counsel #B8our7e, as well as CoughlinBs appearance before Dudge 2eesley
roughly forty five minutes later (at the conclusion of the stac7ed 2:&0 p)=) Doc7et that day*,
21!12, 52512, .512, /1/12, %2%12, 12!12, and any other hearings at any time in the
adversary proceeding in 3;41040510! and the =ain 27 in 3;410452.&,) (lease also
designate any other hearings in that matter as well as in the =ain 2G case (3;2410452.&,*,
whether Coughlin appeared in such hearings or not) <hen, for case numbers 3;24114050/%
(and the appeal thereof in 29( 3o) 1241&&04DuGiD*, 3;2 114050//, and 27) 3o) 3;4114
51%1%, + am reHuesting that the hearing from !1112 and 5!12 be designated for
availability for audio download on (acer)?ov as well) (lease also designate any other
hearings in that matter as well as in the =ain 2G case (27) 3o) 3;411451%1%* and in the
appeal of 9dv) 3o) 3;4114050/% (29( 3o) 1241&&04DuGiD*, whether Coughlin appeared in
such hearings or not*) +f either presiding judge chooses not to so designate the audio of any
of the hearings for being digitally available to Coughlin at the greatly reduced cost (M2)!0
(er hearing* of such through www)(acer)?ov , please find attached a 8eHuest for a "ee
6aiver by Coughlin see7ing to obtain a CDdisc of the audio of such hearings at no charge
in light of CoughlinBs indigency, especially considering the fact that Coughlin was
burglari:ed by the 6ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice an hour before the 2:&0 p)=), Aearing of
&1512 before Dudge 2eesley in 3;241040510!) +nterestingly, that same OreceiptO concept
became e'ceedingly relevant incident to the 6ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice numerous
burglaries of CoughlinBs former home law offices and rentals (see 8ev20114001/0%,
8ev20124000&/!, 8ev20124 0010!%, 8C8201240./,%0, 8=C 12 C8 12!20, etc* given the
Owithin 2! hours of receipt of the orderO language in 381 !0)25&(5*(9* with respect to how
summary eviction loc7outs are to be carried out in the conte't of a summary removal order
within a summary eviction case) (erhaps not so surprisingly, 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardnerBs
brother 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner, did not find CoughlinBs arguments compelling in the
criminal trespass case against Coughlin (see .1,01 1C8 111(!* (etition in 3) 1) Ct* incident
1/2!!2
to opposing counsel in C;1140&.2% burglari:ing Coughlin former home law office with the
6C1# in tow on 11111, and again, but with the 8(D along for the fun, on 111&11 (not to
mention the similar burglaries by the 6C1#, li7e that of &1512 (just an hour before the
very 2:&0 p)=), Aearing before 3;2 Dudge 2eesley in 3;241040510!, Cadle Co) ;) Geller
that Dudge 2eesley testified with regard to during the 111!12 formal disciplinary matter
from which the proposal to permanently disbar Coughlin is now on appeal in .2&&/ before
the 3evada 1upreme Court*, and that of .2%12 incident to the fraudulently obtained and
patently invalid summary eviction order in 8DC 8ev201240010!%, at which time the 6C1#
further violated 1oldal v) Coo7 County, 50. @1 5. (1,,2*, in wrongfully arresting Coughlin
in 8C82012]0./,%0* 8ussell v) Galian, !1! 9)2D !.2) +orio v City of 3ew Nor7, ,.
=isc)2D ,55) =ayes v) @;+) 1pea7ing of 3CDC Canon 2, 8ule 2)15 (1ee the former Canon
&(D*(2* and Dudge 2eesleyBs involvement, again, in =irch, and his appearing as a character
witness for 1tephen 8) Aarris, EsH) +n AarrisB disciplinary matter* and reporting attorney or
judicial misconduct (and CoughlinBs filing in 3;241040510! (including all the attachments
thereto* certainly presents an issue as to whether Dudge 2eesley had a duty to refer his 1,//
=c?eorge 1chool of $aw classmate 8eno =unicipal Court Dudge Dorothy 3ash Aolmes for
investigation of the apparent judicial and attorney misconduct she committed therein with
respect to the confiscation of then practicing attorney CoughlinBs smart phone, micro sd card,
and flip style cellular phone incident to her summarily incarcerating Coughlin on 22/12 for
five days within a Esimple traffic citationF case wherein CoughlinBs plea for a stay of such
incarceration to arrange for the avoidance of prejudice to his clientBs affairs was summarily
refused (other than Dudge Aolmes ruling that Coughlin could, in the alternative, pay a M500
fine, which Coughlin attempted to do at that time, but upon either CoughlinBs ban7 account
not having sufficient funds or the point of sale limit on CoughlinBs card allegedly resulting in
a rejection of CoughlinBs attempted payment, AolmeBs 8=C =arshals thuggishly dragged
Coughlin away from the 8=C filing office counter where he was see7ing to ma7e such
payment, placed Coughlin in handcuffs, and proceeded to conduct an overly invasive search
incident to arrest, during which 8=C =arshal Aarley removed a micro sd data card from
CoughlinBs poc7et and, without any 8=C =arshal reading Coughlin his =iranda rights,
immediately alleged that such micro sd data card could be utili:ed in the smart phone
=arshal Aarley also removed from CoughlinBs poc7et, and turned to two other 8=C
=arshal therewith and e'laimed E?o tell Dudge 3ash Aolmes Coughlin lied^ <ell her he
was recording^F #f course, 8=C Dudge AolmesB testimony at the 111!12 formal
disciplinary hearing at issue in .2&&/ reveals a rather mur7y and illegitimate translation of
such: and impermissible e'tra4judicial communications))) Coughlin is hereby again
reHuesting a copy of the letter Dudge 2eesley testified to having sent the 1tate 2ar of 3evada
in reference to -achary 2ar7er Coughlin, EsH) (9ny letters at any time, including during
Dudge 2eesleyBs 200! (residency of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada*, which, obviously, he is
absolutely entitled to under 1C8 121(11* (E11) 6hat becomes public), 9ll records of the
lawyer discipline agency shall become public e'cept bar counselRs w #nce a matter has
become public pursuant to this rule or7 product and the panelRs deliberations))))F*) 111!12
"#8=9$ D+1C+($+398N AE98+3? (.2&&/* 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 10:% to 12:5* ED+8EC<
E>9=+39<+#3 2N =8) G+3?: U Dudge 2eesley, can you e'plain to the panel your
1/&!!2
7nowledge in this relevant time frame 201142012 regarding =r) Coughlin and his conduct in
your courtJ 9 =r) Coughlin appeared in my court a couple of times, at least two or three
times) <he first time + recall him coming to my court he came in, he was wearing, + thin7, a
<4shirt and a tie, and no jac7et) 9nd he indicated that he had been evicted from his residence
or his office, indicating it was not because of not paying the rent, and that that was why he
wasnBt what + would consider appropriately dressed) + apologi:e) + donBt have my letter in
front of me) 2ut my recollection is that he had filed a pleading on behalf of his client in
regard to some aspect of a ban7ruptcy case, and that the pleading was lengthy, didnBt ma7e
any sense, and just sort of rambled through a great deal of irrelevant stuff) + had him a couple
other times in my court and had the same e'perience, that 44 he was dressed appropriately
the other times + had him there, and he was very polite and appeared to be a very intelligent
man) 2ut his pleadings didnBt ma7e any sense) Ais arguments didnBt ma7e any sense) 9nd +
became concerned that he was suffering from alcohol or drug abuse or had some sort of
mental issues which were preventing him from being able to represent his client) + tal7ed to
44 + made some inHuiries of the court and 1tate 2ar if there was anything 44 the federal court
first, if there was anything that + had authority to do to try and get =r) Coughlin some help
and learned that + could not) + then tal7ed to, + thin7 + tal7ed to Coe 1wobe, who is $awyers
Concerned for $awyers 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: #bjection) 8elevancy) <his wasnBt noticed
either or 44 no 44 or mentioned in the D#1E9$ (3#<E: Do61oE*, which you didnBt serve
appropriately, and youBre violating 1C8 102 44 105(2*(c*) =8) ECAE;E88+9: #verruled)
<AE 6+<3E11: + tal7ed to =r) 1wobe who indicated that the 1tate 2ar did have some
services available, and that he had been in contact with =r) Coughlin) <hatBs really all he
told me) 9nd it became apparent to me that over a period of a couple months at least and +
also learned of some other odd behavior in some of the courts with judges that + 7new)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 1&:! to 1&:20* E<AE 6+<3E11: +Bm not Huite sure where + was
in my testimony, but based on the discussions + had, and the information + got from
other people, it became apparent to me that there wasnBt a program that was going to 44 =8)
C#@?A$+3: #bjection) "oundation) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) GingJ =8) G+3?: <he
testimony is clear) AeBs e'plaining the actions he too7 relative to =r) CoughlinBs conduct,
which is the purpose) =8) ECAE;E88+9: #verruled) =8) C#@?A$+3: Ae was
specifying 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin) =8) C#@?A$+3: 44 no foundation for
what he was asserting) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, +Bve overruled your objection)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age ,:% to ,:1&* =8) G+3?: <han7 you, =r) Chairman) Dudge
2eesley, the panel consists of Dohn Echeverria 44 +Bm not pronouncing the name 44 but thereBs
five panel members) D@D?E 2EE1$EN: Dohn Echeverria) Nou have not spent enough time
in 3evada)F AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 1&:2& to 1!:/* 2N =8) G+3?: U + apologi:e, your
Aonor, for the interruption) 2ut you were just about to testify as to what action you too7
with respect to the information you learned) 9 6hat + did was + wrote a letter to the 1tate
2ar e'plaining what had occurred with =r) Coughlin, indicating, + believe, that + thought
that in his current state he was not able to represent his clients adeHuately, and that the 1tate
2ar should loo7 into it) + thin7 that was the e'tent of what + did in summary)F AE98+3? 4
;ol) +, ((age 15:10 to 15:15* 2N =8) G+3?: U Aave you formed an opinion, your Aonor,
as to whether or not =r) Coughlin is competent to practice lawJ 9 Nes) U 9nd what is
1/!!!2
that opinionJ 9 + donBt believe he is, unfortunately)F AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 20:1& to
20:21* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Dudge 2eesley, what in particular did you notice about my
wor7 product 44 when did you first contact =r) Ging about meJ 9 6hen did + first contact
whoJ U =r) Ging) 2ar counsel for the 1tate 2ar) 9 + donBt 7now that + ever contacted =r)
Ging) + sent a letter to the 1tate 2ar) + thin7 it was probably addressed to =r) Clar7, but +Bm
not positive)F AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 20:1& to 22:10* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Dudge
2eesley, what in particular did you notice about my wor7 product 44 when did you first
contact =r) Ging about meJ 9 6hen did + first contact whoJ U =r) Ging) 2ar counsel for
the 1tate 2ar) 9 + donBt 7now that + ever contacted =r) Ging) + sent a letter to the 1tate 2ar)
+ thin7 it was probably addressed to =r) Clar7, but +Bm not positive) U 1o +Bm sorry for that,
your Aonor) + do recall you saying you sent a letter now) Did you ever spea7 with 2ar
counsel (atric7 Ging with regard to meJ 9 <he only time + recall spea7ing to him was a
few wee7s ago or a few days 44 probably a few wee7s ago when he as7ed me if + would be
able to testify at this hearing) U 9re you aware of any e'tent to which =r) Ging has
violated 1C8 121Bs confidentiality dictates by contacting my clients prior to any 1C8 111
petitionJ 9 Aold on one second) ?o ahead) +Bm sorry) 9m + aware that =r) Ging violated a
particular statuteJ +n what mannerJ U 6hether or not he violated oneJ 9 3o, +Bm not, one
way or the other) U Do you have 7nowledge of there being a motive for =r) Ging to all of a
sudden see7 to bring you into this forum in that he has been subject to an accusation setting
forth a basis for this proceeding that relies primarily upon some contention that you or 44 +
believe you yourself, your Aonor, because youBre the only ban7ruptcy judge + appeared
before 44 but =r) Ging telling his boss and, apparently, at least one of my clients prior to my
being suspended or even the petition being filed, that your court had issued an order
preventing me from practicing thereJ 9 + have no idea what =r) Ging may or may not have
said to anybody) 2ut + do not recall issuing an order that said you couldnBt practice there) U
1o can + ta7e that to mean you havenBt issued any such orderJ 9 + donBt thin7 so) + sign
probably 150 orders every day) 1o + donBt remember all of them) + thin7 certainly + would
have remembered a case not allowing you to practice there) 2ut if + did, it would have been
because + was concerned that you werenBt able to represent your clients adeHuately, and they
were being hurt) 2ut + donBt 7now that + did that)F AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &0:1 to &2:1,*
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6e too7 that testimony under consideration of your objection) $etBs
hear your objection, =r) Coughlin) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) 6ell, + believe Dudge
2eesley was identified in a supplement to =r) GingBs, +Bll call it a Dow1oE (3#<E: referring
to 1C8 105(2*(c*Bs Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence, which must be
served on 8espondentBs in the same manner as service of the Complaint per 1C8 10,, Eat
least &0 daysBF prior to the formal disciplinary hearing*, and + hope the panel will 7now what
+ mean, designation of witnessBs summary of evidence) +Bve shortened it in my filings)
6hich, incidently, 1C8 105(2*(c* is one of the few procedural rules in the supreme court
rules designed to afford attorneys or suspended attorneys, such as myself, some due process)
<hat rule reHuires that the Dow1oE be served in the same manner in which the complaint is
served upon the respondent by the panel with at least &0 days notice, or at least &0 days prior
to the hearing) <his panel wasnBt even empaneled until, + believe the order was #ctober &0th)
=r) Ging purports to have sent the Dow1oE himself rather than in some separation in accord
1/5!!2
with the rule, but he sent it himself) #n #ctober 12th he filed material suggesting that he
sent a certified mail #ctober 12th, and in that way itBs completely violative of the rules)
Completely) 9nd 1teve Aarris, who the judge testified to, who was 44 he admitted to
misappropriating %00G) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Aarris is not the subject matter of this
hearing) Nou are) =8) C#@?A$+3: Ae got David ?rundy) 9nd he got his Dow1oE sent
by the panel) 9nd he got his full &0 days) 9nd + sent that forward 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9:
+Bm not concerned with =r) Aarris) Did you get notice that Dudge 2eesley would be
testifyingJ =8) C#@?A$+3: =aybe 44 + would li7e to chec7 my records, but li7e a couple
days before this hearing) 9 couple days) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6as that a supplemental
designationJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Neah) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +s that permittedJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: + thin7 it is permitted, perhaps if something comes up out of the blue thatBs
really bearing, but =r) GingBs 7nown about this for Huite some time) 9nd, in fact, +Bve filed a
complaint with, + believe + included this in my complaint with 1tate 2ar president $ardon
(3#<E: 123 (resident "rancis "laherty* 44 + hope +Bm saying that correctly 44 under 1C8, +
want to say 10!(&* in that + believe upon information and belief that =r) Ging contacted one
of my clients or maybe one of my clients contacted him in early =ay 44 =8)
ECAE;E88+9: +Bm focusing on your objection to the testimony of Dudge 2eesley) Do you
claim any prejudice because of thatJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat is
that prejudiceJ =8) C#@?A$+3: $ac7 of notice) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Aow does the lac7
of notice lead to prejudiceJ Nou seem to be very familiar with cases that appeared 44 in
which you appeared in front of Dudge 2eesley) =8) C#@?A$+3: + wasnBt) + wasnBt as sharp
on that Cadle stuff, because + didnBt thin7 + needed to be this morning, and + could have been
a lot sharper on that) + really could have) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm going to overrule the
objection) + thin7 the notice was sent) =r) Coughlin was aware that Dudge 2eesley would be
testifying, and unless the panel has any objection to Dudge 2eesley, would accept that
testimony)F (3#<E: 1C8 105(2*(c* ma7es clear that it was impermissible for the 123 to
call Dudge 2eesley as a witness (especially where such was not for impeachment purposes
where the 123 failed to timely disclose and or timely supplement its intention to call Dudge
2eesley, especially where the 123 failed to articulate any good cause for having failed to do
so, and where, actually Ging arguably committed professional misconduct in not more
clearly identifying the lateness of such disclosures*, and given Dudge 2eesley is a past
(resident of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada (200!*, it was arguably judicial misconduct for Dudge
2eesley to, especially if such appearance was voluntary, participate in this formal
disciplinary hearing as a witness, much less a purported Ee'pertF witness, where such rule
provides: E (c* <ime to conduct hearingC notice of hearingC discovery of evidence against
attorney) <he hearing panel shall ))) ?ive the attorney at least &0 daysR written notice of its
time and place) <he notice shall be served in the same manner as the complaint, and shall
inform the attorney that he or she is entitled to be represented by counsel, to cross4e'amine
witnesses, and to present evidence) <he notice shall be accompanied by a summary prepared
by bar counsel of the evidence against the attorney, and the names of the witnesses bar
counsel intends to call for other than impeachment, together with a brief statement of the
facts to which each will testify, all of which may be inspected up to & days prior to the
hearing) 6itnesses or evidence, other than for impeachment, which became 7nown to bar
1/.!!2
counsel thereafter, and which bar counsel intends to use at the hearing, shall be promptly
disclosed to the attorney)F* AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 21:1& to 21:2&* U Do you have
7nowledge of there being a motive for =r) Ging to all of a sudden see7 to bring you into this
forum in that he has been subject to an accusation ))))(#f* =r) Ging telling ))) 9t least one of
my clients prior to my being suspended or even the petition being filed, that your court had
issued an order preventing me from practicing thereJF AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 2!:&412*
2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Nour Aonor, + would li7e to narrow it down) 6hen did you first
contact the 1tate 2ar about meJ 9 + donBt recall) + actually contacted Coe 1wobe who wor7s
for the 1tate
2ar, but is independent of them in most ways) U 6hen did you first contact =r) 1wobeJ 9 +
thin7 it was perhaps a month or si' wee7s after my first recollection of you appearing, my
first recollection of you appearing in front of me after you had been evicted)))F (8eferring to
the &1512 2:&0 p)=), Aearing in 3;241040510!*) 1C8 8ule 10.) (rivilege and limitation)
1) (rivilege) 9ll participants in the discipline process, including grievants, bar counsel staff,
members of disciplinary panels, diversion and mentoring participants, and witnesses, shall
be absolutely immune from civil liability) 3o action may be predicated upon the filing of a
disciplinary complaint or grievance or any action ta7en in connection with such a filing by
any of the participants) E'cept that any disclosures made pursuant to 8ule 121(1.* shall not
be immune under this rule) +n addition to the 123Bs disclosures to CoughlinBs then client
(eter Eastman in early =ay 2012 (Eastman informed Coughlin that he was told Coughlin
had been Ebanned from filing anything in the ban7ruptcy courtF*, also perhaps relevant to
the 1C8 121 analysis are the substances and circumstances of the following communications
Dudge 2eesley referred to in his testimony: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 12:2 to 12:5* E9nd it
became apparent to me that over a period of a couple months at least and + also learned of
some other odd behavior in some of the courts with judges that + 7new)F AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +,
((age 1&:5 to 1&:%* based on the discussions + had, and the information + got from other
people, it became apparent to me that there wasnBt a program that was going to 44F 1C8 8ule
121) Confidentiality) 1) ?enerally) 9ll proceedings involving allegations of misconduct by
an attorney shall be 7ept confidential until the filing of a formal complaint) 9ll participants
in a proceeding, including anyone connected with it, shall conduct themselves so as to
maintain the confidentiality of the proceeding until a formal complaint is filed))) 11) 6hat
becomes public) #nce a matter has become public pursuant to this rule, all records of the
lawyer discipline agency shall become public e'cept bar counselRs wor7 product and the
panelRs deliberations)))) 1!) E'pungement) #n December &1 of each year, the state bar shall
e'punge all records or other evidence of grievances that have been terminated by dismissal
for more than three years, e'cept that upon application by the state bar, notice to the attorney
and a showing of good cause, the supreme court may permit the state bar to retain such
records for an additional period of time, not to e'ceed three years) 9fter a file has been
e'punged, any response to an inHuiry regarding a reference to the matter shall state that there
is no record of such matter) 15) 1tatements by the 1tate 2ar of 3evada) 3otwithstanding
8ule 121(1*, the state bar may disseminate the procedural status and the general nature of a
grievance or complaint upon reHuest) 1.) E'clusions) <hese rules shall not prohibit any
complainant, the accused attorney, or any witnesses from discussing publicly the e'istence
1//!!2
of the proceedings under these rules or the underlying facts related thereto) Aowever,
disclosures made under this subsection, in whatever form or by whatever means, outside the
disciplinary process shall not be covered by the civil immunity afforded in 8ule 10.(1*)F
8ule 10.)5) $awyers Concerned for $awyers program: privilege and limitation))) 2)
(rivilege) +ndividuals who ma7e a good faith report to the $awyers Concerned for $awyers
program, the board of governors and its members, bar counsel, and staff, and the
coordinator, agents, or employees of the $awyers Concerned for $awyers program, shall be
absolutely immune from civil liability for any activities related to the $awyers Concerned
for $awyers program, including, but not limited to, ma7ing referrals to a counselor,
therapist, medical, psychological or behavior health care provider) 3o action may be
predicated upon the filing of a good faith report with the $awyers Concerned for $awyers
program or any action ta7en in connection with such a filing by the coordinator, agents, or e
2 Determination of indigency of accused entitling him to transcript or similar record for
purposes of appeal, .. 9)$)8)&d ,5! C 8ight of indigent defendant in criminal case to aid of
state as regards new trial or appeal, 55 9)$)8)2d 10/2C Determination of indigency of
accused entitling him to appointment of counsel, 51 9)$)8)&d 110% C
& (;-o 'ubGect<
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:!! (=
<o: laurapLnvbar)org (laurapLnvbar)org*C patric77Lnvbar)org (patric77Lnvbar)org*
Dear 2ar Counsel Ging and Cler7 of Court+nvestigator (eters and Chairman Echeverria,
<here is a big problem with respect to when the 1tate 2ar of 3evada actually sent the
8espondent, Coughlin the Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence (Do61oE*
(and Coughlin has yet to received a file stamped version of that Dow1oE) "urther, Coughlin
has never received any 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default (3o+<D* from the 123) 9s such, the
notice and other procedural safeguards attendant to the Aearing set for 111!12 are severely
deficient) <his is just the 1&th chime of the cloc7, and + have had as many Oget right with
DesusO (or any other number of nondenominational 1aviors* tal7s with 2ar Counsel Ging and
Cler7 (eters as anyone deserves) 9dd to that this new thing where first 2ar Counsel says, as
reHuired by 1C8 105(2*(c*Bs:
O<he notice shall be accompanied by a summary prepared by bar counsel of the evidence
against the attorney, and the names of the witnesses bar counsel intends to call for other than
impeachment, together with a brief statement of the facts to which each will testify, all of
which may be inspected up to & days prior to the hearing) O
1ee, it doesnBt say, in 1C8 105, 2ar Counsel can puff on about the 8espondentBs right to
inspect, then pull the carpet out from under 8espondentBs feet suddenly and claim to be
OcopyingO only certain things, and refusing to allow inspection of others (even where the 1C8
105 Complaint specifically invo7es such non copied materials*, and then cut short the time up
to which 8espondnet may inspect) $etBs say 2ar Counsel did copy and provide those materials
on #ctober &1st, 2012) #7ay, well 1C8 105 allows Coughlin to go to the 123 and inspect Oup
1/%!!2
to & days priorO)))so Coughlin may go to the 123 tomorrow, #ctober /th, 2012 and inspect,
noJ 9nd any refusal by the 123 is a violation of 1C8 105, rightJ (lease advise in writing)
(lease see 1upreme Court 8ule (1C8* 11,(2*, which holds that 2ar Counsel and the (anelBs
failure to follow these rules Omay result in contempt of the appropriate disciplinary board or
hearing panel having jurisdiction)))O (lease note there has already been a =otion for #rder to
1how Cause filed against 2ar Counsel and or the 2oard or (anel in .0%&% and .1!2.)
9dditionally, please be aware that 1C8 11,(&* holds: &)ee#ther rules of procedure)eeE'cept as
otherwise provided in these rules, the 3evada 8ules of Civil (rocedure and the 3evada 8ules
of 9ppellate (rocedure apply in disciplinary cases)
+n that regard, the decision on the motion to bifurcate dispalyed a clear lac7 of regard for
procedural safeguards in that it was issued prior to the e'piration of five judicials days from the
constructive service upon Coughlin, under 38C( .(e* of 2ar Counsels #ctober 2!th, 2012
alleged mailing) <he term OallegedO is used do to a recent visit to the 123 on #ctober &1st,
2012 at around !:!5 pm when + saw in the 123 outgoing mail bo' two certified letter to myself
that Cler7 of Court (eters admitted would not be pic7ed up that day by the regular postal
carrier to the 123, despite what they certificates of mailing therein might state) +t is
particularly troubling to me that the 3otice of Aearing did not have the Designation of
6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence included with it, and therefore, my right to have the
Do61oE &0 days prior to the hearing, and to receive it from the (anel, along with the 3otice
of Aearing, rather than have 2ar Counsel try to jam me up with less than the reHuired notice
(and jam the (anel up to for the matter, though there has been little indication so far that the
(anel cares or has much an intent to do anything more than let 2ar Counsel Ging lead them
down the same primrose path that Cler7 (eters can tell you about)))*) +t is a path that 8ichard
?) Aill, EsH) often ta7es people down too)))
+ would be very interest to 7now who was on the screening (anel)))which 2ar Counsel Ging
promised to tell me, though, li7e most all of (atBs promises, he has bro7en)))could it have been
David Aamilton, EsH)J 8ichard ?) AillBs best friend, David AamiltonJ 6as it 6CD9 =ary
GandarasJ <he one included in the correspondences about my smartphone and micro sd data
card being searched and or sei:ed illegally and or outside any lawful search incident to arrest
given the hand of an boo7ing it into CoughlinBs property on 22/12, only for the 8=C
=arshals to return on 22%12 (at the soonest* to ta7e it bac7 to Dudge 3ash AolmesJ 6hatBs
ne't, Dudges showing up in our bedrooms reading our diaries out of the blueJ
+t is my understanding that Chief 2ar Counsel David Clar7 gave me permission to issue
subpoenas and granted me indigent status as to witness fees)))if this is not within the power of
2ar Counsel or is otherwise against the #rders of the (anel or 2oard, please let me 7now very
soon) (lease 1ee 1C8 110 and in that regard, + am reHuesting a prehearing conference for the
purpose of gathering admissions from 2ar Counsel and narrowing the issues, and in that regard,
+ recently sent 2ar Counsel and at least (anel Chair Echeverria materials related to what + see
as a frivilous issue, the ghostwriting allegations vis a vis 2oard =ember 1helly #B3eillBs client,
1/,!!2
Dohn ?essin)

"urther, + believe there is a conflict here with 2ar Counsel Ging, for a variety of reasons that +
have voiced to (resident of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada "laherty, in that light:
8ulee120)eeCostsC bar counsel conflict or disHualification
2)ee+f, for any reason, bar counsel is disHualified or has a conflict of interest, the board of
governors shall appoint an attorney, ad hoc, to act in the place of bar counsel)
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
<el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
h has 5 files to share with you on 17yDrive) <o view them, clic7 the lin7s below)
11 . 12 0202 #bjection and 3otice)pdf
supplemental to CoughlinBs designation fo witnesses and summary and production of evidence
and notice of objection 020! C#88EC<ED C9(<+#3)pdf
020! notice of non service of purported notice of intent to ta7e default)pdf
020! 1@2(#E39 6+<A D+1C$9+=E8)pdf
020! subpoena all)pdf
Download all O
! (>?)?26)?=- "=>D -=)?C9 P>96'9 R9)6?- 6>> 9V?D9-C9
1ent: =on 111212 .:52 9=
<o: schornsbyLnvdetr)org (schornsbyLnvdetr)org*C patric7Lnvbar)org
(patric7Lnvbar)org*C davidcLnvbar)org (davidcLnvbar)org*C s7entLs7entlaw)com
(s7entLs7entlaw)com*C mi7eLtahoelawyer)com (mi7eLtahoelawyer)com*C cvellisLbhfs)com
(cvellisLbhfs)com*C jeLeloreno)com (jeLeloreno)com*C tsusichLnvdetr)org
(tsusichLnvdetr)org*C nevtelassnLsbcglobal)net (nevtelassnLsbcglobal)net*
8E$9<ED <# <AE =9+$+3? #", <AE CE8<+"+ED =9+$+3? 3@=2E8 #", 93D <AE
E3;E$#(E 93D D#C@=E3<1 8E<@83ED <# <AE 1<9<E 298 #" 3E;9D9,
E1(EC+9$N <AE #3$N C#(N #" <AE 3#<+CE #" +3<E3< <# <9GE DE"9@$<
<A9< C#@?A$+3 E;E8 8ECE+;ED @3<+$ ?E<<+3? 9 C#(N #" <AE "+$E #3 11 /
1%0!!2
12 "+39$$N DE$+;E8ED <# A+1 (AN1+C9$ 9DD8E11 9< 1!/1 E) ,<A, 1<) 1imply
put, the 123 only mailed a certified version of the 3otice of +ntent <o <a7e Default) <hat
10,12 mailing was not given to Coughlin by O<imO at the ;assar 1tation due to the postage
thereon being insufficient) Aowever, the copy of the file provided to Coughlin lac7s any
indication of what the certified mail trac7 and confirm number is for that 3otice of +ntent to
ta7e default)
Coughlin reHuests that the 123 notify the panel of its error, the fact that CoughlinBs 3otice of
Aearing and Dow1oE was not even scanned into the @1(1 certified mail until 101.12,
despite the certificate of mailing indicating 101212, and that that mailing, with purports to
have included the Dow1oE, was not even available to Coughlin until 102212, at the po bo'
Coughlin then utili:ed (&,.1
+ts more than inaccurate for =r) Ging to suggest + have dodged service) 1ee my email to 8eno
Carson below)))+ 7now + called and left at least once voice mail there, etc) (lus, despite still
being afraid of local law enforcement and others, and just getting used to my new place (and +
have already received threats*, against my better judgment and preferences, on #ctober 2&rd,
2012, + alerted the sbn of my new physical adderss)
<he Disciplinary "ile provided to Coughlin lac7s a return of or proof of service of the
Complaint and for the 3otice of +ntent to ta7e Default) (lease proof of service thereof of proof
of attempts at service, including the certified mailing numbers) ?ive the primacy of such
documents to the due process of these matters, it would seem holding the 111!12 Aearing
would be reversible error and imprudent)
O<he 8hinoO is Dohnno $a:etich, http:www)faceboo7)compublicDohnno4$a:etich4the48hino
we were on the 8eno Aigh 1chool bas7etball team together in 1,,!4V,5))) Dohnno ran the ball
for Gansas 1tate)
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
<el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
, 2! 12 10 & 12 10 2& 12 physical address service issues e' 020! rhino)pdf
O"rom: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com
<o: processLrenocarson)com
1ubject: chec7ing in
Date: 6ed, & #ct 2012 2&:0,:50 40/00
1%1!!2
Dear 8eno Carson,

Ai, + thin7 the 8hino called for me, new phone number below, same as my fa')
(lease let me 7now what + can do for you)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin
(# 2#> &,.1
8eno, 3; %,505
<el and "a' ,!, ../ /!02
-achCoughlinLhotmail)comO
5
(;-o 'ubGect<
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:!! (=
<o: laurapLnvbar)org (laurapLnvbar)org*C patric77Lnvbar)org (patric77Lnvbar)org*
Dear 2ar Counsel Ging and Cler7 of Court+nvestigator (eters and Chairman Echeverria,
8espondent, Coughlin the Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence (Do61oE*
(and Coughlin has yet to received a file stamped version of that Dow1oE) "urther, Coughlin
has never received any 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default (3o+<D* from the 123) 9s such, the
notice and other procedural safeguards attendant to the Aearing set for 111!12 are severely
deficient) <his is just the 1&th chime of the cloc7, and + have had as many Oget right with
DesusO (or any other number of nondenominational 1aviors* tal7s with 2ar Counsel Ging and
Cler7 (eters as anyone deserves) 9dd to that this new thing where first 2ar Counsel says, as
reHuired by 1C8 105(2*(c*Bs:
O<he notice shall be accompanied by a summary prepared by bar counsel of the evidence
against the attorney, and the names of the witnesses bar counsel intends to call for other than
impeachment, together with a brief statement of the facts to which each will testify, all of
which may be inspected up to & days prior to the hearing) O
1ee, it doesnBt say, in 1C8 105, 2ar Counsel can puff on about the 8espondentBs right to
inspect, then pull the carpet out from under 8espondentBs feet suddenly and claim to be
OcopyingO only certain things, and refusing to allow inspection of others (even where the 1C8
105 Complaint specifically invo7es such non copied materials*, and then cut short the time up
to which 8espondnet may inspect) $etBs say 2ar Counsel did copy and provide those materials
on #ctober &1st, 2012) #7ay, well 1C8 105 allows Coughlin to go to the 123 and inspect Oup
to & days priorO)))so Coughlin may go to the 123 tomorrow, #ctober /th, 2012 and inspect,
1%2!!2
noJ 9nd any refusal by the 123 is a violation of 1C8 105, rightJ (lease advise in writing)
(lease see 1upreme Court 8ule (1C8* 11,(2*, which holds that 2ar Counsel and the (anelBs
failure to follow these rules Omay result in contempt of the appropriate disciplinary board or
hearing panel having jurisdiction)))O (lease note there has already been a =otion for #rder to
1how Cause filed against 2ar Counsel and or the 2oard or (anel in .0%&% and .1!2.)
9dditionally, please be aware that 1C8 11,(&* holds: &)ee#ther rules of procedure)eeE'cept as
otherwise provided in these rules, the 3evada 8ules of Civil (rocedure and the 3evada 8ules
of 9ppellate (rocedure apply in disciplinary cases)
+n that regard, the decision on the motion to bifurcate dispalyed a clear lac7 of regard for
procedural safeguards in that it was issued prior to the e'piration of five judicials days from the
constructive service upon Coughlin, under 38C( .(e* of 2ar Counsels #ctober 2!th, 2012
alleged mailing) <he term OallegedO is used do to a recent visit to the 123 on #ctober &1st,
2012 at around !:!5 pm when + saw in the 123 outgoing mail bo' two certified letter to myself
that Cler7 of Court (eters admitted would not be pic7ed up that day by the regular postal
carrier to the 123, despite what they certificates of mailing therein might state) +t is
particularly troubling to me that the 3otice of Aearing did not have the Designation of
6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence included with it, and therefore, my right to have the
Do61oE &0 days prior to the hearing, and to receive it from the (anel, along with the 3otice
of Aearing, rather than have 2ar Counsel try to jam me up with less than the reHuired notice
(and jam the (anel up to for the matter, though there has been little indication so far that the
(anel cares or has much an intent to do anything more than let 2ar Counsel Ging lead them
down the same primrose path that Cler7 (eters can tell you about)))*) +t is a path that 8ichard
?) Aill, EsH) often ta7es people down too)))
+ would be very interest to 7now who was on the screening (anel)))which 2ar Counsel Ging
promised to tell me, though, li7e most all of (atBs promises, he has bro7en)))could it have been
David Aamilton, EsH)J 8ichard ?) AillBs best friend, David AamiltonJ 6as it 6CD9 =ary
GandarasJ <he one included in the correspondences about my smartphone and micro sd data
card being searched and or sei:ed illegally and or outside any lawful search incident to arrest
given the hand of an boo7ing it into CoughlinBs property on 22/12, only for the 8=C
=arshals to return on 22%12 (at the soonest* to ta7e it bac7 to Dudge 3ash AolmesJ 6hatBs
+t is my understanding that Chief 2ar Counsel David Clar7 gave me permission to issue
subpoenas and granted me indigent status as to witness fees)))if this is not within the power of
2ar Counsel or is otherwise against the #rders of the (anel or 2oard, please let me 7now very
soon) (lease 1ee 1C8 110 and in that regard, + am reHuesting a prehearing conference for the
purpose of gathering admissions from 2ar Counsel and narrowing the issues, and in that regard,
+ recently sent 2ar Counsel and at least (anel Chair Echeverria materials related to what + see
as a frivilous issue, the ghostwriting allegations vis a vis 2oard =ember 1helly #B3eillBs client,
Dohn ?essin)
1%&!!2

"urther, + believe there is a conflict here with 2ar Counsel Ging, for a variety of reasons that +
have voiced to (resident of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada "laherty, in that light:
2)ee+f, for any reason, bar counsel is disHualified or has a conflict of interest, the board of
governors shall appoint an attorney, ad hoc, to act in the place of bar counsel)
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
<el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
h has 5 files to share with you on 17yDrive) <o view them, clic7 the lin7s below)
supplemental to CoughlinBs designation fo witnesses and summary and production of evidence
and notice of objection 020! C#88EC<ED C9(<+#3)pdf
020! 1@2(#E39 6+<A D+1C$9+=E8)pdf
Download all O
. F'1- still has not %rovided Coughlin access to the materials he is entitled to to
%re%are for 11C1$C12 "earing
1ent: "ri 110212 10:&. (=
<o: s7entLs7entlaw)com (s7entLs7entlaw)com*C mi7eLtahoelawyer)com
(mi7eLtahoelawyer)com*C nevtelassnLsbcglobal)net (nevtelassnLsbcglobal)net*C
patric77Lnvbar)org (patric77Lnvbar)org*C fflahertyLdlpfd)com (fflahertyLdlpfd)com*C
davidcLnvbar)org (davidcLnvbar)org*C complaintsLnvbar)org (complaintsLnvbar)org*C
tsusichLnvdetr)org (tsusichLnvdetr)org*C jeLeloreno)com (jeLeloreno)com*C
cvellisLbhfs)com (cvellisLbhfs)com*
&& attachments
1%!!!2
all emails to loomis 2.!05 12!20 2.%00 00.,. 0.5.&0 0.&&!1)pdf (//,)% G2*
, 2 2% 12 Contempt #rder 3ash 2.%00 2.!05 0.5.&0 00.,. 0.&&!1 bf si:e reduced)pdf
(!!,), G2* , 11cr2.!05 puentes 0!1012b20120!1040,0&b01cd1.f%c&aa!,b0)mp& (5)1
=2* , 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com rpd police reports by coughlin 0.&&!1 duralde carter
lope: sifre 1/0% 2.!05 2.%00)htm (1!5)0 G2* , rpd carter police report 11 cr 2.!05
puentes loomis 1/0% merliss rmc gardner cr1240&/. mh12400&2 .50.&0 0.&&!1 rpd lope:
carter police report 11 1& 1242)pdf (.)& =2* , & & 12 attached to loomis email and filed in
rmc final motion to dismiss 11 cr 2.!05 2.%00 0.5.&0 0.&&!1)pdf (!!2). G2* ,
goodnight jgoodnightLwashoecounty)us 5 2 12 email regarding ha:lett loomis mhc
1/%)!05 0.&&!1 2.!05)htm (1.)& G2* , all emails from 7eith loomis
7eithloomisLearthlin7)net between 2 2/ 12 and % 10 12 2.!05 2.%00 00.,. 0.&&!1
0.5.&0)htm (&22)% G2* , & / 12 rmc 11 cr 2.!05 loomis gardner 1/%)!05 Coughlin <rial
1etting 2.%00 00.,. 0.&&!1 0.5.&0)pdf (&21)! G2* , % , 12 $oomis second =otion to
withdraw 12 cr 12!20 rmc see also 2.!05)pdf (22,)2 G2* , 1tate 2ar #f 3evada nvbar
casey ba7er 1/0% 2.!05)htm (!2)/ G2* , 5 . 0, email from wls ed elcano 2.!05 .0&02
garnder 01,55 10%,. .0&02 2.%00 .0&1/ 5!%!! dd)pdf (15)& G2* , 11 1. 2011 email
from reno city attorney roberts)htm (1.)& G2* , 6C1# 2ec7man, Debi Campbell,
Cummings, Aodge 1tatements on property se:ied from 8eno 9ttorney by 8eno =unic
Court Dudge 3ash Aolmes)pdf (150)& G2* , -achCoughlinLhotmail)com emails to
puentesLaol)com)pdf (222)1 G2* , pam roberts on her duty)pdf (%12)0 G2* , (atric7 Ging
sbn grievance letter of & 1. 12 and Dudge 3ash Aolmes greivance of & 1! 12 rmc 11 <8
2.%00)pdf (5/5)% G2* , proof of clandestine status conference on 2 2/ 12 dogan young
nash holmes schroeder rcr201240.5.&0 rjc rmc rpd wcso wcpd wcda 4 Copy)pdf (1.!!)!
G2* , proof of fa'ing notice of appeal to both rmc gardner and reno city attorney ha:lett4
stevens)pdf (1!)5 G2* , proof picture of personally delivering notice of appeal to city of
reno ha:lett . 2/ 12 in cr12412.2 11 cr 2.!05)pdf (!&), G2* , records reHuest and
subpoena to 81+C)pdf (/1)2 G2* , records reHuest to rsic police)pdf (.5)% G2* , rmc 12 cr
12!20 $oomis motion to withdraw as counsel % , 12 City of 8eno v Coughlin)pdf (,2.),
G2* , =otion for Continuance to 8eno City 9tty 8oberts 8=C)pdf (!!%), G2* , #8DE8
8E$E91+3? (8#(E8<N 11 <8 2.%00 & &0 12 nash rmc rjc rpd wcso 7ing clar7 mar7ed
as recd bac7 by rmc ! 1& 12 return to sender pthoa hy)pdf (2%/)1 G2* , letter to bar
counsel regarding rmc and reno city attorney complaints with loomis emails)pdf (&2,)&
G2* , e' 1 to motion to set aside dismissal cr12412.2)pdf (2)5 =2* , C812412.24&0,&..%
(#pposition to =tn )))*)pdf (,2)5 G2* , C812412.24&11/150 (#rd Dismiss 9ppeal
8emand*)pdf (/&), G2* , C812412.24&11,!1. (E'hibit 1*)pdf (2)/ =2* , . 2% 12 email to
ha:lett stevens showing what was served notice of appeal 11 cr 2.!05 cr12412.2)pdf (12)%
G2* , 12 1! 11 fa' to (uentes re 6C1# 9ffidavit of 1ervice 8E;20114001/0%)pdf (2!),
G2* , 5 . 0, email from elcano wls stating his decision is limited to hearing conduct
before judge linda gardner rmc 2.!05 2.%00 .0&02)htm (10)& G2*
Dear (anel =embers and 2ar Counsel,

+ called =r) Ging (he directed me to call (anel Chair Echeverria* today to see7
1%5!!2
clarification regarding an earlier approval he relayed to me from Chief 2ar Counsel David
Clar7, wherein =r) Clar7 advised me that +, even though + am a temporarily suspended
attorney, have been given permission by the #ffice of 2ar Counsel to issue subpoenas in
connection with this disciplinary matter (ng124020!, ng1240!&!, ng1240!&5)))odd, canBt
recall a single other OcaseO in all my legal research that had three case
numbers))))especially where an #rder Denying a =otion to 2ifurcate was issued, even
before the 5 days for me to file a 8eply to the #pposition (given 38C( is e'pressly
applicable to these matters under the 1C8Bs*)))9m + going to find out that my filings are
Otoo longO under a view that assumes this is Oone caseO even though there are Othree
grievance case numbersO in the caption, and where each OgrievanceO is fairly ramblingJ
9nd where the 123Bs Ging purports this hearing to involve that which the 3)
1) Ct) #rdered to occur in response to its temporary suspension #rder incident to the 1C8
111 (etition for the petty larceny of a Ocandy bar and some cough dropsO (ie, the Court
order that matter, .0%&%, referred to the 2oard for a Ohearing at which the sole issue to be
determinedO would be my punishment for that which was noticed and adjudicated in the
.0%&% 1C8 111 (etition)
+ believe you are all now violating 3evada $aw in persisting in your denial of
my right to such a hearing wherein the Osole issueO is such, but rather trying to jam me up
with this Ocombo hearingO that see7s to encompass a great deal of disparate claims (many
of which are pending criminal charges, and therefore, entirely outside of your jursisiction
at this point, and your deigning to address them interferes with the orderly administration
of justice in those pending criminal prosecutions, as evinced by Dudge 1ferra::aBs refusal
to testify at the 3ovember 1!th, 2012 Aearing)))which is problematic considering Dudge
1ferra::a presided over the civil summary eviction matter in 8DC 8ev20114001/0% that is
intimately connect to 9$$ <A8EE of the grievances included in GingBs rec7less,
negligent, compromised 1C8 105 OComplaintO) "or instance:
3?124020!: 8ichard ?) AillBs Danuary 1!th, 2012 letter to 2ar Counsel Ging (whom he
had just wor7ed on the =ilsner v) Carstarphen matter with
(http:law)justia)comcasesnevadasupreme4court201251.&1)html *

<oday, Ging admitted to being unaware of who Casey 2a7er, EsH) is) Ging
also admitted to not having read any of my filings in any of these connected matters, only
to then suggest an analogy along the lines of if a woman is raped a lot, she is probably a
whore and deserves it or wanted it, given the sheer mathematical improbability of any one
woman getting raped over and over, and how Ging just doesnBt get paid enough to stic7 his
nose into some gangbang, what with the chances of getting himself involved in doing the
right thing where it is just so much easier to sit bac7 and pretend that the Claiborne
decision (e'plicated e'tensively in my attached 9ugust 1&th, 2012 (etition* does not
permit 2ar Counsel to just throw its hands up and suggest that a =uni Court conviction
(even, in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05, presided over by the brother of the judge whose sanctions
#rders is before you in 3?1240!&5, and where the brother refused to recuse himself from
that criminal trespass conviction incident to the lies and or attempts to mislead a tribunal
by Casey 2a7er, EsH) and 8ichard ?) Aill at the Dune 1%th, 2012 criminal trespass trial
1%.!!2
incident to the civil eviction from CoughlinBs former law office in 8DC 8ev20114001/0%)
9sst) 2ar Counsel Ging also admitted that he had failed to even view the video
taped admission by 8(D 1argent $ope: that she, Aill, =erliss, and 8(D #fficer Carter
lied in order to effectuate the wrongful arrest leading to CouglinBs conviction by the
brother of the sister whose 200, sanctions #rder against Coughlin only became a
grievance on =arch 1!th, 2012 (apparently Ging adopts Ching as to whom can be an
1C8 105 complainant, and therefore within the statute of limitations, when it comes to
?ardnerBs 9pril 200, #rder, but not when it involves misconduct by a Chairman of the
Character and "itness Committee of the 123, 1pearmint 8hino owner Gevin Gelly, EsH),
whom also owns a $as ;egas 1trip Club that gives cabbies M10 million dollars a year to
funnel tourists to itBs doors from the airport, and the misconduct of (eter Christiansen, Dr)
and =i7e 1anft, and others incident to CoughlinBs application for admission in 3evada,
including that of then Director of 9dmissions (atrice Eichmann, made all the more
feasible by the conduct of =i7e 1miley 8owe, EsH) and the fraudulent conduct of =ar7
<ratos and =ary $a"rance* when 8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes (in response to prompting by
the 123* passed that three year old #rder (attorneys get sanctioned all the time, such
orders do not become grievances as a matter of course, and the 123 has admitted it 7eeps
no central record of any such grievances* on to 2ar Counsel after receiving it from her co4
8=C Dudge, and the brother of the family court judge issuing the sanction order)))at right
about the time that Coughlin filed that =arch /th, 2012 3otice of 9ppeal (and there is
plenty of case law to establish that a Osummary criminal convictionO is a final appealable
#rder, and the 8=C is fraudulently conspiring with transcriptionist (am $ongoni to
violate 381 1%,)01040&0 by demanding payment up front for such transcripts by indigent
criminal defendants, and $ongoni and the 8=CBs fraud in that regard resulted in Dudge
Elliot denying CoughlinBs appeal of the 6al4=art candy bar petty larceny conviction in
cr11420.!, wherein Dudge Elliot actually cites to a civil statute related to transcript
preparation to justify the 8=CBs fraud, seen elsewhere in C8124101%, further the 8=C
OlostB CoughlinBs 3otice of 9ppeal of the 11 cr2.!05 criminal trespass conviction appeal
(despite Coughlin having digitial confirmation of the receipt of that fa' by the 8=C, and
where 8=C 8ules allows service thereof via that means upon both the Court and the City
9ttorney (and Aa:lett41tevens lied about that as well, in addition to the lies he told
respecting whether the City 9ttorney had received anything from the 81+C following
CoughlinBs 6al4=art arrest* in the Osummary criminal contemptO #rder stemming from
the traffic citation (California roll* trial connected to Coughlin reporting the admissions of
bribery by 8ichard Aill (8(D #fficer Carter stated as much during the 3ovember 1&th,
2011 criminal trespass arrest, now part of the 1C8 105 Complaint, incorporated by
reference, one must suppose, by AillBs 3?124020! grievance* to the 1argent who
retaliated against Coughlin by issuing three traffic citations, for Coughlin so reporting
such admissions by the arresting officer in the trespass matter to the 1argent who issued
the traffic citations to Coughlin incident to Coughlin going to AillBs office to retrieve his
7eys, wallet, clientBs files, and goverment issued identification after being release from &
days in jail incident to the wrongful criminal trespass arrest)
=r) Ging is beyond incorrect is stating that he will be able to simply point to a
1%/!!2
criminal conviction and declare that no inHuiry into the legitimacy of that conviction may
be made) <here is a wealth of case law and precedent that holds otherwise, and =r) Ging
has previously been made aware of that) <his is true especially where the convictions at
issue completely fail to evince even baseline level of regard for traditional notions of due
process) 1imply put, some might say the members of this (anel ought thin7 rather hard
before tying their reputations to the mast that is the e'tremely low bar reHuired to get a
conviction in the 8eno =unicipal Court these days))))and further, the (anel would be well
advised to avoid letting =r) Ging lead it down that primrose path wherein one believes
they will be entitled to merely accept a municipal court conviction as conclusive proof of
misconduct or otherwise rule irrelevant any inHuiry into the circumstances attendant to
such a matter) <his will be particularly true where =r) Ging see7s to, in his 1C8 105
Complaint, allege matters not even charged in that =unicipal Court criminal trespass
proseuction) Aow =r) Ging will be able to allege his 8(C &)% violating allegations
respecting Obrea7ing and enteringO or Obro7en loc7sO are relevant or admissible where
CoughlinBs dissection of the illegitimacy of the 6almart candy bar petty larceny
conviction (supposedly part of the 1C8 105 Compalint))))and mentioned in AillBs 3?124
020! grievance)))which brings to mind the Huestion)))what of matters not mentioned in any
of the three grievance numbersJ Aow are they eligible for inclusion in some 1C8 105
OComplaintB that lac7s a uniHue case number of its ownJ* 8egardless, it is 3ovember 2nd,
2012 and my defense has been irreversibly prejudiced by the refusal of 2ar Counsel to
allow me to access the materials at the 123 that are my right to under the 1C8, thus
bringing the legitimacy of the entire 3ovember 1!th, 2012 hearing into doubt, to which
any argument that + should be made to fit the bill for 2ar CounselBs bungling and
fraudulent failure to follow the rules applicable to this matter, in addition to its own
written attestations, is entirely unsupportable)
8egardless, 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH)Bs hench man, Casey 2a7er, EsH), now that the
heat is on and he and AillBs avarice driven misdeeds are finally facing the oversight they
deserve, has now suddenly fled bac7 to Gentuc7y:
http:www)nvbar)orglawyer4detail112/1

+t was 2a7er whom Aill used to file the 3ovember 21st, 2011 and Danuary
20th, 2012 filings in 8DC 8ev20114001/0% and the appeal thereof in C;1140&.2% to ma7e
the allegatons that Aill himself 7new unwise to ma7e in his own regard within a sworn
Declaration)))1o, despite Aill, not 2a7er, having the eye witness 7nowledge of such events
(li7e whether the 8(D identified themselves as law enforcement and issued to Coughlin a
lawful warning to leave at the ris7 of a criminal trespass citation or arrest prior to the
landlord 7ic7ing down the door to a Huasi ObasementO under the property that 2a7erBs own
testimony at the Dune 1%th, 2012 trespass trail admits lac7ed any sort of e'terior loc7, and
thus would reHuire no Obrea7ing of any sortO of the type both 1usich and Ging suddenly
felt the need to allege when considering how terribly compromised their .0,/5 (etiton
and the instant 1C8 105 Ocombo4grievancesO (7ind of li7e a Odue process value mealO that
(at Ging is serving up, and as7ing this 2oard to co4sign)))which, apparently the Chairman
finds fitting))))whatBs ne't, are you going to have lawyers dress up in Aot Dog on a 1tic7
1%%!!2
employee uniforms (you 7now, rainbow colors, the spinning thing atop the hat, etc)* tooJ
+s that how little the property right of a law license (case law declares it as much under the
"ourteenth 9mendment, and any willful deprivation thereof by this 2oard, including a
deprivation of the due process reHuired to impinge thereupon, can subject the members of
this 2oard the !2 @1C 1ec) 1,%& liability, especially where, as her, what appears to be a
coordinated effort to obstruct justice and proceed impermissibly under color of law for the
self interested aims of those leveraging such positions is apparent) 8+C#)
+ am writing to reHuest confirmation of what + believe =r) Clar7 has previously
rule, ie, that +, as an indigent respondent herein, am not reHuired to pay witnesses any sort
of Owitness feeO in issuing and or serving subpoenas and subpoens duces tecums upon
them in connection with the 3ovember 1!th, 2011 Aearing in this matter) + feel AillBs then
associate Casey 2a7er, EsHBs testimony will be particular necessary to this hearing
(especially where Aill admits himself that he was not present at the purported 3ovember
1st, 2011 Oloc7outO in the eviction matter (and the service of an receipt by the 6C1#
with respect to any such loc7out #rder is of material relevance, as 381 !0)25& reHuires
such an #rder be carried out Owithin 2! hours of receiptO thereof)))and 2a7erBs testimony
at the Dune 1%th, 2012 criminal trespass trial, in combination with previous statements by
the 6ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice (and please add these individuals and matters to my
designation fo witnesses and summary of evidence to be presented* 1upervisor $i:
1tuchell, 8o'y 1ilve, Deputy =achen, and administrators, supervisors, and cler7s at the
8eno Dustice Court (8DC* add up to the fact that it was Aill, 2a7er, and the 6C1#, and
8(D that were trespassing, not Coughlin, at CoughlinBs former home law office)
9ttached it the video taped admission by 8(D 1argent $ope: respecting the
lies by her, 8(D #fficer Carter, Aill, =erliss, and 2a7er leading to CoughlinBs arrest and
conviction for criminal trespass) Geith $oomis will need to answer for his failure to fulfill
the 1i'th 9mendment in that regard, in addition to the content of the unapproved and
impermissible OmeetingO with 8=C Dudge ?ardner and City of 8eno (rosecutor wherein,
upon information and belief, an OapproachO to handling the criminal trespass trial of
Coughlin was OdevelopedO shortly before the 9pril 10th, 2012 <rial date in that criminal
trespass matter (a <rial date which violated 3evada law, anyways, in that it was set and
held during the pendency of an #rder for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin in violation
of 381 1/%)!05 and 381 5)010*) 9ny trier of fact that wishes to attempt to pull the wool
over CoughlinBs eyes, ma7e incongruous and patently compromised, often sua sponte
relevancy rulings, or otherwise coo7 up a due process value meal may wish to as7 8=C
Dudge ?ardner how the recent filings by Coughlin in .1,01 and the 8=C 11 C8 2.!05
are tasting right about now) #r get Dudge AowardBs inpute with respect to the analysis of
his wor7 in .0%&%)
9nd Dudge 3ash Aolmes may be able to provide some insight as to how that
approach served her, particularly where her Ocriminal summary contemptO order was made
during the pendency of an #rder for Competency Evaluation, and cites to alleged conduct
committed outside her immediate presence (and thatBs the thing about Osummary
adjudicationsO))))the are so arbitary and devoid of due process that the reHuirements
attendant thereto must be stricly adhered to))))so when Dudge 3ash Aolmes in here #rders
1%,!!2
in 11 <8 2.%00 of 22%12 and &12 &1&, and &1&12 refers to some 8=C =arshal
allegedly peering, (eeping <om style, through a bathroom stall wherein Coughlin was
during a restroom brea7 within that trial, her #rder fails to adhere to the dictate that each
element of any conduct she deigns to summarily rule upon be committed in her
Oimmediate presenceO)))otherwise, someone would have to sign an 9ffidavit li7e a grown
up, and Coughlin would be entitled to a hearing, and li7ely appointed counsel under the
1i'th 9mendment before some 2ar Counsel li7e Ging could attempt to prop up any such
OconvictionO in an attempt to lend it an air of respectiability, especially where that =arshal
Aarley (whom Ging conveniently has failed to subpoena* had his own self interested
reasons for see7ing to discredit Coughlin (8=C =arshal Aarley violated the Ocourthouse
sanctuaryO rule and contributed to an appearance of impropriety where he served Coughlin
an #rder to 1how Cause incident to one of AillBs fraudulent =otions see7ing to abuse
process in hopes of remaining competitive with an actual attorney li7e Coughlin (rather
than a 7nown hac7 li7e A+ll whom inherited a law practice from his father and who legion
of local attorneys accuse of unneccesarily running up fees on his clients by purposefully
overcomplicating litigations and engendering an adversarial stance amongst litigants
designed to line AillBs poc7ets, and those of, apparently, even his legal assistans, whom
drive M1&0,000 =ercedes v12 1$4.00 sport coupe convertibles to crac7 inspections of law
offices incident to impermissible summary evictions of commercial tenants where Aill
chose to proceed under a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice (along with 2a7er* rather than a 3on
(ayment 3otice, and therein committed a Owrong site surgeryO (in a litigation sense, to
borrow some of the parlance of the landlord, Dr) =erlissBs field, wherein he is a
3eurosurgeon3eurologist in Chico, C9, apparently armed with enough money to choose
to run up M.0,000, as of 9pril 2012 in fees ot A+ll and 2a7er in these matters rather than
settle with Coughlin for the M1,500 Coughlin offered him*)
(lease add to the witness list all the individuals mentioned in the various filings
+ have provided you, including, but not limited to 8(D #fficers Duralde, 8osa, 9la7sa,
6eaver, $oo7, <ravis 6arren, and $eedy, 8(D 1argent <arter,$ope:, 1ifre, #liver
=iller, Dye, and 2radshaw, AillBs 9ssociate Casey 2a7er, 1heri Aill, and to be
deterimined members of A+llBs staff (particulary those with 7nowledge of any matters
connected to the receipt of either of the Eviction #rders by the 6C1# in the eviction
matter, 6C(D Dim $eslie, 2iray Dogan, Doe ?oodnight, 6almart <homas "rontino and
91= Dohn Ellis, and a yet to be determined 9( 9ssociate whom, along with Ellis, made
e'press threats to retaliate against Coughlin with abuse of process similar to the petty
larceny candy bar conviction in .0%&% that currently forms the only basis for the
suspension of CoughlinBs law license and for which this (anel and the 123 are violating
3evada law in persisting in refusing to follow the dicates of both the 1upreme Court 8ules
of 3evada and the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder in .0%&%, but rather, li7e Cler7OreluctantO
+nvestigator (eters, are allowing themselves to be led down that primrose path that (at
Ging finds to pleasurable to ta7e the unwitting along in his social climbing and life of ease
and comfort, devoid of honor or intergrity, approach to life)))
9lso, to the e'tent then (anel considers a pending criminal prosecution up for
inHuiry in a disciplinary proceeding, included in potential witness call may call are 3icole
1,0!!2
6atson, $ucy 2yington, 3ate -arate, Cory ?oble, the individual whose phone number is
//5&/%../&, Colton <empleton, 8obert Dawson, 3ic7 Duralde, 8on 8osa, <homas
9la7sa, 1avannah =ontgomery, $inda ?ray, Gelly #dom, Gariann 2eechl7er, 8(D
#fficer 1chaur and any others present at arrest of 11!12 for Omisuse of emergency
communicationsO, and of the 54. officers whom, along with 8(D Duralde pulled Coughlin
over upon his release from jail on 11&12 for the 11212 Ojaywal7ingO arrest made upon
the fraudulent assertions of 8ichard A+ll, 8DC Dudge Dac7 1chroeder (whom evicted
Coughlin from (ar7 <errace and granted Aill the protection order incident to the
jaywal7ing arrest and who yelled Odo you want to go to jailO at Coughlin at the e'tension
hearing when Coughlin broached the topic of AillBs abuse of process, and whom
wrongfully granted the .2/12 Eviction #rder in 8DC 8ev201240010!% despite the
deficient 5 day notice listing the wrong court to file a tenanBts affidavit (a reHuirement
under 381 !0)25&, and despite CoughlinBs numerous calls and .2.12 email to the 8DC,
1DC, 8(D and 6C1#, also Deff 3ichols and (eter Eastman and (aul "reitag, EsH)
(involved in 123 GingBs impermissilbe disclosures and slanderous statements concerning
Coughlin and the 3;2 (which Ging also made to his boss in front of Coughlin, David
Clar7, and which have proven to be baseless, despite Ging tic7ing such off amongst the
top 2 reasons for the 1C8 105 Complaint he alleged he would hurriedly throw together
upon Coughlin serving Ging, the 123, Clar7 and (eters the 9ugust 1&th, 2012 filing in
.0%&% and .1!2., now before the 3) 1) Ct)*)
9lso, 8ichard Cornell, <om Aall, ?eof ?iles, and =ichael $ehrners, Dudge Doe
;an 6alraven and others all whom have indicated, to one degree or another, that AillBs
conduct incident to this eviction matter and concomitant appeal is deplorable and entirely
consistent with the way Aill has comported himself throughout his && year career, which
began with is inheriting a large scale law practice from his father, and continued on with
Aill effecting the manner of a 10 year old boy entrusted with flying a /!/ full of people, to
this day) 9dd to the witness $ist (aul Elcano of 6$1, Dudge 1teven Elliot, Dudge (atric7
"lanagan, Aale $aneAolland and AartBs 9nthony Aall and <im $u7as, 8ichard Elmore,
Dudge 1cott (earson, Dudge (eter D) 1ferra::a (though he indicated on 102212 that he
declined the 123Bs reHuest that he testify, citing his sitting on the pending criminal
prosecution in 8C8201140.&&!1*, the 8DCBs 2onnie Cooper and O3eviO, Chief 2ailiff
=ichael 1e'ton, 8=C Chief =arshal 8oper and =arshal Deighton, =arshal <hompson,
=arshal Coppa, 6CDC ;an der 6al, 2eatson, Aoe7stra, Cheung, unnamed deputies)
"urther, please add 6estern 3evada =anagementBs 1ue Ging, Dared 1calise, and (ar7
<errace <ownhomes 9ssociation attorney ?ayle Gern, EsH), 8oberto (uentes, $ew <aitel,
the 8=CBs =atthew "is7 and Cassandra Dac7son, Donna 2allard, Dudge Aowards past
legal assistant, Dudge 3ash Aolmess legal and administrative assistant, =artin Crowley or
=artin 6einer or whichever attorney is was Dudge 3ash Aolmes was sued for wiretapping
in the past, the 8=C counter cler7 ODanielO and O<homO, 6DC Chief 9ppeals Cler7
=atheus, Doey #rduna Aastings, Chief Dudge David Aardy, Dustice Aardesty (whom was
one of only three Dustices signing the Dune /th, 2012 temporary suspension #rder, but
whom recused himself from .0&02 and .0&1/, the wrongful termination suit against
6ashoe $egal 1ervices (see attached letters from 6$1Bs E'ecutive Director citing Dudge
1,1!!2
$inda ?ardnerBs 9pril 200, #rder sanctioning Coughlin as the Osole reasonO for
CoughlinBs firing (her brother, 8=C Dudge 6illiam ?ardner refused to recuse himself
from the criminal trespass conviction mentioned in in GingBs 1C8 105 Complaint, and
Ging admitted two wee7s ago that he was unaware that the two Dudge ?ardners were
brother and sister or related whatsoever, or that Dudge 3ash Aolmes was a prison warden
or something similar for ten years, and a lifelong prosecutor besides that (in addition to all
other 8=C Dudges and all 8=C court appointed defenders*)
9lso, + never received any 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default from the 123, and
herein lodge my objection to any #rder by this (anel that cites thereto) 9dditionally,
123Bs (eters has indicated no other respondents have ever been made to pay witness
subpoena fees, and further (eters and the 123 have repeatedly failed to adhere to
agreements they have made with Coughlin (including the failure of the 123 to resend a
certified mail copy of the 1C8 105 Complaint incident to the agreement between (eters
and Coughlin on or about 1eptember 11th, 2012)
4"orwarded =essage 9ttachment44 Close(rint Nour #nline (olice
8eport <11005,5. Aas 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom:
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:6ed ,0/11 ,:&. (=
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com 8eport <11005,5. Aas
2een 8ejectedJ "rom: 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:
6ed ,0/11 10:51 (= <o:
:achcoughlinLhotmail)com 6eBre sorry the following
problem was found during review of your submitted report
<11005,5.: T8$4 $4 NOT T8E FOU7 FO T8$4 T:@E OF
.O7@LA$NT 8O!E#E T8$4 E@OT !A4 @$NTE"
AN" @A44E" ON TO T8E OFF$.E;4 4U@E#$4O AN"
$T !$LL BE A""E44E") <han7 you, #fficer 6#-3+9G,
8eno (olice Department Nour #nline (olice 8eport <1200021,
Aas 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom: 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:
1un 10%12 1:&5 9= <o:
:achcoughlinLhotmail)com Nour online report has
been successfully received and the trac7ing number is <1200021,)
Nour #nline (olice 8eport <12000222 Aas 2een 1ubmittedJ
"rom: 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:1un 10%12 2:25 9=
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com Nour online report has
been successfully received and the trac7ing number is <12000222)
Nour #nline (olice 8eport <1200022& Aas 2een 1ubmittedJ
"rom: 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:1un 10%12 2:!/ 9=
<o: -9CAC#@?A$+3LA#<=9+$)C#= Nour online
report has been successfully received and the trac7ing number is
<1200022&) Nour #nline (olice 8eport <120002%& Aas 2een
1ubmittedJ "rom: 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:<ue 11012
12:2, 9= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com Nour online
1,2!!2
<120002%&) Nour #nline (olice 8eport <120002%. Aas 2een
1ubmittedJ "rom: 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:<ue 11012
1:0! 9= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com Nour online
<120002%.) Nour #nline (olice 8eport 120100&00 Aas 2een
9pprovedJ "rom: 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:6ed
11112 &:0, (= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com 1 attachment
report4120100&0040)pdf (/.)! G2* Nour report has been approved
report and the permanent number of the case is 120100&00) #nline
#fficer 8eno (olice Department Nour #nline (olice 8eport
120100&00 Aas 2een 9pprovedJ "rom:
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:6ed 11112 &:2, (=
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com 1 attachment report4
120100&0041)pdf (/.)! G2* Nour report has been approved
supplemental report and the permanent number of the case is
120100&00) #nline #fficer 8eno (olice Department Nour #nline
(olice 8eport 120100&00 Aas 2een 9pprovedJ "rom:
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:6ed 11112 &:2, (=
<o: -9CAC#@?A$+3LA#<=9+$)C#= 1 attachment
report4120100&0042)pdf (.2)/ G2* Nour report has been approved
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:6ed 11112 &:&2 (=
120100&004&)pdf (.!)5 G2* Nour report has been approved
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:6ed 11112 &:&5 (=
120100&0240)pdf (%1)2 G2* Nour report has been approved report
and the permanent number of the case is 120100&02) #nline
<1200!55& Aas 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom:
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:"ri .0%12 !:&, (=
been successfully received and the trac7ing number is <1200!55&)
8eport <1200!55! Aas 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom:
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:"ri .0%12 !:!5 (=
been successfully received and the trac7ing number is <1200!55!)
1,&!!2
8eport 12010&!20 Aas 2een 9pprovedJ "rom:
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:=on .1112 !:10 (=
12010&!2040)pdf (/1)! G2* Nour report has been approved report
and the permanent number of the case is 12010&!20) #nline
12010&!20 Aas 2een 9pprovedJ "rom:
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:=on .1112 !:11 (=
12010&!2041)pdf (/0), G2* Nour report has been approved
12010&!20) <han7 you for using our
online reporting system and please contact us with any
suggestions you have for improving our system) #nline #fficer
8eno (olice Department Nour #nline (olice 8eport <1200//0&
Aas 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom: 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:
"ri ,2112 %:0, (= <o:
:achcoughlinLhotmail)com Nour online report has
been successfully received and the trac7ing number is <1200//0&)
8eport <1200//05 Aas 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom:
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:"ri ,2112 %:!, (=
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com Nour online report has been
successfully received and the trac7ing number is <1200//05)
8eport 120105.05 Aas 2een 9pprovedJ "rom:
3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:<hu 100!12 &:!2 (=
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com 1 attachment report4120105.054
0)pdf (10)% G2* Nour report has been approved report and the
permanent number of the case is 120105.05) #nline #fficer 8eno
(olice Department Nour #nline (olice 8eport 120105.05 Aas
2een 9pprovedJ "rom: 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com 1ent:
<hu 100!12 &:5! (= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com
1 attachment report4120105.0541)pdf (%). G2* Nour report has
been approved supplemental report and the permanent number of
the case is 120105.05) #nline #fficer 8eno (olice Department
/ E'1- and or Panel #ill be brea&ing the la# by holding a hearing tomorro# in
violation of 'CR 1+5;2<;c< %roof attached
1ent: <ue 111&12 &:22 (=
1,!!!2
cvellisLbhfs)com (cvellisLbhfs)com*C eifert)ntaLatt)net (eifert)ntaLatt)net*C rosecLnvbar)org
(rosecLnvbar)org*
Nou will be criminals as of tomorrow if you hold that hearing)
1C8 105(2*(c*, 123Os +nde' for Aearing is holding out certificates of mailing and or proofs of
service on the most materials documents incident to a due process analysis (10 , 12 3otice of
+ntent to <a7e Default was recieved as returned due to insufficient postage by the 123 on 11 %
12, + declare under penalty of perjury)))nrs 5&)0!5)))further, 123 only sent one envelope of that
document, that returned for insufficient postage certified mail mailing on 10 , 12)
9dditionally, 123 is holding out 10 12 2012 certified mailing of 3otice of Aearing and
Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence as having a date of 101212 for a
constructive notice analysis, despite the @1(1 proof indicating the first scan in a @1(1 system
occurred on 101.12)
9dditionaly, the 123 and (eters formally declared that the %2&12 mailing was returned to the
123 and that another certified mailing of the Complaint would immediately be sent out, and
that the %2&12 certified mailing would never be offered to prove proof of service under 1C8
10, or in any other manner offered as proof of service of the Complaint) Net that is just what
Ging has done by his +nde' putting that forward)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
<el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
11 1& 1! attachment proving 020! sbn and panel fraud scr 105(2*(c*)pdf E
% E8E: does 8ichard Aill have standing to file a grievance
1ent: 1un 111%12 %:!% 9=
<o: davidcLnvbar)org (davidcLnvbar)org*C fflahertyLdlpfd)com
(fflahertyLdlpfd)com*C fflahertyLdyerlawrence)com (fflahertyLdyerlawrence)com*
=r) Ging admits in his email below that he is departing from the 123Bs stated policy of
according every grievance received a case number) "urther, Dustice Aardesty made some
comments about a Constitutional reHuirement in 3evada at a luncheon earlier this year
respecting the fact that the 3evada 1upreme Court must review every grievance
1,5!!2
received)))which would be hard to do given =r) Ging, the filterattac7 dog for the rich,
powerful, and influential in 3orthern 3evada1ocial Climber E'traordinaire) "urther, =r)
Ging was sued by a close personal friend of mine, ?eof ?iles, EsH), and, aside from GingBs
overt love of big ban7ing and obvious hatred of homeowners (which is notated on the record in
hearings before the legislature and elsewhere* it is inappropriate for Ging to have remained on
my disciplinary matter)))and + informed you of this long ago)))
3ow, this situation is a disaster for all involved in some respects) + am worried about (at) +
thin7 we need to get him some help) 2eing 2ar Counsel is a tough deal, all that power can
really go to oneBs head, and + would li7e to be part of the intervention (whatJ 3o, + wonBt lead
the damn thing, + couldnBt possibly do that)))+ donBt have the training or time or inclin)))#h,
alright^ "ine, +Bll do it* so we can get our (atty bac7) + 7now for a fact his spouse is on board,
and + have arranged for a bag to be pac7ed for him and a plane tic7et to 2ilo'i)))thereBs a great
facility there, and when (at comes bac7 and its the old (atty +ce we all 7now and love, he will
be just as welcome as the flowers in =ay) 6hoBs with meJ #therwise, you are left in the
rather untenable situation of trying to e'plain why (at is violating 1C8 121 with the Eastman
in C;11400%20 prior to the filing of any (etition, why he is feeding Dudge 3ash Aolmes the
Oclear and convincing evidenceO ethical violation standard of proof language and instructions
that she should improperly transmogrify a traffic citation trial into some newfangled Osummary
disciplinary hearingO scenario (and she canBt even cite to the right statute when she wants to
splash out with a criminal contempt conviction or, in her terms Othe misdemeanor of criminal
contemptO (we all 7now being a prosecutor isnBt e'actly the best training ground for building up
oneBs aptitude for specificity or factual support, now, is itJ*)
+t just hurts to see (at li7e this)))AeBs such a great guy Owhen heBs rightO, you 7nowJ 2ut when
DaveBs not there, its li7e O8is7y 2usinessO up here)))(atty gets out the 2ob 1eager out, ta7es
them old records off the shelf))) and the dress shirtbo'er shortswhite tube soc7sdar7 lensed
8ay42ans come out too, and the ne't thing you 7now heBs got some sort of dog4horse hybrid
crapping all over the floors of the 3orthern #ffice of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada, heBs wearinB
cargo pants to Disciplinary Aearings, heBs boo7ing Dudge $inda ?ardnerBs courtroom deputy for
the same hearing that involves Dudge $) ?ardnerBs ghost grievance in 3?1240!&5, he boo7ing
the same court reporting firm (1unshine and (am $ongoni, and 1enator ?rassley would find
that dba so rich, would he notJ* that hung up on the phone on Coughlin and got his appeal
dismissed for lac7 of a transcript cited to in the matter that resulted in the 1C8 111(.* (etition
that is the basis for the current temporary suspension of CoughlinBs law license) +t one thing to
run this hustle on some sad 25 year old)))2ut, why would you want to get in a throwinB stars
competition with a ninjaJ Nou wouldnBt) AeBs failing to send out $auraBs 10,12 9ffidavit,
despite it being file4stamped) AeBs ma7ing the 123 loo7 li7e lying clowns considering the
announcing of the applicable 1C8 105(!* procedural rules by OCler7 of Court (etersO on
,1112 (vis a vis deadlines not running for materials reHuiring service by certified mailing
until the signature tag is signed by the recipient, and barring that, a remailing of such a certified
mailing, and failing the reHuisition of a signed signature tag there, the certified mailing of a
3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default (and Ging and (eters, by admission on their own certificate of
1,.!!2
mailing to the file stamped 10,12 3#+<D only sent it by certified mail, ie, they departed from
their stated and established procedural practice of sending everything two different ways (ie,
certified and first class*)))regardless, AE8E1 <AE G+CGE8)))that 10,12 certified mailing of
the 3#+<D was returned to the 123 and signed for by the 123 on 11%12, and the envelope
(a large manila one with the 123Bs in house red (itney 2owes postage printing affi'ed to it
indicating an under postage was mista7enly applied given te large manila envelope with a
certified mail certificate and return receipt reHuested card (at least M5)50 in postage* had only
M1)25 in postage affi'ed to it, which <im, a 20 year employee of the Downtown 8eno (+ might
have previously said ;assar, for some reason my brain was stuc7 on that)))but it was definitely,
definitely the Downtown 8eno %,505 postal station* where upon a previous attempt to collect
the certified mailing <im failed to find it (who 7nows why, might be due to my handing him an
#fficial Change of 9ddress on #ctober 5th, 2012 for my (# 2o' &,.1 %,505 address))from
which + forward mail to my current 1!/1 E) ,th 1t) %,512 address* or due to his loo7ing in Othe
small bo'O whereas that mailing was in an %)5 ' 11 inch envelope)))but when + returned again
on a later date, the same counter attendant, <im, did find the 10,12 certified mailing of the
3#+<D (and Chair Echeverria doesnBt seem to get this)))+ didnBt get the 3#+<D until 3ovember
%th, 2012, and + only got it then in the bate stamped form is come in with the other thousands of
pages of documents in the 1ierra Document (rocessing Obig bo'O that Chair EcheverriaBs
10&012 #rder reHuired the 123 to provide me as a consolation, apparently, to actually
following the rule in 1C8 105(2*(c* and allowing me inspect the materials Oup to & days priorO
to the 111!12 Aearing (that is a huge deal, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the
act that Ging continued to attempt to 1upplement the Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary
of Evidence as late as 11/12 (and the certified mailing signature card for that 1upplemental
was only signed for today, 111.12, and you 7now if Doe ?arin is going to pull the old Oactual
notice of is not a substitute for technical compliance with service rulesO card on me in .0&02,
that + am going there with the 123*, to wit, from 123 Ethics Committee member Doe ?arinBs
102212 8espondentBs 2rief in .0&02 (where Coughlin sued 6ashoe $egal 1ervices, and
involving 33D2 member Gathleen 2rec7enridge, whose mess Coughlin cleaned up Huite
nicely on the i4%.! 9ffidavit of 1upport for battered immigrant spouse issue (2rec7enridge got
the M&G award of attorneyBs fees)))+ clean up what she failed to spot, and am fired shortly
thereafter))))*) 1o, really, given the return receipt card was only signed for the 3otice of
Aearing on 102/12 (and the earliest it was in my bo', according to @1(1 trac7 and confirm
was 102212, despite a certificate of mailing by (eters indicating she sent it out
101212)))which is odd given the @1(1 <rac7 K Confirm shows it was first scanned into
@1(1 custody on 101.12)))not so odd when you consider that upon my arriving at the 123Bs
3orthern #ffice on 10&112 at about !:!5 pm + spo7e with (eters and noticed that in the
Ooutbo'O at the front des7 were a lot of letters with the green certified mailreturn receipt
reHuested placards affi'ed to them)))and + Hueried (eters about them) 1he admitted the mail
had been pic7ed up that day at the 123 already, so those items would not go out that day,
despite what the certifcate of mailing attached thereto might swear to under penalty of perjury
(you are playing with peopleBs livelihoodBs and "ourteenth 9mendment property rights,
here)))*)))1o, it would appear that (eters signed the certificate of mailing for the 3otice of
Aearing (and + believe a Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence reHuires its own
1,/!!2
file stamping and its own certificate of mailing)))and the bate stamped version of the
ODisciplinary "ile for -ach CoughlinO indicates, in the 101212 certifcate of mailing, that only
a 3otice of Aearing was sent out (ie, not a Do61oE along with it)))regardless, 1C8 105(2*(c*
reHuires the (anel send it out and serve it in compliance with 1C8 10, (as altered by 1C8
105(!*, which includes (eterBs attestations of ,1112)))*) 3one of that was done correctly)
8ather, Ging persisted in his established practice of going bac7 on the 123Bs word to cheat and
gain an advantage, and in his habit of ta7ing on the roles of the (anel or the Cler7 of Court (or
the =unicipal Court Dudge where he tells Dudge 3ash Aolmes to be sure to put the O+ find by
clear and convincing evidence violations of (insert copy and pasting with :ero specificity as to
any factual support for such a summary ethical violation order incident to a Osimple traffic
citation matterO (do you get the picture, hereJ +ts amateur hour, and heBs doing it with your
good name, or whatBs left of it by now)))* various 8ules of (rofessional Conduct so (at can
ignore Claiborne some more and rest on his laurels and 1C8 111(5*))))which Chair Echeverria
li7es himself Huite a bit)))only problem is that they both li7e to go with a lot of 8ichard A+ll
testimony about pajamas and slippers and livinB in the former home law office after eviction
and Obrea7ing and enteringO some crawlspaceglorified basement under the house that never
had a loc7 at any time)))not to much 1C8 111(5*, not relevant, puffing going on there, though,
huh, (atJ Chair EcheverriaJ
1C8 105(2*(c* a7a that which (atric7 #) Ging and Chair Echeverria used as a guide for
Othings to ma7e sure we avoid providing to 8espondent Coughlin so our hit piece goes off
smoothly and we both get a bunch of attaboys by the =c?eorge =afia and other power
bro7ers)))O along with the olB 2ar Counsel as debt collector for 8ichard ?) Aill,EsH) and Casey
2a7er, EsH) meme of Oif the (anel wonBt sign on to my ridiculous disbarment of Coughlin
reHuest, then please be sure to reHuire Coughlin to pay 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH) the attorneyBs fees
award that CoughlinBs former co4wor7er Dudge "lanagan entered against Coughlin after
refusing to recuse himself, and shortly after (at GingBs &2&12 email to Coughlin attempting to
mislead Coughlin about the Department & OCler7 of CourtB throwing a sewing circle of gossip :
O)))(c* <ime to conduct hearingC notice of hearingC discovery of evidence against attorney) <he
hearing panel shall conduct a hearing within !5 days of assignment and give the attorney at
least &0 daysB written notice of its time and place) <he notice shall be served in the same
manner as the complaint, and shall inform the attorney that he or she is entitled to be
represented by counsel, to cross4e'amine witnesses, and to present evidence) <he notice shall
be accompanied by a summary prepared by bar counsel of the evidence against the attorney,
and the names of the witnesses bar counsel intends to call for other than impeachment, together
with a brief statement of the facts to which each will testify, all of which may be inspected up
to & days prior to the hearing) 6itnesses or evidence, other than for impeachment, which
became 7nown to bar counsel thereafter, and which bar counsel intends to use at the hearing,
shall be promptly disclosed to the attorney) "or good cause shown, the chair may allow
additional time, not to e'ceed ,0 days, to conduct the hearing)O

<he thing is, since the (anel was not even created or named by 33D2 Chairman 1usich until
1,%!!2
#ctober
AereBs Doe ODoey DetroitO ?arinBs ta7e on why the 123 did a very bad thin7 in pushing through
with that Disciplinary Aearing on 111!12, by analogy to .0&02, of course:
Ob) <he District Court properly dismissed <orvinen, 2rec7enridge, and 1abo from the case
because (laintiff failed to provide them proper process)
9 claim of insufficiency of process is a challenge to the content and form of a summons and
complaint) 1ee e)g), =usgrave v) 1Huaw Cree7 Coal Co), ,.! 3)E)2d %,1 (+nd) Ct) 9pp) 2012*)
9 defendant has an absolute right to demand that process be issued in a manner prescribed by
law) 1ee =D1 Enterprises, +nc) v) 1uperior Court, 15& Cal)9pp)&d 555,55/,200 Cal)8ptr) 2%.
(1,%!*) 9dditionally, 3evada 8ule of Civil (rocedure !( d* provides,plaintiff
furnish person ma7ing copies necessary)
O<he summons and complaint shall be served together) <he shall the service with such as are
1ervice shall be made by delivering a f^2D2l^) of the summons attached to a f^2D2l^) of the
complaint ))) O (Emphasis added*) +n this case, (laintiff failed to effectuate proper process
against <orvinen, 1abo, and 2rec7enridge because process did not comply with 38C( !(d*)
6ith respect to <orvinen, on #ctober 2/, 2011, (laintiff served <orvinen with &5 pages worth
of documents related to the case) (8ecord ;ol) ++, 20142!%*) 3early every page comprised of ,
pages scaled onto one page) +d) 9ccordingly, on 3ovember 15, 2011 <orvinen filed a =otion to
Dismiss on the grounds that (laintiffs service of process was untimely and insufficient under
38C( !) +d) <orvinen argued that a copy is a reproduction of an original and that (laintiff
provided modified versions of the original that were illegible and improper) +d) #n 3ovember
&0, 2011, (laintiff responded with a three sentence #pposition that stated that service was
sufficient and sidestepped the issue regarding process) (8ecord ;ol) ++, &,!4&,.*) <he District
Court subseHuently dismissed <orvinen from the case for lac7 of service of process) (8ecord
;ol) +;, 11/!411.0*) <he Court later clarified its order and found that <orvinen was dismissed
for lac7 of process) (8ecord ;ol) +;, 1!/541!%0*) +t adopted <orvinenBs arguments that the
papers provided were not a OcopyO within the meaning of 38C( ! and found (laintiff did not
effectuate proper process) +d) $i7ewise, (laintiff served 2rec7enridge in a similar fashion)
2rec7enridge received a total of %, pages worth of documents some of which related to the
case and others which did not) (8ecord ;ol) ++, 2%.4&%/*) <he documents were also scaled
down in si:e) +d) 1ome pages comprised of , pages to a page, while others fit 2 pages to a page)
+d) #n 3ovember 2%, 2011, 2rec7enridge filed a =otion to Dismiss based on non4service of
process and insufficient process) +d) =uch li7e
<orvinen, 2rec7enridge argued that %, pages of condensed documents did not
constitute a OcopyO of a summons and complaint within the meaning of 38C( !)
+d)
+n response, (laintiff filed two perple'ing oppositions presumably against her =otion, the latter
of which was untimely) (8ecord ;ol) ++, !1.4!.%C ;ol) +++ 5.,4./1*) +n the first opposition,
(laintiff dedicated two sentences to opposing 2rec7enridgeBs =otion) (8ecord ;ol) ++, !1.4
1,,!!2
!.%*) (er the first oppositionBs title4#pposition to all DefendantBs =otions to Dismiss and all
DefendantBs =otions to Uuash 1ervice, =otion for E'tension of <ime to 8espondContinuanceC
#pposition to =otion to <a' Costs 1imultaneously 1ee7ing E'tensions of <ime or
Continuance to 8espond4(laintiff sought to do various things in two sentences) +d) +n reality,
(laintiff failed to do anything more than ma7e a conclusory statement that he opposed the then
filed motions to dismiss) (laintiffBs second opposition while more than two sentences in length,
sought to raise tangential issues that were not before the Court) (8ecord ;ol) +++, 5.,4./1*) +n
effect, the District Court dismissed 2rec7enridge from the case) (8ecord ;ol) +++, /2&4/25*)
<he District Court also dismissed 1abo from the case after she filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds of insufficient process) +d) 1pecifically, (laintiff served 1abo with only a copy of the
summons, once again ignoring 38C( !Bs reHuirements) (8ecord ;ol) ++, 25042.1*)
2ased on all the above, it is clear that the District Court properly dismissed <orvinen,
2rec7enridge, and 1abo from this case) (laintiff did not truly oppose the various motions to
dismiss and failed to effectuate process on the parties)
+t was only after the District Court dismissed <orvinen, 2rec7enridge, and 1abo, that (laintiff
found a case, which he now relies on, to argue that the District Court erred in dismissing these
parties (8ecord ;ol +++) /./4%.,*) (laintiff relies on the 3ew Nor7 case, =cGen:ie v) 9mtra7
= of E, /// ")1upp) 111, (1)D)3)N)
forma
1,,0*) +n =cGen:ie, a 3ew Nor7 court denied a =otion to Dismiss for defects in process
because they were attributable to court personnel) +d) at 112l) 1pecifically, the court
ac7nowledged that generally there is a strong argument for ineffective service of process
Ounless a legible copy of both the summons and the Complaint are received by the defendant)O
+d) (citing ;illage of 6ellsville v) 9t^) 8ichfield Co), .0% ")1upp) !,/ (6)D)3)N)1,%5*C (ar7er
v) =ac7, .1 3)N)2d 11!, !/2 3)N)1)2d %%2, !.0 3)E)2d 1&1. (Ct)9pp)1,%!**) <he Court
determined that
because court personnel in this particular jurisdiction were reHuired to ma7e copies for in forma
pauperis litigants, and a faint copy of the complaint was made and served on the defendants,
dismissal was not warranted) +d)
<he =cGen:ie decision is not controlling and inapplicable to this case) +n citing to the
=cGen:ie decision, (laintiff see7s to carve an e'ception into 38C( !(a*, which specifically
places the responsibility to effectuate proper service of process on a plaintiff) =oreover, the
circumstances in =cGen:ie were uniHue because that particular jurisdiction reHuired court
personnel to ma7e copies for in
pauperis litigants and serve such copies on their behalf) (laintiff has failed
to establish that court personnel in the 1econd Dudicial District Court are reHuired to ma7es
copies of service papers for in form pauperis applicants) <hat is because there is no such
reHuirement or practice and 38C( !(d* specifically imputes that responsibility on a plaintiff)
"urthermore, (laintiff never argued that the modifications to the service papers were the fault
of court personnel) 8ather, the modifications were admittedly (laintiffBs own doing) (8ecord
;ol) +++, %1.*) <hus, =cGen:ie is not only a non4binding decision, but it is inapposite to the
rules and
overall circumstances of this case)
200!!2
#verall, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing <orvinen, 2rec7enridge,
and 1abo from the case seeing as (laintiff provided insufficient process)O
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
<el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
(3#<E: the following emails were included thereafter in their entirety*:
"rom: (atric7GLnvbar)org
1ubject: 8E: does 8ichard Aill have standing to file a grievance
Date: "ri, 2& =ar 2012 1/:5/:2. Y0000
1ent: "riday, =arch 2&, 2012 10:&, 9=
<o: (atric7 Ging
"rom: (atric7GLnvbar)org
Date: "ri, 2& =ar 2012 1/:1%:&! Y0000
1ent: "riday, =arch 2&, 2012 ,:12 9=
<o: (atric7 GingC cdba7erLrichardhillaw)com
1ubject: does 8ichard Aill have standing to file a grievanceF
, (>?)?26)?=- "=>D -=)?C9 =ctober Bth8 2+12 certified mailing of -otice of
?ntent to ta&e Default
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:&/ (=
<o: CC: slhofheinsLuspis)gov (renee)m)brownLusps)gov*C wpheisterLuspis)gov
(wpheisterLuspis)gov*C melinda)a)vars:egiLusps)gov (melinda)a)vars:egiLusps)gov*C
patric77Lnvbar)org (patric77Lnvbar)org*C davidcLnvbar)org (davidcLnvbar)org*C
rosecLnvbar)org (rosecLnvbar)org*C eifert)ntaLatt)net (eifert)ntaLatt)net*C jeLeloreno)com
(jeLeloreno)com*C cvellisLbhfs)com (cvellisLbhfs)com*C mi7eLtahoelawyer)com
(mi7eLtahoelawyer)com*C s7entLs7entlaw)com (s7entLs7entlaw)com*C
nevtelassnLsbcglobal)net (nevtelassnLsbcglobal)net*C complaintsLnvbar)org
201!!2
(complaintsLnvbar)org*C fflahertyLdlpfd)com (fflahertyLdlpfd)com*C
fflahertyLdyerlawrence)com (fflahertyLdyerlawrence)com*C tsusichLnvdetr)org
(tsusichLnvdetr)org*C slhofheinsLuspis)gov (slhofheinsLuspis)gov*C slhofheinsLusps)gov
(slhofheinsLusps)gov*
Dear 8eno (ostal +nspector 8enee 2rown and 33D2, (anl, and 123,
+ am writing to respectfully place <AE @1(1, 33D2, (93E$ 93D 123 #3 9
$+<+?9<+#3 A#$D 3#<+CE 6+<A 8E1(EC< <# 93N =9<E8+9$1 8E$9<ED <#
<AE 9<<9CAED CE8<+"+ED =9+$+3? 2N <AE 1<9<E 298 #" 3E;9D9 93D #8
<AE 3#8<AE83 3E;9D9 D+1C+($+398N 2#98D #8 +<1 (93E$ 6+<A 8E1(EC<
<# <AE (@8(#8<ED =9+$+3? <# -9CA C#@?A$+3 9< (# 2#> &,.1 8E3#, 3;
%,505 #" 9 3#<+CE #" +3<E3< <# <9GE DE"9@$< +3C+DE3< <# 9 (@8(#8<ED
"+$+3? #3 %2&12 #" 9 1C8 105 C#=($9+3< +3 123 ; -9CA C#@?A$+3 (3?124
020! E< 9$*) +, -9CA C#@?A$+3 9((E98ED 9< <AE D#63<#63 8E3# (#1<9$
1<9<+#3 #3 9 3@=2E8 #" #CC91+#31 D@8+3? #ctober and 3ovember of 2012 to
retrieve certified mailings, though + did personally hand deliver on #ctober 5th, 2012 a filled
out #fficial @1(1 Change of 9ddress card to change my mailing address from (# 2#> &,.1
8eno, 3; %,505 to 1!/1 E) ,th 1t), 8eno, 3; %,512)
<rac7ing $abel: /010 2/%0 000& 5!2, 5!5%
<he reason for this litigation hold notice is that the 1tate 2ar of 3evada has indicated a desire
to levy professional discipline against me, on grounds that + dispute vigorously and in so doing
has bac7ed out of a number of representations related to the service of the Complaint, which
led to the OserviceO of a 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default the 123 indicates it mailed on
10,12) #n 3ovember 5th, 2012 + again chec7ed with counter attendant O<imO (tall fellow
whom + am told had surgery recently* and he retrieved a large manila (%)5 by 11 inch* envelope
addressed to me, certified mail, 888, from the 1tate 2ar of 3evada affi'ed with insufficient
postage) <im noted that it was odd that it had a postmar7 in the red (itney 2owes printed
manner normal to 123 mailings with a date of 10,12 given that it was 3ovember 5th, 2012
and that he had not retrieved or noticed it on "riday 3ovember 2nd, 2012 when + had come in
and as7ed for the certified mailings for my (# 2#>) 8egardless, <im also noted that that
large certified mailing envelope was Huite deficient in postage, only having M1)25 in postage on
it, for a mailing that would be at least M5 postage insufficient) + did not have the money to
ma7e up for what the 123 failed to affi' to its mailing) <im informed me he could not release
that mailing to me then, and + personally witnessed him notate on the envelope in his own
handwriting the insufficiency of the postage and the fact that it was being returned to the
sender) <he @1(1 <rac7 K Confirm shows that envelope was delivered to the 1tate 2ar of
3evadaBs Double 8 2lvd office on 11%12)
Aowever, crafty 123 2ar Counsel (at Ging managed to jam through a Disciplinary Aearing on
202!!2
111!12 for a Complaint that had not been served, calling witnesses for which 3otice had not
been served, based upon a 3otice of Aearing that failed to comply with 1C8 105(2*(c* in a
multitude of ways) Ging sought to ta7e away my "ourteenth 9mendment property right, my
professional license to practice law, and thereby endanger my license to practice patent law
before the @nited 1tates (atent and <rademar7 #ffice (@1(<#* as well under &/ C"8 11)25)
+ placed =r) Ging on a litigation hold notice at that with respect to the proof of the
insufficiency of the postage on that envelope, and he smir7ed O6hatBs a Blitigation hold
noticeBJO despite the fact that he has 1& (rofiler references on 6estlaw) =r) Ging has
previously claim that O-ach, things donBt wor7 out for you because you donBt ta7e responsibility
for your actionsO) 6ell, + believe placing insufficient postage on a filing that he is reHuired to
serve via certified mail is an instance where =r) Ging needs to ta7e responsibility for his
actions or those for whom he has a supervisory duty)
+ would greatly appreciate it if the @1(1 would consider e'pediting any disagreement here
between myself and the 123, 33D2, and or (anel by having Downtown 8eno (ostal 1tation
counter attendant O<imO sign a Declaration, if possible, attesting to the matters + detailed above
to the e'tent the comport with his recollections)
+ would greatly appreciate it if you would provide me or provide some indication where + may
obtain any more detailed documentation related to the above trac7ing label ending in 5!5% and
the following one for the purported certified mailing of the Complaint on %2&12:
<rac7ing $abel: /010 2/%0 000& 5!2, 52%1
+ appreciate the fine wor7 you do)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin, DD
http:www)nvbar)orglawyer4detail112!5
(atent 9gent
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
tel and fa': ,!, ../ /!02
Direct Uuery 4 +ntranet 4 OUuic7O 1earch
<rac7Confirm 4 +ntranet +tem +nHuiry 4 Domestic
<rac7ing $abel: /010 2/%0 000& 5!2, 5!5%
Destination
#rigin
Event
20&!!2
DE$+;E8ED
3#<+CE $E"<
4 +4`88(+`$ )t)< @3+<
+`+#<+CE $E"<
988+;9$ 9< @3+<
-+( Code: %,505
-+( Code:
Date<ime
110%2012 10:2%
+nput =ethod: 1canned
"inance 3umber: &1/2%,
,fCffltlgrS)fj*five^=: ff,UPtf:O ^
City: 8E3#
City:
$ocation
8E3#, 3; %,521
, vP li=t^>:1lgliatnre W cma:) ffgCtf7^1
110/2012 1&:1/ 8E3#, 3; %,521
11(:/2012 0/:51 fC)E3e, 3; %,511
10102012 11:0, 8E3#, 3; %,505
+npct =ethod: 1canned
10102012 0%: 1% 8E3#, 3; %,50&
E3 8#@<E(8#CE11ED 10102012 0!:51 8E3#, 3; %,510
Entt fr 8eHuest <ype and +tem 3umber:
Uuic7 1earch (i E'tensive 1earch
has & files to share with you on 17yDrive) <o view them, clic7 the lin7s below)
10 , 12 020! usps cert mail 3otice +ntent Default 11 % 12 returned to 123)pdf
10 10 12 usps cert trac7 11 % 12 020! 5!5% notice of intent to ta7e default 020! sbn)pdf
nvbar -ach Coughlin ,!/& 112!5)pdf
Download all
E
10 (R97 motion to dismiss attached
"rom: (atric7 Ging ((atric7GLnvbar)org* <his sender is in your safe list)
20!!!2
1ent: =on 100%12 11:&, 9=
<o: -ach Coughlin (:achcoughlinLhotmail)com*
Dear =r) Coughlin,
9s + have e'plained, the Complaint against you has been served) Nour verified
answer is due by <uesday 1eptember ,, 2012) Nou should file a verified answer to the
complaint)
(atric7 Ging, 9ssistant 2ar Counsel)F
Epending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings))))language 1C8 111(/* versus 1C8
111(%* and the Dune /th, 2012 #rder of the 3;) 1) Ct)
1ent: 6ed 101012 .:1/ 9=
<o: tsusichLnvdetr)orgC davidcLnvbar)orgC laurapLnvbar)orgC patric77Lnvbar)org
Dear Chairman 1usich, 2ar Counsel, and Cler7 (eters,
+ am writing formally reHuest a bifurcation of sorts, consiering:
1C8 111(/*)ee1uspension on certification)ee@pon the filing with the supreme court of a
petition with a certified copy of proof of the conviction, demonstrating that an attorney has
been convicted of a serious crime, the court shall enter an order suspending the attorney,
regardless of the pendency of an appeal, pending final disposition of a disciplinary proceeding,
which shall be commenced by the appropriate disciplinary board upon referral by the supreme
court) "or good cause, the court may set aside its order suspending the attorney from the
practice of law)
+ thin7 2ar CounselBs argument that the OproceedingO call for in the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012
#rder (which Huotes 1C8 111(/* may include some 1C8 105 Complaint (ie, a 123 v)
-achary 2) Coughlin Complaints bringin in all sorts of matters, including pending criminal
actions, and wearing pajamas, and #rders by Dudges purporting to ta7e away this or that right
of CoughlinBs to practice this or that in some court (an #rder which (atric7 Ging reference to
me and Chief 2ar Counsel Clar7, and, apparently, to a client of mine in early =ay 2012 (the
client is the only other place + have ever heard of such an unpublished O#rderO purporting to
have said effect* despite the dictate against 2ar CounselBs doign so in 1C8 121 (the 1C8 11
(etition was not even filed at that point, and one has to wonder if some deal between that
client, 2ar Counsel, and the new attorney that client can now magically afford was wor7ed out,
with nothing said of any torts that client committed against Coughin, etc), etc), much less
criminal law violations, which Coughlin just put up with*)
2ut my point is, 2ar Counsel Ging points ot the Opending final disposition of a disciplinary
proceedingO language of 1C8 111(/*)))which is Huoted in the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #8der
(though + feel 2ar Counsel is ta7ing the Huote out of conte't and ignoring the e'press language
of 1C8 111(/* in ma7ing this argument that the Opending final disposition of the disciplinary
proceedingsO language in the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder entitles 2ar Counsel to file a 123 v)
205!!2
Coughlin Complaint deny Coughlin that afforded under 1C8 111(%* (which the D@ne /th, 2012
#rder cites to as well*, and, given CoughlinBs (etition in .1!2., filed and served on 9ugust
1&th, 2012 (the service of which was consented to or waived by 2ar Counsel Ging and Clar7
where they directed Cler7 $aura (eters to sign O(roof of 8eceiptO thereof on 9ugust 1&th,
2012)))*, Coughlin is now entitled to an Oimmediate hearingO pursuant to 1C8 102(!*(d*, and
1C8 111(10*)
<he CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder reads, in relevant part: O(ursuant to 1C8 111, temporary
suspension and referral to the appropriate disciplinary board are mandatory when an attorney
has been convicted of a OseriousO crime, which includes theft) 1C8 111 (.*4(%*) 9ccordingly,
pursuant to 1C8 111 (%*, we refer this matter to the appropriate disciplinary board for the
institution of a formal hearing before a hearing panel in which the sole issue to be determined
shall be the e'tent of the discipline to be imposed) "urthermore, pursuant to 1C8 111(/*, we
hereby temporarily suspend -achary 2) Coughlin from the practice of law in 3evada, pending
final disposition of the disciplinary proceedings)O 3ote that the #rder says Opending final
disposition of the disciplinary proceedingsO ) +t does not say Opending final disposition of an
1C8 105 Complaint filed by 123 as the complainant (see Ching*) 9nd, in fact, 1C8 111(%*
clear that up further,
+ give (atric7 Ging credit for ma7ing a crafty argument, but its just not colorable) + am so used
to this with (at by now, he plays dumb in a way that screw one out of their due process, but it
is clear he 7nows e'actly what he is doing, that crafty sumBitch)
1C8 111(%*: O%)ee8eferral to disciplinary board)ee@pon receipt of a petition filed under
subsection ! of this rule, demonstrating that an attorney has been convicted of a serious crime,
the supreme court shall, in addition to suspending the attorney in accordance with the
provisions of subsection / of this rule, refer the matter to the appropriate disciplinary board for
the institution of a formal hearing before a hearing panel in which the sole issue to be
determined shall be the e'tent of the discipline to be imposed)O
2ut the clearest e'pression of authority to defeat 2ar Counsels stated goal of OcombiningO the
Aearing reHuired by the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder and the 1upreme Court 8ules with some
1C8 105 (or 1C8 102, natch* style 123 v) Coughlin Complaint that 2ar Counsel wishes to file
is found in 1C8 111(/*: Othe court shall enter an order suspending the attorney)))pending final
disposition of a disciplinary proceeding, which shall be commenced by the appropriate
disciplinary board upon referral by the supreme court)O
9nd, right there, 2ar CounselBs attempt to combine these affairs must fail) <hatBs the thing,
though)))the phrase Ocommenced by the appropriate disciplinary boardO) +t does not say
Ocommenced by the 1tate 2ar of 3evada as a complainant, under Ching, filing an 1C8 105
Complaint)))+t just does not say that) 1C8 111(/*, rather, reads Owhich shall e commenced by
the appropriate disciplinary boardO)
20.!!2
1o, to sum it up 2ar CounselBs attempts combine these must fail in light of the following:
O1C8 111(%*: Othe supreme court shall)))refer the matter to the appropriate disciplinary board
for the institution of a formal hearing before a hearing panel in which the sole issue to be
determined shall be the e'tent of the discipline to be imposed)O

1C8 111(/*: Othe court shall enter an order suspending the attorney)))pending final disposition
of a disciplinary proceeding, which shall be commenced by the appropriate disciplinary board
upon referral by the supreme court)O
Aowever, 2ar Counsel and the Disciplinary 2oard should recogni:e the import of 1C8 111(/*4
(%* and refuse to allow 2ar Counsel to OcombineO or consolidate, or Ofail to bifurcate) 6hat
2ar Counsel is thin7ing of is 1C8 105(2*:)eeOCommencement of formal proceedings)ee"ormal
disciplinary proceedings are commenced by bar counsel filing a written complaint in the name
of the state bar) <he complaint shall be sufficiently clear and specific to inform the attorney of
the charges against him or her and the underlying conduct supporting the charges)O
Aowever, 1C8 111(/* and 1C8 105(2* are entirely different animals) +n one, 1C8 111(/* calls
for: Othe court shall enter an order suspending the attorney)))pending final disposition of a
disciplinary proceeding, which shall be commenced by the appropriate disciplinary board)))O
+n the other, it is 2ar Counsel doing the OcommencingO of 1C8 105(2*:)eeOCommencement of
formal proceedings)ee"ormal disciplinary proceedings are commenced by bar counsel filing a
written complaint in the name of the state bar))))O
<he distiction and diferences are revealed in the 1upreme Court 8ules by whom is doing the
OcommencingO and just what it is they are OcommencingO, ie, a Oformal proceeding (in the case
of 1C8 105(2*, or a Odsiciplinary proceedingO,
<here is a difference, and that difference entails bifurcating things or refusing to consolidate
these affairs, and + am formally ma7ing that reHuest upon the 2oard here now)
1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
(R97 %ending final dis%osition of disci%linary %roceedings,,,,language 'CR 111;7< versus
'CR 111;*< and the June 7th8 2+12 =rder of the -V, ', Ct,
1ent: 6ed 101012 ,:!! 9=
Cc: David Clar7 (DavidCLnvbar)org*
Dear =r) Coughlin,
20/!!2
6hen you met with me and David Clar7 to discuss the Complaint and the process)
=r) Clar7 e'plained that since there was a conviction, Ethe sole issue to be determined was the
e'tent of the disciplineF) 3ot if you committed the crime, since that was already determined
beyond a reasonable doubt) +t is that conte't that we are reading the rule) 3ot that the state bar
is precluded from bringing additional allegations against you) 9ny additional allegations that
have not already resulted in criminal convictions will need to be proved by Eclear and
convincingF evidence) 9s such, at the hearing, on the issue of your criminal convictions, the
only issue for the panel to decide is the appropriate discipline) Aowever, + will be providing
evidence as to the other allegations in the Complaint) <he (anel will decide if the state bar has
met its burden of proof as to those allegations in the complaint, other than the criminal
convictions, and will decide the appropriate discipline on the totality of the case, including
mitigating and aggravating factors that may be presented at the hearing)
9s such, + do not intend bifurcate these proceedings) + thin7 to do so would cause
unnecessary confusion, undue time and e'pense and would be prejudicial to the
administration of justice)
+ am advised that you have not yet filed an 9nswer to the Complaint) + have sent
you a notice of intent to proceed on a default basis) <he hearing date is e'pected to be
6ednesday 3ovember 1!, 2012) + will be sending you a notice of hearing, along with a list of
witness, and evidence that + intend to introduce at the hearing)
E/K7 %ending final dis%osition of disci%linary %roceedings,,,,language 'CR 111;7< versus
1ent: 6ed 101012 11:51 9=
<o: tsusichLnvdetr)orgC laurapLnvbar)orgC davidcLnvbar)orgC patric77Lnvbar)orgC
nvsccler7Lnvcourts)nv)gov
Dear Chairman 1usich and Cler7 (eters,
2ar Counsel Ging sees himself as a the Director of this movie, placing you two in the scenes
where he sees fit) Chairman 1usich, it is your responsibility to comply with the CourtBs #rder
and the 1upreme Court 8ules, and at this point, you need to send a clear message to 2ar
Counsel that Othe 7id stays in the pictureO, and inform =r) Ging that he is not to attempt to ta7e
your job or duties from you) 1ame goes for Cler7 (eters, especially vis a vis her admission
that Ging told her not to file CoughlinBs =otion to Dismiss in 123 v Coughlin on 1eptember
1/th, 2012, which has now gone unopposed, and therefore, shall be granted)
1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
20%!!2
ER97 %ending final dis%osition of disci%linary %roceedings,,,,language 'CR 111;7< versus
"rom: $aura (eters ($aura(Lnvbar)org* <his sender is in your safe list)
1ent: 6ed 101012 .:01 (=
(lease donBt put words in my mouth, -ach) Nou are the one that indicated that you
had not received the Complaint when we tal7ed on the phone) 6hy, then, would + file in a
=otion to DismissJ + am responsible for my own actions) 4 $aura (a7a Cler7 (eters*F
E8E: pending final disposition of disciplinary %roceedings,,,,language 'CR 111;7< versus
1ent: <hu 101112 !:5. (=
<o: laurapLnvbar)org
1 attachment
1 2, 2012 letter to Cler7 of Court #rduna Aastings regarding Efle' rejections with attachments
!1 pages total)pdf (,5/)% G2*
Dear Cler7 of Court (eters,
9re you sure + indicated one way or the other whether + received the ComplaintJ 6as there
some mention of 9ugust 2&rd, 2012J Can 2ar Counsel Ging actually do some legal research
for once, everJ Does he have a citation to any authority or cases that says a =otion to Dismss
may not be filed unless the 8espondent ma7es some affirmative indcation to the Cler7 of Court
as to whether he actually received a ComplaintJ 38C( 5(e* ma7es clear the Cler7 of Court
and filing office of the 123 are not permitted to refuse filings) 1o, the 1eptember 1/th, 2012
=otion to Dismiss must be filed by Cler7 of Court (eters, or misconduct e'ists)
"9C<1
"urther, 38C( 5(e* holds that:
O(e* "iling 6ith the Court Defined) <he filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as
reHuired by these rules shall be made by filing them with the cler7 of the court, e'cept that the
judge may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the judge shall note
thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the cler7) 9 court may by
local rule permit papers to be filed, signed or verified by electronic means that are consistent
with technical standards, if any, that the Dudicial Conference of the @nited 1tates establishes) 9
paper signed by electronic means in compliance with the local rule constitutes a written paper
presented for the purpose of applying these rules) <he cler7 shall not refuse to accept for filing
any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as
20,!!2
reHuired by these rules or any local rules or practices)O
<he filing officer cler7Bs in the 2nd Dudicial District Court for 6ashoe County, and the
managers, supervisors, and administrators regularly refuse filing in contravention of 38C(
5(e*) "urther, the drop bo' reHuired by 6DC8 12(10* is no more) <he drop bo' was removed
about . months ago) <he efiling fee tripled, about si' months ago, on Duly 1, 2011) <he
connection is hard to ignore) + seriously, seriously doubt the drop bo' was as underutili:ed as +
have heard suggested) + would imagine the hard wor7ing, dedicated filing office staff may
actually prefer having the drop bo' to cut down on the lines) 3onetheless, + would be surprised
if the dictates of 6DC8 12(10* were rendered null by any under use)
6ith regard to the 6DC filing office e"le' staff refusing to file papers submitted for filing,
please consider:
1ullivan v) Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court +n and "or County of Clar7, ,0! ()2d 10&,, 111 3ev)
1&./ (3ev), 1,,5*: E<his proper person petition for a writ of mandamus see7s an order from
this court directing the Eighth Dudicial District Court to file petitionerBs application to proceed
in forma pauperis and his civil complaint) 1 #n Duly 25, 1,,5, we ordered the state to file an
answer to this petition) <he stateBs answer was filed on 9ugust 11, 1,,5) 2 Documentation
submitted by petitioner to this court establishes that petitioner submitted to the cler7 of the
district court for filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil complaint on
=ay 15, 1,,5) 9lthough the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was in proper
form and was sworn to under penalty of perjury, the cler7 of the district court did not file that
application) & <he failure to file the application was in violation of the clear statutory mandate
that such an application be filed) 381 12)015(1* provides that OPaQny person ))) may file an
affidavit Psee7ing leave to proceed without payment of feesQ)O "urther, we have repeatedly
instructed the cler7 of the Eighth Dudicial District Court that such documents must be filed) 1ee
2owman v) District Court, 102 3ev) !/!, /2% ()2d !&& (1,%.* (cler7 has a ministerial duty to
accept and file documents if those documents are in proper formC cler7 must not e'ercise any
judicial discretion*C 2arnes v) District Court, 10& 3ev) ./,, /!% ()2d !%& (1,%/* (prisonerBs
right of access to court cannot be denied on basis of indigency*C Auebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev)
&2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1* (cler7 must create an accurate record of all pleadings submitted for
filing, whether or not the documents are actually filed*C 6hitman v) 6hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,,
%!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2* (cler7 has no authority to return documents submitted for filingC instead,
cler7 must stamp documents that cannot be immediately filed Oreceived,O and must maintain
such documents in the record of the case*C Donoho v) District Court, 10% 3ev) 102/, %!2 ()2d
/&1 (1,,2* (the cler7 of the district court has a duty to file documents and to 7eep an accurate
record of the proceedings before the court*C ?rey v) ?rey, 111 3ev) &%%, %,2 ()2d 5,5 (1,,5*
(cler7 of district court admonished for failure to 7eep accurate record of documents submitted
for filing*) (etitioner alleges that the district court has refused to file his application and has
returned it with directions to provide more information regarding employment) +ndeed,
petitioner has attached to his petition for a writ in this court his original application as it was
returned to him) 9ttached to the top of the document is a Opost4itO note with the handwritten
notation: Oapplication denied incomplete info4employment currently)O ! <he state informs us
that the note was written by Othe chief judge)O +n addition, petitioner alleges, and the allegation
is apparently true, that along with his OdeniedO application for leave to proceed in forma
210!!2
pauperis, his civil complaint was returned to him unfiled) "inally, petitioner alleges, and has
attached documentation to support the allegation, that judgesB law cler7s often return to
prisoners unfiled motions along with letters purporting to rule on the legal sufficiency of those
motions) <he state argues in its answer to this petition that OpetitionerBs application ))) was
denied on the basis that the address of the (etitioner which was later given to the Court by
(etitioner ))) did not appear to be a jail and that such information was contrary to the
information shown in the application which stated that the (etitioner was in prison) <he Bout of
jailB address suggested an ability of the (etitioner to be employed)O <his vague reference to an
Oout of jailO address is not e'plained in the documents before this court) 3evertheless, the
stateBs assertion that petitionerBs application was denied is incorrect) <he handwritten notation
on petitionerBs unfiled application clearly does not constitute a proper judicial disposition of
that application) "urther, the action of the cler7 of the district court in returning petitionerBs
application and civil complaint to him unfiled is in direct violation of this courtBs instructions to
the cler7 of the district court in 6hitman v) 6hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2*)
<his court has several times confirmed the absolute obligation of the district courts to file
documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of citi:ens to access to the courts,
whether indigent or not) 2arnes v) District Court, 10& 3ev) ./,, /!% ()2d !%& (1,%/*C Auebner
v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) +ndeed, in Donoho v) District Court, 10% 3ev)
102/, %!2 ()2d /&1 (1,,2*, a case directly analogous to this case, we held that the cler7 of the
district court violated the rights of an indigent party when she neglected to file a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for relief from a default judgment)
1pecifically, we stated: OP<Qhe cler7 Pof the district courtQ had an absolute duty to file the
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to clearly stamp the date of receipt of the
other documents on the documents) "urther, the cler7 had a duty to 7eep an accurate record of
the case pending before the district court)O +d) at 102,, %!2 ()2d at /&& (citation omittedC
emphasis added*) <hus, petitionerBs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be
filed) +f, on subseHuent review of the application, the district court determines that petitioner
has not shown he is indigent, the district court may order petitioner to provide further
information or may deny the application in an appropriately filed written order) +f, on the other
hand, the district court grants the application, the district court must then proceed to reHuire the
filing of petitionerBs other documents and to consider them in due course) Donoho, 10% 3ev) at
10&0, %!2 ()2d at /&&) #f course, for statute of limitations purposes, the complaint would have
to be considered filed on the date of actual receipt by the cler7 of the district court) <o continue
the analysis, with respect to petitionerBs civil complaint which he is attempting to file
concurrently, the district court cler7 had an absolute obligation to stamp the document
OreceivedO and to record the date on which the document was in fact received at the courthouse)
1ee Auebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) <his the cler7 of the district court
did) Aowever, the cler7 then had a duty to maintain a copy of the received document in the
record of the case, whether or not the document is ever filed) 6hitman v) 6hitman, 10% 3ev)
,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2*) <his, the cler7 neglected to do) 6hile Auebner dealt with the
timeliness of a notice of appeal, the rationale compelling this courtBs ruling in Auebner, that all
documents must be mar7ed received and dated, applies with eHual force to a partyBs submission
of a complaint) O<he legal rights of the parties to litigation, whether acting in proper person or
211!!2
through counsel, often turn on the date of receipt by the cler7 of the district court of documents
and pleadings)O Auebner, 10/ 3ev) at &&0, %10 ()2d at 1211) 9s with a notice of appeal, the
untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from hearing the matter on its merits) +t is
the responsibility of the cler7 of the district court to 7eep an accurate record of all documents
submitted to her, whether or not they are filed) 9s in Auebner, ambiguities regarding when
documents were received or filed must ultimately be resolved in favor of the party submitting
them) +d) at &&2, %10 ()2d at 1212) <he issue presently before this court is not whether
petitionerBs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient to establish petitionerBs
indigence) "urther, we are not now concerned with the merits of petitionerBs civil complaint)
6e are vitally concerned, however, with the preservation of the constitutional right of access to
the courts and with the protection of the constitutional right to due process of law) 9 writ of
mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law reHuires as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station) 381 &!)1.0) <he cler7 of the district court has an
absolute duty to file petitionerBs application and to properly receive and 7eep a record of
petitionerBs complaint) 9ccordingly, we grant this petition for a writ of mandamus) . <he cler7
of this court shall serve a copy of petitionerBs application and complaint on the cler7 of the
district court forthwith) <he cler7 of this court shall also issue a writ of mandamus compelling
the cler7 of the district court to file petitionerBs application, and to receive petitionerBs
complaint) <hese documents will be considered to have been filed and received on =ay 15,
1,,5) 444444444444444 1 (etitioner also see7s a writ of prohibition enjoining the district court, the
cler7 of the district court and her employees from denying prisoners access to the courts in the
future) 6e deny petitionerBs reHuest for a writ of prohibition) 2 Cause appearing, we grant
petitionerBs proper person reHuest for leave to file a reply to the stateBs answer) <he cler7 of this
court shall file the reply, entitled OpetitionerBs reply to petition for writs of mandamus and
prohibition,O which was received by this court on 9ugust 21, 1,,5) & 9lthough the document
was entitled OapplicationO rather than Oaffidavit,O it was sworn to under penalties of perjury,
provided information concerning petitionerBs financial condition and clearly sought a judicial
ruling regarding the Huestion of whether petitioner would be allowed to proceed with a civil
action without the payment of fees) <hus, any deviation as to form was not significant enough
to justify the cler7Bs failure to file the document) <he
cler7 of the court has no discretion to ma7e any judicial ruling regarding the legal sufficiency
of a document) 6hen a document in proper form is submitted to the cler7, the cler7 has a
ministerial duty to file that document) ! 6e note that petitioner is presently an inmate at the
3evada 1tate (rison, and that his affidavit filed in this court in support of this petition states
that he is currently unemployed and has no prison job) Ae also avers that his only asset is M.)5/
in his prison account) 5 #ne such letter from a law cler7 to an inmate states: O9ttached please
find your =otions to (roceed in "orma (auperis which you recently submitted) 381 12)015
reHuires an indigent litigant to set forth Bwith particularity facts concerning his income,
property, and other resources )))B Nour application to proceed sets forth this information very
generally)O O(lease resubmit the =otion with a more particular statement regarding your
finances and any property you own))))O 9lthough this letter does not directly deny the motion, it
clearly has the effect of denying the motion without filing) #f course, li7e the cler7 of the
district court, a judgeBs law cler7 lac7s judicial authority) . <he state represents that Othe
212!!2
District Court will file the (etitionerBs complaint upon submittal by the petitioner)O <his
statement was based on the stateBs view that we determined in our #rder to 1how Cause that
petitioner should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis) 6e, however, e'press no opinion
regarding the merits of petitionerBs application or complaint) 6e merely determine that the
application should have been filed and judicially resolved, and the complaint should have been
properly received) 6e note that petitioner has sent the original documents to this court, and
thus may not be in a position to resubmit them) 9lso, for statute of limitations purposes, the
documents must be considered filed as of the date of original receipt) <hus, we have
determined that this petition must be granted)F 9nother very important and instructive case is
6hitman v) 6hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (3ev), 1,,2*: E#n rehearing, appellant has
submitted documents that conclusively demonstrate that appellant submitted a timely notice of
appeal to the cler7 of the district court) 9lthough the cler7 of the district court stamped the
notice of appeal OreceivedO on December &0, 1,,1, the cler7 did not file the notice of appeal)
+nstead, the cler7 of the district court returned appellantBs notice of appeal to appellant because
it was not accompanied by a filing fee and, although the notice was accompanied by a motion
for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, appellantBs affidavit in support of that motion
was apparently not signed) ConseHuently, there is no record of the submission of appellantBs
timely notice of appeal) 6e note that the cler7 of the district court filed appellantBs motion for
leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis on the date of receipt, December &0, 1,,1, and
that the district court eventually granted that motion) 6e have previously stated that Oit is
e'tremely important that the cler7 of the district court 7eep an accurate record of the date of
receipt of every document submitted to the cler7, regardless of whether the document is in the
appropriate form) +ndeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the cler7 of the district court to
neglect this ministerial duty)O Auebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, &&0, %10 ()2d 120,, 1211
(1,,1* (footnote omitted*) +n this case, the cler7 of the district court has failed to 7eep any
record of the date of receipt of appellantBs notice of appealC instead, the cler7 stamped the
document OreceivedO and returned it to appellant) <he cler7 of the district court had no
authority to ta7e such action) 9lthough the cler7 of the district court had no duty to file
appellantBs notice of appeal before appellant paid the reHuisite filing fee or was relieved of the
duty to pay the filing fee by order of the district court, see 381 1,)01&(2*, the cler7 had a duty
to receive the document and to 7eep an accurate record of the case pending before the district
court) (articularly in this case it was essential that the notice of appeal be retained in the record,
because we have held that a notice of appeal is effective on the date of receipt by the district
court cler7) 1ee Auebner v) 1tate, P10% 3ev) ,52Q 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) 8ather
than returning the notice of appeal to appellant, the cler7 of the district court should have
retained the notice of appeal in the record, and should have informed appellant by letter of any
perceived deficiencies in the document) ! 9ppellant could then have ta7en whatever action was
appropriate to pursue his appeal) +n light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant timely
submitted to the cler7 of the district court a notice of appeal from an appealable order of the
district court, and that appellantBs timely notice of appeal is not contained in the record due to
the inappropriate action of the district court cler7) 9ccordingly, we grant appellantBs petition for
rehearing, and we proceed to address the merits of this appeal)F +d) 9t 12&2412&!) 1ee, also,
2arnes v) Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court of 1tate of 3ev), +n and "or Clar7 County, /!% ()2d !%&,
21&!!2
10& 3ev) ./, (3ev), 1,%/*)
1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
(R97 -otification of 9lectronic /iling in ?- R97 D?'C?P>?-9 =/ Z6C"6RI
C=E2">?-8 -o, +*.*
1ent: <hu 101112 5:05 (=
<o: patric77Lnvbar)orgC laurapLnvbar)orgC davidcLnvbar)orgC tsusichLnvdetr)orgC
Dear 2ar Counsel, Chairman 1usich, and Cler7 of Court (eters,
Cler7 of Court (eters made representations to Coughlin on or around 1eptember 11th, 2011
that she had mailed a certified copy of a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint on or about 9ugust 2&rd,
2012, but that she has received it bac7 in the mail as unclaimed on 1eptember 10th, 2012)
Cler7 (eters made representation to Coughlin that he would not be deemed OservedO the
Complaint by the 123 incident to any 9ugust 2&rd, 2012 mailing, but that she would resend
such 123 v) Coughlin Complaint sooner after the communications with Coughlin on or about
1eptember 11th, 2012, and that Coughlin would not be deemed OservedO until a signed returned
certified mail receipt was recieved by the 123) Coughlin is entitled to rely upon representation
made by the 123Bs Cler7 of Court (eters) "urther, (atric7 Ging made representations that the
earliest Coughlin would be viewed as OservedO an 123 v) Coughlin Complaint would be
1eptember 25th, 2012, providing Coughlin a guarantee that he had 20 days to file an 9nswer
from that date) 3ow it seems 2ar Counsel Ging is attempting to remi' this situation, and
potentially deem Coughlin OservedO all the way bac7 to, say, 5 days from when Cler7 of Court
(eters indicates she sent Coughlin via certified mail a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint or or about
9ugust 2&rd, 2012) #f Course, 2ar Counsel Ging has done no legal research to see if there
e'ists any authority to interpret this situation or 1C8 10,, but merely ma7es it up as he goes
along, contradicting himself along the well, and going bac7 on representations made by the
123, sullying its image)
+n anticipation of that very sort of approach, Coughlin filed a =otion to Dismiss on 1eptember
1/th, 2012 (which would be timely under even the most draconian interpretations of 1C8 10,,
even where the 123 is allowed to go bac7 on promises and e'press indications detailed above,
sometimes in writing, too*, and Cler7 of Court (eters indicated to Coughlin that 2ar Counsel
Ging forbade her from filing it, citing various specious arguments as to why 38C( 5(e* did not
have to be followed by the 123) 3ow, 2ar Counsel Ging has sent a confusing email on
#ctober %th, 2012 purporting a ;erified 9nswer to a 123 v Coughlin Complaint to be due by
O<uesday 1eptember ,, 2012O)))which is in the past))))and which is less than 20 days from even
the 9ugust 2&rd, 2012 date the Cler7 of Court (eters indicated to Coughlin she mailed, via
21!!!2
certified letter, a 123 v) Coguhlin Complaint)
(lease provide an indication of whether GingBs email of #ctober %th, 2012 contained a typo as
to the due date for an 9nswer, and whether the 123 views that date to have already passed,
and the e'tent to which the 123 and or the 33D2 is going bac7 on the indications by Ging
and Cler7 (eters as to when, at the earliest, such a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint woud be
deemed OservedO)
8espectfully,
-ach Coughlin
(1) + will provide my physical address, as + have indicated previously, if the 123 demands it,
but given the abuse of me by local law enforcement in my crusade for civil rights and
lawfulness and against prosecutorial misconduct, + have became fearful of having my physical
address all that well 7nown, plus + was adjudged a victim of domestic violence earlier this year
in ";124001%/ and ";124001%%, which further supports such an arrangment) (lease see my
previous correspondence with offers of presenting a reasonable manner in which the 123 can
readily and Huic7ly serve me)
8E: motion to dismiss attached)
100%12
8eply g
(atric7 Ging
9dd to contacts
<o -ach Coughlin
"rom: (atric7 Ging ((atric7GLnvbar)org*
1ent: =on 100%12 11:&, 9=
Dear =r) Coughlin,

answer is due by <uesday 1eptember ,, 2012) Nou should file a verified answer
to the complaint)

(atric7 Ging, 9ssistant 2ar Counsel)

1ent: 1aturday, #ctober 0., 2012 !:&. 9=
<o: (atric7 GingC $aura (etersC tsusichLnvdetr)org
1ubject: "6: motion to dismiss attached

215!!2
Dear 2ar Counsel,

(lease note that the =otion to Dismiss that + filed in 123 v) Coughlin, on
1eptember 1/th, 2012, has gone unopposed, and therefore, should be
granted)))=r) Ging was telling me the other day: O-ach, you donBt ta7e
responsibility for your actions and that is why things donBt wor7 out for you)))O +
wonder, does =r) Ging ta7e responsibility for his actions here, or lac7 thereof, in
failing to oppose my =otion to DismissJ +t will be interesting to see)

1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
11
8E: =r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12 letterJ
"rom: (atric7 Ging ((atric7GLnvbar)#rg* <his sender is in your safe list)
1ent: <hu !1,12 2:2% (=
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com (:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com*
9pril 1,, 2012 -ach Coughlin
Dear =r) Coughlin,
9 screening panel of the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary (anel met on
)uesday 6%ril 1+8 2+11 to address the grievances filed against you) <he panel
directed me to proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing) 9s such, + will be
preparing a formal Complaint)
+ understand from the e4mail below, that you do not believe you
should have been found guilty of the theft at 6al4=art and that you should not
have been found in contempt of Court) Aowever, it must concern you that you
were found in contempt of Court by more than one Dudge in two different trials)
Nou wanted to 7now how + learned of or obtained a copy of Dudge ?ardnerRs
#rder after trial that was filed in 200,) +t was sent to me by the cler7 of the court
at my reHuest, pursuant to my investigation)
+t would help me and perhaps yourself, if you would respond and
e'plain why you were convicted of theft and why you were held in contempt of
Court) Nou may be well served to e'plain what remedial measures you are
ta7ing to ma7e sure you do not repeat the conduct complained about) + cannot
give you legal advice) Aowever ? can suggest you coo%erate #ith 1ar
counselPs investigation and that you res%ond s%ecifically to the allegations
contained in Judge "olmes and Richard "illPs grievance letters to the office
of 1ar Counsel)
(atric7 GingF
Aowever, 33D2 Chair 1usichBs 5&112 1C8 11/ (etition in .0,/5 indicates a
different date of meeting by the 1creening (anel (EThe 4creening @anel met on or a%out
A&ril /K' 05/0' and made various findings and recommendations' including the followingF
21.!!2
which tends to indicate that GingBs presentation of !1012 to the 1creening (anel was not
sufficient to garner the go ahead he sought to file an 1C8 105 Complaint, and that, plus the
fact that a number of those E'hibit included in the 2& E'hibit collection inde'ed at bates 01,.5
of the 11/12 &,0,! page production by the 123 are dated E!1112 (such as the 9ffidavits by
8=C counter cler7 ECourt 1pecialistF Cassillas, 8=C Court 9dministrator Cassandra
Dac7son, 8=C =arshal 1cott Coppa and =atthew <hompson* in addition to the fact that the
email with three attachments to Ging from 8DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori <ownsend is dated
!1112 (where E'hibit ! to . appear to consist of the E=otionF in 8C8201240.5.&0 listed
amongst the file names of the pdf attachments to <ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging, and where
the two 8DC criminal case Complaints in E'hibits ! and 5 belong to the very cases whose case
numbers are included in the file names of the other two attachments to <ownsendBs email*, and
the 2& E'hibit EcollectionF in the &,0,! page production of documents by Ging on 11/12 in
lieu of actually complying with 1C8 105(2*(c* contains materials from !1112, (especially
those Ging obtained from 8DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori <ownsend (see %ates 0/I2 in within the
&,0,! page 123 production to Coughlin four judicial days prior to the formal hearing*)
1uch 8DC Dudicial 1ecretaryBs email to Ging indicates in her !1112 email to Ging
that she is attaching three separate pdf files, which may, or may not be those items listed as
E'hibits !, 5, and . in the +nde' to the 2& E'hibit presentation (and, really, there is no clear
indication in such &,0,! page production that such 2& E'hibit presentation was prepared by or
presented by Ging or the 123, and if so, to whom is was presented, or whether such was
presented by somebody else to Ging and the 123) 9ll of this obfuscation by Ging and the
123 is utterly unacceptable and ma7es laughable Chair EcheverriaBs allegation in the 121!12
"#"C#$ that Coughlin Eengaged in bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processF)
"urther, the placement of such !1112 email to Ging by 8DC Dudicial 1ecretary <ownsend
occurs within that which Ging and 123 identified as the EfolderF for the Dudge 3ash Aolmes
grievance which is found at bates 2/02 to 2/,& of the &,0,! page 11/12 production, within a
EfolderF titled E2rievance /ile 3-2124+$.5 67 Z, Coughlin8 9s:, 27 Judge Dorthy ;sic<
-ash "olmesF
<he contents of that EE2rievance /ile 3-2124+$.5 67 Z, Coughlin8 9s:, 27
Judge Dorthy ;sic< -ash "olmesF are Huite telling, especially when considering 8DC Dudge
CliftonBs mysteriously being transferred onto in place of Dudge $ynch on 22/12 the very
Egross misdemeanorF case GingBs complaint references at paragraphs % and , therein (ie,
without any court order or some documentation of identifying under what authority former 25
year veteran of the 6CD9Bs office as a prosecutor turned Dudge Clifton was able to have
himself transferred onto the 8C8201240.5.&0 case to which 8DC Dudge (atricia $ynch was
ErandomlyF assigned (also curious is the chronology given then Chief Dudge 1ferra::aBs
handling of both the summary eviction involving AillBs firm in 8ev20114001/0% and the
i(hone petty larceny prosecution stemming from the intial %2011 arrest made just days after
Aill and his firm began their vitriolic threats of 8ambo4style litigation of the summary eviction
from CoughlinBs former home law office, and CoughlinBs 22112 fa' to Dudge $ynch
complianing of the fact that she had been randomly assigned to the ;erified Complaint for
+llegal $oc7out case Coughlin filed against (ar7 <errace <ownhomes on 21012 in 8ev20124
0/!!0%, only to have Dudge 1ferra::a insert himself into such matter) 1o much for ErandomF
21/!!2
case assignments) Dudge Clifton has managed to get his hoo7s in every single criminal case
brought against Coughlin since that time, including that stemming from the ridiculous attac7 on
Coughlin by 8DC attac7 dog, er, 2ailiff Dohn Aolguin 8eyes on 52&1&, incident to which
8eyes e'hibited :ero lac7 of control in overcharging Coughlin with two felonies and two
misdemeanors (his attempt to charge Coughlin with EContempt of CourtF was refused by the
jail and pre4trial services* totally M1.,000 worth of bail, resulting in CoughlinBs incarceration
between 52&1& and ./1&)
"urther, Dudge 1ferra::a summarily Huashed CoughlinBs subpoena on the very
6C(D 2iray Dogan, EsH) whose failure to appear on 21!12 at the arraignment for the very
gross misdemeanor referenced in paragraphs % and , of GingBs Complaint (where such failure
to appear is a per se violation of 381 1/%)&,/ that Ging himself summarily e'cused in
rejecting CoughlinBs grievance against Dogan* during a 111&12 (ie, Dudge 1ferra::a insisted
on holding a hearing on 8eno City 9ttorney Creigton 17auBs =otion to Uuash CoughlinsB
subpoenas (where 17au fraudulently obtained CoughlinBs appearance (by lying to Coughlin in
alleging that 17au had been given permission by Dudge 1ferra::a to serve Coughlin via email
notice of a hearing devoted to 17auBs contention that CoughlinBs subpoenas should be Huashed
for insufficient service, ironically, but not at all une'pectedly to anyone who has dealt with the
routine Dudge 1ferra::a and the 8eno City 9ttorneyBs #ffice have goinB* at such 111&12
hearing despite such not being appropriately noticed, and notice thereof not being timely
served (where other than via personal service, given the three days for mailing reHuired for
Econstructive serviceF and the non4judicial day that was 111212, it would not have been
possible for the 8DCDudge 1ferra::a, and 8C9 17au to constructively serve notice of such
EemergencyF 111&12 hearing on 17au and DoganBs 11%12 =otionBs to Uuash (where an e'
parte hearing was held without Coughlin, but with 17au and 6CD9 DD9 Noung before
1ferra::a on 11%12*)
Consider that GingBs %2&12 Complaint reads:
E/) #n 9ugust 20, 2011, 8espondent was arrested on a second larceny
charge for stealing a cell phone) <hose charges are currently pending in 8eno
Dustice Court)
%) 8espondent was again arrested on Danuary 1&, 2012, for allegedly
abusing ,11 services, a gross misdemeanor)
,) #n "ebruary 21, 2012) 8espondent filed a document entitled, 3otice of
9ppearance Entry of (lea of 3ot guilty , 6aiver of 9rraignment, =otion to
Dismiss, etc) in one of his pending criminal matters, Case 3o) 8C842012 0.5.&0,
City of 8eno v) -achary Coughlin) <he document clearly shows 8espondentBs
unprofessional, disruptive conduct, and lac7 of respect for the court and opposing
counsel)F
6ithin the 123Bs &,0,! page production, as part of the mysterious 2& E'hibit
presentation or EcollectionF therein is:
1B5 unadorned or unidentified in any #ay ?nde@ to 9@hibits from the 2. 9@hibit
%resentation !ing ;A< %rovided to the 'creening Panel at the second meeting
thereof8 u%on !ing being informed after the $C1+C12 initial %resentation to the
21%!!2
'creening Panel that he had not met his burdenA)))
1,/% 9@h, !) 9mended Criminal Complaint filed December 5, 2011, 8DC Case 3o) 8C8
201140.&&!1 (i(hone petty larceny arrest of %2011*
1,%! 9@h, 5) Criminal Complaint filed Danuary 2&, 2012, 8DC Case 3o) 8C8 20124
0.5.&0 (11!12 Emisuse of ,11F arrest*
1,%, 9@h, .) 3otice of 9ppearance, Entry of (lea of 3ot ?uilty, 6aiver of 8ight to
9rraignmentC =otion to Dismiss filed "ebruary 21, 2012, 8DC Case 3o) 8C8 20124
0.5.&0F
6hether or not such EE'hibitsF ! through . represent the attachments to 8DC
Dudicial 1ecretary <ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging is not at all clear from a review of the
&,0/! bates stamped production, nor it whether or not Ging contacted <ownsend reHuesting
such on his own initiative or in response to the reference to an 8DC Egross misdemeanorF case
Dudge Aolmes references in her "AE% letter to the 123, or whether some 8DC Dudge decided it
necessary to ta7e Eappropriate actionF and, pursuant to 3CDC Canon 2, 8ule 2)15 contacted the
8DC) Ging put on absolutely no evidence of any sort that any such Eappropriate actionF was
deemed necessary by any 8DC Dudge or ever so ta7en in the form of referring some alleged
misconduct by Coughlin to the Eappropriate authorityF that is the 123)
<hen, consider that "AE%, 8=C Dudge 3ash AolmesB &1!12 grievance letter to the
123 regarding Coughlin indicates that:
E8e: -achary 2ar7er Coughlin, 3evada 2ar 3o) ,!/&
Dear =r) Clar7:
<his letter constitutes a formal complaint of attorney misconduct andor
disability against -achary 2ar7er Coughlin) <he accompanying %o6 of materials
demonstrates some of the problems with the practice of this attorney being
e6&erienced %( m(self and the other three -udges in eno 7unici&al .ourt)
(3#<E: Coughlin had never once been before 8=C Dudge Dilworth at the time
Dudge Aolmes wrote this, and during the 12512 traffic citation trial Dudge
Dilworth angrily disputed such contention by Dudge Aolmes upon Coughlin
reporting it to him, with Dudge Dilworth e'pressly disclaiming that Dudge Aolmes
had any authority to spea7 on his behalf whatsoever* 7( two most recent Orders in
what should be a simple traffic citation case are self4e'planatory and are included,
together with copies of massive documents =r) Coughlin has fa' filed to our court
in this case) 9udio recordings of two of my hearings in this matter are also
included) Ae failed to appear for the second one this past =onday)
+ have another traffic case pending trial with him that was re1assigned
(3#<E: via a 22/12 #rder by 2012 and 201& 8=C 9dministrative Dudge 6)
?ardner so transferring such case the very same day 8DC Dudge Clifton was
mysteriously transferred on to the Egross misdemeanorF in the 8DC Aolmes
references in "AE%* to me based on our Department 1 (3#<E: Dudge Dilworth,
Aolmes fails to specify by name here, curiously* judge being out for surgery) !e
have multi&le addresses for =r) Coughlin and canBt seem to locate him between
cases very easily) 6e are setting that case for trial and attempting to serve him at
21,!!2
the most recent address we have (1!22 E) ,th 1t) I2 8eno 3N %,512*, although $
heard toda( he ma( %e living in his vehicle somewhere) 6e do have an address
for his mother however as she recently posted part of a fine for him)
Judge !en "o#ard8 De%artment $8 had a case on Mr, Coughlin late
last year that is no# on a%%eal to the 'econd Judicial District Court, Judge
1ill 2ardner8 De%artment 28 also has a matter currently %ending in his court
#ith Mr, Coughlin as the defendant) $ have enclosed some co&ies of documents
from those matters' in chronological order' sim&l( %ecause the( a&&ear to
demonstrate that he is *uic)l( decom&ensating in his mental status) Our staff also
made you some audio tapes of Coughlin in *epartments - and 1 (3#<E: D2 is
Dudge 6) ?ardnerC D! is Dudge Aoward* so you can hear for yourself how this
attorney acts in court) Nou can see his behavior in my traffic citation case does not
appear to be an isolated incident)
?t is my understanding that eno Justice .ourt also has a matter
%ending on this attorney, My Judicial 6ssistant was contacted %( the !ashoe
@u%lic "efender in Fe%ruar( when $ had 7r. .oughlin -ailed for .ontem&t of
.ourt and the( stated that the( re&resent him in a Gross 7isdemeanor matter in
J.. $ have no other information on that,
:ou will have the full coo&eration of m(self' the other -udges' and the
staff of eno 7unici&al .ourt in (our &ursuit of this matter) =r) Coughlin has
positioned himself as a ve'atious litigant in our court, antagoni:ing the staff and
even our pro temp judges on the most sim&le traffic and misdemeanor matters) + do
thin7 this is a case of some urgency, and + apologi:e for ta7ing two days to get this
&ac)age to (ouC our +< person was ill and could not ma7e the copies of the audios
of =r) CoughlinBs hearings until today, and + felt it was important that the audios be
included in the materials to %e considered by the 1tate 2ar) =n /ebruary 278
2+128 7r. .oughlin told me he was activel( &racticing law and had a&&ointments
with clients) + do not 7now if that was true, but if so, he could be causing serious
harm to the practice of law in 3orthern 3evada and could be jeopardi:ing
someoneBs freedom or property interests)O
"AE%Bs letter to the 123 by Dudge AolmesB reads:
E<he accompanying %o6 of materials demonstrates some of the problems with the
practice of this attorney being e6&erienced %( m(self and the other three -udges in eno
7unici&al .ourt)F Aowever, Coughlin had never once been before 8=C Dudge Dilworth at the
time Dudge Aolmes wrote this, and during the 12512 traffic citation trial Dudge Dilworth
angrily disputed such contention by Dudge Aolmes upon Coughlin reporting it to him, with
Dudge Dilworth e'pressly disclaiming that Dudge Aolmes had any authority to spea7 on his
behalf whatsoever* that the /&12 wrongful arrest of Coughlin in violation of 1oldal v) Coo7
County that idiotic 8(D #fficer 9lan 6eaver and 1argent Dye committed in accord with the
threats of $t) Gevin 2rown that Coughlin would be arrested for Ecriminal trespassF at
3orthwind 9partments in light of the eviction on .2%12 from one of CoughlinBs three rentals
at such 3orthwind comple' (the /&12 arrest in 8=C 12 C8 12!20, which resulted in
220!!2
Coughlin being incarcerated from /&1& to /2112, preventing Coughlin from further
submitting a timely notice of appeal of the criminal trespass conviction at issue in .1,01
involving the very 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner whom committed egregious judicial misconduct on
/512 in raising CoughlinBs bail incident to the /&12 arrest for Edisturbing the peaceF, Efailure
to produce proof of insuranceF (where 8(D #fficer 6eaver indicated CoughlinBs presenting a
high definition pdf of his @199 insurance on a !)% inch smart phone screen EdidnBt satisfy the
statuteF*, and for Efailure to secure a loadF on oneBs truc7 from a bondable M1,!15 to a cash
only M&,000)
Ging made to the 33D2 during his second attempt to get a green light to proceed
with an 1C8 105 Complaint against Coughlin found at bates stam% %age +1B5 of the 11/12
production in E'hibits !, 5, and . of such 2& E'hibit presentation to the 33D2) <he 123Bs
Ging presented such 2& E'hibit presentation to the 33D2 1creening (anel following the
!1012 meeting thereof resulting in Ging being told he did not present a compelling enough
presentation to justify proceeding to a formal disciplinary proceeding against Coughlin*)
<ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging reads:
EO"rom: <ownsend, $ori c $<ownsendLwashoecounty)usd 1ent:
6ednesday, 9pril 11, 2012 11:&! 9= <o: (atric7 Ging 1ubject: -achary
Coughlin 9ttachments: 8C8201140.5.&0)(dfC 8C8201140.5.&04
=otion)(dfC 8C8201140.&&!1)(df
Ai (atric74 Aere are the two outstanding criminal cases against
=r) Coughlin in 8eno Dustice Court) Case number 8C8 201140.&&!1 is set
for trial on =ay ih at ,:00 amC Case 8C8 201140.5.&0 is the one awaiting
the results of the competency evaluation) + also included a noticemotion that
he filed in the gross misdemeanor case)
+ did not include a pleading entitled O(re <rial =otionsO he filed
in the misdemeanor case (it is in e'cess of 200 pages*, but if you would li7e
to see that, + can send you a copy) Ae is also emailing staff members with
lin7s to his Nou<ube pages) (lease let me 7now if you need anything else)
h8C8201140.5.&0)(dfi h8C8201140.5.&04=otion)(dfi h8C820114
0.&&!1)(dfi $ori,
>ori )o#nsend Judges0 'ecretary8 Reno Justice Court
() #) 2o' &00%& 8eno, 3; %,520 //54&254.5501F
<he bates stamped &,0,! page production fails to include the attachments listed in
<ownsendBs !1112 email (E9ttachments: 8C8201140.5.&0)(dfC 8C8201140.5.&04
=otion)(dfC 8C8201140.&&!1)(dfF*, which is completely unacceptable, and is definitely not
Ebar counsel wor7 productF, and completely fails to contain any sort of correspondence from
Ging to the 8DC or its Dudicial 1ecretary <ownsend (unli7e the 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH) grievance
file, which contains a letter from Ging to Aill ac7nowledging the receipt of AillBs grievance
(though, again, the EenclosuresF referenced therein are not to be found within the &,0,! page
bates stamped 123 production to Coughlin of 11/12*) #bviously, Ging heavily doctored
and EarrangedF the &,0,! page production in an effort to avoid the defensive collateral estoppel
bar arguments availing to Coughlin in light of the failure of any 8DC Dudges (including both
221!!2
Dudge Clifton and Dudge $ynch considering the 22112 filing by Coughlin in the Emisuse of
,11F case
(3#<E: there is absolutely no support or citation presented by either the (anel or
#2C that a Epetty larcenyF conviction Einvolves Efraud and dishonesty, and the balance of
american jurisprudence (not to mention the mandatory authority in Claiborne* establishes that
the majority viewpoint is such that the panel may not rule that a conviction conclusively
establishes whether or not the crime Einvolves illegal conduct that evinces fraud and
dishonestyF or is otherwise a EseriousF crime or offense or supportive of a 8(C %)!(b*4(c*
violation*
9lso problematic is 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs statements on the record of the
!1012 trial he attempted to hold in violation of 381 1/%)!05 (he held a motion hearing
anyways, in violation of the stay reHuired therein* that he had e'trajudicial 7nowledge of when
the 1creening (anel would be meeting (impermissible e'tra judicial 7nowledge permeated all
of CoughlinBs cases in the 8=C)))how e'actly it is appropriate for Dudge 6) ?ardner to go
passinB Bround some three year old sanctions order by his sister that she 7nows full well she
vacated in entering a final Decree of Divorce that e'cised such from the (roposed
"#"C#$D#D that she ordered 1pringgate to prepare Econsistent withF her !1&0, #rder
9fter <rial of !1&0,, which did have a sanction, and which did not award alimony, where the
final Decree of Divorce did award alimony and did not contain any attorneyBs fees sanction, is
not clear at all (probably because it is so hugely inappropriate*)

12 (3#<E: 123 Cler7 of Court $aura (eters OCertificate #f 1erviceO for GingBs file stamped
102!12 #pposition to CoughlinBs =otion to 2ifurcate, =otion to Dismiss reads:
OCE8<+"+C9<E #" 1E8;+CE <he undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing #pposition to 8espondentBs =otion to 2ifurcate Aearing, =otion to
Dismiss was deposited in the @nited 1tates =ai l at 8eno, 3evada, postage fully pre4paid
thereon fo r certified and first class mail addressed to the fo llowing: -achary 2) Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t) 8eno 3; %,505 D9<ED this 2!th day of #ctober, 2012) s $aura (eters,
9n Employee #f <he 1tate 2ar #f 3evadaO Aowever, <he @1(1 <rac7 K Confrim
+ndicates <hat, Even 6here (eters Certificate #f =ailing $ac7s <he =i7ohn Oto ?o #ut
<hat DayO $anguage, (eters Certificate #f =ailing +s @ntrue 6here 1uch Did 3ot Even ?o
#ut <he 3e't Day 102511, 2ut 6as #nly (ic7ed @p 2y <he @sps #n 102.12,
(rejudicing CoughlinBs 9bility <o "ile 9 8eply <hereto, Especially 6here (anel Chair
Echeverria, Curiously (even <hough <he (anel Aad #nly 2een Designated <he (revious
Date, 10&012 2y 3ndb Chair 1usich* Entered 9n #rder #n 10&111 Denying CoughlinBs
=otions <o 2ifurcate, Dismiss, 9nd "or 9n #rder <o 1how Cause) <he @sps <rac7 K
Confrim "or 1uch 102!12 "ile 1tamped 1bn Ging #pposition <o CoughlinBs =otion <o
2irfurcate, =otion <o Dismiss 8eveals: Oyour $abel 3umber 1ervice 1tatus #f Nour +tem
Date K <ime $ocation "eatures /0102/%0000&5!2,552. 3otice $eft #ctober 2/, 2012,
!:0& (m 8eno, 3v %,512 Certified =ail 9rrival 9t @nit #ctober 2/, 2012, .:&, 9m 8eno,
3v %,50. (rocessed <hrough @sps 1ort "acility #ctober 2/, 2012, !:50 9m 8eno, 3v
222!!2
%,510 Depart @sps 1ort "acility #ctober 2/, 2012 8eno, 3v %,510 (rocessed <hrough @sps
1ort "acility #ctober 2., 2012, 10:15 (m 8eno, 3v %,510O 9nd, really, such is not all that
surprising considering GingBs own signature on that #pposition indicates such was
O8espectfully submitted on this 25 day of #ctober, 2012 1<9<E 298 #" 3E;9D9
D9;+D 9) C$98G, 298 C#@31E$ 2y: s (atric7 #) Ging, 9ssistant 2ar CounselO)*
"urther, beyond the fact that both Ging and 123 Cler7 of Court
$aura (eters denied CoughlinBs verbal and written reHuests to so EinspectF the
materials to which Coughlin had a right to do so under 1C8 105(2*(c* on
several occasions between the %2&12 filing of the Complaint and Eup to within
three days of the hearingF, if GingBs 102512 signed (but file stamped 102!12,
and @1(1 <rac7 K Confirm proven to have been deposited for mailing on
102.12* #ppoistion to =otion to 2ifurcate and =otion to Dismiss was being
truthful where Ging purported to have no objection to Coughlin so inspecting
the file (E)))the 1tate 2ar of 3evada responds as follows: -achary Coughlin ma(
ins&ect the evidence that the 4tate Bar has &ertaining to his disci&line matters
u& to three <D= da(s &rior to the hearing' &ursuant to 4. /5><0=<c=) Coughlin
has been sent, via both certified and first class mail, a 3otice of Aearing which
was accompanied by a Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence
prepared by bar counsel pursuant to 1upreme Court 8ule) To the e6tent that
.oughlin wants to review the disci&linar( files &ertaining to his case' Bar
.ounsel has no o%-ection)F*, then #hy #ould the Panel Chair0s =rder of
1+C.1C12 order something other than such ;indicating8 obviously8 more e6
&arte communications %etween Echeverria and the 4BN8 not hard to believe
considering their offices are #ithin as stone0s thro# of each other)*
EcheverriaBs 10&112 #rder remi'ed 1C8 105(2*(c* (and, also,
ma7es some very telling, and interesting findings regarding what Coughlin
EfiledF and when Coughlin filed such filings when considering the manner in
which Coughlin submitting such submission for filing, and the e'tent to which
the 123 failed to place a file stamp on CoughlinBs =otion for #rder to 1how
Cause, in addition to failing to file stamp in, or even recogni:e, the ,1/12
=otion to Dismiss (with a 3 &age letter to NN"B .hair 4usich and the 4BN;s
Eing that Echeverria would later reference in the hearing in his mista7en
assertion that Coughlin did not want to bifurcate the 1C8 105 Eformal hearingF
from the EhearingF reHuired by the 3evada 1upreme CourtBs ./12 #rder in
.0%&% and 1C8 111(%* that the 123 e'cised completely from the 21&1& 8#9
in .2&&/* as to CoughlinBs Eright to inspect, up to within three days of the
hearingF the permitted materials, and, in going against what Ging himself
indicated (in an obvious bit of tric7eration and misdirection given the e' parte
communications between Echeverria and the 123, resulting in such 10&112
#rder ruling otherwise*, where such 10&112 #rder reads: E<he "ormal
Aearing in these matters is scheduled to ta7e place on 6ednesday, 3ovember
1!, 2012, beginning at ,:00 at the 3orthern 3evada 2ar Center, ,!5. Double 8)
22&!!2
2lvd), 1uite 2, 8eno, 3evada %,521) 4everal motions have %een filed and are
&ending) <he "ormal Aearing (anel Chair has had an o%%ortunity to revie#
and consider the follo#ing motions and res&onsive &leadings ;-=)97 Ging
only filed one #pposition, and, regardless, EpleadingsF entail only an 9nswer
and a Complaint or similar (such as a Demurrer, a =otion to Dismiss, a =otion
for =ore Definite 1tatement, etc*, not #ppositions, so EcheverriaBs subseHuent
Econclusion of lawF that the allegation in GingBs Complaint Ecould %e ta)e as
admitted as a matter of defaultF in view of his EfindingF that Coughlin failed to
file a Eres&onsive &leadingF is seriously undone*: <herefore, +< +1 AE8E2N
#8DE8ED:)) 1) 7otion to "ismiss %re%ared 1eptember 1., 2012, and filed
#ctober 1., 2012, is DE3+ED) 2) Motion for =rder to 'ho# Cause
8egarding +mproper 9ttempt by 2ar Counsel and, (ossibly, 33D2 to Delay
and #bstruct Aearing 8eHuired by Courts Dune /th, 2012 #rder in Case 3o)
.0%&% and CoughlinBs 1C8 102(!*(d* (etition in Case .1!2. &re&ared #ctober
2, 2012, and filed #ctober 1., 2012, is DE3+ED) &) Motion to Revie# and
?ns%ect 1ar RecordsJ Motion to 1ifurcate "earingJ Motion to Dismiss for
Complaint PsicQ "ailure to 1ufficiently 1tate the Charges with 1pecificity and
1upport and for @tter "ailure of 2ar Counsel to (erform 8easonable
+nvestigation %re%ared #ctober 15, 2012, and filed #ctober 1., 2012, is
?893<ED +3 (98< 93D DE3+ED +3 (98<) The Office of Bar .ounsel
will arrange for co&ies of the file to %e delivered to 7r. .oughlin at the
address that he has &rovided to the 4tate Bar at the earliest o&&ortunit()O
(3#<E: the Eearliest opporunityF turned out to ta7e another seven
days, meaning such were only delivered to Coughlin four judicial days before
the formal disciplinary hearing)
EAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages .:20 to /:.* E=8) ECAE;E88+9: Mr, !ingA
MR, !?-27 6s the record reflects8 Mr, Coughlin was served a co&( of the
com&laint to the address that he is mandated to provide to the 1tate 2ar) =8)
C#@?A$+3: + donBt believe thatBs correct) =8) ECAE;E88+9: (lease donBt
interrupt, =r) Coughlin) ?o ahead) MR, !?-27 4u%se*uentl(' 7r. .oughlin filed'
immediatel( after we mailed the com&laint via certified and regular mail' 7r.
.oughlin filed a motion to dismiss the com&laint)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &02:1& to &0!:15* E=8) ECAE;E88+9: +
believe that all the pleadings that have been filed would be part of the panelBs record
that would go to the supreme court) =8) G+3?: 9nything thatBs been mar7ed as an
e'hibit and identified and accepted into evidence by the panel will be part of the record)
9nd the entire transcript of the proceedings) 3o other documents at this time, anything
that hasnBt been proffered as evidence will be not admitted) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Do
the pleadings go up or just that which is offered into evidence and acceptedJ =8)
G+3?: <o the e'tent that the complaint will certainly go up everything that's in this
22!!!2
pac4et will go up+ %nything that you had mar4ed and accepted as evidence will !e sent
up on the record along with the entire transcript) 1ut to have other documents Gust
com%iled8 it #on0t hel% the record8 it #ill ma&e it more confusing) <he su&reme
court has %etter things to do) =8) ;E$$+1: Aleadings filed they don't go
automatically, the whole case file doesn't go $ust whatever is entered hereJ =8) G+3?:
Correct) (3#<E: Aoly negligent hiring, training, supervision, 2ar Counsel David
Clar7^ @nbelievably, here, Ging is announcing his intention to attempt to e'cise from
the 8#9 the documents (and E'hibits attached thereto* that Coughlin EfiledF with the
123 (whether or not Ging and (eters have fraudulent e'cised any record of such from
both the 122!12 and 21&1& 8#9 in .2&&/, which they absolutely have done as to
several e'tremely inflammatory (yet, completely true* filings by Coughlin:
O<he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the
cler7 to be filed) PCits)Q) 1o, where a motion for new trial has been delivered for filing to
the cler7, it will be deemed filed even though that officer fails to ma7e the proper entry
of filing thereon)O 2rinson v) ?eorgia 88 2an7 Kc) Co), !5 ?a) 9pp) !5,, !.1 (1.5 1E
&21* (1,&2*) +t is beyond the purview of the cler7 to be concerned with the legal
viability of a pleading presented to the cler7 for filing) 1ee Aughes v) 1i7es, 2/& ?a)
%0! (1* (5!. 1E2d 51%* (2001* (where cler7 returned notice of appeal for
supplementation*C ?ibbs v) 1pencer +ndustries, 2!! ?a) !50, !51 (2.0 1E2d &!2*
(1,/,*) (Aood v) 1tate, .51 1)E)2d %%, 2%2 ?a) !.2 (?a) 0,2!200/*)* Pemphasis
added)Q
OCausing a paper Bto be actually placed in the hands of the cler7 of a trial
court within the time prescribed by law for filing the same in Pthe cler7BsQ office is all
that is, in this respect, reHuired ofB a party)O ?ibbs v) 1pencer +ndustries, 2!! ?a) !50,
!51 (2.0 1E2d &!2* (1,/,*) O<he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper
is handed to the cler7 to be filed) PCits)Q) 1o, where a motion for new trial has been
delivered for filing to the cler7, it will be deemed filed even though that officer fails to
ma7e the proper entry of filing thereon)O 2rinson v) ?eorgia 88 2an7 Kc) Co), !5 ?a)
9pp) !5,, !.1 (1.5 1E &21* (1,&2*) +t is beyond the purview of the cler7 to be
concerned with the legal viability of a pleading presented to the cler7 for filing) 1ee
Aughes v) 1i7es, 2/& ?a) %0! (1* (5!. 1E2d 51%* (2001*C ?ibbs v) 1pencer +ndustries,
supra, 2!! ?a) !50) Pemphasis added)Q
+f pleadings are delivered to the cler7 for filing they will be deemed filed
even though the proper entry of filing is not made thereon) 1ee 2rinson v) ?a) 8) 2an7
Kc) Co), !5 ?a) 9pp) !5,, !.1, supraC Cooper v) 3isbet, 11, ?a) /52 (1*, /55 (!/ 1)E)
1/&*) (0512/% 2oston 1ea (arty 9tlanta v) 2ryant, 2!. 1)E)2d &50, 1!. ?a) 9pp) 2,!)*
(1ee also $avan et al) v) (hilips, &.2 1)E)2d 1&%, 1%! ?a) 9pp) 5/& (101,%/*)*
Pemphasis added)Q
O<he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the
cler7 to be filed) PCit)QO 2rinson v) ?a) 8) 2an7 Kc) Co), supra, p) !.1) (A) 8) $ee
+nvestment Corporation v) ?roover, 225 1)E)2d /!2, 1&% ?a) 9pp) 2&1 (0&1,/.*)*
Pemphasis added)QF http:www)lawlessamerica)cominde')phpJ
optionVcombcontentKviewVarticleKidV510:judges4and4court4cler7s4violate4the4law4
225!!2
when4your4court4filings4are4denied4or4disappearKcatidV,%:litigation4helpK+temidV225
*
7( &leadings, (3#<E: it is completely unclear what in the world Ging is trying
to pull here (other than attempting to, as usual, have it both ways* by referring to
Em( &leadingsF in reference to his 11/12 &,0,! bates stamped production to
Coughlin, especially where Ging is simultaneously see7ing to 7eep such out of
the record)))which Ging desperately wished to do as the content of those &,0,!
pages not only e'culpates Coughlin on all charges, but further, indicts Ging to a
monumental degree, 2omer style* for instance, as (ou can see %( the Bates
stam& num%ers are thousands of &ages of nonsensical e1mails and
dis&araging e1mails) (3#<E: here again, Ging is caught prevaricating for,
while Coughlin did, in fact send Ging and the 123 thousands of pages of
emails, very, very few of them are actually included in the &,0,! bates stamped
production to Coughlin by the 123 of 11/12 (E&,0,!F hereinafter* and
seemingly none of the attachments Coughlin affi'ed thereto, which included a
multitude of D9;1 and "<8 audio transcripts whenever available from all the
matters involved in .2&&/, as well as the certified transcript in the criminal
trespass case (which included sworn testimony by Aill and his associate, though,
of course, the 8=C failed to accord Coughlin his 1i'th 9mendment right to
confront the arresting officer, as his presence was e'cused by Dudge 6)
?ardner*, which also included pdfs of every filing in the Doshi matter and appeal
and petition for e'traordinary writ cases stemming therefrom (D;0%4011.% and
5&%&&, 5!%!!* and a great deal of other responsive, material, cooperative
materials, including grievances Coughlin submitted against a number of
individuals that the 123 has yet to countenance in any way (or seemingly
investigate at all* (and 33D2 Chair 1usich, (anel members, 123 (resident
"laherty, assorted judges, etc)* thousands of pages of emails (one manBs
EnonsensicalF and EdisparagingF is another manBs historic achievement e'posing
the corruption in the 123, 33;2, and judiciary in 6ashoe County to a degree
heretofore never done before, leveraging technology in a manner in which Ging
still has yet to comprehend, and li7ely never really will: (see CoughlinBs written
correspondence with Ging and the (anel here:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!0,%5%5114214114to424141&49ll4Emails4
2etween4Coughlin4and41tate42ar4of43evada ** ? didn0t thin& that that #ould
add to this day or hel% the su%reme court, (3#<E: it certainly would
undermine the implied offensive collateral estoppel4lite approach Ging and
Echeverria coo7ed up here, lapped up by a callow, fec7less collection of pretend
lawyers on the panelC and, such would certainly be very damaging to Ging in
bolstering CoughlinsB defensive collateral estoppel arguments, in addition to
e'posing the choice by every single other judge at all connected to this matter to
refer Coughlin in any way whatsoever to the 123 pursuant to the old Canon
&(D*(2* or its newer incarnation in 3CDC Canon 2, 8ule 2)15 E8esponding to
9ttorney and Dudicial =isconductF, as there is not even a letter from 3;2
22.!!2
Dudge 2eesley in the &,0,! bates stamped production by the 123 (which means
either Ging has engaged in Ebad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processF or
2eesley was lying* =8) ECAE;E88+9: + thin7 the confusion, at least + have,
is whether or not the pleadings themselves, whatever file, whatever =r)
Coughlin has filed, a motion for whatever reason, are those part of the record
that go up on appealJ +n civil litigation, with which +Bm only familiar, that does
become part of the record if so designated) =8) G+3?: +f the orders go up,
pleadings that are not admitted do not go up) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, if
+ can just interject 44 =8) G+3?: +n other words, everything =r) Coughlin sent,
oftentimes with these multiple captions where heBs sending them to many
people, he might caption as a pleading, it doesnBt ma7e it a pleading) +t has to be
something that was sent to us, filed in, and that would be a pleading) 9nd if
there was such a thing as file stamped with the supreme court, it will go up) =8)
;E$$+1: <hat is my Huestion) +t doesnBt have to be necessarily be brought up
here, but if it was submitted and file stamped as being submitted, then itBs part of
the record that goes up, whether it was mentioned here or notJ =8) G+3?:
Correct) <hat would be my understanding) #nly if it was &ro&erl( filed, timel(
filed, stam&ed in by the court)F
Aowever, GingBs OrestatementO of the law is rather incorrect, however
convenient it may ma7e his job as a prosecutor: <he cler7 of a court, li7e the
8ecorder is reHuired to accept documents filed) +t is not incumbent upon him or
her to judicially determine the legal significance of the tendered documents) +n
re Aalladjian, 1/! ") %&! (C)C)=ass)1,0,*C @nited 1tates, to @se of Ginney v)
2ell, 12/ ") 1002 (C)C)E)D)(a)1,0!*C 1tate e' rel) Gaufman v) 1utton, 2&1
1o)2d %/! ("la)9pp)1,/0*C =alinou v) =cElroy, ,, 8)+) 2//, 20/ 9)2d !!
(1,.5*C 1tate e' rel) 6anama7er v) =iller, 1.! #hio 1t) 1/., 1//, 12% 3)E)2d
110 (1,55)*)* (Daniel G) =ayers Et 9l), v) (eter 1) 8idley Et 9l), 3o) /141!1%
(0.&0/2, @nited 1tates Court of 9ppeals for the DC Circuit)* Pemphasis
added)Q
<he specific allegation in =r) 1nyderBs complaint is that =r) 3olen,
acting as the Circuit Court Cler7, refused to file or actually removed already
filed papers from the courtBs doc7et) @nder +llinois law, the cler7 simply has the
ministerial duty to file papers that conform to the technical rules of court) 1ee +n
re Estate of Davison, !&0 3)E)2d 222, 22& (+ll) 9pp) Ct) 1,%1* (ODelivery alone
has been held to constitute filing since the person filing has no control over the
officer who receives documents) 1ubseHuent ministerial tas7s of the cler7
evidence the filing of a document but are not essential to its perfection)O
(internal citation omitted**C 8oesch4-eller, +nc) v) Aollembea7, 12! 3)E)2d ..2,
..! (+ll) 9pp) Ct) 1,55* (O<he duty of the cler7 to file the document on the date
it was presented to him was a ministerial act, the performance of which could be
compelled by writ of mandamus)O*) (1nyder v) 3olen, &%0 ")&d 2/, (/th Circuit,
0%1&200!*)* Pemphasis added)Q
<he word OfiledO the 9ct uses, is, as applied to court proceedings, a
22/!!2
word of art, having a long established and well understood meaning, deriving
from the practice of filing papers on a string or wire) +t reHuires of one filing a
suit, merely the depositing of the instrument with the custodian for the purpose
of being filed) E'cept where some specific statute otherwise provides, and none
such is present here, it charges him with no further duty, subjects him to no
untoward conseHuences as a result of the failure of the custodian to do his duty,
by placing the instrument on the file, or as in modern practice placing his file
mar7 on the instrument) Collected in vol) & 6ords and (hrases, "irst 1eries, pp)
2/.!42//0, inclusiveC vol) 2 6ords and (hrases, 1econd 1eries, pp) 5&1, 5&!,
may be found cases from many jurisdictions, all to the same effect, that the
filing of a paper is the delivery of it to the officer at his office, to be 7ept by him
as a paper on file, and that the file mar7 of the officer is evidence of the filing,
but it is not the essential element of the act) 9 paper may be filed without being
mar7ed or endorsed by the cler7, +n re ConantBs Estate, !& #r) 5&0, /& () 101%C
Aolman v) Chevaillier, 1! <e') &&/C Eure7a 1tone Co) v) Gnight, %2 9r7) 1.!,
100 1)6) %/%C Darnell v) "lynn, ., 6);a) 1!., /1 1)E) 1.)
(erhaps the best statement of the meaning and conseHuences of filing
is to be found in the Chevaillier case, supra) O<hough the ancient mode of filing
papers has gone into disuse, the phraseology of the ancient practice is retained,
in the common e'pressions Bto file,B Bto put on file,B Bto ta7e off the file,B Kc),
from BfilumB the thread, string, or wire used in ancient practice, for connecting
the papers together) <he term BfileB is also used to denote the paper placed with
the Cler7, and assigned by the law to his official 7eeping) 9 file is a record of
the Court)(1 $itt), 112C 2urr) $)D) tit) "ile)* +t is the duty of the Cler7, when a
paper is thus placed in his custody or BfiledB with him, to endorse upon it the date
of its reception, and retain it in his office, subject to inspection by whomsoever
it may concernC and that is what is meant by his BfilingB the paper) 2ut where the
law reHuires or authori:es a party to file it, it simply means that he shall place it
in the official custody of the Cler7) <hat is all that is reHuired of himC and if the
officer omits the duty of endorsing upon it the date of the filing, that should not
prejudice the rights of the party) 9nd hence it is the common practice, where
that has been omitted, for the officer, with the sanction of the Court, to ma7e the
endorsement now for thenC the doing of the act now, that is, at the time when it
is actually done, being allowed to operate as a substitute and eHuivalent for
doing it then, or when it should have been done) 9nd acts thus allowed to be
done by the Cler7 of the Court, with the sanction of the Court, have the same
effect as if they had been done at the proper time) (1 1tra) .&,C 2 <iddBs (r) ,&2)*
+t was the filing of the affidavit and certificate by the party, under the statute,
and not the endorsement of the date of their reception, or the filing by the Cler7,
which was a condition precedent to the issuing of the e'ecution in this case) <he
object of the motion to obtain the authority of the Court for the filing of the
cler7 now for then was that the Court might receive evidence of the time of the
actual filing by the party, in order that the filing by the Cler7 might relate bac7,
22%!!2
and ta7e effect from that period, as though it had been done then, when it should
have been done) (=ilton v) @nited 1tates), 105 ")2d 25& (5th Cir) 0/0.1,&,*)*
Dohansson v) <owson, 1// ") 1upp) /2, (=)D)?a) 021/1,5,*) Pemphasis
added)Q
=ilton v) @nited 1tates, 5 Cir), 1,&,, 105 ")2d 25&, 255) <he latter
case points out that all that is reHuired on the part of a person filing a paper with
an official is Bmerely the depositing of the instrument with the custodian for the
purpose of being filedB) (1ee (alcar 8eal Estate Co) v) Commissioner of +nternal
8evenue, % Cir), 1,!2, 1&1 ")2d 210C 1chult: v) @nited 1tates, Ct)Cl)1,55, 1&2
")1upp) ,5&, ,55C =cCord v) Commissioner of +nternal 8evenue, 1,!1, /!
9pp)D)C) &.,, 12& ")2d 1.!, 1.5C Central (aper Co) v) Commissioner of
+nternal 8evenue, . Cir), 1,52, 1,, ")2d ,02, ,0!) (Dohansson v) <owson, 1//
") 1upp) /2, (=)D)?a) 021/1,5,*)* Pemphasis added)Q
O1ubject: 8E: pending final disposition of disciplinary
proceedings))))language 1C8 111(/* versus 1C8 111(%* and the Dune /th, 2012
#rder of the 3;) 1) Ct /rom7 >aura Peters ;>auraPRnvbar,=rg< 1ent:
6ed 101012 .:01 (= <o: -ach Coughlin(:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com*
Please don0t %ut #ords in my mouth8 Zach, :ou are the one that
indicated that (ou had not received the .om&laint when we tal)ed on the
&hone. !h(' then' would $ file in a 7otion to "ismissA ? am res%onsible for
my o#n actions, 4 >aura ;a&a .ler) Peters<4444444444444444 "rom: -ach
Coughlin P:achcoughlinLhotmail)ComQ 1ent: 6ednesday, #ctober 10, 2012
11:51 9= )o7 tsusichRnvdetr,=rgJ >aura PetersJ David Clar&J Patric&
!ingJ nvsccler&Rnvcourts,-v,2ov 1ubject: "6: pending final disposition of
disciplinary proceedings))))$anguage 1C8 111(/* versus 1C8 111(%* and the
Dune /th, 2012 #rder of the 3;) 1) Ct)
Dear Chairman 1usich and .ler) @eters, 2ar Counsel Ging sees
himself as a the Director of this movie, placing you two in the scenes where he
sees fit) Chairman 1usich, it is your responsibility to comply with the CourtBs
#rder and the 1upreme Court 8ules, and at this point, you need to send a clear
message to 2ar Counsel that Othe 7id stays in the pictureO, and inform =r) Ging
that he is not to attem&t to ta)e (our -o% or duties from (ou. 4ame goes for
.ler) @eters' es&eciall( vis a vis her admission that Eing told her not to file
.oughlin;s 7otion to "ismiss in 4BN v .oughlin on 4e&tem%er /Ith' 05/0'
which has now gone uno&&osed' and therefore' shall %e granted) 1incerely,
-ach Coughlin (# 2#> &,.1)))O
<he filing of a paper ta7es place upon the delivery of it to the officer
at his office) =ilton v) @nited 1tates, 5th Cir) 1,&,, 105 ")2d 25&C (oynor v)
Commissioner, 5th Cir) 1,&., %1 ")2d 521) 6hen the mails are utili:ed for the
purpose of filing an instrument, the filing ta7es place upon delivery at the office
of the official reHuired to receive it) 6ampler v) 1nyder, 1,&&, .2 9pp) D)C)
215, .. ")2d 1,5) ((hinney v) 2an7 of 1outhwest 3ational 9ssociation, &&5
")2d 2.. (5th Cir) 0%051,.!*)* (1ee also @nited 1tates v) =issco Aomestead
22,!!2
9ssBn +nc), 1%5 ")2d 2%& (%th Cir) 11011,50*)* (Dienstag v) 1t) (aul "ire K
=arine +ns) Co), 1.! ") 1upp) .0& (1)D)3)N) 111%1,5/*C <horndal v) 1mith,
6ild, 2eebe K Cades, &&, ")2d ./. (%th Cir) 010!1,.5*C $one 1tar (roducing
Co) v) ?ulf #il Corp), 20% ") 1upp) %5 (E)D)<e') 0/1/1,.2*)* Pemphasis
added)Q
Clearly (as demonstrated by the following fa' and email delivery
confirmations*, Coughlin filed a =otion to Dismiss on ,1/12 (though the 123
may arguably accord such a ,1%12 filing date, but, certainly, he 101512 filing
date is way off:
1ent: =on 101512 !:!, (=
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com
Nour "a' was successfully sent to ( 1//5&2,0522*)
Nour "a' was delivered L 11:!,:50 (= on 2012410415)
;o'o' cnoreplyLvo'o')Comd <ue, 1ep 1%, 2012 at 12:01 9=
<o: renoattorneyLgmail)Com
Nour "a' was successfully sent to ( 1/02&%52%/%*)
Nour "a' was delivered L 0/:01:&0 9= on 201240,41%)
Nour "a' was delivered L 0/:01:!% 9= on 201240,41%)
Nour "a' was successfully sent to ( 1//52%!,51&*)
Nour "a' was delivered L 0/:02:12 9= on 201240,41%)
;o'o' cnoreplyLvo'o')Comd <ue, 1ep 1%, 2012 at 12:&% 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0/:&%:!% 9= on 201240,41%
motion to dismiss attachedJ
"rom: -ach Coughlin (:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com*
1ent: =on ,1/12 11:5, (=
<o: patric77Lnvbar)#rgC tsusichLnvdetr)#rg
9ttachments: 1 attachment
sbn v coughlin motion to dismiss (/%)1 G2*
"6: motion to dismiss attachedJ
1ent: <ue ,1%12 12:00 9=
<o: davidcLnvbar)#rg
sbn v coughlin motion to dismiss (/%)1 G2* =otion to Dismiss 123 v)
CoughlinJ
2&0!!2
1ent: <ue ,1%12 12:02 9=
<o: tsusichLnvdetr)#rgC patric77Lnvbar)#rgC davidcLnvbar)#rg
sbn v coughlin motion to dismiss)(df (/%)1 G2*O
?iven that 1C8 105(2*(c* reHuires the (anel to conduct hearing
within a certain time frame in relation to two specific events, the (anel and 123
have failed to comply with such rule, and Coughlin should be reinstated
immediately, and both the 123 and 33D2 (anel should be held in contempt)
<hose two events are the giving, %( the @anel, to Coughlin of O&0
daysB written noticeO of the formal hearing date, which the Fhearing %anel shall
conductF F#ithin $5 days of assignement and give the attorney at least .+
days0 #ritten notice of its time and %laceF, =f course, 9sst) 2ar Counsel
Ging, in an attempt to gain a material advantage and in a demonstration of his
O%ad faith o%struction of the disci&linar( &rocessO deigned to sent out the
Onotice of hearingO himself, allegedly sent out on 101212 (though the @1(1
<rac7 K Confirm indicates such was deposited with the @1(1 for mailing, to go
out that day, per =i7ohn, no sooner than 101512 given the first scanning of
such Certified =ail number occurred in the early morning of 101.12*, a good
1% days before 33D2 Chairman 1usichBs 10&012 #rder 9ppointing "ormal
Aearing (anel was even entered, much less constructively served on Coughlin
(with the 123 always ma7ing sure to avoid providing any filings or #rders to
Coughlin via fa' or email, as that would prevent the 123 from having a few
days jump start on everything in relation to when each became aware of the
various #rders*) 9gain, 1C8 105(2*(c* reHuires the (anel, not 9sst) 2ar
Counsel Ging, to Ogive the attorneyO the notice of hearing)
+ts no wonder the went with an E9lphabetical $ist of DocumentsF in the 8#9 it
filed on 21&12 (after the 8#9 it filed on 122!12 was stric7en on account of it being such a
trife bit of codswallop* where such E9lphabetical $ist of DocumentsF (as opposed to, say, a
Doc7et, arranged in chronological order* does indicate that several of CoughlinBs submissions
were just plain not file stamped by the 123 (though purportedly included, at least in part (of
course the discs attached as e'hibits thereto and the massive bates stamped pdfs found thereon
and transcripts of hearing the 123 felt were of no ulility, and, therefore, not included amongst
that transmitted, though Coughlin filed a =otion in .2&&/ for such to be so
transmitted))))2@<, <# 2E C$E98, 93D <A+1 +1 +=(#8<93<: there are several of
CoughlinBs filings that just plain were not included at all in any way in the 8#9, including the
very 10&112 *
2..7 ?-D9H >?') =/ D=CEM9-)' 1I P629 -EM19R
142% Complaint and "irst Designation of Aearing (anel =embers %2&12
2,4&2 3otice of +ntent to (roceed on a Default 2ases 10,12
&&4&/ 3otice of "ormal AearingC Desig, of 6itn), 1umm) of Evidence 101212
&%4&, 9ffidavit of $aura (eters, Custodian of 8ecords 10,12
!04!& =otion to Dismiss 101512 (missing , page fa' to #2C33D2 of ,1212 E'h*
2&1!!2
!&:1410=issing E'hibit 1, , page fa' to #2C33D2 of ,1212
!!410. =tn #rder 1how Cause, 9mend) =tn Dismiss (3", subm) ,1/12, 101512*
10/4152 =otion to 8eview, +nspect, 2ifurcate, 1upplem) Dismiss 101.12
15&415. #pp) to 8espt)Bs =tn to 2ifurcate Aearing, =otion to Dismiss 102!12
15/415% #rder 9ppointing "ormal Aearing (anel 10&012
15,41.2 CoughlinBs Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence 10&112
1.&41.5 #rder 10&112
1.5:14
1..41/. =tn to Uuash 1ubp) Directed to 8=C Dudges and Court 1taff 11212
1//41,5 E' (arte =tn to Uuash 1ubp) Duces <ecums, 1ubpoenas to Compel <est) 11&12
1,.41,/ 1upplemental Designation of 6itnesses 11/12
1,%4200 #rder 11/12
201420! 3otice of 3on41ervice of +ntent to <a7e Default of 9ppro') #ct),, 2012 11%12
205421. 1upplem)8spdt)Desig)6itn)1umm) Evid), 3otice #bj), 8eply)#pp)2ifur, 11%12
21/42,/ 6ell 6ould Nou =tn 1et 9side, 9lter, 9mend #rder, #pp) =tn Uuash 11%12
2,%4&50 Emerg) E' (arte =tn to Dismiss, "or =ore Definite 1tmt, ?ood Cause 111&12
&514&52 #rder 111.12
&5&4/1! =otion for 3ew <rial, 3otice of Aill and 2a7erBs =alfeasance 11&012
/154/1%9mended 1upple) to 8espondentBs Emergency =otion to 1et 9side 11&012
/1,4/&.3otice of 8=CBs "ailure "ile CoughlinBs <imely 3otice of 9ppeal (3", 111.12*
/&/4/,0(ost4Aearing 2rief, =tn DisHualify=istrial, <ranscript 8eH, 8econs #rder Uuashing,
2ifurc, , 8ule 10&(/* Challenge for Cause (3", submitted 111.12*
/,14/,. Declaration of -achary 2ar7er Coughlin (3", subm) 12/12*
/,/41&!/ =otion for =istrial (6hopper Choc7ed 10,12 9ffd) (eters* (3", subm) 12&12*
1&!%41&/1 "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw 121!12
1&/2 Certificate of 1ervice by =ail of 8ecord #n 9ppeal 21&1&
1&/&41.,% <ranscript of Aearing held 111!12, 3o 8esponse on 1C8 11, until 121%12
1.,,41,22 "ormal Aearing E'hibits 141. 111!12, 3o 8esponse 1C8 11, until 121%12
1% @1C 20/. 4 Cler7 of @nited 1tates District Court 6hoever, being a cler7 of a
district court of the @nited 1tates, willfully refuses or neglects to ma7e or forward any report,
certificate, statement, or document as reHuired by law, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both)
O<he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the cler7 to
be filed) PCits)Q) 1o, where a motion for new trial has been delivered for filing to the cler7, it
will be deemed filed even though that officer fails to ma7e the proper entry of filing thereon)O
2rinson v) ?eorgia 88 2an7 Kc) Co), !5 ?a) 9pp) !5,, !.1 (1.5 1E &21* (1,&2*) +t is beyond
the purview of the cler7 to be concerned with the legal viability of a pleading presented to the
cler7 for filing) 1ee Aughes v) 1i7es, 2/& ?a) %0! (1* (5!. 1E2d 51%* (2001*C ?ibbs v)
1pencer +ndustries, supra, 2!! ?a) !50) PEmphasis added)Q
+f pleadings are delivered to the cler7 for filing they will be deemed filed even
though the proper entry of filing is not made thereon) 1ee 2rinson v) ?a) 8) 2an7 Kc) Co), !5
?a) 9pp) !5,, !.1, 1upraC Cooper v) 3isbet, 11, ?a) /52 (1*, /55 (!/ 1)E) 1/&*) (0512/%
2&2!!2
2oston 1ea (arty 9tlanta v) 2ryant, 2!. 1)E)2D &50, 1!. ?a) 9pp) 2,!)* (1ee also $avan et al)
;) (hilips, &.2 1)E)2D 1&%, 1%! ?a) 9pp) 5/& (101,%/*)* PEmphasis added)Q
O<he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the cler7 to
be filed) PCit)QO 2rinson v) ?a) 8) 2an7 Kc) Co), 1upra, p) !.1) (A) 8) $ee +nvestment
Corporation v) ?roover, 225 1)E)2D /!2, 1&% ?a) 9pp) 2&1 (0&1,/.*)* PEmphasis added)Q 1%
@)1)C) 20/1 Case $aw: @nited 1tates v) Conlin, 551 ")2D 5&! (2nd Cir) 0&1/1,//*C @nited
1tates v) Claypoole, 22/ ")2D /52 (&rd Cir) 120/1,55*C @nited 1tates v) Donner, !,/ ")2D
1%! (/th Cir) 050&1,/!*C @nited 1tates v) =ay, .25 ")2D 1%. (%th Cir) 05&01,%0*C @nited
1tates v) 1ala:ar, !55 ")&D 1022 (,th Cir) 0/2!200.*C @nited 1tates v) $ang, 3o) 024!0/5
(10<h Cir) 0!21200!*) <his case has some very good information 44 @nited 1tates v) 8osner,
&52 ") 1upp) ,15 (1)D)3)N) 121!1,/2*) 1% @)1)C) jS 20/1 Case $aw 1earch 8esults from
versuslaw)Com)
Every time Coughlin sees or thin7s about 9sst) 2ar Counsel (atric7 #) Ging
(whom Coughlin made slip and pic7 his dribble up with triple the numbers of sniper fire from
moral cripples being flipped at Coughlin than has ever been thrown GingBs way*, EsH) he hears
in his head that song O8ere .omes the 8otste&&erO: Attp:www)Noutube)ComwatchJ
;Vw 0 3 ! tw; 2% =w
2..7 ?-D9H >?') =/ D=CEM9-)' 1I P629 -EM19R
(crossed with CoughlinBs ;#>#> confirmations of fa' filing with the 123 and serving a
copy thereof on 2ar Counsel*
142% Complaint and "irst Designation of Aearing (anel =embers %2&12
(3#<E: the 8#9 is missing the =otion to Dismiss Coughlin filing on ,1%12, which
included the , page letter from Coughlin to 33D2 Chair 1usich and the 123 attached
therein as E'hibit 1: <o: renoattorneyLgmail)Com Nour "a' was successfully sent to
( 1//5&2,0522*) Nour "a' was delivered L 0/:01:!% 9= on 201240,41%) ;o'o'
cnoreplyLvo'o')Comd <ue, 1ep 1%, 2012 at 12:02 9=*
2,4&2 3otice of +ntent to (roceed on a Default 2ases 10,12
&&4&/ 3otice of "ormal AearingC Desig, of 6itn), 1umm) of Evidence 101212
&%4&, 9ffidavit of $aura (eters, Custodian of 8ecords 10,12
!04!& =otion to Dismiss 101512 (missing , page fa' to #2C33D2 of ,1212 E'h*
!&:1410=issing E'hibit 1, , page fa' to #2C33D2 of ,1212
!!410. =tn #rder 1how Cause, 9mend) =tn Dismiss (3", subm) ,1/12, 101512*
10/4152 =otion to 8eview, +nspect, 2ifurcate, 1upplem) Dismiss 101.12
("rom: ;o'o' (noreplyLvo'o')Com* 1ent: =on 101512 !:!, (= <o:
:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com Nour "a' was successfully sent to ( 1//5&2,0522*) Nour "a'
was delivered L 11:!,:50 (= on 2012410415)*
15&415. #pp) to 8espt)Bs =tn to 2ifurcate Aearing, =otion to Dismiss 102!12
15/415% #rder 9ppointing "ormal Aearing (anel 10&012
15,41.2 CoughlinBs Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence 10&112
(1ent: 6ed 10&112 !:10 (= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com Nour "a' was
2&&!!2
successfully sent to ( 1//5&2,0522*) Nour "a' was delivered L 11:10:&! (= on 20124104&1)
"rom: ;o'o' (noreplyLvo'o')Com**
(3#<E: CoughlinBs 10&112 filing of a =otion for 1ummary Dudgment, (re4
Aearing =emorandum of $aw !! pages long with an E'hibit 1 that included a disc attaching a
multitude of filings in the cases at issue in this matter in pdf format, is missing from the 8#9*
1.&41.5 #rder 10&112
1.5:14
1..41/. =tn to Uuash 1ubp) Directed to 8=C Dudges and Court 1taff 11212
1//41,5 E' (arte =tn to Uuash 1ubp) Duces <ecums, 1ubpoenas to Compel <est) 11&12
1,.41,/ 1upplemental Designation of 6itnesses 11/12
(1ent: =on 110512 12:22 (= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com Nour "a' was
successfully sent to ( 1//5&2,0522*) Nour "a' was delivered L 0%:22:!! (= on 2012411405)
https:s7ydrive)live)comJ
cidV !&0%!.&% f &2 f 5 f 2% KidV !&0%!.&% " &2 " 5 " 2% X 21!5&& K2srcV17y=ailK2pubV1D>)17yD
riveKauth7eyV^9$8srf-U62Ut 1 ?g*
"rom: ;o'o' (noreplyLvo'o')Com*
1ent: =on 110512 !:5% (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:5%:52 9= on 201241140.)
1ent: =on 110512 &:20 (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 11:21:00 (= on 2012411405)
1ent: =on 110512 &:20 (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 11:20:0% (= on 2012411405)
1,%4200 #rder 11/12
(O(3o 1ubject* "rom: -ach Coughlin (:achcoughlinLhotmail)com*
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:!! (= <o: laurapLnvbar)org (laurapLnvbar)org*C
patric77Lnvbar)org (patric77Lnvbar)org* (attached and detailed in that email)))*O
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:&/ (=
2&!!!2
Nour "a' was delivered L 0&:&/:20 9= on 201241140/)
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:&% (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0&:&,:00 9= on 201241140/)
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:&/ (=
-=)97 the 2C1.C1. R=6 is missing Coughlin0s ** %age Verified 6ns#er of 11CBC128 filed
in %erson by Coughlin Gust %rior to 5 %,m, #here the '1- had closed early: Coughlin
filed such by fa' prior to 5 pm by the 11,12 deadline imposed by the (anel Chairs 11/12
#rder, in addition to personally delivering such to the 123 prior to 5 p)m) as well:
'ent7 /ri 11C+BC12 $7$5 PM
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:!5:0% 9= on 2012411410)
1ent: =on 111212 !:5, (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:5,:1. 9= on 201241141&)
1ent: =on 111212 10:&0 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0.:&0:0! (= on 2012411412)
1ent: 1un 111112 10:!& 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0.:!&:&2 (= on 2012411411)
2&5!!2
1ent: 1un 111112 %:&0 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0!:&0:5! (= on 2012411411)
1ent: 1un 111112 /:&& 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0&:&&:1% (= on 2012411411)
1ent: <hu 110%12 !:!/ (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:!/:10 9= on 201241140,
2,%4&50 Emerg) E' (arte =tn to Dismiss, "or =ore Definite 1tmt, ?ood Cause 111&12
1ent: <ue 111&12 2:51 (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 10:51:0! (= on 201241141&)
1ent: <ue 111&12 2:2% (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 10:2%:5! (= on 201241141&)
&514&52 #rder 111.12
1ent: =on 111,12 %:1. 9= (CoughlinBs $+<+?9<+#3 A#$D 3#<+CE <# 123,
1@31A+3E $+<+?9<+#3 1E8;+CE1 93D 33D2 2#98D 93D 33D2 (93E$ 93D
123 (8E1+DE3< "$9AE8<N*
Nour "a' was delivered L 0!:1.:!! (= on 201241141,)
1ent: =on 111,12 %:10 9=
2&.!!2
Nour "a' was delivered L 0!:10:2. (= on 201241141,)
1ent: 1un 111%12 /:1& (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0&:1&:!% 9= on 201241141,)
1ent: 1un 111%12 %:!& 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0!:!&:52 (= on 201241141%)
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:!5 (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0!:!5:5% 9= on 201241142!)
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:&/ (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0!:&/:20 9= on 201241142!)
1ent: "ri 112&12 !:5% (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:5%:&0 9= on 201241142!)
1ent: =on 112.12 1:11 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0,:11:20 9= on 201241142.)
2&/!!2
/154/1%9mended 1upple) to 8espondentBs Emergency =otion to 1et 9side 11&012
1ent: 6ed 112%12 .:02 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 02:02:10 (= on 201241142%)
1ent: 6ed 112%12 &:2. 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 11:2.:!% 9= on 201241142%)
/1,4/&. 3otice of 8=CBs "ailure "ile CoughlinBs <imely 3otice of 9ppeal (3", 111.12*
/&/4/,0 (ost4Aearing 2rief, =tn DisHualify=istrial, <ranscript 8eH, 8econs #rder
Uuashing, 2ifurc, , 8ule 10&(/* Challenge for Cause (3", submitted 111.12*
1ent: "ri 111.12 !:!/ (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:!/:5! 9= on 201241141/)
1ent: 6ed 120512 !:1& (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:1&:2! 9= on 201241240.)
1ent: =on 120&12 10:&/ 9=
2&%!!2
Nour "a' was delivered L 0.:&/:2% (= on 201241240&)
1ent: =on 120&12 10:&2 9=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0.:&2:0! (= on 201241240&)
1ent: "ri 11&012 !:&% (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:&%:&. 9= on 2012412401)
1&!%41&/1 "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw 121!12
1ent: =on 122!12 %:01 (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0!:01:1% 9= on 2012412425)
1&/2 Certificate of 1ervice by =ail of 8ecord #n 9ppeal 21&1&
1&/&41.,% <ranscript of Aearing held 111!12, 3o 8esponse on 1C8 11, until 121%12
1.,,41,22 "ormal Aearing E'hibits 141. 111!12, 3o 8esponse 1C8 11, until 121%12
=utbound fa@ re%ort of Coughlin0s fa@ filings to '1- bet#een BC1*C12 and 12C2$C12
;#here '1- alleges Coughlin also submitt a fa@ed filing on 1C17C1.<:
Nour "a' was delivered L 0/:&%:!% 9= on 201240,41%)
2&,!!2
Emotion to dismiss attached
1ent: =on ,1/12 11:5, (=
<o: patric77Lnvbar)orgC tsusichLnvdetr)org
1 attachment
-ach CoughlinF
(/K7 motion to dismiss attached
1ent: <ue ,1%12 12:00 9=
<o: davidcLnvbar)org
1 attachment
-ach CoughlinF
:olt
(Motion to Dismiss '1- v, Coughlin
1ent: <ue ,1%12 12:02 9=
<o: tsusichLnvdetr)orgC patric77Lnvbar)orgC davidcLnvbar)org
1 attachment
sbn v coughlin motion to dismiss)pdf (/%)1 G2*
-ach CoughlinF
2!0!!2
"rom: ;o'o' (noreplyLvo'o')Com* (-=)97 this fa@ contained both Coughlin0s 1+C15C12
file stam%ed Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for =rder to 'ho# Cause that the '1-
failed to file stam% but that Panel Chair 9cheverria0s 1+C.1C12 =rder indicates #as filed
on 1+C1C12*
1ent: =on 101512 !:!, (=
(>?)?26)?=- "=>D -=)?C9 rev2+114++17+* cv114+.2*8 +..1 1.*.
1ent: =on 101512 5:0& (=
<o: patric77Lnvbar)orgC davidcLnvbar)orgC nvsccler7Lnvcourts)nv)gov
! attachments
sbn v coughlin C91E 3@=2E8 3?124020!, 3?40!&5, 3? 0!&! combined filing 10 15
12)pdf (&/%)5 G2* , DistCt#rderb8ED9C<ED cr124101% longoni transcript defective)pdf
(1!1)! G2* , rev20114001/0% opposition to coughlinBs second motion to contest personal
property lien merliss hill sbn)pdf (&)2 =2* , C812412.24&05,2., transcript from criminal
trespass trial testimony of richard hill and his associate before 8=C Dudge 6illiam
?ardner)pdf (&)5 =2*
:uln
(u%date %roof of service
1ent: 6ed 101/12 11:&, 9=
<he proof of service on the documents + dropped off yesterday need to be updated to
indicate the date of service was 101.12 to the e'tent the fa' is not effective service)
<han7s, -ach CoughlinF
(3#<E: Coughlin, having not received the 10,12 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default due to it
only being sent by one method, Certified =ailing (ie, not co&ied via first class mail li)e ever(
other mailing... which is so much more sus&icious when considering it seems to have %een
&ur&osefull( affi6ed with insufficient &ostage sufficient to &revent .oughlin from %eing
&rovided such %( the U4@4*, was under the belief (due to GingBs repeated assertions of such in
his emails, and remember, the 123 did not mail of or in any way service the 10,12 9ffidavit
of $aura (eters on Coughlin until providing it on 11/12 amongst &,0,! pages of documents*
that the purported Opersonal serviceO by Onon4partyO 123 Cler7 of Court $aura (eters on
Coughlin on ,2512 at the 123Bs #fficer where Coughlin was told to appear for the hearing
called for in the 31C<Bs ./12 #rder in .0%&% on such date, would be viewed as effective)
2!1!!2
1hould the (anel view the attempted service of ,2512 as effective, that would mean O20 days
to file a verified answer or responsive pleadingO would run on ,1.12*) Coughlin evinced a
high level of honesty in his 101/12 email to Cler7 of Court (eters indicating that the (roof of
1ervice of his personally delivered =otion to Dismiss, file stamped 101.12, ought be
corrected to indicate such was only Opersonally deliveredO on 101/12, though the 101512
fa' by Coughlin for filing to the 123 did contain such =otion to Dismiss (at this point,
Couglin reali:ed how utterly dishonest Ging and (eters were and was covering his bases by
personally delivering a copy of filings that he also filed by fa' (as was also the case with
respect to CoughlinBs 121&11 filing by email (with 8=C "iling #fficer 1upervisor Donna
2allard written approval to do so* of a 3otice of 9ppeal=otion to ;acate Dudgement of
Conviction where Coughlin, sensing the dishonesty of 2allard and the 8=C, also submitted
such in a hard copy form, though, due to his indigency, the e'hibits attached thereto were
printed in a less legible four pages per page version, where Coughlin notated on such hard copy
filings that he was e'pressly reHuesting the digital version (one page per page* that he filed by
email be that which would be utili:ed in the record on appeal sent to the 2DDC, which, of
course, it was not, and anyone who 7nows the 8=CBs Donna 2allard would have no problem
believing that*)
1ent: 6ed 10&112 !:10 (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 11:10:&! (= on 20124104&1)
1ent: =on 110512 12:22 (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0%:22:!! (= on 2012411405)
1ent: =on 110512 &:20 (=
1ent: =on 110512 !:5% (=
2!2!!2
1ent: =on 110512 &:20 (=
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:&/ (=
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:&% (=
1ent: <hu 110%12 !:!/ (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:!/:10 9= on 201241140,)
1ent: "ri 110,12 !:!5 (=
1ent: 1un 111112 /:&& 9=
1ent: 1un 111112 %:&0 9=
2!&!!2
1ent: 1un 111112 10:!& 9=
1ent: =on 111212 10:&0 9=
1ent: =on 111212 !:5, (=
1ent: <ue 111&12 2:2% (=
1ent: <ue 111&12 2:51 (=
1ent: "ri 111.12 !:!/ (=
2!!!!2
1ent: 1un 111%12 %:!& 9=
1ent: 1un 111%12 /:1& (=
1ent: =on 111,12 %:10 9=
1ent: =on 111,12 %:1. 9=
1ent: "ri 112&12 !:5% (=
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:&/ (=
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:!5 (=
2!5!!2
1ent: =on 112.12 1:11 9=
1ent: 6ed 112%12 &:2. 9=
1ent: 6ed 112%12 .:02 9=
1ent: "ri 11&012 !:&% (=
1ent: =on 120&12 10:&2 9=
1ent: =on 120&12 10:&/ 9=
2!.!!2
1ent: 6ed 120512 !:1& (=
1ent: =on 122!12 %:01 (=
123 GingBs 102!12 (well, it was file stam&ed that day, apparently, at
least* =%%osition to Res%ondent0s Motion to 1ifurcate "earing8 Motion to
Dismiss reads: O8espondent, -achary Coughlin (OCoughlinO* filed a motion
as)ing to review and ins&ect %ar recordsC Motion to 1ifurcate "earing and
Motion to Dismiss) (3#<E: here, Ging reveals the e'tent to which he later forces
123 Cler7 of Court (eters to remove from the record the file stamped copy of the
Motion for =rder to 'ho# Cause that she previously placed in the record on
copied the 33D2 (anel Chair Echeverria on, as Echeverria admits to in his
10&112 #rder)))its understandable why Ging would want such filing by
Coughlin, essentially stric7en (in a real under the table sort of way, naturally* as
such filing by Coughlin completely destroys any assertion by the 123 or the
33D2 (anel that Coughlin was served the Complaint, and also brings into view
all the messy issues associated with Cler7 of Court+nvestigator(aralegal123
Custodian of 8ecords $aura (eters wearing so very many different hats in this
formal disciplinary hearing setting* (atric7 Ging, 9ssistant 2ar Counsel, on
behalf of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada responds as follows:
-achary Coughlin ma( ins&ect the evidence that the 4tate Bar has
&ertaining to his disci&line matters u& to three <D= da(s &rior to the hearing'
&ursuant to 4. /5><0=<c=) Coughlin has been sent, via both certified and first
class mail, a 3otice of Aearing which was accompanied by a Designation of
6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence prepared by bar counsel pursuant to
1upreme Court 8ule) To the e6tent that .oughlin wants to review the
disci&linar( files &ertaining to his case' Bar .ounsel has no o%-ection)
CoughlinBs Motions to and to Dismiss must be denied as totally
lac7ing in merit) Consistent with other pleading filed by Coughlin, the instant
motion is twenty4seven (2/* pages long including over one hundred (100* pages
2!/!!2
of attached documents) <ogether the motions lac7s merit and must be denied) <he
Complaint in this matter is sufficientl( clear and s&ecific as to inform Coughlin
of the charges against him and the underl(ing conduct su&&orting the charges)
<he Complaint includes two criminal convictions (3#<E: such sort
of undermines the --D1 Panel0s findings and conclusion %remised u%on the
vie# that Coughlin sustained t#o (criminal contem%tM convictions8 noJ* and a
Court #rder finding that %( clear and convincing evidence Coughlin violated
numerous rules of &rofessional conduct) 1ee 1C8 105(2*) (3#<E: funny, no
mention of "AE2, Dudge "lanaganBs attorneyBs fee EsanctionF (well,
Gpresuma!ly3 rightJ 3o mention of 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardnerBs stale, laches
ridden #rder being asserted as a basis for charging Coughlin with violations of
Enumerous rules of professional conductF*
Coughlin had twenty (20* days to file a verified answer to the
Complaint) +nstead, Coughlin attempted to avoid service and now argues that the
Complaint be bifurcated and or dismissed) Coughlin has been temporarily
suspended by the 3evada 1upreme Court as a result of a 1C8 111 petition filed
after appeal of a misdemeanor conviction) <he Court referred the matter to a
disciplinary panel of the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard) <he pending
formal Complaint filed by the 1tate 2ar of 3evada was not %ased e6clusivel( on
the 4. /// &etition, but &rimaril( from grievances filed with the #ffice of 2ar
Counsel)
Coughlin is misa&&l(ing the .ourt Order resulting from a
4. /// &etition) <he 1upreme Court said, regarding the criminal conviction,
that the only thing to be decided is the discipline or penalty that should be
imposed) <he CourtBs position on this is consistent with the fact that Coughlin was
found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the 1tate 2ar need not prove
that Coughlin committed the crimes) Coughlin would li7e that interpretation to
mean that that 1tate 2ar ma( not %ring multi&le disci&linar( charges against
.oughlin in the .om&laint) Clearly, CoughlinBs interpretation is wrong) <he
1upreme Court in the same #rder found that Coughlin is suspended pending a
disci&linar( hearing) (3#<E: the phrase Eformal disciplinary hearingF as found
in 1C8 105, is absent GingBs restatement of the .%12 #rder in .0%&%*)
CoughlinBs =otion to Dismiss, while largel( unintelligi%le, is based on CoughlinBs
assertions that 2ar Counsel failed to conduct an adeHuate investigation) 1ee
=otion page 1. ll 104 12 where Coughlin argues as follows:
E1o Coughlin has been and continued to tell Ging about the
ridiculousness of the conviction and dismissal of the a&&eal in the criminal
tres&ass matter, and Ging gets all spoo7ed about his utter failure to investigate,
and tries to jam through an 1C8 111 filing while on the phone with Coughlin)F
=otion page 1. ll 10412)
This matter has been investigated) <he 1upreme Court in response to
the first 1C8 111 (etition suspended Coughlin pending disciplinary hearing)
.oughlin has not filed an Answer to the .om&laint) CoughlinBs =otion to
2!%!!2
Dismiss and =otion to 2ifurcate should be denied) 8espectfully submitted this
25th day of #ctober, 2012) 1<9<E 298 #" 3E;9D9 D9;+D 9) C$98G,
298 C#@31E$ 2y: s (atric7 #) Ging 9ssistant 2ar Counsel 3evada 2ar 3o)
50&5 ,!5. Double 8) 2lvd) , 1te) 2 8eno, 3; %,521
C9R)?/?C6)9 =/ '9RV?C9 <he undersigned hereby
certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing #pposition to 8espondentBs
=otion to 2ifurcate Aearing, =otion to Dismiss was deposited in the @nited
1tates =ail at 8eno, 3evada, postage fully pre4paid thereon for certified and first
class mail addressed to the following: -achary 2) Coughlin 1!/1 E) ,th 1t) 8eno
3; %,505 D9<ED this 0Bth day of #ctober, 2012) $aura (eters, an employee of
the, 1tate 2ar of 3evadaO
(3#<E: Dust what does Ging mean by Ethis matterFJ 1uch is especially inscrutable
where Ging indicates, above, that he need not investigate anything, apparently, with respect to
the Etwo criminal convictionsF and ECourt #rderF which found Eby clear and convincing
evidenceF this or that completely beyond the jurisdiction any municipal court judge of a limited
jurisdiciton court has, particularly where such E#rderF is premised almost entirely on alleged
conduct Eoutside the immediate presenceF of Ethe courtF (Chief =arshal Dustin 8oper admitted
to Coughlin during a conversation with Coughlin that neither =arshal Aarley, nor any other
8=C =arshal, entered the restroom during the one restroom brea7 in such 22/12 trial while
Coughlin was using such restroom (bringing to mind the Huestion of just how Dudge 3ash
Aolmes could possibly testify as she did, truthfully (AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 1!1:2 to 1!1:1&*
<AE 6+<3E11: 6hen the marshals came bac7 from the restroom, they told me that =r)
Coughlin had, in fact, been recording the proceedings because he had disassembled a device
and left parts of it in the bathroom) #r left 44 disassembled parts of it, and then they discovered
parts of it) +n any case, when he was ta7en into custody and held in contempt of court at the jail,
he had physically two recording devices on him, a cell phone 44 either two cell phones or a cell
phone and some other recording device) + assumed that was pieces of which he was messing
with in the bathroom)F*
(3#<E: 6here Ging writes E grievances filed withF is sort of stretching it, Ging, no,
where 3?1240!&5 (the 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner EgrievanceF that Ging was forced to admit,
ultimately was filed by the 123, (ie, defensive collateral estoppel bar to GingBs attempts to
character such as conclusive evidence, or even clear and convincing evidence of any violations
of the rules of professional conduct, particularly where GingBs Complaint limited the use of
such order to only that which is Huoted therein, where the (anelBs "#"C#$ cited to protions
thereof not so Huoted in GingBs Complaint, where Ging failed to even do the whole =irch4style
incorporate by reference and attach a copy of such #rder to the Complaint (wanna bet there is a
reason why Ging failed to do so beyond his just being inordinately la:yJ $i7e, such #rder fails
to find Coughlin in contempt, and is premised upon the view that CoughlinBs EallegationsF
(38C( 11 by way of 381 /)0%5 involves EallegationsF, right, 6illiam $) <erry, EsH), not the
EargumentsF addressed in 8(C &)&Bs (then 1C8 1%0* Emeritorious claimsF rule* were not
Ebased in fact or lawF where, ultimately, as admitted to in her .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce,
2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner (only after her #rder gave 6$1Bs Elcano a prete't to fire Coughlin*
had to admit that some alimony, in fact, was appropriate (ie, hard to argue Coughlin
2!,!!2
Eve'atiously e'tended a proceedingF by failing to buy 1pringgate and Dudge $) ?ardnerBs hard
sell of 1rpinggateBs Esettlement proposalF wherein CoughlinBs client was to waive any claim for
alimony in e'change for some illusory agreement that 1pringgateBs client would be responsible
for the inflated medical debt, and third party unsecured credit card debt for which 1pringgateBs
client was the sole signatory (Coughlin provided the 123 all his filings in 5&%&& and 5!%!!,
which well detail the whole Edomestic duty has priority over third party debtF basis in Efact and
lawF that should have prevented the ridiculous EsanctionF by 2DDC Dudge ?ardner (especially
where Coughlin referenced his 9$8 article research findings on point, where such is the
majority viewpoint in 9merican jurisprudence*) "urther, the problem with the since vacated
"AE& is that 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner failed to find Coughlin in contempt and failed to refer the
matter to the 1tate 2ar or ta7e any Eappropriate actionF whilst, for about nine wee7s allowing
the "AE& !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial to stand wherein she wal7s the delicate line of attempting
to sanction Coughlin under 381 /)0%5 (which e'pressly incorporates 38C( 11* whilst
gingerly tip4toeing around just what e'actly were the EargumentsF Coughlin made that were not
Egrounded in law or factF (unless Dudge $) ?ardner wished to base such award of attorneyBs
fees on 381 /)0%5(1*(b*, which is not a basis for her (per the Eintent of the $egislatureF
e'pressly referenced in 381 /)0%5(2* to Eimposed sanctions pursuant to 8ule 11 of theF 38C(
as 381 /)0%5(b* specifically limits the imposing of such sanctions (which, again, must be done
Epursuant toF 38C( 11 (ie, with all the attendant due process trimmings provided therein (li7e
the reHuirement 1pringgate failed to adhere to (and somehow CoughlinBs objecting to
1pringgate violating Dudge ?ardnerBs own 22512 (re4<rial #rder, and 1pringgate failing to
file his <rial 1tatemet, and 1pringgateBs failing to serve on Coughlin a Efiling readyF sanctions
motion and allowing the passing of the 21 day safe harbor period reHuired under 38C( 11
prior to ma7ing such a motion for EsanctionsF resulted only in Dudge $) ?ardner e'pounding
upon her view that Coughlin (and 1pringgate (who, li7e Aill, gets all crabby when he is
tuc7ered out and needs a juicebo', some orange wedges, and a Blil nice 8K8 playing paddy
ca7e in a sandbo' somewhere every now and then to recharge his batteries (ironically) the Aill4
1pringgate beef of B,% rivaled Aagler Aearns for sheer ferocity and bloodsport*, chec7 the
transcript, did not move for EsanctionsF (nor does the word EsanctionF or EsanctionsF appear
anywhere in "AE&, and, in fact, "AE& at page .:2142& merely indicates E)))Mr, Joshi re:uests
reasonable attorney0s fees be %aid to his attorney8 Mr, '%ringgate)F, though page /:1/422
does mention: E=r) Doshi reHuested that =r) Coughlin personally pay his attorneyBs fees for
$,15 "ours of trial at the rate of M225 per hour pursuant to 381 /)0%5) =r) 1pringgate
testified =r) Coughlin had not conducted any discovery, had produced no evidence regarding
=s) DoshiBs community debts (3#<E: how does that matter at all for these purposesJ* other
than her "inancial Declaration on file, had presented no evidence regarding alimony, and had
acted in a ve@atious and unreasonable manner in re&resenting (3#<E: it does not say Ein
e'tendingF* =s) Doshi in this divorce proceeding)F*, he moved for an award of EattorneyBs
feesF,)))
9nd, there is a difference between the two upon reviewing the e'press language
that made the final cut therein after hours and hours of wrangling in the $egislature (E +t is the
intent of the $egislature that the court award costs, e'penses and attorneyBs fees pursuant to this
section and impose sanctions pursuant to 8ule 11 of the 3evada 8ules of Civil (rocedure in all
250!!2
appropriate situations to punish for and deter frivolous or ve'atious claims and defenses
381 /)0%5(2* provides: E<he court shall liberally construe the provisions of this
section (3#<E: where Ethis sectionF is 381 /)0%5<0=, which, unli7e 381 /)0%5</= does not
apply to that which is referenced in 381 /)0%5</=<%=, (from which Dudge $) ?ardnerBs short4
lived "AE& copied and pasted the language therefrom (well, sort of, considering she, at page
1&:1141& wrote: (/or all these reasons8 the Court finds that Mr, Coughlin0s &resentation of
the case and arguments in su%%ort thereof to be unfounded in fact8 un#arranted by
e@isting la# ;-=)97 at this %oint Judge >, 2ardner conveniently omits the (or %( an
argument for changing the e6isting law that is made in good faith+ language contained in
381 /)0%5(1*(a*, from which she nearly parrots the Ewell4grounded in fact or is not warranted
by e'isting lawF phraseology*8 unreasonable8 and ve@atious throughout this entire
%roceeding,M< where Dudge $) ?ardnerBs "AE& contains only some of the words and language
381 /)0%5(1*(a*4(b* includes ;and the words she omitted therefrom or remi'ed are especially
curious where such statute reads: E1) +f a court finds that an attorney has: (a* Filed' maintained
or defended (becomes ECoughlinBs presentation of the caseF* a civil action or proceeding in any
court in this 1tate and such action or defense is not well4grounded in fact or is not warranted by
e'isting law or %( an argument for changing the e6isting law that is made in good faithC or
(b* @nreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended a civil action or proceeding before any court in this
1tate, the court shall reHuire the attorney personally to pay the additional costs, e'penses and
attorneyBs fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct)F* evince a disturbing level of
judicial misconduct in the willfully failing to apply the law sense of Canon 1, 8ule 1)1 where
(much li7e Dudge 1ferra::a ta7ing far too many liberties in remi'ing the ("istrict courtsF in
3; Const) 9rt) . 1ec . to (Nevada courtsF in his 122012 9dministrative #rder 2012401F*
2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner includes a not Huite verbatim reproduction of 381 /)0%5(a*4(b*Bs
language E(2* @nreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended a civil action or proceeding before any
court in this 1tate,F language therein*
"AE&, at page 1&:1141& reads: (/or all these reasons8 the Court finds that Mr,
Coughlin0s &resentation of the case and arguments in su%%ort thereof to be unfounded in
fact8 un#arranted by e@isting la#8 unreasonable8 and ve@atious throughout this entire
%roceeding,M<
381 /)0%5(1*(a*4(b*, however, merely %rovides for an a#ard of attorney0s fees
(which is not a EsanctionF, especially in the 38C( 11 conte't in which the only appearance of
the word EsanctionF appears in 381 /)0%5, ie, in 381 /)0%5(2** in favor of awarding costs,
e'penses and attorneyBs fees in all appropriate situations) ?t is the intent of the >egislature
that the court a#ard costs8 e@%enses and attorney0s fees %ursuant to this section and
im%ose sanctions %ursuant to Rule 11 of the -evada Rules of Civil Procedure in all
a&&ro&riate situations to punish for and deter frivolous or ve'atious claims and defenses
because such claims and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the timely
resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging in business and providing
professional services to the public)F
251!!2
<hat whole bit about Ein all appropriate situationsF in 381 /)0%5(2* and the e'press
provision that it Eis the intent of the >egislature that the court a#ard costs8 e@%enses and
attorney0s fees %ursuant to this section and im%ose sanctions %ursuant to Rule 11 of the
-evada Rules of Civil Procedure in all a&&ro&riate situations to punish for and deter
frivolous or ve'atious claims and defensesF (note: Eto punish for and deter frivolous or
ve'atious claims and defensesF fails to include therein situations where an attorney Ee6tended
a civil action or &roceedingFas Eclaims and defenseF do not encompass the E&resentation of
the caseF Dudge ?ardner characteri:ed the Emost troubling aspect of this caseF, that being E=r)
CoughlinBs rude8 sarcastic and disres%ectful &resentation at trial (3#<E: Eat trialF
necessarily is narrower than Ee'tended a civil action or proceedingF*C =r) CoughlinBs inability
to understand a balance sheetC his failure to conduct discoveryC and his lac7 of 7nowledge with
regard to the rules of evidence and trial procedure) 9ll of this was compounded with a
continuously antagonistic presentation of the case that resulted in a shift from a fairly simple
divorce case to a contentious divorce trial lasting an e'cessive amount of time)F (3#<E: none
of that specified at p1&:5410 in any way spea7s to the Eclaims and defenseF for which the only
EsanctionsF Dudge ?ardner had any jurisdiction to enter pursuant to 381 /)0%5, especially
considering the mar7ed emphasis in 381 /)0%5(2* on Eclaims and defensesF and the absence of
any reference to oneBs having Ee'tended a civil action or proceedingF putting into star7 relief
the fact that the $egislature simply did not want to imbue the judiciary with a EsanctionF
guillotine for every time a judge grew impatient with an ine'perienced attorneyBs allegedly
demonstrating a Elac7 of 7nowledge with regard to the rules of evidence and trial procedureF or
an Einability to understand a balance sheetF and where contempt procedures and Canon 2, 8ule
2)15 are far more appropriate and safer (read: less li7ely to be abused and used for impropre
purposes, or purposes which might give the appaerance of impropriety, such as occurred her
where 1pringgate was a financial contributor to Dudge $) ?ardnerBs campaign in 200% and
6$1Bs Elcano touted to Coughlin the Ebig favor she owes me because of somethingF Elcano
Edid for her a long time agoF during the "ebruary 200, conversation wherein Elcano relayed to
Coughlin that in responding to a third party complaint made to him by C996Bs Doni Gaiser in
connection with CoughlinBs representation of =ichelle Carnine in a <(# and divorce matter
that Elcano had as7ed both =aster Edmondson and Dudge $inda ?ardner as to whether
Coughlin was performing satisfactorily in his role as a domestic violence attorney for 6$1,
and that both had given CoughlinBs wor7 a EthumbBs upF (though, it seems, CoughlinBs objecting
to then =aster ?ardnerBs entering a EConsent #rderF where no consent had been given by
CoughlinBs client in the ;a'evanis <(# e'tension hearing sufficient to transfer title to a vehicle
where there e'ists no jurisdiction for a domestic master to ma7e any such adjudication did not
go over all that well)))but, Elcano had received a EthumbBs upF review from 2DDC Dudge $)
?ardner as to CoughlinBs wor7 before here just after the Carnine <(# hearing (whereupon
C996Bs (which runs the 2DDCBs <(# #ffice, which it apparently feels entitles it to calls for
the head of a domestic violence attorney the donBt particularly care for* Director Doni Gaiser
Etried to tell me (Elcano* how to do my (his* job^F at which point Elcano did his due diligence
and as7ed then =asters Edmondson and $) ?ardner what they thought of CoughlinBs wor7
before them* and just before CoughlinBs filings following the ;a'evanis v) 1antiago <(#
e'tension hearing:
252!!2
1ee Caryn 1ternlichtBs approachat the hearing on the #bjection to =aster $inda
?ardnerBs 8ecommendations in the the 1antiago v);a'evanis <(# deal ";0%40&&%0, where
she filled in for Coughlin, whom too7 issue with then =aster$inda ?ardner ma7ing #rders in
<(#Bs where opposing counsel was 8ichard =ole::o, EsH), <hat purportedto rule on the title to
vehicles)))Despite 381 &&)01% 1eeming to clearly lac7 any jurisdictional basis for her todo so,
particularly where the vehicle was being given to the accused abuser, and further where that
#rder was seemingly later recharacteri:ed as an OagreementO))))@h, no) "urther, then =aster
$inda ?ardner was apparently rather upset that Coughlin pointed out that she seemed to be
overstepping her jurisdiction a bit, outside of that accorded her in 381 &&)01% +n a <(#
wherein another local attorney, 8ichard =ole::o, EsH) lined up opposite Coughlin, in ";0%4
0&&%0 4 28E3D9 193<+9?# ;1 >8A1<#1 ;9>E;93+1:
http:www)ccwashoe)compublicc7bpublicbHrybdoct)cpbd7trptbframesJ
bac7toVDKcasebidV";0%40&&%0KbeginbdateVKendbdateV )
Aowever, C996Bs Doni Gaiser complained about Coughlin to 6$1Bs Elcano
following the
,&0, <(# Aearing in ";0%402021 4 =+CAE$$E C983+3E #2# 1<#8=N ;1
289D$EN C983+3E(D=*:
http:www)ccwashoe)compublicc7bpublicbHrybdoct)cpbd7trptbdoc7etbreportJ
casebidV";0%402021KbeginbdateVKendbdateV
9t which point Elcano as7ed then 2DDC =asters Edmondson and $) ?ardner
whether they approved of CoughlinBs wor7 before them, which Elcano indicated they did
(Ethumbs upF Elcano said, from both*) 1o, between that ,&0, <(# hearing C996
complained to Elcano about with respect to CoughlinBs representation of =ichelle Carnine, and
the 10&00% #bjection to then =aster $) ?ardnerBs 8ecommendation in the 2renda 1antiago
<(# matter, Elcano as7ed for a review of Coughlin wor7 before her from then =aster ?ardner,
whom Elcano claims gave CoughlinBs performance a Ethumbs upF)
9nd, it was during CoughlinBs "ebruary 200, sit down with Coughlin (in response to
6$1Bs 8honda Aarrison telling Coughlin Ebite meF upon Coughlin as7ing her if she was the
Ehall monitorF upon Aarrison as7ing Coughlin why he was using the upstairs restroom at
6$1*) Aowever, it seems perhaps that CoughlinBs filing in ";0%40&&%0 4 28E3D9
193<+9?# ;1 >8A1<#1 ;9>E;93+1, a <(# matter then =aster $) ?ardner presided
over, a 10&00% #bjection to then =aster $) ?ardnerBs 101/0% =asterBs 8ecommendation
that, perhaps, some of the atmosphere surrounding the Doshi divorce trial from which "AE&
sprung (D;0%4011.%, trial held &120, and &1/0,, "AE& entered !1&0,, Coughlin
submitting written employment law based Complaint to Elcano on !1,0,, 6$1Bs Elcano
suspending Coughlin on !200,, Elcano firing Coughlin on 5/0,, 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner
amending her !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial ("AE&* in her .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce therein
to award the ver( alimon( she characteri:ed as a E&resentation of the case and arguments in
support thereofF sufficient to grant E=r) 1pringgateBs reHuest that =r) Couglin personally pay
=r) Doshi !)15 hours at the rate of M225 per hour for the cost of the trialF (p1&:1141&C rather
than a Eclaim or defenseF as provided by 381 /)0%5(1*(a* and 381 /)0%5(2* as the use of the
term EpresentationF decidedly references 381 /)0%5(1*(b*Bs Ee'tendedF much more than it
could be said to refer to the Eclaims or defenseF referenced in 381 /)0%5(1*(a* and 381
25&!!2
/)0%5(2*, especially where the only jurisdiction to Eissue sanctionsF found anywhere in 381
/)0%5 is in 381 /)0%5(2*, which relates solely to Eclaims and defense, not specifically e'cludes
providing a basis for issuing EsanctionsF for oneBs having Eunreasonably or ve'atiously
e'tended a civil action or proceedingF, much less for oneBs Epresentation of the caseF or
Earguments in support thereofF)))further oneBs Earguments in support thereofF are distinct from
the Eclaims or defensesF one pleads as well, and where the $egislature crafts a statutory
remedy, it is to be strictly construed* made by Coughlin)
<he EConclusions of >a#F section of Dudge $) ?ardnerBs (which was soon
superseded by the .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce, which altered and amended "AE& in
vacating the attorneyBs fee award (which was not a sanction to begin with* and removing all the
language cited to by the (anel from "AE& as supporting its ErecommendationF* "AE&Bs #rder
9fter <rial of !1&0, begins at p/:2&) +n 8e 1antosuosso ma7es clear that the E"indings of
"actF section is not EevidenceF and therefore not admissible)
O=r) Coughlin filed an 9nswer and Counterclaim on =s) DoshiBs behalf that included
allegations unsupported by lawC and filed an #pposition to the reHuest for return of =r) DoshiBs
passport without any factual or legal basis) "urther, at trial, =r) Coughlin presented almost no
evidence to support =s) DoshiBs reHuests and claims)O ((1&:14!*
OFor all these reasons, the Court finds that =r) CoughlinBs presentation of the case
and arguments in support thereof to be unfounded in fact, unwarranted by e'isting law,
unreasonable, and ve'atious throughout this entire proceeding) 2ased upon the foregoing, =r)
1pringgateBs reHuest that =r) Coughlin personally pay =r) Doshi !)15 Aours at the rate of M225
per hour for the cost of the trial is ?893<ED) =r) Coughlin shall submit a chec7 to =r) Doshi
in the amount of M,&! within &0 days of this #rder)O ((1&:1141/*)
<he thing about the above portion of "AE& is that it is rather odd considering the
language of 381 /)0%5(1*(a*4(b*: E1) +f a court finds that an attorney has: (a* "iled, maintained
or defended a civil action or proceeding in any court in this 1tate and such action or defense is
not well4grounded in fact or is not warranted by e'isting law or by an argument for changing
the e'isting law that is made in good faithC or (b* @nreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended a
civil action or proceeding before any court in this 1tate,
the court shall re:uire the attorney %ersonally to %ay the additional costs8
e@%enses and attorney0s fees reasona%l( incurred %ecause of such conduct)F
"AE& fails to comply with 381 /)0%5(1*Bs dictate that
OFor all these reasons, the Court finds that =r) CoughlinBs &resentation of the case
and arguments in su&&ort thereof to be unfounded in fact, unwarranted by e'isting law,
unreasonable, and ve'atious throughout this entire proceeding)
2ased upon the foregoing, =r) 1pringgateBs reHuest that =r) Coughlin personally
pay =r) Doshi !)15 Aours at the rate of M225 per hour for the cost of the trial is ?893<ED)
=r) Coughlin shall submit a chec7 to =r) Doshi in the amount of M,&! within &0 days of this
#rder)O ((1&:1141/*)
1imply put, "AE& purports to base such attorney fee award (which is not, to be
clear, a EsanctionF particularly where such specifically references 381 /)0%5(1*(b* as the basis,
at least in part, for such attorneyBs fee award on both that which is covered by 381 /)0%5(1*(a*
25!!!2
and (1*(b*, however, the reHuirement that such attorneyBs fee award be limited to ordering Ethe
attorney presonally to pay)))attorneyBs fees reasona%l( incurred %ecause of such conductF)
<he fact that Dudge ?ardner awarded attorneyBs fees only for the trial (every minute
of the trial too, which does not comply with the dictate that such fees awarded be Ereasonably
incurred because of such conductF where the Epresentation of the caseF (which is not e'actly
EconductF* Dudge ?ardner too7 issue with did not start at minute one of the !)15 hour trial, and
therefore, reHuiring Coughlin to pay an attorney fee award for those fees incurred right from
minute one of the trial fails to comply with the dictates of 381 /)0%5)
6here in =irch the 123 attempt to characteri:e 38C( 11 and 1C8 1/0 (what is
presently 8(C &)1 E=eritorious Claims and ContentionsF:
8(C 8ulee&)1)eMeritorious Claims and Contentions)ee9 lawyer shall not bring
or defend a %roceeding8 or assert or controvert an issue therein8 unless there is a basis in
la# and fact for doing so that is not frivolous8 which includes a good faith argument for an
e6tension' modification or reversal of e6isting law) 9 lawyer for the defendant in a criminal
proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may
nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to reHuire that every element of the case be
established)F

?roundless or frivolous claims "or purposes of an award of attorney fees, under
statute governing award of attorney fees, a claim is groundless if the allegations in the
complaint are not supported by any credible evidence at trial) 3)8)1) 1%)010, 1ubd) 2(2*)
2obby 2erosini, $td) ;) (eople for the Ethical <reatment of 9nimals, 1,,%, ,/1 ()2D &%&, 11!
3ev) 1&!%, 8ehearing denied) "rivolousness of claim is determined as of time claim is
initiated, rather than time of trial, for purposes of award of attorney fees to prevailing party
when opposing party brings suit without reasonable grounds or to harass prevailing party)
3)8)1) 1%)010, 1ubd) 2(2*) 2aro::i v) 2enna, 1,,., ,1% ()2D &01, 112 3ev) .&5)
Claim is groundless and will justify award of attorney fees if complaint contains
allegations which are not supported by any credible evidence at trial) 1emen:a v) Caughlin
Crafted Aomes, 1,,5, ,01 ()2D .%!, 111 3ev) 10%,) +f action is not frivolous when initiated,
fact that it later becomes frivolous will not support award of fees)
1emen:a v) Caughlin Crafted Aomes, 1,,5, ,01 ()2D .%!, 111 3ev) 10%,)
Evidence <o support award of attorney fees without regard to recovery sought, there must be
evidence in record supporting proposition that complaint was brought without reasonable
grounds or to harass other party) 3)8)1) 1%)010, 1ubd) 2(2*) 1emen:a v) Caughlin Crafted
Aomes, 1,,5, ,01 ()2D .%!, 111 3ev) 10%,)
381 /)0%5(2* does not allow for a EsanctionF to be EissuedF for oneBs EpresentationF
during a trialF, but, rather, only for that which is set out in 38C( 11(b*, which relates solely to
where an attorney Eby presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later
advocating* a pleading, written motion, or other paper,F somehow violates 38C( 11(b*(1*4(!*)
9s such, there may be no EsanctionF pursuant to 381 /)0%5 by way of 38C( 11 unless
Coughlin is found to have Eby presenting to the court Ea pleading, written motion, or other
255!!2
paperF, ie, there must be something on paper in the first place prior to any further analysis
proceeding in a 8ule 11 conte't)
9s such, "AE& is limited)
38C( 8@$Ee11)ee4$GN$NG #" @LEA"$NG4y)
(b*ee&resentations to .ourt)ee2y presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing,
submitting, or later advocating* a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or
unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the personRs 7nowledge, information, and
belief, formed after an in*uir( reasona%le under the circumstances,]
(1*eit is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigationC
(2*ethe claims8 defenses8 and other legal contentions therein are #arranted by
e@isting la# or %( a nonfrivolous argument for the e6tension' modification' or reversal of
e6isting law or the esta%lishment of new lawC
(&*ethe allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiar( su&&ort or, if
specifically so identified, are li7ely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity
for further investigation or discoveryC and
(!*ethe denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically
so identified, are reasonably based on a lac7 of information or belief)
(c*e4anctions)ee+f, after notice and a reasona%le o&&ortunit( to res&ond, the court
determines that subdivision (b* has been violated, the court may, su!$ect to the conditions
stated !elow, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have
violated subdivision (b* or are responsible for the violation)
(1*eAow initiated)
(9*e2y =otion)ee9 motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately
from other motions or reHuests and shall describe the s&ecific conduct alleged to violate
subdivision (b*) +t shall !e served as provided in Rule 0, but shall not %e filed with or
&resented to the court unless' within 0/ da(s after service of the motion (or such other period
as the court may prescribe*, the challenged &a&er' claim' defense' contention' allegation' or
denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected) +f warranted, the court may award to the
party prevailing on the motion the reasonable e'penses and attorneyRs fees incurred in
presenting or opposing the motion) 9bsent e'ceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held
jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees)
(2*e#n CourtRs +nitiative)ee#n its own initiative, the court may enter an order
describing the s&ecific conduct that a&&ears to violate su%division <%= and directing an
attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b* with respect
thereto)
(2*e3ature of 1anctionC $imitations)ee9 sanction imposed for violation of this rule
shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct
25.!!2
by others similarly situated) 1ubject to the limitations in subparagraphs (9* and (2*, the
sanction may consist of8 or include8 directives of a nonmonetary nature8 an order to %ay a
%enalty into court8 or8 if im%osed on motion and #arranted for effective deterrence, an
order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneyRs fees and other
e'penses incurred as a direct result of the violation)
(9*e=onetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a
violation of subdivision (b*(2*)
(2*e=onetary sanctions may not be awarded on the courtRs initiative unless the
court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims
made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned)
(&*e#rder)ee6hen im&osing sanctions' the court shall descri%e the conduct
determined to constitute a violation of this rule and e6&lain the %asis for the sanction
im&osed)
(d*e9pplicability to Discovery)ee4u%divisions <a= through <c= of this rule do not a&&l( to
disclosures and discover( re*uests' res&onses' o%-ections' and motions that are su%-ect to the
&rovisions of ules /K./' /K.0' and 0K through DI. 4anctions for refusal to ma)e discover(
are governed %( ules 0K<g= and DI)
D89"<E8R1 3#<EC 200! 9=E3D=E3<C <he rule is amended to conform to the federal
rule, as amended in 1,,&, in its entirety) 9 cross4reference to 8ules 2.(g* and &/ was added to
subsection (d* to clarify their application to discovery violations)
<he e'cision of all of the portions of "AE& cited to by the (anel in Dudge 6)
?ardnerBs .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce ma7es clear all such portions cited by the (anel
from "AE& were vacated, and, as such, certainly provide no offensive collateral estoppel bar
(much less admissible evidence* where "AE& provided: O5) (reparation of the Decree 4 =r)
1pringgate shall &re&are the decree of divorce consistent with this memorandum decision)
=r) 1pringgate shall tender his proposed decree to =r) Coughlin, pursuant to 6DC8 ,, within
20 days from the date of this order)O ((1&:1%422*)
2/2 9)D)2D %&%, (3)N 2000* +n re C9(#CC+9,: Civil findings of state courts may
be preclusively applied in attorney disciplinary proceedings under doctrine of collateral
estoppel) +n determining whether doctrine of collateral estoppel applies, burden rests upon its
proponent to demonstrate the identicality and decisiveness of the issues, and its opponent has
the ultimate burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate)
Determinations in prior routine civil consumer collection actions that attorney, in defending the
actions, had engaged in frivolous conduct by continuing to assert a position that was without a
basis in law and which could not have been supported by a reasonable argument for e'tension,
modification or reversal of e'isting law, resulting in repeated sanctions, awards of costs and
counsel fees, or warnings for frivolous conduct, had collateral estoppel effect in subseHuent
attorney disciplinary proceeding) 3)N)Ct)8ules, S 1&0T1)1(C*) 9ttorney who defended several
routine civil consumer collection actions had full and fair opportunity to litigate issue of
25/!!2
whether he was subject to sanctions for engaging in frivolous conduct by asserting baseless
positions, as reHuired for determinations that he had engaged in such conduct to have collateral
estoppel effect in subseHuent attorney disciplinary caseC attorney was on notice that sanctions
were being sought, and it was foreseeable that such conduct could subject him to disciplinary
action) 3)N)Ct)8ules, S 1&0T1)1(C*) "act that an attorney may be sanctioned or critici:ed once
does not ipso facto constitute a disciplinary rule violation) 9ttorneyBs repeated sanctionable
conduct of asserting defenses and counterclaims without ma7ing good4faith inHuiry into their
applicability to any given case as part of an intentional strategy to delay litigation and to harass
his opponents in order to e'tract settlements in routine consumer collection cases violated
disciplinary rules barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely
reflecting on fitness to practice law, harassing conduct, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation, and 7nowingly advancing unwarranted claims or defenses)
3)N)Ct)8ules, SS 1200)& PD8 1T102Q, 1200)&& PD8 /T102Q) (3#<E: as to "AE& O"inding of
"actO (which is not OevidenceO per +n re 1antosuosso* O5) =s) Doshi reHuests spousal support)
1pecifically, =s) Doshi reHuested spousal support Ountil her death or remarriage, whichever
occurs first)O (9nswer, p) &, $ines 54.*) <he Court notes the following information has been
provided and has been ta7en into consideration on this issue: =r) Doshi is 51 years of age and
=s) Doshi is !. years of age) <he parties moved to the @nited 1tates from <an:ania in 2001) 5
=s) Doshi is a college graduate and has wor7ed continuously since the parties moved to the
@nited 1tates) =s) Doshi is presently employed by 8aleyBs as a pharmaceutical technician and
earned appro'imately M2,,500)00 +n 200%) =s) Doshi has testified she has raised the partiesB
children and thereby has foregone educational opportunities and has put her dreams aside) =r)
Doshi testified he is a high school graduate) =r) Doshi is employed as a catering manager) +n
20m&, =r) Doshi earned appro'imately M!1,500)00 6hile wor7ing for two companies
49merican 2ar and 8estaurant and 1ierra 1port 1ervice) 9t trial, =r) Doshi introduced his 642
from 9merican 2ar and 8estaurant reflecting earnings of M!,15/) (<rial E'hibit OCO*C and his
642 from 1ierra 1port 1ervice in the amount of M&/,50!)1% (<rial E'hibit ODO*) =r) Doshi
testified that business is slow and he is presently wor7ing for only one company 49merican 2ar
and 8estaurant) =r) Doshi testified he has only two wee7s of wor7 scheduled for =arch, 200,C
and he filed for unemployment benefits in =arch, 200,) =r) Doshi reHuested the Court consider
his net income after deducting ta'es, factor in the present M.00 per month he is presently
paying for community debt, and set off any alimony responsibility by his assumption of an
uneHual distribution of community debt) "urther, to protect =s) Doshi in the event =r) Doshi
filed for ban7ruptcy, =r) Doshi suggested that the court maintain jurisdiction over the issue of
spousal support for five years)O ("AE& page 5:224.:20* ) "AE& also contains the following
OConclusion of $awO: OC#3C$@1+#31 #" $96 1) #ngoing 1upport for the 9dult
ChildrenBs Education4 (ursuant to 381 125)510(,*(2*, e'cept where a contract providing
otherwise has been e'ecuted pursuant to 381 12&)0%0, <he obligation for care, education,
maintenance and support of any minor child created by any order entered pursuant to this
section ceases: (a* @pon the death of the person to whom the order was directedC or (b* 6hen
((age /* the child reaches 1% years of age if he is no longer enrolled in high school, otherwise,
when he reaches 1, years of age) <here has been no evidence presented by =s) Doshi justifying
a reHuest for continuing support of the partiesB adult children) 9s there has been no legal basis
25%!!2
presented to ma7e such a finding, the Court denies =s) DoshiBs reHuest that =r) Doshi financially
provide for the adult childrenBs education)O ((age /:204%:%*)
-old
Judge >inda 2ardner0s =rder 6fter )rial ;'1- 9@hibit . at the 11C1$C12
formal disci%linary hearing< in DV+*4+11*8 of $C1.C+B reads7
O9 Complaint for Divorce was filed by 91A6+3 D#1A+ (hereinafter =r) Doshi*, by
and through his attorney, D#A3 () 1(8+3??9<E, E1U), on Duly %, 200%) 9n 9nswer and
Counterclaim was filed by 2A98<+ D#1A+ (hereinafter B=s) DoshiB*, by and through her
attorney of record, -9CA98N 2) C#@?A$+3, E1U), on Duly 1%, 200%) 9rgument was heard
on =arch 12, 200, and =arch 1/, 200,) =r) Doshi was present and represented by Dohn ()
1pringgate, EsH)C and =s) Doshi, was present and represented by -achary 2) Coughlin, EsH), of
6ashoe $egal 1ervices)
9ll testimony and arguments having been heard, all pleadings on file having been
read, all e'hibits, tapes, and notes having been reviewed, the Court finds and #rders as follows)
/?-D?-2' =/ /6C)
1) <he parties were married =ay 11, 1,%/, in 2ombay, +ndia)
2) <he parties have two children, both of whom are now adults) 9lthough =r) Noshi
has no obligation to support said children any longer pursuant to 381 125)510(,*(b*, =s)
Noshi reHuests the financial assistance of =r) Noshi so as to provide for the childrenBs
continuing education) (9nswer, pg) 2, lines 1.41%*)
<he Court notes that on 9ugust 1, 200%, =r) Doshi filed a B=otion "or 8eturn #f
(ersonal (ropertyB reHuesting that =s) Doshi return his passport, green card and social security
card) #n 9ugust /, 200%, =s) Doshi, by and through her attorney of record, =r) Coughlin, filed
an #pposition to the return of =r) DoshiBs passport citing case law involving minor children and
their support) =s) Noshi filed said opposition while ac7nowledging the partiesB children were
both over eighteen years of age at the time) #n 9ugust 1%, 200%, Dudge 1chumacher ordered
=s) Doshi to immediately return =r) DoshiBs passport within five days)
&) <here is community property to be divided)
+n =r) DoshiBs Complaint filed Duly %, 200%, he indicated there was community
property and debts which should be divided by the Court)
=s) Doshi filed an 9nswer and Counterclaim on Duly 1%, 200%, indicating the partiesB
community property should be eHuitably divided, including =s) DoshiBs OwomenBs wealthO, the
vehicles in each partyBs possession, the vehicles in their childrenBs possession, and O the money
the P=s) NoshiQ earned while wor7ing for $egendary $u'ury Camping 1afari in Aouston <e'as
which was automatically deposited in P=r) NoshiBsQ account every month for two and one4half
years, PandQ which P=r) NoshiQ told P=s) NoshiQ he would give to her)O (9nswer, pg) 2, lines
2142.*)
<he Court notes the following information has been provided and has been ta7en
into consideration on this issue:
a) O6omenBs 6ealthO (roperty 4 <he parties agreed that the partiesB
community interest in the OwomanBs wealthO jewelry (location un7nown* belongs to =s) DoshiBs
25,!!2
E'hibitODoshiBs d) Doshi) =r) Doshi stated that he would contact his relatives, who may have
some of the property, and will reHuest its immediate return to =s) Doshi)
b) =r) DoshiBs ;ehicle 4 =r) Doshi introduced evidence that the balance on
his 2005 Chevrolet 2la:er is M15,00,)/5 as of =arch ., 200,) (<rial E'hibit O9O*C and Gelley
2lue 2oo7 value for the 2la:er is M10,,10 (E'hibit O2O*) <herefore, a deficit in the amount of
appro'imately M!,100)00 e'ists on the vehicle) 9t the conclusion of trial, =r) Doshi reHuested
that he be awarded the Chevrolet 2la:er) =s) Doshi presented no evidence on this issue, )o the
Court0s &no#ledge8 Ms, Joshi conducted no discovery on this issue,
c, Ms, ?oshi0s Vehicle 4 <here was no evidence introduced regarding the
value of =s) DoshiBs car)
d) 1onBs ;ehicle 4 =r) Doshi testified that his adult son is presently driving
the Deep ?rand Chero7ee and is ma7ing the payments for the car directly to the lender, Clear
1tar "inancial) 2oth parties testified that =s) Doshi and the partiesB son are named on the title)
3o evidence was presented regarding the balance owed on the Deep ?rand Chero7ee) =s) Doshi
presented no evidence on this issue) <o the CourtBs 7nowledge, =s) Doshi conducted no
discovery on this issue)
e) DaughterBs ;ehicle 4 =r) Doshi testified that the partiesB adult daughter
drives and ma7es payments on the Aonda 9ccord and that title is held in the name of both =r)
Doshi and the partiesB daughter) =s) Doshi testified that she made a payment of M.,000)00 on her
credit card for said automobile and the present balance on the credit card was appro'imately
M5,000)00) Aowever, =s) Doshi presented no evidence to corroborate this contention) =s) Doshi
did not specify a date on which said debt was incurred, she did not provide evidence of any
payments made on said credit card, and she did not present evidence of any credit card with a
balance in the amount of M5,000)00 remaining thereon) =s) Doshi presented no further evidence
on this issue) e) $ondon 2an7 9ccount 4 =r) Doshi testified that that he did not 7now if =s)
DoshiBs earnings from <an:ania were placed in a $ondon ban7 account) =r) Doshi testified he
did not control =s) DoshiBs money at that time) =s) Doshi presented no evidence that her
earnings were placed in a $ondon ban7 account) <o the CourtBs 7nowledge, =s) Doshi
conducted no discovery on this issue) f) Community 2an7 9ccounts 4 =s) Doshi testified that
she reHuested access to the ban7 accounts from =r) Doshi, but that he would not let her see the
ban7 statements) "urther, =s) Doshi testified that she did have her own credit and she did have
access to =r) DoshiBs credit card statements) <here was no further evidence presented as to the
community ban7 accounts) !) <here is community debt to be divided) <he Court notes the
following information has been provided and has been ta7en into consideration on this issue: a)
?eneral Credit Card Debt 4 =r) Doshi testified that he owes appro'imately M15,.50 in credit
card debt (<rial E'hibit OEO*, and argued the charges were incurred for community e'penses,
holidays, family e'penses and household e'penses) =s) Doshi presented no evidence regarding
community credit card debt) b) 2est 2uy Credit Card Debt 4 =r) Doshi stated that the parties
purchased a computer and <);) at 2est 2uy for appro'imately M1,&1!)00) =r) Doshi testified
=s) Doshi has both of these items) =r) Doshi reHuested he be awarded the computer presently in
=s) DoshiBs possession and that she retain the <);) =s) Doshi presented no evidence on this
issue) c) =edical Debt 4 =r) Doshi testified he owes M.,/&5)00 to 1t) =aryBs Aospital for
surgery in =ay 200% (<rial E'hibit O"O* and M500)00 to 8E=19 (<rial E'hibit O?O*) 9t trial,
2.0!!2
=r) Doshi offered to pay these community debts) =s) Doshi presented no evidence that her
earnings were placed in a $ondon ban7 <here was no further evidence presented as to the
community ban7 accounts) <he Court notes the following information has been provided and
has been ta7en =r) d) O=s) Doshi presented no evidence on this issue) <o the CourtBs
7nowledge, =s) Doshi conducted no discovery on this issue) d) "amily Debt 4 there are two
debts owing to family members or on behalf of family members that were presented at trial)
=r) Doshi introduced evidence at trial regarding a M5,000)00 debt to 8od and =eena "owler
(<rial E'hibit OAO* in the form of a letter from 8od and =eena "owler) <he letter states that the
parties owe money in the amount of M.,000)00, which was Olong overdueO by appro'imately
si' (.* years, for money loaned to =r) DoshiBs mother when she was ill) <he letter references a
Ocopy of your letter agreeing to pay us bac7O, but did not attach a copy of said letter) 9t trial,
=r) Doshi testified that he did not have a copy of the referenced letter) =s) Doshi testified that
this debt was Omade up)O =r) Doshi testified regarding a debt of appro'imately M5,000 owing to
a family member by the name of 9shi7 3anaby (spJ*, for buying plane tic7ets for the Doshi
family to come to the @nites 1tates in 2001) =s) Doshi testified that she could not obtain any
information regarding this debt as the other party Owanted to stay out of the divorce)O 9t trial,
=r) Doshi offered to pay these community debts) e) ?eneral Community Debt 4 =r) Doshi
testified that he pays appro'imately M.00 per month for community debts, e'cluding his car
and insurance) =s) Doshi presented no evidence regarding general community debt) =r) Doshi
offered to pay the community debt in his name that he had been paying and ta7e an uneHual
division of community debt) 5) =s) Doshi reHuests spousal support) 1pecifically, =s) Doshi
reHuested spousal support Ountil her death or remarriage, whichever occurs first)O (9nswer, p)
&, lines 54.*) <he Court notes the following information has been provided and has been ta7en
into consideration on this issue: =r) Doshi is 51 years of age and =s) Doshi is !. years of age)
<he parties moved to the @nited 1tates from <an:ania in 2001) M!,15/) CO*C =s) Doshi is a
college graduate and has wor7ed continuously since the parties moved to the @nited 1tates) =s)
Doshi is presently employed by 8aleyBs as a pharmaceutical technician and earned
appro'imately M2,,500)00 in 200%) =s) Doshi has testified she has raised the partiesB children
and thereby has foregone educational opportunities and has put her dreams aside) =r) Doshi
testified he is a high school graduate) =r) Doshi is employed as a catering manager) +n 20m&,
=r) Doshi earned appro'imately M!1,500)00 while wor7ing for two companies 4 9merican 2ar
and 8estaurant and 1ierra 1port 1ervice) 9t trial, =r) Doshi introduced his 642 from 9merican
2ar and 8estaurant reflecting earnings of M!,15/) (<rial E'hibit OCO *C and his 642 from 1ierra
1port 1ervice in the amount of M&/,50!)1% (<rial E'hibit ODO*) =r) Doshi testified that business
is slow and he is presently wor7ing for only one company 4 9merican 2ar and 8estaurant) =r)
Doshi testified he has only two wee7s of wor7 scheduled for =arch, 200,C and he filed for
unemployment benefits in =arch, 200,) =r) Doshi reHuested the Court consider his net income
after deducting ta'es, factor in the present M.00 per month he is presently paying for
community debt, and set off any alimony responsibility by his assumption of an uneHual
distribution of community debt) "urther, to protect =s) Doshi in the event =r) Doshi filed for
ban7ruptcy, =r) Doshi suggested that the court maintain jurisdiction over the issue of spousal
support for five years) 5) =s) Doshi reHuests reasonable attorneyBs fees be paid to 6ashoe $egal
1ervices for the services of =r) Coughlin) =r) Doshi reHuests reasonable attorneyBs fees be paid
2.1!!2
to his attorney, =r) 1pringgate) <he Court notes the following information has been provided
and has been ta7en into consideration on this issue: #n Duly 1%, 200%, =r) Coughlin filed a
1tatement of $egal 9id 8epresentation which states Defendant is receiving Ofree legal
assistanceO from 6ashoe $egal 1ervices pursuant to 381 12)015)
client OOC#3C$@1+#31 #" $96 #n #ctober &, 200%, Dudge Dordan presided over the
partiesB Case =anagement Conference) 9t that hearing, the parties were unable to reach a
settlement) "urther, on =arch 12, 200,, Dudge ?ardner conducted a 1ettlement Conference for
appro'imately one and one4half hours, prior to starting the trial at appro'imately &:00 pm) <he
parties did not agree on settlement and trial was commenced) +n his closing argument at trial,
=r) Coughlin, on behalf of =s) Doshi, stated that he did not understand and could not agree
with eHuali:ing debt when one party ended up with a nicer car) Ae stated that he hadO crunched
the numbersO and could not see it the other way) =r) Coughlin cited an 9$8 article regarding
community debt and stated his client O does not have much for the creditors to ta7e)O Ae
reHuested that his client assume one4half the community debt and that the Court find (laintiffBs
two M5,000 debts to family members and friends as =r) DoshiBs separate debts) =r) Coughlin
stated his client is being as7ed to Ofoot the billO for (laintiffBs debts and referenced that =s)
Doshi is a caring and committed mother) =r) Doshi testified that he had paid =r) 1pringgate
M!,000)00 since Duly, 200%, for attorneyBs fees and costs) =r) Doshi reHuested that =r) Coughlin
personally pay his attorneyBs fees for !)15 hours of trial at the rate of M225 per hour pursuant to
381 /)0%5) =r) 1pringgate testified =r) Coughlin had not conducted any discovery, had
produced no evidence regarding =s) DoshiBs community debts other than her "inancial
Declaration on file, had presented no evidence regarding alimony, and had acted in a ve'atious
and unreasonable manner in representing =s) Doshi in this divorce proceeding)
C#3C$@1+#31 #" $96 1) #ngoing 1upport for the 9dult ChildrenBs Education4 (ursuant
to 381 125)510(,*(b*, e'cept where a contract providing otherwise has been e'ecuted pursuant
to 381 12&)0%0, the obligation for care, education, maintenance and support of any minor
child created by any order entered pursuant to this section ceases: (a* @pon the death of the
person to whom the order was directedC or (b* 6hen if (ursuant (utterman v) (utterman, a)
O6omenBs 6ealthO 4 <he parties have agreed that the partiesB DoshiBs =r) 10,,10)00but DoshiBs
the child reaches 1% years of age if he is no longer enrolled in high school, otherwise, when he
reaches 1, years of age) <here has been no evidence presented by =s) Doshi justifying a reHuest
for continuing support of the partiesB adult children) 9s there has been no legal basis presented
to ma7e such a finding, the Court denies =s) DoshiBs reHuest that =r) Doshi financially provide
for the adult childrenBs education) 2) Community (ropertyDebt 4 (ursuant to 381 125)150(1*
(b* and v) 11& 3ev) .0., ,&, ()2d 10!/ (1,,/*, in granting a divorce, the Court shall ensure an
eHual disposition of the community estate, absent compelling reasons justifying an uneHual
distribution) <he Court must ma7e written findings as to why such a division is appropriate) a)
O6omenBs 6ealthO 4 <he parties have agreed that the partiesB community interests in the
OwomenBs wealthO belongs entirely to =s) Doshi according to their customary beliefs, and
thereby should be declared her sole and separate property) 9s such, =r) Doshi is ordered to
contact any and all relatives who may have this property and immediately return said property
to =s) Doshi as soon as possible) b) =r) +oshiBs ;ehicle 4 <he 2005 Chevrolet 2la:er shall be
2.2!!2
considered =r) DoshiBs sole and separate property) =r) Doshi shall be responsible for the debt
remaining thereon) 9s the car is worth M10,,10) 00 but there is M15,00,)/5 due and owing on
said car, the Court will consider =r) DoshiBs assumption of this asset as an underta7ing of
community debt of appro'imately M!,100)00) c) =s) +oshiBs ;ehicle 4 =s) DoshiBs car shall be
considered her sole and separate property) =s) Doshi shall be responsible for any debt
remaining thereon) 9s there was no evidence presented as to its value (either positive or
negative*, the Court is unable to determine a value for this community asset) d) 1onBs ;ehicle 4
9s the only evidence presented on this issue was the fact that the partiesB adult son drives this
vehicle and ma7es the payments thereon, this asset will not be divided among the community)
h) 1) <elevision 4 D) 7) e) DaughterBs ;ehicle 4 <he only evidence presented on this issue was the
fact that the partiesB adult daughter drives this car and ma7es payments thereon) =s) Doshi
presented no evidence of a balance owing on the car or its fair mar7et value) <hereby, this car
will not be divided as a community asset) f) $ondon 2an7 9ccount 4 there was no evidence
presented to the Court verifying said ban7 account e'ists) 9s such, there is no factual basis to
support an order dividing it as a community asset) g) Community 2an7 9ccounts 4 there was no
evidence presented as to the e'istence of community ban7 accounts) 9s such, there is no factual
basis to support an order dividing it as a community asset) h) Computer 4 =r) Doshi is awarded
the computer purchased at 2est 2uy) =s) Doshi shall deliver said computer to =r) 1pringgateBs
office on or before "riday, 9pril 1/, 200,, at 5:00pm) 1) <elevision =s) Doshi is awarded the
television purchased at 2est 2uy) +t is the CourtBs understanding this television is currently in
=s) DoshiBs possession) D) ?eneral Credit Card Debt 4 <he evidence presented indicates a
general debt of appro'imately M15, .50)00 which has been e'pended for community purposes)
=r) Doshi agreed to be responsible for this debt at trial) 9s such, =r) Doshi shall be solely and
separately responsible for this debt) 2est 2uy Credit Card Debt 4 <he evidence presented
indicates there is a debt of appro'imately M1,&1!)00 outstanding for the purchase of the
television and computer) =r) Doshi agreed to be responsible for this debt at trial) 9s such, =r)
Doshi shall be solely and separately responsible for this debt) 1) =r) &) 1upport4 divorce)O
1,.,5! &/,&, 1) =edical Debt 4 9s =r) Doshi has offered to pay these debts, he shall be solely
and separately responsible for the payment of M.,/&5)00 to 1t)=aryBs AospitalC and M500)00 to
8emsa) m) "amily Debt 4 <here was no documentary evidence presented as to the debt owing
to 9shi7 3anaby (spJ* for buying plane tic7ets for the Doshi family) "urther, as the only
evidence provided regarding the M5,000)00 debt to 8od and =eena "owler indicates said debt
was incurred for the benefit of =r) DoshiBs mother) 9s =r) Doshi has agreed to ta7e on both of
these debts, they shall henceforth be his sole and separate responsibility) n) ?eneral
Community Debt 4 <here was no evidence other than testimonial evidence to establish
community debts) 9s =r) Doshi has offered to pay any remaining community debt in his name
that is hereafter outstanding, said debt shall be the sole and separate responsibility of =r) Doshi)
<he Court notes =r) Doshi has li7ely incurred an uneHual distribution of the community debt in
this case) <he Court finds his testimonial acHuiescence at trial to ta7e on this debt is a
compelling reason to ma7e an uneHual distribution of the community debt) &) 1pousal 1upport 4
<he statutory mandate for alimony is that it be Ojust and eHuitable)O 381 125)150(1*(a*)
9limony is an eHuitable award to serve the post4decree needs and rights of the former spouse)
6olff v) 6olff, 112 3ev) 1&55, ,2, ()2d ,1. (1,,.*) 9lthough post4decree incomes need not
2.&!!2
be eHuali:ed, in marriages of some duration, alimony may be used to narrow large gaps
between the post4divorce earning capacities of the parties and to allow the recipient spouse to
liveO as nearly as possible to the station in life enjoyed before the divorce) O 1hydler v) 1hydler,
11! 3ev) 1,2, 1,. ,5! ()2d &/, &, (1,,%*) <he individual circumstances of each case will
determine the appropriate amount and length of any alimony award) +d) %*, %* 2,!5% 200%, %*(%*
(%*(%*("ees4 1,,%*)* 1%)010(the))) /)0%5, (ursuant to 381 125)150(2*, there are eleven (11*
factors the court shall consider in awarding alimony) =s) Doshi presented no evidence in
support of her reHuest for alimony other than her own testimonial evidence that she raised the
partiesB children, had foregone educational opportunities, and put her dreams on hold while
married) =s) Doshi testified that she is healthy and has always wor7ed) <here was no reference
to any of the eleven factors in 381 125)150(2* in =s) DoshiBs presentation and argument in
support of an award of spousal support) <he Court finds that the parties presently earn
appro'imately the same amount, =s) Doshi earns M2,!50 per month and =r) Doshi earned
appro'imately M&,125 per month in 2002, but testified he is wor7ing substantially less in 200,
and has filed for unemployment benefits the beginning of =arch 200,) (1ee 381 125)150(2*
(a**) <he parties have been married 21 years and =s) Doshi has always been employed during
that time) (1ee 381 125)150(2*(d**)
=s) Doshi obtained a college degree prior to marriage and =r) Doshi has a high school degree)
(1ee 381 125)150(2*(h**) 2oth parties are healthy and able to wor7) (1ee 381 125)150(2*(7**)
2ased upon the evidence presented and the applicable law, this Court does not believe =s)
Doshi is entitled to an award of alimony) !) 9ttorneyBs "ees 4 <his Court enjoys discretion to
award attorneyBs fees in a divorce action) (1ee 381 125)150(&*C $ove v) $ove, 11! 3ev) 5/2,
,5, ()2d 52& (1,,2*)* 9lso, pursuant to 381 12)010(2*(b*, the court has authority to order
attorneyBs fees Owhen the court finds that the ))) defense of the opposing party was brought or
maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party)O "inally, pursuant to
381 /)025, if a court finds that an attorney has: (a* filed, maintained or defended a civil action
or proceeding in any court in this 1tate and such action or defense is not well4grounded in fact
or is not warranted by e'isting law or by an argument for changing the e'isting law that is
made in good faithC or (b* unreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended a civil action or proceeding
=r) Doshi statingOO1 could discovery Coughlin before any court in this 1tate, the court shall
reHuire the attorney personally to pay the additional costs, e'penses and attorneyBs fees
reasonably incurred because of such conduct) 9t trial, =r) 1pringgate stated that =r) Coughlin
had conducted no discovery in this case) +n addition, =r) Coughlin failed to present one
documentary piece of evidence at trial on behalf of =s) DoshiBs claims) =r) Coughlin argued
incessantly with the Court throughout trial and made sarcastic, derogatory remar7s to the Court,
=r) 1pringgate, and =r) Doshi throughout trial) <he Court notes that there were well over !0
objections during four (!* hours of trial) =r) 1pringgateBs objections were well4founded and
continuously sustained e'cept in one instance) =r) Coughlin was overruled on every objection
e'cept one and argued with the Court over most rulings) =r) Coughlin was admonished
appro'imately 15 times by the Court to Huit arguing, to as7 specific Huestions, to discontinue
as7ing Huestions calling for a legal conclusion, and to refrain from ma7ing degrading remar7s
to both =r) foshi and =r) 1pringgate) <he Court notes that at one point, after an e'hibit had
been admitted, =r) Coughlin could not find the copy provided by =r) 1pringgate in discovery)
2.!!!2
=r) Coughlin demanded a copy be provided at trial, stating O am + supposed to be rifling
through my papersJ =y understanding is that you are supposed to provide a copy)O 6hen
as7ed if he had the copy of the document, =r) Coughlin stated, O+ do not 7now) + could spend
my time and mental energy loo7ing around for =r) 1pringgateBs document li7e + am his
assistant, or we could as7 =r) 1pringgate to provide a copy at the time he is see7ing admission
li7e + believe the rule states)O =r) Coughlin cited no rule and then proceeded to interrupt the
proceedings twice appro'imately five (5* minutes and twelve (12* minutes post ruling to re4
argue the %oint) =r) 1pringgate replied to the arguments by referencing when e'actly the copy
had been provided to =r) Coughlin during discovery and where the copy could be located) <he
Court had to admonish =r) Coughlin to Huit arguing the point and reiterate that the e'hibit had
been admitted) =r) Coughlin filed an 9nswer and Counterclaim on =s) DoshiBs behalf that
included allegations unsupported by lawC and filed an #pposition to the re:uest for return of
Mr, Joshi0s %ass%ort #ithout any factual or legal basis) "urther, at trial, =r) Coughlin
presented almost no evidence to support =s) DoshiBs reHuests and claims) <he most troubling
aspect of this case was =r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic and disrespectful presentation at trialC =r)
CoughlinBs inability to understand a balance sheetC his failure to conduct discoveryC and his
lac& of &no#ledge #ith regard to the rules of evidence and trial %rocedure)
9ll of this was compounded with a continuously antagonistic presentation of the
case that resulted in a shift from a fairly sim%le divorce case to a contentious divorce trial
lasting an e'cessive amount of time) "or all these reasons, the Court finds that =r) CoughlinBs
presentation of the case and arguments in support thereof to be unfounded in fact, unwarranted
by e'isting law, unreasonable, and ve'atious throughout this entire proceeding) 2ased upon the
foregoing, =r) 1pringgateBs reHuest that =r) Coughlin personally pay =r) Doshi !)15 hours at
the rate of M225 per hour for the cost of the trial is ?893<ED) =r) Coughlin shall submit a
chec7 to =r) Doshi in the amount of M,&! within &0 days of this #rder) 5) (reparation of the
Decree =r) 1pringgate shall prepare the decree of divorce consistent with this memorandum
decision) =r) 1pringgate shall tender his proposed decree to =r) Coughlin, pursuant to 6DC8
,, within 20 days from the date of this order) ?##D C9@1E 9((E98+3?, +< +1 1#
#8DE8ED)O
<he "ebruary 2&rd, 200, Aearing on the #bjection to =aster ?ardnerBs
8ecommendations that Coughlin filed (relating to =aster ?ardner giving a car and or that carBs
title to the individual CoughlinBs client sought protection from, despite their apparently having a
shared interest therein, and there being a legitimate dispute as to the documentation, and the
fact that a <(# Aearing is not the appropriate setting for such subject matter, especially where
=aster ?ardner lac7ed jurisdiction to rule as she did)
1ee CoughlinBs 112/12 filing in .210! (Doc7et .210! Document 20124&/&.&*:
('u%%lemental to 11 2. 12 corres%ondence regarding discovery in Joshi 5$*$$8 6%ril 2++B =rder
sanctioning Coughlin
1ent: 1un 112512 1:!1 9=
2.5!!2
<o: (s7entLs7entlaw)com* (s7entLs7entlaw)com*C (jeLeloreno)com* (jeLeloreno)com*C
(patric77Lnvbar)org* (patric77Lnvbar)org*C (eifert)ntaLatt)net* (eifert)ntaLatt)net*C
(cvellisLbhfs)com* (cvellisLbhfs)com*C (jgarinLlipsonneilson)com* (jgarinLlipsonneilson)com*C
(pelcanoLwashoelegalservices)org* (pelcanoLwashoelegalservices)org*C
(linda)gardnerLwashoecounty)us* (linda)gardnerLwashoecounty)us*
1 attachment
0&01% to 0&0!1 Dudge $inda ?ardner listed by 123 Ging as greivant in ng1240!&5 fyi prosecutorial
misconduct blog smaller si:e)pdf (10)5 =2*
+ believe + informed 6$1 of this previously, but + did try to have discovery send out in
Doshi, but Deborah (ringle and then 6$1 #ffice =anager 8obin Gunce indicated it would ta7e
something on the order of si' wee7s to get a chec7 cut for anything, such as for witness fees or those
associated with a subpoena duces tecum, and the <rial of =arch 12th, 200, in Doshi was not far out
enough to account for such an unanticipated indication from 6$1 as to what would be reHuired to
conduct what Dudge ?ardner indicated in her 9pril 200, #rder as the sort of discovery she felt would
be necessary to rebut an inference of ve'atiousness for not immediately caving to =r) 1pringgateBs
1iragusa argument) "urther, it was never my understanding that either =s) 1antiago or myself OagreedO
to then =aster ?ardner entering an #rder OresolvingO the dispute as to the car title in the <emporary
(rotection #rder hearing in 1antiago v) ;a'evanis)
6hat is interesting is that, on one hand, =r) Elcano is being told to fire me or else by
C996 and <ahoe 6omenBs 1ervices for allegedly not being :ealous enough in advocating their
agendas, er, for the victims of domestic violence in the Carnine and Aaubl matters, , "urther, in early
Danuary 200,, 6$1Bs 8honda Aarrison is saying Oeat meO to Coughlin when he attempts to use the
upstairs restroom at 6$1) Couglin sens a written complaint about that to =r) Elcano, and he holds a
meeting with Coughlin which results in, as =r) Elcano testified at the Disciplinary Aearing, his
Ostanding by my employeeO) +t would seem true that =r) Elcano did jut that, at that time (ie, stand by
his employee, Coughlin*) +n fact, it was during a face to face meeting #ith Coughlin in /ebruary
2++B or so that 9lcano told Coughlin about the a%%raisals of Coughlin0s #or& by Judge 2ardner
and Master 9dmondson8 #ith both8 essentially8 giving Coughlin a Fthumb0s u%F revie# (ie, good
enough wor7 not to be fired, etc)*) +t was at that point that Mr, 9lcano casually mentioned that he
had done something in the %ast for Judge 2ardner (it didnBt sound as ominous coming from (aul as
it does when + write it))))* and that8 essentially8 that #as some indicia of reliability as to Judge
2ardner0s candor to 9lcano in assessing Coughlin0s #or& at that time8 and therefore8 Mr, 9lcano
#as reinforced in his belief in his %osition that it #ould be ina%%ro%riate to let C66K and
)ahoe Komen0s 'ervices8 essentially8 tell him #ho to fire or not)
2ut the irony is that + was fired, according to =r) ElcanoBs letters to me of =ay 1, 200, and
=ay /, 200, because of the 9pril 1&th, 200, #rder by Dudge $inda ?ardner finding my conduct at trial
to be ve'atious) +t is inaccurate and overly convenient to now attempt to remi' that assessment, as =r)
Elcano did in his testimony on 111!12 to indicate my advocacy was merely BincompetentB) "urther,
testimonial evidence is evidence, as such, Dudge ?ardnerBs #rder is inaccurate to the e'tent is suggests
no evidence was put on as to, say a <onopah formula approach is determing the alimony Huestion)
6hereas Dudge ?ardner found + advocated too :ealously on behalf of a battered woman (to the point of
ve'atiousness, no less*, <ahow 6omenBs 1ervices and C996 had, in close pro'imity and previous to
Dudge $) ?ardnerBs 9pril 200, #rder, complained that + did not advocate strenously enough, apparently
(=r) Elcano has refused to release those writings to me*)
<ahoe 6omenBs 1ervices (which apparently changed its name to something less gender
polari:ing upon CoughlinBs critiHue thereof, as it is now 7nown as Crisis +ntervention 1ervices*
2..!!2
provided a written complaint about CoughlinBs performanc eot Elcano in ";0%40225! 4 (9#$9 C)
(E8E- A9@2$ ;1) 93D8E6 9) C89+?) Coughlin hereby reHuests, again, a copy thereof)
$i7ewise, the Committee to 9id 9bused 6omen (C996* (no name change as of yet*
complaint in writing to Elcano about Coughlin with respect to his representation of =ichelle Carnine in
a <(# and or divorce matter) Coughlin hereby reHuests a copy of any written complaints submitted by
anyone with respect to either of those Carnine matters:
C91E 3#) ";0%402021 =+CAE$$E C983+3E #2# 1<#8=N ;1) 289D$EN C983+3E
C91E 3#) D;0%4015&2 =+CAE$$E C983+3E ;1) 289D$EN C983+3E
<he funny thing is, for prosecutors (and see Dudge ?ardnerBs apparent O"N+O
correspondence to the 1tate 2ar of 3evadaBs (at Ging in 3?1240!&5, bate stamping indicating Dudge
$inda ?ardner as the grievant, and the blog entry related to prosecutorial misconduct being ta7en note
of place directly after the fate stamped folder name listing Dudge $) ?ardner as the grievant in that 0!&5
case)))with both Dudge $) ?ardner and her brother, 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner being lifelong prosecutors
before ta7ing the bench, li7e most judges in 6ashoe County, though they are two of the rare e'ceptions
who did not go to =c?eorge*)
1ome might say the District 9ttorney and 8eno City 9ttorney #ffices influence as
prosecutors e'tends to the District,Dustice, and =unicipal Courts to an impermissible e'tent)))and now,
with the firing of Coughlin from 6ashoe $egal 1ervices, and the entering into the Early Case
8esolution (EC8* contract between the 6CD9Bs #ffice and 6$1 to deliver some sort of approach that
some say violates the 1i'th 9mendment, local legal aid is impermissibly influence by local
prosecutors, so much so that, regardless of what the legislature may enact (often in response to the
tireless advocacy by those such as 6$1Bs Don 1asser, especially regarding 9222. in the landlord tenant
conte't along with CoughlinBs 2oyd 1chool of $aw early, unaccredited days, classmates, 9ssemblymen
6illiam Aorne and Dason "rierson, in conjunction with <i7 1egerblom*) 9 Huic7 loo7 at a retaliatory
arrest and eviction of Coughlin this year reveals a disturbing pattern of the local judiciary being overly
influenced by the prosecutorBs office, and ta7ing a mar7edly laisse: faire approach to prosecutorial
misconduct, in mar7ed contrast to the seemingly overly aggressive approach by lifelong prosecutorBs
turned judges 8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes, 8=C Dudge Genneth Aoward, 8=C Dudge 6illiam ?ardner,
and 1econd Dudicial District Court Dudge $inda ?ardner in Oprotecting the publicO from the wor7 of
one -achary 2ar7er Coughlin, EsH) (whom has held himself out as an attorney who ta7es on cases of
prosecutorial and police misconduct)))a type of attorney whom the 123Bs (atric7 #) Ging seems to
have carved out a specialty in prosecuting, right, Dames 9ndre 2oles, EsH, the attorney whom has most
consistently sued local law enforcement for wrongful arrest and other police misconduct, just now
being harrassed by the 123 in +n 8e the Discipline of Dames 9ndre 2oles, EsH)J +s 123 2ar Counsel
(atric7 #) Ging, EsH) puttinB in wor7 for prosecutors and police ali7eJ*:
http:caseinfo)nvsupremecourt)uspubliccase;iew)doJcs++DV2,&&.

"urther, during the numerous retaliatory prosecutions this year of Coughlin, a multitude of
prosecutorial misconduct has been apparent, inlcuding DD9 -ach Noung (=c?eorge B0!* ma7ing
argument in filings with the 8eno Dustice Court in 8C8201140.&&!1 that alleged communitcations
between EC#==,11 dispatch and the 8(D in relation to the arrest of %2011 (the one that started the
entire 1. month ordeal off* that contained communications from dispatch to the 8(D of Oa possible
fightO, which DD9 Noung and 8(D #fficer 3ic7 Duralde (whose wife, Dessica Duralde was wor7ing
that night at a ,11 dispatcher and whose voice may be on the tapes only released by 8eno City
9ttorney 17au on 111&12 incident to an Emergency Aearing on =otions to Uuash CoughlinBs
2./!!2
subpoenas (and, really, Dudge 1ferra::a admitted later that the hearing was also based on =otion to
Uuash that were not even filed, but rather just a sua sponte overall intention by Dudge 1ferra::a, the
longest tenured =ayor in 8enoBs history, a former Chairman, ;ice4Chairman and 6ashoe County
Commissioner from 1,,%4200/, to Uuash pretty much every subpoena Coughlin drafted in any way
related to anyone in goverment*)

<he prosecutorial misconduct has been detailed at length in CouglinBs filing with the 3evada 1upreme
Court this year, save, perhaps the new instances where DD9 NoungBs assertions of dispatch alerting
8(D #fficers of Oa possible fightO prior to their arriving to respond on %2011 (and the utility thereof
incident to the Aearing on CoughlinBs =otion to 1uppress* has been thoroughly disproved by City
9ttorney 17auBs only finally releasing those tapes on 111&12, after he secured CoughlinBs attendane at
a Aearing on his =otion to Uuash 1ubpoenas by alleging the court had granted him the power to effect
service thereof by emailing Coughlin (and Coughlin 123 form Disciplinary Aearing was held the ne't
day 111!12, where Dudge $inda ?ardnerBs bailiff was assigned to the affair, the same bailiff present at
the 9pril 12th, and 1/th, 200, <rial dates in the Doshi matter that became .0&02 and 5!%!!) Dudge
?ardnerBs brother also refused to recuse himself from the criminal trespass prosecution of Coughlin
incident to an arrest at his former home law office) Coughlin has detailed the prosecutorial misconduct
of City 9ttorneyBs 8oberts (in .0%&%* and Aa:lett41tevens (in .1,01* in addition to that of DD9 -ach
Noung (three different prosecutions, each one more retaliatory than the last* and the multitude of
violations of the stay reHuired by 381 1/%)!05 (in consideration of 381 5)0/1, especially*)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
<el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
-achCoughlinLhotmail)comF
9nd in case anyone it wondering, if Coughlin is returned his law license in 3evada, no, he
will not continue to go against the grain as he apparently has thus far in his career, at least at
certain times, but will dutifully cower in fear of all the vindictive and bullying members of
the judiciary li7e most every other attorney puttinB in wor7 these
days for the legal system, er, for their clients, er, well, you get the idea until
such times as he possesses the sort of #cean 1pray levels of juice to get away
with actin a fool on the order of magnitude of a Dohn () 1pringgate, 8ichard ?)
Aill, or (aul Elcano, whereupon he will throw =otley Crue no brown =K=Bs
rider mandate levels of tantrums sufficient to honor his Aale $ane, er, Aolland
K Aart roots (you donBt 7now from fun until you have 7ic7ed it with a guy who
wrestled for the Citadel, seriously, some Eastern European 69C school tennis
hall of famer who would marry someone just because they happened to have the
same last name as a named partner, and a bevy of @1C grads during the crest of
the obno'ious $einart2ush years) (ut it this way: when (atricia Aalstead is the
Enice oneF, yer in the jungle, baby, and yer gonna dieeeeeeeeeeeeee^^^
(and, under 2reliant Dudge ?ardnerBs Eadjudicatory boundariesF were limited to the
referenced 381 /)0%5, particularly where such "AE& contained nothing in the way of a
reference to the courtBs Einheret authorityF or 6DC8 21, much less 381 1%)010(2*(b**
2.%!!2
anywhere in 381 /)0%5 must necessarily related (given the Gand imposed# E ma7e clear that a
judge finding that an attorney simply Eunreasonably and ve'atiously e6tended a civil action or
proceeding before any court in this 1tateF (much less that E=r) CoughlinBs presentation of the
caseF (p1&:11* Eresulted in a shift from a fairly simple divorce case to a contentious divorce
trial lasting an e'cessive amount of timeF (p1&:,410* is simply not an Eappropriate situationF
for her to Eimpose sanctionsF give the fact that 381 /)0%5(2* specifically includes the language
in 381 /)0%5(1*(a* where it fails to so include the language in 381 /)0%5(1*(b*
(2* @nreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended a civil action or proceeding before any court in
this 1tate,
-R' 7, +*5, Payment of additional costs8 e@%enses and attorney0s fees by
attorney #ho files8 maintains or defends certain civil actions or e@tends civil actions in
certain circumstances
1) +f a court finds that an attorney has:
(a* "iled, maintained or defended a civil action or proceeding in any court in this 1tate and such
action or defense is not well4grounded in fact or is not warranted by e'isting law or by an
argument for changing the e'isting law that is made in good faithC or
(b* @nreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended a civil action or proceeding before any court in this
1tate,
the court shall reHuire the attorney personally to pay the additional costs, e'penses and
attorneyBs fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct)
2) <he court shall liberally construe the provisions of this section in favor of awarding costs,
e'penses and attorneyBs fees in all appropriate situations) +t is the intent of the $egislature that
the court award costs, e'penses and attorneyBs fees pursuant to this section and impose
sanctions pursuant to 8ule 11 of the 3evada 8ules of Civil (rocedure in all appropriate
situations to punish for and deter frivolous or ve'atious claims and defenses because such
claims and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of
meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging in business and providing professional services to
the public.
(1ee .0&02, .0&1/* Coughlin actually just grew tired of the double standard Elcano
subjected Coughlin to daily at 6$1 (1ternlicht can behave in as outrageously offensive and
caustic manner as she please)))Coughlin needs to follow a dress code, whip up a (etition to
challenge the 2oard of EHuali:ationBs ruling that non4profit 6$1 must pay its for profit
landlordBs property ta'es in the days preceding the very trial from which 2DDC Dudge $)
?ardnerBs "AE& #rder stems, etc), and the minute Coughlin voices any annoyance with not
being given the raise promised upon his being employed at 6$1 for one years time (where
Coughlin had been employed 1% months by that point*, 6$1, rather than address the reasons
behind 6$1 (resident Gathleen 2rec7enridge ordering and obtaining a copy of the ";0,4
00%%. <(# hearing wherein Coughlin, representing a, gasp, male victim of domestic violence
(see .0&02, .0&1/ for details on 1ternlicht declaring to an assembly of dv victims (that
2.,!!2
included two men* at a clinic that Emen cannot be victims of domestic violenceF for an idea of
why 6$1 would prefere to jump on the prete'tual EDudge $) ?ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 9fter
<rial entitles us to fire youF4train, instead of address 6$1 2rec7enridgeBs obtaining a copy of
the recording (as noted in the doc7et in such case* of the &120, <(# hearing prior to the entry
of such "AE& #rder by 2DDC Dudge ?ardner (the doc7et notates that 2rec7enridge, apparently
in response to Complaints by the same C996 run 2DDC <(# office, that Coughlin sued in
.0&1/, obtained a copy of such <(# hearing wherein Coughlin represented a male victim of
domestic violence whom was beaten with an alarm cloc7 swung repeatedly from its cord, on
!100,, compared to the !1&0, entry date of Dudge $) ?ardnerBs "AE& #rder 9fter <rial*)
9nd, actually, hey, &120,, thatBs the same day as the first day of
trial in the D;0%4011.% divorce trial wherein Dohn 1pringsna7e, er, Dohn
1pringgate, EsH), himself Eviolated procedural rulesF in failing to have his
Emore than ten e'hibits inde'ed, bound, and tabbedF, and provide a copy of
such to Coughlin, prior to the trial (as reHuired by Dudge $) ?ardnerBs 2250,
(re4<rial #rder*, in addition to failing to abide by 38C( 11Bs reHuirement that a
Efiling readyF 21 day safe harbor motion be served on Couglin prior to
1pringgate moving for 381 /)0%5 sanctions (which 1pringgate did, in his
closing arguments during the second day of the divorce trial in D;0%4011.%,
which occurred on &1/0,, (ie, two judicial days apart were the two trial dates
in that divorce case, contrary to 6$1 Elcano sworn testimony and his Enot in
the heat of battleF commentary in his termination letter to Coughlin of 5/0,
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 112:1 to 112:%* 9nd one of the things that was
relevant there is that this hearing too7 place in two sectionsC + want to say they
were a wee7 or ten days apart) 9nd the conduct and the criticisms of the conduct
by the judge in the first hearing, =r) Coughlin came bac7 and behaved e'actly
the same way in the second hearing, he had not heeded anything the judge had
told him)))F*,where such three year old #rder was provided to him by 8=C
Dudge 3ash Aolmes upon her receiving it from 8=C 9dministrative Dudge 6)
?ardner, whom admitted to Coughlin, finally, during 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner
refused to recuse himself from the criminal trespass trail stemming from AillBs
burglary of CoughlinsB former home law office and AillBs concomitant false
statements to a police officer to effect a wrongful arrest (see .1,01*, failed to
disclose 2DDC Dudge $) ?arnder is his sister despite prompting on during a
2212 hearing in that criminal trespass case, violated 381 1/%)!05 on during
the !1012 trial and hearing he held, wherein, finally, after serious prompting,
he disclosed his that 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner is his sister, though he did indicate
that it was Ethe first time + have hear of thatF upon being informed that 8=C
Dudge 3ash Aolmes had passed the very #rder by his sister that 8=C Dudge
?ardner admitted to ta7ing from his sister and distributing to his fellow 8=C
Dudges, on to the 123*, Ging was forced to admit (and Cler7 of
Court+nvestigator (eters shady and snea7y commentary during a 101512
conversation with Coughlin is absolutely hysterical in this regard, as is GingBs
during the &2.12 in person meeting with Coughlin, the /1012 in person
2/0!!2
meeting with Coughlin, the %1&12 in person meeting with Coughlin and 2ar
Counsel David Clar7, and the conversation between Ging and Coughlin in Dune
2012, and 101212 and 101512)))if only there was a verbatim transcript of
such conversations)))would that not be interesting, rightJ*
1& AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 2!!:1. to 2/0:11*
=8) ECAE;E88+9: $et me as7 you a Huestion,
sir) #n 9ugust 2&rd the 1tate 2ar sent by certified mail
and first class mail a copy of the complaint) Nou were
offered 20 days to respond) <he rules reHuire a response
or an answer verified within 20 days) <hat apparently
didnBt arrive)
+ then entered an order granting you until
"riday, "ebruary ,th 44 +Bm sorry, 3ovember ,th at 5:00
()=) to file a verified answer or response)
Do you claim to have filed such a verified
answer or responseJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm not sure) + believe that
calls for a legal conclusion) + donBt 7now that + 7now
e'actly what technically a verified answer response means)
+ thin7 a motion to dismiss might Hualify as that)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Do you understand what a
verified response isJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: +tBs something + would li7e to
do more research on) + would imagine it involves a
declaration or maybe an affidavit) 2ut then that gets
into the e'tent to which pro se for self4representing
parties 44 and Dudge 3ash Aolmes purported to do this,
where she tried to ma7e those representing themselves be
subject to sworn testimony to one e'tent or another,
although she was very 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6eBre not tal7ing about 3ash
Aolmes here) +Bm as7ing you if you claim to have filed a
verified response or answer to the complaint)
=8) C#@?A$+3: <o answer that + would have to
7now how one is able to file something) 9nd thatBs
involved representation by Cler7 (eters and =r) Ging and
the 2ar that, + believe, have been gone bac7 on)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 1ir, +Bd li7e you to focus on
whether or not you believe you filed a verified answer or
response to the complaint)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9t allJ 9t any timeJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nes) (rior to 3ovember ,th,
2/1!!2
which is 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: +f + can just 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 44 two months and a couple
wee7s after the complaint) +n that interim did you file
anything that you would call a verified answer or
responseJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd youBre sua sponte as7ing me
thisJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm as7ing it)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd thatBs ta7ing up my time to
put on my case, as + had hoped to put it on)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm as7ing you at the start
of your case, apparently, because you just proffered
something you filed on 3ovember 1&th) +Bm interested in
learning whether you believe 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 + 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 44 you have complied with the
supreme court rule that reHuires the respondent in a
compliant by the 1tate 2ar to file a verified answer or
response to the complaint) Aave you done soJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + believe + have)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat pleading is thatJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + believe various different
pleadings could be characteri:ed as such)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hich onesJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + would li7e to loo7 into that
more)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Do you still have confusion
as to what verified meansJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 itBs something that can
mean different things in different settings) 1o +Bm not
sure who weBre tal7ing about, who it means what to)
<hen + thin7 that goes a large e'tent to how
the procedural rules apply here) 2ecause if you file a
motion to dismiss, and it winds up jamming you up for
time) 9nd =r) Ging is able to manipulate this process
such that heBs the one who pic7s the hearing date) Ae is
the one who sets up the notice of hearing way before the
panel is even empaneled) <hen + get jammed up or the
chairman who is ruling on things before + even have an
opportunity to file a reply to his opposition)
9nd then one, +Bll testify under penalty of
perjury + didnBt get the notice of intent to ta7e default)
2/2!!2
+Bll testify that + went to the @nited 1tates (ost #ffice
and attempted to pic7 up on at least 44 on multiple
occasions) #n one occasion a <im at the ;assar station in
downtown 8eno apparently couldnBt find the envelope) <he
ne't time + went bac7, he did find the envelope that had a
postmar7 date of 104,412, #ctober ,th, 2012, and it had
postage of about 1)25) +t was a certified mailing upon
information and belief it was the notice of intent to ta7e
default)
+Bll note that in the file that was given to
me by =r) Ging this certificate of mailing on that
document indicates it was sent by only one method,
certified mail) 6here + believe every other documentBs
been sent, if you loo7 at the certificates of mailing
attached at the end of the documents has been sent in
two 44 by two methods, first class mail and certified
mail)
1o itBs a little strange that notice of intent
to ta7e default 44 maybe this is some 7ind of old school
2ar counsel tric7) + donBt 7now) 2ut it was only sent by
one method, certified mail) 1o + go to pic7 it up once,
the guy doesnBt find it) + go the ne't wee7, and this is
the guy <im 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Aow did you 7now to pic7 it
upJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: 2ecause + got the little slip)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: #7ay)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd then the ne't time he did
find it) 9nd right before he gave it to me he noticed
that it only has 44 itBs a large manila envelope, he
noticed it only has M1)25 postage on it) <hat means itBs
insufficient postage, and he wonBt give it to me unless +
pay the difference, which is li7e some five dollars that +
donBt have) 1o it gets sent bac7)
+ chec7 the @1(1 and confirm for that number,
and =r) Ging and the 1tate 2ar received it on 3ovember
,th) =r) GingBs been very, very evasive about this, and +
believe very dishonest)
+ saw <im notate the insufficiency of postage)
Nesterday =r) Ging told me he didnBt see anything about
insufficiency of postage on the envelope) 9nd the whole
point is + never got notice of intent to ta7e default)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou replied to it)
2/&!!2
=8) C#@?A$+3: 6hatBs thatJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou replied to it)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + replied to your orders)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o, you replied before +
entered the order) Nou replied and provided your own
witness list that parroted the witness list 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 itBs probably 44 sorry)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 44 that parroted the witness
list that the 1tate 2ar proffered, you filed your own)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 + was replying to the
witness list, the Dow1oE)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 9nd that came with the notice
of intent to ta7e default)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 3o) <he Dow1oE 44 along with
the Dow1oE they sent a notice of hearing) Neah, notice of
hearing) 9nd this is pursuant to 1C8 1052(c*) +t says
the panel after being empaneled shall provide at least &0
days from when it, the panel, not 2ar counsel, serves the
Dow1oE and the notice of hearing by the same method in
which the complaint is served) 6hich under 1C8 10, can be
by certified mail)
9lthough + donBt believe it can be when, and
+Bll testify under penalty of perjury on the phone, if not
also in writing, Cler7 (eters told me + could rely on the
fact, + could ban7 on it that the 1tate 2ar of 3evada
would not assert that %42&412 certified mailing would be
proffered as affecting service of the complaint on me in
any way at any time)
9t that time on the phone, +Bm swearing this
under penalty of perjury, she said we are going to send it
out to you again, the certified mailing)
+ actually undertoo7 a lot of research in this
regard, because there is case law that says when the
2ar 44 not in this jurisdiction) 2ut when the 2ar sends
you a certified mailing, + thin7 they can say within three
days you are served, whether you ever pic7ed it up or not,
you 7now) 1o + was worried about that, you 7now)
2ut + called and tal7ed to Cler7 (eters) 9nd
+ believe when a court, particularly a cler7 of court,
ma7es an e'press e'plicit representation to you that you
can rely on something, that youBre entitled to, you 7now)
9nd + thin7 itBs 44 it doesnBt set a good precedent for
the 1tate 2ar to essentially be pulling the rug out from
2/!!!2
under people li7e me)
9t that time on, + believe it was 1eptember
11th, she said, oh, + got bac7 that certified mailing of
the complaint) <hat was, + guess, sent %42&, the date
that itBs stamped, the complaint) 1he got it bac7) 1he
said it was returned as undelivered or something) 9nd +
said you thin7 (at is going to try to ta7e a defaultJ
<his or thatJ 9nd she said definitively, no, weBll not do
that) Nou are not served 44 she said, + believe, and +
would li7e to chec7 my notes, but she said youBre not
served until we get that signature on the thing) 9nd if
we donBt get the signature on the thing after the second
time weBre going to mail it to you, then weBll send out
for service a notice of intent to ta7e default) 9nd only
upon that not being pic7ed up would, + guess, a default be
ta7en)
1o + felt completely entitled to rely upon
that) Aowever, =r) Ging, and this is found in $aura
(etersB affidavit + found in the file that + have only si'
days to review)
=r) Ging has coyly prevented me from accessing
this file since =arch) Nes, he gave me some audio, and +
appreciate that) + donBt appreciate the e'tent to which
heBs preventing me from getting it into the record here
today) (articularly where itBs something really
disgusting going on) 6here the judge is saying something
thatBs just not true) +tBs just not true)
(enalty of perjury, it is completely false for
her to say that she as7ed me if + was recording or had a
recording device at any time prior to the one bathroom
brea7) <hatBs just not true)
<here was a bathroom brea7) 9nd immediately
after + got bac7 from that bathroom brea7 she starts
interrogating me sua sponte about recording)
+ should say 44 + would li7e to play it for
you to 7now e'actly what was said, e'actly what my
response was 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, we have already
addressed that issue) 1o now weBre on 44 + have been
trying to determine from you whether you believe you have
filed a verified answer or response to the complaint at
any time) 9nd you indicated youBll have to research that
issue, and +Bll afford you that opportunity) 2ecause,
2/5!!2
Huite fran7ly, + have not seen anything that you filed
that has been verified)
1o letBs go on with your ne't witness) +Bm
affording you the opportunity of putting on a case 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: + would li7e to testify in a
narrative)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm sorry) + 7eep tal7ing 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm sorry, sir) + really am)
+Bm sorry) + donBt mean to do it) <hat is a hallmar7 of
9DD, sir) +t is)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 1o we have not conducted this
hearing as a default hearing, in deference to you)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + appreciate that)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 1o now +Bm as7ing you to
proffer your ne't evidence)
=8) C#@?A$+3: +Bd li7e to just testify in the
narrative, if + may, sir)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou want to testifyJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: "irst can + admit into evidence
these materialsJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hich materialsJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: <he thing + tried to file, the
e' parte emergency motion with the D;Ds attached)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hich e' parte motionJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: <he one that bears 44 well, two
of them) #ne that bears a file stamp of #ctober &1st, the
prehearing motion to dismiss, summary judgment, memorandum
of law, which + believe could be 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +s that the one with the
handwritten captionJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat appears to be an appeal
from the 1tate of 3evada versus 44 +Bm sorryJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + filed this) + prepared this
to be basically a motion for a new trial in the trespass
case) 2ut +Bve been operating on little sleep preparing
for a petty larceny trial, preparing for this) 9nd +
started to get scared that + wasnBt getting something in
the record on this)
9nd so + just said, you 7now what, youBre
crossing that out, and youBre filing this in the 1tate 2ar
so you get something)
1o + thin7 this could be characteri:ed as a
2/.!!2
verified response) 9nd + do appreciate the e'tent 44 +
believe you made a law of the case now that youBre not
tal7ing a default on me here)
9nd + believe 44 +Bd li7e to loo7 at my
records more, but + believe + was told + could fa' file at
least, if not also e4mail file by Cler7 (eters)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat you filed with the 1tate
2ar is one thing) Nou as7ed me earlier if + had consented
to being served by e4mail, and + have not) Nou as7ed, and
+ have 44 nor have + consented to being served by fa') +
believe all documents that you need to file should be
filed with the 1tate 2ar, and then they can provide them
to us)
2ut youBve attempted to file, and youBve
indicated youBve had little time to wor7 on this, but you
have attempted to fa' to my office in e'cess of /00 pages
of documents) <hatBs Huite a lot of documents that, at
least from my e'perience, reHuires a lot of time to
prepare) 1o + ta7e it a little bit disingenuously that
youBre complaining about a lac7 of time)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, thatBs not what + meant,
sir) +Bm sorry) + didnBt mean to interrupt you) + spent
all my time on this) + didnBt mean it li7e that)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: @nfortunately, you havenBt
deemed it necessary to file a verified answer or response
that + can identify as a verified answer or response) Nou
have filed documents entitled, 6ow, 6ould Nou $oo7 9t
<hat) Nou filed 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: Can + as7 what =r) Ging is
doing right nowJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 44 in response to this 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: +s this appropriate, =r) Ging,
during my case for you to be wal7ing around handing out
pamphletsJ
=8) G+3?: <o the e'tent, =r) Coughlin 44 if
you donBt mind, =r) Chairman 44 to the e'tent youBre
ma7ing representations of what the 1tate 2ar said 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: NouBve been brea7ing me down
all day for not following process, and he just gets up and
is doing that, and you donBt say anything)
=8) G+3?: <he e4mail you say =r) Ging 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: 44 slamming me all day)
=8) G+3?: +f + can ma7e the record,
2//!!2
=r) Chairman) 9 letter that was fa'ed to me 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: + object)
=8) G+3?: 44 =r) Coughlin, which says,
=r) Ging, this is the first +Bve heard of you wanting a
physical address for me, in contravention of 8ule /, which
reHuires that he provide an address)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: $etBs address that after
=r) Coughlin ma7es his point, which +Bm trying to get him
to do succinctly, but which +Bm failing at)
+Bm interested now, do you have any further
evidence to offer in your caseJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nes)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat is itJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + would li7e to submit these
materials + prepared into evidence) +f itBs a case of you
feel + havenBt verified them, and + thin7 some of that
might be due to the difficulty inherent to
self4representation where 44 itBs li7e =r) Ging isnBt
filing things under penalty of perjury) 9nd + gather that
the client needs to sign a verification 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: <he rule is very specific
that says the attorney against whom a grievance is made
and a complaint is filed, the attorney, that attorney,
must file a verified response)
=8) C#@?A$+3: +f + hire David ?rundy to
represent me, then + still have to sign something that
attaches to David ?rundy the answer he files for me saying
+ verify yes that the factual assertions in here are trueJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nes)
=8) G+3?: #bjection) Aypothetical)
=8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) +Bll do that right now)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o) +Bm as7ing if you filed
that) 9nd youBve indicated, one, youBre not sure what
verified means) 9nd two, that you need to research it)
1o what is your ne't piece of evidence you
intend to offer, sirJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + intend to ta7e these
materials that + have already filed and say + declare
under penalty of perjury, 381 5&)0!5, that the assertions
herein are true and correct to the best of my 7nowledge,
e'cept for those materials based on information and
belief)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 9nd a verification cannot be
2/%!!2
made on information and belief) 1o is everything in there
true and correctJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: +f + had hired David ?rundy, +
donBt thin7 that would be the standard) 2ecause David
?rundy could stand in my stead and sign it under 38C( 11)
=8) G+3?: 3o, he couldnBt)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat is the ne't piece you
have to offer, =r) CoughlinJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nou 7now what thoughJ <his
stuff is true, you 7now) 1ome of itBs opinion, you 7now)
2ut do you thin7 you file this much stuff if you are
lyingJ Nou 7now) Do + stri7e you as somebody who would
lie a lot or do + stri7e you as somebody that doesnBt have
much of a filter and maybe tells the truth too muchJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hatBs your ne't piece of
evidenceJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: NouBre not letting me admit
this eitherJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou still havenBt identified,
because + have seen at least three documents entitled an
e' parte motion, and you havenBt identified which one it
is yet)
=8) C#@?A$+3: E' parte motion) #7ay)
=8) G+3?: + would object on two grounds)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: $etBs identify what it is
heBs offering) + still donBt 7now)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + would li7e to offer this one
that has a file stamp of #ctober &1st, 2012, prehearing
motion to dismiss summary judgment, memorandum of law)
+Bll interlineate verified response)
=8) G+3?: DonBt change it now, =r) Coughlin)
=8) C#@?A$+3: +Bll get a 44
=8) G+3?: +tBs already stamp filed) + donBt
want you to alter a file copy)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 44 a new file stamp on it)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou have just added some
writing to that document that was lodged with the 1tate
2ar on #ctober &1J
=8) C#@?A$+3: Neah)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +tBs the one dated 1eptember
12thJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: 3o) + really donBt see you
nitpic7ing (at Ging li7e this) 9nd (at Ging violated
2/,!!2
every aspect of 1C8 1052(c*) Every aspect) 9nd + donBt
see you nitpic7ing him a bit)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +t will serve you better if
you did not e'hibit such anger and contempt for the panel)
+Bm trying to identify, sir, because + have
seen at least two filings that are the handwritten
iteration of the caption that the original caption is in a
1tate court proceeding wherein youBre a defendant where
you have handwritten in e' parte motion) +Bve seen two of
those)
+Bm interested in having you identify which
one you are now offering, because the two are slightly
different)
=8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm offering the one +Bm
offering today)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6e donBt 7now which one that
is)
=8) C#@?A$+3: +tBs the one that +Bm offering
today)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 1o identify it for us,
please)
=8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou havenBt shown it to us)
=8) C#@?A$+3: #ne second, please, sir)
=8) G+3?: + reali:e =r) Coughlin has not
identified the document to the satisfaction of the chair
yet) 2ut + would object on the grounds that there appears
to be a dis7 attached to the bac7 that should definitely
not come in, because there is no foundation for it
whatsoever)
9nd e' parte motions are not necessary in
these proceedings, because weBre right here at the 1tate
2ar trying to find out what his responses are) 9nd for
him to suggest heBs filing e' parte documents to the chair
of the panel to avoid the 1tate 2ar is inappropriate)
9nd lastly, + thin7 itBs a great concern that
=r) Coughlin is adding) +nstead of creating a new
document or as7ing for leave to file a new document is
apparently interlineating or adding to the document thatBs
already been proffered and stamped) 1o + donBt 7now what
it was originally) 3ow + 7now heBs added to it, but itBs
not the same document anymore)
=8) C#@?A$+3: +t a new document +Bm filing
2%0!!2
right now) <hatBs new) +tBs different and new) +t might
be substantially similar to one previously filed, but itBs
new)
=8) G+3?: "or those reasons + would object)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, would you as7
the court reporter to please mar7 it and ma7e it part of
the record)
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) + apologi:e)
=8) G+3?: Can + as7 the dis7 be removedJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +t hasnBt been admitted yet)
DoesnBt matter) AeBs offering it) + want it to be part
of the record)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + want the dis7 too)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: <he ne't issue is whether it
will be admitted)
(E'hibit 1! mar7ed)*
=8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, let me
understand this) NouBve added some handwriting to this
from something you had previously filedJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + attempted to use something)
+ believe thatBs a copy of what was previously filed) 9nd
+ attempted to notate that) +Bm not attempting to mislead
anybody) + thin7 + wrote something about it being new) +
scratched out the file stamp, and then + changed the title
of the document, and + redated it and signed it and put a
verification, what + believe should suffice as a
verification) 9nd + would be happy to further verify it
if this court would be so 7ind as to give me an education
of what it might li7e to see in that regard)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: + have had an opportunity to
review this document in an earlier form) +t seems to
address the underlying issues as to whether or not the
conviction on the various orders by the court 44 + thin7
this one addresses Dudge AolmesB order)
<o me this is a document that was used to 44
originally entitled 3otice #f Errata 9nd 8evised
1upplemental =otion "or 3ew <rial, #r 9lternatively
1upplemental =otion <o ;acate Dudgment #r Conviction #r +n
<he 9lternative =otion "or 9rrest #f Dudgment that appears
to have been filed in the underlying case)
+t appears that =r) Coughlin is now attempting
to refile that document which addresses issues of the
underlying case in this current 1tate 2ar proceeding, and
2%1!!2
therefore, unless panel members disagree, + would rule
this document as irrelevant to the proceedings as it
constitutes an attempt to obtain a new trial or vacation
of an earlier judgment)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, it 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: <hatBs my ruling, sir)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9ll right)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 2ut it is part of the record)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + thought you just ruled you
werenBt accepting it)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +tBs part of the record)
+tBs just not admitted into evidence) 2ut you can argue
to the supreme court that + committed error)
+tBs now &:&. or so, and + want to afford both
sides the opportunity to present a final argument)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 1o 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Do you have any additional
evidenceJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: 1o the amount of time today
went from ,:00 oBcloc7 to 2:&0 for =r) Ging, and you gave
me an hourJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o) +Bm giving you 15
minutes 44 the ruling was it was &0 minutes per witness,
15 minutes per each side) +Bm giving you the opportunity
to present your ne't evidence)
=8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) + would li7e to
present 44 give me one second, please) + would li7e to
move into evidence a declaration)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: $etBs have the reporter mar7
it)
(E'hibit 15 mar7ed)*
=8) ECAE;E88+9: + believe 44 did you just
handwrite some information on thisJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: <hatBs attorney4client
privilege)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou did it in the presence of
the panel) + saw you writing on some document,
=r) Coughlin) 6as this 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: + donBt thin7 thatBs been
proven)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 44 was this the document that
you were writing onJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: +Bve been writing on lot of
2%2!!2
stuff today)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hen did you file this
documentJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm just giving that to you
right now) + donBt see a file stamp)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou havenBt filed it yetJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + donBt see a file stamp on it)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm as7ing, did you file this
with the 1tate 2arJ <his is a pleading)
=8) C#@?A$+3: <hatBs a declaration)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +tBs a pleading in a case
entitled 1tate 2ar of 3evada, (etitioner, versus -ach
Coughlin, reference in cases 3?124020!, 3?40!&5, and
3?40!&!) <he caption of the document + have seen) +
believe it was stuc7 under my door at my office last
night)
=8) C#@?A$+3: <hatBs a different one)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 9 different oneJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: Neah)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Did you serve this one on
anybodyJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: <hatBs a whole new thing)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o) NouBve completely
written on this) +Bm just trying to understand what you
are attempting to offer here)
=8) C#@?A$+3: +f you change one blade of
grass, itBs a different field, a different ball game)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 1o this is a document that
you want now entitled Declaration) 9nd what is that wordJ
;erified responseJ 9nd this is what you are offering as
your verified response to the 1tate 2arBs complaintJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: +tBs what +Bm offering into
evidence right now)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Ging, any commentJ
=8) G+3?: + havenBt seen that) +Bm sorry)
"irst of all, + will object to it, and + would strongly 44
+ believe itBs e'tremely inappropriate for =r) Coughlin to
have written on this document, and then to have suggested
he doesnBt ac7nowledge your Huestion, but he just wrote on
this particular document)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + donBt 7now that thatBs what +
said) +Bve written on a lot of things today) 6ell, maybe
not that many things)
2%&!!2
=8) G+3?: <he document purports to be similar
to other irrelevant pleadings that have been filed in the
past, essentially incoherent)
#f great concern to me is that attached to the
document again purport to be dis7s that =r) Coughlin has
created or handwritten on) 9nd in addition, for him to
have essentially altered a document in an attempt to
proffer it as some sort of motion or evidence today +
thin7 is objectionable and should be refused)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9lteredJ
=8) G+3?: + donBt 7now what it says,
actually)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 6ould you as7 the court
reporter to mar7 this document as the ne't)
(E'hibit 1. mar7ed)*
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 2ecause of the unusual
circumstances presented by this, unless panel members
disagree, +Bm going to admit both E'hibits 15 and 1.,
because + thin7 the manner 44 and E'hibit 1. + will
identify, first of all, as a document that + received a
phone call at about /:00 oBcloc7 last night, that was a
document shoved under my door at my office) +t bears a
file stamp with the 1tate 2ar of 3ovember 1&th, 2012)
=8) C#@?A$+3: <hereBs no file stamp on that)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm sorryJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm as7ing 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm showing you E'hibit 1.)
+t has a file stamped copy that was shoved under my door)
=8) C#@?A$+3: Did + give you the wrong oneJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: E'hibit 1. will spea7 for
itself)
+Bm going to admit E'hibits 15 and 1., because
+ thin7 they bear relevancy on the issue of competency,
candor with the tribunal)
15 and 1. are admitted, =r) Coughlin) 3e'tJ
(E'hibits 15 and 1. admitted into evidence)*
=8) C#@?A$+3: + would li7e 44
=8) ;E$$+1: 9re those admitted with the
transcript or tape on the bac7J 2ecause + thin7 =r) Ging
had objected to the tapes)
=8) G+3?: + donBt have the capability, nor do
+ want to ma7e copies of the dis7s so + will have to as7
how that gets accomplished) <o the e'tent itBs going to
2%!!!2
be made part of the record that goes to the supreme court,
$aura will ma7e copies) Do you want her to ma7e copies of
those documents nowJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm admitting these for the
limited purpose, not for the truth of whatBs in here 44
=8) G+3?: + totally understand)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 44 or admitting the dis7 as
evidence itself) 2ut +Bm admitting the two documents,
because + believe it goes to the credibility of this
witness in terms of what he told us he was altering today)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9lteringJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm sorry, =r) CoughlinJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9lteringJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nes, altering)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 6hat are you purporting that +
told youJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: <he record will spea7 for
itself 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: 44 get out of the room)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 44 this panel writes its
decision, + will e'plain my reasoning for it) 2ut +Bm
trying to do it now)
Nou filed with the 1tate 2ar yesterday a
pleading that is, in my opinion, virtually identical to
the one you say today was not filed, that you handwrote
on, and then changed it from the pleading that you
originally filed it as, to a verified 44 attempted to
change it to a verified response)
+ believe the fact that you did that 44 +Bm
not admitting them for the truth of anything in there)
+Bm admitting it because + thin7 it bears on the issue as
to the competency and the ability to represent people in a
tribunal)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 6hy canBt + admit 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm not arguing with you,
=r) Coughlin, +Bm e'plaining my decision) 6eBre not going
to argue) Do you have any other evidence to presentJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + would li7e to preserve for
the record that + am see7ing to have it admitted for the
truth, presented it for the truth of the matter) +
imagine most courts can either believe it not believe it)
2ut to say weBre not going to admit it)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm admitting it for the 44
2%5!!2
=8) C#@?A$+3: 3o) Nou said you are admitting
it for a more limited purpose)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: Nes)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd +Bm saying + would li7e to
admit it for the truth of the matter asserted)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm going to overrule that
objection)F
1! <he essential feature of the process by which the proceeding is begun is that it notify the
attorney of the nature of the charge against him or her)P&Q <o this end, the notice should be
reasonably specific)P!Q +n addition, notice of the charge should be given sufficiently in
advance of the time for presenting a defense to permit proper preparation of a showing in
opposition)P5Q 9n attorney disciplinary committee should, as a matter of due process, notify
an attorney that the committee will consider prior disciplinary actions against the attorney in
deciding what sanction to impose)P.Q P"3&Q @)1)]=atter of Glein, !0/ ") 1upp) 5/0 (1)D)
3)N) 1,/.*) 6yo)]=endicino v) 6hitchurch, 5.5 ()2D !.0 (6yo) 1,//*) (roper notice
given 9la)]+n re ?riffith, 2%& 9la) 52/, 21, 1o) 2D &5/ (1,.,*) "la)]<he "lorida 2ar v)
Curry, 211 1o) 2D 1., ("la) 1,.%*) P"3!Q @)1)]=atter of Glein, !0/ ") 1upp) 5/0 (1)D)
3)N) 1,/.*) P"35Q @)1)]+n re $os 9ngeles County (ioneer 1oc), 21/ ")2D 1,0 (,th Cir)
1,5!*) 3otice timely @)1)]+n re 1arelas, &.0 ") 1upp) /,! (3)D) +ll) 1,/&*, 9ffBd, !,/ ")2D
,2. (/th Cir) 1,/!*) 1)C)]+n re =i'son, 25% 1)C) !0%, 1%, 1)E)2D 12 (1,/2*) P"3.Q @)1)]
1e'ton v) 9r7ansas 1upreme Court Committee on (rofessional Conduct, /&0 ") 1upp) 2%5
(6)D) 9r7) 1,,0*) 8eHuirements of statutes or rules of procedure for disciplinary
proceedings with respect to form and service of notice should be observed) @)1)]1chwebel
v) #rric7, 15& ") 1upp) /01 (D) D)C) 1,5/*, #rder affBd, 251 ")2D ,1, (D)C) Cir) 1,5%*)
6);a)]Committee on $egal Ethics of 6est ;irginia 1tate 2ar v) 1cherr, 1!, 6) ;a) /21,
1!& 1)E)2D 1!1 (1,.5*) 9ttorney received sufficient notice of disciplinary charges and was
afforded opportunity to be heard, as reHuired by due processC complaint and all relevant
notices were sent by regular mail to official roster address provided by attorney and items
were not returned by postal service, complaint set forth factual circumstances upon which
alleged misconduct was based and specific rules of professional conduct that attorney was
accused of violating, and attorney was afforded opportunity to respond, but chose not to do
so) @)1)C)9) Const)9mend) 1!) 1tate e' rel) #7lahoma 2ar 9ssBn v) Aaave, 2012 #G ,2,
2,0 ()&D /!/ (#7la) 2012*) 6here the respondent had full notice of a disciplinary
proceeding and ac7nowledged the notice by his abortive attempts to resign from the bar, the
disciplinary proceeding would go forward notwithstanding that the respondent, to whom
notice was mailed, had not been served with process, in the sense that the papers had not
been put into his hand) 3)N)]=atter of 3i'on, 5& 9)D)2D 1/%, &%5 3)N)1)2D &05 (1st
DepBt 1,/.*) "air notice and opportunity for hearing 2efore a court e'ercises its inherent
power to sanction an attorney, it must provide fair notice and an opportunity for a hearing on
the record) Gan)]Gnutson =ortg) Corp) ;) Coleman, 2! Gan) 9pp) 2D .50, ,51 ()2D 5!%
(1,,/*) 1ingle affidavit from process server, stating that individuals, including a family
member of attorney, present at various addresses at which service of notice of attorney
investigative inHuiry was attempted had not been forthcoming as to attorneyBs whereabouts
2%.!!2
did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that attorney had deliberately evaded
7nowledge of the inHuiry) +n re #wusu, %%. 9)2D 5&. (D)C) 2005*) 9ttorney in disciplinary
proceedings was not entitled to have deemed4admitted order vacated and the matter
remanded for a hearing based upon his claim that he did not receive service of the formal
charges or the various pleadings and notices in the case, where service of the formal charges
was properly attempted at attorneyBs primary registration statement address, and attorney
admitted that he vacated the office where his primary registration address was located and
neglected to update his primary registration address) 1up)Ct)8ules, 8ule 1,, $awyer
Disciplinary Enforcement 8ule, S %(C*, % $19T8)1) +n re 2oyer, 2. 1o) &D 1&, ($a) 2010*)
9mendment at close of hearing 9mending a disciplinary complaint at the close of a hearing
to add an additional charge deprives the attorney of a meaningful opportunity to respond and
therefore violates the attorneyBs right to due process) +owa] Committee on (rofessional
Ethics and Conduct of the +owa 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v) 6enger, !5! 3)6)2D &./ (+owa 1,,0*)
Due process rights violated <he disciplinary board violated an attorneyBs procedural due
process rights by using its procedural rules to add new charges, after the record was closed)
#hio]Disciplinary Counsel v) 1imece7, %& #hio 1t) &D &20, 1,,% 4#hio4,2, .,, 3)E)2D
,&& (1,,%*) +t is necessary that the attorney be fairly and specifically informed of the charges
against him or her)P!Q <he constitutional guarantee of due process will prevent a court from
finding violations of attorney disciplinary rules that have not been charged in the complaint
against the attorney)P5Q Aowever, no due process violation occurs by reason of the fact that
specific misconduct is omitted from the barBs complaint, so long as the attorney has received
sufficient notice of the nature and e'tent of the disciplinary charges)P.Q 9mendments)
9mendments to the complaint in a disciplinary proceeding should be allowed, provided that
an opportunity of meeting any new matter therein alleged is given to the respondent)P/Q
6here an attorney has been made aware of alleged facts relative to a count in a disciplinary
proceeding prior to the issuance of a notice to show cause and, at the time of an amendment
to include the count he or she is offered additional time to prepare a defense but refuses it, it
is not an abuse of discretion to accept the amendment by which the additional count is
included)P%Q +f a default has been entered against the respondent, resulting in a deemed
admission of the facts and charges in the complaint, the hearing board may nevertheless
reHuire an amendment of the complaint if it is insufficient under the civil rules)P,Q +ssues,
proof, and variance) #rdinarily, an attorney can be tried only on the charges contained in the
complaint)P10Q Aowever, while proof of acts not charged generally will not justify
disciplinary action,P11Q an attorney cannot complain where the matter was fully covered by
testimony and the attorney had every opportunity to present his or her evidence and did so)
P12Q P"3!Q @)1)]Committee on (rofessional Ethics and ?rievances of ;irgin +slands 2ar
9ssBn v) Dohnson, !!/ ")2D 1., (&d Cir) 1,/1*) 9r7)]6eems v) 1upreme Court Committee
on (rofessional Conduct, 25/ 9r7) ./&, 52& 1)6)2D ,00 (1,/5*) Gan)]1tate v) <urner, 21/
Gan) 5/!, 5&% ()2D ,.., %/ 9)$)8)&D &&/ (1,/5*) $a)]$ouisiana 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v)
Aamilton, &!& 1o) 2D ,%5 ($a) 1,//*) =d)]2ar 9ssBn of 2altimore City v) Coc7rell, 2/0
=d) .%., &1& 9)2D %1. (1,/!*) (a)]#ffice of Disciplinary Counsel v) Campbell, !.& (a)
!/2, &!5 9)2D .1. (1,/5*) <e')]8ey v) 1tate, 512 1)6)2D !0 (<e') Civ) 9pp) El (aso
1,/!*, writ refused n)8)E) ;a)]1eventh Dist) Committee of ;irginia 1tate 2ar v) ?unter,
2%/!!2
212 ;a) 2/%, 1%& 1)E)2D /1& (1,/1*) P"35Q #hio]Cuyahoga Cty) 2ar 9ssn) ;) Dudge, ,.
#hio 1t) &D !./, 2002 4#hio4!/!1, //. 3)E)2D 21 (2002*) Due process rights violated <he
disciplinary board violated an attorneyBs procedural due process rights by using its
procedural rules to add new charges, after the record was closed) #hio]Disciplinary
Counsel v) 1imece7, %& #hio 1t) &D &20, 1,,% 4#hio4,2, .,, 3)E)2D ,&& (1,,%*) P"3.Q
"la)]<he "lorida 2ar v) 3owac7i, .,/ 1o) 2D %2% ("la) 1,,/*) 9llegation sufficient 9n
allegation in a petition for discipline that an attorney improperly permitted his clientBs direct
appeal to be dismissed was sufficient to put the attorney on notice that all of his decisions
and actions regarding the dismissal of the appeal, including the timing and communication
of such matters to his client, would be subject to scrutiny by the 2oard of 2ar #verseers)
=ass)]+n re 9bbott, !&/ =ass) &%!, //2 3)E)2D 5!& (2002*) P"3/Q @)1)]Coughlan v)
@)1), 1. 9las7a !0/, 2&. ")2D ,2/ (,th Cir) 1,5.*) $eave to amend properly granted 9 bar
association, which filed a complaint in an attorney disciplinary proceeding alleging that an
attorney committed fraud by acHuiring a series of temporary liHuor permits for her client,
would be granted leave to amend the complaint to comply with the reHuirement that a fraud
claim be stated with particularity, after a motion to stri7e was granted) #hio] Columbus
2ar 9ssn) ;) Dougherty, ,, #hio 1t) &D 1!/, 200& 4#hio42./2, /%, 3)E)2D .21 (200&*)
9mendment at close of hearing 9mending a disciplinary complaint at the close of a hearing
to add an additional charge deprives the attorney of a meaningful opportunity to respond and
therefore violates the attorneyBs right to due process) +owa] Committee on (rofessional
Ethics and Conduct of the +owa 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v) 6enger, !5! 3)6)2D &./ (+owa 1,,0*)
P"3%Q Cal)]<omlinson v) 1tate 2ar, 1& Cal) &D 5./, 11, Cal) 8ptr) &&5, 5&1 ()2D 111,
(1,/5*) P"3,Q Colo)](eople v) 8ichards, /!% ()2D &!1 (Colo) 1,%/*) P"310Q @)1)]=atter
of 9brams, 521 ")2D 10,! (&d Cir) 1,/5*) +ll)]+n re Doyle, 1!! +ll) 2D !51, 1.& +ll) Dec)
515, 5%1 3)E)2D .., (1,,1*) +owa]Committee on (rofessional Ethics and Conduct of
+owa 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v) Crary, 2!5 3)6)2D 2,% (+owa 1,/.*) 6yo)]=endicino v)
6hitchurch, 5.5 ()2D !.0 (6yo) 1,//*) P"311Q =ich)]+n re Corace (1tate 8eport <itle:
1tate 2ar v) Corace*, &,0 =ich) !1,, 21& 3)6)2D 12! (1,/&*) "indings of misconduct
within scope of accusations 9 refereeBs report, which recommended that an attorney be
found guilty of specific instances of misconduct that were not charged in the barBs complaint,
did not violate the attorneyBs due process rights, where the refereeBs report referenced
conduct that was within the scope of the barBs accusations, and the defendant was properly
and adeHuately notified of the nature and e'tent of the charges
against him) "la)]<he "lorida 2ar v) 1olomon, /11 1o) 2D 11!1 ("la) 1,,%*) P"312Q (a)]+n
re Disbarment (roceedings, &21 (a) %1, 1%! 9) 5, (1,&.*) <he 123 and 33D2 (anelBs
failure to abide by 1C8 105(2* and 105(2*(c* was e'tremely prejudicial to CoughlinBs
defense, by design: Cal)]<aylor v) 1tate 2ar, 11 Cal) &D !2!, 11& Cal) 8ptr) !/%, 521 ()2D
!/0 (1,/!*) <he passage of time in itself is neither a denial of due process nor a
jurisdictional defect (No7o:e7i v) 1tate 2ar (1,/!* 11 Cal) &D !&., !!, P11& Cal)8ptr) .02,
521 ()2D %5%QC <aylor v) 1tate 2ar (1,/!* 11 Cal) &D !2!, !&! P11& Cal)8ptr) !/%, 521
()2D !/0Q*, absent a showing of specific prejudice (Caldwell v) 1tate 2ar (1,/5* 1& Cal) &D
!%%, !,. P11, Cal)8ptr) 21/, 5&1 ()2D /%5Q*) <he 123(anelBs defects are not merely
directory or limited to failing to accord CoughlinBs the time periods provided by 1C8 105 or
2%%!!2
1C8 110, rather, the prejudicial nature thereof e'tends to where the 123 simply failed to
ever provide that reHuired by 1C8 105 to Coughlin irrespective of failing to do so in a
timely manner) 9dditionally, Coughlin was obviously prejudiced by the surprise appearance
of 3;2 Dudge 2eesley and Elcano as with appropriate 3otice both would have been
confronted with the filings in the matters they testified so vaguely to, sufficient to reveal
both of their testimonies to be completely devoid of credibility, though certainly not lac7ing
in =c?eorge Class of 1,// school spirit)
15 (6here special statutes have been enacted, or rules of court adopted for the regulation of
the proceedings, they normally must be observed as far as the steps to be ta7en have been
prescribed)P1Q 1uch proceedings may be governed e'clusively by the statutes or rules
specifically covering them)P2Q) "ailure of board to follow its procedural rules <he 2oard of
Disciplinary 9ppeals failed to follow its own procedural rules, where an attorney received
the petition only 11 days before the hearing and only 1/ days before the 2oard issued its
decision disbarring him and, thus, the attorney was denied proper notice and opportunity to
be heard, where the 2oard rules reHuired a 204day notice of the hearing) <e')]=atter of
6augh, ,&2 1)6)2D !%/ (<e') 1,,.*) Construction of rules 1tate bar rules must be
construed in such a way as not only to vest in various grievance committees the proper
authority to carry out the purpose of the rules, but also to protect members of the legal
profession against unwarranted prosecution, harassment, or other abuses of power) <e')]
?alindo v) 1tate, 5&5 1)6)2D ,2& (<e') Civ) 9pp) Corpus Christi 1,/.*) P"32Q #hio]
1mith v) Gates, !. #hio 1t) 2D 2.&, /5 #hio #p) 2D &1%, &!% 3)E)2D &20 (1,/.*) 1)C)]+n
re =i'son, 25% 1)C) !0%, 1%, 1)E)2D 12 (1,/2*) 1tatutory minimum standards $egislative
standards for conduct of disciplinary proceedings are but minimum standards which must be
applied, and the state supreme court retains inherent power to reHuire additional standards if
it is not satisfied that the legislative Hualifications are sufficient) Cal)]Emslie v) 1tate 2ar,
11 Cal) &D 210, 11& Cal) 8ptr) 1/5, 520 ()2D ,,1 (1,/!*) P"3&Q @)1)]+n re =ing, !.,
")2D 1&52 (/th Cir) 1,/2*) Conn)]9pplication of Courtney, 1.2 Conn) 51%, 2,! 9)2D 5.,
(1,/2*) 9s to the inherent power of the courts to regulate the conduct of attorneys, generally,
see SS 5, &/) +nherent power 1upreme court retains inherent power to control disciplinary
procedure at any step) Cal)]Emslie v) 1tate 2ar, 11 Cal) &D 210, 11& Cal) 8ptr) 1/5, 520
()2D ,,1 (1,/!*) Aowever, because of their Huasi4criminal nature, disciplinary proceedings
must accord the respondent the essentials of due process of law)P%Q <hus, the respondent
must be given reasonable notice of the proceedings, and an opportunity to be heard in
defense)P,Q 9ppointment #f Counsel "or 9ttorney "acing Disciplinary Charges, %. 9)$)8)
!<h 10/1) P"3%Q @)1)]+n re 8uffalo, &,0 @)1) 5!!, %% 1) Ct) 1222, 20 $) Ed) 2D 11/
(1,.%*C +n re =ing, !., ")2D 1&52 (/th Cir) 1,/2*) ?eneral rules invo7ed to insure
compliance Cal)]Emslie v) 1tate 2ar, 11 Cal) &D 210, 11& Cal) 8ptr) 1/5, 520 ()2D ,,1
(1,/!*) Due process shown $awyers received sufficient due process before temporary
suspensions, where each lawyer received notice of the grounds for see7ing his temporary
suspension and was afforded both a hearing before a single justice of the 1upreme Dudicial
Court, at which facts were presented, and a hearing before the full court prior to
effectiveness of an order directing his temporary suspension) =ass)]=atter of Ellis, !25
=ass) &&2, .%0 3)E)2D 115! (1,,/*) P"3,Q S ,&) +n e'ercising discretion to grant a
2%,!!2
continuance in attorney disciplinary proceedings, the hearing officer may consider the
necessity of prompt disposition of the litigationC the needs of the moving partyC the possible
prejudice to the adverse partyC the prior history of the litigationC any conditions imposed in
the continuances previously grantedC and any other matters that have a material bearing on
the e'ercise of the discretion vested in the hearing officer) +n re Disciplinary (roceeding
9gainst 1anai, 1./ 6ash) 2D /!0, 225 ()&D 20& (200,*)*
9s to (anel Chair EcheverriaBs coy avoidance here of the fact that 1C8 105(2*(c*
was violated in every possible way, as was 1C8 105(2*, consider GingBs continued Obad faith
obstructionO of CoughlinBs right to inspect the Osummary %re%ared by bar counsel of the
evidence against the attorney, and the evidence itself, of the Onames of the witnesses !ar
counsel intends to call for other than impeachmentO, and of the O%rief statement of the facts to
which each will testif(O
(Records
1ent: <hu 110112 ,:0& 9=
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com (:achcoughlinLhotmail)com*
?ood =orning =r) Coughlin,
Nour disciplinary file is being sent to the printer to be copied) + am having the
documents bate stamped and the printing company will mail them to you)
"ormal proceeding are ta7ing place at the state bar office so you #ill not be
%ermitted in the building)F
(R97 Records
1ent: <hu 110112 !:!& (=
<o: (atric7 Ging (patric77Lnvbar)org*C fflahertyLdlpfd)com (fflahertyLdlpfd)com*C
tsusichLnvdetr)org (tsusichLnvdetr)org*C DELE$#8E3#)com (jeLeloreno)com*C
Dear =r) Ging,
+ am writing to formally complaint about your, once again, reneging on an offer you
have made to allow me access to certain materials)
(lease e'plain your repeated misrepresentations to me regarding the OaccessO you
will allow me to the materials + am entitled to view, and those you have made offers in writing
to me to allow me to view and or review)
+ thin7 you might find that the attached video of 1argent $ope: pretty much vitiates
the criminal trespass conviction (and that conviction, and all of Dudge 3ash Aolmes orders are
void in light of there violation of 381 1/%)!05 vis a vis 381 5)010 and the admission in Dudge
3ash Aolmes =arch 1!th, 2012 letter to the 123, and beyond that +n re #liver and the fact that
2,0!!2
Dudge 3ash Aolmes admits on the record to be basing her #rderBs upon conduct not committed
in her Oimmediate presenceO (an allegation of having a 8=C =arshals loo7 O(eeping <omO
style through a bathroom stall doesnBt cut it*))) +nteresting that you have chosen to subpoena
your former 9ttorney ?eneralBs cowor7e Dan 6ong rather than City 9ttorney #rmaas (given
her presence at the 22/12 11 <82.%00 <rial from which the Osummary criminal contemptO
order stems, and the allegations of her and that 8=C =arshal Aarley (whom violated the
Ocourthouse sanctuaryO doctrine in one of the worst ways imaginable with his barging in on a
plea bargain session to Opersonally serveO a 3otice of #rder to 1how Cause on behalf of
8ichard ?) Aill (and the 11 tr 2.%00 case involved traffic citations immediately after 8(D
<arter told Coughlin to leave AillBs office, albeit without his wallet, 7eys, clientBs files, or state
issued identification))))* then to have the same 6C1# Deputy =achen who lied about
personally serving the loc7out order on Coughlin (in the eviction involving Aill* again lie in his
& / 2012 9ffidavit attesting to have served the notice of the & 2& 12 #8der to 1how Cause
hearing (the one 8=C =arshal Aarley served for him, then got all jumpy and whispering in
#rmaasBs, and, apparently while Coughlin was in the restroom, made allegations to Dudge 3ash
Aolmes (and afterwards incident to the 1+<9* see7ing to cover up his misconduct and that of
#rmaas) Claiborne is not going to allow you to feign ignorance, =r) Ging, nor is the proof of
receipt of all my emails and writings and media) Aave fun reviewing it all)
8egardless, its not Osummary contemptO if all essential elements of the allegation,
under any iteration of 381 22 are not alleged to have occurred in the Oimmediate presenceO of
the Dudge)))where, as here, that is not the case, those 8=C =arshal are going to have to sign
their names to affidavits li7e the big boys they strut around acting li7e they are, behaving in a
menacing and intimidating manner that is wholly inconsistent with traditional notions of the
type of comportment reHuired of officers of the court)
9gain, today, you have reverted to your old tric7s) + want everything, not just that
which you or Cler7+nvestigator (eters deem OrelatedB to the 1C8 105 OComplaintO (which has
three case numbers on it ng124020!, ng1240!&!, and ng1240!&5*) 2oth you and (eters get real
evasive when it comes times to answer for who submitted or filed the ng1240!&5 grievance
consisting of a three year old #rder by "amily Court Dudge $inda ?arnder, yet which bares a
file stamp of =arch 15th, 2012 by the 123)))then there is Dudge $inda ?ardnerBs brother, 8=C
Dudge 6illiam ?ardner refusing to recuse himself from the criminal trespass case, resulting in a
conviction
=r) Ging, one of of our recent discussion you promised to send me something in
writing informing me as to who e'actly was on the screening panel) Nou have failed to uphold
that promise as well) "urther, you and Cler7+nvestigator (eters have remained evasive and
contradictory respecting who filed 3?1240!&5, when, and under what circumstances it came to
be a grievance) + thin7 you will find that a review of the hearings you finally provided in 11 C8
2.!05 (9pril 10th and =ay %th, 2012* will yield some really intersting statements on the record
by Geith $oomis, EsH) (your =inden associate* and Dudge 6illiam ?ardner of the 8=C
(brother to "amily Court Dudge $inda ?arnder, whose 200, sanctions order was file stamped
2,1!!2
by the 123 on =arch 15th, 2012 and is now called 3?1240!&5, though neither you nor (eters
will say anything all that sensible about the genesis of that grievance, etc) Dudge ?ardner ma7es
some pretty curious statements respecting the competency analysis, the decision to plow ahead
with a <rial 1etting on =arch /th, 2012 for 9pril 10th, 2012 (intersesting considering Coughlin
filed the 3otice of 9ppeal of the final, appealable Osummary criminal contemptO conviction on
that same date, =arch /th, 2012 that now forms part of the asis for Dudge 3ash Aolmes ng124
0!&! OdecompensatingO grievance, incident to her =arch 1!th, 2012 letter to the 123))))you
might want to have Dudge ?ardnerBs statements on the record from !1012 and 5%12 and
$oomisBs transcribed, as your possession of the audio thereof arguably puts a Claiborne4esHue
duty upon you to inHuire as to the candor and veracity of some of those statements, especially
vis a vis the OmeetingsO ?ardners being the 8=CBs O9dministrative DudgeO, etc), etc) "urther,
you have refused to allow me access to a number of materials that neither you nor (eters deem
Opart of the complaintO (the 1C8 123 v Coughlin complaint)))though to the e'tent one or more
of ng124020!, ng1240!&!, 0!&5 mention the 8=C, arguably, + am entitled to anything at all
related to me, whether submitted by the 6C1#, 8=C, City of 8eno, City of 8eno =arshals,
etc)
(atric7 Ging ((atric7GLnvbar)org* 9dd to contacts &2/12 <o:
:achcoughlinLhotmail)com "rom: (atric7 Ging ((atric7GLnvbar)org*<his sender is
in your safe list) 1ent: <ue &2/12 ,:2! 9= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com
(:achcoughlinLhotmail)com* =arch 2/, 2012 Dear =r) Coughlin, (erhaps you are
not fully aware of your behavior) 9t our brief meeting yesterday + perceived you as
very hostile and even threatening) @nder those circumstances + felt it better to
terminate the meeting) +f it was not your intent to appear hostile or to attempt to
intimidate me then you might consider how + perceived your conduct) + had intended
to try to listen to you and determine how my office could best help you address the
grievances that + have received) Nou said you did not have time and simply wanted
to argue about your receipt of e4mail or mail) + did not say that + did not care if you
received the information + sent to you, + said + did not care how your received it, so
long as you received it) + do care that you receive the information that + send to you)
9s + attempted to e'plain, + will be meeting with a panel to have them ma7e a
determination about the grievances that have been made against you by =r) Aill and
the Dudge from Department & that you read at my office) + have as7ed for a written
response to those grievances) +n response + received many e4mails with attachments)
+ will soon be sharing the grievances with a disciplinary panel and will advise them
of your responses to date) + will 7eep you advised of the panelRs determination)
1incerely, (atric7 Ging 9ctions -ach Coughlin (:achcoughlinLhotmail)com*
&2.12 <o: patric77Lnvbar)org, glennmLnvbar)org, davidcLnvbar)org Dear =r)
Ging, <his correspondence is sent to confirm that + visited the Double 8 2lvd)
offices of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada today and attempted to be provided access the the
various Oother different judgesO grievances that +, prior to last "riday, was
completely unaware of) + have sent you several written correspondences detailing the
tampering and other problems with my @1(1 mail incident to the two domestic
2,2!!2
abuser attac7s + have been subject to since appro'imately 1112, and as7 that you
copy my on all correspondences or document production via email and fa') <oday,
you showed me a two page letter from Dudge 3ash Aolmes) Did you interpret it to be
a OgrievanceOJ Aow is that designation arrived atJ Nou refused to identify the names
of any other judges from whom you have received any other similar such materials
and further refused to allow me to view and such items) + as7ed for a copy of the
large bo' of documents, and other "#+9 reHuest materials and you refused) "urther,
you told me you didnBt care + received anything you sent me and stated that + did not
have a right to review such complaint letters, grievances, or other materials, prior to
being Huestioned by you and before any such meeting) + informed you that + am
considering different attorneys to represent me right now, and indicated + need these
materials to prepare for any future meeting with you) =y records incidate that your
letter of &1.12 is inaccurate to the e'tent it indicates that + was copied on that letter
via email on that date) (lease let me 7now if you received any sort of Oreturn to
senderO letter for that mailing) 1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH), (# 2#> .0,52,
8E3#, 3;, %,50., tel: //5 &&% %11%, fa': ,!, ../ /!02C
-achCoughlinLhotmail)com 3evada 2ar 3o: ,!/& k 2012 =icrosoft <erms
(rivacy Developers English (@nited 1tates*
"rom: (atric7 Ging ((atric7GLnvbar)org*
1ent: =on !0212 &:5/ (=
Dear =r) Coughlin, + have opened & disciplinary files against
you) <hey are identified by number below: 3?124020! -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH) 2ar 3o) ,!/& (2005* =r) Aill 3?1240!&5 -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH) 2ar 3o) ,!/& (2005* Dudge Aolmes 3?1240!&! -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH) 2ar 3o) ,!/& (2005* Dudge ?ardner Nou have received the
grievance from =r) Aill and also the grievance from Dudge Aolmes) <he
?rievance from Dudge ?ardner relates to her E#rder 9fter <rialF in the case
of 9shwin Doshi v 2arti Doshi, Case 3umber D;0%4011.%, wherein she
describes your conduct at pages 12 and 1&) + have received certified copies
of the contempt orders, a certified copy of the conviction at 6al4=art, and
an incident report from =arshals <hompson and Coppa regarding your
conduct on =arch 22, 2012) + also have the recordings of the court
proceedings at issue) 9t this time, + do not e'pect to be providing you with
any additional information) +f you have additional information that you want
me to be made aware of in response to the grievances identified above
please feel free to mail them to me)
1incerely, (atric7 Ging, 9ssistant 2ar Counsel
"rom: (atric7 Ging ((atric7GLnvbar)org* <his sender is in your safe
list)
1ent: <hu !1,12 2:2% (=
2,&!!2
<o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com (:achcoughlinLhotmail)com*
9pril 1,, 2012
-ach Coughlin
Dear =r) Coughlin,
9 screening panel of the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary (anel
met on <uesday 9pril 10, 2011 to address the grievances filed against
you) <he panel directed me to proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing)
9s such, + will be preparing a formal Complaint)
+ understand from the e4mail below, that you do not believe
you should have been found guilty of the theft at 6al4=art and that you
should not have been found in contempt of Court) Aowever, it must
concern you that you were found in contempt of Court by more than
one Dudge in two different trials) Nou wanted to 7now how + learned of
or obtained a copy of Dudge ?ardnerRs #rder after trial that was filed in
200,) +t was sent to me by the cler7 of the court at my reHuest, pursuant
to my investigation)
+t would help me and perhaps yourself, if you would respond
and e'plain why you were convicted of theft and why you were held in
contempt of Court) Nou may be well served to e'plain what remedial
measures you are ta7ing to ma7e sure you do not repeat the conduct
complained about) + cannot give you legal advice) Aowever + can
suggest you cooperate with 2ar counselRs investigation and that you
respond specifically to the allegations contained in Dudge Aolmes and
8ichard AillRs grievance letters to the office of 2ar Counsel)
(atric7 Ging
-ach has fff2% KpageVbrowseKresidV !&0%!.&%"""^!05! KscV(hotosKauth7eyV^
9+D3hGfo(Cfii&1. files to share with you on 17yDrive) <o view them, clic7 the lin7s below)
E=9+$1 <# (9<8+CGGL3;298)#8? (9<8+CG G+3? 298 C#@31E$)pdf
emails from -achCoughlinLhotmail)com to (atric7 Ging patric77Lnvbar)org since & 2&
12 )pdf
emails since & 2& 12 from patric77Lnvbar)org (atric7 Ging 2ar Counsel 1tate 2ar of
3evada)pdf
5 ! 0, attachment to wlc elcano email gardner 2.!05 01,55 .0&02 ltrCoughlin 2 ndDraft)pdf
5 / 0, termination letter from wls elcano linda gardner :achcoughlin 0!0/0, )pdf
2,!!!2
5 . 0, email from wls ed elcano 2.!05 .0&02 garnder 01,55 10%,. .0&02 2.%00 .0&1/
5!%!! )pdf
11 <8 2.%00 8=C 022/12 0&1!12 b 20120&12 4 10&& b 01 cd 00& b % f 0%51 d 0 )mp &
11 C8 2.!05 050%12 $oomisb 2012050% 4 110! b 01 cd 2 d 0 a .2/ f 5 f ,0 )mp &
11 <8 2.%00 8=C 022/12 0&1!12 b 2012022/ 4 150/ b 01 ccf 5.1% f /. c !.0 )mp &
& 1. 12 ng 12 4 0!&! 123 Ging letter containing 8=C Dudge 3ash Aomes & 1! 12 grievance
against Coughlin and ng 12 4 0!&5 linda gardner sanction from ! 10 0, 2.%00 00.,. 5!%!! )pdf
2 1! 12 123 G+3? $E<<E8 6+<A A+$$ ?8+E;93CE 9<<9CAED 8C8 2011 4 0.&&!1
8(D 8=C 11 C8 00.,. 6C1# 1@1+CA =E)pdf
11 cr 2.!05 puentes 0!1012 b 20120!10 4 0,0& b 01 cd 1. f % c & aa !, b 0 )mp &
rpd sargent lope: i have a Huestion for you 11 cr 2.!05 00.,. 2.%00 )wmv
2 2/ 12 and & % 12 9ffidavits of 1ervice by 6C1# =achen in 1/0% and 0&.2% 2.%00 00.,.
marshal harley)pdf
rerevised e'hibit 1 2.!05 .1,01 6+<A 29<E1 3@=2E8+3?)pdf
12 4 &2.%5 10 15 12 scr 111 ( ! * in re coughlin petition criminal trespass conviction .1,01 2.!05
1/0% 2.%00 12!20 hill sbn)pdf
Download all AN(E8$+3G Ohttps:s7ydrive)live)comredir)asp'J
cidV !&0%!.&% f &2 f 5 f 2% KpageVdownloadas:ipKresidV !&0%!.&% " &2 " 5 " 2% ^ !05! Kauth7eyV^
9+D3hGfo(Cfii & NK2pubV1D>)17yDriveK2srcV17y=ailO O
OF'1- still has not %rovided Coughlin access to the materials he is entitled to to
1ent: "ri 110212 10:&. (=
&& attachments
2,5!!2
all emails to loomis 2.!05 12!20 2.%00 00.,. 0.5.&0 0.&&!1)pdf (//,)% G2*
, 2 2% 12 Contempt #rder 3ash 2.%00 2.!05 0.5.&0 00.,. 0.&&!1 bf si:e reduced)pdf
(!!,), G2* , 11cr2.!05 puentes 0!1012b20120!1040,0&b01cd1.f%c&aa!,b0)mp& (5)1
=2* , 3v8eno(dLcoplogic)com rpd police reports by coughlin 0.&&!1 duralde carter
lope: sifre 1/0% 2.!05 2.%00)htm (1!5)0 G2* , rpd carter police report 11 cr 2.!05
puentes loomis 1/0% merliss rmc gardner cr1240&/. mh12400&2 .50.&0 0.&&!1 rpd lope:
carter police report 11 1& 1242)pdf (.)& =2* , & & 12 attached to loomis email and filed in
rmc final motion to dismiss 11 cr 2.!05 2.%00 0.5.&0 0.&&!1)pdf (!!2). G2* ,
goodnight jgoodnightLwashoecounty)us 5 2 12 email regarding ha:lett loomis mhc
1/%)!05 0.&&!1 2.!05)htm (1.)& G2* , all emails from 7eith loomis
7eithloomisLearthlin7)net between 2 2/ 12 and % 10 12 2.!05 2.%00 00.,. 0.&&!1
0.5.&0)htm (&22)% G2* , & / 12 rmc 11 cr 2.!05 loomis gardner 1/%)!05 Coughlin <rial
1etting 2.%00 00.,. 0.&&!1 0.5.&0)pdf (&21)! G2* , % , 12 $oomis second =otion to
withdraw 12 cr 12!20 rmc see also 2.!05)pdf (22,)2 G2* , 1tate 2ar #f 3evada nvbar
casey ba7er 1/0% 2.!05)htm (!2)/ G2* , 5 . 0, email from wls ed elcano 2.!05 .0&02
garnder 01,55 10%,. .0&02 2.%00 .0&1/ 5!%!! dd)pdf (15)& G2* , 11 1. 2011 email
from reno city attorney roberts)htm (1.)& G2* , 6C1# 2ec7man, Debi Campbell,
Cummings, Aodge 1tatements on property se:ied from 8eno 9ttorney by 8eno =unic
Court Dudge 3ash Aolmes)pdf (150)& G2* , -achCoughlinLhotmail)com emails to
puentesLaol)com)pdf (222)1 G2* , pam roberts on her duty)pdf (%12)0 G2* , (atric7 Ging
sbn grievance letter of & 1. 12 and Dudge 3ash Aolmes greivance of & 1! 12 rmc 11 <8
2.%00)pdf (5/5)% G2* , proof of clandestine status conference on 2 2/ 12 dogan young
nash holmes schroeder rcr201240.5.&0 rjc rmc rpd wcso wcpd wcda 4 Copy)pdf (1.!!)!
G2* , proof of fa'ing notice of appeal to both rmc gardner and reno city attorney ha:lett4
stevens)pdf (1!)5 G2* , proof picture of personally delivering notice of appeal to city of
reno ha:lett . 2/ 12 in cr12412.2 11 cr 2.!05)pdf (!&), G2* , records reHuest and
subpoena to 81+C)pdf (/1)2 G2* , records reHuest to rsic police)pdf (.5)% G2* , rmc 12 cr
12!20 $oomis motion to withdraw as counsel % , 12 City of 8eno v Coughlin)pdf (,2.),
G2* , =otion for Continuance to 8eno City 9tty 8oberts 8=C)pdf (!!%), G2* , #8DE8
8E$E91+3? (8#(E8<N 11 <8 2.%00 & &0 12 nash rmc rjc rpd wcso 7ing clar7 mar7ed
as recd bac7 by rmc ! 1& 12 return to sender pthoa hy)pdf (2%/)1 G2* , letter to bar
counsel regarding rmc and reno city attorney complaints with loomis emails)pdf (&2,)&
G2* , e' 1 to motion to set aside dismissal cr12412.2)pdf (2)5 =2* , C812412.24&0,&..%
(#pposition to =tn )))*)pdf (,2)5 G2* , C812412.24&11/150 (#rd Dismiss 9ppeal
8emand*)pdf (/&), G2* , C812412.24&11,!1. (E'hibit 1*)pdf (2)/ =2* , . 2% 12 email to
ha:lett stevens showing what was served notice of appeal 11 cr 2.!05 cr12412.2)pdf (12)%
G2* , 12 1! 11 fa' to (uentes re 6C1# 9ffidavit of 1ervice 8E;20114001/0%)pdf (2!),
G2* , 5 . 0, email from elcano wls stating his decision is limited to hearing conduct
before judge linda gardner rmc 2.!05 2.%00 .0&02)htm (10)& G2*

+ called =r) Ging (he directed me to call (anel Chair Echeverria* today to see7
2,.!!2
clarification regarding an earlier approval he relayed to me from Chief 2ar Counsel David
connection with this disciplinary matter (ng124020!, ng1240!&!, ng1240!&5)))odd, canBt
recall a single other OcaseO in all my legal research that had three case
numbers))))especially where an #rder Denying a =otion to 2ifurcate was issued, even
before the 5 days for me to file a 8eply to the #pposition (given 38C( is e'pressly
applicable to these matters under the 1C8Bs*)))9m + going to find out that my filings are
Otoo longO under a view that assumes this is Oone caseO even though there are Othree
grievance case numbersO in the caption, and where each OgrievanceO is fairly ramblingJ
9nd where the 123Bs Ging purports this hearing to involve that which the 3)
1) Ct) #rdered to occur in response to its temporary suspension #rder incident to the 1C8
111 (etition for the petty larceny of a Ocandy bar and some cough dropsO (ie, the Court
order that matter, .0%&%, referred to the 2oard for a Ohearing at which the sole issue to be
determinedO would be my punishment for that which was noticed and adjudicated in the
.0%&% 1C8 111 (etition)
+ believe you are all now violating 3evada $aw in persisting in your denial of
my right to such a hearing wherein the Osole issueO is such, but rather trying to jam me up
with this Ocombo hearingO that see7s to encompass a great deal of disparate claims (many
of which are pending criminal charges, and therefore, entirely outside of your jursisiction
at this point, and your deigning to address them interferes with the orderly administration
of justice in those pending criminal prosecutions, as evinced by Dudge 1ferra::aBs refusal
to testify at the 3ovember 1!th, 2012 Aearing)))which is problematic considering Dudge
1ferra::a presided over the civil summary eviction matter in 8DC 8ev20114001/0% that is
intimately connect to 9$$ <A8EE of the grievances included in GingBs rec7less,
negligent, compromised 1C8 105 OComplaintO) "or instance:
3?124020!: 8ichard ?) AillBs Danuary 1!th, 2012 letter to 2ar Counsel Ging (whom he
had just wor7ed on the =ilsner v) Carstarphen matter with
(http:law)justia)comcasesnevadasupreme4court 2012 51.&1 )html *

<oday, Ging admitted to being unaware of who Casey 2a7er, EsH) is) Ging
also admitted to not having read any of my filings in any of these connected matters, only
to then suggest an analogy along the lines of if a woman is raped a lot, she is probably a
whore and deserves it or wanted it, given the sheer mathematical improbability of any one
woman getting raped over and over, and how Ging just doesnBt get paid enough to stic7 his
nose into some gangbang, what with the chances of getting himself involved in doing the
right thing where it is just so much easier to sit bac7 and pretend that the Claiborne
decision (e'plicated e'tensively in my attached 9ugust 1&th, 2012 (etition* does not
permit 2ar Counsel to just throw its hands up and suggest that a =uni Court conviction
(even, in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05, presided over by the brother of the judge whose sanctions
#rders is before you in 3?1240!&5, and where the brother refused to recuse himself from
that criminal trespass conviction incident to the lies and or attempts to mislead a tribunal
by Casey 2a7er, EsH) and 8ichard ?) Aill at the Dune 1%th, 2012 criminal trespass trial
2,/!!2
incident to the civil eviction from CoughlinBs former law office in 8DC 8ev20114001/0%)
9sst) 2ar Counsel Ging also admitted that he had failed to even view the video
taped admission by 8(D 1argent $ope: that she, Aill, =erliss, and 8(D #fficer Carter
lied in order to effectuate the wrongful arrest leading to CouglinBs conviction by the
brother of the sister whose 200, sanctions #rder against Coughlin only became a
grievance on =arch 1!th, 2012 (apparently Ging adopts Ching as to whom can be an
1C8 105 complainant, and therefore within the statute of limitations, when it comes to
?ardnerBs 9pril 200, #rder, but not when it involves misconduct by a Chairman of the
Character and "itness Committee of the 123, 1pearmint 8hino owner Gevin Gelly, EsH),
whom also owns a $as ;egas 1trip Club that gives cabbies M10 million dollars a year to
funnel tourists to itBs doors from the airport, and the misconduct of (eter Christiansen, Dr)
and =i7e 1anft, and others incident to CoughlinBs application for admission in 3evada,
including that of then Director of 9dmissions (atrice Eichmann, made all the more
feasible by the conduct of =i7e 1miley 8owe, EsH) and the fraudulent conduct of =ar7
<ratos and =ary $a"rance* when 8=C Dudge 3ash Aolmes (in response to prompting by
the 123* passed that three year old #rder (attorneys get sanctioned all the time, such
orders do not become grievances as a matter of course, and the 123 has admitted it 7eeps
no central record of any such grievances* on to 2ar Counsel after receiving it from her co4
8=C Dudge, and the brother of the family court judge issuing the sanction order)))at right
about the time that Coughlin filed that =arch /th, 2012 3otice of 9ppeal (and there is
plenty of case law to establish that a Osummary criminal convictionO is a final appealable
#rder, and the 8=C is fraudulently conspiring with transcriptionist (am $ongoni to
violate 381 1%,)01040&0 by demanding payment up front for such transcripts by indigent
criminal defendants, and $ongoni and the 8=CBs fraud in that regard resulted in Dudge
Elliot denying CoughlinBs appeal of the 6al4=art candy bar petty larceny conviction in
cr11420.!, wherein Dudge Elliot actually cites to a civil statute related to transcript
preparation to justify the 8=CBs fraud, seen elsewhere in C8124101%, further the 8=C
OlostB CoughlinBs 3otice of 9ppeal of the 11 cr2.!05 criminal trespass conviction appeal
(despite Coughlin having digitial confirmation of the receipt of that fa' by the 8=C, and
where 8=C 8ules allows service thereof via that means upon both the Court and the City
9ttorney (and Aa:lett41tevens lied about that as well, in addition to the lies he told
respecting whether the City 9ttorney had received anything from the 81+C following
CoughlinBs 6al4=art arrest* in the Osummary criminal contemptO #rder stemming from
the traffic citation (California roll* trial connected to Coughlin reporting the admissions of
bribery by 8ichard Aill (8(D #fficer Carter stated as much during the 3ovember 1&th,
2011 criminal trespass arrest, now part of the 1C8 105 Complaint, incorporated by
reference, one must suppose, by AillBs 3?124020! grievance* to the 1argent who
retaliated against Coughlin by issuing three traffic citations, for Coughlin so reporting
such admissions by the arresting officer in the trespass matter to the 1argent who issued
the traffic citations to Coughlin incident to Coughlin going to AillBs office to retrieve his
7eys, wallet, clientBs files, and goverment issued identification after being release from &
days in jail incident to the wrongful criminal trespass arrest)
=r) Ging is beyond incorrect is stating that he will be able to simply point to a
2,%!!2
criminal conviction and declare that no inHuiry into the legitimacy of that conviction may
be made) <here is a wealth of case law and precedent that holds otherwise, and =r) Ging
has previously been made aware of that) <his is true especially where the convictions at
issue completely fail to evince even baseline level of regard for traditional notions of due
process) 1imply put, some might say the members of this (anel ought thin7 rather hard
before tying their reputations to the mast that is the e'tremely low bar reHuired to get a
conviction in the 8eno =unicipal Court these days))))and further, the (anel would be well
advised to avoid letting =r) Ging lead it down that primrose path wherein one believes
they will be entitled to merely accept a municipal court conviction as conclusive proof of
misconduct or otherwise rule irrelevant any inHuiry into the circumstances attendant to
such a matter) <his will be particularly true where =r) Ging see7s to, in his 1C8 105
Complaint, allege matters not even charged in that =unicipal Court criminal trespass
prosecution)
Aow =r) Ging will be able to allege his 8(C &)% violating allegations
respecting Obrea7ing and enteringO or Obro7en loc7sO are relevant or admissible where
CoughlinBs dissection of the illegitimacy of the 6almart candy bar petty larceny
conviction (supposedly part of the 1C8 105 Complaint))))and mentioned in AillBs 3?124
020! grievance)))which brings to mind the Huestion)))what of matters not mentioned in any
of the three grievance numbersJ Aow are they eligible for inclusion in some 1C8 105
OComplaintB that lac7s a uniHue case number of its ownJ* 8egardless, it is 3ovember 2nd,
2012 and my defense has been irreversibly prejudiced by the refusal of 2ar Counsel to
allow me to access the materials at the 123 that are my right to under the 1C8, thus
bringing the legitimacy of the entire 3ovember 1!th, 2012 hearing into doubt, to which
any argument that + should be made to fit the bill for 2ar CounselBs bungling and
fraudulent failure to follow the rules applicable to this matter, in addition to its own
written attestations, is entirely unsupportable)
8egardless, 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH)Bs hench man, Casey 2a7er, EsH), now that the
heat is on and he and AillBs avarice driven misdeeds are finally facing the oversight they
deserve, has now suddenly fled bac7 to Gentuc7y:
http:www)nvbar)orglawyer4detail 112/1

+t was 2a7er whom Aill used to file the 3ovember 21st, 2011 and Danuary
20th, 2012 filings in 8DC 8ev20114001/0% and the appeal thereof in C;1140&.2% to ma7e
the allegatons that Aill himself 7new unwise to ma7e in his own regard within a sworn
Declaration)))1o, despite Aill, not 2a7er, having the eye witness 7nowledge of such events
(li7e whether the 8(D identified themselves as law enforcement and issued to Coughlin a
lawful warning to leave at the ris7 of a criminal trespass citation or arrest prior to the
landlord 7ic7ing down the door to a Huasi ObasementO under the property that 2a7erBs own
testimony at the Dune 1%th, 2012 trespass trail admits lac7ed any sort of e'terior loc7, and
thus would reHuire no Obrea7ing of any sortO of the type both 1usich and Ging suddenly
felt the need to allege when considering how terribly compromised their .0,/5 (etiton
and the instant 1C8 105 Ocombo4grievancesO (7ind of li7e a Odue process value mealO that
(at Ging is serving up, and as7ing this 2oard to co4sign)))which, apparently the Chairman
2,,!!2
finds fitting))))whatBs ne't, are you going to have lawyers dress up in Aot Dog on a 1tic7
employee uniforms (you 7now, rainbow colors, the spinning thing atop the hat, etc)* tooJ
+s that how little the property right of a law license (case law declares it as much under the
"ourteenth 9mendment, and any willful deprivation thereof by this 2oard, including a
deprivation of the due process reHuired to impinge thereupon, can subject the members of
this 2oard the !2 @1C 1ec) 1,%& liability, especially where, as her, what appears to be a
coordinated effort to obstruct justice and proceed impermissibly under color of law for the
self interested aims of those leveraging such positions is apparent) 8+C#)
+ am writing to reHuest confirmation of what + believe =r) Clar7 has previously
rule, ie, that +, as an indigent respondent herein, am not reHuired to pay witnesses any sort
of Owitness feeO in issuing and or serving subpoenas and subpoens duces tecums upon
them in connection with the 3ovember 1!th, 2011 Aearing in this matter) + feel AillBs then
associate Casey 2a7er, EsHBs testimony will be particular necessary to this hearing
(especially where Aill admits himself that he was not present at the purported 3ovember
1st, 2011 Oloc7outO in the eviction matter (and the service of an receipt by the 6C1#
with respect to any such loc7out #rder is of material relevance, as 381 !0)25& reHuires
such an #rder be carried out Owithin 2! hours of receiptO thereof)))and 2a7erBs testimony
at the Dune 1%th, 2012 criminal trespass trial, in combination with previous statements by
the 6ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice (and please add these individuals and matters to my
designation fo witnesses and summary of evidence to be presented* 1upervisor $i:
1tuchell, 8o'y 1ilve, Deputy =achen, and administrators, supervisors, and cler7s at the
8eno Dustice Court (8DC* add up to the fact that it was Aill, 2a7er, and the 6C1#, and
8(D that were trespassing, not Coughlin, at CoughlinBs former home law office)
9ttached it the video taped admission by 8(D 1argent $ope: respecting the
lies by her, 8(D #fficer Carter, Aill, =erliss, and 2a7er leading to CoughlinBs arrest and
conviction for criminal trespass) Geith $oomis will need to answer for his failure to fulfill
the 1i'th 9mendment in that regard, in addition to the content of the unapproved and
impermissible OmeetingO with 8=C Dudge ?ardner and City of 8eno (rosecutor wherein,
upon information and belief, an OapproachO to handling the criminal trespass trial of
Coughlin was OdevelopedO shortly before the 9pril 10th, 2012 <rial date in that criminal
trespass matter (a <rial date which violated 3evada law, anyways, in that it was set and
held during the pendency of an #rder for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin in violation
of 381 1/%)!05 and 381 5)010*) 9ny trier of fact that wishes to attempt to pull the wool
over CoughlinBs eyes, ma7e incongruous and patently compromised, often sua sponte
relevancy rulings, or otherwise coo7 up a due process value meal may wish to as7 8=C
Dudge ?ardner how the recent filings by Coughlin in .1,01 and the 8=C 11 C8 2.!05
are tasting right about now) #r get Dudge AowardBs inpute with respect to the analysis of
his wor7 in .0%&%)
9nd Dudge 3ash Aolmes may be able to provide some insight as to how that
approach served her, particularly where her Ocriminal summary contemptO order was made
during the pendency of an #rder for Competency Evaluation, and cites to alleged conduct
committed outside her immediate presence (and thatBs the thing about Osummary
adjudicationsO))))the are so arbitary and devoid of due process that the reHuirements
&00!!2
attendant thereto must be stricly adhered to))))so when Dudge 3ash Aolmes in here #rders
in 11 <8 2.%00 of 22%12 and &12 &1&, and &1&12 refers to some 8=C =arshal
allegedly peering, (eeping <om style, through a bathroom stall wherein Coughlin was
during a restroom brea7 within that trial, her #rder fails to adhere to the dictate that each
element of any conduct she deigns to summarily rule upon be committed in her
Oimmediate presenceO)))otherwise, someone would have to sign an 9ffidavit li7e a grown
up, and Coughlin would be entitled to a hearing, and li7ely appointed counsel under the
1i'th 9mendment before some 2ar Counsel li7e Ging could attempt to prop up any such
OconvictionO in an attempt to lend it an air of respectiability, especially where that =arshal
Aarley (whom Ging conveniently has failed to subpoena* had his own self interested
reasons for see7ing to discredit Coughlin (8=C =arshal Aarley violated the Ocourthouse
sanctuaryO rule and contributed to an appearance of impropriety where he served Coughlin
an #rder to 1how Cause incident to one of AillBs fraudulent =otions see7ing to abuse
process in hopes of remaining competitive with an actual attorney li7e Coughlin (rather
than a 7nown hac7 li7e A+ll whom inherited a law practice from his father and who legion
of local attorneys accuse of unneccesarily running up fees on his clients by purposefully
overcomplicating litigations and engendering an adversarial stance amongst litigants
designed to line AillBs poc7ets, and those of, apparently, even his legal assistans, whom
drive M1&0,000 =ercedes v12 1$4.00 sport coupe convertibles to crac7 inspections of law
offices incident to impermissible summary evictions of commercial tenants where Aill
chose to proceed under a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice (along with 2a7er* rather than a 3on
(ayment 3otice, and therein committed a Owrong site surgeryO (in a litigation sense, to
borrow some of the parlance of the landlord, Dr) =erlissBs field, wherein he is a
3eurosurgeon3eurologist in Chico, C9, apparently armed with enough money to choose
to run up M.0,000, as of 9pril 2012 in fees ot A+ll and 2a7er in these matters rather than
settle with Coughlin for the M1,500 Coughlin offered him*)
(lease add to the witness list all the individuals mentioned in the various filings
+ have provided you, including, but not limited to 8(D #fficers Duralde, 8osa, 9la7sa,
6eaver, $oo7, <ravis 6arren, and $eedy, 8(D 1argent <arter,$ope:, 1ifre, #liver
=iller, Dye, and 2radshaw, AillBs 9ssociate Casey 2a7er, 1heri Aill, and to be
deterimined members of A+llBs staff (particulary those with 7nowledge of any matters
connected to the receipt of either of the Eviction #rders by the 6C1# in the eviction
matter, 6C(D Dim $eslie, 2iray Dogan, Doe ?oodnight, 6almart <homas "rontino and
91= Dohn Ellis, and a yet to be determined 9( 9ssociate whom, along with Ellis, made
e'press threats to retaliate against Coughlin with abuse of process similar to the petty
larceny candy bar conviction in .0%&% that currently forms the only basis for the
suspension of CoughlinBs law license and for which this (anel and the 123 are violating
3evada law in persisting in refusing to follow the dicates of both the 1upreme Court 8ules
of 3evada and the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder in .0%&%, but rather, li7e Cler7OreluctantO
+nvestigator (eters, are allowing themselves to be led down that primrose path that (at
Ging finds to pleasurable to ta7e the unwitting along in his social climbing and life of ease
and comfort, devoid of honor or intergrity, approach to life)))
9lso, to the e'tent then (anel considers a pending criminal prosecution up for
&01!!2
inHuiry in a disciplinary proceeding, included in potential witness call may call are 3icole
6atson, $ucy 2yington, 3ate -arate, Cory ?oble, the individual whose phone number is
//5&/%../&, Colton <empleton, 8obert Dawson, 3ic7 Duralde, 8on 8osa, <homas
9la7sa, 1avannah =ontgomery, $inda ?ray, Gelly #dom, Gariann 2eechl7er, 8(D
#fficer 1chaur and any others present at arrest of 11!12 for Omisuse of emergency
communicationsO, and of the 54. officers whom, along with 8(D Duralde pulled Coughlin
over upon his release from jail on 11&12 for the 11212 Ojaywal7ingO arrest made upon
the fraudulent assertions of 8ichard A+ll, 8DC Dudge Dac7 1chroeder (whom evicted
Coughlin from (ar7 <errace and granted Aill the protection order incident to the
jaywal7ing arrest and who yelled Odo you want to go to jailO at Coughlin at the e'tension
hearing when Coughlin broached the topic of AillBs abuse of process, and whom
wrongfully granted the .2/12 Eviction #rder in 8DC 8ev201240010!% despite the
deficient 5 day notice listing the wrong court to file a tenanBts affidavit (a reHuirement
under 381 !0)25&, and despite CoughlinBs numerous calls and .2.12 email to the 8DC,
1DC, 8(D and 6C1#, also Deff 3ichols and (eter Eastman and (aul "reitag, EsH)
(involved in 123 GingBs impermissilbe disclosures and slanderous statements concerning
Coughlin and the 3;2 (which Ging also made to his boss in front of Coughlin, David
Clar7, and which have proven to be baseless, despite Ging tic7ing such off amongst the
top 2 reasons for the 1C8 105 Complaint he alleged he would hurriedly throw together
upon Coughlin serving Ging, the 123, Clar7 and (eters the 9ugust 1&th, 2012 filing in
.0%&% and .1!2., now before the 3) 1) Ct)*)
9lso, 8ichard Cornell, <om Aall, ?eof ?iles, and =ichael $ehrners, Dudge Doe
;an 6alraven and others all whom have indicated, to one degree or another, that AillBs
conduct incident to this eviction matter and concomitant appeal is deplorable and entirely
consistent with the way Aill has comported himself throughout his && year career, which
began with is inheriting a large scale law practice from his father, and continued on with
Aill effecting the manner of a 10 year old boy entrusted with flying a /!/ full of people, to
this day) 9dd to the witness $ist (aul Elcano of 6$1, Dudge 1teven Elliott, Dudge (atric7
"lanagan, Aale $aneAolland and AartBs 9nthony Aall and <im $u7as, 8ichard Elmore,
Dudge 1cott (earson, Dudge (eter D) 1ferra::a (though he indicated on 102212 that he
declined the 123Bs reHuest that he testify, citing his sitting on the pending criminal
prosecution in 8C8201140.&&!1*, the 8DCBs 2onnie Cooper and O3eviO, Chief 2ailiff
=ichael 1e'ton, 8=C Chief =arshal 8oper and =arshal Deighton, =arshal <hompson,
=arshal Coppa, 6CDC ;an der 6al, 2eatson, Aoe7stra, Cheung, unnamed deputies)
"urther, please add 6estern 3evada =anagementBs 1ue Ging, Dared 1calise, and (ar7
<errace <ownhomes 9ssociation attorney ?ayle Gern, EsH), 8oberto (uentes, $ew <aitel,
the 8=CBs =atthew "is7 and Cassandra Dac7son, Donna 2allard, Dudge Aowards past
legal assistant, Dudge 3ash Aolmess legal and administrative assistant, =artin Crowley or
=artin 6einer or whichever attorney is was Dudge 3ash Aolmes was sued for wiretapping
in the past, the 8=C counter cler7 ODanielO and O<homO, 6DC Chief 9ppeals Cler7
=atheus, Doey #rduna Aastings, Chief Dudge David Aardy, Dustice Aardesty (whom was
one of only three Dustices signing the Dune /th, 2012 temporary suspension #rder, but
whom recused himself from .0&02 and .0&1/, the wrongful termination suit against
&02!!2
6ashoe $egal 1ervices (see attached letters from 6$1Bs E'ecutive Director citing Dudge
$inda ?ardnerBs 9pril 200, #rder sanctioning Coughlin as the Osole reasonO for
CoughlinBs firing (her brother, 8=C Dudge 6illiam ?ardner refused to recuse himself
from the criminal trespass conviction mentioned in in GingBs 1C8 105 Complaint, and
Ging admitted two wee7s ago that he was unaware that the two Dudge ?ardners were
brother and sister or related whatsoever, or that Dudge 3ash Aolmes was a prison warden
or something similar for ten years, and a lifelong prosecutor besides that (in addition to all
other 8=C Dudges and all 8=C court appointed defenders*)
9lso, + never received any 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default from the 123, and
herein lodge my objection to any #rder by this (anel that cites thereto) 9dditionally,
123Bs (eters has indicated no other respondents have ever been made to pay witness
subpoena fees, and further (eters and the 123 have repeatedly failed to adhere to
agreements they have made with Coughlin (including the failure of the 123 to resend a
certified mail copy of the 1C8 105 Complaint incident to the agreement between (eters
and Coughlin on or about 1eptember 11th, 2012)))O
OR97 '1- still has not %rovided Coughlin access to the materials he is entitled to to
1ent: "ri 110212 11:!5 (=
<o: patric77Lnvbar)org (patric77Lnvbar)org*C davidcLnvbar)org (davidcLnvbar)org*C
complaintsLnvbar)org (complaintsLnvbar)org*
<o: s7entLs7entlaw)comC mi7eLtahoelawyer)comC nevtelassnLsbcglobal)netC
patric77Lnvbar)orgC fflahertyLdlpfd)comC davidcLnvbar)orgC complaintsLnvbar)orgC
tsusichLnvdetr)orgC jeLeloreno)comC cvellisLbhfs)com
1ubject: 123 still has not provided Coughlin access to the materials he is entitled to to prepare
for 111!12 Aearing
Date: "ri, 2 3ov 2012 22:&.:!. 40/00
+ called =r) Ging (he directed me to call (anel Chair Echeverria* today to
see7 clarification regarding an earlier approval he relayed to me from Chief 2ar Counsel David
connection with this disciplinary matter (ng124020!, ng1240!&!, ng1240!&5)))odd, canBt recall a
single other OcaseO in all my legal research that had three case numbers))))especially where an
#rder Denying a =otion to 2ifurcate was issued, even before the 5 days for me to file a 8eply
to the #pposition (given 38C( is e'pressly applicable to these matters under the 1C8Bs*)))
(3#<E: the entirety of that email is then included therein*O
3#<E: is ia particularly telling the e'tent to which the (anel completely glosses
&0&!!2
over all the due process deprivations and violations of 1C8 105(2*, and 1C8 105(2*(c* here, in
addition to its failure to EconcludeF as a Ematter of lawF that Coughlin was EservedF the
Complaint (thus hoping to avoid all the messy fraud issues related to Ging and 123 Cler7 of
Court (eters misconduct*) "urther, the (anel went out of its way to attempt to prevent
Coughlin, at the outset of the hearing, from putting on the record that he was appearing to
contest jurisdiction, including for lac7 of service of process, in addition to the multitude of 1C8
105(2*(c* deficiences, not to mention to impermissible consolidating of the Eformal hearingF
reHuired by 1C8 111(%* and the Eformal disciplinary proceedingsF reHuired for an 1C8 105
complaint)
"urther, if the %2&12 9ffidavit of =ailing by Cler7 of Court $aura (eters attached
to the %2&12 Complaint in GingBs "AE1 is truthful and correct, and GingBs presentation of it
not a violation of 8(C &)1, &)&, &)!, and %)1, then why would Ging write the following:
(R97 citation to legal authorityA
1ent: <ue ,2512 10:!, 9=
1eptember 25, 2012
?ood =orning =r) Coughlin,
<his morning you were served with the Disciplinary Complaint, for Case 3o:
3?124020!, 3?1240!&5 and 3? 1240!&!)
9 verified 8esponse or 9nswer to this Complaint must be filed with the #ffice of 2ar
Counsel, 1tate 2ar of 3evada, ,!5. Double 8) 2lvd, 1te) 2, 8eno, 3evada %,521 within
20 days) <he (rocedure regarding service is addressed in 1C8 10,)
<he reason + have reHuested your physical address is to facilitate our ability to
contact you) <he mail that was sent to you via certified mail was returned to the 1tate 2ar
as unclaimed)
(atric7 Ging, 9ssistant 2ar CounselF
ER97 -otification of 9lectronic /iling in ?- R97 D?'C?P>?-9 =/ ,,, C=E2">?-8 -o,
+*.*
1ent: =on 100%12 ,:!2 9=
+mportant ^^^
Dear =r) Coughlin
(lease understand that (ou were &ersonall( served with the .om&laint on
4e&tem%er 0>' when (ou came to office of the state %ar, in 8eno) 9s such, you are reHuired to
file a verified answer to that Complaint within 20 days from the date you were served)
+f you fail to 9nswer the Complaint, + will move the matter forward to a "ormal
Disciplinary (anel on a default basis) +f that occurs the panel will accept all of the allegations
in the Complaint as true) ?n your latest e4mail you ac&no#ledge the Com%laint by
&0!!!2
asserting that it is (combo %ac&age,M) + encourage you to file your answer to theComplaint)
(R97 -otification of 9lectronic /iling in ?- R97 D?'C?P>?-9 =/ Z,,,C=E2">?-8 -o,
+*.*
1ent: =on 100%12 ,:5. 9=
<o: -ach Coughlin (:achcoughlinLhotmail)com*C David Clar7 (DavidCLnvbar)org*C
$aura (eters ($aura(Lnvbar)org*C barcounseloversightcommissionLgmail)com
(barcounseloversightcommissionLgmail)com*C tsusichLnvdetr)org (tsusichLnvdetr)org*
=r) Coughlin was served with the Complaint by regular and by certified mail) +n an
abundance of caution =r) Coughlin was personally served with the Complaint on 1eptember
25, 2012 when he came to the office of the state bar) =r) Coughlin has not yet filed a verified
9nswer to the Complaint)
(atric7 Ging, 9ssistant 2ar CounselF
(R97 motion to dismiss attached
1ent: =on 100%12 11:&, 9=
Dear =r) Coughlin,
answer is due by <uesday 1eptember ,, 2012) Nou should file a verified answer to the
complaint)
E8E: pending final disposition of disciplinary %roceedings,,,,language 'CR 111;7< versus
1ent: <hu 101112 !:5. (=
1 attachment
1 2, 2012 letter to Cler7 of Court #rduna Aastings regarding Efle' rejections with attachments
!1 pages total)pdf (,5/)% G2*
Dear Cler7 of Court (eters,
9re you sure + indicated one way or the other whether + received the ComplaintJ 6as there
some mention of 9ugust 2&rd, 2012J Can 2ar Counsel Ging actually do some legal research
for once, everJ Does he have a citation to any authority or cases that says a =otion to Dismiss
&05!!2
may not be filed unless the 8espondent ma7es some affirmative indcation to the Cler7 of Court
as to whether he actually received a ComplaintJ 38C( 5(e* ma7es clear the Cler7 of Court
and filing office of the 123 are not permitted to refuse filings) 1o, the 1eptember 1/th, 2012
=otion to Dismiss must be filed by Cler7 of Court (eters, or misconduct e'ists)
"9C<1
"urther, 38C( 5(e* holds that:
O(e* "iling 6ith the Court Defined) <he filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as
reHuired by these rules shall be made by filing them with the cler7 of the court, e'cept that the
judge may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the judge shall note
thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the cler7) 9 court may by
local rule permit papers to be filed, signed or verified by electronic means that are consistent
with technical standards, if any, that the Dudicial Conference of the @nited 1tates establishes) 9
paper signed by electronic means in compliance with the local rule constitutes a written paper
presented for the purpose of applying these rules) <he cler7 shall not refuse to accept for filing
any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as
reHuired by these rules or any local rules or practices)O
<he filing officer cler7Bs in the 2nd Dudicial District Court for 6ashoe County, and the
managers, supervisors, and administrators regularly refuse filing in contravention of 38C(
5(e*) "urther, the drop bo' reHuired by 6DC8 12(10* is no more) <he drop bo' was removed
about . months ago) <he efiling fee tripled, about si' months ago, on Duly 1, 2011) <he
connection is hard to ignore) + seriously, seriously doubt the drop bo' was as underutili:ed as +
have heard suggested) + would imagine the hard wor7ing, dedicated filing office staff may
actually prefer having the drop bo' to cut down on the lines) 3onetheless, + would be surprised
if the dictates of 6DC8 12(10* were rendered null by any under use)
6ith regard to the 6DC filing office e"le' staff refusing to file papers submitted for filing,
please consider:
1ullivan v) Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court +n and "or County of Clar7, ,0! ()2d 10&,, 111 3ev)
1&./ (3ev), 1,,5*: E<his proper person petition for a writ of mandamus see7s an order from
this court directing the Eighth Dudicial District Court to file petitionerBs application to proceed
in forma pauperis and his civil complaint) 1 #n Duly 25, 1,,5, we ordered the state to file an
answer to this petition) <he stateBs answer was filed on 9ugust 11, 1,,5) 2 Documentation
submitted by petitioner to this court establishes that petitioner submitted to the cler7 of the
district court for filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil complaint on
=ay 15, 1,,5) 9lthough the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was in proper
form and was sworn to under penalty of perjury, the cler7 of the district court did not file that
application) & <he failure to file the application was in violation of the clear statutory mandate
that such an application be filed) 381 12)015(1* provides that OPaQny person ))) may file an
affidavit Psee7ing leave to proceed without payment of feesQ)O "urther, we have repeatedly
instructed the cler7 of the Eighth Dudicial District Court that such documents must be filed) 1ee
2owman v) District Court, 102 3ev) !/!, /2% ()2d !&& (1,%.* (cler7 has a ministerial duty to
accept and file documents if those documents are in proper formC cler7 must not e'ercise any
&0.!!2
judicial discretion*C 2arnes v) District Court, 10& 3ev) ./,, /!% ()2d !%& (1,%/* (prisonerBs
right of access to court cannot be denied on basis of indigency*C Auebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev)
&2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1* (cler7 must create an accurate record of all pleadings submitted for
filing, whether or not the documents are actually filed*C 6hitman v) 6hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,,
%!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2* (cler7 has no authority to return documents submitted for filingC instead,
cler7 must stamp documents that cannot be immediately filed Oreceived,O and must maintain
such documents in the record of the case*C Donoho v) District Court, 10% 3ev) 102/, %!2 ()2d
/&1 (1,,2* (the cler7 of the district court has a duty to file documents and to 7eep an accurate
record of the proceedings before the court*C ?rey v) ?rey, 111 3ev) &%%, %,2 ()2d 5,5 (1,,5*
(cler7 of district court admonished for failure to 7eep accurate record of documents submitted
for filing*) (etitioner alleges that the district court has refused to file his application and has
returned it with directions to provide more information regarding employment) +ndeed,
petitioner has attached to his petition for a writ in this court his original application as it was
returned to him) 9ttached to the top of the document is a Opost4itO note with the handwritten
notation: Oapplication denied incomplete info4employment currently)O ! <he state informs us
that the note was written by Othe chief judge)O +n addition, petitioner alleges, and the allegation
is apparently true, that along with his OdeniedO application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, his civil complaint was returned to him unfiled) "inally, petitioner alleges, and has
attached documentation to support the allegation, that judgesB law cler7s often return to
prisoners unfiled motions along with letters purporting to rule on the legal sufficiency of those
motions) <he state argues in its answer to this petition that OpetitionerBs application ))) was
denied on the basis that the address of the (etitioner which was later given to the Court by
(etitioner ))) did not appear to be a jail and that such information was contrary to the
information shown in the application which stated that the (etitioner was in prison) <he Bout of
jailB address suggested an ability of the (etitioner to be employed)O <his vague reference to an
Oout of jailO address is not e'plained in the documents before this court) 3evertheless, the
stateBs assertion that petitionerBs application was denied is incorrect) <he handwritten notation
on petitionerBs unfiled application clearly does not constitute a proper judicial disposition of
that application) "urther, the action of the cler7 of the district court in returning petitionerBs
application and civil complaint to him unfiled is in direct violation of this courtBs instructions to
the cler7 of the district court in 6hitman v) 6hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2*)
<his court has several times confirmed the absolute obligation of the district courts to file
documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of citi:ens to access to the courts,
whether indigent or not) 2arnes v) District Court, 10& 3ev) ./,, /!% ()2d !%& (1,%/*C Auebner
v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) +ndeed, in Donoho v) District Court, 10% 3ev)
102/, %!2 ()2d /&1 (1,,2*, a case directly analogous to this case, we held that the cler7 of the
district court violated the rights of an indigent party when she neglected to file a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for relief from a default judgment)
1pecifically, we stated: OP<Qhe cler7 Pof the district courtQ had an absolute duty to file the
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to clearly stamp the date of receipt of the
other documents on the documents) "urther, the cler7 had a duty to 7eep an accurate record of
the case pending before the district court)O +d) at 102,, %!2 ()2d at /&& (citation omittedC
emphasis added*) <hus, petitionerBs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be
&0/!!2
filed) +f, on subseHuent review of the application, the district court determines that petitioner
has not shown he is indigent, the district court may order petitioner to provide further
information or may deny the application in an appropriately filed written order) +f, on the other
hand, the district court grants the application, the district court must then proceed to reHuire the
filing of petitionerBs other documents and to consider them in due course) Donoho, 10% 3ev) at
10&0, %!2 ()2d at /&&) #f course, for statute of limitations purposes, the complaint would have
to be considered filed on the date of actual receipt by the cler7 of the district court) <o continue
the analysis, with respect to petitionerBs civil complaint which he is attempting to file
concurrently, the district court cler7 had an absolute obligation to stamp the document
OreceivedO and to record the date on which the document was in fact received at the courthouse)
1ee Auebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) <his the cler7 of the district court
did) Aowever, the cler7 then had a duty to maintain a copy of the received document in the
record of the case, whether or not the document is ever filed) 6hitman v) 6hitman, 10% 3ev)
,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2*) <his, the cler7 neglected to do) 6hile Auebner dealt with the
timeliness of a notice of appeal, the rationale compelling this courtBs ruling in Auebner, that all
documents must be mar7ed received and dated, applies with eHual force to a partyBs submission
of a complaint) O<he legal rights of the parties to litigation, whether acting in proper person or
through counsel, often turn on the date of receipt by the cler7 of the district court of documents
and pleadings)O Auebner, 10/ 3ev) at &&0, %10 ()2d at 1211) 9s with a notice of appeal, the
untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from hearing the matter on its merits) +t is
the responsibility of the cler7 of the district court to 7eep an accurate record of all documents
submitted to her, whether or not they are filed) 9s in Auebner, ambiguities regarding when
documents were received or filed must ultimately be resolved in favor of the party submitting
them) +d) at &&2, %10 ()2d at 1212) <he issue presently before this court is not whether
petitionerBs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient to establish petitionerBs
indigence) "urther, we are not now concerned with the merits of petitionerBs civil complaint)
6e are vitally concerned, however, with the preservation of the constitutional right of access to
the courts and with the protection of the constitutional right to due process of law) 9 writ of
mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law reHuires as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station) 381 &!)1.0) <he cler7 of the district court has an
absolute duty to file petitionerBs application and to properly receive and 7eep a record of
petitionerBs complaint) 9ccordingly, we grant this petition for a writ of mandamus) . <he cler7
of this court shall serve a copy of petitionerBs application and complaint on the cler7 of the
district court forthwith) <he cler7 of this court shall also issue a writ of mandamus compelling
the cler7 of the district court to file petitionerBs application, and to receive petitionerBs
complaint) <hese documents will be considered to have been filed and received on =ay 15,
1,,5) 444444444444444 1 (etitioner also see7s a writ of prohibition enjoining the district court, the
cler7 of the district court and her employees from denying prisoners access to the courts in the
future) 6e deny petitionerBs reHuest for a writ of prohibition) 2 Cause appearing, we grant
petitionerBs proper person reHuest for leave to file a reply to the stateBs answer) <he cler7 of this
court shall file the reply, entitled OpetitionerBs reply to petition for writs of mandamus and
prohibition,O which was received by this court on 9ugust 21, 1,,5) & 9lthough the document
was entitled OapplicationO rather than Oaffidavit,O it was sworn to under penalties of perjury,
&0%!!2
provided information concerning petitionerBs financial condition and clearly sought a judicial
ruling regarding the Huestion of whether petitioner would be allowed to proceed with a civil
action without the payment of fees) <hus, any deviation as to form was not significant enough
to justify the cler7Bs failure to file the document) <he
cler7 of the court has no discretion to ma7e any judicial ruling regarding the legal sufficiency
of a document) 6hen a document in proper form is submitted to the cler7, the cler7 has a
ministerial duty to file that document) ! 6e note that petitioner is presently an inmate at the
3evada 1tate (rison, and that his affidavit filed in this court in support of this petition states
that he is currently unemployed and has no prison job) Ae also avers that his only asset is M.)5/
in his prison account) 5 #ne such letter from a law cler7 to an inmate states: O9ttached please
find your =otions to (roceed in "orma (auperis which you recently submitted) 381 12)015
reHuires an indigent litigant to set forth Bwith particularity facts concerning his income,
property, and other resources )))B Nour application to proceed sets forth this information very
generally)O O(lease resubmit the =otion with a more particular statement regarding your
finances and any property you own))))O 9lthough this letter does not directly deny the motion, it
clearly has the effect of denying the motion without filing) #f course, li7e the cler7 of the
district court, a judgeBs law cler7 lac7s judicial authority) . <he state represents that Othe
District Court will file the (etitionerBs complaint upon submittal by the petitioner)O <his
statement was based on the stateBs view that we determined in our #rder to 1how Cause that
petitioner should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis) 6e, however, e'press no opinion
regarding the merits of petitionerBs application or complaint) 6e merely determine that the
application should have been filed and judicially resolved, and the complaint should have been
properly received) 6e note that petitioner has sent the original documents to this court, and
thus may not be in a position to resubmit them) 9lso, for statute of limitations purposes, the
documents must be considered filed as of the date of original receipt) <hus, we have
determined that this petition must be granted)F 9nother very important and instructive case is
6hitman v) 6hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (3ev), 1,,2*: E#n rehearing, appellant has
submitted documents that conclusively demonstrate that appellant submitted a timely notice of
appeal to the cler7 of the district court) 9lthough the cler7 of the district court stamped the
notice of appeal OreceivedO on December &0, 1,,1, the cler7 did not file the notice of appeal)
+nstead, the cler7 of the district court returned appellantBs notice of appeal to appellant because
it was not accompanied by a filing fee and, although the notice was accompanied by a motion
for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, appellantBs affidavit in support of that motion
was apparently not signed) ConseHuently, there is no record of the submission of appellantBs
timely notice of appeal) 6e note that the cler7 of the district court filed appellantBs motion for
leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis on the date of receipt, December &0, 1,,1, and
that the district court eventually granted that motion) 6e have previously stated that Oit is
e'tremely important that the cler7 of the district court 7eep an accurate record of the date of
receipt of every document submitted to the cler7, regardless of whether the document is in the
appropriate form) +ndeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the cler7 of the district court to
neglect this ministerial duty)O Auebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, &&0, %10 ()2d 120,, 1211
(1,,1* (footnote omitted*) +n this case, the cler7 of the district court has failed to 7eep any
record of the date of receipt of appellantBs notice of appealC instead, the cler7 stamped the
&0,!!2
document OreceivedO and returned it to appellant) <he cler7 of the district court had no
authority to ta7e such action) 9lthough the cler7 of the district court had no duty to file
appellantBs notice of appeal before appellant paid the reHuisite filing fee or was relieved of the
duty to pay the filing fee by order of the district court, see 381 1,)01&(2*, the cler7 had a duty
to receive the document and to 7eep an accurate record of the case pending before the district
court) (articularly in this case it was essential that the notice of appeal be retained in the record,
because we have held that a notice of appeal is effective on the date of receipt by the district
court cler7) 1ee Auebner v) 1tate, P10% 3ev) ,52Q 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) 8ather
than returning the notice of appeal to appellant, the cler7 of the district court should have
retained the notice of appeal in the record, and should have informed appellant by letter of any
perceived deficiencies in the document) ! 9ppellant could then have ta7en whatever action was
appropriate to pursue his appeal) +n light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant timely
submitted to the cler7 of the district court a notice of appeal from an appealable order of the
district court, and that appellantBs timely notice of appeal is not contained in the record due to
the inappropriate action of the district court cler7) 9ccordingly, we grant appellantBs petition for
rehearing, and we proceed to address the merits of this appeal)F +d) 9t 12&2412&!) 1ee, also,
2arnes v) Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court of 1tate of 3ev), +n and "or Clar7 County, /!% ()2d !%&,
10& 3ev) ./, (3ev), 1,%/*)
1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
(R97 -otification of 9lectronic /iling in ?- R97 D?'C?P>?-9 =/ Z6C"6RI
C=E2">?-8 -o, +*.*
1ent: <hu 101112 5:05 (=
<o: patric77Lnvbar)orgC laurapLnvbar)orgC davidcLnvbar)orgC tsusichLnvdetr)orgC
Dear 2ar Counsel, Chairman 1usich, and Cler7 of Court (eters,
Cler7 of Court (eters made representations to Coughlin on or around 1eptember 11th, 2011
that she had mailed a certified copy of a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint on or about 9ugust 2&rd,
2012, but that she has received it bac7 in the mail as unclaimed on 1eptember 10th, 2012)
Cler7 (eters made representation to Coughlin that he would not be deemed OservedO the
Complaint by the 123 incident to any 9ugust 2&rd, 2012 mailing, but that she would resend
such 123 v) Coughlin Complaint sooner after the communications with Coughlin on or about
1eptember 11th, 2012, and that Coughlin would not be deemed OservedO until a signed returned
certified mail receipt was recieved by the 123) Coughlin is entitled to rely upon representation
made by the 123Bs Cler7 of Court (eters) "urther, (atric7 Ging made representations that the
earliest Coughlin would be viewed as OservedO an 123 v) Coughlin Complaint would be
1eptember 25th, 2012, providing Coughlin a guarantee that he had 20 days to file an 9nswer
&10!!2
from that date) 3ow it seems 2ar Counsel Ging is attempting to remi' this situation, and
potentially deem Coughlin OservedO all the way bac7 to, say, 5 days from when Cler7 of Court
(eters indicates she sent Coughlin via certified mail a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint or or about
9ugust 2&rd, 2012) #f Course, 2ar Counsel Ging has done no legal research to see if there
e'ists any authority to interpret this situation or 1C8 10,, but merely ma7es it up as he goes
along, contradicting himself along the well, and going bac7 on representations made by the
123, sullying its image)
+n anticipation of that very sort of approach, Coughlin filed a =otion to Dismiss on 1eptember
1/th, 2012 (which would be timely under even the most draconian interpretations of 1C8 10,,
even where the 123 is allowed to go bac7 on promises and e'press indications detailed above,
sometimes in writing, too*, and Cler7 of Court (eters indicated to Coughlin that 2ar Counsel
Ging forbade her from filing it, citing various specious arguments as to why 38C( 5(e* did not
have to be followed by the 123) 3ow, 2ar Counsel Ging has sent a confusing email on
#ctober %th, 2012 purporting a ;erified 9nswer to a 123 v Coughlin Complaint to be due by
O<uesday 1eptember ,, 2012O)))which is in the past))))and which is less than 20 days from even
the 9ugust 2&rd, 2012 date the Cler7 of Court (eters indicated to Coughlin she mailed, via
certified letter, a 123 v) Coguhlin Complaint)
(lease provide an indication of whether GingBs email of #ctober %th, 2012 contained a typo as
to the due date for an 9nswer, and whether the 123 views that date to have already passed,
and the e'tent to which the 123 and or the 33D2 is going bac7 on the indications by Ging
and Cler7 (eters as to when, at the earliest, such a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint woud be
deemed OservedO)
8espectfully,
-ach Coughlin
(1) + will provide my physical address, as + have indicated previously, if the 123 demands it,
but given the abuse of me by local law enforcement in my crusade for civil rights and
lawfulness and against prosecutorial misconduct, + have became fearful of having my physical
address all that well 7nown, plus + was adjudged a victim of domestic violence earlier this year
in ";124001%/ and ";124001%%, which further supports such an arrangment) (lease see my
previous correspondence with offers of presenting a reasonable manner in which the 123 can
readily and Huic7ly serve me)
Continuances7 9ttorney was not entitled to continuance of second hearing date in
attorney disciplinary proceedings to obtain counsel, on basis that second hearing was reset for
Danuary !, not later in the month, and attorney not able to find new counsel because no one
wanted to wor7 on his case over the holidays, where attorney stated on the record that he
needed no more than one wee7Bs notice of the continued hearing, and was aware from
&11!!2
3ovember 1/ that he needed to find counsel immediately, attorney was notified no later than
December . of new hearing date, and even from December ., attorney had four wee7s to
obtain new counsel and to prepare for the continued hearing) +n re Discipline of 1chaefer,
2001, 25 ()&d 1,1, 11/ 3ev) !,., modified on denial of rehearing &1 ()&d &.5, certiorari
denied 122 1)Ct) 10/2, 5&! @)1) 11&1, 151 $)Ed)2d ,/!)
<he facts of this case obviously reHuired a continuance, which Coughlin sought on
numerous occasions, but which was denied, as was the case with CoughlinBs filings see7ing to
be granted additional time to file a Everified answer or responseF should the (anel determine
that Coughlin had yet to do so (where Coughlin maintians that he had filed, more than once,
just such a Everified answer or responseF or the functional eHuivalent thereof: 1ee 8#9 at:
(3#<E: Coughlin submitted for filing, just prior to 5 p)m), on 11,12 a E;erified 9nswer or
8esponseF that was %% pages long and contained an e'hibit that the 123 has chosen to leave
out of the 8#9 completely or in any way alert the 31C< of, one that even further than had
already been done, denied all the allegations in the Complaint*)
2,%4&50Emerg) E' (arte =tn to Dismiss, "or =ore Definite 1tmt, ?ood Cause 111&12
/154/1% 9mended 1upple) to 8espondentBs Emergency =otion to 1et 9side 11&012
/1,4/&.3otice of 8=CBs "ailure "ile CoughlinBs <imely 3otice of 9ppeal (3", 111.12*
/&/4/,0(ost4Aearing 2rief, =tn DisHualify=istrial, <ranscript 8eH, 8econs #rder Uuashing,
2ifurc, , 8ule 10&(/* Challenge for Cause (3", submitted 111.12*
"urther, the 8#9 is, for no acceptable reason, missing the documents Coughlin
properly submitted for filing on 10&112, 11,12, 121/12, 1&1&, and 11/1&,
9lso, the fraud of the 123 and (anel is on full display where the 8#9 of 21&1& is
missing pages / and % of the transcript where such details such importance matters as GingBs
admitting the forcing the cler7 to unfile CoughlinBs the =otion to Dismiss Coughlin filed
Eimmediatel( afterF the 123 Emailed the complaint via certified and regular mailF and
CoughlinBs entering a s&ecial a&&earance, and therefore not waiving his rights to a dismissal
for insufficient service of process the missing portions (for conte't, the portion of the transcript
immediately preceding the pages the 123 purposefully and fraudulently removed from the
8#9 relates to service of the Complaint (AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age .:21 to .:25* =8) G+3?:
As the record reflects, 7r. .oughlin was served a co&( of the com&laint to the address that
he is mandated to &rovide to the 4tate Bar) =8) C#@?A$+3: + don;t %elieve that;s correct.
7. E.8E#E$A9 @lease don;t interru&t'...+= <NOTE9 Eing;s statement' ,as the record
reflectsF certainly is interesting when considering the 1+CBC12 6ffidavit of >aura Peters that is
included in the 8#9, but which was not served on Coughlin until four judicial days prior to the
hearing, in a bo' of &,0,! other pages of documentation, especially where GingBs statement
Eserved a copy of the complaint to the address that he is mandated to &rovideF certainly refers
to 1C8 10, service via @1(1 Certified =ail, rather than the attempt at forcing the 123 Cler7
&12!!2
of Court (eters to Epersonally serveF Coughlin the Complaint on ,2512 at the 123Bs 3orthern
#fficer upon Coughlin being duped into showing up for a hearing that Cler7 of Court (eters
admits she noticed Coughlin on and which she admits was on calendar (such events of ,2512
being detailed both in CoughlinBs 101.12 =otion for #rder <o 1how Cause and the 10,12
9ffidavit of $aura (eters**:
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, (@ages I9/ to 290>* E((93E$ CA9+8
ECAE;E88+9* )))=r) Coughlin) ?o ahead) =8) G+3?: 1ubseHuently, 7r. .oughlin
filed' immediatel( after we mailed the com&laint via certified and regular mail' 7r.
.oughlin filed a motion to dismiss the com&laint) =8) ECAE;E88+9: + thin7 his
argument here is that he wasnBt notified that Dudge 2eesley would be a potential witness)
=8) G+3?: 6e sent a supplemental notice to =r) Coughlin that we intended to call
Dudge 2eesley) =8) C#@?A$+3: $;m sorr(. $f $ can -ust inter-ect *uic)l() =8)
ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin) =8) C#@?A$+3: 44 %efore the &roceeding 44 =8)
ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) =8) ECAE;E88+9:
(lease donBt interrupt) =8) C#@?A$+3: 7a( $ record the &roceedingsJ =8) G+3?:
+Bm handing, with the chairmanBs permission, a copy of the supplemental notice) +n
addition, as + indicated, the &ur&ose of calling 7r. Beesle( is to assist the &anel to
understand 7r. .oughlin;s conduct in his court, and also as a potential rebuttal
witness) @nfortunately, Dudge 2eesley is in $as ;egas and is onl( availa%le between
,:00 and ,:&0) 1o what + would as7 the panel to do is to allow, as an offer of &roof,
allow Dudge 2eesley to testify) 9nd then if the panel subseHuently determines for some
reason that itBs not appropriate, rebuttal testimony 44 MR, C=E2">?-7 ?0m sorry, $
need to enter' this is a s&ecia l (3#<E: Coughlin said E)))special appearance to contest
jurisdiction, personal, subject matter, and authorityF * 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r)
Coughlin) =8) C#@?A$+3: 44 $ need to su%mit that for the record) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: (lease donBt interrupt) =8) C#@?A$+3: $ need to su%mit that for
the record) =8) ECAE;E88+9: :ou;ll get (our o&&ortunit() (3#<E: under some
authority, a litigants failure to immediately at the outset indicate the limited nature of
their appearance waives any such rights* =8) G+3?: Dudge 2eesley, my name is
(atric7 Ging) + represent the 1tate 2ar of 3evada in a disciplinary hearing involving
-ach Coughlin) Did you understand that that was the matter in which you were going to
testify to this morningJ D@D?E 2EE1$EN: Nes) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Dust a second,
=r) Ging) $et me state on the record that because of the time constraints, +Bm going to
rule that we can ta7e the)))F
(-=)97 so8 two ver(' ver( im&ortant issues #ere addressed in those two
&ages of the transcri&t which the 4BN &ur&osefull( e6cised from the 2C1.C1. R=6)
9t some point, when a bro7en cloc7 has never, ever been right, one is entitled to accuse
the cloc7 of something funny) 1uch pages / and % of the &&2 page transcript should be
included in the 8#9 between pages 1&/% and 1&/, therein (Ging and Cler7 (eters also
too7 out a .0 page 6ord +nde' at the bac7 of such transcript that is of enormous utility
to one whom cares about the truth, rather than accomplishing the goals on their agenda,
no matter what the truth is, li7e Ging and Clar7 see7 to do*) 9lso missing from the
transcript of the formal hearing of 111!12, are pages &1 and &2 therefrom (which
&1&!!2
should have appeared in the 8#9 between pages 1!00 and 1!01, where such pages also
include 7ey material conveniently removed by the 123, where such read:
EAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 25,:2 to 25,:,* =8) G+3?: + would object on two grounds)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: $etBs identify what it is heBs offering) + still donBt 7now) =8)
C#@?A$+3: + would li7e to offer this one that has a file stamp of #ctober &1st, 2012,
prehearing motion to dismiss summary judgment, memorandum of law) +Bll interlineate
verified response) =8) G+3?: DonBt change it now, =r) Coughlin))))O GingBs OdonBt
change it nowO is Huite rich when considering all the Otrue and correctO copies of
documents he submitted in his E'hibit 1 Opac7et and in other e'hibits ("AEBs 2,&,!, 5, .,
/ (not sure about %*, ,, 10, 11, 12, 1& (though, the 8#9 should be stric7en or the 123
made to correct it where the new bates stamping is so conveniently place in such
21&1& 8#9 in a position and manner that obscures completely (ie, its not just written
over atop thereof, but a strip the entire width of each page is superimposed over and te't
previously there leaving only a 1. point font four digit bolded bates stamping where
previously, in many instances, was the bates stamping on the items Ging included in his
"AE1 (ac7et, and on, upon information and belief, the e'hibit listed above (certainly, if
Ging had a bates stamped reference somehow proving he provided Coughlin the 21!12
letter from Judge Nash Holmes to the SBN in the &,0,! page production delivered to
Coughlin only four judicial days prior to the 111!12 hearing, it would do little to
establish some 8(C %)1 violation by Coughlin, but it would be more than Ging managed
to get into evidence, it seems, sufficient to provide evidence to support the contention
the 123 made in its Complaint, which is not only vague, but untrue where such reads, at
8#9 1: E2, Res%ondent #as advised of the grievances via E,', mail8 e1mail and by a
brief meeting #ith Mr, !ing at the 'tate 1ar =ffice in Reno, Res%ondent did not
coo&erate with the investigation and rather than respond to the grievances as
re<uested8 Res%ondent sent non4res%onsive and dis%araging e4mails)F #ne,
Coughlin denied each and every allegation in the Complaint, in some instances, on
numerous occasions, in documents submitted for filing with the 123) <hat being the
case, the 123 and (anel are not entitled to rely upon GingBs Complaint as EevidenceF
sufficient to meet the Eclear and convincing evidenceF burden of proof) 1o, without
Ging even see7ing to admit any letter he purports to have sent to Coughlin reHuesting
Coughlin to respond to Dudge 3ash AolmesB grievance, or some EgrievanceF by 2DDC
Dudge $) ?ardner, er, by Ging, er, by)))um))) Eoh, never mind about that one, now that
you caught me lying about whether or not it was a grievance EreceivedF from Dudge $)
?ardner herself, and now that the shadiness of Dudge 3ash Aolmes forwarding Dudge $)
?ardnerBs three year old sanctions order in "AE& to the 123 after Dudge $) ?ardner
provided such to her !rother 8=C Dudge 6) ?ardner (where both Dudge 3ash Aolmes
and 6) ?ardner admit 6) ?ardner provided such e'tra4judicial information to all the
other 8=C Dudges (including those li7e G) Aoward, whom still is presiding over 8=C
11 C8 221/. (which begat .0%&%* and needs to adjudicate the very 22112 =otion for
3ew <rial by Coughlin that even further than CoguhlinBs multiple other filings with the
8=C (including a filing in the very 11 <8 2.%00 traffic citation case on 1,12 in which
Dudge 3ash Aolmes professed to have such difficulty ElocatingF Coughlin and only
&1!!!2
managed to mail one copy of such dubious 22%12 #rder to an address from which she
7new Coughlin had been wrongfully evicted on 11111, involving the very 8ichard ?)
Aill, EsH), whom she references in such 22%12 #rder and to whom she referred on the
record during the 22/12 trial when she threatened Coughlin: Eif you say 8ichard ?)
AillBs name one more time you are going to jail^F, which is rather intersting when
considering the 22%12 #rder purports Coughlin to have
2ates .204.21 of the 11/12 &,0,! page production email from Coughlin to 123 Ging
of !1.12 1ubject: =r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12 letter wherein Coughlin writes:
E9nyway, $ den( guilt on each an every allegation made against me by "ill8 Judge -ash
"olmes8 and #hoever else has filed a grievance or com%laint and also #ith res%ect to any
criminal charge against me8 including that #hich resulted in a conviction in 11 CR 22178
#hich8 ? thin& #ill ultimately reveal #as re%lete #ith %rosecutorial misconduct8 lying by
the Kal4Mart loss %revention associate8 and lying by the t#o R'?C %olice officers8 in
additional to abuse of discretion and other errors by Judge "o#ard,,,,?n addition8 Mr,
!ing no# informs me that he has o%ened a grievance on behalf of Judge >inda M,
2ardner8 ?ncident to a =rder for 'anctions she entered in 6%ril 2++B, 7r. Eing has
refused to indicate to me who su%mitted this Order for 4anctions or otherwise &rovided it to
Bar .ounsel as a .om&laint or Grievance or otherwise.F <herein Coughlin further details to
e'tended delays (due to the @1(1, 6estern 3evada =anagement, ?ayle Gern, EsH)Bs
wrongfully interferring with CoughlinBs right to receive his own mail and that born of the
domestic violence directed against Coughlin by his former housemates at 1!22 E) ,
th
1t) I2
detailed in the two <emporary (rotection #rders Coughlin obtained against them in ";124
001%/, ";124001%/* receiving the &1.12 correspondence from the 123Bs Ging found at
bates 2/,& (GingBs &1.12 letter to Coughlin indicating the #2C Ehas received several
grievances concerning your conduct as a lawyer)))+ will ma7e available for your review and
inspection the supporting documents and audio recordingsF*
(age 1/&. of the 21&1& 8#9 is enormously problematic considering there is no
indication such was attached to the 10,12 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default, and it is e'tremely
prejudicial to allow for the inclusion of (not to mention the presentation of it to the (anel* of
such a fugitive document, is not an affidavit, its not even signed, and its not sworn, and it goes
to one of the very biggest issue of the case, one that affects the legitimacy of the entire case, the
121!12 "#"C#$, and the holding of a formal disciplinary hearing on 111!12, ie, whether
the Complaint was ever properly served*)
#f course, CoughlinBs =otion for #rder to 1how Cause (which the 123 had to
include in the 8#9 because EcheverriaBas 10&112 #rder referred to it and denied it
(otherwise, such would not have even been included in the 8#9) 9s it stands, Ging ordered
Cler7 of Court (eters to simply not file stamp it*, which Echeverria gave a 101.12 date of
filing, describes nearly verbatim the insufficiency of service of process problems that motivated
Ging and (eters to e'cise pages / and % from the version of the transcript of the 111!12
formal disciplinary hearing included in the 21&1& 8#9, where such =otion reads (see 8#9
!,450*:
&15!!2
E/) Coughlin appeared at the northern officer the 1tate 2ar for the calendared,
agreed upon, noticed, and set 4e&tem%er 0>' 05/0 8earing notice to him and the 33D2Bs
Chairman 1usich and reHuired by this CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder and 1C8 111(%*)
6hile Coughlin sat waiting in the lobby out wal7ed Cler7 of Court (eters and 2ar
Counsel (atric7 Ging, Ging holding a stac) of &a&ers then handing them to .ler)
@eters, and Ging whom greeted Coughlin and entere a conversation that when
appro'imately li7e this :
E!ing7 -ach) Cler7 (eters: + am su&&osed to hand you this Complaint) !ing7 NourBre
served (motioning to Cler7 (eters to hand Coughlin the stac7 of papers*) Nou are
officially served) 4he;s the .ourt .ler)) NouBre served) Coughlin: 9w)) + thin7 one
has to be served by a non.party under 1C8 10,) !ing7 3o, youBre served, she;s the
.ler) of .ourt, so ta7e it) 4he;s serving (ou, your are officially served and so + will
issue a default judgment against you if you donBt accept it) (eters: + mailed it out)
Coughlin: +s my hearing going to be held right nowJ !ing7 "irst, ta7e this) Coughlin:
6hat about m( 8earing that;s what $;m here for right now) !ing7 "irst, ta7e this)
Coughlin + thin7 (ou actuall( can;t serve &eo&le when the( are showing u& for a
8earing) Ging yes + can absolutely can) Coughlin: $ have cases that sa( (ou can;t)
!ing7 + absolutely can) Things don;t go (our wa( %ecause (ou don;t acce&t
res&onsi%ilit( (Eing gra%s the stac) of &a&ers from @eters and attem&t to insert
them into .oughlin;s suit -ac)et after &ulling the middle %utton on .oughlin;s
%laJer awa( from .oughlin;s torso8 #hereu%on !ing gives u% on that a%%roach*)
+Bll drop it at your feet here your served (Ging bends down and places the stac7 of
papers on top of Coughlin dress shoes*) Coughlin: you are a party though it has to be
a non4party thatBs the law !ing7 -ach) DonBt play games^ Coughlin: +tBs not a game,
(at, itBs the law) (eters: -ach, pleaseJ Coughlin: 6here is my hearingJ !ing7 Ai
(aula where you witness that $;m serving or that rather Laura is serving -ach
Coughlin with the Complaint) (aula: 1ureJ ($oo7ing bewildered beyond all measure*)
Ging Aere is this, ta7e it, ta7e it, -ach) Coughlin: 6e go to have my hearing todayJ
!ing7 "irst order of business is for you to accept the Complaint Coughlin: "or you
may be (at, but youBre not the one who hasnBt had a law license last four months over
a cand( %ar so_ Ging are going to ta7e the complaint itBs a formal complaint +Bm
been a default you him him) Nou can pretend you didnBt get it else is ta7e a default
Coughlin: @at' $ filed a motion to dismiss. 4eems li)e (ou are tr(ing to &ut .ler) of
.ourt @eters in )ind of a %ad s&ot) !ing7 No' (ou haven;t filed it it;s %een re-ected'
.oughlin9 B( who' the &rosecutorF The &rosecutor re-ected it' @atF Eing9 Listen
the .ler) of .ourt @eters re-ected it %ecause it doesn;t sa( what it;s dismissing. :ou
are not even ac)nowledging that (ou have %een served so ta)e the .om&laint and
then (ou can answer it. :ou;re %een served right now Coughlin: well + guess youBre
free to argue that, that you a &art( that is serving me) !ing7 3o, the .ourt .ler) is
serving (ou) Nour at the 4tate Bar office being served with a Complaint Coughlin: +
+Bve got cases this the you can serve a criminal defendant when they show up to a civil
proceeding !ing7 <his is 1tate 2ar) Coughlin: #h, + get it) 6eBre playinB prison rules,
&1.!!2
huhJ $i7e in that movie <he Cable ?uy when Dim Carrey is playing pic7up ball and
says O#h, weBre playing prison rules,huhJO <o the guys who just fouled him so hardJ
$ guess' we are C&la(in; ;&rison rules;C down here at the 4tate Bar' huhJ 9re we
going to have my hearing todayJ 2ecause the Aearing is limited in scope and
purpose, rightJ !ing7 -ach, listen to the .ourt .ler)) Coughlin: #7ay) Peters7 #hen
you and ? tal&ed about the date for 'e%tember 25th that #as a tentative thing, ?
have not formally noticed that, ? never did) !ing7 2ecause you did not answer the
Complaint)))2ecause you did not ans#er the Com%laint by me e'plain =r)
Coughlin the suspension that you received from the 1upreme Court which is their
#rder so if ya have a problem with the 1upreme Court))) Coughlin: + did with the
1C8 102(!*(d* (etitionJ !h( didn;t (ou answer that' @atF Now' $ win on that on
default' tooJ !ing7 <hatBs the 1upreme Court))) <hey suspended you
pending)))(ending a disciplinary Complaint which is what that is (motioning to a
stac7 of papers Ging had earlier laid at CoughlinBs feet*)M
(OAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 2!/:10 to 252:1%* <hen + thin7 that goes a
large e@tent to ho# the &rocedural rules a%%ly here) 2ecause if you file a motion
to dismiss, and it winds up jamming you up for time) 9nd 7r. Eing is a%le to
mani&ulate this &rocess such that heBs the one who pic7s the hearing date) Ae is the
one who sets up the notice of hearing way before the panel is even empaneled) <hen +
get jammed up or the chairman who is ruling on things before + even have an
opportunity to file a reply to his opposition) 9nd then one, +Bll testify under penalty of
perjury 5 didn't get the notice of intent to ta4e default+ +Bll testify that + went to the
@nited 1tates (ost #ffice and attempted to pic7 up on at least 44 on multiple
occasions) #n one occasion a <im at the ;assar station in downtown 8eno apparently
couldnBt find the envelope) <he ne't time + went bac7, he did find the envelope that
had a postmar7 date of 104,412, #ctober ,th, 2012, and it had postage of about 1)25)
+t was a certified mailing upon information and belief it was the notice of intent to
ta4e default) +Bll note that in the file that was given to me !y Mr+ "ing this certificate
of mailing on that document indicates it was sent !y only one method certified mail)
6here + believe every other documentBs been sent, if you loo7 at the certificates of
mailing attached at the end of the documents has been sent in two 44 by two methods,
first class mail and certified mail) 1o itBs a little strange that notice of intent to ta7e
default 44 maybe this is some 7ind of old school 2ar counsel tric7) + donBt 7now) 2ut it
was only sent by one method, certified mail) 1o + go to pic7 it up once, the guy
doesnBt find it) + go the ne't wee7, and this is the guy <im 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9:
Aow did you 7now to pic7 it upJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 2ecause + got the little slip) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: #7ay) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd then the ne't time he did find it)
9nd right before he gave it to me he noticed that it only has 44 itBs a large manila
envelope, he noticed it only has M1)25 (ostage on it) <hat means itBs insufficient
postage, and he won't give it to me unless 5 pay the difference which is li4e some five
dollars that 5 don't have) 1o it gets sent bac7) + chec7 the @1(1 and confirm for that
&1/!!2
number, and Mr, !ing and the 'tate 1ar received it on -ovember Bth, 7r. Eing;s
%een ver(' ver( evasive a%out this' and $ %elieve ver( dishonest. $ saw Tim notate
the insufficienc( of &ostage. :esterda( 7r. Eing told me he didn;t see an(thing
a%out insufficienc( of &ostage on the envelo%e, 6nd the #hole %oint is ? never got
notice of intent to ta&e default) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou replied to it) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 6hatBs thatJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou replied to it) =8)
C#@?A$+3: + replied to your orders) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o, you replied before
+ entered the order) Nou replied and provided your own witness list that parroted the
witness list 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 itBs probably 44 sorry) =8) ECAE;E88+9:
44 that parroted the witness list that the 1tate 2ar proffered, you filed your own) =8)
C#@?A$+3: + thin7 + was replying to the witness list, the Dow1oE) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: 9nd that came with the notice of intent to ta7e default) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 3o) <he Dow1oE 44 along with the Dow1oE they sent a notice of
hearing) Neah, notice of hearing) 9nd this is pursuant to 1C8 1052(c*) +t says the
&anel after %eing em&aneled shall &rovide at least D5 da(s from when it' the &anel'
not Bar counsel' serves the "ow4oE and the notice of hearing %( the same method
in which the com&laint is served. !hich under 4. /53 can be by certified mail)
9lthough $ don;t %elieve it can %e when, and +Bll testify under penalty of perjury on
the phone, if not also in writing, .ler) @eters told me $ could rel( on the fact' $
could %an) on it that the 4tate Bar of Nevada would not assert that 210D1/0
certified mailing would %e &roffered as affecting service of the com&laint on me in
an( wa( at an( time) 9t that time on the phone, +Bm swearing this under penalty of
perjury, she said we are going to send it out to (ou again' the certified mailing) +
actually undertoo7 a lot of research in this regard, because there is case law that says
when the 2ar 44 not in this jurisdiction) 2ut when the 2ar sends you a certified
mailing, + thin7 they can say within three days you are served, whether you ever
pic7ed it up or not, you 7now) 1o + was worried about that, you 7now) But $ called
and tal)ed to .ler) @eters. And $ %elieve when a court' &articularl( a cler) of court'
ma)es an e6&ress e6&licit re&resentation to (ou that (ou can rel( on something'
that (ou;re entitled to, you 7now) 9nd + thin7 itBs 44 it doesnBt set a good precedent for
the 1tate 2ar to essentially be pulling the rug out from under people li7e me) 9t that
time on, + believe it was 1eptember 11th, she said, oh, + got bac7 that certified mailing
of the complaint) <hat was, + guess, sent %42&, the date that itBs stamped, the
complaint) 1he got it bac7) 1he said it was returned as undelivered or something) 9nd
+ said you thin7 (at is going to try to ta7e a defaultJ <his or thatJ 9nd she said
definitivel(' no' we;ll not do that. :ou are not served 44 she said, + believe, and +
would li7e to chec7 my notes, but she said (ou;re not served until we get that
signature on the thing. And if we don;t get the signature on the thing after the
second time we;re going to mail it to (ou' then we;ll send out for service a notice of
intent to ta)e default) 9nd only upon that not being pic7ed up would, + guess, a
default be ta7en) 1o + felt completely entitled to rely upon that) Aowever, =r) Ging,
and this is found in Laura @eters; affidavit $ found in the file that + have only si'
days to review) =r) Ging has coyly prevented me from accessing this file since
&1%!!2
=arch) Nes, he gave me some audio, and + appreciate that) + donBt appreciate the
e'tent to which heBs preventing me from getting it into the record here today)
@articularl( where it;s something reall( disgusting going on) Khere the Gudge is
saying something that0s Gust not true, ?t0s Gust not true) (enalty of perjury, it is
completely false for her to say that she as7ed me if + was recording or had a recording
device at any time prior to the one bathroom brea7) <hatBs just not true) <here was a
bathroom brea7) 9nd immediately after + got bac7 from that bathroom brea7 she
starts interrogating me sua sponte about recording) + should say 41 $ would li)e to &la(
it for (ou to )now e6actl( what was said' e@actly #hat my res%onse #as 44)))O
O(3o 1ubject*
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:!! (=
<o: laurapLnvbar)org (laurapLnvbar)org*C patric77Lnvbar)org
(patric77Lnvbar)org*
Dear 2ar Counsel Ging and Cler7 of Court+nvestigator (eters and Chairman
Echeverria,
8espondent, Coughlin the Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence
(Do61oE* (and Coughlin has yet to received a file stamped version of that Dow1oE)
"urther, Coughlin has never received any 3otice of +ntent to <a7e Default (3o+<D*
from the 123) 9s such, the notice and other procedural safeguards attendant to the
Aearing set for 111!12 are severely deficient) <his is just the 1&th chime of the
cloc7, and + have had as many Oget right with DesusO (or any other number of
nondenominational 1aviors* tal7s with 2ar Counsel Ging and Cler7 (eters as anyone
deserves) 9dd to that this new thing where first 2ar Counsel says, as reHuired by
1C8 105(2*(c*Bs:
O<he notice shall be accompanied by a summary prepared by bar counsel of the
evidence against the attorney, and the names of the witnesses bar counsel intends to
call for other than impeachment, together with a brief statement of the facts to which
each will testify, all of which may be inspected up to & days prior to the hearing) O
1ee, it doesnBt say, in 1C8 105, 2ar Counsel can puff on about the 8espondentBs right
to inspect, then pull the carpet out from under 8espondentBs feet suddenly and claim
to be OcopyingO only certain things, and refusing to allow inspection of others (even
where the 1C8 105 Complaint specifically invo7es such non copied materials*, and
then cut short the time up to which 8espondnet may inspect) $etBs say 2ar Counsel
did copy and provide those materials on #ctober &1st, 2012) #7ay, well 1C8 105
allows Coughlin to go to the 123 and inspect Oup to & days priorO)))so Coughlin may
go to the 123 tomorrow, #ctober /th, 2012 and inspect, noJ 9nd any refusal by the
123 is a violation of 1C8 105, rightJ (lease advise in writing)
&1,!!2
(lease see 1upreme Court 8ule (1C8* 11,(2*, which holds that 2ar Counsel and the
(anelBs failure to follow these rules Omay result in contempt of the appropriate
disciplinary board or hearing panel having jurisdiction)))O (lease note there has
already been a =otion for #rder to 1how Cause filed against 2ar Counsel and or the
2oard or (anel in .0%&% and .1!2.) 9dditionally, please be aware that 1C8 11,(&*
holds: &)ee#ther rules of procedure)eeE'cept as otherwise provided in these rules,
the 3evada 8ules of Civil (rocedure and the 3evada 8ules of 9ppellate (rocedure
apply in disciplinary cases)
+n that regard, the decision on the motion to bifurcate dispalyed a clear lac7 of regard
for procedural safeguards in that it was issued prior to the e'piration of five judicials
days from the constructive service upon Coughlin, under 38C( .(e* of 2ar Counsels
#ctober 2!th, 2012 alleged mailing) <he term OallegedO is used do to a recent visit to
the 123 on #ctober &1st, 2012 at around !:!5 pm when + saw in the 123 outgoing
mail bo' two certified letter to myself that Cler7 of Court (eters admitted would not
be pic7ed up that day by the regular postal carrier to the 123, despite what they
certificates of mailing therein might state) +t is particularly troubling to me that the
3otice of Aearing did not have the Designation of 6itnesses and 1ummary of
Evidence included with it, and therefore, my right to have the Do61oE &0 days prior
to the hearing, and to receive it from the (anel, along with the 3otice of Aearing,
rather than have 2ar Counsel try to jam me up with less than the reHuired notice (and
jam the (anel up to for the matter, though there has been little indication so far that
the (anel cares or has much an intent to do anything more than let 2ar Counsel Ging
lead them down the same primrose path that Cler7 (eters can tell you about)))*) +t is a
path that 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH) often ta7es people down too)))
+ would be very interest to 7now who was on the screening (anel)))which 2ar Counsel
Ging promised to tell me, though, li7e most all of (atBs promises, he has
bro7en)))could it have been David Aamilton, EsH)J 8ichard ?) AillBs best friend,
David AamiltonJ 6as it 6CD9 =ary GandarasJ <he one included in the
correspondences about my smartphone and micro sd data card being searched and or
sei:ed illegally and or outside any lawful search incident to arrest given the hand of
an boo7ing it into CoughlinBs property on 22/12, only for the 8=C =arshals to
return on 22%12 (at the soonest* to ta7e it bac7 to Dudge 3ash AolmesJ 6hatBs
+t is my understanding that Chief 2ar Counsel David Clar7 gave me permission to
issue subpoenas and granted me indigent status as to witness fees)))if this is not within
the power of 2ar Counsel or is otherwise against the #rders of the (anel or 2oard,
please let me 7now very soon) (lease 1ee 1C8 110 and in that regard, + am
reHuesting a prehearing conference for the purpose of gathering admissions from 2ar
&20!!2
Counsel and narrowing the issues, and in that regard, + recently sent 2ar Counsel and
at least (anel Chair Echeverria materials related to what + see as a frivilous issue, the
ghostwriting allegations vis a vis 2oard =ember 1helly #B3eillBs client, Dohn ?essin)

"urther, + believe there is a conflict here with 2ar Counsel Ging, for a variety of
reasons that + have voiced to (resident of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada "laherty, in that
light:
2)ee+f, for any reason, bar counsel is disHualified or has a conflict of interest, the
board of governors shall appoint an attorney, ad hoc, to act in the place of bar
counsel)
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
8eno, 3; %,512
<el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
-ach has 5 files to share with you on 17yDrive) <o view them, clic7 the lin7s below)
supplemental to CoughlinBs designation fo witnesses and summary and
production of evidence and notice of objection 020! C#88EC<ED C9(<+#3)pdf
020! 1@2(#E39 6+<A D+1C$9+=E8)pdf
Download allO
<he e'tremely apparent behind the scenes voodoo, +nside 2aseball, shenanigans
engaged in between 6ashoe $egal 1ervices, 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner, 1pringgate, and the 2DDC
"iling #fficeBs =ichelle (urdy (whom manages to 7eep a straight face when alleging that
Coughlin somehow twists her words* is especially evident upon reviewing the circumstances
surrounding CoughlinBs timely 5200, 8eply to 1pringgateBs 51&0, #pposition to CoughlinBs
!&00, =otion for 8econsideration, etc):
3#<E by Coughlin: despite having a 5200, filing stamped date, which made
timely CoughlinBs 8eply to 1pringgateBes 51&0, #pposition to CoughlinBs =otion for
8econsideration, Dudge ?ardnerBs 5210, #rder Denying CoughlinBs =otion actually has a
numerically prior efle' number assigned to it, owing to the 2DDC originally rejecting
CoughlinBs filing just long enough to snea7 Dudge $) ?ardnerBs 5210, #rder through, to wit,
efle': D;0%4011.%410/,.2/ (#rd Denying )))*)(df D;0%4011.%410%&20. (8eply)))*)(df)*)pdf
D;0%4011.%410%&20. (8eply)))*)pdf
Aow all this influence peddling and abusing the power in oneBs position by failing to
&21!!2
abide by the duties inherent thereto is much different from ta7ing bribes is not readily apparent
to most) Aowever, what it clear is that a long line of former 6ashoe County District 9ttorneyBs
#ffice prosecutors turned judges have brought the same dirth of prosecutorial ethics they culled
in their years there to their time on the bench, and they usually seem to be surrounded by filing
office cler7s who augment their, uh, approach)
6itness former 6CD9Bs #ffice prosecutor turned 8DC Chief Dudge (earsonBs
dropping on Coughlin (via courthouse service by Deputy 9ugustin =edina, naturally, where
8DC Chief 2ailiff 1e'ton, and 8eyes have obstructed Coughlin and CoughlinBs agentBs ability to
serve =otions to DisHualify on 8DC Dudge (earson, Clifton, and 1ferra::a (a handy tric7 the
not too original 8=C 9dministrative Dudge 6) ?ardner (whom copied verbatim Dudge
1ferra::aBs especially specious 122012 9dministrative #rder 2012401 in his very own
9dministrative #rder 201&401, followed suit with in obstructing on multiple occasions,
including on 511&, 521&, 51&1&, and %1!1& CoughlinBs attempts to serve =otions to
DisHualify in the wretched abuse of process that is 8C9 Dan 6ongBs dual prosecutions of
Coughlin in 1& C8 &,1&, and &,1! for dubious allegations that Coughlin allegedly submitting
documents for filing with 123 Cler7 of Court (eters somehow violated the specious
6or7place Aarassment (rotection #rders granted the 123 on 122012 and 11!1& in
8C(20124000.0/ (Cler7 of Court (eters adopts the same fraudulent approach ta7en by 8=C
Cler7 Donna 2allard, 8DC Cler7Bs Christine Eric7son, Cathy 6ood, and 8obbin 2a7er, and the
2DDCBs =ichelle (urdy and former 2DDC Cler7 turned "ernley =unicipal Court Dudge $ori
=atheus in admitting to destroying documents she purports to believe Coughlin submitted for
filing*)
"urther, .ler) of .ourt @eters has now committed &er-ur( in furtherance of the
fraudulent attempts to obstruct justice she and 9sst) 2ar Counsel Ging have underta7en in their
abuse of process within the 6or7place Aarassment (rotection #rder in 8C(20124000.0/ (8DC
Dudge 1ferra::a, in a /2,1& #rder denying CoughlinBs 381 &&)2/0(,* =otion to =odify or
Dissolve such E(# added to his spree owhere (eters lied in her sworn testimony on the record
at the 1!1& e'tension hearing in contradicting the statements she made to the 8(D respecting
the purported attempt by Coughlin to have a Ethird partyF submit a 38C( 52, 5,, etc) =otion
on the final day of of the ten day deadline to submit such a filing pursuant to the 121!12
"#"C#$ by Chair Echeverria in the Etrial courtF portion of the matter now on appeal .2&&/)
Consider the statements attributed to the 123Bs Cler7 of Court $aura (eters in 8(D Detective
<homas NturbideBs police report 3arrative concerning the 1&1& purported attempt by
Coughlin to have a third4party submit a document for filing with the 123Bs Cler7 of Court just
prior to 5 p)m) on the final day to timely submit a 38C( 52 or 5, =otion in connection with
the 121!12 "#"C#$ in the matter now on appeal in .2&&/) (=atter of Nengo, /2 3)D) !25
3ote: 8eno Dustice Court Dudge David CliftonBs ordering M107 bail for suspended attorney
-ach Coughlin on 21212 +3 8C8201240.5.&0 for allegedly being late to court for the
vindictive prosecution against Coughlin for Omisuse of ,11 servicesO where Coughlin had been
arrested on 211&, vindicitively by Dept 9lt) 1entencing, spent five days in jail, obtained #rder
for Competency Evalu on 251&, which Clifton violated, arrerrested wrongfully again on
2%1& (alleged violat) #f epo 123 obtained from (earson, where 8(D Detective Nturbide
&22!!2
wilfully overcharged Coughlin with a felony and gross misdemeanor where both alleged
violations were specifically identified as mere simple misdemeanors on the <(# and E(#
Nturbide himself possessed and claims to have been a OdetectiveO conducting an OinvestigationO
relative to) 8DC Dudges Clifton and (earson both admit to directly appointing their favorite rope
a dope, 8) 2ruce $indsay, EsH) <o CoughlinBs cases, in violation of Canon 2 8ule 2)1&
(O9dministrative 9ppointments* as so thoroughly critici:ed in the 200. $)9) <imes article on
the subject)* Detective Nturbide wrote:
O-arrative: E'tended #rder is valid until 2&5, hours on 0140!4201! "#$$#64
@( DE<9+$1: #n 014254201& + was assigned the original case for 1&4100&0.) During
my investigation + determined the above information about the (rotection #rder through
court records) 9fter spea7ing with the witness $aura (eters, who wor7s for the 1tate 2ar
of 3evada at ,!5. Double 8 2lvd) I2, + found that -achary violated the order on two
separate occasions)
#n 0140&4201& at about /I55 hours as $aura was closing the office at the above
location an un7nown male individual contacted her through the front glass door which
faces to the south of the building) <he male as)ed to file a document with the office and
he was denied due to the hour and the office closing) The male said nothing else, but
&laced the document through the mail slot) $aura pic7ed up the document and saw it
was a motion by -achary Coughlin representing himself in a case that he %elieves is
%eing handled %( this office) $aura )new this to be a violation of the above listed order
as she has had previous contact with -achary and 7new of the e'isting order)
$ater that same night as Laura was leaving the above office she saw the
un)nown male get in to a vehicle that she )new was own %( Lachar( .oughlin) $aura
7new this as she has had previous contacts with -achary and this vehicle) Laura said
she saw the un&no#n male get in as a %assenger of this vehicle8 %ut did not see the
driver)
<his corroborated that this motion was %eing filed on behalf of -achary by an
agent of his)
+n the temporary order it states that, O?t is further ordered that you8 the
6dverse Party ;Zachary Coughlin<8 are %rohibited8 either directly or through an
agent8 from contacting8 intimidating8 using8 attem%ting to use8 or threatening the
use of %hysical force8 or other#ise interfering in any #ay #ith the em%loyer8 an
em%loyee of the em%loyer #hile the em%loyee is %erforming his duties of
em%loyment and any %erson #hile the %erson is %resent at the #or&%lace of the
em%loyer8 including8 but not limited to8 in %erson8 by tele%hone8 through the mail 8
through electronic mail ;e4mail<8 facsimile ;fa@<8 or through another %erson,O
-achary violated this by having an agent contact the office located at ,!5.
Double 8 2lvd)
6hile spea7ing with $aura she told me she had already attended the hearing for
the e'tension of the protection order and had received the e'tension on the protection
&2&!!2
order until 0140!4201!)
>aura #ent on to tell me that on the morning of 5/1/I105/D #hen she came
in to #or& at about E:EE hours there #as a fa@ being %rinted from the fa@ machine
that #as su%%osed to be .71 %ages) Laura saw that the cover page was addressed
from O:achcoughlinO and canceled the rest of the fa6 and un&lugged the machine ,
>aura )new this #as a violation to the e@tended %rotection because of the follo#ing,
+n the E'tended #rder for (rotection 9gainst Aarassment in the 6or7place it
states, Othe 9dverse (arty (-achary Coughlin*, are prohibited, either directly or through
an agent, from contacting, intimidating, using, attempting to use, or threatening the use
of physical force, or otherwise interfering in any way with the employer, an employee of
the employer while the employee is performing his duties of employment and any
person while the person is present at the wor7place of the employer, including, but not
limited to, in person, by telephone, through electronic mail (e4mail*, facsimile (fa'*, or
through another person) 9dverse (arty may submit documents to the 1tate 2ar only
through the @)1) =ail but those documents must not contain threats or other intimidating
statements)
6hile referring to the e6tended &rotection order it is a violation for -achary to
have sent a facsimile (fa'* to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada located at ,!5. Double 8) 2lvd)
-achary could have mailed this to the office utili:ing the @)1) =ail and it would not
have been a violation of the protection order)
9fter the two above mentioned violations, one for the temporary order and one
for the e'tended protection order, $aura advised that there was also a phone call from a
subject representing themselves as -achary Coughlin on 014&04201&) + have not been
able to identify this subject positively as -achary Coughlin)
9ttached with this report are copies of the restraining orders and the affidavits of
service) Copies of these were also boo7ed in to evidence along with the documents
dro&&ed off %( the un)nown male su%-ect at the 4tate Bar of Nevada on 5/15D105/D
and a co&( of the facsimi201&) 9lso boo7ed in to evidence are copies of condensed
&2!!!2
&25!!2
&2.!!2
transcript and findings of fact and conclusion of law for the 1tate 2ar of 3evada
3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard cases concerning -achary Coughlin)
1@==98N: #n 0140&4201& -achary Coughlin violated the temporary
protection order served against him as documented bove) #n 0141/4021& -achary
Coughlin violated the e@tended %rotection order served against him as documented
above)
C91E @(D9<E: #n 0240%4201& Officers !addle and !ilson of the 8eno
(olice Department contacted -achary at his residence at 1!/1 E) ,th 1t) and arrested
&2/!!2
him on the above listed charges) 3"DO
+n contrast to the statements attributed to (eters in 8(D Detective NturbideBs police
report regarding the 1&1& purported attempt by Coughlin to file a 38C( 52 or 5, =otion with
the 123 on the final day to timely file such a motion in connection with the 121!12
"#"C#$, consider (eters testimony of 1!1&:
(C=ER)7 ;B7.7$+ a,m,8 transcript available here: ))) and she can testify from
where she is there at the counsel table
!?-27 1o you up in sworn can you state your name and occupation please,
P9)9R'7 $aura Peters &aralegal with the 1tate 2ar of 3evada at the 8eno
office,
!?-27 9nd, could you describe what occurred last night)
P9)9R'7 Jast night at a little %it after five another employee and + were leaving
the building and a man came wal)ing u& to the door -ust as we were a%out to loc) it he
had its some &a&erwor) from Lach and to Lach;s credit he didn;t come himself he
sent some%od( he was waiting at the end of the drivewa( %ut he had some &a&erwor)
with and the gu(s said $ want to file this and $ said (ou;re not going to file it and $
threw it on the floor %ecause he was tr( to stuff into the door and then we just left we
just loc7ed it and he left too)
!?-27 Nour Aonor, 5 consider that to !e a direct violation of the order because,
number one, itBs that same intimidating a&&roach of coming after hours when it;s dar)
waiting for the women to be leaving the building, or still securing it) And' he was in the
car at the time' is that correctJ
P9)9R'7 :es)
!?-27 -ach Coughlin was) 1o, itBs not li7e he arranged to have it delivered by a
third4party, which would still %e a violation) +t says in the #rder that Eyou are
prohibited from either directly or through an agent from contacting)))F) 9nd, $ have
e6&lained to 7r. .oughlin that he has no reason to contact us. Ae Eshall not contactF
us) +tBs a violation of the order to not come to the office) + told them especially
repeatedly to reali:e what youBre doing coming to the office after hours and his
comment is E(ou are &rosecuting meF) 1o, itBs an attempt on his part, + guess, to
intimidate me from doing m( -o% so on !ehalf of the staff and for our protection, $
would as7 that the court e'tend the #rder)
C=ER) ;RJC Chief Judge 'cott Pearson<7 Does he have, you touched on this
briefly, but, does he have an( legitimate reason or does he have an( right to file
documents with (our officeJ
G+3?: 6ell, $ would ta)e the same a&&roach that the -ustice court did. <hey
&2%!!2
ac&no#ledge that it0s o%en to the %ublic and that people have certain rights to file
certain documents or to avail themselves of the court system) !e are not a court, we are
a nonprofit organi:ation, and he does not have a right to do an(thing, other than the
fact that, as a member of the bar, he is currently suspended, as the court now 7nows,
attorne(s have a dut( to file documents with the 4tate Bar' a duty to notify us of his
current address, things such as that, and to pay dues and he is not &recluded from doing
that %( us) + would as7 the court to only allow =r) Coughlin to su%mit an( re*uired
documents %( U4 mail and no other method. <he document that the court saw this
morning that he dropped off at the office included a ." videota&e that is appro'imately
100 pages) <hat document was e4mailed to me as well, and then he fa6es or attem&ts to
fa6, the .ourt .ler) has ordered him and has written to him indicating not to' not to
fa6' not e1mail you0re not allo#ed to (,:!5:5% a)m)*, as well as the (anel Chair saying
donBt e4mail) $f (ou want her to testif( she can)
(3#<E by Coughlin: <hatBs not true (eters only e4mailed Coughlin
e'pressing her position that Coughlin is not permitted to file documents via email, and
(eters was noticeably silent in both that email and in her 10,12 9ffidavit of $aura
(eters with respect to whether she ever e'pressed to Coughlin that he was permitted to
file documents via facsimile, especially where Coughlin was ma7ing an enormous deal
of her and the 12333D2Bs fraudulent reneging on that, much to CoughlinBs prejudice*
C#@8<: No' that;s fine, + just wanted to ma7e sure) (3#<E: 9pparently
Ema7ing sureF to Dudge (earson means refusing to hear any actual sworn testimony to
support an attorneyBs hearsay assertions*)
G+3?: 9nd, so, ? do thin& it #ould be a&&ro&riate for the Order to allow 7r.
.oughlin to file or serve re*uired documents via U4 mail,F
6hereas 8(D Detective NturbideBs police report indicates: O#n 0140&4201& at
about /I55 hours as $aura was closing the office at the above location an un7nown
male individual contacted her through the front glass door which faces to the south of
the building) <he male as)ed to file a document with the office and he was denied due
to the hour and the office closing) <he male said nothing else, but &laced the document
through the mail slot) $aura pic7ed up the document and saw it was a motion by
-achary Coughlin representing himself in a case that he %elieves is %eing handled %(
this office) $aura )new this to be a violation of the above listed order as she has had
previous contact with -achary and 7new of the e'isting order)
$ater that same night as Laura was leaving the above office she saw the
un)nown male get in to a vehicle that she )new was own %( Lachar( .oughlin) $aura
7new this as she has had previous contacts with -achary and this vehicle) Laura said
she saw the un&no#n male get in as a %assenger of this vehicle8 %ut did not see the
driver)
<his corroborated that this motion was %eing filed on behalf of -achary
&2,!!2
by an agent of his)))O
(eters sworn testimony at the 1!1& 6or7place Aarassment <(#
e'tension hearing demonstrates what an utter liar (eters is:
OP9)9R'7 $aura Peters &aralegal with the 1tate 2ar of 3evada at the 8eno
office,
!?-27 9nd, could you describe what occurred last night)
P9)9R'7 Jast night at a little %it after five another employee and + were leaving
the building and a man came wal)ing u& to the door -ust as we were a%out to loc) it he
had its some &a&erwor) from Lach and to Lach;s credit he didn;t come himself he
sent some%od( he was waiting at the end of the drivewa( %ut he had some &a&erwor)
with and the gu(s said $ want to file this and $ said (ou;re not going to file it and $
threw it on the floor %ecause he was tr( to stuff into the door and then we just left we
just loc7ed it and he left too)
!?-27 Nour Aonor, 5 consider that to !e a direct violation of the order because,
number one, itBs that same intimidating a&&roach of coming after hours when it;s dar)
waiting for the women to be leaving the building, or still securing it) And' he was in the
car at the time' is that correctJ
P9)9R'7 :esC.
>aura Peters &no#s #hen to sing for her su%%er8 and 6sst, 1ar Counsel !ing need
only call the tune,
3ote, under Ging, and 8C9 Chief Criminal Deputy DanBs interpretation of 8DC
Dudge (earsonBs 122012 <(#, Coughlin was not even permitted to file documents between
being allegedly served such #rder by an 8DC 2ailiff on 122.12 during one of the convenient
for the 8DC wee7ly probation chec7 ins Coughlin has been subjected to since 3ovember 2012,
within the D91 chec7 in booth in the area it shares with the 8DC, and the 1!1& e'tension
hearing)
$oathsome 8C9 6ong indicates to Coughlin that he feels Coughlin need have
sought to have such 122012 <(# modified or dissolved pursuant to 381 &&)2/0(,* at some
point between the alleged service at appro'imately &:00 pm on 122.12 and the 1&1&
deadline for filing any such 38C( 52 or 5, =otion in relation to the 121!12 "#"C#$)
Coughlin, though not having been served any such 123 <(#, heard rumors of such a 123
<(# and called the 8DC reHuesting an emergency =otion to =odify teleconference with the
123 see7ing clarification as to whether Coughlin faced arrest for filing documents, even, in the
formal disciplinary matter for which a 121!12 "#"C#$ had just been entered where
deadlines for filing a post4OdecisionO motion, etc) are governed by 1C8 11,(&* and 1C8
105(!*) Dudge (earson indicated to Coughlin that he would not modify the 123Bs <(# and
hung up on Coughlin after indicating that he had set the matter for an e'tension hearing on
&&0!!2
1!1& in 8C(20124000.0/)
381e&&)2/0eee*uirements for issuance of tem&orar( or e6tended orderC
e'pirationC right to challenge tem&orar( orderC award of costs and attorneyRs fees to prevailing
partyC interlocutory appeal of e'tended order))))
O)))(,*)ee@pon 2 daysR notice to an employer who obtained a temporary order for
protection against harassment in the wor7place without notice or on such shorter notice to the
em&lo(er as the court ma( &rescri%e' the &erson who allegedl( committed the harassment
ma( a&&ear and move the dissolution or modification of the tem&orar( order for &rotection
against harassment in the wor)&lace) U&on the filing of such a motion' the court shall
&roceed to hear and determine the motion as e6&editiousl( as the ends of -ustice re*uire) At
the hearing, the court may dissolve, modify or e'tend the order)O
6hile Dudge (earson denied CoughlinBs motion to clarify or modify the 122012
<(# suffficient to enable Coughlin to be able to timely file a motion in the vein of 38C( 52 or
5, within 10 days of the 121!12 "#"C#$, Dudge 1ferra::a, a a realy sha7y loo7ing
signature, entered an #rder on /2,1& that denied outright CoughlinBs =otion to =odify the
123Bs E(# without even affording Coughlin the hearing reHuired by 381 &&)2/0(,*Bs OU&on
the filing of such a motion' the court shall &roceed to hearO) <hat is, Dudge 1ferra::a just
simply refused to give Coughlin any hearing whatsoever) 9nd that is typical of Dudge
1ferra::aBs approach to jurisdictional mandates and reHuirements)))that is, they simply do not
e'ist when he is on the bench) Ae does whatever he feels li7e doing) "or instance, while 381
!0)25&(.* reHuires the landlord to have filed an unlawful detainer affidavit prior to the court
holding a summary eviction hearing, Dudge 1ferra::a e'cused landlord =erlissBs failure to so
file such an affidavit or even show up to the 101&11 summary eviction hearing now at issue in
.1&%& before the 3evada 1upreme Court, and instead proceeded to sua sponte interrogate
Coughlin with regard to whether he had Opaid your rentO in a no1cause summary eviction case)
"urther, in the i(hone petty larceny trial in 8C8201140.&&!1, Dudge 1ferra::a, despite plainly
being confronted with 1hepp v) 1tate, and 1taab, indicated that a Oreceiving stolen propertyO
charge could be supported where the prosecution alleges an alleged theif to have received the
fruits of his own larceny from himself+ (recedent and legislative reductions of the will of the
people to blac7 letter law are but minor annoyances along with way to Dudge 1ferra::a
accomplishing his agenda)
8eally, in the 8eno Dustice Court, there is but one rule, 3DC8C( 8ule 1, interpreted
in a manner wherein the interests of justice and judicial economy, or Oliteral interpreation
would wor7 an injusticeO language therein is applied in a manner which really means Owhatever
the judges of the 8eno Dustice Court want to do, they shall do, because 7eeping them happy and
furthering their agenda is the only Ointerest of justiceO they are interested inO) 9nd, sometimes,
some might say, that involves being rather vindictive, whilst, at other times (and, to be fair,
sometimes this occurs in conjunction with one another* that involves placating the District
9ttorneyBs #fficer, local law enforcement, and, of course, their own tempermental and insecure
2ailiffs at every turn) 9nd, it usually wor7s out pretty good for 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), too)
1o, on 9ugust 1!th, 201&, with his having set an artificially far out from the
&&1!!2
101!1& trial date in 8C8201&40/2./5 (the prosecution of Coughlin for, again 381 1,,)2%0
incident to 8DC 2ailiff Dohn Aolguin 8eyes scoring some points by attac7ing Coughlin in
response to CoughlinBs 52&1& filing with the 8DC see7ing copies of sensitive filing that are
allegedly freely available in the public record* of %1,1& for Coughlin to submit pre4trial
motions therein, and despite 2DDC Dudge 1tiglich setting a status conference in no less than si'
cases involving Coughlin for 10 am on %1,1& as well, Dudge (earson, in a completely
burdensome and prejudicial approach, shifted the bill for the resources associated with the
6CD9Bs #ffice vindictive and hapha:ard approach to prosecuting Coughlin everytime it needs
some leverage for the various civil liabilities in could face incident to law enforcement
misconduct (usually in relation to 6CD9Bs #fficer 9D9 (hil $ipparelli admitting to Coughlin
during a conversation on !121& that $ipparelli full well countenances the burglaries on
tenantBs that the 6C1# underta7es in its current approach to conducting loc7outs in summary
evictions)))though sometimes in relation to the 6ashoe County jail giving an attorney li7e
CoughlinBs personal property, such as his smart phone or a data card, to =unicipal Court Dudge
3ash Aolmes, then see7ing to cover that up, where no warrant or court order e'ists allowing
for such a confiscation and violation of CoughlinBs "ourth 9mendment rights)*)
Chief Dudge (earsonBs recent O9dministrative #rder 201&40.O relates to CouglinBs
cases almost as much as his &221& 9dministrative #rder 201&402 related to CoughlinBs cross4
e'aminations and arguments made during the &1,1& trial date in 8C8201&40.5.&0, where
such &221& 9dministrative #rder 201&402 essentially announced, nearly 1% months after the
law went into effect, 9222. and the concomitant major changes to the way summary evictions
are done in 3evada (with 381 !0)25&(&*(b*(1* being a particularly bone of contention in the
/&112 hearing on CoughlinBs =otions in 8ev201240010!% before Dudge (earson incident to a
.1!12 5 Day @nlawful Detainer 3otice that listed 1par7s Dustice Court as the court, pursuant
to the reHuirement to list the court in 381 !0)25&(&*(b*(1*, in which Coughlin must file a
<enantBs 9nswer or 9ffidavit within 5 days) Coughlin so submitted a <enantBs 9nswer to
1par7s Dustice Court within 5 judicial days of the Huasi4constructive service of such 3otice on
.1!12 (3evada Court 1ervices failed to mail such to Coughlin in any way, though it did post
a copy of the 3otice to the door of the Odwelling unit or apartmentO that 3orthwinds
9partments rented Coughlin upon 3C1 being unable to gain entry in its attempts to burglari:e
CoughlinsB rental and commit a trespass in hopes of effecting personal service of such 5 Day
3otice on Coughlin)
9t such /&112 hearing, Dudge (earson practiced law on behalf of 3orthwindBs
9partments to whatever e'tent was necessary to fill in the gaps where he also permitted an
unauthori:ed practioner of law, 3evada Court 1ervices Deff Chandler, to cross the bar and
ma7e arguments on behalf of his OclientO, and out of state corporation, in violation of 38C(
11) Dudge (earson roundly rejected CoughlinBs 381 !0)25&(b*(1* arguments relative to the 5
Day 3otice being deficient for the purposes of obtainin a summary removal order from the
8eno Dustice Court where it listed the 1par7s Dustice Court as the place for Coughlin to file a
<enantBs 9nswer or 9ffidavit) 9pparently, in Dudge 1cott (earsons courtroom, unauthori:ed
practitionerBs of law have a net to fall in to save them when they commit OmalpracticeO)
&&2!!2
9nyways, Dudge (earsonsBs %1!1& 9dministrative #rder 201&40. is noteworthy
where it purports to subject Coughlin to the threat of imprisonment of up to 25 days for each
violation of it order applying DC88< 10 to O9$$ D#C@=E3<1 1@2=+<<ED 2N
-9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 <# <AE 8E3# D@1<+CE C#@8<O whether such are
submitted by Coughlin the tenant in a Olandlord tenant matterO where DC88< 2 clearly states
that DC88< 10 does not apply to Olandlord tenant mattersO and 3DC8C( %1, and %& place
bright line restrictions on Dudge (earson where the legislature has enacted a specific statutory
scheme in a setting such as those landlord tenants affairs covered by 381 !0 and 381 11%9)
"urther, Dudge (earsons attempts to abuse the contempt power by, essentially, violating the
spirit of 6DC8 1% (no tic7y tac7 civil law procedural rules that violate 38C( 5(e* anyways
where someoneBs liberty is at sta7e, ie, in a criminal case*:
6DC8 8ulee1%:eeOPa%ers #hich do not com%ly #ith rules)eeE6ce&t in criminal
cases and writs arising from criminal cases, filing office personnel shall refuse to file any
document or pleading which is not properly signed by all persons, or which does not comply
with these rules, 3evada 8ules of Civil (rocedure, the District Court 8ules, or applicable
statutes)O
Dudge (earsons 9#1&40. is further interesting where, despite (earson and his fellow
lifelong prosecutor turned Dudge, Dudge CliftonBs insistence (along with 1ferra::a* that
Coughlin is not able to issue his own subpoenas given the temporary suspension of his law
license (CoughlinBs law license with the @1(<# is not temporarily suspended, and Coughlin
can issue subpoenas in that conte't, it would seem, which e'tends to the defense of any
disciplinary investigation ongoing therein in ?20&&*) Aowever, Coughlin is representing
himself in a number of criminal cases in the 8DC where the court appointed conflict counsel
that Dudge Clifton (and Dudge (earson* admits he directly appointed himself, in an apparent
violation of Canon 2 8ule 2)1&Bs O9dministrative 9ppointmentsO language given the fallout
from the 200. $)9) <imes articles on such appointments, 8) 2ruce $indsay, EsH), whom
threatened to murder Coughlin on &1!1& upon Coughlin pointing out that $indsayBs
announcing his failure to appear at CoughlinBs &1,1& trial in 8C8201&40.5.&0 would be,
according to Dudge CliftonBs approach with CoughlinBs allegedly being late to court on 2121&,
direct contempt of court, whether $indsay was appointed to represent Coughlin in such trial
(Dudge Clifton would say no* or whether $indsay agreed to appear as co4counsel and did so in
fact appear (the 8DCBs Criminal Division Cler7 8obbin 2a7er and $indsayBs officeBs Diana
1imms play it pretty fast and loose with those appearances as attorney or record)))and
sometimes there is fallout to that, and Dudge Clifton should not be permitted to will that away
with a dismissive glare*) 9nyways, where the 8DC judges ta7e the position that Coughlin may
not issue his own subpoenas, Dudge (earsonBs 9#1&40. applies to Coughlin protions of DC88<
10 that only apply to OattorneysO)
6hereas DC88< 10 reads: O2) 3o original pleading or paper may be amended by
ma7ing erasures or interlineations thereon, or by attaching slips thereto, e'cept by leave of
court) C) <he following information shall appear upon the first page of every paper presented
for filing: (1* <he name, 3evada 1tate 2ar identification number, address and telephone
&&&!!2
number of the attorney and of any associated attorney appearing for the party filing the paperC
whether such attorney appears for the plaintiff, defendant, or other partyC or the name, address
and telephone number of a party appearing in proper person, shall be set forth to the left of
center of the page beginning at line 1 and shall be single spaced) <he space to the right of
center shall be reserved for the filing mar7s of the cler7) 39=E 298 3@=2E8 9DD8E11
C+<N, 1<9<E, -+( C#DE <E$E(A#3E 3@=2O
9lso interesting is Dudge (earsonBs attempts to apply DC88< 11(?* (rebranded as
(m* of the O(8#CED@89$ 8@$E1 "#8 9$$ D#C@=E3<1 1@2=+<<ED 2N -9CA98N
298GE8 C#@?A$+3 <# <AE 8E3# D@1<+CE C#@8<O* to even CoughlinBs summary
eviction cases) 1uch attempt to apply DC88< 11(?* therein by Dudge 1ferra::a has now
become Huite a big issue in .1&%&, the appeal of the initial horrifically handled by Dudge
1ferra::a and the 8DC, summary eviction from CoughlinBs former home law office in 8ev20114
001/0% (well, actually, the precursor sister case, 8ev20114001!,2 might be considered the
OinitialO one, especially given the favorable 381 11%9)510(e* analysis such provides to
Coughlin*, where Dudge 1ferra::a OenteredO a (ost4+t 3ote #rder atop one of CoughlinBs filings
(though such was never, li7e, actually mailed to Coughlin or the opposing party or file
stamped, etc)))* that purported to either deny CoughlinBs =otion for 1tay or just plain fail to
adjudicate it based upon Dudge 1ferra::aBs contention that DC88< 11(?* applied in landlord
tenant matters)
$as ;egas has a DC8$; 8ule !0 that just so limits the number of motions for stay,
and motions to vacate in an eviction case that a tenant can file) Aowever, to get that 8ule 20 on
the boo7s, the Dustice Court for $as ;egas <ownship had to, and did, comply with 3; DC8C(,
which reHuired such proposed rule be published and then approved by the 3evada 1upreme
Court) (the ghost of $ippis reminds us all of the ills of allowing courts of limited jurisdiction
free reign to decide just how much due process tenantBs are to be afforded, r)i)p*
1o, where Dudge (earsonBs 9#1&40. purports to enact a rule applicable only to
Coughlin (where such analog in DC88< 11(?* does not apply to anyone else in a Olandlord
tenant matterO per DC88< 2*, such is violative of 3ev) Const) 9rt) ! 1ect) 21, where it reads:
O(m* 3o motion once heard and disposed of shall be renewed in the same cause, nor shall the
same matters therein embraced be reheard, unless by leave of the Court)O
<his echoes Dudge 1ferra::aBs approach as revealed from the transcript of the
11/11 hearing before him in 8ev20114001/0%: O(10:0. 9=*)))
Judge7 )))$ have alread( denied the motion for sta( which once made cannot %e made again
to the court you can address that to the District Court 1ir) 2ut, what + am willing to consider
this morning is what + indicated previously is the de%osit of M22/5 6ith the CourtBs) 9nd, since
=r) Coughlin this was your motion + will allow you to argue first and then we will hear from
=r) 2a7er his response)))O
9nd, really, the wording of DC8$; 8ule !0 addresses a lot of the problems that
occurred in the summary evictionBs Coughlin was subjected to, especially vis a vis the =otion
to 1tay, and the 8DCBs failure to properly adjudiciate them, the 8DC Cler7s refusal to accept
CoughlinBs supersedeas bonds, etc), etc) (not to mention the failure to timely transmit the 8#9
&&!!!2
to the district court, or in any way comply with 1C8 10, 11, applicable in light of 381 !0)!00*)
1imilarly, Dudge 1ferra::a responded to CoughlinBs 11211 ;erified Complaint for
+llegal $oc7out in response to landlord =erlissBs attorneys 2a7er and Aill, along with the
6C1# burglari:ing CoughlinBs property, by scrawling out on a (ost4+t 3ote O#rderO that was
never served on either party and only uncovered upon the transmission of the incredibly
deficient 8ecord on appeal some seven wee7s later O11&11 <his needs to be transmitted to the
District Ct) Ae appealed) (1O)
9ctually, under 3evada law, the justice court needs to give Coughlin a hearing
within & days of his filing a ;erified Complaint for +llegal $oc7out, period) 6hether or not
Coughlin appealed the matter would not change that) Dudge 1ferra::a 7nows not whether Aill
and or 2a7er told Coughlin they were charging him the same M,00 Ofull rental valueO for the
time after their burglary (which the rebrand as a Oloc7outO* that previously entitled Coughlin to
Ofull use and occupancyO sufficient to create a new lease, or otherwise withdraw the eviction,
and, regardless, even were that not the case, an illegal loc7out is an illegal loc7out, and just
because Dudge 1ferra::a may thin7 Oah, whatBs the difference if they did the loc7out too soon,
you were going to be loc7ed out soon enoughO does not vitiate CoughlinBs rights under 381
11%9)&,0(1*(a*,(5*(a*4(b*))
9 similar (ost +t 3ote #rder (unserved, of course* by Dudge 1ferra::a was affi'ed
atop the 122211 3otice of (osting 1upersedeas 2ond as 1et 2y 1tatute, 6here is =y 1tay
filing by Coughlin, which the 8DC still refuses to transmit to the 2DDC and fraudulently failed
to include in either the 1!12 or !11& 1upplementals so transmitted) <hat 122211 (ost +t
3ote #rder by Dudge 1ferra::a misapplies the plenary 381 !0)&%0 standard to the appeal of a
summary eviction where 381 !0)&%5 has not Owithin 10 daysO reHuirement, where such (ost +t
3ote #rder reads: O122211 the stay was denied an no bond was posted within 10 days)
Defendnat needs to have District Court address this on appeal) (1O) 1uch OrulingO is especially
rich given Dudge 1ferra::aBs order at the conclusion of the 102511 summary eviction
proceeding where he rebranded the M2,2/5 he impermissibly reHuired Coughlin to deposit as a
381 11%9)&55(5* Orent escrowO deposit as CoughlinBs Obond on appealO) #ne, the 8DC
retaining that M2,2/5 was plenty sufficient a OdepositO where 381 !0)&%5 reHuired only M250
be deposited by Coughlin to obtain a stay) <wo, even had 381 !0)&%0 been applicable, such
involves Otwice the judgmentO, and where there was no money judgment against Coughlin in
the Ono cause summary eviction proceedingO that Dudge 1ferra::a 7ept trying to turn into a non4
payment of rent summary eviction, the reHuired OdepositO would have been twice of nothing)
JCR>V RuleS$+,SSMotions to stay in eviction cases,
(a*eA tenant in an eviction case ma( onl( file / motion to sta( or / motion to vacate &er
case' on a form a&&roved %( the court)
(b*eE%on the filing of a motion to stay under subsection (a*, an( &ending eviction order
shall %e sta(ed until further order of the court)
(c*e9 motion to stay will %e reviewed %( the court within / -udicial da()))
&&5!!2
P9ddedC effective 9ugust 11, 2010)QO
3ow, why would the Dustice Court of $as ;egas <ownship need go to the trouble to
publish and get approved by the 3evada 1upreme Court DC8$; 8ule !0 when it already has a
nearly identical analog to DC88< 8ule 11(?* in DC8$; 8ule 11(f*: O(f*eNo motion once
heard and dis&osed of shall %e renewed in the same cause' nor shall the same matters
therein em%raced %e reheard' unless %( leave of the court)OJ
3; DC8C( 8@$Ee%1)ee9(($+C92+$+<N +3 ?E3E89$
(a*e)o Khat Proceedings 6%%licable)eeThese rules do not govern &rocedure and
&ractice in an( s&ecial statutor( &roceeding insofar as the( are inconsistent or in conflict
with the &rocedure and &ractice &rovided %( the a&&lica%le statute) 6here the applicable
statute provides for procedure under the former statutes governing civil actions, such procedure
shall be in accordance with these rules)
(b*eChief Dustices of the (eace)ee8ule %!, relating to chief justices of the peace, shall apply
to all proceedings in the justice courts, whether criminal' civil or otherwise)O
-R' $+,$++ Rules of %ractice: O<he provisions of 381, 3evada 8ules of Civil
(rocedure and 3evada 8ules of 9ppellate (rocedure relative to civil actions, appeals and new
trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of 381 !0)220 to !0)!20,
inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sectionsO
=ichael Dordan had to deal with the ODordan 8ulesO) 3; DC8C( does not allow the
8DC to subject -achary 2ar7er Coughlin alone, in violation of 3evada Constitution 9rticle !
1ection 21 to the O(8#CED@89$ 8@$E1 "#8 9$$ D#C@=E3<1 1@2=+<<ED 2N
-9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 <# <AE 8E3# D@1<+CE C#@8<O)
-V JCRCP RE>9S*.,SSRE>9' 1I JE')?C9 C=ER)': OEach justice or
justice court in a township )))!y action of a ma$ority of the $ustices thereof, ma( from time to
time ma)e and amend the rules governing its &ractice not inconsistent with these rules)
.o&ies of rules and amendments so made %( an( -ustice court shall u&on their &romulgation
%e furnished to the 4u&reme .ourt' %ut shall not %ecome effective until after a&&roval %( the
4u&reme .ourt and &u%lication) +n all cases not provided for by these rules the justice courts
may regulate their practice in any manner not inconsistent with these rules)O
9nd the 8DC further violates 3; DC8C( %& where it ignores 381 !0)&%5Bs setting
the amount reHuired to get a stay by ma7ing the supersedeas bond M250, per statute, in Dudge
1ferra::aBs admission, during the 11/11 hearing, that the 8DC always ma7es such supersedeas
bond Othree times the monthly rentO (which also brings to mind the Huestion, why didnBt
Coughlin get a stay if Dudge 1ferra::a had the 8DC hold on to CoughlinBs M2,2/5 as CoughlinBs
Obond on appealO between #ctober 25th, 2011 until such money was finally returned to
Coughlin (most of which he had to use to put up his bail for the criminal trespass arrest he
sustained at his former home law office in the meantime* on 111512) +t seems Dudge
1ferra::a was trying to find a way to get that M2,2/5 to Aill and his client, and did not reali:e
there is no Oappeal bondO in an appeal of a summary eviction, and that the only thing he could
&&.!!2
be referring to as a Obond on appealO was a supersedeas bond)))and upon figuring out that there
was no possible way to award Aill and his client the rent escrow deposit 1ferra::a wrongfully
ordered pursuant to 381 11%9)&55(5* in a no4cause summary eviction, even where the tenant
set out in e'cruciating detail that he, if at all, invo7ed only 381 11%9)&.0, and never did
invo7ed 381 11%9)&55(5*, and that was only because Coughlin completely hammered it home
with his analogy to DC8$; 8ule !! vis a vis the Olocal ruleO referenced in 381 11%9)&55(5*,
which had no applicability anyways, but, hey, its 1ferra::a, so whaddyagonnadoJ 9re you
getting an idea of a what a, uh, fluid approach Dudge 1ferra::a (and add to that Clifton and
(earson* have to jurisdictional principles in their 8DC day to day activities*J
OJudge7 well + did specifically enter an order saying that you were to be evicted no later than 5
(= #ctober &1 + changed it to say that no earlier) + did review this but the last paragraph
provides the sums currently on de%osit with the court in the amount of M22/5 are the property
of the landlord but shall not immediately be released to him) + am going to modify that that the
M22/5_ 9nd + will e'plain this_ <here is no rent due in this case, this was not an action for
non%ayment of rent so + do thin7 it was inappropriate for the court to order that that money go
to the landlord) <he court had no jurisdiction over that) 9nd so + am going to order that it be
surrendered to =r) Coughlin) 6ith respect to the appeal, + am going to order thatBs if the stay is
granted by the District Court that the bond amount shall be three times the rents which is
M2/00) <he District Court could amend that if they wish but that is what we always charge in
this court) <hree months rent) 1o, if the District Court wishes to modify that thatBs fine but
youBll get your money bac7 and you can proceed with the appeal however you wish) + did grant
you an informal pauperis which + believe applies to the filing fees for the appeal) 9ll rightJ
Plaintiff7 may + just reHuest clarification Nour Aonor) 1o if + understand correctly, the court is
modify the order to reflect that the M2,2/5 currently on the de%osit is going to =r) Coughlin,
that itBs going to be released) Aowever, if =r) Coughlin ever appeals this case and wants to
stay, he needs to post a supersedeas bond in an amount of three months worth of rent
Judge7 M2/00)
Plaintiff7 M2/00, that would be a supersedeas bond, understood)O
#ne really has to Huestion whether or not Dudges (earson, Clifton, and 1ferra::a (as
they have seen fit to group each other as a triumvirate in both of these embarrassing
9dministrative #rders* have any conception of how slippery a slope the concept of ma7ing up
different sets of rules for different litigants truly is)
-V JCRCP RE>9S*$,SSC"?9/ JE')?C9' =/ )"9 P96C9)))
O(b*e8esponsibilities)ee<he chief justice of the peace in a township shall:
(1*e2e responsible for the administration of court rules and regulations)))
(5*e#versee all administrative and clerical wor7 and functions of the court as set forth
in 381 Chapter !)
(.*eCall and preside over meetings with the other justices of that township, ))) to
discuss and set policy on procedures, planning, caseload distri%ution, judicial training,
vacations, court improvements, personnel and an( other matters of %enefit or concern to the
&&/!!2
court)O
<he opinion in $ippis is instructive with respect to CoughlinBs criticisms of the
manner in which the 8DC and 6C1#Bs approach avoiding 381 !0)25&(5*Bs reHuirement that
the tenant have OreceiptO of the summary removal order for at least 2! hours prior to the 6C1#
conducting a loc7out, Dust as ODC8C( 10. is))) violative of article B' section 0/' which
&rovides that Call laws shall %e general and of uniform o&eration throughout the 4tateO
(noting O<here is no reason why parties to landlord4tenant law suits should be denied the right
of appeal, while all other justicesB courtsB litigants are allowed to e'ercise this right)O*, so too, is
the refusal by the 6C1#, 6CD9, 8DC, 8(D, etc) to follow 381 !0)25&(5*Bs Odirecting the
sheriff to remove the tenant within twenty4four hours of receipt of the orderO language where
every other county in 3evada manages to)
DC88< 8ule 11 also does not apply to Olandlord tenant mattersO per DC88< 2 (and
if the 8DC wishes to change its rules, it must cease doing an end run around the reHuirements of
3; DC8C( %! or otherwise enforcing unwritten Ohouse rulesO li7e it has in the past* to 9$$ of
CoughlinBs cases (including the multitude of summary eviction based landlord tenant matters
(which begat the very wrongful criminal prosecutions of Coughlin that the 8DC is now citing to
in attempts to buttress its judicial misconduct in see7ing to enforce now two specious
9dministrative #rders against Coughlin whilst a fifth criminal prosecution of Coughlin by the
6CD9Bs office in the 8DC is set for trial on 101!1& incident to an alleged violation of such
initial 9dministrative #rder of dubious legality by Coughlin on 52&1&, for which the out of
control 8DC 2ailiff Dohn 8eyes (whose wife file a domestic violence protection order against
him, alleges he suffers from severe depression and is Ooff his medicationsO and becomes hostile
and violent when such is the case, and the 1heriffBs deputies have been out to the 8eyes home
in the past to respond to at least one domestic disturbance (also, Coughlin filed a
1tal7ingAarassment <(# application against 8eyes in 8C(201240000/0 on 21512, just prior
to the 5212 <(# application by Cathy 9) 8eyes*
<he increased due to the 8DC Dudges own misconduct and failure to abide by
3evada law, and countenancing of the burglaries the 6C1# conducts instead of according
tenants the O2! hoursO from the tenantBs OreceiptO of a summary removal order prior to the
6C1# effecting a loc7out)))all of which the 8DC and 6CD9 now wish Coughlin to foot the
bill for or otherwise ma7e Coughlin atone for their own sins*
+3 <AE 9D=+3+1<89<+;E =9<<E8 #": D#C@=E3<1 1@2=+<<ED 2N
-9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3, 6DM?-?')R6)?V9 =RD9R 2+1.4+ contains some
really rich moments:
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 is a party to several cases in this
CourtC and
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 regularly submits documents to
the Court which fail to include a case number in the caption or list multi&le cases in the
ca&tionC and
&&%!!2
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 regularly su%mits documents to the .ourt
which fail to include a certificate of service or clearly state an e6ce&tion to the e6 &arte
ruleC and (this is really rich where there is no opposing party in these 9dministrative #rder
OcasesO, further, the initial 122012 9dmin #rder re<uired Coughlin to do just this to even
get a copy of an order or some filing, and now, Dudge (earson, in a fraudulent attempt to get
around the fact that the DC88< 8ule 11(9*, reHuires a Oproof of serviceO for O=otionsO, not
for the O8eHuest for 9udio Copy of (roceedingsO that the %51& O3otice of Document
8eceived but 3ot Considered by the CourtO had attached, served by Aowden)))so, now,
reali:ing that DC88< 8ule 11(a* doesnBt apply to such ministerial reHuests, Dudge (earson
adds to his %1!1& 9dmin #rder: O2) -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 shall not reHuest a
copy of a document or transcript without first filing a 7otion which complies with the
attached 8ules) An( such motion must %e su&&orted %( an affidavit of .OUG8L$N which
must address the %asis for the re*uest, wh( sim&l( viewing the document is not sufficient
and whether the document has %een &reviousl( &rovided to himC.
"ow Coughlin could (and why he should have to is a whole nother story* submit a motion just
to reHuest an audio transcript where OAn( such motion must %e su&&orted %( an affidavit of
.OUG8L$N which must address the %asis for the re*uest, wh( sim&l( viewing ;-=)97
#hat does that mean as to FhearingF a audio transcri%tA< the document ;-=)97
recordingA< is not sufficient and whether the document has %een &reviousl( &rovided to
himCC.
)he re:uirement that Coughlin Faddress the basis for the re:uestF echoes
Judge Pearsons instructions to Coughlin at a C1C1. hearing in RCR2+114+..$1 #here
he indicated Coughlin #ould need to e@%lain #hy he #anted a co%y of something before
decision on #hether or not to %rovide ;even for %urchase< Coughlin #ith a co%y of such a
document or recording in the %ublic record #ould be %ermitted, )hat is %ro%osterous,
Judge Pearsons seems to have s%ent too long being the only one #ho gets to decide ;or
&no# the basis for his decision< #hether to release 1rady material and is a%%lying that
a%%roach #here it has no business in the Gudiciary as to ministerial matters, )he ans#er
to Pearson and Clifton0s current :uandry is not to limit Coughlin0s access to items in the
%ublic record8 but rather8 to avoid violatin -R' 17*,$+58 es%ecially via im%ermissible
e@tra4Gudicial communications8 in addition to ceasing the im%ro%rer administrative
a%%ointments8 es%ecially those involving R, 1ruce >indsay8 9s:
)he RJC failed to serve a co%y of Judge 'ferraLLa0s 7C2BC1. =rders denying
Coughlin0s Motions to Modify8 etc, the Kor&%lace 9P=s in RCP2+124++++7 and
RCP2+124+++5BB8 and no# is refusing to even allo# Coughlin to %urchase co%ies of such8
furhter the RJC #ill not indicate to Coughlin #hether it #ill issue the sub%oena on 1ailiff
Reyes #ifes Cathy 6, Reyes that Coughlin submitted8 and other such sub%oenas8 li&e the
one on former RJC Chief Civil Cler& no# '%ar&s Justice Court Cler& !aren 'tancil
#hom #as one of the last RJC non41ailiff em%loyees Coughlin s%o&e to %rior to the
im%lementation of the 12C2+C12 6dministrative =rder 2+124+1, Coughlin discussed #ith
&&,!!2
'tancil the circumstances of the C2*C12 eviction in Rev2+124++1+$* and concomitant
arrest in RCR2+124+7B*+ #here the RJC8 des%ite at least t#o %hone calls bet#een
'tancil and Coughlin and one C2C12 email from Coughlin to 'tancil and
RJCKebR#ashoecounty,us ;#hich #as at one %oint #ithin the file in 1+$*8 underneath
the doc&et on the left hand side8 but #hich u%on Coughlin0s revie#ing such on *C1C1. #as
no longer to be found< alerting the RJC to the Gurisdictional deficiencies in the C1$C12 5
Day -otice of Enla#ful Detainer allegedly F%ersonally servedF on Coughlin by -evada
Court 'erves8 #hich listed8 %ursuant to -R' $+,25.;.<;b<;1<8 the very '%ar&s Justice
Court #ith #hich Coughlin submitted a )enant0s 6ns#er ;Motion to Dismiss< for filing
on C2C12 at noon8 #hich the 'JC failed to file8 #here the RJC0s Judge 'chroeder then
entered a >oc&out =rder on C27C12 des%ite the deficieny in the -otice, E%on Coughlin8
on *C1C1.8 attem%ting to file a Verified Com%laint for ?llegal >oc&out as to a rental at
F-orth#inds 6%artmentsF #ith the same !aren 'tancil8 no# a counter cler& at the
'%ar&s Justice Court8 'tancil refused such document for filing8 in a non4ministerial
reGection of such8 by noting that F-orth#inds 6%artmentsF is located #ithin the confines
of Reno8 no '%ar&s,
Rule 11, Motions7 Procedure for ma&ing motionsJ affidavitsJ rene#al8
rehearing of motions,
9) 9ll motions shall contain proof of the service of the same))))
") "actual contentions involved in any pre4trial or post4trial motion shall be
initially presented and heard upon affidavits) #ral testimony may be received at a
hearing with the approval of the court, or the court may set the matter for a hearing at
a time in the future and allow oral e'amination of the affiants to resolve factual
issues shown by the affidavits to be in dispute)
(3#<E: where was DD9 NoungBs O9ffidavitOin his #pposition to CoughlinBs
=otion to 1uppress of 22112 or in NoungBs e' parte 112.12 emeregency =otion to (rohibit
Coughlin form fa'ingJ 9lso, 2iray DoganBs 11%1& =otion to Uuash contains a Certificate of
1ervice that is not only fraudulent (Coughlin was never sent any such fa' and can prove it*, but
regardless, Coughlin never consented, in writing, to the 6C(D pursuant to 38C( 5(b*(2* to be
so served electronically*, and similar to that is 8eno City 9ttorney 17auBs fraudulence (perhaps
in conjunction with Dudge 1ferra::a* in obtaining CoughlinBs appearance at an insufficiently
noticed 111&12 hearing in 8Cr201140.&&!1 by alleging 1ferra::a had Oauthori:ed service by
emailO*
the Court which are copies of documents previously filed with the Court that have been
redacted or editedC (3#<E: what does the 6CD9Bs #ffice do when it recycles the same petty
larceny criminal complaint over and overJ "urther, so what, whatBs wrong with not reinventing
the wheelJ Coughlin is not attempting to pull the wool over anyoneBs eyes here in any way, so
what does this have to do with anythingJ <his is li7e complaining that Coughlin does not use
the right eggshell white type of printing paper*)
&!0!!2
the Court which are not legible or otherwise fail to clearly state the relief re:uestedC (3#<E:
the 6CD9Bs #ffice Complaints failing to ever Oclearly stateO the facts supporting the charges
has never seemed to be much of a problem* and
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 regularly re:uests co%ies of
transcri%ts or documents from the Court #hich have been %reviously %rovidedC (even if
that were true, which it is not, the 8DC is now attempting to prevent Coughlin from obtaining
copies even where he would pay money for them*)
6AE8E91, several of the types of documents referenced above are attached heretoC
and (it is interesting that (earson attaches a simple, ministerial at best O8eHuest for 9udio Copy
of (roceedingsO by Coughlin, which the 8DCBs own unsigned, unattributed %51& round of
ridiculous O3otice of Document 8eceived but 3ot Considered 2y <he CourtO, uh)))well, they
are on pleading paper, and have a caption, they just lac7 a signature by a judge, whilst also
failing to have an indication as to whom such 3otice should attributed or otherwise indicate
whom it was that made the more than ministerial decision to go about suddenly rejecting
CoughlinBs filings, refusing to place file stamps on them, in many cases, wee7s after Coughlin
submitted them for filing, especially where Dudge (earson then drops this new 9dministrative
#rder on <hursday %1!1& (after wee7s of the 8DC refusing to indicate to Coughlin if his
filings were being file stamped, refusing to even provide CoughlinBs copies of any OreceivedO
stamped cover page of his submissions, and refusing to allow Coughlin to view, or even
purchase copies of the doc7ets in his cases, even in his criminal cases*, where he had put in
place a =onday, %1,1& deadline for Coughlin to file his pre4trial motions for a trial set for
101!1&, where 3evada law under 381 1/!)!50 accordsa Ofifteen days prior to trialO deadline
for Coughlin to file such pre4trial motions) 9lso, its Dudge ElliottBs former 9dministrative
9ssistant ta7ing over for $ori <ownsend, which is arguably another conflict reHuiring
removing the 8DC from all of CoughlinBs cases considering Dudge ElliottBs gross misconduct in
so many of CoughlinBs cases in the last 1% months) 8egardless, the OCertificate of =ailingO for
such %51& O3oticesO is signed by Aowden, and indicates Oa true copy of the atached
documentO was provided to 6CD9 DD9 Noung by Ointeroffice mailO, which seems a bit off)
6AE8E91, filings by pro se petitioners, Ohowever inartfully pleaded, O are held Oto
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers) O Aaines v) !0! @)1) 51,,
520, ,2 1) Ct) 5,!, &0 $) Ed) 2D .52 (1,/2*C and (3#<E: this is interesting, as if Coughlin is
not a OlawyerO as Dudges (earson, and Clifton alternately indicates he is or isnBt, depending on
the utility to their agenda either characteri:ation provides in the various instances in which they
so choose to ma7e it, then the application of this new set of procedural rules applicable only to
Coughlin (applying to Coughlin a more stringent set of procedural rules than applies to anyone
else in Olandlord tenant mattersO or Ocriminal casesO by (earsonBs 9dministrative #rder
essentially attempting to reduce to a new set of rules or an O#rderO that which Coughlin had
been arguing is tantamount to criminal misconduct by the 8DC 2ailiff and Cler7s (ie, applying
DC88< 10 and 11 to Coughlin in Ocriminal casesO and Olandlord tenant mattersO where DC88<
2 is Huite clear that neither DC88< 10 nor 11 apply to Coughlin, or anyone else, in those
settings*)
&!1!!2
6AE8E91, frivolous or ve6atious claims and defenses overburden limited
Gudicial resources ;-=)97 maybe, but probably not as much as Dudges ?one 6ild legislating
away all the protections to tenantBs rights the $egislature reduced into blac7 letter law, as a
manifestation of the will of the people, largely motivated by a recognition of the enormous
societal cost to the very approach to summary evictions that the 8DC continues to insist
upon)))also, clearly 8C8201240./,%0 was a Ofrivolous claimO brought by the 6CD9Bs
#ffice)))so where is 6CD9 DD9 -) NoungBs own special set of procedural rulesJ*8 hinder the
timely resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging in business and
%roviding %rofessional services to the %ublicC and 6AE8E91, the citi:ens of this
community have a right to a just, speedy, and ine'pensive determination of every action and
this right is infringed if the .ourt allows a case' civil or criminal' to consume more than its
reasona%le share of the .ourt;s time) 1ee, @nited ,& ")1upp) 1,0, 1,1 (D) =ass)1,50*(O<he
Court has obligations to other parties who have cases to be heard)O*C 9nd
6AE8E91, courts possess the inherent power (3#<E: well, Dudge (earson clearly
was ta7ing notes when Coughlin pointed out the fraudulent misstatement by Dudge 1ferra::a in
the initial 9dmin #rder of 122012 vis a vis it purporting 3; Const 9rt . 1ec . to apply to
O3evadaBs courtsO versus ODistrict CourtsO)))and really, these new citations to Doran and
Chambers have no applicability to Ocourts of limited jurisdictionO because, right along with that
Olimited jurisdictionO is an incredibly limited Oinherent powerO possessed that in no way
justifies the judicial hot mess that this new 9dministrativ #rder 201&40. is)))some might say a
tad more constructive approach would consist of ceasing to coddle immature and irrational
bailiffs, avoid playing the limit the CountyBs civil liability game with the 6CD9Bs #ffice, and
send out the sort of clarion call to local law enforcement of the sort that the e'clusionary rule
does by ceasing to tolerate or enable all these stupid, ego driven arrests and harassment of
Coughlin and others, and the system4wide burglari:ing of tenantBs homes, offices, and other
rentals* to manage proceedings and e'ercise reasonable control of the conduct of those who
appear before them) 1ee, Chambers v) 501 @)1) &2 (1,,1* 9nd Dordan v) 1tate e' re+) #f =otor
;ehicles K (ub) 110 ()&D &0, !! (2005*, abrogated on other grounds by 2u:: $$C v) #f 3)
$as 1%1 ()&D ./0 (200%*C and 6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 was
admitted to the 3evada 1tate 2ar on =arch 25, 2005 and later suspended on Dune /, 2012C
6AE8E91, this Court has previously found in 9dministrative #rder 2012401 that
v) -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 has re&eatedl( caused a distur%ance in the filing
office of the eno Justice .ourt, disrupted the orderly business of the Court and overburdened
the limited judicial resources of this Court thereby hindering the timely resolution of
meritorious claims and increasing the costs of engaging in business and providing professional
services to the publicC and
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 has been the subject of
disciplinary hearings before the 1tate 2ar of 3evada 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard
wherein the 2oard found =r) Coughlin Ocommitted multiple violations of the 8ules of
(rofessional conductO and that =r) Coughlin Oengaged in %ad faith o%struction of the
disci&linar( &rocessOC and (3#<E: actually, and the the 123Bs <(# 9pplication to (earson
&!2!!2
contained a complete copy of the it, the 121!12 "#"C#$ contains no such OfindingO but does
contain somewhat similar language in the ODecision and 8ecommendationO section, where such
reads: O"ifth, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin engaged in a bad
faith obstruction of the disciplinary process by failing to file the pleading reHuired by 1C8
105(2* and instead filing several lengthy, irrelevant and nonsensical pleadings, mostly
pleadings filed in other matters, and refiled in the disciplinary action under a similar but
different caption) +n some instances, Coughlin simply crossed out the case name and hand
wrote the names of the parties in the disciplinary proceeding)O
#ne, that is a ridiculous statement, as if that were true, every single attorney who
ever defaulted in a disciplinary matter would be said to have Oengaged in bad faith obstruction
of the disciplinary processO merely by Ofailing to file the pleading re<uired by 1C8 105(2*(c*
(saying such is OreHuiredO is ta7ing it a bit far, its li7e saying one is OreHuiredO to answer a
lawsuit)))one might face the spectre of a default being entered if they donBt, but they are hardly
OreHuiredO in the general sense of the term to file an 9nswer) 1C8 105(2*(c* in no way
provides for such a Oestablish(ing*O of Obad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processO (the
fact they are saying that and the 8DC is repeating is ma7es one have no respect at all for either,
really, some might say,* where such rule reads: O9 copy of the complaint shall be served on the
attorney and it shall direct that a verified response or answer be served on bar counsel within 20
days of serviceC the original shall be filed with bar counselRs office) <he time to respond may
be e'tended once by the chair for not more than 20 days for good cause or upon stipulation of
the parties) +n the event the attorney fails to plead, the charges shall be deemed admittedC
provided, however, that an attorney who fails to respond within the time provided may
thereafter obtain permission of the appropriate disciplinary board chair to do so, if failure to file
is attributable to mista7e, inadvertence, surprise, or e'cusable neglect)O*
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 has been a party in both civil and
criminal matters before this Court including cases before the 8onora%le @eter 4ferraJJa' the
8onora%le 4cott @earson' and the 8onora%le "avid .lifton wherein =r) Coughlin has %een
admonished for failing to follow the CourtBs orders and directivesC and 6AE8E91,
-9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 is currently the 1ubject of an E'tended #rder for
(rotection against Aarassment in the 6or7place reHuested by the 6ashoe County (ublic
DefenderBs #ffice, his previous counsel in several cases before this CourtC and ,
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 is currently the subject of an
E'tended #rder for (rotection 9gainst Aarassment in the 6or7place reHuested by the 1tate 2ar
of 3evada %ased u&on 7r. .oughlin;s harassing and disru&tive %ehavior with em&lo(ees and
officers of the 4tate BarC and
6AE8E91, to protect the peaceful and effective operation of this Court, +< +1
AE8E2N #8DE8ED:
1) -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 shall not submit a document to this Court
which does not comply with the attached (8#CED@89$ 8@$E1 "#8 9$$ D#C@=E3<1
1@2=+<<ED 2N -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 <# <AE 8E3# D@1<+CE C#@8<)
2) -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 shall not reHuest a copy of a document or
&!&!!2
transcript without first filing a 7otion which complies with the attached 8ules) An( such
motion must %e su&&orted %( an affidavit of .OUG8L$N which must address the %asis for
the re*uest, wh( sim&l( viewing the document is not sufficient and whether the document
has %een &reviousl( &rovided to him)
&) An( violation of this #rder may be considered contempt of court and punished
pursuant to 381 Chapter 22 by a fine of up to M500 andor incarceration for up to 25 days in
the 6ashoe County Detention "acility) (3#<E: so what now, Coughlin is going to have Chief
2ailiff =ichael 1e'ton do an encore of his 2121& threats to Coughlin (made in a holding cell
shortly after Coughlin had been ta7en into custody for allegedly being late to court* where
1e'ton taunted Coughlin that Oyou still have those 5 individual violations of the 9dministrative
#rder hanging over your head)))thatBs 25 days in jail for each violation)))O*) <here is no way
Coughlin should be subjected to the threat that every time he files some 8eHuest for 9udio
Copy of (roceeding that some 8DC 2ailiff will either arrest him or serve an #rder to 1how
cause li7e Dudge (earsonBs shameful 2251& #1C in connection with the 122012 9dmin
#rder that (earson subseHuently put through a round of musical case numbers that assisted the
8DC in avoiding processing CoughlinBs appeal thereto and in fraudulently foisting 2ruce
$indsay on Coughlin as his Osole counselO in settings where Coughlin never assented to such,
resulting in more of CoughlinBs filing being rejected, $indsay bil7ing the system, and (earson
and Clifton violating Canon 2, 8ule 2)1& per the O9dministrative 9ppointmentsO sections)))and
really, what is this new 9dmin #rder in response toJ CoughlinBs reHuesting to be provide, even
once, a copy of the audio transcript of the 251& hearings in 8C8201240.5.&0 (or OtrialO*,
both portions, and the interlude in 8C8201140.&&!1 occurring shortly after the impermissible
e'tra4judicial communications between Dudges (earson and Clifton at issue in C81&40552)
O<he cover up is worse than the crimeO comes to mind) <he 8DC and its 2ailiffs playing the
Oblame it on B6endyBO whom they allege is alleging already provided Coughlin copies of such
hearings (finally the 8DC caved and provided at least some of the afternoon portion of the
&1,1& trial in 8C8201&40.5.&0 after months of Coughlin hounding it for such* 9nd really,
why not just tell the 2ailiffBs to leave Coughlin the hell alone, Huit co4signing all the 6CD9Bs
#ffice bs prosecutions and harassment of Coughlin, dump the probations, and these 9dmin
#rders, and see what sort of jurisdiction was retained where Coughlin filed tolling motions, and
get this ship righted))
&) <his #rder is effective u&on &ersonal service upon =r) Coughlin)
Dated this of 9ugust, 1!th, 201&) s Dudge 1cott (earson, Chief Dustice of the (eace
(3#<E: thereafter Dudge (earsonBs #rder includes a slightly modified, tailored to Coughlin
version of DC88< 10*O
<he 8DC has further, by way of a E3otice of Document 8eceived 2ut 3ot
Considered by the CorutF that is file stamped %221&, and which contains a Certificate of
=ailing by former 2DDC Dudge ElliotBs former Dudicial 9ssistant Aeidi Aowden indicating such
was mailed on %221& (despite the envelope it arrived in baring a postmar7 of %2.1&* refused
to transmit CoughlinBs 3otices of 9ppeal of 8DC Dudge 1ferra::Ba /2,1& #rderBs denying
CoughlinBs =otions to =odifyDissolve the specious 6or7place Aarassment E(#Bs 8DC Chief
&!!!!2
Dudge (earson granted the 123 and E6ashoe CountyF in 8C(20124000.0/ and 8C(20124
0005,,, both of which have caused a terribly prejudicial impact to CoughlinBs ability to, say,
personally serve (or have such done* a subpoena on 6C(DBs Dogan, $eslie, ?oodnight, etc),
much less the 123 (which is rather pressing considering the %2%1& trial date in the 8=C for
the dual prosecutions of Coughlin for alleged violations of the dubious <(#E(# granted by
8DC Chief Dudge (earson to the 123)
Chief Dudge (earsonsBs recent %1!1& (time of filing stamped as 11:1& a)m)*
9dministrative #rder 201&40. (which lac7s a case number, much li7e the 122012
9dministrative #rder 2012401 the Dudge (earsons subseHuently assigned a criminal case
number, 8C8201&40/1!&/ to, in a display of a judge ma7ing a prosecutorBs charging decisionO*
reads:
O +3 <AE 9D=+3+1<89<+;E =9<<E8 #": D#C@=E3<1 1@2=+<<ED 2N
-9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3,
6DM?-?')R6)?V9 =RD9R 2+1.4+
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 is a party to several cases in this
CourtC and
the Court which fail to include a case number in the caption or list multiple cases in the
captionC and
the Court which fail to include a certificate of service or clearly state an e'ception to the e'
parte ruleC and
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 regularly submits documents to the Court
which are copies of documents previously filed with the Court that have been redacted or
editedC
the Court which are not legible or otherwise fail to clearly state the relief reHuestedC and
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 regularly reHuests copies of
transcripts or documents from the Court which have been previously providedC
6AE8E91, several of the types of documents referenced above are attached heretoC
and
6AE8E91, citi:ens, whether or not indigent, have a constitutional right to access
to the courts with the protection of due process of lawC and
6AE8E91, filings by pro se petitioners, Ohowever inartfully pleaded, O are held Oto
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers) O Aaines v) !0! @)1) 51,,
520, ,2 1) Ct) 5,!, &0 $) Ed) 2D .52 (1,/2*C and
6AE8E91, Oa litigantBs right to access the courts in proper person and with in
forma pauperis status is not without limitsO, 1ee Dordan v) 1tate e' re+) #f =otor ;ehicles K
&!5!!2
(ub) 110 ()&D &0, !! (2005*, abrogated on other grounds by 2u:: $$C v) #f 3) $as 1%1 ()&D
./0 (200%*C and
6AE8E91, pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules) Ging v) 9tiyeh,
")2D 5.5, 5./ (,th Cir) 1,%/*C
6AE8E91, frivolous or ve@atious claims and defenses overburden limited
Gudicial resources8 hinder the timely resolution of meritorious claims and increase the
costs of engaging in business and %roviding %rofessional services to the %ublicC and
6AE8E91, the citi:ens of this community have a right to a just, speedy, and
ine'pensive determination of every action and this right is infringed if the .ourt allows a case'
civil or criminal' to consume more than its reasona%le share of the .ourt;s time) 1ee, @nited
,& ")1upp) 1,0, 1,1 (D) =ass)1,50*(O<he Court has obligations to other parties who have
cases to be heard)O*C 9nd %1! 1tates v) @nited 1tates 1hoe
6AE8E91, courts possess the inherent power to manage proceedings and e'ercise
reasonable control of the conduct of those who appear before them) 1ee, Chambers v) 501 @)1)
&2 (1,,1* 9nd Dordan v) 1tate e' re+) #f =otor ;ehicles K (ub) 110 ()&D &0, !! (2005*,
abrogated on other grounds by 2u:: $$C v) #f 3) $as 1%1 ()&D ./0 (200%*C and
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 was admitted to the 3evada 1tate
2ar on =arch 25, 2005 and later suspended on Dune /, 2012C
6AE8E91, this Court has previously found in 9dministrative #rder 2012401 that
v) -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 has re&eatedl( caused a distur%ance in the filing
office of the eno Justice .ourt, disrupted the orderly business of the Court and overburdened
the limited judicial resources of this Court thereby hindering the timely resolution of
meritorious claims and increasing the costs of engaging in business and providing professional
services to the publicC and
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 has been the subject of
disciplinary hearings before the 1tate 2ar of 3evada 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard
wherein the 2oard found =r) Coughlin Ocommitted multiple violations of the 8ules of
(rofessional conductO and that =r) Coughlin Oengaged in bad faith obstruction of the
disciplinary processOC and
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 has been a party in cases before
the 8eno =unicipal Court including cases before the Aonorable Dorothy 3ash Aolmes and the
Aonorable Genneth Aoward wherein =r) Coughlin was held in contempt of court for failing to
follow the CourtBs orders and directivesC and
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 has been a party in both civil and
criminal matters before this Court including cases before the 8onora%le @eter 4ferraJJa' the
8onora%le 4cott @earson' and the 8onora%le "avid .lifton wherein =r) Coughlin has %een
admonished for failing to follow the CourtBs orders and directivesC and 6AE8E91,
-9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 is currently the 1ubject of an E'tended #rder for
(rotection against Aarassment in the 6or7place reHuested by the 6ashoe County (ublic
DefenderBs #ffice, his previous counsel in several cases before this CourtC and ,
&!.!!2
6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 is currently the subject of an
E'tended #rder for (rotection 9gainst Aarassment in the 6or7place reHuested by the 1tate 2ar
of 3evada %ased u&on 7r. .oughlin;s harassing and disru&tive %ehavior with em&lo(ees and
officers of the 4tate BarC and
6AE8E91, to protect the peaceful and effective operation of this Court, +< +1
AE8E2N #8DE8ED:
1) -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 shall not submit a document to this Court
which does not comply with the attached PR=C9DER6> RE>9' /=R 6>>
D=CEM9-)' 'E1M?))9D 1I Z6C"6RI 16R!9R C=E2">?- )= )"9 R9-=
JE')?C9 C=ER))
2) -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 shall not reHuest a copy of a document or
transcript without first filing a 7otion which complies with the attached 8ules) An( such
motion must %e su&&orted %( an affidavit of .OUG8L$N which must address the %asis for
the re*uest, wh( sim&l( viewing the document is not sufficient and whether the document
has %een &reviousl( &rovided to him)
&) 6ny violation of this =rder may be considered contem%t of court and
%unished %ursuant to -R' Cha%ter 22 by a fine of u& to A>55 and?or incarceration for u&
to 0> da(s in the Kashoe County Detention /acility)
&) <his #rder is effective u&on &ersonal service upon =r) Coughlin)
Dated this of 9ugust, 1!th, 201&) s Dudge 1cott (earson, Chief Dustice of the (eace
(3#<E: thereafter Dudge (earsonBs #rder includes a slightly modified, tailored to Coughlin
version of DC88< 10*
PR=C9DER6> RE>9' /=R 6>> D=CEM9-)' 'E1M?))9D 1I
Z6C"6RI 16R!9R C=E2">?- )= )"9 R9-= JE')?C9 C=ER) 9ll documents
submitted by -achary 2ar7er Coughlin must meet the following rules: (a* 9ll pleadings and
papers presented for filing must be flat, unfolded, firmly bound together at the top, on white
paper of standard Huality, not less than 1.4lb) 6eight and % 112 by 11 inches in si:e) 9ll papers
shall be typewritten or prepared by some other process that will produce clear and permanent
copies eHually legible to printing) <he print si:e shall not be more than 12 points) Carbon or
photocopies may not be filed) #nly one side of the paper may be used) (2* 9ll papers presented
for filing, receiving, or lodging with the cler7 shall be prepunched with 2 holes, centered 2 &!
inches apart and 112 inch to 5% inch from the top edge of the paper) 9ll original papers shall
be stamped #8+?+39$ between the punched holes in red in7) <he lines on each page must be
double spaced) (ages must be numbered consecutively at the bottom) $ines of pages must be
numbered in the left margm) (C* 3o original pleading or paper shall be amended by ma7ing
erasures or interlineations thereon, or by attaching slips thereto, e'cept by leave of the Court)
(D* <he following information shall appear upon the first page of every paper presented for
filing: (1* =r) CoughlinBs name, address, and telephone number shall be set forth to the left of
center of the page beginning at line 1 and shall be single spaced) <he space to the right of
center shall be reserved for the filing mar7s of the cler7) 39=E 9DD8E11 C+<N, 1<9<E,
&!/!!2
-+( C#DE <E$E(A#3E 3@=2E8
&* <he name of the action or proceeding shall appear below the title of the Court in
the space to the left of center at line ,, e)?): D#A3 D#E, l (laintiff, l vs) l 8+CA98D 8#E, l
Defendant) l (!* +n the space to the right of center at lines 11 and 12 shall appear the case
number and the department number as follows: Case 3o): 8DC 2000 400000 (E'ample* Dept)
3o): 1 (E'ample* (5* <he title of the pleading, motion, or other document must be typed or
printed on the page directly below the names of the parties to the action or proceeding) <he title
must be sufficient in description to apprise the respondent and cler7 of the nature of the
document filed, or the relief sought, e)?): DefendantBs =otion for 1ummary Dudgment 9gainst
(laintiff Dohn DoeC (laintiffBs =otion to Compel 9nswers to +nterrogatories) (E* 9 pleading
may not be filed listing multiple case numbers in the caption) Each filing must be of an original
pleading meeting each of these rules) ("* 9ll e'hibits attached to pleadings or papers must be %
112 by 11 inches in si:e) E'hibits which are smaller must be affi'ed to a blan7 sheet of paper
of the appropriate si:e) E'hibits which are larger than % 112 by 11 inches must be reduced to %
112 by 11 inches or must be folded so as to appear % 112 by 11 inches in si:e) 9ll e'hibits
attached to pleadings or papers must clearly show the e'hibit number at the bottom or on the
right side) Copies of e'hibits must be clearly legible and not unnecessarily voluminous)
#riginal documents must be retained for introduction as e'hibits at the time of a hearing or at
the time of trial rather than attached to pleadings) (?* 6hen a decision of the 1upreme Court of
the 1tate of 3evada is cited, the citation to 3evada 8eports must be given together with the
citation to 6estBs (acific 8eporter and the year of the decision) 6hen a decision of an appellate
court of any other state is cited, the citation to 6estBs 8egional 8eporter 1ystem must be given
together with the state and year of the decision) 6hen a decision of the @nited 1tates 1upreme
Court is cited, the @nited 1tates 8eports citation and year of decision must be given) 6hen a
decision of the court of appeals or of a district court or other court of the @nited 1tates has been
reported in the "ederal 8eporter 1ystem, that citation, court, and year of decision must be
given) (A* 9ll motions shall contain proof of the service of the same) (+* Every motion or
opposition thereto shall be accompanied by a memorandum of legal authorities and any
e'hibits in support of or in opposition to the motion) ?* E'cept as permitted by the presiding
judge, legal memoranda in support of a motion, opposition, or reply shall not e'ceed 10 pages,
e'clusive of e'hibits) (G* "actual contentions involved in any pretrial or post4trial motion shall
be initially presented by Coughlin through an affidavit) #ral testimony may be received at a
hearing with the approval of the Court, or the Court may set the matter for a hearing at a time in
the future and allow oral e'amination of the affiant to resolve factual issues shown by the
affidavits to be in dispute) (1* 9ny affidavit shall identify the affiant, the party on whose behalf
it is submitted, and the motion or application to which it pertains and shall be served and filed
with the motion, or opposition to which it relates) 9ffidavitsW shall contain only factual,
evidentiary matter, shall conform with the reHuirements of 38C( 5.(e*, and shall avoid mere
general conclusions or argument) 9ffidavits substantially defective in these respects may be
stric7en, wholly or in part) (=* 3o motion once heard and disposed of shall be renewed in the
same cause, nor shall the same matters therein embraced be reheard, unless by leave of the
Court (n* Coughlin must file a reHuest for submission if he wishes the Court to consider the
&!%!!2
merits of his motion) (0* Coughlin shall not file a reHuest for submission of a motion unless the
motion was served on the opposition and they have been afforded at least 10 days to respond)
((* Decision shall be rendered without oral argument unless oral argument is ordered by the
Court, in which event the individual court department shall set a date and time for hearing) (U*
9ll discovery motions shall include the affidavit of Coughlin establishing that after
consultation with opposing counsel, he has been unable to resolve the matterOO
<hen Chief Dudge 1ferra::a entered an O9dministrative #rder 2012401 +n re -achary
CoughlinO file stamped 122012 at !:&% p)m), which purported that Coughlin had been
Oadmonished by Dudges including soon to be J. .hief Judge @earson, despite such not being
at all true) 9t such point CoughlinBs sole interactions with Dudge (earson consisted of a /&112
and 10212 landlord tenant matter hearing in 8ev201240010!% and 8ev201240/%!&2) 6hile
Dudge (earson did commit gross judicial misconduct in both hearings, willfully e'ceeding his
jurisdicitonal where completely inappropriate, whilst also failing to embrace his jurisdiction
where he had a duty to, Coughlin was in no way OadmonishedO) +nterestingly, Chief Dudge
(earson indicated to Coughlin during a .1.1& status conference in a trumped up probation
violation charge that the 6CD9Bs #ffice had the Department of 9lternative 1entencing ma7e
against Coughlin incident to an unlawful warrantless arrest of Coughlin after / p)m) in his own
home by D91 #fficers 6ic7man and 8amos in violation of 381 1/1)1&., in an attempt to
intimidate and silence Coughlin, that he, Dudge (earson, had never had any of CoughlinBs
landlord tenant cases, when, in fact, his presiding over two just such cases had an e'tremely
prejudicial impact on CoughlinBs defense of his formal disciplinary matter and other associated
cases) Dudge (earson is fond of smiling to oneBs face while maintaining the status Huo, letting
Dudge Clifton run amuc7, and just generally benefitting from giving local law enforcement
everything they want, and they want it all)
<hough having been served the arguably more ridiculous 6or7place Aarassment
<(# the same 6CD9 6atts4;ial that fraudulently obstructed CoughlinBs 1C8 110 subpoenas
on 2DDC cler7s, judges, and the 2DDC Custodian of 8ecords obtained for E6ashoe CountyF in
8C(201240005,, where involved a <(# 9pplication 6C(D Dim $eslie admits to filing for
himself, where such was actually filed by 6atts4;ial (with both trying to massage there way
around the problems associated with the reHuirement in 381 &&)250, )2/0 that the employer
(the 6C(D is not EemployedF by 6ashoe County* file for such <(# on behalf of an employee
(ie, the employee may not file for a 6or7place Aarassment <(# on their own behalf, though,
obviously, GingBs language above admits that is just what he did where Ging asserted Eso on
!ehalf of the staff and for our protection, $ would as7 that the court e'tend the #rderF)
Aowever, just li7e with Dim $eslie filling out the application himself for a
6or7place Aarssment (rotection #rder (and 6CD9 6atts4;ial attempted to pass of his filing
of such 6or7place <(# 9pplication as a filing by 6C(D $eslie, to get around the odious
conflicts of interest that 6atts4;ial 7nows full well ma7e his conduct tantamount to
professional misconduct*, $aura (eters actually filled out the 6or7place <(# 9pplication in
her own handwriting, only to use white out to obscure her signature and have Ging add his over
it upon the 123 reali:ing that an employee cannot apply for such a 6or7place <(# on their
&!,!!2
own behalf, at which point Ging decided to go with the Ethe women are afraidF angle, though it
was (eters whom pushed the <(# 9pplication idea from the beginning upon her growing very
uncomfortable with the e'tent to which Coughlin was well documenting and e'posing the
fraudulent conduct she was engaged in (vis a vis the fraudulent submission in "AE1 by Ging of
(eters %2&12 9ffidavit of 1ervice of the Complaint, and failure to serve on Coughlin in a
timely manner the odd 10,12 9ffidavit of $aura (eters place in the formal hearing file
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,1&,2114/4124020!4.2&&/4+nde'4to42ates41tamped4&42004
(age41cr4105424c4(roduction4by41bn46ith41cribd4$in7
3evada4E'cuse4for4"ailing4to4#bey41C84105424c amongst other pleadings (though, again, in
the 11/12 &,0,! page 1C8 105(2*(c* violating production of documents to Coughlin, the
bates stamping on such 10,12 9ffidavit of $aura (eters places such after the 10&112 #rder
by Chair Echeverria, where such filings within the "ormal Aearing (leadings file contained
filin121&fdd!4.//24!.ac4%/,e4&%c!,&def%0,general.,&2,gs in chronological <his message
was intended for :achcoughlinLhotmail)com) 6ant to control which emails you receiveorder,
and the bates stamps on such identified (eters 10,12 file stamped <his message was intended
for :achcoughlinLhotmail)com) 6ant to control which emails you receivefrom ;o'o'J ?et
;o'o': http:download)vo'o')com and adjust your 3otifications in the1ettings(references
window) ;o'o' by <elCentris, +nc) is located at 101%0 <elesis Ct), 1an Diego,
C9,210,)9ffidavit of $aura (eters as the last filing in such file, where the bates stamped
10&112 #rder is immediately preceding such 10,12 9ffidavit of $aura (eters)
Consider GingBs contradictory statements as reported by Coughlin in the 101.12
file stamped =otion for #rder <o 1how Cause (Coughlin provided a verbatim transcript of the
interactions between Ging, (eters, and Coughlin therein at pages 54%*, wherein Eing disclaims
an( control of the ,.ourt .ler)+ in res&onse to .oughlin;s accusation that Eing ordered her
not to file .oughlins; 3?/I?/0 7otion to "ismiss (which !ing admitted to receiving at the
time8 only he did not admit it to be an actual (Motion to DismissM because (it doesn0t say
#hat it0s see&ing to have dismissedF*, with GingBs ,2512 email to Coughlin, wherein Ging
purports to be the one whom decides how the 123Bs Cler7 of Court may have filings submitted
and or what Hualifies as service of such filings on the 123, along with GingBs contradictory
statements on the record in the transcript from the 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing)
6hilte the 11/12 production of &,0,! bates stamped pages by the 123 contains
some of CoughlinBs fa'es to the 123, it noticeably fails to contain any record of CoughlinBs
filing of a =otion to Dismiss via facsimile on ,1/12)
=E)1=E-D /6H R9P=R)'8 V=H=H sho#ing filings by Coughlin #ith the
Cler& of Court of the 'tate 1ar of -evada ;-=)97 the 123Bs fa' number is 1//5&2,40552,
the times of delivery are according to a time :one % hours ahead of (1<, though the times
indicated for when ;o'o' sent such confirmation emails indicate the correct time at which
such fa'es were sent (notice the time sent of the emails and the time notated as when the fa'
was delivered are always eight hours apart*:
#utbound fa' report
&50!!2
1ent: =on 122!12 %:01 (=
1ent: 6ed 120512 !:1& (=
1ent: =on 120&12 10:&/ 9=
1ent: =on 120&12 10:&2 9=
1ent: "ri 11&012 !:&% (=
1ent: 6ed 112%12 .:02 9=
&51!!2
1ent: 6ed 112%12 &:2. 9=
1ent: =on 112.12 1:11 9=
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:!5 (=
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:&/ (=
1ent: "ri 112&12 !:5% (=
1ent: =on 111,12 %:1. 9=
&52!!2
1ent: =on 111,12 %:10 9=
1ent: 1un 111%12 /:1& (=
1ent: 1un 111%12 %:!& 9=
1ent: "ri 111.12 !:!/ (=
1ent: <ue 111&12 2:51 (=
1ent: <ue 111&12 2:2% (=
&5&!!2
1ent: =on 111212 !:5, (=
1ent: =on 111212 10:&0 9=
1ent: 1un 111112 10:!& 9=
1ent: 1un 111112 %:&0 9=
1ent: 1un 111112 /:&& 9=
1ent: "ri 110,12 !:!5 (=
&5!!!2
1ent: <hu 110%12 !:!/ (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 12:!/:10 9= on 201241140,)
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:&% (=
1ent: <ue 110.12 /:&/ (=
1ent: =on 110512 !:5% (=
1ent: =on 110512 &:20 (=
1ent: =on 110512 &:20 (=
&55!!2
1ent: =on 110512 12:22 (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 0%:22:!! (= on 2012411405)
1ent: 6ed 10&112 !:10 (=
Nour "a' was delivered L 11:10:&! (= on 20124104&1)
1ent: =on 101512 !:!, (=
&5.!!2
Nour "a' was delivered L 0/:&%:!% 9= on 201240,41% (3#<E:, this represents CoughlinBs
,1/12 =otion to Dismiss*
E8E: citation to legal authorityJ /rom7 Patric& !ing ((atric7GLnvbar)#rg* 1ent:
<ue ,2512 11:&! 9= <o: -ach Coughlin (:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com* Cc7 David Clar&
;DavidCRnvbar,=rg<C $aura (eters ($aura(Lnvbar)#rg* ,42542012
Dear =r) Coughlin, Please be advised that the 'tate 1ar of -evada #ill not
acce&t or file any documents submitted by you via e1mail) "urther, if you intend to send or
serve me with a copy of a document it #ill not %e acce&ted if sent via e1mail) 1incerely,
E8E: 7otion to "ismiss 123 v) Coughlin /rom7 >aura Peters
;>auraPRnvbar,=rg< 1ent: 6ed ,2.12 11:5! 9= <o: B-ach CoughlinB
(:achcoughlinLhotmail)Com* + never said that you could file items via e1mail T + donRt ma7e
those calls) $ have to file documents in so (ou have to serve them here. $ want to coo&erate
with (ou %ut $ canOt change the &rocedural re*uirements) $aura 4444444444444444444444444"rom:
-ach Coughlin Pmailto::achcoughlinLhotmail)ComQ 1ent: =onday, 1eptember 2!, 2012 2:50
(= <o: $aura (etersC (atric7 GingC David Clar7C tsusichLnvdetr)#rg 1ubject: "6: =otion to
Dismiss 123 v) Coughlin
Dear Cler7 of the Court of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada (eters, @lease note the
forwarded 7otion to "ismiss 123 v Coughlin filed on 1eptember 1/th, 2012 (+ also will
forward the one + sent just prior to midnight of the 1/th, of 1etpember 2012) (lease let me
7now anything + should 7now about the Aearing tomorrow, 1eptember 25th, 2012 on and only
on the matters limited to those set forth in the 3;) 1) Ct #rder of Dune /th, 2012 in .0&%& and
pursuant to my 1C8102(!*(&* (etition .1!2.)
@lease ma)e sure Bar counsel is aware of the e6tent to which (ou &reviousl(
guaranteed me that no service of an( .om&laint in 4BN v. .oughlin sent %( certified mail
would %e deemed effectuated %( the 4BN where %ased merel( u&on the return to sender of
the first attem&t to so serve me under 4. /53 such a .om&laint' which (ou indicated (ou
had -ust received as returned to sender on 4e&tem%er /5th' 05/0' and where you further
indicated that $ could serve an( filings on m( %ehalf thereafter u%on the '1- via electronic
means including fa6 or email))))4444444444444444444 "rom: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com <o:
tsusichLnvdetr)#rgC patric77Lnvbar)#rgC davidcLnvbar)#rg 1ubject: 7otion to "ismiss
123 v) Coughlin Date: <ue, 1% 1ep 2012 00:02:5! 40/00 -ach CoughlinF
EAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages .:20 to /:.* E=8)
ECAE;E88+9: Mr, !ingA MR, !?-27 6s the record reflects8 Mr,
Coughlin was served a co&( of the com&laint to the address that he is mandated
to provide to the 1tate 2ar) =8) C#@?A$+3: + donBt believe thatBs correct)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: (lease donBt interrupt, =r) Coughlin) ?o ahead) MR,
!?-27 4u%se*uentl(' 7r. .oughlin filed' immediatel( after we mailed the
com&laint via certified and regular mail' 7r. .oughlin filed a motion to
&5/!!2
dismiss the com&laint)F
//?/B?/0 FO7AL "$4.$@L$NA: 8EA$NG 1 #ol. $' <@ages D509/D to
D5B9/>= ,7. E.8E#E$A9 $ %elieve that all the &leadings that have %een filed would %e
&art of the &anel;s record that would go to the su&reme court. 7. E$NG9 An(thing that;s
%een mar)ed as an e6hi%it and identified and acce&ted into evidence %( the &anel will %e &art
of the record. And the entire transcri&t of the &roceedings. No other documents at this time'
an(thing that hasn;t %een &roffered as evidence will %e not admitted. 7. E.8E#E$A9
"o the &leadings go u& or -ust that which is offered into evidence and acce&tedF 7. E$NG9
To the e6tent that the com&laint will certainl( go u&' ever(thing that;s in this &ac)et will go
u&. An(thing that (ou had mar)ed and acce&ted as evidence will %e sent u& on the record'
along with the entire transcri&t. But to have other documents -ust com&iled' it won;t hel& the
record' it will ma)e it more confusing. The su&reme court has %etter things to do. 7.
#ELL$49 @leadings filed' the( don;t go automaticall(' the whole case file doesn;t go' -ust
whatever is entered hereF 7. E$NG9 .orrect. 7( &leadings' for instance' as (ou can see
%( the Bates stam& num%ers are thousands of &ages of nonsensical e1mails and dis&araging
e1mails. $ didn;t thin) that that would add to this da( or hel& the su&reme court. 7.
E.8E#E$A9 $ thin) the confusion' at least $ have' is whether or not the &leadings
themselves' whatever file' whatever 7r. .oughlin has filed' a motion for whatever reason'
are those &art of the record that go u& on a&&ealF $n civil litigation' with which $;m onl(
familiar' that does %ecome &art of the record if so designated. 7. E$NG9 $f the orders go
u&' &leadings that are not admitted do not go u&. 7. .OUG8L$N9 :our 8onor' if $ can
-ust inter-ect 11 7. E$NG9 $n other words' ever(thing 7r. .oughlin sent' oftentimes with
these multi&le ca&tions where he;s sending them to man( &eo&le' he might ca&tion as a
&leading' it doesn;t ma)e it a &leading. $t has to %e something that was sent to us' filed in'
and that would %e a &leading. And if there was such a thing as file stam&ed with the su&reme
court' it will go u&. 7. #ELL$49 That is m( *uestion. $t doesn;t have to %e necessaril( %e
%rought u& here' %ut if it was su%mitted and file stam&ed as %eing su%mitted' then it;s &art of
the record that goes u&' whether it was mentioned here or notF 7. E$NG9 .orrect. That
would %e m( understanding. Onl( if it was &ro&erl( filed' timel( filed' stam&ed in %( the
court.
1. +t is not Huite clear how the 8=C is able to contract out its court appointed
defense counsel to attorneyBs maintaining private practices (including the very <aitel whom
was appointed to represent Coughlin in the criminal trespass case in 2.!05 (.1,01* where
Coughlin was attempting to sue <aitel, and, arguably, <aitel himsel in C;1140&051 incident
to the same wrongful summary eviction from which such criminal trespass prosecution
issued*) (ublic defenders, private practice prohibited, see 381 1%0)010, 1%0)0&0, 9nd
2.0)0!0)
<he 8=CBs Dudge Aoward had no jurisdiction to deny CoughlinBs 102.11
9pplication for Court 9ppointed counsel where such contained a sworn declaration by
Coughlin indicating CoughlinBs yearly income was M10,000 and that he had little to no
&5%!!2
money to his name, and had been ordered evicted the day before) Dudge 1tiglich has so far
denied Coughlin the appointment of co4counsel in any of the criminal matters wherein
Coughlin is a party before her, and denied CoughlinBs =otion for (reparation of <ranscript at
(ublic E'pense in C81&40011, and so far in C81&40.1!, even though 0.1! represents the
appeal of what in +n 8e 2ec7ett (at least, though substantially different factual circumstances
at issue therein* was deemed a 1C8 111(.* OseriousO offense conviction per 381 1,,)2%0*
O<he 1upreme Court will appoint counsel and fi' fees whenever such orders
appear necessary to the proper e'ercise of its appellate function) 3)8)1) /)125, 1ubd) &(2*,
/)1!5, 1ubd) 1) 2rac7enbrough v) 1tate, 1,/., 55& ()2D !1,, ,2 3ev) !.0)O District court
abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to appointed counsel in amount lower than
that mandated by statute without e'plicitly determining that amount of time claimed by
counsel was unreasonable, and without stating its reasons for reduction in fees) 3)8)1) /)125,
1ubd) 1) Digesti v) <hird Dudicial Dist) Court +n and "or County of $yon, 1,,&, %5& ()2D
11%, 10, 3ev) 5&2) 1upreme Court will only review lower courtBs decision regarding court4
appointed counselBs claim for e'cess fees in e'traordinary circumstances) 6ood v) 1tate,
1,,/, ,51 ()2D .01, 11& 3ev) 1!55)
<rial courtBs denial of attorneyBs motion see7ing fees in e'cess of statutory
ma'imum for representing prisoner on appeal of denial of petition for postconviction relief
could be reviewed by 1upreme Court by properly documented petition for e'traordinary
relief) 3)8)1) /)125, 1ubd) !) 2eury v) 1tate, Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court, 1,,1, %12 ()2D
//!, 10/ 3ev) &.&, 1ubseHuent mandamus proceeding %2. ()2D ,5., 10% 3ev) 21,)
1/ +t is important to note that on that very day, 22/12, 8DC Dudge (and former 25 year
prosecutor for the 6CD9Bs #ffice* Clifton was mysteriously transferred onto the 8C820124
.5.&0 case Ging references in his Complaint in alleging CoughlinBs filing therein of 22112
(which 8DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori <ownsend emailed Ging, apparently in response to GingBs
writing her reHuesting a copy of the cases Dudge 3ash Aolmes referenced in her "AE% &1!12
written grievance letter to the 123, wherein Dudge 3ash Aolmes alleges that the 6C(DBs
#ffice called her EDudicial 9ssistantF, purportedly to simply indicate that it was representing
Coughlin on a Egross misdemeanorF in the 8DC (the only gross misdemeanor Coughlin has
ever been charged with was the Emisuse of ,11F case in 8DC 8C8201240.5.&0*) +t seems
rather plausible (though the 6C(D absolutely refuses to e'plain Dudge 3ash AolmesB
statements respecting itBs calling her judicial assistant on 22/12, and 8DC Dudge 1ferra::a
summarily Huashed CoughlinBs subpoena on Dogan (whom was also subpoened for the
111!12 formal disciplinary hearing and failed to appear* that Dogan (whom indicated on
112/12 that he had never spo7en with Dudge 3ash Aolmes during a =ardsen4lite hearing
before Dudge Clifton* then proceeded to refuse to answer CoughlinBs Huestion as to whether he
had ever spo7en with Dudge 3ash AolmesB Dudicial 9ssistant =arilyn <ognoni (where, of
course, Dudge Clifton allowed DoganBs non4response upon ruling that such matter was
irrelevant, in a mar7ed laisse: faire approach to ensuring competent representation by defense
counsel in contrast to Dudge AolmesB &1!12 grievance against Coughlin to the 123 resulting
in Coughlin being charged with alleged 8(C violation as to duties the 123 alleges Coughlin
owes to himself)
6here Dudge Clifton (whom current 8DC Chief Dudge (earson indicates receives
&5,!!2
at least half of the criminal cases doc7eted in the 8DC to ensure the 6CD9Bs #fficeBs
approach is smeared all over everything, er, just because, really, no reason given)))which the
+nterim 1uspension in Aalverson indicated might not be all that acceptable (in referencing a
similar redistribution of cases by then Chief Dudge Aardcastle which is reminiscent of
current 2DDC Chief Dudge AardyBs .111& #rder moving nearly all of CoughlinBs cases in
the 2DDC into Dudge ElliottBs replacement in Department %, Dudge 1tiglich (7ind of s7ews the
jurisprudence in 6ashoe County where former 25 year veteran prosecutor for the 6CD9Bs
#ffice Clifton is assigned at least half of the criminal cases doc7eted therein, where the
people elect si' different justices of the peace and are entitled to get a more diversified
approach, especially where such is a limited jurisdiction court* was mysteriously transferred
onto that 0.5.&0 case on 22/12 (the file in the 8DC contains nothing more to e'plain Dudge
CliftonBs mysteriously being transferred on to 0.5.&0 on 22/12 besides the following:
OGin7ead, Catherine "rom: 2a7er, 8obbin 1ent: <o: =onday,
"ebruary 2/, 2012 %:55 9= Gin7ead, Catherine 1ubject: "6 Coughlin
8C8201240.5.&0 +mportance: Aigh \\8obbin 2a7er 8e 0 Dustice Court
Deputy Court Cler7 (//5* &25W.5&5 (//5* &25W.510 (fa'* "rom: Dogan, 2iray
1ent: "riday, "ebruary 2!, 2012 2:!, (= <o: 2a7er, 8obbin Cc: Noung, -ach
1ubject: "6: Coughlin 8C8201240.5.&0 +mportance: Aigh
Ai 8obbin,
<he 1tate and defense have agreed to continue this case out &0 days
for another =1C) <han7 you, b) 444444444444444444"rom: 1ent: <o: 1ubject:
Noung, -ach "riday, "ebruary 2!, 2012 12:0/ (= Dogan, 2iray 8E: Coughlin
2ecause this is the first =1C setting, + am o7ay with a &0 day continuance) +
will 313 ne't set as well for =1C) <han7s, -ach 44444444444444"rom: Dogan,
2iray 1ent: <hursday, "ebruary 2&, 2012 1:0/ (= <o: Noung, -ach 1ubject:
Coughlin <he =1C is =onday) Coughlin wants to get his case continued) 6hat
sayeth youJ (3#<E thereon such page containing all the above emails is hand
interlineated OI1 (crossed out* I5 <ransfer D5 Clifton case =1C &2,12
L1:&0 p)m)*O
3#<E: in the 8DC such 0.5.&0 case is listed in the doc7et (prima facie evidence of
fact pursuant to 381 !)2!0* 9s assigned to Department 1Bs Dudge $ynch) Dudge Clifton is in
Department 5) Coughlin had contacted 6C(D Dogan on 21%12 to indicate a conflict between
the setting of the trial in the 8=C 11 <8 2.%00 at 1:00 pm on 22/12 and the =andatory
1tatus Conference in the 8DC in 0.5.&0 at 1:&0 p)=) 8ather than owning up to his violatin of
381 1/%)&,/ +n failing to appear at the 21!12 arraignment of a gross misdemeanor, Dogan
retaliated against Coughlin by successfully obtaining an #rder "or Competency Evaluation
from 8DC Dudge Clifton file stamped 1:&1 pm on 22/12, where Dogan further retaliated
against Coughlin by willfully disobeying CoughlinBs order to Dogan to refrain from identifying
in any way into the record in the district court matter necessitated by such 381 1/%)!05 #rder
"or Competency Evaluation in a gross misdemeanor, the indentity of the medications Coughlin
ta7es or anything relative to CoughlinBs medical or mental health care) #f course, Dogan
proceeded to, minutes after Coughlin e'pressly warned him not to, announce into the record
&.0!!2
that Coughlin was on 9dderall in violation of the A+(99 rights th 6C(D and $a7es Crossing
touted incident to having Couglin summarily incarcerated for eight days between !1,12 and
!2.12 upon DD9 Noung violating 381 1/%)!05 Net again in moving for such in arguing
Coughlin had not divulged sufficient information to $a7eBs Crossing in the conte't of its hugely
invasive competency evaluation, which includes something a7in to a search incident to arrest,
and where $a7eBs doctors 2ill Davis and 1ally "armer refused CoughlinBs reHuest to be
permitted to tape record the evaluation, and insisted on a full body search of Coughlin to ensure
that Couglhin be prevented from carrying any recording devices on his person incident to the
!1%12 competency evaluation that $a7eBs Davis and "armer abruptly stormed out of, only to
then file a lied filled !1%12 letter with the 2DDC and Dudge Elliott in C81240&/.*)*)
1% AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 1.2:! to 1.2:/* E=8) C#@?A$+3: <he thing is, anything that
would tend to rebut the inference of guilt, you always rule itBs not relevant) 1o +Bm wondering
whatBs the point of calling me thenJF
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages .0:2& to .2:!* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Did
1ergeant $ope:, the female sergeantJ 9 1he may have, but + donBt recall) U Did you have
a video camera with youJ 9 6e had Dr) =erlissBs phone) U Did you ta7e 1! videos that
you propounded to the 8eno city attorney that dayJ =8) G+3?: #bjection) 8elevance)
<AE 6+<3E11: 6e gave them what we had) <he number + donBt recall) 2N =8)
C#@?A$+3: U 6as there some reason 44 you seem to have video of every moment of that
day, e'cept for this announcing themselves as law enforcement) +s that what youBre
testifying to right nowJ 9 =r) Coughlin 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, the issue
here is whether or not youBre competent to be an attorney and should continue in the practice
of law) NouBre focusing on a rather minor detail, and + would li7e you to focus on the
broader issues) =8) C#@?A$+3: +tBs not just competency, itBs candor) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: NouBve indicated you want to impeach him) <he issue is =r) Aill has
testified that the police identified themselves) Nou say something different) +Bve as7ed you
for an offer of proof) NouBve laid the foundation) $etBs proceed) =8) C#@?A$+3: +t also
goes to 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: (lease proceed, =r) Coughlin) Nou would do yourself
some good if you will focus on the issues, if you will)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages /2:& to /5:5* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U =r) Aill, is it
somewhat incongruus for you to assert to this panel that + completely lac7 competency, and
yet you ran up, counting the trial court M20,000 you as7ed for, and the M!2,000 you were
ultimately awarded in that appellate courtJ =8) G+3?: #bjection) 9rgumentative and
irrelevant) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 1ustained) =8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 it goes to his
credibility) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm sorryJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, + thin7 it goes
to his credibility to the e'tent that heBs saying, well, =r) Coughlin is so baseless and
ve'atious, yet + was able to bill .0 grand for it) <o me itBs li7e, well, at some point if
somebodyBs arguments are so worthless and so unsupported, shouldnBt you be able to bring it
home for less than .0 grand for a summary evictionJ =8) G+3?: =r) Chairman, if + could
respond by pointing out the fact that the order from Dudge "lanagan, which has been
admitted, suggests that that was 44 that those fees were generated because of =r) CoughlinBs
ve'atious conduct) 9nd that the fees were reasonable and were awarded against =r)
Coughlin, not one cent of which has been paid) 1o + thin7 any suggestion to the contrary is
&.1!!2
irrelevant, because Dudge "lanaganBs order is to be accepted by the panel) =8) C#@?A$+3:
Nour Aonor, if + can Huic7ly counter that) + donBt 7now thatBs actually pled in your
complaint, =r) Ging, or included amongst one of the three grievances) <he e'tent to which
44 am + here today because this li7e Dudge ?ardnerBs sanctions coming up two years laterJ
9m + here today on Dudge "lanaganBs sanctionJ +s he a grievant and accorded a case number
tooJ =8) G+3?: =r) Chairman, + was responding to his Huestion) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +
believe youBre here today to measure all of your conduct as a practicing lawyer) 1o +Bd li7e to
move on) +f you have further Huestions of =r) Aill, please as7 them) +Bve now afforded you
in e'cess of 20 minutes) +Bll give you another five) =8) C#@?A$+3: 1o weBre not here
today based on whatBs been noticedJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6eBre not here today to relitigate
orders that have been filed that you have appealed, and that you have lost) =8)
C#@?A$+3: +Bm not as7ing 44 +Bm as7ing what is it limited toJ 2ecause it sounds li7e from
what you just said itBs not limited) =8) ECAE;E88+9: + donBt intend to impose any limits
on you in terms of what you attempt to proffer as evidence) + will rule on what you proffer
as evidence) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm saying what heBs limited to, your Aonor) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: <he issue here, sir, as + understand the supreme courtBs order with respect
to your conviction of theft, and the issues here with respect to the other grievances that have
been filed against you are to the e'tent as to what, if any, should be the punishment that you
should sustain as a result of your conduct) =8) C#@?A$+3: Net this is entered into
evidence) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <his is whatJ =8) C#@?A$+3: <his order has been
entered into evidence) =8) ECAE;E88+9: E'hibit 2 has) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2ut itBs not
pled in any complaint) Dudge "lanaganBs not a grievant) + wasnBt noticed that that was the
purpose of this hearing to some e'tent today) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou were noticed that
the issue of your conviction of trespass was an issue, that your handling of that case was an
issue, and itBs relevant as to that)F
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &20:15 to &21:2* =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm really
sorry, =r) Coughlin) 2ut + would li7e you to assist the panel in following our directions) +Bve
as7ed you to address, one, whether or not youBre competent to continue to practice law) <wo,
ho# should #e deal #ith the su&reme court;s mandate that we are to consider the nature
and intent of &unishment as a result of that theft conviction and other misconduct, and if
you believe punishment is warranted, what the nature of that punishment should be) 5f we
can focus on those issues it would help this panel do its job a lot better than trying to
understand =r) AarrisB situation or some other lawyerBs situation) Could you focus on that
for me, pleaseJF*) =ega4hypocrites li7e Echeverria really do not li7e confronting the
incongruity of their money plays approach to life and law) Aowever, 1C8 12&(&* and the
$aub decision hold otherwise)
3ote, there again Echeverria admits to the fact that he perpetually sought, all
throughout this matter, to misapply 1C8 111(%* and the 3) 1) CtBs ./12 #rder in .0%&% to
eviscerate the reHuirement under 1chaeffer that Ging must prove each individual act of
misconduct Coughlin was alleged to have committed by Eclear and convincing evidenceF
via the introduction of admissible evidence (where non of the Ee'pert testimonyF was
admissible as non of the witnesses were e'perts, none of the #rders were admissible (save
the portions of the two municipal court convictions that actually <ualify as Gevidence3 (see
&.2!!2
+n 8e 1antosuossoBs ruling that Gfindings of fact3 are inadmissible*) Every single time
Coughlin offered any evidence or testimony that went to defending against the myriad of
vaguely formed and unsupported by any actual admissible evidence allegations of
misconduct made by Ging, Echeverria ruled such testimony or evidence offered by
Coughlin was EinadmissibleF or EirrelevantF in light of his contention that Ging did not need
to prove Coughlin committed any such misconduct (well over an above limiting such
narrowing to 1C8 111(5*Bs Ea conviction is conclusive proof that the 8espondent committed
the crimeF)))which itself is far from establishing EconclusivelyF that either the petty larceny
or criminal trespass convictions at issue in the only two 1C8 111 (etitions Ging filed
involving Coughlin are EseriousF offenses, or that the circumstances attendant to such
convictions and that alleged acts underlying such were EconclusivelyF irrelevant,
immaterial, or inadmissible*)
Chair EcheverriaBs constantly ruled as irrelevant or inadmissible any testimony or
evidence Coughlin offered in any way connected to (however tangentially, even* the
criminal trespass conviction or surrounding circumstances thereof (whether or not offered to
dispute the validity of the conviction or Huestion whether such is conclusive proof of
CoughlinBs guilt with respect to such crime*) 6hile Echeverria refused to countenance
CoughlinBs arguments that 3) 1) Ct)Bs decision to refrain from referring the matter of the
1C8 111(!* (etition in .1,01 to a disciplinary panel provides a defensive collateral estoppel
bar to any attempt to characteri:e such criminal trespass conviction as a basis for
permanently disbarring Coughlin on any of the myriad of scattershot allegations that Ging
and the (anel purport such criminal trespass conviction or the circumstances surrounding
such purport to provide support for the recommendation to permanently disbar Coughlin)
<he lac7 of any such 1C8 111(%* referral (and GingBs own defining his (etition in
.1,01 as one * arguably precludes pleading such conviction for criminal trespass at all as
supporting an allegation of a violation of 8(C %)!(a*4(d*, (much less that sua sponte
attempts by Echeverria to graft such criminal trespass conviction and the testimony by
8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), as to the Esurrounding circumstancesF thereof that Echeverria ruled to
be admissible (of course, only so far as such EevidenceF favored GingBs case* with respect to
such criminal trespass conviction 9s to such criminal trespass conviction,
Echeverria, again, sua sponte, argued such provided support for and notice4pleading to
Coughlin that "AE2 (the Eprevailing party attorneyBs fee awardF Gsanction3 by the district
court in the appeal of the summary eviction AillBs associate handled
AillBs associate Casey D) 2a7er, EsH), handled (solely appeared* both justice
court summary eviction actions threatened days prior to CoughlinBs initial %2011 i(hone
arrest, on through to the district courtBs &&012 #rder denying the appeal of such, all the
way until 9ugust of 2012 whereupon Aill appeared in such matter to defend against
CoughlinBs 38C( .0 motions) 1uch a late arrival to the party hardly ma7es Aill a material
witness (much less Hualified to testify about such* with respect to those matters wherein his
associate appeared*) +ndeed, Aill constantly attempted to have it both ways, at once
purporting to be an e'pert witness, yet an Einterested partyF or at least the attorney for an
Einterested partyF (with respect to the summary eviction cases and appeal of one of them
given Aill arguably (Ching notwithstanding (so confusing the 8(C !)2 analysis there* is an
&.&!!2
interested party given Ging identified Aill as the grievant in E3?124020!F)))and where
Dudge Aolmes was listed as the grievant in E3?1240!&!F, and Dudge $) ?ardner the grievant
in E3?1240!&5F that leaves no case number for Dudge 2eesley or the still to be identified by
anyone Ejustice court judgeF that Ging testified had filed a grievance against Coughlin (tal7
about a gang bang, wow, nobody runs a train on someone Huite li7e 6ashoe County runs a
train on someone, rightJ *
1, <he thing is defensive collateral estoppel applies to all of the 123Bs allegations of misconduct,
especially with respect to "AE2, &, ! (Dudge Aolmes had her bite at the apple in her 22%12 #rder
summarily finding Coughlin in contempt (which, by its very summary nature precludes an offensive
collateral estoppel application* and is estopped from ta7ing another swing at the plate as to anything
Coughlin allegedly did in court during the 22/12 trial in "AE5, her &1212 #rder, which itself is
void and an e'ample of Dudge AolmesB constant judicial misconduct where such was either a willful
violation of 381 1/%)!05 #r an e'ample of Dudge Aolmes (whom purported to be some sort of
Huasi4e'pert on mental illness issues from a legal standpoint in her testimony* utter incompetence in
apparently being completely unaware of the reHuirement (and duty she has* that she not proceed to
hold a trial where the defendantBs competency is in Huestion (and "AE% is hilarious in that regard
where within two sentences Dudge Aolmes admits she feels Coughlin is OHuic7ly decompensatingO
mentally, but that she is, also, attempting to Oset for trialO the OotherO (a traffic citation case is not a
Ocriminal matterO * criminal matter before her (the one that was transferred under e'tremely
suspicious circumstances to her on 22/12, the same day of the trial wherein CoughlinBs alleged
conduct was addressed in "AE!* "AE10 (which merely ruled that CoughlinBs +"( was denied and
did not ma7ing any OfindingO or OconclusionO that Coughlin had engaged in any misconduct
whatsoever* +t appears that the majority of other jurisdictions apply offensive collateral estoppel,
generally, in bar discipline cases) 1ee, e)?), +n re 1egal, /1, 3)E)2D !%0, !%5 (=ass) 1,,,*
(mP?Qeneral rules of collateral estoppel govern Pbar discipline casesQ))*C #ffice of Disciplinary
Counsel v) Giesewetter, %%, 9)2D !/, 5! ((a) 2005* (9ttorney collaterally estopped in bar discipline
case on basis of federal courtnes civil judgment for fraud established by clear and convincing
evidence*C +n re Capoccia, /0, 3)N)1)2D .!0, .!2)!% (3)N) 9pp) Div) 2000* (9ttorney collaterally
estopped in bar discipline case on basis of sanctions in si'teen state cases and one federal case for
failure to follow rules of court*C +n re Caranchini, ,5. 1)6)2D ,10, ,12)1! (=o) 1,,/* (3on4mutual
offensive collateral estoppel applied in bar discipline case on basis of federal court sanctions for
same activity*C +n re 2ru:ga, /12 9)2D 10/%, 10/, (3)A) 1,,%* (Aolding that, in future cases,
offensive collateral estoppel may be used in bar discipline proceedings when a prior proceeding
employed a burden of proof eHualing or e'ceeding the clear and convincing burden governing bar
discipline proceedings*C cf) +n re #wens, 5&2 3)E)2D 2!%, 252 (+ll) 1,%%* (Declining to give
offensive collateral estoppel effect to factual findings underlying a state courtZs judgment for fraud
established by clear and convincing evidence, but noting that it n`can more confidently rely on a
criminal conviction as resting on accurate factual findings) 6here n`an attorney who has been
found guilty of a criminal offense ) ) ) Aas been so found only after he has made every reasonable
effort to cast doubt on his guilt)*C 2ut cf) +n re 1trong, .1. ()2D 5%&, 5%/ (@tah 1,%0* (declining to
give offensive collateral estoppel effect to factual findings underlying a federal courtnes judgment
for fraud because to do so would be contrary to the obvious intent of a @tah statute n`that reHuires
the 2oard to ma7e its own findings based upon Pits ownQ evidentiary hearing,) 2ut concluding that
the record in the prior civil proceeding would be admissible as evidence where relevant in
&.!!!2
disbarment hearing*)
20 Defending $awyers in Disciplinary (roceedings, &1 9=D@8 <8+9$1 .&&): O)))1ec) !%)
9videntiary considerations: <he rules of evidence for civil jury trials, with slight
variations, generally apply to attorney4discipline proceedings)P/Q Aowever, it has also been
said that, at disciplinary hearings, the rules of evidence are Orela'ed,OP%Q and considerable
latitude is allowed the accused attorney to bring in evidence of good moral character,
particulary on the issue of mitigation)P,Q
E'hibits should be readied for Huic7 and easy introduction into evidence by
organi:ing them and offering them for mar7ing for identification at the beginning of the
hearing or at the pre4hearing conference)P10Q 1uch e'hibits include time sheets,P11Q carbon or
duplicate original of the contract of employment,P12Q photocopies of all or part of the former
clientBs file where appropriate,P1&Q corres&ondence with the com&lainant and others,P1!Q
telephone logs and messages,P15Q -udicial records of related court &roceedings,P1.Q any
pertinent public recordsP1/Q and official investigation re&orts,P1%Q and documents and hospital
records where pertinent)P1,Q 6ritings used to refresh memoryP20Q are not mar7ed, but they
should be ready for offering to witnesses who need assistance in recalling events)
<he burden of proof is, of course, on the attorney assuming the prosecution role)P21Q
9s for the sufficiency of the proof of misconduct against an attorney, the courts are in
agreement that the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply,P22Q
but they do not agree on whether a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient or whether the
proof must be clear and convincing)P 2&Q
'ection $* /ootnotes:
P"3/Q 929 1tandards for $awyer Discipline, 1tandard %)&2) / 9m) Dur) 2D,
9ttorneys at $aw S ,!) 1ubpoena for attendance of witness at disciplinary hearing, 2 9m) Dur)
(leading and (ractice "orms, 9ttorneys at $aw, "orm 2,/T2,%) P"3%Q Emslie v) 1tate 2ar of
California (1,/!* 11 Cal &d 210, 11& Cal 8ptr 1/5, 520 (2d ,,1) P"3,Q Committee on $egal
Ethics v) (ietranton (1,5/* 1!& 6 ;a 11, ,, 1E2d 15 )9dmissibility and sufficiency of
evidence in attorney disciplinary proceedings, / 9m) Dur) 2D, 9ttorneys at $aw SS ,!, ,5)
P"310Q "oundation for 9dmission of 1econdary Evidence, &5 9m) Dur) (roof of "acts 2d 1!/C
"oundation for #ffering 2usiness 8ecords and Evidence, &! 9m) Dur) (roof of "acts 2d 50,C
9dmissibility of Computeri:ed 2usiness 8ecords, 1! 9m) Dur) (roof of "acts 2d 1/&)
P"311Q PQ 9dmissibility of business records) 2usiness records and boo7s, and entries
therein, are generally admissible if 7ept in the ordinary course of business and if properly
authenticated) @nder modern statutes, and under 8ule %0&(.* of the "ederal 8ules of Evidence,
it generally is not necessary that the person actually ma7ing the records testify, if the custodian
or other Hualified witness testifies to the identity and mode of preparation of the records) 1ee &0
9m) Dur) 2D, Evidence SS ,&/, ,50) P"312Q PQ 9dmissibility of carbon copies of documents)
=any courts have held that a carbon copy of a document ran7s as a duplicate original when
signed or otherwise e'ecuted with all necessary formalities) +n many cases an unsigned or
une'ecuted carbon copy of a document has also been regarded as an original, which may be
admitted in evidence without e'planation as to why the first, or OribbonO copy of the instrument
has not been produced) #ther courts, however, have indicated that carbon copies normally will
not be regarded as duplicate originals, but must be considered as secondary evidence, with
&.5!!2
respect to which the usual rules as to the necessity and sufficiency of e'plaining nonproduction
of the original are applicable) 1ee 9m) Dur) 2D, Evidence SS !%/, !%%)
P"31&Q PQ 9dmissibility of photocopy of document) 1tatutes in most states provide
for the admissibility, as though they were originals, of photographic copies of business and
public records made and 7ept in the regular course of business) 1ee 2, 9m) Dur) 2D, Evidence S
!,0C & Dones on Evidence (.th ed)* S 1/:1&) "or photocopies not Hualifying for admission under
such statutes, some courts may follow the liberal view adopted by the "ederal 8ules of
Evidence, whereby a copy of a document produced by photographic or eHuivalent means may
be deemed an original if it was intended to have the effect of an original by the person
e'ecuting or issuing it ("ed 8 Evid 1001*, and, still more broadly, a duplicate of a document is
admissible to the same e'tent as an original unless there is a genuine Huestion as to the
authenticity of the original, or unless it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the
original ("ed 8 Evid 100&*)
P"31!Q PQ 9dmissibility of letters) 9 letter between parties to an action and relevant
to the issues of the case is admissible in evidence, provided there is competent proof of its
authenticity) <he authenticity of a letter is usually proved by establishing its identity as the
letter of the person by whom it purports to be written) <his is usually shown by establishing the
genuineness of the signature on the letter, but may be proved by other facts and circumstances
sufficiently indicating its authenticity) 1ee 2, 9m) Dur) 2D, Evidence SS %/%T%%0) P"315Q
"oundation for <elephone Conversation, &. 9m) Dur) (roof of "acts 2d .05) P"31.Q PQ (roof of
prior court proceeding) +n a case in which a matter litigated in a prior court proceeding is
relevant to a disputed issue of fact, counsel should ta7e appropriate action to bring the relevant
aspects of the prior proceeding to the attention of the trier of fact) Depending on the
circumstances and the rules of the particular jurisdiction, these matters may be the subject of
judicial notice, or they may be proved by properly authenticated documentary evidence of the
prior proceeding) 9 court will ta7e judicial notice of its own records in the immediate case
before it, including all prior proceedings in the same case (2, 9m) Dur) 2D, Evidence S 5/*) <he
courts ordinarily do not ta7e judicial notice of the proceedings or record in another case,
however, even though the cause was tried in the same court, related to the controversy under
consideration, and between the same parties (2, 9m) Dur) 2D, Evidence S 5%*) <hus, the
manner of proof of the prior proceeding would depend on whether it is considered as being part
of the same case) +f it is not part of the same case, the relevant portions of the record and
judgment in the prior proceeding should be properly authenticated and offered in evidence) "or
discussion of authentication and admission of judicial records, see &0 9m) Dur) 2D, Evidence
SS ,/&T,,0)
P"31/Q PQ 8ecords and reports of public officials) @nder an e'ception to the hearsay
rule, records and reports prepared by public officials pursuant to a duty imposed by law, or
reHuired by the nature of their offices, are generally admissible as proof of the facts stated
therein, even though they are not verified or authenticated by the person who actually made the
entries) <he facts stated in the documents, however, must have been within the personal
7nowledge or observation of the recording official or his subordinates) 8eports based on
general investigations and on second4hand information are not ordinarily admissible as public
records) #ther records which have been held inadmissible under this e'ception to the hearsay
&..!!2
rule are records concerning causes and effects, or those involving the e'ercise of judgment and
discretion, the e'pression of opinions, or the drawing of conclusions) 1ee &0 9m) Dur) 2D,
Evidence S ,,1) P"31%Q PQ #fficial investigative reports) 8eports made by public officials
regarding the cause of an accident or other occurrence resulting in property damage are not
ordinarily admissible in evidence (see / 9m) Dur) 2D, Evidence S 1002*) 3evertheless it is
recogni:ed in some jurisdictions that the factual findings reported by a public agency as the
result of an investigation it has made pursuant to authority granted by law may be admitted,
despite their character as hearsay, unless the sources of information or other circumstances
indicate lac7 of trustworthiness (see "ed 8 Evid %0&(%**) P"31,Q PQ 9dmissibility of hospital
records or medical reports) Aospital records or medical reports may Hualify for admission
under the business records or the past recollection recorded e'ceptions to the hearsay rule, or
under specific statutes relating to such records) "or hospital records, either the physician or
some authori:ed agent of the hospital must verify that the records were made in the regular
course of business) 1ee !0 9m) Dur) 2D, Aospitals and 9sylums S !&: 2 Dones on Evidence (.th
ed)* S 12:12)
P"320Q PQ @se of writing to refresh memory of witness) 9 writing or memorandum made at
or about the time of the occurrence that is recorded may be used to refresh the memory of a
witness) Aowever, it may not be read to the jury or introduced in evidence by the party using
it unless it Hualifies as past recollection recorded) 1ee 2, 9m) Dur) 2D, Evidence SS %/.,
%//) P"321Q 929 1tandards for $awyer Discipline, 1tandard %)&%) P"322Q 929 1tandards
for $awyer Discipline, 1tandard %)!0) 1ee, 8e =ayberry (1,&.* 2,5 =ass 155, & 3E2d 2!%,
105 9$8 ,/.C =addy v) "irst Dist) Committee of 1tate 2ar (1,.!* 205 ;a .52, 1&, 1E2d
5.) P"32&Q / 9m) Dur) 2D, 9ttorneys at $aw S ,5)O "efending Law(ers in "isci&linar(
@roceedings, &1 9=D@8 <8+9$1 .&&)
21 2er7e v) Chattanooga 2ar 9ssBn, !&. 1)6)2D 2,. <enn) 9pp),1,.% +f issues as to
overcharges for usury and attorneyBs fees and fraudulent transfer of title are raised in prior
civil proceeding, final decree therein will be conclusive upon the issues and will be
admissible in subseHuent disbarment proceeding to show conclusion of such issues) 1upreme
Court 8ules, rule &%C <)C)9) S 2,4&0%(1, 5*)
1tate e' rel) 3ebras7a 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v) ?udmundsen, 1. 3)6)2D !/! 3eb),1,!!
9 finding in civil action that attorney was guilty of conduct justifying his disbarment is not
conclusive on such Huestion in action to disbar him, but his culpability must be established
therein by clear preponderance of evidence, and evidence ta7en at trial of civil action is
admissible for such purpose)
+n re 3oell, ,. 1)6)2D 21& =o)9pp),1,&. 1tatement, made by attorneyBs counsel on
appeal to 2oard of <a' 9ppeals on matter of deducting business e'penses from gross income,
that attorney secured business through information received from employees of companies and
paid employees for information, though not conclusive upon attorney, held admissible in
disbarment proceeding as made in attorneyBs presence and as corroborating charge that attorney
spent money to obtain law business) 8)1)1,&,, S 1&&2% (;)9)=)1) S !%!)1,0*)
+n re 1antosuosso, .2 3)E)2D 105 =ass),1,!5 9 judgment at law or final decree in
eHuity resting upon finding that attorney has been guilty of corrupt conduct in civil case was
not conclusive as to unfitness as a member of the bar in a proceeding by way of inHuiry into
&./!!2
alleged misconduct) <he "lorida 2ar v) 2ennett, 2/. 1o)2D !%1 "la),1,/& 8esults of a civil suit
are not necessarily conclusive of disciplinary actionC there must be proof of a breach of the
Code of (rofessional 8esponsibility for 9ttorneys before discipline will result)
1tate e' rel) 3ebras7a 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v) ?udmundsen, 1. 3)6)2D !/! 3eb),1,!!
9 finding in civil action that attorney was guilty of conduct justifying his disbarment is not
conclusive on such Huestion in action to disbar him, but his culpability must be established
therein by clear preponderance of evidence, and evidence ta7en at trial of civil action is
admissible for such purpose)
Committee on (rofessional Ethics v) 6right, 1/% 3)6)2D /!, +owa,1,/0
Conclusions reached by jury and affirmation by 1upreme Court in prior civil case involving
attorney and client were not binding or conclusive on issues e'amined in attorney disciplinary
proceeding, but the parties could introduce the entire transcript of the prior case in which
attorney was a party)
)he /lorida 1ar v, 1ennett, 2/. 1o)2d !%1 ("la),1,/&* 8esults of a civil suit are
not necessarily conclusive of disciplinary actionC there must be proof of a breach of the Code of
(rofessional 8esponsibility for 9ttorneys before discipline will result)
9s to issue preclusion or collateral estoppel in civil actions, generally, see C)D)1),
Dudgments SS //, to %02) Doctrine of offensive collateral estoppel @nder the doctrine of
offensive collateral estoppel, court orders imposing sanctions on an attorney and holding him in
contempt for representing clients on claims resolved in a class action barred the attorney from
claiming in a disciplinary proceeding that his clients were not members of the class or had
validly opted out, where the 2oard of 2ar #verseers had no reason to join the contempt
proceedings and the attorney had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the validity of the
contempt orders) =ass)]+n re Cohen, !&5 =ass) /, /5& 3)E)2D /,, (2001*)
<he summary nature of both the contempt orders in "AE!, "AE5, and "AE10 all
deprived Coughlin of any such Ofull and fair opportunity to challengeO the validity fo such, to
say nothing of the violations of the mandatory stays under 381 1/%)!05)
Determinations in %rior %roceedings7 +n some jurisdictions, a prior conviction of a
criminal offense may conclusively establish guilt of the offense charged in attorney disciplinary
proceedings)P1/Q $i7ewise, a foreign jurisdictionBs adjudication of guilt may be deemed
conclusive proof of guilt of the attorney misconduct charged)P1%Q <he burden then falls upon
the attorney to demonstrate why the foreign judgment is not valid or why the state should not
accept it and impose sanctions based thereon)P1,Q 6hile a judgment in a civil proceeding to
which the respondent was a party may be conclusive that he or she performed particular acts
having particular civil conseHuences,P20Q the result in the civil action is not conclusive in a
disciplinary proceeding in establishing that the respondentBs conduct was such, under the
circumstances, as justifies disciplinary action)P21Q =oreover, the issue of what discipline is
appropriate is not concluded by a determination in a prior proceeding, even when it is
conclusive of misconduct on the part of the attorney)P22Q
P"31/Q 3)D)]+n re 2oylan, 1.2 3)D) 2%,, /!! 9)2D 15% (2000*) =ass)]=atter of
Concemi, !22 =ass) &2., ..2 3)E)2D 10&0 (1,,.*) Consideration of underlying conduct not
precluded 9 conviction does not preclude consideration of the actual conduct itself for the
purpose of determining the appropriate discipline to be accorded an attorney) +ll)]+n re
&.%!!2
Ciardelli, 11% +ll) 2D 2&&, 11& +ll) Dec) ,!, 51! 3)E)2D 100. (1,%/*) P"31%Q "la)]<he "lorida
2ar v) =ogil, /.& 1o) 2D &0& ("la) 2000*) @nsupported finding disregarded 9 finding by a
board, in an out4of4state disciplinary proceeding, that the respondent had charged an e'cessive
fee would be disregarded in a disciplinary proceeding within the state, where no basis for
supporting the finding could be found) =o)]+n re 6einer, 5&0 1)6)2D 222, %1 9)$)8)&D
12/2 (=o) 1,/5*, 1upplemented, 5!/ 1)6)2D !5, (=o) 1,//*) 2urden of showing infirmity of
foreign proceeding <he burden of showing that the respondent was denied due process and that
there was an infirmity of proof in the foreign disbarment proceeding is on the accused attorney)
3eb)]1tate e' rel) 3ebras7a 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v) Dineen, 2&5 3eb) &.&, !55 3)6)2D 1/%
(1,,0*) P"31,Q S 100) P"320Q <enn)]2er7e v) Chattanooga 2ar 9ssBn, 5% <enn) 9pp) .&.,
!&. 1)6)2D 2,. (1,.%*) P"321Q +owa]Committee on (rofessional Ethics v) 6right, 1/%
3)6)2D /!, (+owa 1,/0*) <enn)]<ennessee 2ar 9ssBn v) 2er7e, !% <enn) 9pp) 1!0, &!!
1)6)2D 5./ (1,.0*) P"322Q <enn)]2er7e v) Chattanooga 2ar 9ssBn, 5% <enn) 9pp) .&., !&.
1)6)2D 2,. (1,.%*)*
(3#<E: he 1upreme Court on review of a decision of the 2oard of ?overnors
recommending suspension of an attorney from the practice of law was reHuired to consider and
weigh the evidence and to reach conclusions and decision independently and irrespective of the
findings and recommendations of the local administrative committee and the 2oard of
?overnors but should give due consideration and accord persuasive force to such findings and
recommendations) Copren v) 1tate 2ar, .! -ev) &.!, 1%& ()2d %&& (1,!/**)
?n re '6-)='E=''=, &1% =ass) !%,, .2 3)E)2d 105, 1.1 9)$)8) %,2 (1,!5*:
E6e are unwilling to attach such conclusive effect to a judgment at law or a final decree in
eHuity, based upon alleged corrupt conduct on the part of a defendant attorney, where the
judgment or final decree entered rests upon findings that the attorney has been guilty of corrupt
conduct) +t may be observed that this was the position ta7en by the single justice in the present
case in connection with his action in overruling the demurrer to the respondentRs answer) 6e
concur therein) 2ut we are of opinion that the evidence in the proceeding in eHuity in Huestion
is admissible in an inHuiry such as the present, and li7e any other evidence is to be given such
weight as the single justice shall deem NN1+* proper, when considered together with all other
evidence that the respondent may produce at the hearing, in the course of which he must be
heard with full opportunity to present all relevant evidence that he may wish to adduce)
<he foregoing view finds support in such cases as +n re $acy, 2&! =o)9pp) /1, 112
1)6)2d 5,!C +n re (ate, 2&2 =o)9pp) !/%, 11, 1)6)2d 11C 1tate v) ?udmundsen, 3eb), 1.
3)6)2d !/!C 6erner v) 1tate 2ar, 2! Cal)2d .11, 150 ()2d %,2, and "airfield County 2ar v)
<aylor, .0 Conn) 11, 22 9) !!1, 1& $)8)9) /./) 1ee also =atter of 2ec7er, 22, 9pp)Div) .2,
.54.., 2!1 3)N)1) &.,C +d), 255 3)N) 2&&, 1/! 3)E) !.1C 6igmore on Evidence, &d Ed), S !(/*)
+n the ?udmundsen case the court, after stating that there had been some doubt as to the
admission of evidence such as that offered in the present proceeding, said: N$B$ Z+t is thought,
however, that this Huestion should no longer remain in doubt) +t is therefore the holding of this
court that the finding in a civil action that an attorney at law has been guilty of conduct
justifying disbarment is not conclusive on the same Huestion when presented for determination
in an action for disbarmentC that notwithstanding the finding in the civil action the culpability
of the attorney must be established in the disbarment action by a clear preponderance of the
&.,!!2
evidence) "or this purpose the evidence ta7en at the trial of the civil action and all other
competent evidence is admissibleR (page !/. of 1. 3)6)2d*) +n the $acy case, stressing that the
right of an attorney to continue in the practice of law is dependent upon his remaining a fit and
safe person to e'ercise the privilege and to uphold the integrity, dignity and purity of the
courts, the court held that the proceeding was neither a criminal nor a civil one but was sui
generis, a proceeding to protect the court and the public and not to punish, and that the inHuiry
should not be limited or circumscribed by the strict rules of evidence)
+n the 6erner case the transcript of the evidence in a criminal case bearing on the
alleged misconduct of an attorney was held admissible in evidence in proceedings for his
disbarment) +n the <aylor case a judgment had been obtained against an attorney, whose
disbarment was sought, by a party whose case was based on allegations that <aylor had
defrauded him) +n disbarment proceedings against <aylor the court held that the hearing of the
case was not a trial in the ordinary sense and that the judgment was admissible in support of the
allegation of the presentment that it e'isted) +t is true that there is authority to the effect that
disbarment proceedings are governed by the same rules of law as are strictly legal proceedings,
and that evidence such as that contained in the record offered in evidence in the present case is
not admissible) 1ee (eople v) 9mos, 2!. +ll) 2,,, ,2 3)E) %5/, 1&% 9m)1t)8ep) 2&,, and cases
cited in 5 9m)Dur), 9ttorneys at $aw, ss) 2,&, 2,!) <he Huestion was left open by this court in
=atter of Geenan, 2%/ =ass) 5//, 5%!, 1,2 3)E) .5, ,. 9)$)8) ./,) +n now deciding the issue,
for the reasons already advanced based upon the reHuirements of public policy and the
necessity N$B5 for preserving the integrity of the courts and the safety of the public, in all the
circumstances we choose to follow those authorities that hold such evidence admissible rather
than those that cleave to the strict rules of evidence applicable in adversary proceedings at law
and in eHuity)
6e are of opinion, however, that the findings of material facts made by the judge in
the suit in Huestion in the 1uperior Court, which are included in the record sought to be
introduced in evidence in the present inHuiry, are not admissible for the reason that they are not
evidence but merely constitute the substance of the conclusions made by the judge from the
evidence and are the foundation upon which the decree rests) 1mith v) 1mith, 222 =ass) 102,
10, 3)E) %&0C 1idlow v) ?osselin, &10 =ass) &,5, &,.4&,/, &% 3)E)2d ..5) 6hen a judge
ma7es a report of facts under the statute, Zhe does not ma7e a report of the evidence but recites
certain facts which he considered as material and which in his opinion formed the basis of his
decision) +t is \ \ \ a statement of facts in the mind of the judge when his decision was made,
which, when included in the record, puts the case in proper form for hearing on the appeal)R
(lumer v) Aoughton K Dutton Co), 2// =ass) 20,, 21!, 1/% 3)E) /1., /1%) +t not only should
not contain a report of the evidence, but it is not evidence) 1idlow v) ?osselin, &10 =ass) &,5,
&,.4&,/, &% 3)E)2d ..5) <he suit in eHuity in Huestion was finally determined on the merits in
2oston v) 1antosuosso, &0/ =ass) &02, &0 3)E)2d 2/%) <he present proceeding is not a suit in
eHuity) +t is an independent proceeding, and owing to its nature we thin7 that the record in
Huestion is NN1+B admissible only to the e'tent of the evidence therein contained, and that the
findings of fact of the judge included in the record are not admissible) 1ee +n re #R2rien, ,5 ;t)
1./, 1/%, 11& 9) 52/, 1! 9)$)8) %5,)F*
2ut, see, 2ar Counsel v) 2oard of 2ar #verseers, .!/ 3)E)2D 11%2, 11%!Y , =ass)
&/0!!2
(1,,5*: Collateral estoppel should be applied to bar discipline cases to same e'tent that it
applies to civil cases) CCJJ%&8R%J 8S&CAA8J %S % B%S5S )CR %&&CRN8B *5SC5AJ5N8'
&H8 N8K& S&8A, 5 ?eo) D) $egal Ethics 1, &&)
CJ' 6ttorney T Client Q 1+1, 6dmissibility of evidence , !575&(1*, 5&(2*
E<he rules and principles concerning the admissibility of evidence in civil
proceedings generally are applicable to disbarment proceedings, and to be admissible the
evidence must be relevant, competent, and material) (rinciples applicable to the admissibility
of evidence in civil actions usually are applicable in disciplinary proceedings,P1Q while rules of
the criminal law as to admissibility of evidence are not applicable)P2Q Aowever, where the
hearing in a disciplinary proceeding is conducted without a jury, as is often the case, the strict
application of rules of evidence is not critical)P&Q <he tribunal presiding over a disciplinary
proceeding has a duty to consider all admissible evidence)P!Q <he person charged should be
permitted to avail himself or herself of all the recogni:ed competent evidence that would tend
to disprove such charge and vindicate his or her character)P5Q +rrelevant and immaterial
testimony is not admissible, however)P.Q 6here the basis for a disbarment proceeding is a
continuous course of conduct, conduct throughout a reasonable period may be shown)P/Q
P"31Q 9la)]E' parte =ontgomery, 2!! 9la) ,1, 12 1o) 2D &1! (1,!&*) +ll)]+n re
=elin, !10 +ll) &&2, 102 3)E)2D 11, (1,51*) 9s to the admissibility of evidence in civil actions,
generally, see C)D)1), Evidence SS 1,/ to 2!5) P"32Q Cal)]Aerron v) 1tate 2ar of Cal), 2! Cal)
2D 5&, 1!/ ()2D 5!& (1,!!*) 9s to the nature of a disciplinary proceeding as civil, rather than
criminal, see S ,0) P"3&Q =ass)]+n re 6elans7y, &1, =ass) 205, .5 3)E)2D 202 (1,!.*) 3)N)
]+n re 1hufer, 12 9)D)2D 20%, 20, 3)N)1)2D 5!5 (1st DepBt 1,.1*) 8ules invo7ed only to
insure fairness Cal)]Emslie v) 1tate 2ar, 11 Cal) &D 210, 11& Cal) 8ptr) 1/5, 520 ()2D ,,1
(1,/!*) P"3!Q Cal)]Emslie v) 1tate 2ar, 11 Cal) &D 210, 11& Cal) 8ptr) 1/5, 520 ()2D ,,1
(1,/!*) P"35Q Cal)]9llen v) 1tate 2ar of Cal), 21% Cal) 1,, 21 ()2D 10/ (1,&&*) +ll)]+n re
Donaghy, &,& +ll) .21, .. 3)E)2D %5. (1,!.*) <e')]1mith v) 1tate, !,0 1)6)2D ,02 (<e')
Civ) 9pp) Corpus Christi 1,/2*, writ refused n)8)E), (9pr) 25, 1,/&*) P"3.Q Cal)]=ost v)
1tate 2ar, ./ Cal) 2D 5%,, .& Cal) 8ptr) 2.5, !&2 ()2D ,5& (1,./*) 3)N)]+n re ?oldstein, 2&.
9)D) 2&&, 25% 3)N)1) 5!% (11t DepBt 1,&2*) (olitical bias +n a disciplinary hearing, evidence
concerning political prejudice among individuals who had not adversely testified against the
attorney who was the subject of the proceeding was properly e'cluded) +nd)]=atter of
6ireman, 2/0 +nd) &!!, &./ 3)E)2D 1&.% (1,//*) P"3/Q =o)]$eimer v) Aulse, &52 =o) !51,
1/% 1)6)2D &&5 (1,!!*)
9n e'ception to the general rule which e'cludes evidence of transactions other than
those involved in the charge, is that evidence of similar derelictions is admissible to show
scienter, where proof of criminal or fraudulent intent is essential to sustain the charge)P%Q #n
the other hand, evidence of similar transactions is properly rejected where they are remote in
time and the attorneyBs intent with respect to them is doubtful)P,Q 6here proof that an attorney
was convicted of a crime is conclusive of his or her guilt thereof, such proof renders other
evidence on the Huestion inadmissible)P15Q #n the other hand, #here a conviction is not
conclusive #ith res%ect to the sanction to be im%osed in the disci%linary %roceeding8
evidence is admissible to e@%lain or mitigate the significance of the conviction8U1V to sho#
the character of the crime8U17V and #hat sanction8 if any8 should be im%osed,U1%Q
&/1!!2
Documentary evidenceC recordings) "ocumentar( evidence is admissi%le in a disci&linar(
&roceeding as in other &roceedings' where it is &ro&erl( identified and is com&etent' relevant'
and material)P1,Q +n the absence of a proper foundation, or where they are incompetent,
irrelevant, or immaterial, documents are not admissible, however)P20Q
P"3%Q #7la)]1tate e' rel) #7lahoma 2ar 9ssBn v) Aatcher, 1,!, #G 1/5, 201 #7la)
.%&, 20, ()2D %/& (1,!,*) P"3,Q Colo)](eople e' rel) Gent v) Denious, 11% Colo) &!2, 1,.
()2D 25/ (1,!%* (overruled on other grounds by, 9drian v) (eople, //0 ()2D 12!& (Colo)
1,%,**) P"310Q ?a)]<homas v) 1tate, ,1 ?a) 9pp) %0!, %/ 1)E)2D 2&, (1,55*) 3)D)]+n re
=ischlich, .0 3)D) 5,0, 2,2 9)2D 2& (1,/2*) #7la)]1tate e' rel) #7lahoma 2ar 9ssBn v)
1canland, 1,/0 #G ,!, !/5 ()2D &/& (#7la) 1,/0*) Community 9n attorney in disbarment
proceedings was limited, in relation to character evidence as to his reputation for honesty and
fair dealing, to evidence of lawyers in the legal community, which could include the entire
state) ;t)]+n re 6right, 1&1 ;t) !/&, &10 9)2D 1, ,2 9)$)8)&D .&, (1,/&*) P"311Q 6is)]
1tate v) 2eaudry, 5& 6is) 2D 1!%, 1,1 3)6)2D %!2 (1,/1*) P"312Q $a)]$ouisiana 1tate 2ar
9ssBn v) 1ac7ett, 2&! $a) /.2, 101 1o) 2D ..1 (1,5%*) #hio]#hio 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v) =oore,
!5 #hio 1t) 2D 5/, /! #hio #p) 2D %!, &!1 3)E)2D &02 (1,/.*) 9s to criminal convictions as
grounds for disciplinary proceedings, generally, see S /2) P"31&Q #hio]<oledo 2ar 9ssBn v)
$ichota, 15 #hio 1t) 2D 21/, !! #hio #p) 2D 1,2, 2&, 3)E)2D !5 (1,.%*) Evidence with
respect to punishment 9ny competent evidence should be received which will assist in
determining what disciplinary sanction, if any, will serve the public interest and at the same
time assure the respondent fairness) 3)N)]$evy v) 9ssociation of the 2ar of City of 3ew
Nor7, &/ 3)N)2D 2/,, &/2 3)N)1)2D !1, &&& 3)E)2D &50 (1,/5*) P"31!Q S 102) P"315Q 9r7)
] 1upreme Court Committee on (rofessional Conduct v) Dones, 255 9r7) 10.,, !,, 1)6)2D
.1, (1,/&*) $a)]$ouisiana 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v) Aamilton, &!& 1o) 2D ,%5 ($a) 1,//*) P"31.Q
=ich)]+n re 1auer, &,0 =ich) !!,, 21& 3)6)2D 102, /. 9)$)8)&D 105! (1,/&*) 3)N)]$evy
v) 9ssociation of the 2ar of City of 3ew Nor7, &/ 3)N)2D 2/,, &/2 3)N)1)2D !1, &&& 3)E)2D
&50 (1,/5*) P"31/Q 3)N)]$evy v) 9ssociation of the 2ar of City of 3ew Nor7, &/ 3)N)2D
2/,, &/2 3)N)1)2D !1, &&& 3)E)2D &50 (1,/5*) P"31%Q Cal)]+n re Girsch7e, 1. Cal) &D ,02,
12, Cal) 8ptr) /%0, 5!, ()2D 5!% (1,/.*) +ll)]+n re 9ndros, .! +ll) 2D !1,, 1 +ll) Dec) &25,
&5. 3)E)2D 51& (1,/.*) $a)]$ouisiana 1tate 2ar 9ssBn v) <unis, &52 1o) 2D .2& ($a) 1,//*)
3)D)]+n re =ischlich, .0 3)D) 5,0, 2,2 9)2D 2& (1,/2*) 3)N)]$evy v) 9ssociation of the 2ar
of City of 3ew Nor7, &/ 3)N)2D 2/,, &/2 3)N)1)2D !1, &&& 3)E)2D &50 (1,/5*) P"31,Q =d)
]+n re $ombard, 2!2 =d) 202, 21% 9)2D 20% (1,..*) 3onresidence of client +n proceedings
against an attorney who was charged with fraud in connection with procuring a divorce for a
client who was a nonresident, a letter written by the client and received by the attorney was
admissible to establish that the attorney 7new or, by e'ercise of reasonable diligence, could
have 7nown that the client was a nonresident) ;a)]Campbell v) <hird Dist) Committee of ;a)
1tate 2ar, 1/, ;a) 2!!, 1% 1)E)2D %%& (1,!2*) 8eceipt of letter Cal)]1odi7off v) 1tate 2ar, 1!
Cal) &D !22, 121 Cal) 8ptr) !./, 5&5 ()2D &&1 (1,/5*) P"320Q @)1)]+n re Echeles, !&0 ")2D
&!/ (/th Cir) 1,/0*)F
?n re =#ens, 125 +ll)2d &,0, 125 +ll)2d &,0, 5&2 3)E)2d 2!% (1,%%*: E=ore
recently, however, a substantial change has occurred in the application of collateral estoppel:
elimination of the mutuality reHuirement) @nder the mutuality doctrine, neither party could use
&/2!!2
a prior factual finding as an estoppel against the other unless both parties were bound by the
judgment) (1ee +n re Autul (1,/&*, 5! +ll)2d 20,, 2,. 3)E)2d &&2)* <he mutuality reHuirement
was removed in +llinois 1tate Chamber of Commerce v) (ollution Control 2oard (1,/,*, /%
+ll)2d 1, /, &! +ll)Dec) &&!, &,% 3)E)2d ,) <his change has broadened the use of collateral
estoppel considerably, and has also called into Huestion the prudence of allowing collateral
estoppel to be used offensively as readily as it is used defensively+
9s the @nited 1tates 1upreme Court has noted, offensive use of collateral estoppel
does not always foster judicial economy and fairness in the way that defensive use of collateral
estoppel typically does) Defensive use of collateral estoppel precludes a plaintiff from
relitigating issues by switching adversaries, and thus gives a plaintiff an incentive to try and
join all defendants in the first action) 2y contrast, offensive use of collateral estoppel creates
the opposite incentive) 9s stated by the @nited 1tates 1upreme Court:
E1ince a plaintiff will be able to rely on a previous judgment against a defendant but
will not be bound by that judgment if the defendant wins, the plaintiff has every incentive to
adopt a Zwait and seeR attitude, in the hope that the first action by another plaintiff will result in
a favorable judgment) PCitations)Q <hus offensive use of collateral estoppel will li7ely increase
rather than decrease the total amount of litigation, since potential plaintiffs will have
everything to gain and nothing to lose by not intervening in the first action)F (ar7lane Aosiery
Co) v) \&,, 1hore (1,/,*, !&, @)1) &22, &&0, ,, 1)Ct) .!5, .51, 5% $)Ed)2d 552, 5.1)
9lthough this consideration does not directly apply to this disciplinary case, it
cautions against the unrestricted use of offensive collateral estoppel generally)
9 second argument against the unrestrained offensive use of collateral estoppel is
one of fairness) +f a defendant in an initial action issued for relatively minimal damages and has
no reason to foresee future suits involving the same subject matter, he may have little incentive
to vigorously litigate the suit) <his places him in a difficult predicament if a later suit occurs
and involves potential liability infinitely larger than that involved in the first suit) 9lso, as
pointed out in Aar4lane Hosiery allowing offensive collateral estoppel may be unfair to a
defendant if the judgment relied upon as a basis for collateral estoppel is itself inconsistent with
one or more previous judgments in favor of the defendant, or if the second action affords the
NN252 NNN57 defendant procedural opportunities unavailable in the first action, opportunities
that could readily cause a difference in the result obtained) (ar7lane Aosiery, !&, @)1) at &&0,
,, 1)Ct) at .51, 5% $)Ed)2d at 5.1)
<he above considerations indicate to us that courts must be more cautious in
allowing collateral estoppel to be used offensively than in allowing it to be used defensively) +n
our view, in ordinary civil cases, circuit courts must have broad discretion to ensure that
application of offensive collateral estoppel is not fundamentally unfair to the defendant, even
though the threshold reHuirements for collateral estoppel are otherwise satisfied) <he threshold
reHuirements, as set forth in +llinois 1tate Chamber of Commerce v) (ollution Control 2oard
(1,/,*, /% +ll)2d 1, /, &! +ll)Dec) &&!, &,% 3)E)2d ,, are: (1* the issue decided in the prior
adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in Huestion, (2* there was a final
judgment on N$++ the merits in the prior adjudication, and (&* the party against whom estoppel
is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication)
&/&!!2
Ke turn no# to the s%ecific :uestion #hether factual findings based on (clear
and convincing evidenceM in an ordinary civil case may form a basis for collateral
esto%%el in a disci%linary action, <he 9dministrator emphasi:es that, in accordance with +n re
1cott (1,%&*, ,% +ll)2d ,, 1., /! +ll)Dec) 51, !55 3)E)2d %1, an attorneyRs conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude is conclusive evidence of guilt and is grounds for imposing
discipline) (1ee +n re Callas (1,%0*, %2 +ll)2d ., 1!, !! +ll)Dec) &0!, !11 3)E)2d 2/&C 10/ +ll)2d
8) /.1)* <he 9dministrator argues that for collateral estoppel purposes in a disciplinary case, a
civil adjudication of fraud is analogous since Ethe standard of proof in those proceedings is
eHual or greater than the standard of proof reHuired in +llinois attorney discipline proceedings)F
9ccordingly, in the 9dministratorRs view, there is no reason to preclude giving collateral
estoppel effect in the instant case to the factual Huestions previously decided)
6lthough this court necessarily relies u%on the assistance of the "earing and
Revie# 1oards in enforcing the Code8 it is the res%onsibility of this court to determine
#hat conduct is disci%linable and to determine the severity of disci%line in a %articular
case, )his ultimate res%onsibility never shifts8 and it is not #ithout hesitation that this
court #ill relegate the fact4finding function to %roceedings outside of formal disci%linary
%roceedings, Kith regard to %roceedings for crimes involving moral tur%itude8 there is
am%le Gustification for doing so8 for several reasons, /irst8 the burden of %roof in such
cases is e@tremely high8 higher than is the burden of %roof in a disci%linary %roceeding,
'econd8 although both a civil fraud action and a criminal charge involving moral
tur%itude are serious8 the gravity of such a criminal charge8 both in terms of damage to
onePs re%utation and threat N$+1 to onePs liberty and livelihood8 is on a level #hich sim%ly
cannot meaningfully be com%ared to a civil %roceeding, /or these reasons8 this court can
be better assured that an attorney #ho has been found guilty of a criminal offense
involving moral tur%itude has been so found only after he has made every reasonable
effort to cast doubt on his guilt8 and thus this court can more confidently rely on a
criminal conviction as resting on accurate factual findings,
Ke #ill not8 ho#ever8 go beyond %ermitting the conclusive use of a criminal
conviction and begin giving offensive collateral esto%%el effect in a disci%linary
%roceeding to factual findings in a civil fraud action, The ris) of unfairl( im&osed
disci&line is too great' and the econom( to %e gained too minimal' to warrant such an
a%ridgement of the disci&linar( &rocess,
"or the foregoing reasons, respondents are certainly entitled to an evidentiary
hearing on the underlying facts of the complaint)F ?n re =#ens, 125 +ll)2d &,0, 125 +ll)2d &,0,
5&2 3)E)2d 2!% (1,%%*)
+n re 1trong, .1. ()2d 5%&, 5%/ (@tah 1,%0* (declining to give offensive collateral
estoppel effect to factual findings underlying a federal court es judgment for fraud because to
do so would be contrary to the obvious intent of a @tah statute that reHuires the 2oard to ma7e
its own findings based upon Pits ownQ evidentiary hearing, but concluding that the record in the
prior civil proceeding would be admissible as evidence where relevant in disbarment hearing*)
(3#<E: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 221:/ to 222:,* =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm
going to reHuire you to lay a foundation for whatever it is you proffer) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes,
sir) + provided to this court and the 2ar true and accurate copies of the official audio transcripts)
&/!!!2
9nd in some instances the pleadings have gone in typed out things) +n one instance for at least
probably %0 percent of the summary eviction + too7 advantage of a free trial) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: +Bm focusing on what youBre proffering now) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: <his is a transcript of the trial for your traffic citationJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he one that Dudge Aolmes issued an order
finding you in contemptJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Did you appeal itJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + tried to) 1he wouldnBt let me) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9nd itBs a final orderJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + did the research on that, but she is saying 44 + donBt 7now what she is
saying) 2ut she is not letting me appeal it+ =8) ECAE;E88+9: Ke &no# #hat she said in
her order, 'o ?0m not going to entertain an in:uiry into the conduct of the trial on your
traffic citation itself, &hat issue has !een litigated)F*)
(3#<E: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages //:12 to /%:!* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U =r)
Aill, what rules of procedure apply in a summary evictionJ =8) G+3?: #bjection) 8elevance)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: 1ustained) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, he got to testify as to how heBs
wor7ed so much on this case, and he had to bill so much) 9nd + would just li7e to 7now if he
7nows what rules of &rocedure go to) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 1ustained) 3e't Huestion) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 1o it was relevant when he was tal7ing about all that, but when + want to as7
him about that, itBs not relevant) =8) ECAE;E88+9: :ou;re as)ing a s&ecific *uestion a%out
what rule of &rocedure. That;s irrelevant in this hearing. (roceed) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2ut 44
=8) ECAE;E88+9: (roceed, =r) Coughlin)F*
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 2&5:% to 2&5:1/* sustained the objection) =8)
C#@?A$+3: +Bd li7e to play a copy of a video + too7 of 1ergeant $ope: admitting certain
things with respect to the criminal trespass) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) GingJ =8) G+3?: +
would object to the e'tent that =r) Coughlin is trying to suggest in any way that he wasnBt
guilty of the criminal trespass, because he was convicted and e'hausted his appeal rights) 9nd
to retry that + thin7 shouldnBt occur here))))AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages .2:5 to .!:21* 2N =8)
C#@?A$+3: U 6ho served the eviction notice 44 no) Aow did the eviction notice get from
the justice court to the sheriffBsJ =8) G+3?: #bjection) 2eyond the scope of direct, and
irrelevant) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, +Bm going to sustain) $etBs address the issues 44
=8) C#@?A$+3: Can + ma7e an offer of proofJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: 44 this panel has been
as7ed to loo7 at) <he issue as to whether or not you were properly in that residence building,
the issue as to whether you were trespassing has all been litigated) <hatBs not the function of
this panel) <his panel is to determine, by supreme court order, what, if any, punishment you
should be subject to) +Bd li7e you to focus on that issue) (lease proceed) =8) C#@?A$+3:
6hether the punishment under Claiborne is binding authority upon you entails more than a
cursory, receiving a certified conviction in the mail from a cler7 of court, and not underta7ing
any diligent inHuiry in that regard) =8) ECAE;E88+9: NouBre focusing on some very minor
details as to who said what at the time 44 do you admit you were behind the barricaded doorJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: + would li7e to ma7e an offer of proof, your Aonor) =8) ECAE;E88+9:
(lease do so) +Bll give you two minutes) =8) C#@?A$+3: Aave you read anything + filed in
this caseJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bve read Huite a bit of it) +Bm not sure it helps you) =8)
C#@?A$+3: +f that order was stale, itBs =r) Aill 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hatBs the offer of
proofJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +tBs that if + can demonstrate that that order was stale, it would be
&/5!!2
=r) Aill who was trespassing, not me) 9nd that entails finding out 44 and the sheriff has been
very unhelpful in this regard) 9nd =r) Aill and his associate testified, perhaps to their
detriment, that the trespass trial as to when that loc7out order was 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9:
6hatBs the offer of proofJ NouBre testifying) <ell me what the proof is) =8) C#@?A$+3: <he
important thing is the law in 3evada says within 2! hours of the sheriff receiving that eviction
order theyBve got to do the loc7out) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hatBs all been litigated, hasnBt itJ
DidnBt you raise these issues belowJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +n which conte'tJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: +n the trespass conviction) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes) =8) ECAE;E88+9:
#7ay) $etBs focus on the issues here, which, as + understand it, are to focus on what, if any,
punishment you should be subject to with respect to 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: 6hatBs all this living
in the basement stuff have to do with thatJ Desus) <his is 8ichard Aill in a nutshell) (rejudicial
nonsense) Aearsay) Character assassination) 9nd then you try to rebut it, and this is not the
issue, itBs not relevant) 3othing he says is relevant) =8) ECAE;E88+9: + didnBt say that) +t is
relevant) Nour conviction is relevant) NouBre trying to relitigate 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: AeBs
tal7ing about slippers 44F*
(3#<E: while both the 8C9 prosecutor Aa:lett41tevens and Aill continuously
alleged Coughlin was arrested on 111&11 for criminal trespass at his former home law office
in his EpajamasF wearing EslippersF the very videos of such arrest filmed by Aill and his
landlord neurologist client, =erliss, reveal such allegations to be complete and utter lies)
Coughlin is seen in such wearing sweat pants and a tee4shirt) ;ideos ta7en of Coughlin at scene
and time of 111&11 custodial arrest for trespassing in 8=C 11 C8 2.!05 by Aill and his
client =erliss demonstrating Aill and Aa:lett41tevens lying about EpajamasF and EslippersF
(note to mention how irrelevant and prejucial allusions to such are, in violatino of 8(C &)5 and
!)!* http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVEh2'yc4,cg0 *
(AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages /.:5 to //:11* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Did you, =r)
Aill, or anyone else there that day, either the sergeant or the officer or your client, the landlord,
did anyone that day issue me a warning, trespass warning, to leave the premisesJ =8) G+3?:
#bjection) 8elevance) Ae was convicted) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he relevance, sirJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: 6ell, it goes to the legitimacy of the conviction) (lus, it goes to 44 =8)
ECAE;E88+9: NouBve already litigated that) 1ustained) 3e't Huestion) =8) C#@?A$+3:
+Bm not offering proof, just the legitimacy of the conviction) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hatBs what
you just said, and + sustained the objection) =8) C#@?A$+3: +t was a multifaceted basis for
that) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hatBs the rest of itJ =8) C#@?A$+3: <hat it goes to impeach
=r) AillBs credibility) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Aow soJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +f heBs standing
behind this assertion that + demonstrated a lac7 of candor or fairness to opposing counsel, even
where he 7nows that no one issued a warning to leave, then + believe it would impeach his
credibility, and it would bear on the e'tent to which + have been unfairly accused of a multitude
of sins which have been either pled or not pled in =r) GingBs complaint =8) ECAE;E88+9:
9nything furtherJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, sir) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 1ustained) 3e't
Huestion)F*)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages /2:& to /5:5* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U =r) Aill, is it
somewhat incongruus for you to assert to this panel that + completely lac7 competency, and yet
you ran up, counting the trial court M20,000 you as7ed for, and the M!2,000 you were ultimately
&/.!!2
awarded in that appellate courtJ =8) G+3?: #bjection) 9rgumentative and irrelevant) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: 1ustained) =8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 it goes to his credibility) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: +Bm sorryJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, + thin7 it goes to his credibility to
the e'tent that heBs saying, well, =r) Coughlin is so baseless and ve'atious, yet + was able to
bill .0 grand for it) <o me itBs li7e, well, at some point if somebodyBs arguments are so
worthless and so unsupported, shouldnBt you be able to bring it home for less than .0 grand for
a summary evictionJ =8) G+3?: =r) Chairman, if + could respond by pointing out the fact
that the order from Dudge "lanagan, which has been admitted, suggests that that was 44 that
those fees were generated because of =r) CoughlinBs ve'atious conduct) 9nd that the fees were
reasonable and were awarded against =r) Coughlin, not one cent of which has been paid) 1o +
thin7 any suggestion to the contrary is irrelevant, because Dudge "lanaganBs order is to be
accepted by the panel) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, if + can Huic7ly counter that) + donBt
7now thatBs actually pled in your complaint, =r) Ging, or included amongst one of the three
grievances) <he e'tent to which 44 am + here today because this li7e Dudge ?ardnerBs sanctions
coming up two years laterJ 9m + here today on Dudge "lanaganBs sanctionJ +s he a grievant
and accorded a case number tooJ =8) G+3?: =r) Chairman, + was responding to his Huestion)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: + believe youBre here today to measure all of your conduct as a practicing
lawyer) 1o +Bd li7e to move on) +f you have further Huestions of =r) Aill, please as7 them) +Bve
now afforded you in e'cess of 20 minutes) +Bll give you another five) =8) C#@?A$+3: 1o
weBre not here today based on whatBs been noticedJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6eBre not here today
to relitigate orders that have been filed that you have appealed, and that you have lost) =8)
C#@?A$+3: +Bm not as7ing 44 +Bm as7ing what is it limited toJ 2ecause it sounds li7e from
what you just said itBs not limited) =8) ECAE;E88+9: + donBt intend to impose any limits on
you in terms of what you attempt to proffer as evidence) + will rule on what you proffer as
evidence) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm saying what heBs limited to, your Aonor) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: <he issue here, sir, as + understand the supreme courtBs order with respect to
your conviction of theft, and the issues here with respect to the other grievances that have been
filed against you are to the e'tent as to what, if any, should be the punishment that you should
sustain as a result of your conduct) =8) C#@?A$+3: Net this is entered into evidence) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: <his is whatJ =8) C#@?A$+3: <his order has been entered into evidence)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: E'hibit 2 has) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2ut itBs not pled in any complaint)
Dudge "lanaganBs not a grievant) + wasnBt noticed that that was the purpose of this hearing to
some e'tent today) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Iou #ere noticed that the issue of your conviction
of tres%ass #as an issue8 that your handling of that case #as an issue8 and it0s relevant as
to that)F*) "unny, everytime Coughlin went anywhere near a topic at all connected to the
Ecriminal convictionsF (anel Chair Echeverria (often sua sponte* jumped in with his whole Ewe
are not here to relitigateF off4base, fraudulent misapplication of a ha:y hint of offensive
collateral estoppel line of argument)))however, no such applications (non4mutual, apparently*
was availing to Coughlin upon it becoming apparent to Echeverria that Ging had goofed up the
%2&12 Complaint so bad (and, to be fair, Ging may have actually purposefully avoided
mentioning (much less notice4pleading* in any way the .2512 #rder awarding attorneyBs fees
based upon a void application of the Eprevailing partyF attorney fee award in 381 .,)050
given the stench of graft its association with 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), inevitably carried, not to
&//!!2
mention the aw7ard fact of GingBs %&012 email to Coughlin attaching the very %2%12 #rder
by the same 2DDC Dudge "lanagan that conclusively establishes the "AE2 was not a sanction)
"urther, Coughlin was not permitted the Efifteen minutes per witnessF to cross4
e'amine himself upon Ging calling Coughlin in GingBs case in chief: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +,
((ages 20,:20 to 210:2* =8) G+3?: =r) Coughlin, +Bm going to say that my Huestioning of
you is concluded) +Bm sure the chair will give you a chance to answer, but + donBt want it to be
in the form of an answer to my Huestion) 1o + than7 you) + have no further Huestions of =r)
Coughlin) +Bm not done with my case, because + want to ma7e a statement) 2ut if the panel has
any Huestions)))
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 211:! to 211:1.* =8) ECAE;E88+9: + actually thin7
thatBs argument, =r) Ging) =8) G+3?: + thought + might have to do that in my case) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: Do you have any other evidenceJ =8) G+3?: 6ith that said, + have no other
evidence) =8) C#@?A$+3: NouBre see7ing to amend your complaint here today about my
conduct todayJ +s this li7e a summary disciplinary proceeding nowJ =8) ECAE;E88+9:
=r) Coughlin, the 1tate 2ar has rested) Nou may call your ne't witness))))
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 212:25 to 21&:5* =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin,
letBs ta7e a recess until 2:&0) +tBs now 20 minutes after 2:00) 9nd weBll offer you an opportunity
44 =8) C#@?A$+3: + would li7e the 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm sorry) + didnBt mean to tal7
while you interrupted) ?o ahead and interrupt) (3#<E: there Coughlin made his case for cross4
e'amining himself and being accorded fifteen minutes to do so, as was the case with all
witnesses, though not fully captured by the transcript*)))
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 21&:/ to 21&:1%* =8) ECAE;E88+9: "or that weBll ta7e
a brea7 until 2:&0 according to the 1tate 2ar cloc7) (8ecess ta7en)* =8) ECAE;E88+9: $et
the record reflect the panel is present, reconvening at 2:&1) =r) Coughlin, are you prepared to
proceed with your portion of the caseJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes) =8) ECAE;E88+9: ?o
ahead) Do you have a witnessJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm going to go ahead and put on my case)
Dudge 3ash Aolmes lied today)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 21!:1 to 21!:11* =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm going to put on
some evidence right now) <his is the audio from the trial, Dudge 3ash AolmesB deal) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: Do you have a copy for usJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, + do) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: Do you have a transcriptJ =8) C#@?A$+3: <he audio transcriptJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: + donBt 7now what you are offering, so + would li7e to see a transcript) =8)
C#@?A$+3: <he official audio from the muni court))))OAE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 21!:1/ to
21!:2!* =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hich proceeding is thisJ =8) C#@?A$+3: <he traffic case
that she testified to today where she said, + as7ed you if you were recording, and then you got
all snea7y, and then you wanted to go to the bathroom) 9nd + want to show this and show
whether or not the going to the bathroom occurred before the sua sponte interrogation about the
recording, and weBll see how truthful Dudge 3ash Aolmes will be))))O AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +,
((ages 2&,:15 to 2!0:1* 6hat =r) Coughlin is attempting to do is to steer you bac7 to whether
or not he was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted, and to show you that perhaps
somebody within the arrest process either did or didnBt follow all of their procedures, which are
irrelevant to this proceeding) 9nd so + would just say that because the video e'cerpts that he
intends to play are suspect, and thereBs nobody to testify that theyBre the complete or accurate
&/%!!2
videos other than =r) Coughlin himself) + thin7 theyBre irrelevant, and in this case would be
highly prejudicial, plus a waste of time))))O <hen Echeverria stumbles all over himself in
e'cused GingBs lying that he had was see7ing to adit a certified copy of "AE& when what he
offered bore no such certification, only for Echeverria to e'cuse such alleging ElcanoBs
testimony was able to authenticate such "AE&, only to then refuse to allow Coughlin to testify
to authenticate the audio transcript he obatined from the 8=C (via subterfuge involving his
mother upon CoughlinBs second attempt to so obtain such transcript of the 22/12 and &1212
trial dates in 11 <8 2.%00 being met with an onslaught of 8=C functionaries 9ffidavits
(OCourt 1pecialistO Daniel Casillas, =arshals 1cott Coppa and =atthew <hompson, Court
9dministrator Cassandra Dac7son, "iling #fficer 1upervisor Donna 2allard, counter cler7
;anessa ?arcia all responded with 9ffidavits detailing CoughlinBs &2212 attempts to file a
8ecords 8eHuest for such from the 8=C and the ensuing harassment of Coughlin by the
8=CBs bouncers, er, =arshals)))"unny thing, the "AE& that Elcano purported to lay a
foundation for or authenticate differs from the e"le' version actually served electronically on
Coughlin by the 2DDC on !1&0, in that "AE& includes a footer identifying such as Oa copy of
the order on file in the 1econd Dudicial District Court where the e"le' version contained no
such footer)))1o would not EcheverriaBs argument that Coughlin could not be sure as to whether
what he obtained (through his mother* from the 8=C was was she obtained from the 8=C
herself (never mind that she ultimately testified as to that* apply to ElcanoBs wrongfully
purpoting that "AE& was what he and 6$1 received directly from the 2DDC, when clearly,
such is not the case, in consideration of the additional footer thereinJ "urther, it just gets
ridiculous when Echeverria e'cuses the lac7 of a certification for "AE& by allowing Elcano to
provide foundation and authentication for such, but then insisting that CoughlinBs mother was
unable to do so as to the audio transcript obtained from the 8=C in light of such lac7ing a
OcertificationO) Echeverria is just flat out a corrupt jo7e, period: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages
222:. to 22&:12* =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6e 7now what she said in her order) 1o +Bm not going
to entertain an inHuiry into the conduct of the trial on your traffic citation itself) <hat issue has
been litigated) 9nd if you are offering portions of that transcript without a foundation, without
a witness here to tell us that what you are about to play is an official part of the transcript,
without an official written transcript that is easily obtained, +Bm going to sustain the objection)
=8) C#@?A$+3: Did he have a witness to say the order was such and suchJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: Nes) +tBs called a certification) =8) C#@?A$+3: Ae got orders that werenBt
certified into the record today) =r) Elcano 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: Ae laid a separate
foundation for them) +Bm giving you an opportunity to lay a foundation for what you are about
to play) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm not going to ta7e it on your word)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 6hy notJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: 2ecause the law reHuires a foundation to
be laid) +ndependent) =8) C#@?A$+3: +ndependent of what + can lay for itJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: 8ight) + want something from the court that says this is an official transcript)
=8) C#@?A$+3: =y objection, + believe + am able to lay a foundation) +Bll testify under oath
this is an official copy of the audio transcript in that case)O
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 2!0:2& to 2!&:2* =8) ECAE;E88+9: $etBs return to
the video that you claim to have ta7en that you now intend to proffer) +s it a video of your arrest
that ultimately led to your conviction for criminal trespassJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 3ot the one of
&/,!!2
the admission by 1ergeant $ope:) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat is it that you intend to play of
1ergeant $ope:J =8) C#@?A$+3: 9 video where +Bm as7ing her some stuff about police
misconduct) =8) ECAE;E88+9: (olice misconduct) <hatBs not an issue here) =8)
C#@?A$+3: +ncident to the 8ichard Aill deal) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bll rule it as irrelevant)
(roceed) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) Can + play a video where, incident to the 6almart
conviction, it shows that + did give my driverBs license to the officer, the tribal officer, and that
given that his testimony at trial was that the only reason he was allowed to effectuate an arrest
was my lac7 of giving him my driverBs license) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hat is not an issue for
this panel to determine) <he supreme court specifically directed that the only issues with
respect to that conviction was the nature and e'tent of punishment) 6eBre not going to relitigate
your conviction for theft) =8) C#@?A$+3: 1o the 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: 3e't, =r)
Coughlin) =8) C#@?A$+3: Can + enter my objectionJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: (ardonJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: Can + enter my objection or basis for my objectionJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: 2asis
for your objection to your ownJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 6anting to put that in an offer of proof, +
guess) 1omething li7e that) Aave you read the Claiborne caseJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nes) =8)
C#@?A$+3: Does that have any applicability hereJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm governed by
the case that the supreme court decided with respect to -achary 2ar7er Coughlin in which they
tell us that the only issue that this panel is to determine is what the nature and e'tent of the
punishment is flowing from your conviction for theft) 6eBre not to address the underlying
issues involving that conviction) =8) C#@?A$+3: Aow are you addressing so many issues
completely divorced from that 6almart theft caseJ Aow did you do that todayJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, +Bm dealing with one issue at a time) Nou have proffered a
videotape that the supreme court tells us is not relevant) (roceed with your ne't witness)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age /1:10 to /1:20* =8) ECAE;E88+9: + %elieve the issue
that this &anel has to determine is what the degree' if an(' of &unishment should %e for the
conduct that (ou have alleged to have %een involved with' in terms of candor to the court'
candor to counsel' candor to witnesses' com&etenc( to &ractice law) =8) C#@?A$+3:
+ncluding 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: + believe those are the issues that this panel should focus on)
But $ do not intend to in an( wa( limit what (ou thin) should %e im&ortant)F
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 11,:1/ to 122:15* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U 6hatBs
your understanding with respect to the position ta7en by me in that trial vis4a4vis the majority
viewpoint of law on setting off or offsetting domestic duties li7e alimony or child support with
third4party debts in a property settlement or debt settlement conte'tJ 9 +Bm still not sure +
understand the Huestion) 2ut there were no children, as + recall, so child custody had no issue in
it) 9nd in terms of the offset, + donBt 7now what law you proffered) U 6ell, a duty li7e
alimony) 9 domestic duty) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <o me thatBs an incomplete Huestion) 6hatBs
the complete HuestionJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + guess +Bm trying to ascertain =r) ElcanoBs
awareness of the position) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U 6hatBs your understanding of the
permissibility of setting off a debt with a duty, a domestic dutyJ =8) G+3?: #bjection)
+rrelevant) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 1ustained) =8) C#@?A$+3: Did you say relevancyJ =ay +
respond to it, your AonorJ Dust to the e'tent =r) Elcano is here today purporting to critiHue my
wor7 in that regard, + thin7 it is relevant to ascertain whether or not he has any sort of
conception of permissibility of setting off a domestic duty, li7e alimony, with some debt) =y
&%0!!2
point) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9re you finishedJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Neah) 9nd + didnBt end it
very well, but + didnBt want to give away what + feel the answer is or the majority viewpoint of
9merican law) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he objection is sustained) =r) Coughlin, itBs now 11:!1)
Nou have five more minutes) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) 8eallyJ <he relevancy objection is
sustained) Ae gets to testify as to how clueless + am) 9nd this when + as7 to see if he has any
sort of 7nowledge in this area, itBs not relevantJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: AeBs testified on a
number of issues as to your competency, your demeanor in the courtroom, your conduct toward
witnesses, toward judges, your ability to follow the judgeBs directions) =8) C#@?A$+3: <hey
are all relevant when he was tal7ing about them) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hose issues are, sir)
6hether or not he 7nows the intricacies of some fine point of law to me is irrelevant) 3ow, if
you have some Huestions to address to =r) Elcano, please do so, and letBs not argue) =8)
C#@?A$+3: #7ay) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U =r) Elcano, for you to have any sort of
legitimate informed bases for the opinion you proffered here today with respect to my
competency incident to my wor7 in that Doshi case, wouldnBt you need to 7now whether or not a
domestic duty is accorded greater significance and protection in the law than is a third4party
debt 44 9 3o) U 44 thereinJ +tBs not permissible to do essentially what Dudge ?ardner tried to
force on my client, which is accept a settlement, whereby a setoff is made whereby my client
waived her alimony in e'change for =r) 1pringgateBs client saying he set it off by the debts, by
ta7ing them on, even though they could never get at her anyway because he was the sole
signatory) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +s there a Huestion there, =r) CoughlinJ <AE 6+<3E11: +
donBt understand) =8) ECAE;E88+9: #r is that a statementJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +t is a
statement) + thin7 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hen as7 a 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: AeBs tal7ing about
things he doesnBt 7now about)F
1ome people are stuc7 on stupid) #thers are stuc7 on their e') Chair Echeverria is
stuc7 on s7ipping past the part of due process where the determination of guilt is made and
cruising right on to the sentencing phase, even where there is absolutely no basis for an
offensive collateral estoppel or 1C8 111(5* application, to wit:
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 1//:2& to 1%0:22* =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin,
e'cuse me) Do you remember the HuestionJ <AE 6+<3E11: Nes) =8) ECAE;E88+9:
6hat was the HuestionJ <AE 6+<3E11: Did + receive this) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9nd the
answerJ <AE 6+<3E11: +Bm wor7ing my way through it mentally as to how + got this) =8)
G+3?: +f +Bm not mista7en, weBre past that) Nou said you did receive it) Ae doesnBt recall how)
9nd my follow4up Huestion was: Did you respond to the allegations by Dudge Aolmes that are
contained in that letter, and by the accompanying documentsJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r)
Coughlin, if you could focus on answering that Huestion, that would be helpful to the panel)
<AE 6+<3E11: #ne, this letter is not to me) + would li7e to read it) 9gain, thatBs where the
notice part of due process is 7ey, you 7now) +f + was noticed on the idea that + didnBt respond to
this 44 and +Bll enter my objection) + would li7e to see where (3#<E: in terms of where along
the way Coughlin failed to cooperate or respond, with specific factual allegations as to just
when and how such was reHuested of Coughlin, and as to what, e'actly, rather than the
conclusory allegation by Ging (whom was not sworn to testify, and where CoughlinsB subpoena
on Ging was Huashed* in his complaint and any argument made at the hearing, as GingBs
!1,12 email to Coughlin certainly should e'cuse Coughlin from any allegation that he failed
&%1!!2
to respond to anything with respect to "AE& and 3?1240!&5, the grievance EreceivedF from
2DDC Dudge $inda ?ardner, according to GingBs !212 email to Coughlin, where such !1,12
email form Ging to Coughlin reads: E"o#ever ? can suggest you coo%erate #ith 1ar
counselPs investigation and that you res&ond s&ecificall( to the allegations contained in
Judge 8olmes and ichard 8illOs grievance letters to the office of 1ar Counsel)F Aowever,
nothing in Dudge AolmesB Egrievance letterF ("AE%* references the "AE& #rder (and the use of
the term E#rderF in "AE&Bs E#rder 9fter <rialF necessarily demonstrates that the EfinalityF
reHuirement is missing sufficient to warrant any offensive collateral estoppel approach that
Ging never really argued for (rather, Ging either completely whiffed on the collateral estoppel
issue, or fraudulent sought to misapply 1C8 111(5*Bs Ea conviction is conclusive proof of guiltF
to even orders in civil proceedings wherein Couglhin was not even a party# by 2DDC Dudge
?ardner that had already been vacated* in the complaint it says =r) Coughlin failed to res&ond
or coo&erate with Bar counsel) +t might) +Bd just li7e to be sure) 6here does it say where 44 was
+ noticed the import of today was going to include, the relevant inHuiry today that + have been
put on notice for, was going to include the idea that + didnBt appropriately respond to thisJ 1o if
+ go to the complaint, +Bm just wondering where in the complaint might + be put on notice that +
would be e'pected to 7now when + got this today, and respond intelligently in that regard)
(E'hibit , mar7ed)* =8) G+3?: =r) Chairman, may + move onJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nou
may) <AE 6+<3E11: =ay + answer as best as + can remember thenJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: +f
you will answer the Huestion, it would be helpful) 2ut these rambling discourses are not
helpful) <AE 6+<3E11: <heyBre not winning any points on notice and due processJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: <his is a preliminary investigation) Bar rules re*uire attorne(s to coo&erate
with the &reliminar( investigation. As $ understand' 7r. Eing is tr(ing to esta%lish whether
or not (ou did so. That;s an issue that $ %elieve is relevant to the determination of the degree
of &unishment' if an(' that should flow to (ou as a result of (our conduct. 4o' 7r. Eing'
move on' &lease) =8) G+3?: <han7 you) <AE 6+<3E11: Nour Aonor, can + just Huic7ly
attempt to more thoroughly address that issueJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: + thin7 youBve been
afforded adeHuate opportunity to do so) Aow you choose to respond is up to you) =r) Ging,
ne't Huestion, please) =8) G+3?: <han7 you) <AE 6+<3E11: <hatBs the whole notice thing)
NouBre as7ing me to answer a Huestion based upon a two4page letter where + havenBt been
noticed on the idea that + will be as7ed to) 9nd then if + donBt 44 if +Bm wor7ing through it, youBre
cutting me off, not letting me put it in the record) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Ging, you cited in
one of your pleadings a reHuest that all issues pending before you be heard at one hearing)
<here was a letter you sent to the state 2ar that you Huote in one of your pleadings) <AE
6+<3E11: + reHuested thatJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: Nes, sir) <AE 6+<3E11: Nou havenBt
read my pleadings) =y whole point was bifurcating, how ridiculous it is to glom all these
together) +Bm so glad you just said that on the record)F
Chair Echeverria, bless his heart, just canBt help himself, he continually admits, right
on the record, that he cannot be bothered with adjuciting whether or not Coughlin is
guilty)))but, given that apparently all those stogie brea7s tuc7ered him out or something, he
rather decided to s7ip straight to the sentencing phase (perhaps owing to his boyhood
infatuation with his EchumF Elcano and those moments they shared together in college at
1tanford in the anything goes late 1,.0Bs that they both have apparently seemed to be able to
&%2!!2
drive away into the furthest recesses of their subconciousnesses (just as Elcano attempted to
sell the yarn that he was unaware of the .1,0, final Decree of DivorceBs ultimately e'cising
the sanction Elcano fired Coughlin over on 51!0, from the !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial where
such also amended "AE& to award the very alimony which Dudge $) ?ardner told CoughlinBs
client, =rs) Doshi EdonBt listen to your attorney^F after hissing E1hut @p^F at Coughlin upon
Coughlin pointing out to =s) Doshi some of the 2G 52&a5 and 52&a15 issues that 1pringgate
happneded to gloss over in the hard sell of his proposed marital settlement agreement made just
before trial on &120,* as both seemed to have just Bbout bro7e their their bac7s climbing up
that mountain atop of which would be such memoriesJ*
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 22%:& to 22%:10* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U =om, did
you have to buy an audio of the trial with that Dudge 3ash AolmesJ 9 Did + have to buy an
audioJ U Neah) Did you buy a copy of the proceedingJ 9 Nes) U Did you give it to meJ 9
#h, ?od) + thin7 so) O AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 22,:1 to 22,:15* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U
=om, was it an official copyJ 9 + donBt 7now) U Did you go to the court and say + want a
copy of the proceeding, and you paid the money they as7ed you to payJ 9 + donBt 7now that it
was official or not) 2ut + reHuested a copy, yes) + would assume it would be official) + was
reHuesting it in the courthouse) U 9nd you filled out whatever form it was they made you fill
out, and paid whatever money it was they wanted rightJ 9 Nes) =8) C#@?A$+3: + would
li7e to move to admit that into evidence)O AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 2&1:1. to 2&1:25* 8)
G+3?: + have no Huestions of the mother, but + would thin7 it was patently clear when the
direct Huestion was, did you give me the official copies, she said + donBt 7now) 9nd thatBs how
it was left) 9nd =r) Coughlin does not have the official copies which would be identified on
the dis7 by the court as an official copy) 1ince he does not have them or they are 44 whatever he
has downloaded on the record may not be the official one, + would still object)O AE98+3? 4
;ol) +, ((ages 2&2:1& to 2&&:%* =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9nything further to offer in terms of
laying a foundationJ =8) C#@?A$+3: (enalty of perjury, +Bm going to play an official copy
of it) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bve given you the opportunity to go
review the stuff to your heartBs content if +Bm lying) =8) ECAE;E88+9: (laying it doesnBt lay
a foundation) 6e need a foundation laid)
=8) C#@?A$+3: "oundation is 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: Do you have anything
further to offerJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 44 +, -ach Coughlin, under penalty of perjury, this is the
official transcript, audio transcript) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hat do you base that onJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: <hat the court gave it to us) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o, the court didnBt) =8)
C#@?A$+3: <his is just ama:ing) #7ay) $etBs move on)O Compare EcheverriaBs approach to
Coughlin attempts to introduce into evidence the record of the traffic citation trial from 22/12
and &1212 to EcheverriaBs bending over bac7wards to help Ging and Elcano get "AE&
admitted into evidence: AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages ,,:! to 100:15* =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell,
he said it was certified) 1o my objection is, letBs see the proof) Did you get it from Doey or ?ina
Aastings or did you get it from the cler7 of court of the muni courtJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r)
Coughlin) +Bm not going to entertain Huestions between and among the lawyers) +f you have a
Huestion, direct it to the panel or the witness) <he objection is this lac7s foundationJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: 3o) <hat this certification hadnBt been proved or even spo7en to besides 44 =8)
ECAE;E88+9: +s it your position 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: 44 certified) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 44
&%&!!2
position that only legal documents can be admitted that are certifiedJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell,
+ didnBt ma7e a position on that) =y position is he said it was certified) 1o +Bm contesting that)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +s this certifiedJ =8) G+3?: $et me get the cler7 to bring the
certification copies, unless she gave them to you already, which + understood she did) Did she
bring you copiesJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: <his particular one is not certified) Do you have one thatBs
certifiedJ =8) G+3?: + have already introduced 44 the copies do not show that itBs certified)
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, if + can Huic7ly interject for the record, + mean that not
disrespectful) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9re we on the recordJ 9re you getting this, =s) 8eporterJ
<AE C#@8< 8E(#8<E8: Nes) =8) ECAE;E88+9: ?o ahead) =8) G+3?: =r)
Chairman, +Bll lay 44 + understood, and since this has been filed with the courts that we have
certified copies) 1ince the copy + gave you is not certified, +Bm going to lay a foundation a
different way and withdraw the representation that the copy + gave is a certified copy)O
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 105:% to 105:1.* =r) Ging, proceed to lay the foundation for E'hibit
&) 2N =8) G+3?: U E'hibit &) <han7 you) Nou just testified that this is the order that
emanated from the hearing you heardJ 9 Nes) U 9nd why were you concerned about this
particular orderJO AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 112:10 to 11.:11* =8) G+3?: + very much
appreciate your testimony and candor) +Bll pass the witness) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <han7 you,
=r) Ging) =r) Coughlin, itBs now 11:&1) Nou have 15 minutes) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir)
<han7 you) =8) G+3?: + apologi:e) + meant to have this admitted) Did + lay a proper
foundationJ + would move for E'hibit & to be admitted) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9ny objection
now, sirJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + didnBt hear the foundation) +Bm sorry) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he
foundation was =r) Elcano attended the hearing, reviewed this order, and determined it to be 44
<his is a true and correct copy of the order that you loo7ed at following the hearingJ <AE
6+<3E11: Nes) <he one that was transmitted to us by the judge) =8) C#@?A$+3:
<ransmitted just by the judgeJ <AE 6+<3E11: 6e have a copy of it in our file) =8)
C#@?A$+3: <ransmitted to youJ <AE 6+<3E11: 6ashoe $egal 1ervices) + chec7ed it with
my order) +t appears to be the same order)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 2ut youBre not saying how it was transmitted to the 1tate 2arJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm interested in how it was transmitted) +Bm interested in if this is a true
and correct copy of the order issued by Dudge ?ardner in the Doshi case 44 =8) C#@?A$+3:
Nou mentioned he attended trial) Ae didnBt attend the trial) =8) G+3?: Ae said he 44 =8)
C#@?A$+3: Nou said he attended the trial) 2ut he didnBt attend the trial) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: =r) Elcano testified he attended the hearing) <AE 6+<3E11: 3o, +
reviewed the tape of the hearing) + wasnBt at the hearing) 2ut in the family court they are on
tape) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +Bm focused on whether or not this is a true and correct copy of the
order issued by Dudge ?ardner) 9nd have you determined this to be the true and correct copyJ
<AE 6+<3E11: Nes) +tBs the order + relied on) =8) ECAE;E88+9: +t will be admitted)
(E'hibit & admitted)* =8) ECAE;E88+9: ?o ahead, =r) Coughlin) =8) C#@?A$+3: #ne
thing, your Aonor, with respect to the received stamp on it) <hatBs something that was on the
order) =8) ECAE;E88+9: (ardon meJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 1ee the receivedJ =8)
ECAE;E88+9: 8ight) =8) C#@?A$+3: <hatBs 1tate 2ar) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 8ight)
=8) C#@?A$+3: (ut that there) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 8ight) =8) C#@?A$+3: 1o itBs not
&%!!!2
really a copy of the order) +t has something that was not on the order) =8) ECAE;E88+9:
#7ay) #verruled) +s that your objectionJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +t has a funny 5 on it) +tBs one day
after Dudge ?ardner submitted hers) +t seems 7ind of funny, li7e ghost reading is going on,
because we donBt 7now who submitted this) 6ho submitted it, (atJ =8) ;E$$+1: =r) Elcano,
do you have another copy of the order that you received from the court after the hearing that
you compared this one toJ + thin7 you said you didJ <AE 6+<3E11: + compared it to it) =ine
has two blan7 spots in it though, two short areas, but otherwise they seem to be verbatim and
end on the same pages) =8) ;E$$+1: +s there a stamp from the 1tate 2ar on the one that you
got from the courtJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nou didnBt get this from Doey or ?ina Aastings 44 =8)
ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, +Bm not going to permit Huestions among the attorneys) <hatBs
improper) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 1o if you have a Huestion, you
need to address it to the panel) =8) C#@?A$+3: +tBs improper to say itBs certified when itBs
not) <AE 6+<3E11: <he copy + reviewed is filed electronically by Aoward Conyers, the cler7
of the court) =8) ;E$$+1: 9nd thereBs no stamp from the 1tate 2ar on the one that you
reviewedJ <AE 6+<3E11: 3o) =8) ;E$$+1: <hatBs the one you received from the courtJ
<AE 6+<3E11: Nes) =8) ;E$$+1: 9nd that one is the same as the one thatBs been admitted,
E'hibit &J <AE 6+<3E11: 1ave and e'cept two blan7 spots that are the fault of the copier)
=8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin, itBs admitted) (roceed)O AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 10.:1
to 10.:.* =8) C#@?A$+3: 44 whether theyBre filed or not, whether they will accept, who
controls who, who the cler7 of court has independence from) + donBt 7now whatBs being done by
anybody, what + need to do for a subpoena, whether + have to pay witness fees, or whether the
certified mailing of 9ugust 2&rd is going to be used 44F
9lso, Echeverria insisted on eating up most of CoughlinBs case in chief with his sua
sponte interrogation of Coughlin regarding that which the 123Bs Ging fraudulently steered
away from in GingBs case in chief, ie, the fraudulent 9ffidaivt of 1ervice of the Complaint
dated %2&12 by 123 Eemployee $aura (etersF) +t is just so obvious that Ging and Echeverria
gameplanned their whole approach to this hearing e=tensively+ Every wea7 aspect of GingBs
case, Echeverria too7 the bit in his mouth and e'cused Ging from ma7ing the uncomfortable,
fraudulent arguments he was left with (this is especially true where Echeverria, in violation of
the adjudicatory boundaries he was limited to, per 2reliant, in light of GingBs failure to argue
CoughlinsB 1C8 110 subpoenas were not Eproperly issuedF (Ging failed to ma7e such argument
because he 7nows damn well that Coughlin sought a clarification in that regard from 33D2
2oard Chair 1usich, 33D2 (anel Chair Echeverria, Ging and 2ar Counsel Clar7 and all
referred Coughlin to Clar7, and Ging relayed to Coughlin Clar7Bs announcement that, despite
the temporary suspension, Coughlin was, in fact, permitted to issue his own 1C8 110
subpoenas)))regardless, Echeverria then carefully based his granting GingBs 11212 =otions to
Uuash such subpoenas on the idea that they were not Eproperly issuedF, and, perhaps, laid off
the Ejudges cannot be Huestioned about their mental processesF line or reasoningcitation in
GingBs =oiton just enough to allow Dudges 2eesley and 3ash Aolmes to testify to just that,
there Emental processesF in ma7ing rulings in the matters involving Coughlint that they
presided over an in ta7ing Canon 2, 8ule 2)15 Eappropriate actionF (formerly Canon &(D*
(2*)))see =irch and the line of argument that the differences in 1C8 1%0 (3ow 8(C &)&
&%5!!2
meritorious claims* and 38C( 11 prevented an application of offensive collateral estoppel,
nevermind the differing burden of proof in disciplinary matters and civil actions, much less
Etraffic citationF trials (a EcitationF is not really a Ecriminal matterF is itJ +ts more of an
administrative matter, a EcitationF, etc) 1uch EcitationF was punishable only by a fine)
1o, Ging was afforded from ,:00 am to 2:&0 pm to put on his case in chief and
Coughlin was limited to putting his case in chief on from 2:&0 pm to !:!5 pm) 1uch is patently
unfair) <hat is a disparity fo five and half hours for Ging to two and a Huarter hours for
Coughlin, and any suggestion that Elengthy objectionsF during GingBs case in chief permit such
a disparity is completely e'posed by the egregiously lengthy objections by Ging, and even
moreso the sua sponte objectiosn by (anel Chair Echeverria (alleging every ridiculous rationale
for ruling anything Coughlin offered into evidence as inadmissible* during CoughlinBs case in
chief)
Committee on Professional 9thics v, Kright, 1/% 3)6)2D /!, +owa,1,/0
Conclusions reached by jury and affirmation by 1upreme Court in prior civil case involving
attorney and client were not binding or conclusive on issues e'amined in attorney disciplinary
proceeding, but the parties could introduce the entire transcript of the prior case in which
attorney was a party)
9ll of the admissibility arguments and objections further relate to CoughlinBs right
to, in fact, attac7 the legitimacy of the conviction:
+n re Disciplinary (roceedings 9gainst Carroll, /2. 3)6)2D 2!. !5+( C*Discipline
!575,)1(unishmentC Disposition !575,)1%G) 8eciprocal disciplineC effect of other discipline)
6is),200/ 8eciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the 1upreme Court of +owa, which
revo7ed attorneyBs license, was reHuired for attorneyBs conviction of second4degree felony theft
and his fraudulent conversion of funds belonging to municipal arts council, absent any claim
that +owa proceeding deprived attorney of dueprocess or was so lac7ing in proof that finding of
misconduct could not be accepted as final, or that misconduct justified substantially different
discipline in 6isconsin) @)1)C)9) Const)9mend) 1!C 1C8 22)20) <urton v) 1tate 2ar of <e'as,
//5 1)6)2D /12 <e')9pp)1an)9ntonio,1,%,)
"inal judgment convicting attorney of crime involving moral turpitude is cause for
attorneyBs suspension or disbarmentC plea of guilty is conclusive evidence of the commission of
the offense, but does not answer Huestion of whether crime, or circumstances of its
commission, involved moral turpitude) ;)<)C)9), ?overnment Code S %1)0/%C 1tate 2ar 8ules,
;)<)C)9), ?overnment Code <itle 2, 1ubtitle ? 9pp), 9rt) 10, SS /(%*, 2.(2, ?*) +n re
=ostman, /.5 ()2D !!% Cal),1,%, 9ttorneyBs plea of guilty is conclusive evidence that he
committed all acts necessary to constitute the offense, but Huestion of whether the crime, or the
circumstances of its commission, involved moral turpitude for disciplinary purposes is one of
law to be resolved by the 1upreme Court upon independent e'amination of the record) 6estBs
9nn)Cal)2us) K (rof)Code SS .101(a, e*, .102(d*) +n re Ciardelli, 51! 3)E)2D 100. +ll),1,%/
6hile conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude is conclusive evidence that discipline is
warranted, it does not preclude consideration of actual conduct itself for purpose of
determining appropriate discipline to be accorded attorney, but in presenting evidence in
disciplinary hearing to show nature of attorneyBs conduct, which may be relevant to
determining discipline to be imposed, attorney may not be permitted to impeach factual
&%.!!2
allegations of charges to which he pleaded guilty) 1tate e' rel) #7lahoma 2ar 9ssBn v) Dones,
5.. ()2D 1&0 #7la),1,//)
+n summary type disciplinary proceedings, copy of indictment or information and
judgment and sentence of conviction are conclusive evidence of commission of crime
involving moral turpitude and are sufficient for discipline, coming within framewor7 of show
cause proceedingC at this point, burden shifts to charged member, who may see7 hearing with
right to submit brief and evidence to e'plain his conduct or see7 mitigation) 8ules Creating and
Controlling the #7lahoma 2ar 9ssBn, art) 10, S !(9, b*, 5 #)1)9) C) 1 9ppendi' 1) +n re
9ndros, &5. 3)E)2D 51& +ll),1,/. Conviction of crime involving moral turpitude is conclusive
evidence that grounds for imposing discipline upon an attorney e'ist, but it does not prevent
consideration of other evidence for purpose of determining appropriate disciplinary action)
+n re Disciplinary (roceedings 9gainst Carroll, /2. 3)6)2D 2!. !5+( C*Discipline
!575,)1(unishmentC Disposition !575,)1%G) 8eciprocal disciplineC effect of other discipline)
6is),200/ 8eciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the 1upreme Court of +owa, which
revo7ed attorneyBs license, was reHuired for attorneyBs conviction of second4degree felony theft
and his fraudulent conversion of funds belonging to municipal arts council, absent any claim
that +owa proceeding deprived attorney of dueprocess or was so lac7ing in proof that finding of
misconduct could not be accepted as final, or that misconduct justified substantially different
discipline in 6isconsin) @)1)C)9) Const)9mend) 1!C 1C8 22)20) <urton v) 1tate 2ar
of <e'as, //5 1)6)2D /12 <e')9pp)1an)9ntonio,1,%, "inal judgment convicting attorney of
crime involving moral turpitude is cause for attorneyBs suspension or disbarmentC plea of guilty
is conclusive evidence of the commission of the offense, but does not answer Huestion of
whether crime, or circumstances of its commission, involved moral turpitude) ;)<)C)9),
?overnment Code S %1)0/%C 1tate 2ar 8ules, ;)<)C)9), ?overnment Code <itle 2, 1ubtitle ?
9pp), 9rt) 10, SS /(%*, 2.(2, ?*) +n re =ostman, /.5 ()2D !!% Cal),1,%, 9ttorneyBs plea of
guilty is conclusive evidence that he committed all acts necessary to constitute the offense, but
Huestion of whether the crime, or the circumstances of its commission, involved moral
turpitude for disciplinary purposes is one of law to be resolved by the 1upreme Court upon
independent e'amination of the record) 6estBs 9nn)Cal)2us) K (rof)Code SS .101(a, e*,
.102(d*)
+n re Ciardelli, 51! 3)E)2D 100. +ll),1,%/ 6hile conviction for crimes involving
moral turpitude is conclusive evidence that discipline is warranted, it does not preclude
consideration of actual conduct itself for purpose of determining appropriate discipline to be
accorded attorney, but in presenting evidence in disciplinary hearing to show nature of
attorneyBs conduct, which may be relevant to determining discipline to be imposed, attorney
may not be permitted to impeach factual allegations of charges to which he pleaded guilty)
1tate e' rel) #7lahoma 2ar 9ssBn v) Dones, 5.. ()2D 1&0 #7la),1,// +n summary
type disciplinary proceedings, copy of indictment or information and judgment and sentence of
conviction are conclusive evidence of commission of crime involving moral turpitude and are
sufficient for discipline, coming within framewor7 of show cause proceedingC at this point,
burden shifts to charged member, who may see7 hearing with right to submit brief and
evidence to e'plain his conduct or see7 mitigation) 8ules Creating and Controlling the
#7lahoma 2ar 9ssBn, art) 10, S !(9, b*, 5 #)1)9) C) 1 9ppendi' 1) +n re 9ndros, &5. 3)E)2D
&%/!!2
51& +ll),1,/. Conviction of crime involving moral turpitude is conclusive evidence that
grounds for imposing discipline upon an attorney e'ist, but it does not prevent consideration of
other evidence for purpose of determining appropriate disciplinary action)
+n re 2ogart, 511 ()2D 11./ Cal),1,/&, 8ecord of attorneyBs convictions was
conclusive evidence of guilt in disciplinary proceedingsC it was unnecessary that proof be
presented that he had committed crimes however, the facts and circumstances of crime were
relevant to determine appropriate discipline) 6estBs 9nn)2us) K (rof)Code, SS .101, .102(b*)
+n re @rias, !1% ()2D %!, Cal),1,.. +n attorney disciplinary proceeding, record of attorneyBs
conviction of grand theft would be conclusive evidence of guilt, but 1upreme Court could
e'amine transcript of the trial to apprise itself of facts surrounding the crimes) 6estBs 9nn)2us)
K (rof)Code, S .101)
+n re Geogh, 2./ 3)N)1)2D %/ 3)N)9pp)Div)2)Dept),1,.5 $egislative grant of
discretionary power to court to determine fitness of attorney convicted of a misdemeanor does
not impose upon court an obligation to permit relitigation of facts and law upon which guilt has
already been adjudicated beyond a reasonable doubt by another court of competent jurisdictionC
in such case the judgment of conviction, while not conclusive evidence of attorneyBs unfitness
to practice law, may be regarded by court as conclusive proof of his guilt of crime charged)
9ttorney ?rievance ComBn of =aryland v) 6ingerter, ,2, 9)2D !/ =d),200/ 6hile
rule providing that, in an attorney disciplinary proceeding, a final judgment of conviction is
conclusive evidence of the guilt of the crime charged does not preclude attorney offering
evidence to establish that no sanction should be imposed, that does not give license, however,
to attorney to prove that his conviction was not justified and, on that basis, to argue for no
sanction) =d)8ule 1.4//1(g*) 1C8 111(.* spea7s only to temporary suspension, it does not
provide that conviction of a crime which includes amongst its elements OtheftO will utlimately
be deemed a OseriousO crime for the purposes of determining the nature and e'tent of a
8espondentBs punishment or the admissisbility of evidence spea7ing to the circumstances of
such conviction or criminal act)
=atter of 6ines, ..0 ()2D !5! 9ri:),1,%& 1ince proof of a conviction of an
attorney is conclusive evidence of guilt, hearing before local administrative committee on
disciplinary charge involving conviction of misdemeanor is limited to determining whether
crime involves moral turpitude and what discipline committee shall recommend) 1/9 9)8)1)
1up)Ct)8ules, 8ule 2,(d*)
+n re 8othroc7, 15! ()2D &,2 Cal),1,!! 6hether an attorney has been convicted of
a crime involving moral turpitude, within the statute reHuiring transmission of the record to the
1upreme Court for disbarment proceedings, is a Huestion of law which the 1upreme Court must
decide, and, if the conviction on the face of the record shows moral turpitude, the record is
conclusive) 6estBs 9nn)2us) K (rof)Code, SS .1004.102)
+n re (etal, &0 1o)&D /2% $a),2010 6hen attorney disciplinary proceedings involve
an attorney who has been convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt,
and the sole issue presented is whether attorneyBs crimes warrant discipline, and if so, the e'tent
thereofC the discipline to be imposed depends on the seriousness of the offense and the e'tent of
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances) 1up)Ct)8ules, 8ule 1,, $awyer Disciplinary
Enforcement 8ule, S 1,(E*, % $198) 1)
&%%!!2
#ffice of Disciplinary Counsel v) <robac7, &%& 9)2D ,52 (a),1,/% 6hile a certificate of
conviction of a crime by an attorney is conclusive evidence of commission of that crime in
any disciplinary proceeding based upon that conviction, 1upreme Court may and should
e'amine underlying facts involved in criminal charge to weigh impact of conviction upon
measure of discipline)
22 AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 11,:1/ to 122:15* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U 6hatBs your
understanding with respect to the position ta7en by me in that trial vis4a4vis the majority
viewpoint of law on setting off or offsetting domestic duties li7e alimony or child support
with third4party debts in a property settlement or debt settlement conte'tJ 9 +Bm still not
sure + understand the Huestion) 2ut there were no children, as + recall, so child custody had
no issue in it) 9nd in terms of the offset, + donBt 7now what law you proffered) U 6ell, a
duty li7e alimony) 9 domestic duty) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <o me thatBs an incomplete
Huestion) 6hatBs the complete HuestionJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + guess +Bm trying to ascertain
=r) ElcanoBs awareness of the position) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U 6hatBs your
understanding of the permissibility of setting off a debt with a duty, a domestic dutyJ =8)
G+3?: #bjection) +rrelevant) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 1ustained) =8) C#@?A$+3: Did you
say relevancyJ =ay + respond to it, your AonorJ Dust to the e'tent =r) Elcano is here today
purporting to critiHue my wor7 in that regard, + thin7 it is relevant to ascertain whether or not
he has any sort of conception of permissibility of setting off a domestic duty, li7e alimony,
with some debt) =y point) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9re you finishedJ =8) C#@?A$+3:
Neah) 9nd + didnBt end it very well, but + didnBt want to give away what + feel the answer is
or the majority viewpoint of 9merican law) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <he objection is
sustained) =r) Coughlin, itBs now 11:!1) Nou have five more minutes) =8) C#@?A$+3:
#7ay) 8eallyJ <he relevancy objection is sustained) Ae gets to testify as to how clueless +
am) 9nd this when + as7 to see if he has any sort of 7nowledge in this area, itBs not relevantJ
=8) ECAE;E88+9: AeBs testified on a number of issues as to your competency, your
demeanor in the courtroom, your conduct toward witnesses, toward judges, your ability to
follow the judgeBs directions) =8) C#@?A$+3: <hey are all relevant when he was tal7ing
about them) =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hose issues are, sir) 6hether or not he 7nows the
intricacies of some fine point of law to me is irrelevant) 3ow, if you have some Huestions to
address to =r) Elcano, please do so, and letBs not argue) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) 2N =8)
C#@?A$+3: U =r) Elcano, for you to have any sort of legitimate informed bases for the
opinion you proffered here today with respect to my competency incident to my wor7 in that
Doshi case, wouldnBt you need to 7now whether or not a domestic duty is accorded greater
significance and protection in the law than is a third4party debt 44 9 3o) U 44 thereinJ +tBs
not permissible to do essentially what Dudge ?ardner tried to force on my client, which is
accept a settlement, whereby a setoff is made whereby my client waived her alimony in
e'change for =r) 1pringgateBs client saying he set it off by the debts, by ta7ing them on,
even though they could never get at her anyway because he was the sole signatory) =8)
ECAE;E88+9: +s there a Huestion there, =r) CoughlinJ <AE 6+<3E11: + donBt
understand) =8) ECAE;E88+9: #r is that a statementJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +t is a
statement) + thin7 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: <hen as7 a 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: AeBs tal7ing
about things he doesnBt 7now about)F*
&%,!!2
2& (bar grievance against Richard "ill8 Casey 1a&er8 and !eith >oomis8 Roberto
Puentes8 >e# )aitel
1ent: <hu 101%12 %:02 9=
shornsbyLnvdetr)org
<o: laurapLnvbar)orgC patric7Lnvbar)orgC rosecLnvbar)orgC
glennmLnvbar)orgC davidcLnvbar)orgC tsusichLnvdetr)orgC
complaintLnvbar)orgC complaintsLnvbar)orgC shornsbyLnvdetr)org
1ubject: $+<+?9<+#3 A#$D 3#<+CE rev20114001/0% cv1140&.2%,
.0&&1 .1&%&, 123 v) Coughlin C91E 3@=2E8 3?124020!, 3?4
0!&5, 3? 0!&!
Date: 6ed, 1/ #ct 2012 1.:5,:5/ 40/00
Dear #ffice of 2ar Counsel, +nvestigator (eters, Chairman 1usich, et al,
(lease find important attachments supporting the assertions herein here:
https:s7ydrive)live)comredirJresidV!&0%!.&%"&2"5"2%^&5%/
(lease donBt try to old Omy +< guy said + couldnBt open it, because of viruses and
stuffO) <hat is no more plausible an e'cuse for reviewing materials material to your
investigation than would be suggesting your fear of Oanthra'O potentially being mailed to you
prevents you from opening your paper mail)))Nou have my personal guarantee that there is no
virus or other harmful items in any emails + send you or any paper mail, either, for that matter)
+ submit these materials respectfully and as7 you to consider how being wrongfully
incarcerated ten times in one year following a divorce of sorts would affect our tone, behavior,
or personality)
$oomis refused to advocate at all on my behalf, refused to subpoena material
percipient witness =erliss, and refused to ma7e argument directed to issue + provided wealth of
support on, ie, the invalidity of the eviction order where the loc7out occurred outside of the
Owithin 2! hours of receiptO window in the statue, and where technical service reHuirements
were not met, vis a vis 381 !0)!00, 38C( .(e*, and 38C( 5(b*(2*, and where $oomis acted
on matter during pendency of Competency Evluation in cr1240&/.)

9lso, will you please have the 3?4 grievance or case numbers for all of the
grievances and complaints + have filed this year provided to me in writing, including the new
grievances found herein against 8ichard ?) Aill, Casey 2a7er, and Christopher Aa:lett4
1tevensJ
&,0!!2
note: please forward this written correspondence on to 2ar Counsel Ging and
+nvestigatorCler7 of Court (eters in light of their apparent and sudden, somewhat technical
OissuesO with emails from Coughlin, which in no way is interpreted as providing indications
that they now see7 to sully the 123Bs image by attempting to add Coughlin to their bloc7ed
sender list or otherwise prevent any further duty accruing on their part to actually investigate
CoughlinBs claims, in some manner that at least a colorable argument can be made that the 123
treats CoughlinBs and others allegation with anywhere near the urgency it treats those of Dudge
3ash Aolmes or 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH) (in contrast to the whole Oattac7 dog for the rich and
powerfulO image, some might say, the 123 has built up))))
+t is ironic, that Aill and 2a7erBs own writing in their 3ovember 21st, 2011
#pposition to CoughlinBs 3ovember 1.th, 2011 =otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty lien may
now be used against them, in light of the staleness, voidness, and invalidity of the #ctober
25th, 2011 and #ctober 2/th, 2011 Eviction Decision and #rder and "indings of "act,
Conclusions of $aw and #rder for 1ummary Eviction in 8DC 8ev20114001/0%) 1ee 6illiams
v 3agel, .!& 3)E) 2d %1. and 6olf4$illie, 50! ") 1upp 1) 2a7er wrote on AillBs behalf:
OAere, Coughlin filed his first motion pursuant to 381 11%94!.0 on
3ovember 1.,2011) <hat motion was timely) Aowever, when the court
attempted to set the hearing, Coughlin refused to cooperate or communicate
with the court to get the hearing on calendar, despite repeated reHuests from
=erlissB counsel that he do so) 9s a sole and direct result of =r) CoughlinBs
refusal to cooperate with the court to set his own hearing, that hearing never
happened) <he 10 days in which to hold the hearing under 381 !0)25&(%*
have now e'pired) =r) CoughlinBs motion is stale, and the relief he see7s is
now time4barred) 2ecause he abandoned that motion, it was, effectively,
denied)O
<o 2a7erBs 3ovember 21st, 2011 #pposition (how clever, 2a7er writes it so he can ma7e
rec7less allegations that arenBt true in it that Aill would not be so free to ma7e, given he was
there during the 3ovember 12th, 2011 arrest*, is attached the signed, sworn, 3ovember 21st,
2011 Declaration of 8ichard Aill, which reveals at the least an intent to mislead the tribunal by
Aill, and also reveals Aill and =erliss contributed to a false arrest to a material e'tent) <hat
Declaration reads:
O!) #n #ctober 2/, 2011, this court signed a summary eviction order, and on 3ovember 1,
2011, the 6ashoe County 1heriffs Department served that order) <he notice was posted on the
door of the home by the 6ashoe County 1heriffs Department in the manner customary in
6ashoe County for evictions) <he loc7s on the front door and bac7 door were changed, and we
retained all 7eys to the home)
5) 9fter that date, + began to notice that it loo7ed li7e somebody had been
getting into the home) #n appro'imately 3ovember !,2011, + became concerned about the
home and its contents) + entered it and was able to confirm that OsomebodyO had been getting
in) + thought + had secured the means of entry being used by whoever it was that
was getting in) Aowever, on later visits to the home, it was clear that the home was still
being surreptitiously accessed)
&,1!!2
.) #n 3ovember 1&, 2011, Dr) =erliss came to 8eno because he wanted to
inspect the home) @pon entry, it was clear that somebody had again accessed the home)
/) 6e tried to enter the basement and found the door was barricaded, not loc7ed, from the
inside) 6e were concerned that whoever had been accessing the home was inside, so we called
the police)
%) 6hen the police arrived, they agreed with us that it was very li7ely that somebody was
barricaded in the basement) <he police tried to coa' the person to come out, but without
success)
,) 6hen the police declined to brea7 down the door, Dr) =erliss did so) <he police loo7ed
inside and discovered the defendant, -achary Coughlin, and his dog)
10) Coughlin came out peacefully, went upstairs and was placed under arrest
by the police for trespassing)
11) 9fter Coughlin was ta7en to jail, Dr) =erAss and + tried to videotape the contents of the
basement where Coughlin had been hiding) +t was too dar7 to effectively videotape, but we
were able to ascertain that Coughlin and his dog have been living in th
basement ofthe home for Huite some time, li7ely even before the loc7out) + observed that
Coughlin had a bed set up) Ae had several computer monitors) Ae had a store ofhoth food
and water) Ae had electric space heaters)
12) 1ince the eviction order was served, my associate, =r) 2a7er, and + had sent numerous
emails to Coughlin, in which we both repeatedly made it clear to him that he was not to be at
the borne without our prior permission) 3o such permission was given)
=r) Coughlin had no reason to possibly thin7 he was permitted on the property) 6e had
tried to coa' him to cooperate on getting his possessions Uut, without success, or even a
response)
1&) 9s a result of=r) CoughlinBs brea74ins, Dr) =erliss has incurred a bill of M1,0.0 with a
licensed contractor to secure the premises) <hat does not include the cost of the door that was
bro7en in order to get Coughlin out) <hat does not include the numerous hours of me and my
staff to deal witb =r) CoughlinBs repeated brea74ins at the home)
1!) + am no e'pert, but + believe =r) Coughlin is wbat is called a Ohoarder)O
Ae has many car seats throughout the house) Ae has many dead televisions) Ae has a bo' of car
window servo motors) <he attic, which can only be accessed through a very narrow
opening, is full of items, including dead electronic devices)
15) 6e have found drugs at the home) 6e found a bag of what loo7s li7e
marijuana on the 7itchen counter) + found a crac7 pipe) <he contractor found what he said
was a large Huantity of pills)
1.) =r) Coughlin has been harassing and stal7ing me, and possibly, my staff)
#n 3oyember 15, 2011, he burst into my office and created a scene) <hen, he was parading up
and down the sidewal7 across the street with a video camera screaming obscenities at
me and my staff)O
3ow, if one reads that Declaration by Aill, then watches the videos Aill too7 of the
moments before, during, and after CoughlinBs arrest for criminal trespass on 3ovember 1&th,
2011)))well, one must conclude Aill and =erliss lied, and bro7e the law, resulting in profound
&,2!!2
reputational damage to Coughlin and vast damage to his family and career) <hey should do
time for this, period) 6here, in that Declaration, so soon after the arrest it is almost an Oe'cited
utteranceO is 1usich or Gings allegation of Obrea7ing and enteringO and the Oloc7s being
bro7enOJ 6hy wouldnBt Aill just say that in the Declaration if it was trueJ 6here is the video
of the basement that Aill mentions attempting to ta7e) <here wasnBt one provided in the
materials Aill gave to the city attorney, which were discovered to Coughlin) 6hy doesnBt Aill
correct his client when he lies, in front of the police, just before the handcuffing moment, in
response to CoughlinBs Huery as to who e'actly, in anyone, had told Coughlin to leave, or
issued a OwarningO) <hat basement was fi'ed up to be, basically, a studio apartment addition to
the main floor for over a year before the eviction, and Aill admits this appears to be the case in
another filing) Aill misleads the court above where he fails to mention the numerous times
Coughlin indicated he had added A+ll to his Obloc7ed senders listO and or indicated he did not
consent to any form of electronic service or notice of anything, and where 2a7er was on
vacation in early 3ovember) <he videoBs Aill too7 title -achBs arrest 000/4001!, found at the
above lin7, show particularly well the fraud and criminal conduct by =erliss and A+ll including
lying to effectuate a false arrest and criminal trespass and invasion of privacy)
6hat is actually stalid, invalid, void, null, e'pired, or otherwise ineffective is the #ctober
25th and 2/th 1ummary Eviction #rders by Dudge 1ferra::a in light of the 6C1#Bs admission
that on 3ovember 1st, 2011 (allegedly at !:&0 pm*, Deputy =achen bro7e into CoughlinBs
former home law office with Aill or 2a7er in tow (and probably one of those lawyers legal
assistantvideographers whom drive a new =ercedes 1$4.00 convertible coup))))the 7ind with a
;412 engine)))thatBs right, a ;412, M1&0,000 new, three times the engine found in CoughlinBs
four banger 1,,. Aonda 9ccord $> (at least its not a D>, rightJ* with 110,000 miles on it*:
9ll the case cited below are relevant, and most are terrible, for Aill, 2a7er and =erliss, in
addition to ma7ing the criminal trespass conviction e'tremely suspect:
+orio, !10 3N1 2d 1,5
8ussell v Galian, !1! 9)2d !.2
2urhams, %, ()&d .2,
8oswic7, 2&1 28 %!1
Aammond, 515 1E 2d 1%2
9lbert, !,0 3N1 2d ,51
unused, untimely eviction warrant needs to be reissued, ?reen, &!! 1E 2d 50/,
9)2d !.2: e'pired warrant for eviction no good
$eese v Aorne, !/ ()2d &1., 2urhams, %, ()&d .2,, 8oswic7, 2&1 28 %!1, Aammond, 515 1E
2d 1%2, 9lbert, !,0 3N1 2d ,51, #B2rien v) @)1), !!! 9)2d ,!., 1tate v) =Ernar, /%. 9)2d
&,&!!2
1!1 (01*, Canavan v) 1tate &% 1o) &d %%5, Dordan ;) 1tate, %02 1o) 2d 11%0 (01*, 1tate v) 9sh,
12 16 &d %00 (<3 B,,*) Dordan v) 1tate 110 ()&d at !/, 6illiams v) 3agel .!& 3E 2d %1.,
Goenig, /!2 ()2d .!,,3elson, ,0, 3E 2 .!2, claim of right #Bbanion 51, 1E 2d %1,, 2ean !.5
()2d 1!!1
attorney charged with Osummary criminal contemptO one reported decision ever, +n 8e
Gunstler) .0. 3N1 2d .0/)
CanBt join in same proceeding a disbarment and contempt proceeding: Dic7erson v) 1tate 1/,
16 &2!)
Dudge 3ash Aolmes continues to refuse to allow Couglin to appeal the Osummary criminal
contemptO #rder, even though, given the incarceration was served, it is a finally appealable
order, see ?ilman 2/5 ;) Comm !/!, .5/ 1E 2d !/!)
2ifurcate disciplinary matters:
+n re (orep (3ev) 1,!1* 111 ()2d 5&&, +n re Gaemmer, 1/% 16 2d !/!, <errell v) =iss) 2ar
.&5 1o 2d 1&//, =att of 2riggs 502 3E 2d %/,, +n 8e Aines !%2 9) 2 &/%, triem ,2, ()2d .&!,
1mith %5 () 52!, +n re "insh 2/ 9) &d !01, +n re Character, ,50 3E 2 1//, <oledo v) Coo7 %%
3E 2d ,/&(B0/*, Cohn, 151 16 &d !// (B0!*, +n re Crandell, /5! 36 2 501, +n re Cobb, %&%
3E 2d 11,/, +n 8E ?insberg .,0 36 2d 5&,, 3orth Carolina 2ar v) 8ogers, 5,. 1E 2d &&/)
1nyder /,2 9) 2d 515
joinderprejudice to Coughlin, 25, ()2d /, +n 8e 8ichardson .,2 9) 2d !2/
unused, untimely eviction warrant needs to be reissued, ?reen, &!! 1E 2d 50/,
9)2d !.2: e'pired warrant for eviction no good
$eese v Aorne, !/ ()2d &1., 2urhams, %, ()&d .2,, 8oswic7, 2&1 28 %!1, Aammond, 515 1E
2d 1%2, 9lbert, !,0 3N1 2d ,51, #B2rien v) @)1), !!! 9)2d ,!., 1tate v) =Ernar, /%. 9)2d
1!1 (01*, Canavan v) 1tate &% 1o) &d %%5, Dordan ;) 1tate, %02 1o) 2d 11%0 (01*, 1tate v) 9sh,
12 16 &d %00 (<3 B,,*) Dordan v) 1tate 110 ()&d at !/, 6illiams v) 3agel .!& 3E 2d %1.,
Goenig, /!2 ()2d .!,,3elson, ,0, 3E 2 .!2, claim of right #Bbanion 51, 1E 2d %1,, 2ean !.5
()2d 1!!1)))F
2! actuall( e6&oses the Nev. .onst. Art. B 4ec 0/ violations that the -udiciar( in !ashoe
.ount( and eno have %een countenancing in doing much more than turning a %lind e(e
to the state s&onsored %urglaries %( the !ashoe .ount( 4heriff;s Office in failing to
&,!!!2
accord tenants the ,0B hours from+ the tenant;s ,recei&t of the+ <summar( removal=
,order+ &rior to the !.4O conducting a loc)out incident to a summar( eviction' where
&age /K thereof <which' again' was e6cised %( either the 7. in &roviding such to the
4BN' or %( the 4BN' %ut clearl( not %( .oughlin in fa6ing such to the 7. as the fa6
headers and &agination therein tell the tale and loc) the 4BN and 7. in a finger
&ointing contest where such e6cised &age /K reads:
E<his whole business about E<he court may thereupon issue an order
directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 2! hours
after receipt of the order)))F +s inapplicable to this situation, where an #rder ?ranting
1ummary Eviction was signed by #ctober 2/th, 2011) <hat language is only found in
situations inapplicable to the current one) 381 !0)25&(&*(2*(2*, and 381 !0)25&(5*(9*
are the only sections of 381 !0 where this Ewithin 2! hoursF language occurs, and
those situations only apply where, in: !0)25&(&*(2*(2*: E &) 9 notice served pursuant to
subsection 1 or 2 must: )))(2* 9dvise the tenant: _) (2* <hat if the court determines that
the tenant is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the court may issue a summary order for
removal of the tenant or an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant,
directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 2! hours
after receipt of the orderF and !0)25&(5*(9*: E5) @pon noncompliance with the notice:
(a* <he landlord or the landlordRs agent may apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction
to the justice court of the township in which the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or
commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in which the
dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever has
jurisdiction over the matter) <he court may thereupon issue an order directing the
sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 2! hours after receipt of
the order)F <he way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in 8eno
Dustice Court presently shoc7s the conscience and violates 3evada law) <here is not
basis for effectuating a loc7out the way 6C1#Bs Deputy =achem did in this case) <he
above two sections containing the Ewithin 2! hours of receiptF language are
inapplicable, as those situations do not invo7e the present circumstances, where the
<enant did file an 9ffidavit and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen) <o
reHuire 3evadaBs tenants to get up and get out Ewithin 2! hoursF of Ereceipt of the
orderF (what does that even meanJ <he use of terms li7e ErenditionF, ErenderedF,
Enotice of entryF, EpronouncedF, is absent here, and this Ereceipt of the orderF language
is something rarely found elsewhere in 3evada law4see attached D=; statutory
citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a Complaint within ,0
days of EreceiptF of a 8ight <o 1ue $etter, a situation which follows 38C( 5(b*, and
38C( .(e* in imputing receipt of such a letter, when actual receipt is not shown, by
applying a Econstructive noticeF standard that relies upon the days for mailing e'tension
of time for items served in the mailing, etc)*) +n 9braham v) 6oods Aole
#ceanographic +nstitute, 55& ")&D 11! (1st Cir) 200,*, <he record did not reflect when
the plaintiff received his right4to4sue letter) <he letter was issued on 3ovember 2!,
200.) <he court calculated that the ,04day period commenced on 3ovember &0, 200.,
based on three days for mailing after e'cluding 1aturdays and 1undays)F
&,5!!2
=eanwhile, at bates /0& (age 1/ of CoughlinBs &512 =otion to Dismiss in 2.!05
and at bates /2! an illegible reproduction of page &, of !0 page fa' to 8=C from Coughlin
with 6C1# 1tuchellBs admission that Deputy =achenBs 9ffidavit of 1ervice is incorrect where
it alleges Coughlin was Epersonally servedF where version included by Ging in !1.12 2&
E'hibit presentation to 33D2 1creening (anel e'cised such page)
25 EDate: 6ed, 1! Dec 2011 1.:2.:!/ 40%00
"rom: 8operDLreno)gov
<o: -achCoughlinLhotmail)com
1ubject: =essage left on 121&2011
=r) Coughlin,
+ received your message that you left on my phone on December 1&, 2011 in
regards to a complaint against =arshal =en:el) <he =arshal Division ta7es all citi:en
complaints seriously and investigates all complaints received in writing or verbally)
Aowever, + would need more information from you prior to moving forward with an
investigation) + encourage you to come to the court to obtain a statement form, or contact
me directly should you wish to pursue this matter) 9s to your reHuest to obtain a copy of
=arshal =en:elBs personnel file, + am unable to provide that to you without a valid
subpoena or warrant)
Nou also stated you were attempting to obtain a copy of your Dudgement of
Conviction from Dept) !, specifically ;eronica $ope:, you can reach her at &2.4../&) + am
aware that a copy of your Dudgement of Conviction was provided to you and boo7ed into
your property on the night you were arrested) Nou are entitled to another copy should you
wish)
<han7 you, Dustin 8oper Chief =arshalDepartment of 9lternative 1entencing,
8eno =unicipal Court //54 &&!4125!F

E1ubject: 8E: =essage left on 121&2011
1ent: 6ed 121!11 .:52 (=
<o: roperjLreno)govC fis7gLreno)govC ballarddLreno)govC
renomunirecordsLreno)gov
Dear Chief =arshal 8oper, and the 8=C,
<han7 you for your Huic7 reply) + actually reHuested a copy of some
documentation related to my complaints about both incidents with =arshal =en:el be
placed in his employment or personnel file, not that you provide me a copy of his file) +
would li7e one, or a copy of any complaints against any =arshals, but + reali:e a subpoena
would li7ely be reHuired to have any chance at that) 3egligent <raining, Airing,
1upervision)
+ never received a copy of the Contempt "inding and ?uilty
;erdictDudgment#8der or whatever from the 11 &0, 2011 <rial before Dudge Aoward in 11
C8221/. 2+, though O;eronicaO (no one will tell me her last name, but she wor7s closely
with the 8=C Dudges* said the only OserviceO of those #rders that was ever attempted on
me occured while + was handcuffed, after which point some =arshals (+ did not catch their
&,.!!2
names and they manhandled me roughly into handcuffs, refusing to even let me save my
notes on my laptop at the sudden conclusion of Dudge Aowards #rder and Contempt
finding) <his is truly reprehensible to not even let me save my damn notes and act li7e +
was some perp who just 7noc7ed of a god damn liHuor store with a firearm) 1ome people
need to get a grip inside) (lease place a copy of this written complaint against whatever
=arshals were involved in that in their employmentpersonnel files as well) (lease provide
me a copy of any complaints you have received against any =arshals)
+ would li7e a copy of the 11 &0, 2011 #rder and the audio of the <rial) + believe
you have a duty to find out what those =arshals did with this document that O;eronicaO
alleges they attempted to serve on me, though, even 1! days after the <rial, the Odoc7etO in
the 8=C filing office still contains no #rder, no mention of an #rder, and certainly no
(roof of 1ervice of anything of the sort, nor have they responded to any of my
documentation reHuests or a reHuest of the audio of the <rial of 11 &0, 2011, despite an
e'igent need for such to prepare 8elief from Dudgment =otions that have deadlines of 10420
days from OserviceO of the O#rderO, and who 7nows how that will be measure) 6hy it was
necessary to cost the public a bunch of overtime pay for the 5 or so =arshalls, and who
7nows how many court staff to stay until nearly ,pm on 11 &0, 2011 to complete this
O<rialO, and how it was such a damn emergency, especially where 8ichard Aill was able to
get a continuance because he was going to be on vacation in the trespass case against me 11
C8 221%5 2+, despite the fact that $ew <aitel never receive my consent to such a =otion for
Continuance, and further <aitel was arguably conflicted out of representing me considering
his OassociationO with 3evada Court 1ervices and the torts the committed against me, which
resulted in a lawsuit being filed against them, or at least an +(" (etition and (roposed
Complaint in District Court, prior to <aitelBs appointment and representation) +f the 8=C
can afford all that damn overtime for everyone, why couldnBt it appoint me a defense
attorney in 8=C 11 C8 221/., especially where Dudge Aoward ruled, not 20 minutes into
<rial that he was finding me in Contempt of Court and would decide the sentence (which
obviously included a possibility of incarceration* at the conclusion of the <rialJ
"urther =) =en:el clearly bumped Donna 2allard out of the way in his :eal to
establish dominance of me, a person who was providing absolutely no resistance at the time)
=en:el went on to start order me to leave the premises after my conversation with 2allard
and the file cler7 was done) Duh, =en:el, it was 5:00 pm or so Oclosing timeO what do you
thin7 + am going to do, hang out and chill with you guysJ $oo7 at the 3otice of Aearing or
Doc7et in 8=C 11 C8221/. 2+ (+ am also hereby reHuesting a copy of the audio or video
of the hearing from the 8=C* and the hand written interlineations + made on the document
=) =en:el provided me in court on 10 11, 2011, where + mention the problems associated
with as7ing Huestions about my 1i'th 9mendment 8ight to Counsel where only the
possibility of jail time e'ists) + as7ed =en:el at that time a Huestion about the process and
he got very angry, threatening, and insulting with me, then later, critici:ed my appearance
before Dudge ?ardner, + believe he said + was OsarcasticO and or rude to the Dudge in the
same way + had been to =en:el himself) + submit that citi:ens trying to access justice
should not be ta7en as a personal affront to 8=C employees li7e =en:el, and that he needs
to strongly consider how he comes across to the public when he acts the way he does, and
&,/!!2
carries a firearm, color of law, a badge, and apparently, the blessing of the 8=C in carrying
out behavior that seems more fitting for a nightclub bouncer than a =arshal) "urther, the
video played at arraignments is overly hostile and threatening in my opinion, especially the
parts where Dudge ?ardner ma7es statements on the Oe'tremelyO poor choice it would be to
represent oneBs self pro se and all these tones and words used that ma7e it sound li7e pro se
defendants will be punished for not either copping a plea or going with one of the Ofour
former prosecutorsO who are now drawing a paychec7 from the 8=CCiti:enry to fulfill the
1i'th 9mendment) + am something completely other than impressed with the wor7 done by
$ew <aitel, EsH) for me in 8=C 11 C8 221%5 2+, in that regard) 6hy shouldnBt defendants
in the 8=C, after viewing the arraignment video and receiving representation li7e that
which + received from <aitel, feel li7e lambs being led to slaughterJ 2aah, baaaaaaaaah^
<wo other =arshals were there yesterday when =en:el was berating me, + would li7e their
names, please)
3ow, just awhile ago, O8=C Court <ranscriptionist (am $ongoniO called me on
the phone (Owhile drivingO according to =s) $ongoni* and informed me that the 8=C must
permit her access to the audio files, and that, while she is lin7ed into Otheir systemO
(meaning the 8=CBs*, the 8=C must ta7e some additional step to allow =s) $ongoni to
access the audio files and continue with the process of tending ot a reHuest for a <ranscript
on 9ppeal) + was told by a female 8=C counter cler7 that + would not ever be provided a
copy of the audio recording of the 11 &0, 2011 <rial, but that + may purchase from =s)
$ongoni an official transcript, and that Oappeal transcripts are billed at M!)10 per pageO etc)
and that a substantial deposit would be reHuired, and that O3o <ranscript is considered to be
official ordered, and commencement of transcription will not begin, until receipt of the
reHuired deposit)))O + as7ed =s) $ongoni to inform me of everything + must do or pay to
have the transcript deemd officialy ordered and she informed me that she could not tell me
that, despite the apparent hard and fast deadlines applied to ordering, officially, such a
transcript, with the 8=C in an 9ppeal conte't, until the 8=C allowed =s) $ongoni to
access the 8=C OsystemO and viewhear the audio of the 11 &0, 2011 <rial in 11 C8221/.
2+) =s) $ongoni angrily hung up the phone on me and is now not returning my calls and
has failed to respond to my reHuest that she inform me, in writing, as to where to send
money or a deposit or anything else reHuired for the transcript) + have yet to receive a fa'
from the 8=CBs O;eronicaO (whose last name has repeatedly been denied to me* despite her
angry assurances on the phone on 12 12, 2011 that she would finally hae the 8=C attempt
to appropriately (or almost appropriately* serve me a copy of the Contempt "inding and
?uilty #rder stemming from the 11 &0, 2011 <rial in 8=C 11 C8 221/. 2+) (lease have
this reHuest and communication reiterated to whoever it concerns at the 8=C, and have
such a copy of those documents emailed, fa'ed, and mailed in the @1 (ostal 1ervice mail
immediately) "urther, please do the same with respect to the audio of the 11 &0, 2011 <rial
in 8=C 11 C8 221/. 2+, and of course + will pay a reasonable cost for the cd to the e'tent
my +"( is not granted) <he 8DC and 6ashoe District Court charge about M&0 per cd) <he
also provide copies of the doc7ets in cases without demanding a subpoena force them to
first) (lease as7 the gentleman =s) 2allard saw me wor7ing with yesterday what he said in
that regard about providing me a copy of anything, much less the doc7et in either 8=C 11
&,%!!2
C8 221/. 2+ or 8=C 11 C8 221%5 2+)
+ believe + am entitled to a copy of the audio recording Huic7ly, whether or not a
transcript has been officialy ordered, for the purposes of appeal or for any other purposes) +
believe in something called OtransparencyO in goverment) 1unshine)
$et me as7 you a Huestion: +f a Dudge told you to jump off a bridge, would youJ
+t is my belief that Dudge Aoward ordered everyone to clear the courtroom, including a
female, shortly after my 11 20, 2011 <rial began and it became clear that + was not going to
lay down mee7ly for the Court, or for 6al4=art, or for the 8eno City 9ttorney) 2 million of
my people starved to death during a O?reat "amineO between 1%!%41%50 in +reland, despite
being surrounded by water and fish, where the English were arresting +rishmen who
attempted to save their families and their own liveBs by fishing) + will be fishing here,
gentleman) Deal with it) + want that recording, for, among many other reasons, to see if
Dudge Aoward merely as7ed those who might be called as witnesses to leave or whether he
demanded every member of the public leave before he sent me off to ?uantanamo, er, +
mean the 6ashoe County Detention "acility after the =ilitary <ribunal, er, the <rial in
8=C) +nterestingly, while at the 6ashoe County Detention "acility, + have been made to
strip na7ed while being videotaped, wear a green dress for days on end, go without a
toothbrush for days, refused any opportunity to ma7e phone calls to protect my clients cases
from prejudice, forced to spread apart my buttoc7s and allow an overly long loo7 at my anus
by 1heriffBs Deputies, and further, + was forced to submit to a position on my 7nees in the
immediate vicinity of two 1heriffBs Deputies crotches in some sadistic forced simulation of
performing oral se' upon those men) 8ico3egligent Airing, <raining, 1upervision, !2
@1C 1ec) 1,%& Deprivation of Civil 8ights @nder Color of 1tate $aw, etc), etc) Uui <am,
6histleblower) =r) 8oper, + doubt a "ederal Court Dudge would reHuire that + have come
obtained a 1tatement "rom you to complain about any =arshalBs conduct) + am pretty sure
this and my other correspondences have placed you on notice)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin, EsH) %1/ 3) ;irginia 1t) I2 8eno, 3; %,501 tel: //5 22,4./&/ fa': ,!,
../ /!02 -achCoughlinLhotmail)com 3evada 2ar 3o: ,!/&F
2. Dudge $inda ?ardnerBs "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw, and Decree of Divorce
("#"C#$D#D* in D;0%4011.% of .1,0, held:
2DDC Dudge ?ardnerBs .1,0, final Decree of Divorce e'cised only from
1pringgateBs 5210, (roposed Decree the attorneyBs fees award detailed in paragraph si' of
4&ringgate;s @ro&osed "ecree, (the language Dudge $) ?ardner e'cised therefrom read: E.)
6))=R-9I0' /99': <he Court has the discretion to award attorneyBs fees in a divorce
action, pursuant to 381 125)150(&*, and $ove v) $ove, 11! 3ev) 5/2, ,5, ()2d 52& (1,,%*)
<here is further authority for fees pursuant to NRS ,;+E,E(-#(B# , and 381 /)0%5) Based on the
a%ove and foregoing' former counsel for the "efendant is ordered to &a( attorne(;s fees in
the amount of A3DB.55 within thirt( <D5= da(s of this Order and "ecree)F*)
+nstead, Dudge $) ?ardnerBs .1,0, final Decree of Divorce operated to amend and
or supersede her !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial (the 111!12 formal disciplinary hearings 3?124
0!&5, "AE&* to not contain vacate any such attorney fee award (and all the language the 123
GingBs Huoted therefrom in his !1&0, Complaint* where such final Decree reads: O/indings of
&,,!!2
/act8 Conclusions of >a#8 and Decree of Divorce ))),) <he Court adopts, as "indings of "act,
each and every Conclusion of $aw below, which by this reference are e'pressly incorporated
herein) C#3C$@1+#31 #" $96
!) C#==@3+<N (8#(E8<NDE2<)
2* =r) DoshiBs ;ehicle: <he 2005 Chevrolet 2la:er shall %e considered
as @laintiff;s sole and se&arate &ro&ert( and @laintiff shall %e res&onsi%le for the de%t
remaining thereon) 1ince the car is worth about M10,,10)00 and there is M15,00,)/5 due and
owing on the vehicle, =r) DoshiBs assumption of this asset is to be considered as an underta7ing
of community debt of appro'imately M!,100)00)
C* =s) DoshiBs car shall be considered as her sole and separate property
and she shall be responsible for any debt remaining thereon) 4ince no evidence was &resented
to the .ourt as to the value of the auto' either &ositive or negative' there is no value for this
communit( asset)
D* 1onBs ;ehicle: <his vehicle is not considered as an asset and will not
be divided among the community)
E* DaughterBs ;ehicle: <his vehicle is not considered as an asset and will
not be divided among the community) (3#<E: Coughlin elicted testimony from =rs) Doshi
with respect to =rs) Doshi being liable or cosigning for the daughters vehicle, which arguably is
supportive of the alimony claim*)))
D* 2eneral Credit Card Debt: <here is general de!t of appro'imately
M15,.50)00 which has %een e6&ended for communit( &ur&oses) =r) Doshi has agreed to be
responsible for this debt and the same shall %e considered as his sole and separate
responsibility) )))
$* Medical Debt: <here is a debt due to 1t) =aryBs Aospital for
D87.5,++ and a debt to 8E=19 for M500)00) =r) Doshi has agreed to be responsible for these
debts and the same shall be considered as his sole and separate responsibility) )))
3* ?eneral Community Debt: <here was no evidence to establish
community debt) =r) Doshi agreed to ta)e the remaining communit( de%t in his name that is
outstanding and the debt shall be his sole and separate responsibility) +t should be noted that
=r) Doshi has li7ely incurred an uneHual distribution of the community debt of the parties and
the Court finds his testimony to be a compelling reason for ma7ing an uneHual distribution
ofthe community debt)
5) '%ousal 'u%%ort: <he Court has found that =r) Doshi is 51 and =s) Doshi is !.C
the &arties earn roughl( e*uivalent amountsC the %arties have been married 21 years %ut
Ms+ Joshi has always !een employed during that timeC =s) Doshi has a college degreeC both
parties are able to wor7C and after consideration of the net income, deduction of ta'es, and the
amount &aid in communit( de%t by =r) Doshi, an award of alimon( in the amount of one
dollar (M1)00* shall be awarded to =s) Doshi pursuant to 381 125)150, 6olff v) 6olff, 112
3ev) 1&55, ,2, ()2d 1,., and 1hydler v) 1hydler, 1,! 3ev) 1,2, 1,., ,5! ()2d &/, &, (1,%%*))))
+< +1 1# #8DE8ED)O
<he onl( other difference between 1pringgateBs (roposed Decree and the final
Decree of Divorce Dudge $) ?ardner entered is found in paragraph 5: E5) 1(#@19$
!00!!2
1@((#8<: <he Court has found that =r) Doshi is 51 and =s) Doshi is !. and the parties earn
roughly eHuivalent amounts and that, after consideration of net income, deduction of ta'es,
including the amount &aid on &a(ing off communit( de%t' as set forth a%ove, and in light of
the fact the &arties have %een married for twent(1one <0/= (ears and 7s. Joshi has alwa(s
%een em&lo(ed during that time, inclusive of the fact that she obtained a college degree &rior
to marriage, both parties being healthy and able to wor7, the Court does not believe that Ms,
Joshi is entitled to an a#ard of alimony, pursuant to N4 /0>./></=<A=, 6olff v) 6olff, 112
3ev) 1&55, ,2, ()2d 1,. (1,,.*, and 1hydler v) 1hydler, 1,! 3ev) 1,2, 1,., ,5! ()2d &/, &,
(1,%%*)
6itness the alterations to 1pringgateBs (roposed Decree above in the final Decree of
Divorce Dudge $) ?ardner ultimately entered: E5) '%ousal 'u%%ort: <he Court has found that
=r) Doshi is 51 and =s) Doshi is !.C the parties earn roughly eHuivalent amountsC the %arties
have been married 21 years %ut Ms+ Joshi has always !een employed during that timeC =s)
Doshi has a college degreeC both parties are able to wor7C and after consideration of the net
income, deduction of ta'es, and the amount &aid in communit( de%t by =r) Doshi, an award of
alimony in the amount of one dollar (M1)00* shall be awarded to =s) Doshi pursuant to 381
125)150, 6olff v) 6olff, 112 3ev) 1&55,,2, ()2d 1,., and 1hydler v) 1hydler, 1,! 3ev) 1,2,
1,.,,5! ()2d &/, &, (1,%%*F
Aowever, Judge >, 2ardner0s final Decree of Divorce #ould u% highlighting the
fact that Coughlin did8 in fact8 %ut on evidence su%%ortive of an alimony claim, the fact
that the parties had been married 21 years, (where, at least under the E<onopah formulaF is over
twice the ten years rule of thumb so commonly predictive in family court of whether there will
be an award of at least some, or rehabilitative alimony, especially where there are children of
the marriage) Dudge $) ?ardnerBs final Decree of Divorce altered the language in 1pringgateBs
(roposed Decree in a manner which accentuates such fact (which Coughlin argument during
trial and direct e'amination of his client, =s) Doshi, established, in CoughlinBs ma7ing
argument for an award of alimony that was, in fact, based in fact and law (in addition to
CoughlinBs insightful invocation of an 9$8 article providing support for the position that
1pringgateBs proposed settlement was largely a chimera were a domestic duty is accorded
greater protection under the law than unsecured third party credit card debt (ED* ?eneral Credit
Card Debt: <here is general debt of appro'imately M15,.50)00 which has %een e6&ended for
communit( &ur&oses. =r) Doshi has agreed to be responsible for this debt and the same shall be
considered as his sole and separate responsibility)F (and where =r) DoshiBs have a selection of
credit cards in his name only, and for which onl( he had the "uluth 7odel ,&ower and
control+ (how do you li7e that, C996J <61J C+1J* to monitor or incur charges under, and
for which there was no Edocumentar( evidenceF (where "AE& originally critici:ed Coughlin
for putting on only Etestimonial evidenceF to support the claim for alimony)))which is similar to
"AE& alleging Coughlin Econducted no discover(F (which was not litigated, and where 6$1
and Elcano completely obstructed CoughlinBs ability to disprove such, including refusing to
allow Coughlin to access his former coughlin:Lwashoelegalservices)org email account or =1
#utloo7 files* especially where Coughlin is not in privity with =s) Doshi* where 1pringgateBs
retort to CoughlinBs inHuiring as to just what discovery 1pringgate himself conducted was met
with the specious response that E$ did m( discover( in the /K./F (see 1pringgate email to
!01!!2
Coughlin to support the blan7et assertion that such EJ. General .redit .ard "e%tF (which
Judge >, 2ardner sto%s short of (findingM to be (community debtM ;es%ecially #here her
final Decree s%ecifically indicates (there was no evidence to esta%lish communit( de%tMC
where such decision onl( underscores the legitimac( of the arguments .oughlin made
during the trial res%ecting the attenuated chances any such unsecured third %arty credit
card creditors8 es%ecially #here such (general credit card debtM #as divided amongst a
number of cards such that no one account #as sufficiently large to e@%ect an e@tensive
litigation %roving some (doctrine of the necessariesM basis for holding Mrs, Joshi
%ersonally liable for the credit card accounts for #hich her husband #as the sole
signatory sufficient to Gustify Coughlin Goining Judge 2ardner and '%ringgate0s
immediately4before4the4trial4('ettlement ConferenceM ;a%%arently8 according to
'%ringgate8 a CMC counts as a second (settlement conferenceM< hard sell to his client8
Mrs, Joshi see&ing her a%%roval8 essentially8 foregoing her right to a%%eal any adverse
decision by Judge 2ardner8 es%ecially as to her alimony claim (=rs) Doshi was adamant at
the time, that even a 1iragusa, jurisdictional reservation was not satisfactory, and that she
needed some actual, liHuid, alimony)))(see 5!%!!, 5&%&&))) Eshut upF and EdonBt listen to your
attorneyF were said*)
+t is very interesting to compare the dates and individual listed in the various
Certificates of 1ervices in the Doshi matter post CoughlinBs suspension from 6$1 on !200,
(the day after his written complaint to Elcano of a hostile wor7 environment and other issues*
incident to Dudge $) ?ardners wor7 in "AE&, particularly with respect to the final Decree of
Divorce and the impact thereof as to the #rder 9fter <rial presented at the formal disciplinary
hearing as "AE&)
E8EU@E1< "#8 1@2=+11+#3 +t is hereby reHuested that the "indings of "act,
Conclusions of $aw, and Decree of Divorce being filed concurrently herewith be submitted to
the Court for decision) 6dditionally8 counsel for Defendant has revie#ed the decree and
a%%roved it as conforming #ith the Court0s =rder) D9<ED this 1$ day of =ay, 200,) s
Dohn () 1pringgate, EsH) CE8<+"+C9<E #" 1E8;+CE (ursuant to 38C( 5(b*, + hereby
celiifNthat + am an employee of <AE $96 #""+CE1 #" D#A3 1(8+3? ?9<E, and that on
this date + personally served at 8eno, 3evada, a true copy of the within "#8 fully addressed to:
=arc 9shley, EsH) 6ashoe $egal 1ervices 2,, 1) 9rlington 9venue 8eno, 3; %,501 > for
mailing by first class mail, postage prepaid Dated this 21st day of =ay, 200,) s $inda 9)
GnowldenO)
E"rom: -ach Coughlin Pmailto::achcoughlinLhotmail)comQ 1ent: <hursday, =ay
2%, 200, 10:!. 9= <o: =arc 9shleyC Deborah (ringleC Caryn 1ternlicht 1ubject: "6: 6DC8
, (roposed "inal Decree, 8E: discovery reHuests Dear 6ashoe $egal 1ervices, (lease see my
concerns in the emails below) <he proposed Decree submitted by =r) 1pringgate presents real
problems for =s) Doshi) 1pecifically the debt distribution is in no way referred to as being
characteri:ed as in lieu of alimony or given any similar treatment) <here is a wealth of
authority, some of which + have provided and some of which is contained in my emails to =r)
1pringgate during the pre4trial phase of the Doshi litigation that spells out why this is
disadvantageous to =s) Doshi) 2an7ruptcy law specifically 5&2a(15* could potentially see =r)
!02!!2
Doshi, upon the reHuisite showing, be discharged of the debt distributed in the decree and not
forced to pay alimony) 1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH) (3#<E: thereafter Coughlin included
his email to 1pringgate: EE6DC8 , (roposed "inal Decree, 8E: discovery reHuestsJ "rom:
-ach Coughlin (:achcoughlinLhotmail)com* 1ent: 1un 52!0, /:1, (= <o:
springgatelawLsbcglobal)net Ai Don, Aave you submitted a "inal Decree or
"indings of "act yetJ 6ill you be providing me a copy) 9pparently, + am not able to access
efile for this case, so + assume that means you could not serve me such a document via efile) Do
you intend to assert that + am not entitled to a copy of the proposed order, pursuant to 6DC8
,J +f + am, + have 5 days to object to it, etc)))$ )now we &reviousl( discussed language for
%an)ru&tc( concerns in our settlement discussion' %ut $ feel it is im&ortant for the final
order to s&ecif( what is for what so that an( >0D1a1/> or >0D1a1> issues do not %ecome
&ro%lematicC granted she is 6$1Bs client)))8owever' to the e6tent that the Final "ecree s&ells
out the sanctions' $ %elieve $ am entitled to > da(s to review an( &ro&osed Final "ecree &rior
to (our su%mitting it) )))Can you respond to my earlier Huestion, see below, regarding whether
(ou ever sent an( discover( re*uests to 7s. JoshiJ 1incerely, -ach Coughlin)))) EF
E8E: 6DC8 , (roposed "inal Decree, 8E: discovery reHuestsJ "rom: =arc
9shley (mashleyLwashoelegalservices)org* 1ent: <hu .0!0, &:1, (= <o:
:achcoughlinLhotmail)comC Deborah (ringle (dpringleLwashoelegalservices)org*C
Caryn 1ternlicht (csternlichtLwashoelegalservices)org* -ach, 1orry for the delay in getting
bac7 to you on this) +Rve been out of the office and this is my first day bac7) 6hen
summari:ing the evidence in her order, the judge did mention that =r) Doshi suggested that
maintenance be 7ept open for 5 years as protection against his default on the debts he was
ordered to pay) Aowever, when she got to that portion of her order concerning maintenance,
she specifically denied maintenance after reviewing relevant factors such as the partiesR relative
ages, earning capacities and state of their health) 1pringgate recalls discussing the award of M1
per year maintenance for 5 years so it could be revised to account for any default on his clientRs
part and also has said that he thought the provision was going to be part of the order) Aowever,
he feels that the clause cannot be included in light of the judgeRs plain statement that
maintenance is denied (+ would assume also because it doesnRt benefit his client*, so the final
decree was su%mitted as originall( &ro&osed. !e have filed a motion to amend it on the %asis
of mista)e or inadvertence) =arc 9shley 1taff 9ttorney 6ashoe $egal 1ervices 2,, 1)
9rlington 9ve)F (3#<E: 6$1Bs 9shley failed to provide Coughlin any copy of the =otion to
9mend he references in his email, and the Certificate of 1ervice on such =otion to 9mend of
52/0, by 6$1Bs 9shley does not list Coughlin amongst those to whom it was mailed*
6$1Bs 9shleyBs 52/0, Motion to Correct Pro%osed Decree somewhat
incorporated the legal analysis Couglhin email to 6$1 on 52.0,, where such reads:
E=#<+#3 <# C#88EC< (8#(#1ED DEC8EE 2A98<+ D#1A+,
DefendantCounterclaimant, by her attorneys, 6ashoe $egal 1ervices by =arc 9shley, objects
to the form of the "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw, and Decree of Divorce and moves that
it be corrected because 7ey provisions have been omitted through mista7e, inadvertence or
e'cusable neglect, as more fully set forth in the attached =emorandum of (oints and
9uthorities) )))D9<ED this 2.th day of =ay, 200,) 1 =arc 9shley, EsH), 6ashoe $egal
1ervices)
!0&!!2
M9M=R6-DEM =/ P=?-)' 6-D 6E)"=R?)?9' 38C( 8ule .0 allows a
Court to relieve a party from the terms of a final judgment, order or other proceeding on the
grounds of mista7e, inadvertence or e'cusable neglect) Defendant in this case contends that
the final decree #as to have contained certain %rovisions to %rotect her in case Plaintiff
fails to %ay the indebtedness he has been ordered to %ay, )hese debts are in Defendant0s
name and they #ill be asserted against her if he does not %ay or files ban&ru%tcy,
'%ecifically8 in its =rder 6fter )rial8 %age lines 1*42+8 the Court notes that 00to %rotect
Ms, Joshi in the event Mr, Joshi filed for ban&ru%tcy8 Mr, Joshi suggested that the court
maintain Gurisdiction over the issue of s%ousal su%%ort for five years,F ?t #as Defendant0s
understanding that this #as to be done through an a#ard of maintenance of =ne Dollar
;D1,++< Per year for five years, ?f Plaintiff ceased %aying the debts8 she #ould then be able
to re:uest maintenance to offset the added %ayments,
+n discussing the form of the decree with Plaintiff0s attorney8 he #as li&e#ise of
this understanding and maintained that the D1,++ Per year language #ould be in the final
decree, "o#ever8 in %re%aring the final %a%ers he noticed that the court denied
maintenance altogether at %age 118 lines 1741*8 so did not include the e@%ected language,
6ccordingly8 Defendant moves the court to amend the order to include an award of
maintenance in the amount of =ne Dollar ;D1,++< Per year for five years, so "efendant will
have recourse to protect her credit if Plaintiff defaults on the debts in her name+ The de%t
on the car which is titled in @laintiff;s name and their daughter is also in "efendant;s
&ersonal name) Defendant #as of the understanding that Alaintiff was also to re.title the car
in the name of *efendant and their daughter8 and Defendant moves for amendment of the
order to accom%lish this) Dated this 2.th day of =ay, 200,) 1 =arc 9shley, EsH)
.ET$F$.ATE OF 4E#$.E B: 7A$L (ursuant to 38C( 5(b*, + hereby certify
that + am an employee of 6ashoe $egal 1ervices, and that on th)) Day of =ay, 200,, + served
the foregoing: =#<+#3 <# C#88EC< (8#(#1ED DEC8EE by depositing with the @nited
1tates (ostal 1ervice, postage prepaid, at 8eno, 3evada, a true and correct copy of the within
document addressed to: $aw #ffices of Dohn () 1pringgate, EsH) 20& 1outh 9rlington 9venue
8eno, 3; %,501 s Deborah (ringle, C( 9n employee of 6ashoe $egal 1ervicesF
1o, where 1pringgate, the 2DDC, and 6$1 did not see fit to include Coughlin on
numerous Certificates of 1ervice (or, indeed serve him such documents, never mind 6$1
utterly failing to defend Coughlin, support him in having the !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial vacated,
or allow him access to his email to =rs) Doshi and others (including 6$1 employees whom
Coughlin would need obtain chec7s from to send out discovery, etc), or those that prove
Coughlin did in fact e'tensively research the issues involved in that case prior to ta7ing the
positions he too7 at trial*, and the 2DDC removed Coughlin from the list of individuals able to
access such case on e"le', unless Coughlin paid an M%% real party in interest first appearance
fee (which 6$1 refused to pay on CoughlinBs behalf*, and Coughlin was not allowed to
EappealF the #rder 9fter <rial in that he is not considered a EpartyF (or in privity, really per
9lbany v) 9rcata* it would hardly be just to absolve the 123 of its duty to investigate such
EgrievanceF (the 123 was provided all the filings in D;0%4011.% by Coughlin, in addition to
all of those on file in 5&%&& and 5!%!! (as were all the members of the (anel* beyond simple
ta7ing such "AE& from Dudge 3ash Aolmes in her Ebo' of materialsF she collected and
!0!!!2
submitted along with "AE%, her &1!12 grievance letter to the 123 and mon7eying with the
Edate receivedF stamp the 123 affi'ed thereon to (as if such really throws one off a whole lot*
indicate such was Ereceived &1512F with the E5F in E15F going through many, uh, changes
over the months and through the various iterations thereof) "urther, both 123 Cler7 of Court
(eters, and Ging made statements and writing despite 6DC8 , reHuiring that 1pringgate had
to have served Eon any parties to the action and affected by the judgmentF (so, CoughlinBs not
being Ea partyF entitles the Court, 1pringgate, and 6$1 to let Coughlin continue to litigate an
appeal and then a (etition for 6rit all the while being unaware that 2DDC Dudge ?ardner had
entered an #rder on .1,0, which vitiated completely the !1&0, attorney fee sanction)
+t is entirely clear why Dudge $) ?ardner, 1pringgate, and 6$1 did not want
Coughlin to be aware of the .1,0, Decree, specifically to the e'tent that the changes from the
#rder 9fter <rial to the final Decree completely undermine 6$1Bs rationale proffered for firing
Coughlin, which rested entirely, (Esole reasonF according to Elcano* upon Dudge $) ?ardnerBs
since !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial, where Elcano, on behalf of 6$1 (see .0&02, .0&1/* made the
decision to terminate Coughlin employment, announcing such to Coughlin on 5/0,, ma7ing
the .1,0, date of entry of the final Decree of Divorce incredibly convenient for all involved
e'cept Coughlin)))just so long as Coughlin does not become aware of the entry of such final
Decree on .1,0,, and so long as he is not aware of the e'tent to which the changes between
the two completely vacate the sanctions, and, in doing so, eviscerate 6$1Bs rationale for
terminating Coughlin)
E"rom: :achcoughlinLhotmail)com <o: springgatelawLsbcglobal)net 1ubject:
discover( re*uests Date: =on, 1% =ay 200, 0,:!&:1/ 40/00 Ai Dohn, Do you have any record
of sending any discovery reHuests to 2harti DoshiJ +f so, could you indicate what they were and
when and provide a copyJ 1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH)F
8e: 6DC8 , (roposed "inal Decree, 8E: discovery reHuests "rom: Dohn
1pringgate (springgatelawLsbcglobal)net* ) 1ent: <ue 52.0, 5:1! (= <o:
:achcoughlinLhotmail)com 1 attachment 200,052.1/115%/5%)pdf (&!5)0 G2* 1) <he
proposed order was filed =ay 21) + have attached a copy via pdf) + 7ept it very sparse on the
sanctions) 2) <he ban7ruptcy concerns are not your issue, she is not your client) &) + did my
discovery in the 1.)1)F
CoughlinBs conduct therein, is made all the more understandable given the
complaints to Elcano by then named E<ahoe 6omenBs 1ervicesF upon Coughlin failing to
satisfy EadvocateF Cecilia ?on:ale:Bs standard as to just how much he should have e'orted his
then client (aula Aaubl to proceed at the e'tension hearing for the order of protection she
obtained against her husband, where =rs) Aaubl was e'tremely conflicted in that regard, and
where Aaubl actually spo7e with and wrote to Elcano praising CoughlinBs representation of her
incident to Elcano conducting an investigation in response to <61Bs written complaint against
Coughlin, which Elcano refused to provide to Coughlin*)
1uch brings to mind the Huestion, then how was 1pringgateBs use of discovery,
presentation of various forms of EevidenceF (testimonial, documentary, or otherwise* sufficient
to avoid a sanction, not to mention his E7nowledge of procedural rules and rules of evidenceF
where 1pringgate, not Coughlin violated Dudge $) ?ardnerBs (re4<rial order respecting the
reHuirement to provide Coughlin a copy of the Emore than ten e'hibitsF that 1pringgate offered,
!05!!2
Eprior to trialF in a form that is Ebound, tabbed, and inde'edF (ironically, 1pringgateBs violation
of such procedural order (Dudge ?ardnerBs "AE& ta7es Coughlin to tas7 where he objected to
such Ethen failed to cite to a specific ruleF, despite there being no specific rule, but rather, such
being law of the case incident to the (re4<rial #rder that Coughlin, not 1pringgate, complied
with*)
+ndeed, Dudge $) ?ardnerBs #rder of /150, further e'plained: E?nsofar as ,,, the
a#ard of attorney0s fees8,,,the .ourt did not intend the award of attorne(;s fees to %e
included in the "ecree of "ivorce))))#n =ay 1&, 200,, a =otion to 1tri7e was filed by Dohn ()
1pringgate, EsH), alleging ))) there was no final -udgment entered in this matter (et as the
Order After Trial had not %een memorialiJed into a Findings of Fact' .onclusions of Law'
Judgment and "ecree of "ivorceF)F
?iven that, the stipulation to an %mended *ecree !etween Springgate and DJS on
:H--HE9, and Judge >, 2ardner entering an =rder ado%ting such on 7C2.C+B, along with
Judge J+ 2ardner e=cising from Springgate's Aroposed *ecree the attorney fee award included
therein+
#f course 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner is annoyed with 6$1Bs Elcano (li7e many
people* incident to his ta7ing her #rder 9fter <rial and using it for that which it was never
intended) 8egardless, 1pringgateBs invocation of 381 1%)010(2*(b* is more than misguided,
and clearly fails to support any view that the "AE&, !1&0, #rder 9fter <rial by 2DDC Dudge
$) ?ardner is till at all operative (which it is not, clearly*, especially where such was premised
upon an original order that did not provide for alimony where the final Decree of Divroce
indeed did so award alimony:
E10271,!)!! 7) 2ad "aith or =eritless $itigation) =ost Cited Cases Defendant did
not bring or maintain counterclaims without reasonable ground, as would support statutory
award of attorney fees to plaintiffs in their action for breach of contractC defendant was
successful in his counterclaim for breach of contract, as reflected in supplemental judgment
allowing him an offset against plaintiffsB judgment for loans that one plaintiff did not repay to
defendant, and while defendant was not successful on his other counterclaims, he presented
some evidence and testimony to factually and legally support them) 6estBs 3819 1%)010(2*
(b*) Aalls v) (hillips 1lip Copy, 2010 6$ &%&%!%/ (3ev) 2010*) +n light of our decision to
reverse in part the district courtBs grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents, we
conclude that any award of attorney fees and costs under 38C 1%)010(2*(b* is premature, and
thus, the award must be reversed) Gahn, 121 3ev) at !/,4%0, 11/ ()&d at 2&% (reversing an
entire fee award made under 381 1%) 010(2*(b* when a summary judgment was reversed in
part and affirmed in part on appeal*) 3ev),2010) Edwards v) 3ational Credit 9djusters, $$C
1lip Copy, 2010 6$ &%&%.,& (3ev)*F
"urther, had no alimony award ultimately been entered, 1pringgateBs client would
have arguably obtained a recovery e'ceeding M20,000, therefore ta7ing such out of the purview
of 381 1%)010(2*(b*)
2ut really, basically what happened was Coughlin filed his doc7eting statement in
5&%&& with the attachment thereto, and 2DDC Dudge $) ?ardner decided she did not need any
of that, and that this was 1pringgateBs and Elcano6$1Bs problem now, and she undid her
!1&0, sanctions #rder by entering
!0.!!2
2/1.5/ E9dditional Case +nformationF listed for original 111!11 date of bench
trial indication: E. city #itnesses had a%%eared for bench trial,,,D9/9-D6-) K6' ?-
CE')=DI 6) )?M9 6-D D6)9 =/ 19-C" )R?6>J D9/9-D6-) K6'
)R6-'P=R)9D 1E) -=) 1R=E2") ?-)= C=ER),,,16?> /=R/9?)ER9
C6-C9>>9DF where such references 8=C Dudge AowardBs having revo7ed CoughlinBs bail,
setting it at M1,000 where such is normally M&.0)00 on 111!12 upon Aoward allegedly
believing Coughlin failed to appear) Aowever, this 111511 3otice 1etting <rial proves that
Aoward was aware that Coughlin did not fail to appear, incident to which the E29+$
"#8"E+<@8E C93CE$$EDF, however, in denying the =otion for Continuance Coughlin
submitted on 112,11 (where this 111511 3otice 1etting the <rial Date was not appropriately
served on Coughlin in that it was mailed to the very E121 8iver 8oc7 1t)F address from which
Coughlin had informed the 8=C he had been wrongfully summarily evicted via his 102.11
E9pplication and 9ffidavit for 9ppointment of $egal DefenderF thereof (as such the 11&011
<rial violated CoughlinBs due process rights and the Dudgment of Conviction and #rder
(unishing 1ummary Contempt are void)
(further evidence of the fact that 221/. was so patently devoid of due process as to
render such conviction invalid is demonstrated where Coughlin filed on 112,11 a 1ubpoena
commanding the appearance of a certain 6al4=art employeemanager, whom failed to appear,
where no continuance was granted in light of such and where no contempt procedures were
thereafter followedC further, 8=C Dudge AowardBs 122211 9ppeal 2ond #rder is inconsistent
with his 102/11 #rder Denying 9ppointment of $egal Defender and 121511 #rder Denying
DefendantBs =otion to (roceed +n "orma (auperis, =otion for (ublication of <ranscript at
(ublic E'pense, =otion to ;acate, and 8ecusal, etc) where such 122211 9ppeal 2ond #rder
applies the M&.0 (no M100)00 credit given to Coughlin for seriving two days in jail on such
charge, in a departure from the usual custom and practice in the 8=C, where such departure
was also demonstrated by Dudge 6) ?ardner in the criminal trespass case where Coughlin
served three days in jail (typically given M100)00 credit per day spent in jail as an offset of the
normal bail schedule, which for criminal trespass in the 8=C at such time amounted to a
M&10)00 fine, where Dudge 6) ?ardner converted the entirety of the M&10)00 bail (as set by the
8=C 2ail 1chedule* Coughlin posted on 111511, and attempted to mislead in announcing he
was giving Coughlin credit for Ethree days time servedF (while technically a misdemeanor may
result in up to M1,000 fine, Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs departure from the 8=CBs own bail schedule
and usual custom and practices is yet another mar7ed e'ample of his wholly unprofessional and
patent bias on full display, as though the appearance of impropriety (at best* that his insisting
on remaining on such case is possibly balanced by anything to be gained by his remaining on it
other than his maintaining a fine position to e'act a vindictive revenge on Coughlin incident to
Dudge 6) ?ardnerBs sisterBs "AE& #rder being the subject of a mandamus petition by Coughlin,
even where 6$1 had announced it had fired Coughlin solely in response to 2DDC Dudge $inda
?ardnerBs #rder)))such conflicted, biased, base, vindictive, piling on is an embarassment to the
judiciary ( at which time Coughlin was forced to pay a cash bail on the three charges (%2011
iphone petty larceny arrest in the 8DC 8C8201140.&&!1, ,,11 6al4=art candy bar petty
larceny arrest in the 8=C in 11 C8 22/1., and 111&11 criminal trespass arrest in the 8=C in
!0/!!2
11 C8 2.!05* totaling M1,&50, which Coughlin repaid to his then client (eter Eastman
(Coughlin was literally forced to engage in such arrangement with his client to avoid
prejudicing Eastman and other clientBs affairs where 8=C Dudge Aoward committed judicial
misconduct in denying Coughlin any stay whatsoever of the shameful and ridiculous summary
incarceration he order on 11&011* upon Eastman putting up the M1,&50 to bail Coughlin out
on all three charges, where Coughlin was informed by the 8=C that the M2,2/5 he was
wrongfully forced to deposit under a fraudulent application of 381 11%9)&55(5* in a no4cause
summary eviction where even had Dudge 1ferra::a had any right to inHuire into rent owing, and
even had any testimony or evidence been offered in that regard where the landlord failed to
appear at the 101&11 summary evicition proceeding at which such rent escrow deposit order
was made, 381 11%9)&.0 and other basis (including an e'press Eproportionate reduction of
rentF provision in the lease applicable to a variety of circumstances availing thereunder* more
than off4set any such rent amount Dudge 1ferra::a deemed owed*)
@pon Eastman bailing him out on 111511, Coughlin drove straight to the (ostal
1tation where the Certified =ailing the 8DC utili:ed to return Coughlin such M2,2/5 rent
escrow deposit was signed for and retrieved) Aowever, cashing such chec7 was made more
difficult by Aill withholding CoughlinBs wallet (and indentification therein*) Aowever,
Coughlin cashed such chec7 and paid Eastman that same day all the amount Eastman put up for
the cash only bail (M1,&50* (where, subseHuently, upon the M!.5)00 bail reHuired at such time
for the %2011 i(hone arrest in the 8DC in 8C8201140.5.&0 being ordered returned, in
December 2012, Eastman reali:ed a windfall in receiving such bac7 less charges for Ewitness
feesF that 8DC Dudge 1ferra::a placed upon Coughlin despite his having failed to grant a
continuance to Coughlin or institute contempt procedures upon material witness 3ichole
6atson failing to comply with CoughlinBs lawfully issued subpoena properly served pursuant to
381 1/!)&!5*) <he transcript of the 111,12 trial date in the i(hone petty larceny trial further
reveals the egregious judicial misconduct Dudge 1ferra::a (whom Eastman claims to have been
a tribal court bailiff for and where Coughlin filed a =otion in the 8DC on 112/12 that the 8DC
failed to transmit in the 8#9 in the appeal thereof in C81242025 that moves to disHualify
Dudge 1ferra::a based on the information Eastman had only just revealed to Coughlin that
month (at which time Eastman and Coughlin also discussed the 123Bs violations of 1C8 121,
which was apparent in early =arch 2012 upon Eastman accusing Coughlin of having been
Ebanned from filing anything in the ban7ruptcy court* the substance of which was Eastman had
been told Eby friends in the courthouseF (Eastman is a former 6C1# Deputy whom left such
position in appro'imately 200, to become an insurance salesman*, that Dudge 1ferra::a Ehad it
in forF Coughlin and was Eout to getF Coughlin, in addition to the allegation by Eastman that
Dudge 1ferra::a has a terrible problem with alcohol and that Eastman, on many occasions, was
forced to drive a too inebriated to drive home Dudge 1ferra::a home after a day spent
into'icated adjucating matters in the tribal courts, where Eastman was his bailiff at times)
8DC Dudge (earson, upon becoming Chief Dudge in Danuary 201& (though,
inappropriately, then 2012 Chief Dudge 1ferra::aBs shameful 122012 9dministrative #rder
2012401 lists Dudges Clifton, 1ferra::a, and (earson as having previously EadmonishedF
Coughlin (E6AE8E91, -9CA98N 298GE8 C#@?A$+3 has been a party in both civil and
criminal matters before this Court including cases before the Aonorable (eter 1ferra::a, the
!0%!!2
Aonorable 1cott (earson, and the Aonorable David Clifton wherein =r) Coughlin has been
admonished for failing to follow the CourtBs orders and directiveoC EF such #rder reads at page
1:1041! thereof* (which is patently untrue as to Dudge (earson, as the only appearance
Coughlin had up to that date of 122012 before (earson were a /&112 hearing incident to a
wrongful summary eviction in 8C8201240010!% (where, troublingly, the 101012 %, page
document Coughlin submitted for filing (which is EfilingF technically* is not in the 8DCBs file
nore is such notated in the 381 !)2!0 doc7et for such in the 8DC, though the 8DC absolutely
was provided such for filing via the manner in which it holds itself out as accepting filings and
has previously accepted filings by: E#utbound fa' report "rom: ;o'o' (noreplyLvo'o')Com*
<his sender is in your safe list) 1ent: 6ed 101012 12:&1 (= <o: :achcoughlinLhotmail)Com
Ai :achcoughlin, Nour "a' was successfully sent to !ba5,.&,4c2/b4!b!24,ed%4
cf!e&de&a&/dgeneral.,&2,% ( 1//5D0>KI/>*) Nour "a' was delivered L 0/:&1:1% (= on
2012410410F http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%1&&52/4&041&4020!4.2&&/4./,%0410!%4#cr4
8DC4Doc7et4as4of46here4Coughlin4s4.42.4124Email4to48DC4and41tancil46as48emoved4
"rom4@nderneath4by48DC4a,* wherein Dudge (earson misstated 3evada law in allowing an
unauthori:ed practitioner of law do far more than file and serve a ElandlordBs affidavitF in a
summary eviction matter (http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVm!h01-fd<D!
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%0.512%4214124020!40./,%0410!%412!204?rievance49gainst4
3C14to41234"a'ed4and4Emailed http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%0.1,,!4124124"a'4to4
1234#2C4Complaints4?rievance4"#+9438142&,41creening4(anel4and4Gern49ttached4to4,4
%4124and4!41.4124Email4<oo4020! http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%05,/5&41,4124020!4&/!4
Email4to43vbar42ar4?rievance48eporting49bout4Gern4and46nm
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%11!//,4224124020!4.2&&/48ev201240/%!&24;erified4
Complaint4for4+llegal4$oc7out49gainst41uperior41torage4$$C4,4224124Coughlin4v41uperior4
1torage4$$C4Et49l41 *, and a 10212 hearing incident to CoughlinBs ,2212 ;erified
Complaint for E'pedited 8elief from +llegal $oc7out (where Dudge (earson countenanced the
attorney misconduct of CoughlnBs former co4wor7er at Aolland K Aart where 8ic7 Elmore,
EsH), appears to have violated 8(C &)59 where his client snuc7 threw a summary eviction
proceeding without notifying or serving Coughlin notice thereof in any way* and an uneventful
22112 arraignment (where DoganBs failure to appear in violation of 381 1/%)&,/ on 21!12
(a subject of CoughlinBs 22112 =otion to Dismiss in the 8DC in 8C8201240.5.&0 that is
referenced as an e'ampled of CoughlinBs incompetence in GingBs Complaint and which was
emailed to Ging by 8DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori <ownsend on !1112* (interestingly, during a
.1.1& status conference incident to an allegation that Coughlin violated his probation in
8C8201140.&&!1 by being the subject of an attac7 and wrongful arrest by 8DC 2ailif Dohn
8eyes on 52&1&, Dudge (earson countered CoughlinBs assertion that DoganBs 21!12 failure to
appear for a gross misdemeanor arraignment where he was already listed as attorney of record
violated 381 1/%)&,/, which Dudge (earson dismissed as Enot a critical stageF of the
proceedings) Dudge (earson, as far as Coughlin 7nows, has failed to report the misconduct of
either Dogan or Dudge 1ferra::a in violation of his Canon 2, 8ule 2)15 obligation)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%0.50&/41%41&4020!4.2&&/4Email4to42DDC4Cler74
Aastings48ecords4of49ny4?rievance
"urther, Dogan and the 6C(DBs #fficer fraudulently asserted that it fa'ed Coughlin
!0,!!2
a =otion to Uuash 1ubpoena in 8C8201140.&&!1 on 11/12 where Coughlin never, at any
time, received a fa' of such from Dogan or the 6C(D (or anyone*) 8egardless, Coughlin had
never at any time provided Dogan either verbal nor written permission to serve him via
facsimile, and the ugly irony of Dudge 1ferra::a Uuashing CoughlinBs subpoena on Dogan
(whilst abusing his contempt power yet another time in threatening to have Coughlin Eta7en out
of the roomF incident to his ruling thereon if Coughlin did not Esit downF (where Coughlin had
been presenting argument in opposition on such motion to Uuash, and had not been told to sit
down or cease so presenting argument up to that point, ie, such was an utterly unnecessary and
ridiculous display of the intemperance and bullying which Dudge 1ferra::a carries out his
judicial duties*)
<8931C8+(< #" (8#CEED+3?1 4 ;ol) +, ((ages !:2 to 1&:%* 8E3#, 3E;9D9,
=#3D9N, 3#;E=2E8 1,, 2012, ,:15 9)=) \\p)p\\ <AE C#@8<: 6eBre ready to go)
6hat weBre going to do first is supposedly remaining objections to the subpoenas) + have
previously ruled on the motions for mistrial which was denied) <he subpoenas, + ruled that with
the e'ception of the attached subpoenas, all other subpoenas were either improperly served,
improperly issued, unduly burdensome, were for witnesses or matters irrelevant to the trial and
the merits in this case or did not specify what documents, if any, were being subpoenaed in the
case of the 1ubpoenas Duces <ecum) 1o the following subpoenas are the only ones that are
going to be honored today) <he one for 3icole 6atson, is 3icole 6atson hereJ #7ay) 6as she
servedJ Did you pay her or not witness feeJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, you told me that
was either waived or deferred) <AE C#@8<: + did not say that) + said if you presented proof to
me that + ordered that it be waived or deferred, + would consider that) + reviewed everything
you furnished meC + did not see such a document) =8) C#@?A$+3: + believe + have an audio
recording on the record that we discussed my indigency) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, + donBt want to
hear what you believeC do you have it cued upJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, + donBt) <AE C#@8<:
9ll right) +Bm not going to do anything on that) $ucy 2yingtonJ + gave you until last <hursday
to give me that) $ucy 2yington) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bll just enter for the record, your Aonor,
that + had a 2ar disciplinary 44 a full4day hearing) <AE C#@8<: + understood that, but + gave
you additional time so you could get that) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd =r) 17au, + would li7e to
preserve for the record, he lied to the court asserting that he was given + believe authority to
serve me by e4mail for a hearing 44 <AE C#@8<: Ae was not 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: <hatBs
what he represented to me) <AE C#@8<: 9nd that was an additional service to ma7e sure that
you got it, sir) =8) C#@?A$+3: <hatBs not his representation) <AE C#@8<: Colton
<empletonJ #7ay) =r) <empleton is here so we will honor that subpoena) 8obert DawsonJ
#7ay) 9ny proof that he was offered a witness fee or that + waived itJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +
believe he hung up on me and you did waive it, itBs on the record, your Aonor) +Bve got the C D,
your Aonor) +Bll testify under penalty of perjury that you did) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, youBll have
an opportunity later today) 1ir, sit down) =8) C#@?A$+3: + just need to correct for perjuryBs
sa7e, your Aonor, that + believe you reserved the right to ma7e me pay it later if it wasnBt
outright waived) <AE C#@8<: 9ustin $ichtyJ 9ll right) =r) $ichty is here so we will
proceed with him) 9ny other subpoenas +Bve already ruled onJ 9nd + 7now =r) Dogan is here,
but + believe + ruled on your subpoena as well it was, if it was among those that + previously
ruled on) <AE 6+<3E11: Nour Aonor, am + free to leaveJ
!10!!2
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, + do not believe anybody presented a subpoena on
his behalf) Certainly the City 9ttorney doesnBt represent the public defender) <AE C#@8<:
9ll right) =r) Dogan, tell me why you want the subpoena HuashedJ =8) D#?93: Nour
Aonor, + filed a motion to Huash the subpoena that was served upon me by =r) Coughlin) <here
was no response, itBs an admission that my motion is worthy) 9lso + have no 7nowledge of the
facts 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, can we have him sworn if heBs going to testifyJ <AE
C#@8<: 6ait a second, sir) Nou sit down, heBs an attorney) Nou are not, come on) =r)
DoganJ =8) D#?93: Nour Aonor, +Bm not a percipient witness) + have no personal
7nowledge of the 44 <AE C#@8<: +Bm just trying to find your motion) Nou said you did file a
motion with the courtJ =8) D#?93: <hatBs correct, your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: Do you
7now what date it wasJ =8) D#?93: 9bout two wee7s ago, + believe) <AE C#@8<: #7ay)
+ have one from =r) 17au) =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, + have a copy of =r) DoganBs motion,
if you would li7e to see itJ <AE C#@8<: + would but +Bm sure itBs in here) =8) N#@3?: +t
was filed stamped of 3ovember /th, and + would was served a copy of this so thatBs how + have
a copy) =8) N#@3?: =otion to Uuash 1ubpoena Duces <ecum filed stamped 3ovember /,
2012, at 10:2!) <AE C#@8<: + do have it, it was one of the first ones 44 it is in the order) 6hat
it responds is that the material reHuested by the 1ubpoena Duces <ecum was previously
furnished to =r) Coughlin and further, that =r) Dogan does not have that and + granted that
motion)
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, + was never served that) <AE C#@8<: 3ever
served whatJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, + never received that) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, sir,
according to this, it was mailed to you or fa'ed) =8) C#@?A$+3: +t was fa'edJ <AE
C#@8<: 9nd the subpoena you served him with wasnBt about 44 sir, on top of that, the
subpoena you served him with wasnBt a valid subpoena) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm going to note
for the record that my attorney, 2rian Dogan, is smir7ing at me menacingly) <AE C#@8<: +
would say itBs not menacingly) =8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 heBs changed his e'pression since
you 44 =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, could we move onJ <AE C#@8<: + thin7 he has smiled,
and thereBs no rule against smiling) 9nyhow, sir, that subpoena is Huashed for the reasons stated
in the motion but for the further reason that the document that you served him with was not a
valid subpoena) =8) N#@3?: "or the record, +Bm showing =r) Coughlin a copy of the
motion) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, just for the record, + believe notice an opportunity to
be heard dictates 44 <AE C#@8<: Nou had notice and opportunity to be heard, sir, and +Bve
ruled and weBre done) <AE 6+<3E11: + was not served this, your Aonor, and even if he did
fa' it which + donBt believe is accurate, thatBs not appropriate service) <AE C#@8<: 1ir, +
furnished you everything in this file, and you had the opportunity to review it) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 6hen you did furnish me everything in this fileJ <AE C#@8<: 9t the last
hearing we had in this case) =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, you didnBt) Nou printed off a doc7et sheet)
<AE C#@8<: Nes, which shows 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: <hatBs not everything in the file) <AE
C#@8<: 3o but it listed everything in the file) 1ir, +Bm not going to argue with you) +f you
have something to add, go ahead and add it) 9dd it right now 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: Nou
furnished me everything in the fileJ <AE C#@8<: 3o) + furnished you a list of everything that
was in the file) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay, that was #ctober 22nd) <his is 3ovember /th) <AE
C#@8<: + understand but you were given e'tra time to respond to the subpoenas) <he issue
!11!!2
before me was that + had Huashed everything pending the review, and you were given an
opportunity to show me proof that those were valid subpoenas) Nou had that subpoena or if you
didnBt have the subpoena, it never e'isted, sir) Did you not 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: Nou ruled on
44
<AE C#@8<: Did you not purportedly serve =r) Dogan with a subpoenaJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: + didnBt personally) <AE C#@8<: 3o, but did you draft it upJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: <hat doesnBt notice to me that he filed a motion to Huash) <AE C#@8<: +Bm not
tal7ing about the motion to Huash) + was ruling on all the subpoenas that you had attempted to
serve or served and + told you that) =8) C#@?A$+3: + wasnBt noticed that the hearing would
be about that) <AE C#@8<: Nes) Nou were noticed that by <hursday, you were to furnish me
with all your points and authorities, all of your evidence that those were valid subpoenas, every
subpoena, including that one even, if you hadnBt made a motion) =8) C#@?A$+3: Even if +
hadnBt made a motionJ <AE C#@8<: Even if he had not made a motion to Huash it) <here
were lots of people who didnBt ma7e motions to Huash their subpoenas) =8) C#@?A$+3:
Nou Huashed it because 44 <AE C#@8<: 2ecause they were either 44 + told you directly that
you would have to present proof that they were subpoenas validly issued by the court and
properly served) 9s to the subpoenas that you furnished me with the documentation you
furnished me, + found that those attached to my order were the only ones that were either
validly served or properly e'ecuted) 3ow, the problem is in addition to that, + reserve ruling on
whether or not the witness fees were properly proffered) Nou were given an opportunity to
present that to me, and you still havenBt done that) 9nyhow, =r) DoganBs subpoena is Huashed)
=8) C#@?A$+3: +f + could just do an offer of proof for the record) Ae has refused to tell me
much in the way of his communications with Dorothy 3ash Aolmes) =8) N#@3?: + object,
your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: <hatBs irrelevant to this case and + have 44 itBs irrelevant) 1it down
or you will be escorted out of the room, =r) Coughlin) =r) Dogan, youBre free to go) 9ll right)
9re we ready to go =r) CoughlinJ 3ot =r) Coughlin, =r) NoungJF
<8931C8+(< #" (8#CEED+3?1 in 8C8201140.&&!1 of 111,124 ;ol) +,
((ages 21:1, to 2%:!* =8) C#@?A$+3: +0ll call =fficer Duralde, )"9 C=ER)7 ?0m
sorryA MR, C=E2">?-7 ?0ll call =fficer Duralde, )"9 C=ER)7 =&ay, Khere is the
sub%oenaA MR, C=E2">?-7 ? believe ? had to give it to you8 your "onor8 and then ?
couldn0t get it bac& in time to serve the rest of them on /riday because ? called the court
and as&ed for them but the order #asn0t ready8 that #as after delivering them to the
court on Kednesday ? believe, )"9 C=ER)7 'ir8 ? #ill allo# you to come u% here and
loo& at these, Mr, Ioung can go through them one at a time, 'ho# them to Mr, Ioung as
you go through them because 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd just on that note, + donBt see =s)
6atson here) <AE C#@8<: + thin7 + already called her) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2ut you didnBt
Huash her subpoena, sir) =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, we shouldnBt have any discussions at the
bench) <his is just for him to review the subpoenas) <AE C#@8<: <his is just for you to
identify the subpoenas that you claim were properly issued and served) + believe this might 44
=8) N#@3?: + would as7 that we donBt have any conversations at the side bar, it needs to be
recorded) <AE C#@8<: Nou, sir, just show me the subpoena that you claim was served)
<hese are the ones youBve already been furnished) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nou say +Bve been
furnished meaningJ <AE C#@8<: <hese are the ones that are attached that + said were
!12!!2
properly served, but + was reserving ruling on whether or not you had proffered the witness fee
as reHuired by 44 these are all attached to the order, sir)
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir, and + thin7 + was given that order this morning) <AE
C#@8<: 6ell, you were sent it last "riday by your preferred method of service) =8)
C#@?A$+3: +Bm not seeing any of the officers in here) <AE C#@8<: <hese are 1ubpoenas
Duces <ecum in which no documents were specified) =8) C#@?A$+3: <hat one doesnBt say
1ubpoena Duces <ecum + donBt believe) <AE C#@8<: <hese werenBt served) =8)
C#@?A$+3: + believe they were) <AE C#@8<: <hereBs a 1ubpoena Duces <ecum with no
documents specified) =8) C#@?A$+3: <here was the matter of this inclusion in what was
mailed was set forth all the 8 ( D case numbers that was + was reHuesting) <AE C#@8<:
6hat about themJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +t says e'actly what specific documentation +Bm
reHuesting) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, +Bm sorry, sir, itBs not attached to this) +tBs not filed with the
court, as reHuired by the rules, and +Bve already ruled on it) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) 9nd all
these were 44 well, this one wasnBt because + couldnBt get it bac7 from the court after delivering
on 6ednesday one day after my 1tate 2ar hearing where they were going to disbar me) <AE
C#@8<: Nou didnBt deliver these to the court on 6ednesday) <hey were delivered <hursday
at almost 5:00 oBcloc7) + waited for them to come in) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6as the 1!th
6ednesdayJ + 7now it was the day after the 1!th) <AE C#@8<: <he 15th was <hursday) =8)
C#@?A$+3: #7ay, yes, sir) +Bm sorry, + was mista7en in that regard) 2ut the 8 ( D ones that
are the 1ubpoenas Duces <ecum ones, they would be right here) 1avannah =ontgomery,
dispatcher, 8on 8ossa and 9le'a and =r) 6eese, itBs my understanding those were
appropriately served under 3 8 141/!)&!5, 9nd +Bve not seen any of those witnesses here
today) + would move for a continuance) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, where is the one for #fficer
DuraldeJ <he same problem, #fficer Duralde is not in here by the way) =8) C#@?A$+3:
=y understanding is that + included that in the envelope) + donBt want to misspea7) + donBt
believe he was served the original but his was on 44
<AE C#@8<: <he bottom line is that you have the right reHuested order to show
cause if you show proof and you proffered them the witness fee) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour
Aonor, you told me + didnBt have to proffer them the witness fee) <AE C#@8<: + did not tell
you that) Nou told me + told you that) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, +Bve asserted that under oath)
<AE C#@8<: #7ay) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd itBs not been rebutted by =r) Noung who was
there + believe) <AE C#@8<: +Bm sorryJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +tBs not been rebutted by =r)
Noung) <AE C#@8<: +tBs been rebutted by me) + said that you had to furnish me proof by
<hursday) Nou have not, the transcript) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9 typed4out transcriptJ <AE
C#@8<: 3o) 9ll you had to do was refer to the line of the audio) + told you all that) +Bm not
going to waste any more time) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd earlier you as7ed me if + had it 7eyed
up) +f + had it 7eyed up now, can + show it to youJ <AE C#@8<: +f you have it 7eyed up, yes)
=8) C#@?A$+3: #r + can show it to you laterJ <AE C#@8<: Nou can show it to me later
but right now, you need to proceed with your trial, sir) 6eBve been here for almost a half hour
and as far as +Bm concerned, youBve accomplished nothing) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd, your
Aonor, the last point of issue would be that + was finally given the materials that =r) $eslie
refused to give me, even though he had subpoenaed them from EC#= on #ctober &rd, and
those materials include the dispatch recordings between 8eno ( D and EC#= and + believe it
!1&!!2
demonstrates misconduct in that =r) Noung has asserted to this court, in filings and through
argument and by eliciting testimony, that 44 + believe itBs the basis for a mistrial that the
information from dispatch was that there was a possible fight) + have those recordings) <hereBs
no indication of a possible fight being communicated to the 8eno ( D either in the dispatch log
or in the recordings) =8) N#@3?: + would object to that being untimely, and thereBs no basis
for it other than his statements)
<AE C#@8<: 6ell, + donBt even 7now what heBs as7ing for so itBs denied) =8)
C#@?A$+3: + have the audio recording between dispatch and the 8eno ( D) <he whole point
of the suppression hearing which you reserved the right to retain 44 enter a ruling on still is that
part of the basis 44 the main basis for the pat down and the probable cause to do the search
incident to arrest is that =r) Noung had repeatedly had said, possible fight, dispatch told him
possible fight, disturbance, possible fight and it was just drilled into the record over and over
again) <AE C#@8<: <hatBs not what + recall, sir, but youBll be able to argue that, thatBs a fact
that + will need to rule on in determining your guilt or innocence) 1o letBs move on)F
Consider the violation of CoughlinBs right to cross4e'amine Duralde in the conte't of
Dudge 1ferra::a violating 381 1/%)!05 in the following from the ,512 trial date in 0.&&!1:
E<8931C8+(< #" (8#CEED+3?1 4 ;ol) +, ((ages !.:1% to !%:1%* <AE
C#@8<: 6ell, we can have him e'amined again, but + do want to finish with this witness)
AeBs been here multiple times) AeBs on the stand, and + believe that at least =r) $eslie you can
Huestion him) 1o if you have any Huestions) 2N =8) $E1$+E: U Nes) #fficer, do you have
any relation to the dispatcher that dispatched you to the scene in this caseJ 9 + donBt recall
who the dispatcher was but my wife is a dispatcher) U 9nd to your 7nowledge, was she
involved in this caseJ 9 3o) U #7ay, very well) Did you notice any inconsistencies when
you arrived on scene between what the different witnesses were telling you had happenedJ 9
3ot that + remember) U Do you recall any inconsistency between =r) ?oble and =r) -arate,
one saying that =r) Coughlin had allegedly ta7en the phone from some third party that nobody
7nows who they are and then the other saying that =r) Coughlin just pic7ed the phone up
directly from where it was lyingJ 9 +t was my impression, at the time of the case, + donBt
have any recollection of the third party) + was later reading =r) -arateBs statement and noticed
that a third party was listed in it but at the time, + didnBt have 7nowledge of that) U + donBt
have any further Huestions) <AE C#@8<: =r) Noung, any further HuestionsJ =8) N#@3?:
3o, your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: #7ay) NouBre free to go) +n light of the conduct of these
proceedings and everything thatBs happened herein, + do believe thereBs at least a Huestion as to
=r) CoughlinBs competency going all the way bac7 to the initial offer and what happened on
the first day when we were here for the better part of an hour and a half) 1o + reluctantly will
order another competency evaluation but this time, + am going to as7 both counsel to provide
the evaluator with any documentation or anything else they might have with respect to his
competency and as7 the evaluator to review his prior competency hearings, especially the one
at 39=1 when he went there and itBs my understanding the same thing happened there as
well)F
8DC Dudge 1ferra::aBs 11%12 #rder in 8C8201140.&&!1 reads: EE> (98<E
E=E8?E3CN #8DE8 (E3D+3? AE98+3? <his matter has come before the Court based
upon the following circumstances: 9) <he 8eno City 9ttorneyBs #ffice (O8C9#O* represents a
!1!!!2
number of City of 8eno employees who have been named in subpoenas) <he 8C9# contacted
Court personnel on 3ovember /, 2012 to reHuest a time to appear for an order shortening time
regarding a motion to Huash and for protective order) Due to the pro'imity of the trial date in
this matter, 3ovember 1,, 2012, the Court directed the 8C9# to file and serve its substantive
motion and provide notice that the matter would be heard on 3ovember %, 2012 at ,:00 am)
<he City of 8eno filed its motion on 3ovember /, 2012) 2) 9t the hearing o:n this matter on
3ovember %, 2012, Deputy City 9ttorney Creig 17au appeared on behalf of the 8C9# and the
City employees reHuesting protective relief) -ac7 Noung was present in court) =r) Coughlin
did not appear) =r) 17au represented that he was under the belief that the (ublic DefenderB1
office represented ))) Coughlin, that the (ublic Defender was served believing this was service
upon =r) Coughlin, that he learned =r) Coughlin represented himself this morning and
attempted to call and left a voice mail message with a phone number believed to be =r)
CoughlinBs at %:&0 this moming) C) <he Court is advised that the (ublic Defe))Der, Deremy
2osler and the City of 8eno Chief Crimina+ Deputy City 9ttorney, Dan 6ong, may also ha))E
received subpoenas and filed reHuests for relief similar to the 8C9#Bs reHuests) ) <he Court
read the 8C9#Bs motion in preparation for the hearing) Due to the absence of notice to =r)
Coughlin, no argument was received on the merits of the motion) 1 &, 2012) <lt9CE v !) 424
Aowever, the Court finds that the 8C9#Bs motion and supporting materials present a sufficient
evidentiary basis to issue this #rder) <he Court deeming itself sufficiently informed and good
cause appearing therefore, +< +1 AE8E2N #8DE8ED as follows: 1) 9 hearing on the merits
of these matters is hereby set before this Court for ,:00 a)=) #n 3ovember #ral presentations
shall be limited to 10 minutes each) <he Cler7 shall notify =r) 2osler and =r) 6ong of the
hearing) 2) 9ny subpoena not properly issued by the cler7 or otherwise not properly issued in
accordance with 381 1/!)&05 +s hereby Huashed) 9ny subpoena not personally served by a
non4party or otherwise properly served in accordance with 381 1/!)&!5 +s hereby Huashed)
<he Court reserves its ruling on any other grounds such as relevancy or undue burden until
the12 hearing on the merits) &) 9 protective order is hereby granted pursuant to +C8C( 8ule
2.(c*, effective until the hearing on this matter on 3ovember 1&,2012, to the effect that upon
service of this #rder on Defendant -achary 2ar7er Coughlin, Defendant Coughlin shall not
thereafter issue or cause to be issued or serve or attempt to serve or cause to be served any
subpoena or subpoena duces tecum in this case unless he has first presented the proposed
subpoena or subpoena duces tecum to the Co)) "or the CourtBs review regarding adeHuacy,
relevancy and necessity of the subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and sufficiency of the
proposed method of service) Counsel from the 8eno City 9ttorneyBs #ffice is directed to
promptly attempt to21 serve a copy of this #rder and the 8C9#Bs motion and any supplements
by personal service upon -achary 2ar7er Coughlin at the address in the CourtBs file, 1!/1 E)
,<h 1treet, 8eno, 3N %,512, with a copy mailed to said address) 1ervice shall also be
attempted by email at O:achcoughlinLhotmail)ComBO Dated this %th day of 3ovember, 2012)
1 (eter D) 1ferra::a, Dustice of the (eaceOF
111,12 transcript from 0.&&!1 reveals further the misconduct of both Dudge
1ferra::a and DD9 -achary 3orman Noung, EsH): E<8931C8+(< #" (8#CEED+3?1 4
;ol) +, ((ages 205:2 to 21/:&* 39<A93+E$ -989<E E>9=+39<+#3 2N =8)
C#@?A$+3: U ?ood afternoon, =r) -arate) <han7 you for being here today, sir) +Bm going
!15!!2
to 44 let me as7 you do you recall on the night in Huestion, 9ugust 20, 2011, someone who you
might have referred to earlier as Othe man with the si'pac7O holding the i(hone and offering it
up to people in the par7J =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, objection hearsay, itBs the truest
definition of hearsay, as +Bve objected to already) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd, your Aonor, if +
could just Huic7ly offer a counter to thatJ <AE C#@8<: 6ell, you can just as7 him the
Huestion if he recalls 44 you said, O<hat you testified to earlier)O Nou as7ed him to recite
testimony from a prior proceeding) =8) C#@?A$+3: #h 44 <AE C#@8<: + guess you can
as7 him the Huestion if he saw someone hold up a phone) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Neah)
Did you see did someone hold up a phone that nightJ 9 Nes) U Ae offered it up to the
people in the par7J =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, again + would object to that as hearsay) <AE
C#@8<: 9ll right) 6ell, +Bm going to overrule that because it was as7ed before and answered
by this witness + believe) +f not, it was answered by the officer, one or the other, because +
heard that testimony and + have no way of 7nowing it e'cept for that) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes,
sir) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U =r) -arate, will you answer that, pleaseJ 9 Nes, there was a
man holding up the phone) U Did the man say something to the effect of, O1omebody claim
this phone or +Bm going to throw it in the river)O =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, +Bm going to
object to that) + 7now for a fact that has not been introduced in evidence and again, thereBs no 44
+ have not heard an e'ception to the hearsay rule provided by =r) Coughlin and that very again
clearly is hearsay) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd, your Aonor, may + just offer a hearsay e'ceptionJ
<AE C#@8<: 6hatBs the hearsay e'ceptionJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + would say one, didnBt e'ist
in mental, emotion or physical condition would apply as would present sense impression 44
<AE C#@8<: 9ll right) +Bm going to overrule the objection) ?o ahead)
2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Nou may answer, sir) 9 <o which HuestionJ U Did
somebody hold the phone up and say, O+Bm going to throw it in the river if somebody doesnBt
claim it,O or something substantially similarJ 9 + donBt remember that that man specifically
said, O+Bm going to throw it in the river)O U Did he say anything li7e thatJ 9 + donBt
remember him saying anything li7e that) U Do you recall 3icole 6atson admitting to
hearing thatJ =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, now weBre at li7e two levels of hearsay) <AE
C#@8<: <hat is sustained) <his witness can answer what he heard44 =8) N#@3?: =r)
Coughlin 7nows what hearsay is and throughout this entire day, he has attempted to elicit
almost nothing but hearsay) <AE C#@8<: <hatBs fine but that prior Huestion the one that he
answered + thin7 is an e'ception but this one is not and itBs double hearsay on top of it, sir) =8)
C#@?A$+3: #7ay, your Aonor, itBs not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, itBs
offered 44 <AE C#@8<: + donBt care) +Bm sustaining it) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U #7ay) Do
you recall seeing me with some cameras and recording eHuipment about a wee7 after the
arrestJ =8) N#@3?: #bjection relevance) <AE C#@8<: 6hatBs the relevanceJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: #ne, + believe it goes to e'culpatory material in the sense that if someone 44 if
=r) -arate heard me as7 that Huestion and heard someone admit to hearing the man say heBs
going to throw it in the river 44 <AE C#@8<: + sustain the objection) =8) C#@?A$+3:
#7ay) Can + as7 =r) -arate to authenticate a recording that was made with him present in
which his voice is onJ <AE C#@8<: Nou may) =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, if this is a video
ta7en a wee7 after the incident which he was referring to, + would object to that) <AE C#@8<:
+f itBs a wee7 after, then + sustain the objection) +f it was contemporaneous with the incident, +
!1.!!2
will allow it) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, it was a wee7 after the incident 44 <AE C#@8<: 1o the
objection is sustained, itBs not relevant to this charge today, sir) =8) C#@?A$+3: 1o if
individuals have percipient 7nowledge of the events on the night of the arrest a wee7 later a
videotape describing the arrest, thatBs not relevant or the events involved thereinJ <AE
C#@8<: <he arrest is not the issue, itBs whether or not you stole the cell phone)
=8) C#@?A$+3: <he actions incident to the arrest or resulting in the arrest) +f
they are testifying or not testifying but commenting a wee7 later on videotape 7nowing theyBre
being recorded as to what actions were involved in the arrest and what precipitated what, thatBs
not relevant) <AE C#@8<: 1ir, tell me specifically what 44 you can ma7e me an offer of
proof, a very brief one, as to what is allegedly on this video that deals with the arrest on the
night of the incident) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir, and +Bll just note Huic7ly + reviewed the tape
of the #ctober 22nd hearing date and at the !%4minute mar7 of this second file on that, you note
that + will be afforded the right to waive witness fees for subpoenas and therein, + suggest that
my properly serving 3icole 6atson incident to 3 8 141/!)&!5 44 <AE C#@8<: 6ell, actually
that is proper service but itBs not one that she has to obey because itBs by mail) 1o if she doesnBt
get it and if she didnBt sign for it, then itBs not evidence that she was served, it may comply with
the technicality of statute but it doesnBt give me the power to order him to be here or to issue a
warrant for her non4appearance) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2ut + do believe it provides a basis for a
continuance) <AE C#@8<: 3o, sir, not unless you made a proper motion based upon that)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd +Bm ma7ing that now, sir) <AE C#@8<: +tBs denied) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 6ell, as to your prompting me to issue an offer of proof, this recording and +
have a video of it and an audio of it as well, you might remember =r) <empleton referencing
that + carried multiple devices, will show =r) -arate standing ne't to =s) 6atson when =s)
6atson admits to hearing the man with the si'4pac7 hold the i(hone up and threaten to throw it
in the river if someone didnBt claim it immediately) =8) N#@3?: Aow =r) Coughlin does not
see that as hearsay is beyond me) <AE C#@8<: 9ll right) NouBre saying that =s) 6atson said
that on the videoJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir, with =r) -arate there) "urther, + thin7 itBs
relevant to the e'tent that =r) -arate then clearly appears to dissuade her from further
contradicting what he allegedly told the police that night and + believe therein is indicated a
motive on his part to cover up the e'tent to which his statements to the police resulted in my
arrest) <AE C#@8<: 9ll right) +Bm going to sustain the objection) ?o ahead)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + would just note for the record, your Aonor, + do believe +
complied with the record as far as serving =s) 6atson) <AE C#@8<: + believe you complied
e'cept that you did not provide for the witness fee, but youBve indicated that + waived it which +
still havenBt seen or heard even) +f + had, the evidence is that she is no longer here so + donBt
7now what 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, she wasnBt here today) <AE C#@8<: 3o, she is no
longer in this community) =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, she is) + confirmed that sheBs a student at
=cUueen Aigh 1chool) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, according to the testimony earlier today 44 =8)
C#@?A$+3: + donBt recall any) <AE C#@8<: <here was testimony today that she is no
longer here) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2y =r) $ichty, + recall him saying that he wasnBt aware 44 he
hadnBt tal7ed to her in a year) <AE C#@8<: 9nd he also indicated that he believed she had
moved) =8) C#@?A$+3: + donBt recall that) + believe he indicated he didnBt 7now what was
her current state) <AE C#@8<: #7ay) $et me loo7 at the 44 actually, + donBt have one for her,
!1/!!2
but + assume that you have a certificate for herC do you have it with youJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +
provided it to the court, your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, the one that + had did not show it)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 6ould it be all right, your Aonor, could + review it Huic7lyJ <AE C#@8<:
6ell, it doesnBt matter right now) + am ruling that what she would have testified both to would
have been hearsay and also probably not relevant to whether or not it was a theft) + 7now your
argument that somehow this was found property but what some third party did or didnBt do is
not going to be at issue in this case when we finish it) =8) C#@?A$+3: 1o if the phone was
going to be in the river but for someoneBs intervention, thatBs not bearing on the fact of whether
or not comparing someone wal7ing 44
<AE C#@8<: +f someone said that, + donBt 7now number one that they did because
itBs hearsay as objected to by =r) Noung) 1o +Bm sustaining his objection as to hearsay but even
if it wasnBt hearsay, the bottom line is + donBt 7now number one, if the person would have done
that or not) + donBt 7now how they came into possession of the cell phone) <hirdly, you did
claim the phone from that person, according to what +Bve heard) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2ut if you
had heard all those things from me, then you perhaps would reconsider allowing this e'cited
utterance or present4sense impressionJ <AE C#@8<: #7ay) + will allow you to argue it, all
right) Nou can argue anything you want, but the bottom line is the evidence will be what +
decide on and that is not evidence that the hearsay testimony of someone whoBs not here and
even if they were here, it would still be hearsay) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir, your Aonor, and
if itBs not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but rather to demonstrate a bias or
motive on this witnessesB part to shush anybody whoBs suggesting something that is countered
what he told the police in which effected a wrongful arres 44
<AE C#@8<: +t still is sustained) + thin7 itBs, at best, marginally relevant on some
tangential issue to this case which is whether or not 44 and +Bve told you this three times,
whether or not you did willfully and unlawfully steal, ta7e and carry away the personal
property of another, thatBs one count) <hen the other count is whether on or about the 20th day
of 9ugust, you did willfully and unlawfully possess or withhold stolen goods) 9ll rightJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: +f + could just Huic7ly 44 maybe this isnBt the right time but if + could just Huic7ly
indicate, your Aonor, + respectfully + believe it goes to the willfulness aspect and the aspect of
another) +f something is going to be in the river, + thin7 itBs one, itBs no longer 44 <AE C#@8<:
NouBre done, all right) +Bve already ruled on it twice now) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd perhaps itBs
just my e'perience, your Aonor 44 <AE C#@8<: (erhaps it is but the bottom line is + have
ruled and you can proceed) =8) C#@?A$+3: ?ranted but isnBt there a negative 44 <AE
C#@8<: + guess +Bm not getting through to you) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm sorry, your Aonor)
<AE C#@8<: + have denied 44 + have sustained the objection and denied your reHuest for a
continuance to bring in this witness, all right) ?o ahead) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir and your
Aonor, +Bm not able to preserve for the record why + 44 <AE C#@8<: Nou already have
preserved for the record, + thin7 itBs Huite apparent) + understand what your argument is) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 9nd +Bm just wondering if this winds up in a conviction if the appellate court
might view it that way) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, + donBt 7now what the appellate court would do if
you are convicted) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir, your Aonor, neither do +)F
E111,12 in 0.&&!1: <8931C8+(< #" (8#CEED+3?1 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 2&5:/ to
2!0:20* =8) C#@?A$+3: <han7 you, =r) -arate) <AE C#@8<: Do you have any other
!1%!!2
witnessesJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir, and + have the citation and the audio 7eyed up for
where you told me you would waive the witness fees, itBs the !%4minute mar7 of file two on
#ctober 22nd) +Bm sorry, your Aonor, you might have already told me you ruled on this, but +
would li7e to call 3icole 6atson and 8obert Dawson, but they failed to appear 44 and +Bm sorry,
if youBve already ruled on this, your Aonor) +Bve been not getting much sleep lately) Even
though the 2ar hearing was last wee7 thereBs been a lot of post hearing wor7 associated with it)
<AE C#@8<: 6ell, they are not here but anyhow, let me hear what you have on the tape) Nou
can play that) +Bll allow you to) =8) C#@?A$+3: Can + play the tape of 3icole 6atsonJ <AE
C#@8<: 3o, of my order) =8) C#@?A$+3: #h yes, sir) Nou said it was cued up and ready
to go) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) <here we go) (<he tape was played)* <AE C#@8<: #7ay,
sir, what + was tal7ing about is + would waive the service costs by the sheriff which we can do
through the in forma pauperis) 6e have no means of waiving the witness fees or providing the
witness fees) 6e have no fund for that, but we do have the ability to order the sheriff to serve a
subpoena without payment) 3ow, + donBt even 7now if you file the motion for in forma of
pauperis to waive any service fee)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + believe + filed a motion for in forma pauperis and 44 <AE
C#@8<: Nou filed a motion for in forma pauperis but whether you filed one since that date
covering the service fees but be that as it may, + did not waive the witness fee) +n fact, +
specifically said the contrary if you listen to it) =8) C#@?A$+3: + believe + heard you
verbatim say waive the witness fees) <AE C#@8<: 9nd by that + meant the service fees but
o7ay) +f you listen to that again, youBll hear what + said) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay, your Aonor)
+ believe + reasonably relied upon a reasonable interpretation that in fact it was not 44 <AE
C#@8<: 6ell, a reasonable interpretation when + said the court has no funds to pay
witnessesJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, + believe that goes to where you later said, O2ut + may
defer that and ma7e you pay them later)O <AE C#@8<: Neah) + said + may defer it) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 3o) + believe you said, O+ may ma7e you pay it later)O 2ut you were definitely it
seemed to me being rather charitable to me, sir, and allowing me to attempt to get the truth out
there even though +Bm indigent) <AE C#@8<: 2ut the problem is this, sir, a witness does not
have to respond absent a witness fee being advanced) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, sir, + donBt have
to show up for =r) City 9ttorney 17auBs e4mailing me notice of a hearing) <AE C#@8<: Nou
didnBt have to show up) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, he told me you said + did so + did) <AE
C#@8<: 3o) 6hat + said was + wanted to ma7e sure you were served one way or the other) 1o
+ said that in addition to serving you by regular service, that he attempt to get ahold of you by
e4mail because + do 7now thatBs how you communicate with the court) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd
he seems to have interpreted that to authori:e service 44
<AE C#@8<: 6ell, it doesnBt matter) 1o you wouldnBt have been here so you
wouldnBt have had any say at all) + would have just granted the order without the say) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 6ell, typically thatBs where the courthouse sanctuary comes in) Nou say, O6ell,
+ wouldnBt have been here because you didnBt have personal jurisdiction and you couldnBt drag
me into the state)O <AE C#@8<: 1ir, + didnBt drag you into the state) + gave you an opportunity
to argue against a motion which was made properly) +n addition, + gave you a chance to
respond by last <hursday) 1o as far as +Bm concerned, the response was, to some e'tent, o7ay
and to some e'tent, it was nonresponsive but to the e'tent it was responsive, + did order that
!1,!!2
those subpoenas + would reserve ruling on and we are now at that point) + am finding, as a
matter of fact, that + did not authori:e you to serve subpoenas without proffering the witness
fees) + did indicate that we had no funds to pay them but that + would allow you to serve them
without costs) <he bottom line is + did rule that these people were served, but + am finding that
they were not proffered the witness fees) 2y your own testimony you indicated that you did not
include a chec7 for these people) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, may + play that portion
againJ <AE C#@8<: 3o, you may not) + already heard it) Nou will have whatever argument
you have is reserved for the future) =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, one thing just for purposes of
the record that + would li7e to put on the record) 6ith respect to the motion to continue by =r)
Coughlin due to =s) 6atsonBs non4appearance here, one of the reHuirements to get a
continuance is to show that the testimony or purported testimony would have some bearing on
the case and from everything that weBve heard from =r) Coughlin and the attempts to get =s)
6atsonBs testimony or what she should say in, are what you would object to as hearsay anyway
and it would not be coming in) 1o in addition to everything youBre saying, thereBs no basis to
continue to get her here) <AE C#@8<: + already ruled on that) =8) N#@3?: + just want that
on the record) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd to the e'tent =r) Noung has made an argument, if + may
indicate, your Aonor, one of the elements is from another if something is about to be thrown in
a trash can itBs arguably no oneBs anymore) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, youBll be able to argue that)
<he only thing +Bm ruling on right now is +Bm denying your continuance to bring in these
witnesses, the two witnesses) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir)F
Consider the following from the 102212 hearing date in 0.&&!1 (i(hone case*:
EAE98+3?, ((ages !,:20 to 52:1.* <AE DE"E3D93<: + understand, your Aonor, and if +
could just Huic7ly address the e'tent to which =r) Noung has purported case law allows you to
consider other matters beyond this proceeding and this analysis, + would object to the e'tent
that + was 44 <AE C#@8<: +Bm considering this matter, sir) <AE DE"E3D93<: 6ell, but
previously on the record, youBve referenced eviction matters) <AE C#@8<: + did and + will tell
you this, you donBt even need to go any further because +Bm going to grant your reHuest)
Aowever, +Bm going to appoint =r) $eslie as standby counsel) +f you disrupt the proceedings in
any way, not only will + hold you in contempt but + will have him finish the trialC do you
understand thatJ <AE DE"E3D93<: Nes, sir) <AE C#@8<: 9nd + will further order if you
prepare a proper motion +n "orma (auperis that youBll be able to subpoena witnesses without
e'pense and 44
<AE DE"E3D93<: Nour Aonor, if + could just interject, would that e'tend to
1ubpoena Duces <ecum as wellJ <AE C#@8<: +t will e'cept we have no fund to pay for the
witness fees so that is 44 + will enable you to subpoena witnesses) + donBt 7now how we
compensate them) <AE DE"E3D93<: + would imagine the 6ashoe County (ublic Defender
has some means of doing that) =8) $E1$+E: +f heBs going to represent himself, he doesnBt dip
into our public funds) <AE DE"E3D93<: Nou havenBt spent a dime on me yet) <AE
C#@8<: 1ir, + am going to allow you to subpoena witnesses, and you need to get crac7ing on
that so you get it done) <AE DE"E3D93<: +tBs my understanding thatBs a right of mine as a
criminal defendant to be able to subpoena witnesses) <AE C#@8<: +t is, the only thing +Bm
allowing you to subpoena them without advancing the fees) <AE DE"E3D93<: #7ay) <AE
C#@8<: + may, at a later point, order that you pay those fees but in the meantime, + will allow
!20!!2
you to subpoena witnesses without advancing the fees)
<AE DE"E3D93<: 9ll right, yes, sir, and your Aonor, + would just preserve my
objection that the 6ashoe County (ublic Defender should have to pay) <AE C#@8<: +tBs not
an objection, sir) <AE DE"E3D93<: #r ma7e a motion that the 6ashoe County (ublic
DefenderBs 44 <AE C#@8<: 6ell, you can ma7e a written motion separately from todayBs
proceeding) =8) $E1$+E: 1o now + get to litigate with himJ 1eriously, your Aonor, is that
what weBre doingJ <AE C#@8<: 3o) +n fact, on reconsideration, you cannot do that) <AE
DE"E3D93<: +Bm sorry, your Aonor whatJ <AE C#@8<: Nou cannot argue as to the (ublic
Defender paying the fees) NouBre choosing to represent yourself) <AE DE"E3D93<: Nes, sir,
your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: 1o at a later point in time, + will determine your financial ability to
pay the witness fees) <AE DE"E3D93<: Nes, sir, and would that also e'tend to the
1ubpoena Duces <ecum fees as wellJ <AE C#@8<: Nes)F
"rom the 111,12 trial date in 0.&&!1: E<8931C8+(< #" (8#CEED+3?1 4 ;ol)
+, ((ages 252:1. to 25/:1* =8) C#@?A$+3: 6hy, can + put the police report in evidenceJ
=8) N#@3?: + would object to that) <AE C#@8<: 3o) <he police report they canBt even put
in evidence) Nou could have cross4e'amined on the police report) =8) C#@?A$+3: + canBt
put the police report in evidenceJ <AE C#@8<: 3o) =8) C#@?A$+3: + canBtJ +t
completely contradicts testimony by all of these witnesses) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, sir, that is
something you cannot do) =8) C#@?A$+3: +tBs a business 44 =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor,
weBve wasted another five minutes) 6e still donBt have an answer whether he wants to testify or
not) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nou canBt put a police report in evidenceJ <AE C#@8<: + just told
you you canBt) 1top as7ing me) =8) C#@?A$+3: Can + testify to what it saysJ <AE C#@8<:
3o) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm sorry, +Bm not e'perienced 44 <AE C#@8<: 6ell, then you should
have had an attorney represent you, sir) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, he wouldnBt have put it into
evidence) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, he couldnBt, he 7nows that) +f itBs a prior inconsistent statement,
it can be used for cross4e'amination) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, thatBs where +Bm hamstrung by
the fact that + did get a return receipt reHuested for #fficer Duralde and + believe those other
officers and + do have a verbatim by you indication on the record of #ctober 22nd that you
were waiving witness fees, not service fees by the sheriff) Nou made no mention of service
fees) Nou said witness fees and + reasonably relied upon that) =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor,
because =r) Coughlin is representing himself, he has a duty of candor to the court) <hat is a
complete waste of time, and + would as7 that you as7 =r) Coughlin whether he wants to testify
or not, have him give you an answer) +f he fails to give you an answer, hold him in contempt)
<AE C#@8<: 6ell, +Bm not going to hold him in contempt) +Bm just going to conclude the
trial, sir) =8) N#@3?: Aowever you want to do it because heBs wasting everyoneBs time)
<AE C#@8<: Do you want to testify or notJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + do, your Aonor
but 44 <AE C#@8<: #7ay, then ta7e the stand) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9nd +Bll just preserve for
the record the fact that + feel li7e + was just 44 <AE C#@8<: Either ta7e the stand or we
conclude the trial) =8) N#@3?: "or the record, the implication he just made +Bm not coercing
him, itBs totally his right) =8) C#@?A$+3: NouBre as7ing to put me in jail again li7e you did
at the competency hearing) =8) N#@3?: <hat has nothing to do with whether he has the right
to e'ercise his right to testify or not) <AE C#@8<: + did not agree with =r) Noung) + told you
that if you do not testify, we will conclude the trial) 6eBre not going to put you in jail for not
!21!!2
testifying) Aowever, if + convict you, you may go to jail but thatBs a different story, all rightJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir, your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: 9ll right) (lease raise your right
hand) (<he witness was sworn)* <AE C#@8<: #7ay) ?o ahead, sit down and proceed) =8)
C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, to the e'tent +Bm testifying and that enables me to play videos,
should + grab themJ <AE C#@8<: + didnBt say it enables to play videos) +f you 44 first of all,
you need to testify to what youBre proffering because + will give you some latitude since you are
the attorney and the witness but you will need to testify as to something relevant to this case,
itBs admissible) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) 1o the whole argument thing was we have to get him
to testify) <AE C#@8<: +tBs not an argument, sir) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2y =r) Noung) <AE
C#@8<: + donBt care about argument) +Bve already told you if you want to step down, +Bm not
going to force you to testify but once you start, you will be subject to cross4e'amination) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 8ight but once + start, + also get to 44 thereBs some good that goes along with it,
things that people might view as bad) + actually welcome the cross4e'amination 44 <AE
C#@8<: 6ell, + donBt want to argue anymoreC are you going to start or notJ =8)
C#@?A$+3: Nes) 8espectfully, your Aonor) + thin7 that means + can bring up my materials,
as +Bm functioning in a dual role) <AE C#@8<: 3o) Nou are not going to read your materials)F
<hen, consider the 111&12 improperly noticed hearing in 0.&&!1: E=#<+#3
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 12:. to 22:.* =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, your Aonor, + guess it was
my understanding + didnBt thin7 + was supposed to serve the original on the parties) <AE
C#@8<: 3o but you need to file them with the court) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay, and +Bve been
told the fa' is an original and + believe by this court and + believe those have been fa'ed in)
<AE C#@8<: 3o, sir, + never told you a fa' is an original) =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, not by
you, sir) + mean by the administrator, =s) 2a7er) Nour Aonor, + believe thereBs something
pertinent to point out here is that under 3 8 141/!)&/5, + believe service in a misdemeanor trial
can be the effectuated by certified mailing, and there have been uncertified mailings here that +
thin7 might 7ind of ma7e all these arguments mute) + would imagine =r) 17auBs clients have
received those by this point) + thin7 the legibility issues are off base) + believe these are largely
typed and are materials that were served incident to these 44 e'plicate the basis 44 <AE
C#@8<: Do you have copies of any of the ones or the originals actually because youBve said
theyBve been served) 1o you have the originals to file with the courtJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell,
+ believe + fa'ed the originals)
<AE C#@8<: Aow could you fa' an original, sirJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, +Bve
been told by this court, not by you, your Aonor, that a fa' is an original) <AE C#@8<: 3o, itBs
not) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, weBve 7ind of gone around about this over the last year) <AE
C#@8<: Nou canBt have a seal of a court on the fa') =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bve maintained these
documents, your Aonor, in the event that thatBs necessary to bring the e'act 44 <AE C#@8<:
6ell, it will be necessary if you show up to court for trial and youBre e'pecting people to be
here, if you havenBt paid them their witness fee) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, you waived the
witness fee, your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: 3o, + didnBt waive the witness fee) =8) C#@?A$+3:
#n 1022, at the #ctober 22 hearingJ <AE C#@8<: + donBt believe + waived any witness fee)
<AE 6+<3E11: 6e tal7ed about my indigency) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, we may have tal7ed
about your indigency to proceed and represent yourself) Nou chose to do that) <he court has no
fund to pay witness fees) <he public defender does but you chose not to use the public
!22!!2
defender) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, they wouldnBt issue any subpoenas, your Aonor, and that
brings up some more Huestions here) 9pparently, on the third 44 <AE C#@8<: #7ay) $etBs go
bac7 to what you originally said) Nou said 1/!)&/5 9llows service by certified mail) =8)
C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir and it brings up the Huestion 44 <AE C#@8<: +tBs not in there, but
1/!)&/5 <al7s about subpoena 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: &!5, +Bm sorry)
<AE C#@8<: &!5J =8) C#@?A$+3: Neah, and the public defender served a
subpoena or you 7now, + 7now &05 says itBs the prosecutor and the court can issue subpoenas
yet, + was produced all these subpoenas by the public defender that they just seem to draw up
on their own letterhead, + donBt 7now why) <hey didnBt mail them out) +nstead we wander
around for a year tal7ing about how weBre going to get 3icole 6atson served) 6ell, about just
use 1/!)&!5 9nd mail it to her) =r) 2ony and it appears =r) 17au and =r) 44 + donBt 7now
about =r) 6ong but they 7eep citing to these civil rules) <AE C#@8<: 1ir, have you filed the
certificates of mailing with the courtJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + filed 44 + fa'ed something in an
attempt to file) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, youBre here today) +t says, O+f a 1ubpoena is served by
mail, a Certificate of =ailing must be filed with the court within two days after the subpoena is
mailed)O =8) C#@?A$+3: +n the general sense certificate of mailing, yes, thatBs the case with
my mother having signed a certificate of mailing) 3ow, if youBre referring to the green slips, +
guess thatBs certified mail +Bm thin7ing of) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, it has to be served by registered
or certified mail, return receipt reHuested from that person) +f a subpoena is served by mail, a
certificate of the mailing must be filed with the court, thatBs a certificate of mailing) <he green
receipts will have to be filed with the court eventually on that day if a person doesnBt show up)
2ut you will need to file the certificate of mailing with the original subpoena) =8)
C#@?A$+3: + believe that was done, your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: DownstairsJ
=8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, it was fa'ed in) <AE C#@8<: 3o) Nou canBt fa' in 44 +Bve
been through this with you) + have no way of 7nowing, at this point, if what you served these
people with was a subpoena issued out of this court) NouBre telling me that you have the
embossed signature of $indsey #berman on these subpoenasJ =8) C#@?A$+3: #n the ones
that have her signatures, yes, those are embossed) 3ow, it was my understanding subseHuently
that a subpoena was crafted 44 <AE C#@8<: Nou canBt just copy one of those and use it as a
subpoena) =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, sir, it was my understanding anything else that was served
did not have any sort of attempt to hijac7 $indsey #bermanBs signature and this courtBs
embossing, it was more of an attorney issued subpoena + believe that you granted me the right
to do on #ctober 22nd) <AE C#@8<: Nou are not an attorney right now, sir) Nour own
documents you wrote on them that you are not 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: + thin7 that shows a
carefulness on my part) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, yes, itBs carefulness but you cannot issue a
subpoena nor did this court ever give you authority to do so) + did not give you authority to
issue subpoenas) =8) C#@?A$+3: + need to chec7 the tape of the hearing, your Aonor, but to
some e'tent whatever was served along with the ones that bear $indsey #bermanBs signature
could be viewed as e'plicating what is as7ed for in those ones that do bear the embossing 44
<AE C#@8<: 6ell, this is what +Bm going to order you to do, sir) +Bm going to order that you
file with the court, no later than today, any subpoenas that you served or you claim you served
together with the relevant reason, it can be a one4page document, as to why you believe this
particular person is necessary to be here for the trial of a theft of a cell phone) =8)
!2&!!2
C#@?A$+3: Nour Aonor, + have an unbifurcated hearing trial, disciplinary panel tomorrow,
itBs unbifurcated) +Bve been getting about two hours of sleep a night for the last three wee7s
preparing for it) Can we move the response or the filing that youBve just ordered until the day
after this trial tomorrow so that would be <hursdayJ
<AE C#@8<: +Bll do <hursday but sir, + will ma7e a ruling on <hursday as to
whether or not any of those people need to appear and it will be based on whatever written
documentation 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: <he scape orders 44 are you going to rule on whether the
cape orders need to appearJ <AE C#@8<: +f they were properly served) AeBs not representing
them) =8) C#@?A$+3: 1o thatBs why +Bm as7ing 44 <AE C#@8<: 2ecause based on the
documents +Bve seen so far, + have a serious Huestion about who youBve subpoenaed) +f they
were parties to what happened on that day, then yes, + will allow you to subpoena them, but +
want that in writing that they were there on that day) =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, thatBs not the
standard, your Aonor, itBs is it calculated to yield admissible evidence) 2eing there on that day
44 <AE C#@8<: 9dmissible evidence is not a fight that you had with someone on a different
dayC all rightJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, if thereBs a coordinated effort to discredit me or ruin
me or ma7e it so that the CityBs liability or municipalities liability is distinguished, + thin7 that
does bear) <AE C#@8<: <hat might bear on the civil action you have against the City) =8)
C#@?A$+3: + thin7 it bears in a criminal matter) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, + donBt care what you
thin7, sir, itBs what + decide) 1o you will furnish that) +f you donBt furnish it, then your
subpoenas will not be honored) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) Nour Aonor, may + have an
opportunity to present citation to authority to support that point that it is relevant and does bear
in that circumstanceJ <AE C#@8<: 9bsolutely but +Bm not going to read through 100 pages, it
will be one page per subpoena, all rightJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) <AE C#@8<: 9nd
serve a copy on him so those that deal with him which is the City people not your witnesses)
<he witnesses that were s7ateboarders, heBs not representing them) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir)
Can we approach the topic that given itBs become material relevance of these dispatch tapes
between 8 ( D and the officers and one of the officers DuraldeBs wife is a dispatcher and +
mean thatBs somewhat of a conflict) +Bve not been provided these tapes) <he public defender
subpoenaed them on #ctober &rd) <heyBve refused to provide me what was propounded, and +
believe a continuance of the hearing itself might be necessary)
<AE C#@8<: <hereBs not going to be any continuance but sir, do you 7now if the
dispatch tapes were ever furnished through the public defenderJ =8) 1G9@: + do not 7now
that) 6hat + can add to that discussion, your Aonor, is that the City of 8eno was improperly
served with documents that did reHuest a huge amount of documents that were absolutely
unintelligible and way beyond any 44 <AE C#@8<: 6hat were the documents that were
prepared for him to pic7 upJ =8) 1G9@: Nes) 6hat we did is we found out 44 our office
found out what this trial was about, and we got the dispatch tapes that were related to that under
what we considered a public records reHuest since there was defective service of the subpoena)
1o we did advise =r) Coughlin that he could pic7 those up upon payment of the fee for the
copying of them that is the normal public records reHuest policy) 1o those are at our front
office) + thin7 itBs M10/) 6ith payment of that, he is more than welcome to get those dispatches)
=8) C#@?A$+3: + believe that was represented as a subpoena fee)F
8DC Dudge 1ferra::aBs 111.12 #rder reads: O#8DE8 6ith the e'ception of the
!2!!!2
attached subpoenas, all other subpoenas were either improperly served, improperly issued,
unduly burdensome, were for witnesses or matters irrelevant to the trial onBthe merits in this
case, or did not specify what documents, if any, were being subpoenaed) <he attached
subpoenas were validly issued arid served by mail, all other subpoenas are hereby Huashed) <he
Defendant will need to present proof at trial that the attached subpoenas were properly served
with copies of the original certificates from the post office, as well as proof of payment of the
witness fees or, in the alternative, proof that the Court ordered that the witness fees be waived)
a D9<ED this 1.th day of 3ovember , 2012 s (eter D) 1ferra::a Dustice of the (eaceO (such
order was fa'ed to Coughlin, though it is far from clear that such satisfies the service
reHuirements of such an order on Coughlin, and the prejudice to Coughlin of, at that late stage
of the game (111.12* such an #8der being entered with respect to what subpoenas will and
will not be Huashed at the 111,12 <rial, is obvious, and distrubing, especially with respect to
Dudge 1ferra::aBs inconsistent, misleading (at best* statements and rulings with respect to
whether Coughlin had to pay witness fees, and if so, when, especially considering the 6CD9Bs
#fficer admits it never pays witness fees until after one has testified)
8DC Dudge 1ferra::aBs 111.12 #rder, as to such, it was fa'ed to Coughlin, though
it is far from clear that such satisfies the service reHuirements of such an order on Coughlin,
and the prejudice to Coughlin of, at that late stage of the game (111.12* such an #8der being
entered with respect to what subpoenas will and will not be Huashed at the 111,12 <rial, is
obvious, and distrubing, especially with respect to Dudge 1ferra::aBs inconsistent, misleading
(at best* statements and rulings with respect to whether Coughlin had to pay witness fees, and if
so, when, especially considering the 6CD9Bs #fficer admits it never pays witness fees until
after one has testified) "rom 111&12 hearing in .&&!1: =#<+#3 AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages
1&:2! to 1!:21* <AE C#@8<: 6ell, it will be necessary if you show up to court for trial and
youBre e'pecting people to be here, if you havenBt paid them their witness fee) =8)
C#@?A$+3: 6ell, you waived the witness fee, your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: 3o, + didnBt
waive the witness fee) =8) C#@?A$+3: #n 1022, at the #ctober 22 hearingJ <AE C#@8<:
+ donBt believe + waived any witness fee) <AE 6+<3E11: 6e tal7ed about my indigency) <AE
C#@8<: 6ell, we may have tal7ed about your indigency to proceed and represent yourself)
Nou chose to do that) <he court has no fund to pay witness fees) <he public defender does but
you chose not to use the public defender)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 6ell, they wouldnBt issue any subpoenas, your Aonor, and that
brings up some more Huestions here)O =#<+#3 AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age &&:& to &&:1,*
<AE C#@8<: 6hat there is in effect is no new subpoenas are going to be issued by this court
without my review) +f you happen to have subpoenas which + donBt 7now how you got them but
if you happen to have blan7 subpoenas that are not filled in that are under seal of the court, then
+ canBt stop you from serving them, but the other issue still e'ists was witness fee proffered and
all that) 1o if you actually want somebody to appear, then + would hand them the subpoena with
a witness fee and have it done by a third party) =8) C#@?A$+3: 9ll right but + believe +Bm
entitled to rely upon your ruling as rendered on #ctober 22, 201&) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, + donBt
have the ruling) Nou havenBt presented that to me yet) +f + waive the subpoena fee, then thatBs a
different story)O (3#<E: then Dudge 1ferra::aBs statements on the transcript of 111&12 with
respect to Oservice feesO reveal completely the e'tent to which he 7eeps ma7ing it up as he goes
!25!!2
along and changing it every time he gets cornered, its completely ridiculous, when considering
his statements regarding Oservice feesO on the 111,12 transcript in 0.&&!1)
<he 111&12 portion: O=#<+#3 AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages &/:21 to &,:2!* <AE
C#@8<: 1aying whatJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + need to chec7 my records but some people are
saying, O6ell, if you have a witness fee waiver, then you need to show us the order)O <AE
C#@8<: Correct and it will be right on the subpoena, sir, and you will need to present to me a
subpoena and + will issue it and + will sign on there that it is valid without service of the witness
fee, otherwise the subpoena itself will not be effective) =8) N#@3?: 9ll right) <hereBs just
some to Huestion confusion with respect to 44 <AE C#@8<: 6ell, + donBt 7now whatBs
confusing about that) <he only confusion + have is whether or not + ordered that you do it
without a witness fee, all right, thatBs the only confusion + have because otherwise, it is reHuired
by statute) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6itness fee or subpoena fee in the case of a 1ubpoena Duces
<ecum) <hen thereBs this issue of service fees) <AE C#@8<: Nes) 1ervice fees would have to
be specifically ordered that they be waived, that has not been done in this case, whether + said it
orally or not) +f youBre having the sheriff serve it 44 =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, + mean li7e a
processing fee or something) =r) 17au here his office is saying they want M%0)00) <AE
C#@8<: AeBs saying under the #pen =eeting $aw, theyBre entitled to the cost of the copies)
=8) C#@?A$+3: <heyBre charging me for their time) <AE C#@8<: <heyBre charging you
for the cost of the copies) =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o) +t says in their invoice it says O(rocessing
feeO or something) =r) 17au ma7e a comment on that) <AE C#@8<: 1ir, you 7now, this is
ridiculous argument) AeBs already said they will be furnished to you without cost) 1o now
youBre wasting everyoneBs time for no reason) =8) C#@?A$+3: 2ut itBs come up in other
circumstances and itBs 44 <AE C#@8<: + donBt care about other circumstances) <his is the case)
3ow, sir, just so weBre clear, there will be no further subpoenas served until theyBve been issued
by me and approved by me) Nou will need a statement of relevance and proof that they can be
served without a witness fee, if thatBs what you said + ordered) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir)
<AE C#@8<: 9nd then + O)))O
=#<+#3 AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages !1:1 to !2:22* the statute 44 <AE C#@8<:
Nou told me it was already filed by fa' but + donBt even see that, sir) 2ut +Bm e'tending for two
days for you to file a Certificate of =ailing from today which would be <hursday with any
documentation that you have to issue subpoenas) +Bve ordered the cler7s not to issue any
subpoenas to you without my reviewing them, and the only subpoena that will be effective
without a witness fee will be one signed by me) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir) <AE C#@8<:
9nd that only assumes number one, that you provide me proof that + actually said that and it
has to be served by a third party if itBs not within the ten days) =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir, and
if + can just preserve 44 the court has sanctuary argument with respect to any service) <AE
C#@8<: <he court has sanctuary 44 <AE 6+<3E11: 6ell, itBs my understanding + came here
today to somewhat contest the notice and service of the order for this hearing or the motion and
it seems as though itBs purported that +Bm being served because +Bm here and the court house
sanctuary doctrine says 44 <AE C#@8<: 1ir, you 7now what, +Bm telling you even if you
werenBt served, you could show up for trial and +Bm not going to honor the subpoenas, if they
werenBt valid, even if he hadnBt filed a motionC understoodJ =8) C#@?A$+3: Nes, sir, your
Aonor) <AE C#@8<: 1o the motion is almost irrelevant to the e'tent that you served an
!2.!!2
invalid subpoena or invalidly served a valid subpoena, this court is not going to order that it be
honored) 1o if you e'pect people to show up for your trial, then itBs in your interest to ma7e
sure theyBre properly served) +ndependent of his having filed a motion, + had already loo7ed at
these because you attempted to file them with the court, and you had loose documents that are
fa'ed in from you on 11/) <here are 44 thereBs a number of pages) + told them not to file them
with the court because they werenBt validly filed) Nou need to have the documentation to
support these and we have a fa' which was filed on 11/, 1& pages)OF
111,12 0.&&!1 <8931C8+(< #" (8#CEED+3?1 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 2%:% to
&0:1.* =8) C#@?A$+3: 9ctually, +Bll call 3icole 6atson) <AE C#@8<: +s 3icole 6atson
hereJ =8) N#@3?: 1he is not, your Aonor) <AE C#@8<: 9ll right) =8) C#@?A$+3: +
would move for a continuance, sir) <AE C#@8<: Denied) =8) N#@3?: Nour Aonor, based
on the motion to continue, + canBt imagine what she should have to offer this court thatBs of
substance thatBs necessary under Aillbustos) 1o unless + hear otherwise, + would also oppose the
continuance) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, the continuance is denied) Nou did not present the proof that
+ reHuested on <hursday, sir) =8) C#@?A$+3: 6ith respect to witness feesJ <AE C#@8<:
Nes) =8) C#@?A$+3: #h, + offered to pay them) <AE C#@8<: Nou offered to pay them)
<hen you proffered her the witness feeJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + couldnBt verify whether or not it
was her on the phone) <AE C#@8<: 3o) 6hen you delivered the subpoena, sir, did the person
that delivered the subpoena have a chec7 from youJ =8) C#@?A$+3: +t was mailed) <AE
C#@8<: 6ell, did you enclose the chec7 with the mailingJ =8) C#@?A$+3: + donBt believe
so) <AE C#@8<: 9ll right) 6ell then, sit down and call your ne't witness) =8) C#@?A$+3:
Nes, sir) 1o if + can just clarify, sir, it seems li7e you pulled aside one of the subpoenas and said
you were reserving ruling on those until + show you the payment proofJ <AE C#@8<: Nes)
<hose are the ones that + 44 those are the ones, based on the records, that + found to be relevant,
that they were properly subpoenaed with a subpoena issued by this court and that they were
properly served by mail) Aowever, + reserve ruling on whether or not the service was
completed because of the reHuirement that they be proffered the witnesses fee) 9ll right) 1o go
ahead) =8) C#@?A$+3: <hat differs mar7edly from 44 <AE C#@8<: 3o, it doesnBt differ
from what + told you at the last court date, sir) + told you to submit that to me by <hursday) =8)
N#@3?: Nour Aonor, you have as7ed =r) Coughlin no less than five times to call his first
witnessC can we move on) +tBs Huarter to 10:00) <his is ta7ing a while) <AE C#@8<: 9ll right)
?o ahead)F
1o, not only did Dudge 1ferra::a deny Coughlin his constitutionally protected right
to cross4e'amine #fficer Duralde, he did so while violating 381 1/%)!05Bs stay upon his
#rdering a Competency Evaluation (never mind the fact that 6C(D $eslie had interjected the
Huestion of CoughlinBs competency prior thereto*:
<8931C8+(< #" (8#CEED+3?1 4 ;ol) +, ((ages !2:& to !%:1%* 8E3#,
3E;9D9, 6ED3E1D9N, 1E(<E=2E8 5, 2012, 1:&0 ()=) \)\ <AE C#@8<: #7ay) <his
is the case of 1tate ; -achary Coughlin, and we are bac7 on the record in Case B0.) Nou were
sworn) 6ill you ta7e the stand) =8) $E1$+E: Nour Aonor, + donBt believe + have any further
Huestions) +Bve conferred with =r) Coughlin and + canBt get any straight answers from him about
any additional materials) + have no further Huestions at this time) <AE 6+<3E11: Nour
Aonor, earlier did you indicate that + would have an opportunity to confer with =r) $eslie at the
!2/!!2
conclusion of his crossJ <AE C#@8<: Nou did) =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, + didnBt, sir) =8)
$E1$+E: +Bm happy to ta7e five more minutes, if the court please, to afford =r) Coughlin the
time he reHuests) <AE C#@8<: + will give you five more minutes and thatBs it, =r) Coughlin,
because we had an intervening period of almost 10 minutes before lunch) =8) C#@?A$+3:
=r) $eslie refused to meet with me) <AE C#@8<: Nou were out in the hallway with him)
=8) C#@?A$+3: 3o, your Aonor, + wasnBt) =8) $E1$+E: 9nyway, your Aonor,
if you want to ta7e five minutes, it will probably ta7e 15 minutes to argue the point or we can
ta7e the five minutes) <AE C#@8<: 9ll right) + will give you the five minutes but thatBs it) (9
recess was ta7en)* <AE C#@8<: <he record will reflect that =r) Coughlin was given an
opportunity to consult with counsel) =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o sir, your Aonor, + wasnBt) <AE
C#@8<: 3o, that is the record that 44 if you want to do it in court with me present, we can do
that) =8) C#@?A$+3: Do what, your AonorJ <AE C#@8<: Consult with him) Nou just
went outside to consult with him) =8) C#@?A$+3: 3o) + went outside and =r) $eslie
wouldnBt meet me out there and then 2ailiff 1e'ton ordered me to meet him in the hallway
where witnesses 44 <AE C#@8<: 9ll right) +Bm not going to play any more games, =r)
Coughlin) Nou can tal7 to him right here) + will as7 =r) Noung and the other people in the
courtroom who are not court personnel to step outside, and +Bll give you four minutes) =8)
N#@3?: +Bll leave right now, your Aonor)
<AE C#@8<: +Bm going to ma7e a record as well, your Aonor, with regard to the
client competency) (9 recess was ta7en)* <AE C#@8<: 9ll right) 6e are ready to proceed in)
<he court, during the recess, + did personally observe =r) Coughlin tal7ing to his counsel,
although + did not listen to anything or hear anything, but + believe that there has been an
attempt to communicate with =r) Coughlin and we will proceed) =8) $E1$+E: Nour Aonor, if
+ may, itBs my belief that =r) Coughlin is not legally competent to proceed at this time) +Bm
going to ma7e a motion for the courtBs determination of whether =r) Coughlin should be
e'amined by a psychiatrist to determine if heBs legally competent) <AE C#@8<: 6ell, +
believe he was already e'amined) =8) $E1$+E: + believe he was) <AE C#@8<: 9nd he was
determined to be competent) 1o at this point, the motion will be denied and 44 + shouldnBt say
that) + will give you a chance to argue further) + donBt thin7 thereBs been any change in
circumstances 44 =8) $E1$+E: 6ell, + thin7 itBs just based on the record as a whole) + thin7 for
the 44 to a large e'tent, itBs the observations the court has made of his behavior and his
reasoning and mental state) Neah) +Bm just raising the issue) + had a Huestion in my mind) <AE
C#@8<: + have a Huestion in my mind, but +Bm not a psychiatrist and +Bve tried to have him
e'amined on multiple occasions in different cases and he indicates 44
=8) $E1$+E: #7ay) <AE C#@8<: <he District Court ruling is heBs competent
based on the psychiatric evaluation) + donBt 7now if it was an actual psychiatrist) =8) N#@3?:
<here was two separate ones, your Aonor) <here was a competency evaluation in this case and
then there was 44 where he met with one, + donBt 7now if it was a social wor7er or otherwise but
one individual and there was, in a separate case, a competency evaluation where he met with
two separate doctors) +n all evaluations, he was found competent) + donBt 7now if thereBs been a
change between then and now or if itBs just =r) CoughlinBs behavior thatBs posing the
difficulties, but certainly 44 itBs not my call what to do) 1ince itBs been raised, +Bll defer to the
court if you feel li7e itBs appropriate to conduct a brief hearing again) +Bll step out and you can
!2%!!2
as7 any Huestions just so you can determine whether itBs warranted or not) <AE C#@8<: 6ell,
we can have him e'amined again, but + do want to finish with this witness) AeBs been here
multiple times) AeBs on the stand, and + believe that at least =r) $eslie you can Huestion him) 1o
if you have any Huestions) 2N =8) $E1$+E: U Nes) #fficer, do you have any relation to the
dispatcher that dispatched you to the scene in this caseJ 9 + donBt recall who the dispatcher
was but my wife is a dispatcher) U 9nd to your 7nowledge, was she involved in this caseJ 9
3o) U #7ay, very well) Did you notice any inconsistencies when you arrived on scene
between what the different witnesses were telling you had happenedJ 9 3ot that + remember)
U Do you recall any inconsistency between =r) ?oble and =r) -arate, one saying that =r)
Coughlin had allegedly ta7en the phone from some third party that nobody 7nows who they are
and then the other saying that =r) Coughlin just pic7ed the phone up directly from where it was
lyingJ 9 +t was my impression, at the time of the case, + donBt have any recollection of the
third party) + was later reading =r) -arateBs statement and noticed that a third party was listed in
it but at the time, + didnBt have 7nowledge of that) U + donBt have any further Huestions) <AE
C#@8<: =r) Noung, any further HuestionsJ =8) N#@3?: 3o, your Aonor)
<AE C#@8<: #7ay) NouBre free to go) +n light of the conduct of these proceedings
and everything thatBs happened herein, + do believe thereBs at least a Huestion as to =r)
CoughlinBs competency going all the way bac7 to the initial offer and what happened on the
first day when we were here for the better part of an hour and a half) 1o + reluctantly will order
another competency evaluation but this time, + am going to as7 both counsel to provide the
evaluator with any documentation or anything else they might have with respect to his
competency and as7 the evaluator to review his prior competency hearings, especially the one
at 39=1 when he went there and itBs my understanding the same thing happened there as
well)F
2% ("AE2 never was a sanction, "AE& was superseded by the "inal Decree, which e'cised and
superseded such sanction and ultimately awarded the very alimony "AE& purported
Coughlin to have litigated ve'atiously for see7ing for his client*:
2) 9mendment and Correction &) (rocedure and 8elief <opic 1ummary 8eferences
Correlation <able s &%%) #peration and effect, in general 6estBs Gey 3umber Digest 6estBs
Gey 3umber Digest, Dudgment 7 &&0 6estBs Gey 3umber Digest, Dudgment 7 &&1 ?enerally,
an amendment or correction of a judgment gives the judgment the same effect as though the
defects necessitating the amendment had never e'isted) 1ince the amendment of a judgment is
merely perfected evidence of what e'isted from the time the judgment was pronounced,P1Q as
between the parties, the amendment or correction relates bac7 to the original judgment and
becomes a part of it, and gives the judgment the same effect as though the defects or mista7es
had never e'isted)P2Q Aowever, it usually does not ma7e a new judgment or confer any new or
additional rights,P&Q although any substantive modification of a judgment constitutes an
opening of the judgment,P!Q and a change materially affecting a judgment and the rights of the
parties against whom it is rendered and involving the e'ercise of judicial discretion does
amount to a new judgment)P5Q ?enerally, an amendment leaves the original judgment effective
and unimpaired)P .Q 6here the court stri7es part of a judgment, the remaining portion stands,
so that the court need not enter a new judgment with the stric7en part omitted)P/Q 9n order
amending a clerical error in a judgment does not supersede the judgment or incorporate it into
!2,!!2
the order, and the cler7Bs act in correcting the judgment pursuant to that order is ministerial and
does not affect the materiality or finality of the judgment or order)P%Q 9n amendment or
correction of a judgment is binding on those parties who were afforded an opportunity to be
heard,P,Q but an amendment or modification changing the rights of the parties fi'ed by a former
judgment is not binding on a party in interest who was not afforded such an opportunity)P10Q
C@=@$9<+;E 1@(($E=E3< Cases: 9ny change in a judgment made during the trial
courtBs plenary power is treated as a modified or reformed judgment that implicitly vacates and
supersedes the prior judgment, unless the record indicates a contrary intent) 1$< Dealer ?roup,
$td) v) 9meriCredit "inancial 1ervices, +nc), &&. 1)6)&d %22 (<e') 9pp) Aouston 1st Dist)
2011*) PE3D #" 1@(($E=E3<Q
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 P"31Q #7la)4?aines v)
?aines, 1,!! #G 1!2, 1,! #7la) &!&, 151 ()2d &,& (1,!!*) P"32Q 9r7)4<)D) =oss <ie Co) v)
=iller, 1., 9r7) .5/, 2/. 1)6) 5%. (1,25*) Conn)4Co'e v) Co'e, 2 Conn) 9pp) 5!&, !%1 9)2d
%. (1,%!*) +ll)4"irst 2an7 of #a7 (ar7 v) 8e:e7, 1/, +ll) 9pp) &d ,5., 12% +ll) Dec) %0., 5&5
3)E)2d 20 (1st Dist) 1,%,*) #7la)4?aines v) ?aines, 1,!! #G 1!2, 1,! #7la) &!&, 151 ()2d
&,& (1,!!*) 9s to amendments nunc pro tunc, see s &%,) P"3&Q Cal)4=cConville v) 1uperior
Court within and for $os 9ngeles County, /% Cal) 9pp) 20&, 2!% () 55& (2d Dist) 1,2.*) #7la)4
=ason v) 1lonec7er, 1,2& #G .,5, ,2 #7la) 22/, 21, () &5/ (1,2&*) P"3!Q Conn)4
Commissioner of <ransp) v) 8oc7y =ountain, $$C, 2// Conn) .,., %,! 9)2d 25, (200.*) 9s
to the effect of opening a judgment, see s !/0) P"35Q Cal)4=cConville v) 1uperior Court within
and for $os 9ngeles County, /% Cal) 9pp) 20&, 2!% () 55& (2d Dist) 1,2.*) P"3.Q Cal)4
=cConville v) 1uperior Court within and for $os 9ngeles County, /% Cal) 9pp) 20&, 2!% ()
55& (2d Dist) 1,2.*) P"3/Q +nd)4Elliott v) ?ardner, 11& +nd) 9pp) !/, !. 3)E)2d /02 (1,!&*)
P"3%Q Cal)4=cConville v) 1uperior Court within and for $os 9ngeles County, /% Cal) 9pp)
20&, 2!% () 55& (2d Dist) 1,2.*) P"3,Q +owa41ame7 v) <aylor, 20& +owa 10.!, 21& 3)6) %01
(1,2/*) (a)49ltoona <rust Co) v) "oc7ler, &11 (a) !2., 1.5 9) /!0 (1,&&*) P"310Q 3)N)4Emmet
v) 8unyon, 1&, 9)D) &10, 12& 3)N)1) 102. (2d DepBt 1,10*) 6estlaw) (c* 201& <homson
8euters) 3o Claim to #rig) @)1) ?ovt) 6or7s) CD1 D@D?=E3<1 s &%%
Consent judgment may supersede pleadings +ll)4City of =arseilles v) 8ad7e, 2%/ +ll)
9pp) &d /5/, 22& +ll) Dec) 1%1, ./, 3)E)2d 125 (&d Dist) 1,,/*)
+n fact, Dohn 1pringgate, EsH), agreed to a Consent Decree in the *
(3#<E: tellingly, the (anel fails to identify either contempt order as a Ecriminal
convictionF in this 8(C %)!(b* conte't, which is counter the characteri:ations of such the (anel
ma7es elsewhere) ?iven this admission by the (anel that such contempts orders are not
EconvictionsF of EcrimesF, the 1C8 111(5* approach falls apart, and the 123 is stuc7 with
meeting a clear and convincing evidence burden of proof that it completely failed to even
attempt to meet) 9t this point, the 123 probably wishes the transcripts and or audio recordings
it has sought so desperately to e'clude (where Coughlin fully wanted to pic7 them apart,
conduct much more e'tension cross4e'aminations of everyone involved, and all those whom he
subpoenaed, and fully e'pose their systemic, fraudulent, reprehensible misconduct (particularly
that of the City of 8eno =arshals*, Dudge Aoward, Dudge 3ash Aolmes, Dudge 6) ?ardner,
etc), etc) <he 8DC and 2DDC decided not to join the party Ging threw, and for good reason)
<he 8=C either was not smart enough to do that, or had to deal with the rash, imprudent, acts
!&0!!2
of judicial conduct that it had already committed to record (.0%&% (abuse of the contempt
power, misconduct in willfully violating Canon 1 8ule 1)1 in failing to abide by the +ndigent
Defense #rder*, .1,01 (failure to recuse where either per se reHuired, or overwhelmingly
indicated, violations of 381 1/%)!05, ridiculously biased approach throughout the case (not
right to confront the arresting officer even*, the 8=CBs $isa ?ardner trashing the timely notice
of appeal Coughlin filed on .2%12, and, li7e in the case resulting in .0%&%, the 8=C willingly
and 7nowningly countenance a multitude of instances of misconduct by City of 8eno
prosecutors and the contract based court appointed defense counsel the 8=C or City of 8eno
employs*, and Dudge 3ash AolmesB hysterical offensive, etc)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((age 1&0:! to 1&0:25* (E'hibit ! mar7ed)* 2N =8) !ing7 U
+Bm holding in my hand an order that was signed by you dated the 2%th of "ebruary, 2012, in
the matter of 11 <8, which + assume stands for traffic, 2.%00 21) 9nd itBs an order finding the
defendant in contempt of court and imposing sanctions) Do you recall e'ecuting such an orderJ
9 Nes, + did) + wrote it myself, and + signed it, and + found him in contempt, in direct
contempt during the proceeding, and right after that did the order) U +Bm reading from (age &
of your order, which is the final page that has your signature on it before the service, certificate
of service) 2ut in that final paragraph it says, O<he court finds that the defendantBs actions were
intentional and done in utter disregard and contempt for the court, and in the presence of the
court, for purposes of disrupting and delaying the proceedings and dishonoring the rule of law
and this court, and constitute the misdemeanor of criminal contempt, a violation of 381
22)010) ?ood cause appearing therefore, the following sanctions are imposed)O AE98+3? 4
;ol) +, ((age 1!/:12 to 1!/:21* U +s it proper for you to call something summary criminal
contempt when you cite to a civil contempt statuteJ 9 + donBt 7now what is proper in your
boo7, =r) Coughlin) + 7now that the behavior that + saw, + 7now that + held you in contempt, +
held a precise 44 you committed direct contempt in front of me in my court 44 U Criminal
contempt or civil contemptJ 9 44 + held you in contempt on the spot, and then + went and
wrote the order)
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 1!%:% to 151:1* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Dudge, did
your order characteri:e it as misdemeanor criminal contemptJ 9 + do not have my order in
front of me, so you can consult my order) + believe it was misdemeanor contempt) + believe it
was criminal, direct criminal contempt) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bll note on (age & at line 1! it says,
=isdemeanor of criminal contempt, a violation of 381 22)010) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hich
order are you referring to, =r) CoughlinJ =8) C#@?A$+3: "ebruary 2%th order) (age &, line
1!) =8) !ing7 + thin7 itBs E'hibit 3o) !) =8) ECAE;E88+9: #7ay) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3:
U Dudge, is 381 22)010 a civil contempt statuteJ =8) !ing7 #bjection) <AE 6+<3E11:
=r) Coughlin, you can consult the statutes) + donBt have my boo7s right in front of me) 381
identifies in Chapter 22 contempt) 9nd the 8eno =unicipal Code has sections relating that or
incorporating those sections into the 8eno =unicipal Code) Either way, what you did in front
of me was direct contempt, and + held you in direct contempt, and you went to jail for five days
because of it) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U +s it permissible for a judge to call a civil contempt
statute a criminal contempt statute, vis4a4vis 44 this is 22)010, a civil contempt statute) 9nd the
law in 3evada does have 381 1,, 44 + believe itBs 2!0 44 which is the criminal contempt
statute) +s it permissible for you to cite to a 44 easier to meet civil contempt statute, and then
!&1!!2
recharacteri:e it as criminal contemptJ =8) !ing7 #bjection) <AE 6+<3E11: =r) Coughlin,
+Bm not going to argue the law with you) Nou have the statutes there) Nou can consult them
yourself) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U #n (age & at line !, sub ), 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9: 6hich
e'hibit, sirJ =8) C#@?A$+3: E'hibit !, your Aonor) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U Nou wrote,
defendant lying to the court in response to direct Huestions posed by the court) 6hat were the
lies in your vague order that lac7s any specificity to support a summary contempt finding, what
were those lies that you failed to elucidate in your orderJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r) Coughlin,
that Huestion is argumentative) Do you want to rephrase itJ =8) C#@?A$+3: 1ure) 2N =8)
C#@?A$+3: U 6hat were you referring to when you wrote, ODefendant lying to the court in
response to direct HuestionsOJ 9 6ell, it would be e'plained in the order there) + donBt
remember everything at this time because + donBt have it in front of me) 2ut + do believe that
you lied about or misrepresented that you were not recording, because + believe you probably
were) + donBt 7now) + believe you probably were) 9t the same time there were things that you
and the prosecutor were arguing about with regard to discovery) 9nd she disagreed with you
and said you were lying to her about that) 9nd there were other items that you went bac7 and
forth about that appeared to me that you were not totally honest about))))O
AE98+3? 4 ;ol) +, ((ages 151:/ to 15&:15* 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U 6hen you
say, alternately you were probably lying) 9nd then you put in your order, O+ find by clear and
convincing evidence that he lied,O is that ambiguous thereJ Aow do you reconcile thatJ 9
Aow do + reconcile whatJ U <he fact that your order says you find by clear and convincing
evidenceJ 9 2ecause thatBs what + wrote) + did find by clear and convincing evidence) + found
by absolutely convincing evidence that you were behaving improperly in court, as you are now,
apparently) U NouBre saying you found by clear and convincing evidence that a licensed
attorney lied to the court) 9nd then you characteri:e that as probably, well, + 7ind of thin7 he
was) + thin7 he was, because + 7now some unattributed hearsay that +Bm going to base it on) +Bm
going to get the order + thin7 is wrong about the bathroom brea7) +Bm not going to have a
marshal sign an affidavit) Then $;m going to remi6 a criminal contem&t statute with a
summar( contem&t statute and &ic) and choose and ma)e it as retaliator( as $ &ossi%l( can.
$sn;t that a fair characteriJation of (our a&&roach as a -udgeJ (3#<E: +n re 6hitney, 1!
Cal)!<h 1 3ote: 6e also accept the commissionBs conclusion that Dudge 6hitneyBs refusal to
appoint counsel to assist indigent defendants at the arraignment constituted willful misconduct
in office, but conclude the remaining acts constituted, at most, conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice (1ee 9dams v) Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,,5* 10
Cal)!<h %.., %//4%/% P!2 Cal)8ptr)2D .0., %,/ ()2D 5!!QC ?ubler v) Commission on Dudicial
(erformance (1,%!* &/ Cal)&D 2/, !.4!/, 5, P20/ Cal)8ptr) 1/1, .%% ()2D 55) Gloepfer v)
Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%,* !, Cal)&D %2., %&%T%.&, 2.! Cal)8ptr) 100, /%2
()2D 2&, Pwillful and prejudicial misconduct for failing to protect the rights of defendants, and
abuses of power involving contempt procedure, orders to show cause, and bench warrantsQC
Cannon v) Commission on Dudicial Uualifications, supra, 1! Cal)&D ./%, .,&T.,!, 122
Cal)8ptr) //%, 5&/ ()2D %,% Pfailure to follow the law regarding contempt proceduresQ)** =8)
ECAE;E88+9: Dudge, you donBt need to answer that Huestion) <hat was way out of line, and
e'tremely argumentative) <AE 6+<3E11: <han7 you) =8) ECAE;E88+9: Do you want to
as7 a legitimate Huestion, =r) CoughlinJ 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U 6hat basis do you have to
!&2!!2
assert in your order that defendant lying to the court in response to direct Huestions posed by
the court with regard to his recording the proceedingsJ 9 <he opinion is self4e'planatory) + do
not have it in front of me, =r) Coughlin) Nou have access to the tapes and the opinion) 9nd +
stand by what + wrote, and + stand by the proceedings that day) U 2ut itBs 7ind of hard to pic7
inconsistencies in your testimony today and those materials when you refuse to testify now,
isnBt itJ =8) ECAE;E88+9: 9rgumentative, =r) Coughlin) Nou are not assisting yourself
here) =8) C#@?A$+3: +Bm as7ing her) +tBs a Huestion) =8) ECAE;E88+9: 3o) =8)
C#@?A$+3: +s that not true that she is subverting the legal process by refusing to testify
instead of saying, well, read the order and read 44 listen to the recording, and therefore she is
not subjecting herself to putting forth any further inconsistencies) =8) ECAE;E88+9: =r)
Coughlin, the time for argument is later, not now) =8) C#@?A$+3: #7ay) 1o +Bm objecting)
+tBs nonresponsive) 2N =8) C#@?A$+3: U 6hat was your basis 44 =8) ECAE;E88+9:
<hat objection is overruled)O
3#<E: Dudge 3ash AolmesB assertion that she Eright after thatF (summarily finding
Coughlin in contempt at !:00 pm on 22/12* Edid the orderF is not Huite accurate, is it, where
"AE ! is file stamped 22%12, with &:!/ p)m) +ndicated as the time of filing) Aouston and the
body of summary contempt jurisprudence place a high burden on entering such orders nearly
immediately after summarily incarcerating one (ie, Dudge 3ash Aolmes does not get twenty
four hours to have her =arshals go down to the 6ashoe County Dail and &ull some strings and
get CoughlinBs personal property (the smart phone and micro sd card of a practicing attorney,
and his cell phone* released to them (which both the 8=C and 6C1# have since lied about in
attempting to cover such up, but, darn it, Deputy Aodge told the truth to Coughlin on &1,12,
and people are just going to have to deal with that, and someone needs to e'plain the erasing of
all the data on those items prior to their being returned to Coughlin (causing massive damages
to CoughlinBs life and practice*, and the e'tent to which such being done has prejudiced
CoughlinBs ability to defend himself (canBt e'actly offer into evidence the micro sd card or
smart phone to prove that Coughlin did not, in any way, lie to Dudge 3ash Aolmes in response
to her enormously inappropriate sua sponte interrogation of him immediately after the one
restroom brea7 on that trial date, and, contrary to EcheverriaBs fraudulent attempts to find that
Coughlin failed to deny such accusations, Coughlin most certainly did, in fact, he has denied
each and every accusation made in GingBs piffle ridden Complaint)
<he fact that Echeverria and the 123 have clumsily sought to ma7e disappear the filings
Coughlin submitted on 10&112, 11,12*, 1&1&, 11/1&, and others only further
underscores the e'tent to which all involved, e'cept for Coughlin, in this disciplinary matter
are enormously immoral, corrupt, and, in many ways, rather inept) $aughable is weasel
Clar7 ;ellis tal7ing himself out of his guity conscience stemming from being such a willing
participant in the gang bang Ging and Echeverria put on on 111!12, where he obviously
relies on some attenuated and vague conception that a busy 3evada 1upreme Court will
catch anything important that he might have missed in the filings included in that which
would be transmitted with the 8#9 (where Gent missed such because he admitted not to
loo7ing at things, and not caring to, then he and Ging got caught lying about whether the
123 had provided copies to each (anel member of the discs Coughlin attached as e'hibits to
his various filings, and ;ellis, laughably, swallows down GingBs nonsensical e'planation of
!&&!!2
just what will be included in the 8#9, and just how such determination are come to*)
2, 9ctually, in the 3inth Circuit, per $ope:4(astrana, shoplifting or petty larceny is not a
EseriousF crime: @)1) v) $ope:4(astrana, 2!! ")&d 1025 (,th Cir) 2001*: O6e vacate the
sentence and remand for resentencing on the grounds that $ope:4(astranaBs prior conviction
for shoplifting should not have been counted in determining his criminal history
category))))+n 1,,&, Defendant was convicted of violating 8eno =unicipal Code 1 %)10)0!5
(1,,%* (shoplifting* (3#<E: such provision of the 8eno =unicipal Code has since merged
together with the crime Coughlin was convicted of, misdemeanor petty larceny under 8=C
%)10)0!0* after he attempted to steal a wallet valued at M1, from a local department store) Ae
was fined M200 and sentenced to si'teen hours of community service (3#<E: Coughlin was
fined M&.0)00 and was not sentenced to any community service reHuirement or other
probation whatsoever*))))6e review de novo a district courtBs determination that a prior
conviction should be counted for criminal history purposes under the 1entencing ?uidelines)
@nited 1tates v) 1andoval, 152 ")&d 11,0, 11,1 (,th Cir) 1,,%*) (3#<E: as such, the
3evada 1upreme Court should review any (anel (or its own of ./12 or the te't of 1C8
111(.*, though, to be clear, such only spea7s to whether a temporary suspension is in order,
not to whether any convictions for offenses listed in 1C8 111(.* are EseriousF*
determination that any of those the (anel purport to be EseriousF offense Ecriminal
convictionsF are, in fact, EseriousF*
<he issue sHuarely presented by this case, therefore, is whether a minor sho%lifting
offense is Esimilar toF any listed offense) 9s discussed below, we hold that it is similar to the
offense of insufficient funds chec))))"irst, we turn to the Huestion of what is meant by Esimilar
toF as used in @)1)1)?) S !91)2(c*(1*) 6e then compare $ope:4(astranaBs shoplifting
conviction to the enumerated offense of Einsufficient funds chec7)F "inally, we conclude that
the two offenses are similar for the purpose of calculating a defendantBs criminal history score)
9) E1imilar <oF as used in S !91)2(c* 6e have articulated two separate tests for
determining whether a particular offense is Esimilar toF an offense listed in S !91)2(c*) +n
@nited 1tates v) =artine: (Clyde*, ,05 ")2d 251 (,th Cir)1,,0*, we e'plained the rationale for
e'cluding the listed offenses: they Eoffer no %asis for &redicting future significant criminal
activit( %( the defendantC the conduct they involve is not uniformly criminaliFed and when it
is the penalty is usually light)F +d) at 25&) @nder the =artine: (Clyde* test, an offense must
Eoffer a more substantial basis for predicting future criminal activity than do the minorF listed
offenses before it may be counted to#ards a defendant0s criminal history score) @nited
1tates v) 1andoval, 152 ")&d at 11,2) +n essence, this test defines Esimilar toF on the basis of
the underlying seriousness of the offense)2 +n @nited 1tates v) =artine: (Carlos*, ., ")&d ,,,
(,th Cir)1,,5*, however, we chose not to apply the =artine: (Clyde* test and instead defined
Esimilar toF with reference only to Ewhether the activit( underl(ing Gthe &rior offenseH is
similar to the activities underl(ing the listed offenses.F =artine: (Carlos*, ., ")&d at 1000
(citing =artine: (Clyde*, ,05 ")2d at 255425. (6allace D), concurring**)&
@nder either of these approaches, $ope:4(astranaBs conviction for sho&lifting is
similar to an insufficient funds chec7 offense and therefore e6cluded under @)1)1)?) S
!91)2(c*(1*)!
2) =artine: (Clyde*: Eseriousness of the offenseF test) 9pplying the =artine:
!&!!!2
(Clyde* Eseriousness of the offense+ test' we hold that sho&lifting is no more indicative of
future criminal %ehavior than is &assing a %ad chec)))))
<he core Huestion under =artine: (Clyde* is #hether the offense at issue (offerUsV
UaV basis for %redicting future significant criminal activity)F ,05 ")2d at 25&) $f so, the
prior offense Eis significant for sentencing purposesF ))) +d) at 25!) 4ociet(;s interest in
&unishing the offense is8 of course8 relevant to this :uestion, 6lso relevant is the level of
&unishment im&osed for a violation) 9pplication of these two EfactorsF alone, however, does
not conclude the inHuiry) #ther similarities between the prior offense and the listed offenses
may also assist in assessing whether inclusion of the prior offense Ewould more li7ely distort
than improve the process for W determining an appropriate sentence)F +d) at 25&C 1ee @nited
1tates v) Gemp, ,&% ")2d 1020, 102& (,th Cir)1,,1* (=artine: (Clyde* analysis includes a
comparison of the elements of the listed offense and the prior offense*))))we ta7e a common
sense approach which relies on all possible factors of similarity, including a comparison of
punishments imposed for the listed and unlisted offenses, the perceived seriousness of the
offense as indicated by the level of punishment, the elements of the offense, the level of
cul&a%ilit( involved, and the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates a
li7elihood of recurring criminal conduct) @nited 1tates v) Aardeman, ,&& ")2d 2/%, 2%1 (5th
Cir)1,,1*)
Both shoplifting and insufficient funds chec4 are punished under the same provision
of Nevada law) 3)8)1) S 205)0%&2) <he penalty for the two crimes is identical and depends
entirely on the value of the property ta7en) 3)8)1) S 205)0%&5) <his indicates that the two
offenses are &erceived as e*uall( serious. +n the present case, the defendant received a
minimal sentence of /K hours of communit( service and a A055 fine) <he actual
&unishment im&osed' therefore' ,&laces Gthe sho&lifting convictionH in an argua%l( lesser
categor(F than the listed offense of insufficient funds chec7)5 @nited 1tates v) 9lmodovar,
1,,. 6$ 11!,&0, \5 (E)D)(a)1,,.*)
+n addition, the two offenses share many of the same elements) <here are four
distinct ways to violate the 8eno shoplifting ordinance) Each subsection of the ordinance
defines shoplifting in a slightly different manner) "or e'ample, both concealing merchandise
and altering the labels on merchandise are eHually punishable as shoplifting if done with the
intent to deprive the owner of the property) 8)=)C) S %)10)0!5(a*(2*, (a*(&* (1,,%*) Despite
these minor variations, the essential elements of a shoplifting violation under the 8eno
=unicipal Code are 1* willfully 2* ta7ing possession of merchandise with &* the intent to
deprive the owner of the value of that property) 1imilarly, a person commits theft by passing a
bad chec7 under 3evada $aw if he E7nowingly W draws or passes a chec7, and in e'change
obtains property or services, if he 7nows that the chec7 will not be paid when presented)F
3)8)1) S 205)0%&2)
2oth offenses reHuire willfulness) 2oth offenses reHuire the conversion of the
property of another) 9nd both offenses reHuire the specific intent to deprive the owner of the
value of that property) <he two offenses are similar) 1ee @nited 1tates v) 1anders, 205 ")&d
5!,, 55& (2nd Cir)2000* ( Efare4beatingF (i)e) entering the subway without paying* is Esimilar
toF insufficient funds chec7 because the two offenses share elements and are subject to eHually
lenient punishments*)
!&5!!2
C) =artine: (Carlos*: JEconductF testJ 6e reach the same conclusion after applying
the =artine: (Carlos* EconductF test to 9ppellantBs shoplifting conviction) @nli7e the
=artine: (Clyde* test, the =artine: (Carlos* test does not reHuire analysis of the defendantBs
prior offense to determine if it is predictive of future criminal behavior) 8ather, the =artine:
(Carlos* test focuses only on whether the conduct underlying the defendantBs prior offense is
Ea7in to the conduct underlying any of the listed offenses)F 1andoval, 152 ")&d at 11,2
(applying the =artine: (Carlos* test*)
+n =artine: (Carlos*, we applied the EconductF test to the offense of vandalism)
;andalism, Eby definition, involves the malicious defacement, destruction or damage to the
property of another)F =artine: (Carlos*, ., ")&d at 1001) 6e held that vandalism was not
Esimilar toF the offenses listed in @)1)1)?) S !91)2(c*(2* because vandalism is not a victimless
crime and because vandalism involves malicious intent). +d) at 1000401)
@nder the =artine: (Carlos* test, therefore, a prior offense is Esimilar toF a listed
offense if the elements of the prior offense are similar to the elements necessary to prove one of
the enumerated offenses)/ <his test overlaps, but is more narrow than, the =artine: (Clyde*
test) 6hereas similar elements may be considered under =artine: (Clyde* to ascertain
whether the prior offense offers any Ebasis for predicting future significant criminal activity,F
such a comparison constitutes the entirety of the =artine: (Carlos* test)
9s indicated above, the conduct underlying $ope:4(astranaBs conviction for
shoplifting is similar to the conduct that underlies an insufficient funds chec7 offense as
defined by 3evada law)% (fn%: %) <he dissent concludes that the Etrespassory ta7ingF
necessary for shoplifting is Esimply differentF from the fraudulent ta7ing underlying an
Einsufficient funds chec7F offense) Dissent at 10&54&.) 6e do not believe this distinction
overrides the considerable similarities between the offenses) 6e note, however, that to the
e'tent a bad chec7 offense contains the additional element of deception, it is arguably more
serious than the shoplifting offense at issue here)* Compare 8)=)C) S %)10)0!5 (1,,%* with
3)8)1) 205)0%&2(,*)
#ur decision in @nited 1tates v) 1andoval provides further support for todayBs order) +n
1andoval, we applied the =artine: (Carlos* EconductF test and held that petty theft was not
similar to any of the offenses listed in S !91)2(c*(2*) 1andoval, 152 ")&d at 11,2) 6e
based this holding on the fact that none of the offenses listed in S !91)2(c*(2* involve
Eta7ing anotherBs property with the intent to deprive that person of the property)F +d) <his
cannot be said of those offenses listed in S !91)2(c*(1*, the provision at issue in this case)
+nsufficient funds chec7 is a form of stealing) <he implication of 1andoval, therefore, is
that petty theft (li7e shoplifting* is similar to other minor theft offenses (li7e insufficient
funds chec7*) <he district court erred in including this offense when calculating $ope:4
(astranaBs criminal history score))))+n conclusion, shoplifting and insufficient funds chec7
offenses share similar elements, similar penalties, and similar underlying conduct) <he
offenses are therefore EsimilarF within the meaning of @)1)1)?) S !91)2(c*(1* and $ope:4
(astranaBs shoplifting sentence should not have been included in his criminal history
calculation) )))++) @nder 3evada law, shoplifting is petit larceny))))Defendant pleaded guilty
to EshopliftingF under 8eno =unicipal Code S %)10)0!5 (1,,%*) 9t the time, shoplifting
was a subset of petit larceny (essentially, petit larceny in a store*, the elements of which
!&.!!2
were set out in 8eno =unicipal Code S %)10)0!0 (1,,%*)F
&0"urther, the filings in .0%&%, .1!02, and .1,01, 5&%&&, 5!%!!, .0&&1, .1&%&, C;114
0&.2%, D;0%4011.%, C;11401,55, C;11401%,., .0&02, .0&1/, 11 C8 221/., .0.&0, C8114
20.5, 11 C8 2.!05, C812412.2, 8C8201140.&&!1, 8C8201240.5.&0, 8C8201240./,%0
(and 8ev201240010!%, 8ev20124000&/!, 8ev20114001/0%, 8ev201240/!!0%, 8ev20124
0/%!&2, 8ev201240010%2, 10%&, 11./, 11.% etc), etc)*, 12 C8 12!20, 8C(2012400001%, 11
<8 2.%00, 12 C8 00.,., C81240&/., .&&!2, .&0!1, .2%21, .210!, .0,/5 that Coughlin
attached as e'hibits to "AE15 and as e'hibits to previous filings in this matter (its not li7e the
123 said when it provided all the Ebates stampedF documents Ging was constantly
referrencing, and further, Coughlin submitted his E'hibits (many of which included discs with
bates stamped collection of materials on pdfBs that numbered in the thousands of pages, of
including complete 8#9s or records in the various matters involved herein, in addition to
police reports establishing the enormous wave of law enforcement and judicial misconduct that
has been directed at Coughlin, typically in the name of refusing to apply 381 1/1)1&.,
1/1)12.., 1/!)&!5, and 381 !0)25!, 381 !0)25&(5*(a*Bs dicates in accord with 3; Const) 9rt)
! 1ec) 21 against the 6C1#, 8(D, 8ichard ?) Aill, EsH), ?ayle Gern, EsH), 3evada Court
1ervices, the 8eno City 9ttorneyBs #fficer, 6CD9Bs #fficer, 8=C, 8DC, EC#==, 81+C,
6al4=art, etc, etc)))its a real family thang with all those grounds* (whether the 123 filed such
or not, or whether the 123 transmitted such E'hibits attached as discs by Coughlin to his
submission, or whether the 123 purposefully scannedcopied CoughlinBs printed out e'hibits in
a manner sufficient to render them illegible or barely legible)))* all ma7e abundantly clear the
multitude of arguments and authority in support of CoughlinBs contention that there are no
aggravating factors herein, and there e'ists a plentiful bounty of mitigating factors, all
supported by clear and convincing evidence by Coughlin) 1uch filings include (but are not
limited to* (note a ENF means such filing is notated as E(endingF on the doc7et in the 31C<*:
Relevant to everything in 2..7 overall:
1$2:
0%1&2012 (etition for Dissolution of <emporary 1uspension (ursuant to 1upreme Court 8ule
102(!*C andor alternatively, 1C8 111(/* (etition to 1how ?ood Cause "or the Court <o 1et
9side +ts #rder <emporarily 1uspending 9ttorney from the (ractice of $aw) ((endingJ N* 124
25!1.
21+$: (where the 123 represents the Efact finderF in .2&&/ 33D2, interestingly
(conflict, muchJ*
111!2012 "iled (etition for 6rit of =andamus (etition for 6rit of =andamus #rdering 123
and (anel to Comply 6ith 1C8 105(2*(c*N 124&.05&
112/2012 "iled =otion for E'tension of <ime +"( 389( 2! "iling "ee) N 124&/&.&
112%2012 "iled 3otice of failure to included the attachment now herein included in previous
filing of this motion for e'tension of time to pay filing fee or show good cause why hasnBt been
and or apply for ifp fee waiver nrap 2!) N 124&/502
0%2%201& "iled =otion to (roceed in "orma (auperis wE'hibits) N 1&425!./
..$2:
0.11201& "iled (roper (erson (etition for 6rit of =andamus or (rohibition and =otion to
(roceed in "orma (auperis and Declaration of 1upport thereofC =otion for 8elease) N 1&4
!&/!!2
1.,/5
0.11201& "iled (roper (erson =otion to (roceed in "orma (auperis and Declaration in
1upport thereof for this (etition for 6rit of =andamus or #ther 9ppropriate 8elief) 1&4
1.,//
0/1.201& "iled #rder ?ranting =otion and 6aiving "iling "ee) 3o filing fee is due for this
peititon) 1&420%22
0/1%201& "iled 3otice) N 1&4210.%
0/2!201& "iled =otion to 9mend (etition for E'traordinary 6rit) N 1&421/12
0/2!201& "iled E'hibits to =otion) 1&421/15
.+$1:
0!1%201& 3otice of 9ppeal Documents 4 3otice of 9ppeal(roper (erson "ast
<rac7 "iled 3otice of 9ppeal(roper (erson "ast <rac7) "iled certified copy of proper
person notice of appeal) ("ast trac7 notice issued to trial counsel)* 1&4
1152. 0!1%201& 3otice#utgoing 4 3otice to 8eHuest 8ough Draft <ranscripts +ssued
3otice to 8eHuest 8ough Draft <ranscripts) Due date: 10 days) 1&41152%
051!201& #rder(rocedural 4 #rder "iled #rder 8edesignating 9ppeal) <his
appeal was inadvertently doc7eted in this court as a fast trac7 appeal) <his appeal should have
been doc7eted as a proper person appeal) <he parties shall disregard the briefing notices issued
by this court on 9pril 1%, 201&) <his appeal shall proceed as a proper person appeal)
1&41!1/0 052&201&#rderDispositional 4 #rder Dismissing 9ppeal "iled
#rder Dismissing 9ppeal) O#8DE8 this appeal D+1=+11ED)O 13(1&4=?=D31
1&4152/1 0.1/201&8emittitur 4 8emittitur +ssued 8emittitur)
1&41//!& 0.1/201&Case 1tatus @pdate 4 8emittitur +ssuedCase Closed
8emittitur +ssuedCase Closed 0.1,201& #ther 4 8eturned
@nfiled Document 8eturned unfiled untimely motion to proceed +"( on rehearing and
rehearing petition submitted via E4"le' by -achary Coughlin)
Relevant to the Kal4Mart %etty larceny conviction at issue in +*.* resulting in
referral to --D1:
+*.*:
0.112012 =otion for $eave to "ile #pposition or to 1how Cause why <emporary 1uspension
is not in #rder) 1241%155
0.1%2012 =otion for $eave to "ile 9mended or 1upplemental #pposition or =otion to 1et
9side, 9lter, 9mend 1uspension) 1241%,.2
%1&12:J why is there not a filing in .0%&% for this date of that filed in .1!.2 at that time in
2012425!1.*
10052012 =otion for #rder to 1how Cause or Contempt #rder 9gainst 2ar Counsel and
33D 124&1!&! (and note, the 3evada 1upreme Court Cler7s too early remittitur and beyond
ministerial refusal to file other documents in .0%&% has resulted in a (etition for 6rit against it
in .&%22 filed %1,1& see Documents of 0%1,1& N 1&42!&/., 0%20201&, 1&42!!5, and 1&4
2!!.0, 0%2%201&, 1&425!.&*
+.+:
0!102012 3otice of 9ppeal Documents 4 3otice of 9ppeal(roper (erson "iled)12411&!!
0.1!2012 3otice of 9ppeal Documents 4 Case 9ppeal 1tatement "iled) 1241%.!2
!&%!!2
0.1!2012 3otice of 9ppeal Documents 4 Case 9ppeal 1tatement "iled)1241%/!5
0.1%2012 "iled 3otice of +ntent to "ile #pening 2rief) 1241%,5.
.*227
0%1,201& "iled =otion <o (roceed +n "orma (auperis to file (etition for 6rit 8espectfully
9gainst the Cler7Bs #ffice, 6hom Coughlin Aas =uch ?ood "eeling <owards) N 1&42!&/.
0%20201& "iled E'hibits (copies*) E'hibits: p1p1 continuation of e'hibit 1) 1&42!!5,
0%20201& "iled E'hibits (copies*) E'hibits: p/) 1&42!!.0
0%2%201& "iled 3otice with E'hibits) 1&425!.
Relevant to -2124+2+$ and -2124+$.$ Richard 2, "ill8 9s:, and Judge
"olmes grievances ;/"9$8 58 *8 B< and the criminal tres%ass conviction at issue in 1B+1
;/"91.<8 and the summary eviction matter and a%%eals thereof involving "ill ;/"92<:
+..1:
Doc7et Entries
Date <ype1ubtype Description (endingJ Document
022,2012 "iling "ee 4 "iling "ee due "iling "ee due)
022,2012 3otice of 9ppeal Documents 4 3otice of 9ppeal "iled 3otice of
9ppeal) 9ppeal doc7eted in the 1upreme Court this day) (<8931"E88ED <# D#CGE< 3#)
.1&%& (E8 #8DE8 "+$ED !2!1&*) 1240.!/! 0&0,2012
#rder+ncoming 4 District Court #rder "iled District court order) Copy of #rder
Denying =otion to (roceed +n "orma (auperis filed in district court on &%2012 and Case
9ppeal 1tatement or, (led in the alternative, =otion for E'tension of <ime to Correct
Deficiencies in 9ppeal (apers) (<8931"E88ED <# D#CGE< 3#) .1&%& (E8 #8DE8
"+$ED !2!1&*) 1240///1
0!0,2012 =otion 4 =otion "iled 9mended Case 9ppeal 1tatement and
8eHuest for E'tension of <ime to (ay "iling "ee and 2ring "ilings into Compliance with
;arious 8ules) (<8931"E88ED <# D#CGE< 3#) .1&%& (E8 #8DE8 "+$ED !2!1&*)
1241120!
0!1&2012 3otice of 9ppeal Documents 4 Case 9ppeal 1tatement "iled
Case 9ppeal 1tatement) (<8931"E88ED <# D#CGE< 3#) .1&%& (E8 #8DE8 "+$ED
!2!1&*) 12411,.!
0%2/2012 =otion 4 =otion "iled 9ppellantBs =otion to Continue +n "orma
(auperis or "or E'tension of <ime to (ay "iling "ee) (<8931"E88ED <# D#CGE< 3#)
.1&%& (E8 #8DE8 "+$ED !2!1&*) 1242.,!2
0%2/2012 2rief 4 #pening 2rief8eceived 9ppellantBs #pening 2rief (via E4"le'*)
("+$ED (E8 #8DE8 #" !2!1&*) 110,2012 3otice+ncoming 4 3otice
8eceived document entitled O1ubmission of appendi' and notice of 8DCBs failure to
file 3otice of 9ppeal of 122011 order on 122.11)O (*)("+$ED (E8 #8DE8 #" !2!1&*)
11202012 #rder(rocedural 4 #rder "iled #rder) <his court notes that the
motion filed in this court does not comport with the reHuirements of 389( 2!, and the motion
is denied) #n 1eptember ., 2012, appellant paid the filing fee) <his appeal may therefore
proceed) 124&.%./
0!2!201& #rderDispositional 4 #rder to 9dministratively Close Doc7et "iled
!&,!!2
#rder) Doc7et 3o) .0&&1 was erroneously doc7eted, and is hereby administratively closed in
favor of Doc7et 3o) .1&%&) <he cler7 of this court shall transfer all documents filed in Doc7et
3o) .0&&1 to Doc7et 3o) .1&%&) "urther, the filing fee paid in Doc7et 3o) .0&&1 shall be
applied to Doc7et 3o) .1&%&) 9ccordingly, appellantBs motion for reconsideration in Doc7et
3o) .1&%& is granted and that appeal is reinstated) 3os) .0&&1.1&%&) Case Closed3o
8emittitur +ssued) 1&411,/.
0!2!201& 2rief 4 #pening 2rief"iled 9ppellantBs #pening 2rief) (<8931"E88ED
<# D#CGE< 3#) .1&%& (E8 #8DE8 "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&411,%&
0!2!201& 3otice+ncoming 4 3otice "iled 1ubmission of 9ppendi' and
3otice of (osting bond on 9ppeal with Aill) (<8931"E88ED <# D#CGE< 3#) .1&%& (E8
#8DE8 "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&411,%!
1.*.:
0/&12012 "iled 3otice of 9ppeal(roper (erson (ilot (rogram) "iled certified copy of proper
person notice of appeal) 1242!12,
110/2012 "iled #rder Dismissing 9ppeal) <o date, appellant has not paid the filing fee or
otherwise responded to this courtBs notice) 9ccordingly, cause appearing, this appeal is
dimissed) 124&51,!
111,2012 "iled 3otice of +mproper Dismissal of 9ppeal, =otion for 8econsideartion or to
8einstate 9ppeal, or 9lter or 9mend Dudgment of Court Cler7) 124&..5.
010/201& "iled 1ubmission of appendi' and notice of 8DCBs failure to file 3otice of 9ppeal
of 122011 order on 122.11) 1&400!!&
0!2!201& "iled #rder Doc7et 3o) .0&&1 was erroneously doc7eted, and is hereby
administratively closed in favor of Doc7et 3o) .1&%&) <he cler7 of this court shall transfer all
documents filed in Doc7et 3o) .0&&1 to Doc7et 3o) .1&%&) "urther, the filing fee paid in
Doc7et 3o) .0&&1 shall be applied to Doc7et 3o) .1&%&) 9ccordingly, appellantBs motion for
reconsideration in Doc7et 3o) .1&%& is granted and that appeal is reinstated) 3os)
.0&&1.1&%&) 1&411,%2
0!2!201& "iled 3otice of 9ppeal) (<8931"E88ED "8#= D#CGE< 3#) .0&&1 (E8
#8DE8 "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&411,,/C "iled 9mended Case 9ppeal 1tatement and 8eHuest for
E'tension of <ime to (ay "iling "ee and 2ring "ilings into Compliance with ;arious 8ules)
(<8931"E88ED "8#= D#CGE< 3#) .0&&1 (E8 #8DE8 "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&4
1200,, 1&412010, 1&41201.
0!2!201& "iled 9ppellantBs #pening 2rief) (<8931"E88ED "8#= D#CGE< 3#) .0&&1
(E8 #8DE8 "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&412020
0!2!201& "iled 1ubmission of 9ppendi' and 3otice of (osting bond on 9ppeal with 8ichard
?) Aill) (<8931"E88ED "8#= D#CGE< 3#) .0&&1 (E8 #8DE8 "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&4
12021
0515201& "iled #pposition to =otion to Dismiss 9ppeal and 1tay 2riefing 1chedule) 1&4
1!&00
0515201& "iled E'hibits (art 1) 1&41!&01
0515201& "iled E'hibits part 2) 1&41!&02
0515201& "iled #pposition to =otion to Dismiss 9ppeal and 1tay 2riefing 1chedule with
"onts corrected) 1&41!&0&
!!0!!2
051/201& "iled 3otice of 9ttaching =eta48ecord on appeal to this 3otice and 8eHuest that it
be =ade (ublicly 9ccessible via this CourtBs Case =anagement 1ystem) 1&41!5%/
051/201& "iled E'hibits to 3otice of =8#9) 1&41!5%,
0520201& "iled 8eply to #pposition PsicQ to =otion to Dismiss and =otion to 1tay 2riefing
1chedule) 1&41!%5%
0521201& "iled E'hibits (copies*) E'hibits: v2p1p! 1&41!,&1, v2p.p1 1&41!,&&, v2p% 1&4
1!,&,, v&p5 1&41!,!0, v!p2 1&41!,!1, v5p% 1&41!,!!, v.p!p%and, 1&41!,!5, v/p1 1&4
1!,!., v/p5p1 1&41!,!/
0521201& "iled 3otice of filing amended notice of appeal) 1&41!,52
0522201& "iled E'hibits (copies*) E'hibits: v%p1 1&4150!, v%p.to% 1&4150!&, v10p2 1&4
150!!, v1&p1 1&4150!5, v15 1&4150!.
052%201& #rderDispositional 4 #rder Dismissing 9ppeal "iled #rder
Dismissing 9ppeal) O#8DE8 this appeal D+1=+11ED)O "n1P8espondentBs 9pril 2., 201&,
motion see7ing to dismiss this appeal for lac7 of jurisdiction on other grounds and his 9pril 2.,
201&, motion to stri7e are denied as moot) To the e6tent that res&ondent see)s attorne( fees
%ased on the motion to dismiss this a&&eal' that re*uest is denied) 6e further deny as moot
other reHuests for relief pending in this matter)Q 13(1&4=?=D31) 1&4155%/
0.0/201& 8eturned, unfiled, (etition for 8ehearing) (1ubmitted without reHuired filing fee)*
0.10201& "iled =otion to proceed +"( for 389( !0 and !09)C (etition for En 2anc
8econsideration and (etition for 8ehearing) 1&41.%15
0.10201& "iled =otion and Emergency 3otice) 1&41.%1.
0.1&201& "iled Declaration of -achary Coughlin) 1&41/&2%
0.21201& "iled #rder ?ranting =otion to 6aive "ee for 8ehearing) 9ppellantBs (etition for
rehearing will be filed without the payment of the fee) 1&41%2%%
0.25201& 8eceived e4mail from -achary Coughlin stating that he tried to submit his
rehearing petition via e4fle' on .2!1&, but the system was down)
0.2.201& "iled 9mendment or 1upplemental, or 8eHuest to 1ubmit 1uch as to the (etition
for 8ehearingC or, in the 9lternative, =otion to Consider ;iewing this 9ppeal as a (etition for
E'traordinary 6rit, 1uch as a (etition for 6rit of =andamus, (rohibition or Certiorari)
N 1&41%/.2
0/0%201& "iled Declaration of -achary Coughlin) 1&41,/!1
0/12201& "iled =otion to <reat as 6rit) N 1&420&%1
0/15201& "iled Declaration of -achary 2ar7er Coughlin in 1upport of =otion to Aold in
Contempt 9ll <hose Aerein Detailed as Deserving and for E'traordinary +ntervention) N 1&4
205%1
0%2%201& "iled =otion for 1tay 381 !0)&%5 wE'hibits)N 1&425!..
Relevant to -2124+$.5 2JDC Judge >, 2ardner (grievanceM /"9. and
9lcano0s testimony:
5.*..:
0520200, "iled Certified Copy of 3otice of 9ppeal1ettlement) 3otice 8e 1ettlement
Conference (rogram and 1uspension of 8ules mailed to all counsel) (<he reHuesting of
transcripts and briefing are stayed pursuant to 389( 1.(a*(1*) Doc7eting 1tatement "orm
!!1!!2
mailed to counsel for appellant(s*)* 0,412!%0
0520200, "iled Certified Copy of 3otice of 9ppeal) 1econd notice of appeal filed on 5120,)
0,412!%2
0520200, "iled Certified Copy of 3otice of 9ppeal9mended1upplemental) 0,412!%&
0520200, "iled Certified Copy of 3otice of 9ppeal9mended1upplemental) 1econd
9mended 3otice of 9ppealC or 9lternatively (etition for 6rit of =andamus or #ther
E'traordinary 6rit) 0,412!%!
0.0!200, (etitionerBs =otion to <reat 1econd 9mended 3otice of 9ppeal or (led in the
9lternative (etition for 6rit of =andamus as a (etition for 6rit of =andamus #nly and 3ot a
3otice of 9ppeal)0,41!0&2
0,0,200, "iled #rder) as to appellant -achary Coughlin) "n1Pthe cler7 shall amend the
caption accordinglyQ) =r) Coughlin was not a party to the proceedings below and thus cannot
personally appeal from the district courtBs order) 6e deny =r) CoughlinBs motion to treat
second amended notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus only and not a notice of
appeal) <his denial is without prejudice to =r) CoughlinBs right to file an original writ petition
with this court) <he settlement judge reports that appellant 2harti Doshi and respondent 9shwin
Doshi have agreed to a settlement) 9ppellant: 15 days to file stipulation or motion to dismiss)
0,421%50
5$*$$:
102%200, "iled (etition for 6rit) (etition for 6rit of =andamus 0,42.&05
+.+2 ;dis:ualifications7 "ardesty<: add all filings therein by Coughlin
+.17 (very relevant to Dudge ElliottBs rampant misconduct in "AE12,1&, C;114
01,55, C811420.!, C812412.2, C81240&/., C81&40.1!, and that by his replament in
Department 10, Dudge 1attler (see .&0!1, C81&40552, where 1attler sits on 6$1Bs 2oard of
Directors and may at the time of CoughlinsB firing (similarly, Dudge Aascheff signed the
probable cause review incident to CoughlinBs 52&1& arrest in 8C8201&40/2./5, resulting in
CoughlinBs fourteen day incarceration where Dudge Aascheff was a member of the 2oard of
Directors of 6$1 at the time of CoughlinBs firing on 51!0,*: 9dd all of CoughlinBs filings
therein to this list
!!2!!2

Pleading Created by Zach Coughlin Volume 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pleading Created by Zach Coughlin Volume 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Declaration under penalty of perjury:

You might also like