9 16 13 Iteration 12 14 12 0204 62337 Wordpad Version Begin Bookmarking and Endnotes FOFCOL Interlineatting Just Cited Protions and 8 23 12 Complaints Master Final With Argumentation

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!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:+3DE4 5#
123 C#31#$65+#3 2#4 #" &,0,! (67E1 #" D#C89E351 +315E6D #"
6CC#:D+37 C#87;$+3 ;+1 :+7;51 83DE: 1C: 10<(2*(C* +3C+DE35 5# (63E$
C;6+: #:DE: #" 10&112 in .2&&/:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,10&.11=/=12=020!=.2&&/=2ates=1=to=&=0,!=1tate=2ar=of=
3evada=E'cuse=for="ailing=to=#bey=1C:=10<=2=c
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,1&,211=/=12=020!=.2&&/=+nde'=to=2ates=1tamped=&=200=
(age=1cr=10<=2=c=(roduction=by=1bn=>ith=1cribd=$in?
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%!<11//11=/=12=020!=.2&&/=+nde'=to=2ates=1tamped=&=0,!=
$ong=@ersion=(age=1cr=10<=2=c=(roduction=by=1bn=:evised=%=2%=1&=8pdated
5he &,0,! bates stamped production to Coughlin by the 123 delivered on 11/12
came in the form of one large bo' within which such documents were separated into four
different volumes, bound together only by a rubber ban and singular piece of cardboard style
card stoc? placed at the bac? of each volume, with such volumes each including a cover page
that appeared to be a photocopy of the outside of a folder baring the following names:
1 - 618 Pleading Created by Zach Coughlin Volume 1
619-1654 Pleading Created by Zach Coughlin Vol 2
1655-2700 !C "u#tice Court $oc# %older
2701-&'094 (ormal )earing (ile *+, -. Zachary +. Coughlin
htt/011222.#cribd.com1doc1168459118111-7-12-0204-62&&7-+ate#-1-to-618-Pleading-
Created-by-Zach-Coughlin-Volume-1-*+,-Violate#-*C-105-2-c-3ith-4in5
htt/011222.#cribd.com1doc1168467068111-7-12-0204-62&&7-+ate#-619-
1/%&
6o1654-Pleading-Created-by-Zach-Coughlin-Vol-2-*+,-Violate#-*C-105-2-
c-3ith-7nde8-9/t
htt/011222.#cribd.com1doc1168471574111-7-12-0204-62&&7-+ate#-1655-to-
2700-!C-"u#tice-Court-$oc#-(older-*+,-Violate#-*C-105-2-c-3ith-
4in5-and-9/t
htt/011222.#cribd.com1doc116846775&111-7-12-0204-62&&7-+ate#-2701-to-&-
094-(ormal-)earing-(ile-*+,---Zachary-+-Coughlin-*+,-Violate#-*C-
105-2-c-3ith-7nde8-4in5
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,2,0,2=1&=1&=020!=.2&&/=:#6=DigitiAed=@ersio=of=123=s=
2ates=1&/&=to=1.,,=>ith=<=5ranscript=(ages=9issing=5a?en=#ut=@ol=/=to=,=020!=.2&&/=11=
1!=12=5ranscrip http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,&0%%2=1&=1&=020!=.2&&/=:#6=
DigitiAed=@ersio=of=123=s=2ates=1&/&=to=1.,,=>ith=<=5ranscript=(ages=9issing=5a?en=#ut=
@ol=/=to=,=020!=.2&&/=11=1!=12=5ranscrip
+3DE4 5# 123 C#31#$65+#3 2#4 #" &,0,! (67E1 #" D#C89E351 +315E6D #"
6CC#:D+37 C#87;$+3 ;+1 :+7;51 83DE: 1C: 10<(2*(C* +3C+DE35 5# (63E$
C;6+: #:DE: #" 10&12:
2ates 3o: Description of Documents
1 = .1% Pleading Created by Zach Coughlin Volume 1
2 = , 22112 CoughlinBs 3otice of 6ppearanceC 9otion to Dismiss in
:C:2012=0.<.&0 (11!12 arrest ordered by :(D*
2/%&
10 = !% 0&0<12 CoughlinBs 3otice of 6ppearance as Co=Counsel and 9otion to Dismiss in
criminal trespass case before :9C Dudge >illiam 7ardner in 11 C: 2.!0< (.1,01*)
!< +nde' to E'hibits to &<12 filing page &. of !0 on fa' header
!. E'hibit 1 cover page
!/ page &% of !0 of fa', Certificate of 1ervice of 11111 by ;illBs #ffice
!% page !0 of !0 of fa' (so page &, was ommitted, where such page consisted of >C1# Civil
Division 1upervisor $iA 1tuchellBs admission that Deputy 9achenBs 6ffidavit of 1ervice
alleging he Epersonally servedF eviction order to Coughlin on 11111 was false*
!,=12. 11&011 3otice of 6ppearance, 9otion for Continuance in :9C 11 C: 221/. (see
.0%&%*
12/ 54 :eport (:9C serves :C6 by email, yet ta?es issue with Coughlin utiliAing email* by
D! :9C of 121<11 Dudge ;oward #rder re: emailing
12%=1<1 page 1 of 2! "a' Cover 1heet fa' header of 121.11 followed by CoughlinBs 3otice
of Denial of 1ervice, +"( 6pplication, etc) in 221/.
1<2=1/0 for no apparent reason, the E'hibit 1 cover page to CoughlinBs 121&11 3otice of
6ppeal, 9otion to @acate, 9otion for :ecusal with hand interlineated E%,& pages plus CD of
< files from :eno City 6tty (2 videos* E6(F, codec to view files, 1 recording of Dohn Ellis
>almart retaliationF in 221/.
1/1=&,! CoughlinBs &/12 3otice of 6ppeal of 1ummary Contempt #rder, 9otion to :eturn
(ersonal (roperty Confiscated by :9C, 9otion for 3ew 5rial and to 6lter or 6mend
1ummary Contempt #rder in :9C 11 5: 2.%00 before Dudge ;olmes (22! page fa' of
1:<%pm consisting of <! page 9otion and 1.. page E'hibit 1*
&,<=.12 &,12 12&%pm 21% page fa' of 9otion to :eturn Cell (hones, 9otion to 1et 6side
1ummary Contempt #rder, 3otice of 6ppeal of 1ummary Contempt #rder in 2.%00)
.1&=.1% email from Coughlin to :9C Chief 9arshal :oper of 121!11 re Complaint about
9arshal 9enAel and never receiving copy of 11&011 Contempt #rder, and :9CBs @eronica
$opeA 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: 9r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12
letter
.2< page 2 of .& page fa' of 10&12 at (,:2. am from Coughlin to 123 of 9otion 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 9otion 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 DC: 1&(&* provides that GingBs failure to oppose
such may be ta?en as an admission thereof)
.%% page 1 of !0 page fa' from Coughlin to :9C of &<12 fa' header 10:<. am 3otice of
6ppearance as Co=Counsel and 9otion to Dismiss in :9C 11 C: 2.!0< criminal trespass case
before Dudge >) 7ardner
/02 page 1< of CoughlinBs &<12 9otion to Dismiss in 2.!0< (proving & < 12 020! 2.!0<
&/%&
9otion to DismissBs page 1. e'cised from 11 / 12 123 production between bates /02 and /0&
detailing burglary by ;ill, >C1#, :(D, 7ayle Gern, EsH), 3evada Courts 1ervices, (ar?
5errace, 3orthwinds 6partments, 1uperior 1torage, etc, incident to failure to accord 2! hours
to tenant from receipt of loc?out order per 3:1 !0)2<&*
/0& page 1/ of CoughlinBs &<12 9otion to Dismiss in 2.!0<
/2! illegible page &, of !0 page fa' to :9C from Coughlin with >C1# 1tuchellBs admission
that Deputy 9achenBs 6ffidavit 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.=/.0 page 1 of &< page fa' from Coughlin to :9C in 11 C: 2.!0< trespass case Dudge >)
7ardner 3otice of 6ppeal, 9otion to @acate, 9otion for :ecusal, +"( (with such page listing
Coughlin as an EEsH)F with his 3@ 2ar 3umber above caption*, responding to 2212 #rder
granting :9C defender (uentesB 9otion to >ithdraw)
/&& +nde' to E'hibits to CoughlinBs 21.12 9otion indicating E') 1 consists of 2. pages of
correspondence between Coughlin and (uentes detailing the burglaries on CoughlinBs former
home law office by ;ill, >C1#, and :(D)
/.1 page 1 of % of CoughlinBs fa' to :DC in :C:2012=0.<.&0 3otice of 6ppearance, 9otion
to Dismiss that :DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsend emailed to 123 on !1112)
/., duplicate of preceding % page fa'ed 9otion to :DC by Coughlin duplicated for no apparent
reason)
///=%11 CoughlinBs 21&12 fa' header 2:</ pm to :9C of &< page 3otice 9otion to was
duplicated inadvertently by CoughlinBs fa'ing such again on 21.12 in trespass case before
Dudge >) 7ardner)
%12=%!. CoughlinBs 21.12 fa' header %:10 am &< page 3otice 9otion in :9C 11 C: 2.!0<
criminal trespass case Dudge >) 7ardner
%!/=%%< CoughlinBs !0 page fa'ed motion to :9C of &<12 header 10:<. am with :9C
2allard certification)
%%! page &% of !0 of CoughlinBs fa'ed 9otion (note page &, of !0 is missing in light of page
%%< being page !0 of !0, with such e'cised page being >C1# 1tuchellBs 21212 admission in
an email to Coughlin that Deputy 9achenBs 6ffidavit of 1ervice indicating Coughlin was
Epersonally servedF the Eviction #rder in the summary eviction handled by ;illBs firm was
actually merely posted on CoughlinBs door, and not personally served on 11111*)
%%< page !0 of !0 of fa'ed 9otion to Dismiss in :9C 2.!0<)
%%.=,2< page 1 of !0 of CoughlinBs &&12 fa' header &:0, pm fa' to :9C of same !0 page
3otice of 6ppearance, 9otion to Dismiss immediately preceding with :9CBs providing to
123 li?ely indicative of annoyance as receiving same fa' twice, though is not clear whether
one copy was fa'ed to chambers for :9CBs convenience or if Coughlin was simply having
problems adjusting to his new @o'o' fa' des?top computer internet based fa'ing application)
,2! page &, of !0 page fa' to :9C by Coughlin of &&12 consisting of 2/12 emailed
admission by >C1# 1tuchell that she considers posting an order on CoughlinBs law office door
when no one is present to be Epersonal serviceF)
,2.=,2% apparently inadvertently sent by :9C to 123 materials form 9andi >olf and (atric?
(ar?er relating to their traffic matters in the :9C
!/%&
,2,=100& page 1 of /. page fa' header %02 am to :9C of 121.11 fa' cover sheet
indentifying Coughlin as attorney followed by 1upplemental to 3otice of 6ppeal9otion to
@acate in :9C 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%* before :9C Dudge ;oward)
1002 page /! of /. per fa' header (ie, page /< 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 :9C where (age /< was CoughlinBs E+nde' to E'hibitsF*
100& page /. of /.
100!=10,& page 1 of ,2 of CoughlinBs fa'ed to the :9C on 121,11 fa' header <:2! pm
3otice of Denial of 1ervice, #pposition to City of :enoBs 3otice of Denial of 1ervice, etc)
where at bates 1,0<2 is CoughlinBs C@0%=01/0, filing before 2DDC Dudge "lanagan (page <0 of
,2 page fa'* and bates 1,0%2 is filing by Coughlin before 3@2 Dudge 2eesley in 3@2=10=
0<10! Cadle Co) v) Geller)*
10,! CoughlinBs 22!12 fa' header 10:1! pm :9C :ecord :eHuest dated reHuesting copy of
Contempt #rder file stamped 22/12 in :9C 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%*)
10,< Case Doc?et from :9C in 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%* before Dudge ;oward)
10,.=11/1 page 1 of /. page fa' from Coughlin to :9C 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 < days by Dudge 3ash ;olmes in 11 5: 2.%00 listing 1!22 E) ,
th
1t) I2 as
CoughlinBs address where ;olmes had 22%12 Contempt #rder (";E!* sent to 121 :iver :oc?
address she ?new Coughlin had been evicted from)
11/2 CouglinBs 121.11 2! page fa' header to :9C /:!1 am in :9C 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%*
with fa' cover page to :C6 :oberts 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 :9C 11 C: 22/1. lac?ing a fa'
header version hand delivered to :9C
121/ page 2 of 2! page fa' filed with the :9C from Coughlin 121.11 3otice of Denial of
1ervice with :9C 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 :9C, 2allard, and 123 to support bogus +"( allegations)
1.<< !C "u#tice Court $oc# %older
1.<. 111<11 3otice 1etting 5rial date of 11&011 in :9C 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%*
1.<, co-er #heet %or 11 C 22176 !C "udge :en )o2ard $4 %rom !C /ac5age
1..2 :9C 9arshal 9oser report of 121&11 harassment of Coughlin by 9arshal 9enAel
1.<! :9C 9arshal 9enAel report of 121&11 court as police state approach of :9C 9arshals
1./1 CoughlinBs email to Ging and (eters of 10&11 detailing fears related to providing his
physical address
1./2 :9C Court 6dministrator Dac?son sends an 1C: 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.//=/, fa' from :eno City 6ttorney to :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), that ;ill provided to 123
consisting of 2DDC Dudge ElliottBs #rder dismissing CoughlinBs appeal of criminal trespass
</%&
conviction in :9C 11 C: 2.!0< (.1,01* & pages from ,1012 containing %2/12 #rder in
C:12=12.2
1.%0 :9C Dudge ;owardBs 11&011 #(1C twice, both times lac?ing any Certificate of
9ailing
1.%! CoughlinBs 121&11 <:01 pm filed 3otice of 6ppeal, 9otion to @acate or 1et 6side,
9otion for :ecusal in :9C 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%* lac?ing entirety of e'hibit 1Bs %,& pages
which was emailed for filing to :9C (by permission from D) 2allard, which she fraudulently
failed to include in :#6 transmitted to 2DDC*)
1.,! :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document filed on &/12
(CoughlinBs +"( 9otion6ffidavit in 1upport of and :eHuest for 6udio of 22/12 trial before
;olmes in 11 5: 2.%00 (3712=0!&!*
1/01 &1212 #rder by ;olmes in 2.%00 that became ";E<
1/0/ 11&011 CoughlinBs 3otice of 6ppearance 9otion for Continuance in :9C 11 C:
221/. (.0%&%*
1/%< :C6 ;aAlettBs 9otion to Continue trespass trail in :9C 2.!0< because :ichard 7) ;ill,
EsH), witness, will be on vacation)
1/,0 10 10 11 3otice 1etting trial for 11 1! 11 Coughlin notates 9arshal 9enAelBs bullying
behavior 221/.
1/,2 11&011 #rder Continuing 5rial by :9C Dudge >) 7ardner in trespass case 11 C:
2.!0< (.1,01* ma?es no sense for it to be within folder for Dudge Gen ;oward
1/,& Co-er *heet %or %older titled ;Zachary Coughlin Ca#e no 11626800 "udge $. ,a#h
)olme# $e/artment &
1/,! &1&12 1ua 1ponte #rder Denying :elief 1ought in +mproper Document in 2.%00
1/,& &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "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. :9C Donna :ae 2allard 1tatement describing 121&11 e'change with Coughlin and
9arshal 9enAel
1%2! Co-er *heet %or Ca#e ,o. 11C22176 "udge :en )o2ard $e/artment (our
1%&/ &2112 :9C stampe on &1<12 2DDC Elliott #rder 6ffirming :uling of the :9C 221/.
20.!
1%.< :9C Donna 2allard 6ffidavit to 123 of !1112 221/. 2.!0<
1%./ :C6 ;aAlettBs 9otion to 1tri?e 9otion to Dismiss Complaint
1%/1 only /age# 2 and & o% Coughlin<# & /age %iling of 121!12 of a 9otion to (roceed +"(
and 6ffidavit in 1upport of filed by fa' and email which Donna 2allard provided e'press
authoriAation 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.!0<, and li?ely in the fa' cover sheet as well
1%/1=1%/& out of order all three pages of & page 121!11 fa' submitted 9otion to (roceed +"(
./%&
in 2.!0< 2allard notariAed 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 :9C 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 >) 7ardner for 2.!0<)
2000 6rrest :eport and Declaration of (robable Cause 1heet by :(D #fficer Chris Carter Dr)
filed with Criminal Complaint for trespass by :ichard 7) ;ill in :9C 11 C: 2.!0< on
111&11 listing Coughlin as an attorney, further vitiating 123 and :9CBs fraudulent assertion
that Coughlin failed to disclose fact he is an attorney)
20!!=20!< where 123 Ging e'cised >C1# 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 loc?out eviction order, in violation of
3:1 !0)2<&, coverup smo?ing gun, (at Ging should be disbarred) (3#5E: where is fa'
headers from CoughlinBs fa' filing of such to the :9C that is present in every other appearance
of such &&12 or &<12 3otice of 6ppearance, 9otion to Dismiss by CoughlinJ*
21//=21/% >here the (roof of 1ervice ought be for the 11&011 Dudgment of Conviction and
Court #rder by :9C Dudge Gen ;oward, 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 :9C 11 C: 221/., all fraudulently ignored
by the 123Bs Ging, at best)
+ate# $e#cri/tion
2/01 (ormal )earing (ile *+, -. Zachary +. Coughlin
2/02=2/,& =rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&5 ?0 Zachary Coughlin' @#A. =0 "udge $orthy B#icC
,a#h )olme#
2/0< Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !2/12 email 1ubject: 8pdate and a :eHuesting
2/0. Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !1,12 email 1ubject: :E: 9r) GingBs assertions in his
&1.12 letter wherein Coughlin denies all allegations
2/1. 2rian 7onsalves email referring to other attorney fee awards ma?es curious GingBs only
reHuesting Coughlin pay ;illBs landlord clientBs award in GingBs closing argument)
2/1/ GingBs 1C: 111(.* (etition in .0%&%, placed in 3712=0!&! ma?es no sense
2/1% :DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsends !1112 email to Ging containing documents
from :C:2011=0.&&!1 (Dudge 1ferraAAa* and :C:2012=0.<.&0 (Dudge Clifton* :DC Chief
//%&
Civil Cler? told Coughlin Dudge Clifton told her not to respond to CoughlinBs 10&012 1C:
110 subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
2/20 :9C Dudge ;oward (11 C: 221/. conviction leading to .0%&% temp) suspension*Bs
!!12 email to Ging regarding E8=tubeF postings E6 1ampling, Events at :9C &1212C City
of :eno 9arshal ;arley, 6llison #rmaasC :9C bounced by :eno 9arshalsF apparently
Coughlin was at the :9C on &1212 and just did not ?now the trial in 2.%00 was continuing)
2/21 :9C Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son email to :9C Dudges fa'ed apparently by
either Dudge 3ash ;olmes or some non=judge at the :9C, and including just page 2 of & of
such &2212 1:1/ pm fa' from the :9C or its 9arshals, to the 123 (e'cising such page 1 of &
(which li?ely would identify the sender* hardly Hualifies as Ebar counsel wor? productF
sufficient to justify GingBs Ebad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processF*)
2/22 list provided to 123 by :9C detailing CoughlinBs offenses between ,,11 and 11212
created by whom is not revealed, as neither is the matter of whom transmitted such, and to
whom such was transmitted)))
2/2& email of !1012 to 123 from :C6 Dan >ong regarding 123 will be unable to get
CoughlinBs criminal history ((ennie Colter, etc*
;@0 !r. :ing<# a##ertion in hi# &116112 letter E)))Kou wanted to ?now how + learned of or
obtained a copy of Dudge 7ardnerLs #rder after trial that was filed in 200,) +t was sent to me
by the cler? of the court at my reHuest, pursuant to my investigation)F
2/2< :C6 court appointed defender :oberto (uentes, EsH)Bs 11/12 9otion for #rder
allowing him to withdrawal from representing Coughlin given (uentes desire to avoid the
messy wor? of defending Coughlin via referencing the burglaries of ;ill, the :(D, and the
>C1#Bs #ffice, and the enabling thereof by the judiciary in the :9C, :DC, and 2DDC)
2/2. ;olmes fa' to 123 of &2212 1:1/ pm page & of & containing CoughlinBs &2212 "#+6
:eHuest and 1econd :ecord :eHuest for audio of 22/12 trial indicating 2allard indicated
CoughlinBs first reHuest for such audio was not processed, and see?ing anything related to the
confiscation of CoughlinBs personal property on 22%12 from the >ashoe County jail,
reHuesting chain of custody information, :9C 9arshalBs reports, etc)
2/2/=2/&2 ha# di#/lay i##ue# li?ely :9C defender (uentes 11/12 9otion to >ithdraw
from criminal trespass case before Dudge >) 7ardner in 11 C: 2.!0<
2/&&=2/&! 3/27/12 Order in CV11-03628 2JDC Judge Flanagan appeal of summary ei!"ion
#i"$ %ill and &a'er as opposing !ounsel Denying %ill(s &a'er(s 1/21/12 )o"ion for Order "o
*$o# Cause after hearing on &2&12 and &2.12
2/&. 9:C Cover 1heet with E$ist of documentsF attached &1&12 details five documents from
traffic case before ;olmes: 22%12 #rder (contempt*C &/12 3otice of 6ppeal, 9tn for :eturn
of (ersonal (roperty Confiscated by :9C 9arshals (22! pages*C &1212 9otion to :eturn
Cell (hones (21% pages*C &1212 #rder (< pages*C &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document
filed on &/12
2/&%=2/&, !1.12 fa' from :9C Dept) 2 (Dudge >) 7ardner* 1 and 2 of 2 6rrest :eport and
(robable Cause 1heet for 111&12 custodial criminal trespass arrest with (C 1heet by :(D
Carter and ;illBs Criminal Complaint
2/!0=!1 :9C 9arshal ED(F Dean=(ierre 9oster report from 121&11 9arshals Dames 9enAel,
%/%&
9atthew 5hompsonC >itness 1 Donna 2allard, >itness 2 5om 2artoldo:
2/!2=2/!! :9C 9arshal Dames 9enAel incident report detailing CoughlinBs filing a 3otice of
6ppeal and or 9otion for 3ew 5rial and see?ing a copy of the audio of the 11&011 trial in 11
C: 221/. (.0%&%*, references gossip with :DC Chief 2ailiff 9ichael 1e'ton, well paid city
and county 9arshals and 2ailiffs really donBt li?e wor?ing until closing time
2/!<=2/!% :9C 9arshal 1cott Coppa and 9atthew 5hompson incident reports detailing
CoughlinBs &2212 visit to :9C filing counter to file 1econd :eHuest for 6udio of the 22/12
trail before ;olmes in 11 5: 2.%00, which begat 3712=0!&!)))Dudge ;olmes immediately
fa'es 123 CoughlinBs "#+6 :eHuest in her desperate fear that her misconduct will be e'poses
incident to :9C 9arshals violating "ourth 6mendment at her direction in retrieving from jail
on 22%12 what had already been boo?ed into CoughlinBs persona property (where 9arshal
Coppa pulled Deputy Cheung into bac? room of sally bay at jail to discuss such confiscation*
2/!, &2212 email from Coughlin to Ging 1ubject :e ;ello from -ach Coughlin referencing
7essin and Christiansen
2/<& CoughlinBs !212 email to Ging @0 my attem/t to be /ro-ided acce## to the
grie-ance# %iled today #ee5ing material# %rom 26800 and !larifi!a"ion regarding #$e"$er
Judge +, -ardner $erself filed griean!e.
2/<! GingBs !212 email to Coughlin detailing & grievances, lying about ,=12-04&4 being a
grie-ance re!eied ;from "udge =ardnerF, 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 :9C 9arshals Coppa and 5hompsonBs &2212 report to 123
2/<. Coughlin email to 123 (eters of &2.12 referencing domestic violence he has
e'perienced and concomitant obstruction of his mail
2/</ CoughlinBs &2.12 email to 123 memorialiAing GingBs refusal to allow access to
grievance materials previously offered
2/<, CoughlnBs &2,12 email to 123 indicating Ging had made no reHuest for any written
response to any grievance by 7ardner or ;olmes, CoughlinBs detailing manipulative use of his
siAe by Ging, which Ging lied about at 1!1& 5(# e'tension hearing in :DC :C(2012=
000.0/)
2/.0= $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
;ill, 7ardner, or 3ash ;olmes, etc)
2//2 CoughlinBs email to >C1# detailing Deputy 9achenBs burglary with ;illBs associate
2a?er of 11111, 9achenBs false affidavit regarding Epersonally servingF Coughlin 2! hour
loc?out order on 11111 burglary by ;illBs associate 2a?er of that date
2/,0 CoughlinBs &1.12 email to Ging indicating he has yet to finish sending everything in
response to ;illBs grievance)
2/,2 81(1 Certified 9ail 5rac? M Confrim ending in .</% for GingBs mailing of &1.12
(purported letter from Ging to Coughlin that Ging was too afraid toconflicted over to see?
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 7ayle Gern, EsH)
2/,& GingBs &1.12 letter to Coughlin indicating the #2C Ehas received several grievances
,/%&
concerning your conduct as a lawyer)))+ will ma?e available for your review and inspection the
supporting documents and audio recordingsF
2/,! (9!?4 P4@?$7,=* (74@
2/,<=2/,. 10,12 6ffidavit of $aura (eters (3#5E: incongruously placed at the most recent
filing in this Eformal pleadings fileF where such 10,12 6ffidavit 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 wor?
in progress case file (before the :#6 is then reconstituted in correct bates stamped first in time
to most recent filing chronological order*)
2/,/=,, #rder of 10&112 by (anel Chair Echeverria (CoughlinBs 10&112 file stamped (re
;earing 9otion to Dismiss1ummary Dudgment9emorandum of $aw should have been
included here by the 123 as such was placed in its possession at !:!<pm 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 6ppointing "ormal ;earing (anel by 33D2 Chair D) 5homas
1usich, EsH)
2%02 123 GingBs 102!12 #pposition to :espondentBs 9otion to 2ifurcate ;earing, 9otion to
Dismiss
2%0. CoughlinBs 101.12 9otion to :eview+nspect 2ar :ecords, 9otion to 2ifurcate, 9otion
to Dismiss, etc)
2%!, CoughlinBs 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause
2,11 CoughlinBs 9otion to Dismiss
2,1< page ! of < of CoughlinBs 9otion to Dismiss where 123 e'cised E'hibit 1 to CoughlinBs
filing, a tell tale give away being the incongruous placement of page < there from with a bates
stamp of 2,1! where page ! thereof is given 123 bates stampe 2,1<, 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 :9C Dudge
;oward in 11 C: 221/. with Huasi=(roof of 1ervice of E' :efused (illegible initials only*
11&011 N 20:2&F following preprinted form in blan? 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
:9C and 123Bs fraudulent approach vis a vis the non service of the 11&011 #rder (unishing
1ummary Contempt which formed ";E11)
2,<! %2&12 6ffidavit of 1ervice of Complaint by (eters attached to Complaint
10/%&
2,<< =rie-ance (ile >,=12-0204 ?0 Zachary Coughlin =0 ichard )ill' @#A.
2,<. Copy of envelope 81(1 Certified 9ail I /010 2/%0 000& <!2, .</% 123 sent to
Coughlin on &1.12 with 81(1 yellow stic?er E./0&+1 2O FO3403D FO3 31V514F
dated &&112
2,<% &1.12 letter from 123 Ging to Coughlin regarding Eseveral grievancesF oddly placed
with ;illBs grievance file when &1.12 letter references EDustice CourtF (so, there, Ging, li?e
with the Dudge $) 7ardner EgrievanceF in 3712=0!&<, 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 ;ill and the :9C*
2,<, 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 $) 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial, ";E& compare E<F in E1<F of
E:eceived 9ar 1< 2012F to other versions (ditto*
2,/< .2<12 #rder by 2DDC Dudge "lanagan in C@11=0&.2% O!2,0.< attorney fee award
(3#5 6 163C5+#3*
2,/, 123 2ar Counsel Clar? forwards on CoughlinBs 12&12 self report of conviction in
.0%&% to Ging and (eters
2,%1 ";E/ CoughlinBs &,12 fa' to 123 reg 21!12 letter from Ging only received on &,12,
reAue#ting all corre#/ondence be co/ied -ia email and %a8 due to ob#truction o%
Coughlin<# mail B2hich' o% cour#e' :ing' Peter#' and the *+, %ail to do...#o much %or that
*94?C@ /rogram' huhDC
298& *+, :ing<# 2114112 letter to Coughlin
2,%! 123 GingBs letter to ;ill regarding grievance ;ill purportedly emailed to Ging, compare
to the letter Ging sent Coughlin refusing to investigate CoughlinBs grievances against :9C
defender $oomis and >C(D Dogan)
2,%< GingBs email to Clar? and (eters detailing youtube video of %2011 :(D misconduct in
wrongful arrest of Coughlin at issue in :DC :C:2011=0.&&!1 containing ;illBs forward to
Ging of CoughlinBs email to >C1#, >C(D, :C6, ;illBs associate 2a?er, etc) of 21012
detailing 2a?er and >C1# Deputy 9achenBs burglary of 11111 in :ev2011=001/0%, C@11=
0&.2% at 121 :iver :oc?
&00! CoughlinBs 11!12 #pposition to 9otion for 6ttorney "ees in C@11=0&.2% detailing
;illBs misconduct incident to CoughlinBs 11212 jaywal?ing arrest in front of 121 :iver :oc?
former home law office)
&01&=&01/ ;illBs 11!12 email to Ging, five page grievance, unsigned, unsworn (interstingly,
either ;ill failed to really include such EdisclosuresF or Ging e'cised such, inappropriately,
from this &,0,! 1C: 10<(2*(c* production of 11/12, causing much prejudice to CoughlinBs
defense)
&01%=&0!& =rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&4 ?0 Zachary Coughlin =0 "udge 4inda =ardner
&01, =&0!& purported printout of &1<12 regarding prosecutorial misconduct in various states
summaries thereof from http:AachcoughlinesH)wordpress)com
11/%&
with header that reads E(age 1 of 10,!F and a stamped E"K+F seemingly superimposed on the
first page) (3#5E: nothing to indicate anything was received from 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner*)
&0!! Zach Coughlin 111 Petition
&0!% CoughlinBs application for legal defender and 102/11 :9C Dudge ;oward #rder
Denying $egal Defender
&0<0 :C6 (amela :oberts, EsH) #pposition to 9otion for 3ew 5rial of 122111 in 11 C:
221/. (.0%&%* (3#5E: lac?s the actual e'hibits to such motion, and instead is misleadingly
followed by the E'hibits to GingBs 101<11 1C: 111(!* (etition in .1,01
&0<< E'hibit 1 to GingBs 1C: 111(!* (etition in .1,01
&0.< 1C: 111(!* (etition in .1,01 of 101<12
&0// .0%&% #rder of 5emporary 1uspension and :eferral to Disciplinary 2oard of ./12
&0%0 1C: 111(.* (etition in .0%&%
&0,1 <%12 stamped 81(1 Domestic :eturn :eceipt (1 "orm &%11 .0%&% Certified 9ailing
/010 2/%0 000& <!2, ./<2
10 = !% 0&0<12 CoughlinBs 3otice of 6ppearance as Co=Counsel and 9otion to Dismiss in
criminal trespass case before :9C Dudge >illiam 7ardner in 11 C: 2.!0< (3#5E: the fa'
header from CoughlinBs filing to the :9C 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 Ppage !0 of !0P of the fa'ing by Coughlin of that filing to the
:9C (page P&, of !0P is missing from GingBs production, as GingBs bates !/ is, according the
to fa' header atop CoughlinBs original filing with the :9C, page P&% of !0P) 5his means that
the same 2/12 emailed admission to Coughlin from the >C1# Deputy 9achen who filed
fraudulent 6ffidavits of 1ervice (11/11 for the 11111 summary eviction loc?out with ;illBs
associate Casey D) 2a?er, EsH) and the &/12 6ffidavit of 1ervice for the 22/12 service ;ill
paid for upon Coughlin at the 22/12 Psimple traffic citationP trial before :9C Dudge 3ash
;olmes in 11 5: 2.%00 wherin >C1# Deputy 9achen had :9C 9arshal ;arley smir?ingly
enter a conference room within Courtroom 2 of the :9C where :eno City 6ttorney 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 ;ill was opposing counsel) 9arshal ;arley grew very worried upon Coughlin
immediately cross=e'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 &<12 filing in the :9C (which was the
2/12 emailed admission from >C1# Deputy 9achenBs Civil Division 1upervisor $iA
1tuchell wherein she admits that 9achenBs 11/11 6ffidavit of 1ervice is a misrepresentation,
at best, where 1tuchell admits that 9achen merely tape those three #rders to the front door of
12/%&
CoughlinBs former law office while nobody was home, despite 9achenBs 11/11 6ffidavit of
1ervice indicating that he Ppersonally servedP the 102<11 Eviction Decision and #rder and
the 102/11 "indings of "act, Conlusions of $aw, and #rder for 1ummary Eviction, and the
102/11 #rder for +nspection of CoughlinBs law office by Dudge 1ferraAAa in :DC :ev2011=
001/0%* is curiously missing from E'hibit & to 33D2 Chairman 1usichBs .1%12 1C: 11/
(etition in .0,/<, indicating a either a conspiracy between the :9C, 33D2, and the 123, or
that someone with the :9C has systematically removed that
3#5E: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age /1:10 to /1:20* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + 6eliee
"$e issue "$a" "$is panel $as "o de"ermine is #$a" "$e degree7 if any7 of punis$men" s$ould 6e
for "$e !ondu!" "$a" you $ae alleged "o $ae 6een inoled #i"$7 in "erms of !andor "o "$e
!our"7 !andor "o !ounsel7 !andor "o #i"nesses7 !ompe"en!y "o pra!"i!e la#) 9:) C#87;$+3:
+ncluding == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + believe those are the issues that this panel should focus on)
&u" 5 do no" in"end "o in any #ay limi" #$a" you "$in' s$ould 6e impor"an")F
6nd, right there, Echeverria admits the clearly reversible error underlying the
(anelBs and 123Bs entire approach to this formal disciplinary matter) +t see?s 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, >) 7ardner, $) 7ardner, G) ;oward, etc),
etc not to contact the Eappropriate authorityF in light of their view that no such Eappropriate
actionF was indicated provides a strong basis for applying defensie !olla"eral es"oppel (and its
well settled that defensive collateral estoppel should be more readily applid than offensive
collateral estoppel given the balance of the eHuities and the dangers associated with a
deprivation of due process attendant to applying offensive collateral estoppel, especially in
disciplinary matters) +n re 1trong* to GingBs various allegations, which are just that, allegations)
Ging, the (anel, and Echeverria chose to s?ip the fact finding phase wherein the Huestion of
whether Coughlin was guilty of anything alleged beyond the conviction for petty larceny(
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<2&.2,,=.=1&=020!=.2&&/=3@D=1tamped=1&=C@=!/!=:CD=
>7C=..!=(ages=+"(=9tn=(roposed=Complaint=Coughlin=v=>al=9art=:eno=1par?s=+ndian=
Colony=:1+C * and the conviction for criminal trespass
(http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<2&<,,,=10=1&=3@D=1&C@!!.=!%!=+"(=9otion=(roposed=
Complaint=3@D=6ction=:e=1ummary=Eviction=$oc?out=2urglaries=by=:(D=>C1#=;ill=
3orthwind=Et=6l=<.=(ages *was to be determined (ie, whether Coughlin was guilty of any of
the alleged violations of the :ules of (rofessional Conduct so vaguely set out and unsupported
by any specifics in GingBs Complaint (especially where Ging desescrated 1C: 10<(2*(c* at
every opportunity li?e 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 thin? 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 1< minutes to testify in his own
case in chief (Coughlin was denied the opportunity to cross=e'amine himself for 1< 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
1&/%&
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 >$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 ";E1Bs
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 (";E12
1
, ";E1&
2
*
wor?ed for shortly after all three Echeverria, Elcano, and Elliott attended 1tanford in the late
1,.0Bs out of 3orthern 3evada (see CoughlinBs 121212 E5he 5hree EBsF email to >C(D,
123, etc* can be summed up in the following e'change, where Coughlin forces Echeverria into
ma?ing 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 !i"a"ion or otherwise) (such is especially true when considering the failure to
view as indicated the ta?ing 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 characteriAe non=sanctions, even in civil cases (";E2, ";E&* or civil orders in
criminal settings (";E!
&
, ";E<, ";E10, ";E11
!
* as somehow providing an offensive
collateral estoppel (or worse, 1C: 111(<* conclusive EproofF of a EconvictionF of alleged :(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 ma?ing processes in
matters they presided over)))which ma?es 2eesley and 3ash ;olmes testimony worthless, even
more so than the fact that the EordersF in ";E2,&,!,<,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 3712=020!, :ichard
7) ;ill, EsH),)))especially where, beyond the fact that 2eesley
<
Bs Edecision ma?ingF Emental
processesF were inadmissible (to say nothing of his tac?y violations of 1C: 10<)< 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 mid=6pril 2012, adn where 2eesleyBs testimony was in
no way put forward for Eimpeachment purposesF in violation of 1C: 10<(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
characteriAations and impressions of non=e'perts (whom usually need to be EuninterestedF
rather than, say, an opposing party in a pending litigation, li?e 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
1!/%&
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 ban?ruptcy case (reallyJ* that, vaguely, in general, may were not so great
(though 2eesley completely failed to conte'tualiAe such, ie, indicate whether he ?new them to
be an attorneyBs very first filings in his first ban?ruptcy case, or whether they were the wor? 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*)
5;E "$#:+D6 26: v) C6::+C6:5E, /&& 1o)2d ,/< (1,,,*: E6s is evident
from :espondentBs argument, his attac? on the refereeBs finding boils down to a Huestion of
credibility) ;owever, PQtRhe referee is in a uni8ue posi"ion "o assess "$e !redi6ili"y of
#i"nesses9 (3#5E: such reasoning provides support for the view that a defensive collateral
estoppel bar should apply where the judges entering ";E2,&,! (arguably 3ash ;olmes failed to
refer Coughlin to the 2ar until after the &1212 hearing, and not even after the &/12 and
&,12 filings submitted by facsimile by Coughlin (though &,12 being a "riday, it may be that
Dudge ;olmes did not view such &,12 facsimile submission until &1212** :, and his
judgment regarding credibility should not be overturned absent clear and convincing evidence
that his judgment is incorrect)))
:espondent ne't argues that the referee's finding that he revealed confidential
information in e'cess of that necessary for the defense of the litigation between him and the
companies is erroneous (Coughlin is going !eyond that in arguing such is also inadmissi!le
and su!$ect to a defensive collateral estoppel !ar# 6e!ause none of "$e !ir!ui" or dis"ri!" !our"
;udges inoled in "$a" li"iga"ion found "$a" $is defense of "$e li"iga"ion inoled any
#rongdoing and neer referred any"$ing "o 2$e Florida &ar for dis!iplinary a!"ion) Nota!ly
however, re#/ondent doe# not contend that "$e proprie"y of $is a!"ions in defending "$a"
li"iga"ion #as eer raised during "$ose pro!eedings or spe!ifi!ally addressed 6y any of "$e
;udges inoled)F
#f course, given that the Epropriety of (CoughlinBs* actionsF absolutely was raised in
the matters from which ";E2, &, 10, 11, 12, 1& and the criminal conviction at issue in .0%&%
and attached as E'hibit 1 to GingBs %2&1& Complaint stem) 5o be clear, the :9C and its
Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son, Chief Cler?"iling #fficer 1upervisor Donna 2allard,
and :9C Dudge ;owardBs Cler? of Court @eronica $opeA all failed to comply with 1C:
111(&* (see the 11/12 production at bates 1./2 :9C Court 6dministrator Dac?son sends an
1C: 111 letter for .1,01 on .2112 where she and or the :9C failed to in .0%&% (and who
?nows how many other instances of an attorney being convicted of a crime despite 1C: 111(&*
reHuiring that Ethe cler? 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 6ar !ounsel
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 1C: 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
1</%&
wee?ly studio rental asserting they were entitled to unlawfully enter CoughlinBs rental at any
time whatsoever, at the 1ilver Dollar 9otor $odge, which is indicative of the climate in
>ashoe County as to tenantBs rights*)
"urther, Dudge ;oward at no time ever referred anything from the petty larcency cae
in :9C 11 C: 221/. from which both the petty larceny conviction at issue in the 1C: 111(.*
(etition in .0%&% and the ";E11
/
11&011 E#rder (unishing 1ummary ContemptF spring)
"urther, there is Aero indication that :9C Dudge >) 7ardner, whom presided over
the criminal trespass conviction at issue in the 1C: 111(!* (etition in in .1,01, ever referred
anything related to Coughlin to the 123 or bar counsel, meaning, GingBs reference in his
%2&1& Complaint to the &<12 filing therein by Coughlin of a 9otion to Dismiss, must
necessarily arise from the inclusion of such in the Ebo' of materialsF Dudge ;olmes
%
admits to
putting together for bar counsel in her ";E% &1!12 grievance letter against Coughlin to the
123) ;owever, Dudge ;olmes was not the fact finder in the cases before Dudge ;oward and
Dudge >) 7arnder, and a referral by her relative to those cases, is not at all appropriate) 5he
fact that neither of the judges whom actually presided over those cases felt it necessary to ma?e
any such 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1<
,
referral to the Eappropriate authorityF 123 only
underscores the impropriety in Dudge ;olmesB rapacious and injudicious approach here, which
consisted of allowing unchec?ed the vindictive unprofessional approach of the :9CBs Donna
2allard and Cassandra Dac?son, whom Dudge 3ash ;olmes allowed to throw together a Ebo' of
materialsF and submit to the 123, where Dudge 3ash ;olmes indicates she failed to ma?e any
Canon 2, :ule 2)1< referral to the 123 herself, but rather, provided ";E! to Ging upon his
reHuesting it: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1&2:. to 1&2:10* 5;E >+53E11: <es7 i" #as, 0nd
"$en 5 proided a !opy of "$a" "o )r, =ing a" $is re8ues") 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + believe this
E'hibit ! has been authenticated, and + allow it to be admitted) (E'hibit ! admitted)*F
(2eyond the fact that 2DDC Dudge 7ardner did not ma?e any 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1< referral
to the 123 of ";E& from that family court case, neither did Dudge ;olmes, even, according to
GingBs email to Coughlin indiciating that such was only provided to Ging upon Ging reHuesting
it be sent to him:
:ing<# !1,12 email to Coughlin admits as much: ;*ubEect0 @0 !r. :ing<#
a##ertion in hi# &116112 letter...Fou 2anted to 5no2 ho2 7 learned o% or obtained a co/y o%
"udge =ardnerG# 9rder a%ter trial that 2a# %iled in 2009) 5" #as sen" "o me 6y "$e !ler' of
"$e !our" a" my re8ues"7 pursuan" "o my ines"iga"ion)F
;owever, Ging was attempting to mislead Coughlin there and cover up the
impropriety of 2DDC Dudge 7ardner:9C Dudge >) 7ardner, her brother, poisoning the :9C
well of judges against Coughlin by passing to >) 7ardner her vacated ";E& #rder 6fter 5rial,
which her brother compounded such indiscretion by passing it around to Dudges before whom
Coughlin had actively pending cases, in addition to >) 7ardnerBs patently ridiculous refusal to
refuse himself from the criminal trespass prosecution of Coughlin that became .1,01) Ging
clearly did not want to reveal which Ecler?F of which court had sent to him at his re%uest,
pursuant to his investigation, that ";E&) #nly upon Coughlin cornering Ging and (eters into
admitting just which Ecler?F of which EcourtF provided such to Ging (again, not incident to
some Canon 2, :ule 2)1< referral)))so CoughlinBs defensive collateral estoppel arguments are
intact as to pretty much every e'hibit Gign offered in that respect given such judges (whom, we
1./%&
are constantly told, were there, so there decision ma?ing really should not be Huestioned
lightly, rightJ* decided against ma?ing such a referral (and ;olmes later attempting to
recharacteriAe her actions as such in ";E< are unavailing, especially given her testimony at the
formal disciplinary hearing indicating she only provided her #rder to Ging upon his reHuesting
it: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1&2:. to 1&2:10* 5;E >+53E11: Kes, it was) 6nd then +
provided a copy of that to 9r) Ging at his reHuest) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + believe this E'hibit
! has been authenticated, and + allow it to be admitted) (E'hibit ! admitted)*F
5hat ";E& was three years old at the time where such ";E& #rder 6fter 5rial 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 ;olmes 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 6fter 5rial in ";E& had not had the
attorney fee award therein vacated (and, therefore, ma?ing a legal nullity any of the alleged
EcriticismF of CoughlinBs wor? therein*)
5;E:+68$5 v) D)1) M 7) 61(;6$5, +3C), .1/ 1o)2D !&/ (1,,&*: P5;E
(:+96:K 163C5+#3 sought by the Defense is for the Court to specifically refer this matter
to the "lorida 2ar for further investigation and disciplinary action if appropriate) 2$e Cour"
finds "$a" 6e!ause "$e !ondu!" !omplained of did no" in fa!" o!!ur 6efore "$e Cour" and
further that the Defendant may also directly petition the "lorida 2ar with reference to this
matter, "$a" i" #ould 6e inappropria"e for "$e Cour" "o "a'e fur"$er a!"ion)P
7iven +n :e Carricarte and 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1<, 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 1C: 10<(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 1C: 10<(2*(c*)
Dudith 6) 9c9orrow, Dac?ie 7ardina, and 1alvatore :icciardone) PJudicial
&ttitudes 'oward Confronting &ttorney Misconduct( & )iew *rom the Reported +ecisions,P
;ofstra $aw :eview &2, (200!*: 1!2<=1!/!)
2ut, see, +n re Eicher, ..1 3)>)2D &<!, &/0 (1)D) 200&* (;olding that the failure of
judges in individual cases to report charges of attorney misconduct to the bar did not indicate
that charges lac?ed merit, particularly where each judge Ponly had one incident before themP
and the present court had Pthe benefit of an e'tensive record with multiple complaints )))
1howing similar inappropriate conduct)P*)
+n re Eicher, ..1 3)>)2D &<!, &/0 (1)D) 200&* ("inding that where the trial judge
receives information indicating substantial li?elihood that a lawyer has committed a violation
of the code of professional responsibility, Psimple communication with the lawyer satisfies the
judgeBs ethical dutyP*C Covington v) 1mith, <%2 1)E)2D /<., //2 (>) @a) 200&* (;olding 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)>)2D !1, .&
(1)D) 200&* (P6mong the administrative responsibilities imposed on a judge in Canon &,
therefore, is that of ta?ing or initiating appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or
lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware) 5hus, a judge
1//%&
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)P*)
Dudge Elliott (whom violated Canon 2, :ule 2)1<, especially in his ";E12, and
";E1& #rders in failing to report the willful misconduct of Dudge ;oward in his willfully
violating the 200% +ndigent Defense #rder in denying pre se indigent Coughlin his 1i'th
6mendment right to counsel (see .0%&%* and in failing to report :9C Dudge >) 7ardnerBs
willful failure to transmit CoughlinBs timely under 3:1 1%,)010 3otice of 6ppeal in the
criminal trespass matter of .2%12 (see .1,01* and the dubious chronology related to Coughlin
resubmitting another 3otice of 6ppeal of such .1%12 conviction for trespass on /1012 while
in jail, with Dudge >) 7ardner forcing through a Huic? denial of CoughlinBs .2.12 tolling
motion (which is arguably the functional eHuivalent of a 3otice of 6ppeal* in the same matter,
with his /1112 #rder denying such where the >ashoe County jail then failed to file Coughlin
/1012 3otice of 6ppeal until /1/12)) see :9C 11 C: 2.!0< and the appeal in C:12=12.2
and Dudge >) 7ardnerBs supervisory capacity over ultra shifty Dudicial 6ssistant $isa >agner*
did presided over a multitude of matters wherein Coughlin was a criminal defendant, in
addition to the wrongful termination suit Coughlin brought against >$1, C66>, and 5ahoe
>omenBs 1ervices in C@11=01,<< (see .0&1/* and never once made any such referral of
Coughlin to the 123: 1ee >ade, %&, 6)2D at <.< (Dohnson, D), Concurring* (P+ndeed, we
recogniAe that it is difficult for trial judges to ma?e complaints to the (rofessional
:esponsibility (rogram against lawyers with whom they have to wor? on a day to day basis)
5hat neither defense counsel nor the trial judge here chose to ma?e the referral does not mean
that this Court should also decline to do so) >e are more removed from the wor?ing
relationship between district court judges and the attorneys practicing before them) + am,
therefore, referring this matter to the (rofessional :esponsibility (rogram for further
investigation and appropriate action) P*)
9any of the proposed triggers would be applicable in civil actions as well) +n
addition, disHualification (as a ?ey to conflict=of=interest concerns* and dismissals for failure to
prosecute, pursue an appeal once filed, or appear at a hearing (as a ?ey to competence and
diligence* might be added) +n the latter regard, see D)9D):) .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 five=year period*) # 9any of the proposed triggers would be applicable in civil
actions as well) +n addition, disHualification (as a ?ey to conflict=of=interest concerns* and
dismissals for failure to prosecute, pursue an appeal once filed, or appear at a hearing (as a ?ey
to competence and diligence* might be added) +n the latter regard, see D)9D):) .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 five=year period*)
Consider that in the conte't of >C(D 2iray Dogan, EsH)B1 failure to appear at the
arraignment of 21!12 for the very gross misdemeanor (in violation of 3:1 1/%)&,/* 5hat
:9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes references in her ";E% &1!12 greivance letter to the 123 against
Coughlin, and in GingBs %2&12 Complaint in .2&&/ at para) % 6nd ,) "urther consider the
:DCBs covering for Dogan and failing to refer such failure to appear to the 123, in addition to
1%/%&
GingBs 121&12 letter to Coughlin refusing to even open a grievance against Dogan, non=
sensically referencing some uncited to authority pertaining to civil litigation (3#5E: GingBs
,!12 letter to Coughlin refusing to investigate CoughlinBs grievance against :9C court
appointed defense counsel Geith $oomis, EsH) was rejected by Ging via a nearly verbatim form
letter as well*)
GingBs 121&12 letter to Coughlin reads: E:E: 7rievance 2iray Dogan, EsH)
:eference 3o) /C12-188>
Dear 9r) Coughlin: (lease allow this letter to ac?nowledge receipt of your re!en"
griean!e to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada regarding attorney 2iray Dogan) 6 review of "$e
informa"ion proided indicates that your grievance involves issues best addressed in the
appropriate court settings) 5he #ffice of 2ar Counsel and the disciplinary boards of the 1tate
2ar are not #ub#titute# %or the court #y#tem) 5he *"a"e &ar $as no au"$ori"y "o "a'e any
a!"ion #$i!$ !ould affe!" "$e ou"!ome of any !iil dispu"es or li"iga"ion) 6ccordingly, your
allegations are, at this time, more appropriately handled in the proper judicial forum) 5herefore,
the grievance has been dismissed) 6s such, please consider this matter closed) +f a court ma?es
any findings that clearly establish professional misconduct, you may submit that information
with any supporting documentation for reconsideration) 5han? you for bringing this matterto
the attention of our office) 1incerely, s (atric? #) Ging, 6ssistant 2ar Counsel (#GlpF
GingBs ,!12 letter to Coughlin reads: E1eptember !, 2012 -ach Coughlin ()#) 2o'
&,.1 :eno, 3evada %,<21 :E: 7rievance Geith $oomis, EsH) :eference No, -./-012
(3#5E: the lac? of an E3CF, much less an E37F before the number assigned to this matter*
Dear 9r) Coughlin: (lease allow this letter to ac?nowledge receipt of your 0ugus"
287 2012, grievance to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada regarding attorney Geith $oomis, EsH) 6 review
of !our" re!ords and "$e informa"ion proided indicates that your grievance involves issues
best addressed in the appropriate court settings) 5he #ffice of 2ar Counsel and the disciplinary
boards of the 1tate 2ar are not #ub#titute# %or the court #y#tem) 5he *"a"e &ar $as no
au"$ori"y "o "a'e any a!"ion #$i!$ !ould affe!" "$e ou"!ome of any !iil dispu"es or li"iga"ion)
6ccordingly) Kour allegations are) 6t this time, more appropriately handled in the proper
judicial forum) 5herefore, the grievance has been di smissed) 6s such, please consider this
matter closed) + f a court ma?es any findings that clearly establish professional misconduct, you
may submit that infonnation with any supporting documentation for reconsideration) 5han?
you for bringing this matter to the attention of our office) 1incerely, s (atric? #) Ging
6ssistant 2ar Counsel (#G$F
Ging e'cuse ma?ing is particularly fraudulent where he suggests that the E*"a"e
&ar $as no au"$ori"y "o "a'e any a!"ion #$i!$ !ould affe!" "$e ou"!ome of any !iil dispu"es
or li"iga"ion9 where such rationale certainly never applied to any of CoughlinBs cases
(including the Ecivil disputesF allegedly the subject matter of ;illBs grievance against Coughlin
in 3712=020! relative to the summary eviction proceeding an appeals thereof in :ev2011=
001/0%, C@11=0&.2%, C@11=0&0<1, .0&&1, and .1&%&*) "urther, both CoughlinBs grievance
against >C(D Dogan and :9C court appointed defender $oomis related to their fraudulent
failure to Aealously advocate on CoughlinBs behalf and worse in a criminal defense setting, not a
Ecivil disputeF)
Even though ";E& was not a sanction, where is it misrepresented as such (and even
1,/%&
though such ";E& has been vacated (in addition to the fact that the attorney fee award therein
was for less than O1,000*, and had been at all relevant times in .2&&/* consider: P6s mentioned
at the outset of this section, California not only reHuires lawyers to self=report criminal and
disciplinary sanctions imposed upon them, it also reHuires reporting the imposition of most
court=imposed sanctions and certain lawsuits in which the lawyerLs professional behavior is
called into Huestion) (C6$)281)M(:#")C#DE S .0.%(o**)
>ith respect to court=ordered sanctions, a lawyer must report EQtRhe imposition of
judicial sanctions against the attorney, e'cept for sanctions for failure to ma?e discovery or
monetary sanctions o% le## than one thou#and dollar# BH1'000C) +d) S .0.%(o*(&*C see, e)g),
:iordan, < Cal) 1tate 2ar Ct) :ptr) at !/T!% (sanctioning lawyer for failure to follow this
provision*)
2/02=2/,& =rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&5 ?0 Z. Coughlin' @#A. =0 "udge ,a#h
)olme#
2/0. Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !1,12 email 1ubject: :E: 9r) GingBs assertions in
his &1.12 letter wherein Coughlin denies all allegations
2/1. 2rian 7onsalves, EsH) (C+15ahoe >omenBs 1ervices attorney in C@11=01%,.
(where he appeared despite his client not being a named party* (see .0&02* and in C@11=01,<<
(see .0&1/* email re%erring to other attorney %ee a2ard# ma5e# curiou# :ing<# only
reAue#ting Coughlin /ay )ill<# landlord client<# a2ard in :ing<# clo#ing
argument)
2/1% :DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging containing
documents from :C:2011=0.&&!1 (Dudge 1ferraAAa* and :C:2012=0.<.&0 (Dudge
Clifton* :DC Chief Civil Cler? told Coughlin Dudge Clifton told her not to respond to
CoughlinBs 10&012 1C: 110 subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
!!12 email to Ging regarding E8=tubeF postings E6 1ampling, Events at :9C
&1212C City of :eno 9arshal ;arley, 6llison #rmaasC :9C bounced by :eno 9arshalsF
apparently Coughlin was at the :9C on &1212 and just did not ?now the trial in
2.%00 was continuing)
2/21 :9C Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son email to :9C Dudges fa'ed by 3ash
;olmes just page 2 of & of &2212 1:1/ pm fa' apparently to 123
2/22 list provided to 123 by :9C detailing CoughlinBs offenses between ,,11 and
11212
CoughlinBs criminal history
2/2< i# mi##ing
2/2. ;olmes fa' to 123 of &2212 1:1/ pm page & of & containing CoughlinBs &2212
"#+6 :eHuest and 1econd :ecord :eHuest for audio of 22/12 trial indicating 2allard
indicated CoughlinBs first reHuest for such audio was not processed, and
see?ing anything related to the confiscation of CoughlinBs personal property on 22%12
20/%&
from the >ashoe County jail, reHuesting chain of custody information, :9C 9arshalBs
reports, etc)
2/2/=2/&2 ha# di#/lay i##ue# li?ely :9C defender (uentes 11/12 9otion to
>ithdraw from criminal trespass case before Dudge >) 7ardner in 11 C: 2.!0<
2/&&=2/&! &2/12 #rder in C@11=0&.2% 2DDC Dudge "lanagan appeal of summary
eviction with ;ill and 2a?er as opposing counsel Denying ;illBs 2a?erBs 12112
9otion for #rder to 1how Cause after hearing on &2&12 and &2.12
2/&. :9C Cover 1heet with E$ist of documentsF attached &1&12 details five documents
from traffic case before ;olmes: 22%12 #rder (contempt*C &/12 3otice of
6ppeal, 9tn for :eturn of (ersonal (roperty Confiscated by :9C 9arshals (22!
pages*C &1212 9otion to :eturn Cell (hones (21% pages*C &1212 #rder (< pages*C
&1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document filed on &/12
2/&%=2/&, !1.12 fa' from :9C Dept) 2 (Dudge >) 7ardner* 1 and 2 of 2 page
6rrest :eport and (robable Cause 1heet for 111&12 custodial criminal trespass arrest with
(C 1heet by :(D Carter and ;illBs Criminal Complaint
2/!0=!1 :9C 9arshal ED(F Dean=(ierre 9oster report from 121&11 9arshals Dames
9enAel, 9atthew 5hompsonC >itness 1 Donna 2allard, >itness 2 5om 2artoldo:
2/!2=2/!! :9C 9arshal Dames 9enAel incident report detailing CoughlinBs filing a
3otice of 6ppeal and or 9otion for 3ew 5rial and see?ing a copy of the audio of the 11&011
trial in 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%*, references gossip with :DC Chief 2ailiff 9ichael 1e'ton, well
paid city and county 9arshals and 2ailiffs really donBt li?e wor?ing until closing time
Coppa pulled Deputy Cheung into bac? room of sally bay at jail to discuss such
confiscation*
2/!, &2212 email from Coughlin to Ging 1ubject :e ;ello from -ach Coughlin
referencing 7essin and Christiansen
grie-ance# %iled today #ee5ing material# %rom 26800 and !larifi!a"ion
regarding #$e"$er Judge +, -ardner $erself filed griean!e.
2/<! GingBs email to Coughlin detailing & grievances, lying about ,=12-04&4 being a
grie-ance recei-ed ;from "udge =ardnerF, 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 :9C 9arshals Coppa and
5hompsonBs &2212 report to 123
21/%&
2/<, CoughlnBs &2,12 email to 123 indicating Ging had made no reHuest for any
written response to any grievance by 7ardner or ;olmes, CoughlinBs detailing manipulative
use of CoughlinBs physical stature siAe by Ging, which Ging lied about at 1!1& 5(#
e'tension hearing in :DC :C(2012=000.0/)
2/.0= 4ot# o% email# bet2een Coughlin and the *+, Auite coo/erati-e and re#/on#i-e
to any an all *+, reAue#t# %or in%ormation or coo/eration in any in-e#tigation#
2hether relating to )ill' =ardner' or ,a#h )olme#' etc.
2a?er of 11111, 9achenBs false affidavit regarding Epersonally servingF Coughlin
2! hour loc?out order on 11111 burglary by ;illBs associate 2a?er of that date
2/,0 CoughlinBs &1.12 email to Ging indicating he has yet to finish sending everything
in response to ;illBs grievance)
(purported letter from Ging to Coughlin that Ging was too afraid toconflicted over
to see? admission thereof at 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing* that was Eundeliverable as
2/,& GingBs &1.12 letter to Coughlin indicating the #2C Ehas received several
grievances concerning your conduct as a lawyer)))+ will ma?e available for your
review and inspection the supporting documents and audio recordingsF
>hat 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,<< =rie-ance (ile >,=12-0204 ?0 Zachary Coughlin =0 ichard )ill' @#A.
2,<. Copy of envelope 81(1 Certified 9ail I /010 2/%0 000& <!2, .</% 123 sent to
Coughlin on &1.12 with 81(1 yellow stic?er E./0&+1 2O FO3403D FO3
31V514F dated &&112
2,<% &1.12 letter from 123 Ging to Coughlin regarding Eseveral grievancesF oddly
placed with ;illBs grievance file when &1.12 letter references EDustice CourtF (so, there, Ging,
li?e with the Dudge $) 7ardner EgrievanceF in 3712=0!&<, 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 ;ill and the :9C*
2,<, 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 $) 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial, ";E& compare E<F in E1<F of
E:eceived 9ar 1< 2012F to other versions (ditto*
2,/< .2<12 #rder by 2DDC Dudge "lanagan in C@11=0&.2% O!2,0.< attorney fee award
(3#5 6 163C5+#3*
2,/, 123 2ar Counsel Clar? forwards on CoughlinBs 12&12 self report of conviction in
22/%&
.0%&% to Ging and (eters
2,%1 ";E/ CoughlinBs &,12 fa' to 123 reg 21!12 letter from Ging only received on
&,12, reAue#ting all corre#/ondence be co/ied -ia email and %a8 due to
ob#truction o% Coughlin<# mail B2hich' o% cour#e' :ing' Peter#' and the *+, %ail
to do...#o much %or that *94?C@ /rogram' huhDC
298& *+, :ing<# 2114112 letter to Coughlin
2,%! 123 GingBs letter to ;ill regarding grievance ;ill purportedly emailed to Ging,
compare to the letter Ging sent Coughlin refusing to investigate CoughlinBs
grievances against :9C defender $oomis and >C(D Dogan)
2,%< GingBs email to Clar? and (eters detailing youtube video of %2011 :(D
misconduct in wrongful arrest of Coughlin at issue in :DC :C:2011=0.&&!1
containing ;illBs forward to Ging of CoughlinBs email to >C1#, >C(D, :C6,
;illBs associate 2a?er, etc) of 21012 detailing 2a?er and >C1# Deputy 9achenBs
burglary of 11111 in :ev2011=001/0%, C@11=0&.2% at 121 :iver :oc?
&00! CoughlinBs 11!12 #pposition to 9otion for 6ttorney "ees in C@11=0&.2%
detailing ;illBs misconduct incident to CoughlinBs 11212 jaywal?ing arrest in front
of 121 :iver :oc? former home law office)
&01&=&01/ ;illBs 11!12 email to Ging, five page grievance, unsigned, unsworn (interstingly,
either ;ill failed to really include such EdisclosuresF or Ging e'cised such,
inappropriately, from this &,0,! 1C: 10<(2*(c* production of 11/12, causing much
prejudice to CoughlinBs defense)
&01%=&0!& =rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&4 ?0 Zachary Coughlin =0 "udge 4inda
=ardner
&01, =&0!& purported printout of &1<12 regarding prosecutorial misconduct in
various states summaries thereof from
http:AachcoughlinesH)wordpress)com
with header that reads E(age 1 of 10,!F and a stamped E"K+F seemingly
superimposed on the first page) (3#5E: nothing to indicate anything was
received from 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner*)
&0!% CoughlinBs application for legal defender and 102/11 :9C Dudge
;oward #rder Denying $egal Defender
&0<0 :C6 (amela :oberts, EsH) #pposition to 9otion for 3ew 5rial of
122111 in 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%* (3#5E: lac?s the actual e'hibits to
such motion, and instead is misleadingly followed by the E'hibits to
GingBs 101<11 1C: 111(!* (etition in .1,01
&0.< 1C: 111(!* (etition in .1,01 of 101<12
&0// .0%&% #rder of 5emporary 1uspension and :eferral to Disciplinary
2oard of ./12
&0%0 1C: 111(.* (etition in .0%&%
2&/%&
&0,1 <%12 stamped 81(1 Domestic :eturn :eceipt (1 "orm &%11 .0%&%
Certified 9ailing /010 2/%0 000& <!2, ./<2
6lso, 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
;olmes (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 tac? such a chargeconviction of such a charge (based upon some apparent
amendment to GingBs Complaint that Echeverria saw fit to ma?e, sua sponte, at some point
during the hearing or thereafter, even, 1C: 11, Etranscript reHuests must be made to 2ar
CounselF be damned* also manages to elucidate the e'tent to which, li?e Ging, the (anel and
Echeverria were just too plain laAy and corrupt to even begin attempting to prove, via the
admission of admissible evidence, any of the violations of the :ules of (rofessional Conduct
they accused Coughlin of committing)
6s such, they were left comparing 1tephen :) ;arris, EsH)Bs apples
(misappropriating O/<<,000 form clients he represented before 3@2 Dudge 2eesley, whom
served as character witness for ;arris, somehow, at ;arris 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 >al=9art located on land it
rents from the :eno 1par?s +ndian Colony, incident to a wrongful arrest by a Etribal police
officerF violative of both 3:1 1/1)1&. and 3:1 1/1)12<< (where the :eno City 6ttorney
prosecutor (amela :oberts, EsH), committed willful prosecutorial misconduct in so
countenancing, especially in light of her compounding such misdeeds by then suborning the
perjury of :1+C #fficer Cameron Crawford and >al=9artBs 5homas "rontino incident to their
lies that Coughlin failed to provide the :1+C #fficer sufficient EidentifcationF, such as a
3evada driverBs license, sufficient to allow for an e'ception to the bar against ma?ing 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 9elts recovered from CoughlinBs
poc?ets incident to such search belonged to the very Duract Cough 9elt pac?age (same 8(C,
e'actly* that appeared on the receipt for O%&)%2 worth of groceries that >al=9art admitted
Coughlin purchased immediately prior to the arrest (especially where >al=9artBs "rontino lied
about that as well, where "rontino testified that Coughlin made no such purchase of Duract
Cough 9elts incident to such receipt for O%&)%2 worth of groceries, despite the fact that the
8(C of just those Duract Cough 9elts appears on that very receipt for the O%&)%2 worth of
groceries Coughlin purchased immediately prior to the wrongful arrest)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages /!:11 to /<:/* E9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he issue here,
sir, as + understand the supreme courtBs order with respect to your conviction of theft, and "$e
issues $ere #i"$ respe!" "o "$e o"$er griean!es "$a" $ae 6een filed agains" you are "o "$e
e?"en" as "o #$a"7 if any7 s$ould 6e "$e punis$men" "$a" you s$ould sus"ain as a resul" of
your !ondu!", )3, CO.-%+5/@ <e" "$is is en"ered in"o eiden!e) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
2!/%&
5his is whatJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 5his order has been entered into evidence) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: E'hibit 2 has) 9:) C#87;$+3: 2ut itBs not pled in any complaint) Dudge
"lanaganBs not a grievant) + wasnBt noticed that that was the purpose of this hearing to some
e'tent today) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou were noticed that the issue of your conviction of
trespass was an issue, that your handling of that case was an issue, and itBs relevant as to that)
3ow, if you have some more Huestions of 9r) ;ill, please as? them, and letBs move on)F
6nd, those apples and oranges just do not compare all that well, revealing the
incestuous, immoral, and corrupt cess pool that the 33D2 and 123 have become, and may
well have always been where, as the email from 1ilverman that Coughlin copied into his
101.12 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause ma?es clear, the failure to even temporarily suspend
;arris, and his ultimate mere three month suspension from the practice of law truly provides a
E>5"F moment, indeed) (and, to be sure and clear, this is not anti=1tephen :) ;arris, he is a
good guy, and a very talented attorney (as nearly ever single last attorney who managed to pass
the bar e'amination in 3evada necessarily had to be* who has overcome a lot and is an
inspiration*) 5his is anti=(at Ging, Dohn Echeverria (and the dead weight, at best, along for the
ride with him on the (anel*, (aul Elcano, 2eesley, :ichard 7) ;ill, ;olmes, ;oward,
1ferraAAa, etc), etc)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1,:, to 20:12* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Dudge 2eesley,
did you testify on behalf of 1tephen :) ;arris recentlyJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) :elevance)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he relevance, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + didnBt hear Dudge
2eesley again) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hat doesnBt matter) 9:) C#87;$+3: +t doesnBt matter
that (at can hear him, but + canBt hear himJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o) + canBt hear the judge
either, because you interrupted him) 9:) C#87;$+3: Dust nowJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes)
5hereBs an objection as to relevancy as to whether or not what relevancy == 9:) C#87;$+3:
+ objected) + didnBt interrupt him) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + as?ed you to e'plain the relevancy)
9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) +Bm trying to remember the Huestion) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he
Huestion was did he testify on behalf of 9r) ;arris) 5he relevance of that issue in this
proceedingJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, + thin? it provides a basis for me comparing Dudge
2eesleyBs response to me being evicted to his response to 9r) ;arrisBs issues) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: #verruled == +Bm sorry, sustained) 3e't Huestion, please)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1,:, to 20:12* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Dudge 2eesley,
did you testify on behalf of 1tephen :) ;arris recentlyJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) :elevance)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he relevance, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + didnBt hear Dudge
2eesley again) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hat doesnBt matter) 9:) C#87;$+3: +t doesnBt matter
that (at can hear him, but + canBt hear himJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o) + canBt hear the judge
either, because you interrupted him) 9:) C#87;$+3: Dust nowJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes)
5hereBs an objection as to relevancy as to whether or not what relevancy == 9:) C#87;$+3:
+ objected) + didnBt interrupt him) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + as?ed you to e'plain the relevancy)
9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) +Bm trying to remember the Huestion) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he
Huestion was did he testify on behalf of 9r) ;arris) 5he relevance of that issue in this
proceedingJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, + thin? it provides a basis for me comparing Dudge
2eesleyBs response to me being evicted to his response to 9r) ;arrisBs issues) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: #verruled == +Bm sorry, sustained) 3e't Huestion, please)F
2</%&
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &0:1 to &1:.* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >e too? that
testimony under consideration of your objection) $etBs hear your objection, 9r) Coughlin) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) >ell, + believe Dudge 2eesley was identified in a supplement to 9r)
GingBs, +Bll call it a Dow1oE, and + hope the panel will ?now what + mean, designation of
witnessBs summary of evidence) +Bve shortened it in my filings) >hich, incidently, 1C: 10<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) 5hat 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) 5his panel wasnBt even
empaneled until, + believe the order was #ctober &0th) 9r) 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) 6nd 1teve ;arris, who the judge
testified to, who was == he admitted to misappropriating %00G) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r)
;arris is not the subject matter of this hearing) Kou are) 9:) C#87;$+3: ;e got David
7rundy) 6nd he got his Dow1oE sent by the panel) 6nd he got his full &0 days) 6nd + sent that
forward == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm not concerned with 9r) ;arris)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &1%:12 to &20:!* 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) >e have
heard today a multitude of reasons why these, Huote=unHuote, 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) +<m a licen#ed -- 7<-e been a licen#ed /atent attorney 2ith the
Inited *tate# Patent and 6rademar5 9%%ice) (3#5E: Coughlin is a licensed patent attorney
with the 81(5#, and has not ever been, nor is he currently (obviously* suspended by the
81(5#, which spea?s to the 1C: 11! analysis: https:oedci)uspto)gov#EDC+geo:egion)doJ
regionV3E@6D6Mregion+DV3@ * 5hereBs a couple of those, maybe, in town) (3#5E:
Coughlin was not very well informed on that count, as there is twenty=si' licensed patent
attorneys listed for :eno, 3@C however, that is hardly dispositive of whether each is actively
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)orgarticlescontentnevada=selected=patent=pilot=program=jurisdiction *
:espectfully, your ;onor, +Bll just note that one of the bases for recently reinstating 9r) ;arris
was Dudge 2eesley testifying that heBs one of the very few Chapter 11 ban?ruptcy attorneys in
town who has a certain level of s?ill and acumen == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, )r,
%arris(s si"ua"ion is no" 6efore us, and + would li?e you to address your situation) 9:)
C#87;$+3: + am, sir) +Bm only mentioning that, because it seems to be a factor == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5"(s no" in eiden!e een) (3#5E: strange, Echeverria failed to point out that
GingBs merely arguing something failed to put it in evidence)))* (lease proceed) 9:)
C#87;$+3: 5he law decisions, you can cite to other discipline matters, published or not with
respect to) 6nd 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) 5he fact that +Bm a
patent attorney, + believe == + donBt ?now, but + thin? + still might be an attorney, because the
8nited 1tates (atent and 5rademar? #ffice says so) +n fact, a suspended attorney may still
practice in some ban?ruptcy courts, even if they only have one 1tate 2ar license, and itBs
2./%&
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, + ?now him, + see him on 5hursdays, 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) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 0pparen"ly7 5(m no" ma'ing myself ery !lear, 5
#ould really li'e you "o address your si"ua"ion7 and no" )r, %arris(s si"ua"ion. Could you do
that for usJF
"urther, at one point during the trial from which ";E& stems, 2DDC Dudge $)
7ardner warned Coughlin that he might be held in contempt) ;owever, ultimately he was not
held in contempt) ;ow then can the 123 and (anel purport to find ";E& provides a basis for
finding Coughlin to have violated the following (ie, where the (anel purports the two Ecriminal
contempt
10
F 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 :(C &)< (conduct disrupting a tribunal*, how then can not Dudge $)
3ardner's failure to hold Coughlin in contempt (much less her choice not to ta?e any
Eappropriate action
11
F via reporting any perceived misconduct by Coughlin to the 123 (the
Eappropriate authorityF* per 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1< (especially vis a vis the (anelBs
Econclusions of lawF that ";E somehow buttresses concluding that Coughlin violated :(C 1)1
ECompetenceF and :(C &)<)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 ";E& springs attempts to ta?e (particularly where ";E&, 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 3:1 /)0%< other than that provided in 3:1 /)0%<(2*, which spea?s
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
(5he (anel concluded that E7m/artiality and $ecorum o% the 6ribunalW
(++* :(C &)<(d* states P6 lawyer shall not engage in !ondu!" intended to disrup" a
tribunal
(DD* 5he disruption must have occurred in the courtroom) 9ne cannot di#ru/t a
tribunal 2ith !ondu!" ou"side o% the courtroom) +n re 9ichael 1tuhff, 10% 3ev) .2,, %&/()2d
%<& (1,,2*
(GG* 5he record overwhelmingly, clearly and convincingly establishes that
Coughlin repeatedly conducts himself in a manner that is disruptive of the tribunal #$ile in "$e
!our"room)
($$* 5he various orders A/O21@ #$ere :orders9 differ from "$e :;udgmen"s of
!oni!"ion9 inoled in :!riminal !oni!"ions9B of contempt or imposing san!"ions issued by
Dudges "enneth 7ardner (B,96@0 Chair @che-erria erred here in mi#ta5enly re%erring to
"udge :enneth )o2ard thu#lyCC, +inda -ardner, Dorothy 3ash ;olmes and (atric?
"lanagan each describe a similar pattern of conduct and behavior that is intentionally disruptive
of the tribunal) 1upra (ara) !, /, 10, 21 and 25
(E2C, Dudge 7ardnerBs order in the Jos$i matter indi!a"ed "$a"
Coug$lin $ad !ondu!"ed no dis!oery in "$e !ase and failed to present any documentary
evidence at the trial of the matter on behalf of his client 9rs) Doshi) 1ee ;earing E'hibit ( 12,
2//%&
$ !=.) (E6t trial, 9r) 1pringgate stated that 9r) Coughlin had conducted no discovery in this
case) +n addition, 9r) Coughlin failed to present one documentary piece of evidence at trial on
behalf of 9s) DoshiBs claims) 9r) Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court)))4*
#bviously, the (anel attempts to mislead in its paraphrasing of the above citation to
Dudge $) 7ardnerBs #rder (the entire record in that Doshi divorce matter in D@0%=011.% was
provided to the 123 and (anel and can be found here:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.<%!02<,/=1=0%=to=%=!=0,=D@0%=011.%=1tac?ed=Combined=
#cr=6,=Entire=Case=020!=0!&<=0!&!=.0&02=.0&1/=01,<<=01%,.=1pringgate=>$1=2DDC=$=
7ardner=#cr=.2&&/ "urther, also provided to both was the entire record from the appeal and
petition for e'traordinary writ of mandamus that Coughlin filed in response to ";E&, which is
publicly available at the 3evada 1upre CourtBs website for cases <&%&& and <!%!!*, as Dudge $)
7ardner is an old e'acting tennis player (li?e 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 5uesday 3ight Caughlin Club 9enBs 5ennis $eagues circa 1,%%=,0
where CoughlinBs uncle, legendary 2ellevue, >ashington condominium construction defect
plaintiffBs attorney 2o 2ar?er, EsH), played tennis for the 8niversity of 9ichigan and semi=pro
in Europe for a time* (some might say, put it this way, thereBs a reason she is a district court
judge and her older brother is a municipal court judge (who still needs to learn when to bac? up
off of it and set his cup down* and why she was a star athlete and he was)))meh)))and, of course
she is annoyed with his ta?ing a vacated three year old attorneyBs fees award (not a sanction*
order she provided him in ";E& only for him to then attempt to wrec? municipal court shop
with it instead of do his job (or, as >) 7ardner purported, to have passed such to his fellow
:9C judges, including 3ash ;olmes, whom, totally unbe?nownst to him (in an echo of Dudge
DilworthBs indications that Dudge 3ash ;olmes had no damn business purporting to spea? for
him and all the other municipal court judges in her ";E% &1!12 grievance letter regarding
Coughlin sent only to the 123* the provided such to the 123 as part of the Ebo' of materialsF
reference in ";E%*, and would never enter any such order EconcludingF that Coughlin Ehad
conducted no discovery in the caseF when she ?nows very well such was not an issue in the
EcaseF (ie, not actually litigated, and not at issue in the trial or EnecessaryF to the judgment or
decree therein entered*)
;ow humiliating must it be, some might say, for a Ementally illFFHuic?ly
decompensatingF thirty si' year old temporarily suspended attorney whom she alleged Emay be
living in his carF to completely destroy her as a member of the judiciary and former duly
elected >ashoe County District 6ttorney on cross=e'amination in less than ten minutes despite
a completely in the can (anelJ
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1<!:& to 1<!:2<* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Did you or
anyone with the :eno 9unicipal Court transmit or otherwise deliver Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs
order for sanctions to the 1tate 2ar of 3evadaJ 6 (D8D7E 361; ;#$9E1* +Bm sorry) +
didnBt hear all that) Did + whatJ KouBll have to repeat the Huestion) U Did you or anybody
with your court, the :eno 9unicipal Court, transmit or otherwise deliver Dudge $inda
7ardnerBs 6pril 200, order sanctioning me to the 1tate 2ar of 3evadaJ 6 +Bm sorry) Deliver to
whomJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he 1tate 2ar, Dudge) 5;E >+53E11: O$, 0f"er == le" me
e?plain 8ui!'ly) 9y trial was my first e'perience in e'posure to 9r) Coughlin) 6fter
2%/%&
everything happened, and + held him in contempt, "$en Judge -ardner "old me "$a" $is
sis"er
12
7 Judge -ardner7 $as a life e?perien!e #i"$ )r, Coug$lin7 and $e proided me a !opy
of $er opinion from a !ouple years earlier) &nd that may have !een in the pac5age 6
forwarded to the !our" . + forwarded eery"$ing + could possibly include that would s$o# )r,
Coug$lin(s a6ili"y "o pra!"i!e la#) +ncluding 9r) CoughlinBs 200=page motion that he fa'ed to
the court)F*)
#f course, its not li?e the #2CBs (atric? #) Ging, EsH), and E+nvestigator(aralegalF
$aura (eters get paid actual money to Ereasonably investigateF such allegations, rightJ 5hey
are volunteers, rightJ 7npaid volunteers8 3oJ 5hey get paid for the drec? they have
produced in this matter ma?ing a dumpster grease fire of a broad cross=section of the judiciary
in >ashoe County with their malignant negligenceJ #h, my)
3onetheless, where Dudge $) 7ardner merely indicates that E6t trial, 9r) 1pringgate
stated that 9r) Coughlin had conducted no discovery in this caseF, the (anel commits its own
:(C %)2 violation in engaging in Ebad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processF where it
attempts to mislead the Court by misHuoting such citation as indicating that E Dudge 7ardnerBs
order in the Doshi matter indi!a"ed "$a" Coug$lin $ad !ondu!"ed no dis!oery in "$e !ase9,
1uch is the falacious non=sense that Echeverria and his ragtag crew of miscreants (@ellis, Gent,
Dohnson, and (earl* attempt to pull over on everyone)
6dditionally as can be found in CoughlinBs 102%0, (etition for >rit of 9andamus
(which was provided to the (anel and the #2C well prior to the 111!12 formal hearing,
where such reads:
E+n adversary ban?ruptcy 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) 7n e
Cou/e, (1,%<, 2C 3D #hio* <1 2: ,&,)
9r) Coughlin #as seriously limi"ed in #$a" eiden!e $e !ould produ!e 6y "$e
Dis"ri!" Cour"s ruling7 in response "o a miss"a"emen" of /eada la# 6y )r, *pringga"e7 "$a"
)s, Jos$i #ould no" 6e allo#ed "o admi" any eiden!e #$a"soeer of domes"i! iolen!e7 for
purposes of ei"$er a dis"ri6u"ion of proper"y/de6" or alimony !al!ula"ion7 despi"e "$e fa!" "$a"
/eada la# allo#s for su!$ eiden!e "o 6e in"rodu!ed (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*) >heeler v) 8pton=>heeler, 11& 3ev) 11%<, ,!. ()2D 200 (1,,/*C and
Pre/etiti-e act# o% /hy#ical or mental abu#e by one #/ou#e Jcau#ing a condition in the
inEured #/ou#e 2hich generate# e8/en#e or a%%ect# that /er#on<# ability to 2or5) :odrigueA
v) :odrigueA, 11. 3ev) ,,&, ,,%=,,, 1& ()&D !1< (2000*) "urther, 9r) Coughlin did pu"
2,/%&
on a mul"i"ude of eiden!e in suppor" of )s, Jos$i(s !laims) 9s) Doshi "es"ified as "o "$e
fa!"ors in an alimony and or proper"y dis"ri6u"ion analysis so #ell "$a" "$e Dis"ri!" Cour" #as
moed "o a#ard $er alimony and a lesser por"ion of "$e !ommuni"y de6")))6fter the the
District Court had sanctioned (3#5E: actually, ";E& was not a EsanctionF but Elcano and
>$1 were so obstructive during the scant time Coughlin had to prepare this, his first (etition
for >rit that his analysis suffered* 9r) Coughlin for not putting on a colorable !laim in either
regard))) 5he District Court made "$e seemingly in!ongruous ruling in i"s Final Order
a#arding )s, Jos$i alimony and a lesser de6" appor"ionmen" after 9r) Coughlin had ceased
representing 9s) Doshi)F
(Consider: Com/etence
(;* :(C 1)1 states P6 lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client)
Competent representation reHuires the legal ?nowledge, s?ill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation)P
(+* 5he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin lac?s the
com/etency to represent clients, including himself)
(D* "irst, the record demonstrates seere !ri"i!ism (3#5E: >hatJ 3o
characteriAation of ";E& as a EsanctionFJ* by the trial court in the handling of the Jos$i
(3#5E: ";E&, Dudge $) 7ardner* matter, including CoughlinBs la!' of unders"anding of a
6alan!e s$ee", his failure to !ondu!" discovery, his la!' of 'no#ledge of "$e rules of eiden!e
and "rial pro!edure) 1upra 2< (E2C, Dudge 7ardnerBs order in the Doshi matter indi!a"ed "$a"
Coug$lin $ad !ondu!"ed no dis!oery in "$e !ase and failed to present any documentary
evidence at the trial of the matter on behalf of his client 9rs) Doshi) 1ee ;earing E'hibit ( 12,
$ !=.) (E6t trial, 9r) 1pringgate stated that 9r) Coughlin had conducted no discovery in this
case) +n addition, 9r) Coughlin failed to present one documentary piece of evidence at trial on
behalf of 9s) DoshiBs claims) 9r) Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court)))4*)
"+3D+371 #" "6C5 63D C#3C$81+#31 #" $6> of 121!12 in 123 v) -achary
2ar?er Coughlin, 3712=020!, 3712=0!&!, and 3712=0!&< reads:
P5;+1 9655E: came before a designated "ormal ;earing (anel of the 3orthern
3evada Disciplinary 2oard (the P(anelP* for hearing on >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012) 5he
(anel consisted of Dohn () Echeverria, EsH), ChairmanC $ay=9ember Garen (earl, 1tephen
Gent, EsH), Clar? @) @ellis, EsH), and 9ichael G) Dohnson, EsH )) 5he 1tate 2ar of 3evada (the
P1tate 2arP* appeared and was represented by Deputy 2ar Counsel, (atric? #) Ging, EsH)
1&
5he
:espondent, -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, 3evada 1tate 2ar 3o) ,!/& (the P:espondentP or
PCoughlinP* appeared in propria persona)
(7,$7,=* 9( (?C6
2ased upon the pleadings filed, the documentary evidence admitted as ;earing E'hibits
1 through 1., and the testimonial evidence of the ;onorable Dudge 2ruce 2eesley
1!
, :ichard
;ill
1<
, EsH), (aul Elcano, EsH), the ;onorable Dudge Dorothy 3ash ;olmes, -achary 2)
&0/%&
Coughlin, EsH) and 9ary 2ar?er presented at the hearing of these proceedings, the (anel ma?es
findings of facts as
follows:
1) Coughlin is an attorney licensed to practice law in the 1tate of 3evada)
0" all relean" "imes prior "o and a" "$e "ime of "$e filing of "$e Complain" in this matter, the
3esponden"(s prin!iple offi!e' a# %iled 2ith the *tate +ar o% ,e-ada in accordance 2ith the
ule o% Pro%e##ional conduct BJPCJC 79B1CBaC' 2a# Po#t 9%%ice +o8 &961' eno' ,V
89505) 1ee ;earing E'hibit 1 at 0001, lines /=10 (E1tate 2ar of 3evada vs) -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH), Case 3o: 3712=020!, 3712=0!&<, 3712=0!&!F*, Complain" a" D1 (filed
6ugust 2&, 2012*) (3#5E: such citation yields only: P-6C;6:K 2) C#87;$+3, E1U), 2ar
3o) ,!/& :espondent) ($E61E 56GE notice that pursuant to 1upreme Court :ule (P1C:P*
10<(2* aP*)
2) Coughlin was admitted as a member of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada on 9arch
2<, 200<) 1ee ;earing E'hibit 1 at 0001, lines /=% (1tate 2ar of 3evada vs) -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH), Case 3o: 3712=020!, 3712=0!&<, 3712=0!&!, Complaint at (1 (filed 6ugust
2&, 2012*) (P-6C;6:K 2) C#87;$+3, E1U), 2ar 3o) ,!/&F*)
&) #n 1eptember ,, 2011, Coughlin s$oplif"ed a !andy 6ar and !oug$
drops from a 4al-)ar" s"ore #i"$ an appro?ima"e alue of four"een dollars AE1F,00B) #n
3ovember &0, 2011, 9unicipal Court Dudge Genneth :) ;oward found Coughlin guilty of the
offense of (etit $arceny, a violation of :9C %)10)0!0) Coughlin a//ealed the ;udgmen" of
!oni!"ion)
1.
#n 9arch 1<, 2012, the ;onorable District Court Dudge 1teven () Elliott
a%%irmed "$e ;udgmen" of !oni!"ion on appeal) 1ee ;earing E'hibit 1 at 0002, p) <, lines 11=
1<C (1tate 2ar of 3evada vs) -achary 2) Coughlin, EsH), Case 3o: 3712=020!, 3712=0!&<,
3712=0!&!, Complaint at (2 (filed 6ugust 2&, 2012*)
(3#5E: CoughlinBs 121&11 3otice of 6ppeal 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 :9C a couple times
recently, including today, and sent in another written reHuest see?ing an audio tape of the 5rial
in :9C 11 C: 221/.
1/
+C 110.2/ :1+C but was told by a Cler? that + would need to pay for
the entire 5rial 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 5rial to finish my :ule <,, .0, and 9otion for :econsideration 9otions))))+ will pay for the
audio) + have received many audio cddvdBs from both :eno Dustice Court and >ashoe District
Court, and it was announced in court that the trial was being audio recorded, as such, + hope
you will afford me a copy) 5oday, + called the :9C and spo?e 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 6mendment :ight 5o 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 :9C 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 Huic?ly ater Dudge ;oward concluded issuing his oral
&1/%&
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))))5hen a few 9arshalls place some pieces of paper in front
of me and demanded + sign them, and became angry, li?e @eronica and li?e 9arshall 9onte, +
believe, was at the arraignment, when + as?ed a simple Huestion related to due process,
something many at the :9C do not seem all that enamored with) + as?ed if + could even read
the papers they were demanding + sign right then and there) 5he curtly and loudly said no, then
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 7uilty @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 :elief "rom Dudgment 9otions) @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
:9C with my new address of: %1/ 3) @irginia 1t) I2, :eno 3@ %,<01 and filing an official
Change of 6ddress with the 81(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 3:1 !0)2<&)
3ot only was + denied my 1i'th 6mendment :ight to Counsel where jail time was a
possibility (and where, +, in fact was jailed, immediately*) +n re >hitney, 1! Cal)!5h 1 3ote:
>e also accept the commissionBs conclusion that Dudge >hitneyBs 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 6dams v) Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,,<* 10 Cal)!5h %.., %//=%/%
Q!2 Cal):ptr)2D .0., %,/ ()2D <!!RC 7ubler v) Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%!* &/
Cal)&D 2/, !.=!/, <, Q20/ Cal):ptr) 1/1, .%% ()2D <<) Gloepfer v) Commission on Dudicial
(erformance (1,%,* !, Cal)&D %2., %&%T%.&, 2.! Cal):ptr) 100, /%2 ()2D 2&, Qwillful and
prejudicial misconduct for failing to protect the rights of defendants, and abuses of power
involving contempt procedure, orders to show cause, and bench warrantsRC Cannon v)
Commission on Dudicial Uualifications, supra, 1! Cal)&D ./%, .,&T.,!, 122 Cal):ptr) //%, <&/
()2D %,% Qfailure to follow the law regarding contempt proceduresR)*
+ was denied a continuance in this matter despite a written assent to one by :eno
City 6ttorney (am :oberts and despite the fact that the ) :eno City 6ttorney was given one by
my supposed appointed counsel $ew 5aitel (whom is Passociated withP
( http:www)nevcs)comattorney)html * an entity that + happen to be suing 3evada Court
1ervices, incident to the same eviction proceeding for which 9r) 5aitel did grant, and the :9C
did grant, a continuance in the other :9C case against me, the trespass action that was set for
trial on December 1&th, because :ichard 7) ;ill, who + am also suing in connection with the
wrongful eviction against, was going to be on vacation and the :9C apparently found that a
good reason for a continuance, compared to the :9C 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 :ichard ;ill applied an unlawful rent
distraint upon many e'culpatory materials that would spea? to a stated and e'press retaliatory
&2/%&
motive on the part of >almart and the :1+C, and other e'culpatory materials being wrongfully
withheld under an unlawful rent distraint by :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), the same person 9r) 5aitel,
the :eno City 6ttorney, and the :9C decided deserved such sanctity applied to his monthlong
vacation from 5han?sgiving to 3ew KearBs to grant a continuance, with no input from me)
"6+$8:E 5# 6""#:D 1+45; 69E3D9E35 :+7;5 5# C#831E$ #:
7:635 DE963D "#: D8:K 5:+6$C another DE963D "#: D8:K 5:+6$ ;E:E2K
96DE +3 E@E35 #" 3E> 5:+6$, 1+9+$6:$K :EU8E15 "#: +3 "#:96
(68(E:+1 156581 ;E:E2K 96DE 63D 18((#:5ED 2K 6556C;ED +"(
(E5+5+#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
1C: 111(.* EseriousF offense nature of the crime and CoughlinBs being a then licensed
attorney, which Coughlin made :9C Dudge ;oward well aware of) Coughlin had never
wor?ed on a single criminal law matter in all his e'periences in the law at that time) "urhter,
CoughlinBs 102.11 6pplication 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 >hitney,
(1,,.*, 1! Cal) !th 1 Q<. Cal) :ptr) 2d /0<, ,22 ()2d %.%R, and +iscipl, Counsel v, 9lum :;:
N,9, .d .<: establish that such willful refusal to obey such #rder by the :9CBs Dudge ;oward
is willful judicial misconduct, as such a Claiborne 1C: 11! (so lac?ing in fundamental notions
of due process* type of approach is in order)))further the 81(5# 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 1C: 111(.*)
&2 ;ofstra $) :ev) 12!< ;ofstra $aw :eview 1ummer 200! $egal Ethics
Conference: PDudging DudgesB EthicsP 6rticles 5;E $+3E 2E5>EE3 $E76$ E::#: 63D
D8D+C+6$ 9+1C#3D8C5: 26$63C+37 D8D+C+6$ +3DE(E3DE3CE 63D
6CC#83562+$+5K
6dditionally, all the attendant circumstances ma?e Dudge ;owardBs conduct even
more suspect (including :9C 9arshal 9enAels castigating Coughlin at the 101111
arraignment held in violation of 3:1 1/%)!0< where :9C Dudge >) 7ardner refused to
disclose to Coughlin the names of prospective court appointed counsel, which resulted in
Coughlin being assigned counsel, $ew 5aitel, EsH), whom is a business partner of the
unauthoriAed practitioners of law, 3evada Court 1ervices, that Coughlin was suing at the time
in C@11=0&0<1, a case involving the very same wrongful summary eviction from CoughlinBs
law office as the criminal trespass matter in which 5aitel was appointed for a time)))but, to be
clear, it was in the >almart candy barcough drops petty larceny case that :9C Dudge ;oward
denied Coughlin counsel in his 102/11 #rder denying CoughlinBs 102.11 6pplication for
Court 6ppointed Counsel)
C#3C$81+#3 Defendant6ppelant Coughlin $ere6y respe!"fully re8ues"s all
Orders7 Coni!"ions7 Judgmen"s7 Con"e mp" Findings, whatever, stemming from the
3ovember &0th, 2011 5rial be @acated or 1et 6side or :econsidered)) E
1omehow, the #2CBs Ging thought :9C Dudge ;owardBs 121<11 #rder in the
&&/%&
matter that became .0%&% supports the 123Bs case, when, in reality, it does nothing more than
illustrate the injustice in both denying Coughlin court appoint counsel where he met the 200%
+ndigent Defense #rderBs per se less than 200X of the federal poverty standard guideline
(Coughlin listed his yearly income at appro'imately O10,000, which was 100X of the federal
poverty guideline, so, far below the 200X benchmar?)
;owever, all ";E 10, :9C ;owardBs 121<11 #rder serves to do is illustrate how
!omple"ely ou" of !on"rol and inappropria"e Judge %o#ard(s approa!$ #as in "$a" ma""er7
and "erri6ly 6iased "o#ards "$e !i"y a""orney7 and indi!"ie "o#ards Coug$lin spe!ifi!ally i"
#as "o 6oo", where such reads:
E#n 3ovember &0, 2011, Defendant Coughlin was found guilty of the offense of
(etit $arceny, a violation of :9C %)10)0!0) 5hereafter, 6ppellant filed his 3otice of 6ppeal
on December 1&, 2011) 6dditionally, Defendant Coughlin filed a 9otion to @acate andor 1et
6side, 9otion for :econsideration, )o"ion for 3e!usal and )o"ion for Du6li!a"ion of
2rans!rip" a" Du6li! 1?pense
18
) 6ppellant Coug$lin re8ues"ed "$a" $e 6e proided "$e "rial
"rans!rip" a" pu6li! e?pense on "$e 6asis "$a" $e #as indigen") #n Y ((sic* 3#5E: actually,
such +"( 9otion by Coughlin was filed on 121!11, and followed CoughlinsB original 102.11
+"( 6pplication for court appointed counsel*, Defendant Coug$lin filed a )o"ion "o Dro!eed
5n Forma Dauperis #$erein $e see's a #aier of !er"ain fees due "o $is asser"ed indigen!e)
6) "6+$8:E 5# (:#(E:$K 1E:@E C+5K 65+#:3EK >ritten motions are to
be #er-ed u/on each o% the /artie#) 3:1 1/%)<%2) 1ervice upon the attorney or upon a party
must be made in the manner provided in civil actions) 3:1 1/%)<%!) 0ppellan" $as !$osen "o
sere "$e Ci"y 0""orney #i"$ "$ese arious Dleadings ia ele!"roni! mail) 5here is no
provision in the 3evada :evised 1tatutes or the :ules of Court which denotes electronic mail
as an appropriate means of service of process) 5his alone is a basis for non=considerationdenial
of 6ppellantBs various reHuests)
+. !9679, (9 PI+47C?679, 9( 6?,*C7P6 ?6 PI+47C
@KP@,*@ and !9679, 69 P9C@@$ 7, (9!? P?IP@7*
Defendant Coug$lin !i"es "o /3* 12,01C 0s au"$ori"y for allo#ing $im "o issue
Gany7 ne!essary #ri"7 pro!ess7 pleading or paper #i"$ou" !$arge7 #i"$ "$e e?!ep"ion of ;ury
fees 6e!ause 5 la!' suffi!ien" finan!ial a6ili"y "o pro!eed #i"$ou" "$is #aierG, 0ppellan"
Coug$lin(s referen!e "o /3* 12,01C 5s mispla!ed as "$a" proision refers "o !iil pro!edure)
He cites no other authority for his re%uest) 5his case has gone to verdict and the defendant was
found guilty) 5" is diffi!ul" "o see #$a" addi"ional !os"s #ill 6e in!urred 6y 0ppellan"
Coug$lin o"$er "$an "$e "rial "rans!rip") 5his is no" a !omple? !ase #i"$ numerous fa!"ual or
legal issues) 9r) Coughlin is a li!ensed a""orney-a"-la# #$o implied during "rial "$a" $is
in!ar!era"ion for !on"emp" #ould adersely affe!" $is !lien"s) Fet' !r. Coughlin' in hi#
Ja%%ida-it o% /o-ertyJ doe# not indicate any income %rom hi# /ractice o% la2. 9% note' !r.
Coughlin /o#ted ca#h bail during the litigation o% the in#tant matter. 6hi# Court ha# not
been /ro-ided #u%%icient in%ormation to determine !r. Coughlin<# indigency #tatu# and
2ill not grant him carte blanche authority to continue the %i#hing e8/edition he conducted
during the trial o% thi# matter. ?//ellant<# motion to %urther /ur#ue thi# matter at /ublic
e8/en#e i# denied)
C. !9679, 69 V?C?6@ ?,$19 *@6 ?*7$@' !9679, (9
&!/%&
@C9,*7$@?679, ?,$ !9679, (9 @CI*?4 )) B
2$ese mo"ions #ill no" 6e addressed as Defendan" Coug$lin $as no" su6mi""ed a
6asis for "$eir !onsidera"ion) +5 +1 ;E:E2K #:DE:ED that Defendant CoughlinBs 9otion to
(roceed +n "orma (auperis and 9otion for (ublication of 5ranscript at (ublic E'pense isW
DE3+ED) +5 +1 "8:5;E: #::DE:ED that the 9otion to @acate andor 1et 6side, 9otion
for :econsideration and 9otion for :ecusal are presently DE3+ED) D65ED this 1<th day of
December, 2011) 1 Genneth :) ;oward, DudgeP
EDraper v) 1tate of >ash) 1upreme Court of the 8nited 1tates, &/2 8)1) !%/ (1,%&*)
Defendants were convicted in 1uperior Court, 1po?ane County, >ashington, of robbery and
applied for free transcripts) 5he 1uperior Court found that the assignments of error were
patently frivolous and denied free transcripts) #n review by certiorari, the >ashington
1upreme Court, <% >ash)2D %&0, &.< ()2D &1, Huashed the writ) 5he 1upreme Court granted
certiorari, and, spea?ing through 9r) Dustice 7oldberg, held that the conclusion of a trial judge
that an indigentLs appeal is frivolous is an inadeHuate substitute for full appellate review
available to nonindigents in the state of >ashington, where effect of the finding is to prevent
appellate e'amination based on a sufficiently complete record of the trial proceedings
themselves) :eversed and remanded) 9r) Dustice >hite, 9r) Dustice Clar?, 9r) Dustice ;arlan
and 9r) Dustice 1tewart dissented) )));e contended, therefore, that petitionersL motions for free
transcripts and statements of facts should be denied because Zthere is nothing here to support
any substantial claim of error whatsoever)L))) )))+n Es?ridge the Huestion was the validity of
>ashingtonLs long=standing 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)L)))
1ee, also: ;ardy v) 8)1) 1upreme Court of the 8nited 1tates, &/< 8)1) 2// %! 1)Ct)
!2!) 7riffin v) +llinois 1upreme Court of the 8nited 1tates 6pril 2&, 1,<. &<1 8)1) 12 /. 1)Ct)
<%< 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 (ost=Conviction ;earing 6ct, 1);)6)+ll) Ch) &%, 1s %2.=
%&2) 5he +llinois 1upreme Court affirmed dismissal of this petition, and defendants brought
certiorari) 5he 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 appeared in propria persona, was so disrup"ie that
Dudge ;oward found Coughlin in direct contem/t of court and sen"en!ed $im "o ;ail "$a"
same day "o 6e released on De!em6er 37 2011 at %:00 (9) "udge )o2ard #/eci%ically %ound
Coughlin<# conduct to be disorderly and 2a# ei"$er !on"emp"uous or 6e$aior insolen"
"o#ard "$e ;udge in that Coughlin refused:
P))) to obey directi-e# o% the "udge' !on"inuing lines of in8uiry af"er 6eing adised 6y "$e
Cour" "o refrain from doing #oL demeaning the Court 2ith #tatement# #uch a# J393J in
re#/on#e to court ruling#L laughing during te#timony and %urther Aue#tioning the court
and it# authority)P
&</%&
1ee ;earing E'hibit 11 #:DE: "#: 18996:K (83+1;9E35 #" contem/t
C#99+55ED +3 5;E +99ED+65E @+E> 63D (:E1E3CE #" 5;E C#8:5, 3ovember
&0, 2011)
(3#5E: 1uch ";E 11 la!'s a Cer"ifi!a"e of *eri!e page7 and "$is is done
on purpose, as the :9C refused to provide such #(1C to Coughlin upon his being
released from jail (Coughlin called the :9C and spo?e with :9C Dudicial 6ssistant for
Dudge ;oward, @eronica $opeA the 9onday 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 :9C, and specifically @eronica $opeA were rudely rebuffed) 6lso,
such was made in absentia of both Coughlin and the prosecutor, and as such, the
deadline to appeal it has not even started to run, given no notice of Entry of #rder for
such #rder has been filed and #er-ed) "urther, lines 1.=1/ of page 1 of such #1(C
reveals the e'tent to which such #rder failed to find any such EbehaviorF (lines 2.=2%
and the colon after the word EconductF between lines 2.=2/, and the failure of the :9C
to chec? such blan?, combined with the chec? on the blan? on line 1, where E6e$aiorF,
rather than E!ondu!"F is referenced, ta?es such out of the purview of any admissible
evidence of a :(C &)< violation)
6dditionally, the entirety of such 11&011 (apparently the :9C can obtain a
file stmape for #rders submitted after !:&0 pm, but not attorneys or litigantsJ* #(1C is
violative of 9cCormac? and the 1i'th 6mendment where Dudge ;owardBs 102/11
#rder denied Coughlin court appointed counsel and failed "o rule "$a" ;ail "ime #as no"
a possi6ili"y) 6igersinger)
E6ttorneyBs conduct in c on"inuing "o !ross-e?amine poli!e offi!er a%ter
Eudge had ruled that /olice log 2a# not admi##ible #as no" !on"emp" where attorney
claimed that he was trying to impeach witnessesB memory, not lay foundation for
admission of log, so that his conduct could not be said to be willful) Inited *tate# -
=io-anelli, (1,,0, C62 3K* %,/ "2d 122/) :esort to summary disposition of criminal
contem/t proceeding under :ule !2(a*, "ederal :ules of Criminal (rocedure, is
permissi6le only #$en e?press re8uiremen"s of rule are me" and #$en "$ere is
!ompelling reason for immedia"e remedy or #$en "ime is of essen!e) 5hus, a""orney(s
!oni!"ion for !riminal !on"emp" in pursuing line of 8ues"ioning for6idden 6y !our"
#ould 6e reersed7 sin!e re!ord s$o#ed "$a" "$ere #as no !ompelling need for
immedia"e remedy provided by :ule !2(a*, "ederal :ules of Criminal (rocedure, and
that trial court, by its own actions, did not consider time to be of essenceC trial court
should have ob#er-ed PnormalP procedureP of notice and hearing, provided by :ule
!2(b*, "ederal :ules of Criminal (rocedure) I.*. -. !o#chiano, .,< ")2d 2&., 12 "ed)
:) Evid) 1erv) 12! (/th Cir) 1,%2*) 1ee 8nited 1tates v 5urner, (1,%/, C611 6la* %12
"2d 1<<2, S 1!)F (page 2, of CoughlinBs .1%12 9otion for $eave in .0%&%, the matter
within which GingBs 1C: 111 (etition resides, a document which, along with other
filings by Coughlin in the 31C5, 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
Cler? of Court in 3712=020!, etc)
&./%&
(see, also, the transcription Coughlin provided therein between pages &<=%<,
which clearly reveal the patent lac? of due process attendant to that trial (denial of 1i'th
6mendment (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
a summary contem/t order with ;ouston (see, also, the 2012 9arshall case, especially
where Dudge ;oward 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 9arshal 9enAel at the 101011
arraignment (the hold of which violated 3:1 1/%)!0< in light of the then pending ,/11
#rder for Competency evaluation of which the :9C was made aware, in writing in*,
similar interactions with :9C filing office counter cler?s and supervisors incident to
their refusal to allow Coughlin to access even the 6rrest :eport and Declaration of
(robable Cause until after the 101011 arraignment, etc*, and CoughlinBs 112%11
9otion to specificity brings 9cCormac? 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 (which was being
withheld by opposing counsel ;illBs firm in the summary eviction and appeal thereof in
:ev2011=001/0% and C@11=0&.2% incident to ;ill, his associate Casey D) 2a?er, EsH),
and the >C1#Bs Deputy 9achen, and :(D #fficer Chris Carter, Dr) and 1argent 9arcia
$opeA all burglariAing CoughlinBs former home law office in 3ovember 2011, along with
the e'cuplatory still images and video from >al=9art proving that Coughlin provided
his driverBs license to the :1+C tribal police officers, and thereby vitiating the fraudulent
claims made by :eno City 6ttorney (amela 7) :oberts, EsH), that some application of
3:1 1/1)1//1, which, regardless, hardly operates to defeat the prohibition against such
,,11 arrest presented in 3:1 1/1)1&. and especially 3:1 1/1)12<< anyways))) *
proving he purchased the very Duract Cough 9elts found in his poc?et, thereby ma?ing
an designation of a such as EfruitF of a poisonous tree rather inapt* where both 3:1
1/1)12<< and 3:1 1/1)1&. were violated, therefore ma?ing such arrests and searches
incident thereto illegal arrests reHuiring application of the e'clusionary rule*,
prosecutorial misconduct ( Deputy :eno City 6ttorney (amela :oberts, EsH), put on
testimony she ?new to be lies given the very video provided to her by >almart and or
:1+C (olice clearly show Coughlin providing his driverBs license to #fficer Crawford*,
witness misconduct (numerous instances of perjury by both >almartBs "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 9cCormac?, failure to grant
a continuance where e'cuplatory evidence was being wrongfully withheld by and
opposing counsel whom had burglariAed CoughlinBs former home law office with both
the >C1# and :(D (3:1 !0)2<&(<*, :ussell v) Galian, !1! 6)2D !.2C +orio v City of
3ew Kor?, ,. 9isc)2D ,<<) 9ayes v) 8@+ ;oldings, /2& 3)K)1)2d 1<1, 2%0 6)D)2d
1<& (2001*), and denial of a continuance to Coughlin (despite one being agreed to in
writing by :C6 :oberts* 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 !< days as an out of custody defenant, and
&//%&
where the :1+C refused to release to Coughlin even the 6rrest :eport and (robable
Cause 1heet until after the 101011 arraignment, wherein :9C Dudge >) 7ardner
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
chec? 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 recogniAed at such time, ma?ing
Dudge ;owardBs subseHuent #ctober 2/
th
, 2011 denial of 6igersinger and the 1i'th
6mendment even more suspect*)
(E5his action was brought against all three defendants, alleging negligence ==
against City 9arshal :ichard 9) 1chwartA, for damage to plaintiff tenantLs personal
property in the course of an evictionC against 5uscany ;olding Corp), because as
landlord it hired the marshal to perform the evictionC and, against the City of 3ew Kor?,
on the theory that the marshal acted as agent, servant andor employee of the City of
3ew Kor?) 2y an earlier order of this court, the complaint against the marshal was
dismissed for lac? of jurisdiction)
E6 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) 5he 1heriff or marshal only becomes an
agent if the warrant is irregular, unauthoriAed or void) (+de v "inn, 1,. 6pp Div &0!C 5reiber v
9ouriocourt, 1!& 9isc /!1, /!2)* 5he 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 authoriAed it) (+de v "inn, supra, p &1!, citing >elsh v
Cochran, .& 3K 1%1C see Drin?house v (ar?a, & 3K2d %2, ,1C "ults v 9unro, 202 3K &!, !2C
1chrier v 1haffer, 12& 6pp Div <!&C 2ach v 3ew, 2& 6pp Div <!%C Gorman v 9acy M Co),
1!2 3K12d !<<C $iberty +nd) (ar? v (rotective (ac?aging Corp), /1 9isc 2d 11., 11,C (ollac?
v 9acombs +nwood Corp), <2 9isc 2d <.&)*
+n re >hitney, 1! Cal)!5h 1 3ote: >e also accept the commissionBs conclusion that
Dudge >hitneyBs 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 6dams v) Commission on Dudicial
(erformance (1,,<* 10 Cal)!5h %.., %//=%/% Q!2 Cal):ptr)2D .0., %,/ ()2D <!!RC 7ubler v)
Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%!* &/ Cal)&D 2/, !.=!/, <, Q20/ Cal):ptr) 1/1, .%%
()2D <<) Gloepfer v) Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%,* !, Cal)&D %2., %&%T%.&,
2.! Cal):ptr) 100, /%2 ()2D 2&, Qwillful and prejudicial misconduct for failing to protect the
rights of defendants, and abuses of power involving contempt procedure, orders to show cause,
and bench warrantsRC Cannon v) Commission on Dudicial Uualifications, supra, 1! Cal)&D ./%,
.,&T.,!, 122 Cal):ptr) //%, <&/ ()2D %,% Qfailure to follow the law regarding contempt
proceduresR)*
1ince plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment underlying the warrant e'ecuted by
the marshal, plaintiff cannot now collaterally attac? the warrant) 6nd, nowhere in his papers
does plaintiff demonstrate by evidentiary facts that the warrant was irregular, unauthoriAed 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 ;all, ./
&%/%&
3K12d 2&%)* E
+orio v) City of 3ew Kor? et al), ,. 9isc)2D ,<<, !10 3)K)1)2D 1,< (1,/%*)
Certainy CoughlinBs 21112 email to >C1# 1upervisor $iA 1tuchell in response to 1tuchellBs
2/12 email to Coughlin, which either the :9C and Ging or both e'cised from the !1.12
EE'hibit ,F presentation of an altered reproduction thereof (while the page 1. of !0 missing
from the first appearance of such &<12 9otion did appear)))the fa' header for all pages was
e'cised, ma?ing less noticeable the e'cision of 1tuchellBs 2/12 email (ie, not pae &% of
!0)))hey, whereBs page &, of !0 as paginated in the fa' header moment for the 1creening (anel,
by design)))ma?ing Dudge >) 7ardnerBs &2012 E#rder I1F at E'hibit 10 in such 2& E'hibit
(resentation Huite dubious (especially where the page 1. (in terms of the pagination on
CoughlnBs &<12 9otion at the bottom center of each page* and Epage &, of !0F (in terms of
the fa' header therein* spea? volumes to rebut Dudge >) 7ardnerBs contention that CoughlinBs
motion Elac?s merit* negates the following authority, as does his .2.12 email to the :DC and
1tuchell as well: P)))6 party at whose instance a warrant is duly issued is not responsible for
the manner in which a 1heriff or marshal e'ecutes the warrant) 5he 1heriff or marshal only
becomes an agent if the warrant is irregular, unauthoriAed or void) (+de v "inn, 1,. 6pp Div
&0!C 5reiber v 9ouriocourt, 1!& 9isc /!1, /!2)*
5he party procuring issuance of the warrant confers only an implied authority
consistent with that conferred thereby, and, is not liable for a "respass !ommi""ed 6y "$e offi!er
unless he authoriAed it) (+de v "inn, supra, p &1!, citing >elsh v Cochran, .& 3K 1%1C see
Drin?house v (ar?a, & 3K2d %2, ,1C "ults v 9unro, 202 3K &!, !2C 1chrier v 1haffer, 12&
6pp Div <!&C 2ach v 3ew, 2& 6pp Div <!%C Gorman v 9acy M Co), 1!2 3K12d !<<C $iberty
+nd) (ar? v (rotective (ac?aging Corp), /1 9isc 2d 11., 11,C (ollac? v 9acombs +nwood
Corp), <2 9isc 2d <.&)*
1ince plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment underlying the warrant e'ecuted by
the marshal, plaintiff cannot now collaterally attac? the warrant) 6nd, nowhere in his papers
does plaintiff demonstrate by evidentiary facts that the warrant was irregular, unauthoriAed 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 ;all, ./
3K12d 2&%)* )))P 6 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 ?nowingly or negligently e'ecuted an invalid
warrant) :odrigueA v) 1!1!=1!22 #gden 6venue :ealty Corp), &0! 6)D)2D !00, /<% 3)K)1)2D
!& (1st DepBt 200&*) </ 6m Dur 2d, 9unicipal, 1chool, and 1tate 5ort $iability S %,C /0 6m Dur
2d, 1heriffs, (olice, and Constables S .,,
>here 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 6pp) D)C) !1,, $):)6) 1,1.D, 2/%, 6m) 6nn) Cas) 1,1<C, 11&,
(6pp) D)C) 1,1!*)
?# to the 3C*9 %ailing to #er-ice /roce## timely on 34* in 60&020 ,eglect or
%ailure to e8ecute regular legal /roce## i# an o%%icial de%ault %or 2hich the #uretie# o% a
#heri%% or con#table are liable. (appe v) $aw, 1,&! #G !2/, 1., #?la) 1<, &< ()2D ,!1, ,<
&,/%&
6)$):) ,&, (1,&!*) 6 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, </ #hio 6pp) &D %,, <.. 3)E)2D 12<2 (&d Dist) ;ancoc? County 1,%%*) 6s to
persons liable on bonds indemnifying those liable for wrongful e'ecutions, generally, see 6m)
Dur) 2D, E'ecutions and Enforcement of Dudgments S .0%) 6m) Dur) 2D 1heriffBs S .!)
Dustification under writC writ regular on face 6 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,Q"31R
even if the judgment or order was erroneously issuedQ"32R or otherwise void)Q"3&R 5he
common=law rule may be codified by statute)Q "3!R 6 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) (3#5E: the thing is, especially in :ev2012=0010!% and
:ev2012=000&/!, the >C1# transgressed the e'presss dictates on such standard loc?out
orders from the :DC which merely copy and past the language from 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a* therein,
and while the >C1# may have some argument that ;illBs associate 2a?er misled them in his
carefully e'cising the Ewithin 2! hours of receiptF (http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<&1.</,=
10=1&=3@D=1&C@!!.=!%!=+"(=9otion=(roposed=Complaint=3@D=6ction=:e=1ummary=
Eviction=$oc?out=2urglaries=by=:(D=>C1#=;ill=3orthwind=Et=6l=<.=(ages * language
from the 102/11 "#"C#$#1E he was able to get Dudge 1ferraAAa to sign, arguably, the
>C1# Civil Division does such wor? day in day out, and ?new, or should ?now that it was
violating 3evada law in carrying out summary eviction orders in the manner in which it has
been) Certainly, >C1# Civil Division 1upervisor $iA 1tuchell was apprised of such
reHuirement that a tenant have E2! hoursF from the tenantBs receipt of such a loc?out order
before any such loc?out may occur by way of CoughlinBs 21112 written correspondence to
1tuchell and others, and beyond that, CoughlinsB .2.12 letter to 1tuchell certainly ma?es the
arrest of Coughlin by >C1# Deputy 9achen on .2%12 especially culpable*) Q"3<R Q"31R
9ar?s v) 1houp, 1%1 8)1) <.2, 21 1) Ct) /2!, !< $) Ed) 1002, 1 6las?a "ed) /02 (1,01*C Deffres
v) Countryside ;omes of $incoln, +nc), 21! 3eb) 10!, &&& 3)>)2D /<! (1,%&*) Q"32R 5eddyBs
Drive +n, +nc) @) Cohen, !/ 3)K)2D /,, !1. 3)K)1)2D /%2, &,0 3)E)2D 2,0 (1,/,*) Q"3&R
:einec?e v) 1heehy, !/ 9ich) 6pp) 2<0, 20, 3)>)2D !.0 (1,/&*) Q"3!R 2rotherBs Distributing
Co), +nc) @) ;eidtman, &<! ") 1upp) 20& (1)D) "la) 1,/&*, 6ffBd, !%0 ")2D ,22 (<th Cir) 1,/&*
(1tatute setting forth the duty of a sheriff to levy upon property described in a writ may
specifically grant immunity from suit to sheriffs levying attachment on the property*) Q"3<R
1ee, generally, 6m) Dur) 2D, "alse +mprisonment) ;owever, particularly where the loc?out
orders of &1<12 and .2/12 indicate 2! hours from the tenantBs receipt of such orders must
pass (and the loc?out of 11111 arguably is subject to constructive notice of such reHuirement
given the ubiHuity of 3:1 !0)2<& 5o what the Civil Division of the >C1# does day in day
out*, the above authority is unavailing)
6lso from such .1%12 9otion in .0%&% at pages 2,=&0: EP>ith respect to
matters which may bring into doubt the validity of the conviction in the trial court
judgment in :9C 11 C: 2.%00: +n the appeal to the District Court in C:11=20.!, Dudge
!0/%&
Elliot utiliAed a civil statute in e'cusing the :9C 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 6ppeal) "urther,
Coughlin made numerous attempts to order such a transcript and was thwarted in his
attempts to do so by the :9CBs e'press dictate that only the :9CBs transcriptionist of
choice, (am Dongoni, would be permitted to perfrom the transcribing duties, and 9s)
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 :9C 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
6ppeal had passed, and further, the :9C failed to notate in the certified doc?et (which
is not available to litigants during these matters, and attempts by Coughlin to so obtain
such a doc?et has resulted in the City of :eno 9arshals threatening Coughlin and
forcing him to leave the courthouse and writing disengenous letters to 2ar Counsel)P
6lso #er-ed on 2ar Counsel and amongst those materials that the 123
wrongfully failed to transmit with the :#6, 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 :#6 transmitted
by the :9C to the 2DDC from 11 C: 221/. and the entirety of that in the record in the
appeal thereof in C:11=20.! (in addition to all of CoughlinBs correspondence with the
:C6 and :9C regarding such matter, and the materials that the :9C fraudulently
failed to include within the :#6*, amongst such materials:
CoughlinBs 11211 9otion for :econsideration of :9C Dudge ;owardBs
102/11 #rder Denying 9otion for 6ppointment of Counsel, at page 1 thereof:
E5revino v) 1tate <<< 1> 2d /<0 "ormerly 110?.!1 2(!*, 11#?.!1)2 5e')Crim
6pp),1,// Criminal defendants +n misdemeanor cases are entitled to counsel if there
e'ists a possibility that imprisonment may be imposed Dudge 7ardner refused to tell the
undersigned the last names of the four attorneys who might be appointed counsel)
6ccused has a right to ?now that, +ts important to chec? Hualifications and e'perience)
"urther, Dudge 7ardner touted their abilities by mentioning some, or all, of them were
former prosecutors) 5he 3"$ doesnBt hire to many offensive coordinators, to coach
defense) + feel the same about criminal defense) 2$e arres" did no" o!!ur in "$e
presen!e of "$e poli!e offi!er, 2$ere #as no !onsen" "o sear!$, Offi!er made
s"a"emen"s !ondi"ioning #$e"$er arres" #ould 6e made upon #$e"$er !onsen" "o
sear!$ #as gien7 "$ere are o"$er impermissi6le a!"s,,,F
6dditionally, while page 1 contains a EcertificationF by :9C "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 6a"es s"amp apparently later applied by Ging) 1uch ";E11
should be e'cluded from the admissible evidence based on such prejudicial inclusion by
Ging of such 6a"es s"amping, especially where Ging subseHuently argued that Coughlin
!1/%&
should be prevented from having the entirety of such 11/12 production by the 123 of
a &,0,! page 1C: 10<(2*(c* consolation priAe
(http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%1.,0%&11=/=12=020!=.2&&/=+nde'=to=2ates=1tamped=
&=0,!=$ong=@ersion=(age=1cr=10<=2=c=(roduction=by=1bn=:evised=%=2%=1& *:
11114112 )@?7,= ((age &02:. to &02:12* E9:) C#87;$+3: 1orry,
your ;onor) 5here was just one other thing 5 #as $oping "o offer in"o eiden!e) +t will
only ta?e a second to as? to do it) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat is thatJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: + would li?e to == but "$e file, 0nd "$en "$e su6poena "$a" 5 "ried "o ge"
"$e s$eriff $ere and === @ol) +, ((age &0!:1% to &0!:2&* E9:) C#87;$+3: + would as?
that + would be allowed to be a little bit more specific) )r, =ing go" me a 6ig 6o? of
s"uff) +Bm only see'ing "o pu" in == and it was bro?en up into about four different things,
each one ?ind of had a cardboard thing and a rubber band holding it together)P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &0!:2< to &0<:1* 6nd itBs &a"es s"amped)P ;E6:+37 = @ol)
+, ((ages &0<:. to &0.:1/* 5his is not just the pleadings) 2$ere(s some s"uff in $ere 5
neer een sa# 6efore7 li'e an affidai" 6y +aura De"ers "$a" spea's "o "$ings li'e "$e
seri!e of "$e !omplain", 5"(s filed, 5(m #ondering #$y didn(" 5 ge" a !opy of i" if i" $as
a file s"amp on i"H 2$a"(s 'ind of s"range) 1o + do thin? == 7 2ould a#5 that 7 be able
to admit thi# into e-idence) 9:) G+37: + donBt ?now what that is) 6nd + object to it at
this stage, proffering a 6un!$ of papers "$a" $aen(" 6een dis!ussed7 $aen(" 6een
admi""ed7 no founda"ion laid) Dust to say they are going to go up to the supreme court, it
doesnBt ma?e sense) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + tend to agree) 5hese are all == the pleadings
themselves, as we now understand it, are going to go == would be part of the record the
supreme court reviews) 3hat you<re o%%ering a//ear# to be a #tac5 o% document#
three inche# thic5 that 5 $ae no idea #$a"(s in "$ere) 9:) C#87;$+3: 9ay + ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >e donBt have time) + would really li?e to afford you an
opportunity to address the issue that + as?ed) 1o +Bm going to sustain the objection) +Bm
not going to permit those e'hibits to be entered into at this stage) Kou 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) 5o 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 <:00) KouBve heard the Huestions that the panel is interested in
having addressed in the final arguments) 9r) Ging) 9:) G+37: 5han? you very much)F
>hether or not 2DDC Dudges $) 7ardner
1,
, "lanagan, or Elliott too? any
3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1< Eappropriate actionF by contacting the 123 (Eappropriate
authorityF* about Coughlin is completely relevant to CoughlinBs defensie !olla"eral
es"oppel claims, in addition to thoroughly undermining GingBs offensive collateral
estoppel claims, and, arguably, revealing GingBs fraudulent 2omer worthy approach
here)
6lso, the e'tent to which Ging flat out admits he manipulates the record is an
embarrassment to this Court and the 2ar: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &0!:1 to &0!:/* 9:)
G+37: +n other words, everything 9r) Coughlin sen", oftentimes with these multiple
!ap"ions where heBs sending them to many people, he might !ap"ion as a pleading7 i"
!2/%&
doesn(" ma'e i" a pleading) 7t ha# to be #omething that 2a# sent to u#' filed in' and
that 2ould be a /leading) 6nd 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 ECler? of CourtF during the ,2<12 interaction with Coughlin detailed in CoughlinBs
9otion for #rder to 1how Cause (#er-ed on the 123 and submitted for filing with the
123 Cler? of Court on 10112 in .0%&%, and submitted at that time in 3712=020! 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 Cler? (eters ,1112 assertions respecting the
permissibility of Coughlin filing (and therefore serving on 2ar Counsel* by facsimile*)
<) #n Dune /, 2012 the 1upreme Court of the 1tate of 3evada upon petition
of 2ar Counsel pursuant to 1C: 111, ordered Coughlin temporarily suspended from the
practice of law in 3evada) 5he #rder further directed that the matter be referred to the
6ppropriate disciplinary board, as mandated by 1C: 111(%*, with directions for the board to
institute a formal hearing Pbefore a hearing panel in which the sole issue to be determined shall
be the e'tent of the discipline to be imposed)P +n the 9atter of Discipline of -6C;6:K 2)
C#87;$+3, EsH), 2ar 3o) ,!/&, 3o) .0%&%, Dune /, 2012)
.) #n 3ovember 1<, 2011 Coughlin #as arres"ed (3#5E: actually,
Coughlin #as no" arres"ed, he was simply issued three traffic citations at that time* and
charged with three violations of the :eno 9unicipal Code) 5he charges of "ailure to (rovide
Evidence of 1ecurity or +nsurance (a violation of :9C .)0.)<<<(a** and "ailure to (rovide
@ehicle :egistration (a violation of :9C .)0.)<.0(a** were dismissed at arraignment) #n
"ebruary 2/, 2012 a trial was held in :eno 9unicipal Court before the ;onorable Dudge
Dorothy 3ash ;olmes on the remaining charge of a :ight of >ay 1top 1ign violation at an
intersection (a violation of :9C .)0.)1/0(a**) Coughlin again appeared in propria persona) 5he
trial commenced at & p)m) and was concluded by the Court at !:&0 p)m), #i"$ou" a erdi!", after
the court held Coughlin in !riminal !on"emp" of court for his 6e$aior and a!"ii"ies
!ommi""ed during "$e !ourse of "$e "rial and in "$e presen!e of "$e Cour") 1ee ;earing
E'hibit !) #:DE: "+3D+37 5;E DE"E3D635 +3 contem/t #" C#8:5 63D
+9(#1+37 163C5+#31)
?labama *tate +ar -. Ca%%ey, ,&% 1o) 2d ,!2 (6la) 200.*: P'he State Bar
argues that Ethe trial courtBs judgment finding Caffey guil"y of dire!" !on"emp" of !our"
is !on!lusie eiden!e "$a" es"a6lis$es a per se iola"ion of 3ules &.1B?C' &.2' &.5BCC'
4.4' QE6s we noted in footnote &, "$e *"a"e &ar dismissed "$e !$arge rela"ing "o 3ule
F,F))))FR 8.4B?C' 8.4B$C' and 8.4B=C7,,,[)) 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
course of this trial)[ (ursuant to the 6labama :ules of Disciplinary (rocedure, prior
adjudications establish a lawyerBs misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding
#$en a la#yer !ommi"s a serious !rime) fn1! Caffey, $o#eer7 #as found guil"y of
!on"emp" of !our"7 #$i!$ is no" a !rime) 1ee 6labama 1tate 2ar v) 5ipler, ,0! 1o)2D at
12!1 (E!our"(s imposi"ion of !iil or !riminal !on"emp" is no" "$e e8uialen" of a
!oni!"ion for a !rime ))[*) 5hus, we do not find support for the State Bar's argument
!&/%&
that a trial court's $udgment of criminal contempt is conclusive evidence that esta!lishes
a per se violation of the ))) :ules of (rofessional Conduct))))"n& 5he formal charges filed
by the 1tate 2ar also asserted that Caffey had violated :ules !)! 6nd %)2) 5he 1tate 2ar
later dismissed those charges)P ))) finali"y of "$e !on"emp" order does no"7 $o#eer7 per
se e8ua"e "o a iola"ion of "$e 3ules of Drofessional 3esponsi6ili"y made "$e 6asis of
"$e formal !$arges)))Caffey can offer a defense regarding the elements of the formal
charges,)))fn1& (fn 1&) 5he State Bar also asserts that the summary judgment entered by
the Disciplinary 2oard Ewas not clearly erroneous where there was no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the undisputed evidence esta!lished that Caffey Qhad violated the
6labama :ules of (rofessional ConductR)F ))) ;owever, in its brief in support of this
proposition, the *tate +ar argue# that;the !ondu!" B,96@0 the 123 consistently
failed to point to any specific instances of actual !ondu!"* and s"a"e of mind elemen"s
ne!essary "o proe "$e iola"ions o% the ... ule# o% Pro%e##ional Conduct a# %ound by
the $i#ci/linary +oard are su6sumed in "$e ;udgmen" of dire!" !riminal !on"emp",
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 3ules 3,1A0B7
3,27 3,CACB7 F,FI*i!J7 8,FA0B7 8,FADB7 and 8,FA-B7 ))) +s no greater than that reAuired to
#u#tain a Eudgment o% direct criminal contem/t) 5herefore, 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 *"a"e &ar(s
6rief, pp) 2!=2<)
5hus, it appears that the *"a"e &ar is essen"ially relying on "$e ;udgmen" of
!on"emp" as suffi!ien" "o es"a6lis$ !on!lusiely a iola"ion of 3ules 3,1A0B7 3,27 3,CACB7
8,FA0B7 8,FADB7 and 8,FA-B) (3#5E: such is e'actly what 123 Ging sought to do)))pic?
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* AEven 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 (:ules &)1(6* and &)<(C** and
justification (:ule &)2*, >hich in this case are relevant to determining prejudice to the
administration of justice (:ule %)!(D** and fitness to practice law (:ule %)!(7**) Dennis
v) 3orthcutt, ,2& 1o)2D 2/<, 2/,=%0 (6la)200<* )))P P 6labama 1tate 2ar v) Caffey, ,&%
1o) 2d ,!2 (6la) 200.*)
(Dudge 3ash ;olmesBs 22%12 #rder "inding Defendant +n Contempt and +mposing
1anctions in 11 5: 2.%00 (";E! :1/.,=/2* reads:
P6 trial was held in :eno 9unicipal Court on "ebruary 2/, 2012 on
a traffic citation issued to the defendant, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3)
!!/%&
;e was initially charged with three offenses alleged to have occurred on
3ovember 1<,2011 in the City of :eno) 6t the onset of the trial it was
determined that "ailure to (rovide Evidence of 1ecurity or +nsurance (a
violation of :9C .)0.)<<<(a* and "ailure to (rovide @ehicle :egistration (a
violation of :9C .)0.)<.0(a* #ere 6o"$ dismissed a" arraignmen" af"er "$e
defendan" es"a6lis$ed "$a" $e $ad !omplied #i"$ 6o"$ !ode se!"ions (3ote,
where such arraignment was held on 11,12, Coughlin provided his then
current address of 1!22 E) ,
th
1t) I2 to the :9C, ma?ing the mailing of the
22%12 #rder to the very E121 :iver :oc?F address of the former home law
office Coughlin was evicted from fairly curious, especially where Coughlin
detailed ;illBs misconduct so e'tensively to Dudge ;olmes that ";E! notes:
E<* de%endant< # re/eatedly trying to in#ert J3i!$ard %illJ into hi#
Aue#tion# and #tatement# #$en su!$ person #as no" relean" "o "$e
pro!eedings and the de%endant had been ordered to #to/ di#cu##ing thatCF
:1//0:2<=2%** but simply had not carried the documentation with him in the
vehicle on that day) (3#5E: which is a way of glossing over the fact that ;ill
was wrongfully withholding CoughlinBs wallet incident to ;ill burglariAing
CoughlinBs former home law office, but, hey, :(D 1argent Dohn 5arter Egave
Coughlin a brea?F by not citing him for only having an e'pired copy of his
then valid driverBs license, where 5arter was informed that ;ill was wrongfully
withholding it, so thereBs that, which is nice* $uring trial' the o%%icer al#o
te#ti%ied that he !ould $ae !i"ed "$e defendan" #i"$ failure "o !arry $is
/eada Drier(s +i!ense in hi# /o##e##ion but gae $im a 6rea' by not
citing him %or that) as well) 5he remaining charge, a :ight of >ay 1top 1ign
violation at an intersection, ?nown as a P2oulevard 1topP (rolling through a
1top 1ign and not stopping completely*, a violation of :9C .)0.)1/0(a*, was
the subject of the trial)
5he City of :eno was represented by Deputy City 6ttorney 6lison
#rmaas) defendant, a licensed attorney, represented himself) :eno (olice
1ergeant Dohn 5arter was the sole witness) 5he court $ad "$e defendan" s#orn
a" "$e 6eginning of "$e "rial7 s"a"ing "$a" "$e !our" $as found "$a" mos" self-
represen"ed defendan"s "end "o "es"ify a grea" deal as "$ey !ross-e?amine
opposing #i"nesses7 so "$e defendan" #ould 6e under oa"$ from "$e s"ar"7 "oo)
(Coughlin finds City of :eno 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 1C:
12&, li?e :C6 ;aAlett=1tevens, in citing to an unpublished 53 case, 1tate v)
$ovins, during the criminal trespass trial at issue in .1,01* 3o e'hibits were
mar?ed or admitted)
5he matter was called at appro'imately &:00 p)m) and !on!luded
#i"$ou" a erdi!" about !:&0 p)m) after the court held the de%endant in
criminal contem/t o% court %or hi# 6e$aior and a!"ii"ies !ommi""ed in "$e
dire!" presen!e of "$is !our" during the trial)
!</%&
5he court finds that defendantBs contemptuous conduct consisted of
his rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic,
de!ei"ful, disrup"ie B,96@0 9ne cannot disrup" a tribunal 2ith conduct
out#ide o% the courtroom. 7n re !ichael *tuh%%' 108 ,e-. 629' 8&7P.2d 85&
B1992CC, argumentative and childish behavior during trial, all of which
appeared to be done to ve= and annoy the court, the witness, and the opposing
party, and to disrup" the trial process) 5he court finds that the following
occurred, and constitute contempt: 1* defendantBs mime=li?e, clownish an"i!s
of ma?ing faces at the courtC sagging down into his seat and hanging his headC
loo?ing behind himself and inside his coat as if searching for a better way to
as? a HuestionC rolling his eyesC and mimic?ing others wordsC 2* defendantBs
incessant arguing with the court, tal5ing over the court, and in"errup"ing "$e
!our"C &* defendantBs repea"edly res"a"ing ma""ers after being told by the court
to Pmove onP or Pas? the ne't HuestionCP (3#5E: see, supra Huotation from
(age 22 of ,< from CoughlinBs filing in Doc?et .0%&% Document 2012=
1%,.2** !* defendantBs repeatedly in$ecting allegations of bribery, perjury, and
police retaliation into the matter af"er "$e !our" ins"ru!"ed $im no" "o7 and
dire!"ed $im "o limi" $imself "o issues per"aining "o the facts of the
P2oulevard 1topCP <* defendantB s repeatedly trying to insert >Richard Hill>
into his %uestions and statements when such person was not relevant to the
proceedings and the defendant had !een ordered to stop discussing thatC .*
defendantBs disregarding "$e rules of eiden!e and !our" pro!edure 6y
!on"inually posing improper 8ues"ions af"er 6eing dire!"ed 6y "$e !our" "o
properly p$rase $is 8ues"ionsC /* defendantBs continually a!!using "$e !our"
of denying $im "$e rig$" or a6ili"y "o as' 8ues"ions and telling the court to
Pgive me a list of Huestions you want me to as?CP %* defendantBs suggesting that
the court Ptell me what would ma?e you happyCP ,* defendantBs lying "o "$e
!our" in response to dire!" 8ues"ions posed by the court #i"$ regard to his
recording
20
the proceedings (3#5E: tal? 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 Elying "o "$e !our"F and upon just what
evidence the court met the Ebeyond a reasonable doubtF standard applicable to
the purported Ecriminal contemptF C and 10* defendantBs failing and refusing
to properly e'amine the witness, despite numerous admonitions by the court to
#to/ repea"ing 8ues"ions, misstating answers, in$ecting irrelevant material,
arguing with the witness and mischaracteriAing the testimony)
5he court finds that the defendantBs actions were in"en"ional and
done in utter disregard and contempt for the court, and in "$e presen!e of "$e
!our", for purposes of disrup"ing and delaying the proceedings and
dishonoring the rule of law and this court, and !ons"i"u"e "$e misdemeanor of
!riminal contempt, a violation of /3* 22,010) 7ood cause appearing
therefore, the following san!"ions are imposed:
+5 +1 #:DE:ED, pursuant to /3* 22,100, that the defendant be
!./%&
incarcerated at the >ashoe County :egional Detention "acility for the term of
five (<* days, from the time he was ta?en into custody on this courtBs order on
"ebruary 2/, 2012, and that sentence shall not be reduced for any reason) 5n
"$e al"erna"ie7 the defendant may pay a fine of O<00 to the :eno 9unicipal
Court)
Dated this 28"$ day of "ebruary, 2012) s 5he ;on) Dorothy 3ash
;olmes, :eno 9unicipal Court Dudge)P*
>here ";E<, the &1212 #rder indicates E5he 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) ;is behavior is noted in
detail in the courtBs #rder en"ered on Fe6ruary 277 20129 (:#6 1/2&:1%=21* it i# patently
inaccurately, on its face, in several regards) (";E< :#6 1/2!:.=/ E5he document purported to
appeal this courtBs #rder holding him in dire!" !riminal !on"emp",F*
#ne ";E! is file stamped 2/28/12, not 22/12 (com/are that to the ()@11
111&0111 9rder %or *ummary Puni#hment by !C "udge )o2ard Bthough #uch 9rder
lac5# a Proo% o% *er-ice in any o% the #etting# in 2hich i# ha# a//eared (.0,/< attachment
to 1C: 11/ (etition, in the :#6 from the :9C in the 2DDC appeal in C:11=20.!, as E'hibit
2 to GingBs %2&12 Complaint, and as ";E11* entered versus rendered, and the #rder as
rendered is substantially different than the #rder as entered the following day, t2enty %our
hour# later' at &047 /.m), which is so long after the fact (especially considering the :9C
9arshal returned to the >ashoe County jail the day after CoughlinBs arrest on 22/12, where
CoughlinBs smartphone, micro sd card, cell phone, etc) were boo?ed into his personal property
and would reHuire a written court order or warrant to allow the :9C 9arshals to retrieve it
therefrom on 22%12 and return to the :9C with it) "or all her E+ thin? you probablyF did this
or that, considering the :9C confiscated the very Etwo recording devicesF for &/ days, and
returned them to Coughlin with all the data on them wiped, #$ere(s "$e 6eefJ 1eriously, where
is the proof that Coughlin EliedFJ Kou confiscate the alleged Erecording devicesF and find Eby
clear and convincing evidenceF that the attorney EliedF about)))but, what, specifically was the
ElieFJ
21
(3#5E: it is completely untrue and disengenous for the (anel to ma?e 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 :(C %)!(b* analysis)
+n a criminal case a sentence is a judgment) +n re Clar?, 2! >ash) 2D 10<, 1.& ()2D <//
(>ash) 1,!<*) (ie, an #rder for 1ummary (unishment li?e Dudge ;owards ";E11 or Dudge
;olmesB ";E!Bs #rder are not EjudgmentsF nor are they EconvictionsF)* "or the 123 to ?eep
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
:(CBs is so 2omer worthy)
5he alleged intimidation of juror in #as$ room by accusedLs 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) ;adley) >here 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) ;adley,1/, +ll) 6pp) &D 1<2, 1<<, <&! 3)E)2D &,<, &,/ (1,%,*)
CD1 Contempt s ,, Direct contempt=6cts in presence of court or near thereto)
P;adley,))) was near the door of the court room at the time the recess was ta5en and
went into the corridor and then in"o "$e #as$ room some dis"an!e a#ay from "$e main !our"
room) (3#5E: the re#t room Coughlin u#ed during the one brea5 during the 2127112 6rial
i# not an !C e8clu#i-e re#troom' and it i# located about #e-enty %i-e yard# %rom the
bench in court room + 2here #uch trial 2a# held' it i# a #hared %acility u#ed by all in the
!ill# +. 4ane "u#tice Center in eno' 2hich i# a building that hou#e# three di%%erent
court#' and the 3C$?<# 9%%icer' a #el% hel/ center' a C??3 run 6P9 ?d-ocate<# 9%%ice'
and /robation entities*) 5he !orridor and #as$ room #ere 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 \!!. "$is #as$ room and attempted to intimidate one of the
jurors named 9c3ichols by threatening him with physical violence if the jury did not find each
of the defendants not guilty) 5he $uror told the sheriff what he claimed that ;adley had said to
him) 5he s$eriff and "$e ;uror "$en informed "$e ;udge of what had been done) 5he judge
called in the attorneys interested in the trial, a juror was withdrawn and the case continued) 5he
ne?" day the court directed that a warrant be issued commanding the sheriff to arrest the said
;adley to answer))) for and concerning the !rime of !riminal !on"emp") ;adley obtained
counsel, came into court, and a#5ed that the 2rit be Aua#hed' becau#e there 2a# on %ile no
com/laint' a%%ida-it or /etition to #u//ort the 2rit, and he also as?ed that the plaintiff in
error be discharged) 5he court denied the motion, $eard "$e eiden!e rela"ie "o "$e !$arges,
found the defendant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to imprisonment in the
county jail for &0 days)))5he !oun"y !our" #as in error in pro!eeding in a summary manner
#i"$ou" giing "$e defendan" an oppor"uni"y "o purge $imself of "$e !$arge of !on"emp") 5he
authorities hold that 2here the court i# in #e##ion it i# /re#ent in e-ery /art o% and /lace se"
apar" for i"s o#n use and %or the u#e o% it# o%%icer#' Euror#' and 2itne##e#' and any
mi#beha-ior in su!$ pla!e i# mi#beha-ior in the /re#ence o% the court' and #uch
mi#beha-ior ha# been uni%ormly held to con#titute a direct contem/t o% 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 8) 1) 2./, 5he court in
discussing the proceeding for contempt of court, say: E+t is true that the mode of proceeding for
contempt is not the ?22; same in every case of such misbehavior) >here the contempt is
committed directly under the eye and within the view of the court, it may proceed Zupon its own
5nowledge of the facts, and punish the offender without further proof, and without issue or trial
in any formL whereas, in cases of misbehavior of which the judge cannot have such personal
?nowledge, and is informed thereof only by the confession of the party, or 6y "$e "es"imony
under oa"$ of o"$ers, the proper practice is, by rule or other process, to re%uire the offender to
appear and show cause why he should not !e punishedF for such contempt)
+n the case of the (eople v) Cochrane, &0/ +ll) 12., +n which the 1avin case, supra,
and many others are Huoted, Dustice Cartwright e'presses the view, Ethe presence of the court
!%/%&
means in the ocular view of the court or where the court has direct ?nowledge of the
contempt)F 5he court in this case had no ?nowledge of his own upon which to base a
judgment but had to rely solely upon the testimony of witnesses for the facts, and under the rule
as laid down in (eople v) Cochrane, supra, such contempt was not in the presence of the court)
(eople v) :ongetti, &!! +ll) 10/) "ollowing the rule as laid down in the cases as stated above, it
is manifest that the correct procedure against the defendant ;adley would have been to enter a
rule against him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court) 8nder the
circumstances in this case the court was not justified in following a summary course, thereby
depriving the defendant of the right to answer or purge himself of contempt if he could) P
(eople v) ;adley, 1/, +ll) 6pp) &D 1<2, 1<<, <&! 3)E)2D &,<, &,/ (1,%,*)
#nly allowing Coughlin, ridiculously, fifteen minutes to testify in his own defense
on direct prevented Coughlin from being able to more fully e'pound on that allegations by the
:9C 9arshals (made via the hearsay testimony of a Dudge 3ash ;olmes who either could not
remember much, and, even if she could, refused to testify about it, in an a""emp" "o o6s"ru!"
;us"i!e*) +t is reprehensible that Coughlin has never been provided any proof, or even specific
factual allegations, by Dudge ;olmes and or the :9C respecdting her allegations in ";E! and
<)
6s to punishment for contempt, generally, see CD1 6tty and Client S &%) PB6n order
adjudging a person guilty of contempt in the immediate view and presence of the court mus"
re!i"e fa!"s s$o#ing a!"s which constitute a contempt) (Code Civ) (roc), J 1211)* 5his is
jurisdictional ))))BP (@aughn v) 9unicipal Court, 2<2 Cal)6pp)2D &!%, &</ Q.0 Cal):ptr) </<R)*
6n attorney is subject to being disciplined by the appropriate authorities) 3ev)]+n re >atson,
/1 3ev) 22/, 2%. ()2D 2<!, <& 6)$):)2D &01 (1,<<*) Uuasi=criminal character of discipline
2ecause an attorneyBs suspension is a Huasi=criminal punishment in character, any disciplinary
rules used to impose this sanction on attorneys must be strictly construed, resolving ambiguities
in favor of the person charged) 8)1)]8)1) @) 2rown, /2 ")&D 2< (<th Cir) 1,,<*) 6s to
initiation of contempt proceedings for ethical violations, see S &%) (CD1 6tty Client*
2$e u"iliKa"ion of dis!iplinary rules "o san!"ion an a""orney #$o !ri"i!iKes "$e
;udi!iary may iola"e "$e Firs" 0mendmen" of "$e .ni"ed *"a"es Cons"i"u"ion,Q<R and an
a""orney may7 #i"$ou" su6;e!"ing $imself or $erself "o dis!ipline7 a""a!' "$e proprie"y of a
;udi!ial a!") Q.R 6n attorney may attac? the integrity or competence of a court or judge in a
proper manner and through appropriate channels, without being subject to discipline,Q%R
Q"3<R #?la)]1tate e' rel) #?lahoma 2ar 6ssBn v) (orter, 1,%% #G 11!, /.. ()2D
,<% (#?la) 1,%%*) E'tent of "irst 6mendment right 6 lawyer has a "irst 6mendment right to
criticiAe 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 6mendment protection, however,
for such improperly motivated misrepresentations, the ma?ing of which will subject a lawyer to
disciplinary sanctions) 5enn)]:amsey v) 2oard of (rofessional :esponsibility of 1upreme
Court of 5ennessee, //1 1)>)2D 11. (5enn) 1,%,*) #verbroad rule 6 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) 8)1)]1tanding Committee on Discipline of 8)1) Dist) Court for
Cent) Dist) #f California v) Kagman, << ")&D 1!&0 (,th Cir) 1,,<*) Q"3.R Gan)]1tate v)
3elson, 210 Gan) .&/, <0! ()2D 211 (1,/2*) ))) Q"3%R Gan)]1tate v) 3elson, 210 Gan) .&/,
<0! ()2D 211 (1,/2*)
Contem/t o% court) >hile contempt of court may constitute ground for disbarment,
Q10R 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)Q11R) Q"310R 3)K)]7lenning
v) 3ew Kor? 1tate 2ar 6ssBn, <& 6)D)2D ,/%, &%< 3)K)1)2D .!1 (&d DepBt 1,/.*) 1)C)]
9atter of Clar?son, 2/1 1)C) <, 2!! 1)E)2D <12 (1,/%*) 6s to institution of contempt
proceedings against attorneys, generally, see S &%) +ndirect criminal contempt 6n attorneyBs
conduct in ma?ing 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)
]5he "lorida 2ar v) >asserman, ./< 1o) 2D 10& ("la) 1,,.*) Q"311R $a)]$ouisiana 1tate
2ar 6ssBn v) 1pencer, 2<% $a) 110, 2!< 1o) 2D &/! (1,/1*) 3)D)]+n re +sserman, , 3)D) &1., %%
6)2D 1,, (1,<2*)
6lso :#6 at 1<,, and 1/!,:.=1%: E"urther, caplow &02 p)2D /<< made unnecessary
the seemingly fraudulent &%12 affidavit of service by wcso machen, by way of rmc marshal
harley (judge nash holmes &1212 comments in court seem to indicate Psummary !riminal
!on"emp"P %inding /remi#ed u/on Gpeeping 2omG s"yle peering "$roug$ res"room s"all #alls
by 3)C )ars$al %arley Bor #ome other )ars$al7 li'e *!o"" Coppa' in-ol-ed in the
impermissi6le Gsear!$ in!iden" "o arres"G 6y 3)C a a full day af"er a""orney(s pro se
!riminal defenan"(s smar" p$one and mi!ro sd !ard 6oo'ed in"o 4CDC proper"y on
2/27/12 ))) Violate# #tate - diaM ))) ?ny2ay#' no Gsummary !on"emp"G finding ba#ed u/on
allegation# o% Jdi##e##emblignJ #mart/hone in re#troom #tall' B,96@0 the ;2a#h roomN
re%erence in *tate -. )adleyC where no RMC Marshal Harley or Coppa or otherwise signed
an affidavit detailing facts supporting contempt. B,96@0 ,* 22.0&0B2CC 7n re oli-er
reAuire# #uch contem/t be' in e-ery element' in the Jimmediate -ie2 and /re#ence o% the
courtJ *i8th ?mendment right -iolated' nr# 189.010-050 Violated' etc .. @tc. ?nd mo#t o%
thi# ng12-04&5 in-ol-e# "udge ,a#h )olme# denying Coughlin right to a//eal %inal
a//ealable #ummary criminal contem/t %inding %rom 2127112.' 7n re oli-er' denied #i8th
amendment right to coun#el' and Coo5' 267 u# 517 at 5&6 )))Dlus in rm! 11 "r 26800 ;udge
nas$ $olmes iola"es nrs 18>,010 &y refusing "o "ransmi" re!ord on appeal and "rans!rip" in
response to Coughlin filign a no"i!e of appeal on 3/7/12 (rmcBs garder, brother to Dudge $inda
7ardner, 2ho#e ?/ril 2009 9rder got Coughlin %ired %rom 3a#hoe 4egal #er-ice# B60&01
60&17 ca#e in n. *. Ct.C' *$e passed $er order "o $er 6ro"$er7 $e passed i" "o Judge /as$
%olmes' #he %iled ng 12-04&5 on behal% o% all rmc Eudge#' and a//arently %amily court
"udge 4. =ardner BCoughlin %iled mandamu# to that order in 54844C)F
/) Dudge 3ash ;olmes ordered Coughlin into custody on "ebruary 2/, 2012
and to be incarcerated at the >ashoe County :egional Detention "acility for the term of five
(<* days) 0l"erna"iely Coughlin could pay a fine of O<00) 5he CourtBs sentence was based on
<0/%&
its detailed findings regarding CoughlinBs !ondu!" in his own defense)
P5he court finds that defendantBs contem/tuous conduct consisted of his
rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic,
deceitful, di#ru/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 di#ru/t the trial process) 5he court finds
that the following occurred, and constitute contem/t: 1* defendantBs
mimeli?e, clownish antics of ma?ing faces at the courtC sagging down
into his seat and hanging his headC loo?ing behind himself and inside his
coat as if searching for a better way to as? a HuestionC rolling his eyesC
and mimic?ing others wordsC 2* defendantBs incessant arguing with the
court, tal?ing over the court, and interrupting the courtC &* defendantBs
repeatedly restating matters after being told by the court to Pmove onP or
Pas? the ne't HuestionCP !* 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 P2oulevard 1topCP <* defendantBs repeatedly
trying to insertP :ichard ;illP 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 as? Huestions and telling the court to Pgive me a list
of Huestions you want me to as?CP %* defendantBs suggesting that the
court Ptell me what would ma?e you happyCP ,* 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 mischaracteriAing the testimony)P
1ee ;earing E'hibit #:DE: "+3D+37 5;E DE"E3D635 +3 contem/t #"
C#8:5 63D +9(#1+37 163C5+#31) (3#5E: see, supra Huotation from (age 22 of ,<
from CoughlinBs filing in Doc?et .0%&% Document 2012=1%,.2*
%) 5he trial of the matter was continued to 9arch 12, 2012) Coughlin failed
"o appear and failed to contact the court to e'plain or e'cuse his absence) ;owever, after
serving the five=day contem/t of Court sanction and after being released from custody,
Coughlin fa'=filed a 22!=page document entitled Pnotice of 6ppeal of 1ummary contem/t
#rderC 9otion to :eturn (ersonal (roperty Confiscated by :eno 9unicipal Courts and +ts
9arshallsC 9otion for 3ew 5rial and to 6lter or 6mend 1ummary contem/t #rder)P 1ee
;earing E'hibit <, #:DE:, ( 2, lines 1=.)
(3#5E: Contempt of court in the form of filing a false pleading did not constitute a
<1/%&
contempt committed in the Pimmediate presence and view of the courtP as such term was used
in a statute authoriAing summary punishment for such a contempt) E' parte Collins, &2, 9ich)
1,2, !< 3)>)2d &1 (1,<0*)
6s to Efailing to appearF, one there does not appear to be anything in the record (not
that the :9C 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 ;olmes summarily incarcerating then practicing
22
attorney Coughlin)
"urther, t$e enormi"y of "$e dis"ur6an!e "o Coug$lin(s life and la# pra!"i!e o!!asion 6y su!$
summary in!ar!era"ion di!"a"ed "a'ing a 6i" more seriously "$e aoidan!e of pre;udi!e "o
!lien"(s ma""ers than the federal case a municipal court judge and her croo?ed, thuggish
marshal were trying to ma?e of a Esimple traffic citation trialF)
During that period of time, su!$ !lien"(s fires needing addressing #ere numerous)
"or instance, there was pressing concerns in the Geller case (3@2 10=0<10!*, the 7essin
adversary proceedings (3@2 11=0<0// and 11=0<0/%*, Eastman (2DDC C@11=00%20*, the
8+"16 and custody case for ;arris ("@0<= and "@11=*, custody case for 2ell ("@11=0!.2%*,
foreclosure defense for the Carpteniers (C@0%= *, the matter of an CoughlinBs own :eply 2rief
coming due while in the summary eviction from his former law office involving as opposing
counsel the very same :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), whom attempted to have Coughlin served (despite
Caplow and his being an e=filer* 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 >C1# Deputy 9achen
whom burglariAed CoughlinsB former home law office on 11111 with ;illBs associate 2a?er
(and 9achen again burglariAed one of CoughlinBs rentals on .2%12 while purportedly
attempting to conduct a loc?out without the passing of 2! hours from the tenantBs receipt of any
such summary removal order in :ev2012=0010!%)))at which point Deputy 9achen also arrested
Coughlin in :C:2012=./,%0, a case which the :DC and >CD6 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 < Day 3otice allegedly posted (but not
mailed, much less with a 81(1 Certificate of 9ailing* listing, pursuant to 3:1 !0)2<&(&*(b*(&*
E1par?s Dustice CourtF as the court which Coughlin must file his 5enantBs
6nswer6ffidavit)))where Coughlin timely submitted such 5enantBs 6nswer for filing with the
1par?s Dustice Court and a reHuest to proceed in forma pauperis to which the 1par?s Dustice
Court cler?s 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 5enantBs 6nswer (which was a 9otion to Dismiss for lac? of
jurisdiction* to the :eno Dustice Court in a fa' at 11:0< am on .2%12 (which the :DC has
subseHuently removed from the file in the matter which is opened, :ev2012=0010!% upon
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 :DC file in that
matter (also e'cised from the :DC file in that matter is the .2.12 email to the :DC and its then
Chief Civil Cler? Garen 1tancil, $iA 1tuchell of the >C1# Civil Division (9achenBs
<2/%&
supervisor*, a member of the :eno (D, and the :DCBs general email address)))which is odd
considering, clearly, such email was, at one point, part of such file, on the left hand side
thereof, under the doc?et)
"or instance, with 7essin, for whom Coughlin filed an #pposition to 9otion for
1ummary Dudgment on &1,12 (just ! days after being burglariAed by the >C1# and 7ayle
Gern, EsH), on &1<12 incident to the too early summary loc?out* there is now a decision
detailing such time period from the 8nited 1tates 2an?ruptcy 6ppellate (anel of the 3inth
Circuit: 3@=11=0<0/%) ,)uscourts)govdatastorebap 201&0< 7essin 9emo 12=
1&&0 )pdfP http:cdn)ca , )uscourts)govdatastorebap 201& 0& 0< 7essinX 20 X 20 9emoX 2012 =
1&&0 )pdf E#n "ebruary 21, 2012, 5aitano filed her 91D based on the state court judgment, the
arbitratorLs findings of fraud and the doctrine of issue preclusion) On )ar!$ 1>7 2012'
attorney Zach Coughlin' %iled a late o//o#ition11 on debtorLs behalf) 5he opposition, of
which we have ta?en judicial notice, covered a number of grounds) Firs"7 i" addressed "$e role
of Coug$lin, who apparently was listed as the attorney of record in the adversary, but who was
actually ghost writing debtorLs pleadings) (3#5E: this is rather interesting, given :ichard 7)
;ill, EsH), purportedly emailed the 123 an unsigned EgrievanceF against Coughlin ma?ing
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 ;ill, whom astoundingly is on the
33D2 (anel (which says just about all one ever need ?now about such (anel* was apparently
so completely defenestrated by Coughlin that the 123 was too embarrassed by it to even see?
to admit it into evidence, despite the failure to do so ?ind of undermining the attempt to
establish Eby clear and convincing evidenceF that Coughlin somehow violated :(C %)1, so
much so, that the 123 and (anel were reduced to ma?ing some lame arguments that CoughlinBs
receiving a letter from Ging, which Ging purports to have sent on "ebruary 1!
th
, 2012 (and
#$i!$ =ing(s !omplain" falsely asser"s =ing or "$e *&/ eer emailed "o Coug$lin*, but which
Coughlin, due to issues stemming from 7ayle 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 <2&(a*(!*
were cited with little analysis or discussion) 5hird, debtor reHuested the ban?ruptcy court
vacate the state court judgment based on his counselLs failure to EAealously advocateF debtorLs
position during the arbitration hearing, contending this was e'cusable neglect under Civil :ule
.0(b* (incorporated by :ule ,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 5he actual title of
the document was E9otion for E'tension of 5ime to "ile #pposition to 9otion for 1ummary
Dudgment for DischargeabilityC or, (lead in the 6lternative, #pposition to 9otion for 1ummary
Dudgment and 9otion to >ithdraw as Counsel)F >e ta?e judicial notice of debtorLs opposition
to 5aitanoLs summary judgment and his supplement with attached e'hibits which were
doc?eted and imaged by the 2an?ruptcy Court in this case) 6twood v) Chase 9anhattan 9ortg)
Co) (+n re 6twood*, 2,& 2):) 22/, 2&& n), (,th Cir) 26( 200&*) 12 5his evidence consisted of
numerous affidavits of individuals who wor?ed with Christina ;o, debtorLs e'=girlfriend and
<&/%&
the mother of his son) ;oLs co=wor?ers declared that ;o had entered into a conspiracy with
5aitano and :issone 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 9ay !,
2012, the ban?ruptcy court heard the 91D, but the transcript reflects that no substantive
arguments were made with respect to the motion) 5he ban?ruptcy court stated on the record
that it would grant the 91D based on the preclusive effect of the state court judgment) 5he
court reHuested 5aitanoLs counsel to file certified copies of the state court judgment and record
and too? the matter under submission) #n Dune %, 2012, the ban?ruptcy court entered an order
granting 5aitanoLs 91D on the grounds that the state court arbitratorLs award established every
element under S <2&(a*(2* and thus the doctrine of issue preclusion prevented debtor from
relitigating those elements in the ban?ruptcy court) Debtor timely appealed))))+++) +118E
>hether the ban?ruptcy court erred in deciding that the state court judgment was
nondischargeable under S <2&(a*(2* based on the doctrine of issue preclusion)F
,) Dudge 3ash ;olmes ob#er-ed that "$e pleading filed 6y Coug$lin failed
"o address mos" of "$e "opi!s lis"ed in "$e !ap"ion) :ather, she ob#er-ed, the document
contained rambling references to CoughlinBs personal life, his fatherBs football career in college
(3#5E: Dudge ;olmesB bio page on the :9C web site indicates that her father coached
football at 1tewart +ndian 1chool: http:www)reno)govinde')asp'JpageV1,. ,
http:www)unr)edujusticemanagementfaculty)htm *C doAens of pages of string citations "a'en
from "$e in"erne" and o"$er unrela"ed referen!es) Dudge 3ash ;olmes found the pleading to
be disjointed and incoherent and a Ppathetic demonstration of what might once have been legal
and academic prowess that appears to now be greatly damaged)P 1ee ;earing E'hibit <,
#:DE:, (2, lines ,=1<C (2, lines 1.=20)
2&

()))5" !on"ained a por"ion of one sen"en!e on page F see'ing a !on"inuan!e of
"oday(s $earing7 6u" no fur"$er dis!ussion of "$a" "opi!, 5" also men"ioned Ebeing a PtollingP
motion in an apparent afterthought) +t did not address most of the other topics listed in the
caption) +nstead, the document contained rambling references to his personal life and this
courtBsC his fatherBs football career in collegeC doAens of pages of string citations ta?en off the
internetC documents from a prisoner online siteC an article about a Ppolice stateCP an article
about DiscoveryC a website printout showing a police officerBs salaryC and copy of court
documents from a District of Columbia case)F*
(3#5E: as he did throughout his over the top biased "#"C#$, Echeverria carefully
e'cised from his citations to the transcript anything in the line or two above or below such
e'cerpts that would provide conte't or yield anything e'cuplatory in nature
whatsoever)))consider the above e'cerpt whether the portion immediately preceeding the cited
portion contained by the Huotations, demonstrates such techni%ue where such lines in the above
instance refute the contention that Coughlin simply failed to appear at such &1212 trial date
(which the :9C has never provided any proof that Coughlin was noticed of in writing in any
manner whatsoever, especially where the 22%12 #rder in ";E!, the :9C admits, was
returned to the :9C by the 81(1 upon the :9C mailing it only once, and only to the very
<!/%&
E121 :iver :oc? 1t)F address from which Coughlin had detailed to three different :9C
Departments (including Dudge ;olmesB D&* that he had been wrongfully evicted from and
burglarAied by the :(D and >C1# at in early 3ovember 2011*)
(Echeverria pulls the same routine again in citing to ";E<, above, at (2, lines 1.=
20)E+t was a disjointed regurgitation of case law citations from a legal research online site with
little reference to, or argument about, the facts of his instant P2oulevard 1topP traffic case) 5he
document was an incoherent and pathetic demonstration of what might once have been legal
and academic prowess that appears to now be greatly damaged) 9r) Coughlin fa'F-filed
ano"$er do!umen" in #$i!$ $e apparen"ly "oo' a )o"ion "o Dro!eed 5nforma Dauperis Isi!J
in ano"$er !ase and "yped oer i" G3e8ues" for 0udio 3e!ording of Fe6ruary 27"$ 2012 "rial
and for 0pp" Isi!J and "o 4aie Filing feeand 2rans!rip" feefor 0ppeal Counsel,G%e $ad
"$a" filed in "$e ins"an" !ase on )ar!$ 7720127 een "$oug$ i" #as da"ed /oem6er 227
2011)F* (3#5E: the Huotation occurring immediately after the Elines 1.=20F spea?s to the
e'tent to which even the (anel and 123 are attempting to distance themselves from not just
Dudge ;olmes accusations respecting Coughlin having Ealtered4 something but also from
Dudge ;olmesB obstructing CoughlinBs ability to obtain a copy of the audio recording of the
trial, which is part of the public record, and especially reHuires access to such being afforded to
a party (at the e'pense of wal?ing away from the truly dubious accusation ";E< attempts to
coble together respecting Coughlin having @alteredF a previously filed +"( 9otion (and if the
123 and (anel are wal?ing away from an allegation, how specious must it really beJ 5he
Coo?ie 9onster rarely turns its nose up to an open jar**) Aho is being characteriAed as having
Eengaged in bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processF againJ
10) Dudge 3ash ;olmes 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:
P)))purpor"ed to be yet another motion in this case entitled P)o"ion "o 3e"urn
Cell D$onesL )o"ion "o *e" 0side *ummary !on"emp" OrderL and no"i!e of
0ppeal of *ummary !on"emp" Order)P >ith scant discussion of, or relevance
to, the above captioned matter, said document mostly argues against Dudge
;oward in a Department ! case and again contains more than 200 pages of
string legal citationsC lyrics to roc?s (sic* songsC 9r) CoughlinBs personal
family historyC discussion of an e-iction case and another contem/t caseC
disjointed legal citations and other nonsensical matters that have no apparent
relevance to his traffic citation case)
11) 6fter observing that CoughlinBs conduct had been inappropriate, biAarre,
dishonest, irrational and di#ru/tive, Dudge 3ash ;olmes concluded, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Coughlin had committed numerous acts of attorney misconduct, including, but
not limited to, violating :ules of (rofessional conduct %)!(c*, %)!(d*, &)&(a*, &)1, &)2, &)!(c*,
1)& and 1)1) 1ee ;earing E'hibit <, #:DE:, (,&, lines 2<=2. (E5he conduct of 9r) Coughlin
has been inappropriate, biAarre, dishonest, irrational and disruptive, to say the least) ;e has not
practiced law in this case in it manner thatF*C (!, lines <=2&)
<</%&
(E2ased upon the total circumstances of this case, the in=court performance of the
defendant, as observed by this court, the written documents fa'ed to the court for filing by this
defendant, the statements and behavior of this defendant and his overall conduct herein, this
court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, an attorney
licensed to practice law in the 1tate of 3evada, has committed numerous acts of attorney
misconduct, including, but not limited to, violating the following :ules of (rofessional
Conduct: %)!(c*=engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentationC %)!(d*=engaging in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justiceC &)&(a*=lac? of candor to the court by
?nowingly ma?ing false statements to a tribunalC &)l=defending in a proceeding by asserting or
controverting an issue without a basis in fact and with matters that are ?nown to be frivolousC
&)2=failure to ma?e reasonable efforts to e'pedite litigation) and, in fact, ta?ing e'treme
measures to delay litigationC &)!(c*=being unfair to opposing counsel by continually alluding to
matters the lawyer does not reasonably believe are relevant or supported by admissible
evidenceC 1)&=failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptnessC and 1)1=lac? of
competence in his practice and appearances before this court)F*
12) Dudge 3ash ;olmes also !on!luded that Coughlin -iolated ,e-ada *u/reme
Court ule 229' #ection 2BbC' a# amended by ?$:6 449 on ?ugu#t 1' 2011 by
#urre/titiou#ly recording the tra%%ic court /roceeding# 2ithout ad-ance /ermi##ion and
lying to the court when Huestioned regarding the matter by denying that he had done so) 1ee
;earing E'hibits, #:DE:, (,!, lines 2!=2%)
(E +n addition, -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, li'ely also iola"ed 3evada 1upreme Court
:ule 22,, section 2(b*, as amended by 6DG5 !!, on 6ugust 1, 2011, by surreptitiously
recording the traffic citation trial of "ebruary 2/,2012 without the advance permission of this
court and then lying to this court when Huestioned about it and denying that he had done so)F*)
;ow is it not a :(C &)1, &)&, and &)! violation for Echeverria to purport that Dudge
;olmes Econcluded that Coughlin violatedF 1C: 22, when such #rder plainly indicates
;olmes believes Coughlin Eli?ely also violatedF 1C: 22,) :egardless, 1C: 22, applies to
EreportersF and the EmediaF, not parties, and not partieBs attorneys) "urther, Coughlin did not
lie to Dudge ;olmes, period, and if she is going to sing it then she should be made to bring it
and produce some evidence of such beyond her end run around due process by way of finding
Coughlin in summary contempt (which dovetailed nicely with her descreation of the "ourth
6mendment*) 6dditionally, Coughlin clearly made and Eopen refusalF to even answer ;olmesB
ridiculous Huestions, then, upon Coughlin clearly threatening to abuse the contempt power
some more, the only answer Coughlin therefter provided had nothing to do with whether he had
any Erecording devicesF in his poc?ets, as ;olmes had put a different Huestion to him upon
CoughlinBs Eopen refusalF by way of the "ourth 6mendment to submit to ;olmes patently
ridiculous demands to ?now whether Coughlin had any recording devices in his poc?ets (as
though they were having an off the record discussion in chambers instead of a proceeding part
of the public record in open court, where the :9C claims to be a court of record recording all
such procedings anyways*: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV1uUUdu?b&D!
(1tart of the second audio file of 22/12, which represents the entirety of the
proceedings of that day following the #3$K restroom brea? of the day*)
Coughlin: (re=enters courtroom*: 5han? you, Kour ;onor)
<./%&
Dudge: #?ay, we are bac? on the record in 11 5: 2.%00) 9r) Coughlin, are you recording
these proceedingsJ
Coughlin: 3o, Kour ;onor)
Dudge: Do you have any sort of devices in your poc?etJ
Coughlin: + believe what is in my poc?et is private, Kour ;onor)
Dudge: + want to ?now if you have any sort of recording devices in your poc?et^
Coughlin: + believe that is a "ourth 6mendment issue, Kour ;onor)
Dudge: + am as?ing you, are you are recording anything from these proceedings in your poc?et
without Court permissionJ
Coughlin: + believe that is a "ourth 6mendment issue)
Dudge: 1irJ
Coughlin: 6nd, no, +Bm not)
Dudge: #?ay, proceed, do you have any Huestions for this witness (:(D 1argent Dohn 5arter*
that are different from the area that we gave gone over already)
Coughlin: >ell, + would li?e to as? a follow up on the rolling stop citation)))P (thereafter Dudge
3ash ;olmes does not as? any other Huestions of Coughlin in any way related to recording or
recording devices, nor did Dudge 3ash ;olmes as? any Huestions of anyone related to recording
or recording devices besides) Dudge 3ash ;olmes did as?, before the restroom brea?, of
Coughlin, if Coughlin had any evidence or proof to support his contention that he attempted to
provide to either :eno City 6ttorney >ong or #rmaas discovery or information related to the
statement to Coughlin, incident to the 3ovember 1&th, 2011 custodial criminal trespass arrest
of Coughlin at his former law office incident to an impermissible summary eviction of a
commercial tenant not based on the non=payment of rent (ie, a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice was
posted and a $andlordBs 6ffidavit alleged a 3o Cause basis for proceeding*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1!1:2 to 1!2:1<* 5;E >+53E11: >hen the marshals
came bac? from the restroom, they told me that 9r) Coughlin had, in fact, been recording the
proceedings because he had disassembled a device and left parts of it in the bathroom) #r left ==
disassembled parts of it, and then they discovered parts of it) +n any case, when he was ta?en
into custody and held in contempt of court at the jail, he had physically two recording devices
on him, a cell phone == either two cell phones or a cell phone and some other recording device)
+ assumed that was pieces of which he was messing with in the bathroom) 2K 9:)
C#87;$+3: U >hich marshal told you thatJ 6 +Bm sorryJ + canBt hear that) U >hich
marshal == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, you donBt need to yell) 5;E >+53E11: +t was
9arshal ;arley that told me that, Doel ;arley, ;=a=r=l=e=y) ;e said when they went in and
chec?ed the bathroom after 9r) Coughlin left, and he had found evidence that he had
disassembled some object or something in there) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hat evidence,
and what objectJ 6 + just described it as some sort of a recording device) >hether it was a cell
phone and he too? the 1+9 card out or whatever it was, + wasnBt sure) 2ut + had as?ed you, 9r)
Coughlin, point blan? in court if you were recording, and you told me no) 6nd then you as?ed
immediately to go to the bathroom, and + said no) 6nd then you begged and sHuirmed and said
you had to relieve yourself, and + had to let you go to the bathroom) 6nd then when you did
that, you went into the bathroom == 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U :eallyJ 6 5oo? apart and
disassembled a recording device) U :eallyJ >ould audio show that, DudgeJP "urther, note
<//%&
that Dudge ;olmesB own testimony as to what she was allegedly told by her 9arshalBs would
ma?e it impossible, or at least highly unli?ely that Coughlin was lying to ;olmes in any of his
responses to any of her Huestions where, to hear ;olmes tell it CoughlinBs Precording deviceP
had been PdissassembledP prior to her even posing the Huestions related to PrecordingP and
Precording devicesP, which initially Dudge ;olmes falsely testified she had posed to Coughlin
prior to the sole restroom brea? in that trial, where, clearly, the audio and transcript (and
CoughlinBs own unrebutted testimony and ;olmesB own bac?ing off her earlier indication as to
the seHuence of events vis a vis the restroom brea? and her interrogation of Coughlin regarding
PrecordingP and Precording devicesP* Chair Echverria and the 123 so ardently opposed the
admission of: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1!.:< to 1!.:1!*
2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 1o the marshals said 9r) Coughlin left some
disassembled part of a recording device in the bathroom, and they retrieved it from thereC is that
correctJ 6 + donBt recall the e'act words) 5he impression + got from what the marshal said is
that you had gone into the bathroom, disassembled some sort of recording device, and they
went in the bathroom after you and chec?ed that and determined that) 5hatBs my recollection of
the events)P
1eriously, what would Coughlin have been recording with (much less have in his
poc?et* at the time of his responses to ;olmeBs sua sponte interrogation following the rest room
brea? where ;olmes herself testified she was told Coughlin had dissassembled
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1<0:11 to 1<1:1* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hat were
you referring to when you wrote, PDefendant lying to the court in response to direct HuestionsPJ
6 >ell, it would be e'plained in the order there) + donBt remember everything at this time
because + donBt have it in front of me) +ut 7 do 6eliee that you lied about or
mi#re/re#ented that you 2ere not recording' becau#e 7 belie-e you pro6a6ly 2ere) + donBt
?now) + believe you probably were)
0" "$e same "ime "$ere #ere "$ings "$a" you and "$e prose!u"or #ere arguing
a6ou" #i"$ regard "o dis!oery, 0nd s$e disagreed #i"$ you and said you #ere lying "o $er
a6ou" "$a", 0nd "$ere #ere o"$er i"ems "$a" you #en" 6a!' and for"$ a6ou" "$a" appeared "o
me "$a" you #ere no" "o"ally $ones" a6ou")F
*o' 2hat #eem# clear i# that "udge )olme# and !ar#hal )arley and eno City
?ttorney ?lli#on 9rmaa# 2ere %ear%ul that Coughlin had been recording a di#cu##ion
earlier in the day bet2een 9rmaa# and Coughlin' out#ide the courtroom Bduring the time
/eriod in 2hich it a//ear# that "udge )olme# 2a# meeting 2ith other Eudge# in di#cu##ing
Coughlin and -iolating the e8tra-Eudicial #ource rule' in addition to ,* 178.405C
2herein Coughlin re/orted to 9rmaa# Ba# Coughlin did on 1119112 in a meeting incident
to the arraignment in 26800 2ith C? Chie% $e/uty $an 3ong' @#A.C the #tatement#
made by P$ 9%%icer Chri# Carter' "r. incident to the P$ and )ill burglariMing
Coughlin<# %ormer home la2 o%%ice' only to 2rong%ully arre#t Coughlin %or tre#/a##' a#
2hich /oint Coughlin a#5ed P$ Carter0 ;*o' are you on ichard =. )ill<# /ayroll' tooDN
to 2hich PC Carter re#/onded0 ;Feah' 7 am' ichard )ill /ay# me a lot o% money #o 7
do 2hat he #ay# to do and arre#t 2ho he #ay# to arre#t.N.
5he seemingly only portion of the transcript that Dudge ;olmes could be referring to
in her testimony that : ((ages 1<0:21 to 1<1:1* E6t the same time there were things that you
<%/%&
and the prosecutor were arguing about with regard to discovery) 6nd she disagreed with you
and said you were lying to her about that) 6nd there were other items that you went bac? and
forth about that appeared to me that you were not totally honest about)F
6t the 11:22 minute mar? Coughlin details the retaliation and numerous wrongful
arrests he was subject to by the :(D, in enunciating his Ee'cusable neglectF basis for see?ing a
waiver as to Dudge ;olmes contention that CoughlinBs failure to file Ewritten motionsF as to the
e'clusionary rule matters and pre=trial motions he sought to address prior to the City calling its
first witness: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV=U0@=D-5-10
6dditionally, at the 1&:02 mar? Coughlin see?s a continuance or dismissal based
upon the CityBs failure to produce as a witness the officer issuing the citation, in violation of
CoughlinBs 1i'th 6mendment right to confrontation, which Dudge 3ash ;olmes, a cursory
manner, refuses to address at that point (which may be permissible, as long as subseHuently
Coughlin would be afforded an opportunity to be heard on that basis, though there is an
argument that the proceedings should have been continued (or the matter addressed* at such
point as Coughlin brought up the issue)
http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV=U0@=D-5-10
Clearly, :(D 1argent Dohn 5arter, who ran?s amongst the top 20 highest paid City
of :eno employees, provided some very contradictory and sha?y testimony, admissions even,
that, some might say, the municipality under which the :9C is organiAed had a rather vested
interest in avoiding (the same could be said for :C6 #rmaasB admissions to Coughlin with
respect to her stated intent to perform no follow up on, and no documentation of, CoughlinBs
reporting to her the statements :(C Carter made to Coughlin on 111&11, and those by
1argent 5arter immediately prior to the issuance of the traffic citations upon Coughlin reporting
the same to 5arter*)
2!
6t the %/ page version of CoughlinBs &&012 filing before 3@2 Dudge 2eesley in
10=0<10! starting at page && (Doc <2=/ in the 3@2 Doc?et* is an edited version of CoughlinBs
E22! pageF motion filed on &/12 in the :9C 11 5: 2.%00 case from which CoughlinBs just
finished days prior < day summary incarceration had issued (such consisted of a <! page
9otion with 1.. pages of attachments by Coughlin*) 1uch %/ page version is edited down for
length, but the complete 22! page version is available for viewing as well, and its rather curios
that the 123 failed to ever put such into evidence or in any way ma?e it available to the Court
or 33D2, though Coughlin did*: http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%0,.00/&=&0=12=3@2=0<10!=
"iling=by=Coughlin=Detailing=(rejudice=#t=Geller=7essin=Clients=>here=1ummariy=
+ncarceration=of=6ttorney=3o=1tay=7ranted=2.%00=<0//
5he complete 22! page filing of &/12 by Coughlin is attached within the following
complete copy of CoughlinBs &&012 filing before Dudge 2essley as attachment / or EDoc <2=
/F therein: http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%0,./,0%=&0=12=0<10!=<2.&,=3@2=1ua=1ponte=
#rder=6uthoriAing=>ithdrawal=of=Coughlin=by=-ive=:e=2eesley
1ome e'tremely relevants e'erpts from such &/12 filing in 2.%00 by Coughlin:
(age 2! lines 1=20: E>hile there is a time and place, perhaps for #rders finding
1ummary Contempt under 3:1 22)0&0)))perhaps, the greatest strength a judge can demonstrate
is the ability to show a little wea?ness, to demonstrate something other than ruling with an iron
<,/%&
hand, to do something other than crush any voice of dissent in her court) 5o strangle out of
litigants the freedom to Aealously adovocate on their own or anotherBs behalf (in the case of
licensed attorneys* is perhaps the most heinous, sad, and ugly thing a judge could do) 6 judge
whom demonstrates an ability to oversee that which ma?es her less than comfortable in her
courtroom, that which she does not necessarily agree with, is a judge secure in hher abilities
and aware of the premium on restraint and patience called for in order for a judge and court to
transcend from mere debt collector for the City 6ttorney to impartial arbiter of fact and law)
5o demonstrate otherwise may create an atmosphere where court employees overstep their
bounds and begin to bully and harass those see?ing to access justice, a true violation of the trust
in which the public endows such public servants) Even perhaps, where 9arshals are able to
whisper into #rmasBs ear, in open court, then where the undersigned needs to use the restroom,
the Court #rders him to leave his notepad in the courtroom, then the udnersigned is summarily
interrogated by the Court from the 2ench in some way about PdevicesP li?e he is a mafia
informant being rundown by the Don, then the undersigned is arrested, strip searched, has his
property confiscated) 6nd its important property, including, but not limited to two different
cell phoens) ;ow is the undersigned supposed to communicate with clientsJ "urther, the
undersigned is a recent victim of domestic violence ("@12=001%/ and "@12=001%%*, and
rendering him more vulnerable through conversion of his means of emergency communictions,
his cell phones, is not justified here)F
6t page 2< lines 1=2: E6 (etition to (roceed in +"( and receive a copy of the audio
recording of any proceedings in this matter is submitted along with this instant filing)F
(age 2.:2<=2/:2.: E:eno City 6ttorneyBs >ong and #rmaas showed a disturbing
lac? of concern with regard to the reports that an :(D had admitted to ta?ign bribes from
:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) "urther, this Corut e'ploded at the undersigned at one poitn in the 5rial,
threatening to Pthrow you in jail if you say the name :ichard ;ill one more time^P) 5his
5raffic citations was issued minutes after the undersigned was told to leave :ichard 7) ;illBs
law office by :(D 1argent 5arter (who didnBt even write the tic?et here, and as such the .th
6mendment right to confront the accuser was violated by the other officerB, the material
witness, not being present for the 5rial) he wasnBt present for the PCalifornia :ollP either, so its
unclear why its o?ay for 1argent 5arter to have him write the tic?et for 1argent 5arter, whom
admitted he had only written one such tic?et in the entire year preceding his involvment in this
111<11 incident) 1hortly before 1argetn 5arter told the undersigned to leave ;illBs law office
(where the udnersigned went shortly after being released from a lovely & day stay in jail
pursuant to ;illBs signign a criminal trespass Complaint in 11 cr 2.!0< (where :9C appointed
defender too? on representation despite a clear conflict, then 5aitel agree to a continuance
because ;ill was goign to be on vacation for a month, all without consulting the undersigned
client, etc)))_*9r) >ong did e'press a complete lac? of concern to the undersigned when it was
reported to him that a :(D #fficer, Chris Carter, had admitted to the undersigned that the
opposing counsel in :DC :E@2011=001/0% summary eviction from a commercial tenancy law
office where non payment of rent was not alleged (in violation of 3:1 !0)2<&Bs e'press dictate
against such actions* had paid money to :(D #fficer Carter to arrest the undersigned (a bribe*)
9r) >ong indicated a complete lac? of consternation in this regard and e'pressed that he
.0/%&
intended to conduct Aero follow up with respect to that troubling breach of the public trust,
even though, as a :eno City 6ttorney, 9r) >ong li?ely has a duty to do so and his failure to
will augur strongly toward a finding that the :eno City 6ttorney is liable for any :(D
misconduct on a negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim and that the :eno City
6ttorney is aware of and, in fact, ratifies or endorses such bribe ta?ing by the :(D from
:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH, opposing counsel in that :DC eviction matter)F
(age 2%:1=&2:10: E8nder federal law, as well as the law of some states, the
misbehavior that permits summary action must in addition present an imminent threat to the
administration of justiceC it must immediately imperil the judge in the performance of his or her
judicial duty or constitute an actual obstruction of justice) 8)1) v) 5urner, %12 ")2d 1<<2 (11th
Cir) 1,%/* (attorneyBs posing of single Huestion to witness about race of certain individuals,
though in clear violation of verbal court order, did not so obstruct justice as to enable court to
resort to summary procedure for contempt under "ederal :ule of Criminal (rocedure !2(b**C +n
re ;olloway, ,,< ")2d 10%0 (D)C) Cir) 1,,&* (attorney pursued lines of Huestioning ruled out
by judge*)>itnessBs refusal to answer Huestions the court orders him to answer is contumacious
conduct which may subject witness to summary punishment for criminal contempt under Direct
contempt justifying summary disposition is confined to e'ceptional circumstances involving
acts threatening the judge, disrupting the hearing, or obstructing court proceedings) :ule !2) +n
re 2oyden, ./< ")2d .!& (<th Cir) 1,%2*) 2ecause summary contempt procedure fills a need for
the immediate penal vindication of the dignity of the court, its application is confined to
unusual situations where the courtBs instant action is necessary to protect the judicial institution
itself) +n re 7ustafson, .1, ")2d 1&<!, <% 6)$):) "ed) 1 (,th Cir) 1,%0*, on rehBg, .<0 ")2d
101/ (,th Cir) 1,%1*)
3:1 22) 0&0) 1ummary punishment of contempt committed in immediate view and
presence of courtC affidavit or statement to be filed when contempt committed outside
immediate view and presence of courtC disHualification of judge:
E1) +f a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge
at
chambers, the contempt may be punished summarily) +f the court or judge summarily
punishes
a person for a contempt pursuant to this subsection, the court or judge shall enter an order
that:
(a* :ecites the facts constituting the contempt in the immediate view and presence of the
court
or judgeC
(b* "inds the person guilty of the contemptC and
(c* (rescribes the punishment for the contempt)))F
1<! 6$: 122/, 3ecessity and 1ufficiency of 9a?ing and :ecording 1ubsidiary or
Detailed
"indings 1upporting 6djudication of Direct Contempt)
1tatute providing that in all cases of contempt arising without immediate view and
.1/%&
presence of
court, judge of court in whose contempt defendant is alleged to be, shall not preside at such
trial over objection of defendant, is constitutional) 3)C)$)1,2,, S %,!&) 9cCormic? v) 1i'th
Dudicial Dist) Court in and for ;umboldt County, 1,<0, 21% ()2d ,&,, ./ 3ev) &1%) Contempt
"or purposes of statute governing summary contempt proceedings for direct contempt
committed
in judgeBs presence, which reHuires court to Eenter an order,F while a trial courtBs oral
contempt order is immediately enforceable, a written order including the statuteBs reHuired
elements
must be promptly entered) ;ouston v) Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court e' rel) County of
Clar?, 200., 1&< ()&d 12.,, 122 3ev) <!!)
6ppropriate remedy for attorney who had been found in direct contempt of court in
divorce
proceeding in which he represented wife, where contempt order had been found to be
insufficient
by 1upreme Court, in that it did not contain a sufficient statement concerning what conduct
was held to be contemptuous, was to permit trial court to enter amended order, given that
1upreme CourtBs opinion addressed issue of first impression and announced standard for
contents
of written contempt order) ;ouston v) Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court e' rel) County of
Clar?, 200., 1&< ()&d 12.,, 122 3ev) <!!)
;ere, seemingly, the 1ummary Contempt #rder relies in part on Pcontinuing lines of
.2/%&
inHuiry after told by the Court not to do so)))P however any such alleged instances of this are
e'plained away by the fact that any such Huestions where not posed to prove the truth of the
matter asserted but rather for other permissible purposes (and this was pointed out to the Court
at trial* and the ultimate Huestion just prior to this CourtBs continuing the 5rial was only
halfway finished prior to the Court interjecting the punishment) "urther, for Dudge 3ash
;olmes ruling that it is not relevant here whether :(D was retaliating against the undersigned,
or made any mention of doing so is plain error)
6 written summary contempt order, issued pursuant to statute governing summary
contempt proceedings for direct contempt committed in judgeBs presence, must set forth
specific facts concerning the conduct found to be contemptuous) ;ouston v) Eighth Dudicial
Dist) Court e' rel) County of Clar?, 200., 1&< ()&d 12.,, 122 3ev) <!!) Dudge 3ash ;olmeB
#rder is apparently not even in writing (as far as the undersigned ?nows at this point, and if
criminal defendnats can lose their right to an appeal where 3:1 1%,)010 holds them to an
incredibly Huic? 10 calendar days to file a notice of appeal, this Court should lose its right to
reduce the 1ummary Contempt #rder to specific, detailed written order where it has not already
done so* or in a Pchec? the bo'P variety, on a preprinted form, seemingly ta?en from the 2ench
2oo?, containing mere conclusory and circular statements about the purported contempt and in
no way satisfies the above standard) +ndeed, Dudge 3ash ;olmes does not specify what Plines
of inHuiryP were continued, nor is it clear how a pro se defendant denied his 1i'th 6mendment
:ight 5o Counsel could reasonably ?now what is reHuired of him to comply with Dudge 3ash
;olmes vague and menacing contempt pronoucements while also Aealously advocating on the
defendantBs behalf) 5he undersigned could not have reasonably been said to have been warned
.&/%&
with any specificity as to what was verboten or how he could comply with the CourtBs warning,
particularly if fundamental notions of due process and fair play were to apply, which is implicit
in all actions)
>ritten summary contempt order finding attorney for wife in divorce proceeding in
direct contempt of court failed to indicate what particular comments by attorney were held to
be contemptuous, and, thus, order was insufficient, under statute governing summary contempt
proceedings for direct contempt committed in judgeBs presence) ;ouston v) Eighth Dudicial
Dist) Court e' rel) County of Clar?, 200., 1&< ()&d 12.,, 122 3ev) <!!)
#ther than indicating the defendant Ploo?ed in this poc?etsP, Dudge Bs #rder does
little to comply with the above standard) "urther, Dudge 3ash ;olmes ma?es allegations of
ElaughterF, however, and this goes to the Eevident impartiality9otion for :ecusalF, Dudge
3ash ;olmes seemed to go to great lengths to stri?e from the record anything that might be
said to place the :9C or the :eno City 6ttorney on notice, sufficient ot defeat any plausible
deniability claim, of :(D impropriety, potentially in connection with a negligent hiring,
training, and supervision claim or other action, a la !2 81C 1ec 1,%&, wherein the training,
customs, and policies of the :(D and :eno City 6ttorney may be important to ?now) DDudge
3ash ;olmes does not ma?e clear how attempt to prohibit such allows for a defendant to
Aealously advocate on his own behalf, or whether it is ever permissible, or even a s?illful trial
tactic, for a litigant to engage in whatever it was that upset this Court) :eally, what Dudge 3ash
;olmes seems to want the most is for those defendants that he wishes to find guilty to lay down
and die a death of sorts in his courtroom, and to than? the :9C for its wisF
During the five day incarceration for summary contempt ordered in this matter, the
.!/%&
undersigned was denied a single phone call or tier time by 1heriffBs Deputies on one day, and
on another ma?ing such phone calls was impossible given the implementation of a new phone
system at the jail, resulting in much prejudice to his clientBs cases) +t is simply untoward for
judges to leverage clientBs woes to further punish an attorney, where, as here, the Court seemed
to suggest that any responsibility of this Court to appropriately consider and rule on a 9otion
to 1tay or otherwise allow for precautions to be ta?en to avoid prejudice to client matters not
the courtBs concern, but rather, was purely the undersignedBs fault)
+t is instructive to compare Dac?sonBs interpretation of the Dudge 3ash ;olmesBs
#rder, and to consider to e'tent to which she may be acting in a judicial capacity (unless this
Court will provide some indication of whether Dac?sonBs email was done at the behest of any of
the :9C Dudges*)
9otivational inspiration for the :9C, City of :eno 9arshals ;ylin, and Chief
:oper, and can be found in $ippis v) (eters, 112 3ev) 100%, ,21 ()2d 12!% (1,,.*:
E5he judgment awarding fees in this case imposes upon two justicesB courts and seven justices
of the peace an obligation to pay to the tenantsB attorneys the sum of O1%,.,&)<0) 5his judgment
does present a problem when we start to thin? about how)))F
(age !&:1=!!:2<: E+ ?now Dudge ;oward and Dudge 3ash ;olmes are li?ely very
upset with me) 2oth recently sentenced me to several days of incarceration pursuant to a
1ummary Contempt Committed in the CourtBs (resence finding) "urther, Dudge ;olmes has
apparently had my two cell phones and perhaps some other materials confiscated pursuant to
the search incident to arrest in connection with my summary contempt incarceration incident to
the recent 5rial in :9C traffic citation matter 11 tr 2.%00 (tic?et number <!!2%1* which
occurred at 1 pm "eb) 2/th, 2011 before Dudge ;olmes, wherein :eno City 6ttorney #rmaas
was representing the City of :eno)
5he jail did not give me bac? my two cell phones and other items of personal
property))they said the :eno 9unicipal Court (:9C* confiscated those items on 22%12,
.</%&
though they indicated that they did not reHuire the :9C (actually the :eno 9arshalBs division*
to show a court order or warrant prior to so confiscating those items) 6pparently they are
holding these items pursuant to Pprobable causeP, of what + do not ?now) Dudge 3ash ;olmes
sua sponte interrogated me in open court (shortly after + pointed out that 9arshal ;ylin and
:eno City 6ttorney were whispering in each otherBs ears during the 5rial here* as to whether +
was recording the proceeding) 5he proceedings are recorded as a matter of law by the court,
and the proceeding is an open hearing, part of the public record, so)))+ am not sure what she was
getting at, but)))5he :eno 9arshalBs 9arshal ;ayney (or ;iney, not sure* and the :eno City
6ttorney #rmaas were seen whispering in each otherBs ears during the hearing (+ noted that
verbally into the record* and after the hearing, while 9arshal ;ayney was searching me
pursuant to my being arrested (which was odd given + was in the process of attempting to pay
the alternate discipline Dudge ;olmes had offered, O<00, which was supposed to enable me to
avoid serving the < days jail time, then, for some reason, + was denied the opportunity to ma?e
such a payment rather abruptly and with great testosterone and fury by 9arshal ;yney*, he
immediately started accusing me of PrecordingP and told the other 9arshalBs to report that + had
been doing so to the Dudge, Dudge 3ash ;olmes, based upon nothing reaonsably allowing him
to suspect that or ma?e such allegations, particularly where 9arshal ;iney was still so upset
that the undersigned has dared to Huestion him earlier that day, immediately prior to 5rial, who
gave ;iney the 3otice of the ;earing on the #rder to 1how cause in C@11=0&.2% (another
situation involving the alleged trespass at issue here, the eviction in :DC :Ev2011=001/0%, and
the traffic citation issued here*) +t is jun? food justice to suggest that none of this is PrelevantP
to this matter)
../%&
5he case number in this :9C traffic citation matter is 11 tr 2.%00 :9C (tic?et
number <!!2%1* and the 5rial or ;earing occurred at 1 pm "eb) 2/th before Dudge ;olmes
6bout 10 days ago + filed an application for a temporary protection order against a
:eno Dustice Court 2ailiff named :eyes) 2ailiff :eyes had, on probably 3ovember 2%, 2011
or so, told me he was going to Pput his foot up your assP) ;e continued to be menacing and
aggressive to me and finally + filed a protection order about 10 days ago) 5o my ?nowledge, no
decision or hearing has been held on that protection order, and Garen 1tancil, Chief Civil Cler?
with the :DC informed me it was being transferred to 1par?s Dustice Court (+ believe* do to the
:DC having a conflict) 6lso, + reported to :DC Court 6dministrator 5uttle another incident
wherein Chief 2ailiff 9ichael 1e'ton has made menacing commentary to me regarding my
PassP as well, twice during 5han?sgiving wee? in the Civil Division "iling #ffice)F
(age !.:1:!%:2%: E3:1 11%6)!%0 comes into play if the landlord did ta?e Precovery
of possessionP of my former home law office at 121 :iver :oc? 1t) prior to being legally
allowed to do so) 5o analyAe this, one must ?now what type of service of the #rder of
1ummary Eviction is reHuired) 5his being a civil matter, the Prendition of judgment or orderP
or PrenderedP language one finds in criminal statutes li?e 3:1 1%,)010 (wherein the deadline
for filing a 3otice of 6ppeal from a criminal conviction is set forth* is inapplicable) 5hat being
said, and as e'plicitly set forth in 3:1
6 letter from the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice (>C1#* Civil DivisionBs $iA 1tuchell
provides some insight as to whether the loc?out that too? place on 3ovember 1, 2011 in this
case was permissible)
P1ubject: :E: >C1# Deputy 9achemBs Ppersonally servedP 6ffidavit of
.//%&
1112011
Date: 5ue, / "eb 2012 11:!0:&, =0%00
"rom: $1tuchellNwashoecounty)us
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com
CC: m?andarasNda)washoecounty)us
9r) Coughlin,
#ur records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day
was personally served by Deputy 9achen by posting a copy of the
#rder to the residence) 5he residence was unoccupied at the time)
$iA 1tuchell, 1upervisor >C1# Civil 1ectionP
(ut simply, the 3ovember 1, 2011 loc?out, for which >C1# Deputy 9achem
indicates he Ppersonally servedP the #rder of 1ummary Eviction, was not lawfully conducted,
and as such is ineffective and invo?es the provision of 3:1 11%6)!%0) >hen considering
that the tenant did file such a complaint for illegal loc?out, and the fact that the :DC failed to
rule on tenants filing (and a good deal of other such filings by the tenant have languished in
the :DC unruled on despite reHuests for submission being submitted)))*, the current criminal
trespass proceeding in the :9C in 11 C: 2.!0< and the ;earing on the #rder to 1how
Cause currently set for 9arch 2&rd at 11:00 am in Department / in C@11=0&.2%, the appeal
from the eviction matter involving :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) in :DC :ev2011=001/0%)
5his whole business about E5he 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 7ranting 1ummary Eviction was
signed by #ctober 2/th, 2011) 5hat language is only found in situations inapplicable to the
current one) 3:1 !0)2<&(&*(b*(2*, and 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a* are the only sections of 3:1 !0
.%/%&
where this Ewithin 2! hoursF language occurs, and those situations only apply where, in:
!0)2<&(&*(b*(2*: E &) 6 notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: )))(b* 6dvise the
tenant: `) (2* 5hat 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)2<&(<*(a*: E<) 8pon noncompliance with the notice: (a* 5he landlord or the landlordLs 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) 5he 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 5he way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in
:eno Dustice Court presently shoc?s the conscience and violates 3evada law) 5here is not basis
for effectuating a loc?out the way >C1#Bs Deputy 9achem did in this case) 5he above two
sections containing the Ewithin 2! hours of receiptF language are inapplicable, as those
situations do not invo?e the present circumstances, where the 5enant did file an 6ffidavit and
did contest this matter to a degree not often seen) 5o reHuire 3evadaBs tenants to get up and get
.,/%&
out Ewithin 2! hoursF of Ereceipt of the orderF (what does that even meanJ 5he use of terms
li?e ErenditionF, ErenderedF, Enotice of entryF, EpronouncedF, is absent here, and this Ereceipt
of the orderF language is something rarely found elsewhere in 3evada law=see attached D9@
statutory citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a Complaint within
,0 days of EreceiptF of a :ight 5o 1ue $etter, a situation which follows 3:C( <(b*, and 3:C(
.(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 6braham v) >oods ;ole #ceanographic +nstitute, <<& ")&d 11!
(1st Cir) 200,*, the record did not reflect when the plaintiff received his right=to=sue letter) 5he
letter was issued on 3ovember 2!, 200.) 5he court calculated that the ,0=day 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 5itle @++ or the 6D6, a plaintiff must
e'haust administrative remedies and sue within ,0 days of receipt of a right to sue letter) 1ee
!2 8)1)C) S 2000e=<(f*(1*) 1ee 2aldwin County >elcome Center v) 2rown, !.. 8)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 :ule .*))))F )))F
(age !%:1%=<1:.: E+ am pretty sure Ppersonally servedP means you served the person
in person, not that a person (or >C1# Deputee* went and posted a notice on a door, personally
himself) 1ee, + thin? the >C1# are thin?ing of the PpersonP in the word personally as applying
to the server, when in all instances + have ever seen it used in the law, the PpersonP part of
PpersonallyP applies to the person being served) "urther adding confusion here is the fact that
some, including those in the :DC Civil Division "iling #ffice seem to believe that the Ewithin
2! hoursF of Ereceipt of the orderF mentioned for serving an #rder for 1ummary Eviction (only
where the tenant did not file a 5enantBs 6nswer, so)))not li?e in the instant case* reHuires the
>C1# to effect the loc?out within 2! hours of the >C1# receiving the loc?out
#rder)))otherwise such an #rder would become staleJ
/0/%&
+t is not so rare a gift to be able to tear someone down, to punish, to scare, to
confiscate) ;owever, it is truly a wondrous site to see one with the power to rehabilitate a
lost cause, and one day ma?e that lost cause useful to another human being) 6 power seen in
esteemed 3evada $awyers and Dudges, and legal professionals li?e Coe , Geith , 5om, (aul ,
Chuc?, 2ob, Gelly, 9icheal, Gim, 2en, and so many others (and the undersigned feels remiss
at not having a female name to mention amongst those just cited to*) 5here has been plenty
of punishment here already, family relationships have been tore up and barely remain on life
support) 5he :eno City 6ttorney could probably get by without bloodletting another O1/<
and ! points from the undersigned) >hy 1argent 5arter must be subjected to this cross
e'amination is unclear, one would thin? the :eno City 6ttorney would hope to avoid it by
some means other than, seemingly, relying on the :9C to gerrymander the relevancy issues
here to help 1argent 5arter, et al to avoid answering any uncomfortable Huestions) +t is
simply tac? for CourtBs to sua sponte cross e'amine defendants an or witnesses on behalf of
prosecutors, particularly where + canBt even one time recall seeing it done the other way)
;owever, to those who would judge or assert some Pspecial treatmentP is being
sought, as? yourself whether you brought home with you over the last &0 years everyoneBs
overdosing on methadone, or wal?ing out of oneBs office after ma?ing every assurance that
suicide was not at all a possibility only to reveal that, indeed it was, or have countless
wee?ends and vacations involve phone calls concerning whether a patient is Pfull codeP or
Pno codeP)))Kou bring that home with you for &0 years and tell me what sort of compensation
is appropriate and then compare it to the managed care era family physicianBs and then we
can discuss Pspecial treatmentP) 6nd you do that without a drin? in &0 years and then you
/1/%&
can tal?) 2ut all this Pspecial treatmentP discussion seems a bit strained when discussing
whether :ichard 7) ;ill comfort level necessitates e'acting even more money out of me
when it ought be fairly obvious that + am doing everything + possibly can to, buc?et by
buc?et, remove the water pooling at the bottom of my tiny, one person canoe) 6nd where
this involves a rugged, tall, 2& year veteran 1argent of the :eno (D with pale blue eyes who
has doubtless earned the compensation he now garners, perhaps the :eno City 6ttorney
would be wise to just let the traffic tic?et go) #r, perhaps, not, given the economy we are all
struggling with e'acts its forces upon the judgment of the :eno City 6ttorneyBs #ffice as
well, and they didnBt get where they are by being lightweights or lac?ing in discretion or
valor) 9aybe the best thing would be to just hit the pause button for a while and see whether
the person of inHuiry continues to suit up and show up and do their best to function as a legal
professional an earn an honest living) ;owever, any discussion of Pspecial treatmentP should
include allowing #rmaas and 1argent 5arter e'tra time to Pmeet and conferP well after the
start time set for this 5rial))))it should further consider that apparently the privilege of the
participant that all witnesses in all trials enjoy seemingly does not allow the undersigned to
alleged untruthfullness on 1argent 5arterBs part absent a summary < day incarceration and
confiscation of the undersignedBs personal property well thereafter, even without a warrant)
1o much for the 2ill of :ights)
3:1 !0)!00 :ules of practice) 5he provisions of 3:1, 3evada :ules of
Civil (rocedure and 3evada :ules of 6ppellate (rocedure relative to civil
actions, appeals and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of 3:1 !0)220 to !0)!20, inclusive, apply to the proceedings
mentioned in those sections)
/2/%&
3:1 !0)&,0 6ppellate court not to dismiss or Huash proceedings for
want of form) +n all cases of appeal under 3:1 !0)220 to !0)!20,
inclusive, the appellate court shall not dismiss or Huash the proceedings
for want of form, provided the proceedings have been conducted
substantially according to the provisions of 3:1 !0)220 to !0)!20,
inclusiveC and amendments to the complaint, answer or summons, in
matters of form only, may be allowed by the court at any time before final
judgment upon such terms as may be justC and all matters of e'cuse,
justification or avoidance of the allegations in the complaint may be given
in evidence under the answer)
"urther problematic with Dudge 1ferraAAaBs approach in :DC :ev2011=001/0% is
that, while his interpretation of 3:1 !0)2<& allowed an eviction based only on a 3o Cause
Eviction 3otice to somehow reHuire a rent escrow deposit of O2,2/< for a litigant with
nothing to spare, such an approach did not allow for that tenant to assert counterclaims,
despite the e'plicit authority for the tenant doing so upon a court applying ,* 118?.490
?ction# ba#ed u/on non/ayment o% rent0 Counterclaim by tenantL de/o#it o% rent 2ith
courtL Eudgment %or e-iction) +ndeed, the undersigned tenant in that matter did attempt to
assert such counterclaims, however his right to do so was denied) 1imply put, the landlord
was able to have it his way in so many different ways in this eviction matter) ;e was able to
proceed under a no cause summary eviction notice wherein the nonpayment of rent was not
alleged while at the same time benefiting from the court forcing the tenant to deposit a rent
escrow amount of O2,2/<) 5his approach is further underscored by the fact that only 10 days
or so after receiving the summary eviction order the landlordBs counsel submitted to the
tenant a landlordBs affidavit for summary eviction based on the nonpayment of rent) +t would
seem only fair and indeed reHuired by 3:1 11%6)!,0 allow the tenant to assert
counterclaims where the tenant is so forced to ma?e a rent escrow deposit) 6nd, while the
/&/%&
$ease 6greement provided that the landlord shall be, at subsection 2%:
28. 47?+7476F: management shall not be liable for any damage or
injury to :esident or any other person or to any property occurring on
the premises or any part thereof, or in common ares thereof, unle##
#uch liability i# ba#ed on the negligent act# or omi##ion o%
management' hi# agent' or em/loyee)))P
Dudge 1ferraAAa summarily ruled that 7reen 6ction $awn 1ervice was an
Pindependent contractorP and, as such, 1ubsection 2% of the $ease 6greement did not afford
the tenant an opportunity to assert counterclaims under 3:1 11%6)!%0) ;owever, even if the
6ppellate District Court reviewing :DC :ev2011=001/% in C@11=0&.2% finds this so, the fact
that the review is a Pde novoP review permits the appellate court to consider whether, even it
were the case that the landlordBs landscapers were Pindependent contractorsP, that 1ubsection
2% would still allow for liability for their acts to be accorded to the landlord) :egardless,
Dudge 1ferraAAaBs ruling on whether or not liability e'ists or whether tenant was allowed to
litigate counterclaims in the trial court are simply not matters well suited to summary
judgment, and, regardless, tenant met his burden in that regard sufficient to preclude such a
summary disposition of those matters)F
1imilarly, pages . to / of CouhlinBs &/12 filing before Dudge "lanagan in the
appeal of he summary eviction involving ;illBs firm, Cv11=0&.2& spea? to the :9C Dudge
;olme 9arshal ;arley, :eno City 6ttorney allison #rmaa issues
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%0,%/22&=/=12=020!=1/0%=9tn=1et=6side=#rder=to=1how=
Cause=Continue=1tay=;earing=C@11=0&.2%=2/<&&10=9tn=6lter=or=6mend=Dudgment
6lso, CoghlinBs &%12 Case http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%0,%/21&=%=12=020!=
.1&%&=C@11=0&.2%=2/<!!1/=Case=6ppeal=1tatement (Coughlin essentially the same !/ page
document three times between &/12 and &%12 in C@11=0&.2%, changing the title to the
document each time (however, the content thereof made sense for each of the three iterations
and was necessary, particularly in light of the ridiculous applications of >DC: 10 Coughlin
was being subjected to by now "erlnely 9unicipal Court Dudge $ori 9atheus) >ithin each is
/!/%&
the following at page .:
E+ ?now Dudge ;oward and Dudge 3ash ;olmes are li?ely very upset with me) +
have a great deal of respect for both of those Dudges and hope to earn their respect ultimately)
2oth recently sentenced me to several days of incarceration pursuant to a 1ummary Contempt
Committed in the CourtBs (resence finding) "urther, Dudge ;olmes has apparently had my two
cell phones and perhaps some other materials confiscated pursuant to the search incident to
arrest in connection with my summary contempt incarceration incident to the recent 5rial in
:9C traffic citation matter 11 tr 2.%00 (tic?et number <!!2%1* which occurred at 1 pm "eb)
2/th, 2011 before Dudge ;olmes, wherein :eno City 6ttorney #rmaas was representing the
City of :eno)
5he jail did not give me bac? my two cell phones or a micro sd card)))they said the :eno
9unicipal Court (:9C* confiscated those items on 22%12, though they indicated that they did
not reHuire the :9C (actually the :eno 9arshalBs division* to show a court order or warrant
prior to so confiscating those items) 6pparently they are holding these items pursuant to
Pprobable causeP, of what + do not ?now) Dudge 3ash ;olmes Huestioned me in open court as to
whether + was recording the proceeding) 5he proceedings are recorded as a matter of law by the
court, and the proceeding is an open hearing, part of the public record, so)))+ am not sure what
she was getting at, but)))5he :eno 9arshalBs 9arshal ;ayney (or ;iney, not sure* and the :eno
City 6ttorney #rmaas were seen whispering in each otherBs ears during the hearing (+ noted that
verbally into the record* and after the hearing, while 9arshal ;ayney was searching
(= . 9otion to 1et 6side #rder to 1how CauseC or alternatively, 9otion to Continue or 1tay
;earing on #rder to 1how Cause (ending the :esolution of the Criminal 5respass 9atter*F
me pursuant to my being arrested (which was odd given + was in the process of attempting to
pay the alternate discipline Dudge ;olmes had offered, O<00, which was supposed to enable me
to avoid serving the < days jail time*, he found my phone and a micro sd card was on the floor
ne't to my foot) ;e immediately started accusing me of PrecordingP and told the other
9arshalBs to report that + had been doing so to the Dudge, Dudge 3ash ;olmes)
+t seemed that the City 6ttorney #rmaas was afraid + had a recording of her telling me she did
not care about any reports of bribery by :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) in relation to my charge of :(D
1argent 5arter retaliating against me with three traffic citations shortly after + reported to him
that :(D #fficer Chris Carter admitted to me on 3ovember 12th, 2011 (during my arrest for
trespass as my former home law office at 121 :iver :oc? 1t)* that he accepts bribes from
:ichard ;ill, EsH) City 6ttorney #rmaas seemed to become fearful of this after it became
apparent in court that whether or not + would be permitted to enter any such evidence in support
of that contention would be dependent upon whether + had previously attempted to provide any
such evidence to the :eno City 6ttorney) + believe my testimony (which should be captured by
the audio recording the :9C ma?es of all hearings, if it doesnBt mysteriously disappear or get
PdamagedP* includes my stating that + had attempted to provide such proof to not only :eno
City 6ttorney #rmaas, but also the previous :eno City 6ttorney on the case, Dan >ong, and
that they had both told me they didnBt care to hear about such bribery allegations involving the
/</%&
:eno (D and :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) + seem to recall Dudge 3ash ;olmes demanding to ?now
whether + had any proof of my so attempting to bring these bribery allegations to the :eno City
6ttorneyBs >ong and #rmaas, and + might have said something li?e PweBll seeP, which, of
course, upset the Dudge (its hard in open court, everything happens very fast and the rules seem
to only be used against those who are not part of the system*)
5he case number in this :9C traffic citation matter is 11 tr 2.%00 :9C (tic?et number
<!!2%1* and the 5rial or ;earing occurred at 1 pm "eb) 2/th before Dudge ;olmes
6bout 10 days ago + filed an application for a temporary protection order against a :eno Dustice
Court 2ailiff named :eyes) 2ailiff :eyes had, on probably 3ovember 2%, 2011 or so, told me
he was going to Pput his foot up your assP) ;e continued to be menacing and aggressive to me
and finally + filed a protection order about 10 days ago) 5o my ?nowledge, no decision or
hearing has been held on that protection order, and Garen 1tancil, Chief Civil Cler? with the
:DC informed me it was being transferred to 1par?s Dustice Court (+ believe* do to the :DC
having a conflict) 6lso, + reported to :DC Court 6dministrator 5uttle another incident wherein
Chief 2ailiff 9ichael 1e'ton has made menacing commentary to me regarding my PassP as
well, twice during 5han?sgiving wee? in the Civil Division "iling #ffice)
+ am telling you this because + donBt ?now what to do, or what is going to happen) + am trying to
defuse the situation as best as possible))))5o clarify, the :9C is the :eno 9unicipal Court and
they employ 9arshals to be the muscle in court) 5he :DC is the :eno Dustice Court and they
employ 2ailiffs to do the same)F
Essentially, CoughlinBs filing of &/12 before Dudge 3ash ;olmes is largely
included in CoughlinBs filing of &/ and &%12 before Dudge "lanagan) 6t page 1% in the filing
before Dudge "lanagan of &/12 is:
E6here i# all #ort# o% claim# again#t )ill here' abu#e o% /roce## Bthe /hony 6P9'
P$ 9%%icer Carter admitting )ill /ay# him money to arre#t /eo/le Bthey 2ill #ay it# 2a#
a Eo5e' but it# not a Eo5ing #ituation 2hen you are arre#ting an attorney %or tre#/a## a%ter
)ill #end# a bill %or the %ull rental -alue o% the /ro/erty Bnot Eu#t rea#onable #torage
mo-ing and e8/en#e# undre ,* 118a.460C H900 %or ,o-ember' /lu# )7ll ha# thi#
contractor named Phil 2ho 5ee/# #ubmitting the#e Eac5ed u/ bill# BH1050 to board u/ the
/orch a# Jrea#onable #torage' mo-ing and in-entoryingJ de#/ite hi# not ta5ing an
un#ecured 2indo2 unit ac out o% the 2indo2...and the /lace 2a# burlgariMed on 12112111
%or about H8'000 or #o o% /er#onal /ro/ertyC.../lu# 2ithheld my client<# %ile# %or 6 2ee5#'
(= 1% 9otion to 1et 6side #rder to 1how CauseC or alternatively, 9otion to Continue or 1tay
;earing on #rder to 1how Cause (ending the :esolution of the Criminal 5respass 9atter* my
dri-er# licen#e %or 7 day#...($CP? -iolation#...they #till ha-en<t returned the H700
#ecurity de/o#it...hi# $eclaration# are %ull o% /erEury'in my o/inion' a# are hi#
/./%&
contractor#...
3ow, shortly after + have been adjudge a victim of domestic violence and granted two different
#rders for (rotection by 9aster Edmundson (this Court refused to hear anything about this in
summarily denying my e'cusable neglect arguments vis a vis the deadlines for pre=trial
motions)))yet #rmaas and 1argent 5arter are allowed to call time out right before the 5rial and
compare their positions or PconferPJ*) 3ow, aside from having my already s?int ban? account
practically emptied payign a O&00 towing bill for my car incurred during this summary
incarceration, and having several clientBs cases badly damaged (why this punishment could not
have been delayed even a day is not clear to me, rather, it is disturbing)))and the e'cuse the lac?
of concern for these clients by shifting blame to the undersigned for Aealously advocating on
behalf of the accused misses the point and further engages in a PAero sum gameP mindset that
:eno and its citiAens do not need right now*) +n his own testimony 1argent 5arter admitted to a
retaliatory motive for the citation here) "urther he opened the door to several matters this Court
clearly did not want to have see the light of day) 5hese include, the fact that 1argent 5arter told
the accused he ?new he was going to turn left on "orrest 1t) and head bac? towards ;illBs law
office, and that is why he pulled the accused over, in addition to the fact that the accused,
allegedly Pdid not come to a complete stop in %ront of the white line, but only after the white
lineP) 5his PinchingP into the intersection was necessary to gain a view of whether any cars
mgith be coming even cars going the wrong way down a one way street li?e "orrest (drun? or
craAy drivers do not cease to e'ist, as 1argent 5arter implied, merely because a street is
designated as a Pone wayP) +ts ironic, becasue the accused and 1argent 5arter argued about
whether the rationale 1argent 5arter proferred for pulling the accused over made any sense, as,
according to the accused, turning left on "orrest to get bac? to ;illBs officew at .<2 "orrest 1t
while the accused was heading east on 1t) $aurence would have reHuired goign down the
Pwrong wayP of a Pone way street, "orrestP)))it was at about that time that 1argent 5arter
decided he could hear no more from the accused) :egardless, 5arter was tailing the accused,
the accused was aware of it, and the accused carefully obeyed all law of traffic as he suspected
5arter would try to write some phony traffic tic?et) 5his clearly contradicts 5arters assertion
that he was par?ed and not tailing the accused, nor had he begun to, until after witnessing the
alleged Pfailure to come to a complete stopP violation, which included 5arterBs highly suspect
testimony which seemed to defy the laws of physics and optics, in addition to other laws)
Defendant files this (only to the e'tent it is even necessary and some alternate resolution cannot
be had)))barring that, please treat this as a 3otice of 6ppeal as well, though treating this as a
Ptolling motionP, 3:C( <2, 3:C( <,(a*,(e*, etc) may also be a nice approach preventing the
fast pace appeals proceed at an or obviating the need for me to file such a 3otice of 6ppeal* as
he was denied his 1i'th 6mendment :ight 5o Counsel ( ( this 1i'th 6mendment :ight to
Counsel is mentioned clearly in the 200% $imited Durisdiction CourtBs 2ench 2oo? for 3evada
Dudges, along with the 2010 1upplement thereto, and while a very learned Dudge li?e Dudge
;oward may cite to 1cott v) +llinois for support that no such right e'ists where incarceration is
not actually effectuated, it clearly was here, five days worth, complete with a O&00 bill for the
///%&
undersignedBs car being towed*, and files this 9otion 5o 1et 6side Dudge 3ash ;olmes
"ebruary 2/th, 2012 1ummary Contempt #rder and also to move for a continuance with
respect to the ne't 5rial date that was mentioned while the undersigned was in custody) 1ee
E'hibit 1)
4@=?4 ?=I!@,6
6ppellant argues that by denying his reHuest to cross=e'amine witnesses about their potential
bias, the trial court abridged his 1i'th 6mendment right to confront the witnesses against him)
2ias e'ists Ewhen a witness has a general willingness or motivation to testify falsely on the
stand)F :ose v) Pone way street, "orrestP)))it was at about that time that 1argent 5arter decided
he could hear no more from the accused) :egardless, 5arter was tailing the accused, the
accused was aware of it, and the accused carefully obeyed all law of traffic as he suspected
E'hibit 1)
4@=?4 ?=I!@,6
stand)F :ose v) Pone way street, "orrestP)))it was at about that time that 1argent 5arter decided
he could hear no more from the accused) :egardless, 5arter was tailing the accused, the
/%/%&
accused was aware of it, and the accused carefully obeyed all law of traffic as he suspected
E'hibit 1)
4@=?4 ?=I!@,6
stand)F :ose v) 8nited 1tates, %/, 6)2d ,%., ,,< (D)C)200<*) E2ias cross=e'amination of a
main government witness is always a proper area of cross=e'amination and is relevant in
assessing the witnessB credibility and evaluating the weight of the evidence)F 2lunt v) 8nited
1tates, %.& 6)2d %2%, %&& (D)C)200!*C accord, 1cull v) 8nited 1tates, <.! 6)2d 11.1, 11.<
(D)C)1,%,* (E2ias is always a proper subject of cross=e'amination ) and the alleged bias or
unreliability of a witness is never a collateral issueF (citations omitted**) #n the other hand,
although the Eopportunity to cross=e'amine adverse witnesses is an inherent component of the
defendantBs 1i'th 6mendment right of confrontation ) that right is subject to reasonable limits
imposed at the discretion of the trial judge ) to prevent harassment, prejudice, confusion of the
issues, or repetitive, cumulative, or only marginally relevant Huestioning)F +d) at 11.! (citations
omitted*) 6 Eproper foundationF is reHuired for cross=e'amination to establish bias, including a
proffer of facts sufficient to enable the court Eto evaluate whether the proposed Huestion is
probative of bias)F Dones v) 8nited 1tates, <1. 6)2d <1&, <1/ (D)C)1,%.*) 5he proffer must
include E Zsome facts which support a genuine beliefL that the witness is biased in the manner
asserted,F id) (citation omitted*, or at least Ea Zwell=reasoned suspicionL rather than Zan
/,/%&
improbable flight of fancyL to support the proposed cross=e'amination)F 1cull, <.! 6)2d at
11.! (Huoting 8nited 1tates v) (ugh, 1!1 8)1)6pp) D)C) .%, /1, !&. ")2d 222, 22< (1,/0**)
5his standard is a fairly lenient one, and any decision about the adeHuacy of the proffer lies
within the sound discretion of the trial court) 2rown v) 8nited 1tates, .%& 6)2d 11%, 12!=12<
(D)C)1,,.*) "inally, when challenging an adverse ruling on a proffer of witness bias, an
appellant must show Ethat he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross=
e'amination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and
thereby Zto e'pose to the jury the facts from which jurors ) could appropriately draw inferences
relating to the reliability of the witness)L F Delaware v) @an 6rsdall, !/< 8)1) ./&, .%0, 10.
1)Ct) 1!&1, %, $)Ed)2d ./! (1,%.* (citation omitted*) 6ppellant argues that )))F
6t page !0 of such 0&.2% ("lanagan* &/12 filing is that which is found at page 2&
of CoughlinBs &/12 filing in 2.%00 (;olmes*: E>hile there is a time and place, perhaps for
#rders finding 1ummary Contempt under 3:1 22)0&0)))perhaps, the greatest strength a judge
can demonstrate is the ability to show a little wea?ness, to demonstrate something other than
ruling with an iron hand, to do something other than crush any voice of dissent in her court) 5o
strangle out of litigants the freedom to Aealously adovocate on their own or anotherBs behalf (in
the case of licensed attorneys* is perhaps the most heinous, sad, and ugly thing a judge could
do) 6 judge whom demonstrates an ability to oversee that which ma?es her less than
comfortable in her courtroom, that which she does not necessarily agree with, is a judge secure
in hher abilities and aware of the premium on restraint and patience called for in order for a
judge and court to transcend from mere debt collector for the City 6ttorney to impartial arbiter
of fact and law) 5o demonstrate otherwise may create an atmosphere where court employees
overstep their bounds and begin to bully and harass those see?ing to access justice, a true
violation of the trust in which the public endows such public servants) Even perhaps, where
9arshals are able to whisper into #rmasBs ear, in open court, then where the undersigned needs
to use the restroom, the Court #rders him to leave his notepad in the courtroom, then the
udnersigned is summarily interrogated by the Court from the 2ench in some way about
PdevicesP li?e he is a mafia informant being rundown by the Don, then the undersigned is
arrested, strip searched, has his property confiscated) 6nd its important property, including, but
not limited to two different cell phoens) ;ow is the undersigned supposed to communicate with
clientsJ "urther, the undersigned is a recent victim of domestic violence ("@12=001%/ and
"@12=001%%*, and rendering him more vulnerable through conversion of his means of
emergency communictions, his cell phones, is not justified here)
3
>heres Defendant went to great lengths to demonstrate to Dudge ;oward and the :9C that he
is indigent, he, apparently, is not EallowedF to be so, so much so that this Court went against
the 3evada Court of $imited Durisdiction 2ench 2oo? of 200% and its 2010 1upplement in
denying the undersigned the his 1i'th 6mendment :ight 5o Counsel, set forth e'plicitly in
several locations in the 2ench 2oo? and mandatory authority in the8nited 1tates) 6rgersinger
%0/%&
v) ;amlin, (!0/ 8)1) 2<*) 6 (etition to (roceed in +"( and receive a copy of the audio
recording of any proceedings in this matter is submitted along with this instant filing))))F
+ronically, Coughlin mista?enly referred to Dudge ;oward at times instead of Dudge
;olmes inmuch the same way Chair Echeverria mi'ed up Dudge ;oward and Dudge 7ardnerBs
names in his 121!12 "#"C#$)
1&) Dudge 3ash ;olmes 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 ;earing E'hibit <, #:DE:, (,!, lines /= 1%,
1!) #n 9arch 1!, 2012, Dudge 3ash ;olmes referred the matter of Coughlin to 1tate
2ar Counsel David Clar? and suggested the matter had some urgency) 1ee ;earing E'hibit %,
$etter dated 9arch 1!, 2012 from :eno 9unicipal Court Dudge Dorothy 3ash ;olmes to
#ffice of 1tate 2ar Counsel, 3evada 1tate 2ar)
1<) Dudge ;olmes testified at the hearing of this disciplinary matter that one of the
purposes of her 9arch 1!, 2012 #rder was to provide the panel to hear this matter with clear
and convincing evidence, based on her e'perience and bac?ground as an attorney, prosecutor
and judge that Coughlin had violated numerous provisions of the 3evada :ules of (rofessional
conduct) 1ee 5ranscript of (roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1&/, $ 22 =(
1&%, $ ,)
1.) 8)1) 2an?ruptcy Dudge 2ruce 2eesley
2<
was called to testify at the
hearing of this matter) During the time frame 2011 to 2012, Coughlin appeared before Dudge
2eesley
2.
two or three times as an attorney representing clients in a ban?ruptcy matter) #n one
occasion Coughlin appeared wearing a 5=shirt and a tie and no jac?et) 1ee 5ranscript of
(roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 10, $ 10=1.) Coughlin had filed a pleading
in the ban?ruptcy matter, on behalf of his client) Dudge 2eesley testified that the pleading was
Plengthy, didnBt ma?e any sense, and just sort of rambled through a great deal of irrelevant
stuff)P 1ee 5ranscript of (roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 10, $ 2! =( 11, $
1) #n other occasions, although Coughlin appeared polite and intelligent, his pleadings and
arguments didnBt ma?e any sense) 1ee 5ranscript of (roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember
1!,2012, ( 11, $2=/
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 5ranscript of ;earing
>ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1&, $ 2! = ( 1!, $ /)
1%) +n Dudge 2eesleyBs opinion, Coughlin is not competent to practice law)
1ee 5ranscript of (roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, (1<, $ 11 =1<)
1,) 1tate 2ar Counsel called attorney :ichard ;ill to testify at the hearing of
this matter: 9r) ;ill ha# been a member in good #tanding 2ith the *tate +ar o% ,e-ada
for 00 years) 1ee 5ranscript of (roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( &., $ 22 (
&/ $ !) 9r) ;ill was retained by Dr) 9erliss to assist Dr) 9erliss in a landlord tenant dispute
with his tenant Coughlin) 1ee 5ranscript of (roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, (
&/, $1! =20) )r, %ill represen"ed Dr, )erliss in 3eno Jus"i!e Cour" and >ashoe County
District Court and two appeals to the 3evada 1upreme Court in the matters involving Dr)
%1/%&
9erliss and Coughlin) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( &,, $ 1&
=2!) 9r) ;ill has also reviewed filings in of a case in which Coughlin is involved with >ashoe
$egal 1ervices) 1ee 5ranscript of (roceedings >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( &,, $ 2< (
!0, $ &)
(P;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &.:22 to &/:!* U Could you state your name and spell
it for the record) 6 :ichard ;ill) ;=+=$=$) U 6nd 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 6 +
have been practicing for && years and am in good standing)P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &/:1! to &/:20* U 6nd how did you first come into
contact with 9r) CoughlinJ 6 >ell, + was hired by a Dr) 9atthew 9erliss) 9y office was to
remove a tenant from a home at 121 :iver :oc? in :eno) Dr) 9erliss had been going bac? and
forth with 9r) Coughlin for several months) 9r) Coughlin had not paid any rent for, at that
point + believe it was ==P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &,:1& to &,:2!* U Could you describe to the panel in a
chronological manner some of the events that you have personal ?nowledge of that e'hibited
this behavior that formed your opinionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: #bjection) :elevancy) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: #verruled) 5;E >+53E11: +Bve read virtually everything that 9r) Coughlin
has filed, not only in the Department / e-iction ca#e, and 6efore "$a" "$e 3eno Jus"i!e
Cour"(s ei!"ion !ase) ;eBs now got == had two appeals to the 3evada 1upreme Court in that
case, and +Bve read virtually everything that heBs done)P
P;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &,:2< to !0:&* +Bve also followed the filings that heBs
had in his dealings with >ashoe $egal 1ervices) 6nd +Bve followed the filings that he had in the
supreme court discipline matters)P*
20) +n the e-iction proceeding between Dr) 9erliss and Coughlin, 9r) ;illBs
firm obtained an e-iction order allowing Coughlin one wee? to vacate the premises)
8ltimately, Coughlin failed to comply with the e-iction order and was convicted of criminal
tre#/a##) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( !1, $ 1% =( !!, $ 12)
(E)@?7,= - Vol. 7' BPage# 41017 to 44012* 2K 9:) G+37: U Did
you end up getting an eviction order removing 9r) Coughlin from Dr) 9erlissBs
homeJ 6 (:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)* >e did) U 1ubseHuent to the eviction order, was
9r) Coughlin removed from the homeJ 6 +Bm sorry) 5here was an order issued in
!our" that ga-e !r. Coughlin a #ee' "o a!a"e) + believe it was 3ovember 1 that my
wife, my associate == and my associate, #en" "o "$e $ome #i"$ "$e s$eriff and
!ondu!"ed a lo!'ou") 5he front door loc?s were changed) 5he bac? door loc?s were
changed) 9:) C#87;$+3: #bjection) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'cuse me) #bjection
whatJ 9:) C#87;$+3: ;earsay) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;earsayJ #verruled) 5;E
>+53E11: 6nd the whole thing was videotaped) 5he ne't day + went to the home to
videotape the place to preserve what was there to prevent any arguments later,
because 6y "$a" poin" in "ime #e 'ne# #$a" #e #ere dealing #i"$) + get there, and
the front door is loc?ed, but almost all the windows are closed but unloc?ed, and the
bac? door is unloc?ed) 6nd +, of course, go through, loc? everything, ma?e sure the
place is secure, videotaped it) 6nd + went bac? and read my #ife and my asso!ia"e
"$e rio" a!", and they both said no, the doors were loc?ed) #?ay) + go bac? the ne't
%2/%&
day, same thing) 2ac? doorBs unloc?ed, windows are unloc?ed) 2$is !on"inues for
"$e ne?" "#o #ee's) 9r) Coughlin is sending out e=mails to us 6u" #ill no"7
apparen"ly7 read "$e e-mails #e(re sending "o $im saying we have to get your stuff
out of here) 3o response) 2#o #ee's af"er "$e ei!"ion on a *unday Dr, )erliss
!omes "o "o#n and says, + want to see the house) + meet him about 10:&0, 11:00
oBcloc? on a 1unday morning at the house) >e go in) 2ac? door is open) 2$ere(s food
#rappers on "$e !oun"er "$a"(e 6een "$ere "$a" #eren(" "$ere "$e las" "ime 5 #as in)
>indows are open again, and itBs a very e'acerbating situation) ?nd he #ay#' 7 2ant
to chec5 the ba#ement. 7 didn<t 5no2 there 2a# a ba#ement in the hou#e. 6here<#
thing# /iled in the #tair2ell to get do2n into the ba#ement' tool 5it#' and hea-y
#tu%%. 3e get it out o% the 2ay. 3e get do2n there. ?nd 7 can #ee 2hen he /u#he#
on the door' and $e "urns "o me7 and $e says7 G5"(s 6arri!aded7J %rom the in#ide. 7t
2a#n<t loc5ed' it 2a# barricaded. 4e 'no# #$a"(s going on. *o #e !all "$e poli!e.
6he /olice come o-er. 2$ey "ry "o ge" Ma!$ ou" of "$e 6asemen"' #$oeer #as in
"$ere a" "$a" poin". 6he police !ang on the door >Come on out Bach, Colice, Dou
have to go.J ,o re#/on#e. 2$ey "urned "o us and say7 #e(re going "o leae.
B,96@0 doe# that not #ort o% -itiate any #ub#eAuent %inding o% /robable cau#e to
arre#t 2here the /olice clearly do not %eel Eu#ti%ied in /ur#uing #uch alleged
illegal acti-ityDC 3ait a minute. 7<m the o2ner. Fou ha-e the authority to brea5
the door do2n. J3e don<t do that.J *o $r. !erli## goe# do2n to the bottom o%
the #tair#. Dr, )erliss 'i!'s "$e door open7 and "$e poli!e offi!er s"i!'s $is $ead
around "$e !orner and pulls $is gun ou"7 and $ere(s )r, Coug$lin do#n "$ere. 9r)
Coughlin olun"arily !ame ups"airs #i"$ $is dog and #as pla!ed under arres") 6fter
he left, we went downstairs) !r. Coughlin had a d2elling #et u/. )e had 2ater.
)e had %ood. )e had a hot /late' a micro2a-e' had hi# com/uter #et u/ do2n
there. )e had the dog. 6here 2a# dog %ood' dog /oo/. )e had a bed and hi#
com/uter #y#tem #et u/ do2n there. %e #as arres"ed and #as su6se8uen"ly
!oni!"ed of !riminal "respassF*
21) #n behalf of his client Dr) 9erliss, !r. )ill #ought and o6"ained an
order in faor of Dr, )erliss and agains" Coug$lin a#arding Dr, )erliss a""orney(s fees in
the amount o% H42'065.50) >ashoe District Court Dudge (atric? "lanagan entered the order on
Dune 2<, 2012) (3#5E: 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 E9erlissBs motion
for attorneyBs feesF)))which, when one considers that 9erlissBs !1,12 filing was titled E* 1ee
5ranscript of (roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( !/, $ &=/)
(;E6:+37 = @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 &) 6 (:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)* Kes) P6ccordingly, 9erlissBs
mo"ion for a""orney(s fees is granted in the sum of O!2,0.<)<0)F*
(3#5E: 4ell7 so #$a"J 1ince when do 3:1 .,)0<0 Eprevailing
partyF attorney fee awards warrant a summary disbarment proceedingJ ;ave
%&/%&
some respect for yourself, 123, 33D2) 6s far as this Efinding is concerned,
and the e'cerpt of the transcript it cites to, such Eaward of attorneyBs fees may
well have been nothing more than an award of the Eprevailing partyF attorneyBs
fees of appeal from a justice court civil action pursuant to ,* 69.050, where a
EjudgmentF is involved, that ;illBs associate, Casey D) 2a?er, EsH), cited to as
providing a basis for such a fee award (never mind that 3:1 !0)!00 ma?es
3:6( controlling, meaning only 3:6( &% would provide such a basis for any
fee award, and 2reliant limits the adjucatory boundaries, right (though he failed
to cite to any such authority for such proposition, that was the gist of 2a?erBs
argument that CoughlinBs failing to specifically cite to 3:1 !0)&%< in any filing
(2a?erBs 1&12 #pposition to CoughlinBs 12&011 3:1 !0)&%< citing 9otion to
1tay incorrectly asserts that Coughlin first cited to 3:1 !0)&%< in CoughlinBs
12<11 filing in the justice court when, actually, CoughlinBs 112&11 filings
e'pressly cites to 3:1 !0)&%. and CoughlinBs 101<11 written correspondence
with 2a?er e'cerpts the following from the E$andlord 5enant ;andboo?F
distributed by the 6#C: E5he drawbac?s to summary eviction are: 1) Kou
cannot get a money judgment as part of your actionC &) 5he 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 ;illBs own associate, 2a?erBs !1,12
9otion for 6ttorneyBs "ees lies where it reads: E2) Coughlin filed his first notice
of appeal in the eviction case on 3ovember &, 2011, two days after he #as
properly and la#fully lo!'ed ou" of "$e proper"y) :#6, @ol) +++, pp) 22,=2&&F
given the fact that 2a?er, ;ill, and the landlord 9erliss actually burglariAed
CoughlinBs former home law office, so, uh, its rather a stretch to taunt 3:6( &%
by asserting that Coughlin Ewas properly and lawfully loc?ed out of the
propertyF in addition to the fact that 2a?erBs own 102012 fa' to :DC Dudge
1ferraAAa admits there is an issue as to whether CoughlinBs 101/11 filing of a
3otice of 6ppeal divested the :DC of jurisdiction ot even hold the 102<11
Pcontinuation of the 101&11 summary eviction proceedingP, much less for
Dudge Clifton to deny CoughlinBs 101/11 Emergency 9otion to 1tay, fil *
*ee )earing @8hibit 2' P &' 4 10-11. B;?ccordingly' !erli##<# )o"ion for
0""orney(s Fees i# =?,6@$ in the #um o% H42'065.50.NC
(3#5E: Dudge "lanaganBs .2<12 #rder in 0&.2% (";E2* reads:
E9$@ C@11=0&.2% D/ Currently before this Court is :espondent 9655
9E:$+11Bs (P9erlissP* Motion for &ttorney's *ees filed on 6pril 1,, 2012)
5n "$e a6sen!e of any opposi"ion from 6ppellant -6C;6:K 26:GE:
C#87;$+3 (PCoughlinP*, 9erliss submitted this matter for decision on
9ay ,, 2012) ;owever, on Dune ,, 2012, Coughlin filed a Supplement to
Epposition to Motion for &ttorney's *ees, +n response, 9erliss filed a Reply
%!/%&
to Supplement to Epposition to Motion for &ttorney's *ees on Dune 1!, 2012,
and submitted the matter=again=that same day) 9erliss reHuests this Court to
award attorneyBs fees in the amount of O!2,0.<)<0 against Coughlin in the
underlying summary eviction matter pursuant to 3:1 .,)0<0 and 3:1 /)0%<
9erliss and his counsel aver these fees are reasonable, particularly given
CoughlinB PdeliberateQR ))) pattern of abusive, ve'atious, and most
importantly, e8/en#i-e behavior in both this appeal and in the case below Qin
:eno Dustice CourtR)P (9ot) at p) 2* (#riginal emphasis) 9erliss avers
CoughlinBs litigation strategy Pwas simply to ?eep the fight goingP and
PreHuire substantial additional wor? by 9erlissB counsel, far beyond anything
in a BnormalB eviction)B (9ot) at p) &)* 9erliss asserts this additional wor? was
necessary because he Pcould not ris? the court accepting some random
citation in CoughlinBs papers and entering an adverse ruling because QheR had
not opposed it)P (9ot) at p) <)* "urther, 9erlissBs counsel, :ichard 7) ;ill,
alleges these fees Pdo not include substantial amount of editing and other
activities performed by Q9r) ;illR in this case)P (9ot) a p) .C 9ot) E') !)*
9erliss contends PQiRt 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 (9ot) at p) .)* 9erliss goes even further and states:
6s 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 9erliss so direct and indisputable, that nothing
less than a full award of those fees should even be considered by the
court) 5o not impose the full measure of the harm Coughlin has
caused would reward and encourage his ve'atiousness in this and
other cases) 5here needs to be a day of rec?oning for CoughlinBs
antics) (9ot) at p) %)*
3evada law provides for Pa reasonable attorney fee to be fi'ed and
allowed by the district court for all services rendered in behalf of the prevailing
partyP on appeal from justice court) 3E@) :E@) 1565) S .,)0<0) +n addition,
3:1 /)0%< 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 !iil a!"ion where Psuch action or defense is not well=grounded in
fact or is not warranted by e'isting law ))))P 3E@) :E@) 1565) S /)0%<(1*(a*)
5he same applies to attorney who has PQu Rnreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended
a ci-il action) P 3E@) :E@) 1565) S /)0%<(1*(b*)
+f grounds e'ist to award attorneyBs fees, 3evada courts follow the
lodestar analysis) 1huette v) 2eaAer ;omes ;oldings Corp), 121 3ev) %&/, %.!,
12! ()&d <&0, <!, (200<* (P5he lodestar approach involves multiplying the
number of hours reasonably spent on the case by reasonable hourly rate)P*
(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 wor?C (&* the wor? performedC and
(!* the result obtained) 1ee, 2runAell v) 7olden 7ate 3atBl 2an?, %< 3ev) &!<,
&!,, !<< ()2d &1, && (1,.,* (citation omitted*C 2arney v) 9t) :ose ;eating M
6ir Conditioning, 12! 3ev) %21, %2,, 1,2 ()&d /&0, /& (200%* (per curiam*
(applying the 2runAell factors*)
?%ter re-ie2ing !erli##<# mo-ing /a/er#=including the detailed and
thorough summary of fees and his counselsB accompanying +eclarations/and
af"er !onsidering all of "$e par"ies( argumen"s, this Court concludes 9erlissBs
attorneyBs fees reHuest is authoriAed by 3evada law) 5his Court also has
considered the factors set forth in 2runAell, supra, 6fter analyAing those factors,
and gien "$e uni8ue fea"ures of "$is !ase, this Court concludes 9erlissBs fee
reHuest is reasonable)
6ccordingly, 9erlissBs Motion for &ttorney's *ees is 7:635ED in
the sum of O!2,0.<)<0) +5 +1 1# #:DE:ED) D65ED this 2<th day of Dune,
2012) s (atric? "lanagan District DudgeF*
2$e mo"ion see'ing a""orney(s fees was based on CoughlinBs conduct in the defense
of the e-iction matter, which conduct was !$ara!"eriKed B,96@0 this is an obvious attempt
to mislead by Echeverria, as he fails to indicate who it was who made so PcharacteriAedP
CoughlinBs conduct (it was ;illBs associate 2ar?erBs !1,12 post=judgment sanctions motions
that failed to comply with the 21 day safe harbor provisions in 3:C( 11 incorporated into 3:1
/)0%<, which does not even apply anyways, however, given that 3:1 !0)!00 ma?es 3:6( &%
controlling)))but regardless, Dudge "lanagan made no such PfindingP or PconclusionP that
CoughlinBs PconductP was Pfrivolous and ve'atiousP, thus the use of the word PpresumablyP,
though as Echeverria leaves such reference to PcharacteriAedP unattributed, one may be
confused and thin? this PfindingP is indicating that it was unclear whether Dudge "lanagan
merely so PcharacteriAedP CoughlinBs conduct as such in dicta, or whether he specificially
identified such characteriAation as a PfindingP)))alas, Dudge "lanagan did neither, but
EcheverriaBs attempt to confuse the reader is obvious* as frivolous and ve'atious and
presuma6ly so found 6y Judge Flanagan) *ee )earing @8hibit P 2' 4 8-1&L P &' 4 4-11)
(P(9ot) at p) .)* )erliss goes een fur"$er and s"a"es: 6s proven
a6oe and 6elo#, the %ri-olity and -e8atiou#ne## of CoughlinBs main"enan!e
and e?"ension of this matter has been so beyond reason, and so outrageous, and
the ne?us of $is 6e$aior "o "$e fees in!urred by 9erliss so dire!" and
indispu"a6le, that nothing less than a full award of those fees should even be
considered by the court) 5o not impose the full measure of the $arm Coughlin
has caused would reward and encourage his e?a"iousness in this and other
cases) 5here needs to be a day of rec?oning for CoughlinBs an"i!s) (9ot) at p)
%)*P (";E2, (2, $ %=1&**
CoughlinBs 101%12 emailed grievance to the 123 (which was also sent via 81(1
mail, 123, so donBt try your whole Pa grievance of over twenty pages in length may not be
%./%&
submitted via our online portal or emailP that you just ?now 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 (li?e those of &1.12 against (eter 1) Christiansen and Gevin
Gelly, of !1.12 against 7ayle Gern, EsH), of multiple dates against >C(D Dim $eslie, and of
multiple dates against :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), and his associate Casey D) 2a?er, EsH*, save a
letter from Ging indicating he would not pursue grievances against either >C(D 2iray Dogan,
EsH)(despite a per se violation of :(C 1)1, 1)1, and 1)& in violating 3:1 1/%)&,/* or :9C
court appointed counsel Geith $oomis, EsH)
P1ubject: bar grievance against :ichard ;ill, Casey 2a?er, and Geith $oomis,
:oberto (uentes, $ew 5aitel
"rom: -ach Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)com*
1ent: 5hu 101%12 %:02 69
5o: laurapNnvbar)orgC patric?Nnvbar)orgC rosecNnvbar)orgC glennmNnvbar)orgC
davidcNnvbar)orgC tsusichNnvdetr)orgC complaintNnvbar)orgC complaintsNnvbar)orgC
shornsbyNnvdetr)org
"rom: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com
shornsbyNnvdetr)org
1ubject: $+5+765+#3 ;#$D 3#5+CE rev2011=001/0% cv11=0&.2%, .0&&1 .1&%&, 123 v)
Coughlin C61E 3892E: 3712=020!, 37=0!&<, 37 0!&!
Date: >ed, 1/ #ct 2012 1.:<,:</ =0/00
Dear #ffice of 2ar Counsel, +nvestigator (eters, Chairman 1usich, et al,
(lease find important attachments supporting the assertions herein here:
https:s?ydrive)live)comredirJresidV !&0%!.&% " &2 " < " 2% ^ &<%/
(lease donBt try to old Pmy +5 guy said + couldnBt open it, because of viruses and
stuffP) 5hat is no more plausible an e'cuse for reviewing materials material to your
investigation than would be suggesting your fear of Panthra'P potentially being mailed to you
prevents you from opening your paper mail)))Kou 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 as? you to consider how being wrongfully
incarcerated ten times in one year following a divorce of sorts would affect our tone, behavior,
or personality)
4oomi# re%u#ed to ad-ocate at all on my behal%' re%u#ed to #ub/oena material
/erci/ient 2itne## !erli##' and re%u#ed to ma5e argument directed to i##ue 7 /ro-ided
2ealth o% #u//ort on' ie' the invalidity of the eviction order where the loc?out occurred
outside of the Pwithin 2! hours of receiptP window in the statue, and where technical service
reHuirements were not met, vis a vis 3:1 !0)!00, 3:C( .(e*, and 3:C( <(b*(2*, and where
$oomis acted on matter during pendency of Competency Evluation in cr12=0&/.)
6lso, will you please have the 37= grievance or case numbers for all of the
grievances and complaints + have filed this year provided to me in writing, including the new
grievances found herein against :ichard 7) ;ill, Casey 2a?er, and Christopher ;aAlett=
%//%&
1tevensJ
3ote: please forward this written correspondence on to 2ar Counsel Ging and
+nvestigatorCler? of Court (eters in light of their apparent and sudden, somewhat technical
PissuesP with emails from Coughlin, which in no way is interpreted as providing indications
that they now see? to sully the 123Bs image 6y a""emp"ing "o add Coug$lin "o "$eir 6lo!'ed
sender lis" 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 ;olmes or :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) (in contrast to the whole Pattac? dog for the rich and
powerfulP image, some might say, the 123 has built up))))
+t is ironic, that ;ill and 2a?erBs own writing in their 3ovember 21st, 2011
#pposition to CoughlinBs 3ovember 1.th, 2011 9otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty lien may
now be used against them, in light of the staleness, voidness, and invalidity of the #ctober
2<th, 2011 and #ctober 2/th, 2011 Eviction Decision and #rder and "indings of "act,
Conclusions of $aw and #rder for 1ummary Eviction in :DC :ev2011=001/0%) 1ee >illiams
v 3agel, .!& 3)E) 2d %1. and >olf=$illie, <0! ") 1upp 1) 2a?er wrote on ;illBs behalf:
P;ere, Coughlin filed his first motion pursuant to 3:1 11%6=!.0 on 3ovember
1.,2011) 5hat motion was timely) ;owever, 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 9erlissB counsel that he do so) 6s a sole and direct result of 9r)
CoughlinBs refusal to cooperate with the court to set his own hearing, that hearing never
happened) 5he 10 days in which to hold the hearing under 3:1 !0)2<&(%* have now e'pired)
9r) CoughlinBs motion is stale, and the relief he see?s is now time=barred) 2ecause he
abandoned that motion, it was, effectively, denied)P
5o 2a?erBs 3ovember 21st, 2011 #pposition (how clever, 2a?er writes it so he can ma?e
rec?less allegations that arenBt true in it that ;ill would not be so free to ma?e, given he was
there during the 3ovember 12th, 2011 arrest*, is attached the signed, sworn, 3ovember 21st,
2011 Declaration of :ichard ;ill, which reveals at the least an intent to mislead the tribunal by
;ill, and also reveals ;ill and 9erliss contributed to a false arrest to a material e'tent) 5hat
Declaration reads:
P!) #n #ctober 2/, 2011, this court signed a summary eviction order, and on
3ovember 1, 2011, the >ashoe County 1heriffs Department served that order) 5he notice was
posted on the door of the home by the >ashoe County 1heriffs Department in the manner
customary in >ashoe County for evictions) 5he loc?s on the front door and bac? door were
changed, and we retained all ?eys to the home)
<) 6fter that date, + began to notice that it loo?ed li?e 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 PsomebodyP had been getting
in) + thought + had secured the means of entry being used by whoever it was that
was getting in) ;owever, on later visits to the home, it was clear that the home was still
being surreptitiously accessed)
.) #n 3ovember 1&, 2011, Dr) 9erliss came to :eno because he wanted to
inspect the home) 8pon entry, it was clear that somebody had again accessed the home)
%%/%&
/) >e tried to enter the basement and found the door was barricaded, not loc?ed,
from the inside) Ae were concerned that whoever had !een accessing the home was inside so
we called the police)
%) >hen the police arrived, they agreed with us that it was very li?ely that somebody
was barricaded in the basement) 5he police tried to coa= the person to come out, but without
success)
,) >hen the police declined to brea? down the door, Dr) 9erliss did so) 5he police
loo?ed 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) 6fter Coughlin was ta?en to jail, Dr) 9erliss and 6 tried to videotape the
contents of the !asement where Coughlin had !een hiding, 6t was too dar5 to effectively
videotape, but we were able to ascertain that Coughlin and hi# dog ha-e been li-ing in th
ba#ement o% the home %or Auite #ome time, li'ely een 6efore "$e lo!'ou") + observed that
Coughlin had a bed set up) ;e had several computer monitors) ;e had a store of food
and water) ;e had electric space heaters)
12) 1ince the eviction order was served, my asso!ia"e7 )r, &a'er7 and 5 $ad sen"
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)
9r) Coughlin $ad no reason "o possi6ly "$in' $e #as permi""ed on "$e proper"y) >e had
"ried "o !oa? $im to cooperate on getting his possessions out, without success, or even a
response)
1&) 6s a result of 9r) CoughlinBs brea?=ins, Dr) 9erliss has incurred a bill of O1,0.0
with a licensed contractor to secure the premises) 5hat does not include the cost of the door that
was bro?en in order to get Coughlin out) 5hat does not include the numerous hours of me and
my staff to deal witb 9r) CoughlinBs repeated brea?=ins at the home)
1!) + am no e'pert, but + believe 9r) Coughlin is what is called a Phoarder)P ;e has
many car seats throughout the house) ;e has many dead televisions) ;e has a bo' of car
window servo motors) 5he attic, which can only be accessed through a very narrow
opening, is full of items, including dead electronic devices)
1<) 4e $ae found drugs a" "$e $ome) >e found a bag of #$a" loo's li'e marijuana
on the ?itchen counter) 5 found a !ra!' pipe) 5he contractor found what $e said #as a large
8uan"i"y of pills)
1.) 9r) Coughlin has been harassing and stal?ing me, and possibly, my staff)
#n 3oyember 1<, 2011, he burst into my office and created a scene) 5hen, he was parading up
and down the sidewal? across the street with a video camera screaming obscenities at
me and my staff)P
3ow, if one reads that Declaration by ;ill, then watches the videos ;ill too? of the
moments before, during, and after CoughlinBs arrest for criminal trespass on 3ovember 1&th,
2011)))well, one must conclude ;ill and 9erliss lied, and bro?e the law, resulting in profound
reputational damage to Coughlin and vast damage to his family and career) 5hey should do
time for this, period) >here, in that Declaration, so soon after the arrest it is almost an Pe'cited
utteranceP is 1usich or Gings allegation of Pbrea?ing and enteringP and the Ploc?s being
%,/%&
bro?enPJ >hy wouldnBt ;ill just say that in the Declaration if it was trueJ >here is the video
of the basement that ;ill mentions attempting to ta?e) 5here wasnBt one provided in the
materials ;ill gave to the city attorney, which were discovered to Coughlin) >hy doesnBt ;ill
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 PwarningP) 5hat basement was fi'ed up to be, basically, a studio apartment addition to
the main floor for over a year before the eviction, and ;ill admits this appears to be the case in
another filing) ;ill misleads the court above where he fails to mention the numerous times
Coughlin indicated he had added ;+ll to his Pbloc?ed senders listP and or indicated he did not
consent to any form of electronic service or notice of anything, and where 2a?er was on
vacation in early 3ovember) 5he videoBs ;ill too? title -achBs arrest 000/=001!, found at the
above lin?, show particularly well the fraud and criminal conduct by 9erliss and ;+ll including
lying to effectuate a false arrest and criminal trespass and invasion of privacy)
>hat is actually s"ale7 inalid7 oid7 null7 e?pired7 or o"$er#ise ineffe!"ie is the #ctober
2<th and 2/th 1ummary Eviction #rders by Dudge 1ferraAAa in light of the >C1#Bs admission
that on 3ovember 1st, 2011 (allegedly at !:&0 pm*, Deputy 9achen bro?e into CoughlinBs
former home law office with ;ill or 2a?er in tow (and probably one of those lawyers legal
assistantvideographers whom drive a new 9ercedes 1$=.00 convertible coup))))the ?ind with a
@=12 engine)))thatBs right, a @=12, O1&0,000 new, three times the engine found in CoughlinBs
four banger 1,,. ;onda 6ccord $4 (at least its not a D4, rightJ* with 110,000 miles on it*:
6ll the case cited below are relevant, and most are terrible, for ;ill, 2a?er and
9erliss, in addition to ma?ing the criminal trespass conviction
2/
e'tremely suspect:
+orio, !10 3K1 2d 1,<
:ussell v Galian, !1! 6)2d !.2
2urhams, %, ()&d .2,
:oswic?, 2&1 2: %!1
;ammond, <1< 1E 2d 1%2
6lbert, !,0 3K1 2d ,<1
2.!0< and 0&.2% trespass case:
Inu#ed' untimely e-iction 2arrant need# to be rei##ued: 7reen, &!! 1E 2d <0/,
>oods 1, 3K1 2d .%&, :egan !2< 3K1 2d /2<, +orio, !10 3K1 2d 1,<, :ussell v Galian, !1!
6)2d !.2)
@8/ired 2arrant %or e-iction no good: $eese v ;orne, !/ ()2d &1., 2urhams, %,
()&d .2,, :oswic?, 2&1 2: %!1, ;ammond, <1< 1E 2d 1%2, 6lbert, !,0 3K1 2d ,<1, #B2rien
v) 8)1), !!! 6)2d ,!., 1tate v) 9Ernar, /%. 6)2d 1!1 (01*, Canavan v) 1tate &% 1o) &d %%<,
Dordan @) 1tate, %02 1o) 2d 11%0 (01*, 1tate v) 6sh, 12 1> &d %00 (53 B,,*) Dordan v) 1tate
110 ()&d at !/, >illiams v) 3agel .!& 3E 2d %1., Goenig, /!2 ()2d .!,,3elson, ,0, 3E 2
.!2, claim of right #Bbanion <1, 1E 2d %1,, 2ean !.< ()2d 1!!1)))
Can<t Eoin in #ame /roceeding a di#barment and contem/t /roceeding:
Dic?erson v) 1tate 1/, 1> &2!)
Dudge 3ash ;olmes continues to refuse to allow Couglin to appeal the Psummary
criminal contemptP #rder, even though, given the incarceration was served, it is a finally
appealable order, see 7ilman 2/< @) Comm !/!, .</ 1E 2d !/!)
,0/%&
+i%urcate di#ci/linary matter#: +n re (orep (3ev) 1,!1* 111 ()2d <&&, +n re
Gaemmer, 1/% 1> 2d !/!, 5errell v) 9iss) 2ar .&< 1o 2d 1&//, 9att of 2riggs <02 3E 2d
%/,, +n :e ;ines !%2 6) 2 &/%, triem ,2, ()2d .&!, 1mith %< () <2!, +n re "insh 2/ 6) &d !01,
+n re Character, ,<0 3E 2 1//, 5oledo v) Coo? %% 3E 2d ,/&(B0/*, Cohn, 1<1 1> &d !// (B0!*,
+n re Crandell, /<! 3> 2 <01, +n re Cobb, %&% 3E 2d 11,/, +n :E 7insberg .,0 3> 2d <&,,
3orth Carolina 2ar v) :ogers, <,. 1E 2d &&/) 1nyder /,2 6) 2d <1<
"oinder1/reEudice to Coughlin: 2<, ()2d /, +n :e :ichardson .,2 6) 2d !2/
26405 and 0&628 tre#/a## ca#e:
Inu#ed' untimely e-iction 2arrant need# to be rei##ued: 7reen, &!! 1E 2d <0/,
6)2d !.2:
e8/ired 2arrant %or e-iction no good: $eese v ;orne, !/ ()2d &1., 2urhams, %,
()&d .2,, :oswic?, 2&1 2: %!1, ;ammond, <1< 1E 2d 1%2, 6lbert, !,0 3K1 2d ,<1, #B2rien
v) 8)1), !!! 6)2d ,!., 1tate v) 9Ernar, /%. 6)2d 1!1 (01*, Canavan v) 1tate &% 1o) &d %%<,
Dordan @) 1tate, %02 1o) 2d 11%0 (01*, 1tate v) 6sh, 12 1> &d %00 (53 B,,*) Dordan v) 1tate
110 ()&d at !/, >illiams v) 3agel .!& 3E 2d %1., Goenig, /!2 ()2d .!,,3elson, ,0, 3E 2
.!2, claim of right #Bbanion <1, 1E 2d %1,, 2ean !.< ()2d 1!!1
(lease indicate in writing what you have done to investigate :ichard 7) ;illBs
allegations, as set forth in his Danuary 1!th, 2012 grievance against me, in writing, including,
but not limited to ;illBs 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 :(D 1argent 5arter
following my release on 3ovember 1<th, 2011 when + ventured to ;illBs 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) 5his is a formal, written grievance against :ichard ;ill
and Casey 2a?er, in compliance with my :(C %)& obligations respecting their failure to turn
over my hard drives, driverBs license, clientBs files and my own files, their impermissibly
influencing the :DC to fail to give me a hearing on my 3ovember 1.th, 2011 filing of a 9otion
to Contest (ersonal (roperty lien within the 10 days reHuired by 3:1 !0)2<&(/*=(%* (hearing
only too? place after :ichardBs si' wee? vacation, on December 20th, 2011, in accord with
:ichardBs written indication to me that he would be able to get the :DC to wait that long on his
account))), an impermissible suggestion by :ichard that he could improperly influence a
tribunal, as was :ichard threats that he would have me given the Dordan v) 1tate Pve'atious
litigantP treatment if + ?ept up my opposition to his nefarious aims)
P1ubject: :E: >C1# Deputy 9achemBs Ppersonally servedP 6ffidavit of 1112011
Date: 5ue, / "eb 2012 11:!0:&, =0%00
"rom: $1tuchellNwashoecounty)us
9r) Coughlin,
#ur records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served by Deputy
,1/%&
9achen by posting a copy of the #rder to the residence) 5he residence was unoccupied at the
time)
$iA 1tuchell, 1upervisor, >C1# Civil 1ectionP (3#5E: this is the email from >C1# Civil
Division 1upervisor $iA 1tuchell that both Ging (in his !1212 presentation of a 2& E'hibit
pac?age to the 1creening (anel* and 33D2 Chair 1usich (in his <&112 1C: 11/ (etition in
.0,/<* e'cised from the copies of CoughlinBs &<12 filing of a 9otion to Dismiss in :9C 11
C: 2.!0<, the criminal trespass prosecuti
6dditionally, this is a grievance against ;ill and 2a?er concerning their lying under oath at
the Dune 1%th, 2011 criminal trespass from my former law office trial in :9C 11 C: 2.!0<)
(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 <
months period between ;illBs Danuary 1!th, 2012 written, but unsigned, grievance to (at Ging
and the conviction on Dune 1%th, 2012)))certainly, the 123 has ta?en an interest in my pending
criminal matters)))*) +n Claiborne, the 123 was ta?en to tas? for ma?ing 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 ;ill attached to his 3ovember 20th, 2011
#pposition to CoughlinBs 9otion to Contest (esonal (roperty $ien and that #pposition itself,
especially the bit in ;illBs Declaration where he fails to allege the :(D identified themselves as
law enforcement or issued an Plawful orderP for Coughlin to Pemerge from theP PbasementP
(which never had an outside loc? to begin with* prior to landlord 9erliss ?ic?ing the door
down (and isnBt is interesting that the :(D did not feel it had authority to ?ic? a door
down)))suggesting they also felt they did not have authority to issue a Plawful orderP or
warning, pursuant to :9C %)10)010 to Coughlin to leave the premises) + am complaining of an
unlawful trespass and invasion by ;ill, 2a?er, and 9erliss, especially where in the other videos
provided to :eno City 6ttorney Chris ;aAlett=1tevens (and this is a formal grievance against
;aAlett=1tevenBs as well, especially considering the e'tent to which he put on perjured
testimony, failed to hold ;ill to a subpoena, in violation of CoughlinBs right to a speedy trial
(during the same . wee? vacation by ;ill that resulted in the :DC failing to give Coughlin a
timely ;earing on his 3ovember 1.th, 2011 filing of a 9otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty
$ien in the eviction matter from CoughlinBs former home law office in the :DC, :E@2011=
001/0%)))a 9otion for Continuance was filed by city attorneys ;aAlett, which CoughlinBs then
:9C appointed defense Counsel $ew 5aitel failed to timely inform Coughlin of and agree to
(despite Coughlin, at that time, having filed a lawsuit against 3evada Court 1ervices, on
#ctober 1,th, 2011 in C@=0&0<1, C@11=0&0<1 -6C; C#87;$+3 @1) 9655 9E:$+11
E5 6$ (D1*) 1,=#C5=2011)
"urther, any writings or filings by 2ar Counsel Ging and or Chairman 1usich that
suggest or indicate Coughlin committed a Pbrea?ing and enteringP of his former law office, or
that the Ploc?s were bro?enP is totally unsupported and rec?less and contradicted e'plicitly by
the videos ;ill himself filmed and his statements therein) (lease correct any such filings and
alert the Court to your transgressions)
2a?er lied and violated 3:C( 11 in his 3#vember 21st, 2011 #pposition where he
,2/%&
alleged the :(D identified themselves as law enforcement and issued a lawful order for
Coughlin to emerge from the PbasementP or leave the property:
PEven though he had a wee? to do so, Coughlin did not remove his personal
belongings from the property prior to the loc?out) +n fact, he did not even remove himself from
the property) 8nbe?nownst to 9erliss or his counsel, Coughlin continued to live in the
basement of the property until he was discovered sHuatting there on 3ovember 1&) 2011 =
3early two wee?s after he was legally loc?ed out) Coughlin had barricaded himself, his dog,
and some of his presumably more cherished possessions in the basement) >hen Coughlin
refused to emerge from the basement after being ordered to do so by the police, 9erliss was
forced to ?ic? 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) 6s a result, 9erliss was forced to incur costs in the amount of O1,0.0)00 5o
secure the property in order to protect it and CoughlinBs belongings) 6 true and correct copy of
the bill from the contractor is attached hereto as E4;+2+5 2)P
2a?ers 3:C( 11 violation in his filing of 3ovember 20th, 2011 in :DC :ev2011=
001/0% occurs at pages 1=&, where he attempts to mislead the tribunal in suggesting that
Coughin failed to cooperate in setting a ;earing on the 9otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty
$ien, even where Coughlin responded to ;illBs then email informing him of such a hearing, by
Coughlin emailing ;ill P:ich, you are aware the files can be on hard driveBs, rightJP in
response to ;+llBs email of a ;earing (Coughlin subseHuently revo?ed (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 ;+ll was added to CoughlinBs
Pbloc?ed sender listP on CoughlinBs ;otmail account, as such, Coughlin did not receive ;illBs
emails from #ctober any implicit authority ;ill may assert to provide Coughlin notice via
electronic means, and therein is vitiated any of ;illBs testimony at the trespass trial that the
PwarningP against trespass was relayed in ;illBs various attempts at emailing Coughlin during
the first few wee?s of 3ovember, including the period where 2a?er was on vacation and
somethings appear to have slipped through the crac?s at the ;ill law firm respecting notifying
Coughlin in an accepted means of service*) Coughlin did not receive any emails from ;illBs
rhillNrichardhillaw)com address between ;illBs email of 6ugust 1.th, 2011 and 3ovember
1%th, 2011, this Coughlin swears pursuant to 3:1 <&)0!< under penalty of perjury:
"rom: -ach Coughlin Qmailto:AachcoughlinNhotmail)comR
1ent: 9onday, 3ovember 21, 2011 &:1< (9
5o: rhillNrichardhillaw)com
1ubject: :E: :iver roc?
:ich, you are aware that PfilesP can include things on hard drives, rightJ
-ach Coughlin, EsH)
121 :iver :oc? 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<01
//< &&% %11%
,&/%&
$icensed in 3evada
"rom: rhillNrichardhillaw)com
1ubject: :iver roc?
Date: 9on, 21 3ov 2011 1!:<&:0& =0%00
9r coughlin =this confirms a voicemail left for you
+ now have your drivers license M what + thin? are your client files)
DonBt ?now, didnBt loo? that closely = your privacy M all)
>ill release them to you at the hearing tomorrow)
(lease confirm that the hearing is on calendar
:ghP
Coughlin appeared at the :DC for the ;earing he was noticed on for 3ovember
22nd, 2011 pursuant to the 3ovember 1.th, 2011 filing by Coughlin of the 9otion to Contest
(ersonal (roperty lien in :DC :E@2011=001/0%) ;ill failed to appeared) "urther, ;ill
continued to lie about his Poffering to provide CoughlinP 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 crac?ed)))* 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
;illBs and 2a?erBs finally returning CoughlinBs clientBs files and hard drives to him on December
22nd, 2011 (unless you count the instance where ;ill playfully set down a bag of trash and
indicated to Coughlin Phere is your clientBs filesP at the time when ;ill finally returned
CoughlinBs state issued driverBs license one full wee? after Coughlin had demanded it, on
3ovember 22nd, 2011, something that ;ill 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 ;ill violated 3evada law in placing
demands upon Coughlin that Coughlin remove his property in the e'act manner and order that
;+ll demanded (;ill reHuired Coughlin to appear with certain vehicles and a PcrewP of movers,
and insisted Coughlin must remove all the property on the former home law officeBs e'terior
prior to Coughlin being allowed to Pcherry pic?P the items within that were of the most value,
reHuirements for which there e'ists no support in 3evada law for ;ill to ma?e, including
within 3:1 11%6)!.0, all to the detriment of CoughlinBs clientBs concerns and the reputation of
the 2ar in 3evada and beyond) 5he :DC never needed CoughlinBs permission previously to set
;earings, 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 :DC need
CoughlinBs permission to to set the #ctober 1&th, 2011 summary eviction proceeding date, the
#ctober 2<th, 2011 P5rialP, or the December 20th, 2011 ;earing date)
"urther rec?less and lac?ing in foundation mentions of Pbrea?ing intoP the former
law office and Pbro?en loc?sP despite the fact that no factual support e'ists for such an
allegation, there were no Pbro?en loc?sP ever mentioned by anyone (and if ;ill is willing to
ma?e up finding a Pbag of weed and crac? pipeP along with describing what ;illBs own videos
,!/%&
show to be vitamins as a Plarge Huantity of pillsP, then you ?now :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) would
have been all over any Pbro?en loc?sP at the former home law office, yet, there simply were
none, not that that would stop (at Ging or D) 5homas 1usich from cobbling together such an
allegation in the 1C: 11/ (etition in .0,/<* along with something about Coughlin being
subject to a custodial arrest for Pjaywal?ingP by the :eno (olice Department while Coughlin
was filming :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)Bs contractorBs crew loading up a dump truc? with items of
personal property then located in CoughlinBs former home law office (the arrest occurred
shortly after Coughlin discovered that ;illBs contractor, (hil 1tewart, had used CoughlinBs own
distinctive plywood to PsecureP or Pboard up the propertyP in December 2011, for which the
landlord was ultimately awarded costs, O1,0.0 of which were based upon 1tewartBs invoice for
Psecuring the propertyP, which included the cost of plywood, and Pfi'ing a lea? in the
basementP despite 3:1 11%6)!.0 only allowing costs for Pmoving, storing, and inventoryingP
a tenantBs personal property*, which Coughlin was unable to remove during the scant 1& hours
he was afforded to do so by the :eno Dustice CourtBs #rder following a ;earing on CoughlinBs
3ovember 1.th, 2011 9otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty $ien (the ;earing was not set or
conducted with the P10 daysP reHuired by 3:1 !0)2<&(/*=(%* because :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)
needed to go on a si'=wee? vacation shortly after CoughlinBs 3ovember 1.th, 2011 filing (in a
matter now on appeal in 1C: .0&&1 and .1%&%, wherein, somehow, a commercial tenant,
Coughlin (whom was both running a law practice and Coughlin 9emory "oam, a foam
mattress business from his home, which was previously utiliAed for commercial purposes by a
drug and alcohol rehabilitation counseling business and is Aone for mi'ed use purposes* was
summarily evicted based upon a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice only (ie, the non=payment 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 non=payment of
rent (2ench 2oo? stuff* set forth in 3:1 !0)2<&)
5he December 21st, 2011 #rder P:esolvingP CoughlinBs 9otion 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*, O!%0 (ie, pro=rated from the O,00 per month rental
agreement* as Coughlin would have under a Pfair rental valueP, for the Pfull use and occupancy
of the premisesP despite the fact that ;ill somehow signed a Criminal Complaint for 5respass
6gainst Coughlin, on 3ovember 1&th, 2011 despite any 1ummary Eviction #rder not being
served in accordance with 3:1 !0)!00 (and therefore 3:C( < and .(e* vis a vis the Pwithin 2!
hoursP of PreceiptP of the loc?out order, and, therefore, any such loc?out that had occured being
rendered a nullity or pursuant to a void #rder* and where the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice
Civil (rocess 1ervice 1upervisor $iA 1tuchell has admitted in writing that the 6ffidavit of
1ervice filed 3ovember /th, 2011 by Deputy 9achen, attesting to having Ppersonally servedP
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) Coo? County violating illegal loc?out occurred) +n a "ebruary /th, 2012 written
correspondence to Coughlin, 1tuchell wrote: P9r) Coughlin, #ur records indicate that the
eviction conducted on that day was personally served by Deputy 9achen by posting a copy of
the #rder to the residence) 5he residence was unoccupied at the time) $iA 1tuchell, 1upervisor
>C1# Civil 1ectionP)
,</%&
5he te't of 3:1 !0)2<& spea?s to service of $oc?out #rders: E5he 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
7ranting 1ummary Eviction was signed by #ctober 2/th, 2011 (though not mailed to Coughlin
until after the 3ovember 1, 2011 loc?out had allegedly already occured*) 5hat language is only
found in situations inapplicable to the one incident that in the summary eviction from
CoughlinBs former home law office) 3:1 !0)2<&(&*(b*(2*, and 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a* are the only
sections of 3:1 !0 where this Ewithin 2! hoursF language occurs, and those situations only
apply where, in: !0)2<&(&*(b*(2*: E &) 6 notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: )))(b*
6dvise the tenant: `) (2* 5hat 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)2<&(<*(a*: E<) 8pon
noncompliance with the notice: (a* 5he landlord or the landlordLs 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) 5he court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or
constable remove the tenant within 2! hours after receipt of the order)F
5he way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in :eno Dustice
Court presently shoc?s the conscience and violates 3evada law) 5here is not basis for
effectuating a loc?out the way >C1#Bs Deputy 9achem did in this case) 5he reHuirements
attendant to serving 1ummary Eviction #rders and conducting loc?outs are found in 3:1
!0)2<& in two sections containing the Ewithin 2! hours of receiptF language are inapplicable, as
those situations do not invo?e the present circumstances, where the 5enant did file an 6ffidavit
and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen) 5o reHuire 3evadaBs tenants to get up and
get out Ewithin 2! hoursF of Ereceipt of the orderF (what does that even meanJ 5he use of terms
li?e ErenditionF, ErenderedF, Enotice of entryF, EpronouncedF, is absent here, and this Ereceipt
of the orderF language is something rarely found elsewhere in 3evada law=see attached D9@
statutory citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a Complaint within
,0 days of EreceiptF of a :ight 5o 1ue $etter, a situation which follows 3:C( <(b*, and 3:C(
.(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 6braham v) >oods ;ole #ceanographic +nstitute, <<& ")&d 11!
(1st Cir) 200,*, the record did not reflect when the plaintiff received his right=to=sue letter) 5he
letter was issued on 3ovember 2!, 200.)
5he court calculated that the ,0=day 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 5itle @++ or the 6D6, a plaintiff must e'haust administrative remedies and
sue within ,0 days of receipt of a right to sue letter) 1ee !2 8)1)C) S 2000e=<(f*(1*) 1ee
2aldwin County >elcome Center v) 2rown, !.. 8)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 :ule .*))))F
"urther, as seen in the 6nvui case, there is some argument respecting not effecting a loc?out
,./%&
for at least < days where a lease has not e'pired by its terms, as CoughlinBs arguably had not)
;owever, in his Danuary 20th, 2012 1econd 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause,
:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) did not get all bogged down in legal research and stuff, instead he just
pointed out: P"6C51 1;#>+37 C#35E9(5 #" C#8:5 .) E4;+2+5 1 (the 1ummary
Eviction $oc?out #rder* was served on Coughlin on 3ovember 1, 2011 by the >ashoe County
1heriffs Department in its customary manner, by posting same on the front door of the property
in the manner customary for evictions in >ashoe County) 5he loc?s to the premises were
changed at that time, thereby ejecting and dispossessing Coughlin of possession of the
(roperty)P ;ill went on to lie again in that Danuary 20th, 2012 9otion when he eHuated his
offer to let Coughlin get some of the personalty Coughlin was unable to remove, due largely to
;ill failing to remove the chain lin? padloc? from the bac?yard gate that ;ill 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 O/00 damage deposit Coughlin provided upon moving in,
where ;ill spins it: P12) #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 :eno Dustice Court in its order of December 21, 2011 (E4;+2+5 2* had
e'pired)P
6pparently, to ;ill, at least one has P failed to remove all of his belongings from the
(roperty) Coughlin failed to remove his things despite having been given additional time to do
soP where ;ill threatens to have one arrested for criminal trespass or larceny (of their own
stuff, arguably* if one is on the property one minute past < p)m), unless one waives any right to
their damage deposit (which neither ;ill nor the $andlord eve did return, nor did they comply
with the reHuirement that they provide an itemiAed statement indicating an application thereof
justifying such a failure to return such deposit within &0 days))))and ;ill does not want to get
into whether his conduct is violative of the "DC(6 or whether he is licensed a as debt
collector*) +n that 9otion, ;ill continued on: P1&) #n December &0, 2011, Coughlin moved this
Court for a temporary restraining order to prevent 9erliss 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) 6 true and correct copy of this
CourtBs Danuary 11,2012 order is attached hereto as E4;+2+5 &) 1!) #n 5hursday, Danuary 12,
2012, in accordance with E4;+2+5 2 and E4;+2+5 &, a licensed contractor hired by 9erliss
began cleaning up the (roperty and disposing of the abandoned items still remaining there) 1<)
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 tas?) 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
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 9erlissB compliance with this CourtBs Danuary 11, 2012 order) 1/) >hen 9r)
;ill of the undersignedBs office was notified of the foregoing, he went to the transfer station and
,//%&
presented E4;+2+5 2 and E4;+2+5 & to the police) 5he contractor was then allowed to
proceed) 1%) ;owever, before the contractor could return to the :iver :oc? (roperty, Coughlin
was there) ;e had his video camera and was wal?ing up and down the street screaming and
yelling at the police, the contractor, and 9r) ;ill, once 9r) ;ill arrived) 6t the instruction of
the police, 9r) ;ill then obtained a temporary protective order (P5(#P* against Coughlin from
the :eno Dustice Court) Coughlin ended up being arrested and ta?en to jail that day as a result
of his antics at the transfer station and the (roperty)P
5he thing is, and Coughlin would sure li?e to get the ,11 tapes (or, more li?ely, with
;ill, any recordings that may e'ist of ;ill calling somebody in particular he may have had in
mind with the :(D* of calls by Coughlin (and if >al=9art can call ,11 over a candy bar, or a
s?ater board over an i(hone
2%
that seems to have been set down on the concrete ground in
downtown :eno, then s?ate boarded 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 pic?ed
it up threaten to throw it is in the river if it went unclaimed can call ,11 (and ma?e up a bunch
of lies on the spot for the purpose of manipulating the police into assuages the s?ateboarders
own negligence vis a vis the i(hone* (http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<&1.<,%=20=1&=3@D=
1&=Cv=00!!.=Coughlin=+"(=Complaint=6gainst=:(D=Duralde=Etc=i(hone=6rrest=of=%=20=11=
020!=.2&&/=.&&!1=202<=#pt * is it unreasonable for Coughlin to call ,11 upon happening,
totally by chance, to cross paths with ;illBs contractor while driving, catching site of a huge
dump truc? full of CoughlinBs personal property headed towards the town dumpJ ;ill admits
the #rder denying CoughlinBs 9otion for a 5(# (and hey, family heirlooms are pretty fungible,
rightJ >ho needs a 5(# for thatJ
6nd its not li?e the landlord could just accept rent in the meantime, or that the
property still remains unrented to this day, some 11 months after the loc?out, and apparently,
some O.0,000 worth of attorneyBs fees paid to ;ill for a two bedroom home that appraises at
around O,0,000 currently, if that) 6nd ;illBs fantastic legal wor? (Pwrong site surgeryP and all*
was surely worth the ris? of a wrongful eviction lawsuit (and chec? out those potential damages
under >inchell v) 1chiff, 12! 3ev) ,&%, 1,& ()&d ,!. (200%*, not that the loss of a patent
attorneyBs career could amount to all that much*) :egardless, its not all that colorable for ;ill to
allege Coughlin was violating some #rder entered on Danuary 11th, 2012 by CoughlinBs
conduct of Danuary 12th, 2012 when 3:C( .(e* provides that & days for mailing is to be
accorded to account for the service of filings, even filings electronically served on registered
efilers li?e Coughlin) +ts similar to ;ill wanting a criminal trespass arrest where 3:C( .(e*Bs
three days for mailing where no personal service was accomplished (by way of 3:1 !0)!00*
and ;illBs et al did not even comply with the constructive service reHuirements of mailing the
summary eviction loc?out order prior to ;illBs brea?ing into CoughlinBs former home law office
on 3ovember 1st, 2011, with the help of the >C1#, in violation of 1oldal v) Coo? County
where Coughlin was not accorded the P2! hoursP cushion after CoughlinBs PreceiptP of the
loc?out order mentioned in this CourtBs own pac?ets on the service of $oc?out #rders, which
;ill himself attached as a subseHuent e'hibit recently)))+t gets funnier)
5he civil division of the Dustice Court and the 1heriffBs #ffice thin? that whole
Pwithin 2! hoursP language in 3:1 !0)2<& means Pwithin 2! hoursP of the 1heriffBs PreceiptP of
the #rder from the Dustice Court)))>hile otherBs thin? it is Pwithin 2! hoursP of the tenantBs
,%/%&
receipt of the #rder from the 1heriff)))and this CourtBs official forms and instructions seem to
imply that Pat least 2! hoursP from PreceiptP of the loc?out #rder must be accorded to a tenant)
>ho ?nowsJ 2ut, it is not clear, as ;ill suggests, that the Pusual custom and practice of the
>ashoe County 1heriffBs #fficeP is blac? letter law upon which 2ar grievances, custodial
criminal trespass arrests, multiple 9otion for #rder 5o 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 O!0,0<0 worth of attorneyBs fee in that
appeal of the summary eviction without holding a single hearing, well, other than the ;earing
on ;ills #rder to 1how Cause, which was denied when Coughlin destroyed ;illBs contractor
(hil 1tewart on cross=e'amination) (:eally, (hilJ :eallyJ Kou could fell Pa depressionP in your
2 ton loaded to capacity dump truc? upon Coughlin allegedly Pclimbing up on itP, though you
indicated you had already Palighted from the vehicleP, 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)
6nd even if such a mirror where present on 1tewartBs truc?, that doesnBt really
e'plain how all the personalty stac?ed up so high in the truc? bed (replete with specialiAed add=
on high stac? retaining walls* wouldnBt obscure any purported view of CoughlinBs head high
above the area above the specialiAe hydraulic dump truc?Bs tailgate, confirming 1tewartBs mere
suspicion that Coughlin climbed on his truc?) Coughlin swears under oath he did not climb on
1tewartBs truc?) ;ill needed a little PfactP to spice up his 9otion to 1how Cause just enough,
and PCoughlin climbed up on the truc?P was Pjust the tic?etP, and 1tewart did not mind going
along for the ride, so long as))) 6nd none of the many videos from that day actually show any
of the Kosemite 1am cartoon villian type behavior ;ill attributes to Coughlin in his
wonderfully imaginative 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause and or 6pplication for #rder of
(rotection concerning the events involved in the jaywal?ing custodial arrest ;ill had Coughlin
subjected to on Danuary 12th, 2012)
9uch li?e ;illBs contractor, (hil 1tewart, flat out lying in an affidavit when he swore
Coughlin Pclimbed up onP his truc?, ;ill similarly lied in an affidavit about Coughlin,
apparently while PengragedP ma?ing Pphysical contactP with ;ill) #n (age 2 of ;illBs 6ffidavit
attach to his 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause, Danuary 20th, 2012, ;ills attests: P<) #n "riday,
December 2&, 2011, we unloc?ed the house at ,:00 a)m) as ordered) >e overloo?ed the chain
on the bac? gate) 5here was nobody at the house when we were there) 6t appro'imately noon,
my staff informed me that an enraged 9r) Coughlin had called the office screaming that he
could not get in the bac? yard) >hen + finished the meeting + was in, + immediately went over
and unloc?ed the bac? gate) Coughlin had a small crew) ;e charged at me and made physical
contact) ;e was enraged) >e left) >hen we returned at <:00 p)m), 9r) Coughlin was screaming
and yelling obscenities) ;e drove off in a small 8 =;aul) ;is crew remained) >e wal?ed the
property with them) 5he inside )ground floor was mostly cleared of all but a big 5@) 5he
basement had been cleared somewhat, but there was still a lot of Pjun?) P >e could not access
the attic) >e went outside) + told CoughlinBs crew they could remove anything and everything
outside, if they would only try to rehang the gate that 9r) Coughlin had ta?en off the hinges
before we could get over to unloc? it) + told them + would loc? the gates in the morning)
5hat is really interesting) Compare the above to the following e'cerpt from page &
,,/%&
of ;ills Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition in C@11=0&.2%, the appeal of the summary eviction
#rder: P12) >hile at the property to remove the padloc?, Coughlin, on more than one occasion,
screamed profanities at 9erlissB counsel, and, at one point, charged 9r) ;ill and attempted to
physically intimidate him) 6t least the audio of this incident was captured on tape) 1&)
3evertheless, at <: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)P >hereas in his Danuary 20th, 2012 sworn Declaration ;ill goes so far as to
indicate Coughlin Pmade physical contactP (which is a damn lie anyways*, in ;illBs then
associate Casey 2a?er, EsH)Bs 3:C( 11 signed Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition, ;+llBs associate
2a?er will only go so far as to say that Coughlin, Pat one point, charged 9r) ;ill and attempted
to physically intimidate him)P 2a?er was standing directly ne't to ;ill during the interacation
wherin ;ill swore, under penalty of perjury, that Couglhin Pmade physical contactP with ;ill*)
1ounds li?e Casey 2a?er, EsH) was not Huite willing to Pspice upP the story line as ;ill himself
was) Casey probably did not have enough reason to sign on to the lies about Coughlin
Pclimbing onP the contractorBs truc?) +n ;illBs 6pplication for a (rotection #rder against
Coughlin ;ill slips up and claims that Coughlin was Pclimbing on the contractorBs truc?,
pic?ing through the contentsP bac? at CouglinBs former home law after the interaction at the
Ptransfer stationP (town dump*, whereas ;illBs contractor indicated in his 6ffidavit that the
alleged PclimbingP on his truc? occurred at the Ptransfer stationP) ;owever, both ;ill and his
contractor, (hil 1tewart indicate that the :eno (olice Department PreHuestedP that ;ill filed a
(rotection #rder 6pplication against Coughlin) +f that is true, its improper)
5he :(D can provide individuals information about see?ing one, but when the :(D
goes a step further and starts urging individuals to file protection order applications, or, as has
recently been the case with :(D #fficer 6lan >eaver and 1argent #liver 9iller, whom, upon
information and belief, urged 3orthwindBs apartment maintenance man 9ilan Grebs to sign a
fraudulent criminal complaint against Coughlin for Pdisturbing the peaceP on Duly &rd, 2011,
and again urged 1uperior 9ini 1torageBs 9att 7rant to sign a similar baseless Pdisturbing the
peaceP criminal Complaint against Coughlin on appro'imately 1eptember 21st, 2012 then there
is more than a little indication that the :(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
:(D towards Coughlin) #fficer >eaver and 1argent Dye showed up to an unnoticed Duly <th,
2012 bail hearing for Coughlin, presided over by Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs brother :9C Dudge
>illiam 7ardner (whom received CoughlinBs timely 3otice of 6ppeal of the criminal trespass
conviction, under 3:1 1%,)010, yet failed to forward it on to the District Court, which
somewhat recently dismissed CoughlinBs appeal in that matter, wherein 1argent Dye and
#fficer >eaver testified under oath, with City 6ttorney Dill Dra?e singing bac?up, the the
effectd that, despite bail only being valid based upon one reason in 3evada (to secure the
defendantBs attendance at trial* the Ppublic health and safetyP dictated increasing the cash
reHuired to bail out Couglin 5E3"#$D, from a bondable O1,!1< to a C61; #3$K O&,000)
ConseHuently, upon Dudge 7ardner so impermissibly raising CoughlinBs bail,
alleging a Ppublic health and safetyP rationale for so doing, Couglin was forced to spend 1%
days in jail, wherein the opportunity to timely contest the O!0,0<0 attorney fees award to
:ichard ;ill incident to the summary eviction appeal ran, all while Coughlin was denied any
100/%&
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) 5he e'tent to which local
law enforcement is willing to play P?ic? the canP 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 :(D is li?ely due to his
1eptember /th, 2011 Complaint with respect to a wrongful, retaliatory, and fraudulent arrest by
:(D #fficer 3icholas Duralde, which was accompanied by e'tortionate threats by :(D
#fficer :on :osa that if Coughlin didnBt cooperate they would Pcall the 3evada 2ar and let
them ?now how you cooperated with our investigation) ;owBs that runninB for yaJP
>hile Duralde testified that he did not hear or recall :osaBs coercive threats to
Coughlin just prior to the arrest, the fact that Duralde echoed those threats by saying P3ow, +
can arrest you for larceny) 3ow, + can do a search incident to arrest) ;owBs thatJP tends to
undermine DuraldeBs contention that Phe doesnBt recallP hearing anything li?e what #fficer
:osa was capture on tape saying to Coughlin just prior to the arrest) 8pon ma?ing a "ourth
6mendment violating arrest completely lac?ing in probable cause, and smugly Pjo?ingP to
Coughlin about the PbenefitsP associated with charging Coughlin with a PfelonyP, (at the time
of the 6ugust 20th, 2011 arrest, the felony larceny amount limit was O2<0 and above*
compared to a misdemeanor (under some half ba?ed Pgrand larcenyP of an allegedly lost or
mislaid or abandoned three year old i(hone &7 that the alleged victim testified was only then
worth Pabout O%0=100P on e2ay or Craigslist*, ie, search incident to custodial arrest possible
where probable cause lac?ing to arrest, or even reasonable suspicion missing to do a pat down,
where alleged crime occured outside officerBs presence, after / p)m), and no citiAens 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
%=12 hostile late teens to early twenties s?ater 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 ;ill just flat out lies in his Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition to 6mended
9otion for Emergency :estraining #rder) >ell, he did tell the truth when he wrote, on page &:
P11) #n "riday, December 2&,2011, counsel for 9erliss neglected to remove the padloc? to the
bac? gate of the property)P 5hat 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 ;ill
swears, on page &, that: PCoughlinBs access to the house itself was never hindered):P he is just
PsippinB dran?P or something, as, obviously failing to remove a loc? on a gate gonna tend to
have that effect, now)))and when ;ill swears: P 1&) 3evertheless, at <: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) 5he only
condition placed on that access was that CoughlinBs helpers agreed to replace the gate on its
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 bac? on the hinges)P Coughlin was
101/%&
never made aware of any such PofferP by ;ill, and, even if he had been, hey, itBs the Poutside of
the propertyP, :ich, people generally put their valuables inside, you ?nowJ
5hen the ;ill prevarication and obfuscation e'press ?ic?s into overdrive, when, in his
Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition he continues on: PC) Coughlin is 3ot Entitled to 6 1tay Coughlin
claims to have deposited O2<0 with the justiceBs court pursuant to 3:1 !0)&%<, although he has
not provided any proof in support of his claim) 6ttached hereto as E4;+2+5 10 is a true and
correct copy of the justiceBs courtBs doc?et as of December 1,, 2011) 5hat doc?et shows that
Coughlin paid a filing fee for his appeal on December 12, 2011, in the amount of O21.)00)P
>ell, actually, Dudge 1ferraAAa waived the Dustice CourtBs O2!)00 filing fee, and the O21.)00
represents the District CourtBs filing fee, and its not really clear whether that date is when the
chec? was cashed by the District Court, or whether the Dustice Court held on to the chec? for
Huit!e awhile before shipping it along with the :#6 to the District Court, etc), etc) ;ill
continues: P+t is entirely unclear from the following entries of that doc?et whether or when
Coughlin ever paid an additional O2<0)00 under 3:1 !0)&%<)P 5hat might, technically be true,
:ich, to the e'tent that you wrote it on Danuary &rd, 2012, and are snea?ily indicating that you
are loo?ing at an old doc?et 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
O2<0)00 supersedeas bond mentioned in 3:1 !0)&%<, on December 22nd, 2011, a fact which
;ill himself mentions in his own filings)))1o, ?ind of a lac? of candor to the tribunal there to
ma?e all this argument based upon some old doc?et and the e'tent to which it fails to reveal or
Pma?e clearP matters to which ;ill had ready written notice of via his own e="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 chec? on that
more*, etc) in connection with the depositing on December 22nd 2012, the O2<0 reHuired for a
stay during appeal of a summary eviction in 3:1 !0)&%<) 6nd, actually, ;ill slipped up a bit
there, in light of the following: 6nd, actually, ;ill, in his Danuary 20th, 2012 filing, admitted
that Coughlin sent him that December 22nd, 2011 email notifying him of the posting of the
O2<0 supersedeas bond see?ing a stay, when he admits, on page &: P11) (ursuant to E4;+2+5
2, Coughlin was provided access to the (roperty on 5hursday, December 22, 2011) 5hat day,
Coughlin sent an email to the undersigned and Dudge 1ferraAAa, in which he essentially
announced that he was entitled to a stay, and to return to and continue in possession of the
(roperty) Dudge 1ferraAAa Huic?ly responded by email, and reminded 9r) Coughlin that the
stay had been denied)P "ound in E'hibit 1 is the December 22nd email to ;illBs #ffice that
alerts them to the posting of O2<0 , specified as a Psupersedeas bondP, with a citation to 3:1
!0)&%<:
;illBs Danuary &rd, 2012 #pposition continues, on page %: PEven if Coughlin
eventually paid some amount toward an appeal bond, it was not in time to stay the eviction
during this appeal) 5o do that, a proper motion must be made and granted, and the bond posted,
prior to the loc?out) 5he loc?out 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 loc?ed out of the
property for si' wee?s) 6s such, any reHuest for a stay was, and is, moot) 6t this point,
Coughlin does not have any rights in either the real or personalP) #ddly, 6nvui saw a stay
granted after a loc?out was conducted, and ;ill (:(C &)1 Pmeritorious contentionP issues* cites
102/%&
to no legal authority for his contention that Pto stay the eviction during this appeal)))a proper
motion must be made and granted, and the bond posed, prior to the loc?out)P CitationJ 3one)
Despite ;illBs strange approach of not actually indicating that his office did not get an
December 22nd, 2011 email notifying them of the posting of O2<0 for a supersedeas bond
see?ing a stay under 3:1 11%6)&%< (but rather, ;ill focuses on what one cannot glean from
loo?ing at a dated doc?et)))*, ;illBs #ffice was made aware of such matters, in writing, in the
following December 22nd email to ;illBs #ffiee: P)))"urther, this is all moot at this point as +
have filed a 1upersedeas 2ond of O2<0, and according to 3:1 !0)&%<, + automatically get a
stay of eviction and am entitled to return to the property and continue in possession) 5he statute
sets the 1upersedeas 2ond (which yields a stay* at O2<0 if rent is under O1000, unless the Court
wishes to rule that + am a commercial tenant) ;owever, if the court does rule that + am a
commercial tenant, the 3o Cause Eviction 3otice in this case, under 3:1 !0)2<& ma?es 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 9r) ;ill and 2a?er 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) 3:1 !0)&%< 1tay of e'ecution upon appealC duty of
tenant who retains possession of premises to pay rent during stay) 8pon an appeal from an
order entered pursuant to 3:1 !0)2<&: 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 O2<0 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 O1,000, 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) 6 surety upon the bond submits to the jurisdiction
of the appellate court and irrevocably appoints the cler? 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) 6 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 3:1 !0)2<&) 1incerely, -ach
Coughlin, EsH)P) #h, and ;ill and 1tewart admit to this in a video) :ichard ;illBs 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 ;ill he would have called the :(D to report the PlarcenyP of his ladder by ;ill,
in a :+C# thing with his contractor) 2ut ;ill 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, li?e the applying of a loc? to the bac?yard gate, ma?e it even more
unli?ely that Coughlin would be able to remove all he needed to, especially given the limited
funds for moving vehicles and hired help, in the scant 1& hours allowed under the December
21st, 2012 #rder)
10&/%&
6lso, this is a complaint against ;ill and his contractor for petty larceny of the ladder from
CoughlinBs former law office, admitted to on tape on December 22nd, 2011 by ;ill (though the
issue of whether they intended to Ppermanently depriveP Coughlin of the use and enjoyment
thereof may be grounds for debate, ;ill should get to spend the ne't 12 months defending
himself as Coughlin has from the onslaught of 123, >CD6, and City of :eno prosecutor
investigation)))otherwise)))gee, doesnBt it ?inda being to mind CoughlinBs Huestion to :(D
#fficer Chris Carter, Dr) while Coughlin was in cuffs during the custodial arrest of 3ovember
1&th, 2011 when Coughlin as?ed #fficer Carter: Pare you on :ichard ;illBs payroll tooJP)
Coughlin has faithfully reported on e'actly what #fficer CarterBs response was, however ill=
advised a sarcastic response he may claim it to have been) ;ill has failed to faithfully report on
just what he meant where he filed documents attesting to have found Pa crac? pipe and a bag of
weedP, a Pvial of some sortP, and Pa large Huantity of pillsP and PdrugsP in CoughlinBs former
home law office)
:especting CoughlinBs written communications to ;+llBs office concerning
CoughlinBs e'press refusal to accept electronic notice or service of anything from ;+llBs #ffice,
includes the following:
1ent: 9onday, 3ovember 21, 2011 !:10 (9
5o: cdba?erNrichardhillaw)com
1ubject: :E: 9erliss 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 9otion for
1anctions if you do not cease attempting to circumvent the procedural protections accorded
tenants) 5he 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^ Kour better
than this^
-ach Coughlin, EsH)============
5o: patric??Nnvbar)orgC davidcNnvbar)orgC nvsccler?Nnvcourts)nv)gov
1ubject: $+5+765+#3 ;#$D 3#5+CE rev2011=001/0% cv11=0&.2%, .0&&1 .1&%&
Date: 9on, 1< #ct 2012 1/:0&:&! =0/00
9r) Ging,
5his writing memorialiAes, in part, our conversation about your failure to
investigate, in any real way, the criminal trespass allegations, in violation of the Claiborne
decision) 8pon my as?ing you pointed Huestions, you hurriedly filed a 1C: 111 (etition in an
attempt to e'cuse your failure to as? any of the pointed Huestions + have previously put forth to
you regarding that criminal trespass matter, further you admitted to being unaware (allegedly*
of the familial relation between Dudge >illiam 7ardner and Dudge $inda 7ardner (despite that
being Huite clear in my recent filings to you*)
10!/%&
Kou might want to loo? at 6222. and the Committee on the Dudiciary notes from
9arch &1, 2011)
5his correspondence reminds you of and further places you on notice of that the fact
that you have been placed on a $+5+765+#3 ;#$D 3#5+CE) 5;E @+DE# "+$9ED 2K
:+C;6:D ;+$$ #" 5;E :E3# (#$+CE DE(6:59E35B1 C;:+1 C6:5E: 63D
16:7E35 $#(E- +3 5;E 5+9E (:+#: 5# 5;E $63D$#:D, 9E:$+11 6$$E7ED$K
G+CG+37 D#>3 5;E D##:, +1 #" 965E:+6$$K :E$E@63CE 5# 1E@E:6$ C+@+$
$6>18+51 63D C:+9+36$ (:#CEED+371) :+C;6:D $+ED +3 C#8:5, 83DE:
#65; >;E3 ;E 5E15+"+ED 5;65 5;E :(D 633#83CED 5;E91E$@E1 61 $6>
E3"#:CE9E35 63D #:DE:ED C#87;$+3 5# C#9E #85 #" 5;E 261E9E35
(:+#: 5# 5;E D##: 2E+37 G+CGED +3) :+C;6:D 1E3D1 5;E 1565E 26: #"
3E@6D6 $E55E:1 #3
"8:5;E:, #""+CE: C6:5E:B1 (#$+CE :E(#:5 +1 DE9#315:65ED 5#
2E "8$$ #" $+E1 2K 5;E @E:K @+DE#1 5;65 ;+$$ (:#(#83DED 5# 5;E C+5K
#" :E3# (:#1EC85#:1, (6:5+C8$6:$K >+5; :E1(EC5 5# >;E5;E:
C#87;$+3 :E"81ED 5# $E6@E 6"5E: 2E+37 >6:3ED #: 5#$D 5# D# 1# 63D
5;E E45E35 5# >;+C; C6:5E: >61 8362$E 5# +118E 6 C+565+#3 #: :E$K
#3 6 1+9($E >6:3+37 +3 $+7;5 5;E:E#") C#87;$+3 6C586$$K 61G1
C6:5E: +3 5;E @+DE# ;+$$ "+$9ED >;K ;E D#E13B5 D815 +118E 18C; 6
>6:3+37 #: C+565+#3) 5hen, Carter goes on to attempt to offer his views on PserviceP,
however rudimentary they may be) being careful to note to Coughlin PyouBre not the victim
here)P 5o the e'tent that ;ill and 9erliss trespass into CoughlinBs former law office on this
date, with the help of the :(D, 1oldal v Coo? County has been violated, and Carter and $opeA
have violated >heeler v Coss)
6ny Eviction #rder signed by Dudge 1ferraAAa was stale in light of the failure to
have the loc?out order served upon Coughlin and a loc?out performed Pwithin 2! hoursP of the
1heriffBs receipt of the #rder of both #ct 2<th, 2011 (the simple one page #rder signed by
Dudge 1ferraAAa 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 >C1# well over 2! hours from when the loc?outBs were conducted, and therefore, both
such #rders were stale, and therefore, :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) committed trespass upon
CoughlinBs former home law office, threw away a great deal of CoughlinBs personalty (some of
it very sentimental*, and both ;ill and 2a?er 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 >C1# Deputy 9achen
posted it on the door thereof and effectuated a loc?out (and 9achen lied under oath in his
3ovember /th, 2011 filed 6ffidavit of 1ervice attesting to have Ppersonally servedP Coughlin
the 1ummary Eviction #rder on 3ovember 1st, 2011 (>C1# Civil Division 1upervisor
admitted as much to Coughlin in writing:
3:1 !0)2<&: <) 8pon noncompliance with the notice: (a* )))5he 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) 5he affidavit must state or contain:
10</%&
"urther where is my damage deposit (either O<00, or, arguably O/00 given the e'tent
to which the 1tandard :ental 6greement afforded me the choice with respect to how cleaning
was to be done and the e'tent to which ;ill and 2a?er have failed to comply with
9r) 2a?er, you have committed professional misconduct (and ;ill filed a grievance
against me in a letter to the 123 dated Danuary 1!th, 2012 purporting to be sent on your behalf
in Pfulfilling your :(C &)% obligationP)))simpy put, 9r) 2a?er, in your #pposition to 9#tion to
constest (ersonal (roperty $ien in :ev2011=001/0%, on page <, you lie where you write Pwhen
Coughlin refused to emerge from the basement after being ordered to do so by the police,
9erliss was forced to ?ic? down the door to gain access to his own propertyP) Kou ?now that
that is not true) 5he :eno (olice Department did not identify themselves as law enforcement or
otherwise issue an lawful #rders directing Coughlin to Pemerge from the basementP) Kou have
demonstrated a lac? of candor to the tribunal in that regard in conspiracy with :ichard ;ill) +n
a videotaped interview, :(D 1argent $opeA admits that neither she nor #fficer Carter, nor
anyone else that day, identified themselves in any way to Coughlin in the PbasementP or
otherwise issued him any sort of Pwarning to leaveP or Porder to emergeP of any sort,
whatsoever) 9r) 2a?er, you were not even there) Ket, you viewed the video ta?en by :ichard
;ill of the moments in Huestion where the :(D were at the basement door prior to Dr) 9erliss
?ic?ing it down, including those moments where Dr) 9erliss is seen in one video whispering to
:ichard ;ill) +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 >hy did
:ichard fail to include the he too? of the moments where the :(D were at the PbasementP door
an failed to identify themselves or issue any lawful #rdersJ ;ow would Coughlin ?now that
any voices that may have been audible did not simply belong to more of the goons ;ill and
2a?er routinely hire from 3evada Court 1ervices to trespass behind CoughlinBs former home
law officeBs bac?yard gate, visiting in pairs, threes times a day, one ringing the door bell
repeatedly for &0 minutes at a time, while the other (:) >ray, Doel Durden, and other licensed
process servers* trespasses behind a a latched bac?yard 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 thin?ing these process servers are 1heriffBs DeputiesJ
:egardless, the real fly in the ointment is the fact that :(D 1argent $opeA admitted
that neither she, nor Carter, nor anyone else identified themselves as law enforcement and or
issued Coughlin an order to emerge from the PbasementP) +ndeed, in ;illBs Declaration in
:Ev2011=001/0%, filed a scant / days after the arrest, ;ill certainly fails to mention any such
alleged moment where the :(D identify themselves as law enforcement and issue Coughlin an
order to emerge prior to 9erliss ?ic?ing the door in) ;ill writes letters to the 123 accusing
Coughlin of having a Pcrac? pipe and bag of weedP and Plarge Huantity of pillsP (the videos ;ill
too? that day reveal those PpillsP are vitamins, something ;ill fails to clarify with the 123, and
;ill never has provided any sort of indication of what the Pcrac? pipe and bag of weedP loo?ed
li?e 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
possible turn)
;ill and 2a?er have continued to fail to deliver CoughlinBs security deposit, and in doing so,
10./%&
where they failed to provide the reHuisite correspondence within &0 days of any such eviction,
have violated 3evada law:
3:1 11%6)2!2 1ecurity: $imitation on amount or valueC surety bond in lieu of
securityC duties and liability of landlordC damagesC disputing itemiAed accounting of securityC
prohibited provisions)mm
9rBs) 2a?er and ;ill, would you not say it more accurate to characteriAe the situation in
rev2011=001/0% as one fitting under the 3:1 11%6)&<< heading, particulary where the :DC, at
the time of that summary eviction P5rialP had, according to Dudge 1ferraAAa, no Plocal ruleP or
Pmechanism by which tenants may deposit rent withheld under paragraph)))P and therfore
ac?nowledging the brilliance in CoughlinBs DC:$@ :ule !! corollary in the :DC argumentJ
Certainly, under the 3:1 11%6)&<< analysis, after one strips away the agreed to O&<0 for
weeds maintenance (which ?ind of amounts to a waiver of term in the 1tandard :ental
6greement that Dudge 1ferraAAa interprets to reHuire such PcareP of the Plawn and surrounding
groundsP (which, to the Court, apparently, included PweedsP*, doesnBt itJ*, and the agreed upon
credit for fi'ing the stairs, well, then, and other amounts fit Huite nicely into the Pfi' and
deductP approach set forth in 3:1 11%6)&.0) 2ut, regardless, you proceeded under a 3o
Cause Eviction basis, but against a commercial tenant, a fact you are stuc? with, as the 5enantBs
6nswer, numerous phone calls to 2a?er, and many, many instances throughout the filings in
that matter ma?e clear thta this was CoughlinBs home law office, a commercial lease which the
1tandard :ental 6greement specifically allows for) 6nd ta?e a loo? at that 200% >inchell 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 thin?, Dr) 9erlissJ* are allowable under 3evada law) (lease remit O!<0,000 to me
within / days of this email being sent to you in satisfaction of this dispute against you, Dr)
9erliss) :ichard and Casey, + will deal with you later, but your liability is on par with Dr)
9erlissBs, no doubt, and that is before the "DC(6 stuff and the fact that your office is not
licensed as a bill collector) =-ach CoughlinP
22) +a#ed on !r. )ill<# e8/erience and bac5ground' hi# reie# of "$e
pleadings in the litigation bet2een $r. !erli## and Coughlin and $is reie# of "$e
pleadings in Coug$lin(s li"iga"ion #i"$ 4as$oe +egal *eri!es, 9r) ;ill is of the opinion that
Coughlin is no" !ompe"en" "o pra!"i!e la#) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember
1!, 2012, ( &,, $ 1=12)
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &,:1 to &,:12* U 6nd as a result of your dealings with
9r) Coughlin, did you form an opinion as to $is !ompe"en!y "o 6e a la#yerJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: 9bEection. Calls for a legal !on!lusion, 1?per" "es"imony. 7 don<t belie-e !r.
)ill i# Auali%ied. 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #verruled) 5;E >+53E11: Kes, + did) 2K 9:)
G+37: U 6nd letBs start with your conclusion, and then wor? bac?wards) +s 9r) Coughlin
competent to be a lawyerJ 6 3o, he is not)F*
(3#5E: >hile the <&112 1C: 11/ (etition that 33D2 Chairman 1usich filed
(which largely copied and pasted, li?e GingBs %2&12 Complaint, the purported 11!12
unsigned, unsworn grievance ;ill purportedly emailed (only* to Ging* might plead such, GingBs
10//%&
%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)
5he (anel and Ging consistently violated :(C &)1, &)&, and &)!, in addition to :(C %)1 in
failing to approach the :(C 1)1 (duty to provide competent representation to clients, where,
unli?e, 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 :(C 1)1) 5he 123 offered absolutely
no evidence that Coughlin ever provided any such representation to any client (3#5E: ";E&Bs
(and all other e'hibits such Efindings of factF* are not EevidenceF and the (anel committed
reversible error in so characteriAing or treating such as EevidenceF in the burden of proof
calculus) +n :e 1antosuosso, +n re >eiss)*)
2&) Based on Mr, Hill's e=perience in litigating (3#5E: ;ill actually was
forced to admit that his associate, 2a?er, handled the summary eviction in 1/0% in the justice
court as well as the appeal thereof to the district court, with ;ill alternating between allegeing
in his Declarations in the appeal in support of a fee award that he had only reviewed 2a?erBs
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 utiliAing summary eviction procedures under 3:1 !0)2<! against a
commercial tenant where such summary action was not brought upon an allegation of non=
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 ;illBs 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 :(C)))well, such says more
about the (anel than anything, really* with Coughlin, Coughlin was no" "ru"$ful 2ith either
counsel or the !our") 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( <&, $ .=1.)
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age <&:< to <&:1.* 2K 9:) G+37: U $et me restate the
Huestion) 5he Huestion is: 6s an attorney, having a responsibility to be truthful and to have
candor with opposing counsel, was 9r) Coughlin truthful, and did he use candor with youJ 6
(:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)* 3o) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: !r. :ing' 2ra/ it u/' /lea#e. Fou<re
limited to 15 minute#) 2K 9:) G+37: U 1pecifically relating to 9r) CoughlinBs candor to
the court, did he show candor to the courtsJ 6 3o)F*
9r) ;ill felt that CoughlinBs filings were abusive, at one point calling 9r) ;illBs
associate a li!$en) (3#5E: actually, CoughlinBs email to ;ill utiliAed the term Ely!anF, as in
some type of werewolf to describe ;ill and 2a?erBs :ambo $itigator approach and the
damaging, in appropriate nature thereof)))which is far different than calling one a ElichenF*
Coughlin has a!!used )r, %ill of 6ri6ing "$e 3eno Doli!e Depar"men" to have Coughlin
arrested) 9r) ;illBs staff is terroriAed by Coughlin) 1ee >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( <!,
$ !=1<)
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age <!:& to <!:1<* 2K 9:) G+37: U >ith regard to a
10%/%&
person perhaps == to the e'tent that 9r) Coughlin may have e'hibited these bad behaviors, was
he otherwise ?ind in his dealings with you and Dr) 9erlissJ Could you e'plain, just briefly, to
the panel his actual demeanor with regard to his dealings with you and your clientJ 6 ;is e=
mails, his filings were abusive, to say the least) Calling my == he called my associate a li!$en)
+Bll admit we all had to retreat to the dictionary on that one) /ame !alling) ;eBs accused me of
bribing the :eno (olice Department to have him arrested) 9y staff is absolutely terroriAed by
this man)F*
;illBs referring to Coughlin as E>ac?y -ac?y on Crac?yF during a conversation
with Coughlin ma?es ;illBs objection to the characteriAation of his style of litigation as lycan=
esHue rather puAAling, though, certainly, the purported 11!12 email from ;ill to the 123
contains some truly dubious lies by ;ill (E.) >hen the house was secured after CoughlinBs
arrest, we found a crac? pipe and a bag of what appeared to be marijuana) 5he contractor also
reported finding a bo' of pills and a vial of some sort) 4e unders"and Coug$lin $as
unsu!!essfully "ried "$e +a#yers Con!erned for +a#yers program7 and "$a" $e $as a $is"ory
of su6s"an!e pro6lems)F (age ! of < of such 11!12 E$etter to (atric? Ging, EsH):, that Ging
was too embarrassed by to see? to enter into evidence*) (consider the videos that ;ill
and his landlord client filmed during their burglary of CoughlinBs former home law office (at
which time they also lied to and with :(D #fficers to effectuate a false arrest* on 111&11,
particularly in the following beginning at the seven minute mar?, wherein the alleged Elarge
Huantity of pillsF are revealed to be vitamins: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV%.-Ctr.E#i!
) "urther, ;ill 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 crac? pipe and a bag of what appeared to be marijuanaF)))+nterestingly, a bag
EappearingF to be marijuana did not result in ;ill ma?ing any assertion as to whether any such
alleged EbagF held the aroma of marijuana therein or any other specifics or supporting facts*)
6 review of the 11!12 E$etter to (atric? Ging, EsH)F that ;ill purportedly emailed
only to the 123 (somehow fa'ing a signed, sworn Dudicial Discipline Commission Complaint
to 9r) 1arnows?i met with no action (Ewe donBt accept fa'esF*, yet an emailed, unsigned,
unsworn EletterF from ;ill is given the 6ct of Congress treatment* reveals an interesting thread
running throughout the matter now on appeal in .2&&/: 9c7eorge 1chool of $aw 1,//
classmates >$1Bs (aul Elcano, 3@2 Dudge 2eesley, and :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes)
5here is just so many reasons why Ging was forced to forgo see?ing to enter into
evidence the purported 11!12 unsigned, unsworn, emailed only, five page grievance letter by
;ill to Ging: the undeniable impression that a whole lot of impermissible e'tra=judicial
communications may well be going on, ;illBs imploring the 2ar to contact various court staff
individuals (by name even* certainly lends an impression that ;ill has, or is implying, an
improper ability to influence a tribunal, ;illBs allusion to $awyers Concerned for $awyers is
not only more than a bit tac?y)))it ma?es 3@2 Dudge 2eesleyBs testimony in that regard even
more curious (1C: 10<)< confidentiality touting and all, so say nothing of 1C: 12&(&*, in
addition to the patent fact that ;illBs purported five page grievance is plainly full of lies and or
attempts to mislead, evincing the highest level of a lac? of candor to the tribunal (where, per
>aters, the 123 is an Earm of the courtF*, lac? of Ecandor to opposing counselF (the rule
relates to Efairness to opposing counselF, but that did not stop Ging or Echeverria from delving
10,/%&
into such)))*, much less fairness to opposing counsel, to say nothing of respect for the rights of
third parties (former :DC Chief Civil Cler? e'pressed significant dissatisfaction to Coughlin
(about ;illBs so doing* as to ;illBs invo?ing some purported offerings ;illBs letter indicated she
would provide the 123 as to Coughlin upon Coughlin informing 1tancil of such purported
writings by ;ill to the 123)* 6dditionally, such five page grievance also manages to
misrepresent whether and when CoughlinBs lease Ee'piredF (see the e'treme significance of
such characteriAation in the conte't of the holdover proceeding or no cause summary eviction
(;illBs 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 9otion for 5:#, )))), or,
in the alternative, 9otion for 1tay, and the associated EenclosuresF ;illBs letter purpots to have
been attached thereto (though, interestingly, nowhere in the &,0,!
(http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%1.,0%&11=/=12=020!=.2&&/=+nde'=to=2ates=1tamped=&=0,!=
$ong=@ersion=(age=1cr=10<=2=c=(roduction=by=1bn=:evised=%=2%=1& * page production by the
123 on 11/12 to Coughlin purporting to somehow ma?e up for the egregious violations of
1C: 10<(2*(c*, is to be found such EenclosuresF))) http:www)scribd)comdoc1.&.,10&.11=
/=12=020!=.2&&/=2ates=1=to=&=0,!=1tate=2ar=of=3evada=E'cuse=for="ailing=to=#bey=1C:=
10<=2=c
1o, for all Coughlin ?nows, ;ill provided incomplete documents therein (whether he
provided the 123 the eleven e'hibits to his 1&12 #pposition to CoughlinBs 9otion for 5:#
or 1tay (;ill consistently characteriAes such as only a 9otion for 5:# as to the dumping of
CoughlinBs personalty, which ;ill alleges Coughlin EabandonedF (funny, filing a 9otion for
5:# to stop the dumping, and or a 9otion for 1tay of the eviction itself (especially where such
12&011 9otion, and, even more so, the 1<12 :eply to the #pposition Hill's associate Ba5er
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 ;illBs
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 3:1 !0)&%< supersedeas bondstay of a
summary eviction against a commercial tenant (the use of the summary procedures in 3:1
!0)2<& under such circumstances is barred (a jurisdictional bar per @olpert, Davidsohn, 6i?ins,
etc)* by 3:1 !0)2<!)
(5here are a number of, uh, interesting appearances of documents that involve ;ill
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 un"imely dis!losures, even where he failed to consider
CoughlinBs (or even allow such to be admitted into evidence, apparently* 111&12 or 111!12
filings (;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 102:1< to 10&:1&* 5;E >+53E11: 1C: 10<Bs been
thrown out the window) KouBve ruled on motions before +Bve even had a chance to oppose them
or file a reply to an opposition) Kou claim that 3:C( is applicable here) Ket under 3:C(
when + file a motion to bifurcate, and he filed an opposition, and + get three days for mailing
under .=C, 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 !.
@C)@V@7?0 *o s$ould #e disregard "$e mo"ions you filed #i"$ou" giing "$e *"a"e &ar
"$e oppor"uni"y "o respond "imelyD 7 had t2o motion# #ho-ed under my door la#t night.
110/%&
*hould tho#e be di#regarded under your legal rea#oningD &e!ause you did no" offer "$e
*"a"e &ar "$e oppor"uni"y "o respond. 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, that == 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
Kes or no, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs not a yes or no) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes, it
is) 9:) C#87;$+3: 'hat would entail figuring out whether or not 0F days prior to the
hearing == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: $etBs focus on the issues bac?) KouBve made a motion now to
reHuire me to recuse myself)F*)
6mongst the bates stamped entries involving ;ill (see +nde' thereto Coughlin had to
create, and, oddly, though the 123 and :9C managed to copy the same filings by Coughlin
over and over, and over (never digitally of course, though the :9C will cry EresourcesF, all
whilst refusing efiling (e'cept where :9C 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 ;ill 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 utiliAe 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 ta?es to cheating :espondents out of their 1C: 10<(2*(c* rights))))(see
2olesB 2rief and :eply 2rief* in the 11/12 &,0,! production to Coughlin by the 123 of
11/12: 1.//=1./, fa' from :eno City 6ttorney to :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), that ;ill provided to
123 consisting of 2DDC Dudge ElliottBs #rder dismissing CoughlinBs appeal of criminal trespass
conviction in :9C 11 C: 2.!0< (.1,01* & pages from ,1012 containing %2/12 #rder in
C:12=12.2
=1/%<=1/%, :C6 ;aAlettBs 9otion to Continue trespass trail in :9C 2.!0< because :ichard
7) ;ill, EsH), witness, will be on vacation)
=2000=2002 6rrest :eport and Declaration of (robable Cause 1heet by :(D #fficer Chris
Carter Dr) filed with Criminal Complaint for trespass by :ichard 7) ;ill in :9C 11 C: 2.!0<
on 111&11 listing Coughlin as an attorney, further vitiating 123 and :9CBs fraudulent
assertion that Coughlin failed to disclose fact he is an attorney)
=2/&&=2/&! &2/12 #rder in C@11=0&.2% 2DDC Dudge "lanagan appeal of summary eviction
with ;ill and 2a?er as opposing counsel Denying ;illBs 2a?erBs 12112 9otion for #rder to
1how Cause after hearing on &2&12 and &2.12
=2/&%=2/&, !1.12 fa' from :9C Dept) 2 (Dudge >) 7ardner* 1 and 2 of 2 6rrest :eport and
=2/.0= $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
loc?out order on 11111
=2/.0= $ots of emails between Coughlin and the 123 Huite cooperative and responsive to any
111/%&
=2/1. 5ahoe >omenBs 1ervices (see C@11=01,<<, .0&1/* attorney 2rian 7onsalves, EsH)Bs
email referring to other attorney fee awards ma?es curious GingBs only reHuesting Coughlin pay
;illBs landlord clientBs award in GingBs closing argument) (really disgusting how old former
stooge for the ban?s foreclosure mediator Ging (7iles sued him in that role, but apparently the
briefs for such were ta?en down* seems only interested in getting ;ill and or ;illBs neurologist
landlord who can afford to blow O.0G (at least* pursuing a spite summary eviction* rather than
pursuing addressing some attorney fee award to an shelter for abused womenchildren:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &&1:1=.* E9:) G+37: )))6nd + believe it would be
appropriate since you heard evidence on the issue of the court order that he pay Dr) 9erlissBs
fees) 5hat any reinstatement, if you donBt disbar him permanently, would be he would be
reHuired to follow that court order to pay those fees) 5han? you)F
5o be fair, Ging may have just wished to avoid the Canon 2, :ule 2)1<, 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 C66>Bs E'ecutive 2oard where >$1, C66>,
and 5ahoe >omenBs 1ervices were all co=defendants in CoughlinBs wrongful termination suit
presided over by interested party 2DDC Dudge Elliott (for shame* in C@11=01,<<, bringing the
legitimacy of any rulings on any cases involving Coughlin by Dudge Elliott into serious doubt
(and ma?ing 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 :ehearing is manifest from the scheduling associated with
the 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing and the 111,12 and 112012 trial dates :DC Dudge
1ferraAAa insisted on for the i(hone case in :C:2011=0.&&!1*)
"urther, the dictates of 1C: 10<(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 see?ing to
admit it the purported 11!12 emailed grievance by :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), to Ging where such
demonstrates Huite clearly that Ging and the 123 ?new 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 >$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&=&01/ ;illBs
11!12 email to Ging, five page grievance, unsigned, unsworn (interstingly, either ;ill failed
to really include such EdisclosuresF or Ging e'cised such, inappropriately, from this &,0,! 1C:
10<(2*(c* production of 11/12, causing much prejudice to CoughlinBs defense
3evada=E'cuse=for="ailing=to=#bey=1C:=10<=2=c *:
112/%&
Danuary 1!, 2012 @+6 E96+$ #3$K patric??Nnvbar)org (atric?
Ging, EsH) 6ssistant 2ar Counsel :e: -achary 2) Coughlin, EsH) 3evada 2ar 3o)
,!/&
9r) Ging:
Kou and + $ae preiously dis!ussed 9r) Coughlin) 9r)
Coughlin, due to his mental instability, lac? of integrity, and complete
incompetence, constitutes a danger to the public if he is allowed to continue to
practice law) 5his letter is written to discharge my and my asso!ia"e(s repor"ing
o6liga"ions under 3DC 8,3) (lease consider the following:
1) :issone v) 7essin, C@10=01&!1) ?lthough not among
!r. Coughlin<# mo#t #igni%icant ethical -iolation#' it /re#ent# a good
microco#m o% hi# dereliction#) !r. =e##in 2a# a client of our offi!e) ;e
defrauded the plaintiff, as is $is modus operandi in dealing #i"$ #omen)
6ppro'imately one year after judgment was entered and the case concluded, 9r)
Coughlin interjected himself in the case on behalf of 7essin, trying to collect on a
sanction award against opposing counsel) +t turns out that because he had filed
ban?ruptcy, 7essin no longer owns this claim) +f you loo? at the file, you will see
that Coughlin a//eared and then %iled a biMarre J/artial 2ithdra2alJ
document on December %, 2011)
1ubseHuent to that time, Coughlin ha# been g$os"#ri"ing document#
"$a" purpor" "o 6e from -essin7 indiidually7 and e-filing "$em for -essin. %e is
using "$e G/s/G for -essin(s signa"ure. 6he#e are clearly no" do!umen"s "$a" are
signed or prepared 6y )r, -essin7 and "$e fa!" "$a" some6ody ACoug$linB e-files
"$em con%irm# he i# g$os"#ri"ing 2ithout the reAuired di#clo#ure) +n addition, it
appears that Coughlin has facilitated the filing of #$a" may 6e a fraudulent
ban?ruptcy on behalf of 7essin) CoughlinBs lac? is demonstrated in the 7essin case
by the fact that he does not understand the effect on the ownership of 7essinBs
potential claims from 7essin having filed a 6an'rup"!y, (i)e), the claims now
belong to the ban?ruptcy trustee, not 7essin)*
6s with all of the matters referenced below, + strongly suggest that you
!on"a!" "$e *e!ond Judi!ial Dis"ri!" Cour" and ge" e-filing a!!ess "o "$e !ases
men"ioned so you can loo? at the documents yourself) 7lade ;all, EsH), is
opposing counsel in that case and may be of help to you)
2) 5 am informed and belie-e that !r. Coughlin 2a# re!en"ly
!oni!"ed of a "$ef" !rime in 3eno )uni!ipal Cour") 6 am further informed that
the matter arises out of shoplifting at >almart) 5hat case is presently on appeal to
the district court in case number C:11=20.!) 9r) Coughlin is representing himself)
&) 9r) Coughlin is presently facing criminal charges regarding the theft
of an i(od) 5hat is pending in :eno Dustice Court as case number :C:2011=
0.&&!1) + have reviewed the file) 9r) Coughlin got into some sort of argument
with his public defender) 6s a result, he was referred out for a competency
evaluation)
11&/%&
!) >e represent Dr) 9atthew 9er+iss, a physician from Chico,
California) Dr) 9erliss owns the property at 121 3ier 3o!' *"ree", :eno, 3evada)
2eginning in 9arch 2010, the property was leased to 9r) Coughlin and his then=
girlfriend) 5he lease e?pired in *e!ruary .F--) 5he girlfriend left the community
in appro'imately 9ay 2011) Dr) 9erliss contacted us in appro'imately 6ugust
2011 to assist in evicting 9r) Coughlin) Coughlin had not paid rent or utilities
since 9ay) ;e contended that there were habitability issues with the property "$a"
;us"ified $is #i"$$olding ren") 6ll of his claims were decided adversely to his
position at the ei!"ion $earing) Dustice of the (eace (eter SferaGGa ordered
Coughlin ei!"ed from the premises effe!"ie Novem!er - .F--) On "$a" da"e, the
3a#hoe County *heri%%<# $e/artment performed "$eir normal ei!"ion
pro!edure: loc5# 2ere changed and "$e ei!"ion no"i!e #as pos"ed on "$e fron"
door) 3e -ideota/ed the home and it# content# at that time) 8pon inspection
over the ne't few days, it became apparent that PsomebodyP was brea?ing into the
home on a regular basis)
#n 1unday, 3ovember 1&, 2011, Dr) 9erliss came to town, and + met
him at the home on :iver :oc? 1treet) 6s we wal?ed through the home, it was
obvious that someone been in there since + had last been in several days before) Dr)
9erliss discovered that the basement door was barricaded (not loc?ed* from the
inside) 5he :eno (olice Department was summoned) 6hey tried to !oa? #$oeer
#as in "$e 6asemen" ou", without success) 6fter Dr) 9erliss had to ?ic? the door
down, it 2a# di#co-ered that !r. Coughlin had 6ro'en in and 2a# in the
ba#ement) ;e was arrested and is presen"ly fa!ing !riminal "respass !$arges in
3eno )uni!ipal Cour") 1ee case no) 11 C 26405 21) ;e is also facing a
contempt motion in front of Judge SferaGGa in the e-iction ca#e) 1feraAAa has
stayed that matter pending the resolution of the criminal trial) 5hat was scheduled
for Danuary 10, 2012, but was continued at the reHuest of 9r) CoughlinBs new
attorney)
<) 5he eviction order is now on appeal to the 1econd Dudicial District
Court) 1ee case C@l1=0&.2%, pending in Department /) 6s part of the eviction
process, a lien was asserted against the personal property that Coughlin left behind
at the home) #n /oem6er 167 2011, Coughlin filed a motion to contest the
landlordBs lien in the eno "u#tice Court) 6he court "ried "o promp"ly se" a
$earing' but Coughlin refused "o !oopera"e in se""ing "$e ma""er' and the court
"oo' i" off !alendar) Coughlin then reinitiated that process and a hearing was held
in +ecem!er, a" #$i!$ "ime "$e !our" $eard eiden!e of Coug$lin(s la!' of
!oopera"ion in se""ing "$e /oem6er $earing) <ou may also #an" "o !on"a!"
3eno Jus"i!e Cour" s"aff7 and in par"i!ular7 !$ief !ler' =aren *"an!il, about 9r)
CoughlinBs abusive treatment of her and her staff) 6fter the hearing, the court
issued an #rder granting Coughlin a two=day time window to remove his personal
property) 5he first day was 5hursday, December 22, 2011) 6fter Coughlin was
allowed into the home that first day, he sent out an e=mail to the effect that becau#e
he had appealed "udge *%eraMMa<# order, he was en"i"led "o a s"ay of pro!eedings
11!/%&
and 2a# going to re#ume li-ing in the home) 6s a result, he did very little to
remove any of his personal property that day) #n "riday, December 2&, 2011, after
he learned, again, that his s"ay had been denied, Coughlin assembled a small crew
and they were able to remove a substantial amount of his personal property) (Kou
need to understand that Mr, Coughlin is a hoarder) 4e $ae "$e p$o"os and ideos
if you #ould li'e "o see "$em)*
;owever, 9r) 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) %aing failed "o remoe all of $is 6elongings, 9r) Coughlin then
mo-ed be%ore "udge (lanagan %or a tem/orary re#training order "o preen"
"$e disposal of $is a6andoned proper"y in accordance 2ith "udge *%eraMMa<#
order) 6ttached is 9r) CoughlinBs motion, my officeBs opposition, and 9r)
CoughlinBs reply) 6he#e document# demon#trate !r. Coughlin<# com/lete and
utter incom/etence a# an attorney)
#n January 117 2012, Dudge "lanagan denied 9r) CoughlinBs reHuest
for a "emporary res"raining order) #n January 127 2012, the contractor hired to
clean the house commenced wor?) 9r) Coughlin flagged the contractor down in
traffic when he (the contractor* was on his way to the dump with the a6andoned
proper"y from the house) Coughlin called the police, who arrived at the transfer
station) Coughlin was falsely asserting that the contractor had tried to run him over)
;e also told the police
that the contractor had stolen his possessions) 6fter + presented the court orders to
"$e poli!e, the contractor was allowed to proceed) &t their instruction, + have now
had a 5(# issued against Coughlin by :eno Dustice Court)
;owever, before the contractor could get bac? to the :iver :oc? house,
Coughlin was there) ;e had his video camera and was wal?ing up and down the
street screaming and yelling at the police, at the contractor, and a" me7 #$en 5
arried) 9r) Coughlin ended up being arres"ed and "a'en "o ;ail) 5he police
informed me that becau#e o% the number and ty/e# o% contact# they ha-e had
2ith him, he is no longer eligi6le for !i"a"ions in "$e een" of infra!"ions)
Enclosed you will find a co/y o% a supplemen"al do!umen" %iled by
!r.
Coughlin on "anuary 1&' 2012, and sent to my staff and + by email from Coughlin
that morning) Plea#e note that "$e a""orney designa"ion on the %ir#t /age
indicate# that it i# being %iled by Coughlin as appellant) Kou will note that the
caption is from a different case) +t is unclear in which case Mr, Coughlin intended
to file this document, although, because of the case number and the caption, it
appears to have ultimately 6een rou"ed to the Carpentier case (C@0%=01/0,* and
not the eviction appeal case (C@11=0&.2%*) + am "old "$a" !ounsel in "$e
!ap"ioned !ase may also 6e in "$e pro!ess of filing a 6ar !omplain" agains"
Coug$lin)
.) >hen the house was secured after CoughlinBs arrest, we found a
crac5 pipe and a !ag of what appeared to !e mari$uana) 'he contractor also
11</%&
reported finding a bo' of pills and a vial of some sort) 4e unders"and Coug$lin
$as unsu!!essfully "ried "$e +a#yers Con!erned for +a#yers program7 and "$a"
$e $as a $is"ory of su6s"an!e pro6lems)
/) 9r) Coughlin has filed "#o la#sui"s agains" $is former employer7
4as$oe +egal *eri!es, ;e has sued all of the !oard of directors and the
management of the company) 2oth cases have now been dismissed) +oth ca#e#
demon#trate hi# lac5 o% com/etence) 7 #ugge#t you contact "o#e/h =arin' @#A.,
in $as @egas, as he was counsel for the defendants in that case) Fou may 2ant to
contact Daul 1l!ano7 1s8,7 "$e dire!"or of 4as$oe +egal *eri!es)
%) 9r) Coughlin has a habit of initiating cases and as?ing to proceed in
forma pauperis) ;e has done so in cases against me, my office, my client, and
>ashoe $egal 1ervices) Fou 2ill %ind them i% you run a sear!$ for Coug$lin M
on "$e *e!ond Judi!ial Dis"ri!" Cour" #e6si"e. 5he courts that have reviewed the
documents have generally denied his reHuests) >hat is of note is that hi#
re/re#entation# in the a//lication# to /roceed in %orma /au/eri# are
incon#i#tent 2ith and contrary to the re/re#entation# that he ha# made to
"udge (lanagan in the conte8t o% #ee5ing a tem/orary re#training order) #n
the one hand, he tell# the court he i# bro5e and ha# 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) 5his demonstrates a gross lac5 of candor with
the tri!unals with which he deals)
,) Coughlin ha# al#o tried to %ile a ca#e again#t me' my a##ociate' my
client' and other#' including the eno "u#tice Court) +t is also to be %ound on
the 2eb#ite) Dudge 1teinheimer has ruled that he did not comply with 3:C( %)
10) CoughlinBs behavior was unusual to start, and has become more and
more biAarre during the time we have been dealing with him) ;e serves papers he
does not file, and files does not serve) ;e consistently signs certificates of service
that he has mailed to us, but we have never received from him by mail) )e ha#
/o#ted -ideo# o% the e-iction #er-ice attem/t# and /art# o% the trial on
Fou6ube' in!luding some re!ordings $e se!re"ly made in !our" #i"$ $is
!ellp$one.
11) 6nother e8am/le o% hi# incom/etence i# that he does no"
unders"and #$a" orders are7 and are no"7 appeala6le) ;e doe# not under#tand
that %iling a notice o% a//eal dies"s "$e lo#er !our" of ;urisdi!"ion) + am
confident that once you loo? into this matter, you will agree that 9r) Coughlin
should not be practicing law) ;e is a danger to the community)
*incerely' 1#1 ichard =. )ill :7;:?n Enclosures: =Coughlin
6mended Emergency 9otion for :estraining #rder =9erliss #pposition to 9otion
for 5:# =Coughlin :eply to #pposition to 9otion for 5:# =1uppleinental :eply
to #pposition dated 11&12
(3#5E: the header to each of the five pages of this purported 11!12
letter by ;ill to the 123 reads: E$etter to (atric? Ging, EsH), Danuary 1!, 2012F*)
11./%&
2!) 1tate 2ar Counsel called attorney Paul @lcano to testify at the hearing of
this matter) 9r) Elcano is the e'ecutive director of >ashoe $egal 1ervices that proides legal
seri!es "o indigen"s) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( %%, $ 2< =(
%,, $ 1!) (E;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages %%:2< to %,:1!* EU (G+37* 9r) Elcano, could you
state your name and spell it for the record, please) 6 (aul Elcano) E=$=C=6=3=#) U 6nd how
are you employedJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm sorry) +f + can just Huic?ly interject) + donBt mean to
ta?e up time) 5he 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 1C: 10<2(c*) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
#verruled) (roceed) 2K 9:) G+37: U Could you tell the panel how you are employedJ 6
+Bm currently the e'ecutive director of >ashoe $egal 1ervices, a <01(c*&, that provides legal
services to indigents)F*
Coughlin was employed by >ashoe $egal 1ervices from 6ugust 2,, 200/ to 9ay
11, 200,) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( ,&, $ 1/ =20)
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age ,&:1/ to ,&:20* U + believe + as?ed you if the >ashoe $egal
1ervices had employed 9r) CoughlinJ 6 6ccording to our records, he was employed about
6ugust 2,th, 200/, to 9ay 11, 200,)F*
9r) Elcano 6e!ame a#are o% an order entered by "udge =ardner on 0pril 107
200> (3#5E: actually, by misstating the date of entry of ";E&, Chair Echeverria seems to be
demonstrating the e'tent to which he has read at least some of CoughlinBs filings where the
!100, reHuest for audio of the 5(# hearing wherein Coughlin represented a male domestic
violence victim in "@0,=00%%., D) 8ribe v) G) @aldeA by >$1Bs 2rec?enridge is particularly
problematic chronology where CoughlinBs !1,0, employment law complaint to >$1
references the hostile discriminatory wor? environment Coughlin was subjected to, where
>$1Bs other domestic violence attorney 1ternlicht at one point announced to two male
attendees at a domestic violence victim legal clinic that Emen cannot be victims of domestic
violenceF, which Coughlin complained to Elcano about*, and the actual date of entry of ";E&
is !1&0,, ie, three days after 2rec?enridgeBs reHuest for the video of that 8ribe 5(# hearing is
notated as having been made in the doc?et for such 5(# matter* in the matter of Doshi v Doshi
and, as a result, reie#ed "$e "aped "rans!rip" of "$e $earing) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing
>ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( ,!, $ 22 =( ,<, $ .) (;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages
,!:22 to ,<:.* EU (G+37* 2ac?ing up to what activities did you personally see or witness that
formed the basis of your opinion that he is not competent to practiceJ 6 (E$C63#* 5he first
one was the order entered in the Doshi case by Dudge 7ardner wherein he was sanctioned for
various things which are listed in the order) 6s a result of that, + reviewed the tape of the
hearing) U 1o you actually listened to the hearing itselfJ 6 Kes) + went through the hearing
transcript)F*
(3#5E: ;owever, consider: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 11,:1/ to 122:1<* 2K 9:)
C#87;$+3: U >hatBs your understanding with respect to the position ta?en by me in that
trial vis=a=vis the majority viewpoint of law on setting off or offsetting domestic duties li?e
alimony or child support with third=party debts in a property settlement or debt settlement
conte'tJ 6 +Bm still not sure + understand the Huestion) 2ut there were no children, as + recall,
so child custody had no issue in it) 6nd in terms of the offset, + donBt ?now what law you
proffered) U >ell, a duty li?e alimony) 6 domestic duty) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5o me thatBs
11//%&
an incomplete Huestion) >hatBs the complete HuestionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + guess +Bm trying to
ascertain 9r) ElcanoBs awareness of the position) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hatBs your
understanding of the permissibility of setting off a debt with a duty, a domestic dutyJ
9:) G+37: #bjection) +rrelevant) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Did you say relevancyJ 9ay + respond to it, your ;onorJ Dust to the e'tent 9r)
Elcano is here today purporting to critiHue my wor? in that regard, + thin? it is relevant to
ascertain whether or not he has any sort of conception of permissibility of setting off a
domestic duty, li?e alimony, with some debt) 9y point) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6re you
finishedJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Keah) 6nd + didnBt end it very well, but + didnBt want to give away
what + feel the answer is or the majority viewpoint of 6merican law) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
5he objection is sustained) 9r) Coughlin, itBs now 11:!1) Kou have five more minutes)
9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) :eallyJ 5he relevancy objection is sustained) %e ge"s "o
"es"ify as "o $o# !lueless 5 am, 0nd "$is #$en 5 as' "o see if $e $as any sor" of 'no#ledge in
"$is area7 i"(s no" relean"H 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;eBs 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hey are all relevant
when he was tal?ing about them) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hose issues are, sir) >hether or not
he ?nows the intricacies of some fine point of law to me is irrelevant) 3ow, if you have some
Huestions to address to 9r) Elcano, please do so, and letBs not argue) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay)
2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 9r) Elcano, for you to have any sort of legitimate
informed bases for the opinion you proffered here today with respect to my competency
incident to my wor? in that Doshi case, wouldnBt you need to ?now whether or not a domestic
duty is accorded greater significance and protection in the law than is a third=party debt == 6
3o) U == thereinJ +tBs not permissible to do essentially what Dudge 7ardner tried to force on
my client, which is accept a settlement, whereby a setoff is made whereby my client waived her
alimony in e'change for 9r) 1pringgateBs client saying he set it off by the debts, by ta?ing them
on, even though they could never get at her anyway because he was the sole signatory)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +s there a Huestion there, 9r) CoughlinJ 5;E >+53E11: +
donBt understand) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #r is that a statementJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +t is a
statement) + thin? == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hen as? a == 9:) C#87;$+3: %e(s "al'ing
a6ou" "$ings $e doesn(" 'no# a6ou")F*
2<) Judge -ardner(s order in the Doshi matter indi!a"ed that Coughlin had
conducted no di#co-ery in the ca#e and %ailed to /re#ent any do!umen"ary eiden!e at the
trial o% the matter on behal% o% hi# client !r#. "o#hi. *ee )earing @8hibit P 12' 4 4 -6) (E6t
trial, 9r) 1pringgate stated that 9r) Coughlin had conducted no discovery in this case) +n
addition, 9r) Coughlin failed to present one documentary piece of evidence at trial on behalf of
9s) DoshiBs claims) 9r) Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court)))4*
6fter !ommen"ing on arious nega"ie aspe!"s of Coug$lin(s represen"a"ion of $is
!lien" )rs, Jos$i7 (1ee )earing @8hibit P 12' 4 9 -P 1&' 4 4* Judge -ardner spe!ifi!ally
held:
P5he most troubling aspect of this case was 9r) CoughlinBs rude7 sar!as"i! and
disrespe!"ful presen"a"ion a" "rialC 9r) CoughlinBs ina6ili"y "o unders"and a
balance sheetC his failure to !ondu!" discoveryC and his lac5 of 5nowledge with
11%/%&
regard to the rules of evidence and trial procedure) 6ll of this was compounded
with a !on"inuously an"agonis"i! presen"a"ion of "$e !ase that resulted in a
shift from a fairly simple divorce case to a !on"en"ious dior!e "rial las"ing an
e?!essie amoun" of "ime)P *ee )earing @8hibit P 1&' 4 5 -10) (Huoted above*
2.) Dudge 7ardner san!"ioned Coughlin personally and a#arded a""orney(s fees to
)r, Jos$i in the amount of O,&! to be paid personally by Coughlin within &0 days of the order)
*ee )earing @8hibit P 1&' 4 14 -17) (E2ased upon the foregoing, 9r) 1pringgateBs reHuest that
9r) Coughlin personally pay 9r) Doshi !)1< ;ours at the rate of O22< per hour for the cost of
the trial is 7:635ED) 9r) Coughlin shall submit a chec? to 9r) Doshi in the amount of O,&!
within &0 days of this #rder)F*
+n re 7ygi, <!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)))
+n re 1antosuosso, &1% 9ass) !%, (1,!<*: =+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)
=6 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)
="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)
="inding of material facts should not only not contain a report of the evidence, but is
not evidence)
(>e 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 ta?en by the single justice in the
present case in connection with his action in overruling the demurrer to the respondentLs
answer) >e 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 li?e any other evidence is to be
given such weight as the single justice shall deem OO108 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)
.$7 no, 0!"ually7 Judge +, -ardner $as neer san!"ioned Coug$lin) 2ut, nice job
of demonstrating what a clown of an 6sst) 2ar Counsel you are, Ging, and what an
abomination of an P+nvestigatorP you are, paralegalCler? of CourtCustodian of :ecords
(eters) %o# many la#yers lies $ae you ruined #i"$ your fraudulen"7 laKy7 en"i"led7 !orrup"
approa!$J
5he 123Bs receiving on &1!12 within the Ebo' of materialsF :9C Dudge 3ash
11,/%&
;olmes provided the 123 in connection with her grievance letter to the 123 (1ee ";E %*
2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs ";E& 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 Clar?) 5he 33D2 1creening (anel ought be subjected to some level of
inHuiry to determine what, if any, steps it too? to determine whether ";E& was even an
operative order, if whether it had been bac?ed up off of by Dudge $) 7ardner once she realiAed
the primrose path 1pringgate sought to lead her down, and how very fraught with persuasive
authority for the positions Coughlin argued such path was)
>here a sufficient factual basis for action is presented to it,Q&R and information
acHuired by a court with respect to professional misconduct is not sufficiently definite to
authoriAe formal charges without further inHuisition,Q!R a court may be authoriAed to order an
investigation)Q<R: Q"3&R 3)K)]9atter of City Club of 3ew Kor?, 2&& 6)D) &<1, 2<& 3)K)1)
100 (2D DepBt 1,&1*) Q"3!R 8)1)]1wanson v) 5he "lorida 2ar, &%1 ")2D /&0 (<th Cir) 1,./*)
"la)]5he "lorida 2ar v) 9assfeller, 1/0 1o) 2D %&! ("la) 1,.!*) Q"3<R +nd)]1tate e' rel)
6valon 6partments Co) #f 7ary v) 1ammons, 220 +nd) &1,, &% 3)E)2D %!. (1,!2*, cause
dismissed, 220 +nd) &1,, !2 3)E)2D .2. (1,!2*) 5enn)]E' parte Chattanooga 2ar 6ssBn, 20.
5enn) /, &&0 1)>)2D &&/ (1,<,*) #rder in e'cess of jurisdiction 6r?)]Davis v) 9erritt, 2<2
6r?) .<,, !%0 1)>)2D ,2! (1,/2*) +t is highly debatable whether the #2C even had any
jurisdiction to bring such 3712=0!&< (or 0!&!, depending on when one as?ed Ging and (eters
and how hard they were still trying to sell the idea that the 123 EreceivedF from 2DDC Dudge
$) 7ardner a EgrievanceF, especially where Ging and (eters, for a time, ?ept trying to maintain
that :9C Dudge ;olmes had not been the provider to the 123 of ";E&)
>here no specific complaint had been made) 9c7rath, 1&< ()2d 1)
"rom: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com 5o: cindy)"ladagerNwashoecourts)8s
CC: joey);astingsNwashoecourts)8sC jgarinNlipsonneilson)ComC
judge);ardyNwashoecourts)8sC david);ardyNwashoecourts)8sC
aocmailNnvcourts)3v)7ovC bhutchinsNjudicial)1tate)3v)8sC
dfsarnows?iNjudicial)1tate)3v)8sC ?pic?eringNnvcourts)3v)7ov 1ubject: D@0%=
011.% issues Date: 5hu, 22 6ug 201& 12:!/:<0 =0/00
9s) "ladager, + have a couple of Huestions) + am writing to complain
about the fact that the >CD6 DD6 Koung has had greater access to the :#6 in
several cases, including C:1&=0.1! than +, a non efiler, have been accorded)
>hereas Koung has access to a digital copy of the over <00 page :#6 in C:1&=
0.1! Coughlin has been refused a digital copy thereof, and, despite the fact that
numerous counter cler?s have indicated to Coughlin that all criminal defendants are
entitled to one free copy of every filing in their cases, 9ichelle (urdy and Dulie >ise
have order cler?s not to allow Coughlin such a free copy of filings in his cases,
including the :#6 (or PDustice Court 6ppealP* in C:1&=0.1!) 6s to D@0%=011.%,
and the removal of Coughlin from the list of those afforded e"le' access during a
very e'igent time, how does such comport with >DC: 2&:
3$C ule 2&. ?//earance#L #ub#titution#L 2ithdra2al or change o%
attorney#)))) 2) Counsel in any case may be changed: (a* >hen a new attorney is to
120/%&
be substituted in place of the attorney withdrawing, by the written consent of 6o"$
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* &y order of "$e
!our", upon mo"ion and no"i!e as proided in "$ese rules, when no attorney has
been retained to replace the attorney withdrawingC )))
6sst) Cler? of Court >ise and 9ichelle (urdy (and, formerly 6ppeals
Cler? $ori 9atheus* ta?e an incredibly strict (and, inventive, even* approach to
technical rules when it comes to Coughlin, yet, the >CD6Bs #ffice and +nside
2aseball power players li?e >ashoe $egal 1ervices Elcano, get a pass, some might
say)
3hy i# 34* able to ha-e Coughlin J#ub#tituted outJ 2ithout the
J#ignature o% both attorney#J 2ithout any motion' etc.D "urther, problematic is
the fact that the efle' number accorded to CoughlinBs <200, :eply in that Doshi
matter i# numerically #ub#eAuent to the 9rder denying the !otion) 6nd, there
does not seem to be a :eHuest to 1ubmit sufficient to have CoughlinBs !&00,
9otion and 1pringgateBs <120, #pposition put to Dudge $) 7ardner, and certainly
not soon enough for her to craft a / page #rder) 6dditionally, CoughlinBs <200,
#pposition (which was filed using the dropbo' reHuired by >DC: 10 that the 2DDC
continues to fail to provide in what some might say is an impermissible arm twisting
attempt to ma?e litigants sign up for e"le'* has two file stamps on it, one crossed
out)
6dditionally, can you please indicate why you sent Coughlin an email of
.2%0, reHuesting that he resubmit his Complaint against >ashoe $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@11=
01,<< in CoughlinBs lawsuit against C66> and >$1 where Dudge Elliott sat on
C66>Bs E'ecutive 2oard, and never disclosed such to Coughlin and failed to recuse
himselfJ Certainly, these peculiarities in D@0%=011.% and the ensuing wrongful
termination litigations in C@11= 01%,. and C@11=01,<< 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) >$1 wrongful termination suits* combined with the >ashoe
County 1heriffBs #ffice failure to timely serve the defendants in C@11=01%,. 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 9otions for E'tension of 5ime 5o 1erve (which both too?
appro'imately five attempts to get 6ppeal Cler? $ori 9atheus to accept for filing*
were denied, to CoughlinBs e'treme prejudice (no matter whether the #rder indicated
such dismissals were Pwithout prejudiceP where the running of the ,0 days from
Preceipt of EE#C right to sue letterP occurred in the interim and arguably, effectively
foreclosed CoughlinBs refiling such Complaints)
+nterestingly, that same PreceiptP concept became e'ceedingly relevant
incident to the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice numerous burglaries of CoughlinBs
121/%&
former home law offices and rentals (see :ev2011=001/0%, :ev2012=000&/!,
:ev2012= 0010!%, :C:2012=0./,%0, :9C 12 C: 12!20, etc* given the Pwithin 2!
hours of receipt of the orderP language in 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a* with respect to how
summary eviction loc?outs 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 $)
7ardnerBs brother :9C Dudge >) 7ardner, did not find CoughlinBs arguments
compelling in the criminal trespass case against Coughlin (see .1,01 1C: 111(!*
(etition in 3) 1) Ct* incident to opposing counsel in C@11=0&.2% burglariAing
Coughlin former home law office with the >C1# in tow on 11111, and again, but
with the :(D along for the fun, on 111&11 (not to mention the similar burglaries by
the >C1#, li?e that of &1<12 (just an hour before the very 2:&0 p)m), hearing
before 3@2 Dudge 2eesley in 3@2=10=0<10!, Cadle Co) v) 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 :DC :ev2012=0010!%, at which time
the >C1# further violated 1oldal v) Coo? County, <0. 81 <. (1,,2*, in wrongfully
arresting Coughlin in :C:2012]0./,%0* :ussell v) Galian, !1! 6)2D !.2C +orio v
City of 3ew Kor?, ,. 9isc)2D ,<<) 9ayes v) 8@+ ;oldings, /2& 3)K)1)2d 1<1, 2%0
6)D)2d 1<& (2001*)
1pea?ing of ,C"C Canon 2' ule 2.15 and reporting misconduct (there
by :9C Dudge >) 7ardner* to an Pa//ro/riate authorityP, 2DDC Dudge $)
7ardnerBs apparent failure to contact the 123 or otherwise ta?e Pappropria"e a!"ionP
B2ell' unle## one count# /oi#oning the 2ell o% !C "udge# -ia im/ermi##ible
e8tra Eudicial communication# again#t Coughlin in 11 C 22176 B#ee 608&8C' 11
C 26405' 11 6 26800 B#ee 62&&7C' 12 C 00696' 12 C 12420 a# ta5ing
Ja//ro/riate actionJ' to 2hate-er e8tent /a##ing the 411&109 9rder ?%ter 6rial
B()@& at Coughlin<# 11114112 %ormal di#ci/linary hearingC to her o2n brother
Ban Ja//ro/riate authorityJDC)
(urther' a really detailed re-ie2 o% the Certi%icate# o% !ailing in all
%iling# in $V08-01168 #ub#eAuent to Coughlin<# remo-al %rom the li#t o% tho#e
allo2ed to acce## it on e(le8 re-eal# #ome rather' uh' intere#ting' thing#)
6dditionally, the doc?et entry in "@0,=00%%. 8ribe v) @aldeA, indicating >ashoe
$egal 1ervices 2oard (resident G) 2rec?enridge ordered, on !100, the audio
recording of a &120, 5(# hearing wherein Coughlin represented a male victim of
domestic violence (where Coughlin complained to Elcano that >$1Bs 1ternlicht told
a room full of individuals see?ing services, which included two males, that Pmales
cannot be victims of domestic violenceP*, which is particularly interesting timing
considering >$1Bs E'ec) Director ElcanoBs indications in his letters to Coughlin on
<10, and </0, as to e'actly why (with limiting language* Coughlin was
suspended and then fired on <1!0,) +nterestingly, despite 2DDC Dudge $)
7ardnerBs .1,0, #rder vitiating ElcanoBs rationale for firing Coughlin where such
order vacating the attorney fee sanction that 1pringgate was able to garner in
122/%&
invo?ing 3:1 /)0%< +n his closing argument (the incorporation of 3:C( 11 therein
ma?ing problematic 1pringgateBs failure to serve any filing ready sanctions motion,
much less allow the passing of the reHuired 21 day safe harbor*)
#f course, ;illBs and 2a?erBs burglary entails an :(C %)& burden as well)
;owever, Elcano still showed up to CoughlinBs 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing
(where the 123 violated 1C: 10<(2*(c* in only constructively noticing Coughlin
that Elcano was to be a witness the day before the hearing, rather than providing the
reHuired P&0 days written notice* and testified as though the !1&0, #rder 6fter
5rial had not been superseded by the .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce)
+nterestingly, another case involving Coughlin, 1pringgate, and 2DDC
Dudge $) 7ardner illustrates one of the very reasons why entering into the proposed
settlement agreement that 1pringgate accused Coughlin of being Pve'atiousP for
failing to coerce his client into accepting) +sa?son, D@0,=001.&) 1omehow between
1pringgateBs <210, (roposed Decree and :eHuest for 1ubmission thereof (in which
1pringgate, whom failed to serve such on Coughlin indicates that >$1 saw no
problems with such <210, (roposed Decree, which includes an attorneyBs fee
sanction and failed to award 9rs) Doshi alimony (whether Coughlin is not considered
a PpartyP under >DC: , does not stop the 123 from attempting to apply offensive
collateral estoppel to a vacated !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial, sufficient to PproveP by
clear and convincing evidenceP that Coughlin violated a multitude of :ules of
(rofessional Conduct incident to successfully obtaining alimony for 9rs) Doshi) +
appreciate your response to these matters) 1incerely, -ach CoughlinF
6s to the #2CBs Ging and P+nvestigatorP (eters prosecuting Coughlin, and so far
being well on their way to getting him permanently disbarred, in part, in connection with an
allegations that a since vacated !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial (considering the .1,0, "inal Decree
of Divorce in such matter, D@0%=011.%, and the direction in ";E& that 1pringgate prepare
such Efinal decreeF (:#6 1/./:1%=22: E<) Drepara"ion of "$e De!ree= 9r) 1pringgate sha+l
prepare the decree of divorce !onsis"en" #i"$ "$is memorandum de!ision) )r, *pringga"e
s$all "ender $is proposed de!ree "o )r, Coug$lin, Dursuan" "o 4DC3 >7 #i"$in 20 days from
"$e da"e of "$is order, 7##D C681E 6((E6:+37, +5 +1 1# #:DE:ED,PF (3#5E:
1pringgate failed to so Etender his proposed decree to 9r) CoughlinF, much less within the 20
days reHuired by ";E&, much less comply with the dictate that Coughlin be afforeded <
judicial days, per >DC: ,, so indicate his objections to such)))1pringgate only providing
Coughlin a copy of the <210, (roposed Decree he attached to a <210, :eHuest for
1ubmission upon Coughlin writing 1pringgate on <2!0, and demanding such* sanctioning
Coughlin (";E&* (:#6 1/<<=1/.%* (noting :#6 1/.1:,=10 (P9r) Coughlin cited an 0+3
ar"i!le regarding !ommuni"y de6" and stated his client Pdoes not have much for the creditors to
ta?e)P 6lso, note that lac? of awareness of :(C &)/ 6t :#6 1/.1:1/=22*
"urther, it was reversible error to admit ";E&, much less in its entirety) 6ll of the
"indings of "act section therein is not PevidenceP and cannot be used to allege the
1chaeffer1tuhff Pclear and convincing evidenceP burden of proof was met)
+n re >eiss, !.0 9ass) 1012 (2011*: 1anctions by (robate and "amily Court in
underlying case reHuiring attorney to resign his appointment as guardian for an elderly woman,
12&/%&
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 counselLs 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 attorneyLs conduct warranted professional discipline was not for
the guardian ad litem to prosecute or for the probate judge to adjudicate))))P;owever, 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) "ran?lin, 1.0 9ass) 1!,, 1<1,
&< 3)E) .., (1%,&*))))5he duties and prerogatives of bar counsel and the board]and this
courtLs 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)P
(E9r) Doshi reHuested that 9r) Coughlin personally pay his attorneyBs feel for !)1<
;ours of trial at the rate of O22< per hour pursuant to 3:1 /)0%<) !r. */ringgate "es"ified
9r) Coughlin had not conducted any discovery, had produced no evidence regarding 9rs)
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 9rs)
Doshi in this divorce proceeding)F* (3#5E: interesting, P9r) 1pringgateP P"es"ifiedP, huhJ
6pparently, Coughlin was not permitted any opportunity to PtestifyP as to that which was not
even being litigated (ie, whether 1pringgate or his client should be awarded attorneyBs fees
under 3:1 /)0%< (much less whether Coughlin had committed any professional misconduct
therein)))to say nothing of the lac? of privity issues, dangers of allowing the sort of offensive
collateral estoppel 2ar Counsel see?s to assert here, whether he characteriAes 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 Psimple
procedural rulesP)
Ging and (eters did not manage to PinvestigateP anything about Dudge 3ash
;olmesB, er) Dudge >illiam 7ardnerBs, er, 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs ";E& P#rder 6fter 5rialP,
and as such, despite Coughlin ma?ing such patently clear and providing them every filing in
the case, in addition to his 9andamus (etitions and filings therein in <&%&& and <!%!!, Ging
and (eters were successful in their Plets put earmuffs and blindfolds on ourselves as to all this
stuff Coughlin is showing us that prevents us from brown nosing those in powerP approach,
sufficient to violate 3:C( 11 and 3:1 /)0%<, see?ing to disbar Coughlin based on a non=
e'istent attorney fee sanction by Dudge $) 7ardner) 6he#e clo2n%raud# attem/ted to di#bar a
dome#tic -iolence attorney %or a legal aid organiMation %or hi# #ucce##%ully obtaining a
$ecree a2arding hi# client alimony) $et that sin? 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 Parm of the
CourtP under >aters* for another second longer) 1eriously)
6nd, actually, Ging will now have another reason to investigate the Doshi case a bit
more, con#idering thi# %iling i# al#o being #ubmitted a# a grie-ance again#t 34*<# @lcano
and "ohn */ringgate' @#A) +ts tough to decide whose approach is more suspension worthy,
12!/%&
considering 1pringgate filed an %!12 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause (the since elminated
attorneyBs fees award ordered Coughlin to pay 1pringgate directly, which tells you something,
right there* see?ing to have Coughlin held in contempt for failing to pay an attorney fee award
that no longer e'isted, whereas Elcano collects a chec? as the PE'ecutive DirectorP of >$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%=011.% and ElcanoBs claim that an attorneyBs fee
award that was vacated somehow, all by itself, justified CoughlinBs firing) 6nd, Ging and
Echeverria purport to find that ;ill and Elcano provided Pe'pertP testimony) +f by Pe'pert
testimonyP Ging meant they provided so much negligent jac?ass claptrap, then,
yeah)))sure)))they provided Pe'pert testimonyP) 6ctually, that is not fair) 5heir ;a!'ass
!lap"rap was fraudulent, rather than negligent)
6nd David Clar? has some BsplaininB to do, too, especially if what >C(D Dim $eslie
attributes to Clar? is true respecting $eslieBs contention that the 123 coddled him into ignoring
his duty of confidentiality to his then client Coughlin)
5here is not any sanctions order of any legally operative effect in e'istence that so
holds) >hat is sanctionable is Ging and Dudge 3ash ;olmes presenting such (and perhaps
Dudge $) 7ardner and her !rother :9C Dudge >) 7ardner for giving such to Dudge 3ash
;olmes, though, clearly, Dudge >) 7ardner e'pressed surprise to hear that such ";E& that he
received from his sister and passed around to his fellow :9C Dudges had been provided to the
123 by Dudge 3ash ;olmes (echoing the lac? of permission to spea? on his behalf that :9C
Dudge Dilworth e'pressed disatisfaction with respect to during the trial incident to the wrongful
:(D arrest of /&12 in :9C 12 C: 12!20*) >hether Dudge >) 7ardner was negligent in
providing such inoperative ";E& to Dudge 3ash ;olmes is a matter for 9r) 1arnows?i, 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 7laAier)
5he e'tremely apparent behind the scenes voodoo, +nside 2aseball, shenanigans
engaged in between >ashoe $egal 1ervices, 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner, 1pringgate, and the 2DDC
"iling #fficeBs 9ichelle (urdy (whom manages to ?eep a straight face when alleging that
Coughlin somehow twists her words* is especially evident upon reviewing the circumstances
surrounding CoughlinBs timely <200, :eply to 1pringgateBs <1&0, #pposition to CoughlinBs
!&00, 9otion for :econsideration, etc): 3#5E by Coughlin: despite having a <200, filing
stamped date, which made timely CoughlinBs :eply to 1pringgateBes <1&0, #pposition to
CoughlinBs 9otion for :econsideration, Dudge 7ardnerBs <210, #rder Denying CoughlinBs
9otion actually has a numerically prior efle' number assigned to it, owing to the 2DDC
originally rejecting CoughlinBs filing just long enough to snea? Dudge $) 7ardnerBs <210,
#rder through, to wit, efle': D@0%=011.%=10/,.2/ (#rd Denying )))*)(df D@0%=011.%=
10%&20. (:eply)))*)(df)*)(df D@0%=011.%=10%&20. (:eply)))*)(df
;ow all this influence peddling and abusing the power in oneBs position by failing to
abide by the duties inherent thereto is much different from ta?ing bribes is not readily apparent
to most) ;owever, what it clear is that a long line of former >ashoe County District 6ttorneyBs
#ffice prosecutors turned judges have brought the same dirth of prosecutorial ethics they culled
in their years there to their time on the bench, and they usually seem to be surrounded by filing
12</%&
office cler?s who augment their, uh, approach) +n D@0%=011.%, 1pringgateBs <1&0,
#pposition to CoughlinBs !&00, 9otion for :econsderation violates :(C &)1, &)&, 6nd &)! +n
misstating 3:1 /)0%< (>hich, contrary to 1pringgateBs assertion, does not have language Every
similar to 3:C( 11F but, actually, specifically incorporates 3:C( 11, which highlights the
ve'atiousness in 1pringgate moving for sanctions Epursuant to 3:1 /)0%<F +n his closing
arguments at trial where he had failed to comply with the procedural reHuirement within 3:C(
11 that one serve on the opposing party a filing ready sanctions motion and allow a 21 day safe
harbor period of time to pass before filing or ma?ing any such motion for sanctions)
1pringgateBs <1&0, #pposition in the matter from which ";E& stems (D@0%=
011.%* reads:
E#((#1+5+#3 5# :E#8E15 "#: :EC#31+DE:65+#3 C#9E1 3#> the
(laintiff, 61;>l3 D#1;+, by and through his counsel of record, D#;3 () 1(:+37765E,
E1U), and opposes the 9otion of -ac' Coughlin, EsH), representing himself, for
reconsideration of the #rder 6fter 5rial) 5his opposition is made and based upon the attached
9emorandum of (oints and 6uthorities, and all the papers and pleadings on file in this action)
D65ED this 1&
th
day of 9ay, 200,) 1 Dohn 1pringgate, EsH)
!@!9?,$I! 9( P97,6* ?,$ ?I6)9767@* 9r) Coughlin, via e=
filing, filed a reHuest for reconsideration and e'tension of time to respond) 6 stipulation to
e'tend the time for filing a motion for reconsideration was already granted to >ashoe $egal
1ervices, which is the attorney of record for 9s) Doshi) 6s 9arc 6shley, EsH), or Caryn
1ternlicht, EsH), #f >ashoe $egal 1ervices are representing 9s) Doshi, )r, Coug$lin(s mo"ion
is addressed $erein only insofar as i" !on!erns "$e #anction# assessed indiidually agains"
$im under /3* 7,08C) 6 Court has the inherent authority to reconsider its prior orders) 5rail v)
"arreto, ,1 3ev) !01,<&. ()2D 102. (1,/<*) 5hat authority is further provided by local rule, in
our case, >ashoe District Court :ule 12(%*) ;owever, the 3evada 1upreme Court has held that
points or contentions not raised in the first instance cannot be raised on rehearing) 6chrum v)
E'pressway (laAa $td), 112 3ev) /&/, /!2, ,1/ ()2D !!/ (1,,.*, and that failure to ma?e the
arguments in the first instance constitutes a waiver) 1ee, also, Chowdhry v) 3$@;, +nc), 111
3ev) <.0, %,& ()2D &%< (1,,<*)
9ore importantly, rehearings are appropriately only where Psubstantially different
evidence is subseHuently introduced, or the decision is clearly erroneousP) 9asonry M 5ile
Contractors 6ss Bn) @) Dolley, 8rga M >irth, $td), 11& 3ev) /&/,,!1 ()2D !%. (1,,/*) 6nd, the
trial judge has great discretion on the Huestion of rehearing) ;arveyBs >agonwheel, +nc) @)
9ac1ween, ,. 3ev) 21<, .0. ()2d 10,< (1,%0*) 9r) Coughlin puts forward no new facts, or
new law, which would justify any change in the CourtBs prior decision) (rior (roceedings: 5he
parties previously appeared before the ;onorable 1cott Dordan, and attempted to settle the
matter at a 1ettlement Conference in #ctober, 200%) 6t that time, the parties left with a draft
settlement, which would have been along the same lines as that proposed at trial, to=wit: that
9r) Doshi would ta?e essentially all of the community debt, and would not pay alimony) 9s)
Doshi rejected that settlement, and at trial, the parties again tried to settle for appro'imately one
and one= +++ =2= 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) 5he 6rgument for :econsideration) 9r) CoughlinBs points and authorities in
12./%&
support of his position are essentially unavailing because they address a different issue)
5he cases, when read, address the issue of whether a party can alleviate a pre=
e'isting alimony debt or arrearage by paying outstanding bills to a third party, and claim a Pset
offP of the amount due the obligee) >hile those cases would be in agreement with 3evada
practice, this was not the situation presented herein) 9r) Doshi and 9s) Doshi had appro'imately
O1.,000)00 of community debt that was due and needed to be paid to third parties) 6s 9r)
Coughlin c#l5ectiy points out on page 1/ of his 9otion, Pcreditors of such community debt are
unaffected by anything in a divorce decree from pursuing either of the parties for repayment)P
5he community creditors could pursue either 9s) Doshi or 9r) Doshi) +t appeared from the
evidence at trial that 9r) Doshi was paying the vast amount of the outstanding community debt)
;e proposed to the Dudge that in lieu of paying alimony, the Court utiliAe the after=ta'
differential between their incomes to pay that community debt) 5his would be a benefit to both
parties, reduce their joint debt, and improve both of their credit scores) 9r) CoughlinBs position
at trial, which both judges tried to dissuade him from, and which he re=argues in his 9otion, is
incorrect in that it was based upon a flawed premise) ;e seemed to be arguing for a eHual
distribution of debt, with the ?nowledge that 9s) Doshi would essentially be judgment proof
because of her limited assets and income) 5hus, in 9r) CoughlinBs world, she would continue to
receive alimony, but would not have to pay her share of the community debt) 5his argument is
essentially grounded in bad faithC 9rs) Doshi is arguing that she should be attributed debt, with
no intention of paying, ?nowing she will still receive alimony) ;owever, beyond the bad faith
argument, the true flaw in the argument is revealed at page 10, where 9r) Coughlin argues that
should 9s) Doshi have been ordered to pay half of the community credit card debt, and that any
subseHuent failure on her part to do so Pcould li?ely not be used as a proper basis to set off any
alimony award received)P 5his is incorrect) 6s 9r) =&= Coughlin notes previously, the third
party creditors would not be restrained by the divorce decree) 5hus, should 9s) Doshi fail to pay
her attributed share of community debt, they would proceed for collection against 9r) Doshi) +f
9r) 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) 6limony 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, 3:1 12<)1<0) ;er faila8Be to pay the )Debt
would also affect her perceived Pneed,P the other half of the alimony eHuation) +n order to
protect 9s) DoshiBs potential claim to alimony, in the event that 9r) 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 O1)00 (er year for five (<*
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) 5his
format was urged upon by the Court at trial, and memorialiAed in the #rder 6fter ;earing) 5he
Court recogniAed the sense of this proposal, in that the great li?elihood would be that if 9r)
Doshi was unable to pay the community debt he would have to file ban?ruptcy, and were that to
happen, 9s) Doshi would have to file ban?ruptcy as well) :espectfully, 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
12//%&
appropriate based upon a discharged property settlement agreement) CounselBs position has
been throughout that 9s) Doshi should be awarded alimony and the community debt) ;owever,
he has made it clear that she would discharge or be non=collectible on her debt, not recogniAing
that either 9r) Doshi or the debtors would come after her for the balance of the payments) 9r)
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) +++ +++ =!= 1anctions) 3:1 1%)010 (rovides that the Courts can liberally
construe 3:1 1%)010(2*(2* in favor of awarding attorneyBs fees in all appropriate situations)
5he $egislature e'pressed an intent that the Court award attorneyBs fees and impose sanctions
under 3:C( 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, 5rustees othe (lumbers M (ipe fitters 8nion $ocal <2< ;ealth M >elfare 5rust (lan
v) Developers 1urety M +ndemnity Co), 120 3ev) <.,.&,%! ()&:d <, (200!*) 5he language
of3:1 /)0%< +s very similar to that of3:C( 11, and the intent of the legislature is clear)
C#3C$81+#3 9rs) 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) 8nder any set of circumstances, we would end up in the same place: 9r)
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, 9s)
DoshiBs right to alimony would be maintained) 5he award was straight forward, reasonable,
acceptable, both to the 1ettlement Dudge, the 5rial Dudge, and counsel for 9r) Doshi) +t is
regrettable that 9s) DoshiBs counsel did not recogniAe the validity of that position, and continues
to argue that his view of the facts and law is accurate) ;ist#lK and e'perience would suggest
that he is not correct, and his motion for reconsideration is more of the same) >herefore, the
#rder should be maintained, and the :eHuest for :econsideration denied, so that this matter
may move to conclusion) D65ED this :/ day of 9ay, 200,) CE:5+"+C65E #" 1E:@+CE
(ursuant to 3:C( <(b*, + hereby certify that + am an employee of5;E $6> #""+CE1 #"
D#;3 1(:l37765E, and that on this date + personally served at :eno, 3evada, a true copy of
the within #((#1+5+#3 5# :E#8E15 "#: :EC#31+DE:65+#3, fully addressed to:
-ac? Coughlin, EsH) ,!< >est 12th 1treet :eno, 3K %,<0& Caryn 1ternlicht, EsH) >ashoe
$egal 1ervices 2,, 1) 6rlington 6venue :eno, 3@ %,<01 ' 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 :enoCarson
9essenger 1ervice on this date) 6""+:965+#3 (8:18635 5# 3:1 2&,2)0&0 5he
undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the social
security n8mbbany person) Dated this 1&th day of 9ay, 200,)F
1ubject: D@0%=011.%J "rom: "ladager, Cindy (Cindy)"ladagerNwashoecourts)8s*
1ent: >ed <200, !:1% (9 5o: (urdy, 9ichelle (9ichelle)(urdyNwashoecourts)8s*
Cc:AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com ;ello 9ichelle: "orwarded to you for a "iling #ffice response)
-ach Coughlin, bar ,!/&, stated he is still attorney on case D@0%=011.% and should be able to
view images, however, he has been ended as attorney of record and cannot access documents in
e"le') 61;>+3 D#1;+ @1) 2;6:5+ D#1;+) + copying him on this email and suggested that
12%/%&
he phone you at &2%=&10/ directly for resolution) 5han? you, Cindy "ladager 2usiness
1ystems 6nalyst ++ Court 5echnology 1econd Dudicial District Court
cindy)"ladagerNwashoecourts)8sF
5he #rder of ./12 by this Court (or three members of it, one of whom recused
himself from the matter involving Coughlin and >$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 (;ill*
purportedly offered Ee'pertF testimony related to that >$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 >$1Bs co=defendantBs therein, C66>, 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
E:E: D@0%=011.%J "rom: -ach Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com* 1ent:
5hu <2%0, 10:<1 69 5o: michelle)(urdyNwashoecourts)8s ;ello 9s)
(urdy, + am still affected by this case considering the attorney feeBs sanction that was levied
against me personally) 6dditionally, + have filed an 6ppeal9andamus (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 as? that you consider granting me such access) 1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH)
5el: //< &&% %11% ,!< >) 125h 1t) :eno, 3@ %,<0& 1ubject: :E: D@0%=011.% Date: 5hu, 21
9ay 200, 0/:!1:1% =0/00 "rom: 9ichelle)(urdyNwashoecourts)8s 5o:
Cindy)"ladagerNwashoecourts)8s CC: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com 9r) Coughlin was
substituted out of the case by >ashoe $egal 1ervices on 9ay 1!, 200,) 9ichelle (urdy Deputy
Cler? +++ 2nd Dudicial District Court, "iling #ffice E 0,=6(:=200, 10:!1 69 \\ 3otes )) Entry:
CD 28:3ED ;E6:+37 D65E 0&=12=200, M 0&= 1/=200, :EU8E15ED 2K -6C;6:K
2) C#87;$+3 C6$$ED "#: (+CG 8( 0&=1/= 200,D6
20=96K=200, 11:!0 (9 :eply)))Coughlin, EsH), -achary Entry: :E($K 5#
#((#1+5+#3 21=96K=200, 11:2/ 69 #rd Denying ))) Entry: :EU8E15 "#:
:EC#31+DE:65+#3 = 5ransaction /%</// = 6pproved 2y: 3#:E@+E> : 0<=21=
200,:11:&<:0% 21=96K=200, 11:2/ 69 :eHuest for 1ubmission Complet Entry: none) 21=
96K=200, 11:2/ 69 :eHuest for 1ubmission Complet Entry: none) 21=96K=200,
11:2/ 69:eHuest for 1ubmission Complet Entry: none) 21=96K=200, 0&:0& (9
1upreme Court :eceipt for Doc Entry: 18(:E9E C#8:5 C61E 3#) <&%&&
:ECE+(5 "#: D#C89E351 (+3C$8DE1 6$$ ! 3#5+CE #" 6((E6$1* 21=96K=200,
0&:0! (9 \\1upreme Court Case 3o) ))) Entry: 18(:E9E C#8:5 C61E 3#) <&%&&
21=96K=200, 0!:0. (9 :eHuest for 1ubmission 1pringgate, EsH), Dohn () Entry:
D#C89E35 5+5$E: "+3D+371 #" "6C5, C#3C$81+#31 #" $6>, M
DEC:EE #" D+@#:CE (6:5K 1829+55+37: D#;3 () 1(:+37765E, E1U)
D65E 1829+55ED: <220, 1829+55ED 2K: C(6:1$EK D65E :ECE+@ED
D8D7E #""+CE: 2.=96K=200, 02:0& (9 :eHuest for 1ubmission Entry:
D#C89E35 5+5$E: :E($K 5# #((#1+5+#3 (6:5K 1829+55+37: -6C;6:K
C#87;$+3, E1U D65E 1829+55ED: 0<2.0, 1829+55ED 2K: D3 D65E :ECE+@ED
D8D7E #""+CE:
12,/%&
2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs 22<0, #rder reads: P#:DE: :E (:E5:+6$
(:#CED8:E 5his matter is set for trial on 9arch 12, 200, at 1:&0 p)m) 7ood cause
appearing, +5 +1 ;E:E2K #:DE:ED that, if a par"y in"ends "o offer more "$an "en "rial
e?$i6i"s7 "$e proposed e?$i6i"s mus" 6e 6ound7 "a66ed and inde?ed, Dlain"iff(s e?$i6i"s #ill
6e mar'ed in alp$a6e"i!al se8uen!e and Defendan"(s e?$i6i"s #ill 6e mar'ed in numeri!al
se8uen!e, 1a!$ par"y s$all su6mi" "#o !opies of "$e proposed e?$i6i"s "o "$e Cour" and one
!opy "o "$e opposing !ounsel) Counsel shall contact 9artha CasiHue=6ndrews at //<=&2<=.//,
to schedule a time with the Cler? to organiAe and mar? e'hibits) "or trials set for one full day
or more, counsel shall meet with the Court Cler? no later than &:00 p)m) on the "riday prior to
trial to mar? the trial e'hibits) "or trials which are scheduled for less than one full day, e'hibits
shall be mar?ed immediately prior to the convening for trial, and counsel shall arrive at least 1<
minutes before the scheduled time of trial) (rior to meeting with the Court Cler?, counsel shall
meet and discuss the admissibility of proposed e'hibits) 6t the time of mar?ing the e'hibits
with the Cler?, the Cler? shall be told which E'hibits may be admitted without objection) 6t
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
8CCD6 declaration) Courtesy copies of the trial statement shall be hand=delivered to opposing
counsel and Dudge 7ardnerBs chambers by no later than <:00 p)m) five (<* days prior to trial)
"ailure to timely deliver these documents may result in sanctions against the offending party as
set forth in 3:C( &/) +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 9) 7ardnerP
2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs /1<0, #rder reads: P #:DE: DE3K+37 9#5+#3 5#
15:+GE +3 (6:5C #:DE: 7:635+37 9#5+#3 5# 15:+GE +3 (6:5 #n 6pril 1&,
200,, the Court entered an #rder 6fter 5rial specifying its findings of fact and conclusions of
law based upon the divorce trial that too? place 9arch 12 and 9arch 1/, 200,) #n 9ay 12,
200,, a 3otice of 6ppeal was filed by -achary Coughlin, EsH), specifying he was appealing the
#rder 6fter 5rial entered 6pril 1&, 200,) #n 9ay 1&, 200,, a 9otion to 1tri?e was filed by
Dohn () 1pringgate, EsH), alleging the 3otice of 6ppeal filed on 9ay 12, 200,, was untimely
filed pursuant to 3:6( &6) 1pecifically, )r, *pringga"e argued "$ere #as no final ;udgmen"
en"ered in "$is ma""er ye" as "$e Order 0f"er 2rial $ad no" 6een memorialiKed in"o a Findings
of Fa!"7 Con!lusions of +a#7 Judgmen" and De!ree of Dior!e1) (fn1 6 Decree of Divorce
was entered in this case on Dune 1,, 200,)* #n 9ay 2/, 200,, a :eHuest for 1ubmission was
filed by 9r) 1pringgate) #n Dune %, 200,, 9r) Coughlin opposed the motion and argued it was
not clear whether the #rder 6fter 5rial was a final order, and PQiRt certainly is not worth ris?ing
the deadline for filing an appeal) ) ) #pposition 2:1&=2:1!) #n Dune %, 200,, a :eHuest for
1ubmission was filed by 9r) Coughlin)
8pon review of the pleadings and papers filed herein, the Court finds and #rders as
follows) +nsofar as 9r) Coughlin is appealing the award of attorneyBs fees, the Court finds the
#rder 6fter 5rial entered 6pril 1&, 200,, was a final order from which 9r) Coughlin may
appeal as the Court did not intend the award of attorneyBs fees to be included in the Decree of
1&0/%&
Divorce) 6ccordingly, 9r) 1pringgateBs 9otion to 1tri?e is denied with respect to the
appealability of the #rder 6fter 5rial as it pertains to the award of attorneyBs fees) >ith regard
to appeal of the issues pertaining to the Doshi marriagedivorce, the Court finds the #rder 6fter
5rial was not a final order from which 9r) Coughlin may appeal as the Court in"ended all
issues per"aining "o "$e Jos$i marriage/dior!e "o 6e separa"e and apar" from "$e a#ard of
a""orney(s fees) (3#5E: then, certainly, it made little sense to mi' the two in one !1&0, #rder
6fter 5rial, but regardless, the .1,0, final Decree of Divorce (especially when view with the
?nowledge that 1pringgateBs <210, (roposed Decree contained an attorneyBs fees award
provision, and where the /220, 6ccordingly, 9r) 1pringgateBs 9otion to 1tri?e is granted
with respect to the appealability of the issues pertaining solely to the Doshi divorce) 7##D
C681E 6((E6:+37+ +5 +1 1# #:DE:ED) Dated: Duly 1<, 200, s $inda 9) 7ardner
District Court DudgeF
CE:5+"+C65E #" 96+$+37 (ursuant to 3:C( <(b*, + certify that + am an
employee of the 1econd Dudicial District Court, and that on the j fry day of Duly, 200,, +
deposited for mailing, first class postage pre=paid, at :eno, 3evada, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing document addressed to: Document: #rder Denying 9otion to 1tri?e in (artC
#rder 7ranting 9otion to 1tri?e in (art -achary Coughlin, EsH) ,!< >) 12th 1treet :eno, 3@
%,<0& + hereby certify that on the 1< day of Duly, 200,, + electronically filed the foregoing with
the Cler? of the Court system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Dohn 1pringgate, EsH) 9arc 6shley, EsH) s 1tephenie 2roome 6dministrative 6ssistant =
Dept) 1!P (3#5E: there is an inconsistent approach ta?en by the 2DDC, 1pringgate, and >$1
in only serving certain selected filings or orders in D@0%=011.% on Coughlin upon his being
terminated by >$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 <210, contained a section e'pressly providing for such fees, where the
"inal Decree 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner 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 $) 7ardnerBs #rder of /1<0, further
supports the position that there was no longer any attorney fees award, as a sanction or
otherwise (li?ely due to a recognition of the legitimacy of CoughlinBs argument with respect to
1pringgate having failed to comply with 3:C( 11Bs 21 day safe harbor provision (incorporated
into 3:1 /)0%< by the e'press language of such statute* in addition to the fact that the !1&0,
#rder 6fter 5rial 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
>$1 and 1pringgate arguably entered into a Consent Decree even further vitiating any finding
that attorneyBs fees were awarded) 1pringgateBs letter to Coguhlin of 12%0, reads:
EDecember %, 200, @+6 E96+$ -achary Coughlin, EsH) /&1 "orest 1treet :eno,
3K %,<0, Dear -ach: + have received the 1upreme CourtBs #rder Denying (etition for >rit of
9andamus) 6ccordingly, you still owe me fees from the 1econd Dudicial District Court matter,
and are in contempt for not paying them) 9y offer to ma5e a to5en donation to Casa de )ida
or alternatively the *ood Ban5 of Northern Nevada remains in effect) 5hey need the help and
1&1/%&
+ would be happy to put this case behind me) (lease advise as to your intentions) @ery truly
yours, D#;3 () 1(:+37765E, E1U)P
5he /220, filing in D@0%=011.% reads: E15+(8$65+#3 5# 69E3D DEC:EE
#" D+@#:CE C#9E 3#> the parties hereto, 61;>+3 D#1;+, (laintiff, by and through his
counsel of record, D#;3 () 1(:+37765E, E1U), and 2;6:5+ D#1;+, by and through her
counsel of record, 96:C 61;$EK, E1U), of >ashoe $egal 1ervices, and hereby stipulate
and agree to an #rder 6mending the Decree of Divorce in the following regards: +n response to
9s) DoshiBs motion, "$e Cour" amended "$e proposed Findings of Fa!" "o in!lude a finding of
O/1 DO++03 AE1,00B per year alimony for )s, Jos$i, )o2e-er' the $ecree' a# amended
by the Court' did not include a term. 6he /artie# had originally agreed or #ugge#ted a
term o% %i-e B5C year# and they there%ore #ti/ulate and agree that thi# *ti/ulation and
9rder thereon #hall amend the $ecree o% $i-orce to include 9,@ $944? BH1.00C
alimony %or %i-e B5C year# in %a-or o% !#. "o#hi. D65ED: /200, s Dohn 1pringgate,
EsH), s 9arc 6shley, EsH)P
2/) 2ased on the order and CoughlinBs conduct in the Doshi matter, Coughlin was
terminated by >ashoe $egal 1ervices) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!,
2012, ( 110, $/=%) (E;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 110:/ to 110:,* (E$C63#*: E)))9r) Coughlin
to do that) &e!ause of "$e Jos$i ma""er $e #as "ermina"ed, and + didnBt have any further
contact with him)F*
2%) +n 9r) ElcanoBs opinion, Coughlin is not competent to practice law) 1ee
5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( ,!, $ & =%) (;E6:+37 = @ol) +,
((age ,!:& to ,!:%* U (G+37* +Bll first as? what that opinion is, then wor? bac?ward as to why
you feel that way) >hat is your opinion currently of 9r) CoughlinBs ability to practice lawJ 6
(E$C63#* 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 6ssistant 2ar
Counsel Ging to Coughlin in which 2ar Counsel forwarded to Coughlin correspondence
received from :ichard 7) ;ill) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, (
1.&, $ 1& =( 1.!, $ 2&) 1ee ;earing E'hibit .) CoughlinBs response, dated 9arch ,, 2012,
as?ed for additional time in which to respond) 1ee ;earing 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 >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1.,, $ 1& =( 1/2, $ 1.)
&0) Coughlin also %ailed to dire!"ly respond to Aue#tioning regarding
2hether or not he had su6s"an"iely responded' prior "o "$e filing of "$e Complain" in "$is
ma""er, "o a le""er for#arded "o $im from &ar Counsel regarding "$e le""er re!eied 6y "$e
/eada *"a"e &ar from Judge Doro"$y /as$ %olmes and da"ed )ar!$ 1F7 2012) 1ee
5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1/!, $ 1& =( 1%0, $ !) 1ee ;earing
E'hibit %) (3#5E: there i# nothing in the record to #u//ort the ;%indingN that Coughlin
recei-ed #uch letter from +ar Coun#el, in fact, Coughlin testified to 2ar CounselBs chicanery
in that regard, and certainly Ging should not be allowed to EtestifyF to sending Coughlin some
1&2/%&
letter that Ging refused to even see? have admitted into evidence, especially where Ging
successfully moved, on an e' parte basis, to Huash
2,
CoughlinBs subpoenas on Ging and 123
Cler? of Court (eters, not to mention :(C &)/, etc))
"urther' there i# nothing in the record to indicate #$en Coughlin first sa# such
&1!12 grievance letter that :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes sent to the 123, not Coughlin (GingBs
constant trumpeting of the Ebates stampsF that he had affi'ed to the bo' of &,0,! pages
delivered to Coughlin four judicial days before the hearing (in flagrant violation of all of 1C:
10<(2*(c* references the bates stamps found on the ;earing E'hibit %)))and where Ging admits
such letter did not have any such bates stamping on it to begin with, its inappropriate for Ging
to have successfully had admitted such version with GingBs 11/12 production of &,0,! pages
worth of bates stamped 1C: 10<(2*(c* materials (none of which include any Canon 2, :ule
2)1< letters from the Dudges whose orders Ging offered as evidence of CoughlinBs professional
misconduct, such as ;earing E'hibit 2Bs Dudge "lanagan #rder of .2<12 in the appeal of the
summary e-iction from CoughlinBs former home law office that :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH),
burglariAed while managing to get Coughlin wrongfully convicted of criminal tre#/a## (see
.1,01* by ;illBs lying to, and with, the :eno (olice Department*) 1ome Eclear and
convincingF evidence of when Coughlin received or viewed such letter would be pretty
important to support the (anelBs EfindingF that Coughlin Efailed to dire!"ly respond to
Aue#tioning regarding 2hether or not he had #ub#tanti-ely re#/onded' prior "o "$e filing
of "$e Complain" in "$is ma""er, "o a le""er for#arded "o $im from &ar Counsel9 dire!"ly
respond to Aue#tioning regarding 2hether or not he had #ub#tanti-ely re#/onded' prior "o
"$e filing of "$e Complain" in "$is ma""er' "o a le""er for#arded "o $im from &ar Counsel9
where EwhenF and Eprior to the filing of the ComplaintF ta?e on similar importance to the fact
that there is no evidence that 2ar Counsel even forwarded Coughlin such letter to begin with
(boy was the (anel Chair mad that Coughlin could not honestly testify on behalf of the 1tate
2ar as to when, if ever, he received such letter from the 123)))it would have helped so very,
very much alleviate all the messy issues that would be associated with putting the &1.12 letter
from Ging to Coughlin (notice the 123 did not present any copy of any such letter with some
Certificate of 9ailing slip to prove Coughlin ever received it, and Coughlin testified
e'tensively, and offered a great deal of proof as to the fact that he was not regularly receiving
his mail when such letter was sent, including offering copies of numerous envelopes (several
sent to CoughlinBs by the :9C even* that Coughlin only received much later, after senders
notified him of such being returned to them, or after the 81(1 finally releasing such to
Coughlin, replete with, in many instances, several of the small yellow stic?ers indicating a
variety of reroutings and Erecipient temporarily unavailableF messages incident to the domestic
violence and mailbo' tamperinglease disputeswrongful summary e-iction by 7ayle Gern,
EsH) (whom also had CoughlinBs former home law officer burglariAed with the help of the
>C1#, just an hour before the very &1<12 hearing in 3@2 10=0<10! that Dudge 2eesley
testified about*
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1/!:1& to 1%0:!* P2K 9:) G+37: U Do
you recogniAe "$a" le""er thatBs been identified as E'hibit % that purports to be
#ri""en "o )r, Daid Clar'7 Offi!e of &ar Counsel7 from Judge Doro"$y /as$
%olmesJ 6 +t is the one that has a received 9arch 1!th date on itJ 9:)
1&&/%&
EC;E@E::+6: +tBs the one thatBs mar?ed E'hibit %) 2K 9:) G+37: U 5he one +
just handed you) Did you see that letterJ 6 + donBt see it mar?ed E'hibit %) +tBs not
mar?ed) U +tBs mar?ed up here, 9r) Coughlin) 6 5hatBs why + was as?ing for
clarification) 9arch 1!th) U 5he Huestion is: Do you recogniAe that letterJ 6
Kes, sir) U 6nd == 6 6hi# i# the letter 2here #he allege# a com/etency i##ue'
and then goe# on to #ay' but 7<m #till trying to hold a trial' 7<m trying to get thi#
trial #et right a2ay' in -iolation o% ,* 178.405 2hich #tate# you #tay
/roceeding# 2hen you %eel a de%endant ha# a com/etency i##ue. Fou don<t
/lunge right ahead. 6hat letter' yeah' 7 recogniMe it) 9:) G+37: +Bm going to
as? that E'hibit 3o) % be admitted) 5his is the letter that Dudge ;olmes sent to the
#ffice of 2ar Counsel that she testified about during her testimony) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 6ny objection, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + donBt thin?
so) >ell, relevancy) 6nd + donBt believe this is pled in the complaint) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: #verruled) (E'hibit % admitted)* 2K 9:) G+37: U 9r)
Coughlin, you received that because 2ar counsel forwarded it to youC is that
correctJ 6 + donBt remember how + received this) + imagine it would == + donBt thin?
a stranger sent it to me) + donBt ?now) U Did you respond to the allegations to 2ar
counsel, the allegations made in the letter by Dudge ;olmes, and the accompanying
documentsC did you respond to that investigationJ 6 6ctually, +Bm trying to
remember == did + get this letter attached to li?e an 1C: 11/ petitionJ Can you help
me outJ Did + get it soon after == + thin? you were ?ind of coy about this, actually,
(at) :ightJ Kou ?ind of == you were ?ind of coy about having it) Kou didnBt just get
this letter, and then + donBt thin? you mailed it to me on 9arch 1!th) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, the Huestion is did you reply to itJ 5;E
>+53E11: + donBt ?now == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm sorry) 5he Huestion is: >as
it forwarded to youJ 5;E >+53E11: 5hatBs what + was e'pounding upon) +Bm
trying to remember when did + first get this letter) 2ecause this is li?e a gut punch if
youBve devoted your life to becoming an attorney) 6nd, in fact, + didnBt get her
9arch 2%th letter == + mean her 9arch 2%th order that was entered) + didnBt even get
that until + saw it attached to an 1C: 11/ disability petition in case number .0,/<) +
guess + ?ind of figured she just wasnBt going to ma?e an order, you ?now) 6nd she
mailed this one, the one for "ebruary 2%th, she mailed it to the old :iver :oc?
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) 6nd then + have ==
if + had been noticed on this == + have a lot of these letters) + meticulously ?ept the
envelopes) + ?ept the change of addresses) + thin? + might have sent (at these with
the yellow == + had a lot of the yellow stic?ers on my letters, you ?now, where they
were li?e == and the court, the court had these too) 5he muni court) 6nd + had a big
ordeal with the post office incident to they didnBt want to give me a ?ey to the
mailbo') 5his e-iction, the evil wor? that you sanctioned, (at, that + mentioned
earlier, it has a fallout necessarily) +n my opinion == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r)
Coughlin, e'cuse me) Do you remember the HuestionJ 5;E >+53E11: Kes) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: >hat was the HuestionJ 5;E >+53E11: Did + receive this) 9:)
1&!/%&
EC;E@E::+6: 6nd the answerJ 5;E >+53E11: +Bm wor?ing my way through
it mentally as to how + got this) 9:) G+37: +f +Bm not mista?en, weBre past that)
Kou said you did receive it) ;e doesnBt recall how) 6nd my follow=up Huestion was:
Did you respond to the allegations by Dudge ;olmes that are contained in that letter,
and by the accompanying documentsJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, if you
could focus on answering that Huestion, that would be helpful to the panel) 5;E
>+53E11: #ne, this letter is not to me) + would li?e to read it) 6gain, thatBs where
the notice part of due process is ?ey, you ?now) +f + was noticed on the idea that +
didnBt respond to this == and +Bll enter my objection) + would li?e to see where in the
complaint it says 9r) Coughlin failed to respond or cooperate with 2ar counsel) +t
might) +Bd just li?e to be sure) >here does it say where == 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 ?now when + got this today, and respond
intelligently in that regard) (E'hibit , mar?ed)* 9:) G+37: 9r) Chairman, may +
move onJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou may) 5;E >+53E11: 9ay + answer as best
as + can remember thenJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +f you will answer the Huestion, it
would be helpful) 2ut these rambling discourses are not helpful) 5;E >+53E11:
5heyBre not winning any points on notice and due processJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
5his is a preliminary investigation) 2ar rules reHuire attorneys to cooperate with the
preliminary investigation) 6s + understand, 9r) Ging is trying to establish whether
or not you did so) 5hatBs 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, 9r) Ging, move on, please) 9:) G+37: 5han? you) 5;E >+53E11:
Kour ;onor, can + just Huic?ly attempt to more thoroughly address that issueJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: + thin? youBve been afforded adeHuate opportunity to do so) ;ow
you choose to respond is up to you)P
";E %, Dudge ;olmesB &1!12 grievance against Coughlin addressed "o
"$e *&/ only (to what, and upon whose reHuest was Coughlin supposed to Pprovide
some informationP per :(C %)1 as to 3712=0!&!, much less 3712=0!&<J "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 as?ed Coughlin to
responde, much less Pprovide some reHuired informationP not subject to :(C 1)., to
the 123 in response to Dudge ;olmes ";E % letter* and hand delivered to the 123
along with a Ebo' of materialsF reads:
E)))5his letter constitutes a formal complaint of attorney misconduct
andor disability against -achary 2ar?er Coughlin) 5he 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 :eno 9unicipal Court)
9y two most recent #rders in what should be a simple traffic citation case are
self=e'planatory and are included, together with copies of massive documents 9r)
1&</%&
Coughlin has fa'Wfiled to our court in this case) 6udio recordings of two of my
hearings in this matter are also included) ;e failed to appear for the second one
this past 9onday)
+ have another traffic case pending trial with him that was re=assigned
to me based on our Department 1 judge being out for surgery) >e have multiple
addresses for 9r) Coughlin and canBt seem to locate him between cases very
easily) >e are setting that case for trial and attempting to serve him at the most
recent address we have (1!22 E) ,th 1t) I2 :eno 3@ %,<12*, although 7 heard
today $e may 6e liing in $is e$i!le some#$ere) >e do have an address for his
mother, however, as she recently pos"ed par" of a fine for him)
Dudge Gen ;oward, Department !, had a case on 9r) Coughlin late last
year that is now on appeal to the 1econd Dudicial District Court) Dudge 2ill
7ardner, Department 2, also $as a ma""er !urren"ly pending in $is !our" with 9r)
Coughlin as the defendant) + have enclosed some copies of documents from those
matters, in !$ronologi!al order, simply because they appear to demonstrate that
he is 8ui!'ly de!ompensa"ing in $is men"al s"a"us) #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) Kou can see his behavior in my traffic
citation case does not appear to be an isolated incident)
+t is my understanding that :eno Dustice Court also has a matter
pending on this attorney) !y "udicial ?##i#tant 2a# contacted by the 3a#hoe
Public $e%ender in (ebruary 2hen 7 had !r. Coughlin Eailed %or contem/t o%
Court and they #tated that they re/re#ent him in a =ro## mi#demeanor
matter in "C. 7 ha-e no other in%ormation on that.
<ou #ill $ae "$e full !oopera"ion of myself7 "$e o"$er ;udges7 and
"$e s"aff of 3eno )uni!ipal Cour" in your pursui" of "$is ma""er) 9r) Coughlin
$as posi"ioned $imself as a e?a"ious li"igan" in our !our", antagoniAing the staff
and e-en our /ro tem/ Eudge# on the most simple traffic and mi#demeanor
matters) + do thin? this is a case of some urgency, and + apologiAe for ta5ing t2o
day# to get thi# /ac5age to youC our +5 person was ill and could not ma?e the
copies of the audios of 9r) CoughlinBs hearings until today, and + felt it was
important that the audios be included in the materials to be considered by the 1tate
2ar) 9n (ebruary 27' 2012' !r. Coughlin told me he 2a# acti-ely /racticing
la2 and had a//ointment# 2ith client#) + do not ?now if that was true, but if so,
he could be causing serious harm to the practice of law in 3orthern 3evada and
!ould 6e ;eopardiKing someone(s freedom or proper"y in"eres"s,P
(3#5E: no matter how hard he may try, Coughlin could li?ely never
be EjeopardiAing someoneBs freedom or property interestsF as regularly and
thoroughly as does Dudge 3ash ;olmes, espe!ially #$ere s$e damaged su!$ ery
in"eres"s of Coug$lin(s !lien"s upon denying a s"ay of any sor" "o a "$en
pra!"i!ing
30
a""orney (something that is pretty much verboten in 6merican
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
1&./%&
right, meaning, even had Dudge 3ash ;olmes and her crew of 9arshals 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 boo?ed into CoughlinBs property
(such items were returned to Coughlin with all the data thereon erased, and
4C*O Depu"y %odge admi""ed "o Coug$lin on )ar!$ 1>
"$
7 2012 "$a" "$e
4as$oe Coun"y Jail $ad released "o "$e 3)C )ars$als su!$ i"ems already
6oo'ed in"o Coug$lin(s personal proper"y on 2/28/127 and "$a" su!$ #ere s"ill in
"$e possession of "$e 3)C on 3/1>/12*
+n a ridiculous attempt to assert some impropriety on CoughlinBs part,
li?e that done by Dudge 3ash ;olmes in her &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive
Document that Ging was too embarrassed by to admit in i"s en"ire"y into the
record, 6u" #$i!$ is mis"a'enly in!luded "$e Cer"ifi!a"e of )ailing "$ere"o
along #i"$ "$e par"ial purpor"ed filing 6y Coug$lin admi""ed as F%1> (:1/%!=
1/%.* where :1/%. is the 3)C(s Cer"ifi!a"e of *eri!e "$a" =ing mis"a'enly
forgo" "o e?!ise from F%1>7 (which does indicate that such Erder (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 ;olmes is not the same as the orders at
presented in ";E ! (which Dudge 3ash ;olmes 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 9ailing on such 22%12 #rder at
:#6 11/2, which indicates such #rder was mailed to Coughlin at the very E121
:iver :oc? 1t)F address from which Dudge 3ash ;olmes and several Departments
of the :9C ?new Coughlin had been evicted from by the very :ichard 7) ;ill,
EsH), referenced at :#6 11/0 lines 2!=2% (E E* where such Certificate of 1ervice
fails to include a chec? ne't to E>ashoe 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 :9C 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 :9C and the :C6 and the :9CBs court appointed defender
allow for service between each other by email or fa', even where Coughlin
pleaded with the :9C 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 81(1 7olden
@alley 1tationBs 2uc? ;yde, and 5erri (assot, and 7ayle Gern, EsH), and her
EassociateF 1usan Ging of >estern 3evada 9anagement (property manager*)
+nterestingly, the Certificate of 1ervice for a &%12 #rder by Dudge ;olmes
denying CoughlinBs 9otherBs reHuest for a return of the O100 she paid to have
Coughlin released from the summary < day incarceration one day early (doing
Ethe old switcherooF the :9C too? CoughlinBs motherBs money, then concocted a
ridiculous scheme where a jail deputy removed Coughlin from his cell and wal?ed
1&//%&
him down, in chain the entire time, to the boo?ing des?, and announced he was
having an Ead boo?F 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 O100 by the :9C, which also appears to have mailed Coughlin the O120)00
bail he was forced to post when he could ill afford to, on 11212 incident to
:ichard 7);ill, EsH), getting Coughlin arrested for jaywal?ing while ;ill obtained
he on command 5(# from :DC Dudge 1chroeder in less than forty minutes time in
:C(2012=00001%, sufficient to obstruct CoughlinBs ability to film any more the
fact that ;illBs contractor, 32+Bs (hil 1tewart, had via ;illBs filings, submitted bilsl
to courts see?ing to charge Coughlin O1,000 to board up CoughlinBs former home
law office with CoughlinBs own plywood, and other misconduct by ;ill) 6ll of
Dudge 1ferraAAaBs tal? about retaining contempt power incident to the 122011
;earing on CoughlinsB 9otion to Contest (ersonal (ropertly $ien was entirely
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 ;ill and 2a?er obstructed CoughlinBs ability to remove his possessions by
placing a padloc? on the bac? 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 ;illBs associate 2a?er lied in his 1&12 #ppsoition
to Coughlin 3:1 !0)&%< 9otion to 1tay of 12&011 in alleging he and ;ill 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
O/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 non=payment
summary initial of two cases brought in :ev2011=001!,2)
6lso, the 123Bs convenient manner of bates stamping obscures some
real problems for the 123, includign the fact that all pages of ";E& had a footer
that completely undermined GingBs and ElcanoBs assertions as to the foundation
and authenticity of that ";E& #rder (one which Ging and Elcano ?now full well
ws undone by Dudge $) 7ardnerBs .1,0, final Decree, which the 2DDC,
1pringgate, and Elcano and >$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 s?irting the facts presented by the .1,0,
final Decree superseding the !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial in ";E&) 5he footer on
such ";E& read: ECopy of the original on file with the 1econd Dudicial District
Court)F (and actually the bates stamping of the 21&1& :#6 does not obscure
such (so much for having provided a Ecertified copyF, huh, GingJ 6nd so much
for ElcanoBs providing Ea foundationF or authenticating such, much less providing
1&%/%&
Ee'pert testimonyF relative to it)
6lso, its awfully odd for the bates stamping (which the new bates
stamping on the 21&1& :#6 obscures* for the 11/12 production of documents
that was presented as ";E%, and ";E, contain some 1,2.0 pages between the
two where ";E% purportes to be Dudge 3ash ;olmes grievance letter against
Coughlin addressed to the 123 and ";E, is an fraudulent presentation of a
partial e'hibit to an #rder of Dudge 3ash ;olmes from &%12 (bates 01.,,* ,
where ";E% is dated &1!12(11/12 bates 02,.0*)
5he inclusion in ";E1 at :#6 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 5o 5a?e 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 ma?e (a close reading of such reveals the (anel only made a
Efinding of factF that Coughlin was EservedF the Complaint, yet stopped short of
ma?ing a Econclusion of lawF to that effect)
;owever, it is the abscence of the bates stamp E01,01F at page 1/2/
that is truly fraudulent) 5he version of such &1212 #rder that Ging purports, in
his ";E1, was attached to his %2&12 Complaint actually contained, for just that
page < of such #rder at :#6 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 Epac?etF in ";E1 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,/< that Coughlin as?s this Court ta?e judicial notice of now (ie, a
legible copy without the 11/12 bates stamping*)
6lso, at the conclusion of CoughlinBs E'hibit 1<, at :#6 1%,1,
whereas the copy of the "ormal ;earing 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 mar?ed as an e'hibit (the
Chair is not permitted to refuse to even have e'hibits mar?ed, yet he and the 123
conspired to e'cise such from the :#6, in addition to refusing to even have
mar?ed the complete copy of the &,0,! page production to Coughlin by the 123
on 11/12 (so essential to defensive collateral estoppel analysis*) >hereas :#6
1%,2=1%,& 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 :#6 by the 123, instead, :#6 1%,2 proceed directly
to ";E1.)
6dditionally, the EversionF of the &1212 #rder in ";E< that Ging
attached to the EversionF of his %2&12 Complaint within ";E1 (:#6 1/22=
1/2/* lac?s a ECertificate of 1erviceF page, in addition to the or ";E <was fa'ed
to the jail, but certainly does not indicate anything about the jail providing such to
1&,/%&
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
E6ffidavitF found at :1/%!*, a page which clearly indicates Coughlin is an
attorney (to whatever ridiculous e'tent the :9C and Ging are alleging they were
not already aware that Coughlin was an attorney, including where CoughlinBs plea
for a stay of the < day incarceration order on 22/12 included (as GingBs own
stupid pleadings have recounted, duh* the prejudice to CoughlinBs client upon
Dudge 3ash ;olmes going against the overwhelming majority viewpoint in
american jurisprudence essentially reHuring a Dudge refrain from summarily
incarcerating an attorney for contempt (E:1/%2=%&, especailly :1/%&, which
ma?es all the more fraudulent what Ging presented on the very ne't page of the
:#6, where he clearly violated (:C &)&, &)!, and &)% in removing the first page
of the &/12 filing by Coughlin in 2.%00, along with the &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing
"ugitive Document by Dudge ;olmesB (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 :9C attempted to
prevent Coughlin from accessing the recording of that 22/12 EtrialF in 2.%00, as
Coughlin also filed a E:ecords :eHuestF on the form the :9C hold out for such
purposes, directed towards obtaining the audio transcript of all hearings in that
matter, including that of 22/12, which the :9C refused to respond to)))which is
why Coughlin had to stealthily have his momma go obtain to the audio transcript
from the :9C, 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 lac?ing in foundation and probably not all that truthful,
apparently (i% that<# #o' then 2hy i#n<t #omeone in-e#tigating the !C %or
/ro-iding ;al"eredN audio tran#cri/t# to the *+,J*)
&1) #n )ar!$ 77 2012 Coughlin caused to be filed an P6ffidavit of (overty
in 1upport of 9otion to (roceed +nforma (auperis)P 1ee ;earing E'hibit ,) +n his 6ffidavit,
Coughlin represented that he was self=employed as a PDac? of all 5rades)P 1ee ;earing E'hibit
,) 5he 0ffidai" does no" iden"ify )r, Coug$lin as a la#yer or iden"i"y any in!ome from "$e
pra!"i!e of la#) 1ee ;earing E'hibit ,)
(3#5E: why not see ";E% too, especially the sentence in ;olmes letter addressed only "o "$e
*&/ which reads: P #n Fe6ruary 277 2012, 9r) Coughlin "old me $e #as a!"iely pra!"i!ing
la# and $ad appoin"men"s #i"$ !lien"sP*)
&2) 5he record also indicates that Coughlin had also filed a motion on /oem6er 1F,
2011 to proceed +n "orma (auperis in case number 11 C: 221/. pending in the :eno
9unicipal Court before Dudge Genneth :) ;oward) 1ee ;earing E'hibit 10, ( 2, $ 1,=2&)
(E!r. Coughlin i# a licen#ed attorney-at-la2 2ho im/lied during trial that hi#
incarceration %or contem/t 2ould ad-er#ely a%%ect hi# client#. Fet' !r. Coughlin' in hi#
Ja%%ida-it o% /o-ertyJ doe# not indicate any income %rom hi# /ractice o% la2) #f note, 9r)
Coughlin posted cash bail during the litigation of the instant matter)F*
(3#5E: Dudge ;owards #rder in ";E10 is not EevidenceF, further such #rder misstates
1!0/%&
the date of that filing by Coughlin, where such was actually filed on 121!11, and the (anelBs
citation to ";E10 fails to yield the information is purports to cite to) Coughlin provided the
entire :#6 from 221/. to the (anel and 123, in addition to the entire record from the appeal
thereof in C:11=20.!, which e'poses :9C Donna 2allard and Cassandra Dac?son fraud
incident to purporting to transmit an accurate copy of the :#6 on 122&11 to the 2DDC, where
2allard failed to include the filings by Coughlin that she gave permission in writing to
Coughlin to file via email*)
(6lso, the P:ulingP of the municipal court was affirmed on appeal in C:11=20.!, 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 :9C "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*) ;owever, the :ecord on 6ppeal in C:11=
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
:9C filing office that the email version ought be included in the :#6*)
EP"wd: 6ttached +mageJ Donna 2allard (2allardDNreno)gov*6dd to
contacts112,11 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com "rom: Donna 2allard
(2allardDNreno)gov* Kou moved this message to its current location) 1ent: 5ue 112,11 !:!/
(9 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com #utloo? 6ctive @iew 1 attachment (!!)0 G2*
0..1_001)pdf Download Download as Aip 5han? you) + am ta?ing it up to the Department now)
Donna =====#riginal 9essage===== "rom: P983+ C5 1st "loor Cler?sP ccanonNreno)govd 5o:
PD#336P cballarddNreno)govd Date: 5ue, 2, 3ov 2011 1/:!2:2% =0%00 1ubject: 6ttached
+mage Donna 2allard 1enior Court 1pecialist :eno 9unicipal Court 1 1outh 1ierra 1treet
:eno, 3evada %,<01 (//<*&&!=&101F
EE+"( "+363C+6$ +3U8+:K 6(($+C65+#3 "rom: -ach Coughlin
(AachcoughlinNhotmail)com* 1ent: >ed 121!11 12:22 69 5o: 6allarddNreno,goL
renomunire!ordsNreno,go 2 attachment# Coug$lin 5FD and Finan!ial 5n8uiry
0ppli!a"ion :9C 11222011 11 C3 26F0C 2+)pdf (&%1), G2*, Coug$lin 5FD and Finan!ial
5n8uiry 0ppli!a"ion :9C 11222011 11 C3 22176 2+)pdf (&/2)0 G2* Ma!$ Coug$lin7 1s8,
%1/ 3) @irginia 1t) I2 :eno, 3@ %,<01 tel: //< 22,=./&/ fa': ,!, ../ /!02
-achCoughlinNhotmail)com /eada &ar /o@ >F73P*
(3#5E: Coughlin reHuest judicial notice be ta?en of the error in the date assigned to
such +n "orma (auperis motion, incorrectly identified as filed on 111!11, when, clearly, from
the copy thereof attached as E'hibit . to 33D2 Chairman 1usichBs <&112 1C: 11/ (etition
in .0,/<, such was actually filed after the trial in such matter of 11&011, wherein Coughlin
pleaded for a stay, citing concern for his clientBs affairs, to no avail) 1usich, li?e Ging, ta?es the
fraudulent callow approach in his E'hibit . to e'cising page 1 of & from CoughlinBs & page
121!12 9otion to (roceed in "orma (auperis and 6ffidavit of (overty +n 1upport of 9otion
to (roceed +n "orma (aupers (see, Epage 2F mar?ing at the bottom of the page on the firs" page
of such EE'hibit .F) 1uch !lo#nsmans$ip by 1usich and Ging must not stand, its an
embarra##ment to the +ar and the ,e-ada *u/reme Court' and the *tate o% ,e-ada a# a
2hole* Dudge ;owardBs #rder denying CoughlinBs motion specifically noted that CoughlinBs
1!1/%&
Paffidavit of povertyP did no" iden"ify any in!ome from "$e pra!"i!e of la# yet Coughlin had
implied to the court when sentenced to incarceration for contem/t that his incarceration would
adversely affect his clients)
(3#5E: how terribly difficult it is for a :9C former prosecutor turned judge to imagine
that any attorney not a prosecutor or former prosecutor turned :9C defender could possibly
yield any benefit to any client, or to admit, in any way, the importance of attorneys to the
judicial system* 1ee ;earing E'hibit 10, ( 2, $ 1, =2&) (3#5E: too bad GingBs Complaint did
not identify some alleged failure to Eiden"ify any in!ome from "$e pra!"i!e of la#9 basis for
arguing some professional misconduct, but, rather, fraudulently asserted E1/) :espondent filed
6ffidavits of (overty in 1upport of his 9otion to (roceed +nforma (auperis, #$erein $e fails
"o dis!lose "$a" $e is a li!ensed a""orney and instead under Employment and 1elf=Employment
he identifies himself as a PDac? of 6ll 5radesP) 1%) Despite a claim of poverty in the above
mentioned affidavits, :espondent told the Court that his incarceration for contempt would
adversely affect his clients)F
5he :9C initially approved, in writing, CoughlinBs submitting filings via email
(subseHuently, without any prior notice, the :9C fraudulently failed to included such filings
submitted via email in the :#6 for the very petty larceny conviction resulting in CoughlinsB
current temporary suspension, which is an abominably embarrassing miscarriage of justice, in
C:11=20.!*, and CoughlinBs submission on 121!12 clearly defeats the vague at best
EaccusationsF made with respect to any 9otions to (roceed +n "orma (auperis or 6ffidavits
connected thereto (whether pled in GingBs Complaint or only added later by the (anel in a
desperate attempt to shore up its insipied 121!12 "#"C#$*:
&&) 6lthough Coughlin claims to suffer the impairment of attention deficit disorder,
for which he is prescribed medication and which medication he too? on the day of his hearing,
he does not feel he needs any additional help) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday,
3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1,,, $ 1& =( 20!, $ ,)
&!) #n 6ugust 2&, 2012, the 1tate 2ar of 3evada filed its Complaint in this matter
and sered it upon Respondent Coughlin by Certified 9ail to his address then registered with
the 1tate 2ar of 3evada) *ee Do!'e", Complaint)
(3#5E: 5he :#6 of 21&1& in .2&&/ lac?s any sort of EDoc?etF to EseeF
whatsoever, and CoughlinBs numerous reHuests to see any such EDoc?etF were rebuffed by the
12333D2(anel, and Cler? of Court (eters) 6dditionaly, 123 Cler? of Court (eters own
10,12 6ffidavit of $aura (eters completely disclaims the very 6ffidavit of 1ervice by (eters
herself attached to the %2&12 Complaint)
1ee CoughlinBs 9otion for
&<) /o" $aing re!eied a response "o "$e Complain", (3#5E: what about the
,1%12 9otion 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
optionVcom_contentMviewVarticleMidV<10:judges=and=court=cler?s=violate=the=law=when=
your=court=filings=are=denied=or=disappearMcatidV,%:litigation=helpM+temidV22< * on #ctober
,, 2012 the 1tate 2ar of 3evada filed and sered on 3esponden" Coug$lin7 6y !er"ified mail, a
P,otice of +ntent to (roceed on a Default 2asis)P 5he notice a""a!$ed an addi"ional !opy of
1!2/%&
"$e Complain" (3#5E: that is odd because the 21&1& :#6 does not reveal an Padditional
copy of the ComplaintP PattachedP to the 10,12 3#+5D, which, of course, was not PservedP
on Coughlin Pby certified mailP where the 81(1 would not release such to Coughlin but rather
returned it to sender with counter attendant P5imP at the downtown :eno (ostal 1tation
notating, in front of Coughlin, in his own handwriting P:eturn to 1ender, (ostage +nsufficientP
where the 132 had affi'ed an insufficient O1)2< in postage to a Certified 9ailing reHuiring at
least O<)2< in postage, all of which Coughlin notified the 123 of immediately, where the 123
engaged in Pbad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processP in laughing off CoughlinBs
$itigation ;old 3otice to retain such envelope baring the insufficient postage and counter
attendant P5imP handwritten notation thereon* and indicated that unless a responsie pleading
to the Complaint was received by the 1tate 2ar by #ctober 2!, 2012, the matter would proceed
on a default basis) *ee Do!'e", ,otice of +ntent to (roceed on a Default 2asis)
(3#5E: 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 %8 /age @mergency @8 Parte !otion to $i#mi## or
1 E@mergency @8 Parte !otion ,=12-0204' 04&4'04&5
1ent: 1un 111112 !:1& 69
5o: (s?entNs?entlaw)com* (s?entNs?entlaw)com*C (mi?eNtahoelawyer)com*
(mi?eNtahoelawyer)com*C (nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net* (nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net*C
(patric??Nnvbar)org* (patric??Nnvbar)org*C (fflahertyNdlpfd)com* (fflahertyNdlpfd)com*C
(davidcNnvbar)org* (davidcNnvbar)org*C (complaintsNnvbar)org* (complaintsNnvbar)org*C
(tsusichNnvdetr)org* (tsusichNnvdetr)org*C (jeNeloreno)com* (jeNeloreno)com*C
(cvellisNbhfs)com (cvellisNbhfs)com*
from:
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
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 9otion 3712=020!, 0!&!,0!&<
please find attached %8 /age @mergency @8 Parte !otion to $i#mi## or Pua#h or
9ther2i#e Challenge *u%%iciency o% *er-ice
and o% Proce##' o% Com/laint and ,otice o% 7ntent to 6a5e $e%ault and $o3*o@L and
Pre#er-ing %or ?//eal 9bEection to ?ll other $ue Proce## Violation#L and I,$@
P96@*6...@*P9,*@ 69 C9!P4?7,6
#ubmitted %or %iling 2ith the *tate +ar o% ,e-ada on ,o-ember 9th' 2012
-ach Coughlin
1!&/%&
Pua#h or 9ther2i#e Challenge *u%%iciency o% *er-ice and o% Proce##' o% Com/laint and
,otice o% 7ntent to 6a5e $e%ault and $o3*o@L and Pre#er-ing %or ?//eal 9bEection to
?ll other $ue Proce## Violation#L and I,$@ P96@*6...@*P9,*@ 69
C9!P4?7,6 #ubmitted %or %iling 2ith the *tate +ar o% ,e-ada on ,o-ember 9th'
2012...) 11 , 12 response under protest 020! and various motions and notices 020! etc)pdf )))F
(1uch ?nowing shenanigans by the 123 vis a vis ";E1 and GingBs attempts to
mislead the tribunal at the formal hearing into thin?ing the 123 had actually complied with the
service reHuirements of such 3#+55D (:(C &)<6, (eters e'pressing to Coughlin that any such
3#+55D would only issue after a second attempt at serving the Complaint via Certified
9ailing, as admitted to in the 10,12 6ffidavit of $aura (eters, especially where (eters admits
she and the 123 failed to ever attempt any such second Certified 9ailing of the Complaint)
1ee CoughlinBs 11212 email to the 123 and (anel where such notes: E6lso, + never
received any 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default from the 123, and herein lodge my objection to
any #rder by this (anel that cites thereto) 6dditionally, 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 1C: 10< 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)
&1
1ee, as well, CoughlinBs
111212 email to the 123 and (anel (E1ubject: $+5+765+#3 ;#$D 3#5+CE ($E61E
:E56+3 6$$ E@+DE3CEF*)
&2
1ee, also, CoughlinBs email of 11.12: (E1ubject: B,o *ubEectCNC.
&&
(E)))5here is a
big problem with respect to when the 1tate 2ar of 3evada actually sent the :espondent,
Coughlin the Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence (Do>1oE* (and Coughlin
has yet to received a file stamped version of that Dow1oE) "urther, Coughlin has never
received any 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default (3o+5D* from the 123) 6s such, the notice
and other procedural safeguards attendant to the ;earing set for 111!12 are severely
deficient)))F*)
1ee 11212 email from Coughlin to 12333D2 (anel (J*+, #till ha# not
/ro-ided Coughlin acce## to the material# he i# entitled to to /re/are %or 11114112
)earingCF
&!
) 1ee, also, CoughlinBs 111&12 email to the 123(anel (E1ubject: 123 and or
(anel will be brea?ing the law by holding a hearing tomorrow)))F*)
&<
1ee, also, CoughlinBs
111%12 email (E1ubject: :E: does :ichard ;ill have standing)))F*)
&.
1ee, also, CoughlinBs
112&12 email to 123(anel: (E1ubject: $+5+765+#3 ;#$D 3#5+CE #ctober ,th, 2012
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
5el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
-achCoughlinNhotmail)com
-ach has a file to share with you on 1?yDrive) 5o view it, clic? the lin? below)
11 , 12 response under protest 020! and various motions and notices 020! etc)pdf E
1!!/%&
certified mailing of 3otice of +ntent to ta?e Default*)
&/
5he 123 failed to include in the :#6 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 81(1 mail only to Coughlin, ie, 3:C( .(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)
(3#5E: Coughlin denied by @erified 6nswer and or :esponse 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
PevidenceP is error) ;outchens, /! 1> 2d ,/.
&%
) (and arguably the same goes for citing to
fugitive documents where no right to confront the PaccuserP were utiliAed and or offered into
evidence, especially where the Complaint failed to attached such, see ";Es 2, &, 10, 11*)
CD1 S ,%) 6nswerC / 69D8: 2d 6ttorneys at $aw S 10/) "ailure to 6nswer)
&.) #n #ctober &1, 2012 (anel Chair Echeverria issued the (anelBs #rder denying
CoughlinBs P9otion to DismissP filed O!"o6er 167 2012C Denying CoughlinBs P9otion for #rder
to 1how Cause :egarding +mproper 6ttempt by 2ar Counsel and, (ossibly, 33D2 to Delay
and #bstruct ;earing :eHuired by Courts (sic* Dune /, 2012 #rder in Case 3o) .0%&% and
CoughlinBs 1C: 102(!*(d* (etition in Case .1!2. filed #ctober 2, 2012C -ran"ing (3#5E: if
you say so* CoughlinBs 9otion to :eview and +nspect 2ar :ecords filed #ctober 1., 2012 and
Denying Coug$lin(s )o"ion "o &ifur!a"e %earing and )o"ion "o Dismiss for Asi!B Complain"
Asi!B Failure "o *uffi!ien"ly *"a"e "$e C$arges #i"$ *pe!ifi!i"y and *uppor" and for .""er
Failure of &ar Counsel "o Derform 3easona6le 5nes"iga"ion,P 1ee #rder Dated #ctober &1,
2012) +n that #rder, Chairman Echeverria further ordered that the "ormal ;earing would
proceed on a default basis unless Coughlin filed a @erified 6nswer to the Complaint by
3ovember ,, 2012) *ee 9rder $ated 9ctober &1' 2012' P 2' 4 7-10) (EP+5 +1 "8:5;E:
#:DE:ED that the "ormal ;earing 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 9r)
Coughlin prepares and files a @erified 6nswer to the 1tate 2arBs Complaint by "riday,
3ovember ,, 2012 ) 5he 1tate 2ar is prepared to proceed with aP*
6s to the prejudice and clear error attendant to denying CoughlinBs 9otion 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) &<* upon
33D2 Chairman 1usich (to which he copied the 123*, see Coughlin 101012 correspondence
see?ing just such a bifurcation from the 33D2 Chair 1usich (E1ubject: :E: pending final
disposition of disciplinary proceedings))))language 1C: 111(/* versus 1C: 111(%* and the Dune
/th, 2012 #rder of the 3@) 1) Ct)F* and the 123Bs response purporting to have the decision
ma?ing authority as to whether or not to bifurcate the hearing)
&,
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
1!</%&
communication to Coughlin indicating substantially the same or similar, reveals fully the
abdication of its responsibilities, much to the prejudice of :espondent Coughlin, by 1usich and
Echeverria, which is only made further inappropriate by the 123 Ging and Clar? being listed
as representing the 33D2 and 123 (resident "laherty in .210! (or is it .!12.)))the 111!12
9andamus (etition case and the case wherein the %1&12 1C: 111(/* 7ood Cause (etition for
Dissolution of 5emporary 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 characteriAing CoughlinBs .1112 or .1%12 or 10<12 filings therein as
such a 1C: 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 >or?place ;arassment 5(# 6pplication in
:C(2012=000.0/*)
P"rom: (atric?GNnvbar)org 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com CC:
DavidCNnvbar)org
1ubject: :E: pending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings))))language 1C:
111(/* versus 1C: 111(%* and the Dune /th, 2012 #rder of the 3@) 1) Ct) Date: >ed,
10 #ct 2012 1.:!!:2/ Y0000
Dear 9r) Coughlin,
>hen you met with me and David Clar? to discuss the Complaint and the
process) 9r) Clar? 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) 6ny additional allegations that have not already resulted in
criminal convictions will need to be proved by Eclear and convincingF evidence) 6s
such, at the hearing, on the issue of your criminal convictions, the only issue for the
panel to decide is the appropriate discipline) ;owever, + will be providing evidence
as to the other allegations in the Complaint) 5he (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)
6s such, + do not intend bifurcate these proceedings) + thin? 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 6nswer to the Complaint) +
have sent you a notice of intent to proceed on a default basis) 5he hearing date is
e'pected to be >ednesday 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)
(atric? Ging, 6ssistant 2ar Counsel)P
1!./%&

P"rom: -ach Coughlin Qmailto:AachcoughlinNhotmail)comR
1ent: >ednesday, #ctober 10, 2012 .:1% 69
5o: tsusichNnvdetr)orgC David Clar?C $aura (etersC (atric? Ging
1ubject: pending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings))))language 1C:
111(/* versus 1C: 111(%* and the Dune /th, 2012 #rder of the 3@) 1) Ct)

Dear Chairman 1usich, 2ar Counsel, and Cler? (eters,
+ am writing formally reHuest a bifurcation of sorts, consiering:
1C: 111(/*)ee1uspension on certification)ee8pon 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)
+ thin? 2ar CounselBs argument that the PproceedingP call for in the CourtBs
Dune /th, 2012 #rder (which Huotes 1C: 111(/* may include some 1C: 10<
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 ta?e away this or that right of CoughlinBs to practice this or that
in some court (an #rder which (atric? Ging reference to me and Chief 2ar Counsel
Clar?, and, apparently, to a client of mine in early 9ay 2012 (the client is the only
other place + have ever heard of such an unpublished P#rderP purporting to have said
effect* despite the dictate against 2ar CounselBs doign so in 1C: 121 (the 1C: 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 wor?ed 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
6dditionally, the enormity with respect to the levels of prosecutorial and judicial
misconduct that Coughlin has been subject to since ";E& in 200,, and with a great increase
thereof beginning in 6ugust of 2011, had provided more than sufficient a basis for showing
good cause for such a bifurcation)
!0
1ee, also)
!1
&/) 6gain on 3ovember /, 20 12, Chairman Echeverria, in an #rder 7ranting the
1tate 2arBs 9otion to Uuash certain 1ubpoenas reminded Coughlin that unless a @erified
6nswer to the Complaint was filed by <:00 p)m) on 3ovember ,, 2012 the panel would proceed
on a default basis) 1ee (leadings Doc?et #rder Dated 3ovember /, 2012, ( 2, $ % =1&)
&%) "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 :eno
9unicipal Court into a P3ew @erified :esponse (sic* (re=;earing 9otion to
Dismiss1ummary Dudgment, 9emorandum of $aw (1ee ;earing E'hibit 1!* and to transform
an PEmergency E' (arte 9otion to Dismiss ))) P previously dated 3ovember 12, 2012 and
1!//%&
altered at the hearing to reflect a date of 3ovember 1!, 2012 into a PDeclaration and @erified
:esponse)P 1ee ;earing E'hibits 1< and 1.) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember
1!, 2012, ( 2!!, $ 1. =( 2/0, $11)
!2
&,) 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 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember
1!,2012) (leadings in this matter filed by Coughlin were e'ceedingly lengthy, demonstrated a
lac? of focus and understanding of the issues involved, were rambling and incoherent and
contained discussion of irrelevant issues) 1ee, e)g ;earing E'hibits 1!, 1<, 1.) See also
(leadings Doc?et 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause ))) P dated #ctober 2, 2012C P9otion to
:eview and +nspect 2ar :ecords ))) P "iled #ctober 1., 2012C (leading entitled P>ell >ould
Kou $oo? at 5hat ))) P dated 3ovember /, 2012C PEmergency E' (arte 9otion 5o Dismiss or
Uuash ))) P "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
5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1%1, $ 1,=( 1%2, $ 1) (E;E6:+37 =
@ol) +, ((ages 1%1:1, to 1%2:1* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: :epeatedly this morning, and + havenBt
put on the record yet, 9r) Coughlin is ma?ing faces, rolling his eyes, e'pressing e'acerbation,
the conduct of which does not appear directly on the record, and + want the record to reflect)
6nd if the panel members disagree with me, they are free to say so) 9:) @E$$+1: + would
join in what the chairman said)F*)
C9,C4I*79,* 9( 4?3
2ased on the foregoing "indings of "act, the (anel hereby issues the following
Conclusions of $aw:
(6* 5he (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) 3712=020!, 3712=0!&< and 3712=0!&! and to determine the e'tent of the discipline to
be imposed pursuant to

the 3evada 1upreme Court #rder of 5emporary 1uspension and
:eferral to Disciplinary 2oard entered in Case 3o) .0%&%, +n the 9atter of Discipline of
-achary 2) Coughlin, EsH), 2ar 3o) ,!/&, entered Dune /, 2012)
(2* 5he (anel has ;urisdi!"ion oer "$e 3esponden" and "$e su6;e!" ma""er of "$ese
pro!eedings) 1ee 3ev) 1up) Ct) :) ,,)
(C* @enue in this matter is properly with the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard
and in the County of >ashoe, 1tate of 3evada) 3ev) 1up) Ct) :) 10<)
(D* Coughlin re!eied no"i!e and a copy of the Complain", notice of his right to
respond, as well as no"i!e of the evidence and witnesses upon which the State Bar intended to
rely at a formal hearing) (3#5E: thatBs not e'actly a verbatim restatement of 1C: 10<(2*, and
1C: 10<(2*(c*, now is it, as such e'cises the whole bit about how Coughlin is entitle to Pup to
& days prior to the hearingP +nspect (Pall of #$i!$ may 6e inspe!"edP* the Psummary prepared
by bar counsel of the evidence against the attorney (this is something Ging never provided at
all, as GingBs 101212 Do>1oE in no way satisfies such reHuirement* , and the names of
witnesses bar counsel intends to call for other than impeachment (the entirety of GingBs
1!%/%&
e'amination of 2eesley was devoid of any PimpeachmentP 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 Pbecame ?nown to bar counsel thereafterP (after the passing of the P&0 days
written noticeP 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 Pup to & days prior to the hearingP any Pbrief statement of the facts to which each
(witness* will testify*) Ging offered aboslutely nothing in the way of such Pbrief statement of
the facts to which each (witness* will testifyP aside from a woefully deficient 101212
Do>1oE that actually failed to specify that ;ill would testify as to matter in the summary
eviction proceeding (such statement of the facts to which ;ill would testify was limited an one
sentence indication that ;ill would testify as to CoughlinBs conduct in C@11=0&.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#5E: 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*)
!&
/o"i!e of the formal hearing was sered on Coughlin) Coughlin appeared in the
matter, %iled numerous motions, appeared at the hearing of the matter, !ross-e?amined
#i"nesses B,96@0 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 Phalf hourBs noticeP 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) :#6 111!12 5ranscript (starting at
:#6 page 1&.. ((age %&:1, to %&:2<*, ((age 2&.:1 to 2&.:<** and testified on behalf of the
1tate 2ar and on his own behalf) 0!!ordingly7 "$e *"a"e &ar !omplied #i"$ "$e pro!edural
re8uiremen"s of *C3 10C)
5he 12333D2(aneland 123 Cler? of Court all willfully violated the duties
placed upon them and descreated the procedural rules attendant to these matters, reHuiring a
mistrial and or ma?ing the entirety of the 121!12 "#"C#$ void for lac? of jurisdiction
(especially where such violations where neither EadministrativeF, EdirectoryF, nor
EaspirationalF, but firm reHuirements of due process attendant to these scurrilous attempts to
ta?e from Coughlin his "ourteenth 6mendment protected due process rights)
!!
(E* Coughlin #as afforded ample oppor"uni"y "o prepare a erified ans#er or
response to the allegations of the Complaint and failed "o "imely do so) 1ee "indings of "act
&!, &< and &.) 6ccordingly, the matter !ould pro!eed on a defaul" 6asis and "$e allega"ions of
"$e Complain" deemed admi""ed) 1C: 10<(2* ,ot2ith#tanding the %act that the matter
could ha-e been decided on a de%ault ba#i#, the (anel permitted the 1tate 2ar and Coughlin
to present evidence)
(3#5E: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2<&:10 to 2<&:11* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: *o #e
$ae no" !ondu!"ed "$is $earing as a defaul" $earing, in deference to you)F +t is completely
dishonest and opportunist to conduct an entire hearing, e'cise the two pages wherein Coughlin
notes his is a Especial appearanceF to contest jurisdiction based upon, amongst other things,
1!,/%&
insufficient service of process of the Complaint, and then to enter a Econclusion of lawF that
CoughlinBs violations of various :(CBs were admitted or proven as a matter of default*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2<!:% to 2<<:<* E9:) C#87;$+3: + filed this) +
prepared this to be basically a motion for a new trial in the trespass case) &u" 5(e 6een
opera"ing on li""le sleep preparing for a pe""y lar!eny "rial7 preparing for "$is, 0nd 5 s"ar"ed
"o ge" s!ared "$a" 5 #asn(" ge""ing some"$ing in "$e re!ord on "$is, 0nd so 5 ;us" said7 you
'no# #$a"7 you(re !rossing "$a" ou"7 and you(re filing "$is in "$e *"a"e &ar so you ge"
some"$ing) 1o 5 "$in' "$is !ould 6e !$ara!"eriKed as a erified response) 0nd 5 do appre!ia"e
"$e e?"en" -- 5 6eliee you made a la# of "$e !ase no# "$a" you(re no" "al'ing a defaul" on me
$ere) 6nd + believe == +Bd li?e to loo? at my records more, but + believe + was told 6 could fa=
file at least, if not also e=mail file 6y Cler' De"ers) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat you filed with
the 1tate 2ar is one thing) Kou as?ed me earlier if + had consented to being served by e=mail,
and + have not) Kou as?ed, and + have == nor have + consented to being served by fa') 5 6eliee
all do!umen"s "$a" you need "o file s$ould 6e filed #i"$ "$e *"a"e &ar7 and "$en "$ey !an
proide "$em "o 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 ?now 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 Cler?
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
:#6 and what does not (big problems with page &2, and 21. of the :#6, numerous ?ey
filings of CoughlinBs are missing from the :#6, even where E'hibit 1< 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 thin? it appropriate or that it would go unnoticed
that such document was not included in the :#6J 6nd 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*)
("* *u6mi""ed "o "$e panel for de!ision are the following issues (3#5E: if its really
true that the Efollowing issuesF were Esubmitted to the panel for decisionF then why the
multitude of instances where Chair Echeverria ruled as inadmissi6le any eiden!e of any sor"
"$a" Coug$lin offered for "$e purpose of disproing "$e :issue9 of $is guil"9 (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
characteriAe any order involved herein as a EconvictionF disclosing any EinHuiryF or EdecisionF
as to CoughlinBs EguiltF with respect to the alleged :(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 6ll 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, ma?ing
1C: 10. inapplicable to their willful fraudulent conduct (see law review article on the
difference between mere mista?es of law and willful judicial misconduct*:
(1* >hether Coughlin violated :(C 1)1 (Competence*)
(2* >hether Coughlin violated :(C 1)2 (Diligence*) (3#5E: actually,
1<0/%&
:(C 1)2 is E1cope of :epresentation and 6llocation of 6uthority 2etween
Client and $awyerF, and :(C 1)& is EDiligenceF, so, just who is it alleging
a Huestion of ECompetenceF, againJ Keah)*
(&* >hether Coughlin violated :(C &)1 (9eritorious Claims and
Contentions*
(!* >hether Coughlin violated :(C &)& (Candor to the 5ribunal*)
(<* >hether Coughlin violated :(C &)! ("airness to #pposing (arty and
Counsel*
(.* >hether Coughlin violated :(C &)< (+mpartiality and Decorum of the
5ribunal*
(/* >hether Coughlin violated :(C &)<6 (:elations with #pposing
Counsel*
(%* >hether Coughlin violated :(C !)1 (5ruthfulness in 1tatements to
#thers*
(,* >hether Coughlin violated :(C !)! (:espect for the :ights of 5hird
(ersons*
(10* >hether Coughlin violated :(C %)1 (Disciplinary 9atters*
(11* >hether Coughlin violated :(C %)2 (Dudicial and $egal #fficials*
(12* >hether Coughlin violated :(C %)! (9isconduct*
(1&* 5he e=tent of the discipline to !e imposed /ur#uant to *C 111 as a
result of CoughlinBs conviction of the PseriousP crime of (etit $arceny)
+n re Discipline of 1chaefer, 2< ()&D 1,1 (3ev), 2001*: :ule of professional
conduct prohibiting lawyer, in representing a client, from directly contacting represented
party without consent of partyBs counsel #as ague as applied "o a""orney #$o represen"ed
$imself in li"iga"ion a" issue, in light of non=binding nature of formal opinion of state barBs
1tanding Committee on Ethics and (rofessional :esponsibility determining that rule applied
to a lawyer appearing pro se, together with e'istence of conflicting authority from other
jurisdictions) 1up)Ct):ules, :ule 1%2)
(3#5E: Coughlin was forced to appear without counsel in all of these summary
eviction matters due to his indigency (thus, ";E2, and, really, where >ashoe $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 ";E&, Coughlin was similarly
forced to appear without representation, as was, obviously, the case in ";E! and <
(especially where CoughlinBs &/12 filing was a 9otion to (roceed +n "orma (auperis,
which, of course, Dudge 3ash ;olmes struc? from the record, then proceeded to violated
3:1 1/%)!0< by way of 3:1 <)0/1 in holding the &1212 trial date from which ";E<
issued)
1imilarly ";E10, the 121<11 #rder by :9C Dudge ;oward was entered where
Coughlin was denied his 1i'th 6mendment rights (and ";E12 purported to Eaffirm the
ruling of the :eno 9unicipal CourtF (where Dudge Elliott apparently failed to adjudicate
CoughlinBs appeal of such 11&011 ";E11
!<
#rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt, where,
given it is unclear whether such civil contempt order was against Coughlin the indigent
1<1/%&
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 >rit (9andamus** where ";E12 and ";E10 are actually rather embarrassing
to the judiciary when read together as ";E10 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 :9C see?ing court appointed counsel and a 121!12 9otion to (roceed
+n "orma (auperis see?ing publication of the transcript at publicBs e'pense
!.
, where Dudge
;owards ridiculous and shameful ";E10 #rder ta?es issues with Coughlin citing to a civil
+"( statute in 3:1 12)01<*)
5he majority of alleged violations of the :ules 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 attorney=client relationship, and,
certainly, where Dudge 3ash ;olmes 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 testifyingF while e'amining witnesses
!/
, its hardly fair to
hamstring Coughlin with such reHuirement that anything which the (anel or 2ar (or the
:9C* 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 :C6 deputy 6llison #rmaas, EsH), whom
Coughlin noted on the audio record of the 22/12 trial that Chair Echeverria was so ?een to
e'clude from evidence was sharing whispers into each otherBs ears during the trial with
:9C 9arshal ;arley, as both apparently feared that Coughlin had captured some of their
rampant misconduct on tape (with :C6 #rmaas, just li?e :C6 Chief Criminal Deputy
>ong 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
:(D #fficer Chris Carter
!%
, Dr) said to Coughlin upon arresting Coughlin for criminal
trespass on 111&12, which Coughlin indicated he had reported to :(D 1argent 5arter
immediately prior to 5arter telling Coughlin to leave ;illBs law office on 111<12, where
Coughlin had gone to retrieve his wallet, state issued identifcation, clientBs files, hard drives,
and ?eys, where 5arter 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 6ssistant 9arilyn 5ognoni mused at how unusual (one the record she
said this during the matters preceding CoughlinBs on the 1:00 p)m), stac?ed doc?et where
2.%00 started at &:&0 p)m)* it was the neither she, nor anyone with the :9C could locate
Dudge 3ash ;olmes, whom left the bench after clearing every other case on that stac?ed
doc?et, save for CoughlinBs, for appro'imately one hour prior to the start of the trial in
2.%00 at &:00 pm)
!,
(3#5E: ;ow odd it is that Chair EcheverriaBs "#"C#$ here completely departs
from the approach he too? 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 101<12 1C: 111(!*
(etition in .1,01 for the then necessarily non= EseriousF criminal conviction for criminal
1<2/%&
trespass the 3) 1) CtBs decision to refrain from responding to such 1C: 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 characteriAe such criminal trespass conviction as a
basis for permanently disbarring Coughlin (and the lac? of any such 1C: 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 3:1 1,,)2%0 +n :e 2ec?ett matter)))*
arguably precludes pleading such conviction for criminal trespass at all as supporting an
allegation of a violation of :(C %)!(a*=(d*, (much less that sua sponte attempts by
Echeverria to graft such criminal trespass conviction and the testimony by :ichard 7) ;ill,
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 notice=pleading to
Coughlin that ";E2 (the Eprevailing party attorneyBs fee awardF @sanction4 etc) would be
not or inclusion in any way in a 1C: 10< Complaint) (ie, jurisdiction is in Huestion in that
regard*)
<0
(7* 5he 1tate 2ar must prove by !lear and !onin!ing eiden!e B,96@0 it al#o
need be ;admi##ibleN e-idence
51
* that Coughlin violated :(C 1)1,1)2,&)1, &)&, &)!, &)<, !)1,
!)!, <6 (sic*,%)1,%)2,and %)!) 1ee 3ev 1up) Ct) :) 10<(2*(e*C 7n re *tuh%%, 10% 3ev) at .&&=.&!,
%&/ ()2d at %<.C 7entile v 1tate 2ar, 10. 3ev) .0, .2, /%/ ()2d &%.,&%/ (1,,0*)
Defending $awyers in Disciplinary (roceedings, &1 69D8: 5:+6$1 .&&): P)))1ec)
!%) @-identiary con#ideration#)
<2
6dmissibility and interrelated issues vis a vis CoughlinBs
defensive collateral estoppel arguments and Ging and the (anelBs fraudulently attempts to graft
1C: 111(<* onto situations where even an offensive collateral estoppel argument would be
unavailing, were central to the reversible error committed herein by the (anel)
<&
Com/etence
(;* :(C 1)1 states P6 lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client)
Competent representation reHuires the legal ?nowledge, s?ill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation)P
(+* 5he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin lac?s the
com/etency to represent clients, including himself)
(D* "irst, "$e re!ord
12
demonstrates seere !ri"i!ism (3#5E: >hatJ 3o
characteriAation of ";E& as a EsanctionFJ* by the trial court in the handling of the Jos$i
(3#5E: ";E&, Dudge $) 7ardner, Dudge 7ardner* matter, including CoughlinBs la!' of
unders"anding of a 6alan!e s$ee", his failure to !ondu!" discovery, his la!' of 'no#ledge of
"$e rules of eiden!e and "rial pro!edure) 1upra 2<
(Ging actually managed to get a fair amount of EevidenceF into the record as to that
which 33D2 1usich is attempting to prove in .0,/<) #nly thing is, that 1C: 11/ (etition
relates to whether Coughlin, the attorney, is EcompetentF, whereas GingBs burden incident to
the allegation in his %2&12 Complaint that Coughlin violated :(C 1)1 reHuires Ging (rather
than than ta?e on the tas? of a 2ar E'aminer testing for general competency as to an applicant
for admissions ability to apply law to facts in representing clients* to prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, not that Coughlin is incompetent, but that CoughlinBs representation of a
client failed to provide competent represen"a"ion to such client, where Ecompetent
1<&/%&
representation reHuires the legal ?nowledge, s?ill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably
necessary for the representationF for the purposes of evaluating whether a respondent did, in
some specific instance, fail to meet such standard)
5hat is, the inHuiry is not whether Ging or the (anel thin5s that Coughlin will not so
provide competent representation to some client at some point (that would li?ely reHuire too
much wor? (Ging can barely throw together a 1C: 111 (etition, after all, and donBt e'pect an
+nde' to E'hibits, either*, some 1C: 102 (etition for a 5emporary 1uspension, prevent Ging
from perverting the inHuiry here with innuendo and ?itchen sin?edness* but whether Coughlin
actually did fail to provide competent representation to a client in some specific instance)
(1uch as, say, >C(D 2iray DoganBs violating 3:1 1/%)&,/ in failing to appear
where he was already listed as attorney of record to the 21!12 arraignment of Coughlin for a
gross misdemeanor)))something which Ging dismissed in his letter refusing to investigate
CoughlinsB grievance against Dogan by alleging such is addressable in a civil action, despite the
fact that there is authority in 3evada holding that public defenderBs are immune from
malpractice liability, so, actually, GingB is absolutely incorrect, which ?ind of indicates Ging is
failing to provide competent representation to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada (and Earm of the CourtF
under >aters* similar to how GingBs pleading that CoughlinBs two different 9otions to Dismiss
supported a charge of violating :(C 1)1 (ECompetenceF* where Ging then failed to put such
filings by Coughlin into evidence in any way or ma?e any argument thereto (which ?ind of
ma?es it seem li?e Ging himself was Einjecting irrelevant materialF of a prejudicial nature, and
thus violating the :(C=a=thon that Dudge ;olmes, Ging, and the (anel concluded Coughlin did
at ($* ( :(C 1)1, ECom/etenceN*, (@*, (>*, (K* (:(C &)1 E9eritorious Claims and
ContentionsF*, and (77* (:(C &)!(c* ;(airne## to 9//o#ing Party and Coun#elNCD (5he
(anel event went for the hat tric? plus one on that (a four point play for the non=hoc?ey fluent*
in alleging such EinjectingF was an aggravating factor under an 1C: 102)< analysis
GingBs Complaint alleged Coughlin violated :(C 1)1)))) somehow
11
))) naturally,
there was nothing to support such allegation in the way of specifics other than GingBs allusion
to two different 9otions to Dismiss Coughlin filed (that in the :9C of &<12 in the criminal
trespass matter, and that of 22112 in the :DC in the Emisuse of emergency telephone
communicationsF (,11* matter)))neither of which Ging dared put into evidence upon his
beginning to actually understand how brilliant CoughlinBs analysis therein was, and how truly
revelatory it was as well legion of instances of misconduct by the prosecutors, judges, and court
appointed defenders, whom, at times, form a truly dysyfunctional, codependent family that
refuses to ac?nowledge the pin? elephant in the room*)
3#5E: 6ctually, while a vacatedsuperseded ";E& might hint at that, Ethe recordF
in the sense of the phrase used by the (anel here does not reveal anything, as Echeverria ruled
as inadmissible, and apparently claimed to have not received and or not reviewed the copies of
Ethe recordF from the Doshi case from which ";E& issued)
Coughlin never could get a straight answer out of Echeverria, the 123, and the
(anel as to what the (anel and its members were provided by the 123 (vis a vis the 123 and
(anelBs contention that the 123 copied all (anel members on everything Coughlin submitted
for filing, including the e'hibits attached thereto*, versus EcheverriaBs sha?y indications at to
having only recieved three pages of this or that much longer fa' from Coughlin (which
1<!/%&
Echeverria alleges was fa' to him four different times or some other mur?y, inconsistent,
implausible such assertions*)
(G* 1econd, Dudge 2eesley testified that the pleadings filed by Coughlin on behalf of
his client in a ban?ruptcy case were Plengthy, didnBt ma?e any sense, and just sort of rambled
through a great deal of irrelevant stuff)P Dudge 2eesley also testified that CoughlinBs pleadings
and arguments on behalf of his client PdidnBt ma?e any sense)P 1upra 1. Dudge 2eesley became
concerned enough about CoughlinBs competency as a lawyer that he contacted the 1tate 2ar)
1upra 1/
($* 5hird, Dudge 3ash ;olmes Huestioned CoughlinBs competency as a lawyer and in
her #rder finding Coughlin in contem/t of Court noted that Coughlin disregarded the rules of
evidence, continually imposed improper Huestions, failed to properly e'amine witnesses,
repeatedly as?ed the Huestion, misstated answers, injected irrelevant material, argued with
witnesses and mischaracteriAed testimony) 1upra / (3#5E: >here the punishment for
contempt is limited to a fine or imprisonment, an attorney may not be disbarred as a
punishment for contempt of court) E' parte :obinson, %. 8)1) <1&)*
(9* "ourth, Dudge 3ash ;olmes found that CoughlinBs pleadings failed to address
topics listed Bin the caption, contained rambling references to CoughlinBs personal life and other
irrelevant material, were overly lengthy, disjointed and incoherent) 1upra , M 10
(3* "ifth, the 1tate 2ar called two judges and two practicing attorneys (Elcano is not
listed as an Pactive attorneyP at www)nvbar)org, nor has he been for over < years*, each with
significant e'perience with Coughlin and ea!$ of #$om 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 1%) Dudge 3ash ;olmes testified that in her opinion,
Coughlin violated numerous :ules of (rofessional conduct including his lac? of competency
to practice law) 1upra 1<) 6ttorney :ichard ;ill also testified that in his opinion Coughlin is
not competent to practice law) 1upra 22 6ttorney (aul Elcano, who once #u/er-i#ed Coughlin
as a lawyer and ultimately terminated him from >ashoe $egal 1ervices, also testified that, in
hi# o/inion, Coughlin is not competent to practice law) 1upra 2%)
(6s 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, ban?rupty,
and alimony* as to that to which he was called to testify: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 11,:1/ to
122:1<*
<.
(#* 1i'th, the record establishes that Coughlin o%%ered no e8/ert o/inion or
e-idence a# to hi# com/etency)
(3#5E: #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 ";E1!,1<*)
$iligence
((* :(C 1)2 states P6 lawyer shall act with rea#onable diligence and /rom/tne##
in representing a client)P 5he record is less clear as to whether or not Coughlin violated :(C
1)2 on more than on occasion)
1<</%&
(:* Dudge %o#ard (3#5E: 5his error by Echeverria here is especially dubious
where its was 2DDC Dudge 7ardner, Dudge $) 7ardner, sister to :9C Dudge >) 7ardner, that
entered such #rder in ";E& where at other points in the 121!12 "#"C#$ Echeverria referes
to (see E($$*F EDudge Genneth 3ardner4 when referencing Dudge Genneth ;owardBs ";E10
order) 1uch is especially dubious given the patent conflict of interest and appearance of bias
and or impropriety attendant to the combination of the brother sister relationship between 2DDC
Dudge $inda 7ardner and :9C Dudge >) 7ardner, ";E& by Dudge $) 7ardner being cited as
the sole basis for firing Coughlin in >$1 ElcanoBs <10, suspension letter and </0, letter of
termination, CoughlinBs appeal and mandamus petition in response to ";E& in <&%&& and
<!%!!, :9C Dudge >) 7ardner admitting that his sister 2DDC $) 7ardner passed the three year
old vacatedsuperseded order that became ";E& to him, which he admits to then having passed
around to all of his fellow :9C Dudges (e'tra=judicial communications*, where ;olmes
(";E!, <, %* and Dudge ;oward (";E1, .0%&%, ";E10, 11* were still presiding over active
cases wherein Coughlin was a criminal defendant before them, as was Dudge >) 7ardner
himself in the criminal trespass prosecution that became .1,01, etc* , in the Doshi case,
certainly found that Coughlin %ailed to conduct di#co-ery on behalf of his client in that matter)
1upra 2<
(1* 5he record and (leading Doc?et in this case establish that Coughlin %ailed to
/ro-ide a -eri%ied re#/on#i-e /leading e-en in the de%en#e o% hi# o2n di#ci/linary action)
1upra &%
(5* 5he record and (leading Doc?et in this case establish that Coughlin habitually
files numerous, untimely and repetitive motions)
!eritoriou# Claim# and Contention#
(8* :(C &)1 in pertinent part states P6 lawyer shall not 6ring or defend a
proceeding, or asser" or !on"roer" an issue therein, unless "$ere is a 6asis in la# and fa!" for
doing so "$a" is no" friolous7 #$i!$ in!ludes a good fai"$ argumen" for an e?"ension7
modifi!a"ion or reersal of e?is"ing la#)P
(@* 5he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin !on"inuously and
repe"i"iely files irrelevant pleadings) pleadings unrelated to the issue at hand and continuously
and repetitively injects irrelevant matters into proceedings) (3#5E: o?ay, howBs about a
citation to something in the ErecordF which Eclearly and convincingly BestablishesBF thatJ*
(>* Dudge 3ash ;olmes found, for e'ample, that Coughlin repea"edly in;e!"ed
allega"ions of bribery, perjury and police retaliation in a simple traffic case involving the
failure to stop at a stop sign) 1upra /) 1he also found that Coughlin repea"edly in;e!"ed
a""orney 3i!$ard %ill in"o 8ues"ions and s"a"emen"s #$en )r, %ill #as in no #ay inoled in
"$e "raffi! !i"a"ion "rial) 1upra para) / 1he also found that pleadings filed su!se%uent to
Coughlin's incarceration were lengthy (more than 200 pages* contained scant discussion of, or
relevance to, the matter and contained irrelevant discussion of facts unrelated to the
proceedings at hand) 1upra para 10)
(10) Dudge 3ash ;olmes also found that Coughlin, after being released from
custody following the "ebruary 2/, 2012 contem/t of Court incarceration, filed other
nonsensical pleadings including a 21% page document:
1<./%&
P)),purpor"ed "o 6e ye" ano"$er mo"ion in "$is !ase entitled P9otion to Return
Cell ChonesC 9otion to 1et 6side 1ummary Contem/t #rderC and 3 otice of
6ppeal of 1ummary C ontem/t #rder)P >ith s!an" discussion of, or relevance
;oward in a Department ! case and again contains more than 200 pages of
string legal citationsC lyrics to roc?s (sic* songsC 9r) CoughlinBs personal
family historyC dis!ussion of an ei!"ion !ase and another contem/t caseC
disjointed legal citations and other nonsensical matters that have no apparent
relevance to his traffic citation case)*
(3#5E: 6pparently Dudge ;olmes e'pected attorney Coughlin to
be really, really focused on a traffic tic?et for a Eboulevard stopF over ;olmeBs
judicial misconduct in, without a warrant, having her 9arshal return to the
>ashoe County Dail the day after CoughlinBs property had been boo?ed into
his own personal property, and removing three items (CoughlinBs smart phone,
a &272 micro sd card, and CoughlinBs flip style cellular phone*) 1uch was not
a Esearch incident to arrestF, and thus violated DiaA from the ,
th
Circuit, and
presents an scenario where 3@2 Dudge 2eesley arguably had a Canon 2, :ule
2)1< duty to report Dudge ;olmes, 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@2=10=0<10!, and
countenancing the ban?ruptcy court cler?s failure to file in CoughlinBs %2012
9otion3otice 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 :9C judge ;oward and ;olmes 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 ;adfield did not copy an paste out of CoughlinBs
previous filings (li?e that of 112&11 and !1/12, especially where ;adfields
!1&1& 9otion for 1ummary Dudgment e'pressly provides that she and Geller
are not withdrawing such !1/12 9otion by Coughlin, especially where such
9otion clearly disposes of the Cadle CompanyBs case in short order in 3@2=
10=0<10!*)
(4* 5he record establishes that in the 9erliss e-iction action, CoughlinBs conduct
was so ve'atious and frivolous as to result in substantial sanction of attorneyBs fees) 1upra 21
1ee ;earing E'hibit 2, ( 2, $ % =1&C (&, $ ! =11)
(K* 5he Pleading $oc5et in thi# matter e#tabli#he# al#o that Coughlin<# %iling#'
e-en in hi# o2n de%en#e o% the di#ci/linary matter' inEect lengthy' irrele-ant %act# and
legal i##ue# into thi# /roceeding) (3#5E: here, Echeverria, chuc?s up this hail mary upon
realiAing the 2ar failed to put any admissible evidence whatsoever in support of the allegation
of a violation of :(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
:(C &)1 (ie, ";E2, &, ! (especially where such is purported to be a EcriminalF matter, :(C &)1
1<//%&
e'pressly identifies itself less broadly applied in such circumstances, and regardless, there is
nothing in ";E! that spea?s to :(C &)1, but rather Echeverria attempts to graft that which only
tangentially invo?es :(C &)&, &)< and !)! onto the anemic :(C &)1 allegation*)
(/) Dudge 3ash ;olmes ordered Coughlin into custody on "ebruary 2/, 2012 and to
be incarcerated at the >ashoe County :egional Detention "acility for the term of five (<* days)
0l"erna"iely Coughlin could pay a fine of O<00) 5he CourtBs sentence was based on its
detailed findings regarding CoughlinBs !ondu!" in his own defense)
P5he court finds that defendantBs !on"emp" uous !ondu!" consisted of his
rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic,
deceitful, di#ru/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 di#ru/t the trial process) 5he court finds
that the following occurred, and constitute contem/t: 1* defendantBs
mimeli?e, clownish antics of ma?ing faces at the courtC sagging down
into his seat and hanging his headC loo?ing behind himself and inside his
coat as if searching for a better way to as? a HuestionC rolling his eyesC
and mimic?ing others wordsC 2* defendantBs incessant arguing with the
court, tal?ing over the court, and interrupting the courtC &* defendantBs
repeatedly restating matters after being told by the court to Pmove onP or
Pas? the ne't HuestionCP !* defendantBs repea"edly in;e!"ing allega"ions
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 P2oulevard 1topCP <* defendantBs repeatedly
trying to insertP :ichard ;illP 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 as? Huestions and telling the court to Pgive me a list
of Huestions you want me to as?CP %* defendantBs suggesting that the
court Ptell me what would ma?e you happyCP ,* 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, in;e!"ing
irrelean" ma"erial, arguing with the witness and mischaracteriAing the
testimony)P
1ee ;earing E'hibit #:DE: "+3D+37 5;E DE"E3D635 +3 contem/t #"
C#8:5 63D +9(#1+37 163C5+#31) (3#5E: see, supra Huotation from (age 22 of ,<
from CoughlinBs filing in Doc?et .0%&% Document 2012=1%,.2**
1<%/%&
(3#5E: the judiciary in >ashoe County and :eno, particularly those in the 7ardner
family, are really ta?ing a lot of liberties with the concepts of Emeritorious claimsF and whether
a motion Elac?s meritF:
5he >C1#Bs #ffice burglariAed CoughlinBs former home law office rather than
conduct a loc?out, which ma?es the criminal trespass conviction against Coughlin in .1,01
(2.!0<* incident to that very burglary by ;ill, the >C1#, and the :(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 &<12 in 2.!0<, the 9otion to Dismiss Ging
references in his Complaint) +orio v) City of 3ew Kor? et al), ,. 9isc)2D ,<<, !10 3)K)1)2D
1,< (1,/%*)
</

Certainly CoughlinBs 21112 email to >C1# 1upervisor $iA 1tuchell in response to
1tuchellBs 2/12 email to Coughlin, which either the :9C 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 &<12 9otion did appear)))the fa' header for all
pages was e'cised, ma?ing 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)))ma?ing Dudge >) 7ardnerBs &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 &<12 9otion at the bottom center of each page* and Epage &, of !0F (in terms of
the fa' header therein* spea? volumes to rebut Dudge >) 7ardnerBs contention that CoughlinBs
motion Elac?s merit*
Consider the following appearances of CoughlinBs &<12 9otion to Dismiss in the
criminal trespass case in 2.!0< compared to that apparently presented to the 1creening (anel
on !1.12 in GingBs 2& E'hibit presentation: at bates 10 T !% 0&0<12 CoughlinBs 3otice of
6ppearance as Co=Counsel and 9otion to Dismiss in criminal trespass case before :9C
Dudge >illiam 7ardner in 11 C: 2.!0< (.1,01*) (3#5E: the fa' header from CoughlinBs filing
to the :9C 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
Ppage !0 of !0P of the fa'ing by Coughlin of that filing to the :9C (page P&, of !0P is missing
from GingBs production, as GingBs bates !/ is, according the to fa' header atop CoughlinBs
original filing with the :9C, page P&% of !0P) 5his means that the same 2/12 emailed
admission to Coughlin from the >C1# Deputy 9achen who filed fraudulent 6ffidavits of
1ervice (11/11 for the 11111 summary eviction loc?out with ;illBs associate Casey D)
2a?er, EsH) 6nd the &/12 6ffidavit of 1ervice for the 22/12 service ;ill paid for upon
Coughlin at the 22/12 Psimple traffic citationP trial before :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes in 11 5:
2.%00 wherein >C1# Deputy 9achen had :9C 9arshal ;arley smir?ingly enter a
conference room within Courtroom 2 of the :9C where :eno City 6ttorney 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 ;ill was opposing counsel) 9arshal ;arley grew very worried upon Coughlin
immediately cross=e'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 &<12 filing in the :9C (which was the
1<,/%&
2/12 emailed admission from >C1# Deputy 9ac henLs Civil Division 1upervisor $iA
1tuchell wherein she admits that 9achenBs 11/11 6ffidavit of 1ervice is a misrepresentation,
at best, where 1tuchell admits that 9achen merely tape those three #rders to the front door of
CoughlinBs former law office while nobody was home, despite 9achenBs 11/11 6ffidavit of
1ervice indicating that he Ppersonally servedP the 102<11 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 1ferraAAa in :DC :ev2011=
001/0%* is curiously missing from E'hibit & to 33D2 Chairman 1usichBs .1%12 1C: 11/
(etition in .0,/<, indicating a either a conspiracy between the :9C, 33D2, and the 123, or
that someone with the :9C has systematically removed that)
9eanwhile, at bates !< one finds the +nde' to E'hibits to &<12 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 ;illBs #ffice, while at bates !% one sees page !0
of !0 of fa' (so page &, was omitted, where such page consisted of >C1# Civil Division
1upervisor $iA 1tuchellBs admission that Deputy 9achenBs 6ffidavit of 1ervice alleging he
Epersonally servedF eviction order to Coughlin on 11111 was false*)))))))
;owever, bates .%% reveals (age 1 of !0 page fa' from Coughlin to :9C of &<12
fa' header 10:<. am 3otice of 6ppearance as Co=Counsel and 9otion to Dismiss in :9C 11
C: 2.!0< criminal trespass case before Dudge >) 7ardner referred to in GingBs %2&12
Complaint as follows (:#6 1* (and where Ging failed to see? introduction of either of the very
filings of 9otions to Dismiss by Coughlin that he cited in his Complaint, such mut be ta?en as
an admission not only that such contention lac?ed merit, but that CoughlinBs arguments and
contentions within such documents were, in fact meritorious, which only results in GingBs
attempting to characteriAe 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) :espondent was arrested on 3ovember 1&, 2011 by :eno (olice Department
and charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor, for which he was later convicted)
11) 5he circumstances leading to the above=mentioned arrest are as follows: at an
hearing Dustice of the (eace (eter 1ferraAAa ordered that :espondent vacate the home he was
renting effective 3ovember 1, 2011) 6fter the loc?s were changed and the notice was posted on
the front door the owner, Dr) 9erliss, discovered that someone had bro?en into the home and
was barricaded in the basement) 5he :eno (olice tried to coa' whoever was in the basement to
open the door) Dr) 9erliss was forced to ?ic? open the door where the :eno (olice found
:espondent) :espondent had bro?en into the home and living in the basement) :espondent was
arrested for criminal trespass and was subseHuently convicted of that charge)
12) :espondent, representing himself as co=counsel, filed a &.=page motion to
dismiss on 9arch <, 2012) 5he motion was denied by Dudge >illiam 7ardner and was
determined to be without merit) 5he motion, on its face, demonstrates that :espondent lac?s
competence to practice law)F
>hich ma?es particularly troubline the fact that at bates /02 (age 1< of CoughlinBs
&<12 9otion to Dismiss in 2.!0< (proving & < 12 020! 2.!0< 9otion to DismissBs page 1.
e'cised from 11 / 12 123 production between bates /02 and /0& detailing burglary by ;ill,
1.0/%&
>C1#, :(D, 7ayle Gern, EsH), 3evada Courts 1ervices, (ar? 5errace, 3orthwind
6partments, 1uperior 1torage, etc, incident to failure to accord 2! hours to tenant from receipt
of loc?out order per 3:1 !0)2<&*, >hich, contrary to :9C Dudge >) 7ardnerBs judicial
misconduct display in ruling such motion Elac?s meritF, a!"ually e?poses "$e /e, Cons", 0r",
F *e! 21 iola"ions "$a" "$e ;udi!iary in 4as$oe Coun"y and 3eno $ae 6een !oun"enan!ing
in doing mu!$ more "$an "urning a 6lind eye "o "$e s"a"e sponsored 6urglaries 6y "$e
4as$oe Coun"y *$eriff(s Offi!e in failing "o a!!ord "enan"s "$e :2F $ours from9 "$e "enan"(s
:re!eip" of "$e9 Asummary remoalB :order9 prior "o "$e 4C*O !ondu!"ing a lo!'ou"
in!iden" "o a summary ei!"ion7 #$ere page 16 "$ereof A#$i!$7 again7 #as e?!ised 6y ei"$er
"$e 3)C in proiding su!$ "o "$e *&/7 or 6y "$e *&/7 6u" !learly no" 6y Coug$lin in fa?ing
su!$ "o "$e 3)C as "$e fa? $eaders and pagina"ion "$erein "ell "$e "ale and lo!' "$e *&/
and 3)C in a finger poin"ing !on"es" #$ere su!$ e?!ised page 16 is $ig$ly e?!upla"ory7 no"
"o men"ion suppor"ie of a mi"iga"ion analysis,
C8
Candor to the 6ribunal
(-* :(C &)&(a*(1* states P6 lawyer shall not ?nowingly: (m*a?e 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)P
(66* 5he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin violated :(C
&)&(a*(l* when he lied
1:
to Dudge 3ash ;olmes as to whether or not he was surreptitiously and
without permission to record the proceeding) 1upra / #f note, Coughlin did not deny that he
had lied to Dudge 3ash ;olmes) +nstead, his cross e'amination of Dudge 3ash ;olmes focused
on how she had learned of the true facts) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!,
2012, (1&,, $10=(1!.=1!)
(22* 6ttorney :ichard ;ill testified that based on his e'perience in litigating with
Coughlin, Coughlin was not truthful with either counsel or the Court) 1upra 2&)
(CC* 5he 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 self=employed as a PDac? of all 5radesP
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 &1 M &2
(airne## to 9//o#ing Party and Coun#el
(DD* :(C &)!(c* states P6 lawyer shall not: (?*nowingly disobey an obligation
under the rules of a tribunal e'cept for an open refusal ba#ed on an a##ertion that no -alid
obligation e8i#t#)P
(EE* 5he record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin has a clear and
!on"inuing pa""ern of 'no#ingly ignoring and diso6eying ins"ru!"ions from the Court)
(6ttorneyBs conduct in continuing to cross=e'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) 8nited 1tates v 7iovanelli (1,,0, C62 3K* %,/ "2d
122/) :esort to summary disposition of criminal contempt proceeding under :ule !2(a*,
"ederal :ules 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)
1.1/%&
5hus, 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 :ule !2(a*, "ederal :ules of Criminal (rocedure, and that trial court, by its
own actions, did not consider time to be of essenceC trial court should have observed PnormalP
procedureP of notice and hearing, provided by :ule !2(b*, "ederal :ules of Criminal
(rocedure) 8)1) v) 9oschiano, .,< ")2D 2&., 12 "ed) :) Evid) 1erv) 12! (/5h Cir) 1,%2*) 1ee
8nited 1tates v 5urner (1,%/, C611 6la* %12 "2d 1<<2, S 1!)F from page 22 of ,< of the
Doc?et .0%&% Document 2012=1%,.2 Coughlin provided both the (anel and #2C*)
(""* +n his #rder of contem/t, Dudge ;oward found that Coughlin refused to obey
directives of the Dudge and !on"inued lines of 8ues"ioning after being instructed to refrain from
doing so) 1upra !
(77* Dudge 3ash ;olmes, in her #rder of contem/t, found that Coughlin
incessantly argued with the Court, interrupted the Court, repea"edly res"a"ed ma""ers af"er
$aing 6een admonis$ed "o refrain from doing so, disregarded directives to as? properly
phrased Huestions and disobeyed numerous admonitions by the court to s"op repea"ing
8ues"ions, misstating answers, in;e!"ing irrelean" ma"erial
60
, arguing with the witness and
mischaracteriAing testimony) 1upra / tribunal)P
repeatedly conducts himself in a manner that is di#ru/tive of the tribunal while in the
courtroom)
(;;* 5he 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 >ednesday,
3ovember 1!, 2012)
7m/artiality and $ecorum o% the 6ribunalW
(++* :(C &)<(d* states P6 lawyer shall not engage in !ondu!" intended to disrup" a
tri!unal)
(DD* 5he di#ru/tion mu#t ha-e o!!urred in "$e !our"room. 9ne cannot disrup" a
tribunal 2ith conduct out#ide o% the courtroom) 7n re !ichael *tuh%%, 10% 3ev) .2,, %&/
()2d %<& (1,,2*,
(GG* 5he record overwhelmingly, clearly and convincingly establishes that
Coughlin repeatedly conducts himself in a manner that is disrup"ie of the tribunal #$ile in
"$e !our"room)
($$* 5he various orders of !on"emp" (3#5E: there is a great deal of reliance upon
alleged conduct in a E#as$ roomF in ";E! and ";E<, or "$roug$ a fa? ma!$ine, apparently
while the court was not even open for business, all not Ein a courtroom* or imposing san!"ions
issued by Dudges =enne"$ -ardner, +inda -ardner, Dorothy 3ash ;olmes and (atric?
"lanagan each describe a #imilar pa""ern of !ondu!" and beha-ior that i# in"en"ionally
disrup"ie o% the tribunal) (3#5E: 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 4' 7' 10' 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 di#ru/tive that Dudge ;oward
found Coughlin in dire!" contem/t of court and sentenced him to jail that same day to be
released on December &, 2011 at %:00 (9) "udge )o2ard #/eci%ically %ound Coughlin<#
1.2/%&
conduct to be di#orderly and 2a# ei"$er contem/tuou# or beha-ior in#olent to2ard the
Eudge in that Coughlin refused:
P))) to obey directives of the Dudge, !on"inuing lines of in8uiry
61
after
being advised by the Court to refrain from doing soC demeaning the Court
with statements such as P>#>P in response to court rulingsC laughing
during testimony and further Huestioning the court and its authority)P
1ee ;earing E'hibit 11 #:DE: "#: 18996:K (83+1;9E35 #"
contem/t C#99+55ED +3 5;E +99ED+65E @+E> 63D (:E1E3CE #" 5;E
C#8:5, 3ovember &0, 2011)
(3#5E: ;owardBs #rder for 1ummary (unishment (2hich ha# ne-er included a
Certi%icate o% *er-ice attached to it, in any iteration thereof* not in 33D2 2oard Chair
1usichBs use of it as E'hibit . to his <&112 retreated of ;illBs associate 2a?er and GingBs
machinations in the 1C: 11/ .0,/< (etition, not in GingBs attaching one version of it (with
a different EcertificationF by :9C 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 ;olmesB &1212 #rder (li?e the version thereof that became
";E<* and that attachments to it, and not in ";E11, the same 11&011 #(1C by :9C
Dudge ;oward))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 :C6 :oberts was not even present for the additional three
minutes on the record occurring at %:&0 p)m), when Dudge ;oward had Coughlin brought
bac? into the court room in handcuffs, such was rendered in absentia and the deadline to
appeal such therefore (and ;oward 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 :9C or :C6 finally files a 3otice of
Entry of #rder, etc) (the use of the term ErulingF by Dudge Elliott in ";E12 now ma?es
more sense* failed to chec? the bo' in that form order that Ging needed to be chec?ed to
have any chance of the offensive collateral estoppel he is see?ing 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 :9C failed
to ever serve Coughlin a notice of Entry of #rder for that #1(#C, made in absentia of
either or both Coughlin and :C6 (amela :oberts, EsH) (whom everybody can than? for
turning our legal community into as big a roc? fight in the street as she could**)
(see, supra Huotation from (age 22 of ,< from CoughlinBs filing in Doc?et .0%&%
Document 2012=1%,.2*
5he 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 :9CBs
Chief 9arshal Dustin :oper of 121!11)
.2
/) Dudge 3ash ;olmes ordered Coughlin into custody on "ebruary 2/,
2012 and to be incarcerated at the >ashoe County :egional Detention "acility for the term
of five (<* days) 0l"erna"iely Coughlin could pay a fine of O<00) 5he CourtBs sentence was
6ased on i"s de"ailed findings regarding Coug$lin(s !ondu!" in $is o#n defense)
1.&/%&
P5he court finds that defendantBs !on"emp"uous !ondu!" consisted of his
rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic, deceitful,
di#ru/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
di#ru/t the trial process) 5he court finds that the following occurred, and !ons"i"u"e
!on"emp": 1* defendantBs mimeli'e, !lo#nis$ an"i!s of ma?ing faces at the courtC
sagging down into his seat and hanging his headC loo?ing behind himself and inside
his coat as if searching for a better way to as? a HuestionC rolling his eyesC and
mimic?ing others wordsC 2* defendantBs incessant arguing with the court, tal?ing over
the court, and interrupting the courtC &* defendan"(s repea"edly res"a"ing ma""ers
af"er 6eing "old 6y "$e !our" "o Gmoe onG or Gas' "$e ne?" 8ues"ionCP !*
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 P2oulevard 1topCP <* defendantBs repeatedly
trying to insert P3i!$ard %illP 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 !on"inually posing improper 8ues"ions af"er 6eing dire!"ed 6y "$e !our" "o
properly p$rase $is 8ues"ions /* defendantBs continually accusing the court of
denying $im "$e rig$" or a6ili"y "o as' 8ues"ions and telling the court to Pgive me a
list of Huestions you want me to as?CP %* defendantBs suggesting that the court Ptell
me what would ma?e you happyCP ,* defendantBs lying "o "$e !our" in response to
direct Huestions posed by the court with regard to his recording the proceedingsC and
10* defendantBs failing and refusing "o properly e?amine "$e #i"ness7 despi"e
numerous admoni"ions 6y "$e !our" "o s"op repea"ing 8ues"ions7 miss"a"ing
ans#ers7 in;e!"ing irrelean" ma"erial7 arguing #i"$ "$e #i"ness and
mis!$ara!"eriKing "$e "es"imony)P
1ee ;earing E'hibit ! #:DE: "+3D+37 5;E DE"E3D635 +3 contem/t
#" C#8:5 63D +9(#1+37 163C5+#31) (3#5E: Ging failed to attach ";E ! to his
Complaint)*
10) Dudge 3ash ;olmes 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:
P)))purported to be yet another motion in this case entitled P9otion to
:eturn Cell (honesC 9otion to 1et 6side 1ummary contem/t #rderC and notice
of 6ppeal of 1ummary contem/t #rder)P >ith scant discussion of, or relevance
;oward in a Department ! case and again contains more than 200 pages of string
legal citationsC lyrics to roc?s (sic* songsC 9r) CoughlinBs personal family historyC
discussion of an e-iction case and another contem/t caseC disjointed legal
citations and other nonsensical matters that have no apparent relevance to his
traffic citation case) (3#5E: GingBs Complaint faile to notice plead any of the
above, much less incorporate it by reference or even attach it as an e'hibit: P1!) +n
1.!/%&
the case of City of :eno vs) -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, Case 3o) 11 5: 2.%00 21,
a trial was held on a traffic citation issued to :espondent) 5he matter was called at
appro'imately &:00 p)m) and concluded without a verdict at about !:&0 p)m) after
the court held :espondent in !riminal !on"emp" of court for hi# beha-ior and
activities !ommi""ed in "$e dire!" presen!e of "$e !ourt during trial)P
21) #n behalf of his client Dr) 9erliss, 9r) ;ill sought and obtained an
order in favor of Dr) 9erliss and against Coughlin awarding Dr) 9erliss attorneyBs fees in
the amount of O!2,0.<)<0) >ashoe District Court Dudge (atric? "lanagan entered the
order on Dune 2<, 2012) 1ee 5ranscript of (roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember 1!,
2012, ( !/, $ &=/) =1ee ;earing E'hibit 2, ( &, $ 10=11) 5he motion see?ing attorneyBs
fees was based on CoughlinBs conduct in the defense of the e-iction matter, which
conduct was characteriAed as frivolous and ve'atious and presumably so found by Dudge
"lanagan) 1ee ;earing E'hibit ( 2, $ %=1&C ( &, $ !=11)
2<) Judge -ardner(s order in "$e Jos$i ma""er indicated that
Coughlin $ad !ondu!"ed no dis!oery in the ca#e and %ailed to /re#ent any
do!umen"ary e-idence at the trial o% the matter on behal% o% hi# client !r#. "o#hi) 1ee
;earing E'hibit ( 12, $ ! =.)
6fter commenting on various negative aspects of CoughlinBs representation of his
client 9rs) Doshi, (1ee ;earing E'hibit ( 12, $ , =( 1&, $ !0* Judge -ardner specifically held:
P5he most troubling aspect of this case was 9r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic and
disrespectful presen"a"ion at trialC 9r) CoughlinBs inability to understand a balance sheetC
$is failure "o !ondu!" dis!oery (3#5E: within the "indings of "act section of ";E&
(which is not even admissible anyways, and where ";E& was vacated and or superseded
by the "inal Decree of Divorce of .1,0,) 6dditionally, CoughlinBs 102%0, (etition
for >rit of 9andamus in <!%!!, which the (anel and 123 were provided, destroyed all
of these positions)
.&
* Dudge $) 7ardner merely notes that 1pringgate made such allegation
that Coughlin failed to conduct discovery) 6nd 1pringgateBs response to CoughlinsB
Huery as to what, if any discovery 1pringgate conduct (never mind whether conducting
discovery would have be useful for any purpose in such setting, versus, say, doing the
legal research necessary to uncover the legal positions and citation in support thereof that
Coughlin did vis a vis the impermissibility of setting of a duty with a debt* is laughable
where 1pringgate responded E+ did my discovery in the 1.)1F where Coughlin could
clearly say the e'act same thing)))further, 1pringgate appears to be referring to his
propounding materials to Coughlin at that time rather than see?ing to discover some
materials or documentationC regardless, there are mechanisms to address any discovery
related complaints 1pringgate may have had, and they do not included moving for
sanctions under 3:1 /)0%< in his closing argument divorce case where the procedural
reHuirements of 3:C( 11 were not adhered to, which is a jurisdictional bar to issuing
any attorney fee award pursuant to 3:1 /)0%<, particularly should such be characteriAed
as a EsanctionF*C and his lac? of ?nowledge with regard to the rules of evidence and trial
procedure) 6ll 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) P
1.</%&
*ee )earing @8hibit &' P 1&' 4 5 -10:
(P6t trial) 9r) 1pringgate stated that 9r) Coughlin had conducted no
discovery in this case) +n addition, 9r) Coughlin failed to present one
documentary piece of evidence at triall on behall of 9a) DoshiBs claims) 9r)
Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court throughout trial and made sarcastic,
derogatory remar?s to the Court, 9r) 1pringgote, and 9r) Doshi throughout trial)
5he Court notes that there were well overr !0 objections during four (!* hours of
trial) 9r) 1prlnggateBs objections were well=founded and continuously sustained
e'cept in one instanceP*)
(3#5E: Ging failed to attach 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial
(";E&* 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#5E: just as Coughlin was Enot a partyF for purposes of appealing
any part of the #rder 6fter 5rial (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, 9s) 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 ";E& (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 >$1Bs Elcano to provide foundations for or
authenticate that produced by Ging in ";E& 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 :9C
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
:9C* for both the 22/12 and &1212 trail dates resulting in, respectively, ";E!,
and ";E<*)
Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw, and
Decree ofvorce ("#"C#$D#D* in D@0%=011.% of .1,0, held: Di
2DDC Dudge 7ardnerBs .1,0, final Decree of Divorce e'cised only from
1pringgateBs <210, (roposed Decree the attorneyBs fees award detailed in paragraph si' of
*pringga"e(s Droposed De!ree, (the language Dudge $) 7ardner e'cised therefrom read: E.)
?669,@F<* (@@*: 5he Court has the discretion to award attorneyBs fees in a divorce
action, pursuant to 3:1 12<)1<0(&*, and $ove v) $ove, 11! 3ev) </2, ,<, ()2d <2& (1,,%*)
5here is further authority for fees pursuant to NRS -<,F-F(.#(B# , and 3:1 /)0%<) &ased on "$e
a6oe and foregoing7 former !ounsel for "$e Defendan" is ordered "o pay a""orney(s fees in
"$e amoun" of E>3F,00 #i"$in "$ir"y A30B days of "$is Order and De!ree)F*)
+nstead, Dudge $) 7ardnerBs .1,0, final Decree of Divorce operated to amend and
or supersede her !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial (the 111!12 formal disciplinary hearings 3712=
0!&<, ";E&* to not contain vacate any such attorney fee award (and all the language the 123
1../%&
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 <210, (roposed Decree
and ";E&Bs own dictate that 1pringgate (repare such a "inal Decree consistent with ";E&)))*)
.!
(99* 5he transcript of the proceedings in "$is ma""er reveal a continuation of a
similar pattern of conduct by Coughlin despite his having been san!"ioned "#i!e with an
adverse award of attorneyBs fees and twice by incarceration) 1ee generally of >ednesday,
3ovember 1!, 2012) (3#5E: no, not good enough Echeverria to go P1ee generallyP, see,
getting specific) "urther, the ";E 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 Pprevailing partyP attorney fees statute that only
applies to plenary judgments anyways (3:1 .,)0<0*)
elation# 2ith 9//o#ing Coun#el
(33* :(C &)<6 states P>hen a lawyer ?nows or reasonably should ?now the
identity of a lawyer representing an opposing party, he or #he #hould not ta5e ad-antage o%
the la2yer by cau#ing any defaul" or di#mi##al to be entered 2ithout %ir#t inAuiring about
the o//o#ing la2yer<# intention to /roceed)P (3#5E: 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 5a?e Default #as no"
sered on Coug$lin*
(##* 6lthough the 1tate 2ar pled a violation of :(C &)<6 in its Complaint, no
eiden!e #as presen"ed that Coughlin ever violated the rule) (3#5E: great, now is 2DDC Dudge
$) 7ardner 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 1C: 10!, 10<, and
:(C &)%J* 6ccordingly, 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)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2<&:10 to 2<&:11* E9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1o #e $ae
no" !ondu!"ed "$is $earing as a defaul" $earing, in deference to you)F ((lease apply this to
every such assertion hereafter*)
6ruth%ulne## in *tatement# to 9ther#
(((* :(C !)1 (a* states P+n the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not
?nowingly: (a* (m*a?e a false statement of material fact or law to a third person)P
(UU* 6lthough the evidence established that Coughlin ?nowingly made false
statements to Court and Counsel (1ee ff (66*, (22* and (CC* no evidence was presented that
Coughlin ?nowingly made false statements of material fact or law to a third person)
6ccordingly, 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 bac? for, allegedly, providing sufficient due process to Coughlinfulfilling 1C: 10<)))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))))*)
e#/ect %or the ight# o% 6hird Per#on#
(::* :(C !)!(a* states BP+n representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that
1.//%&
have no substantial purpose other than to em6arrass7 delay7 or 6urden a "$ird person))) P
(uh)))li?e ;illBs allegations of finding a Pcrac? pipe and a bag of weedP or a Pvial of somethingP
and Pa large Huantity of pillsPJ 6ctually, even that would not fit sHuarely under the :(C !)!(a*
heading becuase Coughlin was a EpartyF therein, not a Ethird personF)))and that same rationale
applies to the landlord 9erliss)))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 :(C !)!(a*, and
such would certainly not apply to the :eno (olice Department #fficer Chris Carter, Dr) and
1argent 9arcia $opeA whom assisted ;ill and landlord 9erliss in burglariAing 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 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a*) :egardless, there was never any valid loc?out done by the
>C1#Bs #ffice where its only attempt to do so was done without complying with the
reHuirement that the >C1# ?nows full well attaches to each and every summary eviction in
3evada (that, at the very least, the sheriff posts the summary eviction loc?out order to the
tenantBs door and allows 2! judicial hours to pass prior to conducting such loc?out* V, no matter
which county such occurs in, not matter how codependent and sic? a relationship the local
judiciary has with law enforcement, no matter how little regard the Dudges of :eno and >ashoe
County have for the statutes the legislature passes in reducing the will of the people of 3evada
to blac? letter law*)
(11* 5he record establishes !learly and !onin!ingly that in the 9erliss e-iction
action, Coughlin conducted himself in a manner that was a6usie7 e?a"ious and for purposes
of delay) 5he matter was a simple ei!"ion action (apparently all evictions are EsimpleF in
3evada, huhJ* that apparently lasted through several proceedings at the 9unicipal 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 tre#/a##) 1upra 1, and 20)
CoughlinBs conduct in the proceedings was so egregious that Dudge "lanagan
ordered Coug$lin "o pay (3#5E: 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 :(CBs the 123 and (anel ?eep trotting out
with such EorderF in an attempt to s?ip 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* (;ill, Dudge 3ash ;olmes, Elcano**
Dr) 9erliss O!2,0.<)<0, an amount that is still unpaid) 1upra 21
(55* 5he record also establishes that Coughlin habitually /rolong# /roceeding#
unnece##arilyL %ile# lengthy' irrele-ant' non#en#ical /leading# re8uiring !our"7 s"aff and
!ounsel to #/end unnece##ary e%%ort in e-aluating and1or re#/onding to the /leading#)
1upra !, /, %, ,, 10, 11, 1., 21, 2&, 2<, 2/, &, and !0 (3#5E: neither EcourtF, EstaffF, nor
EcounselF are Ethird partiesF to which and analysis of :(C !)!(a* flows) >hose competency is
being Huestioned, againJ
$i#ci/linary !atter#
(88* :(C %)1(b* provides, in pertinent part, P ))) a lawyer ))) in connection with a
disciplinary shall not: (b* ))) 5no2ingly %ail to re#/ond to a la2%ul demand %or in%ormation
1.%/%&
%rom an admi##ion# or di#ci/linary authority)))F
(@@* 5he record !learly and !onin!ingly es"a6lis$es "$a" Coug$lin 'no#ingly
failed "o respond "o "$e *"a"e &ar(s re8ues" for informa"ion in "$e dis!iplinary pro!eeding and
failed "o "imely file a re8uired erified responsie ans#er or pleading to the Com/laint)
(>>* (ir#t' Coughlin a#5ed %or an e8ten#ion o% time to re#/ond to the letter o%
(ebruary 14' 2012 regarding the ichard )ill Com/laint then %ailed to re#/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 6ssistant
2ar Counsel Ging to Coughlin in #$i!$ &ar Counsel for#arded "o Coug$lin
!orresponden!e re!eied from 3i!$ard -, %ill) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday,
3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1.&, $ 1& =( 1.!, $ 2&) 1ee ;earing E'hibit .) CoughlinBs
response, dated 9arch ,, 2012, as?ed for additional time in which to respond) 1ee
;earing E'hibit /) /o eiden!e #as presen"ed that Coughlin su6s"an"iely re#/onded
to +ar Coun#el<# letter o% (ebruary 14' 2012 /rior to the %iling o% the Com/laint in
thi# matter. Coughlin failed "o dire!"ly respond "o &ar Counsel(s 8ues"ions in8uiring
if Coug$lin eer su6se8uen"ly responded to +ar Coun#el<# letter o% (ebruary 14'
2012) 1ee >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1.,, $ 1& =( 1/2, $ 1.)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1.&:1& to 1.!:2&* P2K 9:) :ing0 U 9r)
Coughlin, +Bm handing you whatBs been identified as E'hibit 3o) .) >ould you please tell
me if you received that letter from meJ 6 +s this the letter in its entiretyJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5he Huestion is: Did you receive that from 9r) GingJ 5;E
>+53E11: 5his letter, he saidJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + donBt ?now what it is) 6ll +
?now is itBs E'hibit ., and the Huestion is, did you receive E'hibit . from 9r) GingJ
5;E >+53E11: 3o, that wasnBt the Huestion) ;e said did you receive this letter) 6nd +
need to ?now == 2K 9:) :ing0 U 5he ne't Huestion may be about attachments) 2ut the
Huestion is: Did you get this letterJ 6 + need to ?now what is entailed in the term Pa
letter)P U 5his document that + handed you) Did you receive this document either alone
or as part of a pac?ageJ Did you receive this document 2ates stamped 02,%&J 6
>ithout the 2ates stampJ U + believe it did not have the 2ates stamp when it was sent
to you) 6 Kes) + thin? so) +Bm not sure) + thin? + received something longer) 9aybe
thatBs the attachments youBre referring to) U 1o is that a yesJ 6 6ctually, + 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 == there was some issues with it) 1o +
thin? ultimately + did receive this, 9r) Ging) 2ut maybe this isnBt going to your Huestion)
Kou didnBt as? me when) 1o yeah, + thin? + received this one)P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1.,:1& to 1/2:1.* EU !y Aue#tion i#0 $id
you #end a #ub#eAuent letter or e8/lanation to the *tate +arJ +n other words,
youBre as?ing for additional time) Did you ever send == 6 >hat you do is evil, (at)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin) 5;E >+53E11: >hat you do is evil) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) 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) 6nd + would as? you to, in your best interests,
1.,/%&
to attempt to resist yourself, allow the Huestion to be completed, and then ma?e
whatever objection you wish) 5he Huestion directly to you, and if itBs not direct
enough, let me as? it) $id you e-er #/eci%ically re#/ond to the letter o% (ebruary
14th' 2012' @8hibit 6D 6)@ 376,@**0 7 re#/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#5E: the transcript contains an error there in that Couglin
actually said: E+ ?now + provided the 2ar thousands of pages of stuff and)))videos,
audios transcripts, etc)F) 5his is confirmed by GingBs own admission in the transcript
and only further underscores the e'tent to which Echeverria conducted the hearing
li?e a total fraudster wor?ing overtime to get over his agenda*) Video#. ?udio) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5he Huestion is: #n "ebruary 1!th you were sent substantial,
apparen"ly, correspondence from :ichard ;ill alleging professional misconduct) Kou
were as?ed to ma?e a spe!ifi! response within ten days) +t appears that you did not do
so, unless you have some evidence to the contrary == 5;E >+53E11: + didnBt get this
letter) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm sorry) + continue to tal? while youBre trying to
interrupt) 9y Huestion is: Did you ever respond specifically, /rior to the in#titution
o% the com/laint, to 9r) ;illBs comments and reporting to the 1tate 2arJ Did you
ever address those issues raised by 9r) ;ill prior to the filing of the complaintJ 5;E
>+53E11: )ay6e i" #ould $elp if 5 $ad "$e )r, %ill a""a!$men", 5 6eliee 5 did)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hen did you do thatJ 5;E >+53E11: 2$ere(s a mul"i"ude
of ins"an!es #$ere 5 #ro"e or responded or !ommuni!a"ed #i"$ )r, =ing, (E'hibit %
mar?ed)* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hen was the first timeJ 5;E >+53E11: >ell,
probably this time in as?ing for more time, because + didnBt get this letter very soon
after it was sent) + rented a room off Craigslist) 6nd there was some ill will that built
up, the people + rented it from) 6nd + didnBt get this letter == basically + thin? + 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) + thin?, obviously, it had already
passed by this point) 1o right when + got that letter == and + thin? if + had been noticed
on this, + would have given you the envelope that shows that there was some == li?e
the post office wouldnBt let me == + forget e'actly what happened) 2ut + thin? + gave
(at this stuff == 9:) :ing0 >ith the chairBs permission, +Bll move on) 5;E
>+53E11: == legitimate reasons why + didnBt get this that evince a lac? of culpability
on my part) 2ut thatBs consistent with what (at does) ;e puts on stuff he ?nows is
baseless) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'cuse me, 9r) Ging) 9r) Coughlin, + donBt believe
you answered the Huestion) +t was a direct Huestion) >hen did you first respond
substantively to 9r) ;illBs complaintsJ + have not heard an answer) 5he response ==
5;E >+53E11: Keah) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'cuse me) Kour response is
argumentative) 9r) Ging, go ahead with your ne't Huestion) 9:) :ing0 5han? you)
5;E >+53E11: + can answer it) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, thereBs not a
Huestion pending) 5;E >+53E11: 2ut it sounded li?e you said + didnBt answer the
last Huestion) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hat was my observation)F
(44* 1econd, Coughlin failed "o respond "o a su6se8uen" le""er from the 1tate 2ar
regarding "$e Complain" filed #i"$ "$e &ar 6y Judge /as$ %olmes) 1upra &0)
1/0/%&
B,96@0 funny how there is no date mentioned for such mysterious PsubseHuent
letter from the 1tate 2arP, 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 see?ing to admit any purported written grievance from ;ill (the lac? of which left
GingBs 21!12 2 page one page letter to Couglin, ";E., loo?ing awfully lonely)))one thing is
clear, there is no way the 2ar proved Coughlin Pfailed to respondP or to PcooperateP*
(P&0) Coughlin also failed to directly (3#5E: apparently, to (anel Chair Echeverria,
Coughlin attempts to reHuire Ging to prove that which he would rather not get into (ie, all the
stic?y wic?ets for Ging associated with his choice to avoid see?ing 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 ma?e something out of the mess (at made for the 2ar instead* respond to Huestioning
regarding whether or not he had su6s"an"iely 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 ;olmes and dated 9arch 1!, 2012) 1ee 5ranscript
of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( 1/!, $ 1& =( 1%0, $ !)
(P;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1/!:12 to 1/,:.* 2K 9:) G+37: U Do you
recogniAe that letter thatBs been identified as E'hibit % that purports to be written to 9r) David
Clar?, #ffice of 2ar Counsel, from Dudge Dorothy 3ash ;olmesJ 6 +t is the one that has a
received 9arch 1!th date on itJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +tBs the one thatBs mar?ed E'hibit %) 2K
9:) G+37: U 5he one + just handed you) Did you see that letterJ 6 + donBt see it mar?ed
E'hibit %) +tBs not mar?ed) U +tBs mar?ed up here, 9r) Coughlin) 6 5hatBs why + was as?ing
for clarification) 9arch 1!th) U 5he Huestion is: Do you recogniAe that letterJ 6 Kes, sir) U
6nd == 6 5his 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 3:1
1/%)!0< which states you stay proceedings when you feel a defendant has a competency issue)
Kou donBt plunge right ahead) 5hat letter, yeah, + recogniAe it) 9:) G+37: +Bm going to as?
that E'hibit 3o) % be admitted) 5his is the letter that Dudge ;olmes sent to the #ffice of 2ar
Counsel that she testified about during her testimony) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6ny objection,
9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + donBt thin? so) >ell, relevancy) 6nd + donBt believe this is
pled in the complaint) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #verruled) (E'hibit % admitted)*
2K 9:) G+37: U 9r) Coughlin, you received that because 2ar counsel forwarded
it to youC is that correctJ 6 + donBt remember how + received this) + imagine it would == + donBt
thin? a stranger sent it to me) + donBt ?now) U Did you respond to the allegations to 2ar
counsel, the allegations made in the letter by Dudge ;olmes, and the accompanying documentsC
did you respond to that investigationJ 6 6ctually, +Bm trying to remember == did + get this
letter attached to li?e an 1C: 11/ petitionJ Can you help me outJ Did + get it soon after == +
thin? you were ?ind of coy about this, actually, (at) :ightJ Kou ?ind of == you were ?ind of
coy about having it) Kou didnBt just get this letter, and then + donBt thin? you mailed it to me on
9arch 1!th) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, the Huestion is did you reply to itJ 5;E
>+53E11: + donBt ?now == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm sorry) 5he Huestion is: >as it forwarded
to youJ 5;E >+53E11: 5hatBs what + was e'pounding upon) +Bm trying to remember when
did + first get this letter) 2ecause this is li?e a gut punch if youBve devoted your life to becoming
1/1/%&
an attorney) 6nd, in fact, + didnBt get her 9arch 2%th letter == + mean her 9arch 2%th order that
was entered) + didnBt even get that until + saw it attached to an 1C: 11/ disability petition in
case number .0,/<) + guess + ?ind of figured she just wasnBt going to ma?e an order, you ?now)
6nd she mailed this one, the one for "ebruary 2%th, she mailed it to the old :iver :oc? 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) 6nd then + have == if + had been noticed on this == +
have a lot of these letters) + meticulously ?ept the envelopes) + ?ept the change of addresses) +
thin? + might have sent (at these with the yellow == + had a lot of the yellow stic?ers on my
letters, you ?now, where they were li?e == and the court, the court had these too) 5he muni
court) 6nd + had a big ordeal with the post office incident to they didnBt want to give me a ?ey
to the mailbo') 5his eviction, the evil wor? that you sanctioned, (at, that + mentioned earlier, it
has a fallout necessarily) +n my opinion ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, e'cuse me) Do you remember the HuestionJ
5;E >+53E11: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat was the HuestionJ 5;E >+53E11: Did +
receive this) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6nd the answerJ 5;E >+53E11: +Bm wor?ing my way
through it mentally as to how + got this) 9:) G+37: +f +Bm not mista?en, weBre past that) Kou
said you did receive it) ;e doesnBt recall how) 6nd my follow=up Huestion was: Did you
respond to the allegations by Dudge ;olmes that are contained in that letter, and by the
accompanying documentsJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, if you could focus on
answering that Huestion, that would be helpful to the panel) 5;E >+53E11: #ne, this letter is
not to me) + would li?e to read it) 6gain, thatBs where the notice part of due process is ?ey, you
?now) +f + was noticed on the idea that + didnBt respond to this == and +Bll enter my objection) +
would li?e to see where in the complaint it says 9r) Coughlin failed to respond or cooperate
with 2ar counsel) +t might) +Bd just li?e to be sure) >here does it say where == 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 ?now when + got this today, and respond intelligently in that regard) (E'hibit ,
mar?ed)*P 1ee ;earing E'hibit %)P*
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 7ardner 3712=
0!&< grievance where such specifically mentions only the grievances by ;ill and ;olmes 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:
E:E: 9r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12 letter "rom: (atric? Ging
((atric?GNnvbar)#rg* 1ent: 5hu !1,12 2:2% (9 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com
(AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com* 6pril 1,, 2012 -ach Coughlin
Dear 9r) Coughlin, 6 screening panel of the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary (anel
met on 5uesday 6pril 10, 2011 to address the grievances filed against you) 5he panel directed
me to proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing) 6s such, + will be preparing a formal
Complaint) + understand from the e=mail below, that you do not believe you should have been
found guilty of the theft at >al=9art and that you should not have been found in contempt of
1/2/%&
Court) ;owever, it must concern you that you were found in contempt of Court by more than
one Dudge in two different trials) Kou wanted to ?now how + learned of or obtained a copy of
Dudge 7ardnerLs #rder after trial that was filed in 200,) +t was sent to me by the cler? 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) Kou may be well served to e'plain what remedial measures you are ta?ing
to ma?e sure you do not repeat the conduct complained about) + cannot give you legal advice)
;owever + can suggest you cooperate with 2ar counselLs investigation and that you respond
specifically to the allegations contained in Dudge ;olmes and :ichard ;illLs grievance letters to
the office of 2ar Counsel) (atric? GingF
6ttorney violated professional conduct rule prohibiting a lawyer from ?nowingly
failing to respond "o a demand for informa"ion 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) :ules of (rof)Conduct, :ule %)1(b*C 7overnment of the 2ar
:ule @(!*(7*) Dayton 2ar 6ssn) v) >ilson, 2010=#hio=!,&/, ,&< 3)E)2d %!1 (#hio 2010*)
6ttorney violated 7overnment 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) 7overnment of the
2ar :ule @(!*(7*) Disciplinary Counsel v) #hlin, 2010=#hio=&%2., ,&! 3)E)2d &2& (#hio
2010*)
(3#5E: GingBs Complaint notice=pleads the following in relation to :(C %)1 (note,
the 121!12 "#"C#$ gets all specific in citing to :(C %)1(b*, yet GingBs Complaint just
generically referenced P:(C %)1P, and sections (a* and (b* thereof are Huite differnet, yeiled a
deficiency in GingBs notice=pleading prejudicing Coughlin impermissibly: P1) 9ultiple
grievances were received by the #ffice of 2ar Counsel between the period of Danuary 1! and
9arch 1<, 2012, concerning :espondent) Due to the serious allegations of misconduct,
grievance files were opened and an investigation was initiated by 6ssistant 2ar Counsel (atric?
Ging) 2) :espondent was advised of the grievances via 8)1) mail, e=mail and by a brief
meeting with 9r) Ging at the 1tate 2ar #ffice in :eno) :espondent did not cooperate with the
investigation and rather than respond to the grievances as reHuested, :espondent sent non=
responsive and disparaging e=mails) )))/) +n light of the forgoing :espondent violated ))) :(C
%)1 (Disciplinary 9atters*CP
(KK* 5hird, Coughlin ignored 1C: 10<(2* when he failed to timely file a erified
response or ans#er to the Complaint, despi"e seeral #arnings "o do so) 1upra &!, &<, &., &/,
&%)
Coughlin compounded this violation when he attempted, during the course of the
hearing in this matter, to "ransform a pleading preiously filed in 3eno )uni!ipal Cour"
(3#5E: actually, the file stamp that is crossed out on the ";E1! referenced here is that from
the 1tate 2ar of 3evadaBs Cler? of Court $aura (eters, which Coughlin personally eye=
1/&/%&
witnessed $aura (eters affi' thereto at !:!< pm on 10&112, which is particularly troubling
considering such document is missing completely from the 21&1& :#6 in .2&&/ (and the
Echange a single blade of grassF Enew thingF represented in ";E1! differs from that filed on
10&112 in that (amongst some other slight differences, such as E3ew @erified 6nswerF being
interlineated on ";E1!, 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 P3ew @erified
:esponse (sic* (re=;earing 9otion to Dismiss1ummary Dudgment, 9emorandum of $aw 6y
!rossing ou" "$e original !ap"ion and $and#ri"ing "$e Gne#G !ap"ion) 1upra &%)
Coughlin also attempted, during the hearing, "o "ransform a pleading $e $ad filed
"$e day 6efore "$e $earing en"i"led G1mergen!y 1? Dar"e )o"ion "o Dismiss ,,, G 6y
$and#ri"ing "$e #ords GDe!lara"ion and Verified 3esponse ,,, G onto the caption of the
pleading) 1upra &%)
6nswer not mandatory 8nder a state supreme court rule governing pleadings in a
formal hearing in investigation of an attorney, an answer to an order to show cause in a
disciplinary hearing is only permissive and not mandatory, and a failure to answer is not in
itself grounds for a disciplinary action) 6riA)]+n re Gastensmith, 101 6riA) 2,1, !1, ()2D /<
(1,..*)
6ttorneyBs letter in response to charges of misconduct ade%uately complied with 2ar
:ule reHuiring attorneys under investigation to respond to 2ar CounselBs written inHuiriesC letter
stated that 6uditor=9asterBs report contained no allegation of misconduct, s"a"ed "$a"
allega"ions #ere re!'less7 e?plained a""orney(s role in 8ues"ioned "ransa!"ion7 and re8ues"ed
a spe!ifi!a"ion of !$arges7 if any fur"$er response #as ne!essary) +n re 6rtis, %%& 6)2d %<
(D)C) 200<*)
6ttorney in disciplinary proceedings was not entitled to have deemed=admitted 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):ules, :ule 1,,
$awyer Disciplinary Enforcement :ule, S %(C*, % $16T:)1) +n re 2oyer, 2. 1o) &d 1&, ($a)
2010*)))))
;owever, Coughlin did update his address with the 123 upon his move in a timely
manner in compliance with 1C: /,, further , Coughlin wrote the 123 and wrote and called
:eno Carson 9essenger 1ervice responding to a message left (that failed to indicate what was
sought*, offering to meet :C91 but received no response)
(--* 5he conduct described herein not only demons"ra"es a la!' of !oopera"ion
with the 1tate 2ar, but a lac5 of competency as well,
(3#5E: noticeably the (anel is bac?ing off its lame attempt to characteriAe its views
on ";E1! and ";E1< as evidence of some fraud on CoughlinBs part or an attempt to EalterF a
document in a fraudulent sense (which leaves such to serve only to demonstrate (anel Chair
EcheverriaBs patent bias and the e'tent to which the rest of the panel was malevolent beta male
dead weight along for the ride see?ing to get their stepped on firms a little shine in the process,
1/!/%&
right 9ichael G) Dohnson
.<
, EsH) (whom spent the majority of the hearing diddling with his
i(hone and :ollston, ;enderson, Crabb M Dohnson, $td)C http:www)la?etahoelaw)com *)
(3#5E: 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 ";E& and
3712=0!&<, the grievance EreceivedF from 2DDC Dudge $inda 7ardner, according to GingBs
!212 email to Coughlin, where such !1,12 email form Ging to Coughlin reads: E)o2e-er 7
can #ugge#t you coo/erate 2ith +ar coun#elG# in-e#tigation and that you respond
spe!ifi!ally "o "$e allega"ions !on"ained in Judge %olmes and 3i!$ard %illOs griean!e
le""ers to the o%%ice o% +ar Coun#el)F ;owever, nothing in Dudge ;olmesB Egrievance letterF
(";E%* references the ";E& #rder (and the use of the term E#rderF in ";E&Bs E#rder 6fter
5rialF 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 1C:
111(<*Bs Ea conviction is conclusive proof of guiltF to even orders in civil proceedings wherein
Couglhin was not even a party# by 2DDC Dudge 7ardner 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& :#6* 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 <&112 1C: 11/ (etitionBs statement in .0,/<, the 1creening (anel met
regarding Coughlin on !1.12 (and the 2& E'hibit collection or presentation inde'ed at bates
01,.< of the &,0,! page production to Coughlin by the 123 contains numerous 6ffidavits
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*:
E:E: 9r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12 letter "rom: (atric? Ging
((atric?GNnvbar)#rg* 1ent: 5hu !1,12 2:2% (9 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com
(AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com* 6pril 1,, 2012 -ach Coughlin
Dear 9r) Coughlin, 6 s!reening panel of "$e /or"$ern /eada Dis!iplinary
Danel me" on 2uesday 0pril 107 2011 to address the grievances filed against you) 'he
panel directed me to proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing) 6s such, + will be
preparing a formal Complaint) + understand from the e=mail below, that you do not
believe you should have been found guilty of the theft at >al=9art and that you should
not have been found in contempt of Court) ;owever, it must concern you that you were
found in contempt of Court by more than one Dudge in two different trials) Kou wanted to
1/</%&
?now how + learned of or obtained a copy of Dudge 7ardnerLs #rder after trial that was
filed in 200,) +t was sent to me by the cler? 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) Kou may
be well served to e'plain what remedial measures you are ta?ing to ma?e sure you do not
repeat the conduct complained about) + cannot give you legal advice) ;owever + can
suggest you cooperate with 2ar counselLs investigation and that you respond specifically
to the allegations contained in Dudge ;olmes and :ichard ;illLs grievance letters to the
office of 2ar Counsel)F
;owever, the true violators of :(C %)1 are :DC Dudge 1ferraAAa, Dudge 3ash
;olmes, the 33D2 (anel, Ging123 Cler? of Court (eters, and all those who failed to
comply with CoughlinBs lawfully issued 1C: 110 subpoenas)
..
"udicial and 4egal 9%%icial#
(666* :(C %)2(a* states P6 lawyer shall not ma?e a statement that the lawyer
?nows to be false or with rec?less 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 ;olmes of
lying during her testimony) Coughlin has e'pressed similar views concerning Dudge 3ash
;olmes in various pleadings filed in this proceeding as well as others) Coughlin has also
uttered other derogatory remar?s about various judges with whom he has interacted)
(CCC* 5he 1tate 2ar presented scant evidence on this issue and no evidence from
which the panel could conclude that the e'pressions were ?nowingly false as opposed to an
e'pression of opinion) >hile 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)
!i#conduct
(DDD* 3DC 8,F provides (in pertinent parts*:
+t is professional mis !ondu!" for a lawyer to :
(a* @iolate or attempt to violate the :ules of (rofessional conduct)))
(b* Commit a !riminal a!" that refle!"s adersely on the la2yer<#
$ones"y7 "rus"#or"$iness or fi"ness as a la#yer in other re#/ect#C
(c* Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentationC
(d* Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice)
(EEE* 5he (leadings, ;earing E'hibits and 5ranscript of these proceedings
overwhelmingly, clearly and convincingly establish a repeated, unrelenting and obstinate
pattern o% mi#conduct by e#/ondent Coughlin e-incing numerous and repea"ed iola"ions
o% seeral /ro-i#ion# o% PC 8.4 (3#5E: this conclusion lac?s any specificity whatsoever* in
violation of :(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 !oni!"ed of pe"i" lar!eny on 3ovember &0, 2011, a violation
1/./%&
of RCC <,2(!#) 1uch violation is sufficient alone to trigger application of 1C: 111) 5he 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 <
(3#5E: the 81(5# 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 :(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&6&.3hat con#titute# moral tur/itude Citation: &2 6m) Dur) 2d 6liens and
CitiAens S 1&.&: P6 determination that a crime involves moral turpitude must be based upon
the moral standards generally prevailing in the 8nited 1tates)&#ne of the criteria adopted to
ascertain whether a vicious motive, corrupt mind,!or malicious intention)<6 crime of Pmoral
turpitudeP is and serious,.either in terms of the magnitude of the loss that it causesP) >hat
constitutes Pcrime involving moral turpitudeP within meaning of S 212(a*(,* and 2!1(a*(!* of
+mmigration and 3ationality 6ct (% 8)1)C)6) S 11%2(6*(,*, 12<1(a*(!**, and similar
predecessor statutes providing for e'clusion or deportation of aliens convicted of such crime
Citation: 2& 6)$):) "ed) !%0 (#riginally published in 1,/<*)))1ection 11QgR "ootnotes:
Q"3<,R 5he refusal to differentiate between grand and petit larceny has been criticiAed in
several dissenting opinions) 5illinghast v Edmead (1,2,, C61 9ass* &1 "2d %1, infraC 5utrone
v 1haughnessy (1,<%, DC 3K* 1.0 " 1upp !&&, infra) = Q"3.0R 6lthough the court in this case
indicated that there might be an e'ception Pin unusual circumstancesP from the rule that larceny
always involves moral turpitude,))) 5illinghast v) Edmead, &1 ")2D %1)))P + am not prepared to
agree that a boy who steals an apple from an orchard is guilty of Binherently base, vile, or
depraved conduct)L >here the larceny is petty, + thin? the circumstances must be inHuired into)
Z5he evidence as it stands about the crimes for which Edmead was convicted does not seem to
me to prove moral turpitude) >hile she does not appear to be a very desirable citiAen, 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)))P S 22)Crimes involving moral turpitude Citation: 21 6m) Dur) 2D
Criminal $aw S 22) ;ealthCriminal Conviction or ChargesC Effect of 6cHuittal 1tatute defining
Eunprofessional conduct,F for which physicianBs certificate may be revo?ed, as including
conviction of offense involving moral turpitude, Ein which case the record of such conviction
shall be conclusive evidence,F does not ma?e such record conclusive that crime charged
involved moral turpitudeC that Huestion being for court to determine) :ev)Code 1,2%, S 2<<,
(6):)1) S &2=1!<2*) Du @all v) 2d) #f 9ed) E'aminers of 6riAona, !, 6riA) &2,))))
3#5E: see e'plication of $opeA=(astrana elsewhere herein)
3#5E: 61 "#: DE"E31+@E C#$$65E:6$ E15#((E$ and 1C: 11!
arguments, the 8nited 1tates (atent and 5rademar? #ffice has indicated with respect to the
conviction at issue in .0%&% that: E:E: < 8)1)C) <<%(C* ))) "rom: 9c2ride, 5homas
(5homas)9c2rideRI*P69.=9V* 1ent: >ed 21&1& 2:2& (9 5o: -ach Coughlin
(AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com* )))
Dear 9r) Coughlin, ))) +n response to your Huestion below, we are presently in 11)22
+nvestigation (see &/ C": 11)22 ("* and (h**) 5here are three types of general discipline at the
1///%&
(5#, including direct, interim, and reciprocal) 5he direct 11)22 5ype is focusing on direct
discipline related to everything ta?en as a whole) 6he interim di#ci/line ty/e under 11.25 i#
only %or serious !rimes as defined in 11,1 P 0nd pe""y "$ef" does no" appear signifi!an"
enoug$ %or the P69 to ta5e interim di#ci/line on that alone) 5he reciprocal discipline type
under 11)2! (Especially 11)2!(E* and related &/ C": 10)2&(C*(<** reHuires final adjudication,
not interim, from another jurisdiction such as 3evada)))1incerely, =5om 5om 9c2ride Dr)
#ffice of Enrollment and Discipline 8nited 1tates (atent and 5rademar? #ffice)F
Coughlin has not been suspended, even temporarily by the 81(5#:
https:oedci)uspto)gov#EDC+geo:egion)doJregionV3E@6D6Mregion+DV3@
(777* 5he record also establishes that Coughlin was !oni!"ed of !riminal
"respass in the prolonged e-iction proceedings involving Dr) 9erliss, a iola"ion of 3DC
8,FA6B) 1upra 20)
(3#5E: GingBs 1C: 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&) 6s
evidenced by the documentation submitted herein, :espondent ha# been con-icted o% a crime
2hich trigger# the re/orting reAuirement# o% +ar Coun#el under *C 111B4CF) "urther,
GingBs failure to file any such 1C: 111 (etition (whether one under (!* or (.** for the alleged
EcrimesF the 121!12 "#"C#$ characteriAes the Ecriminal contemptF convictions to be
provides a further defensive collateral estoppel bar)
6s evidenced by the documentation submitted herein, :espondent has been
convicted of a crime which triggered the reporting reHuirements of 2ar Counsel under 1C:
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 1C: 111(!* (etition in .1,01 for the
criminal trespass conviction with that he employe in .0%&% in the petty larceny conviction: E6s
evidenced by the documentation submitted herein, 9r) Coughlin has been convicted of a
misdemeanor crime under the 3evada :evised 1tatutes) )o2e-er' that con-iction 2a# %or
Jthe%t.J 5he %ollo2ing language' a# #et %orth in *C 111B6C' dictate# that e#/ondent<#
crime con#titute# a #eriou# crime:
Definition of Pserious crime)P 5he term Pserious crimeP means (1* a felony and (2*
any crime less than a felony a necessary element of which is, as determined by the statutory or
common=law definition of the crime, improper conduct as an attorney, interference with the
administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file an
income ta' return, deceit, bribery, e'tortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a
conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a Pserious crime)P QEmphasis added)R
C9,C4I*79, 3)@@(9@' +ar Coun#el re#/ect%ully bring# thi# matter to
the Court<# attention and re8ues"s "$a" "$e Cour" en"er an Order "emporarily suspending
3esponden" %rom the /ractice o% la2 and referring "$is ma""er "o "$e /or"$ern /eada
Dis!iplinary &oard for fur"$er dis!iplinary pro!eedings' in accordance 2ith *C 111B7C
1/%/%&
and B8C) F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &2/:2 to &2/:.* (Coughlin*: E>ell, it could consider the
trespass thing certain, rightJ +ut +ar coun#el %iled an *C 111.4 /etition recently. 3hat
doe# that meanD 7t mean# +ar coun#el them#el-e# admit that that 2a# not a #eriou#
crime' a #eriou# o%%en#e a# elucidated under *C 111.6F 6s such, the (anel clearly erred
where it concluded that the criminal trespass conviction in .1,01 is a violation of :(C %)!(b*,
as the decision not to bring a 1C: 111(.* (etition by bar counsel and the decision not to ta?e
any of the steps set out in 1C: 111(/*=(,* 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 common=law definition of the !rime,F that involves Eimproper !ondu!" as an
a""orney7 in"erferen!e #i"$ "$e adminis"ra"ion of ;us"i!e7 false s#earing7 misrepresen"a"ion7
fraud7 #illful failure "o file an in!ome "a? re"urn7 de!ei"7 6ri6ery7 e?"or"ion7
misappropria"ion7 "$ef"7 or an a""emp" or a !onspira!y or soli!i"a"ion of ano"$er "o !ommi" a
Gserious !rime)F 6s 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
!riminal a!" that refle!"s adersely on the la2yer<# $ones"y7 "rus"#or"$iness or fi"ness as a
la#yer in other re#/ect#N.*
(;;;* 5he 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) ;owever, no evidence was presented on these charges 6u" as a ma""er
of defaul" "$e allega"ions may 6e deemed admi""ed and would constitute additional violations
of :(C %)!(b*)
(DDD* 5he record, as described at length above, establishes several violations of :(C
%)!(c*)
1ee ff (66*, (22*, (CC*, (666*, (222* and (CCC*)
(GGG* 2$e en"ire re!ord in "$is ma""er is reple"e #i"$ ins"an!es demons"ra"ing
"$a" Coug$lin(s !ondu!" is pre;udi!ial "o "$e adminis"ra"ion of ;us"i!e) (3#5E: 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 repea"edly san!"ioned mone"arily 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 di#ru/ted proceedings and failed to follow instructions and
admonitions of the courts) 5he 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#5E: the instances that (anel finds support such conclusions are plainly not
sanctions*)
./
6he @8tent o% the to be im/o#ed /ur#uant to *C 111 ?# a e#ult o% Con-iction
o% the J*eriou#J Crime o% Petit 4arceny.
($$$* 5he matter of the referral from the 1upreme Court was considered in
conjunction with the allegations in the Complaint filed by the 1tate 2ar) >hile the conviction
at issue in the 1upreme Court #rder of Dune /, 2012 may not alone warrant the discipline
1/,/%&
recommended in this (anelBs recommendations, ta?en as a whole and in conjunction with the
numerous and repeated other violations of the :ules of (rofessional conduct, warrant, in this
(anelBs view, the discipline recommended herein)
(3#5E: 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 1C: 12& and $aub, etc) to compare his case to others (li?e
the very same 1tephen :) ;arris, EsH), that Dudge 2eesley testified so glowingly about during
9r) ;arris disciplinary hearing (which was given more time (and 7rundy got to file a <! page
brief therein* despite 9r) ;arris only being charge with two :(C violations, ones to which he
admitted to, even, plus, 9r) ;arris 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 s?int Dow1oE, then having $aura (eters lie in her Certificate
of 9ailing 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 spo?e to in his 22<1&
(etition in 6DG5 0!%2 or get a 1C: 10&(.*, etc) conference or addres 1C: 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 E?itchen sin?F=ing 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,
fran?ly, enormously fraudulent ErecommendationF*)
;owever, 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 1C: 111 were not followed were the Ecough dropsF
(De'tromethorphan, D49* may be viewed as invo?ing the reHuirement that such be referred
for a (anel determination prior to any application of 1C: 111(.* being availing)
.%
$@C7*79, ?,$ @C9!!@,$?679,
+n assessing the fonn of discipline to recommend, the (anel has accounted for a number
of aggravating and mi"iga"ing fa!"ors "$a" mus" 6e !onsidered) 5he (anel finds that the 1tate
2ar has shown 6y !lear and !onin!ing eiden!e the presen!e of at least eight of the eleven
aggravating circumstances to be considered in accordance with the provisions of 1C:
102)<(1*)
.,
(#r, was the completely understandable belief held by Coughlin that he was absolutely
entitled to be at his home law office that day (especially considering the precedent in :ussell v)
Galian, !1! 6)2D !.2C +orio v City of 3ew Kor?, ,. 9isc)2D ,<<) 9ayes v) 8@+ ;oldings,
/2& 3)K)1)2d 1<1, 2%0 6)D)2d 1<& (2001*), etc) and the fact that every other county in 3evada
follows 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a*Bs (law must apply even throughout the states under 3@ Const) 6rt !)
1ect) 21* reHuirement that the passing of 2! hours from the tenantBs EreceiptF of the summary
removal order, and further, where the >C1# failed to accord such to Couglhin and at no time
did the >C1# return to properly conduct such loc?out)*
1%0/%&
"urther, pursuant to 3:1 !0)&%< and :DC Dudge 1ferraAAaBs ruling on 102<11,
CoughlinBs Erent escrow depositF was being retained by the :DC as his Esupersedeas bondF
(which, by the way, was nearly ten times the amount actually reHuired for such a supersedeas
bond under 3:1 !0)&%<)))and Dudge 1ferraAAa and the :DC as a wholeBs complete refusal to
ta?e accountability for their actions and arguably willful failures to apply the law, especially vis
a vis landlord tenant matters (not to mention 1ferraAAa ignoring Clifford v) 1tate, and
1hepp1taab in the i(hone petty larceny case* reveal much in e'plaining why Dudge 1ferraAAa
has consistently received the lowest (by far* scores in the >C26Bs 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 :DC was some !<X 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 characteriAation as an aggravating
factor* presented by the fact that CoughlinBs 101,11 3otice of 6ppeal in such summary
eviction proceeding clearly divested the :DC of jurisdiction prior to the holding of the
E5rialFer, Econtinuation of the summary eviction proceedingF on 102<11)
6dditional considerations include, where CoughlinBs 102.11 filing of a 9otion for
1tay (which Dudge 1ferraAAa never ruled on (see DC:$@ !0 where an automatic stay inures
upon the filing of such a motion, and DC::5 2, which ma?es the Emotion once made cannot be
made againF approach Dudge 1ferraAAa asserts (by way of (ost=+t 3ote #rders that he fails to
ever serve on anyone* is inapplicable as the DC::5 do not apply to Elandlord tenant mattersF*
and CoughlinBs 11&11 9otion for a 1tay under 3:1 !0)2<1(&*=(!*, 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 loc?out*, in addition to the fact that per 3:1 !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 >C1# and ;ill had already burglariAed CoughlinBs home law office on
11111 in their too early effectuation of a loc?out)))and where 3evada law reHuires that the
1heriff or Constable only perform such loc?outs, the landlord and ;ill are precluded from
asserting their subseHuent conduct somehow effectuated such a loc?out)*)
#f course, while Chair Echeverria allowed Ging to elicit testimony from ;ill as to
EslippersF and EpajamasF and other EevidenceF in support of such Eto preserve an unlawful
tenancyF aggravating factor (without Ging ever ma?ing 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 ";E1!,1<*, which was clearly reversible error by the (anel)
/0
5he filings Coughlin submitted on 11/12 but which were not approved for filing
by the 31C5 Cler?Bs #ffice for months, but which were served on bar counsel and the (anel
contemporaneous to the 11/12 submission (which are filings whether the Cler? stamped them
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 6y #ay of san!"ions on a" leas" four
prior o!!asions)
2eyond the fact that ";E2 is not a EsanctionF, and the fact that ";E& was not a sanction
1%1/%&
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 )erliss ma""er and the "#o
!riminal "rials (3#5E: herein the (anel admits that a Etraffic citation trialF is not a Ecriminal
trialF thus undermining its contention that the ";E! civil contempt order was a Ecriminal
convictionF (and the use of the term E#rderF in ";E< vitiates any argument (which the 123
never even made anyways* that claim preclusion or 1C: 111(<* apply to both obviate the need
for the 123 to prove any and of the alleged :(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 #as for selfis$ reasons:
to preserve an unlawful tenancy and to delay and prolong criminal convictions)
5hird, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that the pattern of mis!ondu!" is
!onsis"en"
71
C the refusal to heed the directions and admonitions of "$e court (which EcourtFJ
>here 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 #illingness "o lie (3#5E: 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 ;ill (occurring well after
GingBs fifteen minutes were up, and where (anel Chair Echeverria consistently refused to allow
to as? any such EovertimeF Huestions of 2eesley, Elcano, ;olmes, or even ;ill, really* to
GingBs Huestioning him as to whether Coughlin displayed EcandorF to opposing counsel of the
court (especially where GingBs Complaint failed to notice=plead the summary eviction in
:ev2011=001/0% and appeal thereof in 0&.2% (or CoughlinBs conduct or advocacy therein* in
any way whatsoever and where GingBs Do>1oE limited ;illBs testimony to only CoughlinBs
EconductF in the appeal in 0&.2%, where ;ill (in addition to testifying about the >$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 ;ill 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 ;illBs associate 2a?er utiliAing the summary
procedures of 3:1 !0)2<& by way of the no cause summary eviction basis set forth in 3:1
!0)2<! against CoughlinBs use of the premises, in part, for commercial purposes (which the
lease e'pressly authoriAed* where non=payment of rent was not included amongst the basis for
see?ing such a summary eviction in any iteration of the ElandlordBs affidavitF*, Dudge ;olmesB
testifying that she thin?s Coughlin Epro6a6lyF 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 1ferraAAa and ;olmes ta?e, 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
1%2/%&
responses (which arguably included an :(C &)< Eopen refusalF to respond to her improper
abuse of contempt power sua sponte interrogations of Coughlin immediately following his
return from the one restroom brea? in such 22/12 trial)))where it is especially unclear just how
the 9arshal ;arley whom ;olmes order to escort Coughlin to the restroom (where Chief
9arshal :oper admits that ;arley EcommunicatedF what Dudge ;olmesB 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 ;arley escorted Coughlin bac? 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 luc?y for Dudge ;olmes 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 unchec?ed 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)
;owever, (engilly and 9cCormac? await her)
"ourth, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin has
committed multi/le -iolation# o% the ule# o% Pro%e##ional conduct' as more fully dis!ussed
a6oe)
"ifth, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin engaged in a
bad %aith ob#truction o% the di#ci/linary /roce## 6y %ailing to %ile the /leading reAuired by
*C 105B2C and instead filing several lengthy, irrelevant and nonsensical pleadings (3#5E:
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#5E: where the (anel and Ging constantly sought to apply some
offensive collateral estoppel1C: 111(<* 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
ac5nowledge the wrongful nature of his !ondu!" despite having been san!"ioned on at least
four prior occasions)
1eventh, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin has shown a
!omple"e indifferen!e "o ma'ing res"i"u"ion and has so far ignored orders to do so) (3#5E:
what EordersFJ E:estitutionF is not a concept applicable to a Eprevailing party attorneyBs fee
awardF such as ";E2, further ";E&Bs non=sanction attorney fee award was vacated, duh, and
as to the Ecandy bar and some cough dropsF the (anel apparently believes monolithic mega=
retailer >al=9art is entitled to, there e'ists a civil remedy under 3evada law in that regard, and
>al=9ar, by way of its apparently unauthoriAed to practice law in 3evada E2ennett $aw
CorporationF (a very shady entity, indeed, apparently based in 8tah* 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 >al=9art,
1%&/%&
period, and it would be morally wrong to provide such entity, which countenances the perjury
of its Eloss prevention associateF 5homas "rontino and partners with the corrupt :eno 1par?s
+ndian Colony #fficers Gameron Crawford and Donnie 2raunworth to violated 3evada law
(with the blessing and assistance of corrupt :eno City 6ttorneys (amela :oberts, Daniel
>ong, 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#5E: there is
absolutely no support or citation presented by either the (anel or #2C that a Epetty larcenyF
conviction Einvolves Efraud and dis$ones"yF, and the balance of 6merican 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 :(C %)!(b*=(c* violation*)
6ctually, in the 3inth Circuit, per $opeA=(astrana, shoplifting or petty larceny is not
a EseriousF crime: 8)1) v) $opeA=(astrana, 2!! ")&d 102< (,th Cir) 2001*)
(3#5E: see, Doc?et .1!.2 Document 2012=2<!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 ";E2, &, !, %,
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 1C: 10<(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 li?e ";E2, and
";E& were somehow Efiled documents with the supreme court in terms of motions)))F only to
then reference the non=seHuitur presented where the 123 Emade copies of the dis?s of court
proceedings for himF (audio dis?s only*, or that Eand those e'hibits were attachedF where
absolutely none of the Edis?sF (again, audio dis?s 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
included in the :#6 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
1C: 111 (etitions in .0%&% and .1,01, which had attached thereto only E'hibit 1 to the
%2&12 Complaint (as found within ";E1, comprising the 11&011 EDudgment of Conviction
and Court #rderF (though not the 11&011 #rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt* in :9C 11
C: 221/. (.0%&%* and the &1<12 #rder 6ffirming :uling of the 9unicipal Court found in
";E12* as e'hibit to the 1C: 111(.* (etition in .0%&% and where the 1C: 111(!* (etition in
.1,01 attached only ";E12 and ";E1&, though neither was admitted into evidence at the
111!12 disciplinary hearing, despite Ging being afforded five and half hours to put on his
1%!/%&
case where Coughlin was only afforded two hours and fifteen minutes to put on his)
6nd, to be clear, ";E12 and ";E1& were only EservedF on Coughlin in the conte't
of being attached to the 1C: 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 <&%&& and <!%!!
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%=011.%, see .0&02, .0&1/*
from which ";E& and 3712=0!&< spring*) Ging simply failed to even meet the standard of the
9irch approach in failing to Eincorporate by referenceF or Eattach as an e'hibit ";E2,&,<,%,10
to the Complaint or in any way reference such in (not that doing so meets the due process 1C:
10<(2* notice=pleading standard, but still)))* his Designation of >itnesses, 1ummary of
Evidence, which, while Cler? of Court (eters Certificate of 1ervice thereto indicates was
Edeposited for mailingF (though failing to include the 9i?ohn standardBs reHuired language
indicating that such was Eto be pic?ed up for mailing this dayF etc)* was proven by CoughlinBs
attaching the 81(1 5rac? M Confirm printouts for the Certified 9ailing number the 123
associated thereto, to only be first scanned into the 81(1 trac?ing system on 101.12, and
only first made available to Coughlin by the 81(1 on 101.11, where Coughlin, in every way,
fully complid with 1C: /, vis a vis timely updating the 123 and 33D2 (the (anel was not
even announced until wee?s later, naturally* with his #fficial 81(1 Change of 6ddress (which
Coughlin submitted to th downtown :eno (ost #fficer in person on 10<12 (li?ely causing the
somewhat e'tended five days in transit associated with the 101212 file=stamped 123Bs
Dow1oE (which, again, was not deposited for mailing until much later (the 81(1 5rac? M
Confirm indicates a first scanning of the Certified 9ailing number thereof as occurring on
101.12* owing to CoughlinBs #fficial 81(1 Change of 6ddress being processed by the 81(1
(providing yet another reason why Ging and (eters negligent approach (born of a cheating
desire to obtain some Huic? stri?e 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 ?nowingly brea?ing the rules in 1C: 10<(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 6nnouncing "ormal ;earing (anel*)
"urther, Coughlin confronted (eters and Ging about their refusal to accord him the
access to and right to EinspectF all materials permitted under 1C: 10<(2*(c* for the twenty
seven days reHuired thereunder) Coughlin further confronted Ging and (eters regarding the
fact that the 3otice of ;earing that is file stamped 101212 and to which (eters signed a
Certificate of 9ailing (which lac?s the reHuired Eplaced in the mail for pic?up to go out on this
dateF 9i?ohn language* that identifies 101212 as the date of mailing despite the fact that the
81(1 5rac? M Confirm for such Certified 9ailing indicates such was only first scanned into
the 81(1 trac?ing system on 101.12, and only first made available to Coughlin (through no
fault of CoughlinBs* by the 81(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 1C: 10<(2* and 10<(2*(c* rights this
1%</%&
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) 5his tac?y cheatinB
weasel approach permeates everything (atric? #) Ging and $aura (eters do)
6nd, what all of this really illustrates is that Ging and (eters ?new the case against
Coughlin was garbage from day one, but they wanted to ma?e their masterBs happy (33D2
member ;ill, Dudge 3ash ;olmes and longtime 123 fi'ture and former 123 (resident 3@2
Dudge 2eesley* and upon Coug$lin !a"!$ing 6o"$ De"ers and =ing in seeral ma"erial lies (vis
a vis (eters communications to Coughlin about whether the %2&12 6ffidavit of 1ervice
attached to the Complaint would be asserted by the 123 to satisfy 1C: 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 DC:
1&(&* application GingBs failure to oppose CoughlinBs ,1%12 9otion to Dismiss deserved*, and
upon the calamity of the 123Bs affi'ing insufficient postage thereto (where the 81(1 refusd to
release such Certified 9ailing 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 9ailing, departing from the indication in all
other 123 CertificateBs of 9ailing that such documents were being sent via both Certified 9ail
and copied via first class mail as well* failing to serve Coughlin the (:(C &)<6 and (eters
,1112 representations to Coughlin as to the reHuirement that the 123 so serve such 3#+5D
upon a :espondent following the second attempt to obtain a signed :eturn :eceipt :eHuested
81(1 form from a :espondet under the policies1C: 10<(!* adopted procedural rules the
12333D2 has attached to 3#+55DBs* 10,12 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default)))as well as
Couglin catching Ging and (eters in their lies that ";E&3712=0!&< was a grievance
EreceivedF from 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner where such was merely included amongst the Ebo' of
materialsF provided by Dudge 3ash ;olmes on &1!12)))
8pon being caught in their lies, and realiAing their case was garbage, Ging and
(eters panic?ed, began accusing Coughlin of EharassingF them and whining about benig
EfrightenedF and went for a Huic? 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
forced to put Dudge "lanaganBs ";E2, essentially, in the clean=up 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 .2<12 #rder awarding a Eprevailing party attorneyBs feesF award to ;illBs client
was, most definitely, not a EsanctionF) ;ello :(C &)% violation, allow me to introduce you to
(atric? Ging, and lets not forget about GingBs venturing unprotected outside the coAy confines
of 1C: 10. in his 9ay 2012 attempts to sabotage CoughlinBs law practice by violating 1C:
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
1%./%&
filing anything in the 3@2)
+n order for respondent in 2ar disciplinary proceeding to use common=law Hui tam
remedy to prosecute his former lawyer and compel an investigation of the lawyers employed by
2ar 6ssociation, 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) #?lahoma 2ar 6ssBn v) 9othershed,
2011 #G %!, 2.! ()&d 11,/ (#?la) 2011*, as corrected, (#ct) 1%, 2011*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages !/:1/ to <0:1,* 9:) G+37: +Bm sorry) + meant 9=hi!it
.) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6ny objection, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, is it
truly a certified copy has been == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hatBs what heBs represented) 9:)
C#87;$+3: +s that trueJ 9:) G+37: + have certified copies of all the orders that are going
to be admitted) 9:) C#87;$+3: + donBt believe this was provided earlier) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: Do you have an objection, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 6 don't !elieve
it was noticed) +t wasnBt included in the summary of evidence) 9:) G+37: +f you ta?e a loo? at
the bottom right=hand side) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;ave you seen this orderJ (3#5E: ;ere
again Echeverria sua sponte attempts to put in wor? for the 123 by see?ing to confuse the 1C:
10<(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 li?e Echeverria did* 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6t's admitted) (E'hibit 2 admitted into evidence)*
9:) C#87;$+3: 6 $ust didn't 5now it was for this hearing) 9:) G+37: Kour ;onor, if you
loo? at the bottom right=hand side of any documents + present, you'll see a Bates stamped
num!er) 5he entire file was actually copied at the 1tate 2arBs e'pense, and 2ates stamped and
provided to 9r) Coughlin to avoid any suggestion that he didn't receive copies of these
documents or 5now that 6 intended to introduce them) (3#5E: 6pparently the Ging did not
care whether there was well more than a EsuggestionF that Ging cheated the system by failing
to let Coughlin E?nowF Ging Eintended to introduce themF where Ging in no way whatsoever
referenced ";E2 in his %2&12 Complaint (while 1C: 10<(2* reHuires that Et$e !omplain"
s$all 6e suffi!ien"ly !lear and spe!ifi! "o inform "$e a""orney of "$e !$arges agains" $im or
$er and "$e underlying !ondu!" suppor"ing "$e !$arges9B, and where GingBs Designation of
>itnesses, 1ummary of Evidence (1C: 10<(2*(c* reHuires E&0 day#< 2ritten noticeF from the
date of th hearing where such Enotice #hall be accom/anied by a #ummary /re/ared by bar
coun#el o% the e-idence again#t the attorney' and the name# o% the 2itne##e# bar coun#el
intend# to call %or other than im/eachment' together 2ith a brie% #tatement o% the %act# to
2hich each 2ill te#ti%y' all o% 2hich may be in#/ected u/ to & day# /rior to the hearingF*
9:) EC;E@E::+6: + had earlier granted that portion of 9r) CoughlinBs motion to have
access to the 1tate 2ar file) 6nd are you representing, 9r) Ging, that the 1tate 2ar files were
copied, 2ates stamped and delivered to 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) G+37: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
+n the lower right=hand corner this document bears the 2ates stamps 2,/< to 2,/%) 6nd was
this order included in the group of documents delivered to 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) G+37: Kes, it
was) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +tBs admitted) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, may + respond to
thatJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ure) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5he rule says +Bm to have no less than &0
1%//%&
days from service of the notice of the hearing to inspect, up to within three days of the hearing,
these materials) 9r) Ging refused to let me see these materials for months, going all the way
bac? to 9arch) 6ll of a sudden heBs rigged this system so that + donBt get &0 daysB notice of the
hearing) 5he panel is coming into this hearing) 1cant amount of days to prepare and inculcate
themselves with an idea of what this case is about) 6nd further, + get a big bo' of about, + want
to say about one of the O&0 bo'es, and + get it on the %th for a hearing thatBs on the .th) 6nd
that somehow == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he hearing is on the 1!th, 9r) Coughlin) 9:)
C#87;$+3: +Bm sorry) 1i' days from the %th) 5hat somehow complies with the ruleJ 6nd
what + got was sent out on 3ovember 1st) 1o + didnBt get anything, any access to inspect the
file, inspect the doc?et from 3ovember 1st to 3ovember %th) "urther, + only got the si' days,
not the &0) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, as + view it, you got more than access, you got
copies) E'hibit 2 is admitted) 9:) G+37: "u#t %or the record' 7 2ould al#o li5e to re#/ond
to the #ugge#tion that 2e didn<t proide !r. Coughlin 2ith the#e document#. 3ell in
ad-ance o% the time 2e had the#e +ate# #tam/ed $e $ad !ome "o "$e *"a"e &ar offi!e many
"imes. 7 e-en made !opies of "$e dis's of "$e !our" pro!eedings %or him at hi# reAue#t. 3e
filed do!umen"s #i"$ "$e supreme !our" in "erms of mo"ions. )e 2a# #er-ed 2ith co/ie# o%
all o% tho#e' and "$ose e?$i6i"s 2ere all a""a!$ed.F
GingBs negligent failure to ever attach ";E2, &, !, %, 10, etc),etc)m to the Complaint
or to even note such as being Eincorporated by referenceB a la 9irch has some truly serious
conseHuences here to the detriment of the 123Bs case)
5he Danel finds fe# po"en"ially mi"iga"ing fa!"ors "o 6e presen") >hile the (anel %ind#
that there i# a lac5 o% /rior /ublic di#ci/line by the *tate +ar, the (anel notes that Coughlin
has been pu6li!ly !ri"i!iKed in the Doshi matter (3#5E: interestingly, the (anel fails to
characteriAe ";E& as a EsanctionF here*, has been heavily san!"ioned with an adverse award of
substantial attorneyBs fees in the 9erliss matter, and has been incarcerated at least twice for
!riminal !on"emp" of court) (Echeverria, reaching hard for an 1C: 111(<* 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
:(CBs the 123(anel view as having elements that are e'actly the same as a Ecriminal
contemptF chargeconviction*) 0l"$oug$ "$ere $as 6een an a6sen!e of prior pu6li! dis!ipline
6y "$e *"a"e &ar, there have been multiple instances of judicial !ensure and san!"ion)
(6ctually, neither of the alleged EsanctionsF (";E2, ";E&* are EsanctionsF) ";E& was undone
by the final Decree of .1,0,) ";E2 was never a EsanctionF, it was a Eprevailing party
attorney fee awardF per 3:1 .,)0<0 (and even that is a void order given such statute applies
only to appeals of EjudgmentsF in plenary Ecivil actionsF, not appeals of Esummary eviction
ordersF, and, regardless, 3:1 !0)!00 ma?es 3:6( &% the only basis for a fee award, which
neither ";E2 nor the !1,12 9otion for 6ttorneyBs "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)*
6lthough Coughlin sugges"ed at the hearing that he may ha-e personal or
emo"ional pro6lems or a men"al disa6ili"y' he denied that he needed %urther hel/)
"urthermore, no medical evidence was presented regarding the potential impact of a mental
1%%/%&
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 unli?ely to occur)
5he (anel and Ging wish to continue playing stupid with respect to the events of
6ugust 2011, which Coughlin e'plained in great detail, and the ensuing challenges in
becoming local law enforcementBs favorite can to ?ic? 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 ta?e his medication, or refusing to get diagnosed, or refusing
treatment) 5he attorney had his rent stolen by his e', could not afford his medications, received
the typical complete and utter lac? of assistance from family upon as?ing for help in such dire
circumstances, and was subseHuently #rongfully arres"ed twice within 1/ days less than three
wee?s after, due to an inability to pay for such for!ed Coug$lin "o a6rup"ly go off 6o"$ an
0D%D medi!a"ion and an an"i-depressan")
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 >almart petty larceny, as :9C
Dudge ;oward, willfully violated the 200% +ndigent Defense #rder in refusing to per se O10,000
yearly income indigent Coughlin counsel)
"urther, :ing<# a//roach in e##entially running a2ay %rom Coughlin<#
/ro-iding him e8tremely detailed in%ormation BCoughlin /ro-ided the *+,' :ing' and the
Panel a com/lete /rintout o% e-ery #ingle /re#cri/tion he ha# %illed at any /harmacy #ince
2008' re-ealing e8actly 2hat Coughlin te#ti%ied to' that he abru/tly cea#e ta5ing ?derrall
and 3ellbutrin on or about ?ugu#t 2
nd
' 2011 (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 :(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 ma?ing a misdemeanor arrest between /pm and /am for an
alleged misdemeanor occurring outside the officerBs presence per 3:1 1/1)1&. (where such
statute also barred the second arrest 1/ days later on ,,11, the >almart petty larceny of Ea
candy bar and some cough dropsF (the Ecandy barFBs 8(C revealed such was an Eice cream
barF, indicating >almartBs 5homas "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 .DC of "$e same $alf of one pa!'age of Dura!" Coug$ )el"s re!oered
from Coug$lins( po!'e" upon the :eno 1par?s +ndian Colony tribal police officer violating
both 3:1 1/1)1&. and 3:1 1/1)12<< recovered from CoughlinBs poc?et matched e'actly the
8(C on the receipt for the O%&)%2 worth of groceries >al=9art admits Coughlin had just
purchased (ie, the e'act same Duract Cough 9elts were listed amongst the items >al=9art
admits Coughlin purchased)))even where >al=9artBs "rontino lied in testifying that Coughlin
had not just purchased such a pac?age of Duract Cough 9elts (as "rontino laughably alleged
he peered from thirty yards away each and every item Coughlin purchased and that such did
not include a pac?age of the very Duract Cough 9elts that was, in fact, listed amongst those
items Coughlin purchased (the 8(C thereof and the description* on the receipt for O%&)%2
1%,/%&
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 oug$lin emailed Aand proided in $ard !opyB =ing and "$e *&/ 245C17 su!$
!omple"e !er"ified pres!rip"ion $is"ory prin"ou" of all medi!a"ions "a'en sin!e 20087 and
=ing7 in an July 117 2012 in person mee"ing #i"$ Coug$lin fraudulen"ly a""emp"ed "o ge"
Coug$lin "o !ease proiding $im su!$ ma"erials) Ging #an"ed "o 6e a6le "o freely allege
Coug$lin $ad failed "o do "$is or "$a" per *C3 117 or o"$er#ise address any pro6lems (not
being able to afford medications has now become 3369;1 finally agreeing to pay for such
medications where, in 6ugust 2011 it refused to upon Coughlin twice inHuiring as to such
possibility*:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &0%:2& to &0,:1<* 5his is a circumstance where in the
complaint we recogniAed it) 4e $ae a poli!y a" "$e *"a"e &ar "$a" if an a""orney $as a !risis
in "$eir life, whether it be == heaven forbid, you can have a death of a child or a wife) Kou
could have a disease) Kou could have a stro?e) Kou could have een drug or alcohol problems
or some sort of an addiction) 6nd the 1tate 2ar wants attorneys to get help and to maintain their
law license, and thatBs that we wanted for 9r) Coughlin) +ns"ead7 $e did no" a!!ep" $is
!ondi"ion, 0nd $e $asn(" "oday) 6nd when you are as?ing those probing Huestions, leading as
they were, did you feel !ad when you conducted yourself this wayJ 5here wasnBt an immediate
yes, and +Bll never do it again, and +Bm sorry, and +Bm falling on my sword) ,o2 that 7<-e tal5ed
to my /#ychiatri#t he<# going to try ne# medication#) 3one of that has occurred)F
(3#5E: 6s is the essence of (atric? #) Ging, EsH), its always a tough call as to
whether he is just plain stupid, laAy, 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 ne# medications)))F) 5he whole
point was that Coughlin could not afford the medications he was already ta?ing in 6ugust 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 wee?s after a6rup"ly !easing
"o "a'e "o po#erful pys!$oa!"ie medi!a"ions7 0dderall and 4ell6u"rin7 on 0ugus" 27 2011)
+ts not a case of trying Ene#F medications, or for Coughlin to finally Ea!!ep" $is !ondi"ionF, or
that one needs to be on some medication(s*, and (at Ging ?nows 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
challenges Coughlin faced in 6ugust 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 O/<0 million dollar bailouts of the mega=ban?s that (atric? #) Ging, EsH), the
foreclosure mediation program mediator that 7eof 7iles, 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 : about the depravity of those with viewpoints opposing those of
the mega=ban?s*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &10:< to &10:2!* 5hatBs our 3evada 1upreme Court
saying, if you are going to behave this way, you donBt get to practice) 3ow come before a
1,0/%&
disciplinary panel) 0nd $ad )r, Coug$lin !ome 6efore you7 #$i!$ $e did no"7 and said7 5
$ae a men"al pro6lem or some o"$er issue7 and 5(m #or'ing on ge""ing i" resoled7 and 5
need "o "$ro# myself a" your mer!y7 and gie me a !$an!e "o go "$roug$ "$is designed
"rea"men" program "$a" 5 am #or'ing on) 6nd in four years or three years 6 want to have an
opportunity to come !ac5 and prove myself that would have !een thrilling, &nd 6 would have
!een glad if that was the case, 6 encouraged Mr, Coughlin to ta5e that approach, 6 e=plained to
him 6 can't give you legal advice !ut this is my opinion, &nd he said no way, He suggested 6
pac5 my !ag and go to &riGona, 4$a" #as "$e "$ef" par" ofH 4ell7 )r, Coug$lin said #$a"H
5 #en" off my meds7 and "$en 5 go" myself arres"ed7 and "$en 5 $ad all "$ese series of !rimes,
4$a" da"e did $e gie you for #$en $e #en" off $is medsH 2011 ,4
(3#5E: 5he 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 1C: 11/ sna?e oil (and, believe, Ging was
not touting any Ethree or four yearsF while Coughlin was ?ic?ing tires on the lot, but rather,
indicating a very brief period of time would be involved, and emphasiAing (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 1C: 11/ Disability (etition with the 2arF*)
"unny, 1tephen :) ;arris, EsH), admits to misappropriating O/<<,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 1C: 102 (etition for a temporary suspension in
;arrisB case (thus, 7ary 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 >rit in .1!02: E7ary
1ilverman, EsH) email to Coughlin %1&12: PFou do #eem to be a good la2yer' ho2e-er. ?t
bottom' *te-e )arri# too5 hundred# o% thou#and# o% dollar# and had no tem/ #u#/en#ionL
you #tole a candy bar Bat 2or#tC. 42F .P "urther, 3@2 Dudge 2eesley voluntarily appears as
a character witness as ;arrisB formal disciplinary hearing) 6dditionally, 3@2 Dudge 1leaAley,
er, Dudge 2eesley had a salient role in the E9irchingF that Coughlin referred to during the
formal hearing (;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 10!:20 to 10<:&* E9:) C#87;$+3: ))) 2ut the
cloc? chimed 1& times) 6nd if + donBt put into the record what is it going to say on appealJ
5hey are trying to merge (E!irchF* me here) $etBs be honest) 1o if itBs a merging (E9irchingF*
thatBs going on here, +Bm going to preserve everything for the record) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm
going to overrule your motion for re!usal)F*
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &1<:1. to &1<:2&* 9:) G+37: 2ecause of that, it is not
appropriate in my opinion, under these circumstances with 9r) CoughlinBs conduct it 2ould
be totally ina//ro/riate to #ugge#t that 2e<re merely going to gi-e him a #u#/en#ion
/ending #ome #ort o% none?is"en" re!oery effor"s' #ome #ort o% an e%%ort that he could
ree#tabli#h him#el%' ge" on medi!a"ions, reta?e the 2ar e'am and the professional
responsibility)))F (3#5E: 6gain, Ging with the Eget on medicationsF rather than Eget 6a!' on
$is medicationsF) Ging is creepy charlatan soulless carpetbagging drip from California ?nown
chiefly for being laAy and dishonest)))just as? Dames 2oles, EsH) (see
http:www)scribd)comdoc1<!%2,/!&11=1.=12=020!=.11/0=2oles=:eply=2rief=Detailing=
123="ailure=to=+nvestigate *)
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &20:1< to &21:2* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm really sorry,
1,1/%&
9r) Coughlin) 2ut + would li?e you to assist the panel in following our directions) +Bve as?ed
you to address, one, whether or not youBre competent to continue to practice law) 5wo, ho2
#hould 2e deal 2ith the supreme !our"(s manda"e "$a" #e are "o !onsider "$e na"ure and
in"en" of punis$men" as a resul" o% that the%t con-iction and o"$er mis!ondu!", and if you
believe punishment is warranted, what the nature of that punishment should be) 6f we can focus
on those issues it would help this panel do its job a lot better than trying to understand 9r)
;arrisB situation or some other lawyerBs situation) Could you focus on that for me, pleaseJF*)
9ega=hypocrits li?e Echeverria really do not li?e confronting the incongruity of their money
plays approach to life and law) ;owever, 1C: 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 1C: 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 1C:
111(<*Bs Ea conviction is conclusive proof that the :espondent 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 1C: 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*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &1<:2! to &1.:1!* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: KouBre telling
us what is not appropriate) +Bd really li?e to hear what is appropriate) 9:) G+37: $i#barment.
?nd di#barment i# -ery #eriou#' becau#e it<# /ermanent. ?nd #o the rea#on 7 %elt to #ay
2hat i#n<t a//ro/riate i# 5 #an" you "o unders"and "$a" 5 a!'no#ledge "$ere are going "o 6e
grea" oppor"uni"ies for some6ody "o "a'e a leae7 ge" $elp7 !ome 6a!'. !r. Coughlin i# not
that character) >hen he is out there, he is hurting people, he is ma?ing life difficult for
people, heBs not even measuring up to the lowest standard of a lawyer) 6nd so + thin? under
these circumstances the answer should be, 9r) Coughlin, 6e!ause of your !ondu!" over these
past years, and your refusal "o re!ogniKe i" or see' $elp, )))F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 20&:. to 20!:10* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm going to ta?e
your failure to answer my direct Huestion "$a" you(re no" !laiming some form of impairmen",
Can #e !on!lude "$a"J 5;E >+53E11: 3o, + guess + am) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hatBs that
impairmentJ 5;E >+53E11: 5here is a shame aspect to it) 2ut + am, + guess, diagnosed #i"$
a""en"ion defi!i" disorder) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;ave you soug$" "rea"men" for thatJ 5;E
>+53E11: Feah) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;ave you 6een pres!ri6ed medi!a"ion for "$a"J
5;E >+53E11: .$-$u$) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Do you ta?e itJ 5;E >+53E11: 5 do, 2$e
;ail #on(" le" me "a'e i" #$en 5(m in ;ail, &u" #$en 5(m ou"side7 5 do "a'e i") 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: ;ave you ta?en it todayJ 5;E >+53E11: Keah) 2ut == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: >hat are you ta?ingJ 5;E >+53E11: Do + have to answer thatJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 3o) 5;E >+53E11: 6here<# Eu#t a lot o% #tigma to it. *o much #o that
1,2/%&
2hen you go to Eail they 2on<t let you ta5e it. 5hen you have to == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: $o
you %eel you need additional hel/ in dealing 2ith your /roblemD 6)@ 376,@**0 ,ot
really) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #?ay)))F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2%/:20 to 2,1:1%* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin,
+Bm as?ing 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#5E: it is beyond well established the purpose of disciplinary matters is not a
punitive one, so the choice of the word @suffer4 spea?s volumes to the bias with which
Echeverria approached his role as (anel Chair* as a member of the 1tate 2arJ 9:) @E$$+1:
#r any mitigation) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #r any mitigationJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 9itigation)
6've !een diagnosed and treated with &++, 6 hate admi""ing this on the record, &lso ma$or
depressive disorder) !y girl%riend o% 4 112 year#' my dome#tic /artner' in ?ugu#t -- no. *he
%inally graduated in "une -- no' !ay 15
th
B2011C. 62o day# later #he mo-ed out. *he
hadn<t told me %or at lea#t' 7 belie-e !ay and "une' #he too5 the rent /ortion that 7
normally ga-e her and #he 2ould %or2ard on' and in#tead #he 5e/t it and #tarted a ne2
li%e 2ith it 2hen #he mo-ed out.
7 2a#n<t a2are o% that until #ometime in ?ugu#t. ?ugu#t 11th the landlord #ent
me an e-mail. 7 2a# arre#ted on ?ugu#t 20
th
B2011C %or the iPhone thing that there<# a trial
on the 19th. 17 $ay# later 7 2a# arre#ted on the 3almart thing. ?ugu#t 2nd B2011C 5
!an!eled an appoin"men" #i"$ Dr, <asar7 my psy!$ia"ris"7 6e!ause 5 !ouldn(" afford i" or "$e
medi!a"ions, 5 rea!$ed ou" "o my family, 2$ere #as some ill #ill in!iden" of "$e 6rea'up of
my domes"i! rela"ions$ip, 5 didn(" re!eie any $elp from any6ody, 5 #en" off my medi!a"ions
6e!ause 5 !ouldn(" afford "$em. 7 did ma5e #e-eral call# to ,,?!)* B,ote0 ,orthern
,e-ada ?dult !ental )ealth *er-ice#C' but gi-en the #en#iti-ity o% being on the#e
medication# and a la2yer' a /ro%e##ional' and the /reEudice attendant thereto' and the
%act that e-en i% 7 2ent to ,,?!)* they 2ouldn<t co-er the ?$$ medication' and they
2ould co-er the antide/re##ant' 2hich i# al#o #ome2hat o% a dual-u#e medication. +ut
long #tory #hort' 7 2a# running out o% money' and 7 decided a lot due to money' #ome due
to de#ire to ta5e a medication holiday. "u#t #ee' 2hen you ta5e the#e thing# long enough'
#ometime# you 2ant to #ee 2hat it<# li5e not ta5ing them.
5 #en" off "$ose medi!a"ions7 pro6a6ly "oo a6rup"ly7 a" "$e s"ar" of 0ugus". !.
@C)@V@7?0 3hat yearD !. C9I=)47,0 <11. 4i"$in li'e 20 days all of a sudden
"$e iD$one arres" that<# /ending right no2, and + maintain my innocence on that) +t
sounds li?e a ridiculous law school effect pattern) 2ut essentially if this is a hypothetical e'am
in law school, it would be some guy finds an i(hone on the ground in a s?ate plaAa in
downtown :eno at 11:1< at night on a 1aturday, and holds it aloft offering it up to the deniAens
of the s?ate plaAa) 2$en $e says some"$ing "o "$e effe!" of7 !ome on7 some6ody7 !laim "$is,
5(m going "o "$ro# i" in"o "$e rier) 6nd 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, Ahether 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) 5here is a
video == + gave you a video of the arrest == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Could you focus for us on ==
9:) C#87;$+3: 5he mitigation)
1,&/%&
9:) EC;E@E::+6: == the factors == let me as? this Huestion) Do you 6eliee "$a"
any of "$e issues "$a" you $ae des!ri6ed impair your a6ili"y "o pra!"i!e la# and ade8ua"ely
represen" !lien"sJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 5 6eliee #$en 5(m no" under su!$ -- ge""ing arres"ed7
spending si? days in ;ail7 ge""ing ou"7 finding an ei!"ion no"i!e on my door, 0n ei!"ion
#$i!$ 5 #ould main"ain is agains" "$e la#7 a summary ei!"ion7 #$ere nonpaymen" of ren" is
no" pledged agains" a !ommer!ial "enan", 2$ere(s la#s agains" "$a" for a reason7 6e!ause i"
!an murder your 6usiness7 and i"(s a $uge fallou" personally, *o 5 ge" arres"ed, *pend si?
days in ;ail, 5 main"ain i"(s a #rongful arres") + might not have done everything perfect, but +
do believe if you loo? at it, loo? at the criminal law, you might agree with me the arrest was
wrongful) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9y 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 9:) C#87;$+3: No,
No, &nd 6 thin5 if you had !een with me through all this you would !e impressed == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: Do you have == 9:) C#87;$+3: == 6y my dedi!a"ion "o my !lien"s and "$e
leel of #or' produ!" 5 !$urn ou"7 espe!ially !onsidering "$e remunera"ion 5(e re!eied
from "$ose !lien"s, 5 $ae 6asi!ally #or'ed for minimum #age doing people(s !us"ody7
people(s fore!losure defense7 adersary pro!eedings in 6an'rup"!y, 0nd "$ere #as a
non!ompe"e !ase + thin? == +Bm not happy with how my life has gone) +Bm not happy with all
this drama and problems with the courts) 2ut ==F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2,.:2 to &00:12* 91) (E6:$: Kou made more sense in
the last 1< minutes than you did all day) 6nd + have an enormous amount of respect for you)
KouBre 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) 9ay + as? you a HuestionJ 0nd
#$en you #ere going "$roug$ all of "$ese "rials and "ri6ula"ions #i"$ "$e ;udges and "$e
!on"emp" !$arges7 #ere you on medi!a"ion a" "$e "imeJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 4ell7 "$e
medi!a"ion #as -- 5 #en" off 6o"$ of "$em in 0ugus", 5 go" arres"ed -- 0ugus" 2nd 5 #en" off
6o"$ of "$em, 5 go" arres"ed 0ugus" 20"$, 2$en 5 go" arres"ed on "$e iD$one "$ing7 5 go"
arres"ed 0ugus" >"$ on "$e 4almar" "$ing A/O21@ "$is appears "o 6e a "ypo as "$e da"e of
"$e 4al-)ar" !andy 6ar arres" #as >/>/11 no" :0ugus" >"$9B, 2$e day af"er "$e 4almar"
"$ing 5 go" 6a!' on one of "$e medi!a"ions7 6e!ause 5 fel" 5 !ouldn(" afford 6o"$, 0nd so 5
#as on "$a" medi!a"ion #$ile 5 go" "$e !on"emp" !$arge #i"$ Judge %o#ard on /oem6er
30"$, 5" #asn(" un"il 6asi!ally ge""ing -- "$e Fe6ruary 27"$ !on"emp" !$arge #i"$ Judge /as$
%olmes7 same deal7 only on one of "$e medi!a"ions, 5"(s some#$a" no" a !on"rolled s"udy7
6e!ause 5(m ge""ing ei!"ed7 and my life is !$aos in "$e mean"ime, *o Judge /as$ %olmes7
"$a"(s ano"$er !on"emp", 0nd "$en i" #asn(" un"il -- by the way, + need to say this)
5here was == + want this to be in the record) 5here was three different competency
orders this year) 5$ere(s a rule "$a" says pro!eedings mus" 6e s"ayed for "$e penden!y of
"$ose, )y pro!eedings 'ep" on rolling "$roug$ "$e penden!y of all "$ree of "$ose) 1o all three
of these convictions could be thrown out as void given that trial settings were ==
91) (E6:$: $et me add a Huestion to what your statement was just now) Fou<re
#aying that you 2ent through the com/etency hearing#' and you admi" "$a" you $ae 0DD
and some depression issues, 7#n<t it your re#/on#ibility a# an attorney to go to the +ar and
#ay' loo5' 7<m going through #ome tough time# right no2 that i# not -- you<re not -- it<# not
1,!/%&
your %ault that you ha-e a di#ea#e' that you<re needing "$e medi!a"ion -- that you could get
a #u#/en#ion o% your licen#e until you can get 6a!' in"o a regimen of pills and bac5 in
acting li5e thi# court and the #u/reme court i# a#5ing you to act. Can<t you do thatD 7#n<t
there a rule o% order that #ay#' loo5' 7 need a "emporary suspension 2ith no bad mar5# on
my record until 7 can get my act bac5 together' and then 2or5 on thatJ
9:) C#87;$+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 == 91) (E6:$: >hy did you
do thatJ 9:) C#87;$+3: == i"(s al#ays Ma!$(s pro6lem7 "$e men"al !ase pro6lem, 0nd i"(s
"oo mu!$ of an ou" for mis!ondu!" 6y all "$ese o"$ers == 91) (E6:$: +Bm done) 9:)
C#87;$+3: == +Bm a domestic violence attorney) !ental health care i# the %ir#t tool the
tyrant le-erage#. 9h' 2e<re going to -- and it come# to thi# all the time. 3e<re going to get
you #ome mental health. Fou<re not acting li5e 2e 2ant' buddy' 2e<re going to get you
#ome mental health. 6hat<# 2hat tyrant# and abu#er# do)
91) (E6:$: 5hatBs not my Huestion) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm not saying it is) 91)
(E6:$: +Bm not trying to be disrespectful) 5here is nothing wrong with it) >hat +Bm as?ing
you is why put yourself in jeopardy of losing your license altogether rather than trying to get it
togetherJ 9:) G+37: + thin? heBs as?ed and answered that) 9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? it ==
Cat no!ody else has spo5en from this panel the whole day from the chair and you're going to
o!$ect) 9:) G+37: 9r) Coughlin == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 7o ahead, answer the Huestion)
>eBre running out of time) 9:) G+37: == e8/lain 2hy he didn<t a-ail him#el% o% ule 117.
3e ha-e encouraged him u/ the ying-yang to get treatment' ta5ing ad-antage o% that rule
== 9:) C#87;$+3: 5 don(" "rus" Da" =ing a" all) 9:) G+37: >ould you mind if + as?ed a
follow=up HuestionJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (ardon meJ 9:) G+37: 9ay + as? a follow=up
HuestionJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +n a minute) ;ave you finished your HuestionsJ 91) (E6:$:
Kes) 6nd + than? you for the answers) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5han? you) + appreciate it)
9:) G+37: 9r) Coughlin, did + on many occasions, including with David Clar?,
encourage you to read and ta5e advantage of Rule --;J 9:) C#87;$+3: Da"7 5 ;us" don("
"rus" you a" all) 9:) G+37: 5he Huestion is did we encourage you toJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 5f
you did7 Da"7 i" !ame as no"$ing more "$an7 $ey7 ma'e my ;o6 easy, *ign on "$is deal, O$7 i"
pauses eery"$ing7 i" pauses eery"$ing, 5" #ill all !ome ou" in "$e #as$ #$en you !ome
6a!', 0nd7 Da"7 5 ;us" don(" "rus" you7 man, 5 don(", 9:) G+37: 'hat's o5ay) 2ut was what
was said, that it would pause everything == 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, + didnBt say that either, (at)
<ou $ad your "ime "o proe "$a"7 and you didn(" use your !ase for i"7 and no# you(re no"
going "o use my !ase "o proe "$a")F
CoughlinBs 5>+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 ">: 6pology and -ach Coughlin prescription
medications informationC <1!12 -ach Coughlin 6pology and -ach Coughlin prescription
medications information:
E;?/ology and Zach Coughlin /re#cri/tion medication#
in%ormation
1,</%&
1ent: 9on <1!12 12:&/ (9
5o: tcoughlinmdNhotmail)comC davidcNnvbar)orgC
patric??Nnvbar)orgC glennmNnvbar)orgC marybar?bar?Nyahoo)com
1 attachment
-ach Coughlin r' history since "ebruary 200%)pdf (11.&)& G2*
Dear Dad, 2ar Counsel, 9om and 9elissa,
+ am sorry for all the hurtful things + have said and done in the
last year) 7 $aen(" 6een on my 4ell6u"rin/&uproprion an"idepressan" %or
Auite a2hile B7 pulled my p$arma!y re!ords recently to try to learn %rom
#ome thing#C. 7 ha-e ta5en anti-de/re##ant# #ince 7 2a# 18 year# old) +
wasn't on either my Aell!utrin or &dderall for all of &ugust .F-- until
Septem!er -2 .F--) + was arrested on 6ugust 20th, 2011 and 1eptember
,th, 2011) 5he >almart arrest involved chocolate and cough drops) 5he
cough drops have de'tromethorphan in them, which is a dissociative in high
enough doses) Chocolate (sugar* is, of course, an old time palliative) 5hey
banned cough drop (the mel" or dissole ery 8ui!'ly and !on"ain 30 mg in
ea!$ one,,,so ra"$er "$an po#ering "$roug$ a #$ole 6o""le of !oug$ syrup
"o "a'e 300 mg of D)7 one !ould ea" 10 !oug$ drop mel"s ra"$er easily
and 8ui!'ly*) 5hese drops were pulled from shelfs for awhile when they
first came out a few years ago, + believe 6e!ause of "$e a6use po"en"ial or
dangers of 6eing a6le "o inges" "$a" $ig$ a 8uan"i"y of a po#erful
disso!ia"ie so 8ui!'ly (the cough syrup version of de'tromethorpan is
e'tremely difficult to just drin? a whole bottle of, whereas the sugary cough
melts are pretty much similar to candy*)
+ #en" off "$e 0dderall on appro?ima"ely 0ugus" 27 2011, 5
#en" off "$e 4ell6u"rin in July 20117 rig$" af"er "$e 6rea'up of a four and
$alf year rela"ions$ip) #?ay, 5 #en" and found "$e re!ords and am
a""a!$ing "$em "o "$is email) + wondered whether the switch from @yvanse
to 6dderall coincided with my getting fired from >ashoe $egal 1ervices,
but actually, it does not appear to have) + was suspended on 6pril 20th,
200, from >$1) 5hen, my termination date was 9ay 12th, 200,) + only
started ta?ing 6dderall instead of @yvanse on Dune 1&th, 200,) + was
wondering if + became more irritable upon starting 6dderall instead of
@yvanse and though maybe that cause the problems with the family court
Dudge during the 9arch 200, trial and then with >ashoe $egal 1ervices) +
am actually ?ind of relieved to see their does not appear to be a causal
connection given the chronology) + thin? + just felt >$1 was a bit of a dead
end job for me, was ruining my wor? 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)
Kou can see + filled one prescription for Campral) 1ee this forum
for eiden!e that tolerance to &dderall is sometimes thought to !e
counteracted !y a class of medications that includes Campral,
1,./%&
+e=tormethorphan (D9 is also being used to "rea" !$roni! pain patients in
some e'perimental studies*, etc):
http:addforums)comforumsshowthread)phpJtV&.0/%
http:www)ncbi)nlm)nih)govpubmed10%/</2!
+ recall researching this in an attempt to be ultra cautious in my
use of 6dderall)
9y !$roni! pain leels seem "o 6e mu!$7 mu!$7 more
managea6le #$en 5 am "a'ing 4ell6u"rin and 0dderall) + believe that the
!$roni! upper 6a!' pain 5 deal" #i"$ for years #as due7 in par"7 "o
emo"ional/men"al s"ress rela"ed "o no" appropria"ely addressing my 0D%D
and "$e spo""y use of an"idepressan"s 5 e?$i6i"ed during "$ose years (if my
Dad and + were getting along, 5 #ould ge" 4ell6u"rin from $im for free7 if
#e #eren("7 5 #ould rarely se!ure my o#n $eal"$ insuran!e or pay ou" of
po!'e" for "$a" an"idepressan", but would rather Prough itP to save money*)
>hen 5 #en" off "$e 4ell6u"rin and 0dderall7 "$e !$roni! pain
re"urned7 plus7 5 #as 6asi!ally in "$e early s"ages of a Gdior!eG from
)elissa A#$om 5 da"ed and lied #i"$ sin!e 0pril-is$ 2007 un"il )ay 17"$7
2011) 9elissa and + had been fighting since we moved into the $ome/offi!e
on :iver :oc? on "ebruary 20th, 2010) "rom probably Dune 2010 until she
moved out on 9ay 1/th, 2011, we fought almost daily, sometimes in a
fairly hostile way (5 #as neer p$ysi!ally iolen" #i"$ $er7 6u" s$e go" a 6i"
#i"$ me*) + was e'isting on O!00 a wee? in unemployment benefits,
receiving them for ,, wee?s) + actually wor?ed 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 ,, wee?s)))Aashoe County had -1I unemployment
during those 0 years and $o!s were in short supply and starting my own law
practice seemed overly ris?y*, and + was basically 9elissaBs maid and helper
with proofreading her schoolwor? for a couple years (in my mind at least, of
course she may have a vastly different view of things*) 1he wor?ed a
significant amount of hours and was in school full time and was irritable,
e'tremely emotional, and stretched pretty thin)
+ implemented the P+ pay for dinner one time, then you pay for
dinner one timeP rule for going out to dinner, and, of course, that too? a lot
of the romance out of things) + thin? + became very insecure about money
and my career and getting fired from AJS was very very discouraging)
2ut, + wor?ed there for 1% months) (revious to that my longest tenure of
employment at any job whatsoever was literally ! months at ;ale $ane) +
am tal?ing 63K job, my whole life) 5 realiKe my fa"$er $as !on!erns
a6ou" someone in re!oery "a'ing a !on"rolled su6s"an!e li'e 0dderall7
6u" 5 $ae e?$i6i"ed symp"oms !onsis"en" #i"$ a s"rong !ase of 0D%D my
1,//%&
en"ire life7 and feel "$e po"en"ial for su6s"an!e a6use in$eren" "o un"rea"ed
0D%D presen"s a grea" ris' "$an does "a'ing 0dderall' though'
admittedly' it i# #omething that one mu#t 2atch and realiMe that it can
e%%ect one<# beha-ior and mood' #ometime# in good 2ay#' #ometime# in
bad 2ay#) 2ut so can drin?ing or not drin?ing water) 1o can ta?ing or not
ta?ing insulin) 1ame with coffee)
1o, in some ways 5 !onsider adding "$e 0dderall "o "$e
4ell6u"rin a su!!ess )))
))) )elissa also made off #i"$ a" leas" one and possi6ly "#o
mon"$s of my ren" !on"ri6u"ion "$a" 5 gae $er "o gie "$e landlord7 plus7
s$e didn(" pay "$e landlord $er !on"ri6u"ion for )ay 20117 June 2011,
etc)))
*9!@6)7,= P@66F 7,6@@*67,=:
)))6 am very startled to see that from 1H2H-- to 1H.-H-- 6 would
have !een out of Aell!utrinHBuproprion, Melissa and 6 !ro5e up and she
moved out on 1H-;H--)))
5 "$en #en" off my 4ell6u"rin/&uproprion from 7/2C/11 un"il
F/28/12))"rom filling the 2uproprion at a cost of O20 in Dune of 2011 until
recently filling the prescription in late 6pril 2012, the cost has gone up
&00X) 5hat 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 !ould no" afford i" though on at least
two occasions + called up 3orthern 3evada 6dult 9ental ;ealth and
inHuired about the possibility of getting the cost paid for by the state or
subsidiAed)))
5n "$a" "ime period 5 #as pu" in ;ail 8 "imes and7 essen"ially
ei!"ed 3 "imes and fought with and alienated myself from my entire family,
lived a very secluded, reclusive life, etc))) e?$i6i"ed poor impulse !on"rol7 a
"emper7 and symp"oms !onsis"en" #i"$ un"rea"ed )a;or Depressie
Disorder A)DDB and per$aps some "ype of $oarding 6e$aior or
O6sessie Compulsie Disorder, including tiling the :iver :oc? home
office, collecting car seats, recarpeting the entire home office with scraps in
a patchwor?, and tiling the crumbling front steps, and putting green carpet
on the dirt lawn)
+ was arrested on:
%2011 for petit larceny (the lost mislaid i(hone thing where the
finder said he would Pthrow it in the river if someone doesn't claim it right
awayP*) / days in jail)
,,11 for petit larceny at >al=9art of a chocolate bar and two
!o=es of the cough medication dropsHmelts with +e=tromethorphan 0F 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
1,%/%&
who signed the criminal trespass complaints office to retrieve my wallet and
driverBs license and was told to leave by the :(D) >hile driving away the
:(D pulled me over and charged me with a PCalifornia :ollPfailure to
come to a complete stop and a couple fi' it tic?ets, that were ultimately
fi'ed*) & days in jail
11&011 for summary contempt during the trial for the >al=9art
chocolate bar and !oug$ medi!a"ion drops 5rial before Dudge ;oward in
:9C 11 C: 221/.) 1 day in jail)
11212 for $aywal5ing while filming personal property at my
former home law office being placed in a dump truc? for hauling to the
dump) 1 day in jail
11!12 for Pmisuse of ,11 where no actual or perceived
emergency e'ists*, a gross misdemeanor in!iden" "o "$e domes"i! iolen!e 5
#as i!"imiKed 6y on 1, >"$ *", 6y my $ousema"es) & days in jail
22/12 for summary contempt during the trial for the 111<11
traffic citations PCalifornia :ollPfailure to come to a complete stop at stop
sign deal))))< days in jail
F/1>/12 for !on"emp"7 5 6eliee7 for failing "o fully par"i!ipa"e
A!on!ern for pria!y rig$"s7 s$ame7 e"!B in "$e ordered !ompe"en!y
ealua"ion "$a" Judge 1llio"" ordered 5 undergo #i"$ "$e +a'e(s Crossing
do!"ors, 5 spen" 7 days in ;ail)
7 am %eeling better and better #ince #tarting to ta5e my
antide/re##ant' 3ellbutrin again' and no2 realiMe 7 need to be much
more diligent in %illing that /re#cri/tion in a timely manner and ma5ing
/re/aration# %or #ituation# 2here 7 might not be able to a%%ord it) + /lan
to 2rite many a/ology letter#, including to judges, bar counsel, opposing
counsel, etc) + always fought and wor?ed hard for my clients though for an
e'tremely competitive price)
1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH)F
;owever, such incon-enient in%ormation Eu#t did not %it com%ortably into the
narrati-e :ing 2i#hed to /u#h onto the#e /roceeding# in the ram/ant /ur#uit o% hi#
unethical #ocial climbing (ma?e 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 wor? everyday, and leave at &:&0 pm regularly, all while
engaging in unfathomably unethical ego trips Huite freHuently along the way)
5hese potentially mitigating factors are wea? at best and do not e'cuse the #ell
es"a6lis$ed (3#5E: >ell, which is it, EcheverriaJ >as 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
E#ell es"a6lis$ed9J 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 :ules of (rofessional conduct and do not outweigh the aggravating
circumstances established overwhelmingly by the 1tate 2ar)
1,,/%&
@C9!!@,$?679,*
5he (anel recommends that the :espondent be ordered:
(1* +rrevocably disbarred by the 1upreme Court) >hile 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* 5hat his temporary suspension be continued pending final resolution of this
matter)
(&* >ithin 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)
(!* 5o pay the costs associated with these proceedings pursuant to 1C: 120) P
7,$@K 9( )@?7,= @K)7+76* B*+, <* 1 69 1&C Coughin<# 14-15 Chair<# 16
1 =7nde8 o% $ocument# *elected %or )earing Pac5et by 123Bs (at Ging in attempt to
s?irt his lie that he lac?ed a certified copy of every #rder attached to filings contained
therein and containing numerous fraudulent (roofs of 1ervice by the 123 /age &&&
- /. &&6 < pages of what Ging purports :(C e'cerpts (1)2, &)1, &)&, &)!, &)<, &)<6, !)1, !)!,
%)1, %)2, %)!*
= /. &41 %2&12 Com/laint 123 v) Coughlin:
=@8hibit 1: 11&011 :9C Dudge ;oward Dudgment of Conviction and Court #rder in 221/.
candy bar &1<12 Dudge Elliott #rder 6ffirming :uling of the :9C in appeal C:11=20.!
=@8hibit 2: 11&011 :9C Dudge ;oward #rder for 1ummary (unishment of contem/t
Committed in @iew and (resence of the Court in 11 C: 221/.
=@8hibit &0 &1212 :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes #rder of &1!12 with Pclear and convincingP
language)
2 =?ttorney (ee# 9rder o% H42'050 by "udge (lanagan in C@11=0&.2% .2%12 pursuant to
!1,12 9otion for 6ttorneyBs "ees by :ichard 7) ;+ll, EsH), within appeal of summary
e-iction in :DC rev2011=001/0% by Dudge 1ferraAAa /age &87
& =9rder ?%ter 6rial by "udge 4inda =ardner of !100, in D@0%=011.% that >$1 cited as
the sole reason for firing Coughlin from domestic violence attorney position /age &92
! =contem/t 9rder 2 2% 12 Dudge ;olmes 2.%00 #rder "inding Defendant in contem/t and
+mposing 1anctions' /age 407
< =9rder attached to Com/laint & 12 12 Dudge ;olmes attached to Complaint #rder 2.%00
fed clear and convincing burden for :(C standard by 123 /age 412
. =4etter dated (ebruary 14' 2012 to !r. Coughlin %rom !r. :ing 2 1! 12 partial letter
from 123 Ging e'cised ;illBs 1 1! 12 ng12=020! grievance, so no notice of it, not pled /age
419
/ =62o-/age letter dated !arch 9' 2011 %rom !r. Coughlin to *tate +ar CoughlinBs & , 12
fa' to 123 regarding delayed receipt of 2 1! 12 letter from Ging re ;illBs grievance /age 421
200/%&
% =62o /age letter dated !arch 14' 2012 %rom "udge )olme# to *+, ,orthern 9%%ice & 1!
12 complaint against Coughlin to 123 3orth /age 424
, =?%%ida-it o% Po-erty & / 12 6ffidavit of (overty lac?ing caption or certification by :9C
D& page !2/
10=9rder in Ca#e 11 C 22176 !C Dudge ;oward 12 1< 11 #rder denying +"( for
5ranscript (reparation and 3ew 5rial and :ecusal /age 4&1
11= 9rder %or *ummary Puni#hment :9C Dudge ;oward 11 &0 11 #rder for 1ummary
contem/t incident to defense of .0%&% conviction /age 54&
12=9rder ?%%irming uling o% !C Dudge Elliott & 1< 12 #rder 6ffirming :9C Dudge
;owardBs conviction in candy bar petty larceny C:11=20.! /age 4&9
1&=9rder =ranting e#/ondent<# !otion to $i#mi## ?//eal Dudge Elliott % 2/ 12 C:12=
12.2 #rder Dismissing 6ppeal of tre#/a## Conviction by Dudge >illiam 7ardner in :9C 11
C: 2.!0< page !!!
1!=,e2 Veri%ied e#/on#e Coughlin 11 1! 12 3ew @erified :esponse after Chair
EcheverriaBs threatening misstatements of the law re default /age 448
1<=$eclaration Veri%ied e#/on#e 2ith t2o $V$ di#c# CoughlinBs 11 1< 12 Declaration and
@erified :esponse /age 509
1.=@mergency @8 Parte !otion Chair EcheverriaBs 11 1! 12 incomplete and secretive e'hibit
entered sua sponte, in his attempt to one up Dudge 3ash ;olmes 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
lac?ing discs /age 54& and where that which is represented in E'hibit 1. is an incomplete copy
of the filing itself (an PeditP, 2ar Counsel Ging might say, if Coughlin was see?ing 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 9ember 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*,
812&112 *+, V. Z. C9I=)47, *C 105 C9!P4?7,6' ,=12-0204' 04&4' 04&50
P($E61E 56GE notice that pursuant to 1upreme Court :ule (P1C:*10<(2* a
@E:+"+ED :E1(#31E #: 631>E: to this Complaint must be filed with the #ffice of 2ar
Counsel, 1tate 2ar of 3evada, ,!<. Double : 2oulevard, 1te) 2, :eno, 3evada, %,<21, within
twenty (20* days of service of this Complaint) (rocedure regarding service is addressed in 1C:
10,) Complainant, 1tate 2ar of 3evada (P1tate 2arP*, by and through its 6ssistant 2ar Counsel
(atric? #) Ging, is informed and believes as follows:
-achery Coughlin (P:espondentP*, 2ar number ,!/&, is a member of the 1tate 2ar
of 3evada admitted on 9arch 2<, 200<) :espondentBs date of birth is 1eptember 2/, 1,/.) 5he
201/%&
address that :espondent has on file with the 1tate 2ar of 3evada, in accordance with :ule of
(rofessional conduct (P:(CP* /,(1 *(a* is (ost #ffice 2o' &,.1, :eno 3@ %,<0<) :espondent
engaged in acts of misconduct warranting the imposition of professional discipline) 5he 1tate
2ar alleges as follows:
1) 9ultiple grievances were received by the #ffice of 2ar Counsel between the
period of Danuary 1! and 9arch 1<, 2012, concerning :espondent) Due to the serious
allegations of misconduct, grievance files were opened and an investigation was initiated by
6ssistant 2ar Counsel (atric? Ging)
2) :espondent was advised of the grievances via 8)1) mail, e=mail and by a brief
meeting with 9r) Ging at the 1tate 2ar #ffice in :eno) :espondent did no" !oopera"e #i"$ "$e
ines"iga"ion and ra"$er "$an respond "o "$e griean!es as re8ues"ed, :espondent sent non=
responsive
/2
and disparaging e=mails
/&
)
&) :espondent has not made a reHuest to be placed on disability status, nor has he
ac?nowledged that he may have mental infirmity, illness, or addiction)
!) 5he investigation of the grievances against :espondent shows a serious pattern of
misconduct)
<) #n 1eptember ,, 2011, :espondent shoplifted a candy bar and cough drops a
>al=9art store with an appro'imate value of fourteen dollars (O1!)00*) #n 3ovember &0,
2011, 9unicipal Court Dudge Genneth :) ;oward found :espondent guilty of the offense (etit
$arceny, a violation of :9C %)10)0!0) :espondent appealed the judgment of 5he judgment of
conviction was affirmed on appeal) 1ee E'hibit 1)
.) During the trial :espondentBs conduct was so di#ru/tive that Dudge ;oward
:espondent in direct contem/t of Court and sentenced him to serve three (&* days in 1ee
E'hibit 2)
/) #n 6ugust 20, 2011, :espondent was arrested on a second larceny charge for
stealing a cell phone) 5hose charges are currently pending in :eno Dustice Court)
%) :espondent was again arrested on Danuary 1&, 2012, for allegedly abusing ,11
services, a gross misdemeanor)
,) #n "ebruary 21) 2012) :espondent filed a document entitled, notice of
6ppearance Entry of (lea of 3ot guilty , >aiver of 6rraignment, 9otion to Dismiss, etc) in
one of his pending criminal matters, Case 3o) :C:=2012 0.<.&0, City of :eno v) -achary
Coughlin) 5he document clearly shows :espondentBs unprofessional, di#ru/tive conduct, and
lac? of respect for the court and opposing counsel)
(3#5E: 3:1 1/%)&,/ made >C(D DoganBs non appearance at the 21!12
arraignment of Coughlin on a gross misdemeanor a basis for an ineffective assistance of
counsel mistrial, not an 1C: 10<(2*(c* Complaint against Coughlin and the #2C GingBs curt
letter to Coughlin dismissing his grievance against Dogan: 3:1 1/%)&,/ per Dogan in .<.&0
3evada
2ean v) 1tate, %1 3ev) 2<, &,% ()2d 2<1 (1,.<* ] <
;off, 6pplication of, %0 3ev) &.0, &,& ()2d .1, (1,.!* ] &, 10QbR((1!**
:ainsberger v) 1tate, %1 3ev) ,2, &,, ()2d 12, (1,.<* ] &, /QaR, %QbR
@ictoria v) Koung, %0 3ev) 2/,, &,2 ()2d <0, (1,.!* ] &, 10QbR((1!**C 3ote: S &1:10)
6ttachment of right to counsel](reliminary hearingsC 6rraignments
202/%&
5he 1upreme Court in ;amilton v) 1tate of 6la), &.% 8)1) <2, %2 1) Ct) 1</, / $) Ed) 2d 11!
(1,.1*, has held that arraignment is a Pcritical stageP 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 6mendment right to the presence ofF counsel)))6ccusedBs right to
assistance of counsel at or prior to arraignment, < 6)$):)&D 12., ) 3ote: 1ee 31C5 case
.2&&/ >C(D Dogan 3:1 1/%)&,/ @iolations, DoganBs failure to appear at gross
misdemeanor 21!12 arraignment in :C:2012=0.<.&0 and :eno Dustice Ct Dudicial 1ecretary
$ori 5ownsendBs subseHuent vindictive email to 1tate 2ar of 3evada of CoughlinBs 22112
9otion to Dismiss filed therein pointing out >C(D DoganBs failure to appear in violation of
3:1 1/%)&,/,(lease in 123 complaint in .2&&/) 1ee GingBs %2&12 Complaint at :#6 2 and
1/0. (lines 21=& : P%) :espondent was again arrested on Danuary 1&, 2012, for allegedly
abusing ,11 emergency services, a gross misdemeanor) ,) #n "ebruary 21, 2012, :espondent
filed a document entitled) 3otice of bpearance, Entry of (lea of 3ot 7uiltv, >aiver of :ight to
6rraignment: 9otion to DismissP in one of his pending criminal matters, Case 3o) :C:=2012
0.<.&0, City of :eno v) -achary Coughlin) 5he document clearly shows :espondentBs
unprofessional, disruptive conduct, and lac? of respect for the court and opposing counsel)P*)
10) :espondent was arrested on 3ovember 1&, 2011 by :eno (olice Department and
charged with tre#/a##ing, a misdemeanor, for which he was later convicted)
11) 5he circumstances leading to the above=mentioned arrest are as follows: at an
hearing Dustice of the (eace (eter 1ferraAAa ordered that :espondent vacate the home he was
renting effective 3ovember 1, 2011) 6fter the loc?s were changed and the notice was posted
on the front door the owner, Dr) 9erliss, discovered that someone had bro?en into the home
and was barricaded in the basement) 5he :eno (olice tried to coa' whoever was in the
basement to open the door) Dr) 9erliss was forced to ?ic? open the door where the :eno (olice
found :espondent) :espondent had bro?en into the home and living in the basement)
:espondent was arrested for criminal tre#/a## and was subseHuently convicted of that charge)
determined to be without merit) 5he motion, on its face, demonstrates that :espondent lac?s
competence to practice law)
1&) #nce :espondent was evicted, an order was obtained to remove his belongings
from the home) :espondent interfered with the contractor who was hired to remove
:espondentBs personal belongings) 5he police were called and after tal?ing with :espondent
they recommended that he find something else to do) :espondent refused to their advice and
was subseHuently arrested by the :eno police)
1!) +n the case of City of :eno vs) -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, Case 3o) 11 5: 2.%00
21, a trial was held on a traffic citation issued to :espondent) 5he matter was called at
appro'imately &:00 p)m) and concluded without a verdict at about !:&0 p)m) after the court held
:espondent 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
:DC Dudges 1ferraAAa, Clifton, (earson, and :9C Dudges ;oward, >) 7ardner, and 3ash
20&/%&
;olmes please copy 123 on this :ather, the commission correctly concluded that erroneous
contempt rulings, which also demonstrate a long=standing abuse of contempt power, may be
properly considered as willful misconduct) 1ee, e)g), \\1&< Cannon v) Commission on Dudicial
Uualifications, 1! Cal)&d ./%, 122 Cal):ptr) //%, <&/ ()2d %,% (1,/<*C 7oldman v) 3evada
ComBn on Dudicial Discipline Citation: 10% 3ev) 2<1) #te: :ather, the commission correctly
concluded that erroneous contempt rulings, which also demonstrate a long=standing abuse of
contempt power, may be properly considered as willful misconduct) 1ee, e)7), \\1&< Cannon
v) Commission on Dudicial Uualifications, 1! Cal)&D ./%, 122 Cal):ptr) //%, <&/ ()2D %,%
(1,/<*C 9atter of Del :io, !00 9ich) ..<, 2<. 3)>)2D /2/ (1,//*, appeal dismissed, !&! 8)1)
102,, ,% 1)Ct) /<,, <! $)Ed)2D /// (1,/%*C 9atter of Kengo, /2 3)D) !2<, &/1 6)2D !1
(1,//*) 1ee also, ;ague, &1< 3)>))) 1ee 3:1 1,,)&!0)*
1<) +n a 9arch 12, 2012 #rder, 9unicipal Court Dudge Dorothy 3ash ;omes found
by Pclear and convincing evidenceP that 9r) Coughlin committed numerous acts of attorney
misconduct) 1ee E'hibit &) Dudge ;olmes e'plained in her #rder that after :espondent #er-ed
his five=day contem/t of court sanction imposed by the court on "ebruary 2/, 2012,
:espondent fa'=filed to the court a 22!=page document) Dudge ;olmes found that the document
contained rambling references to his personal life and was incoherent)
1.) +n her #rder, Dudge ;omes found by clear and convincing evidence that
:espondent violated :ule of (rofessional conduct (P:(CP* 1)1 (Competence*, :(C 1)&
(Diligence*, :(C &)1 (9eritorious Claims and Contentions*, :(C &)2 (E'pediting $itigation*,
:(C &)&(a* (Candor toward the 5ribunal*, :(C &6(e* ("airness to #pposing (arty and
Counsel*) :(C %)! (c* (Engaging in Dishonesty) "raud) Deceit or 9isrepresentation* and :(C
%)!(d* Engage in conduct that is (rejudicial to the 6dministration of Dustice*)
1/) :espondent filed 6ffidavits of (overty in 1upport of his 9otion to (roceed
+nforma (auperis, wherein he fails to disclose that he is a licensed attorney and instead under
Employment and 1elf=Employment he identifies himself as a PDac? of 6ll 5radesP)
1%) Despite a claim of poverty in the above mentioned affidavits, :espondent told
the Court that his incarceration for contem/t would adversely affect his clients)
1>, #n 9arch 22, 2012, :espondent appeared at the :eno 9unicipal Court wearing
(smiley face* flannel pajamas) :espondent became argumentative and 9arshals were called to
were called to as? him to leave)
2C, #n 6pril 10, 200,, District Dudge $inda 7ardner of the 1econd Dudicial District
Court e'ecuted an P#rder 6fter 5rial,P in case 3o) D@0%=011.%) +n that case, :espondent
represented the DefendantCounter Claimant) +n her #rder Dudge 7ardner e'plained
:espondentBs inappropriate behavior in part as follows: E5he most troubling aspect of this case
was 9r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic and disrespectful presentation at trialC 9r) CoughlinBs
inability to understand a balance sheetC his failure to conduct discovery and his lac? of
?nowledge with regard to the rules of evidence and trial procedure) 6ll of this was
compounded with a continuously antagonistic presentation of the case that resulted in a shift
from a fairly #im/le divorce case to a contentious divorce trial lasting an e'cessive amount of
time)F
2/) +n light of the forgoing :espondent violated :(C 1)1 (Competence*C :(C 1)2
(Diligence*C :(C &) 1 (9eritorious Claims and Contentions*: :(C &)& (Candor to the
20!/%&
5ribunal*: :(C &)! ("airness to #pposing (arty and Counsel*C :(C &)1 (+mpartiality and
Decorum of the 5ribunal*C :(C !) 1 (5ruthfulness in 1tatements to #thers*: :(C !)! (:espect
for the :ights of 5hird (ersons*C :(C 16 (:elations with #pposing Counsel*C :(C %)1
(Disciplinary 9atters*C :(C %)2 (Dudicial and $egal #fficials*C and :(C %)! (9isconduct*)
>;E:E"#:E, Complainant prays as follows:
1) 5hat a hearing be held pursuant to 3evada 1upreme Court :ule 10<:
2) 5hat :espondent be assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceeding pursuant to
1upreme Court :ule 120(1*C and
&)5hat pursuant to 1upreme Court :ule 102, such disciplinary action be ta?en by
3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard against :espondent as may be deemed appropriate the
circumstances)P
7,$@K 69 @K)7+76* 812&112 Com/laint *+, -. Coughlin' ,=12-0204' ,=12-04&4'
,=12-04&5:
1. @8hibit 1 : =11&011 :9C Dudge ;oward Dudgment of Conviction and Court #rder in
221/. candy barC =&1<12 Dudge Elliott #rder 6ffirming :uling of the :9C in appeal C:11=
20.!
2. @8hibit 20 11&011 :9C Dudge ;oward #rder for 1ummary (unishment of contem/t
Committed in @iew and (resence of the Court in 11 C: 221/.
&. @8hibit &0 &1212 :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes #rder of &1212 with Pclear and convincingP
language)
20</%&
1 3#5E: ";E12 is invalid and none of the deadlines for Coughlin to see? any post=conviction
relief have yet begun to run where :9C Dudge ;oward did not sign the 11&011 purported
PDudgment of Conviction and Court #rderP) 6 rubber stamp of what may be Dudge ;owardBs
signature is affi'ed thereto, and, as such, is insufficient, and therefore no entry of such
judgment of conviction has yet occurred)
"urther, while rendering whatever it is he rendered on 11&011 Dudge ;oward failed
to inform Coughlin of the e'ceedingly short deadlien (comparatively to other states* in 3evada
under 3:1 1/.)<1< 5o file a 9otion for 3ew 5rial (Coughlin filed one 121&11*) ;owever,
given the fact that Dudge ;oward could not be bothered to, or could not muster up the energy to
actually signed the ";E12 Dudgment of Conviction (what else can he not manage to bring
himself to doJ >ell, there is upholding the dictates of the 1i'th 6mendment and 200% +ndigent
Defense #rder)))*, 5he / days to for Coughlin to file 9otion for 3ew 5rial under 3:1 1/.)<1<
;ave not yet run either)
2 http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%1202<1&=20=12=020!=C@11=01,<<=2//%.%.=Elliot=2!00=
6ttorneys="ee=1anction=3ot=on=the=9erits=but=on=the=9erits=;uh=>$1 Dudge ElliottBs wor5
on CoughlinsB wrongful termination lawsuit against >ashoe $egal 1ervices and the very
C66> that Elliott failed to disclose he sat on the E'ecutive 2oard of, is entirely suspect,
ma?ing the legitimacy of the dismissal of CoughlinBs appeal in .0&1/ especially suspect as
well)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%12&1&%.=&0=12=Dig=Coughlin=s=Complaint=
6gainst=>$1=C@11=01,<<=22,%10/=Complaint=Civil=2DDC=Dudge=Elliott=on=2oard=of=Co=
Defendant=C66>=020!=.2&&/
2etween all the willfully e'ceeding his jurisdiction (issuing sanctions premised upon
the Complaint lac?ing merit where his orders dismissing the case in its entirety were all based
on the alleged insufficiency of service of process and or process*, failing to divulge a patent,
bright line conflict reHuiring recusal, willfully violating the due process procedures reHuired
prior to summarily incarcerating Coughlin for contempt for eight days on !1,12, and
effectively dismissing CoughlinBs case with prejudice where failing to grant an e'tension of
time to have the Complaint served (due to the ,0 day limitations period in which any new
Complaint Coughlin would file subject to ElliottBs dismissal Ewithout prejudiceF would li?ely
be viewed as having run and thus precluding suit*, its hard to pic? Dudge ElliottBs worst
transgressions)
Dudge ElliottBs &2012 #rder granting attorneyBs fees (which was too embarrassing
for even the 123Bs Ging to wheel out at CoughlinBs formal disciplinary hearing (for those
?eeping count, the other not ready for prime time players were Dudge ;olmesB &1&12 #rder
1tri?ing "ugitive Document filed on 9arch /, 2012, ;illBs purported 11!12 emailed grievance
to Ging, "langanBs <1212 O<,000 attorneyBs fee award against Coughlin in carpentier, either of
the allegedly horrific filings by Coughlin immediately after Dudge ;olmesB five day summary
20./%&
incarceration of Coughlin on 22/12, either of the 9otions to Dismiss by Coughlin referenced
in GingBs %2012 Complaint (that of 22112 in :DC :C:2012=0.<.&0, and that of &<12 in
:9C 11 C: 2.!0<*, and any and all of the transcripts and audio transcripts from the various
proceedings wherein Coughlin allegedly e'hibited professional misconduct sufficient to
support GingBs phenomenally immoral attempt to have Coughlin permanently disbarred)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%12<!%,&=20=12=020!=C@11=01,<<=2//%.%.=Elliot=
2!00=6ttorneys="ee=1anction=3ot=on=the=9erits=but=on=the=9erits=;uh=>$1
E#:DE: 7:635+37 DE"E3D6351B 9#5+#31 "#: 655#:3EKB1 "EE1
(resently before the Court are two separate submissions) "irst is >ashoe $egal
1ervices and (aul ElcanoBs 9otion for 6ttorneyBs "ees, filed by Defendants >61;#E $E76$
1E:@+CE1 (P>$1BB* and (68$ E$C63# on December 2/, 2012) "ollowing, on Danuary 2<,
2012, (laintiff -6C; C#87;$+3 filed an #pposition to ElcanoBs 9otion for 6ttorneyBs "ees)
1ubseHuently, on "ebruary ., 2012, >$1 and Elcano filed a :eply in 1upport of 9otion for
6ttorneyBs "ees) 5he following day, "ebruary /, 2012, >$1 and Elcano filed a :eHuest for
1ubmission, thereby submitting the matter for the CourtBs consideration)
1econd, on "ebruary 2, 2012, Defendants 5#DD 5#:@+3E3, D#3 1611E:,
96:C 61;$EK, G6:E3 162#, G65;K 2:ECGE3:+D7E, and 9E$+116
9637+6:6C+36 filed a 9otion for 6ttorneyBs "ees) 1ubseHuently, on "ebruary 11, 2012,
(laintiff filed an #pposition to all 9otions for 6ttorneys "ees)fn1 5hereafter, on
"ebruary 21, 2012, the above Defendants filed a :eply in 1upport of 9otion for 6ttorneyBs
"ees) Contemporaneously therewith, Defendants filed a :eHuest for 1ubmission, thereby
submitting the matter for the CourtBs consideration) +n connection with >$1 and (aul
ElcanoBs motion, Defendants see? an award of O1,2&!)00 in attorneyBs fees) +n connection with
the remaining defendants, Defendants see? an award of O1,1</)00 in attorneysB fees) +n other
words, the various defendants see? a total award of O2,&,1)00 in attorneyBs fees)
&e!ause "$e Cour" dismissed Dlain"iff(s !omplain" for failure "o effe!"ua"e proper
seri!e of pro!ess7 "$e Cour" $as no" ye" addressed "$e meri"s of "$e !omplain". )o2e-er'
a%ter reie#ing "$e re!ord' including the com/laint %iled ?ugu#t 11' 2011' it i# clear that
the com/laint 2a# brought or maintained 2ithout rea#onable ground# or to hara##
$e%endant#. *ee /,3,*, 18,010A2BA&B) (laintiff filed a similar complaint in C@11=01%,.) 2oth
complaints include essentially the same Defendants and allege the same causes of action
against those Defendants) However the complaint filed in the present action fails to include a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that Claintiff is entitled to relief, 1ee 3):)C)()
%(6*)
+nstead, (laintiffBs complaint and the majority of his subseHuent pleadings in!lude
!i"a"ions "o irrelean" !ase la#, e'tended prose and rambling accounts of how (laintiffBs life
seems to be spiraling out of control) Dlain"iff7 a disgrun"led employee7 6roug$" 6o"$
20//%&
!omplain"s #i"$in days of ea!$ o"$er) 5he complaint filed in this action was brought andor
maintained to harass Defendants) Con#eAuently' $e%endant# are entitled to attorney#< %ee#.
*ee< ,..*. 18.010B2CB+C) 5he Court finds that Defendants have satisfied ,..C.P. 54B$CB2C
B+C as to their motion for attorneysB fees) (fn1 (laintiff re=filed his #pposition on "ebruary 22,
2012) 2012 )))) G
+n awarding attorney fees, the Court has discretion to determine what amount is
reasonable: Q+Rn determining the amount of fees to award, the court is not limited to one
specific approachC its analysis may begin with any method rationally designed to calculate a
reasonable amount, including those based on a BlodestarB amount or a contingency fee) >e
emphasiAe that, whichever method is chosen as a starting p#int, however, the court must
continue its analysis by considering the reHuested amount in light of the factors enumerated by
this court in 2runAell v) 7olden 7ate 3ational 2an? ))) Q5he advocateBsR professional Hualities,
the nature of the litigation, the wor? performed, and the result) +n this manner, whichever
method the court ultimately uses, the result will prove reasonable as long as the court provides
sufficient reasoning and findings in support of its ultimate determination) 1huette v) 2eaAer
;omes ;oldings Corp), 121 3ev) %&/, %.!=%.<, 12! ()&D <&0, <!%=<!, (200<* (internal
citations omitted*)
5he Court has carefully weighed the 2runAell factors based upon a lodestar analysis
and finds that an award of O2,&,1)00 +n attorneysB fees is reasonable) 1ee 1huette, 121 3ev) 6t
%.!=%.<) 6ccordingly, the Court will enter the following orders: 3#>, 5;E:E"#:E, +5 +1
;E:E2K #:DE:ED that >ashoe $egal 1ervices and (aul ElcanoBs 9otion for 6ttorneyBs
"ees is 7:635ED) +5 +1 "8:5;E: #:DE:ED that Defendants 5odd 5orvinen, Don 1asser,
9arc 6shley, Garen 1abo, Gathy 2rec?enridge, and 9elissa 9angiaracinaBs 9otion for
6ttorneyBs "ees is 7:635ED) D65ED this 20th Day of 9arch, 15E@E3 () E$$+#55
District DudgeF
Dudge Elliott continually feigned ignorance of CoughlinBs 9otions to Consolidate
the two actions he premises his commentary that CoughlinBs filing both was tantamount to an
attempt to harass the defendants rather than a by product of the vagaries associate with the then
state of the law as to how and when a filing date would be accorded in connection with the
approval or denial of CoughlinsB 9otion to (roceed +nforma (auperis in consideration of the
intervening running of the ,0 days to file from receipt of the EE#CBs right to sue letter)
"urther, Dudge ElliottBs orders are particularly ridiculous where >$1 admits Coughlin was fired
solely due to a !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial by 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner (which was not a sanction
anyways, but merely an attorney fee award* that was ultimately vacated in favor of the .1,0,
"inal Decree of Divorce, which awarded the same alimony, after all, that the !1&0, #rder
6fter 5rial purported Coughlin to have litigated ve'atiously in pursuing)
6 really good reason for why the two actions filed within four days of each other
should have been consolidate in response to CoughlinBs 9otion to Consolidate is presented in
the inconsistency between Dudge ElliottBs &2012 award of attorneyBs fees in C@11=01,<< and
20%/%&
the #rder of the 31C5 in .0&02 of <221& (the appeal of the dismissal of the companion case
in C@11=01%,.* http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%1&21.2<=22=1&=020!=01,<<=.0&02=
#rder=6ffirm=in=(art=:everse=in=(art=and=:emanding=to=2DDC=3o=3umbers :
Aildian
E#:DE: 6""+:9+37 +3 (6:5, :E@E:1+37 +3 (6:5, 63D :E963D+37
5his is a pro se appeal from a district court dismissal order in a wrongful
termination action) 1econd Dudicial District Court, >ashoe CountyC 2rent 5) 6dams, Dudge)
6ppellant commenced the underlying action against respondents on Dune 2/, 2011, but due
to his pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, his complaint was not formally filed
until 6ugust 11, 2011) 7n "anuary 2012' the di#trict court entered an order di#mi##ing
the com/laint a# to all re#/ondent# on the ground that a//ellant had not e%%ected
#er-ice o% /roce## on any o% the re#/ondent# 2ithin 120 day# o% "une 27' 2011) 1ee
3:C( !(i* (reHuiring generally the dismissal of a complaint with respect to any defendant
who is not served with the summons and complaint within 120 days after the complaint is
filed*)
6ppellant then timely filed an 3:C( <,(e* motion in which he sought to set
aside the dismissal order) Cf) 66 (rimo 2uilders, $$C v) >ashington, 12. 3ev) , 2!< ()&D
11,0, 11,& (2010* (recogniAing that any motion see?ing to substantively alter a judgment is
afforded 3:C( <,(e* status*) 7n it' a//ellant contended that the di#trict court
im/ro/erly u#ed "une 27' 2011' a# the triggering date %or ,CP 4BiC<# 120-day 2indo2
becau#e hi# com/laint 2a# not %ormally %iled until ?ugu#t 11' 2011. I#ing ?ugu#t 11 a#
the a//ro/riate date' a//ellant contended that di#mi##al 2a# im/ro/er 2ith re#/ect to
re#/ondent# 3a#hoe 4egal *er-ice# B34*C and Paul @lcano becau#e @lcano' 2ho i#
34*<# regi#tered agent' 2a# #er-ed 2ith a #ummon# and com/laint e8actly 120 day#
%rom ?ugu#t 11)
5he district court ac?nowledged that appellant had timely effected service on these
respondents) 3onetheless, the district court denied appellantBs 3:C( <,(e* motion, reasoning
that service of process was still improper because appellant had filed a Pdeclaration,P rather
than an Paffidavit,P with the district court as proof that these respondents had been served) 1ee
3:C( !(g*(2* (reHuiring a person who serves process and who is not a sheriff or deputy to
provide proof of service by means of an PaffidavitP*)
#n appeal, appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying
his 3:C( <,(e* motion with respect to these two respondents)fn1("n1 6ppellant has not
cogently argued that dismissal was improper with respect to any of the other respondents, and
we therefore do not consider any challenge to the dismissal of appellantBs complaint as to the
other respondents) 1ee Edwards v) EmperorBs 7arden :est), 122 3ev) &1/, &&0 3)&%, 1&0 ()&D
20,/%&
12%0, 12%% n)&% (200.* (3oting that it is a partyBs Presponsibility to cogently argue, and present
relevant authority, in support of his appellate concernsP* 1ee 66 (rimo 2uilders, 12. 3ev) 6t ,
2!< ()&D at 11,/
(PQ6Rn order denying an 3:C( <,(e* motion is reviewable for abuse of discretion on
appeal from the underlying judgment)P*) 1pecifically, appellant contends that the district court
improperly relied upon 3:C( !(g* because that rule e'pressly clarifies that +fR ailure to ma?e
proof of service shall not affect the validity of the service)P >e agree) fn2 ("n2 >e also Huestion
whether appellantBs proof of service was actually deficient) 1ee 2uc?walter v) Eighth Dudicial
Dist) Court, 12. 3ev), 2&! ()&D ,20, ,21=22 (2010* (indicating that 3:1 <&)0!< 7ives a
declaration signed under penalty of perjury the same legal effect as an affidavit* 6ccordingly, the
district court abused its discretion in denying appellantBs 3:C( <,(e* motion insofar as the
motion sought to reverse the dismissal of appellantBs complaint as to >$1 and Elcano) 1ee 29>
v) :oth, 12/ 3ev) g 2<2 ()&D .!,, .</ (2011* (P6 district court would necessarily abuse its
discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law) ) ) )P (Uuotation omitted**)
>$1 and Elcano as? us to nevertheless affirm the district courtBs dismissal as to
them because appellant failed to meaningfully oppose their motions to dismiss) Cf) "oster v)
Dingwall, 12. 3ev)g 22/ ()&D 10!2, 10!, (2010* (treating the failure to respond to a motion as
an admission that the motion is meritorious*) >e decline to affirm based on appellantBs
shortcomings in opposing the motions to dismiss, as doing
so under these circumstances would all but eliminate 3:C( <,(e*Bs utility) 6mong other things,
3:C( <,(e* is available to Pcorrect manifes" errors of la# or fa!")P 66 (rimo 2uilders, 12.
3ev) at , 2!< ()&d at 11,& (Huotation omitted*) 5his standard was satisfied here 6e!ause
appellan"(s proof of seri!e #as par" of "$e dis"ri!" !our" re!ord a" "$e "ime i" gran"ed
responden"s( mo"ions "o dismiss and 6e!ause responden"s su6se8uen"ly !on!eded "$a"
0ugus" 117 20117 #as "$e proper da"e from #$i!$ "o !al!ula"e /3CD FAiB(s 120-day #indo#)
Cf) :obinson v) Clipse, .02 ")&d .0<, .0% (!th Cir) 2010* (tolling the 120=day service period
while the plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis was pending*C :obinson v) 6mericaBs
2est Contacts M Eyeglasses, %/. ")2d <,., <,% (/th Cir) 1,%,*
(same*)
6ccordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to all
respondents e'cept >$1 and (aul Elcano) 6s for these two respondents, we reverse the
judgment of the district court and remand this matter to the district court for proceedings
consistent with this order) fn& (fn& 5n lig$" of our disposi"ion7 #e reerse "$e dis"ri!" !our"(s
a#ard of a""orney fees, 2$is s$ould no" 6e !ons"rued as pre!luding "$e dis"ri!" !our" from
a#arding a""orney fees on remand under appropria"e !ir!ums"an!es)*
+t is so #:DE:ED)F
1o, really, would it not be Elcano and >$1 that ought be paying Coughlin attorneyBs
fees in light of their arguing against well established authority in 2uc?walter, and that which is
manifest from the record, in addition to Elcano and >$1 arguing against the detailed authority
Coughlin put in the record vis a vis the manner of assigning a filing date to a complaint
following the informa pauperis application such was submitted in connection withJ
>here such <221& #rder in .0&02 provides: E6mong other things, 3:C( <,(e* is
210/%&
available to Pcorrect manifes" errors of la# or fa!")P 66 (rimo 2uilders, 12. 3ev) at , 2!<
()&d at 11,& (Huotation omitted*) 5his standard was satisfied here 6e!ause appellan"(s proof of
seri!e #as par" of "$e dis"ri!" !our" re!ord a" "$e "ime i" gran"ed responden"s( mo"ions "o
dismiss and 6e!ause responden"s su6se8uen"ly !on!eded "$a" 0ugus" 117 20117 #as "$e
proper da"e from #$i!$ "o !al!ula"e /3CD FAiB(s 120-day #indo#) Cf) :obinson v) Clipse,
.02 ")&d .0<, .0% (!th Cir) 2010* (tolling the 120=day service period while the plaintiffs
motion to proceed in forma pauperis was pending*C :obinson v) 6mericaBs 2est Contacts M
Eyeglasses, %/. ")2d <,., <,% (/th Cir) 1,%,* (same*) )))we reverse the judgment of the district
court and remand this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order) fn&
(fn& 5n lig$" of our disposi"ion7 #e reerse "$e dis"ri!" !our"(s a#ard of a""orney fees,,,*4,
& &1212 :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes #rder of &1!12 in 11 5: 2.%00 with Pclear and convincingP
burden of proof language 2ar Counsel reHuested she place thereinP
PS 1%) Contempt >here an attorney disciplinary statute made the record of an attorneyBs
conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude conclusive evidence, i" $as 6een
$eld "$a" a !oni!"ion for !on"emp" of !our" #as nei"$er a felony nor a misdemeanor #i"$in "$e
meaning of "$e s"a"u"e, 2$us7 i" $as 6een $eld "$a" dis!iplinary pro!eedings7 6roug$" agains" an
a""orney 6ased upon $is !oni!"ion in federal !our" for !on"emp"7 s$ould 6e remanded "o de"ermine
"$e manner and degree of "$e a""orney(s mis!ondu!", 7n e Conley, (1,&&* 1%% 9inn </<, 2!% 3>
!1, the court refused to discipline an attorney solely upon proof of a federal conviction for contempt)
5he attorney disciplinary statute provided for the removal or suspension of an attorney at law upon his
conviction of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitudeC in either case, the record of
conviction constituted conclusive evidence) 3oting that contempt proceedings were neither civil
actions nor criminal prosecutions within the ordinary meaning of such terms, the court held that
contempt of court was neither a felony nor a misdemeanor within the meaning of the attorney
disciplinary statute) 5hus, the court remanded the proceedings to a referee, where the misconduct
charged could be proved by such evidence as was received in the federal court, and the attorney would
be entitled to refute such evidence)P
+n re Conley, 1%% 9inn) </<, 2!% 3)>) !1 (1,&&* +nterpreted a state statute, providing for
disbarment or suspension of a lawyer Eupon his being convicted of felony, or of a misdemeanor
involving moral turpitudeC in either of which cases the record of conviction shall be conclusive
evidence)F Conley was convicted of contempt of court in federal court and disbarred there) 5he federal
judgment, without further evidence, was submitted to the 9innesota 1upreme Court, for imposition of
ancillary discipline) 5he court found that contempt was neither a felony or misdemeanor) E>e therefore
thin? the prosecution here could not rest on the record of the judgment of conviction of contempt)F
Discipline could be imposed, however, if the conduct proven in federal court was also proven in state
discipline proceedings)
211/%&
! 6t bates .1& of the 123Bs &,0,! page production to Coughlin is: .1& emails
to Coughlin from :9C Chief 9arshal Dustin :oper indicating such is responsive to voice mail
Coughlin left on 121&11 ma?ing complaint regarding 9arshal 9enAelBs abusive approach at
101111 arraignment in >al=9art candy bar petty larceny case resulting in .0%&% temporary
suspension, and 9enAelBs nearly ?noc?ing over :9CBs 2allard on 121&11 in attempts to
intimidate Coughlin while Coughlin sought to timely file his 3otice of 6ppeal and 9otion to
1et 6side conviction of 11&011, and :operBs failing to address CoughlinBs contention that the
11&011 E#rder (unishing 1ummary ContemptF (";E11* in 11 C: 221/. was not provided to
nor served on Coughlin by the :9C or any of its 9arshals on 11&011 where :oper, rather,
focuses on the 11&011 EDudgment of Conviction and Court #rderF (attached in ";E1 to
GingBs %2&12 Complaint* and to the 1C: 111(.* (etition in .0%&%* where :oper fails to
alleged such ";E11 was similarly provided to Coughlin or boo?ed into his property,
referencing :9C Dudge ;owards Dudicial 6ssistant @eronica $opeA, whom later lied to
Coughlin on during a 12<11 telephone Coughlin in responding to CoughlinBs reHuest for a
copy of any #rder finding Coughlin in contempt (as Coughlin was absolutely not provided
such on 11&011 or anytime thereafter until such was included in the :#6 filed in the appeal
in C:11=20.!, though, such being made Ein absentiaF of one of the parties (:C6 prosecutor
(amela :oberts, EsH)* such reHuires a 3otice of Entry of #rder prior to the deadline to file a
3otice of 6ppeal to begin running (though, pursuant to (engilly, as least to the e'tent such
";E11 11&011 E#rder (unishing 1ummary ContemptF was addressed to Coughlin as an
attorney representing himself in 221/. (which is not at all clear, though it is clear that :9C
Dudge ;oward willfully violated the 200% +ndigent Defense #rder in denying Coughlin, whom
Hualified as a per se indigent under the e'press income guidelines therein in light of CoughlinBs
filing a sworn declaration (3:1 <&)0!<* on 102.11 see?ing the appointment of counsel
indicating that his yearly income was appro'imately O10,000, via ;oward 102/11 #rder
Denying 6pplication for Court 6ppointed Counsel) Chief 9arshal :operBs 121!11 email to
Coughlin indicates E7 am a2are that a co/y o% your Judgemen" of Coni!"ion 2a# /ro-ided
to you and boo5ed into your /ro/erty on the night you 2ere arre#ted. Fou are entitled to
another co/y #hould you 2i#h.F Coughlin is wrongfully subject to the threat of incarceration
should he attempt to contact :oper or any other employee of the :9C given the e'press
threats made by :9C Dudge >) 7ardner in his 11.1& 6dministrative
#rder 201&=01 forbidding Coughlin from doing so)
<
. :eally, it becomes more and more clear why the 123 has failed to release the letter 3@2
Dudge 2eesley testified as to having written to the 123 after underta?ing what his testimony
would seem to characteriAe as a Canon 2, :ule 2)1! inHuiry with $C$Bs Coe 1wobe) Either
such letter to the 123 by 2eesley is not tantamount to a Canon 2, :ule 2)1< reporting of
attorney misconduct (in which case, beyond just being evidence that Coughlin did not violate
any of the :(CBs which the (anelBs 121!12 "#"C#$ purports, Coughlin is provided a
212/%&
defensive collateral estoppel argument of great strength given Dudge 2eesley was in the best
position to judge whether Coughlin had committed any misconduct before him in the matters in
which Coughlin appeared before him, and, having not done so, may not appear at the 111!12
formal hearing and vaugely testify as to more of an 1C: 11/ type of inHuiry as to whether
Coughlin is EcomptentF than with respect to the alleged violation(s*(J* of :(C 1)1
ECompetenceF)
"urther Dudge 2eelseyBs testimony actually buttresses CoughlnBs contention that on a
:(C 1)1 continuum he resides within that range of attorneyBs who passed the bar e'amination
in one of the 1tateBs ?nown for having the most rigorous of e'ams (3evada* following just his
second year of law school (where Coughlin was tenth in his class of /% students, where, really,
due to a grade weighting oddity of assigning only two credits to the class Coughlin received his
highest grade in, and one pass fail credit to Eintro to law wee?F Coughlin actually was closer to
third or fourth in his class, but whose counting)))CoughlinBs paper for the 2oyd 1chool of $awBs
Nevada Jaw Journal write on competetition was also amongst only three selected for a right of
first refusal) +ndeed, Dudge 2eesleyBs view on Coughlin actually are evidence that Coughlin
provides highly competent representation to his clients, or could (again, this is not a bar
e'amination, the 123 must allege specific instances of a respondent providing representation
that violated :(C &)1, not attempt to bac?door some 1C: 11/ angle upon 6sst) 2ar Counsel
Ging getting all vindictive upon Coughlin pointing out his violations of 1C: 121 and the lac?
of 1C: 10. palliative such ills receive under 3evada law) >elcome to practicing law without
a net, (atty (maybe you go away for three, four years or so, do some real soul seaching, and
weBll be thrilled to welcome you bac? with open arms upon your passing the bar e'amination
and 9(:E)))of course, youBll lose your wife, family))shuc?s, everything youBve ever ?nown or
loved along the way, but at least you wonBt be some miserable, fec?less government lawyer
anymore and you might have actually developed a hint of a soul by that time as well)))oh yeah,
the dogJ 5hatBs gone too, (at) Kou would lose the 7reat Dane you bring to wor? at the 123Bs
#ffices those three days a wee? you show up from ,:1<=ish am to &:&0 p)m), but, really, you
just would not have room for him, especially not him, what with youBd be living out of your
@olvo, doing a ?ind of Huasi=camping thing in conjunction with the 71: and (eppermillBs
par?ing lots and wi=fi, and just generally getting in touch with whether or not you are an actual
attorney (and there are scarcely any of them out there anymore* or just another person who did
not ?now what they wanted to in life and figured, Ehey, +Bve never had a sense of humor or any
taste whatsoever, + ?now, +Bll become an attorneyF, and then applied and got accepted to some
law school*:
Dudge 2eelsey described Coughlin as: E((age 2,:2 to 2,:2* highly intelligent) + thin?
you areF and preferred to focus his testimony on more of an 1C: 11/ basis in discussing the
issue of ((age 2,:& to 2,:&*
Elegal competenceF, but only in generaliAed terms, noting how difficult it must be to focus on
one idea when someone has so very many top shelf ideas firing off in thousands of highly
creative directions owing to their being so ((age 2,:< to 2,:<* Every smartP, only to then refuse
to characteriAe his efforts as any sort of Canon 2, :ule 2)1< reporting, but reiterating he just
21&/%&
wanted what was best for Coughlin, and that is why he ((age 11:/ to 11:10* Ebecame
concerned that he was suffering from alcohol or drug abuse or had some sort of mental
issues)))P causing him to ((age 11:1. to 11:1/* tal? Eto Coe 1wobe, who is $awyers Concerned
for $awyers ==P
+ndeed, such testimony really just mostly bolsters CoughlinBs argument that the
Es?illF part of the job he has covered: :(C :ulee1)1)eeFCompetence)ee6 lawyer shall provide
competent representation to a client) Competent representation reHuires the legal ?nowledge,
s'ill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation)F
Dudge 2eesley actually also testified as to CoughlinBs thoroughness where he
testified that he did ((age 2/:20 to 2/:21* Premember a fairly lengthy briefP where CoughlinBs
wor? so so thorough that it even wound up ((age 2/:22 to 2/:2<* Paddressing points of law
which werenBtF which were not even entirely necessary to go to the trouble of addressing,
noting such e'tra effort by Coughlin Ehad some discussions of historical matters and some
discussions of perhaps constitutional lawP)
Certainly, Dudge ;olmesB arguably stealing an attorneyBs smart phone, micro sd card,
and cellular phone raises Canon 2, :ule 2)1!, and 2)1< reporting reHuirements for Dudge
2eelsey as well, and given that Dudge 2eelsey probably cares about Dudge ;olmes too, he
probably reported her as well after seeing the following filing of &&012 by Coughlin in 3@2=
10=0<10!, especially with respect to the attachments thereto:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1...<&1/,&=&0=12=020!=.2&&/=3@2=10=0<10!=<&.&,=2.%00=
Dudge=2eesley=s=:eporting=Couglin=8nder=Canon=2=:ule=2=1<=>here=2eesley=;ad=Duty=to=
:eport=:9C=Dudge=;olm
>hile the challenges of avoiding prejudice to his clientBs cases were vast given the
by then, at least, three different burglaries of his former home law offices by the >C1# and
:(D that Coughlin had to endure (often with opposing counsel in tow for e'tra muscle and just
sheer goonage* may have resulted in that &&012 filing in the 3@2 being a tad lengthy, here is
an edited version for brevityBs sa?e:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1...<,1,!&=&0=12=Edited=Coughlin=s="iling=Detailing=(rejudice=
to=Client=s=6ffairs="rom=>rongful=1ummary=+ncarceration=and=5heft=of=;is=(hone=by=
Dudges=;olmes=a
2eyond his main des?top computer becoming infected with a truly horrific E-one
6larm (roF (-one starts boiling bunnies if you try and uninstall it, wrea?ing havoc on oneBs
networ? adapter, etc), etc)*, Coughlin was subjected to being another in a long line of people
severly damaged by the fraudulent approach to practicing law that one 7ayle Gern, EsH) ta?es,
not to mention such occurring where :DC Dudge 1chroeder continued his willful, wanton
rampage upon the jurisdictional boundaries set out by the legislature in enacting a limited
statutory remedy to landlordBs see?ing the summary removal of tenants (6i?ins, @olpert,
21!/%&
Davidsohn Dudge 1hroeder is either not all that conversant in, or cares not to recogniAe,
enormous societal costs be damned*: http:www)scribd)comdoc1....0200&=%=12="raud=by=
7ayle=Gern=2urglary=by=>C1#=E'ceeding=Dursidiction=by=:DC=Dudge=1hroeder=#bstacles=
to=:epresenting=Coughlins=Clients=&/!=020!=.2&&

,C"C Canon 20 uleS2.14.SS$i#ability and 7m/airment.ee6 judge having a reasonable belief that the performance of a
lawyer or another judge is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical condition, shall ta?e
appropriate action, which may include a confidential referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance program)
C9!!@,6
Q1ReE6ppropriate actionF means action intended and reasonably li?ely to help the judge or lawyer in Huestion address
the problem and prevent harm to the justice system) Depending upon the circumstances, appropriate action may include but
is not limited to spea?ing directly to the impaired person, notifying an individual with supervisory responsibility over the
impaired person, or ma?ing a referral to an assistance program)
Q2Re5a?ing or initiating corrective action by way of referral to an assistance program may satisfy a judgeLs
responsibility under this :ule) 6ssistance programs have many approaches for offering help to impaired judges and lawyers,
such as intervention, counseling, or referral to appropriate health care professionals) Depending upon the gravity of the
conduct that has come to the judgeLs attention, however, the judge may be reHuired to ta?e other action, such as reporting
the impaired judge or lawyer to the appropriate authority, agency, or body) 1ee :ule 2)1<)

uleS2.15.SSe#/onding to "udicial and 4a2yer !i#conduct.
(6*e6 judge having ?nowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial
Huestion regarding the judgeLs honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate
authority)
(2*e6 judge having ?nowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the 3evada :ules of (rofessional Conduct
that raises a substantial Huestion regarding the lawyerLs honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects
shall inform the appropriate authority)
(C*e6 judge who receives information indicating a substantial li?elihood that another judge has committed a violation
of this Code shall ta?e appropriate action)
(D*e6 judge who receives information indicating a substantial li?elihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the
3evada :ules of (rofessional Conduct shall ta?e appropriate action)
C9!!@,6
Q1Re5a?ing action to address ?nown misconduct is a judgeLs obligation) (aragraphs (6* and (2* impose an obligation
on the judge to report to the appropriate disciplinary authority the ?nown misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that
raises a substantial Huestion regarding the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer) +gnoring or denying
?nown misconduct among oneLs judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession undermines a judgeLs responsibility
to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system) 5his :ule limits the reporting obligation to those
offenses that an independent judiciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent)
Q2Re6 judge who does not have actual ?nowledge that another judge or a lawyer may have committed misconduct but
receives information indicating a substantial li?elihood of such misconduct, is reHuired to ta?e appropriate action under
paragraphs (C* and (D*) 6ppropriate action may include, but is not limited to, communicating directly with the judge who
may have violated this Code, communicating with a supervising judge, or reporting the suspected violation to the
appropriate authority or other agency or body) 1imilarly, actions to be ta?en in response to information indicating that a
lawyer has committed a violation of the 3evada :ules of (rofessional Conduct may include but are not limited to
communicating directly with the lawyer who may have committed the violation or reporting the suspected violation to the
appropriate authority or other agency or body)

21</%&
uleS2.16.SSCoo/eration 3ith $i#ci/linary ?uthoritie#.
(6*e6 judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies)
(2*e6 judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person ?nown or suspected to have assisted or
cooperated with an investigation of a judge or a lawyer)
C9!!@,6
Q1ReCooperation with investigations and proceedings of judicial and lawyer discipline agencies, as reHuired in
paragraph (6*, instills confidence in judgesL commitment to the integrity of the judicial system and the protection of the
public)
Q6ddedC effective Danuary 1,, 2010)R
TTTTTTTTT
/ http:www)law)ua)edupubsjlpfilesissues_filesvol1&vol1&art1<)pdf 5he 6pplication of
Criminal Contempt (rocedures to 6ttorneys 5he Dournal of Criminal $aw and Criminology
(1,/&=* @ol) .!, 3o) & (1ep), 1,/&*, (p) &00=&0,)
;ttp:www)$aw)8a)Edupubsjlpfilesissues_filesvol1&vol1&art1<)(df 5he Dournal of the
$egal (rofession Q@ol) 1&:2/1) C#35E9(5 C+565+#3 61 E@+DE3CE #" 83"+53E11
5# (:6C5+CE $6> 5his comment discusses the relationship between a courtBs e'ercise of
the contempt power against an attorney and subseHuent state bar disciplinary proceedings
against the attorney for ethical breaches occurring in the contempt matter) 5he basic problem is
balancing the courtBs right to e'ercise its contempt powers against the attorneyBs right and duty
to use vigorous advocacy in the effective representation of the client) 11) 5;E
:E$65+#31;+( 2E5>EE3 5;E D8D+C+6$ E4E:C+1E #" C#35E9(5 (#>E: 63D
1565E 26:D +1C+($+36:6KC 5+#31 5he recent case of 9atthews v) @irginia 1tate 2ar,B
held that an attorneyBs conduct which could be punishable as contempt of court may also be
considered as evidence that the attorney is unfit to practice law)2 ("n 1) 2&1 @a) &0%, &!&
1)E)2D /, (1,%.*) 2) +d) 6t %0)*P
% +t is interesting to compare the #rder by Dudge ;olmes that she herself had provided to the
123 with what the 123 ultimately decided to utiliAe at the hearing (";E!, ";E<, and just the
Certificate of 1ervice from her &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document "iled on 9arch /,
2012 presented as the last page of ";E,*, to what was attached to the Complaint (just ";E<*,
to what was Huoted from ";E! within the Complaint, to the Complaints lac? of incorporating
by reference 9irch style the rest of ";E!, (not to mention the rest of ";E2 (well, that was not
even hinted at in the Complaint*, ";E&, ";E10, ";E/, ";E%, etc), etc*)
http:mainelaw)maine)eduacademicsmaine=law=
reviewpdfvol2<_1vol2<_me_l_rev_%,)pdf E655#:3EK1 63D 5;E 18996:K
C#35E9(5 163C5+#3 +) +35:#D8C5+#3 +t is indisputable that an orderly, disciplined
courtroom is a prereHuisite for the administration of justice) :ules necessarily bac?ed by
sanctions insure needed decorum and sobriety within the courtroom) #ne method used to
promote courtroom order is the summary criminal contempt procedure embodied in 1% 8)1)C)
21./%&
S !01 (1*B 6nd implemented under :ule !2(a* of the "ederal :ules of Criminal (rocedure)2 +n
practice, the nature of the procedure has triggered criticism that summary criminal punishment
of indecorous courtroom conduct fails to provide constitutional safeguards of due process of
law) 9ost recently, the decision of +n re Dellinger&F
+?74
,*S178.484eeight to bail be%ore con-ictionL e8ce/tion#L im/o#ition o% condition#L
arre#t %or -iolation o% condition....N 10)ee5he court may, before releasing a person
arrested for an offense punishable as a felony, reHuire the surrender to the court of any passport
the person possesses)
11)ee2efore releasing a person arrested for any crime, the court may impose such
reasonable conditions on the person as it deems necessary to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the community and to ensure that the person will appear at all times and places
ordered by the court, including, without limitation:
(a*e:eHuiring the person to remain in this 1tate or a certain county within this 1tateC
(b*e(rohibiting the person from contacting or attempting to contact a specific person or
from causing or attempting to cause another person to contact that person on the personLs
behalfC
(c*e(rohibiting the person from entering a certain geographic areaC or
(d*e(rohibiting the person from engaging in specific conduct that may be harmful to the
personLs own health, safety or welfare, or the health, safety or welfare of another person)
h +n determining whether a condition is reasonable, the court shall consider the factors listed
in 3:1 1/%)!%<&)
12)ee+f a person fails to comply with a condition imposed pursuant to subsection 11, the
court may, after providing the person with reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing:
(a*eDeem such conduct a contempt pursuant to 3:1 22)010C or
(b*e+ncrease the amount of bail pursuant to 3:1 1/%)!,,)N
10)ee5he court may, before releasing a person arrested for an offense punishable
as a felony, reHuire the surrender to the court of any passport the person possesses)
11)ee2efore releasing a person arrested for any crime, the court may impose such
reasonable conditions on the person as it deems necessary to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the community and to ensure that the person will appear at all times and places
ordered by the court, including, without limitation:
(a*e:eHuiring the person to remain in this 1tate or a certain county within this 1tateC
(b*e(rohibiting the person from contacting or attempting to contact a specific person or
from causing or attempting to cause another person to contact that person on the personLs
behalfC
(c*e(rohibiting the person from entering a certain geographic areaC or
(d*e(rohibiting the person from engaging in specific conduct that may be harmful to the
personLs own health, safety or welfare, or the health, safety or welfare of another person)
h +n determining whether a condition is reasonable, the court shall consider the factors listed
21//%&
in 3:1 1/%)!%<&)
12)ee+f a person fails to comply with a condition imposed pursuant to subsection 11, the
court may, after providing the person with reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing:
(a*eDeem such conduct a contempt pursuant to 3:1 22)010C or
(b*e+ncrease the amount of bail pursuant to 3:1 1/%)!,,)
,*S22.010ee?ct# or omi##ion# con#tituting contem/t#.ee5he following acts or
omissions shall be deemed contempts:
1)eeDisorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while the judge is
holding court, or engaged in judicial duties at chambers, or toward masters or arbitrators while
sitting on a reference or arbitration, or other judicial proceeding)
2)ee6 breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance in the presence of the
court, or in its immediate vicinity, tending to interrupt the due course of the trial or other
judicial proceeding)
&)eeDisobedience or resistance to any lawful writ, order, rule or process issued by the court
or judge at chambers)
!)eeDisobedience of a subpoena duly served, or refusing to be sworn or answer as a
witness)
<)ee:escuing any person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or
process of such court or judge at chambers)
.)eeDisobedience of the order or direction of the court made pending the trial of an action,
in spea?ing to or in the presence of a juror concerning an action in which the juror has been
impaneled to determine, or in any manner approaching or interfering with such juror with the
intent to influence the verdict)
/)ee6busing the process or proceedings of the court or falsely pretending to act under the
authority of an order or process of the court)
Q1,11 C(6 S !<2C :$ S <&,!C 3C$ S %,!1R](3:1 6 1,%&, %!&*
3:1 !)2!0 provides doc?et entries in the justice court are prima facie evidence of
fact) :C:2012=0.<.&0 was originally randomly assigned to Dudge $ynchBs D1) #n 22/12
the entry reads: E9andatory 1tatus Conference (1:&0 (9* (Dudicial #fficer 1chroeder, Dac?*)F
5here is aboslutely no evidence in the doc?et that such 91C was cancelled, yet the :DC has
continually refused to provide Coughlin the audio transcript of such) "urther, the Doc?et entry
for 22%12 reads ECase 5ransferred to 6nother Court to +,C .H.;H-. CSDCHF E6nother
CourtF applies to the reHuirement in 3:1 1/%)!0< that, for a gross misdemeanor, a district
court ma?e such competency determination) 5hat, however, does not e'plain Dudge CliftonBs
suddenly ta?ing Dudge $ynchBs place as the judge presiding over the matter, and Coughlin
thoroughly objects to his having done so, particularly where there is no #rder (not even one by
the then Chief Dudge 1ferraAAa* authoriAing such transferring of the case to Dudge Clifton)
1o, 2DDC Dudge Elliott necessarily found Coughlin in summary contempt at the
!1,12 hearing stemming from Dudge CliftonBs 22/12 #rder "or Competency Evaluation,
21%/%&
which reads:
E#:DE: "#: C#9(E5E3CK E@6$865+#31 8pon motion of counsel for
Defendant ;erein and good cause appearing therefromC, +5 +1 ;E:E2K #:DE:ED that the
DdcndB8lt be e'amined by two psychiatrists, two psychologists, or one psychiatrist and one
psychologist from $a?eBs Crossing for the purpose of determining whether the Defendant has
the present ability to: +) 8nderstand the nature of the criminal charges against himC 2)
8nderstand the nature and purpose of the court proceedingsC or &) 6id and assist his counse in
the defense Pwith a reasonable degree of rational understanding) +5 +1 "8:5;E: #:DE:ED
that the defendant is to appear before the ;onorable Elliott of the 1econd Dudicial District
Court, Department 10, on 9arch &0, 2012 at the hour of %:&0 a)9) "or a competency
evaluation hearing) Dated this 2/th day of "ebruary, 2012 s David Clifton Dustice of the
(eaceP)F
;owever, Dudge Elliott is no way whatsoever, despite Coughlin being a practicing
attorney then, no less, complied with 3evada law where he failed to comply with 3:1
1/%)!%!(12*: E12)ee+f a person fails to comply with a condition imposed pursuant to subsection
11, the court may, after providing the person with reasonable notice and an opportunity for a
hearing: (a*eDeem such conduct a contempt pursuant to 3:1 22)010C or (b*e+ncrease the
amount of bail pursuant to 3:1 1/%)!,,)F
"urther, the 123, whilst doing a vindictive old boys and girls club hit piece on
Coughlin alleging Coughlin violated :(C 1)1 (Competence* as to his representation of his
clients (where the accusations consisted solely of Coughlins pro se representations of himself
were he was forced to do so in a setting in which he had never practiced before (criminal law*
(Coughlin would love to place Dudge ;oward or ;olmes in a setting where he glowers over
them authoritatively demanding that they prosecute a patent applications, even a provisional
one, or answer some means plus function minutiea based Huestion or something concerning a
9ar?sman claim then echo their ridiculous commentary to him that, essentially, his being an
attorney means he has to ?now every last random rule or statute in the criminal law arena in
which they both have spent their entire careers wor?ing in*) ;owever, especially where 2DDC
Dudge Elliott refused to allow Coughlin to appear pro se in the case created in the district court
pursuant to the transfer theire reHuired by justice court judge CliftonBs 22/12 #rder for
Competency Evaluation, Dogan thoroughly violated :(C 1)1, and other :(Cs where he failed
to ma?e any argument whatsoever relative to the gross judicial misconduct Dudge Elliott
displayed in, on his twenty fifth year on the bench, failing to comply with 3evada law pursuant
to 3:1 1/%)!%!(12* where absolutely no Ereasonable noticeF was provided to Coughlin the he
would be incarcerated or faced the possibility thereof at the !1,12 hearing for what was in no
way a failure on CoughlinsB part to Ecomply with a condition imposed pursuant to subsection
11F of 3:1 1/%)!%! (to say nothing of Dogan failing to argue that >CD6 DD6 Koung was
violating the 3:1 1/%)!0< mandatory stay prohibiting Koung from ma?ing the very 9otion for
2ail :evocation that Koung made (verbally only* at the !1,12 hearing in C:12=0&/. before
Dudge Elliott)e
21,/%&
5he idea that >C(D 2iray Dogan provides competent representation and that
Coughlin does not is palpably ridiculous and underscores the symbiotic coddling accord to the
office of the public defender by the judiciary in :eno and >ashoe County and the >CD6,
:C6, and 123) 5his is especially true where DoganBs failure to appear at CoughlinsB 21!12
gross misdemeanor arraignment has been completely ignored by the justice court and 123, at
best) 6dd to that the idiotic at best, and malevolent more li?ely divulging by Dogan of
sensitive information relative to the medications that Coughlin ta?es into the open record and
with numerous members of the local legal community present for a stac?ed calendar even
where Coughlin had warned him immediately prior thereto not to divulge such information
(which, beyond the fact that Coughlin had warned Coughlin on numerous occasions verbally
and in writing, the entire source of friction between Coughlin and the $a?eBs Crossing
evaluators was the overly invasive nature of the tact they pursued incident to a 22/12 #rder
for Competency Evaluation that in no way can support a view that CoughlinBs indicating one
time, in response to the $a?es EvaluatorBs second Huestion that he would Ehave to chec? his
recordsF sufficed to e'hibit a willful failure on CoughlinBs part to follow the conditions of his
bail (which in no way e'pressed that Coughlin was reHuired to grant a carte blanche license to
$a?es Evaluators to peer into any and every aspect of CoughlinBs medical or psychiatric care or
records*, especially where the only written indications as to what such conditions entailed (and
only implicitly at that * vis a vis the 22/12 #rder "or Competency Evaluation indicating that
Coughlin was to E +5 +1 ;E:E2K #:DE:ED that the DdcndB8lt be e'amined by two
psychiatrists, two psychologists, or one psychiatrist and one psychologist from $a?eBs Crossing
for the purpose of determining whether the Defendant has the present ability to: +) 8nderstand
the nature of the criminal charges against himC 2) 8nderstand the nature and purpose of the
court proceedingsC or &) 6id and assist his counse in the defense Pwith a reasonable degree of
rational understanding) +5 +1 "8:5;E: #:DE:ED that the defendant is to appear before the
;onorable Elliott of the 1econd Dudicial District Court, Department 10F)))all of which Coughlin
did)
Coughlin was afforded absolutely no due process whatsoever where he was
provided the lie filled letter by the very $a?eBs Crossing evaluators Davis and "armer whom are
so cagey and against allowing the evaluation to be recorded (reHuiring a full body search by
$a?es 1taff to chec? for recording devices* where Coughlin arrived on time, and did not argue
with $a?eBs staff other than to point out that Coughlin had just been assured by $a?es e'ecutive
secretary $orraine (elosi that he would not be subject to any such search, where, sure enough,
Coughlin was, which necessitate Coughlin ta?ing forty five seconds to return to his vehicle and
loc? the phone $a?eBs 1taff refused to allow him to enter the evaluation room with, in his car)
Davis (whom Coughlin called from jail, and who disclaimed any responsibility for authorship
for the very letter he signed and had filed with the 2DDC the day priro to the !1,12 hearing*
and "armer signed the following letter (where the doc?et indicates such was only electronically
served on Dogan at 2:!2 p)m), on !1%12 for a hearing at 10 a)m), on !1,12 (E&1) !<0< = Crt
#rd (sych Eval = Conf) 1%=6pr=2012 E'tra 5e't: $E55E: ":#9 $6GEB1 C:#11+37 :E
5E:9+365+#3 #" C#8:5 #:DE:ED (1KC; E@6$ = 5ransaction 2%,/&1. = 6pproved
2y: 619+5; : 0!=1%=2012:1!:!0:!, &2) 3E" = (roof of Electronic 1ervice 1%=6pr=2012 E'tra
220/%&
5e't: 5ransaction 2%,/!.< = 6ppF*:
E6pril 1/, 2012 2iray Dogan, Deputy (ublic Defender >ashoe County (ublic
DefenderBs #ffice ()#) 2o' &00%& :eno, 3@ %,<20=&0%& :E: -achary 2ar?er Coughlin Dear
9r) Dogan: 5he above=named defendant was scheduled for an evaluation of his competency to
proceed with adjudication on this date) ;e arrived 20 minutes late for his appointment, and
spent another 10 minutes arguing with security personnel about $a?eBs Crossing CenterBs policy
reHuiring defendants to be searched for contraband prior to entering this facility) !r. Coughlin
re%u#ed to coo/erate 2ith the e-aluation inter-ie2) ;e #ould no" ans#er 6asi! 8ues"ions
a6ou" $is 6a!'ground or prior men"al $eal"$ "rea"men", argued with both e'aminers about the
necessity of obtaining such information, was generally antagonistic, and threatened one of the
evaluators with legal action) 5he evaluation was then terminated, as it was not possible to
determine whether or not he is competent without his participation) 1incerely, s 1ally "armer,
(h)D 2ill Davis, (h)D), $a?eBs Crossing Center Cc: Dudge 1teve Elliott -ach Koung, Deputy
District 6ttorneyPF
Coughlin answered $a?eBs evaluatorBs second Huestion of the evaluation, by
indicating he would Eneed to chec? his recordsF and 2ill Davis shot up out of his chair and
announced the evaluation was over and that Coughlin would be going to jail, at which point
Coughlin pleaded with Davis in indicating he was not refusing to answer any Huestion, and that
he did not understand how Davis, one with a professional degree, could have so little regard for
the sensitive nature of the overly invasive information he and "armer were demanding in light
of the relatively routine and shallow reHuirements of a competency evaluation and the
underlying three elements involved in such determination) Coughlin is no way threatened
either with legal action, but merely indicated that professional with any sort of mental health
care history face e'treme prejudices in the mar?et place) 5he entire aborted evaluation lasted
three minutes tops and was tantamount to a hissy fit by Davis, which "armer herself
countenanced passively) 1urely, however, neither refunded any of their paychec?s for the
partial hours worth of wor? inuring to their terminating such evaluation so prematurely)
"urther, indigent Coughlin was informed the only way he could have such evaluation done
(which he was reHuired to have done* without paying for it himself would be to utiliAe the
$a?es Crossing with whom either the >C(D or :DC have a reHuirements contract with)
5ellingly, the $a?eBs evaluators both fail to indicate just e'actly what Huestion
Coughlin failed to answer, and the nature of any such alleged failure where their cursory letter
only indicates: E) !r. Coughlin re%u#ed to coo/erate 2ith the e-aluation inter-ie2) ;e
#ould no" ans#er 6asi! 8ues"ions a6ou" $is 6a!'ground or prior men"al $eal"$ "rea"men",
argued with both e'aminers about the necessity of obtaining such information)))F)
1tay of E'ecution of Contempt #rder a) QS&)&%R 9andatory 1tay (rovisions Code of Civil
(rocedure SS12%(b* and 120,(c* reHuire a stay of e'ecution of a contempt order affecting Ean
attorney, his or her agent, investigator, or any person acting under the attorneyLs direction, in
221/%&
the preparation and conduct of any action or proceeding)F 5he e'ecution of any sentence with
respect to these persons must be stayed for three court days to enable the contemner to file a
petition for e'traordinary relief testing the lawfulness of the contempt order
2DDC Dudge Elliott committed similar misconduct on !1,12 incident to >CD6 DD6 -)
Koung, yet again, violating the mandatory stay under 3:1 1/%)!0< in moving for a bail
revocation)))but its o?ay for Koung, because, in >ashoe County, being a Deputy District
6ttorney means never having to say you are sorry:
http:washoecourts)comprint_casedesc)cfmJcase_idVC:12=0&/.
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%&<<<2!=1,=12=;earing=s=9inutes="iled=!=2<=12=in=C:12=
0&/.=Dogan=Koung=Elliot=Competency=Evaluation=:jc=:cr2012=0.<.&0=:dr2011=0.&&!1 :
5he 2DDC 9inutes for such !1,12 hearing wherein Dudge Elliott summarily
incarcerated for contempt (despite 3:1 1/%)!%!2 failing to provide for any such 3:1 22)0&0
application, but, rather, cites to 3:1 22)010* read: :E(#:5 (1KC;+65:+C E@6$865+#3
Deputy District 6ttorney -achary Koung represented the 1tate) Defendant was present with
counsel, Deputy (ublic Defender 2iray Dogan) (robation #fficer 7ail "alconer was also
present) Discussion at the bench between respective counsel and Court) Defendant was also
present at the bench during the discussion) 9atter trailed) 9atter recalled) Court, respective
counsel and the Defendant were present) C#8:5 reviewed the letters submitted from Drs)
"armer and DavisC and noted its concerns that the doctors were unable to complete the
evaluations due to the DefendantLs unwillingness to cooperate) Defense counsel addressed the
Court and moved to a 2=wee? continuance to allow the Defendant to be evaluated) Counsel for
the 1tate addressed the Court and moved for a bail revocation and that he be remanded to the
custody of the 1heriff to ensure that the Defendant can be evaluation during his incarceration)
Defense counsel replied) Counsel for the 1tate responded) C#8:5 posed Huestions to the
Defendant regarding his willingness to cooperate in order to get the evaluations completed)
Defendant responded) C#8:5 #:DE:ED: 1tateLs motion for revocation of bail status is
7:635ED) Court further ordered Defendant shall be remanded to the custody of the 1heriff at
which time the Defendant shall submit to a psychiatric evaluation to be administered by two
psychiatrists from the $a?es Crossing facility) Court further set an additional hearing)
Defendant was ta?en into the custody of the 1heriff)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%<%%,!!=1,=12=5ranscript=of=;earing=in=0&/.=>here=Dudge=
Elliott=Day=;ill="iled="ee=9otion=0&.&%=020!=0.<.&0=2.!0<=0&.2%=.0&&1=1/0%=2.%00=
00.,.
(age ! lines %=2!: E5;E DE"E3D635: 7ood morning, Kour ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: 6nd then
weBre here to discuss the letter of 6pril 1/ that was sent out really to 9r) Dogan with copies to
222/%&
me and 9r) Koung from 1ally "armer and 2ill Davis who are psychologists at the $a?es
Crossing Center) 6nd, 9r) Dogan, do you want to e'plain thisJ 9:) D#763: Kes, Kour
;onor) 5;E DE"E3D635: +Bm sorry, Kour ;onor, if + can interject Huic?ly) 5;E C#8:5:
+Bm as?ing 9r) Dogan to start) 5;E DE"E3D635: Kes, Kour ;onor, but before he puts
anything on the record, +Bm going to as? to have him withdrawn or=9:) D#763: 5hat would
be a separate matter) 5;E C#8:5: +Bll go with 9r) Dogan) 5;E DE"E3D635: 5han? you,
Kour ;onor))))
E9:) D#763: Kour ;onor, if any issues are raised regarding a motion to withdraw
or anything dealing with my representation of 9r) Coughlin, that would be a separate hearing)
5hat hearing will be under Koung versus 1tate) 5oday we are here for one matter, and that is
the 12%, regarding my clientBs competency and whether heBs fit to proceed with adjudication)
5he one thing that + want to prevent in this case is 9r) Coughlin being remanded into the
custody of the >ashoe County 1heriff so that he can be evaluated while heBs at the >ashoe
County Dail) 5hatBs a huge concern of mine) 6nd + do not want 9r) Coughlin to be remanded to
the custody of the 1heriff) Kour ;onor, the main reason is because 9r) Coughlin is a licensed
attorney) ;e does have clients and heBs representing those clients) +f he is remanded into the
custody of the 1heriff, he will not be able to pursue the litigation that he must while
representing those individuals, and his livelihood==it will significantly impact his livelihood)
6nd, therefore, +Bm going to ma?e that reHuest, that this matter be continued briefly for two
wee?s, Kour ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, clearly if heBs not going to cooperate out of custody,
putting him into custody, you ?now, and forcibly cooperating is the alternative, so it has to be
considered) 6nd, 9r) Koung, what is the 1tateBs positionJ .9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, + thin?
9r) Dogan accurately stated that essentially your two alternatives at this point are just to
continue the matter out a few wee?s to give 9r) Coughlin an opportunity to be evaluated or
alternatively remand him into custody where, as you stated, it would more or less see? to==that
the evaluations ta?e place) +Bm going to respectfully as? that you follow the latter of those two
alternatives) 6nd if + could ta?e a minute to e'plain why +Bm ma?ing that recommendation) ;e
was released for this case on a 1,<00=dollar bond that he posted) 6nd obviously, one of the
conditions of somebody being released, whether itBs bond, #: or otherwise, is conditioned
upon that individualBs good behavior))))6nd Kour ;onor has already referenced the letter which
tal?s about threatening legal action against one of the evaluators, showing up late to the
scheduled appointment, ta?ing additional time to=5;E DE"E3D635: #bject, Kour ;onorC
hearsay) 5;E C#8:5: #verruled) 5;E DE"E3D635: 9ove to stri?e) 5;E C#8:5: KouBre
not in a position to object to anything) 5;E DE"E3D635: + understand that, Kour ;onor)
:espectfully, + submit that rather than having handcuffs on me, by having 9r) Dogan as my
attorney, + would as? that + be allowed to represent myself) 5;E C#8:5: KouBre in a position
where, you ?now, if you interrupt and cause trouble, youBre going to be ta?en into custody and
then forcibly, you ?now, given these evaluations, so if + were you, + would simply cooperate
with us and donBt cause a problem)))))((age 1&: P)))6nd Kour ;onor has already referenced the
letter which tal?s about threatening legal action against one of the evaluators, showing up late
to the scheduled appointment, ta?ing additional time to=5;E DE"E3D635: #bject, Kour
;onorC hearsay) 5;E C#8:5: #verruled) 5;E DE"E3D635: 9ove to stri?e) 5;E C#8:5:
KouBre not in a position to object to anything) 5;E DE"E3D635: + understand that, Kour
22&/%&
;onor) :espectfully, + submit that rather than having handcuffs on me, by having 9r) Dogan as
my attorney, + would as? that + be allowed to represent myself) 5;E C#8:5: KouBre in a
position where, you ?now, if you interrupt and cause trouble, youBre going to be ta?en into
custody and then forcibly, you ?now, given these evaluations, so if + were you, + would simply
cooperate with us and donBt cause a problem) 5;E C#8:5: 2ecause if youBre not going to do it
on your own, +Bll put you in custody and weBll ta?e care of it that way) 5;E DE"E3D635: +
understand, Kour ;onor) 6nd thatBs not what +Bm saying) >hat +Bm saying is==Kou referenced
this process) + believe if weBre going to call it a process, it needs to entail some process, some
due process hopefully) 6nd if + as? 9r) Dogan to conduct some $egal research on==which +
have done, Kour ;onor, and + would li?e to put forth some of these cases to you, directed to the
parameters of such competency evaluation, directed to the privacy rights attendant to one
forced to undergo such an evaluation) +Bve simply received no counsel or no advocacy in this
regard from the (ublic Defender) +Bve had meetings missed) +Bve been told to shush) +Bve been
told all sorts of things that just fran?ly +Bm ta?en abac? by) 5his evaluation, we have no idea of
the scope of this other than +Bm given some indication by the statute what it is directed to, my
ability to understand the proceedings, to assist 9r) Dogan in the defense thereof) 6nd thereBs
one more element which +Bm blan?ing on right now, but itBs substantially 1. similar to the first
one) +tBs not a==itBs not a blan? chec? to psychiatrists who have some sort of reHuirement
contract with the (ublic Defender, and + stated some=or the court) +Bve stated some objections) +
believe + should be able to have a private psychologist appropriately certified under 3:1 1/% to
perform this) +Bve been told no) +Bve been told + wonBt be reimbursed in that regard) 2ut itBs not a
blan? chec?, + donBt believe, to force me, someone who is see?ing to ta?e advantage of my ta'
dollars at wor? by having my 1i'th 6mendment right to counsel accorded to me) +tBs not a
blan? chec? to $a?es Crossing to demand anything they want to ?now about me, particularly
when +Bm involved in a field where mendacious and scurrilous individuals such as :ichard 7)
;ill will co=op any sort of information or innuendo=9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, +Bm going to
object to this as completely irrelevant) 5;E DE"E3D635: ==to further their ends) 5;E
C#8:5: + have to agree) 9r) Coughlin, if youBre telling me fundamentally that you donBt plan
to cooperate, +Bll revo?e your bail 1/
Cooperate with the tal?ing and ta?ing whatever testing needs to be done and get the
evaluation) +tBs not a very painful process) 5;E DE"E3D635: 6nd + was told==9aybe not for
people who arenBt very aware of constitutional rights) 2ut for someone who is burdened with
the fact that they went to law school, you ?now, itBs difficult) 6nd + would submit that thereBs a
number of cases in juris prudence in this regard that spea? to the e'tent=5;E C#8:5: 9r)
Coughlin, since youBre not going to cooperate=5;E DE"E3D635: 3o, + will cooperate) + just
need to ?now, Kour ;onor=5;E C#8:5: 2ut youBre telling me youBre not cooperating) 5;E
DE"E3D635: 3o, + will) +Bm telling you + will) 6nd + did, + showed up) 5hey as?ed me a
Huestion=5;E C#8:5: Kou have to show up and you have to meet with the two psychiatrists
or psychologists, + guess, technically, whatever they are, and, you ?now, tal? to them, be
responsive and get the appropriate evaluation) 5;E DE"E3D635: +f they as? me to ta?e off
my 1, Clothes and appear na?ed, do + need to do thatJ 5;E C#8:5: + thin? itBs unli?ely that
thatBs going to happen to you) +Bm not going to speculate as to, you ?now, totally absurd, you
?now, things that could happen during a psychological=5;E DE"E3D635: +f they as? me if
22!/%&
+Bve ever had any mental health treatment, if they as? me to have a copy of any of my medical
records, if they as? me any sort of personal information that would normally be protected=5;E
C#8:5: 5hen youBre saying you wonBt cooperateJ 5;E DE"E3D635: 3o, + didnBt say that,
sir) 6nd + didnBt say that to $a?es Crossing either) 5hey stormed off) + said, P+Bll have to chec?
my records, let me==P something li?e, P$et me thin? about that)P 6nd they stormed off in anger)
5hey said, P>eBre done and left)P 6nd it was appalling) 6nd then to send the letter they sent
you, Kour ;onor, is appalling) + didnBt stand there and say: +Bm refusing to tell you anything) +
didnBt do that) Dr) Davis appeared=5;E C#8:5: $oo?, 9r) Coughlin, + just need to ?now, are
you going to go there and cooperate and get this psychological evaluation or notJ + mean, are
you 20
7oing to do it on your own out of custodyJ 5;E DE"E3D635: Kes, Kour ;onor, + will, but=
5;E C#8:5: #?ay) >ell, if you are going to do that and you commit to this court basically
under penalty of being found in contempt for failing to do it, you ?now, +Bll leave you out of
custody and you can get this on your own) 2ut if youBre not going to go there and cooperate,
+Bm forced to revo?e your bail and put you into custody and then as an in=custody prisoner you
can get some psychological counseling, and, you ?now, evaluation) 5;E DE"E3D635: Kour
;onor, + would just put forth, + always intend to follow orders of the court) + would li?e an
opportunity to brief this and oppose the order initially since +Bve been= 5;E C#8:5: >ell, that
is denied) >eBre at the point now where itBs already determined that youBre to get this
evaluation) 5;E DE"E3D635: 2ut + believe that an e'cusable neglect analysis would auger
towards allowing me to replace 9r) Dogan based on his fraudulence basically or his e'cusable
neglect or something, but + have not been accorded a due process right to oppose this
evaluation) + would li?e that) 21 "ailing that, + would li?e an opportunity to brief the e'tent to
which this evaluation is a blan? chec? to $a?es Crossing) + would also li?e the opportunity to
brief the e'tent to which + must utiliAe $a?es Crossing versus a private certified entity or a
professional) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, 9r) Coughlin, after hearing you argue and argue about this
issue, +Bm ma?ing the determination that youBre not going to cooperate with this, and + am
revo?ing your bail) 5;E DE"E3D635: 1ir, + will cooperate) +f thatBs what it comes down to,
+= 5;E C#8:5: KouBre going to be placed into custody of the >ashoe County 1heriff at this
time) + revo?e your bail) 5;E DE"E3D635: Kour ;onor, + just respectfully as? that you
reconsider, and +Bll do whatever you say for my= 5;E C#8:5: >eBre done with this) +Bm sorry
that youBve forced me to ta?e this action) + donBt really want to put you in custody, but itBs clear
that youBre really not going to cooperate) 6nd youBre raising issues about issues that seem ?ind
of preposterous but that would give you some e'cuse not to cooperate) 1o youBll have to get the
e'amination as an in=custody 22 person) 9:) D#763: Kour ;onor, can + ma?e one
suggestionJ 5;E C#8:5: Kes) (erson) !. $9=?,0 Four )onor' can 7 ma5e one
#ugge#tionD 6)@ C9I60 Fe#. !. $9=?,0 0s soon as "$ose !ompe"en!y ealua"ions
are !omple"ed7 !an #e $ae )r, Coug$lin remoed or no longer in !us"ody a" "$e 4as$oe
Coun"y JailD 6)@ C9I60 %e(s going "o remain in !us"ody un"il $e !an 6e 6roug$" 6a!'
$ere for "$e $earing on !ompe"en!e) 5;E DE"E3D635: Kour ;onor, if + may just ma?e one
reHuest) 7iven your ruling, Kour ;onor, + basically will do what you say to do, particularly=
5;E C#8:5: >ell, + donBt believe that you will) 6fter all this, weBve spent a lot of time on it, +
just donBt believe you anymore) 2%1 D1F1/D0/2@ 4ell7 <our %onor7 if 5 may moe "o
22</%&
s"ay 6ased on "$e pre;udi!e "o my !lien"s "$a"-2%1 CO.32@ Denied, 9:) K#837: Kour
;onor, do we want to set a new dateJ 5;E C#8:5: 1o letBs set this out about in about a
month) 9:) D#763: Can we just=5;E C#8:5: 6nd if itBs done earlier, fine, but 2& letBs
trac? it for about a month is what it normally ta?es) 9:) D#763: + understand, Kour ;onor)
Can we just have a status hearing just in case both of the evaluations have been completedJ
5;E C#8:5: +f itBs done, you all can get together and set it bac? on the calendar at that time)
5;E C$E:G: Kour ;onor, the first available date would be 9ay 2!th at %:&0) +s that
acceptableJ 9:) K#837: 9ay 2!J 5;E C$E:G: Kes) +s that acceptableJ 9:) D#763: +t
is) 5han? you) 5;E DE"E3D635: 9ay + have those papers entered into the recordJ 9:)
K#837: 5han?s, Kour ;onor) 5;E DE"E3D635: 5hat legal research on the table) 5;E
C#8:5: Denied) (5he proceedings were continued to 9ay 2!, 2012 at %:&0 a)9)* ==#0o=2!F
(3#5E: from a 1ierra 7lass standpoint, there might be a sentence or two ommitted
from these large swaths of that transcript, but only for brevityBs sa?e*)
2) Direct Contempt (rocedure
1) QS&)&&R Cautious E'ercise of Direct Contempt (ower
6 direct contempt may be punished summarily by the court) CC( S1211C 2oysaw v 1uperior
Court (2000* 2& C!th 21<, 21,T22&, ,. C:2d <&1) 6ll that is reHuired is an order reciting the
facts adjudging the person guilty and prescribing the punishment) 1ee CC( S1211C 2& C!th at
220) 2ecause this action lac?s the usual procedural safeguards and is subject to possible abuse
by an arbitrary judge, direct contempt orders in particular are carefully reviewed and strictly
construed by appellate courts) 5herefore, a trial judge must carefully comply with all
procedural reHuirements) 1mith v 1uperior Court (1,.%* .% C2d <!/, <.0, .% C: 1)
5he power to adjudicate direct contempt must be used prudently and with a view toward
promoting the orderly administration of law rather than any form of vindication of a judgeLs
character) $yons v 1uperior Court (1,<<* !& C2d /<<, /.2, 2/% (2d .%1, Huoting (eople v
5urner (1%<0* 1 C 1<2)
+n 7allagher v 9unicipal Court (1,!%* &1 C2d /%!, /,!, 1,2 (2d ,0<, the California 1upreme
Court cautioned:
&T!& Courtroom Control: Contempt and 1anctions S&)&&
2roadly spea?ing, judges are empowered to punish summarily for contempt of court in order to
facilitate the orderly administration of justice) Disobedience of the court orders tends to lessen
the effect of those ordersC intemperate behavior in the course of a trial QcitationsR lessens the
mastery of the trial judge over the progress of the proceedings and thus tends to obstruct the
course of the trial) Considerable summary power, not usually available to the officers of any
other branch of government, is therefore vested in judges) +f that power is not wisely e'ercised,
it can readily become an instrument of oppression) +n a summary contempt proceeding the
judge who metes out the punishment is usually the injured party and the prosecutor as well)
1ince such a situation invites caprice, appellate courts almost without e'ception reHuire that the
order adjudging a person in direct contempt of court recite in detail the facts constituting the
alleged transgression rather than the bare conclusions of the trial judge)
+n dealing with conduct that allegedly is disrespectful of the court, the judge must be Elong of
fuse and somewhat thic? of s?in)F De7eorge v 1uperior Court (1,/!* !0 C6&d &0<, &12, 11!
22./%&
C: %.0C see +n re 7rossman (1,/2* 2! C6&d .2!, .2%, 101 C: 1/. (judge should consider in
serenity of chambers whether reaction is simply judicial nerves on edge*)
6 judge is responsible for ?nowing or researching the proper contempt procedures) 6
judgeLs ignorance or misuse of these procedures may constitute bad faith and justify
disciplinary proceedings for willful and prejudicial misconduct) 1ee, e)g), Gloepfer v
Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%,* !, C&d %2., %<%, 2.! C: 100 (injudicious use of
contempt power was willful and prejudicial misconduct*C :yan v Commission on Dudicial
(erformance (1,%%* !< C&d <1%, <&&, 2!/ C: &/% (e'perienced judge should have ?nown that
contempt order was both substantively and procedurally invalid*C Cannon v Commission on
Dudicial Uualifications (1,/<* 1! C&d ./%, .,!, 122 C: //% (judge never sought to establish
grounds on which contempt citations were based*)
*"ay of 1?e!u"ion of Con"emp" Order
a) QS&)&%R !andatory *tay Pro-i#ion#
Code of Ciil Dro!edure QQ128A6B and 120>A!B re8uire a s"ay of e?e!u"ion of a
!on"emp" order affe!"ing :an a""orney, his or her agent, investigator, or any person acting
under the attorneyLs direction, in the preparation and conduct of any action or proceeding)F 5he
e'ecution of any sentence with respect to these persons must be stayed for three court days to
enable the contemner to file a petition for e'traordinary relief testing the lawfulness of the
contempt order)
5he mandatory stay provisions contain an e'ception for a contempt order that is based
on conduct proscribed by 2us M ( C S.0.%(b* relating to an attorneyLs duty to maintain the
respect due to courts and judicial officers) 1ee CC( SS12%(b*, 120,(c*) 9any judges
recommend granting a stay, even though the statute does not mandate it)
b) QS&)&,R (ractical Considerations
Even when a stay is not mandatory, the judge should generally postpone e'ecution of
sentence if immediate jailing of the contemner is li?ely to interfere with any substantial rights
of the litigants) 0 disrup"ie a""orney s$ould no" 6e immedia"ely ;ailed in mid"rial for
!on"emp" e?!ep" in e?"raordinary !ir!ums"an!es, 1?e!u"ion s$ould 6e s"ayed un"il "$e "rial is
oer, 1ee Peo/le - (u#aro (1,/1* 1% C6&d %//, %,0, ,. C: &.%, disapproved on other
grounds in 2< C&d 2%&, 2,2)
5he earlier stamped of the two very similar #rders, Dudge 3ash ;olmes 186
1(#35E #:DE: DE3K+37 :E$+E" +3 +9(:#(E: D#C89E35 filed on &1&12 in 11
5: 2.%00 reads:
;*I? *P9,6@ 9$@$@,F7,= @47@( *9I=)6 7, 7!P9P@
$9CI!@,6
#n 9arch ,, 2012, at 12:&% p)m), defendant -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, an attorney
and self=represented litigant in the instant traffic citation case, began fa'=filing a 21%=page
22//%&
document to the :eno 9unicipal Court purporting to see? various and sundry types of relief
from this court on a P2oulevard 1topP traffic citation matter) ;e labeled his document P9otion
to :eturn Cell (honesC 9otion to 1et 6side 1ummary Contempt #rderC and 3otice of 6ppeal
of 1ummary Contempt #rder)P 1aid document was filed by the Cler? of the Court, on 9onday
9arch 12, 2012, after causing much disruption to the courtBs operations)
5he court herein issues this #rder sua sponte to prevent the plaintiff, :eno City
6ttorney,from devoting any additional time)or resources to this document, and to relieve the
plaintiff from any burden of attempting to respond to said document) $i?ewise, the court staff
is relieved of any obligation to further deal with this aberrant document)
5he court finds that the defendant has failed to follow proper legal procedure in
preparing and filing his motions and purported 3otice of 6ppeal) 5he court also finds that 9r)
Coughlin has blatantly abused the courtBs fa'=filing process offered for the convenience of
parties appearing in this court) 6s with his previous, mostly incoherent document, this
document filed by 9r) Coughlin appears to be a recitation of family grievances, lyrics to roc?
(page 1* songs, disjointed legal ramblings, citations and argument in another case with another
judge in a different department of :eno 9unicipal Court, and, is, thus, even more irrelevant to
the instant case than the 22!=page document previously filed by 9r) Coughlin)
+5 +1 #:DE:ED that any and all relief sought by the defendant -achary 2ar?er
Coughlin in the above=described document is denied)
+5 +1 "8:5;E: #:DE:ED that -achary 2ar?er Coughlin shall refrain from, and
is hereby barred and prohibited from fa'ing an y documents to :eno 9unicipal Court)
+5 +1 6$1# #:DE:ED that if -achary 2ar?er Coughlin wishes to file documents
in :eno 9unicipal Court on any matter assigned to Department &, he must present signed
originals only, in appropriate legal form and format, limited to no more than 1< pages in length,
and before they are filed, the cler? of the court shall present them to this court for review in
chambers, and this court will ma?e a pre=filing determination if they can be filed by the cler?)
+5 +1 1# #:DE:ED Dated this 1&th day of 9arch, 2012) s 5he ;on) Dorothy
3ash ;olmes, :eno 9unicipal DudgeP
"udge ,a#h )olme# *I? *P9,6@ 9$@ $@,F7,= @47@( 7,
7!P9P@ $9CI!@,6 %iled on &11&112 in 11 6 26800 reads:
P#n 9arch /) 2012, at 1:<% p)m), defendant -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, an attorney
and self represented litigant in the instant traffic citation case, began fa'=filing a 22!=page
document to the :eno 9unicipal Court purporting to see? various and sundry types of relief
from this court on a P2oulevard 1topP traffic citation matter) ;e labeled his document, 3otice
of 6ppeal of 1ummary Contempt #rderC 9otion to :eturn (ersonal (roperty Confiscated by
:eno 9unicipal Court and +ts 9arshalsC 9otion for 3ew trial and to 6lter or 6mend
1ummary Contempt #rder)P 1aid document was filed by the Cler? of the Court after much
disruption to the courtBs operations)
5he court herein issues this #rder sua sponte to prevent the plaintiff, :eno City
6ttorney from devoting any additional time or resource to this document, and to relieve the
plaintiff from any burden of attempting to respond to said document) $i?ewise) the court staff
22%/%&
is relieved of any obligation to further deal with this aberrant document)
5he court finds that the defendant has failed to follow proper legal procedure in
preparing and filing a 3otice of 6ppeal, or 9otion with appropriate citation to the record, the
facts and the applicable law) and argument thereof) and has blatantly abused the CourtBs fa'
filing process offered for the convenience of parties appearing in this court) "urthermore, the
document filed by 9r) Coughlin appears to contain a eries of disjointed legal rambling pluc?ed
from online resources that are neither relevant nor applicable to the matters in this case)
+5 +1 #:DE:ED that any and all relief sought by the defendant -achary 2ar?er
Coughlin in the above=described document is deniedC at such time as 9r) Coughlin files a
correct and proper motion or notice, his legal document will be considered by the court)
+5 +1 "8:5;E: #:DE:ED that -achary 2ar?er Coughlin shall refrain from, and +
hereby barred and prohibited from fa'ing any documents to :eno 9unicipal Court) +5 +1
6$1# #:DE:ED that if -achary 2ar?er Coughlin wishes to file documents in :eno
9unicipal Court on any matter assigned to Department &) he must present signed originals only
in appropriate legal form and format limited to no more than 1< pages in length, and before
they are filed the cler? of the court shall present them to this court for review in chambers) and
this court will ma?e a pre=filing determination if they can be filed by the cler?) +5 +1 1#
#:DE:ED
Dated this 1&th day of 9arch, 2012) 5he ;on) Dorothy 3ash ;olmes, :eno
9unicipal DudgeP
6lso, Ging continued his fraudulent assertion that he EreceivedF a grievance from
2DDC 7ardner in his Complaint where it reads: E1) )ul"iple griean!es were re!eied by the
#ffice of 2ar Counsel between the period of Danuary 1! and )ar!$ 1C7 2012, concerning
:espondent) Due to the serious allegations of misconduct, grievance files were opened and an
investigation was initiated by 6ssistant 2ar Counsel (atric? Ging)F
(Ging is estopped from alleging Dudge 2eesley provided any EgrievanceF at all,
where Dudge 2eesley testified he did not even write the 123 what he seemed to describe as a
Canon 2, :ule 2)1! letter more than anything (if that, as such still unproduced letter, for all
anybody ?nows, may well have said something along the lines of E;ey, thereBs this attorney
Coughlin who is really getting gang banged by >ashoe CountyCity of :eno, etc) and + ?now
some of the judges involved and how they can get, and this is all just a big mess and not fair to
the clients and its ma?ing the bench and bar loo? bad too, so)))is there a way we can hit EpauseF
or EresetF before t his becomes a total dumpster fireJF*
Dudge ;olmesB other orders in 2.%00 are really worth the read too:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./.2/00<&=%=12=2.%00=3ash=2ar?er=Denial=:eturn=of=2ail=100=
>cso=:mc=020!=00.,.
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./.2.,<&10=!=12=#rder=1tri?ing=6ppeal=in=2.%00=
020!=0!&!=3ash=7ardner=Elliott=Elcano=9cgeorge=<10!=&/!
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./.2/21/#:DE:=:E$E61+37=(:#(E:5K=11=
5:=2.%00=&=&0=12=3ash=:mc=:jc=:pd=>cso=Ging=Clar?=9ar?ed=as=:ecd=2ac?=by=:mc=!=
1&=12=:eturn=to=1ender=(thoa=;y
22,/%&
Dudge ;olmes &&012 #rder in 2.%00 reads: E#:DE: :E$E61+37 (:#(E:5K
+5 +1 #:DE:ED that the a >ashoe County 1heriffs #ffice shall release to the Defendant,
-6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3, three items ta?en from him on "ebruary 2/, 2012, at the
>ashoe County :egional Detention "acility during his boo?ing for incarceration pursuant to
imposition of a <=day jail sentence for Contempt of Court in the above=entitled case, to wit: one
1amsung Cell (honeC one 5=9obile Cell (honeC and one 2raun Electric :aAor, as identified in
Case umber >C 12=1%0< and referred to under Control I C=!/,<1) Dated this 2,th day of
9arch, 2012) 1 Dorothy 3ash ;olmes :eno 9unicipal DudgePF
3ote: such characteriAation of the unlawful search and seiAure of CoughlinBs
personal property by the :9C, which was not done in the conte't of a search incident to arrest,
is at odds with the account in >C1# 2ec?manBs &2012 fa' to Coughlin, and the 22/12
>ashoe County Dail Detention (roperty :ecord "orm indicating the very items (smart phone,
micro sd card, cellular phone* referenced therein (as to just what was done with such items, and
by who, and under what authority, etc), etc, for those !% hours or so prior to the 22,12 date
when >C1# 2ec?man indicates Deputy Kon?er had such items place boo?ed into the
evidence room at the jail, where >C1# Deputy ;odge indicated to Coughlin that the :9C
9arshals had returned to the jail the day after CoughlinBs 22/12 boo?ing, on 22%12, and
retrieved those three items, and returned with them to the :9C: Ethree items ta?en from him
on "ebruary 2/, 2012, at the >ashoe County :egional Detention "acility during his boo?ing
for incarceration pursuant to imposition of a <=day jail sentenceP
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./.2%,0<2=2/=12=020!=2.%00=>C1#=Detention=(roperty=
:ecord="orm=$isting=Coughlin=s=1martphone=6=1econdary="lip=(hone=6nd=a=$oF
Dudge ;olmes &%12 #rder in 2.%00 reads: P#:DE: DE3K+37 9#5+#3 "+$ED
2K 96:K 26:GE: 1EEG+37 :E"83D #" "+3E 1;E (6+D "#: DE"E3D635
(etitioner, 96:K 26:GE:, filed a motion on 9arch <, 20 12 in the above=captioned case of
her son, Defendant -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, see?ing a refund of #ne ;undred and 5hree
Dollars (O10 &)00* 1he paid as part of his penalty for Criminal Contempt of Court) 5he court
held the defendant in contempt of court for actions he too? in the direct and immediate
presence of the court during the trial of his traffic citation on "ebruary 2 /, 20 12 in the
aboveentitled matter) (1ee #rder "inding Defendant in Contempt of Court and +mposing
1anctions, filed "ebruary 2/,2012*) 5he defendant was ordered ta?en into custody to spend five
(<* days in jail) ;e as?ed the court to permit him to pay a fine instead, saying he had law clients
and court matters to attend to, and the court granted that reHuest and said the contempt would
be punished by either five days jail, beginning immediately, or payment of O <00 fine
immediately )) 5he courtBs records indicate that the defendant attempted to post the O <00 on a
credit card but the company refused his card, therefore, he was transported to the :egional
Detention "acility at ,11 (arr 2oulevard to serve his <=day sentence) 6fter he had served four
(!* days in j ail, 9ary 2ar?er contacted the court cler? to see if she could pay #ne ;undred
Dollars ( O1 00) 00* #n the defendantBs behalf, as a fine, in lieu of his fifth day in incarceration
on his contempt sentence) 5he court cler? inHuired of this court and the court approved that)
5hereafter, 9s) 2ar?er made the arrangements and paid the O1 00 toward the fine, including a
O&)00 Charge to pay by credit card) 5he jail was notified that the defendant could be released
on this case, and was, in fact released on this case) Dail records further indicate that the
2&0/%&
defendant had been involved in a separate case in :eno Dustice Court prior to his traffic trial in
this court) +n the :DC matter, he apparently posted a bond through 6ction 2ail 2onds and had
been released from custody) 5he records show that the bonding company surrendered the bond)
5herefore, immediately upon his release in this case, -achary Coughlin was re=boo?ed and
ta?en bac? into custody on the :DC case) 6ny additional time he spent in custody, therefore,
was on the :DC case, and not the traffic case in this court) 5herefore, the court finds that the
defendant satisfied his contempt sentence by serving four (! * days in jail and his motherBs
payment of O100 in lieu of his fifth day of incarceration) (etitioner is not entitled to a refund)
5he motion is DE3+ED) Dated this %th day of 9arch, 2 012) 2 5he ;on) Dorothy 3ash ;olmes
:eno 9unicipal DudgeP
E#:DE: 15:+G+37 D#C89E35 "+$ED +3 E::#: #3 #C5#2E: 2, 2012
63D :E58:3+37 D#C89E35 "6C51 5he history of this case shall not be recited herein
because it is adeHuately set forth in be a rambling, incoherent, nonsensical document which
was not appropriate for filing in this court) 6lso on 9arch 1&,2012, this court denied -achary
Coughlin all reliefhe had sought in his second fa'=filed, 22!=page rambling, incoherent and
improper document, and further provided that if he prepared and presented a correct and proper
court motion, the court would then consider his reHuest for relief) +n that #rder, the court
directed that -achary Coughlin was not to be permitted to file any documents without review
and pre=approval of the court to ensure that they were not frivolous, incoherent or otherwise
improper documents) "+3D+371 5he defendant did not prepare and present a proper motion
see?ing leave to file) +nstead, apparently on 1eptember 10,2012 he came to the Court Cler? and
attempted to pay to file an appeal) 5he Court Cler? retained the funds as 9r) Coughlin refused
to accept them bac?) 5hen on #ctober 2,2012, the defendant came to the :eno 9unicipal Court
Cler? and presented a +=page, hand=written, barely=legible document) (6 copy of 9r)
CoughlinBs document is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as E'hibit 6*) ;is
document is entitled P9otion for $eave or (ermission to file this and 3otice of:9CBs :efusal
to accept 3otice of 6ppeal on criminal contempt conviction)P 9r) Coughlin also attached to his
document as PE'hibit 1P a sealed envelope on which the Court Cler? had noted that it was
returning PO12)00 :eceived on ,10112 to file an appeal on a case in which there has been no
conviction)P 9r) Coughlin has apparently hand=written on the envelope P10212 + reported a
criminal summary contempt conviction in 11 5: 2.%00 to the 81 (5# (patents*P and another
sentence stating P5here is a right to appeal a summary criminal contempt conviction (signed
-ach Coughlin*)P^ 1) 5he envelope is sealed and has not been opened by the cler? or this courtC
it is returned to the defendant with this #rder) 2 5he courtBs previous #rders entered and filed
in this court on "ebruary 2%,2012 (order holding Defendant -6C;6:K 26:GE:
C#87;$+3 in direct criminal contempt of court*C 9arch 12,2012 (order continuing and
staying the traffic citation trial wherein the contempt occurred, arid referring the matter to the
1tate 2ar of 3evada*C and 9arch 1&,2012) (#rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document "iled on 9arch
/, 2012 and 1ua 1ponte #rder Denying :elief 1ought in +mproper Document*) +n one of the
9arch 1&th #rders, the court struc? from the record defendantBs 21%=page fugitive document
entitled P:eHuest for 6udio :ecording of "ebruary 2ia 2012 5rial and for 6ppt QsicR and to
>aive "iling "ee and 5ranscript "ee for 6ppeal Counsel)P +t was found to 5his document was
not presented to this court for review before it was filed by a deputy cler?) 5herefore, this court
2&1/%&
finds that said document is an improper and inappropriate document that lac?s compliance with
procedural and court rules and the 9arch 1&, 2012 #rder of this court) +t was filed in error by
the Deputy Court Cler? and shall be returned to 9r) Coughlin, together with a copy of this
#rder) +5 +1 #:DE:ED that the document discussed herein that was erroneously filed is struc?
from the record and shall be returned by the court cler? to the defendant, together with the
unopened and still=sealed envelope (E'hibt 1*) +5 +1 6$1# #:DE:ED that if the defendant
wishes to proceed with this matter, he shall prepare and present, for the courtBs pre=filing
review, a separate and proper 9otion for $eave to "ile DocumentsC said motion shall be
legible, and contain proper formatting, spacing, margins, and the proper reHuest for permission,
facts, argument, and conclusion), 6nd it shall not be filed by the Cler? of the Court, but only
stamped P:eceived,P unless and until this court gives permission to file it) +5 +1 "8:5;E:
#:DE:ED that if this court grants the defendant permission to file a proper 3otice of 6ppeal,
using the correct paper, formatting and procedure which is ?nown to 9r) Coughlin as he has
been trained as a lawyer, then he shall prepare it, also properly formatted as described above,
and present it to the cler? for the courtBs pre=filing review) Dated this !th day of #ctober,
2012) 1 ;#3) D#:#5;K 361; ;#$9E1 :eno 9unicipal DudgePF
9 NOTE BY COUGHLIN: IS THIS THE GRIEVANCE IN NG12-0204 THAT
KING CLAIMS
COUGHLIN FAILED TO RESPOND TO IN VIOLATION OF RPC 8.2 !HO
KNO!S
KING" FOR OBVIOUS REASONS" DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE LETTING
ANY SUCH
EMAILED" UNSIGNED #GRIEVANCE# FROM NNDB MEMBER HILL SEE THE
LIGHT OF
DAY.
C@1&=00,02 = GE@+3 D) 9+:C; @1) :;#3D6 C$+"5#3 E56$ (D!
http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?backto=P&case_id=CV13
!!"!#&be$i%_date=&e%d_date=
http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_&rames?backto=P&case_id=C'13
!((#&be$i%_date=&e%d_date=
)owe*er+ i% C'13!((# a%d -3!.1 /see -33.# as well0 where Cou$hli% &iled a 1a%damus Petitio% be&ore 21!3s 4attler a$ai%st
his &ormer coworker+ 'o%da Cli&to%3s husba%d+ '5C 5ud$e 2a*id Cli&to% where he will&ully *iolated 6'4 178..!(+ a%d %ow he a%d
his &ormer coworker at the 9C2:3s ;&&ice a%d %ow curre%t '5C 5ud$e 4cott Pearso% are re&usi%$ to release the audio
tra%scripts /throu$h u%si$%ed <6otices o& 2ocume%t 'ecei*ed but 6ot Co%sidered by the Court< that '5C 5udicial 4ecretary
)eidi )owde% /&ormerly 5ud$e =lliott3s :dmi%istrati*e :ssista%t0 se%ds out i% respo%se to Cou$hli%3s requests &or audio+ &rom
the seco%d heari%$ o& the day o% #/(/13 i% rcr#!11!-33.1 a%d both heari%$s that day i% rCr#!1#!-(-3! because+ some
mi$ht say+ it is pate%t >udicial misco%duct &or Cli&to% to $o back to the >ud$es3 lou%$e a%d e?hort his &ellow 5ud$e Cli&to% to
<ame%d< the ;rder @or Compete%cy =*aluatio% he si$%ed %ot twe%ty mi%utes be&ore...
2&2/%&
:lso+ Cli&to% seemed to attempt to a*oid admitti%$ his wi&e is :A 'o%da Cli&to% or 'ho%da Cli&to% i% respo%se to Cou$hli%3s
asserti%$ a co%&lict or basis &or recusal duri%$ the 3/1"/1# heari%$ i% 'C'#!1#!-(-3! upo% Cou$hli%3s appeal o& 5ud$e =lliott3s
striki%$ most o& his &ili%$s i% C'1##!#( bei%$ appealed i% -#8#1+ resulti%$ i% the :A3s ;&&ice appeari%$ as attor%ey o& record
therei%... http://www.youtube.com/watch?*=a8B@@2o;l)= http://www.youtube.com/watch?*=t9iiysCwa*k
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.77.31/73113!#!.'5CPears6oticeo&'eceipto&2ocume%t6otCo%sideredbyCourt
-(-3!-33.1-7"8!'equests&or:udio71.377#-7(
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-!.(181#/81.13!#!.-#33771.377#-7(Complete9ith:ttachme%ts'5C5ud$ePearso%
:dmi%istrati*e;rder#!13!-1!.837.17!8-7"8!-33.1-(-3!;cr:"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.8(!1./.#13!#!.!-(-3!!-33.1!((#=mer$e%cyPetitio%&or9rito&1a%damusa%d
D@P1otio%
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1((8#-!-"/.313!#!.!-(-3!!-33.1C'13!((#;rderby@ormer9C2:6ow5ud$e4attler
4triki%$Cou$hli%s1a%damusPetitio%'eViolatio%so&4tayE%der6'4178.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.8.(!7/.1813!#!.-3!.1Cou$hli%*'e%o5usticeCourtCli&to%Pearso%6oticeo&:ppeal
1311(#-2i$
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.8.(!8/.1#13C'13!((#!#!.-3!.1Cou$hli%*'e%o5usticeCourtCli&to%Pearso%
6oticeo&:ppeal#52C4ee-33.#
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.88!-1/71813!#!.-33.#6;BDC=71(13-33.#
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1(8#783!8/7#.13!#!.-33.#4tamped4tacked1otio%to:me%dPetitio%&or9rit9ith=?
1Parts1to1!
-33.#: C;EA)CD6 /F:C):'G0 V4. CCD@B;6
http://casei%&o.%*supremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?docume%t=rror=13
#171(H3:IBhisIdocume%tIisIcurre%tlyIu%a*ailable.ID&IyouI%eedIaIcopyIo&IthisIdocume%tH#CIpleaseIco%tactIClerk
H#7sI;&&iceIatIH#877(H#"-8.1-!!.&csDD2=31(#(
I$ %&' 11()(12 *+,-./%0,$ ,1 2094 34%'5 5%46*'- *47'5 4%
34%'5 2012-201) H08895 1(14(12 '6408 %, K0$7" 10:' *47'
7+0':4$/'" .$507$'-" .$5;,+$ <0$%'+'5%0$78=" '0%&'+ H088 1408'-
%, +'488= 0$/8.-' 5./& >-05/8,5.+'5? ,+ K0$7 '@/05'- 5./&"
0$4**+,*+04%'8="1+,6 %&05 2"094 SCR 10A<2B</B *+,-./%0,$ ,1
11()(12" /4.50$7 6./& *+'C.-0/' %, C,.7&80$95 -'1'$5'. <NOTE:
$,$' ,1 %&' '$/8,5.+'5 H088 +'1'+'$/'5 45 4%%4/&0$7 0$ 5./&
;0%& 5./& 1(14(12 '6408 %, K0$7 ;'+' 4/%.488= 0$/8.-'- 0$ %&'
34%'5 5%46*'- *+,-./%0,$ 3= %&' SBN %, C,.7&80$ ,1 2"094 *47'5
,$ 11()(12 <$,% 4$=;&'+' %&'+'0$" 3.% '5*'/0488= $,% 0$ %&'
1,8-'+ 0-'$%010'- 45 >NG12-0204? 805%0$7 H088 45 %&' 7+0':4$%
3'%;''$ 34%'5 2,<<=&01/ =rie-ance (ile >,=12-0204 ?0 Zachary Coughlin =0
ichard )ill' @#A. ;&'+' 5./& 05 066'-04%'8= 1,88,;'- 3= %&' 1,8--'+
3'%;''$ 34%'5 &01%=&0!& identified as the =rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&4 ?0 Zachary
Coughlin =0 "udge 4inda =ardnerC
2&&/%&
2/01=&,0,! (ormal )earing (ile *+, -. Zachary +. Coughlin
2/02=2/,& =rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&5 ?0 Z. Coughlin' @#A. =0 "udge $orthy
B#icC ,a#h )olme#
documents from :C:2011=0.&&!1 (Dudge 1ferraAAa* and :C:2012=0.<.&0 (Dudge Clifton*
:DC Chief Civil Cler? told Coughlin Dudge Clifton told her not to respond to CoughlinBs
10&012 1C: 110 subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
2/02=2/,& =rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&5 ?0 Zachary Coughlin' @#A. =0 "udge $orthy B#icC
,a#h )olme#
2/0. Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !1,12 email 1ubject: :E: 9r) GingBs assertions in his
&1.12 letter wherein Coughlin denies all allegations
2/1. 2rian 7onsalves email referring to other attorney fee awards ma?es curious GingBs only
reHuesting Coughlin pay ;illBs landlord clientBs award in GingBs closing argument)
2/1% :DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsends !1112 email to Ging containing documents
from :C:2011=0.&&!1 (Dudge 1ferraAAa* and :C:2012=0.<.&0 (Dudge Clifton* :DC Chief
Civil Cler? told Coughlin Dudge Clifton told her not to respond to CoughlinBs 10&012 1C:
110 subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
!!12 email to Ging regarding E8=tubeF postings E6 1ampling, Events at :9C &1212C City
of :eno 9arshal ;arley, 6llison #rmaasC :9C bounced by :eno 9arshalsF apparently
Coughlin was at the :9C on &1212 and just did not ?now the trial in 2.%00 was continuing)
2/21 :9C Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son email to :9C Dudges fa'ed apparently by
either Dudge 3ash ;olmes or some non=judge at the :9C, and including just page 2 of & of
such &2212 1:1/ pm fa' from the :9C or its 9arshals, to the 123 (e'cising such page 1 of &
(which li?ely would identify the sender* hardly Hualifies as Ebar counsel wor? productF
sufficient to justify GingBs Ebad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processF*)
2/22 list provided to 123 by :9C detailing CoughlinBs offenses between ,,11 and 11212
created by whom is not revealed, as neither is the matter of whom transmitted such, and to
whom such was transmitted)))
CoughlinBs criminal history ((ennie Colter, etc*
;@0 !r. :ing<# a##ertion in hi# &116112 letter E)))Kou wanted to ?now how + learned of or
obtained a copy of Dudge 7ardnerLs #rder after trial that was filed in 200,) +t was sent to me
by the cler? of the court at my reHuest, pursuant to my investigation)F
2/2< :C6 court appointed defender :oberto (uentes, EsH)Bs 11/12 9otion for #rder
allowing him to withdrawal from representing Coughlin given (uentes desire to avoid the
2&!/%&
messy wor? of defending Coughlin via referencing the burglaries of ;ill, the :(D, and the
>C1#Bs #ffice, and the enabling thereof by the judiciary in the :9C, :DC, and 2DDC)
2/2. ;olmes fa' to 123 of &2212 1:1/ pm page & of & containing CoughlinBs &2212 "#+6
:eHuest and 1econd :ecord :eHuest for audio of 22/12 trial indicating 2allard indicated
CoughlinBs first reHuest for such audio was not processed, and see?ing anything related to the
confiscation of CoughlinBs personal property on 22%12 from the >ashoe County jail,
reHuesting chain of custody information, :9C 9arshalBs reports, etc)
2/2/=2/&2 ha# di#/lay i##ue# li?ely :9C defender (uentes 11/12 9otion to >ithdraw
from criminal trespass case before Dudge >) 7ardner in 11 C: 2.!0<
2/&&=2/&! 3/27/12 Order in CV11-03628 2JDC Judge Flanagan appeal of summary ei!"ion
#i"$ %ill and &a'er as opposing !ounsel Denying %ill(s &a'er(s 1/21/12 )o"ion for Order "o
*$o# Cause after hearing on &2&12 and &2.12
2/&. 9:C Cover 1heet with E$ist of documentsF attached &1&12 details five documents from
traffic case before ;olmes: 22%12 #rder (contempt*C &/12 3otice of 6ppeal, 9tn for :eturn
of (ersonal (roperty Confiscated by :9C 9arshals (22! pages*C &1212 9otion to :eturn
Cell (hones (21% pages*C &1212 #rder (< pages*C &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document
filed on &/12
2/&%=2/&, !1.12 fa' from :9C Dept) 2 (Dudge >) 7ardner* 1 and 2 of 2 6rrest :eport and
2/!0=!1 :9C 9arshal ED(F Dean=(ierre 9oster report from 121&11 9arshals Dames 9enAel,
9atthew 5hompsonC >itness 1 Donna 2allard, >itness 2 5om 2artoldo:
2/!2=2/!! :9C 9arshal Dames 9enAel incident report detailing CoughlinBs filing a 3otice of
6ppeal and or 9otion for 3ew 5rial and see?ing a copy of the audio of the 11&011 trial in 11
C: 221/. (.0%&%*, references gossip with :DC Chief 2ailiff 9ichael 1e'ton, well paid city
and county 9arshals and 2ailiffs really donBt li?e wor?ing until closing time
Coppa pulled Deputy Cheung into bac? room of sally bay at jail to discuss such confiscation*
2/!, &2212 email from Coughlin to Ging 1ubject :e ;ello from -ach Coughlin referencing
7essin and Christiansen
grie-ance# %iled today #ee5ing material# %rom 26800 and !larifi!a"ion regarding #$e"$er
Judge +, -ardner $erself filed griean!e.
2/<! GingBs !212 email to Coughlin detailing & grievances, lying about ,=12-04&4 being a
grie-ance re!eied ;from "udge =ardnerF, 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 :9C 9arshals Coppa and 5hompsonBs &2212 report to 123
2&</%&
2/<, CoughlnBs &2,12 email to 123 indicating Ging had made no reHuest for any written
response to any grievance by 7ardner or ;olmes, CoughlinBs detailing manipulative use of his
siAe by Ging, which Ging lied about at 1!1& 5(# e'tension hearing in :DC :C(2012=
000.0/)
2/.0= $ots of emails between Coughlin and the 123 Huite cooperative and responsive to any
(purported letter from Ging to Coughlin that Ging was too afraid toconflicted over to see?
admission thereof at 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing* that was Eundeliverable as
2/,& GingBs &1.12 letter to Coughlin indicating the #2C Ehas received several grievances
concerning your conduct as a lawyer)))+ will ma?e available for your review and inspection the
supporting documents and audio recordingsF
2,<<=&01/ =rie-ance (ile >,=12-0204 ?0 Zachary Coughlin =0 ichard )ill'
@#A.
2,<. Copy of envelope 81(1 Certified 9ail I /010 2/%0 000& <!2, .</%
123 sent to Coughlin on &1.12 (where ";E. at the 21&1&
:#6 by the 123 at :#6 1//, demonstrates GingBs letter to Coughlin referencing a grievance
by ;ill was purportedly mailed on 21!12* with 81(1 yellow stic?er E./0&+1 2O
FO3403D FO3 31V514F dated &&112 (ie, this is an obvious attempt at misdirection by
Ging where such &1.12 81(1 Certified 9ailing corresponds with either the ;olmes
grievance in 0!&! or the $) 7ardner grievance in 0!&<, or both, where proof that the 123 ?new
such was not delivered to the 123 is very problematic to GingBs allegation that Coughlin
violated :(C %)1 EDisciplinary 9attersF as to either the ;olmes or $) 7ardner
greivances)))Ging placing this envelope here (note the 81(1 yellow stic?er corroborates
CoughlinBs accounts respecting the interference with his mail during such period of time*
represents a fraudulent attempt to obfuscate matters)
2,<% &1.12 letter from 123 Ging to Coughlin regarding Eseveral grievancesF
oddly placed with Hill's grievance file when &1.12 letter
references the EDustice CourtF (E5$e Offi!e of &ar Counsel $as re!eied seeral griean!es
!on!erning your !ondu!" as a la#yer, 2$e griean!es in!lude suppor"ing eiden!e in "$e
2&./%&
form of@ audio of your !ondu!" in !our" pro!eedings and !opies of pleadings and do!umen"s
prepared and filed 6y you in Jus"i!e and Dis"ri!" Cour"F such purported &1.12 letter to
Coughlin from Ging reads* (so, there, Ging, li?e with the Dudge $) 7ardner
EgrievanceF in 3712=0!&<, 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 ;ill and the
:9C*) 1uch represents the e'tent to which Ging constantly tried to characteriAe as having
been EreceivedF in the form of a EgrievanceF that which Ging himself reHuested from the :DCBs
Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsend, and which resulted in 5ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging
(which, tellingly, Ging fails to include within the folders for the grievances EreceivedF from
either ;ill, Dudge ;olmes, or Dudge $) 7ardner)))*
2,<, 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 $) 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial, ";E& compare E<F
in E1<F of E:eceived 9ar 1< 2012F to other versions (ditto*
2,/< .2<12 #rder by 2DDC Dudge "lanagan in C@11=0&.2% O!2,0.< attorney
fee award (3#5 6 163C5+#3*
2,/, 123 2ar Counsel Clar? forwards on CoughlinBs 12&12 self report of
conviction in .0%&% to Ging and (eters
2,%1 ";E/ CoughlinBs &,12 fa' to 123 reg 21!12 letter from Ging only
received on &,12, reAue#ting all corre#/ondence be co/ied -ia email and %a8
due to ob#truction o% Coughlin<# mail B2hich' o% cour#e' :ing' Peter#' and the *+, %ail to
do...#o much %or that *94?C@ /rogram' huhDC
298& *+, :ing<# 2114112 letter to Coughlin B()@6C
2,%! 123 GingBs letter to ;ill regarding grievance ;ill purportedly emailed to
Ging, compare to the letter Ging sent Coughlin refusing to investigate
CoughlinBs grievances against :9C defender $oomis and >C(D
Dogan)
misconduct in wrongful arrest of Coughlin at issue in :DC
:C:2011=0.&&!1 containing ;illBs forward to Ging of CoughlinBs email to
>C1#, >C(D, :C6, ;illBs associate 2a?er, etc) of 21012 detailing
2a?er and >C1# Deputy 9achenBs burglary of 11111 in :ev2011=
001/0%, C@11=0&.2% at 121 :iver :oc?
&00! CoughlinBs 11!12 #pposition to 9otion for 6ttorney "ees in C@11=
0&.2% detailing ;illBs misconduct incident to CoughlinBs 11212
jaywal?ing arrest in front of 121 :iver :oc? former home
law office)
&01&=&01/ ;illBs 11!12 email to Ging, five page grievance, unsigned, unsworn
(interstingly, either ;ill failed to really include such EdisclosuresF or Ging e'cised
such, inappropriately, from this &,0,! 1C: 10<(2*(c*
production of 11/12, causing much prejudice to
2&//%&
CoughlinBs defense)
=ardner
superimposed on the first page) (3#5E: nothing to indicate
anything was received from 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner*)
&0!% CoughlinBs application for legal defender and 102/11 :9C Dudge
;oward #rder Denying $egal Defender
&0<0 :C6 (amela :oberts, EsH) #pposition to 9otion for 3ew 5rial of
122111 in 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%* (3#5E: lac?s the actual e'hibits to
such motion, and instead is misleadingly followed by the
E'hibits to GingBs 101<11 1C: 111(!* (etition in .1,01
&0.< 1C: 111(!* (etition in .1,01 of 101<12
&0// .0%&% #rder of 5emporary 1uspension and :eferral to Disciplinary
2oard of ./12
&0%0 1C: 111(.* (etition in .0%&%
&0,1 <%12 stamped 81(1 Domestic :eturn :eceipt (1 "orm &%11 .0%&%
Certified 9ailing /010 2/%0 000& <!2, ./<2
@#A.
2&%/%&
references EDustice CourtF (E5$e Offi!e of &ar Counsel $as re!eied seeral griean!es
Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsend, and which resultedin 5ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging,
5ellingly, Ging fails to include such :DC Dudicial 1ecretary 5ownsendBs email to
Ging (which Ging then attempted to pass off as a grievance EreceivedF from a EDustice CourtF
judge, apparently, in GingBs sworn testimony at the 1!1& >or?place ;arassment 5(#
e'tension hearing in :C(2012=000.,,)))Clearly, Ging see?s to blur the lines between Ebar
counsel wor? productF and Egrievances receivedF from Judges (relevant to the 3CDC Canon 2,
:ule 2)1< defensive collateral estoppel analysis* with materials emailed to him by :9C Court
6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son and :9C "iling #fficer 1upervisor Donna 2allard, and
:9C wor?er Eva Cabral, which carry no such offensive collateral estoppel leveraging or
potential of)))and Ging constantly tries to have it both ways, ie, something is Ebar counsel wor?
productF and not subject to 1C: 10<(2*(c* or 1C: 121(11* when Ging needs for it to be (the
EenclosuresF to ;illBs 11!12 email to Ging that Ging refused to provide Coughlin)))and
indication as to just e'actly what was included with the Ebo' of materialsF Dudge ;olmes
references as including with her ";E% &1!12 grievance letter against Coughlin addressed to
the 123 (some of which ;olmes ta?es credit for EenclosingF only to then pass the buc? off to
Eour staffF for providing Ging the Eaudio tapes of CoughlinB hearing in Departments 2 and <F
(where D2 is Dudge >) 7ardner and D! is Dudge ;oward* EDudge Gen ;oward, Department !,
had a case on 9r) Coughlin late last year that is now on appeal to the 1econd Dudicial District
Court) Dudge 2ill 7ardner, Department 2, also has a matter currently pending in his court with
9r) Coughlin as the defendant) + have enclosed some copies of documents from those matters,
in chronological order, simply because they appear to demonstrate that he is Huic?ly
decompensating in his mental status) #ur staff also made you some audio tapes of Coughlin
hearings in Departments 2 and ! so you can hear for yourself how this attorney acts in
court)F* )))records of the reHuests for materials that Ging made to all the various judges, judicial
assistants, judicial secretaries, and cler?s (ie, :DC Dudicial 1ecretaryBs 5ownsendBs !1112
email to Ging certainly fails to come across as the first correspondence or communication
between the two)))as such, especially where Ging attempts to pass of the attachments to
5ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging as a part of the Esupporting evidence in the form of)))copies
of pleadings and documents prepared and filed by you in Dustice and District CourtF (see GingBs
&1.12 letter to Coughlin (which, of course, fails to then indicate or be followed thereafter by
anything e'plicating just what Ging was so EenclosingF in its placement in the &,0,! page
production* (that Ging apparently included as E'hibits % to 10 therein, in the !1.12 2&
E'hibit presentation to the 33D2 at the second opportunity Ging was given to get some 1C:
2&,/%&
10< go ahead approval therefrom* within the folders for the grievances EreceivedF from either
;ill, Dudge $) 7ardner)))only to included such in the folder for the ;olmes grievance ( between
&,0,! page bates 2/02=2/,& is =rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&5 ?0 Z. Coughlin' @#A. =0 "udge
$orthy B#icC ,a#h )olme#' which includes at bates 2/1% :DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori
5ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging containing documents from :C:2011=0.&&!1 (Dudge
1ferraAAa* and :C:2012=0.<.&0 (Dudge Clifton* :DC Chief Civil Cler? told Coughlin Dudge
Clifton told her not to respond to CoughlinBs 10&012 1C: 110 subpoena and subpoena duces
tecums
is placed in the folder for %ill(s grievance other than !eing another attempt
at o!fuscation !y "ing is not clear at all#
2,.1 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial, ";E& compare :C9
in :1C9 of :3e!eied )ar 1C 20129 to other versions (ditto*)
>ell, shoot, given the 123 stamping such $) 7ardner !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial (";E&* as
EreceivedF on &1<12, such either was not recieved amongst the Ebo' of materialsF that
;olmes referenced in ";E% as providing to Ging with her &1!12 letter, or such was included
and the 123Bs Ging and or (eters attempted to fraudulently misdirect reviewers from gleaning
that Dudge ;olmes so included such ";E& therewith, or, Dudge ;olmes did not included such
";E& within the Ebo' of materialsF accompanying her &1!12 letter (Ging eventually
indicated in his !1,12 email to Coughlin that he reHuested a copy of such order from Ethe
cler? of courtF being careful not to specify which cler? of which court Ging received such from
in response to GingBs re%uesting such (which brings up the Huestion of just how Ging became
aware of such ";E&, and received such in such close pro'imity (&1<12 compared to &1!12
dates received stamps on ";E& and ";E%, respectively if it was not from the :9C and or
Dudge ;olmes from who Ging learned of ";E& (versus ";E& having been referred to Ging
pursuant to Canon 2, :ule 2)1< by a $udge, much less the $udge whom presided over the
divorce case from which *H90 issued*)
+n which case :9C Dudge ;olmes (whom was careful in her sworn testimony to
avoid such inHuiry as much as possible* ought be made to e'plain why she apparently
absconded from her 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1< duty to report apparent lawyer misconduct to the
123, the Eappropriate authorityF in such a case)))and certainly the suggestion of a cover up by
the :9C Dudges ;olmes, 7ardner, ;oward (and possibly Dilworth* is present therein, where
the subseHuent admission by Dudge >) 7ardner, upon Coughlin forcing his hand during the
!1012 trial in 2.<0. 7ardner attempted to hold in violation of 3:1 1/%)!0< (and >)
7ardnerBs statements on the record there are very telling and indicate a coordinated agreement
between >) 7ardner and ;olmes that the ";E& order by >) 7ardnerBs sister would not be
provided to the 123 by :9C Dudge ;olmes (as well as >) 7ardnerBs inaccurate accounts of
whether any competency issues are referenced in the orders by Dudge ;olmes Coughlin put to
him at such point (really, >) 7ardner was totally going to go through with the trial on !1012,
until Coughlin finally cornered $oomis to displaying some sembleance of professionalism (it
does not come easy to Geith* and where CoughlinBs cross=e'amination of >) 7ardner resulted
in 7ardner becoming too flustered to go forward, whereupon, rather than recogniAing the 3:1
2!0/%&
1/%)!0< duties attendant to Dudge ;olmes &1212 #rder suspending the trial in 2.%00 and
;olmes ";E% letter to the 123 (both of which reference CoughlinBs alleged competency
issues, Emental instabilityF, and EdecompensatingF*, >) 7ardner rather passed his off
suspending the trial of !1012 (but only after he, $oomis, and :C6 ;aAlett=1tevens got some
motion wor? addressed, etc, official copy of such trial date of !1012 in 2.!0< before >)
7ardner available here (and such was provided to both the 123 and (anel prior to the 111!12
formal hearing: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV@@('1Ao@w<c 6lso, some real bon mots
to be hear in the official audio from the :9C of the <%12 hearing in that same 2.!0< criminal
trespass case: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV1>/.c9u?-(c * as being in response to
something other than all the corners Dudge ;olmesB behind the scenes machinations put >)
7ardner in)
Clearly, Dudge ;olmes and the 123Bs Ging come from the same school of
manufacturing the appearance of the outrage of others (";E%: E5he accompanying bo' of
materials demonstrates some of the problems with the practice of this attorney 6eing
e?perien!ed 6y myself and "$e o"$er "$ree ;udges in 3eno )uni!ipal Cour"))))<ou #ill $ae
"$e full !oopera"ion of myself7 "$e o"$er ;udges7 and "$e s"aff of 3eno )uni!ipal Cour" in
your pursui" of "$is ma""er) 9r) Coughlin has positioned himself as a ve'atious litigant in our
court, antagoniAing the staff and een our pro "emp ;udges on the most simple traffic and
misdemeanor matters))))F*, combining that with consistently attempting to obfuscate what came
first, the reHuest for information, filings, or other materials from 6sst) 2ar Counsel Ging and
the 123, or some independent, voluntary, 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1< referral by a $udge (versus
by some employee of a court who is not a judge* (";E% E 5 apologiKe for "a'ing "#o days "o
ge" "$is pa!'age "o you...N wrote Dudge ;olmes to Ging (indicating Ging reHuested she and the
:9C provide such materials rather than ;olmes and or the :9C do so independent thereof)*)
;owever, again, if ;olmes did not included the ";E& 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner #rder
that she admits to having been passed by :9C Dudge >) 7ardner (whom admits having been
passed such by his sister, 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner, whom issued it in the matter she presided
over)))*, then why did ;olmes not so provide such to the 123 (123 GingBs email to Coughlin
of !1,0, finally comes clean, somewhat as to how Ging and the 123 received ";E& (though,
clearly, Ging is still attempting to cover up the judicial misconduct by 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner,
:9C Dudge >) 7ardner, :9C Dudge ;olmes, :9C Dudge ;oward, (possibly :9C Dudge
Dilworth, though, being the seasoned veteran that he is, Dudge Dilworth wisely recused himself
from the ridiculous prosecutions of Coughlin goon for the :eno City 6ttorney Chief >ong is
currently insisting on bringing against Coughlin in :9C 1& C: &,1& and &,1! (wherein >ong
is prosecuting Coughlin over the most ridiculous alleged violations of a >or?place ;arassment
5(# and E(# ever alleged (accusing Coughlin of violating such by submitting documents for
filing with the Cler? of Court of the 123 in a then pending matter)))so much for due process,
huhJ 5hese people are humiliating the 1tate 2ar of 3evada and the 3evada 1upreme Court in
the process if this goes on much longer* as a favor to his old cowor?er at the 6ttorney 7eneralBs
#ffice, current 123 6sst) 2ar Counsel Ging (whom attempted to get >ong to provide him
CoughlinBs criminal history (see &,0,!Bs bates 2/2& email of !1012 to 123 from :C6 Dan
>ong regarding 123 will be unable to get CoughlinBs criminal history ((ennie Colter, etc**)
Dudge Dilworth apparently decided (beyond the decision that at least the appearance of
2!1/%&
impropriety and or bias called for such recusal* that this was :9C Dudge >) 7ardner, Dudge
;olmes, and 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs mess and they could deal with it themselves, than? you
very much)
http:www)leagle)comdecisioninX20mdcoX2020100,2!2!/ E"ollowing the
hearing, Elrich, still represented by his motions counsel, filed two motions in the Circuit Court:
a 9otion for :ecusal and a 9otion to :econsider the ruling) +n his 9otion for :ecusal, Elrich
asserted that the court referred to several Pe'trajudicialP conversations, wherein it learned of the
#(DBs Pcourt watchP program, which could lead a reasonable observer to Huestion its
impartiality) 5hus, only the judgeBs recusal would avoid this appearance of impropriety) ;e
alleged that the courtBs apparent prejudice and bias lead it to stri?e the 6ffidavit and order the
case paneled out to an independent attorney without hearing any testimony or arguments on the
merits of the action)))
)))C) :ecusal: Elrich ne't contends that the juvenile court judge was reHuired to
recuse herself because her earlier discussions with then 1tate (ublic Defender, 3ancy "orster,
regarding the #(DBs internal review of its employeesB performance constituted improper e'tra=
judicial communications that destroyed the judgeBs impartiality) 6ccording to Elrich, the
judgeBs bias was evident from her sua sponte challenge of the 6ffidavit) ;e alleges that the
Padversarial system was abandoned in favor of an inHuisitorial oneP because, Pby raising the
issue, supporting it with her own ?nowledge, and ruling upon the issue, Qthe judgeR functionally
occupied counsel table, the witness stand, and the bench at the same time)P 5he 1tate counters
by arguing that not all ?nowledge acHuired by a judge outside of the courtroom is
impermissible Pe'tra=judicialP ?nowledge, and that it would lead to preposterous results to
reHuire any judge who has learned of a potential ethical problem in an attorneyBs continued
representation of a client to recuse herself)
Canon &D of the 9aryland Code of Dudicial Conduct governs judicial recusal) 1ee
Cannon &(D*, 9d) :ule 1.=%1&) 5hat section provides in relevant part: P6 judge shall
recuse ) ) ) herself from a proceeding in which the judgeBs impartiality might reasonably be
Huestioned, including an instance when ) ) ) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party or a partyBs lawyer or e'tra=judicial ?nowledge of a disputed evidentiary fact
concerning the proceeding) ) ) )P 1ee id) at Cannon &(D*(1*(a* (emphasis in original*) 5he
official comment to Cannon &D e'plains that Pa judge must recuse ) ) ) herself whenever the
judgeBs impartiality might be reasonably Huestioned, regardless of whether any specific
instances in &D(1* apply)P ))PQ5Rhe alleged prejudice must result from an e'trajudicial source
and parties cannot attac? a judgeBs impartiality on the basis of information and beliefs acHuired
while acting in his or her judicial capacity)P Boyd v, State &21 9d) .,, //, <%1 6)2d 1, <
(1,,0* (Huoting 7nited States v, Monaco %<2 ")2d 11!&, 11!/ (,th Cir)1,%%**))))
)))10) Elrich incorrectly relies on 1mith v) 1tate, .! 9d)6pp) .2<, !,% 6)2d 2%!
(1,%<* to support his argument that recusal was reHuired) +n 1mith, the judge used his law cler?
to investigate whether the defendant failed to appear for a drug screening because of her
pregnancy or because of drug=related activity) 1ee id) at .2%=2,, !,% 6)2d at 2%<=%.) 5here,
unli?e here, the judge endeavored to obtain e'tra=judicial information specific to a party in
court by reHuiring his law cler? to contact the hospital and then testify as a witness) 1ee id)
1mith, however, is radically different from this case, where no such out=of=court investigation
2!2/%&
of the parties occurred) P
6 judgeBs mere reporting of perceived attorney unprofessionalism to the state bar, in
and of itself, is legally insufficient to support judicial disHualification, <=; Corp) v) (adovano,
/0% 1o) 2d 2!! ("la) 1,,/*)
;owever, there was a lot more to this matter (and the analysis as to whether ;olmes
should have recused herself even prior to holding the trial on 22/12, much less on &1212,
much letter prior to entering the &1212 #rder that became ";E<)
6ny prejudice must stem from an e'trajudicial source)Q"3!R +t is a trial judgeBs
obligation to view the witnesses, weigh their credibility, and determine the facts,(ie, not to
Coughlin in Edirect contemptF immediately after Coughlin the witness testified on 22/12 that
E1argent 5arter lied whenF, abruptly interrupting Coughlin testimony and holding him in
contempt at such point* Q"3<R) Q"3!R $ewis v) -ero 2reese :oofing Co), & "ed) 6pp') &.,
(.th Cir) 2001*C 2rowner v) District of Columbia, <!, 6)2d 110/ (D)C) 1,%%*) = 6s to the
reHuirement that bias be e'trajudicial, see S 1&1) =Q"3<R >olf v) >olf, !/! 3)>)2d 2</ (3)D)
1,,1*)
Geeping 8p 6ppearances: 5he Constitutionality of the 9odel Code of Dudicial
ConductBs (rohibition of E'trajudicial 1peech Creating the 6ppearance of 2ias, 1, 7eo) D)
$egal Ethics !!1 (200.*
69D8: Dudges :
S .&) (ersons protected by rule of absolute immunity
S .!) Effect of bad faith or wrongful conduct on application of rule of
absolute immunity
2) $iability for (articular 5ypes of Conduct
a) +n 7eneralC Conduct >ithin 1cope of :ule of 6bsolute Dudicial +mmunity
S ./) 7enerally
S .%) Determination whether act is PjudicialP in nature
S .,) =="actors considered
S /0) 3onjudicial acts
S /1) (articular acts as within rule of absolute judicial immunity
b) Conduct >ithin 1cope of #ther 5ypes of +mmunity
S /2) $egislative and prosecutorial acts
&) Effect of Durisdiction or $ac? 5hereof
S /!) 7enerally
S /<) 6cts in determining jurisdiction
S /.) 6cts under invalid law or in e'cess of jurisdiction
2) Criminal $iabilityC Contempt
:esearch :eferences
S //) Criminal liability
S /%) ==$iability for judicial acts and official misconduct
S /,) Contempt
+4) DisHualification to 6ct in (articular Case
2!&/%&
S %/) Gnowledge of judge of disHualifying facts as element
2) +nterest
a) +n 7eneral
S %%) 7enerally
S %,) 3ature of interest
S ,0) ==3ecessity that interest be direct, certain, and present
S ,1) ==3ecessity that interest be substantial
b) (articular +nterests
(1*) (ecuniary or (roperty +nterest
S ,2) 7enerally
S ,&) Compensation or benefitsC on fee basis
S ,!) $iability to party for damages or costs
S ,<) +nterest in position or term
(2*) Dudge as (arty or >itness
S ,%) Dudge as party or potential party in own or related case
S ,,) Dudge as witness
S 100) ==6s potential witness
S 101) ==6s material or necessary witness
(&*) 6ssociation with #rganiAation or 2usiness
S 102) 9embership in organiAation or body, generally
S 10&) #fficer, director, or trustee of corporationC officer of
unincorporated association
S 10!) 1toc?holder
S 10<) #fficer, director, trustee, or advisor of religious organiAation
2DDC Dudge ElliottBs failure to divulge and or recuse himself in C@11=01,<< where
he was the (resident of defendant C66>Bs E'ecutive 2oard casts a pall of impropriety over
";E12 and ";E1&, in addition to to all testimony relative to CoughlinBs suits against >ashoe
$egal 1ervices)
3@2 Dudge 2eesleyBs previously being (resident of the 123 arguably precluded his
testimony at CoughlnBs formal disciplinary matter) Dudge 3ash ;olmesB status as a greivant
(and the contention in her letter in ";E& that she was acting on behalf of and with the blessing
of all other :9C judges* arguably reHuired the :9C recusing itself from all of CoughlinBs case
and or not appearing as a witness at the formal disciplinary hearing)
&) :elationship
a) 5o (arties or (ersons +nterested
S 112) 7enerally
S 11&) 3ature of relationship to party
S 11!) ==DegreeC computation
S 11<) >ho are parties
S 11.) ==1toc?holderC corporate director or officer
S 11/) ==(olicyholder
S 11%) 3ature of relativeBs interest
S 11,) :elationship to one not a party
2!!/%&
S 120) ==:elationship to witness
2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs status as the EgrievantF in 3712=0!&< arguably invalidates
the criminal conviction in .1,01 where Coughlin argued such (beyond >) 7ardnerBs being
identified as, essentially, the same party as Dudge ;olmes in the grievance n 3712=0!&! by
virtue of ;olmes statements in ";E%* reHuired :9C Dudge >) 7ardner to recuse himself in
light of his sister, 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner being Ea partyF (whether Ching is applied or not* in a
then pending case against Coughlin)))
!) 2ias or (rejudice
a) +n 7eneral
S 12/) 7enerally
S 12%) Definitions
S 12,) (resumption of impartiality and nonbias
S 1&0) 1tatutes or constitutional provisions providing for
disHualifications because of bias or prejudice
(1ee &,0,! bates at bates 1,21 email from :9C Court 6dministrator
Cassandra Dac?son to 123Bs Ging of !,12 ccBd to :9C Dudges >) 7ardner,
3ash ;olmes, Dilworth, and ;oward (impermissible
e'trajudicial communications with Egood luc? tomorrow^^F echoing the reference at
the !1012 5rial in the criminal trespass case (11 C: 2.!0< see
.1,01* made by :9C Dudge >) 7ardner as to his 1C: 12&(&* violating
awareness of the meeting of the 33D2 1creening (anel on !1012*,
including lin?s to videos Dac?son alleges Coughlin posted to EKou 5ubeF
Eregarding his visits and interactions with the :9C staffF which Dac?son
alleges Ehas been very upsetting to some of the court staff, as 9r) Coughlin
mentions several staff members by name, along with salary information)
1ome of the staff has e'pressed concerns for their safety and privacy) +f
you have any Huestions, or need further information, please let me ?now
and good luc? tomorrow^^F) 9y, my)))how terribly, terribly
impartial and not at all giving an appearance of impropriety, true pro, that
Cassandra Dac?son)*
S 1&1) #rigin of biasC reHuirement that bias be e?"ra;udi!ial
S 1&1) #rigin of biasC reHuirement that bias be e'trajudicial >estBs Gey 3umber
Digest >estBs Gey 3umber Digest, Dudges !,(1*, !,(2*
+f a judge is actually prejudiced, the cause of the prejudice, and whether it is warranted or not,
are immaterial upon the Huestion of his or her Hualification to sit)Q"31R ;owever, the alleged
bias and prejudice of a judge must stem from an e'trajudicial source and result in an opinion on
the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his or her participation in the
caseQ"32R or from a hearing in a related proceeding)Q"3&R 6n adverse ruling is not sufficient
to establish bias or prejudice reHuiring disHualification of a judge)Q"3!R >here the origin of a
judgeBs impressions are ine'tricably bound up with judicial proceedings, the judgeBs alleged
bias does not stem from an e'trajudicial source)Q"3<R 5he formation of prejudice during a trial
as a result of a partyBs testimony in the trial does not disHualify the judge in the trial in which it
2!</%&
was arrived at,Q"3.R even where the judge ta?es the position that a party has lied on the stand)
Q"3/R 6 judgeBs ordinary and natural reaction to the conduct of, or evidence developed about, a
party in a case before him or her cannot create a disHualification for bias or prejudice)Q"3%R
C898$65+@E 18(($E9E35
Cases:
5o warrant disHualification of the trial judge, the alleged bias of the judge must be of such a
nature and intensity to prevent the defendant from obtaining a trial uninfluenced by the courtBs
prejudgment) Code of Dud)Conduct, Canon &(E*) 9organ v) (ropst, &01 7a) 6pp) !02, .%%
1)E)2d &</ (200,*)
QE3D #" 18(($E9E35R
Q"31R (ayne v) $ee, 222 9inn) 2.,, 2! 3)>)2d 2<, (1,!.*C 9urray v) 9urray, 12% >is) 2d
!<%, &%& 3)>)2d ,0! (Ct) 6pp) 1,%.*) =
Q"32R 8)1) v) 7rinnell Corp), &%! 8)1) <.&, %. 1) Ct) 1.,%, 1. $) Ed) 2d //% (1,..*C 1el?ridge
v) 8nited of #maha $ife +ns) Co), &.0 ")&d 1<< (&d Cir) 200!*C 6ndrade v) Chojnac?i, &&%
")&d !!% (<th Cir) 200&*, cert) denied, <!1 8)1) ,&<, 12! 1) Ct) 1.<<, 1<% $) Ed) 2d &<< (200!*
and cert) denied, <!1 8)1) ,&<, 12! 1) Ct) 1.<<, 1<% $) Ed) 2d &<< (200!*C (ar?er v) 1tate, <%/
1o) 2d 10/2 (6la) Crim) 6pp) 1,,1*C 1tate v) 7reenway, 1/0 6riA) 1<<, %2& ()2d 22 (1,,1*C
$os v) $os, <,< 6)2d &%1 (Del) 1,,1*C 9atter of Evans, !11 6)2d ,%! (D)C) 1,%0*C 1tate v)
2ear, !<2 3)>)2d !&0, <, Ed) $aw :ep) 1,/ (+owa 1,,0*C "ogarty v) Com), !0. 9ass) 10&,
<!. 3)E)2d &<! (1,%,*C (edro v) (edro, !%, 3)>)2d /,% (9inn) Ct) 6pp) 1,,2*C 1tate v)
;unter, %!0 1)>)2d %<0 (9o) 1,,2*C (eople v) DiaA, 1&0 9isc) 2d 102!, !,% 3)K)1)2d .,%
(County Ct) 1,%.*C :eading v) 2all, 2,1 1)C) !,2, &<! 1)E)2d &,/ (Ct) 6pp) 1,%/*C Gemp v)
1tate, %!. 1)>)2d 2%, (5e') Crim) 6pp) 1,,2*) =
Q"3&R ;owe v) (ro?op, 21 9ass) 6pp) Ct) ,1,, !%! 3)E)2d 102, (1,%<*) =
Q"3!R Correll v) 1tate, .,% 1o) 2d <22 ("la) 1,,/*) =
Q"3<R 1tate v) >illiams, .01 1o) 2d 1&/! ($a) 1,,2*C 2rendla v) 6cheson, <<! 6)2d /,% (9e)
1,%,*) =
Q"3.R ;aldane v) ;aldane, 2&2 Cal) 6pp) 2d &,&, !2 Cal) :ptr) %2% (2d Dist) 1,.<*) =
Q"3/R Deauville :ealty Co) v) 5obin, 120 1o) 2d 1,% ("la) Dist) Ct) 6pp) &d Dist) 1,.0*) =
Q"3%R 1tate v) 7riffen, 2!1 Gan) .%, /&! ()2d 10%, (1,%/*) =
69D8: D8D7E1 S 1&1
S 1&2) ==:eHuirement that bias be personal
S 1&2) #rigin of biasC reHuirement that bias be e'trajudicial]:eHuirement that bias
be personal >estBs Gey 3umber Digest >estBs Gey 3umber Digest, Dudges !,(1*, !,(2*
5he basis of the disHualification of a judge for bias or prejudice is that of personal bias or
prejudice, for or against a party, which renders the judge unable to e'ercise his or her functions
impartially in the particular case)Q"31R 5he words PbiasP and PprejudiceP refer to the mental
attitude or disposition of the judge toward a party to the litigation and not to any views that he
or she may entertain regarding the subject matter involved)Q"32R
>here the bias of a trial judge against a party is alleged as the basis for recusal, the bias must
have derived from a personal rather than a judicial source)Q"3&R #nly bias, prejudice, or
2!./%&
?nowledge derived from an e'trajudicial source is personal)Q"3!R >here ?nowledge is
acHuired in a judicial setting or an opinion arguably e'pressing bias is formed on the basis of
information acHuired from evidence presented in the course of a judicial proceeding before a
judge, neither that ?nowledge nor that opinion Hualifies as personal)Q"3<R (ersonal bias cannot
be inferred from an adverse ruling)Q"3.R
C898$65+@E 18(($E9E35 Cases:
5ypically, a bias is PpersonalP under rule governing motion for change of judge in post=
conviction relief proceeding if it stems from an e'trajudicial source, meaning a source separate
from the evidence and argument presented at the proceedings) (ruitt v) 1tate, ,0& 3)E)2d %,,
(+nd) 200,*)
DisHualification of a judge upon a post=conviction motion for change of judge is not reHuired
unless the judge holds a personal bias or prejudice) (ost Conviction :ule 1, S !(b*) 1tate v)
1hac?leford, ,22 3)E)2d /02 (+nd) Ct) 6pp) 2010*)
"or purposes of the burden on a party reHuesting recusal of a trial judge to prove that the judge
has a personal bias or prejudice concerning him or personal ?nowledge of disputed evidentiary
facts concerning the proceedings, only bias, prejudice, or ?nowledge derived from an
e'trajudicial source is personal) 1cott v) 1tate, 1/< 9d) 6pp) 1&0, ,2. 6)2d /,2 (200/*)
5rial judge acted within trial judgeBs discretion in denying defendantBs motion for recusal at
suppression hearing before trial for drug offenses, even though trial judge, during discussion
with counsel about evidentiary ramifications of a decision by the Court of 6ppeals, stated, P5he
purpose of Qthe decisionR isnBt to release all the drug dealers bac? out on the street, or alleged
drug dealers bac? out on the streetPC trial judgeBs discussion of
decision did not betray a personal bias that would compel recusal, and, moreover, trial judgeBs
remar?s occurred outside presence of jury) 1cott v) 1tate, 1/< 9d) 6pp) 1&0, ,2. 6)2d /,2
(200/*)
QE3D #" 18(($E9E35R
Q"31R ;udspeth v) 1tate, 1%% 6r?) &2&, ./ 1)>)2d 1,1 (1,&&*C 1tate v) 3unes, ,, :)+) 1, 20<
6)2d 2! (1,.!*) =
Q"32R ;udspeth v) 1tate, 1%% 6r?) &2&, ./ 1)>)2d 1,1 (1,&&*C 1tate e' rel) 9itchell v) 1age
1tores Co), 1</ Gan) .22, 1!& ()2d .<2 (1,!&*C 3elson v) Dodge, /. :)+) 1, .% 6)2d <1, 1!
6)$):)2d .&% (1,!,*) =
Q"3&R :eeves v) 1tate, <%0 1o) 2d !, (6la) Crim) 6pp) 1,,0*C 7oldberger v) 7oldberger, ,.
9d) 6pp) &1&, .2! 6)2d 1&2% (1,,&*C 1tate e' rel) 2ardac?e v) >elsh, 102 3)9) <,2, .,% ()2d
!.2 (Ct) 6pp) 1,%<*) =
Q"3!R Defferson=El v) 1tate, &&0 9d) ,,, .22 6)2d /&/ (1,,&*) = 6s to the reHuirement that bias
be e'trajudicial, see S 1&1) =
Q"3<R Defferson=El v) 1tate, &&0 9d) ,,, .22 6)2d /&/ (1,,&*) =
Q"3.R 1tate v) ;ernandeA, 11< 3)9) ., %!. ()2d &12 (1,,&*) = 6s to adverse rulings, generally,
see S 1!/) =
69D8: D8D7E1 S 1&2F
S 1&&) #pinions
2!//%&
S 1&!) Effect of bringing action against judge
S 1&<) Effect of acts intended to create bias
S 1&.) 2ias against attorney for party
S 1&.) 2ias against attorney for party
>estBs Gey 3umber Digest >estBs Gey 3umber Digest, Dudges !,(1*, !,(2* 6)$):) $ibrary
DisHualification of judge for bias against counsel for litigant, <! 6)$):)<th </<
5he statutes of some states provide for the disHualification of a judge in a proceeding in which
the judge is personally biased or prejudiced for or against an attorneyQ"31R or on the basis that
a judgeBs prejudice against an attorney is of such a degree that it adversely affects the attorneyBs
client)Q"32R 5he courts have in some cases held that the antipathy of a judge toward counsel
for a litigant is sufficiently shown to justify disHualification,Q"3&R often on the basis that the
hostility between a partyBs attorney and a judge would lead a reasonable=minded person to
Huestion whether the judgeBs impartiality might be Huestioned)Q"3!R 1ome courts have
indicated that bias toward the attorney for a party may sometimes disHualify a judge but have
found that the facts relied on to prove prejudice were insufficient to disHualify)Q"3<R #ther
courts have held that bias or prejudice towards an attorney is insufficient to disHualify a judge
unless the bias rises to such a degree as to adversely affect the interests of the client)Q"3.R
1ome courts have held that personal bias or prejudice against counsel for a litigant, in the
absence of evidence of bias directed against the litigant himself or herself, does not furnish a
ground for disHualification of the judge)Q"3/R
#bservation: 6 judgeBs mere reporting of perceived attorney unprofessionalism to the state bar,
in and of itself, is legally insufficient to support judicial disHualification)Q"3%R
6 judge in a criminal case may be disHualified for prejudice against the attorneys for the state)
Q"3,R 1uch a judge may be subject to disHualification if, after the trial begins, he or she
becomes biased or prejudiced against the state)Q"310R
Q"31R (eople v) ;ouston, 1/, 9ich) 6pp) /<&, !!. 3)>)2d <!& (1,%,*C 1tate v) 2elgarde, 11,
>ash) 2d /11, %&/ ()2d <,, (1,,2*C #sborn v) 9anning, %12 ()2d <!< (>yo) 1,,1*) =
Q"32R 1tate e' rel) Densen v) Cannon, 1.& 1o) 2d <&< ("la) Dist) Ct) 6pp) &d Dist) 1,.!*C
9artineA v) Carmona, ,< 3)9) <!<, .2! ()2d <! (Ct) 6pp) 1,%0*, writ Huashed, ,< 3)9) <,&,
.2! ()2d <&< (1,%1*) =
Q"3&R Dames v) 5heobald, <</ 1o) 2d <,1 ("la) Dist) Ct) 6pp) &d Dist) 1,,0*) = 6 trial judgeBs
antipathy toward a plaintiffBs case, and chastising, holding in contempt, and summarily
removing his trial counsel after four days of trial with only two and one=half days for
replacement counsel to prepare, sufficiently prejudiced the plaintiff so as to reHuire a new trial)
1anta 9aria v) 9etro=3orth Commuter :):), %1 ")&d 2.< (2d Cir) 1,,.*) =
Q"3!R 1)1) v) >a?efield, /.! ()2d /0 (Colo) 1,%%*C Davis v) 3eshoba County 7eneral ;osp),
.11 1o) 2d ,0! (9iss) 1,,2*) = 6s to disHualification of a judge on the basis that the judgeBs
impartiality might reasonably be Huestioned, generally, see S 1!0) =
Q"3<R 1ha?in v) 2oard of 9edical E'aminers, 2<! Cal) 6pp) 2d 102, .2 Cal) :ptr) 2/!, 2&
6)$):)&d 1&,% (2d Dist) 1,./*C 1)1) v) >a?efield, /.! ()2d /0 (Colo) 1,%%*C 1tate v) 9ata, /1
;aw) &1,, /%, ()2d 1122 (1,,0*C 6ppeal of 3ordhoy, 11, (a) Commw) .20, <!/ 6)2d %./
(1,%%*) =
Q"3.R 5own Centre of +slamorada, +nc) v) #verby, <,2 1o) 2d //! ("la) Dist) Ct) 6pp) &d Dist)
2!%/%&
1,,2*C 1tate v) ;ollingsworth, 1.0 >is) 2d %%&, !./ 3)>)2d <<< (Ct) 6pp) 1,,1*) =
Q"3/R $iston v) 2utler, ! 6riA) 6pp) !.0, !21 ()2d <!2 (1,..*C Dowell v) ;all, %< #?la) Crim)
,2, 1%< ()2d 2&2 (1,!/*) =
Q"3%R <=; Corp) v) (adovano, /0% 1o) 2d 2!! ("la) 1,,/*) =
Q"3,R 1tate v) Davis, 1<, 7a) 6pp) <&/, 2%! 1)E)2d <1 (1,%1*) =
Q"310R 1tate e' rel) 9c6llister v) 1late, 2/% 9o) </0, 21! 1)>) %<, % 6)$):) 122. (1,1,*C
1tate v) 1uperior Court of >ashington for Ging County, 121 >ash) .11, 20, () 10,/ (1,22*) =
69D8: D8D7E1 S 1&.
S 1&/) (robate proceedings
S 1&%) (rior contact with party
b) 6pparent (rejudice
S 1&,) 7enerally
S 1!0) DudgeBs impartiality might reasonably be Huestioned
S 1!1) 2usiness, political, or social relations
S 1!2) 6cHuaintance or relationship with counsel
S 1!&) ==Contributions or participation by attorney to judgeBs campaign
S 1!!) DudgeBs past bac?ground and e'periences
S 1!<) :epresentation of judge by counsel for one of the parties
S 1!.) DudgeBs actions in prior proceedingsC plea bargain and pretrial
negotiations
c) DudgeBs 6ctions or :ulings
S 1!/) 6dverse or erroneous rulings
S 1!%) E' parte communications
S 1!,) Comments made by judge during proceedings
<) (rior (articipation in, Connection >ith, or Gnowledge of the Case or (arties
a) +n 7eneral
S 1<0) 7enerally
S 1<1) Gnowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
b) 6s Dudge
S 1<2) 7enerally
S 1<1) Gnowledge of disputed evidentiary facts >estBs Gey 3umber Digest >estBs Gey
3umber Digest, Dudges !/(1*, !/(2*, !%
5he statutes and canons of many states provide that a judge must disHualify himself or herself
in any proceeding where he or she has personal ?nowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceedings,Q"31R and such rules are embodied in a federal statute)Q"32R 6
judge must disHualify himself or herself where the judge obtains personal ?nowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts through an unrecorded interview with a witness)Q"3&R 5his rule is
not meant to preclude participation of a judge who has obtained ?nowledge of the case through
prior judicial proceedings)Q"3!R 5he phrase Ppersonal ?nowledge of disputed evidentiary factsP
refers to ?nowledge e'trajudicially obtained rather than ?nowledge obtained in a judgeBs
official capacity during the course of the proceeding)Q"3<R
2!,/%&
C898$65+@E 18(($E9E35 Cases:
9agistrate judgeBs personal ?nowledge of facts surrounding settlement conference between
parties, in dispute over use of trademar?s, did not reHuire magistrate to recuse himself from
considering plaintiffBs subseHuent motion to enforce settlement agreement, since magistrateBs
?nowledge of agreement arose solely from his judicial duty to oversee the settlement
conference, and defendantBs recusal motion, brought seven months after enforcement motion
was referred to magistrate, was untimely) #mega Engineering, +nc) v) #mega, 1)6), !&2 ")&d
!&/ (2d Cir) 200<*)
"act that judge who presided over postconviction relief proceeding also participated in the
underlying criminal case, by ta?ing such pretrial actions as issuing search warrants and
conducting arraignment, did not preclude the judge from deciding the postconviction relief
petitionC judge did not preside over petitionerBs underlying criminal trial or sentencing, and any
?nowledge acHuired by the judge in the course of the pretrial proceedings was not PpersonalP as
contemplated by judicial conduct canon concerning disHualification of judges who have
personal bias or prejudice concerning a party) +n re 2arrows, ,1/ 6)2d !,0 (@t) 200/*)
QE3D #" 18(($E9E35R
Q"31R $os v) $os, <,< 6)2d &%1 (Del) 1,,1*C >oods v) Com), /,& 1)>)2d %0, (Gy) 1,,0*C
#rtiA v) City of 3ew Kor?, 1&. 9isc) 2d <00, <1% 3)K)1)2d ,1& (1up 1,%/*) = 6 trial judge
would not be disHualified on the basis that he or she had obtained ?nowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts prior to a termination of parental rights hearing where a letter by foster parents
describing the
child as sic?, hungry, and filthy did not convey any information to the judge not conveyed by
independent evidence at the trial) +n +nterest of >)1)9), %!< 1)>)2d 1!/ (9o) Ct) 6pp) >)D)
1,,&*) =
Q"32R 2% 8)1)C)6) S !<<(b*(1*) = 6s to disHualification under 2% 8)1)C)6) S !<<(b*(1* on the
ground that a judge has ?nowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding, see
6m) Dur) 2d, "ederal Courts S 1&/) =
Q"3&R +n re 9arriage of Donley, %1, 1)>)2d ,% (9o) Ct) 6pp) 1)D) 1,,1*) =
Q"3!R :oe v) Dietrich, &10 6r?) <!, %&< 1)>)2d 2%, (1,,2*C (oorman v) Com), /%2 1)>)2d
.0& (Gy) 1,%,*C "raidin v) >eitAman, ,& 9d) 6pp) 1.%, .11 6)2d 10!. (1,,2*) =
Q"3<R (oorman v) Com), /%2 1)>)2d .0& (Gy) 1,%,*C 2oyd v) 1tate, /, 9d) 6pp) <&, <<<
6)2d <&< (1,%,*, judgment affBd, &21 9d) .,, <%1 6)2d 1 (1,,0*C +n re 5)$)1), 1!! @t) <&.,
!%1 6)2d 10&/ (1,%!*) =
i 2011 5homson :euters) &&=&!2 i 2011 5homson :euters:+6) 3o Claim to #rig) 8)1)
7ovt) >or?s) 6ll rights reserved)
69D8: D8D7E1 S 1<1 E3D #" D#C89E35
!. 6m) Dur) 2d Dudges S 1<2
6merican Durisprudence, 1econd Edition Database updated 6ugust 2011 Dudges $aura ;unter
DietA, D)D) and "ern $) Gletter, D)D) and 5homas D) CAelusta, D)D), of the staff of the 3ational
$egal :esearch 7roup, +nc) +4) DisHualification to 6ct in (articular Case 2) 7rounds <) (rior
(articipation in, Connection >ith, or Gnowledge of the Case or (arties b) 6s Dudge
5opic 1ummary Correlation 5able :eferences S 1<2) 7enerally >estBs Gey 3umber Digest
>estBs Gey 3umber Digest, Dudges !/(2*, !%
2<0/%&
6 motion for disHualification of a judge may not ordinarily be based simply on a judgeBs
participation in earlier cases)Q"31R (revious contact between a judge and a party, in the same
or a different judicial proceeding, does not reHuire automatic disHualification)Q"32R
3either prior ?nowledge of the issues of parties acHuired as a judge nor prior rulings on the
issues in dispute serve as grounds for disHualification of a surrogate judge under a legislatively
structured system where one judge presides over all the proceedings in an estate of a decedent
from the appointment of a fiduciary)Q"3&R
C898$65+@E 18(($E9E35 Cases:
9agistrate judgePs personal ?nowledge of facts surrounding settlement conference between
parties, and his involvement in the negotiations, in dispute over use of trademar?s, did not
reHuire magistrate to recuse himself from considering plaintiffBs subseHuent motion to enforce
settlement agreement, where magistratePs involvement in the negotiations was minimal, and
parties drafted provisions of agreement themselves) #mega Engineering, +nc) v) #mega, 16,
!1! ") 1upp) 2d 1&% (D) Conn) 200!*, affBd, !&2 ")&d !&/ (2d Cir) 200<*)
QE3D #" 18(($E9E35R
Q"31R Glein v) Glein, 1<& @t) <<1, </2 6)2d ,00 (1,,0*) =
Q"32R $os v) $os, <,< 6)2d &%1 (Del) 1,,1*) =
Q"3&R 9atter of Estate of 1herburne, 12! 9isc) 2d /0%, !/. 3)K)1)2d !1, (1ur) Ct) 1,%!*) =
69D8: D8D7E1 S 1<2
6ll :9C Dudges (e'pecially with respect to the meetings discussing Coughlin that
Dilworth, ;olmes, and >) 7ardner admit to having, and the 22/12 %:10 a)m), filing by
Coughlin in the Dudge ;oward matter in 221/., and the later that day summary incarceration of
Coughlin by ;olmes and her commentary thereing that Eyou can add to your little record thereF
referring to CoughlinBs conviction of 11&011 before Dudge ;oward and the three day
summary contempt incarceration and li?ely the ";E& #rder resulting in CoughlinBs firing by
>$1 that ;olmes admits :9C Dudge >) 7ardner passed to her upon his receiving such ";E&
#rder by his sister, 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner, from his sister, then providing it to all :9C
Dudges)
9unicipal court judgeBs conduct in referencing his judicial office in confrontation
with fellow motorist, and in presenting false information and documentation with respect to
foreclosure action on marital home titled solely in the name of his wife, violated canons of
judicial conduct reHuiring judges to uphold integrity of the judiciary, to observe high standards
of conduct, to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, to respect and comply with
the law and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary, to not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment, to conduct e'tra=judicial activities so as to minimiAe the ris? of conflict
with judicial obligations, to conduct e'tra=judicial activities so that they do not cast reasonable
doubt on the judgeBs capacity to act impartially as a judge, to conduct e'tra=judicial activities so
that they do not demean the judicial office, and to comply with code of judicial conduct)
Denmar? 9un) Court Dudge 9yron @) 6nderson, &%0 1)C) /0, ..% 1)E)2d !1& (200%*) (1uch
applies to >) 7arnderBs referencing his e'tra=judicial ?nowledge of a meeting of the 33D2
1creen (anel regarding Coughlin, on the record, during the !1012 trial in 2.!0<)
2<1/%&
District judge was not reHuired to recuse himself in ban? robbery prosecution on
ground that he had personal ?nowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, even though judge had
presided over hearing at which defendantBs supervised release was revo?ed because of his
participation in same ban? robbery, where judge did not gain any ?nowledge of case from
e'trajudicial source) 8)1) v) Carlton, <&! ")&d ,/ (2d Cir) 200%*, cert) denied, 12, 1) Ct) .1&,
1/2 $) Ed) 2d !.% (200%*)
S 1<&) (rior proceedings in same case
S 1<!) (rior proceedings in different case
S 1<<) :ight to review own acts
S 1<.) :etrial of case reversed by higher court
!) ;earing, Determination, and 6ppeal
S 1,&) 7enerally
S 1,!) >here affidavit not conclusive
S 1,<) ==Dudge does not decide issue of disHualification
S 1,.) >here affidavit of prejudice conclusive
S 1,/) 1uccessive applications for disHualification
S 1,%) Determination as to disHualification of appellate judges
S 1,,) (resumption of Hualification
S 200) #vercoming presumption of Hualification
S 201) (rior rulings and other conduct as evidence of prejudice and bias
S 202) 6ppeal and review
E) Effect of DisHualification
S 21!) :ights and duties of judge where disHualified
S 21<) :etroactive effect of disHualification
S 21.) @alidity of actions pending disHualification
S 21/) @alidity of formal and ministerial orders and acts after disHualification
S 21%) @alidity of official acts after disHualification
S 21,) @alidity of official acts where one or more of several judges are
disHualified
") :evocation or :emoval of DisHualification
:esearch :eferences
S 220) Effect of removal of disHualification
S 221) :evocation of determination of disHualification
S 222) ==Effect of change of judges
";E%, Dudge ;olmesB &1!12 letter to the 123 reads:
EDudge 3ash ;olmesB &1!12 grievance to bar counsel reads:
E:e: -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, 3evada 2ar 3o) ,!/&
Dear 9r) Clar?:
5his letter constitutes a formal complaint of attorney misconduct andor
disability against -achary 2ar?er Coughlin) 5he accompanying bo' of materials
2<2/%&
demonstrates some of the problems with the practice of this attorney being e'perienced
by myself and the other three judges in :eno 9unicipal Court) 9y two most recent
#rders in what should be a simple traffic citation case are self=e'planatory and are
included, together with copies of massive documents 9e) Coughlin has fa'Wfiled to our
court in this case) 6udio recordings of two of my hearings in this matter are also
included) ;e failed to appear for the second one this past 9onday)
+ have another traffic case pending trial with him that was re=assigned to me
based on our Department + judge being out for surgery) >e have multiple addresses for
9r) Coughlin and canBt seem to locate him between cases very easily) >e are setting that
case for trial and attempting to serve him at the most recent address we have (1!22 E) ,th
1t) I2 :eno 3K %,<12*, although + heard today he may be living in his vehicle
somewhere) >e do have an address for his mother, however, as she recently posted part
of a fine for him)
Dudge Gen ;oward, Department !, had a case on 9r) Coughlin late last year
that is now on appeal to the 1econd Dudicial District Court) Dudge 2ill 7ardner,
Department 2, also has a matter currently pending in his court with 9r) Coughlin as the
defendant) + have enclosed some copies of documents from those matters, in
chronological order, simply because they appear to demonstrate that he is Huic?ly
decompensating in his mental status) #ur staff also made you some audio tapes of
Coughlin in Departments 2 and ! so you can hear for yourself how this attorney acts in
court) Kou can see his behavior in my traffic citation case does not appear to be an
isolated incident)
5" is my unders"anding "$a" 3eno Jus"i!e Cour" also $as a ma""er pending on
"$is a""orney) 9y Dudicial 6ssistant was contacted by the >ashoe (ublic Defender in
"ebruary when + had 9r) Coughlin jailed for Contempt of Court and they stated that they
represent him in a 7ross 9isdemeanor matter in :DC) + have no other information on
that)
Kou will have the full cooperation of myself, the other judges, and the staff of
:eno 9unicipal Court in your pursuit of this matter) 9r) Coughlin has positioned himself
as a ve'atious litigant in our court, antagoniAing the staff and even our pro temp judges
on the most simple traffic and misdemeanor matters) + do thin? this is a case of some
urgency, and 5 apologiKe for "a'ing "#o days "o ge" "$is pa!'age "o youC our +5 person
was ill and could not ma?e the copies of the audios of 9r) CoughlinBs hearings until
today, and 5 fel" i" #as impor"an" "$a" "$e audios 6e in!luded in "$e ma"erials "o 6e
!onsidered by the 1tate 2ar) #n "ebruary 2/, 2012, 9r) Coughlin told me he was
actively practicing law and had appointments with clients) + do not ?now if that was true,
but if so, he could be causing serious harm to the practice of law in 3orthern 3evada and
could be jeopardiAing someoneBs freedom or property interests)
s Dudge Dorothy 3ash ;olmes, :eno 9unicipal Court) Encls)P
#f course, its very cute for Ging to then place immediately thereafter 2DDC Dudge
"lanaganBs .2<12 #rder (";E2*
2<&/%&
fee award (3#5 6 163C5+#3*
2,/, 123 2ar Counsel Clar? forwards on CoughlinBs 12&12 self report of
conviction in .0%&% to Ging and (eters
due to ob#truction o% Coughlin<# mail B2hich' o% cour#e' :ing' Peter#' and the *+, %ail to
do...#o much %or that *94?C@ /rogram' huhDC
Dogan)
001/0%, C@11=0&.2% at 121 :iver :oc?
law office)
CoughlinBs defense)
=ardner
10 <% 6)$):) "ed) 22, 6ttorneyBs conduct as justifying summary contempt order under :ule
!2(a* of the "ederal :ules of Criminal (rocedure: 2 Conduct considered to be in presence of
court S 11 6bsence S 12 #ther conduct S 20QbR +mpertinence, attac?s upon competency or
impartiality, or the li?e]Conduct held not to warrant summary punishment 2 #ther conduct S
21QaR 2oisterous or disruptive behavior]2y attorney S 21QbR 2oisterous or disruptive behavior
]2y client or spectators S 21QcR 2oisterous or disruptive behavior]>here encouraged by
attorney S 22 +rrelevant commentary S 2& +nflammatory or prejudicial remar?s in opening
statement S 2! +mproper Huestioning S 2< 8njustified motion for mistrial S 2. Dilatory conduct
S 2/QaR 5ardiness or failure to appear]Conduct held to warrant summary punishment S 2/QbR
5ardiness or failure to appear]Conduct held not to warrant summary punishment S 2%QaR
2<!/%&
9iscellaneous conduct]Conduct held to warrant summary punishment S 2%QbR 9iscellaneous
conduct]Conduct held not to warrant summary punishment 6ppeal as remedy S 1,
#ne really ?ey consideration in both of the contempt orders (";E! and ";E11* is
that Coughlin was appearing pro se in those matters in settings where he had absolutely no
e'perience whatsoever (criminal law and traffic citation matters* not by his own choice, and
not after having been hired by a client, but rather where :9C Dudge ;oward denied indigent
CoughlinBs 102.11 6pplication for Court 6ppointed Defender and the motion for the
appointment of defense counsel Coughlin made minutes into the 11&011 trial when Dudge
;oward first broached the topic of finding Coughlin in contempt) Despite his stated
indigency and CoughlinBs filing on &/12, a E3e8ues" for 0udio 3e!ording of Fe6ruary 27
"$
7
2012 2rial and "o 4aie Filing Fee and 2rans!rip" Fee for 0ppealL )o"ion "o Dro!eed
5nforma Dauperis and for 0pp" CounselF, Coughlin was not appointed counsel, and was not
provided even the opportunity to purchase the audio of the 22%12 trial date, nor was an
transcript (audio or typed* provided to Coughlin) 6nother reason the 123Bs Ging e'cised page
1 of & of CoughlinBs &/12 filing in the :9C, which Dudge ;olmes attached to her &1&12
#rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document "ile on 9arch /, 2012 (which itself is an act of gross
judicial misconduct, especially where such was compounded by then proceeding to hold such
&1212 trial date the :9C failed to notice Coughlin on in writing, where no court appointed
counsel was provided to per se indigent Coughlin upon his submitting such &/12 in forma
pauperis motion and reHuest for appointed counsel)
(3#5E: the 121!12 "#"C#$ ate that up:
E&1) #n 9arch /,2012 Coughlin caused to be filed an P6ffidavit of (overty in
1upport of 9otion to (roceed +nforma (auperis)P 1ee ;earing E'hibit ,) +n his 6ffidavit, Coughlin
represented that he was self=employed as a PDac? of all 5rades)P 1ee ;earing E'hibit ,) 5he 6ffidavit
does not identify 9r) Coughlin as a lawyer or identity any income from the practice of law) 1ee
;earing E'hibit ,)
&2) 5he record also indicates that Coughlin had also filed a motion on 3ovember 1!, 2011
to proceed +n "orma (auperis in case number +1C: 221/. pending in the :eno 9unicipal Court before
Dudge Genneth :) ;oward) 1ee ;earing E'hibit 10) Dudge ;owardBs #rder denying CoughlinBs motion
specifically noted that CoughlinBs Paffidavit of povertyP did not identify any income from the practice
of law yet Coughlin had implied to the court when sentenced to incarceration for contempt that his
incarceration would adversely affect his clients) 1ee ;earing E'hibit 10, ( 2, $ 1, =2&))))
Candor to the 6ribunal
(-* :(C &)&(a*(1* states P6 lawyer shall not ?nowingly: AmBa'e a false s"a"emen" 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)P)))
(CC* 5he record also establishes that Coughlin was less "$an !andid 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 self=employed as a PDac? of all 5radesP failed to identify any
2<</%&
income from the practice of law after having represented to the court that his incarceration would
adversely affect his clients) 1upra &1 M &2 F
;owever, what Ging actualy notice=pled was a bit different where his %2&12 Complaint
alleged:
E1!) +n the case of City of :eno vs) -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, Case 3o) 11 5: 2.%00 21, a
trial was held on a traffic citation issued to :espondent) 5he matter was called at appro'imately &:00
p)m) and concluded without a verdict at about !:&0 p)m) after the court held :espondent in criminal
contempt of court for his behavior and activities committed in the direct presence of the court during
trial)
1<) +n a 9arch 12, 2012 #rder, 9unicipal Court Dudge Dorothy 3ash ;omes found by
Pclear and convincing evidenceP that 9r) Coughlin committed numerous acts of attorney misconduct)
1ee E'hibit & (3#5E: ";E<*) Dudge ;olmes e'plained in her #rder that after :espondent served his
five=day contempt of court sanction imposed by the court on "ebruary 2/, 2012, :espondent fa'=filed
to the court a 22!=page document) Dudge ;olmes found that the document contained rambling
references to his personal life and was incoherent) )))
1/) e#/ondent filed ?%%ida-it# o% Po-erty in *u//ort o% $is !otion to Proceed
7n%orma Pau/eri#, #$erein $e fails "o dis!lose "$a" $e is a li!ensed a""orney and instead under
Employment and 1elf=Employment he identifies himself as a PDac? of 6ll 5radesP)
1%) Despi"e a !laim of poer"y in the above mentioned affidavits, :espondent told the Court
that his incarceration for contempt #ould adersely affe!" $is !lien"s)F*
Ging attempts flies a bit too close to the sun in paragraphs 1!=1% of his Complaint) 5here,
Ging attempts to disguise the fact that paragraph 1! refers to the the very same case as that referenced
in pagragraphs 1<, 1/, and 1%) Ging needed to do this, as well as obscure the dates of the filing of
CoughlinBs &/12 submission and the actual title thereof, as best as he could) Ging (as would the
(anel* attempts to characteriAe pages 2 and & of CoughlinBs &/12
Dudge 3ash ;olmes &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document "ile on 9arch /, 2012 was
so embarrassing to Ging that Ging e'cised all but the Certificate of 1ervice thereof from ";E,)
"urther, Dudge 3ash ;olmes made a very suspect characteriAation of the title of that filing by Coughlin
in referencing it in her &1&12 E#rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document)))F thusly: E+n his fa'ed
document, he had apparently typed the words P@PI@*6 (9 ?I$79
@C9$7,= 9( (@+I?F 276)' 2012 trial 63D "#: 6((5 63D 5#
>6+@E "+$+37 "EE 63D 6?,*C7P6 (@@ (9 ?PP@?4 C9I,*@4P over a
document he had previously prepared entitled !otion to Proceed 7n%orma Pau/eri#)))F
>hile the position of the words Coughlin typed in over the e'isting boilerplate
+"( motion may have been a bit aw?ward or jumbled* the conte't of the words in a legal
sense ought Huite obviously lead a judge reading such to discern that the title of such
2<./%&
was really:
E3e8ues" for 0udio 3e!ording of Fe6ruary 27
"$
7 2012 2rial and "o 4aie Filing Fee
and 2rans!rip" Fee for 0ppealL )o"ion "o Dro!eed 5nforma Dauperis and for 0pp"
CounselF, ma?ing Huite clear that indigent Coughlin was see?ing court apopinted
counsel at public e'pense)
"urther, CoughlinBs typing above the caption on the Epage 1 of &F that, again, Ging e'cised
from ";E,, E655#:3EK "#: (:# 1E DE"E3D635 DE3+ED 1+45; 69E3D9E35 :+7;5F and
E3@ 26: 3# ,!/&F ma?es clear (especially where Ging and the 123 may not allege they did not
have such Epage 1 of &F where it clearly can be found within the very &,0,! pages it produced to
Coughlin, bates stamped, just four judicial days before the formal hearing (at bates 1.,! :9C Dudge
3ash ;olmes &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document filed on &/12 (CoughlinBs +"(
9otion6ffidavit in 1upport of and :eHuest for 6udio of 22/12 trial before ;olmes in 11 5:
2.%00 (3712=0!&!)))where the prejudice to Coughlin in the 123 failing to notice=plead in its
Complaint any allegation or even the idea that Coughlin presented any affidavit of poverty in a
manner sufficient to support a charge that Coughlin failed to identify himself as an attorney in
connection therewith (as if that is even some ?ind of a reHuirement anyways)))* is clear) ;ad
Coughlin any idea such a lame and fraudulent argumentallegation would be made at the
hearing, he Huite clearly would have refuted it by presenting the very Epage 1 of &F that Ging
e'cised and sought to every so Huic?ly gloss over when Coughlin confronted him about it
during the hearing) Ging is a complete charlatan)
5he sole traffic citation at issue in the trial before ;olmes in 2.%00, :9C .)0.)1/0(a* has
since overta?en by E5:6""+C 1+731, 1+736$1 63D 96:G+371 3:1e!%!2)&00 #bedience
to devices for control of trafficC placement of devicesC additional penalty for violation committed in
wor? Aone)F) +t is not entirely clear whether such is a EmisdemeanorF and therefore ma?ing
6igersinger and the right to counsel and issue, especially considering Coughlin sought to appointment
of counsel by his &/12 filing, the title of which Dudge 3ash ;olmes appears to purposefully mistate in
her &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document)) where it is Huite clear, upon a review of that page 1 of
& thereof that Ging e'cised from ";E,, via the completely different font involved in Coughlin EtypingF
over the boilerplate E9otion to (roceed +nforma (auperisF
1o, page 1 of & of CoughlinBs &/12 filing in 2.%00 turns out to be incredibly
important in e'posing the fraud of both the 123Bs Ging and :9C Dudge ;olmes) 5his is true,
especially, where Ging e'cised page 1 therefrom, where doing so not only sought to further
GingBs fraudulent assertion that therein Coughlin Efails to disclose that he is a licensed
attorneyF in some E6ffidavits of (overty +n 1upport of his 9otion to (roceed +nforma
(auperisF aguely referen!ed without any dates or case numbers in paragraph 1/ of GingBs
Complaint) GingBs reference to such affidavits was vague for a reason, as Ging was attempting
to perpetuate a fraud that would be easily e'posed had Coughlin not been forced to defend
himself in the conte't of Ging and the (anel Chair conspiring to e'cise every single last due
process protection reHuired by 1C: 10<(2*(c*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1%0:2& to 1%1:1* 2K 9:) G+37: U Could you please
2<//%&
ta?e a loo? at this document thatBs been mar?ed as 1?$i6i" /o, >, 6nd tell me if you recogniAe
thatJ)))P;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1%2:11 to 1%!:.* 2K 9:) G+37: U Do you recogniAe that
document, 9r) CoughlinJ 6 5his is the affidavitJ U +t has a title of ?%%ida-it o% Po-erty in
*u//ort o% !otion to Proceed 7n (orma Pau/eri#) 6 5 don(" see a !ap"ion on i"7 )r, =ing7
so "$a"(s "$ro#ing me off a li""le, 4as "$ere no !ap"ion on i"H )ay6e -- o$7 "$is is Dage 2, *o
may6e Dage 1 is missing) U +t loo?s li?e there is a (age 1, and a signature notariAed) 6nd the
ne't Huestion + have is: +s that your signatureJ 6 #n (age &J U #n (age 2) (age & is
Certificate of 1ervice) 6 /o" on mine, Dage 2 is "$e firs" page, 2$e firs" page is Dage 2,
U Do you recogniAe that documentJ 6 5 #ould o6;e!" "o "$a" 6ased on i" 6eing
an in!omple"e do!umen") 9:) G+37: 6'm going to move to have 9=hi!it No, : &dmitted, 5;E
>+53E11: +t loo?s as though page == 9:) G+37: 6ffidavit submitted to the court, filed into
the court by 9r) Coughlin, notariAed) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6ny objection, 9r) Coughlin)
5;E >+53E11: Kes, sir, your ;onor) 2$e firs" page $as a 2 a" "$e 6o""om, 2$a"(s #$a" 5
mean 6y i"(s Dage 2, 5" seems "o 6e missing Dage 1, 0nd 5 #ould o6;e!" "o "$e fa!" i" doesn("
appear "o 6e a !omple"e do!umen")
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Does that appear to be your handwritingJ 5;E >+53E11:
Kes, sir) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +s that your signature affi'ed to whatBs identified as (age &,
2ates stamp 1.,,J 5;E >+53E11: +t loo?s li?e a partial signature) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
E'hibit , will be admitted) 9:) G+37: 5han? you) (E'hibit , admitted)* 2K 9:) G+37: U
5his is dated == it says it was filed in municipal court 9arch /th, 2012) +s this a document or a
part of a document that you had filed with the court see?ing in forma pauperis statusJ)))P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1%!:, to 1%/:1.* U +Bm tal?ing about your affidavit)
>eBre on E'hibit 3o) ,, 9r) Coughlin) KouBre loo?ing at the letter (3#5E: ";E%, Dudge
;olmesB &1!12 letter to the 123* thatBs no longer at issue at the moment) Could you loo? at
your affidavit == 6 + thought the letter referenced this in some way) U 3o) 5his affidavit is
something you filed in the municipal court in :eno) +Bm as?ing you if you caused this to be
filed into the courtJ 6 5 don(" 6eliee 5 !aused any"$ing "$a"(s s"ar"ed on Dage 2) 1o if youBre
referring to a portion of a document) U 4$a"eer "$is do!umen" is7 par" of a 6igger
do!umen", did you submit this to the municipal court see?ing in forma pauperis statusJ 6 Did
5 su6mi" a par"ial do!umen"J U 5his document) 6s part of a document or on its ownJ 5his is
the document + have in front of me that youBve ac?nowledged you signed, and +Bm as?ing if you
filed it with the municipal court) +f you donBt ?now, you donBt ?now) 2ut if you ?now, +Bd li?e
you to answer)
6 +t loo?s li?e an +"(, + recall) U +t says in your household, one dog, three years
old) Do you have a dogJ +s that your writingJ 6 + believe it is) U 6nd then under self-
employmen" you(e !$e!'ed you(re a ;a!'-of-all-"rades "o "$e !our", <ou #ere a la#yer
6arred a" "$e "ime, Did you 6eliee you #ere 6eing "ru"$ful #i"$ "$e !our"J
6 + always find this interesting when people == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin
2<%/%&
== 5;E >+53E11: +Bm answering his Huestion) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin) >hy do
you believe +Bm interrupting you nowJ Kou donBt get it yetJ Kou were interrupting 9r) Ging)
(3#5E: note according to CC: ;ummel, as she utiliAes the E==F when she feels an one has
interrupted another, such as above where Echeverria interrupted Coughlin, and where no such
appearance of E==F is to be found at the point corresponding where Echeverria alleged Coughlin
interrupted Ging) "urther support for Coughlin contention that he did not interrupt Ging and
that Ging had finished his Huestion is that Ging proceed to as? the e'act same Huestion and
finish it at the e'act same point where Coughlin had previously begun responding to it, only to
be interrupted by Echeverria with another one of his lame attempts to build a record of
Coughlin somehow EinterruptingF to support the Edisrupt a tribunalF catch=all approach the
(anel and Ging were reduced to pursuing upon Coughlin pic?ing GingBs 2omer by way of
3ifong hac?ery apart* +Bve as?ed you to please refrain from doing so)
5;E >+53E11: +Bm sorry) ;is Huestion was compound, so + was trying to answer
the first part of it) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +f you have an objection to his Huestion, ma?e the
objection, but donBt interrupt) 5;E >+53E11: 0!"ually7 5 "$in' $e #as done #i"$ "$e firs"
par" of $is 8ues"ion7 and 5 #as ans#ering i") 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (roceed with your
Huestion, 9r) Ging) 2K 9:) G+37: U 5he Huestion is: 4$en you iden"ified yourself as a
;a!'-of-all-"rades as opposed "o informing "$e !our" "$a" you #ere a li!ensed a""orney in
/eada7 do you 6eliee you #ere 6eing "ru"$ful #i"$ "$e !our"J
6 +Bve always found it interesting when this subject is brought up == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, that Huestion calls for a yes or no answer) 5;E >+53E11: +
thin? +Bve been truthful at all times) 9aybe too truthful) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1o the answer is:
Kes, that was a true statementJ 5;E >+53E11: Keah) 6nd + thin? itBs interesting the idea that
just because + have a law license == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, youBre now arguing)
KouBve answered the Huestion) Kou will have time to argue later) 9r) Ging) 9:) G+37: ;as
E'hibit 3o) , 2een admitted, the affidavitJ +Bm moving for == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Do you
have an objection, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs not a complete document, and itBs not
certified)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he ruling of the chair will be that E'hibit , will be admitted)
5he first two pages appear to be a complete document in and of itself entitled an 6ffidavit and
concluding with a signature, and a notariAed signature, together with a proof of service by the
:eno 9unicipal Court) E'hibit , will be admitted) (E'hibit , admitted)* 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
+ have a Huestion on that) >hat is jac?=of=all=trades, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 5o me
it meant somebody struggling to ma?e a living is what + was doing to pay some bills))))P
#f course the :9C (the intials E:;F are interlineated in the blan? for the deputy
cler?Bs to initial** attempted to aid ;olmes and Ging this fraudulent attempt to coo? up some
allegation of misconduct by Coughlin by placing a file stamp on all three pages of CoughlinsB &
page fa' filed submission of &/12 (apparently placing a file stamp on the third page was just
sort of over?ill*
2<,/%&
+t is very odd that Ging, Dudge ;olmes, and the :9C treat the various
9otions to (roceed +nforma (auperis (page 1 of &* filed therein by Coughlin as separate
and distinct (according a different filing stamp for each of the three consecutively
numbered pages in some instances* from the E6ffidavit of (overty +n support of 9otion
to (roceed +nforma (auperisF following immediately thereafter (numbered as pages 2
and &, evincing a clear connection between the 9otion to (roceed +nforma (auperis on
page 1, especially considering the lac? of a caption or case number on the 6ffidavit on
pages 2 and &) +t is clear why Ging, in perhaps a violation of 1ierra 7lass chose to
present ";E, (:1/%!* as he did, with not only the E:EU8E15 "#: 68D+#
:EC#:D+37 #" "E2:86:K 2/5;, 2012 trial, 9#5+#3 5# (:#CEED +3
"#:96 (68(E:+1 63D "#: 6((5 C#831E$ 63D 5# >6+@E "+$+37 %ee63D
5:631C:+(5 %ee "#: 6((E6$F found on page one of that three page fa' filing by
Coughlin (and, unless something changed, CoughlinBs @o'o' account always sent such
fa'es to the :9C with a cover page, in strict technical compliance with :9C :ule <,
which reHuires attorneys so filing to list their bar number thereon* removed) Ging
would have be unable to tac? on this baseless allegation (apparently an essential part of
the ?itchen sin? approach he too? herein* without e'cising page 1 of & of that &/12
2:1. pm filing by Coughlin that Dudge 3ash ;olmes had attached as an E'hibit (that the
reason that r1/%. is a Certificate of 1ervice from the RMC, which, no less, specifically
identifies Coughlin as an attorney therein* to her &11&112 9rder *tri5ing (ugiti-e
$ocument (iled on !arch 7' 2012, which reads, in relevant part:
E#:DE: 15:+G+37 "87+5+@E D#C89E35 "+$ED #3
96:C; /, 2012
#n 9arch /, 2012 at 2:1. p)m), the Cler? of the :eno
9unicipal Court filed a document fa'ed to the court by self-
represen"ed li"igan" -ach Coughlin in the above=captioned case)
-ach Coughlin is an attorney licensed to practice law in the 1tate
of 3evada under 2ar 3o) ,!/&) +n his fa'ed document, he had
apparently typed the words P@PI@*6 (9 ?I$79
@C9$7,= 9( (@+I?F 276)' 2012 67?4 63D "#:
6((5 63D 5# >6+@E "+$+37 %ee63D 6?,*C7P6
%ee(9 ?PP@?4 C9I,*@4P over a document he had
previously prepared entitled !otion to Proceed 7n%orma
Pau/eri#) 5he date that appears on the document, fa'ed to the
court for filing at 1:<& p)m) on 9arch /, 2012, is 3ovember 22,
2011) 6he document contains the hand=written signature of -ach
Coughlin and ha# a 2-/age a%%ida-it attached) 9r) Coughlin had
apparently typed into that document the case number and
department of his instant traffic citation case in this department,
2.0/%&
although the content of the motion and affidavit appears to be one
he used previously in a case in another department ((age 1* in
:eno 9unicipal Court last year) ? co/y o% #aid %a8ed and %iled
document i# attached hereto a# @8hibit 1 to thi# 9rder)
6hi# court %ind# that #aid document i# an erran",
al"ered, and inappropria"e do!umen" that #hould not ha-e been
%iled by the cler5 o% thi# court. 5his court further finds that Zach
Coughlin su6mi""ed #aid document to thi# court 6y fa? for filing
in 5no2ing di#regard o% the rule# o% /rocedure 5no2n to all
attorney# 2ho /ractice la2 in thi# court' and that' in doing #o'
$e #as "a'ing adan"age of "$e fa!" "$a" i" is s"andard !our"
pro!edure for "$e !ler' of "$e !our" "o au"oma"i!ally file all
do!umen"s "$a" are fa?ed "o "$e !our" for filing) 5herefore, the
above=described document i# a fugi"ie document)
+5 +1 #:DE:ED that the fugitive document filed as
P:eHuest for 6udio :ecording) etcB s$all 6e s"ri!'en from "$e
re!ord in this case and s$all 6e disregarded 6y "$e par"ies and
s"aff in "$is !our") Dated this 1&th day of 9arch, 2012) s the ;on)
Dorothy 3ash ;olmes ((age 2*F
Coughlin really has no idea what Dudge ;olmes found inappropriate where
her #rder reads: E6hi# court %ind# that #aid document i# an erran", al"ered, and
inappropria"e do!umen" that #hould not ha-e been %iled by the cler5 o% thi# court.
5his court further finds that Zach Coughlin su6mi""ed #aid document to thi# court 6y
fa? for filing in 5no2ing di#regard o% the rule# o% /rocedure 5no2n to all attorney#
2ho /ractice la2 in thi# court' and that' in doing #o' $e #as "a'ing adan"age of "$e
fa!" "$a" i" is s"andard !our" pro!edure for "$e !ler' of "$e !our" "o au"oma"i!ally file
all do!umen"s "$a" are fa?ed "o "$e !our" for filing) 5herefore, the above=described
document i# a fugi"ie document)F
;ow could Coughlin be said to have E su6mi""ed #aid document to thi#
court 6y fa? for filing in 5no2ing di#regard o% the rule# o% /rocedure 5no2n to all
attorney# 2ho /ractice la2 in thi# court'N i% Band they do and didC the !C ule#
allo2 %or Eu#t #uch a method o% #ubmitting a %iling Bie' by %a8CD 6hat being the
ca#e' ho2 could Coughlin ;in doing #o'N be ;"a'ing adan"age of "$e fa!" "$a" i" is
s"andard !our" pro!edure for "$e !ler' of "$e !our" "o au"oma"i!ally file all do!umen"s
"$a" are fa?ed "o "$e !our" for filingF in any way that was objectionable, much less
inappropriate or sufficient to sufficiently noteworthy to justify stri?ing such document,
and describing such, in an #rder, as Ea fugi"ie document)FJ >hile Ging and, perhaps,
a multitude of other judges (1teinheimmer, ;ardy, 1ferraAAa, 1chroeder* did not find
2.1/%&
such matters to be at all noteworthy (its not as if some substantive aspect of the
6ffidavit and specifics of Coughlin financial status as detailed therein was EalteredF,
rather, Dudge ;olmesB allegation is that Coughlin interlineated something about
reHuesting an audio recording of the trial and the preparation of the transcript at public
e'pense into the title of the document beneath the caption (in an inordinately, over=the=
top=obvious fashion evincing absolutely no intent to deceive, and certainly nothing
sufficient to enter an order so characteriAing the document as Ean erran", al"ered, and
inappropria"e do!umen"N. 1ome might say that so finding evinces just the sort of
patent retaliatory animus that Dudicial Canon 1)2(a* was designed to address)
:egardless, Ging did not Enotice=pleadF anything of the sort as evidence alleged to
support a misconduct finding (rather, Ging and the (anel shifted gears late in this
proceeding, and, though not at all noticed or present in the complaint or Do>1oE,
began to perseverate on some new Efailed to identify any income from the practice of
lawF (:1&.2:2%=1&.&:&* within such 6ffidavits (which the Complaint completely fails
to identify with any case numbers, dates, or cases numbers, or courts, even (:!:1%=2!**
Candor to the 6ribunal...N...le## than candid with the Court in t2o #e/arate
a//lication# to /roceed in %orma /au/eri#, when he failed "o dis!lose $is "rue
o!!upa"ion as an attorne y and instead indicated he was self=employed as a P"ac5 o% all
6rade#P and failed to identify any income from the practice of law af"er having
re/re#ented to the court that hi# incarceration 2ould ad-er#ely affe!" $is !lien"s)
1upra jj &1 M &2 E, based upon the following Efindings of factF:
E&1) #n 9arch /,2012 Coughlin caused to be filed an P6ffidavit of (overty in
1upport of 9otion to (roceed +nforma (auperis)P 1ee ;earing E'hibit ,) +n his
6ffidavit, Coughlin represented that he was self=employed as a PDac? of all 5rades)P 1ee
;earing E'hibit ,) 5he 6ffidavit does not identify 9r) Coughlin as a lawyer or identity
any income from the practice of law) 1ee ;earing E'hibit ,)
&2) 5he record also indicates that Coughlin had also %iled a motion on ,o-ember 14'
2011 to proceed +n "orma (auperis in case number 11C: 221/. pending in the :eno
9unicipal Court before Dudge Genneth :) ;oward) 1ee ;earing E'hibit 10) Dudge
;owardBs #rder denying CoughlinBs motion specifically noted that CoughlinBs Paffidavit
of povertyP did not identify any income from the practice of law yet Coughlin had
implied to the court when sentenced to incarceration for contempt that his incarceration
would adversely affect his clients) 1ee ;earing E'hibit 10, ( 2, $ 1, =2&)E (:1&<.:,=
20*)
+t is important to clarify that the 9otion mentioned immediately above was
actually filed in the :9C on 121!11, after, the 11&011 trial in 221/., at which, of
course, e'tended discussion about CoughlinBs being an attorney (needing a stay of the
three day incarceration for his clientBs sa?e, etc)* were captured on the record, for which
is was reversible error to refuse to admit and or allow Coughlin to utiliAe in an way at
2.2/%&
the ";)
"or whatever reason (perhaps he thought it untoward the e'tent to which
Dudge ;olmes so readily stri?es filings from the record, sua sponte, and relieves the
:C6 and :9C staff of any EobligationsF, or maybe it was the fact that so stri?ing
CoughlinBs :eHuest for 6udio :ecording of the 22/12 trial date in 2.%00 necessarily
prejudiced CoughlinBs ability to defend against the allegations flowing therefrom, both in
the sense of the 22%12 #rder incarcerating summarily Coughlin for < days, upon citing
to civil contempts statutes of a plenary nature (3:1 22)010*, whilst utiliAing the
language of the summary contempt statute (3:1 22)0&0*)
"urther, the :9C never noticed Coughlin in writing as to the date and time of the
&1212 continuation of such trial (and has since refused CoughlinBs reHuests to view the file in
that 2.%00 matter*, and regardless, CoughlinBs &/12 fa' filed reHuest for a continuance and the
e'igencies associated with avoiding prejudice to his clientBs case and defending against the
wrongful summary eviction brought by 7ayle Gern, EsH) are factors that mitigate any
suggestion that CoughlinBs alleged failure to appear on &1212 constituted contemptuous
conduct or otherwise evinced a violation of any :(C)
6dditionally, such Esimple traffic citationF trial involved the most minor of alleged
traffic infractions (a E2oulevard 1topF or ECalifornia :ollF* with a O1<%)00 fine associated (it
arguably was not even a EmisdemeanorF and it is not clear that
!%!2)&00 (the :9C section Dudge ;olmes alleges Coughlin was issued a citation
for, :9C .)0.)1/0(a* 1top 1ign :#> at +ntersection carries a O1<%)00 fine
http:www)reno)govmodulesshowdocument)asp'JdocumentidV&,./&
11 +3DE4 5# 123 C#31#$65+#3 2#4 #" &,0,! (67E1 #" D#C89E351 +315E6D
#" 6CC#:D+37 C#87;$+3 ;+1 :+7;51 83DE: 1C: 10<(2*(C* +3C+DE35 5#
(63E$ C;6+: #:DE: #" 10&112 in .2&&/:
2.&/%&
c-3ith-7nde8-9/t
4in5-and-9/t
105-2-c-3ith-7nde8-4in5
12 #f course Dudge ;olmes stopped herself upon saying EafterF and wanted to Huic?ly
Ee'plainF given the difficult position she was then placed in e'plaining how the e'trajudicial
sources she was made aware of prior (ie not @after4# the 22%12 trial from which ";E!
issued (where ";E< only issued fourteen days later on &1212))* did not prejudice Coughlin to
a material degree and evince a widespread level of sewing circle judicial misconduct amongst
the :9C Dudges and 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner:
2.!/%&
@#A.
2.</%&
tecums
at o!fuscation !y "ing is not clear at all especially where what
follows after this letter in the SBN's 0F:2 !ates stamp production rather o!viously fails to
evince $ust what was in that @!o= of materials4 this *H9< 0H-2H-. letter to the SBN !y Judge
Nash Holmes references as !eing included therewith where Judge *lanagan's KH.1H-. Erder
follows immediately afterwards (ie such did not even e=ist to !e included within @!o= of
materials4 as the time such 0H-2H-. *H9< letter !y Holmes was written#
>ell, shoot, given the 123 stamping such $) 7ardner !1&0, #rder
6fter 5rial (";E&* as EreceivedF on &1<12, such either was not recieved amongst the Ebo' of
materialsF that ;olmes referenced in ";E% as providing to Ging with her &1!12 letter, or
such was included and the 123Bs Ging and or (eters attempted to fraudulently misdirect
reviewers from gleaning that Dudge ;olmes so included such ";E& therewith, or, Dudge
;olmes did not included such ";E& within the Ebo' of materialsF accompanying her &1!12
letter (Ging eventually indicated in his !1,12 email to Coughlin that he reHuested a copy of
such order from Ethe cler? of courtF being careful not to specify which cler? of which court
Ging received such from in response to GingBs re%uesting such (which brings up the Huestion of
2../%&
just how Ging became aware of such ";E&, and received such in such close pro'imity (&1<12
compared to &1!12 dates received stamps on ";E& and ";E%, respectively if it was not from
the :9C and or Dudge ;olmes from who Ging learned of ";E& (versus ";E& having been
referred to Ging pursuant to Canon 2, :ule 2)1< by a $udge, much less the $udge whom
presided over the divorce case from which *H90 issued*)
+n which case :9C Dudge ;olmes (whom was careful in her sworn testimony to
avoid such inHuiry as much as possible* ought be made to e'plain why she apparently
absconded from her 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1< duty to report apparent lawyer misconduct to the
123, the Eappropriate authorityF in such a case)))and certainly the suggestion of a cover up by
the :9C Dudges ;olmes, 7ardner, ;oward (and possibly Dilworth* is present therein, where
the subseHuent admission by Dudge >) 7ardner, upon Coughlin forcing his hand during the
!1012 trial in 2.<0. 7ardner attempted to hold in violation of 3:1 1/%)!0< (and >)
7ardnerBs statements on the record there are very telling and indicate a coordinated agreement
between >) 7ardner and ;olmes that the ";E& order by >) 7ardnerBs sister would not be
provided to the 123 by :9C Dudge ;olmes (as well as >) 7ardnerBs inaccurate accounts of
whether any competency issues are referenced in the orders by Dudge ;olmes Coughlin put to
him at such point (really, >) 7ardner was totally going to go through with the trial on !1012,
until Coughlin finally cornered $oomis to displaying some sembleance of professionalism (it
does not come easy to Geith* and where CoughlinBs cross=e'amination of >) 7ardner resulted
in 7ardner becoming too flustered to go forward, whereupon, rather than recogniAing the 3:1
1/%)!0< duties attendant to Dudge ;olmes &1212 #rder suspending the trial in 2.%00 and
;olmes ";E% letter to the 123 (both of which reference CoughlinBs alleged competency
issues, Emental instabilityF, and EdecompensatingF*, >) 7ardner rather passed his off
suspending the trial of !1012 (but only after he, $oomis, and :C6 ;aAlett=1tevens got some
motion wor? addressed, etc, official copy of such trial date of !1012 in 2.!0< before >)
7ardner available here (and such was provided to both the 123 and (anel prior to the 111!12
formal hearing: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV@@('1Ao@w<c 6lso, some real bon mots
to be hear in the official audio from the :9C of the <%12 hearing in that same 2.!0< criminal
trespass case: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV1>/.c9u?-(c * as being in response to
something other than all the corners Dudge ;olmesB behind the scenes machinations put >)
7ardner in)
6 closer consideration of what the 123 placed in the ;ill grievance file and why
further details the 123Bs fraud:
@#A.
2.//%&
2.%/%&
tecums
at o!fuscation !y "ing is not clear at all especially where what
follows after this letter in the SBN's 0F:2 !ates stamp production rather o!viously fails to
evince $ust what was in that @!o= of materials4 this *H9< 0H-2H-. letter to the SBN !y Judge
Nash Holmes references as !eing included therewith where Judge *lanagan's KH.1H-. Erder
follows immediately afterwards (ie such did not even e=ist to !e included within @!o= of
materials4 as the time such 0H-2H-. *H9< letter !y Holmes was written#
Clearly, Dudge ;olmes and the 123Bs Ging come from the same school of
manufacturing the appearance of the outrage of others (";E%: E5he accompanying bo' of
materials demonstrates some of the problems with the practice of this attorney 6eing
e?perien!ed 6y myself and "$e o"$er "$ree ;udges in 3eno )uni!ipal Cour"))))<ou #ill $ae
"$e full !oopera"ion of myself7 "$e o"$er ;udges7 and "$e s"aff of 3eno )uni!ipal Cour" in
your pursui" of "$is ma""er) 9r) Coughlin has positioned himself as a ve'atious litigant in our
court, antagoniAing the staff and een our pro "emp ;udges on the most simple traffic and
misdemeanor matters))))F*, combining that with consistently attempting to obfuscate what came
first, the reHuest for information, filings, or other materials from 6sst) 2ar Counsel Ging and
the 123, or some independent, voluntary, 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1< referral by a $udge (versus
by some employee of a court who is not a judge* (";E% E 5 apologiKe for "a'ing "#o days "o
ge" "$is pa!'age "o you...N wrote Dudge ;olmes to Ging (indicating Ging reHuested she and the
:9C provide such materials rather than ;olmes and or the :9C do so independent thereof)*)
;owever, again, if ;olmes did not included the ";E& 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner #rder
that she admits to having been passed by :9C Dudge >) 7ardner (whom admits having been
passed such by his sister, 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner, whom issued it in the matter she presided
over)))*, then why did ;olmes not so provide such to the 123 (123 GingBs email to Coughlin
2.,/%&
of !1,0, finally comes clean, somewhat as to how Ging and the 123 received ";E& (though,
clearly, Ging is still attempting to cover up the judicial misconduct by 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner,
:9C Dudge >) 7ardner, :9C Dudge ;olmes, :9C Dudge ;oward, (possibly :9C Dudge
Dilworth, though, being the seasoned veteran that he is, Dudge Dilworth wisely recused himself
from the ridiculous prosecutions of Coughlin goon for the :eno City 6ttorney Chief >ong is
currently insisting on bringing against Coughlin in :9C 1& C: &,1& and &,1! (wherein >ong
is prosecuting Coughlin over the most ridiculous alleged violations of a >or?place ;arassment
5(# and E(# ever alleged (accusing Coughlin of violating such by submitting documents for
filing with the Cler? of Court of the 123 in a then pending matter)))so much for due process,
huhJ 5hese people are humiliating the 1tate 2ar of 3evada and the 3evada 1upreme Court in
the process if this goes on much longer* as a favor to his old cowor?er at the 6ttorney 7eneralBs
#ffice, current 123 6sst) 2ar Counsel Ging (whom attempted to get >ong to provide him
CoughlinBs criminal history (see &,0,!Bs bates 2/2& email of !1012 to 123 from :C6 Dan
>ong regarding 123 will be unable to get CoughlinBs criminal history ((ennie Colter, etc**)
Dudge Dilworth apparently decided (beyond the decision that at least the appearance of
impropriety and or bias called for such recusal* that this was :9C Dudge >) 7ardner, Dudge
;olmes, and 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs mess and they could deal with it themselves, than? you
very much)
";E%, Dudge ;olmesB &1!12 letter to the 123 reads:
EDudge 3ash ;olmesB &1!12 grievance to bar counsel reads:
Dear 9r) Clar?:
disability against -achary 2ar?er Coughlin) 5he accompanying bo' of materials
demonstrates some of the problems with the practice of this attorney being e'perienced
by myself and the other three judges in :eno 9unicipal Court) 9y two most recent
#rders in what should be a simple traffic citation case are self=e'planatory and are
included, together with copies of massive documents 9e) Coughlin has fa'Wfiled to our
court in this case) 6udio recordings of two of my hearings in this matter are also
+ have another traffic case pending trial with him that was re=assigned to me
based on our Department + judge being out for surgery) >e have multiple addresses for
9r) Coughlin and canBt seem to locate him between cases very easily) >e are setting that
case for trial and attempting to serve him at the most recent address we have (1!22 E) ,th
1t) I2 :eno 3K %,<12*, although + heard today he may be living in his vehicle
somewhere) >e do have an address for his mother, however, as she recently posted part
of a fine for him)
Dudge Gen ;oward, Department !, had a case on 9r) Coughlin late last year
that is now on appeal to the 1econd Dudicial District Court) Dudge 2ill 7ardner,
Department 2, also has a matter currently pending in his court with 9r) Coughlin as the
defendant) + have enclosed some copies of documents from those matters, in
2/0/%&
chronological order, simply because they appear to demonstrate that he is Huic?ly
decompensating in his mental status) #ur staff also made you some audio tapes of
Coughlin in Departments 2 and ! so you can hear for yourself how this attorney acts in
court) Kou can see his behavior in my traffic citation case does not appear to be an
isolated incident)
5" is my unders"anding "$a" 3eno Jus"i!e Cour" also $as a ma""er pending on
"$is a""orney) 9y Dudicial 6ssistant was contacted by the >ashoe (ublic Defender in
"ebruary when + had 9r) Coughlin jailed for Contempt of Court and they stated that they
represent him in a 7ross 9isdemeanor matter in :DC) + have no other information on
that)
Kou will have the full cooperation of myself, the other judges, and the staff of
:eno 9unicipal Court in your pursuit of this matter) 9r) Coughlin has positioned himself
as a ve'atious litigant in our court, antagoniAing the staff and even our pro temp judges
on the most simple traffic and misdemeanor matters) + do thin? this is a case of some
urgency, and 5 apologiKe for "a'ing "#o days "o ge" "$is pa!'age "o youC our +5 person
was ill and could not ma?e the copies of the audios of 9r) CoughlinBs hearings until
today, and 5 fel" i" #as impor"an" "$a" "$e audios 6e in!luded in "$e ma"erials "o 6e
!onsidered by the 1tate 2ar) #n "ebruary 2/, 2012, 9r) Coughlin told me he was
actively practicing law and had appointments with clients) + do not ?now if that was true,
but if so, he could be causing serious harm to the practice of law in 3orthern 3evada and
could be jeopardiAing someoneBs freedom or property interests)
s Dudge Dorothy 3ash ;olmes, :eno 9unicipal Court) Encls)P
#f course, its very cute for Ging to then place immediately thereafter in
the folder indentified as the 3712=020!, E:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) 7rievance "ileF 2DDC Dudge
"lanaganBs .2<12 #rder (";E2*
fee award (3#5 6 163C5+#3, rather a prevailing party attorneyBs fee
award based upon a misapplication of 3:1 .,)0<0, which applies only to EjudgmentsF, not
Esummary eviction ordersF, and where 3:1 !0)!00 ma?es Huite clear that 3:6( applies to
appeals of summary eviction orders) 5he only basis for an attorney fee award in 3:6( is
3:6( &%, which reHuires a finding of sanctionable conduct for the issuance of any such
attorneyBs fee award) 6s such, where 2DDC Dudge "lanaganBs %2%12 #rder in C@11=0&.2%
ma?es e'plicitly clear that his .2<12 #rder (";E2* was not a sanction, and where Ging
himself sent Coughlin a letter with a copy of such %2%12 #rder*
2,/, 123 2ar Counsel Clar? forwards on Coug$lin(s 1/23/12 self repor" of
!oni!"ion in .0%&% to Ging and (eters
due to ob#truction o% Coughlin<# mail B2hich' o% cour#e'
:ing' Peter#' and the *+, %ail to do...#o much %or that *94?C@ /rogram'
huhDC
2/1/%&
Dogan)
001/0%, C@11=0&.2% at 121 :iver :oc?
law office)
CoughlinBs defense)
=ardner
superimposed on the first page) (3#5E: nothing to indicate
anything was received from 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner*)
6 close review of GingBs correspondences with Coughlin reveal that Ging provided
Coughlin less than ten days from the point at which Coughlin was made aware, even implicilty,
that there might be a grievance involving 2DDC Dudge 7ardner in connection with her ";E&
order in comparison to the date of the !1012 meeting of the 33D2 that Ging references,
particularly where Ging presented such ";E& $) 7ardner order as E'hibit 2& to the 33D2
(anel) (at bates 2686 @8h. 24) 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs (";E&* !1&0, #rder
6fter 5rial filed 6pril 1&, 200,, Case 3o) D@0%=011.% *
1uch a fraudulent approach by Ging and the 123 is more fully evinced upon a
review of what Ging placed within the folder for the Dudge ;olmes grievance:
2/02=2/,& =rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&5 ?0 Z. Coughlin' @#A. =0 "udge $orthy
B#icC ,a#h )olme#
2/2/%&
2/0< Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !2/12 email 1ubject: 8pdate and a
:eHuesting
2/0. Ging forwards (eters CoughlinBs !1,12 email 1ubject: :E: 9r) GingBs
assertions in his &1.12 letter wherein Coughlin denies all allegations
2/1. 2rian 7onsalves email re%erring to other attorney %ee a2ard# ma5e#
curiou# :ing<# only reAue#ting Coughlin /ay )ill<# landlord
client<# a2ard in :ing<# clo#ing argument)
2/1/ GingBs 1C: 111(.* (etition in .0%&%, placed in 3712=0!&! ma?es no
sense
documents from :C:2011=0.&&!1 (Dudge 1ferraAAa* and
:C:2012=0.<.&0 (Dudge Clifton* :DC Chief Civil Cler? told
Coughlin Dudge Clifton told her not to respond to CoughlinBs
10&012 1C: 110 subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
2/20 :9C Dudge ;oward (11 C: 221/. conviction leading to .0%&% temp)
suspension*Bs !!12 email to Ging regarding E8=tubeF postings
E6 1ampling, Events at :9C &1212C City of :eno 9arshal ;arley, 6llison
#rmaasC :9C bounced by :eno 9arshalsF apparently
Coughlin was at the :9C on &1212 and just did not ?now the trial in 2.%00
was continuing)
2/21 :9C Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son email to :9C Dudges
fa'ed by 3ash ;olmes (J* just page 2 of & of &2212 1:1/ pm fa'
apparently to 123
2/22 list (provided to 123 by :9CJ* detailing CoughlinBs offenses between
,,11 and 11212
2/2& email of !1012 to 123 from :C6 Dan >ong regarding 123 will be
unable to get CoughlinBs criminal history
2/2. ;olmes or someone with the :9CBs fa' to 123 of &2212 1:1/ pm page
& of & containing CoughlinBs &2212 "#+6 :eHuest and 1econd :ecord :eHuest for audio of
22/12 trial indicating 2allard indicated CoughlinBs first reHuest for such audio was not
processed, and see?ing anything related to the confiscation of CoughlinBs personal property on
22%12 from the >ashoe County jail, reHuesting chain of custody
information, :9C 9arshalBs reports, etc)
2/2/=2/&2 ha# di#/lay i##ue# li?ely :9C defender (uentes 11/12 9otion to
>ithdraw from criminal trespass case before Dudge >) 7ardner in
11 C: 2.!0<
2/&&=2/&! &2/12 #rder in C@11=0&.2% 2DDC Dudge "lanagan appeal of summary
eviction with ;ill and 2a?er as opposing counsel Denying ;illBs
2a?erBs 12112 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause after hearing on
&2&12 and &2.12
2/&. :9C Cover 1heet with E$ist of documentsF attached &1&12 details five
documents from traffic case before ;olmes: 22%12 #rder
(contempt*C &/12 3otice of 6ppeal, 9tn for :eturn of (ersonal (roperty
2/&/%&
Confiscated by :9C 9arshals (22! pages*C &1212 9otion to :eturn
Cell (hones (21% pages*C &1212 #rder (< pages*C &1&12 #rder
1tri?ing "ugitive Document filed on &/12
2/&%=2/&, !1.12 fa' from :9C Dept) 2 (Dudge >) 7ardner* 1 and 2 of 2 page
6rrest :eport and (robable Cause 1heet for 111&12 custodial
criminal trespass arrest with (C 1heet by :(D Carter and ;illBs
Criminal Complaint
2/!0=!1 :9C 9arshal ED(F Dean=(ierre 9oster report from 121&11 9arshals Dames
9enAel, 9atthew 5hompsonC >itness 1 Donna 2allard, >itness 2
5om 2artoldo:
2/!2=2/!! :9C 9arshal Dames 9enAel incident report detailing CoughlinBs filing a
3otice of 6ppeal and or 9otion for 3ew 5rial and see?ing a copy of the
audio of the 11&011 trial in 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%*, references gossip with
:DC Chief 2ailiff 9ichael 1e'ton, well paid city and county 9arshals
and 2ailiffs really donBt li?e wor?ing until closing time
Coppa pulled Deputy Cheung into bac? room of sally bay at jail to discuss such
confiscation*
2/!, &2212 email from Coughlin to Ging 1ubject :e ;ello from -ach
Coughlin referencing 7essin and Christiansen
2/<& CoughlinBs !212 email to Ging @0 my attem/t to be /ro-ided acce##
to the grie-ance# %iled today #ee5ing material# %rom
26800 and !larifi!a"ion regarding #$e"$er Judge +, -ardner
$erself filed griean!e.
2/<! GingBs email to Coughlin detailing & grievances, lying about ,=12-0F3F
being a grie-ance recei-ed ;from "udge =ardnerF, 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 :9C 9arshals Coppa and 5hompsonBs &2212
report to 123 (where Ging initially attempts to affi' 3712=0!&! to the grievance
EreceivedF from 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner, rather than the 3712=0!&< number
ultimately assigned to such EgrievanceF
2/<. Coughlin email to 123 (eters of &2.12 referencing domestic violence
he has e'perienced and concomitant obstruction of his
mail
2/</ CoughlinBs &2.12 email to 123 memorialiAing GingBs refusal to allow
access to grievance materials previously offered
2/<, CoughlnBs &2,12 email to 123 indicating Ging had made no reHuest for
2/!/%&
any written response to any grievance by 7ardner or ;olmes,
CoughlinBs detailing manipulative use of CoughlinBs physical stature
siAe by Ging, which Ging lied about at 1!1& 5(# e'tension hearing
in :DC :C(2012=000.0/)
2/.0= 4ot# o% email# bet2een Coughlin and the *+, Auite coo/erati-e and re#/on#i-e
to any an all *+, reAue#t# %or in%ormation or coo/eration in
any in-e#tigation# 2hether relating to )ill' =ardner' or ,a#h
)olme#' etc.
2//2 CoughlinBs email to >C1# detailing Deputy 9achenBs burglary with
;illBs associate 2a?er of 11111, 9achenBs false affidavit
regarding Epersonally servingF Coughlin 2! hour loc?out order
on 11111 burglary by ;illBs associate 2a?er of that date
2/,0 CoughlinBs &1.12 email to Ging indicating he has yet to finish sending
everything in response to ;illBs grievance)
2/,2 81(1 Certified 9ail 5rac? M Confirm ending in .</% for GingBs mailing
of &1.12 (purported letter from Ging to Coughlin that Ging
was too afraid toconflicted over to see? 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 7ayle Gern, EsH)
279& :ing<# &116112 letter to Coughlin indicating the 9+C ;ha# recei-ed
#e-eral grie-ance# concerning your conduct a# a
la2yer...7 2ill ma5e a-ailable %or your re-ie2 and in#/ection the
#u//orting document# and audio recording#N
,ote :ing<# including the same &1.12 letter with the ;ill grievance file
and the slippery approach by Ging in failing to actually specify which Edistrict court judgeF the
order he references as being attached (and just which order was attached is not made clear from
GingBs manipulation of these 1C: 10<(2*(c* materials in this &,0,! page bates stamped
production)
(at bates 2,<% &1.12 letter from 123 Ging to Coughlin regarding Eseveral grievancesF oddly
placed with Hill's grievance file when &1.12 letter references EDustice CourtF (E5$e Offi!e of
&ar Counsel $as re!eied seeral griean!es !on!erning your !ondu!" as a la#yer, 2$e
griean!es in!lude suppor"ing eiden!e in "$e form of@ audio of your !ondu!" in !our"
pro!eedings and !opies of pleadings and do!umen"s prepared and filed 6y you in Jus"i!e and
Dis"ri!" Cour"F such purported &1.12 letter to Coughlin from Ging reads* (so, there, Ging,
li?e with the Dudge $) 7ardner EgrievanceF in 3712=0!&<, 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 ;ill and the :9C*) 1uch represents the e'tent to which Ging constantly
tried to characteriAe as having been EreceivedF in the form of a EgrievanceF that which Ging
himself reHuested from the :DCBs Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsend, and which resulted in
5ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging,*)
htt/011222.#cribd.com1doc116816908&111-7-12-0204-62&&7-7nde8-to-+ate#-*tam/ed-&-
2/</%&
094-4ong-Ver#ion-Page-*cr-105-2-c-Production-by-*bn-e-i#ed-8-28-1&
GingBs &1.12 letter to Coughlin at bates 2/,& caused Ging so many problems that
he was forced to avoid see?ing admission of it at the formal hearing where such reads:
E5he office of bar counsel has re!eied seeral griean!es concerning your conduct
as a lawyer) 5he grievances include supporting evidence in the form of: audio of your conduct
in court proceedings and copies of pleadings and documents prepared and filed by you in
justice and dis"ri!" court) 5ogether these grievances raise serious Huestions regarding your
competency and ability to practice law) 5hese concerns are serious and the office of bar
counsel is considering the necessity of see?ing a petition to determine competency pursuant to
supreme court rule 11/) + am enclosing with this letter copies of a grievance letter, from the
municipal court and a !opy of an order from dis"ri!" !our" please respond to allegations
pertaining to your conduct) + will ma?e available for your review and inspection the supporting
documents and audio recordings) + have left phone messages and sent you an e=mail as?ing you
to call me) 6s of the drafting of this letter you have not called me) + would li?e to meet with
you so that we can discuss this important matter and see if there is a way that we can help you
again, please call me at your earliest opportunity) 1incerely, s (atric? Ging 6ssistant 2ar
CounselF
1& +3DE4 5# 123 C#31#$65+#3 2#4 #" &,0,! (67E1 #" D#C89E351 +315E6D
#" 6CC#:D+37 C#87;$+3 ;+1 :+7;51 83DE: 1C: 10<(2*(C* +3C+DE35 5#
(63E$ C;6+: #:DE: #" 10&112 in .2&&/:
2/./%&
c-3ith-7nde8-9/t
4in5-and-9/t
105-2-c-3ith-7nde8-4in5
1!
>ith such a crowded doc?et, one can hardly blame Dudge 2eesley for not
remembering off the top of his head how impressive CoughlinBs second or third ever filing in
the 3@2 was, especially given the fact that ;ill, the >C1#, and :(D had just burglariAed
CoughlinBs law office on multiple occasions in the proceeding wee?s, and where :DC Dudge
1ferraAAa had willfully violated Canon 1, :ule 1)1 in gerrymandering the law of landlord
tenant in a summary eviction setting into one nasty concotion involving a O2,2/< rent escrow
deposit being reHuired of a commercial tenant in a summary eviction where the landlordBs
own 3:1 !0)2<!(2* affidavit admits that rent was not sought or alleged owed and where
such an application of 3:1 11%6)&<<(<* is especially in appropriate where 1ferraAAa read a
EhabitabilityF defense into CoughlinBs 3:1 11%6)<10 retaliation defense, much less where
3:1 11%6)&.0, the lease itself, and written agreements as to rent deductions between the
landlord and tenant more than made such a forced Erent escrow depositF unnecessary
(indeed, Dudge 1ferraAAa ultimatly had to admit that he and the :DC had been guilty of
EconversionF as to Coughlin money, the converting of which ?idn of made it difficult to hire
movers, rent storage, put up a first, last, and damage deposit, yada yada, even had Coughlin
2///%&
believed he was reHuired to vacate the premises, and even had 3:1 !0)&%< not made very,
very clear that a stay was mandatory, over an above the e'tent to which CoughlinBs 11&11
filing of a disability based 9otion for 1tay and 3:1 !0)&.0 both reHuired providing
Coughlin an adidtional five days from Enotice of entry of orderF being served on him within
which to vacate, where such notice was only mailed the same day ;illBs associate and the
>C1#Bs Deputy 9achen burglariAed CoughlinBs former home law office) 6nd if one thin?s
CoughlinBs sisters Denny and Carly were any help whatsoever through all of this one really
must not be at all familar with them: http:www)scribd)comdoc1...2.22111=2&=12=
Cadle=Co=v=Geller=020!=10=0<10!=#pposition=to=9otion=to=6mend=Complaint=6dv=(roc
CoughlinBs replacement in the Cadle matter actually utiliAed most of the argument
Coughlin put forward in such 112&11 and !1/12 filings in her 21&1& 9otion for
1ummary Dudgment (http:www)scribd)comdoc1...&1./!2=1&=1&=Doc=/%=9otion=for=
1ummary=Dudgment="iled=by=;6D"+E$D=0<10!=3@2=2eesley=Geller *

CoughlinBs replacement wisely basically copied and pasted the arguments and
citations (1andoval, 2rown, "elsenJ Chec?)* in the !1012 filing in 3@2=10=0<10! that
basically bodied in less than five pages monolithic foreign debt buyer banned in several
states Cadle Co): http:www)scribd)comdoc1....1.2!!=10=12=10=0<10!=020!=Geller=
3vb=2eesley=9otion=to=Dismiss=Cadle=Company=s=6mended=Complaint=#bjecting=5o
Dust how much more Coughlin is e'pected to ta?e apart the Cadle Co) industrial
comple' for O!,%00 in litigating an adversary proceeding see?ing to discharge a O1,.00,000
debt (stepping in in medias race, with is always way more difficult, witness the irony in
Cadle see?ing to amend its Complaint where Coughlin was forced to attempt to, essentially,
amend the answer the client filed a year before Coughlin ever got involved into a 9otion to
Dismiss sufficient to preserve all the :ule /012 reasons for why CadleBs case should never
even get off the ground*)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1....0200&=%=12="raud=by=7ayle=Gern=2urglary=by=>C1#=
E'ceeding=Dursidiction=by=:DC=Dudge=1hroeder=#bstacles=to=:epresenting=Coughlins=Clients=
&/!=020!=.2&&
http:www)scribd)comdoc1....&%.&!=,=12=020!=&/!=7ayle=Gern=s=#pposition=to=9oiton=
for=:econsideration=or=3ew=5rial=6lter=6mend=Etc=:DC=1chroeder=3@2=0<10!=2eesley=
:(C=&=<6
(and li?ely, should that 9otion not be granted, want to utiliAe the arguments and authority put
forward by Coughlin, in a rushed manner in a desire to get something in the record for his
client prior to an EghostwritingF allegations being levied incident to CoughlinBs ./12
suspension in .0%&% (Coughlin was no fully aware that he had fifteen days to file something
uner 1C: 11<* resulting in CoughlinBs .,12 filing in 3@2=10=0<10! (which actually
contains some e'tremely good wor?, though not presented in as distilled a form as Coughlin
would have li?e to)))in the days following that .,12 filing, Coughlin was attac?ed on
numerous occasions by the 3orthwind 6partments management, which the :(D
2/%/%&
countenanced and recapitulated in :(D #fficer 6lan >eaver attempting to brea? into
CoughlinBs rental in mid Dune of 2012, and 3orthwindBs unlawfully interupting CoughlinBs
essential services (electricity* reHuired under the lease*) ;owever, a close reading of
CoughlinBs .,12 filing therein reveals the fruits of the appro'imately seventy hours of legal
research Coughlin undertoo? on client GellerBs behalf, yielding citations e'tensively
damaging to Cadle CoBs pursuits, particularly with respect to the death ?nell to its claims
presented by its failure to revive a dormant sister state judgment (where such analysis entails
an elegant e'position as to what acts satisfy the te'as statute in HuestionBs revival
reHuirement)))which include CoughlinBs argugments and authority in support thereof that
there is no ministerial e'ception to 3:C( 11 vis a vis this out of state corporation purporting
to so revive such judgment in a timely manner by way of having an unauthoriAed
practitioner of law (a vice president* violate 3:C( 11 incident to filing an affidaivt see?ing
to register such sister state judgment, all legal concepts and case specifics which Coughlin
possessed sufficient :(C 1)1 s?ill, legal ?nowledge, thoroughness, and preparation to recall
of the top of his head and not only testify to, but to cross e'amine a sitting federal court
judge into vagueness and non=responsiveness*:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1....%2.1.=,=12=020!=10=0<10!="iling=.%=1upplemental=
9otion=for=1ummary=Dudgment
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2%:11 to 2,:1.* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Kour
;onor, on Cado Company, #ouldn(" i" indi!a"e a fairly $ig$ leel of s'ill7 par"i!ularly for
one #$o $adn(" 6een pra!"i!ing in a 6an'rup"!y se""ing for ery long a" all for7 one7 "o
dedu!e "$a" in "$a" !ase Cado $ad issues #i"$ respe!" "o "$e fa!" "$a" "$ey $ad no" rene#ed
a dorman" foreign ;udgmen" in "$a" under "$e 2e?as s"a"u"e a" issue7 gien "$e fa!" "$a"
"$e ;udgmen" #as oer "en years old7 and #i"$in "$e "#o years under "$e s"a"u"e #i"$in
#$i!$ "$ey $ad "o "a'e some a!" "o reie a dorman" ;udgmen"7 "$ey failed "o do so,
4ouldn(" "$e fa!" "$a" 5 poin"ed "$a" ou" in a 6rief7 and spe!ifi!ally !i"ed "o relean" legal
resear!$ #i"$ respe!" "o #$a" par"i!ular a!"s #ould 8ualify as reiing a dorman"
;udgmen" in "$a" respe!"7 #ouldn(" "$a" indi!a"e some leel of !ompe"en!yJ 6 + did not
ever say that + did not thin? you are highly intelligent) + thin? you are) 2ut intelligence and
legal competence are not the same thing) + thin? you have a significant lac? of ability to
focus on the issues at hand, but youBre very smart) U 5f 5 poin"ed ou"7 #$i!$ 5 6eliee 5 did
in "$a" !ase7 "$a" Cado7 6y $aing a i!e presiden" file an affidai" see'ing "o regis"er a
foreign ;udgmen"7 "$a" "$eir doing so iola"ed /3CD 117 in "$a" a !orpora"ion su!$ as
Cado is no" en"i"led "o appear pro se7 "o #i" "$roug$ a i!e presiden" #$o is no" an
a""orney7 #ouldn(" "$a" ein!e some leel of !apa6ili"y as an a""orney sufficient to avoid
having a federal judge respond to 9r) GingBs imploring him to badmouth me at a hearingJ
9:) G+37: #bjection) 6rgumentative) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained)F
6nd Coughlin only had two clients in the 3@2, 7essin (two fairly similar
adversary proceedings* and Geller (one adversary proceeding, which, upon Coughlin
pointing out to Geller that their fee agreement was not very clear in that regard, Coughlin
EpunishedB himself for failing to draft a sufficiently specific fee agreement by agreeing to
appear in the main 2G in 3@2=10=0<10! absent any additional compensation) "urther, as
clearly displayed above the caption in Coughlin first ever filing in a ban?ruptcy case,
2/,/%&
Coughlin was filing such 9otion to Dismiss on 7essinBs behalf incident to their Eunbundled
servicesF arrangement:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.../<<,<,=/=11=11=0<0//=2tb=Doc=10=2an?r=D=nev=
11!01,%<.!&2=6nswer=and=9otion=for=1anctions=7essin=:issone
3onetheless, in a dispaly of professionalism, Coughlin recogniAed that it
appeared that the rules of court really did not treat his filing such on an unbundled services
arrangement as dispotivie of the issue of whether or not Coughlin would be listed as attorney
of record and the fact that any change to such designation would reHuire an order by a judge,
and could not be done merely by 7essin himself telling Coughlin not to wor? any more on
the case, and that 7essin himself was monitoring the case via (acer, and that Coughlin need
not worry about such adversary proceedings because 7essin and the trustee had agreed to
withdraw the underlying ban?ruptcy incident thereto (in which Coughlin did not appear and
never was listed as attorney of record*) 5o this Coughlin cautioned 7essin (which turned out
to be prescient* that Dudge 2eesley might not view 7essinBs withdrawing of the underlying
main ban?ruptcy case as determinative of the issue of whether or not the adversary
proceedings ought go forward*)
+n a fine e'ample of why California and other statesB legislatures have actually
codified the the prohibition against judges (particularly, and e'tremely distastefully, a
limited jurisdiction municipal court judge incident to a Esimple traffic citationF trial or a
petty larceny trial over a candy bar* summarily incarcerating practicing attorneys and
refusing any stay of such incarceration whatsoever even where so denying such a stay will
have entirely foreseeable negative conseHuences to that attorneyBs clients, oppossing counsel
in the 7essin matters in 3@2=11=0<0//, 0<0/% filed a 9otion for 1ummary Dudgment on
22!12 roughly coinciding with both :9C Dudge ;olmeBs gross misconduct in summarily
incarcerating a then practicing attorney for an outrageous five days (especially where at the
time of pronouncing such sentence, Dudge ;olmes was not ma?ing any allegations or
EfindingsF that Coughlin had EliedF but rather merely e'pounding that Coughlin had
Ebehaved li?e an obstinate jac?assF, which ma?es the imposition of such five day summary
incarceration of a then practicing attorney incident to a @simple traffic citation4 trial truly
Canon 2, :ule 2)1< worthy stuff) 2eyond, that, during such time Coughlin was e'pected to
shoulder another burglary of his former home law office at 1!22 E) ,
th
1t) by 7ayle Gern,
EsH)Bs minions and the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice in its continuing assault on the
legislatureBs reduction of the will of the people in 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a* reHuiring the tenant
have EreceiptF of a sumary removal order such as the one :DC Dudge 1chroeder granted
Gern on &1<12 despite the jurisdictional prereHuisite that the landlord file such ElandlordBs
affidavitF prior to the point where the Ejustice court shall hold a hearingF (in Dudge
1chroederBs world Coughlin allegedly being a few minutes late to such stac?ed doc?et is not
something that can be as easily overloo?ed as GernBs failure to file such affidavit prior to the
summary eviction hearing, nor is the fact that Gern chose to pursue a no=cause summary
eviction against a commercial tenant, which, li?e in the ;ill case, is verboten under 3:1
!0)2<!Bs e'press dictates (which ma?es the :DC doc?et in :ev2012=000&/! listing such
&1<12 Eunlawful detainer affidavitF as one for Enon=paymentF despite such ma?ing no such
2%0/%&
indication rather dubious, especially in light of the manner in which CoughlinBs &%12
5enantBs 6nswer9otion to Dismiss therein spells out such jurisdictional bar presented in
pursuing a no=cause summary eviction against a commercial tenant (not to mention GernBs
process servers failing to even begin to meet the reHuirements of 3:1 !0)2%0*):
1o, opposing counsel in the 7essin matters moved for summary judgment)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1...%!02.2=2!=12=11=0<0/%=hall=msj Despite 7essin at that
point certainly not paying Coughlin anything for such wor?, the deadlines, rules of court vis
a vis attorney of record designation apparently even for one listing a filing as an Eunbundled
serviceF, and 7essinBs mista?en believe that failure to oppose such 91D would be of no
conseHuence given his understanding that his withdrawing his main ban?ruptcy would result
in a cessation of such adversary proceedings)))Coughlin overcame both the &1<12 burglary
of his law office by GernBs minions and the >C1#, met 123 GingBs &1<12 E& p)m)F
deadline to respond to the allegations Coughlin referenced in his &,12 ";E/ fa' to the
123, shoo? off the rust associated with being ripped suddenly off his medication incident to
the jail refusing to allow him to ta?e such upon his being summarily incarcerated by Dudge
;olmes for five days on 22/12 (Coughlin not filing a :eply 2rief incident to ;illBs
associateBs 6nswering 2rief in the appeal of the summary eviction (see ";E2* by the &21&
deadline, and not even moving for leave to do so asserting good cause for such prior to the
&&012 #rder denying such appeal (which had incredible significance to CoguhlinBs
business and life in general* was a by product of Coughlin needing to tend to his clientBs
matters as best as possible (li?e filing an #pposition to the 9otion for 1ummary Dudgment
in the 7essin case on &1,12*: http:www)scribd)comdoc1...%%01!&=1,=12=11=0<0/%=
020!=:EU8E15=for=(E:9+11+#3=to="+$E=$65E=or=#pposition=to=1umm=Dudgment=
and=9tn=>ithdrawal="iling=1.=Copy
http:www)scribd)comdoc1...%/,/<&=1,=12=11=0<0/%=7essin=5aitano=1<=
9tn=for=E't=of=5ime="ile=#pp=to=9tn=for=1umm=Dudgm=9tn=to=>ithdraw="iling=1<
https:docs)google)comviewerJurlVhttpX&6X2"X2"cdn)ca,)uscourts)gov
X2"datastoreX2"bapX2"201&X2"0&X2"0<X2"7essinX2<20X2<209emoX2<2012=
1&&0)pdf
6s to Dudge ;owardBs prejudice towards Coughlin, perhaps he might inHuire with
the single father from "lorida, Dana ;arris, whose child support enforcement and custody
cases Coughlin too? on, where Coughlin was ultimately paid only O1,000 total incident to
ta?ing an O1%,<00 bill the >ashoe County District 6ttorneyBs #ffice insisted was owed as
bac? child support incident to its EfuAAy mathF calculations of such incident to an incredibly
tailored and intricate vistiation schedule for a nine year old girl whose parents separated in
3ew Kor?, whereupon her mother too? her to 3evada (in what may have been an 3:C(
.0(b*(!* appropriate and fraudulent attempt to secure home state jurisdiction under the
8CCDE6, and 9r) ;arris moved to "lorida, with 2DDC Dudge Doherty crafting a custody
and visitation order that too? account of such circumstances along with the motherBs inability
to front her share of the airfare associated with three to four round trips flights (chaperoned
by one of the parents* per year, and the concomitant offset of 9r) ;arrisBs child support
2%1/%&
obligation upon his ta?ing to fronting the motherBs responsibility for her protion of the
airfare associated with such vistiation schedule) "ast forward to five years later and all the
sudden the mother and >CD6Bs #ffice come a calling claiming this devoted single father
owes some O1%,<00 in bac? child support, which he must pay or face rather dire
conseHuences) Enter Coughlin and his Craigslist advertisement, and some one hundred
hours of phone calls, legal research, multiple hearings, etc), etc) and 9r) ;arrisBs O1%,<00 bill
is reduced to O1,<00, his ability to fund the airfare reHuired to fly his nine year old daughter
out to "lorida three to four times a year (chaperoning her by flying out to get her and fly
bac? to "lorida together, then paying for the mother to fly out to "lorida to fly the girl bac?
to :eno* intact)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1...,0,2,&=21=12="@11=0&//,=9tn=for=
Continuance=;arris=&/!=2.%00=020!=.2&&/
http:www)scribd)comdoc1...,20!01=11=12=9otion=to=1et=6side=#riginal=
8ccjea=Durisdiction=0<=!/="v0<=0!2,.=;arris=Custody=Case
http:www)scribd)comdoc1...,2!<.<=1%=12=020!=3#=#rder=6fter=;earing=
on=#bjection=to=9aster=s=:ec="@11=0&//,=Dones=v=;arris=#rder=6fter=;earing=001=#cr
1urely, it says something about CoughlinBs competence and diligence (or is it
Ee'pediting litigationFJ Depends, as Ging and Dudge ;olmes ?ept jumbling up the names
and numbers of :(C 1)2 and 1)& in their haphaAard, slapdash, carpet bombing of allegations
against Coughlin (by the way, how is >CD6 DD6 Koung not guilty of an :(C &)1
violation where he continued to prosecute Coughlin for over a two years for both petty
larceny and receiving stolen property based upon the same set of facts and complaint failed
to allege that Coughlin received any property from anybody, much less that Coughlin any
such property to have been stolen by the Eanother4 that a competent, meritorious criminal
complaint would need to alleged (per 1taab, and 1hepp, not to mention the e'tent to which
1tate v) Clifford undoes the petty larceny accusation* that Coughlin ?new to have stolen
such property prior to the time at which Coughlin would have so received itJ 2eing a DD6
in >ashoe County apparently means never having to say you are sorry, and includes the
right to suborn the perjury of both witness 3athaniel G) -arate (DD6 Koung was provided
the video taped confession by -arate sufficient to ma?e KoungBs later putting on testimony
by -arate that he Epersonally eye=witnessedF Coughlin receive the phone in Huestion from a
still unidentified man to be tantamount to suborning perjury where such video taped
confession Koung was provided in advance thereof clearly reveals such to be a lie by -arate
in light of -arateBs own statements therein vis a vis the fact that he did not Epersonally eye
witnessF any such thing)))nevermind the fact that :(D #fficer Duralde (and Koung, in his
#pposition to 9otion to 1uppress* alleged that -arate told him all sorts of specifics (the
phone did this or that in this or that poc?et, etc), etc)* where -arate then testified that he said
nothing more to #fficer Duralde the entire night than E+ was there, + saw everythingF,
especially where idiot Duralde had to admit that he failed to notice that -arateBs written
witness statement contradicted what Duralde purported -arate to have told him (vis a vis
DuraldeBs contention that -arate informed him prior to the arrest that he saw Coughlin run up
and grab the phone unattended where such -arate witness statement indicates an unidentified
2%2/%&
man gave Coughlin the phone* and :(D #fficer Duralde (as to what he learned from
dispatch vis a vis his lies that his probable causereasonable suspicion analysis was
buttressed by having hear from dispatch reports of Ea possible fightF when Coughlin ultra
competent overcoming of >C(D Dim $eslie and :DC Dudge 1ferraAAaBs parade of
obstruction resulted in simple physics and geometry proving that Duralde did not received
any such communciation from dispatch (the same dispatch that employs his wife, and the
wife of the :(D Detective whom Ging and (eters had fraudulently arrest and overcharge
Coughlin on 2%1& in their lame attempt to prevent Coughlin from timely file his #pening
2rief in .2&&/ where the deadline for such was 21!1& at such time (prior to Coughlin
getting the 123Bs amateur hour :#6 of 122!12 stric?en*) 1o, its one or the other, Duralde
is lying, or -arate is lying, or they are both lying, but they both certainly cannot be telling
the truth under such circumstances considering their diametrically opposed
testimony)))which adds up to, along with DD6 KoungBs :(C &)1 violations, a te't boo? :(C
&)% violations that DD6 Koung gets paid handsomely to ma?e again, and again, and again)
1omebodyBs gotta pay for that O&%G a year to go to 9c7eorge, right, DD6 KoungJ Duralde
was still smir?inB as of CoughliBs cross=e'amination of him in another non=meritorious
prosecution of Coughlin by DD6 Koung (charging Coughlin with an 1C: 111.* offense
based on a complaint that alleges Coughlin lied
5.2 Attorneys Misconduct in Courtroom ...................................................... 5-2
A. Statute ....................................................................................................... 5-2
B. Zealous Representation or Contumacious Conduct? ........................ 5-2
C. Excusing the Jur .................................................................................... 5-!
5.3 Attorneys Failure to Appear in Court ..................................................... 5-3
A. Statute ....................................................................................................... 5-!
B. Attorne"s #ut as $%%icer o% Court..................................................... 5-&
C. 'ndirect Contempt................................................................................... 5-&
#. Ci(il (s. Criminal Contempt ................................................................. 5-5
)
1eptember 1, 201&,
Dear Court :ecorder for (residing Dudge -ive and (residing Dudge 2eesley,
;ello, + am writing to respectfully reHuest that the audio of the hearings identified
herein be designated for availability electronically on pacer)gov pursuant to the following:
http:www)pacer)govannouncementsgeneralaudio_pilot)html which provides that:
EDigital audio recordings are now available to the public via internet access to the
(6CE: system) +n 9arch 2010, the Dudicial Conference approved the plan to ma?e digital
audio recordings available on (6CE: after a two=year pilot project showed significant public
interest in accessing these files))))
2%&/%&
5he presiding ;udge de"ermines if "$e audio re!ording #ill 6e pos"ed on D0C13)
Digital audio recording is used in most ban?ruptcy and many district courts (where magistrate
judges account for most of the usage*)
5he following courts provide access to audio files through the (6CE: system: )))
the 8)1) 2an?ruptcy Courts in the ))) District of 3evada))))F (Digital audio recording has been
an authoriAed method of ma?ing an official record of court proceedings since 1,,,, when it
was approved by the policy=ma?ing Dudicial Conference of the 8nited 1tates) *
"or case number 3@2=10=0<10! (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, &1<12 (please ma?e sure that such includes the portion
starting at appro'imately 2:&0 pm with opposing counsel #B:our?e, as well as CoughlinBs
appearance before Dudge 2eesley roughly forty five minutes later (at the conclusion of the
stac?ed 2:&0 p)m) Doc?et that day*, 21!12, <2<12, .<12, /1/12, %2%12, 12!12, and
any other hearings at any time in the adversary proceeding in 3@=10=0<10! and the 9ain 2? in
3@=10=<2.&,)
(lease also designate any other hearings in that matter as well as in the 9ain 2G
case (3@2=10=<2.&,*, whether Coughlin appeared in such hearings or not)
5hen, for case numbers 3@2=11=0<0/% (and the appeal thereof in 26( 3o) 12=
1&&0=DuGiD*, 3@2 11=0<0//, and 2?) 3o) 3@=11=<1%1%, + am reHuesting that the hearing
from !1112 and <!12 be designated for availability for audio download on (acer)gov as
well) (lease also designate any other hearings in that matter as well as in the 9ain 2G case
(2?) 3o) 3@=11=<1%1%* and in the appeal of 6dv) 3o) 3@=11=0<0/% (26( 3o) 12=1&&0=
DuGiD*, 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 (O2)!0 per hearing* of such
through www)(acer)gov, please find attached a :eHuest for a "ee >aiver by Coughlin see?ing
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 burglariAed by the >ashoe County 1heriffBs
#ffice an hour before the 2:&0 p)m), hearing of &1<12 before Dudge 2eesley in 3@2=10=
0<10!)
+nterestingly, that same PreceiptP concept became e'ceedingly relevant incident to
the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice numerous burglaries of CoughlinBs former home law
offices and rentals (see :ev2011=001/0%, :ev2012=000&/!, :ev2012= 0010!%, :C:2012=
0./,%0, :9C 12 C: 12!20, etc* given the Pwithin 2! hours of receipt of the orderP language
in 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a* with respect to how summary eviction loc?outs 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 $) 7ardnerBs brother :9C Dudge >) 7ardner, did not find CoughlinBs
arguments compelling in the criminal trespass case against Coughlin (see .1,01 1C: 111(!*
(etition in 3) 1) Ct* incident to opposing counsel in C@11=0&.2% burglariAing Coughlin former
home law office with the >C1# in tow on 11111, and again, but with the :(D along for the
fun, on 111&11 (not to mention the similar burglaries by the >C1#, li?e that of &1<12 (just
2%!/%&
an hour before the very 2:&0 p)m), hearing before 3@2 Dudge 2eesley in 3@2=10=0<10!,
Cadle Co) v) 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 :DC :ev2012=0010!%, at which time
the >C1# further violated 1oldal v) Coo? County, <0. 81 <. (1,,2*, in wrongfully arresting
Coughlin in :C:2012]0./,%0* :ussell v) Galian, !1! 6)2D !.2) +orio v City of 3ew Kor?,
,. 9isc)2D ,<<) 9ayes v) 8@+)
1pea?ing of 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1< (see the former Canon &(D*(2* and Dudge
2eesleyBs involvement, again, in 9irch, and his appearing as a character witness for 1tephen :)
;arris, EsH) in ;arrisB disciplinary matter* and reporting attorney or ;udi!ial misconduct (and
CoughlinBs filing in 3@2=10=0<10! (including all the attachments thereto* certainly presents an
issue as to whether Dudge 2eesley had a duty to refer his 1,// 9c7eorge 1chool of $aw
classmate :eno 9unicipal Court Dudge Dorothy 3ash ;olmes for investigation of the apparent
judicial and attorney misconduct she committed therein with respect to the confiscation of then
practicing attorney CoughlinBs smart phone, micro sd card, and flip style cellular phone incident
to her summarily incarcerating Coughlin on 22/12 for five days within a Esimple traffic
citationF case wherein CoughlinBs plea for a stay of such incarceration to arrange for the
avoidance of prejudice to his clientBs affairs was summarily refused (other than Dudge ;olmes
ruling that Coughlin could, in the alternative, pay a O<00 fine, which Coughlin attempted to do
at that time, but upon either CoughlinBs ban? account not having sufficient funds or the point of
sale limit on CoughlinBs card allegedly resulting in a rejection of CoughlinBs attempted payment,
;olmeBs :9C 9arshals thuggishly dragged Coughlin away from the :9C filing office counter
where he was see?ing to ma?e such payment, placed Coughlin in handcuffs, and proceeded to
conduct an overly invasive search incident to arrest, during which :9C 9arshal ;arley
removed a micro sd data card from CoughlinBs poc?et and, without any :9C 9arshal reading
Coughlin his 9iranda rights, immediately alleged that such micro sd data card could be utiliAed
in the smart phone 9arshal ;arley also removed from CoughlinBs poc?et, and turned to two
other :9C 9arshal therewith and e'laimed E7o tell Dudge 3ash ;olmes Coughlin lied^ 5ell
her he was recording^F
#f course, :9C Dudge ;olmesB testimony at the 111!12 formal disciplinary
hearing at issue in .2&&/ reveals a rather mur?y and illegitimate translation of such:
and impermissible e'tra=judicial communications))) Coug$lin is $ere6y again
re8ues"ing a !opy of "$e le""er Judge &eesley "es"ified "o $aing sen" "$e *"a"e &ar of /eada
in referen!e "o Ma!$ary &ar'er Coug$lin7 1s8) (any letters at any time, including during
Dudge 2eesleyBs 200! (residency of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada*, which, obviously, he is
absolutely entitled to under 1C: 121(11* (E11) 3hat become# /ublic), all re!ords of "$e
la#yer dis!ipline agen!y s$all 6e!ome pu6li! e'cept bar counselLs w #nce a matter has
become public pursuant to this rule or? product and the panelLs deliberations))))F*)
2%</%&
111!12 "#:96$ D+1C+($+36:K ;E6:+37 (.2&&/* = @ol) +, ((ages 10:% to
12:<* ED+:EC5 E469+365+#3 2K 9:) G+37: U Dudge 2eesley, can you e'plain to the
panel your ?nowledge in this relevant time frame 2011=2012 regarding 9r) Coughlin and his
conduct in your courtJ 6 9r) Coughlin appeared in my court a couple of times, at least two or
three times) 5he first time + recall him coming to my court he came in, he was wearing, + thin?,
a 5=shirt and a tie, and no ;a!'e") 6nd $e indi!a"ed "$a" $e $ad 6een ei!"ed from $is
residen!e or $is offi!e7 indi!a"ing i" #as no" 6e!ause of no" paying "$e ren"7 and "$a" "$a" #as
#$y $e #asn(" #$a" 5 #ould !onsider appropria"ely dressed) + apologiAe) + 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 ban?ruptcy case, and that the pleading was lengthy, didnBt ma?e 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 == 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 ma?e any sense) ;is arguments didnBt ma?e any sense) 6nd + 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) + tal?ed to == 5 made some
in8uiries of "$e !our" and *"a"e &ar if "$ere #as any"$ing -- "$e federal !our" firs"' i% there
2a# anything that 7 had authority to do to try and get !r. Coughlin #ome hel/ and
learned "$a" 5 !ould no". 7 then tal5ed to' 5 "$in' 5 "al'ed "o Coe *#o6e7 #$o is +a#yers
Con!erned for +a#yers == 9:) C#87;$+3: #bjection) :elevancy) 5his wasnBt noticed either
or == no == or mentioned in the D#1E6$ (3#5E: Do>1oE*, which you didnBt serve
appropriately, and youBre violating 1C: 102 == 10<(2*(c*) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #verruled)
5;E >+53E11: 5 "al'ed "o )r, *#o6e who indicated that the 1tate 2ar did have some
services available, and that $e $ad 6een in !on"a!" #i"$ )r, Coug$lin) 5hatBs really all $e "old
me) 6nd it became apparent to me that over a period of a couple months at least and 5 also
learned of some o"$er odd 6e$aior in some of "$e !our"s #i"$ ;udges "$a" 5 'ne#,F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1&:! to 1&:20* E5;E >+53E11: +Bm not Huite sure
where + was in my testimony, but 6ased on "$e dis!ussions 5 $ad, and "$e informa"ion 5 go"
from o"$er people, it became apparent to me that there wasnBt a program that was going to ==
9:) C#87;$+3: #bjection) "oundation) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) GingJ 9:) G+37: 5he
testimony is clear) ;eBs e'plaining the actions he too? relative to 9r) CoughlinBs conduct,
which is the purpose) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #verruled) 9:) C#87;$+3: ;e was specifying
== 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin) 9:) C#87;$+3: == no foundation for what he was
asserting) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, +Bve overruled your objection)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age ,:% to ,:1&* 9:) G+37: 5han? you, 9r) Chairman)
Dudge 2eesley, the panel consists of Jo$n 1!$eerria -- 5(m no" pronoun!ing "$e name == but
thereBs five panel members) D8D7E 2EE1$EK: Jo$n 1!$eerria, <ou $ae no" spen"
enoug$ "ime in /eada,F
2%./%&
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1&:2& to 1!:/* 2K 9:) G+37: U + apologiAe, your
;onor, for the interruption) 2ut you were just about to testify as to what action you too? with
respect to the information you learned) 6 >hat + did was + wrote a letter to the 1tate 2ar
e'plaining #$a" $ad o!!urred #i"$ )r, Coug$lin, indicating, + believe, that + thought that in
his current state he was no" a6le "o represen" $is !lien"s ade8ua"ely, and "$a" "$e *"a"e &ar
s$ould loo' in"o i") + thin? that was the e'tent of what + did in summary)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1<:10 to 1<:1<* 2K 9:) G+37: U ;ave you formed an
opinion, your ;onor, as to #$e"$er or no" )r, Coug$lin is !ompe"en" "o pra!"i!e la#J 6
Kes) U 6nd what is that opinionJ 6 5 don(" 6eliee $e is7 unfor"una"ely)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 20:1& to 20:21* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Dudge
2eesley, what in particular did you notice about my wor? product == 2hen did you %ir#t
contact !r. :ing about meD ? 3hen did 7 %ir#t contact #$oD P !r. :ing. +ar coun#el
%or the *tate +ar. ? 7 don(" 'no# "$a" 5 eer !on"a!"ed )r, =ing. 7 sen" a le""er "o "$e *"a"e
&ar) + thin? it was probably addressed to 9r) Clar?, but +Bm not positive)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 20:1& to 22:10* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Dudge
2eesley, what in particular did you notice about my wor? product == when did you first contact
9r) Ging about meJ 6 >hen did + first contact whoJ U 9r) Ging) 2ar counsel for the 1tate
2ar) 6 + donBt ?now that + ever contacted 9r) Ging) + sent a letter to the 1tate 2ar) + thin? it
was probably addressed to 9r) Clar?, but +Bm not positive) U 1o +Bm sorry for that, your
;onor) + do recall you saying you sent a letter now) Did you ever spea? with 2ar counsel
(atric? Ging with regard to meJ 6 2$e only "ime 7 recall #/ea5ing to him 2a# a fe# #ee's
ago or a fe# days -- /robably a fe# #ee's ago #$en $e as'ed me if 5 #ould 6e a6le "o "es"ify
a" "$is $earing, U 6re you aware of any e'tent to which )r, =ing $as iola"ed *C3 121(s
!onfiden"iali"y di!"a"es 6y !on"a!"ing my !lien"s prior to any 1C: 111 petitionJ 6 ;old on
one second) 7o ahead) +Bm sorry) 6m + aware that 9r) Ging violated a particular statuteJ +n
what mannerJ U >hether or not he violated oneJ 6 3o, +Bm not, one way or the other) U
Do you have ?nowledge of "$ere 6eing a mo"ie for )r, =ing "o all of a sudden see' "o 6ring
you in"o "$is forum in "$a" $e $as 6een su6;e!" "o an a!!usa"ion setting forth a basis for this
proceeding that relies primarily upon some contention that you or == + believe you yourself,
your ;onor, because youBre the only ban?ruptcy judge + appeared before == bu" )r, =ing
"elling $is 6oss and7 apparen"ly7 a" leas" one of my !lien"s prior "o my 6eing suspended or
een "$e pe"i"ion 6eing filed7 "$a" your !our" $ad issued an order preen"ing me from
pra!"i!ing "$ereJ 6 + have no idea what 9r) 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 + ta?e that to
mean you havenBt issued any such orderJ 6 + donBt thin? so) + sign probably 1<0 orders every
day) 1o + donBt remember all of them) + thin? 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
?now that + did that)F
2%//%&
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &0:1 to &2:1,* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >e "oo' "$a"
"es"imony under !onsidera"ion of your o6;e!"ion) $etBs hear your objection, 9r) Coughlin)
9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) >ell, + believe Dudge 2eesley was identified in a supplement to
9r) GingBs, +Bll call it a Dow1oE (3#5E: referring to 1C: 10<(2*(c*Bs Designation of
>itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence, which must be served on :espondentBs in the same
manner as service of the Complaint per 1C: 10,, Eat least &0 daysBF prior to the formal
disciplinary hearing*, and + hope the panel will ?now what + mean, designation of witnessBs
summary of evidence) +Bve shortened it in my filings) >hich, incidently, 1C: 10<(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) 5hat 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) 5his panel wasnBt even empaneled
until, + believe the order was #ctober &0th) 9r) 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) 6nd *"ee %arris7 #$o "$e ;udge "es"ified "o,
who was == he admitted to misappropriating %00G) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) ;arris is not the
subject matter of this hearing) Kou are) 9:) C#87;$+3: ;e got David 7rundy) 6nd he got
his Dow1oE #ent by the /anel) 6nd he got his full 0F days) 6nd + sent that forward == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5(m no" !on!erned #i"$ )r, %arris) Did you get notice that Judge Beesley
would !e testifyingJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 9aybe == + would li?e to chec? my records, but li?e a
couple days before this hearing) 6 couple days) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 4as "$a" a
supplemen"al designa"ionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Keah) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +s that permittedJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 5 "$in' i" is permi""ed7 per$aps if some"$ing !omes up ou" of "$e 6lue
"$a"(s really 6earing7 6u" )r, =ing(s 'no#n a6ou" "$is for 8ui"e some "ime, 0nd7 in fa!"7 5(e
filed a !omplain" #i"$7 5 6eliee 5 in!luded "$is in my !omplain" #i"$ *"a"e &ar presiden"
+ardon (3#5E: 123 (resident "rancis "laherty* -- 5 $ope 5(m saying "$a" !orre!"ly -- under
*C37 5 #an" "o say 10FA3B in "$a" 5 6eliee upon informa"ion and 6elief "$a" )r, =ing
!on"a!"ed one of my !lien"s or may6e one of my !lien"s !on"a!"ed $im in early )ay == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +Bm focusing on your objection to the testimony of Dudge 2eesley) Do you
claim any prejudice because of thatJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat is
that prejudiceJ 9:) C#87;$+3: $ac? of notice) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: %o# does "$e la!'
of no"i!e lead "o pre;udi!eD Fou #eem to be -ery %amiliar 2ith ca#e# that a//eared -- in
2hich you a//eared in %ront o% "udge +ee#ley. !. C9I=)47,0 7 2a#n<t. 7 2a#n<t a#
#har/ on that Cadle #tu%%' becau#e 7 didn<t thin5 7 needed to be thi# morning' and 7 could
ha-e been a lot #har/er on that. 7 really could ha-e) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm going to
overrule the objection) 5 "$in' "$e no"i!e #as sen", )r, Coug$lin #as a#are "$a" Judge
&eesley #ould 6e "es"ifying7 and unless the panel has any objection to Dudge 2eesley, would
accept that testimony)F
(3#5E: 1C: 10<(2*(c* ma?es 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
2%%/%&
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*5ime to conduct hearingC no"i!e of $earingL dis!oery of eiden!e agains"
a""orney)5he $earing panel s$all ,,, gie "$e a""orney a" leas" 30 daysO #ri""en no"i!e of its
time and place) 5he notice s$all 6e sered in "$e same manner as "$e !omplain", and shall
inform the attorney that he or she is entitled to be represented by counsel, to cross=e'amine
witnesses, and to present evidence) 5he 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) >itnesses or
evidence, other than for impeachment, which became ?nown to bar counsel thereafter, and
which bar counsel intends to use at the hearing, shall be promptly disclosed to the attorney)F*
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 21:1& to 21:2&* U Do you have ?nowledge of there
being a motive for 9r) Ging to all of a sudden see? to bring you into this forum in that he has
been subject to an accusation ))))(of* 9r) Ging telling ))) a" leas" one of my !lien"s prior "o my
6eing suspended or een "$e pe"i"ion 6eing filed7 "$a" your !our" $ad issued an order
preen"ing me from pra!"i!ing "$ereJF
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2!:&=12* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Kour ;onor, +
would li?e to narrow it down) 4$en did you firs" !on"a!" "$e *"a"e &ar a6ou" meJ 6 + donBt
recall) + actually contacted Coe 1wobe who wor?s for the 1tate 2ar, but is independen" of
"$em in mos" #ays) U >hen did you first contact 9r) 1wobeJ 6 5 "$in' i" #as per$aps a
mon"$ or si? #ee's af"er my firs" re!olle!"ion of you appearing7 my firs" re!olle!"ion of you
appearing in fron" of me af"er you $ad 6een ei!"ed)))F (referring to the &1<12 2:&0 p)m),
hearing in 3@2=10=0<10!*)
1C: :ule10.)(rivilege and limitation)
1)(rivilege)6ll participants in the discipline process, including grievants, bar counsel staff,
members of disciplinary panels, diversion and mentoring participants, and witnesses, shall be
absolutely immune from !iil liability) 3o action may be predicated upon the filing of a
disciplinary complaint or grievance or any action ta?en in connection with such a filing by any
of the participants) 1?!ep" "$a" any dis!losures made pursuan" "o 3ule 121A16B s$all no" 6e
immune under "$is rule)
+n addition to the 123Bs disclosures to CoughlinBs then client (eter Eastman in early
9ay 2012 (@a#tman in%ormed Coughlin that he 2a# told Coughlin had been ;banned
%rom %iling anything in the ban5ru/tcy courtF*, also perhaps relevant to the 1C: 121
analysis are the substances and circumstances of the following communications Dudge 2eesley
referred to in his testimony:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 12:2 to 12:<* E6nd it became apparent to me that over a
2%,/%&
period of a couple months at least and 5 also learned of some o"$er odd 6e$aior in some of
"$e !our"s #i"$ ;udges "$a" 5 'ne#)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1&:< to 1&:%* 6ased on "$e dis!ussions 5 $ad7 and "$e
informa"ion 5 go" from o"$er people, it became apparent to me that there wasnBt a program that
was going to ==F
1C: ule121. Confiden"iali"y)
1)7enerally)6ll proceedings involving allegations of misconduct by an attorney
#hall be 5e/t con%idential un"il "$e filing of a formal !omplain") ?ll par"i!ipan"s in a
/roceeding, including anyone connected with it, shall conduct themselves so as to maintain the
!onfiden"iali"y of the proceeding until a formal complaint is filed)))
11) >hat 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 counselLs wor? product
and the panelLs 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) 6fter 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)
1<)*"a"emen"s 6y "$e *"a"e &ar of /eada)3otwithstanding :ule 121(1*, the state
bar may disseminate the procedural status and the general nature of a grievance or complaint
upon reHuest)
1.)E'clusions)5hese rules shall not prohibit any complainant, the accused attorney,
or any witnesses from discussing publicly the e'istence of the proceedings under these rules or
the underlying facts related thereto) ;owever, disclosures made under this subsection, in
whatever form or by whatever means, outside the disciplinary process shall not be covered by
the civil immunity afforded in :ule 10.(1*)F
:ule10.)<)4a2yer# Concerned %or 4a2yer# program: privilege and limitation)))
2)(rivilege)+ndividuals who ma?e a good fai"$ 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 Jawyers Concerned for Jawyers program, shall be
absolutely immune from !iil lia6ili"y for any activities related to the $awyers Concerned for
$awyers program, including, but not limited to, ma?ing referrals to a counselor, therapist,
medical, psychological or behavior health care provider) 3o action may be predicated upon the
filing of a good fai"$ report with the $awyers Concerned for $awyers program or any action
ta?en in connection with such a filing by the !oordina"or, agents, or employees of the $awyers
Concerned for $awyers program)
&)$imited use policy)?ll in%ormation obtained 6y "$e +a#yers Con!erned for +a#yers
program ' including the ini"ial repor" and any #ub#eAuent in%ormation /ro-ided to the
/rogram therea%ter' s$all 6e !onfiden"ial and s$all no" 6e admissi6le in any s"a"e 6ar
2,0/%&
dis!iplinary, ))) or other state bar proceeding) 5his rule is not meant to preclude the state bar
from using evidence or information which is independently discovered from a source separate
from the $awyers Concerned for $awyers program)F
1C: :ule120)CostsC bar coun#el con%lict or di#Auali%ication)))
2)+f, for any reason, 6ar !ounsel is dis8ualified or $as a !onfli!" of in"eres", the board of
governors shall appoint an attorney, ad hoc, "o a!" in "$e pla!e of 6ar !ounsel)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 22:20 to 2&:1%* U >as your testimony earlier today
that the first time you recall being aware of me was when + appeared at the 9arch 1<th hearing
in Cadle Company v) Geller at 2:&0 ()9) *$or"ly af"er 6eing ei!"ed a" gunpoin" 6y "$e
4as$oe Coun"y *$eriffs == 6 + actually thin? you had appeared in front of me one time before
that) 2ut that was my first strong recollection of you appearing in front of me) U 6nd it was
that brief interaction whereupon you formed your opinion that + wasnBt fit to practiceJ 6 3o) +
thought it was odd, but + do understand that people have adversity in their lives sometimes,
which happens == U Kou "oo' i" "o 6e adersi"y ra"$er "$an mis!ondu!" 6y "$e s$eriffJ )))
5;E >+53E11: 6nd + believe that you had filed some pleading in that case) 6nd + went to the
pleadings, and they fran?ly didnBt ma?e any sense) 6nd + thin? you subseHuently filed
pleadings in other cases which also didnBt ma?e any sense, and + became concerned)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2!:& to 2<:1<* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Kour ;onor, +
would li?e to narrow it down) >hen did you first contact the 1tate 2ar about meJ 6 + donBt
recall) + actually contacted Coe 1wobe who wor?s for the 1tate 2ar, but is independent of them
in most ways) U >hen did you first contact 9r) 1wobeJ 6 + thin? it was perhaps a month or
si' wee?s after my first recollection of you appearing, my first recollection of you appearing in
front of me after you had been evicted) U Kou would be referring to the 5=shirt and tie
incidentJ 6 Kes) U 4i"$ a sui" ;a!'e" on "$oug$H 0 <ea$) 6nd your apology was
satisfactory, although + thought your appearance was odd) U Do you recall a hearing prior to
that in that same Cadle Company v) Geller wherein Cadle sought to amend their adversary
proceeding charges, and there was maybe a five= to ten=minute hearing on that incident to
which + submitted about a 1<=page motion addressing the salient points of law in that settingJ
6 + cannot place it in the conte't of that case) 2ut + do remember you submitting a motion
describing some points of law on something, and + didnBt thin? that that was competent wor?,
fran?ly) U KouBre referring to which motionJ 6 7 don<t 5no2. 7 don<t ha-e any motion in
%ront o% me. (3#5E: over CoughlinBs objection, Dudge 2eesley appeared telephonically and
was unavailable, due to his busy schedule and the (anel ChairBs insistence that such hearing
must be concluded in one day* for recalling in CoughlinBs case in chief* U 1o you have a fairly
strong opinion on it, yet you donBt recall any specifics) >ould that be an accurate assessment of
your testimonyJ 6 3hat 7 recall i# "$a" your appearan!e in !our" #as odd ' and your
/leading# 2ere not truly com/rehen#ible' and that and fur"$er in8uires made me
!on!erned that you 2ere ha-ing #ome di%%icultie# that /re-ented you %rom #er-ing your
2,1/%&
client a//ro/riately)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2<:1. to 2<:1/* U Did you find any of my wor?
competentJ 6 + donBt believe + did)F
(3#5E: if that is true, the Dudge 2eesley would seem to have violated 3CDC Canon
2, :ule 2)1< in failing to ta?e some Eappropriate actionF and or contact any Eappropriate
authorityF upon his review of CoughlinBs ,/11 nearly identical filings of a 9otion to Dismiss
in the very first ban?ruptcy cases Coughlin ever wor?ed on in 3@2=11=0<0// and 3@2=11=
0<0/% (both of which are actually rather impressive wor? considering they were CoughlinBs
first filings ever in a ban?ruptcy case*, and his 112&11 filing #pposition to Cadle Co)Bs
9otion to 6mend Complaint in 3@2=10=0<10! (which is patently competent wor?, especially
considering such was CoughlinBs "$ird filing eer in a 6an'rup"!y !ase*,
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2<:21 to 2<:2&* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 1ir, are you
aware + was ran?ed 10th in my law school class, and a 3ational 9erit finalistJF
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2.:2< to 2/:10* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Kour ;onor,
+Bd li?e to narrow down some of these assessments youBve made vis=a=vis when they occurred)
6 .nless you !an s$o# me "$e do!umen", + donBt thin? + can help you with that) U 2ut
youBve testified pretty definitively here today) 1o wouldnBt that indicate some negligence on
your behalf in that regardJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) 6rgumentative) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
1ustained)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2%:11 to 2,:1.* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Kour ;onor,
on Cado Company, wouldnBt it indicate a fairly high level of s?ill, particularly for one who
hadnBt been practicing in a ban?ruptcy setting for very long at all for, one, to deduce that in that
case Cado had issues with respect to the fact that they had not renewed a dormant foreign
judgment in that under the 5e'as statute at issue, given the fact that the judgment was over ten
years old, and within the two years under the statute within which they had to ta?e some act to
revive a dormant judgment, they failed to do so) >ouldnBt the fact that + pointed that out in a
brief, and specifically cited to relevant legal research with respect to what particular acts would
Hualify as reviving a dormant judgment in that respect, wouldnBt that indicate some level of
competencyJ 6 + did not ever say that + did not thin? you are highly intelligent) + thin? you
are) 2ut intelligence and legal competence are not the same thing) + thin? you have a significant
lac? of ability to focus on the issues at hand, but youBre very smart) U +f + pointed out, which +
believe + did in that case, that Cadle, by having a vice president file an affidavit see?ing to
register a foreign judgment, that their doing so violated 3:C( 11, in that a corporation such as
Cadle is not entitled to appear pro se, to wit through a vice president who is not an attorney,
wouldnBt that evince some level of capability as an attorney sufficient to avoid having a federal
judge respond to 9r) GingBs imploring him to badmouth me at a hearingJ 9:) G+37:
#bjection) 6rgumentative) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &1%:1/ to &21:2* +Bm a licensed == +Bve been a licensed
2,2/%&
patent attorney with the 8nited 1tates (atent and 5rademar? #ffice) 5hereBs a couple of those,
maybe, in town) :espectfully, your ;onor, +Bll just note that one of the bases for recently
reinstating 9r) ;arris was Dudge 2eesley testifying that heBs one of the very few Chapter 11
ban?ruptcy attorneys in town who has a certain level of s?ill and acumen == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, 9r) ;arrisBs situation is not before us, and + would li?e you to
address your situation) 9:) C#87;$+3: + am, sir) +Bm only mentioning that, because it seems
to be a factor == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +tBs not in evidence even) (lease proceed) 9:)
C#87;$+3: 5he law decisions, you can cite to other discipline matters, published or not with
respect to) 6nd it seems as though in that case the e'tent to which that respondent offered the
public something which it would not have were he not there was relevant) 5he fact that +Bm a
/atent attorney' 7 belie-e -- 7 don<t 5no2' but 7 thin5 7 #till might be an attorney' becau#e
the Inited *tate# Patent and 6rademar5 9%%ice says so) +n fact, a suspended a""orney may
s"ill pra!"i!e in some 6an'rup"!y !our"s7 een if "$ey only $ae one *"a"e &ar li!ense7 and i"(s
suspended7 "$ere(s a #eal"$ of au"$ori"y "$a" says "$ey(re s"ill an a""orney #$o is li!ensed "o
pra!"i!e 6efore "$e federal !our") 2ut regardless, + believe on that basis to the e'tent that that
respondent, who +Bm friends with, + ?now him, + see him on 5hursdays, a basis for his
reinstatement was the rarity of what he offered to the public given his e'pertise and acumen in
a Chapter 11 conte't) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6pparently, +Bm not ma?ing myself very clear) +
would really li?e you to address your situation, and not !r. )arri#Bs situation) Could you do
that for usJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 9y situation is +Bm a patent attorney) 2eyond that, +Bm an
attorney who has done a lot of wor? no other attorney wanted to do) 9aybe 2oles) + donBt
?now) >ho (at also has prosecuted this year, interestingly) 0ny6ody #$o s"ands up "o la#
enfor!emen" seems "o ge" prose!u"ed 6y Da", <ou 'no#7 #e $ae an in"eres"ing "o#n $ere,
5"(s pre""y isola"ed, 5"(s on an island, +o!al la# enfor!emen" doesn(" $ae la# enfor!emen" in
"$e ne?" !oun"y or o"$er#ise really s"opping "$em from == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm really
sorry, 9r) Coughlin) 2ut + would li?e you to assist the panel in following our directions) +Bve
as?ed you to address, one, whether or not youBre competent to continue to practice law) 5wo,
how should we deal with the supreme courtBs mandate that we are to consider the nature and
intent of punishment 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) +f we can focus
on those issues, it would help this panel do its job a lot better than trying to understand )r,
%arris(s situation or some other lawyerBs situation) Could you focus on that for me, pleaseJF
5he %&012 1ua 1ponte #rder removing Coughlin as GellerBs attorney does not
appear to accurately state what occurred during the %2%12 hearing, and, further, the 9otion
Coughlin submitted for filing to the 3@2 on %2012 should be made part of the record)
1< +t is patent misconduct for the 123Bs 6sst 2ar Counsel Ging to be prosecuting Coughlin on
behalf of :ichard 7) ;+ll, EsH) +n 3712=020! (.2&&/* incident to a 11!12 purported email to
Ging by ;ill filing a greivance against Coughlin wherre GingBs own ";E. is a letter to
Coughlin referencing such dated 21!12) 5he doc?et in that 3@D 9ilsner v) Carstarphen
action shows Ging was still listed as attorney of record as of &2.12: I: &:0/=cv=00<!2=:CD=
>7C: P(atric? # Ging (1ee above for address* 5E:9+365ED: 0&2.2012 $E6D
2,&/%&
655#:3EKP http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%<0&0!/&=2.=1&=123=Ging=6ttorney=of=
:ecord=#pposing=;ill=>hile=(rosecuting=Coughlin=for=;ill=s=7reivance=in=.2&&/=as=of=
Doc?et=3vd=&=0/=Cv=00<!2=:CD=>7C=9ils
1.Ging and the 123 attempted to confuse the issues as much as possible with respect to the
one issue for which the 31C5Bs #rder of .%12 referred jurisdiction to the 33D2 (anel in the
first place, ie, to determine the nature and e'tent of CoughlinBs punishment incident to the 1C:
111 conviction in .0%&% where Ging and the 123Bs E'hibit 21 in the presentation to the 33D2
(anel jumbles together nonsensically various filings by Coughlin and others in that municipal
court matter in the 11/12 bates stamped production of &,0,! pages to Coughlin on 11/12
where such consisted of the following at the following bates numbers:
2242 @8h. 22. 3otice of 6ppeal of 1ummary Contempt #rderC
9otion to :eturn (ersonal (roperty Confiscated 2y :eno
9unicipal Court and its 9arshalsC 9otion for 3ew 5rial and to
6lter or 6mend 1ummary #rder filed 9arch /, 2012, Case 3o) 11 5: 2.%00
(3#5E: this E'hibit 22 is actually a jumbled hodgepodge by the 123,
where at bates 21/. if :9C Dudge ;owardBs 21/. 11&011
Dudgment of Conviction and Court #rder (where page & of & thereof has
been e'cised by Ging, noting the center of the bottom of the page
applied bates stamping on such documents (ie, 1,1)))1,2, etc** followed at 21/%
(center bates 1,2* by the 121<11 :C6 :obertBs 3otice of Denial of 1ervice (which
was actually going above and beyond by :oberts as typically :C6 Deputy
City 6ttorney prosecutors and >CD6Bs #ffice DD6 prosecutors
typically just fail to oppose anything Coughlin files, waiting for a
sua sponte #rder either stri?ing such or denying CoughlinBs various motions,
and, in a pinch, such prosecutors will throw up the olB Ehis filings are
illegibleunintelligibleF catch=all approach, which invariably has wor?ed wonders
for them, though were that fails, the :DC, :9C, and 2DDC (and
:C6, >CD6Bs #ffice* can always rely onlean on their cler?s (or, post
6dministrative #rders in the :9C, :DC, the 9arshals and 2ailiffs* to just
brea? the law and refuse to accept CoughlinBs submission for
filing, though, recently, the :DC had turned over a new wrin?le what with its
unsigned, unattributed E3otice of Document :eceived 2y
Court 2ut 3ot ConsideredF mass EfilingsF*) 21%0 is CoughlinBs
121&11 :9C :ecords :eHuest of 112%11 that the :9C stamped as filed on
121&11 in trespass case 2.!0<)
21//=21/% >here the (roof of 1ervice ought be for the 11&011 Dudgment of
Conviction and Court #rder by :9C Dudge Gen ;oward, o% cour#e'
there i# none to be %ound' Be#/ecially note2orthy con#idering the
/age & o% & Aua#i Certi%icate o% *er-ice by bullying !C !ar#hal# i# to be
%ound el#e2here in #uch &'094 /age /roduction by the *+,C which is
2,!/%&
particularly noticeable for that which is not satisfied by any ErenditionF standard, ie, the
alleged 11&011 #rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt in :9C 11 C:
221/., all fraudulently ignored by the 123Bs Ging, at best)
20!. @8h. 10) #rder I1 filed 9arch 20, 2012, Case 3o) 11 C: 2.!0<
dubiously declaring CoughlinBs arguments in CoughlinBs 21&12 filed
9otion in 2.!0< and e'posing of the burglary by ;ill, the >C1#,
and :(D as Ewithout meritF)
21%1 CoughlinBs emailed to :9C 2allard (with an email that clearly identifies
Coughlin as an attorney provides his 3@ 2ar 3o, where the :9C was already
fully apprised of that fact on numerous occasions previously, including in
writing, see CoughlinBs 11&011 9otion for Continuance in 221/.* pdf version of
121!11 9otion to (roceed +"( and 6ffidavit in 1upport thereof
21%! :9C ;owardBs 121.11 #rder in 221/. (";E10*
21%. incongruously placed continuation of :C6 :obertBs 121<11 3otice of
Denial of 1ervice in 221/. (at bates 21%/:lines 10=11 :C6 :oberts notes Ethe
aforementioned emails contain lin?s and attachments that the
City and + will not open as we have concerns about computer viruses)))F
6pparently the anthra' in the 81(1 mail scare following the events of ,11
failed to engender such an approach from :oberts vis a vis 81(1
mail)))regardless, :9C :ule < allows for service on
Egovernment attorneysF via fa'ing, and CoughlinBs Certificate of
1ervice of such 121&11 filing was not limited to email,
regardless of :9C Dudge ;owardBs inappropriate, patently biased, sua sponte
#rderBs assertions, where the (roof of 1ervice on CoughlinBs 121&11
and 121.11 filings in 221/. reveal the service on :oberts and
the :C6 via facsimile to whatever e'tent the :9C and :C6 are
allowed (including the :9C independent contractor court appointed defenders therein, of
course*, impermissibly, apparently, to e'clude anyone but those in their incestuous cliHue from
servicefiling via email) #n %2%1& a receptionist with a heavy 2ritish accent for the :C6
admitted to Coughlin she was logging into the :9CBs calendaring system to chec? for a new
status conference or trial date in :9C 1& C: &,1&, &,1!) Uuite simply, there is no separation
between the :9C, :C6, City of :eno, and, some might say, the :(D (especially in light of
the summary beat down following 1)< seconds after Coughlin testified that E1argent 5arter lied
when)))F boom) 9r) Coughlin is held in contempt summarily incarcerated for five
days*))))))they go together li?e bread and meat (which is e'actly what the E6re >e 2ecoming a
(olice 1tateF article off the internet (but not from some EprisonerBs online websiteF* spo?e to, as
attached to CoughlinBs <! page filing of &/12 (which had 1.. pages of e'hibits attached
thereto that is hardly voluminous in comparison to the number of pages contained in ;illBs
associateBs own 1&12 eleven e'hibit filing in the appeal of the summary eviction in C@11=
0&.2&%, which, unli?e CoughlinBs &/12 filing in the :9C in 11 5: 2.%00, was not done
immediately after being released from the ridiculous affront to justice that was :9C Dudge
3ash ;olmesB summarily incarcerating a practicing attorney incident to a Esimple traffic
citationF case in 2.%00 between 22/12 and &&12, was not created under circumstances
2,</%&
anywhere near as trying as those Coughlin was faced with, where such indigent attorney was
release from jail only after serving the full five days (despite the :9C ta?ing O100)00 from
CoughlinBs mother in e'change for welshing on a deal to release him one day earlier*, and
where CoughlinBs mother had to pay O&00 to get his 1,,. ;onda 6ccord $4 out of the towing
impound yard such summary incarceration begat, and where the :9C and >C1#>CD6Bs
#ffice conspired to wrongfully confiscate (conversion* CoughlinBs smart phone (which was
returned destroyed, never to wor? right again, an ;5C 72 !7 smart phone (the one Coughlin
used to film the wrongful %2011 Egrand larcenyF arrest by :(D #fficer Duralde incident to an
allegation that Coughlin committed a EseriousF offense EtheftF crime incident to an allegation
that Coughlin was freely given the phone by a man who pic?ed it up off the ground and
announced he would throw it in the river if someone did not claim it immediately)))some
larceny (of a far inferior &7 three year old i(hone compared to Coughlin then eight month old,
far more top of the line !7 ;5C 72 smart phone* where such smart phone in addition to
CoughlinBs &272 micro sd data card had all data thereon wiped (and both were so ruined, never
to wor? correctly again*, in addition to CoughlinBs flip style cell phone and electric shaver
being withheld wrongfully for &/ days from 22%12 (upon the :9C
9arshals wrongfully retrieving such from where these items had already been
boo?ed into CoughlinBs personal property at the >ashoe County Dail*)
21,0 :9C ;owardBs 121.11 #rder regarding indigent CoughlinBs emailing
(threatening to abuse the contempt power some more by Dudge
;oward* where 21,2 reveals the, uh, arrangement between the
:9C and :C6 in such Certificate of 1ervice where E+nner= office mail
following ordinary business practicesF is chec?ed as the means of providing a
copy of such #rder to the :eno City 6ttorney (not even Einter=officeF, but, rather,
the apparent "reudian slip of Einner=office mailF*)
21,& ;ere, it is as if Ging and the :9C:C6 are showing off, where the E54
:eportF establishing the EserviceF by the :9C on the :C6
(Einner=office mailF, apparently* reveals such 121.11 #rder
was emailed by the :9C to the :C6, where such #rder itself
threatens the abuse of the contempt power by :9C Dudge ;oward against Coughlin
for CoughlinBs allegedly emailing something to the :9C, and where ;owardBs
121<11 #rder (";E10* sua sponte denies all of CoughlinBs 121&11 9otions
(well, actually such #rder admits it just plain refuses to address CoughlinBs 9otion
for :ecusal* sua sponte, prior to the passing of the time allotted
for Coughlin to even begin running as to CoughlinBs right to
file a :eply or some other responsive filing to :C6 :obertBs 121<11 3otice
of Denial of 1ervice in 221/.) 1ome might say, :9C Dudge ;owardBs statements in a
December 2011 3evada $awyer interview, wherein he claims to Eneed a challengeF ought be
met with the retort that he should EchallengeF himself to not abuse the contempt power Huite so
much, and just generally, afford a higher level of due process in Department !, while
discontinuing his willful disobeyance of the 200% +ndigent Defense #rder and violations of
Canon 1, :ule 1)1, and otherwise engaging in impermissible e'tra=judicial communications
with other :9C Dudges with whom Coughlin then had pending criminal matters, in addition to
2,./%&
ceasing his +n :e >ard, and +n :e Eric?son interference with disciplinary proceedings, though,
clearly, aside from a !!12 email from Dudge ;oward to Ging that spea?s only to matters
occurring subseHuent to anything he adjudicated in 221/., there is no indication whatsoever
that ;oward too? any Canon 2 :ule 2)1< Eappropriate actionF as to an alleged misconduct by
Coughlin, and such similar failures by 2DDC Dudges "lanagan, Elliott, $) 7ardner, etc) must
give the appropriate defensive collateral estoppel treatment as to all of GingBs various gibberish
allegations) "urther, Coughlin is informed and believes that :9C :ule < did provide that
email service on Egovernment attorneysF was sufficient in the incarnation of such :ule in effect
in December 2012 (not that the :9C ?eeps records of its rule changes or
otherwise ma?es such publicly available*
21,! CoughlinBs fa' cover sheet to :C6 :oberts and twenty three page 3otice
of Denial of 1ervice, #pposition City of :enoBs 3otice of Denial
that, curiously, does not contain a fa' header (:9C 2allard did file in, selectively, some of
CoughlinBs submitted via email only filings, after all)))* sent to the :9C via pdf in an email*)
(compare to bates 12%=1<1 page 1 of 2! "a' Cover 1heet fa' header of /:!1 am of 121.11
followed by CoughlinBs 3otice of Denial of 1ervice, +"( 6pplication, etc) in 221/. and bates
11/2 CoughlinBs 121.11 2! page fa' header to :9C /:!1 am in :9C 11 C: 221/. (.0%&%*
with fa' cover page to :C6 :oberts followed by CoughlinBs 3otice of Denial of 1ervice and
bates 121/ page 2 of 2! page fa' filed with the :9C from Coughlin 121.11 3otice of Denial
of 1ervice with :9C 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 :9C, 2allard, and 123 to support bogus +"( allegations)* (3#5E: in many
instances in CoughlinBs reproduction of the 123Bs 11/12 production to Coughlin of &,0,!
pages Coughlin has replaced the identical versions of some of the longer filings by Coughlin
(which Coughlin already had in digital pdf format, e'ported directly from a word processor,
which renders a sharper pdf that utiliAes less storage space or megabytes, etc) than would
scanning in all such instances of CoughlinBs longer filings found in such &,0,! page production
(though, if anyone wants to test it, Coughlin did scan in such &,0,! pages, painsta?ingly, and
Coughlin ethically one ups the bar here where he points this out rather than ta?ing the tact that
Ging too? in inserting a cleaner, more legible copy of :9C Dudge ;olmeBs &1212 #rder as
E'hibit & to GingBs %2&12 Complaint (at :#6 20 or so* in its cleaner incarnation in ";E1,
especially where the legibility of process is far more integral to these proceedings than the
legibility of some random filing by Coughlin within such &,0,! page production, however, in
no instance (save maybe the . page per page versions of CoughlinBs E'hibit 1 to his 121&11
filing in 221/., did Coughlin utiliAing his digital versions of such longer filings render an
illegible document legible, whereas the 123Bs approach in the 21&1& :#6 did such time and
time again, in the reverse direction, particularly with respect to the
e'hibits to CoughlinBs filings*)
221% CoughlinBs 12%11 submitted :9C :ecords :eHuest for the audio
transcript of the 11&011 5rial, which the :9C waited until
121&11 to file stamped (the day a 9otion for 3ew 5rial would have been due, nice)))but
litigants an attorneys are allegedly reHuired to obtain a judges permission to audio record a
proceeding they are a party to, or advocating on behalf of a client inJ >ho wants to bet the
2,//%&
:C6:9C court appointed defenders never get as?ed if they are recording and or get same day
copies of any audio they reHuest, emailed to them, versus the olB Eyou have to drive down her to
pic? up the disc and it will not be ready for a wee?F that the :9C consistently announces
to EnormalF litigants*)
221, page & of & (Huasi=(roof of 1ervice by bullying :9C 9arshals (see or
hear the audio transcript (and attempts to transcribe by Coughlin in
his .1%12 filing in .0%&%* of the final minutes of such recording for an idea of what such
purported EserviceF entailed, but, clearly, such in no way included that found in the %2&12
Complaint at :#6 %, 10, 1. and in ";E1, ";E11 (see :#6 1/12, 1/1!, 1/20, 1/,1 (and
compare the actual signature (or one that at least is not so obviously of the rubber stamp variety
as that found at :#6 10 and 1/1! on the 11&011 #rder for 1ummary (unishment of
Contempt* on 1/,2 by Dudge ;oward to the obvious rubber stamp job on the 11&011
Dudgment of Conviction and Court #rder, both from 11 C: 221/., ma?ing sure to note the
curious fact that, while the 11&011 #rder for 1ummary (unishment of Contempt does bare
some unattributed initials hand interlineated atop the file stamp, the 11&011 Dudgment of
Conviction and Court #rder fails to included any such initiling by a cler? or anyone else, for
that matter, whatsoever)))ma?ing even further dubious :9C Dudicial 6ssistant @eronica
$opeABs fraudulent contention that she was not reHuired to mail or in any other way provide
Coughlin a copy of such 11&011 #rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt in light of her incorrect
(at best* assertion that Coughlin was served a copy of such as the conclusion of the 11&011
trial)))* etc) where neither the 11&011 EDudgment of Conviction and Court #rderF in 221/. or
the 11&011 #rder for 1ummary (unishment of Contempt bare anything in the way of a
;ouston style time stamping for such summary contempt orders where the body of
jurisprudence related thereto ma?es Huite clear such must be nearly contemporaneous with the
rendition of such summary incarceration orders (";E!Bs time stamping of &:!/ pm on 22%12
for a summary incarceration occurring at !:00 pm on 22/12 is telling, almost as much as the
hand interlineation on the oft e'cised by Ging and or the :9C (age & of & of the 11&011
Dudgment of Conviction and Court #rder wherein a Huasi=(roof of 1ervice by a bullying :9C
9arshal (it saves the :9C the cost of a stamp and the 9arshals get to fle' on people daily
incident thereto, so the 9arshals and :9C are Bbout it* lists E%:2& p)m)F as the time at which
the EDE"E3D635F ErefusedF to sign his name thereto to some preprinted te't that would
hardly operate, regardless, as anything sufficient to meet a 9i?ohn standard (also, note the ultra
dicey rubber stamped EsignatureF of (!y8# :9C Dudge ;oward stamped onto such (age & of &
of such 11&011 Dudgment of Conviction and Court #rder (what ECourt #rderFJ Certainly
there is nothing in such & pages to support a summary contempt order per the ;ouston
specificity reHuirements)))perhaps such alludes to the subseHuently crossed out community
service reHuirement (nice, ;oward admits his mista5e in thin? Coughlin caused the continuance
of the 111!11 trial in 221/. (rather than the jail bringing Coughlin to court in E6dministrative
1egregationF mental health issues jail reds preventing Dudge ;oward from being able to hold
the trial he sought to preside over on that date)))* and, instead of a new trial, or recogniAing the
impropriety attendant to his both denying a continuance in addition to violating the 1i'th
6mendment :ight 5o Counsel (to say nothing of the abuse of the contempt power he
demonstrated, and patent bias in each and every ruling he made that day, particularly those of
2,%/%&
an evidentiary nature* ;oward simply had the community service reHuirement e'cised))))3ote
bates 221, of the 11/12 &,0/! page production and the bates stamping of E2&&F applied in the
center of the bottom of the page, which, conveniently, obscures the pagination otherwise
viewable on such 11&011 Dudgment of Conviction, etc) #ne has to hand it to the 123, it
really is puttinB in big wor? when it has bates stamps so artfully (and, conveniently* applied)
("ine, the Ecriminal convictionF for petty larceny gets a 3:1 1%,)010 ErenditionF
approach (though, certainly a civil contempt order invo?ing 3:1 22)0&0 from (from 5itle 2
ECivil (racticeF* which the :9C never reported to the 123 or 31C5 and which 2ar Counsel
never filed a 1C: 111 (etition for (further evidence that neither Ecriminal contemptF
conviction in ";E11, nor ";E! was a Ecriminal convictionF or even a EconvictionF,
regardless, there is authority that even a EconvictionF of for Ecriminal contemptF is not a
EcrimeF* (such a rendition standard is what :DC Dudge 1ferraAAa in his commentary at the
122011 ;earing the :DC finally held in response to CoughlinBsB 111.11 9otion to Contest
(ersonal (roperty $ien in :ev2011=001/0% (wherein ;ill was set to testify, then violated the
rule of e'clusion order in later entering the court room* wishes to graft on to a civil setting in
summary evictions in his attempts to vitiate the terrible import for ;ill and the >C1#:(D vis
a vis their failure to abide by the reHuirement in 3:1 !0)2<& that E2! hoursF pass from the
tenantBs EreceiptF of a Esummary removal orderF before any loc?out may be conducted by the
sheriffF (regardless, 1ferraAAa positions fails even if one applies a rendition standard, as the
transcript of such 102<11 Econtinuation of the 101&11 summary eviction proceedingF
reveals that 1ferraAAa merely ruled that the eviction was granted Eeffective 10&111 no sooner
than < p)m)F)))fine, all that means is the 1heriff may conduct a loc?out pursuant to 3:1 !0)2<&
(which applies eHually across all counties no matter what the codependent
:DC>C1#>CD6Bs #fficer:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)Bs of the world attempt to pervert the
analysis into providing* pursuant to 3ev Const) 6rt) ! 1ect) 21 (Dudge 1ferraAAa can be lil
sha?y when it comes to the Constitution of his adopted 1tate of 3evada, as his 122011
6dministrative #rder 2012=01 demonstrates in remi=ing 3ev Const) 6rt ., 1ec . into reading
E3evada courtsF instead of EDistrict courtsF in attempting to justify the epic fail his
6dministrative #rder 2012=01 ma?es of his judicial legacy (similar to 1ferraAAaBs grafting
DC::5 10 onto even Elandlord tenant mattersF and cases wherein Coughlin himself was a
criminal defendant in his sua sponte 112%11 #rder prohibiting Coughlin from doing that
which all other parties and attorneys in the :DC were allowed to do at the time, ie, file by
facsimile*)
2222 for no apparent reason the cover page to CoughlinBs E'hibit 1 to his
121&11 9otion for 3ew 5rial in 221/. is included here, with CoughlinBs
handwritten interlineation that such E'hibit (was provided to :9C 2allard via email upon her
giving Coughlin written permission to do so, which 2allard then fraudulently failed to abide by
in the :#6 the :9C transmitted from 221/. to the 2DDC in C:11=20.! on 122211)))another
:9C Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?sonDonna 2allard fraudulent production* that such
E'hibit 1 consisted of E%,& pages plus CD of < files from :eno City 6ttorney (2 videos E6(Fm
codec, verint files, a recording of Dohn Ellis >al=9art retaliationF
222. to 22!0 (3#5E: here Coughlin has scanned in at &00 dpi (the EHuality of a laser printerF
that 3:6( 10 or 11 references, which the :DC and :9C and 123 consistently, and
2,,/%&
conveniently (to the courts and prosecutors* fail to abide by, selectively* such pages e'actly as
produced to Coughlin on 11/12 by the 123 (and presumably as they appeared upon the 123
presenting such to the 1creening (anel* as a comparision of the legibility of such to the digital
version of the same materials that Coughlin inserted in place of a &00 dpi scanning of the
123:9CBs photocopying of such is Huite illuminating (and such became of e'treme relevance
in the appeal of such >al=9art conviction in 221/. in the :#6 that Dudge Elliott (see ";E12*
found so lac?ing in justifying denying CoughlinBs appeal of such conviction) (compare the
differences between such . pages per page digital version at bates 1<. to 1/0 with the scanned
at &00 dpi versions of the same materials found at bates 222. to 22!0 (which latter version is
still much more legible than the scanned at /< dpi version thereof the :9C included in the
:#6 for 22/1. in transmitted to the 2DDC in CoughlinBs appeal of the conviction and contempt
order resulting in his current temporary suspension (well, the conviction for petty larceny
therein, at least, as the 2DDC refused to adjuciate CoughlinBs appeal of the summary contempt
order in ";E11, which was convenient to the 123(anelBs attempt to apply 1C: 111(<* to
even those allegation of CoughlinBs violating :(CBs that contains completely different elements
than those found in a 3:1 22)0&0 analysis) Chair Echeverria coyly refrained from harping on
how CoughlinBs appeal was denied with respect to such EconvictionsF for Ecriminal contemptF
(as no appeals were EallowedF, whether in light of 2DDC Dudge Elliott refusing to adjudicate
such or with respect to :9C Dudge ;olmes disobeying 3:1 1%,)010 in stri?ing CoughlinsB
3otices of 6ppeal of both the #rders in ";E! and ";E<, even where Echeverria cheerfully
sua sponte trumpeted on about how the district court denied CoughlinBs appeals of the >al=
9art petty larceny EconvictionF in 221/. and the criminal trespass EconvictionF)
(3#5E: Consider ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1,1:20 to 1,/:12* U Do you recall
the reason that Dudge ;oward sentenced you to jail and held you in contemptJ 6 6re you
referring to what he verbally rendered at the time or what has been reduced to writing here or
what + thin? he did it forJ U E'press to the panel, if you ?now, what reason you were given
for being held in contempt by Dudge ;oward) 6 5hatBs what + was as?ing) >hen you say what
reason + was given) 5hereBs a number of things from which + might draw that reason, whether
itBs this reduced to writing order or what he might have rendered at the time shortly before
handcuffs were placed on me) 2ut you did say what reason he gave == U Kour understanding
of the reason that you were held in contempt by Dudge ;owardJ 6 + recall him == well, + thin?
it was one thing before + got this) 6nd then it changed somewhat when + got this, you ?now)
2ut it was == and + forget what he rendered from the bench at that time) 2ut it was basically
contemptuous conduct) ;e might have said at the time continuing lines of inHuiry after being
told not to) 5here was a definite sense that any sort of Huestioning that might somehow subject
the police to respond in a way that might bring to light any culpability or their part was
something that upset him greatly) U 5han? you, 9r) Coughlin) $oo?ing at the first page of
that document where it says == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'cuse me, 9r) Ging) Do you have a
copy for the panelJ 9:) G+37: Kes) 6s a matter of fact, since this is a certified copy, +Bll
move to admit this as E'hibit 3o) 11) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'hibit 11 has been moved into
evidence) 9r) Coughlin, any objectionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, + would object based on the
fact that the entire res in which this prosecution stems is violative of 3evada law, and the tribal
police officers are not allowed to conduct a misdemeanor arrest, and this was a misdemeanor
&00/%&
arrest) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm interested in any objection to E'hibit 11 being admitted) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kes, in that itBs a void order) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Did you appeal itJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: + did) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >as it affirmedJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +t was) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: E'hibit 11 will be admitted) (E'hibit 11 admitted into evidence)* 9:)
C#87;$+3: + donBt ?now if my appeal was dismissed or not) 9:) G+37: >ith the courtBs
permission, the reason given by the judge, he has chec? bo'es, but he actually has some typed
in bold sections) :eading it into the record, PDisorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior
toward the judge while he is holding court, or engaged in his judicial duties at chambers, 5o
wit: :efusing to obey directives of the Dudge, continuing lines of inHuiry after being advised
by the Court to refrain from doing so, demeaning the Court with statements such as B>#>B in
response to court rulings, laughing during testimony and further Huestioning the court and its
authority)P + may have to get additional copies of this order, your ;onor) 5his is a certified
order as well) 5his order is signed by Genneth ;oward) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + thin? thatBs the
same as E'hibit 10C is it notJ 2K 9:) G+37: U 9r) Coughlin, after a trial on the == + thin?
you just alluded to a charge that had something to do with the +ndian tribal police or something,
+Bm not sure) 2ut were you charged with theft out of a >almart storeJ 6 + believe so) U >as
there a trial on that, a court trialJ 6 Kes, sir) U 6t the end of that court trial did the judge
render a verdict finding you guiltyJ 6 Kes, sir) U >as that appealed, was the decision of the
court appealed by youJ 6 Kes) U >as the conviction upheld on appealJ 6 >ell, when he
rendered his order == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, the Huestion calls for a yes or no
answer) >as the conviction == 2K 9:) G+37: U +Bll give you an opportunity to e'plain) 2ut if
you would just start with that answer) >as it upheld on appealJ 6 + donBt ?now Huite how to
answer that, if a yes or no) + would have to read the order more thoroughly) U 3ot to be
condescending, but youBre fighting for your law license) Do you ?now whether or not you filled
an appeal and whether or not it was upheld on appealJ 6 +f something is dismissed, is that the
same as being not upheldJ + ?now it cited to a civil statue on the preparation of transcripts,
which doesnBt apply to a criminal defendant) Even though on the bench 1! years, some people
would say thatBs ?ind of == + donBt ?now how appropriate that is) 6nd he told me that when they
brought me bac? from the cell) ;e said, you have to pay for the transcript up front at your own
e'pense) >hen actually 3evada law does not say that) +t says the court has to order the
transcript prepared within ten days, regardless of whether you pay or not) :egardless) 1o who
is stealingJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9aybe the Huestion can be phrased differently) Kou did ta?e
an appeal from the convictionJ 5;E >+53E11: Kes, sir) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat was the
result of the appealJ 5;E >+53E11: Dudge Elliott said + didnBt cite to the transcript) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: >hat was the result == 5;E >+53E11: 1o + want to say he denied the
appeal, because + didnBt cite to the transcript that the muni court violated 3evada law in not
preparing == when they hold out (am $ongoni, house transcriptionist, and they tell you she is
the only one you can use, and you have to pay her a substantial down payment up front, and
weBre not going to prepare the transcript until you do that) 6nd + thin? they also say they are not
going to transmit it in full until you pay in full) 2ut they donBt start it until you put down li?e
2<0 or something) +t depends on how long it is) >hich is all violative of 3evada law == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +t would help, 9r) Coughlin, if you could focus on the Huestions) 5;E
>+53E11: Kes, sir) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat was the result of the appealJ 5;E
&01/%&
>+53E11: 5echnically, + donBt ?now how) + filed a brief) +t did not turn out good for me) +
donBt ?now whether they said it was denied or upheld) 2ut basically the order was short, and it
said, you didnBt cite to the transcript) 1o + thin? he essentially said +Bm not going to consider
your !0=page <0=page brief,)))F*
"unnily, Ging did not manage to get ";E12 nor ";E1& admitted into evidence)
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 221:/ to 222:,* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm going to
reHuire you to lay a foundation for whatever it is you proffer) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) +
provided to this court and the 2ar true and accurate copies of the official audio transcripts) 6nd
in some instances the pleadings have gone in typed out things) +n one instance for at least
probably %0 percent of the summary eviction + too? advantage of a free trial) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +Bm focusing on what youBre proffering now) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5his is a transcript of the trial for your traffic citationJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he one that Dudge ;olmes issued an order
finding you in contemptJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Did you appeal itJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + tried to) 1he wouldnBt let me) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6nd itBs a final orderJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + did the research on that, but she is saying == + donBt ?now what she is
saying) 2ut she is not letting me appeal it) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >e ?now what she said in her
order) *o 5(m no" going "o en"er"ain an in8uiry in"o "$e !ondu!" of "$e "rial on
your "raffi! !i"a"ion i"self, 2$a" issue $as 6een li"iga"ed)F*

1/ http:www)scribd)comdoc1...!&/<.%=1&=1&=,,.=(ages=2ates=1tamped=E'=2=#cr=for=
.0%&%=.2&&/=:#6="rom=:9C=in=221/.=to=2DDC=for=C:12=20.!=and=Everything="iled=in=
6ppeal=5hrough=&=2/=12=(
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<&1.<%,=.=1&=020!=.2&&/=3@D=1tamped=1&=C@=
!/!=:CD=>7C=..!=(ages=+"(=9tn=(roposed=Complaint=Coughlin=v=>al=9art=:eno=1par?s=
+ndian=Colony=:1+C=#pt
#nce again, there was a problem with the :#6 transmitted by the :9C to the 2DDC
in one of CoughlinBs appeals of a criminal conviction as to a major issue in the case) 5he :9C
failed to transmit a complete copy of CoughlinBs 102.11 6pplication for Court 6ppointed
Defender, which turned out to be crucial given Dudge ;owardBs 102/11 #rder denying
Coughlin his 1i'th 6mendment right to counsel, especially in light of Dudge ;owardBs 121<11
#rder in ";E10 denying Coughlin the publication of the transcript at public e'pense, which
was premised upon ;owardBs assessment that Coughlin had not provided sufficient indicia of
his indigency to warrant granting such, where Coughlin alleged failure to cite to the transcript
was Dudge ElliottBs rationale for denying CoughlinBs appeal of such 11&011 EDudgment of
Convcition and Court #rderF (where ElliotBs &1<12 E#rder 6ffirming the :uling of the :eno
9unicipal CourtF fails to address the fact that Coughlin appealed both that and the 11&011
E#rder (unishing 1ummary ContemptF*)
:egardless, the 2DDC lac?ed jurisdiction to even deny CoughlinBs appeal given
&02/%&
Dudge ;oward has yet to sign such 11&011 EDudgment of Conviction and Court #rderF and
the :9C has yet to file a 3otice of Entry of the 11&011 E#rder (unishing 1ummary
ContemptF found in ";E11 given such was made in absentia of one of the parties and where
the :9C failed to ever served 3otice of Entry thereof on either party)
Coughlin attached such arguments to his filings in the matter appealed in .2&&/ by
way of including his 1&012 #pposition to 9otion to Dismiss 6ppeal in C:11=20.!, where at
page 20 thereof reads: E,&&, !/, 3)E)2D .,% (1,%<*) >here defendant was tried and convicted,
and court imposed sentence and rendered judgment, but where cler? failed to enter judgment
pursuant to rule, Court of 6ppeals lac?ed appellate jurisdiction) 1tate v) $ee, <.2 1)>)2D /,!
(9o) Ct) 6pp) 1,/%*)#riginal unsigned minute boo? entry of judgment was not appealable,
since it did not meet statutory reHuirement that PrenditionP of judgment means that it be
reduced to writing, signed and made a matter of record, or filed) Egantoff v) ;erring, 1// 1o)
2D 2.0 ("la) Dist) Ct) 6pp) 2D Dist) 1,.<*) ;ere, the undersigned, Coughlin, made numerous
attemtps to see that the PDudgment and Court #rderP here was a matter of record, and the :9C
filign office, all the way up to 121&11, indicated it was not) (roperly dismissed) Cornelius v)
5ubbesing, </. 1)>)2D /<& (9o) Ct) 6pp) 1)D) 1,/,*) 6ppeal would be held in abeyance and
cause remanded to trial court for rendition and entry of final judgment where only indication of
final judgment on transcript was doc?et entry, and where doc?et entry was styled in singular
although defendant had been charged with two counts of possession of controlled substances)
1tate v) 7onterman, <.< 1)>)2D %00 (9o) Ct) 6pp) 1,/%*)F
6dditionally, the 2DDC lac?ed jurisdiction to consider the appeal in C:11=20.! as
to the 11&011 EDudgment of Conviction and Court #rderF where, in absentia of one of the
parties, Dudge ;oward materially altered such document by having the community service
reHuirement crossed out and noting his error with respect to basing his denial of even one
continuance to Coughlin upon his alleged understanding that the continuance of the original
111!11 trial date was the fault of Coughlin: (page 21 of CoughlinBs 1&012 #pposition in
Cr11=20.!: EDudge ;oward, to his credit, admitted he was mista?en in believing the
undersigned failed to show up for the original 3ovember 1!, 2011 court date*)F
CoughlinBs 1&012 #pposition in 20.! was attached to filings in the disciplinary
matter and preserved the following: P(lease see the undersignedBs Declaration, under penalty of
perjury attached hereto, concerning the following e'cerpt from the end of the audio record of
the 3ovember &0th, 2011 5rial in :9C 11 C: 221/., which represents a completely true and
accurate transcription (made from the CD of the 5rial that the undersigned purchased from the
:9C and ta?en from the file named: PQ9C"5:2R_201111&0=20&&_01ccaf,f!<1ed0,0P C)))* #f
what was said in open court, on the record, beginning at %:&&:11 pm on 3ovember &0th, 2011
in Dudge ;owardBs court room: PD;: alright we are bac? on the record in regard to City v)
-achary Coughlin) + was admittedly remiss in not advising 9r) Coughlin of his right to appeal)
>e do want to ta?e care of that now on the record) 9r) Coughlin, you have the right to appeal
the decision of this Court) Kou can do so by filing a 3otice of 6ppeal) Customarily, itBs 10 days
and thats, uh, +Bm sure you are fully aware of that)))>hat + am going to do is grant an e'tension
&0&/%&
to that statute in light of the fact that you will not be released from custody until December &rd,
so your 10 days will run effective December &rd at % pm, so you will have 10 days from that
date to file a 3otice of 6ppeal with this Court, now once you file your 3otice of 6ppeal there
are several things that you will have to do, principal among those is to obtain a copy of the
transcript at your e'pense) #nce the transcript has been forwarded to the District Court, there is
(page = , #((#1+5+#3 5# 9#5+#3 5# D+19+11 6((E6$* no 5rial de novo, you are
probably aware that the District Court judge will review the four corners of the transcript to
determine, one, whether this court has made any legal errors that would justify a reversal of this
matter or whether there is sufficient evidence within the transcript to justify the finding of guilt
that + have made here today) +s there any Huestions at all with regard to the appeal processJ -C:
5he availability of a 1tay, that + guess would go more towards the finding of ContemptJ 8m,
when you say Pappeal processP are you referring to)))J D;: 5he filing of appeal in regard to the
petit theft) -C: 3ot in regard to the ContemptJ D;: 3o, thats a summary proceeding and we are
going to go forward with that) #ne thing that + will say in regard to the petit theft 5rial and
subseHuent sentencing, however, its my recollection, improperly, that you had failed to appear
at the previous proceeding, and thatBs not correct, uh, there was another reason as to why we
were unable to proceed, so + am going to delete the 2! hours of community service, the fine of
O&.0 will stand) 6lright, any other Huestions involving the 6ppeal processJ -C: Kes, to the
e'tent my law practiceBs clients, that their cases will be unduly prejudiced by your incarcerating
me right now))) D;: + am standing by that and + wish you would have thought about that after
each admonishment that + gave you during the 5rial) -C: Kou are saddened by that) D;: >e are
in recess) P (Commotion of 9arshals can be heard and the audio recording of the record of the
5rial ends*)P
P9cCrary v) 9cCrary, /.! ()2D <22, 1,%% #G 122 (#?la) 3ov 01, 1,%%* (3#)
.2,%1!* Dudgment is deemed rendered only when its \<2/ terms are announced to the parties by
the judge, and a judgment in absentia is not ErenderedF until notice of its entry is mailed to the
parties) 9cCullough v) 1afeway 1tores, +nc), #?l), .2. ()2D 1&&2 (1,%1*C :ules of 6ppellate
(rocedure, 12 #)1)1,%1, Ch) 1<, 6pp) 2, :ule 1)11(2*) 1ee: (eralta v) ;eights 9edical Center,
+nc), !%< 8)1) %0, =((age 1 of CoughlinBs 2112 18(($E9E35 5# 9#5+#3 5# D+19+11
in 20.!* 10% 1)Ct) %,., ,, $)Ed)2D /< (1,%%*) >e also note that after the trial courtBs ruling the
intervenors attempted to obtain e'traordinary relief from this Court to prohibit the court from
proceeding further, and we denied relief) 5here undersigned believes, under penalty of perjury,
that (am :oberts was not even in the courtroom when Dudge ;#ward brought the undersigned
bac? in chains to correct that which he has been PremissP in not doing earlier (ie, ma?ing
rulings related to the 1tay of the Contempt punishment, and the deadline to file a notice of
appeal, or even informing the underisgned of his right to file an appeal and the reHuirments*)
Dudge ;oward did say some stuff about how he Pis sure you ?now thisP or that about the
procedural technicalities that Dudge ;oward encounters everyday in his job, yet the
undersigned really does not ?now such things) 10 Days to file a notice of appealJ DidnBt ?now
that) 3:C( .(a* and (e* donBt apply to such mattersJ +ts straight daysJ :endition, not notice of
entryJ DidnBt ?now none of that) 5hats what the 1i'th 6mendment is for))))(5hen later at page
&0!/%&
!*)))5he courts in the following cases, while not holding that good=faith vigorous advocacy may
preclude the summary punishment of an attorney for contempt, recogniAed that an attorney
must be given broad latitude in his representation of his client, and that this factor must be
ta?en into account in determining whether conduct of an attorney amounts to contempt which
is summarily punishable by the court) +n 8nited 1tates v 1chiffer (1,.<, C6. 5enn* &<1 "2d
,1, cert den &%! 81 100&, 1. $ Ed 2d 101/, %. 1 Ct 1,1!, reh den &%< 81 %,0, 1/ $ Ed 2d
121, %/ 1 Ct 12, the court, in upholding the trial courtBs summary punishment of an attorney for
contempt under :ule !2(a* of the "ederal :ules of Criminal (rocedure, said that in contempt
cases against lawyers the evidence must be carefully scrutiniAed in order that there be no undue
interference with their right properly to represent their clientsC nevertheless, it was held that the
punishment imposed was warranted in view of the deliberate, continuous, and repeated
contumacious acts of the attorney, e'tending throughout the trial, which were said to have been
wholly unwarranted) 5he court in :e Dellinger (1,/2, C6/ +ll* !.1 "2d &%,, on remand (3D
+ll* &</ " 1upp ,!, and on remand (3D +ll* &/0 " 1upp 1&0!, affd (C6/ +ll* <02 "2d %1&, cert
den !20 81 ,,0, !& $ Ed 2d ./1, ,< 1 Ct 1!2<, stated that attorneys must be given great
latitude in the area of vigorous advocacy, and that an attorney may with impunity ta?e full
advantage of the range of conduct that our adversary system allows) >here the trial judge is
arbitrary or affords counsel inadeHuate opportunity to ar=gue his position, counsel must be
given substantial leeway in pressing his contention, said the court, for in this manner the court
may recogniAe its mista?e and prevent error from infecting the record) 6ppellate courts, the
court said, must insure that trial judges are not left free to manipulate the balance between
vigorous representation and obstructions of justice so as to chill effective advocacy when
deciding lawyer contempts) +t was said that where the conduct complained of in a summary
contempt proceeding is that of an attorney engaged in the representation of a litigant, the search
for the essential elements of the crime of contempt must be made with full appreciation of the
role of trial counsel and his duty of Aealous representation of his clientBs interests in 8nited
1tates e' rel) :obson v #liver (1,/2, C6/ +ll* !/0 "2d 10) "urthermore, said the court, in close
cases where the line between vigorous advocacy and actual obstruction defies strict delineation,
doubts should be resolved in favor of vigorous advocacy) 5he attorney represented one of a
number of defendants in a criminal prosecution in which the defendants were charged with
mutilating draft records) +n cross=e'amining a codefendant, the attorney referred to a
photograph of a hallway, apparently through which the defendants had passed to reach the
office in which the records were contained, and as?ed him if he could ma?e out a little sign
stating Pabandon ye all hope who enter here)P +n view of the e'treme liberality afforded trial
counsel in their representation of clients, and resolving any doubts in favor of vigorous
advocacy, the court concluded that such conduct did not rise to the level of misbehavior
necessary to support a contempt citation) Commenting that the attorneyBs Huestion was related
to the defendantsB proffered theory of defense and touched on the insane PpreceptionsP and
PdelusionsP which the defendants claimed to have held prior to ma?ing the raid on the draft
board files, the court reversed the trial courtBs holding of contempt) 2ut in the following case, it
was held that where an attorney in good faith believes that his duty of advocacy reHuires his
conduct, a summary contempt conviction based upon such conduct cannot withstand challenge,
&0</%&
at least where the attorney believed that the court did not understand his position) 5hus, it was
held in :e Dellinger (1,/&, 3D +ll* &/0 " 1upp 1&0!, affd (C6/ +ll* <02 "2d %1&, cert den !20
81 ,,0, !& $ Ed 2d ./1, ,< 1 Ct 1!2<, that an attorney could not properly be summarily
punished for contempt in the presence of the trial court where the attorney sincerely believed
that his acts were necessary because the trial court did not understand the argument which the
attorney was asserting) 5he trial court had sustained a government objection to testimony by a
witness concerning a certain speech given by a person who was not a witness at the trial) 6fter
the courtBs ruling, the attorney continued to argue that the speech was relevant, despite repeated
directions from the judge to discontinue that argument, in that such testimony allegedly would
have demonstrated the nonviolent intent of the defendants, who were charged with violation of
the "ederal 6nti=:iot 6ct) 5he court, in hearing the contempt Huestion upon remand from an
appealQ&&R of the trial courtBs action in that regard, held that the attorney was not guilty of the
specification, pointing out that the attorney sincerely believed that the judge had not given him
a reasonable opportunity to be heard and that the judge did not fully understand his position
6ttorneyBs conduct in continuing to cross=e'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) 8nited 1tates v 7iovanelli (1,,0, C62 3K* %,/ "2d 122/) +n criminal
prosecution, trial court properly meted out judgments of criminal contempt to defense counsel
for misconduct in cross=e'amining witnesses where trial judge on several occasions warned
counsel that he would not allow them to pursue lines of Huestioning that he later held to be
contemptuous, on one occasion he allowed them to e'plain at length why they thought
Huestioning was proper, and where judge made full and convincing e'planation of actions in
written orders issued shortly after adjuging counsel in contempt) 8nited 1tates v $owery (1,%!,
C6/ +ll* /&& "2d !!1, cert den (81* %& $ Ed 2d 2.!, 10< 1 Ct &2/) :esort to summary
disposition of criminal contempt proceeding under :ule !2(a*, "ederal :ules 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) 5hus, 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 :ule !2(a*, "ederal :ules of Criminal (rocedure, and that trial court, by its own
actions, did not consider time to be of essenceC trial court should have observed PnormalP
procedureP of notice and hearing, provided by :ule !2(b*, "ederal :ules of Criminal
(rocedure) 8)1) @) 9oschiano, .,< ")2D 2&., 12 "ed) :) Evid) 1erv) 12! (/5h Cir) 1,%2*) 1ee
8nited 1tates v 5urner (1,%/, C611 6la* %12 "2d 1<<2, S 1!) 5he undersigned Pcontinuing
lines of inHuiryP was not sanctionable) $egitimate rationale e'ists and or was offered for all
inHuiry pursued) "urther, Dudge ;oward admitted in the last part of the audio record that he had
(at the time of ma?ing his 1ummary Contempt finding announcement* be mista?en in
believeing that the 3ovember 1!, 2011 original trial date did not go off due to the
undersignedBs fault, which was not the case) 5he undersigned showed up for that trial, its was
somebody else fault that it did not go off) 5ardiness or failure to appearP
&0./%&
5he official audio transcript (court of record, apparently* of the :eno 9unicipal
Court audio recording of 11&011 5rial in :9C 11 C: 221/. before Dudge Genneth :ay
;oward resulting in temporary suspension of attorney -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, EsH) (3) 1)
Ct) case .0%&%, and attempts to permanently disbar Coughlin in .2&&/ as a result thereof* and
CoughlinBs conviction of :9C %)10)0!0 Ppetty larcenyP of Pa chocolate bar and cough dropsP
incident to the perjury of >al=9artBs 5homas "rontino and :eno 1par?s +ndian Colony
#fficers Gameron Crawford and Donnie 2raunworth, ?nowingly suborned by :eno City
6ttorney (amela :oberts, EsH) is available, here:http:www)youtube)comwatchJ
vVD/C_&DA+o$!MfeatureVyoutu)be
CoughlinBs ,,11 arrest occurred on +ndian tribal land) 6t no time did the :eno
City 6ttorneyBs #ffice ever plead or alleged that Coughlin is a non=+ndian or that Coughlin
does not have some indian or tribal blood) +llegal sentence) $ac? of jurisdiction)
1olem v) 2artlett, !.< 8)1) !.&, !.< 3)2 (1,%!* (1tate criminal jurisdiction on
reservation limited to non=+ndians*) 3evada law li?ewise reflects the right of the 1tate to
e'ercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by non=+ndians against non=+ndians in +ndian
country) 1ee Dones v) 1tate, ,! 3ev) ./,, .%0, <%< ()2D 1&!0 (1,/%* (state may punish non=
+ndian defendant for offense of possessing a controlled substance on reservation*C E' (arte
Crosby, &% 3ev) &%,, 1!, () ,%, (1,1<*) 1ee also #p) 3ev) 6ttLy 7en) 3o) %0=!2 (Dec) 11,
1,%0*C #p) 3ev) 6ttLy 7en) 3o) 1.. (9ay 2, 1,/!*)
>hile such may not be the case for law licensure purposes, petty larceny is a mere
simple misdemeanor under the :9C %)10)0!0 and 3evada law, and beyond the e'presss
prohibition against such found in 3:1 1/1)12<<, 1tate v) 2ayard, 11, 3ev) 6dv) #p 2, (200&*
ma?es clear that a Efull custodial arrestF for minor offenses (there traffic ciolations* is improper
under 3evada law unless objectively identiiable reasons e'ist ot support it) 3:1 1/1)12<<,
regardless, applies to the :1+C +ndian Colony >al=9art) 1ee 1tae of >isconsin v) E(6, 2..
") &d /!1, /!. (/
th
Cir) 2001* and 1% 8)1)C) 1ec 11<1) :eservations and colonies are
synomymous terms in all respects relevant to this analysis) 81d 9c7owan, &02 8)1) <&<,
<&%=&, (1,&%*) 1uch is true irrespective of whether tribal police officers has officersB status as
peace officers idnetified in 3:1 Chapter 2%, as such a conclusion would render 3:1 1/1)12<<
redudnant, as such special authority accorded therein was deemed necessary becvuase such
officers are not state peace officers) 1ee 67# 200&=0/)
http:www)freerepublic)comfocusnews1,/.,&.posts
Congress in the 5rade and +ntercourse 6cts% and later the 1upreme Court, have
long enforced the general rule that state governments have no jurisdiction in +ndian country
unless Congress has e'plicitly authoriAed state jurisdiction) 5he prosecution of crimes
committed by non=+ndians against persons and property in +ndian country is within the
e'clusive jurisdiction of the federal government)10 1tate governments have jurisdiction over
crimes committed between non=+ndians)11 5he overlapping jurisdictional authority of these
various agencies can compound the tas? of enforcing criminal jurisdiction on +ndian land) "or
&0//%&
e'ample, a tribal law enforcement ofJ Cer has no authority to arrest a non=+ndian violating state
law on the reservation) "urthermore, state ofJ Cers cannot respond to calls involving +ndians on
tribal land) 6dditionally, tribal law enforcement ofJ Cers cannot enforce federal laws on
reservation land without special authority) +n all these instances, an ofJ Cer attempting to
e'ercise authority outside his or her jurisdiction merely has the authority to stop and detain a
suspect)12 +n and around +ndian country)
(footnotes*: %) 1ee "letcher, 5rade and +ntercourse 6cts, in 2 Encyclopedia of
8nited 1tates +ndian $aw and (olicy (200,*, pp /.2T/.!) ,) 1ee, e)7), >orcester v 7eorgia, &1
81 <1<C % $ Ed !%& (1%&2*) 10) 1% 81C 11<2) 11) 1ee 8nited 1tates v 9c2ratney, 10! 81
.21C 2. $ Ed %., (1%%1*) 12) 1ee, e)7), #rtiA=2arraAa v 8nited 1tates, <12 "2d 11/., 11%0
(C6 ,, 1,/<*C 1tate v :yder, .!, (2d /<. (39 6pp, 1,%2*C 1tate v 1chmuc?, %<0 (2d 1&&2
(>ash, 1,,&* :eno City 6ttorney Chief Criminal Deputy Dan >ong, EsH) ;as indicated to
Coughlin that there is no cross deputiAation agreement in place to support the wrongful
prosecution of Coughlin leading to his current temporary suspension in .0%&%) DeputiAation
agreements give tribal, federal, state, or city law enforcement ofJ Cials power to enforce laws
outside their own jurisdictions regardless of the identity of the perpetrator, thus simplifying the
e'ercise of criminal jurisdiction)
5he Huestion of criminal jurisdiction over misdemeanors where the defendant is
non=+ndian remained unanswered until the 1upreme Court decided #liphant v) 1uHuamish
+ndian 5ribe)1< +n this case, tribal police arrested #liphant, a non=3ative 6merican living on a
reservation in >ashington 1tate) #liphant was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a
police officer) ;e was found guilty in tribal court and appealed his conviction, claiming he was
not subject to +ndian jurisdiction because he was not 3ative 6merican) 5he 1upreme Court
upheld #liphantLs claim, finding that due to the tribeLs domestic, dependant status, it did not
have jurisdiction over non=+ndians unless Congress granted such power) 1ee also Draper v)
8nited 1tates, 1.! 8)1) 2!0 (1%,.*)
5he :eno City 6ttorney and :eno 9unicipal Court braAenly sit in judgment of
others where they themselves have and continue to violate 3evada law vis a vis 3:1 1/1)12<<)
1uch is a violation of :(C &)% as well) #ne should not hold their breath waiting for Dudge
;olmes or any other :9C Dudge to report such attorney misconduct to the 123 or enter any
#rder similar to ";E< finding :eno City 6ttorney (amela :oberts, EsH), Eby clear and
convicing evidenceF to have violated :(C &)1 E9eritorious ClaimsF)
3:1 1/1)1&. and 3:1 1/1)12<< forbid the search incident to arrest of Coughlin
here) :egardless, nothing was recovered from such search that was not amongst the items
listed on the receipt for the O%&)%2 worth of groceries >al=9art admits that Coughlin had just
purchased, where such receipt proves that "rontino lied in his sworn testimony and where >al=
9artBs own surveillance video proves :1+C #fficer Crawford lied in testifying that Coughlin
did not provide his driverBs license (where prosecutor :oberts suborned such perjury in an
attempt to avoid the e'culsionary rule application reHuired by the unlawful arrest between /pm
&0%/%&
and / am by tribal police officers, for an alleged misdemeanor occurring outside their presence
where >al=9artBs "rontino admits he did not ma?e a citiAenBs arrest) "rontino was also caught
lying where he testified tha1t he Ppersonally eye=witnessedP Coughlin select a chocolate candy
bar from the candy isle where the 8(C of the alleged Pchocolate barP belonged to that of a
refrigerated item) :9C Dudge ;oward willfully violated the 1i'th 6mendment in denying per
se indigent Coughlin his right to counsel at public e'pense where ;oward failed to rule prior to
the trial that jail time was no a possibility, and especially where ;oward violated (engilly and
9cCormac? in presdiing over the PtrialP of CoughlinsB alleged summary contempt despite
CoughlinBs moving for his disHualification, and where Coughlin was denied counsel as well
despite his reHuest as to the contempt charge, which did result in three days summary
incarceration of a then practicing attorney where Dudge ;oward committed gross judicial
misconduct in denying Coughlin any stay whatsoever to arrange for the avoidance of prejudice
to his clientBs affairs) >hile Coughlin self reported to conviction to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada,
the :9C violated 1C: 111(&* in failing to report such in its own right, indicating the :9C
was attempting to cover up Dudge ;owardBs misconduct, which was e'acerbated by :9C
"iling #fficer 1upervisor Donna 2allard and Court 6dmininstrator Cassandra Dac?sonBs own
gross misconduct in doctoring the :ecord on 6ppeal transmitted to the 2DDC in C:11=20.!)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1<%%11!2/12=2&=11=:#6=in=20.!=020!=6ppeal=of=:9C=11=C:=
221/.=C:11=20.!=2.1/0<<=6ppeal="rom=9unicipal=s=Court=1maller
1% Determination of indigency of accused entitling him to transcript or similar record for
purposes of appeal, .. 6)$):)&d ,<! C :ight of indigent defendant in criminal case to aid of
state as regards new trial or appeal, << 6)$):)2d 10/2C Determination of indigency of
accused entitling him to appointment of counsel, <1 6)$):)&d 110% C
1, 6t some point, Ging himself began to feel used by Dudge ;olmes, and to some e'tent,
indirectly, by Dudges >) 7ardner and his sister 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner (perhaps Ging really
was e'pressing genuine surprise during his 101212 conversation on the telephone with
Coughlin upon Coughlin e'claiming PtheyBre Donnie and 9arie, (at^P in apparently clueing
Ging in to the fact that Dudges >) 7ardner and $) 7ardner are siblings (P>hat a successful
family) >ow) :eallyJP Ging mused aloud* (though Ging really had not direct contact or
communication with $) 7ardner whatsoever, and, really, beyond Dudge 3ash ;olmes (whom
alternately ta?es credit for this or that only to place blame for this or that on Pour staffP vis a vis
a Canon 2, :ule, 2)1< 6nalysis* or what she refers to as Pour staffP having collected from
Dudges >) 7ardner and ;owardBs D2 and D!, respectively (3#5E: Dudges of any court should
really avoid referring to PourP anything due to the prejudicial nature of such sewing circle, er,
e'trajudicial communications tending to affect whether or not someone is getting a fair trial*
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 20!:1! to 20%:2&* 2K 9:) G+37: U 9r) Coughlin, +
want to give you an opportunity to e'plain your concern that two of the judges that were
involved in prosecuting you, if you want to, you can e'plain their relationship) 1omehow you
were trying to suggest that there was a brother and sister, some sort of familial relationship
&0,/%&
between the judges that caused you to be treated unfairly) + just want to give you an opportunity
to e'pound on that) 6 +Bm a little uncomfortable with that, because the sister judgeBs bailiff is
here) U +f you wouldnBt mind, can you tell me which judges youBre referring toJ 6 5hat
would be the judge whose order is apparently ghost grievance, 3712=0!&<) 5hat would be
Dudge $inda 7ardner, the family court judge) 5he 6pril B0, sanction order, that would be the
sister judge) 6nd youBre prompting me to ?ind of e'pound upon where + thin? == U Kou put in
pleadings to me, or not pleadings but in e=mails rather == 6 5his is a good subject) + appreciate
it) U +Bm letting you e'pound on it a little bit) 6 5his is interesting, because it all ties it
together) #f course, + was fired) + believe + have presented letters from 9r) Elcano saying,
youBre fired, sole reason Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs order, or you can say my conduct that led to
that order, whatever) 6nd so then fast=forward to before the eviction starts, + start getting some
clients at my home law office which is commercial tenancy, or at least somewhat of a
commercial tenancy) + have a mattress business thatBs pretty much dormant, but thatBs the thing)
2ut anyway, +Bm trying to get to it Huic?ly) + note focus is something judges would li?e to see
more out of me) 2ut my point is that she issued == the ne't time + appeared before her, she
recused herself) + got a client, and it was just before the :ichard ;ill eviction thing started) 1o
itBs just this weird irony, because to me thatBs per se evidence that + was operating a law practice
out of my home) 6nd then it ties in with the fact that, o?ay, well, Dudge 7ardner, she cited, and
+ have the order if +Bll be able to put it on later, but she indicated which judicial canon her
recusal was done in light of) 6nd she cited, + thin? itBs 2112)11%1, (3#5E: :ule 2)11(a**
9aybe) + thin? as + read it, thatBs the one that says basically the judge flat out admits they have
a problem with you or bias) 1o anyway) + guess my point would be, well, o?ay, if the sister
judge straight out has a bias against me, and + had filed a mandamus action against her, which +
understand she probably didnBt appreciate) + ?now judges) 6 guy +Bm somewhat acHuainted
with, Dennis >iddis, he filed a mandamus action against Dudge 2erry at one point) ;e says
they have a really good wor?ing relationship now, bygones be bygones) 6nd + hope at some
point thatBs the case, you ?now, here) 2ut + thin? itBs possible her brother shouldnBt have sat on
the criminal trespass case) +n fact, + feel Huite strongly in that regard) 6nd + want to be fair to
Dudge >illiam 7ardner :9C) 6nd +Bve been staying up real late for a while now reviewing all
these tapes and transcripts and + donBt want to say he didnBt tell me it was his sister, but + thin?
itBs possible that it was == + had to bring it up, you ?now) + thin? + had to bring up the fact that he
wor?ed for the :eno city attorney from == + didnBt say e'actly what years he wor?ed for them)
2ut + brought up the fact that he did) 6nd then subseHuently + heard he wor?ed for them from
B%/ to B,/, then he too? a short brea?, went to 6riAona to be a prosecutor, then he wor?ed from
B,/ to 2000 in private practice for seven years, then he was :eno city attorney, civil division,
from B0/ to B10)
>hen the judge is somebody who wor?ed the vast majority of their career for the
institute thatBs prosecuting you, itBs a little difficult to believe that that wouldnBt have some
bearing on their decision=ma?ing) 5hat being said) + ?now people who ?now Dudge >illiam
7ardner personally, and they spea? very highly of him) ;e was a public defender at some
point) 6nd he, apparently first or second year out of law school or something, he too? a murder
&10/%&
trial to acHuittal on a solo basis) 2ut + donBt thin? he should have sat on this case) + feel Huite
strongly in that regard) 6nd +Bve gone through that trial with a fine=tooth comb) 6nd to me itBs
illustrative of the fact that we all can thin? we can be unbiased about things, but maybe this is a
situation where bright line rules have their utility, you ?now) 6nd + thin? there is a bright line
rule) 2ut + thin? you might have to live in the same house as the judge) Dust being a very close
family relation li?e a first=degreeC brother, sister, + donBt ?now if thatBs a bright line recusal) +
thin? if they live in the same house, it would be) 2ut to the e'tent that during the time that this
trial went on the mandamus action, me against his sister, me against the 1econd Dudicial, that
wasnBt pending) + thin? that was resolved or pretty much disposed of) >hether there was a
grievance pending goes to the procedures of the 1tate 2ar, + would imagine) 2ecause there
wasnBt a complaint, because that wasnBt filed until 6ugust 2&rd) 2ut + suspect that == well,
actually, the grievance that involves his sisterBs sanction order was 9arch 1<th received) 5here
was a trial setting in a case on 9arch %th) 5hat setting occurred during the pendency of a
competency evaluation) 6nd ==)))P
1pea?ing of :(C &)1 P9eritorious ClaimsP GingBs statements in the following are
completely divorced from the truth, especially with respect to Dudges ;oward, Elliott,
"lanagan, $) 7ardner, >) 7ardner, the :DC Dudges Clifton, 1ferraAAa, (earson, 1chroeder, etc))
6t no time, and in no order or ruling did any of those judges e'press what Ging hereafter
purports each to have indicated:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &1!:1! to &1!:2&* 9:) G+37: Kes) 5han? you) Dudge
;oward) Every one of these e'perienced judges that had him before him said he was practicing
in an incompetent manner and it would pose a threat to clients) Every single one of them said
this) 1o you cannot, in my opinion, under any circumstance, suggest in any way that 9r)
Coughlin is competent) 2ecause youBve heard no evidence from 9r) Coughlin that would
support that) 3ot from a single witness)P
5hat is professional misconduct of a very grave nature by Ging)
20 >ithout getting into whether or not such would even reHuire the supposition that DD6
Koung, ;ill, 9arshal ;arley improperly engage in so very often, one could be forgiven for
reading into Dudge ;olmesB testimony her own admission vis a vis improper e' parte
communications detailing e'trajudicial source rule impermissible content between herself and
the other :9C Dudges, :9C 1taff, and :9C 9arshals, :eno City 6ttorneyBs #ffice (including
the communications between ;olmes, :9C 9arshals and :C6 prosecutor 6llison #rmaas,
EsH) (who displayed a complete and utter lac? of ethics during the 12<12 trial in :9C 12 C:
12!20 in openly brandishing such photos to such witnesses thatk were not propounded to
Coughlin and ruled e'cluded from that with which she could refresh the recollection of :(D
#fficer 6lan >eaver and 1argent 2rian Dye* CoughlinBs then attorneyBs at the >C(D (there
are no Eroc? lyricsF in any of CoughlinBs filings before ;olmes in 2.%00, though there is one
prominently featured (and 33D2 Chair 1usichBs <&112 1C: 11/ (etition in .0,/< ma?es and
issues of such lyric, which begins and ends CoughlinBs 22112 filing in the :DC, which goes:
&11/%&
@E5ay your're a goon !ut what's a goon to a go!lin4 where such allusion the CoughlinBs
inclusion of those ElyricsF in his filing in the :DC betrays the falsity in ;olmesB assertions in
";E%hf?ljdasfin the 22112 filing by Coughlin in :DC :C:2012=0.<.&0 (the Egross
misdemeanorF that ;olmes references CoughlinBs then >C(D public defender communicating
nothing more to she and the :9C than the fact that the >C(D was then representing Coughlin
in a Egross misdemeanorF in the :eno Dustice Court (3#5E: how ridiculous is it for Dudge
;olmes in her ";E% &1!12 letter to the 123 to claim the >C(DBs office simply called
;olmes and the :9CBs Department & up Eat the timeF ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1&,:22 to
1&,:2<* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Keah) 5here was one bathroom brea? in the hearing) >hat
were you told during the bathroom brea? by either a marshal or the city attorneyJ E)))
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1!!:1/ to 1!!:21* U Kou just said you == 6 + listened to the audio
at the time when things happened) 6nd when you came bac? from the bathroom, either way +
determined from == + concluded that you were most li?ely recording without my permission)
21 ;Chie% !ar#hal o/er and !ar#hal )arley on #etting the record #traight in ,=12-
04&5
1ent: "ri 112&12 !:0, (9
5o: roperjNreno)gov (roperjNreno)gov*C harleyjNreno)gov (harleyjNreno)gov*C
jeNeloreno)com (jeNeloreno)com*C s?entNs?entlaw)com (s?entNs?entlaw)com*C
cvellisNbhfs)com (cvellisNbhfs)com*C eifert)ntaNatt)net (eifert)ntaNatt)net*C
nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net (nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net*C patric??Nnvbar)org
(patric??Nnvbar)org*C christensendNreno)gov (christensendNreno)gov*C
mi?eNtahoelawyer)com (mi?eNtahoelawyer)com*C davidcNnvbar)org (davidcNnvbar)org*C
fflahertyNdlpfd)com (fflahertyNdlpfd)com*C fflahertyNdyerlawrence)com
(fflahertyNdyerlawrence)com*C stuttleNwashoecounty)us (stuttleNwashoecounty)us*C
wongdNreno)gov (wongdNreno)gov*C ormaasaNreno)gov (ormaasaNreno)gov*C
m?andarasNda)washoecounty)us (m?andarasNda)washoecounty)us*C
AyoungNda)washoecounty)us (AyoungNda)washoecounty)us*C bdoganNwashoecounty)us
(bdoganNwashoecounty)us*C jleslieNwashoecounty)us (jleslieNwashoecounty)us*C
holmesdNreno)gov (holmesdNreno)gov*
Dear (anel, Dudge 3ash ;olmes, Chief :oper, 9arshal ;arley, 2ar Counsel, et al,
+ apologiAe for using email to communicate here, but my current indigency and time constraints
so reHuire it) "urther, + in no way wish to violate any #rders by any of the :9C Dudges
respecting emailing or contacting the :9C in connection with specific cases, and submit this
limited correspondence in the hopes that my interpretation of any such #rders is in line with
reality and will forgive at least this limited use of email outside of any attempt to file anything
in any of the matters in which + am a party before the :9C) 5he e'igency involved here
relates primarily to the enormous deference that will be given to the (anelBs decision in the
123 v) Coughlin disciplinary matter, and my desire to have the (anel afforded every
opportunity to have all essential information necessary to arrive at a just decision at its
&12/%&
disposal) >hat follows is in part a reHuest and in part a recognition of the e'tent to which Dudge
3ash ;olmesBs action during the 22/12 5rial in 11 5: 2.%00 may li?ely have been the best
thing to have had done, owing to her vast e'perience in these and a great deal many other
matters, and, hopefully, will have an upbeat result stemming therefrom)
6t the Double : 2lvd) 3orthern #ffice of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada, :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes,
on 111!12, testified under oath and indicated something along the lines of the following:
During the 11 5: 2.%00 Psimple traffic citation 5rialP on 22/12, starting at about & pm, Dudge
;olmes interrogated Coughlin as various points throughout the 5rial as to whether he was
recording the proceedings (without permission*, and or whether he had a Precording deviceP
(whether every laptop anyone brings to Court would be considered a Precording deviceP to
Dudge ;olmes is not e'actly clear*)
Dudge ;olmes then testified that after an initial round of interrogation of Coughlin as to
whether he was recording the proceedings and or had a Precording deviceP that Coughlin got
Pall snea?ityP and said he was not, but then PHuote, Btoo? the "ifthB then immediately as?ed to
be allowed to use the restroom)))and + ordered 9arshal Doel ;arley to accompany him
there)))and it was reported to me that while in the restroom Coughlin disassembled a recording
device and hid some part of it in the restroom)))P (Coughlin recounts this testimony from
memory, and admittedly, it is far from verbatim*)
+t is categorically false (though not necessarily maliciously so* for Dudge 3ash ;olmes to
assert, in the audio record on &1212 the order of events and when she as?ed Coughlin her
Huestions about recording, considering when a restroom brea? too? place and e'actly what it is
she as?ed Coughlin and when, and what his responses were, and when some allegations by Pthe
9arshalP were made, what they consisted of, etc)) on &1212 in 11 tr 2.%00 the audio transcript
reads / minutes into the audio record the :9C provided the 123:
Dudge 3ash ;olmes (3ash*: +t appears to me in this case that the defendant is suffering from
some e'treme form of mental illness) during the trial + as?ed the defendant attorney repeatedly
if he was recording the proceedings he denied that vehemently a few times and then he Huote
too? the fifth a few other times and then he reHuested to be e'cused to go to the bathroom and
the 9arshal later reported to me that while the gentleman was in the bathroom he disassembled
a recording device in his poc?et and too? the memory out of it and it was later found in that,
uh, by the 9arshal no one else had gone into the bathroom and that was retrieved and it was
put into his possession at the 1heriffBs office and when they boo?ed him into jail for the
contempt charge that was boo?ed into evidence and + as?ed the 1heriffBs office to hold that into
evidence) + believe he has violated 1upreme Court :ule 22,(2*(2* which was amended by
6DG5 !!0, 6ugust 1st, 2011))))P
#ne Coughlin did not do anything of the sort indicated by Dudge 3ash ;olmes (by
way of unattributed hearsay, li?e her car sleeping allegations in her &1!12 letter re Coughlin
to the 123* above)
&1&/%&
(erhaps 3:1 1/%)!0< in the conte't of 3:1 <)0/& should have some baring on
anything said or done or #rdered by Dudge 3ash ;olmes following her statement at the /
minute mar? that P+t appears to me in this case that the defendant is suffering from some
e'treme form of mental illness)P 5o the e'tent any Huestion of CoughlinBs competency was
communicated to or brought to Dudge 3ash ;olmes attention prior to the 22/12 &:00pm start
of the 5rial in 11 5: 2.%00, that proceeding should have been stayed or suspended, especially
if the >C(DBs #ffice made such communnications in close temporal pro'imity to the 1:&1 pm
22/12 #rder for Competency Evaluation by Dudge Clifton in :C:2011=0.<.&0) 6nd
arguably, given the same office (in a broad sense* in which DD6 -) Koung and DD6 Gandaras
wor?, it is arguably a basis for conflicting out the >CD6Bs #ffice from any one of the three
prosecutions is has maintained against Coughlin this year (especially considering the issues
related to whether the >C1#Bs timely effected the loc?out of 11111 in the eviction from
CoughlinBs former home law office, which, given the recent admissions by the loc?smith there
that day, and the :eno Carson 9essenger receipt from the day prior, and Casey 2a?er, EsHBs
testimony related to his interactions with the >C1# on #ctober 2%th, 2012 during his sworn
testimony at the criminal trespass trial before :9C Dudge 7arder on .1%12, and the :DCBs
failure to even move to Uuash CoughlinBs subpoenaing records related to the fa' logs and
confrimation of transmission or receipt incident to the :DCBs Pusual custom and practiceP of
fa'ing eviction #rders to the >C1# for service (li?e those in the :ichard ;illCasey 2a?er
1ummary Eviction P5rialP involving CoughlinBs former home law office, and the Pwithin 2!
hours of receiptP language found within 3:1 !0)2<& (the #rder is void or invalid after that
point, in which case, it would mean ;ill and or 2a?er were the trespassers, not Coughlin,
regardless, its inappropriate for :9C court appointed defender $oomis to categorically refuse
to assert any claim of right defense that such a criminal trespass defendant may wish to assert
for, say, :ichard ;ill admits to charging the same rent under a Pstorage of personal propertyP
that was previously charged for Pfull use and occupancyP) 3onetheless, posting an Eviction
#rder that does not contain stay away language (much less the fact that is does not have the
reHuired Pwithin 2! hoursP language called for by the statute* is not tantamount to posting a no
trespassing sign, further, ;aAlett=1tevens ma?ing arguments in his closing as to matters not in
evidence (allegations of living in the residence* is reversible error, and for Dudge 7ardner to do
as Dudge ;oward did, an prevent the City 6ttorney from even having to #ppose CoughlinBs
9otion for 3ew 5rial, is further indication of the e'tent to which CoughlinBs reactions during
the 22/12 5rial, however offputting, are not totally unfounded) "urther, that which Dudge
3ash ;olmes had communicated to her prior to the start of 5rial on 22/12 in 11 tr 2.%00
needs to be testified to under oath, rather than have 2ar Counsel assert to half ba?ed PcanBt as?
the judge about her mental processesP loophole, as he has done) 2ut, actually, a review of the
;ardesty9irch dynamic may dictate that Coughlin would have been fairly limited in that
regard anyways, nonetheless, Dudge 3ash ;olmes appeared, to her credit, and answered some
Huestions) 5he answers revealed an opportunity put forward now to clear some things up,
though the constraints of the Disciplinary ;earing format, some disagreements over what the
123 communicated to Coughlin with respect to the rules that would be applied to him vis a vis
3:C( !< subpoenas (whether, he, as a suspended attorney could issues a subpoena (Coughlin
maintains the 2ar(anel2oard did give him such authority* and whether any witness fee or
&1!/%&
subpoena decus tecum fee must be paid by Coughlin (Coughlin maintains he was provided
indications upon which he reasonably relied that he would not be so reHuired in additions to the
rules or practicies attached to the service thereof*, and other factors severely limited the e'tent
to which the opportunity created by Dudge 3ash ;olmes testimony was realiAed to its full
potential) 5hat necessitated this correspondence) Coughlin recalls the first time he saw
opposing counsel allege he was lying in a filing, it was one of the early oneBs by :ichard ;illBs
former associate Casey 2a?er, alleging Poutright liesP) +t was upsetting, especially considering
how unfair and baseless the allegations seemed)))and Coughlin nows wishes he would have
done and said some things differently incident to his testimony relative to :(D 1argent 5arter
and Dudge 3ash ;olmesBs own testimony, and intends to address the e'tent to which
objectionable conduct by opposing counsel can often times become a sort of learned
characteristic perpetuating a race to, if not the ethical gutter, at least a preponderance of :ambo
litigating) 5o some e'tent the incidents with 9arshal ;arley and :C6 #rmaas may be fallout
from that) +mportant too, however, is to consider whether the Pcourthouse sanctuaryP doctrine
has some application, however confusing it may be, where the >C1# may be hired by private
parties to conduct service, and the 9arshals are only e'tending intra=governmental courtesies
in assisting in the manner in which 9arshal ;arley did on 22/12) :ichard ;ill gets the
PoopsiesP a lot) #ppsie, + as?ed for O20G in attorneyBs fee incident to a summary eviction at the
trial court level, despite that not being supportable under 3:1 .,)020, ;ill says) #opsie, + left
the window unit air conditioner in the e'posed to the street by the $a?emill lodge window at
your former home law office, which was then robbed, but for which + still managed to charge
you full rental value at full use and occupancy rates, though + had you subject to an arrest for
custodial trespass anyways, ;ill and 2a?er say)
(at the , minute !% second mar? of the first audio file attached from 22/12*
PDudge: 1ir, + would li?e you to raise your hand to be sworn, because its my e'perience that
people who represent themselves tend to testify a whole lot when they are as?ing other people
Huestions, so letBs just start that way and then we wonBt have to do it later, so swear him in and
then weBll get going
9arshal: 5estimony (inaudible*)))you are about to (inaudible* understand (inaudible* truth,
whole truth, nothing but truth, solemnlyJ
Coughlin: Kes, 1irJP
;owever, from there, throughout the 5rial Dudge 3ash ;olmes interrupts Coughlin during his
Huestioning of 5arter to indicate to Coughlin that he is as?ing Huestions and not testifying, or
that he will have an opportunity to ma?e some point when its his turn to testify, if he chooses to
testify, etc), etc, and eventually Dudge 3ash ;olmes as?s Coughlin, after the restroom brea?, if
he intends to testify on his own behalf)))P3or does the trial judgeBs speculation that 6ppellant
Emight use his closing argument to present unsworn testimony)P 1oto, 1&, 1)>)&d at %</)
5he transcript from the 22/12 certified audio recording of the traffic citation 5rial
at the 1 hour and . minute 1% second mar? of the running time (yes the certified audio
transcript is provided in a "5: format that necessitates installing 5he:ecord (layer, but for the
ease of the receipients of this correspondnece, Coughlin convereted the audio therein e'actly as
it was into a more wor?able format, )mp& files, split into two files for 22/12 (before and after
&1</%&
the one restroom brea?* and one file for the continuation fo the trial on &1212* of file one:
Dudge 3ash ;olmes (Dudge*: 1ir, 9r) Coughln, sit down, + am done with you)
Coughlin: Dust to preserve for the record, Kour ;onor)
Dudge: 1it down, sit down, yourBre done) "or the record the defendant is loo?ing in his poc?ets
and behind his bac? and turning around and clowning around and showing utter disprespect for
this court and if you say another word or do another little antic li?e that you are going out of
this Court in handcuffs) Do you have any other witnessesJ (rosecutorJ
(rosecutor #rmaas: 3o, Kour ;onor, the City rests)
Dudge: 1ir, do you wish to testifyJ
Coughlin: Can + call #fficer 5arter as my own witnessJ
Dudge: you can call anyone you wish to testify)
Coughlin: + am sorry, Kour ;onor, but + really need to use the restroom)
Dudge: Kou have two minutes) 9arshal (;arley*, you will escort him to the restroom, donBt ta?e
anything with you, 1ir)))
Coughlin: Can + ta?e my notes with meJ
Dudge:3o, turn them upside down)
Coughlin: Can + ta?e the one pageJ
Dudge: 3o, turn them upside down)
Coughlin: :eallyJ
Dudge: 5urn them upside down) 9arshal you will go with him to the restroom)
Coughlin: >ill + be able to go into the stall aloneJ Dust chec?ing)
Dudge: Kou have two minutes) Kou have two minutes)
Coughlin: #?ay)
(that ends the first audio file attached for 22/12, which represents the entirety of the
proceeding prior to the #3$K restroom brea? during that 5rial*
(1tart of the second audio file of 22/12, which represents the entirety of the proceedings of
that day following the #3$K restroom brea? of the day*)
Dudge: #?ay, we are bac? on the record in 11 5: 2.%00) 9r) Coughlin, are you recording these
proceedingsJ
Dudge: 1irJ
Coughlin: >ell, + would li?e to as? a follow up on the rolling stop citation)))P (thereafter Dudge
&1./%&
3ash ;olmes does not as? any other Huestions of Coughlin in any way related to recording or
recording devices, nor did Dudge 3ash ;olmes as? any Huestions of anyone related to recording
or recording devices besides) Dudge 3ash ;olmes did as?, before the restroom brea?, of
Coughlin, if Coughlin had any evidence or proof to support his contention that he attempted to
provide to either :eno City 6ttorney >ong or #rmaas discovery or information related to the
statement to Coughlin, incident to the 3ovember 1&th, 2011 custodial criminal trespass arrest
of Coughlin at his former law office incident to an impermissible summary eviction of a
commercial tenant not based on the non=payment of rent (ie, a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice was
posted and a $andlordBs 6ffidavit alleged a 3o Cause basis for proceeding*)
#n the second audio file from 22/12, at the < minute mar?, the follow occurs on the record:
PCoughlin: was + thereJ Do + remember the name of the other officer who was there with him
who went into :ichard ;illBs law office for twenty minutes with him and hung outJ
Dudge: +f you mention the name :ichard ;ill again + am going to hold you in contempt because
+ have told you repeatedly to stic? to the relevant issues about the boulevard stop)P
(6t the 11:1/ minute mar? of the second audio from 22/12 the following occurs on the
record*:
Dudge: #fficer (:(D 1argent 5arter*, you are e'cused) 1ir, do you intend to testifyJ
Coughlin: Kes, Kour ;onor)
Dudge: 5hen testify, you donBt need to ta?e the stand, you can testify right there, you donBt have
to as? yourself Huestions, just give me a short narrative version of what happened, and donBt
refer to yourself in the third person, he was sworn in at the beginning of the case, donBt refer to
yourself in the third person, just tell me what happened)
Coughlin: Kes, your honor, + reported a bribe to 1argent 5arter, then he retaliated against me)
Dudge: 1ir^ 1ir^ Geep it relevant^
:eno City 6ttorney #rmaas: #bjection, move to stri?e^
Dudge: Geep it relevant about whether or not the boulevard stop occurred and what happened:
Coughlin: 1argent 5arter perjured his testimony today
Dudge: 1ir, 1ir, answer about the boulevard stop)
Coughlin: Kes, Kour ;onor, this incident occurred when + went over to :ichard ;illBs office)
Dudge: 1ir)
Coughlin: + canBt get into thatJ #?ay)
Dudge: 1ir, boulevard stop)
Coughlin: 1argent 5arter lied today when he)))
Dudge: 6ll right, 1ir^
Coughlin: about the boulevard stop, + am saying)))+ disagree
Dudge: ta?e him into custody, you are in contempt of court, you will spend the ne't five days in
jail, this court is finished, this matter is continued
Coughlin: Kour ;onor + move for a stay, + have a trial))and + have clients who need me
Dudge: that is your problem, 1ir) "or the record you are in contempt of court because you have
been insubordinate, you have disregarded all of my reHuests, directions, orders, cajoling, my
efforts to get you to follow the instructions of the court, to act li?e a lawyer, or even to act li?e
a defendant representing himself in this court, you have made faces, belittled, you have argued,
&1//%&
you have played, you have been ridiculous in this courtroom and brought up issues that are
irrelevant and immaterial and to disrupt this proceeding, and there are only five or si' people
here that you could disrupt, you have done everything you can to divert from the matter at
Huestion and to ?eep us from resolving the issue of whether or not you have committed the
traffic violation of the boulevard stop, and you are in utter contempt of this court and have done
nothing to deal with the facts of this case)))you are being an obstinate jac?ass, + am having a
hard time believing you are a lawyer, you obviously missed the class on on evidence,
courtroom decorum and on criminal law)))P
Coughlin was ta?en into custody whereupon a search incident to arrest was performed in the
holding areabac? room of the :9C by 9arshal Doel ;arley with 9arshal 1cott Coppa
assisting, and 9arshal Coppa was one of two 9arshals transporting Coughlin to the >ashoe
County Detention "acility where he served the < days in jail Dudge 3ash ;olmes ordered (and
the :9C refused to return the O100 that CoughlinBs mother paid into the :9C when counter
cler? P5omP promised her the Court would issue an #rder resulting in Coughlin being released
from jail one day early)))however, aside from the >CDC wal?ing Coughlin down in handcuffs
from his cell to the boo?ing des? and bac?, there was no release from custody and CoughlinBs
mother was not returned her O100 payment in e'change for an early release by either the :9C
or the >CDC)
>hile conducting the search incident to arrest, :9C 9arshal ;arley went through CoughlinBs
poc?ets and too? out a simple flip style cell phone, a smart phone, a micro sd card, and an
electronic shaver) 8pon ta?ing possession of the micro sd card 9arshal ;arley immediately
began interrogating Coughlin as to whether it would wor? with the smartphone, then directed
another 9arshal to Pgo tell the Dudge that Coughlin was recording^P without any other support
for such an accusation) 3one of this occurred in the restroom and Chief 9arshal :oper has
indicated to Coughlin that 9arshal ;arley, in carrying out Dudge 3ash ;olmes #rder to escort
Coughlin to the restroom, did not actually go in the restroom, but rather waited outside its door)
+ as? that Chief 9arshal :oper, 9arshal ;arley, and 9arshal Coppa correct the
misrepresentations made by Dudge 3ash ;olmes (whether or not they were purposeful or where
something was lost in translation and the affidavit reHuirement of 3:1 22)0&0 for Pcontempt
not in the immediate presence of the CourtP was not followed by Dudge 3ash ;olmes incident
to her 22%12 #rder, wherein Dudge 3ash ;olmes writes, on page 2 of her 22%12 #rder
"inding the Defendnat in Contempt of Court and +mposing 1anctions: P5he matter was called
at appr'oimately &:00p)m) and concluded withoua verdict about !:&0 p)m) after the court held
the defendnat in criminal contempt of court for his behavior and activites committed in the
direct presence of this court during the trial) 5he court finds that defendantBs contemptuous
conduct conside of his ))))deceitful)))behavior during trial, all of which appeard to be done to
ve' an annoy the court, the witness, and the opposing party, and to disrupt the trial process)
5he court finds that the following occurred, and constitute contempt))))P,* defendantBs lying to
the court in response to direct Huestions posed by the court with regard to his recording the
proceedings)))(page &*)))5he court finds that the defendnatBs actions were intentional and done
&1%/%&
in utter disregard and contempt for the court, an in the presence of the cour, for purposes of
disrupting and delaying the proceedins and dishonoring the rule of law and this court, and
constitute the misdemeanor of criminal contempt, a violation of 3:1 22)010) 7ood cause
appearing therefore, the following sanctions are imposed: +5 +1 #:DE:ED, pursuant to 3:1
22)100, that the defendant be incarcerated at the >ahoe County :egional Detnetion "acility for
the term of five (<* days, from the time he was ta?en into custody on this courtBs order on
"ebruary 2/, 2012, and that sentence shall not be reduced for any reason)))P 5he time stamping
on that 22%12 #rder "inding the Defendant in Contempt of Court and +mposing 1anctions
indicate P&:!/P) >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice personnel Deputy ;odge, (atricia 2ec?man,
:9C
1omehow, in her 22%12 #rder (and during the 5rial* Dudge 3ash ;olmes found it relevant
that, allegedly, the :(D Pgave Coughlin a brea?P over his driverBs license being e'pired
(actually, CoughlinBs then valid, current, driverBs license was being withheld by :ichard 7) ;ill,
EsH), as Coughlin reported to 1argent 5arter)))and it was li?ely an old D$ that the :(D is
referring to as Pe'piredP when mentioning the Pbrea?P, which, again, was somehow relevant
enough to find its way into the #rder, but the withholding of CoughlinBs then current, valid D$
by ;ill was sustained as irrelevant during the 5rial (and in fact seems to have been one of a
myriad of vague basis for issuing a summary criminal contempt #rder reHuiring then licensed
attorney with clientBs depending upon him, Coughlin, immediately being ta?en to the >CDC
for < days in jail)))*)
Coughlin hereby reHuests the :9C, >CD6, and >CDC to indicate the e'tent to which his
property was boo?ed into his personal property at the >CDC, only to have the >CDC and or
>CD6 release the property to the City of :eno 9arshals the following day, well after any
timeframe to conduct a search incident to arrest (33D2 9ember 9ary Gandaras was involved
in this matter, and in fact, despite Dudge 3ash ;olmes ordering the property released on
&&012, it too? until !/12 and approval by 9ary Gandaras before the property was so
released) wcso12=1%0< c=!/,<1)
>ith local attorney (am >ilmore standing, watching, and or hearingparticipating in the
conversations, on or about 9arch 21st, 2012 >C1#Bs () 2ec?man handed Coughlin a note that
read P(er Dudges #rders, call 9arshal DeightonP and provided a phone number for Coughlin to
see? further e'planation as to the admission that the City of :eno 9arshals had returned to the
jail on 22%12 and retrieved items of CoughlinBs personal property, including his PflipP phone,
his smart phone, and his micro sd card) Deputy ;odgeBs admission that, contrary to the
indications by >C1# Cummings and Campbell that the micro sd card was released to
CoughlinBs agent on 22,12, but rather, was not so release, combined with his statement that
the smartphone, micro sd card, etc) were released to the 9arshals because it would be easier for
Coughlin to get his property bac? through them, reveal that a search not incident to arrest
occurred here by the :9C on 22%12 and or the City of :eno 9arshals, or, to be fair, at least
some sort of PseiAureP did (especially considering that upon the smartphone and micro sd card
&1,/%&
finally being returned to Coughlin on or about !/12 by >C1# Deputy +ver, 2randi 2erriman,
and (atricia 2ec?man (and only after P9addyP got approval from DD6 Gandaras, and after
Coughlin was threatened with abuse of process by Deputy 2eatson*) 5he :9CBs 9arilyn
5ognoni also made some indications respecting the smart phone and micro sd card to Coughlin)
(erhaps, the allusion to wcso12=1%0< c=!/,<1 in Dudge 3ash ;olmes &&012 #rder :eleasing
CoughlinBs property indicates whether a warrant or some other lawful #rder allowed for the
9arshals to retrieve those items a day after they were boo?ed into CoughlinBs personal property
at the jail)))but Coughlin has not been provided any such >arrant or #rder and hereby reHuests
that he be so provided a copy of it now, and that, given important data was lost to Coughlin
upon his discovery the micro sd card and smartphone had been wiped, that any copies of the
data then stored therein be provided to Coughlin (the DiaA case in the 3inth Circuit seems to
provided a great deal of latitude to law enforcement to search digital data within the reach of
one whom is subject to a custodial arrest, and perhaps even copy it)))in which case))))is would
be appreciate if a copy thereof could be provided to Coughlin, and some compensation for the
e'tent to which his &2 72 micro sd card was rendered useless upon its return, as was his ;5C
72 cell phone (which never Huite wor?ed the same from then on and was rendered totally
inoperative a short time thereafter)))the &2 72 micro sd card having an appro'imate value of
O%< and the ;5C 72 smartphone a used value of around O1/<)00*)
+ ?now + write in the third person sometimes (its tough representing yourself, especially when
time reHuires lots of copying and pasting, etc), etc* and that it can appear aw?ward)
+ would appreciate the parties receiving this correspondence who have any ?nowledge of the
events detailed herein (especially with respect to the false accusations related to recordings,
disassembling, and hiding component parts of devices in the :9C restroom as detailed on the
record on &1212 in 11 5: 2.%00 and again in Dudge 3ash ;olmes testimony at the 111!12
Disciplinary ;earing for 3712=0!&! (and 3712=020!, and 3712=0!&<* to set the record
straight)
"or a verbatim or close to it transcription of what Dudge 3ash ;olmes testified to at the
Disciplinary ;earing on 111!12 (including those matters she purported to repeat details
related to what variosu :9C 9arshals told her regarding Coughlin, on would li?ely need get
the transcript or any recordings from the CC: assigned to that ;earing, Carol ;ummel, and
given CoughlinBs current indigency, any reHuirement that Coughlin pay up front for the
transcript would ma?e review prohibitive, and Coughlin hereby reHuests of the (anel a fee
waiver or deferment of such costs in that regard*:
$inda 1haw, #wner, 1unshine :eporting 1ervices = :eno
1%,< (lumas 1t,
:eno, 3@ %,<0,,
(//<* &2&=&!11
&20/%&
1unshine :eporting 1ervices
Eric 3elson
CC: $ongoni
(//<* &2&=&!11
fa' (//<* &2&=2/!,
1<1 Country Estates Circle
:eno, 3evada %,<11
Carol ;ummel
(//<* %2/=,120
fa' (//<* %2/=,120
chummelNcharter)net
+n her &1212 #rder in 11 5: 2.%00, a transmogrification of sorts appears to occur, turning a
Psimple traffic citation trialP into a Disciplinary ;earing, albeit one of a summary nature, with
an absent :espondent) 5hat #rder read, in relevant part:
P2ased upon the total circumstances of this case, the in=court performance of the defendant, as
observed by this court, the written documents fa'ed to the court for filing by this defendant, the
statements and behavior of this defendant and his overall conduct herein, this court finds, by
clear and convincing evidence, that -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, an attorney licensed to practice
law in the 1tate of 3evada, has committed numerous acts of attorney misconduct, including,
but not limited to, violating the following :ules of (rofessional Conduct: %)!(cl=engaging in
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentationC %)! (d*=engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to
the administration of justiceC &)& (a*=lac? of candor to the court by ?nowingly ma?ing false
statements to a tribunalC & )l=defending in a proceeding by asserting or controverting an issue
without a basis in fact and with matters that are ?nown to be frivolousC &)2=failure to ma?e
reasonable efforts to e'pedite litigation) and, in fact, ta?ing e'treme measures to delay
litigationC &)!(c*=being unfair to opposing counsel by continually alluding to matters the lawyer
does not reasonably believe are relevant or supported by admissible evidenceC 1)&=failing to act
with reasonable diligence and promptnessC and 1) +=lac? of competence in his practice and
appearances before this court) +n addition, -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, li?ely also violated
3evada 1upreme Court :ule 22,, section 2(b*, as amended by 6DG5 !!, on 6ugust 1, 2011,
by surreptitiously recording the traffic citation trial of "ebruary 2/,2012 without the advance
permission of this court and then lying to this court when Huestioned about it and denying that
he had done so) >hether or not there are medical reasons to e'plain 9r) CoughlinBs actions is
not for this court to decide) ;e has become nothing less than a ve'atious litigant to :eno
9unicipal Court due to his unorthodo', disruptive, biAarre and irrational methods and practices
that go beyond the pale of anything that is civil, ethical) professional or competent) 7ood cause
appearing therefore, the court orders as follows: +5 +1 #:DE:ED that this matter is continued,
and all proceedings relating thereto are tolled, until further order of this court, while the matter
&21/%&
of attorney -achary 2ar?er Coughlin is referred to the 1tate 2ar of 3evadaC +5 +1 #:DE:ED
that no further action shall be ta?en by the :eno City 6ttorneyBs #ffice, or the cler?s or staff of
:eno 9unicipal Court, in the above=entitled case, pending further order of this courtC +5 +1
#:DE:ED that -achary 2ar?er Coughlin is barred and forbidden from fa'ing, emailing,
delivering) having delivered, serving) presenting for filing) personally or otherwise, any motion
or document to :eno 9unicipal Court, in the above=entitled case, pending further order of this
court)P
#ne, Coughlin is not emailing this correspondence in that Pabove titled case (11 5: 2.%00* but
in connection with matters outside that case) 5hree, it is really not at all clear how Dudge 3ash
;olmes could ma?e all those rulings, and only after having done that, decide to suspend the
proceedings for a Competency Evaluation, given the import of 3:1 1/%)!0<:
3:1 1/%)!0< 1uspension of trial or pronouncement of judgment when doubt arises as to
competence of defendantC notice of suspension to be provided to other departments)
3:1 1/%)!0< 1uspension of trial or pronouncement of judgment when doubt arises as to
competence of defendantC notice of suspension to be provided to other departments)
1) 6ny time after the arrest of a defendant, including, without limitation, proceedings before
trial, during trial, when upon conviction the defendant is brought up for judgment or when a
defendant who has been placed on probation or whose sentence has been suspended is brought
before the court, if doubt arises as to the competence of the defendant, the court shall suspend
the proceedings, the trial or the pronouncing of the judgment, as the case may be, until the
Huestion of competence is determined)
2) +f the proceedings, the trial or the pronouncing of the judgment are suspended, the court must
notify any other departments of the court of the suspension in writing) 8pon receiving such
notice, the other departments of the court shall suspend any other proceedings relating to the
defendant until the defendant is determined to be competent)
3:1 1%,)0&0 5ransmission of transcript, other papers, sound recording and copy of doc?et to
district court)
1) 5he justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit to the cler? of the
district court the transcript of the case, all other papers relating to the case and a certified copy
of the doc?et)
2) 5he justice shall give notice to the appellant or the appellantLs attorney that the transcript and
all other papers relating to the case have been filed with the cler? of the district court)
&22/%&
&) +f the district judge so reHuests, before or after receiving the record, the justice of the peace
shall transmit to the district judge the sound recording of the case)
3:1e<)0/&eeConformity of practice and proceedings to those of justice courtsC e'ceptionC
imposition and collection of fees)
1)ee5he practice and proceedings in the municipal court must conform, as nearly as
practicable, to the practice and proceedings of justice courts in similar cases) 6n appeal
perfected transfers the action to the district court for trial anew, unless the municipal court is
designated as a court of record as provided in 3:1 <)010) 5he municipal court must be treated
and considered as a justice court whenever the proceedings thereof are called into Huestion)
2)eeEach municipal judge shall charge and collect such fees prescribed in 3:1 !)0.0 that are
within the jurisdictional limits of the municipal court)
(6dded to 3:1 by 1,%,, ,0&C 6 1,,1, !<<C 1,,/, 11<*
3:1e<)0/<ee"orm of doc?et and records)ee5he Court 6dministrator shall prescribe the form
of the doc?et and of any other appropriate records to be ?ept by the municipal court, which
form may vary from court to court according to the number and ?ind of cases customarily
heard and whether the court is designated as a court of record pursuant to 3:1 <)010)
City 6ttorney #rmaas sure could be made to e'plain her statements on the record regarding
whether the citation or report in 11 tr 2.%00 contained any mention of retaliation, given she
was loo?ing right at it and given what she said in court) 6lso, the whispering with 9arshal
;arley, and the bits about Coughlin reporting to #rmaas what :(D #"ficer Carter said to
Coughlin in .1,01, and #rmaasBs responses thereto on 22/12, and Dan >ong, ditto at an
earlier hearing on that matter)))
1imply put, there was no Huestioning by Dudge 3ash ;olmes of Coughlin as to whether he was
recording anything or whether he possessed a Precording deviceP until 6"5E: the one and
only restroom brea? Dudge 3ash ;olmes mentions on the audio record) Dudge 3ash ;olmes did
as? Coughlin if he had any proof that City 6ttorneyBs >ong and #rmaas failed, in some way,
to received or follow up on some offer by Coughlin to provide materials related to CoughlinBs
contentions respecting the statement mad6nd that sua sponte interrogation of Couglin occured
+99ED+65E$K 6"5E: 5;E :E15:##9 2:E6G, 6 2:E6G +3 >;+C; D8D7E 361;
;#$9E1 :E"81ED 5# 6$$#> C#87;$+3 5# 56GE ;+1 KE$$#> $E76$ (6D
>+5; ;+9 63D >;+C; #CC8:ED 6"5E: C#87;$+3 96DE 6 @E:26$
(:E1E:@65+#3 #3 5;E :EC#:D #" 5;E >;+1(E:+37 +3 E6C; #5;E:B1 E6:1
2K C+5K 655#:3EK 6$$+1#3 #:9661 63D 96:1;6$ ;6:$EK (>;# 1EE9ED
&2&/%&
6 2+5 8(1E5 62#85 1#9E #" 5;E U8E15+#31 C#87;$+3 61GED 5;E9
+99ED+65E$K 2E"#:E 5;E 5:+6$ (D8:+37 5;65 (E:+#D #" 5+9E >;E:E
D8D7E 361; ;#$9EB1 611+15635 +3D+C65ED, #3 5;E :EC#:D +3 #3E #" 5;E
#5;E: C61E1 #3 5;65 156CGED D#CGE5, 5;65 Dudge 3ash ;olmes just couldnBt be
found, and how odd that was)))which is odd, considering what was going on in 11 cr 221/., 11
cr 2.!0< 12 cr 00.,. and 11 tr 2.%00, and rcr2012=0.<.&0 and rcr2011=0.&&!1 at the time
(lots of reasons for and indications that local law enforcement and prosecutors and public
defenders were non too happy with Coughlin)))and consider the 22!12 email vacating the
22/12 status conference between young and dogan that neither K#ung nor Dogan wish to
testify about)))but which seems to have been held anyways after a written communication of its
being reset was transmitted to Coughlin by Dogan, wherein, during the time Dudge 3ash
;olmes couldnBt be found (maybe she was at one of the group meetings amongst Dudges about
Coughlin that :9C 6dministrative Dudge >illiam 7ardner referenced on the record in 11 C:
2.!0<J +nteresting the 3otice of 6ppeal in .0&02 was filed that same day too, 22/12* Dogan
got his #:der for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin in rcr2012=0.<.&0 (apparently in
retaliation for CoughlinBs filing of 22112, and DD6 -ach Koung was still smarting from a
filing by Coughlin of appro'imately 112%12, which resultd in Koung promptly amending his
complaint in rcr2011=0.&&!1 to add a charge that was duplicative, even where K#ung failure
to allege theft or possessingreceiving Pfrom anotherB under 1taab ma?es his so charging
Coughlin in that i(hone case a :(C &)% violation, which is K#ungBs specialty, apparently)
5hat, and violating 3:s 1/%)!0<, which K#ung did by filing in rcr2011=0.&&!1 with a stamp
of 2:<<pm a fugitive document of his own, an #pposition to CoughlinBs or the >C(D 9otion
to 6ppear as CoCounsel on 22/12)))never mind Koung tried to hold a 5:+6$ on </12 in
that case despite the #rder finding Coughlin competent in cr12=0&/. didnBt even get signed and
entered until <,12)))ditto the 5rial seeting of <%12 in :9C 11 cr 2.!0<, the criminal trespass
case) 3#t much respect for nrs 1/%)!0< (including within 3:s <)010* here in 3orthern nevada))
Coughlin didnBt received the 22%12 Contempt #rder in 11 tr 2.%00 until Duly 2012)))but did
file a 3otice of 6ppeal &/12)))despite Psummary criminal contemptP being a final appealable
order, Dudge 3ash ;olmes continues to refuse to follow 3:1 1%,)010=0<0
+t is true that contempt committed in a trial courtroom can under some circumstances be
punished summarily by the trial judge) 1ee Coo?e v) 8nited 1tates, 2./ 8)1) <1/, <&, ) 2ut
adjudication by a trial judge of a contempt committed in his immediate presence in open court
cannot be li?ened to the proceedings here) "or we held in the #liver case that a person charged
with contempt before a Pone=man grand juryP could not be summarily tried) Q&!, 8)1) 1&&,
1&%R 5he power of a trial judge to punish for a contempt committed in his immediate presence
in open ))) +n re #liver, &&& 8) 1) 2</) 1i'th 6mendment :ight to Counsel of Coughlin violated
in both 11 cr 221/. and 11 tr 2.%00, also orders no sufficiently detailed or capable of being
?nown how to comply with, not sufficient warning, violat ;ouston v Eighth Dudicial District
(3ev)*)
&2!/%&
1ee, this is why +n :e #liver and Coo?e reHuire all elements of Psummary criminal contemptP
occur P in the Pimmediate presenceP of the Court) 9aybe 9arshal ;arley and some other
9arshal have misled Dudge 3ash ;#lmes, or maybe something worse is going on here))))but
what Dudge 3ash ;#lmes said on the recording is entirely misleading an inaccurate, if not an
outright lie (again, maybe not a lie by Dudge 3ash ;olmes, maybe she is repeating a lie, but
regardless her reliance on unattributed hearsay is distrubing an inappropriate, particulary where
she not only purports to issue a Psummary criminal contemptP conviction against an attorney,
but also where Dudge 3ash ;olmes appears to try to transmogrify what she sees as Pa simple
traffic citation trialP into a full blown 1C: 10< disciplinary hearing where she is both 2ar
Counsel and the (anel)))5hat 9arshal needs to sign an affidavit, under 3:1 22)020 and Dudge
3ash ;#lmes ought to have to put something on the record, under oath, in response to
CoughlinBs recent subpoena (and 123 (at Ging wishes to let Dudge 3ash ;#lmes phone in her
testimony, and it probably wonBt even be sworn testimony, but rather just some musings by
Dudge 3ash ;olmes purporting to ma?e PrulingsP finding Pby clear and convincing evidenceP
all sorts of things outside her jurisdiction* on 111!12, on, (artic? #) Ging, 123 2ar Counsel
has also filed 9otion to Uuash the 1ubpoenas Coughlin attempted to have served on 9arshal
Doel ;arley, 9arshal Deighton, Dudge 3ash ;#lmes, Dudge >illiam 7ardner, Dudge 7ardners
6dministrative 6ssistant $isa >agner, who canBt Huite find the 3#tice of 6ppeal Coughlin
fa'ed to her (allowable under the :9C :ules* on Dune 2%th, 2012 in 11 C: 2.!0< (the appeal
was dismissed under an 3:1 1%,)010 analysis by Dudge Elliot, whom also got Coughlin appeal
of the 11 cr 221/. conviction resulting in this CourtBs ./12 temporary suspension #rder in
cr11=20.!, which was denied based upon a civil preparation of transcript down payment rule,
in that criminal appeal, where the :9C has a thing in place with this (am $ongoni that violates
3evada law in that it refused to give Coughlin the audio cd of the trial for some time, insisting
only $ongoni would be allowed to transcribe it, and that the transcriptBs preparation would
absolutely not start until a down payment was made) (lus, even where Coughlin caved to the
payment demands))$ongoni repeatedly hung up the phone on him and otherwise ignored his
communications (there may be an issue of the email $ongoni holding out to the public issuing a
Pbouncebac?P)))but she needs to sign an affidavit as to whether she put Coughlin on a bloc?ed
list, and upon information and belief, Coughlin fa'ed his reHuest to the number the :9C held
out for her on her behalf too)))
+n her 9arch 1!th, 2012 grievance against Coughlin to the 123 Dudge 3ash ;olmes
details some concerns she has with CoughlinBs wor? as a self representing attorney defending a
traffic citation (now 3712=0!&!, and perhaps, 3712=0!&<, depending upon whom you as? and
what Ging means by PCler? of CourtP)))because in GingBs &2&12 email to Coughlin he
apparently identifies 9s) 9arilyn 5ognoni as PCler? of Court of Department &P)))whoever,
wouldnBt it be 1econd Dudicial District Court Cler? of Court Doey #rduna ;astings
(http:www)scribd)comdoc1./</%1//10=&0=12=020!=.2&&/=1C:=110=1ubpoen=on=2DDC=
Dudges=Elliot=and="lanagan=and=Cler?=of=Court=;astings=and=>ise=Custodian=of=:ecords=
(roof=of=1ervice=by * that would need to send "amily Court Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs 6pril 200,
#rder sanctioning Coughlin to the 123Bs Ging for Ging now apparent contention that the
3712=0!&< Pghost grievanceP consisting of Dudge $) 7ardnerBs 6pril 200, #rder was not filed
by the :9C DudgesJ
&2</%&
61 to the application of the Pcourthouse sanctuaryP doctrine to :9C 9arshal
;arley serving the #rder to 1how Cause upon Coughlin at appro'imately 1:2< pm in one of the
conference rooms right outside the interior of Courtroom 2 at the :9C:
http:caselaw)findlaw)comny=district=court1&/2!.<)html
P5;E $6> (EC#8:5;#81E 163C586:KF*
Despite antagonistic dicta to the contraryC mmost modern era precedent dealing with the issue of
ECourthouse 1anctuaryF from service of process have held that 3ew Kor? 1tate residents
receive no such immunity protections) e2aumgartner v) 2aumgartner, 2/& 6)D) !11, //
3)K)1)2d ..% (1st Dept)1,!%*C mDepartment of ;ousing (reservation, City of 3ew Kor? v)
Goenigsberg, 1&& 9isc)2d %,&, <0, 3)K)1)2d 2/0 (3)K) Civ)Ct)1,%.*C m"ord 9otor Credit Co)
v) 2obo, 3)K)$)D), 1 9isc)&d ,01(6*, 200& >$ 22,2%<1& (Dec) 1/, 200&, D) 9iller, 3assau
Co) Dist) Ct)* e5hese cases hold that the Courthouse 1anctuary is only available to foreign state
residents who come into 3ew Kor?Bs Courts to contest jurisdiction) e 5his doctrine has been
slightly e'panded to include 3ew Kor? residents who enter the jurisdiction of a 3ew Kor?
Court of limited territorial jurisdiction to contest jurisdiction) e 1ee (alaAAo v) Conforti, <0
3)K)1)2d /0. (3)K) Civ)Ct)1,!!*C m1inger v) :eising, 1<! 9isc) 2&,, 2/. 3)K)1) /1! (Uueens
County 1,&<*)
n5he 2aumgartner 6ppellate Division panel also ac?nowledges a limited ECourthouse
1anctuaryF rule for 3ew Kor? residents if such service Ewould constitute a disturbance directly
tending to interrupt the proceedings of the Court or to impair the respect due its authorityF) e
5his rule by itself would not be applicable to the instant case as service of process was effected
in the Courtroom but outside the CourtBs presence and in between calendar calls)
1565E :E1+DE3CK +9983+5K D+15+3C5+#3J
5he English Common $aw made no 3ew Kor? 1tate residency distinction) e 5he doctrine of
immunity from arrest of a litigant attending a trial of an action to which he is a party found
early recognition and dates bac? to the boo? of 1& ;enry +@, D)2) e1ampson v) 7raves, 20%
6)D) <22, 20& 3)K)1) /2, (1st Dept)1,2!*) e5his is for the obvious reason that England had no
sovereign states) e 5he privilege is not a creature of statute, but was created and deemed
necessary for the due administration of justice) e 1ee 9atthews v) 5ufts, %/ 3)K) <.% (1%%2*C m
citing to @an $ien v) Dohnson (3)K) Ct) 6ppeals, unreported 1%/1*)
5he logical Huestion now arises, e'actly when did 3ew Kor?Bs 6ppellate CourtBs recogniAe a
residency distinction for application of the ECourthouse 1anctuaryFJ e 5he answer is that the
Court of 6ppeals never established such a rule) e +n contra point of fact, the Court of 6ppeals
has opined that:
+t is the policy of the law to protect suitors and witnesses from arrests upon civil process while
coming to and attending the court and while returning home) e 8pon principle as well as upon
authority their immunity from the service of process for the commencement of civil actions
against them is absolute eundo, morando et redeundo) e(erson v) 7rier, .. 3)K) 12! (1%/.*) e
Emphasis 6dded)
+n this unanimous opinion, the Court of 6ppeals e'pressly addressed the 3ew Kor? 1tate
resident immunity distinction and established in its dicta that Ewhether any distinction should
&2./%&
or does in fact e'ist, is at least doubtful) e 5his immunity is one of the necessities of the
6dministration of Dustice, and CourtBs would often be embarrassed if suitors or witnesses, while
attending Court, could be molested with processF) e +t is noted that (erson involved a foreign
state resident) e +n establishing the sanctuary doctrine, the Court stated that Ethis rule is
especially applicable in all its foreign suitors F) e 2y direct implication, the Court of 6ppeals is
also applying the protective rule to 3ew Kor? residents)
n5he basis of the ECourthouse 1anctuaryF rule is that parties should be allowed to contest
jurisdiction without submitting to it) eE6llowing :e=service ma?es a moc?ery of the traverse
hearing and essentially allows the plaintiff to use a defective default judgment as a weapon to
compel the defendant to submit to the service of processF) e"ord 9otor Credit Co) v) 2oboC m
cite supra) e 5he location of an individualBs residence does little to legitimiAe such a moc?ery) e
6bsent the compulsion of clear controlling precedentC mthis Court will not condone such a
situation)))P
3:1 2..)<,< 6ppeals) 6ppeals to the district court may be ta?en from any final judgment of
the municipal court in accordance with the provisions of 3:1 <)0/&)
3:1e<)0/&eeConformity of practice and proceedings to those of justice courtsC
e'ceptionC imposition and collection of fees)
1)ee5he practice and proceedings in the municipal court must conform, as nearly as
practicable, to the practice and proceedings of justice courts in similar cases) 6n appeal
perfected transfers the action to the district court for trial anew, unless the municipal court is
designated as a court of record as provided in 3:1 <)010) 5he municipal court must be treated
and considered as a justice court whenever the proceedings thereof are called into Huestion)
2)eeEach municipal judge shall charge and collect such fees prescribed in 3:1 !)0.0 that are
within the jurisdictional limits of the municipal court)
3:1e<)0/<ee"orm of doc?et and records)ee5he Court 6dministrator shall prescribe the form
of the doc?et and of any other appropriate records to be ?ept by the municipal court, which
form may vary from court to court according to the number and ?ind of cases customarily
heard and whether the court is designated as a court of record pursuant to 3:1 <)010)
3:1e<)010ee7eneral reHuirements for courtC designation as court of record)ee
5here must be in each city a municipal court presided over by a municipal judge) 5he
municipal court:
1)ee9ust be held at such place in the city within which it is established as the governing body
of that city may by ordinance direct)
2)ee9ay by ordinance be designated as a court of record)
5he personal service by 9arshal ;arley of the #rder to 1how Cause in the appeal of the
&2//%&
summary eviction matter from CoughlinBs former home law office at 121 :iver :oc? 1t, with
:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) as opposing counsel in C@11=0&.2%, occurred while Coughlin was
spea?ing to :C6 #rmaas in attempts to resolve the matter (11 5: 2.%00 a traffic citation
matter wherein :(D 1argent 5arter and other officers responded to :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)Bs
office on 111<12 (its possible both ;ill and Coughlin called the police and or ,11)))canBt
remember* when Coughlin appeared there after being released from & days in jail incident to
the 111&12 criminal trespass arrest (now a conviction and discussed in that attached
materials, some of which appear on the 3evada 1upreme CourtBs site under case .1,01, the
conviction stemming from 11 C: 2.!0< before :9C 6dministrative Dudge >) 7ardner, the
brother of District Court Dudge $inda 7ardner whose 6pril 200, #rder sanctioning Coughlin
was cited by >ashoe $egal 1ervices at the cause for his firing, and led to .0&02, now on
appeal)))
+ would really just li?e to move on from all of this, but this is a time of e'igent circumstances,
and if the :9C and the City of :eno 9arshals do not ta?e affirmative steps to disavow the
unsworn hearsay Dudge 3ash ;olmes attributed in her supposedly sworn testimony at
CoughlinBs 111!12 Disciplinary ;earing, it may be that a negligent hiring, training, or
supervision cause of action may acrue against various 9arshals, even personally (and its not so
clear 9r) Christensen and the City of :eno would e'tend any purported representation to such
personal liability, for, say, slander or libel*)
3:1 22)010 6cts or omissions constituting contempts) 5he following acts or omissions shall
be deemed contempts:
1) Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while the judge is holding
court, or engaged in judicial duties at chambers, or toward masters or arbitrators while sitting
on a reference or arbitration, or other judicial proceeding)
2) 6 breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance in the presence of the court,
or in its immediate vicinity, tending to interrupt the due course of the trial or other judicial
proceeding)
&) Disobedience or resistance to any lawful writ, order, rule or process issued by the court or
judge at chambers)
!) Disobedience of a subpoena duly served, or refusing to be sworn or answer as a witness)
<) :escuing any person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process
of such court or judge at chambers)
.) Disobedience of the order or direction of the court made pending the trial of an action, in
spea?ing to or in the presence of a juror concerning an action in which the juror has been
impaneled to determine, or in any manner approaching or interfering with such juror with the
intent to influence the verdict)
/) 6busing the process or proceedings of the court or falsely pretending to act under the
authority of an order or process of the court)
Q1,11 C(6 S !<2C :$ S <&,!C 3C$ S %,!1R](3:1 6 1,%&, %!&*
3:1 22)0&0 1ummary punishment of contempt committed in immediate view and presence of
&2%/%&
courtC affidavit or statement to be filed when contempt committed outside immediate view and
presence of courtC disHualification of judge)
1) +f a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge at
chambers, the contempt may be punished summarily) +f the court or judge summarily punishes
a person for a contempt pursuant to this subsection, the court or judge shall enter an order that:
(a* :ecites the facts constituting the contempt in the immediate view and presence of the court
or judgeC
(b* "inds the person guilty of the contemptC and
(c* (rescribes the punishment for the contempt)
2) +f a contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge at
chambers, an affidavit must be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the
contempt, or a statement of the facts by the masters or arbitrators)
&) E'cept as otherwise provided in this subsection, if a contempt is not committed in the
immediate view and presence of the court, the judge of the court in whose contempt the person
is alleged to be shall not preside at the trial of the contempt over the objection of the person)
5he provisions of this subsection do not apply in:
(a* 6ny case where a final judgment or decree of the court is drawn in Huestion and such
judgment or decree was entered in such court by a predecessor judge thereof 10 years or more
preceding the bringing of contempt proceedings for the violation of the judgment or decree)
(b* 6ny proceeding described in subsection 1 of 3:1 &)22&, whether or not a family court has
been established in the judicial district)
3:1 22)100 (enalty for contempt)
1) 8pon the answer and evidence ta?en, the court or judge or jury, as the case may be, shall
determine whether the person proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged)
2) E'cept as otherwise provided in 3:1 22)110, if a person is found guilty of contempt, a fine
may be imposed on the person not e'ceeding O<00 or the person may be imprisoned not
e'ceeding 2< days, or both)
&) +n addition to the penalties provided in subsection 2, if a person is found guilty of contempt
pursuant to subsection & of 3:1 22)010, the court may reHuire the person to pay to the party
see?ing to enforce the writ, order, rule or process the reasonable e'penses, including, without
limitation, attorneyLs fees, incurred by the party as a result of the contempt)
3:1 1,,)&!0 Criminal contempt) Every person who shall commit a contempt of court of any
one of the following ?inds shall be guilty of a misdemeanor:
1) Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior committed during the sitting of the court, in
its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair
the respect due to its authorityC
2) 2ehavior of li?e character in the presence of a referee, while actually engaged in a trial or
hearing pursuant to an order of court, or in the presence of a jury while actually sitting in the
trial of a cause or upon an inHuest or other proceeding authoriAed by lawC
&) 2reach of the peace, noise or other disturbance directly tending to interrupt the proceedings
of a court, jury or refereeC
!) >illful disobedience to the lawful process or mandate of a courtC
<) :esistance, willfully offered, to its lawful process or mandateC
&2,/%&
.) Contumacious and unlawful refusal to be sworn as a witness or, after being sworn, to answer
any legal and proper interrogatoryC
/) (ublication of a false or grossly inaccurate report of its proceedingsC or
%) 6ssuming to be an attorney or officer of a court or acting as such without authority)
6:5+C$E +@ = Dudicial Department
1ec) !)010 9unicipal Court) 5he 9unicipal Court must include one department and may
include additional departments in the discretion of the City Council) +f the City Council
determines to create additional departments, it shall do so by resolution and may appoint
additional municipal judges to serve until the ne't election)
(Ch) ..2, 1tats) 1,/1 p) 1,/.C 6]Ch) <<&, 1tats) 1,/& p) %%1C Ch) &/&, 1tats) 1,/, p) .!<C Ch)
20%, 1tats) 1,%< p) ./<C Ch) ,, 1tats) 1,,& p) 21*
1ec) !)020 9unicipal Court: Uualifications of 9unicipal DudgeC salary)
1) 6 9unicipal Dudge must be:
(a* 6n attorney licensed to practice law in the 1tate of 3evada)
(b* 6 Hualified elector within the City)
2) 6 9unicipal Dudge shall not engage in the private practice of law)
&) 5he salary of a 9unicipal Dudge must be:
(a* "i'ed by resolution of the City Council)
(b* 8niform for all judges in the 9unicipal Court)
(Ch) ..2, 1tats) 1,/1 p) 1,/.C 6]Ch) &!&, 1tats) 1,/& p) !22C Ch) <<&, 1tats) 1,/& p) %%1C Ch)
,%, 1tats) 1,// p) 211C Ch) <.1, 1tats) 1,// p) 1&,<C Ch) 20%, 1tats) 1,%< p) ./<C Ch) <,,,
1tats) 1,,& p) 2<01C Ch) &2/, 1tats) 1,,, p) 1&.,*
1ec) !)0&0 Disposition of fines) 6ll fines and forfeitures for the violation of ordinances shall be
paid to the City Cler? in the manner to be prescribed by ordinance)
(Ch) ..2, 1tats) 1,/1 p) 1,//*
1ec)e!)0!0ee(rocedure, additional judges)ee5he practice and proceedings in the Court must
conform as nearly as practicable to that of justicesL courts in similar cases) 8pon the written
reHuest of the City 9anager an additional temporary 9unicipal Dudge may be provided for so
long as the City Council authoriAes additional compensation for such a Dudge) >henever a
person is sentenced to pay a fine, the Court may adjudge and enter upon the doc?et a
supplemental order that the offender may, if he or she desires, wor? on the streets or public
wor?s of the City at the rate of O2< for each day) 5he money so earned must be applied against
the fine until it is satisfied)
C#35E9(5
6cts or omissions constituting, generally, 22)010
6ffidavit of facts constituting, 22)0&0
6ffidavits presented in bad faith, 3:C( <.(g*, DC:C( <.(g*
6ppearance, failure of defendant to ma?e, 22)1&0
6rrest
&&0/%&
2ond, 22)0/0
E'cuses for not bringing arrested person before court, 22)1!0
+llness of defendant, effect, 22)1!0
6ttorneys at law
2ar e'amination, early release of results, 1C: .%
Discharged, failure to deliver certain materials to client, /)0<<
2ail
@iolation of conditions deemed contempt, 1/%)!%!
Commercial premises, violations of writ of restitution, 11%C)210
Commission in presence of court or judge, 22)0&0
Compelling performance, imprisonment, 22)110
Court order, violation, 1)2<0, 22)010
Court reporters, .<.)2!0
Criminal, 1,&)110, 1,&)&00, 1,,)&!0
Custodial parent, failure to comply with visitation orders, 12<C)0&0, 12<C)0!0
Discharge from arrest, 22)0/0
DisHualification of judge or justice, ma?ing of charge not punished as contempt, 1)22<, 1)2&0
Documents, refusal to permit inspection, 3:C( &/(b*(2*, DC:C( &/(b*(2*
"ailure to perform specific acts directed by judgment, 22)010, 3:C( /0, DC:C( /0
+mprisonment, 22)100, 22)110
+ndictment for contemptuous conduct, 22)120
Dustice courts, civil proceedings, /!)0!0
9aterial witness granted immunity, failure to testify, 1/%)</.
9isconduct by defendant during criminal trial, 1/<)&%/
9unicipal court may punish for, 2..)</0
(unishment, 22)0&0, 22)100, 22)120
:eentry on real property after ejectment, 22)020
:efusal to answer or be sworn, 22)010, <0)1,<, 3:C( &/(b*(1*, DC:C( &/(b*(1*
1heriffLs duties, 22)0.0, <0)20<
1ubpoenas, failure to obey
Deemed contempt, 22)010, 1/!)&%<
>itnesses, forfeitures and damages, <0)1,<
1ummary punishment, 22)0&0
5rials for contempt
2y court or jury, 22)100
DisHualification of judge, 22)0&0
+nvestigating charge, 22)0,0
5he :1+C @ictoria #ldenburg wants to tal? to the (anel about how the :1+C and >al=9art are
in a long term business partnership where the 2nd 1t) >al=9art is on tribal land rented out by
the :1+C and patrolled by its tribal officers, who admit to routinely ma?ing misdemeanor petty
theftshoplifting custodial arrest (#fficer Gameron Crawford and Donnie 2raunworth have
been trained in all the neato Phe didnBt give me all the information necessary to issue a citationP
&&1/%&
e'planations (including Crawfords lying under oath that Coughlin didnBt provide his driverBs
license to him on 1eptember ,th, 2011, especially where >al=9artBs "rontino admits he did not
ma?e a citiAenBs arrest, nor did any >al=9art employee* even where such misdemeanor arrests
by tribal officers are forbidden under 3:1 1/1)12<<)) :eno City 6ttorney too would li?e a
chance to e'plain how she prosecutes cases based upon arrests by tribal officers for
misdemeanor where 3evada law e'pressly prevents misdemeanor arrests by tribal officers
under 3:1 1/1)12<<)
+ was forced to cross e'amineinteract with a represented party at the 111!12 Disciplinary
;earing, and the 123 and (anelBs violations of 1C: 10< contributed greatly to my failure to
alert 9r) 7arin prior to that) + thin? out of fairness + and 9r) 7arin9s) 3ordstrom should be
provided transcripts from the 111!12 ;earing)
3:1 1/1)12<<6rrest by officer or agent of 2ureau of +ndian 6ffairs or police officer
employed by +ndian tribe)
1) E'cept as otherwise provided in subsection 2, an officer or agent of the 2ureau of +ndian
6ffairs or a person employed as a police officer by an +ndian tribe may ma?e an arrest in
obedience to a warrant delivered to him or her, or may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a* "or a public offense committed or attempted in the officer or agentLs presence)
(b* >hen a person arrested has committed a felony or gross misdemeanor, although not in the
officer or agentLs presence)
(c* >hen a felony or gross misdemeanor has in fact been committed, and the officer or agent
has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it)
(d* #n a charge made, upon a reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony or gross
misdemeanor by the person arrested)
(e* >hen a warrant has in fact been issued in this 1tate for the arrest of a named or described
person for a public offense, and the officer or agent has reasonable cause to believe that the
person arrested is the person so named or described)
(f* >hen the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed a battery upon that personLs spouse and the peace officer finds evidence of bodily
harm to the spouse)
2) 1uch an officer or agent may ma?e an arrest pursuant to subsection 1 only:
(a* >ithin the boundaries of an +ndian reservation or +ndian colony for an offense committed
on that reservation or colonyC or
(b* #utside the boundaries of an +ndian reservation or +ndian colony if the officer or agent is in
fresh pursuit of a person who is reasonably believed by the officer or agent to have committed a
felony within the boundaries of the reservation or colony or has committed, or attempted to
commit, any criminal offense within those boundaries in the presence of the officer or agent)
h "or the purposes of this subsection, Efresh pursuitF has the meaning ascribed to it in 3:1
1/1)1<.)
(lease see the photograph in the attached materials of the :1+C #fficer ta?ing CoughlinBs
driverBs license from him, thereby vitiating his assertion that an arrest was an available option
due to Couglin not providing his driverBs license to the #fficers)
&&2/%&
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
5el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
has , files to share with you on 1?yDrive) 5o view them, clic? the lin?s below)
11 22 12 final collection for Chief 9arshal :operBs review 020! 2.%00 part 1 of 2)pdf
11 22 12 final collection for Chief 9arshal :operBs review 020! 2.%00 part 2 of 2)pdf
115:2.%00 0&1!12 :9C continuation of trial 3ash #rmaas ;ill traffic citation
0&1!12_20120&12=10&&_01cd00&b%f0%<1d0)mp&
115:2.%00 :9C 022/12 part 2 of 2 from 2 2/ 12 0&1!12_2012022/=
1.21_01ccf<.bce22!<!0)mp&
115:2.%00 :9C 022/12 part 1 of 2 from 2 2/ 12 0&1!12_2012022/=
1<0/_01ccf<.1%f/.c!.0 (2*)mp&
C@11=0&.2% E35+:E E"$E4 C#92+3ED "#: 6((E3D+4 +3 .0&&1 63D .1&%&
C#87;$+3 @ 9E:$+11 2.!0. 1/0% 2.%00 3712=020!)pdf
C:12=12.2 appeal)pdf
11 2 12 file stamped complete notice of errata and revised supplemental 2.!0< 1/0% 020!)pdf
11 1< 11 rpd tarter redacted 020! 0!&! 2.%00 police report ormaas retaliation)pdf
Download allE
10=0<10!=gwA 2rief
"rom: 812C_3E@6D6Nnvb)uscourts)gov 5his sender is in your safe list)
1ent: "ri &&012 &:0! (9
5o: CourtmailNnvb)uscourts)gov
&&&/%&
\\\3#5E 5# (82$+C 6CCE11 81E:1\\\ Dudicial Conference of the 8nited 1tates policy
permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants* to receive one free
electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is reHuired by law or directed by
the filer) (6CE: access fees apply to all other users) 5o avoid later charges, download a copy
of each document during this first viewing) ;owever, if the referenced document is a transcript,
the free copy and &0=page limit do not apply)
8)1) 2an?ruptcy Court
District of 3evada
3otice of Electronic "iling
5he following transaction was received from -6C; C#87;$+3 entered on &&02012 at &:0&
(9 (D5 and filed on &&02012
Case 3ame: C6D$E C# v) GE$$E:
Case 3umber: 10=0<10!=gwA
Document 3umber: <2
Doc?et 5e't:
2rief in #pposition to 3otice of Default and (raecipe+ntent to ta?e Default with Certificate of
1ervice "iled by -6C; C#87;$+3 on behalf of 169635;6 $) ;6$$, :#2E:5
GE$$E: (:elated document(s*Q!,R 3otice of Entry of Default filed by (laintiff C6D$E C#)*
(6ttachments: I (1* 6ffidavit 6ffidavit of Counsel Coughlin for Geller in 1upport of
#ppositionI (2* E'hibit E'hibit 1 :egarding >C1# Eviction (roceduresI (&* E'hibit :eno
9unicipal Court 9arshals and Dudge 3ash ;olmes seiAe attorneys smart phoneI (!* E'hibit
Email to >C1# ;aley regarding e'cusable neglect prejudice to GellerBs caseI (<* & 2. 12 "a'
to :9CI (.* E'hibit 2 2! 20 fa' to rmc regarding deficiency in record on appealI (/* E'hibit
11 5: 2.%00 3#5+CE #" 6((E6$ 63D 9#5+#31 & / 12 >+5; E4;+2+5 1
6556C;ED* (C#87;$+3, -6C;*
)))
10=0<10!=gwA 3otice will be electronically mailed to:
-6C; C#87;$+3 on behalf of Defendant :#2E:5 GE$$E:
AachcoughlinNhotmail)com
9+C;6E$ #B:#8:GE on behalf of (laintiff C6D$E C#
orour?elawgroupNgmail)com, mo'rouNgmail)com
10=0<10!=gwA 3otice will not be electronically mailed to: E
2eyond the super, super coincidental timing associated with CoughlinBs &&012
&&!/%&
filing in 3@2 0<10!, and Dudge ;olmesB &&012 #rder :eleasing (roperty (which is time
stamped E10:11 a)mF, which is interesting given a review of all other #rder by Dudge ;olmes
in such matter, where ";E!, the 22%12 #rder "inding the Defendant in Contempt of Court
and +mposing 1anctiosn has a handwritten interlineation indication E&:!/F (neither a)m), nor
p)m) specified* apparently in a nod to the importance the law places on summary contempt
orders being entered almost instantaneous to such summary incarcerations (not twenty four
hours later, arguably, as there where Coughlin was ta?en into custody at !:1< p)m)* and has a
handwritten initially E2yF followed by an initialing that appears to be an E9F, perhaps for then
Dudicial 6ssistant in D&, 9arilyn 5ognoni (such stamping is entirely different in format than
that on the &&012 #rder)))*
5he &&012 #rder has a E2yF initialing that appears to be a ED2F (li?ely :9C
"iling #fficer 1upervisor Donna 2allardBs initials*, and is obviously different than that applied
to the 22%12 #rder (such stamping on the &&012 #rder appears to be the machine type of
stamping commonly used in the filing office of the :9C, whereas that on the 22%12 #rder
appears to be the hand stamped variety)
Dudge DilworthBs recent comments on the record during the %1&1& status
conference in :9C 1& C: &,1! that the :DC as?ed the :9C to enter a copy cat #rder (which
it did on 11.1&* li?e the 122012 6dministrative #rder 2012=01 by :DC Dudge 1ferraAAa
certainly ma?es it difficult for Coughlin to Huery 2allard and or $ongoni (whom no longer
wor?s for the :9C* regarding the legitimacy of these time stampings or as to an indicia of
their reliability or other peculiarities attendant to the stri?ing nature of CoughlinBs &&012 filing
in the 3@2 just happening to fall on the same date as these #rders by Dudge "lanagan, and
Dudge 2eesleyBs 1,// 9c7eorge 1chool of $aw classmate :9C Dudge ;olmes)
";E<, however, Dudge ;olmes &1212 #rder in 2.%00 is again initialed by her then
Dudicial 6ssistant 9arilyn 5ognoni, but lac? any stamping or hand written interlineation in the
nature of a time stamping)
5he &1&12 1ua 1ponte #rder Denying :elief 1ought in +mproper Document by
Dudge ;olmes is also initialed by 5ognoni and lac?s a time stamping or interlineation)
#ne could be forgiven if they found it strange that out of seven different orders by
Dudge ;olmes in CoughlinBs cases, only two have a time stamping of any sort, with one being
the ";E! 22%12 #rder (where time is of the essence in entering a summary contempt order in
writing where such an order is reHuired to be nearly contemporaneous with the ruling (and
where the ruling as rendered from the bench by Dudge ;olmes is mar?edly different than the
accusations she ma?es in her written order of nearly 2! hours later* , and the other
being the #rder :eleasing (roperty of &&012 where one could be foregiven for finding the
time stamping of E10:11 a)m)F thereon a bit curious where the electronic filing time stamping
of the 3@2 indicates CoughlinBs :9C centric &&012 filing therein was ECase 10-05104-gwz
Doc 52 Entered 03/30/12 15:03:22 Page 1 of 19 (from te eader at te to! of eac !age of
tat f"#"ng$ w"#e the email notice from the 3@2 to Coughlin provides that E5he following
transaction was received from -6C; C#87;$+3 entered on &&02012 at &:0& (9 (D5 and
filed on &&02012 Case 3ame: C6D$E C# v) GE$$E:F
:eview of initialing and time stamping on #rders by Dudge ;olmes:
&&</%&
22%12 E#rder "inding the Defendant in Contempt of Court and +mposing
1anctionsF (which became ";E! in .2&&/* has a handwritten interlineation indicating a time
stamping of E&:!/F (neither a)m), nor p)m), specified*, initialialed by :9C Dudicial 6ssistant
9arilyn 5ognoni E95F, :9C Department & manual stamping utiliAed*
&%12 #rder Denying 9otion "iled by 9ary 2ar?er 1ee?ing :efund of "inde 1he
(aid for DefendantBs (no time stamping, initialed by E95F by 9arilyn 5ognoni, D&Bs manual
stamping*
&1212 #rder (which became ";E<* (initialed E95F, no time stamping, :9C D&
stamp*
&1&12 1ua 1ponte #rder Denying :elift 1ought in +mproper Document (95
initials, manual D& stamping, no time* (3#5E: first line of order references fa' of 12:&% p)m)*
&1&12 1ua 1ponte #rder Denying :elift 1ought in +mproper Document (95
initials, manual D& stamping, no time* (3#5E: first line of order references fa' of 1:<% p)m)*
&1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document "iled on 9arch /, 2012 (95 intiials, no
time stamping, manual stamp, first line (line 1<* of order references a 2:1. p)m), fa' of &/12
by Coughlin to the :9C**
&&012 #rder :eleasing (roperty (stamping is that of the :9C "iling #fficerBs
machine, baring a time stamp ofE10:11 a)m)F intialed ED2F by :9C "iling #fficer 1upervisor
Donna 2allard*
10!12 #rder 1tri?ing Document "iled in Error on #ctober 2, 2012 and :eturning
Document (95 intiials, no time stamping, manual D& stamp*
"urther, while such &&012 #rder :eleasing (roperty indicates a time stamping of
E10:11 a)m)F the Certificate of 1ervice thereon indicates such was mailed, fa', and emailed,
though no emails are listed therein (though the :9C typically serves (and perhaps receives for
filing* documents by email on the :eno City 6ttorney)))however, while there is no fa' number
listed for :C6 #rmaas CoughlinBs fa' number is listed therein, though Coughlin did not
received any fa' from the :9C on &&012, where such reads:
5he &&012 E#rder :eleasing (ropertyF in 2.%00 by :9C Dudge ;olmes indicates:
ECE:5+"+C65E #" 1E:@+CE (ursuant to 3:C( <(b*, + certifK that + am an employee of the
:eno 9unicipal Court, :eno, 3evada, that + am over the age of 1% years and not a party to the
above action, and that on this date, served a true and correct copy of the attached document to
the following as set forth below:
>ashoe County Detention "acility ,11 (arr 2lvd) :eno, 3@ %,<12
6llison #nnaas Deputy City 6ttorney ()#) 2o' 1,00 :eno, 3evada %,<0<
-achary 2ar?er Coughlin, EsH) 1!22 E) ,111 1treet I2 :eno, 3evada %,<12 Fa?@
A>F>B 667-7F02
4 2y placing said document in a sealed envelope and placed for collecting and
mailing by 8nited 1tates mail in :eno, 3evada, postage prepaid following ordinary business
practices)
4 "acsimile ("64*
4 Electronic 9ail (E=mail*
&&./%&
___ +nner=#ffice mail following ordinary business practices
___ (ersonal Delivery
D65ED this &0th day of 9arch, 2012) s Jana &lair Court #ffice 9anagerF
1trangely, while such &&012 Certificate of 1ervice (which is signed by a EDana
2lairF where non of the other / orders Coughlin was ever mail by Dudge ;olmesB Department &
of the :9C ever contained a Certificate of 1ervice by anyone other than 9arilyn 5ognoni)))*
indicates that such was EservedF Eas set forth belowF where thereafter three means of so
EservingF including 81(1 mailing, fa'ing, and emailing, but not the E+nner=#ffice mail
following ordinay business practicesF which the :9C has on no less than ten occasions
mar?ed as a means of serving the City 6ttorney in the various matters wherein Coughlin is a
party in the :9C (where such E+nner=#ffice mailF consisted of the :9C emailing the :eno
City 6ttorney, which is a bit untoward considering :9C Dudge ;owardBs ";E10 ta?ing
Coughlin to such tas? where ;oward sua sponte assumed email was the only form Coughlin
used to serve the filing ;oward references there (it was not* and where Dudge ;oward, despite
CoughlinBs indigency, circumstances, and :9C "iling #fficer 1upervisor approving CoughlinBs
filing by email in writing*, entered a 121.11 #rder purporting to deprive Coughlin of that
privileges accorded the :eno City 6ttorneyBs office and :9C (which is not e'actly an
e'ampled of a munipalitieBs court going out of its way to avoid the appearance of impartiality
or impropriety*)
1o, where such &&012 ECertificate of 1erviceF mar?s EE=mailF as one of three
means of serving such, and Coughlin did not receive any such email from the :9C, and if they
:9C was going to email the :9C itBs customary practice is the disguise such by
characteriAing it as utiliAing E+nner=#fficer mail following ordinary business practicesF)))and
considering the :9CBs motive to ma?e such &&012 #rder :eleasing (roperty appear to be the
result of something other than CoughlinBs &:0& p)m), filing in the 3@2 (and all the attendant
e'tra=judicial communications implications respecting the conversations Dudge 2eesley admits
to having with other judges concerning Coughlin, especially considering Dudge "lanaganBs then
entering in the summary eviction appeal involving ;illBs office an #rder denying CoughlinBs
appeal in C@11=0&.2% at !:1! p)m), on that very day, &&012)))*)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<<!&2&2=2%=12=to=10=!=12=6ll=#rders=by=:9C=
Dudge=;olmes=in=2.%00=&/!=0<10!=#pt
Coughlin did not receive any email from the :9C on &&012) +f the &&012 #rder
was given to the :9C "iling #ffices Donna 2allard to affi' a time stamping to give it a sheen
of legitimacy vis a vis the implicit contention that such #rder was not a response to CoughlinBs
&:0& p)m) 3@2 filing, but had, rather, been filed stamped by 2allard some five hours earlier,
Coughlin previous dealings with 2allard certainly prevent any such sheen being created
thereby)
2DDC Dudge "lanaganBs &&012 (time stamped !:1! p)m)* #rder denying
CoughlinBs appeal of the summary eviction involving ;illBs firm in C@11=0&.2%)
Dudge "lanagan, of course, is a former (resident of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada, just li?e
3@2 Dudge 2eesley, and 2eesley and ;olmes and >$1Bs Elcano all attended the 9c7eorge
&&//%&
1chool of $aw in 1,//)
+n his testimony at the 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing, Dudge 2eesley twice
reference conferrring with some other judges in forming his opinions of Coughlin)
three items ta?en from him on "ebruary 2/, 2012, at the >ashoe County :egional
Detention "acility during his boo?ing for incarceration pursuant to imposition of a <=day jail
sentenceP http:www)scribd)comdoc1./.2%,0<2=2/=12=020!=2.%00=>C1#=Detention=
(roperty=:ecord="orm=$isting=Coughlin=s=1martphone=6=1econdary="lip=(hone=6nd=a=$o
#n &2012 Coughlin received a fa' (header read: P"rom:>ashoe County Crime $ab
//< &2% 2%&1 0&202012 0/:!< I&!! ()001001P* that read: P9arch 1,,2012 5#: -ac?
Coughlin "a' 3umber ,!,=../=/!02 ":#9: 5rish 2ec?man, 6dmin 1ecretary 1upervisor
>ashoe County 1heriffs #ffice "orensic 1cience Division :E: >C1# 12W1%0<C CW!/,<1
0&202012 0/:!< I&!! ()001001 9ichael ;aley 1heriff (er our telephone conversation this
afternoon, attached is a list of items submitted to the >ashoe county 1heriffBs #ffice
Evidence(roperty :oom) 5he following items as described by Deputy Kon?er who submitted
them are the only items in evidence listed under >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice Case 3umber
12W1%0<) 5hese items were received by our secured evidenceproperty room cler? on "ebruary
2,,2012) 1ince receiving them into our custody, they have not been released to anyone and
remain in secure evidence) 1691837 CE$$ (;#3E, 5=9#2+$ CE$$ (;#3EC 2:683
E$EC5:+C :6-#: + can only respond to your inHuiry for the items listed above and as of the
date the items were received by our division) 5he incidents prior to our receiving the items as
you describe them in your email dated 9arch 1,, 2012 are un?nown to this division) 5he
incident on 9arch 1!th as you described it did not ta?e placeC as these items have not been out
of our custody) +t is my understanding that these items were submitted to evidence at the behest
of Dudge 3ash;olmes) 5o release these items we will need a written release from Dudge 3ash=
;olmes) 5he rest of your inHuiries are outside the purview of this Division) (lease contact the
court and reHuest Dudge 3ash=;olmes authoriAe the release of these items) 5he release may be
submitted to the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice "orensic 1cience Division via fa' at //<=&2%=
2%&1) 6ny future +nHuiries regarding these +tems need to be made in writing) 5hey may be
submitted to me via the email addresstbec?manNwashoecountv)us orto the 81 (ostal 6ddress
of >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice, "orensic 1cience Division, ,11 E (arr 2lvd, :eno, 3@
%,<12)P
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<<%1,.2=2%=12="a'=to=Coughlin="rom=>C(D=
Dogan=;eader=of=&!.=(m=Coincides=>ith=5ime=1tamping=on=:9C=Dudge=;olmes=&!/pm=
";E!=2=2%=12=#rder=s=5ime=1tamping=0.<
CoughlinBs &2.12 fa' to the :9C (which was attached as an E'hibit to CoughlinBs
&&012 filing in 3@2 10=0<10!* reads: E
-ach Coughlin(# 2#4 .0,<2, :E3#, 3@, %,<0. 3evada 2ar 3o: ,!/& tel: //< &&% %11% fa': ,!, ../
/!02 -achCoughlinNhotmail)com
6553: :eno 9unicipal Court Dudges, Donna 2allard, Chief 9arshal Dustin :oper, "iling #ffice (ersonnel,
&&%/%&
and Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son re: 11 C: 221/., 11 cr 2.!0<, 11 5: 2.%00, and any other
cases wherein -ach Coughlin is a named party or other adminstrative files involving the same) fa'ed to //<
&&! &%2!
9arch 2.th, 2012
Dear :eno 9unicipal Court Dudges, "iling #ffice (ersonnel, and 6dministrators,
(lease note my new address) + was recently twice adjudge a victim of domestic violence in "@12001%% and
"@12=001%/) "urther, Dudge 3ash ;olmes has compounded the difficulties in maintaining my safety by
confiscating both of my cellular phones, which were necessary to my defense in a recent hearing on a
9otion for #rder to 1how Cause before Dudge "lanagan in Department /, in the appeal of the eviction
matter that :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), is opposing counsel on) Dudge "lanagan denied 9r) ;illBs 9otion today) +
have filed a 9otion for :eturn of those items of personal property though + have received no response in
that regard or opposition (though the tampering with my mail may have played some role in any delay
incident to the delivery of anything in that regard*) +ncident to these domestic violence attac?s that + have
been victimiAed by has been tampering with and difficulties in getting my mail) + as? that you copy me via
fa' and email on all correspondences, filings, communications with the 1tate 2ar or other governmental
agencies, etc), until the problems associated with the delivery of my 81(1 mail are resolved)
$ast wee? + visited the filing office counter of the :9C and had a civiliAed discussion with "iling #fficer
1upervisor Donna 2allard and "ront Counter Cler?, Daniel) ;owever, apparently completely unprovo?ed,
two City of :eno 9arshal, 9arshal Coppa and 9arshal 5homspson stormed over and demanded that +
leave at once while Daniel was see?ing clarification from 9s) 2allard on a point) "urther, the audio of the
5rial + order in 11 5: 2.%00 is still not ready, according to 9s) 2allard, whom was unable to tell me if any
record e'ists of my ever ma?ing a reHuest for such in the first place)
6dditionally, 9s) 2allard indicated a complete lac? of concern for the fact that the materials + filed by
email between 112,11 and 121.12 (after receiving her e'press permission to so file by email in an
attempt to avoid overta'ing the :9C fa' machine* were not accurately represented in the record on appeal
or the certified copy of the doc?et in :9C 11 C: 221/.) + am attaching to this correspondence some
materials that spea? to what a breach of her duty that is and as? that a copy of this correspondence and the
attached materials be placed in her personnel file) "urther, + reHuest that the same be done for 9arshal
Coppa and 9arshal 5hompson, who defiled with their totalitarian behavior last wee? what should be an
environment where justice and transparency flourish) :ather, they sought 1/#
to curtail the access to justice, refused to provide any reasoning for doing so, and attempted to fabricate a
dishonest account of events that day)
$astly, it has come to my attention that Dudge 3ash ;olmes is sending the 1tate 2ar of 3evada
correspondences, dated, &1!12, wherein she cites to unnamed EsourcesF that have here believing + mgith
be Esleeping in my carF) (lease provide the names of those sources and the basis for such accusations) +t is
hard to understand how my various (etitions to (roceed +n "orma (auperis have been so roundly denied in
the :9C, yet, + am subject to these hearsay accusation as published by Dudge 3ash ;olmes) "urther, Dudge
3ash ;olmeBs letter to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada mentions that a case was transferred to her due to
Department 1 having surgery) ;owever, my records indicate a EconflictF was cited as the reasoning for such
&&,/%&
a transfer) +f these are two different things, please provide some indication of the correct reason for such a
transfer (unless there is a multi=faceted rationale for so transferring the case*)
#n another notem, Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son sent me an email some time ago purporting to
interpret Dudge ;owardBs #rder in 11 C: 22/1., where, the #rder indicates that + am not to send email to
any :9C personnel in the conte't of that one particular case) 9s) Dac?son seems to e'tend that #rder
where in her email she indicates that + am, unli?e any other citiAen, unable to utiliAe
:eno9uni:ecordsNreno)gov for simple record reHuests, and where she purports to e'tend the #rder to
cases beyond the jurisdictional limits attendant to Dudge ;owardBs #rder in 11 C: 221/.) #ut of respect for
Dudge ;oward, + have basically followed 9s) Dac?sonBs amplified #rder, but doing so has created an undue
burden on me as a litigant in the :9C and + write see?ing clarification with respect to the true import of
Dudge ;owardBs #rder in that regard) 1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH)F
6 review of CoughlinBs filings before Dudge "lanagn in the wee?s preceeding both
the 22/12 5rial before Dudge ;olmes in 2.%00 and the &&012 #rders by Dudge "lanagan and
;olmes the very same day as Coughlin highly inflammatory &&012 filing re the :9CBs
prejudice to his clients in the 3@2 in the 0<10! case before Dudge 2eesley, in instructive:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&11!/,C@11=0&.2%=2/<!!1/=Case=6ppeal=
1tatement
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<<%1%!&=20=12="a'=to=Coughlin="rom=>C1#=
2ec?man=$etter=Dated=&=1,=12=:e=2.%00=2oo?ing=(hone=+nto=Evidence=on=2=2,=12=(er=2=
2/=12=;olmes=1ummary=+ncarceratin
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&11!&2C@11=0&.2%=2/<&&10=9tn=6lter=or=6mend=Dudgment
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&11!/,C@11=0&.2%=2/<!!1/=Case=6ppeal=1tatement
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&11!&2C@11=0&.2%=2/<&&10=9tn=6lter=or=6mend=Dudgment

http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&112,/C@11=0&.2%=2.!!/&<=1upplemental
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&112,1C@11=0&.2%=2.!,.1/=#pposition=to=9tn
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&111%,C@11=0&.2%=2./%&/%=9tn=6lter=or=6mend=Dudgment
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&111%%C@11=0&.2%=2.%.0/%=#pposition=to=9tn
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&10&.0C@11=0&.2%=2/0!!0%=:eply=to=in=#pposition
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&10&.0C@11=0&.2%=2/0!!0%=:eply=to=in=#pposition
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&110%%C@11=0&.2%=2.,0%1<=#pening=2rief
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./&111%<C@11=0&.2%=2.%.0//=#pposition=to
http:washoecourts)comprint_casedesc)cfmJcase_idVC@11=0&.2%
12%) !10< =
&!0/%&
1upplemental )))
1&=9ar=2012E'tra 5e't: 18(($E9E35 5# 9#5+#3 5#
@6C65E #: 156K ;E6:+37 #3 #:DE: 5#
1;#> C681E = 5ransaction 2%21&0& = 6pproved
2y: $965;E81 : 0&=1!=2012:0,:&!:0!
1&&) 1&10 = Case
6ppeal 1tatement
0%=9ar=2012E'tra 5e't: C61E 6((E6$ 1565E9E35 #:, ($ED
+3 5;E 6$5E:365+@E, 9#5+#3 "#: E45E31+#3
#" 5+9E 5# C#::EC5 DE"+C+E3C+E1 +3
6((E6$ (6(E:1 = 5ransaction 2%11/<< = 6pproved
2y: $965;E81 : 0&=0%=2012:10:!!:2/
1&%) 22<0 = 9tn
6lter or 6mend
Dudgment
0/=9ar=2012E'tra 5e't: 9#5+#3 5# 1E5 61+DE #:DE: 5#
1;#> C681EC #: 6$5E:365+@E$K, 9#5+#3 5#
C#35+38E #: 156K ;E6:+37 #3 #:DE: 5#
1;#> C681E (E3D+37 5;E :E1#$85+#3 #"
5;E C:+9+36$ 5:E1(611 9655E: = 5ransaction
2%100/0 = 6pproved 2y: $965;E81 :
0&=0/=2012:1/:11:22
5he 22/12 :eHuest for 1ubmission appears to have come prior to the passing of
the < days Coughlin was to have to file a :eply 2rief:
1!.) &%.0 = :eHuest
for 1ubmission
2/="eb=2012E'tra 5e't: (6:5+E1B 6((E$$65E 2:+E" (3#
(6(E: #:DE: (:#@+DED* = 5ransaction 2/%%,2.
= 6pproved 2y: $965;E81 : 02=2/=2012:1<:<<:&2
(6:5K 1829+55+37: :+C;6:D 7) ;+$$, E1U)
D65E 1829+55ED: 022/12 1829+55ED 2K:
$965;E81 D65E :ECE+@ED D8D7E #""+CE:
1<%) 2&%< = 9tn
(roceed "orma
(auperis
1.="eb=2012E'tra 5e't: 9#5+#3 "#: 6((#+359E35 #"
C#831E$C #: 6$5E:365+@E$K, 9#5+#3 5#
&!1/%&
(:#CEED +3"#:96 (68(E:+1 #3 6((E6$ (3#
(6(E: #:DE: (:#@+DED* = 5ransaction 2/.%&.<
= 6pproved 2y: $965;E81 : 02=1.=2012:1&:<.:&!
1.2) &/,0 = :eply
toin #pposition
1!="eb=2012E'tra 5e't: :E($K 5# #((#1+5+#3 5# 6$5E: #:
69E3D = 5ransaction 2/.2/<< = 6pproved 2y:
$965;E81 : 02=1!=2012:0,:10:1! (6((E6:1 5#
2E D8($+C65E 1829+11+#3 #" D#C89E35
6CCE(5ED +3 5:6316C5+#3 2/.2/<& =
$965;E81*
1<2) 11/0 =
6nswering 2rief
2!="eb=2012E'tra 5e't: :E1(#3DE35B1 631>E:+37 2:+E" =
5ransaction 2/%/0<0 = 6pproved 2y: $965;E81 :
02=2!=2012:1.:<,:0&
1.%) &%.0 = :eHuest
for 1ubmission
1!="eb=2012E'tra 5e't: 9#5+#3 83DE: 3:C( <2(b* 5#
69E3D #: 96GE 6DD+5+#36$ "+3D+371 #"
"6C5C #:, ($ED +3 5;E 6$5E:365+@E, 9#5+#3
83DE: 3:C( <, 5# 6$5E: #: 69E3D 5;E
#:DE: DE3K+37 9#5+#3 5# (:E@E35
D+1(#16$ #" (E:1#36$ (:#(E:5K (3# (6(E:
#:DE: (:#@+DED* = 5ransaction 2/.!%!2 =
6pproved 2y: 9C;#$+C# : 02=1!=2012:1<:!&:!2
(6:5K 1829+55+37: :+C;6:D 7) ;+$$, E1U)
D65E 1829+55ED: 21!12 1829+55ED 2K:
3otice: 5his is 3#5 an #fficial Court :ecord9C;#$+C# D65E :ECE+@ED D8D7E
#""+CE:
CoughlinBs &&012 filing in 3@2=10=0<10!, if it does not say it all, says a whole lot
where Doc?et <2 (in response to an inappropriate and premature E3otice of Entry of DefaultF
by Cadle that was partly born of the confusion ensuing from the &1<12 status conference
wherein Coughlin, who was present in court while CadleBs attorney was (via telephone* having
an e'change with Dudge 2eesley, though Coughlin had not heard the case be called due to the
chaos of CoughlinBs having just been burglariAed by the >C1#Bs office less than one hour prior
thereto (with 7ayle Gern, EsH)Bs minions from >39 standing by tittering away with video
cameras that, li?e ;illBs and his landlord client 9erlissBs during their 111&11 burglary of
CoughlinBs former home law office in :ev2011=001/0% no doubt manage to capture everything
&!2/%&
e'cept the alleged moment when the >C1# announced whom they were before brea?ing and
entering* where, thereafter, Coughlin, after waiting appro'imately forty five minutes until
Dudge 2eesley had concluded the other matters he presided over incident to the stac?ed 2:&0
p)m), doc?et of &1<12 spo?e with Dudge 2eesley on the record and e'plained the burglary by
the >C1# and CoughlinBs having been present when CadleBs attorney and 2eesley were
discussing 0<10!, but unable to discern it was the 0<10! case that was being addressed)
5hereafter, Dudge 2eesley indicated to Coughlin (as confirmed in CadleBs attorneyBs subseHuent
filings, though, apparently such attorney did not become aware of the e'tension Coughlin was
granted until after CadleBs attorney #B:our?e filed, on &2012 a 3otice of Entry of Default)))*,
CoughlinBs filed a E2rief in #pposition to 3otice of Default and (raecipe+ntent to ta?e Default
with Certificate of 1ervice "iled by -6C; C#87;$+3 on behalf of 169635;6 $) ;6$$,
:#2E:5 GE$$E: (3ela"ed do!umen"AsBF> /o"i!e of 1n"ry of Defaul" filed 6y Dlain"iff
C0D+1 CO)* (6ttachments: I1 6ffidavit of Counsel Coughlin for Geller in 1upport of
#ppositionC I2 E'hibit :egarding >C1# Eviction (roceduresC I& E'hibit :eno 9unicipal
Court 9arshals and Dudge 3ash ;olmes seiAe attorneys smart phoneC I! E'hibit Email to
>C1# ;aley regarding e'cusable neglect prejudice to GellerBs caseC I< & 2. 12 "a' to :9CC
I. E'hibit 2 2! 20 fa' to rmc regarding deficiency in record on appealC I/ E'hibit 11 5:
2.%00 3#5+CE #" 6((E6$ 63D 9#5+#31 & / 12 >+5; E4;+2+5 1 6556C;ED*
(C#87;$+3, -6C;* (Entered: 0&&02012*
(3#5E: Doc?et !, in 0<10! indicates E"iled M Entered: 0&202012 3otice of Entry
of Default Doc?et 5e't: 3otice of Entry of Default of Defendant :obert Geller "iled by
9+C;6E$ #B:#8:GE on behalf of C6D$E C# (6ttachments: I (1* 6ffidavit Declaration of
9ichael #B:our?e supporting :eHuest for Entry of Default*(#B:#8:GE, 9+C;6E$*F *
Coughlins !1012 filing in 0<10! (Doc?et <&* was a E9otion to Dismiss 6dversary
(roceeding on behalf of :#2E:5 GE$$E:)
CoughlinBs !1/12 filing in 0<10! (Doc?et <! * was a E6nswer to Complaint with
Certificate of 1ervice (:elated Doc I && 9otion to "ile 6mended Complaint "iled by
9+C;6E$ #B:#8:GE on behalf of C6D$E C#*, Counterclaim by 169635;6 $) ;6$$,
:#2E:5 GE$$E: against C6D$E C# "iled by -6C; C#87;$+3 on behalf of :#2E:5
GE$$E:*)
<0 "iled M Entered: 0&2%2012 :eHuest(raecipe for Default Doc?et 5e't:
:eHuest(raecipe for Default against :obert Geller "iled by 9+C;6E$ #B:#8:GE on behalf
of C6D$E C# (6ttachments: I (1* 6ffidavit Declaration of 9ichael #B:our?e supporting
(laintiffBs :eHuest for Entry of DefaultI (2* 6ppendi' (roposed Entry of Default*
(#B:#8:GE, 9+C;6E$* <1 "iled M Entered: 0&2,2012 3otice of Deficiency :egarding
:eHuest for Cler? to Enter Default) Doc?et 5e't: 3otice of Deficiency :egarding :eHuest for
Cler? to Enter Default) (:elated document(s*<0 :eHuest(raecipe for Default filed by (laintiff
C6D$E C#)* (dlm*F
1o, Coughlin is trying to handle his business, and mitigate the prejudice to his
clientBs affair incident to Dudge ;oward and ;olmesB monumental ego trips in summarily
&!&/%&
incarcerating a then praciting attorney for a total of eight days)))which was made substantially
more difficult where Coughlin had to do so without a phone (as Dudge ;olmes too? both of
CoughlinBs for &/ days*, and deal with a burglary of his former home law office and ejection of
him thereform by force and threat of abuse of power by >C1# deputies incident to 7ayle
GernBs EsH)Bs :(C &)<6 violation at the summary eviction proceeding earlier that day, where
Dudge 1chroeder arguably committed a Canon 1, :ule 1)1 violation in holding a summary
eviction, much less issuing a sort of default (despite Coughlin filing a detailed 5enantBs 6nswer
on &%12 ma?ing clear that GernBs 3:1 !0)2<! basis for see?ing a summary eviction was
jurisdictionally barred by CoughlinBs notice=pleading his as, at least in part, a commercial
tenancy (which ma?es the :DC doc?et in that summary eviction :ev2012=000&/! listing the
landlordBs affidavit as one for non=payment of rent rather suspect, as was GernBs switching up
her arguments (http:www)scribd)comdoc1....&%.&!=,=12=020!=&/!=7ayle=Gern=s=
#pposition=to=9oiton=for=:econsideration=or=3ew=5rial=6lter=6mend=Etc=:DC=1chroeder=
3@2=0<10!=2eesley=:(C=&=<6 * in her filings therein without also going to the trouble to
switch up the notices purportedly served on tenant Coughlin (and according the additional time
periods for response reHuired thereby*, and despite 3:1 !0)2<&(.* ma?ing clear the filing of
the landlordBs affidavit is an 6i?ins, Davidsohn jurisdictional prereHuisite to the justice court
even holding such a hearing)))where Gern did not file such until after the hearing*)
1o)))add to all of that the ensuing frea?out by a client upon a E3otice of Entry of
DefaultF relative to a O1). million dollar debt being filing in 3@2 0<10!, and)))Coughlin wants
his phones bac?, right away)))
E:E: please find order attached for return of my personal property
"rom: Gandaras, 9ary (m?andarasNda)washoecounty)us*
1ent: 9on !0212 !:<0 (9
Dear 9r) Coughlin:
Dear 9r) Coughlin:

+ received your voice mail and have read the email and the court order for return of items) +
have sent out reHuests to 1heriffLs staff to determine the what is going on with the release of
items) + will contact you when + ?now more)

&!!/%&
9ary Gandaras
Deputy District 6ttorney
(hone: (//<* &&/ = </2&
"a': (//<* &&/ = </&2
1ent: 9onday, 6pril 02, 2012 !:01 (9
5o: Gandaras, 9aryC ;aley, 9ichaelC @inger, 5oddC 1tuchell, $iA
1ubject: please find order attached for return of my personal property
Dear 1heriff ;aley and Deputy >ashoe County District 6ttorney Gandaras et al,
+ am writing to respectfully submit these materials to you for your consideration) (lease find
attached teh &&012 #rder :eleasing (ersonal (roperty by :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes)
+ do not wish for my property to be passed around anymore to any other agencies, including the
District 6ttorneyBs #ffice) + want it released to me, please) Dudge 3ash ;olmes did not #rder
is released to me by way of the District 6ttorneyBs #ffice) 5hese materials included my electric
shave, a samsung flip phone cell phone, and an ;5C 72 1martphone, and a &2 gb micro sd
card) + suspect + am going to hear about how the micro sd card has gone missing, or how is was
previously released to so and so) Kour own personnel have already confirmed that it was not
released to anyone associated with me, despite 9s) Cummings, Debi Campbell, and 5rish
2ec?manBs various inconsistent statements, especially in connection with those made by the
City of :eno 9arshals)
(lease let me ?now, in writing, what + need to do to get my property, whose custody + must
retrieve it from, any chain of custody for it in the interim, and e'actly what such property will
include, including a written indication from you whether or not it will include the &2gb micro
sd card, whether the card is free standing or placed within something, whether the phones have
batteries, whether the phoneBs contents have been copied or otherwise e'amined, why e'actly
they were held, etc), etc)) +f it is your position that the property to be returned does not include
a &2gb micro sd card, please e'plain that, including where such a card supposedly went and
when)
+ am writing to complain about an incident on "riday wherein Deputy 2eatson threatened me
with abuse of process, retaliation, malicious prosecution, and where he attempted to e'tort me)
"ront des? Deputy P9attyP was involved as well and bail counter personnel Dennifer and
3adine were tangentially involved)
&!</%&
3adine told me + should chec? with the front des? Deputy regarding the return of my personal
property) + did, chec?ing with someone who identified herself only as 9atty) 1he indicated
she would need to go to a bac? room to retrieve a paper) >hen she returned she indicated
someone had informed her + would need to spea? with 9ary Gandaras) + as?ed her who had
informed her of this and 9atty grew suddenly silent) + indicated to 9atty that it was fine,
obviously, if she did not wish to inform me of who it was she has received this message from,
but that + was as?ing her to confirm whether or not she was refusing to tell me as much) 9atty
pic?ed up the phone and called for help, seemingly solely motivated by being as?ed such a
simple Huestion) + as?ed 9atty if such a Huestion had made here uncomfortableJ + as?ed here
if it was o?ay if + leftJ 9atty indicated + was allowed to leave) 6ppro'imately 20 yards
outside of the building + hear Deputy 2eatson call for me) ;e began demanding my drivers
license (laughing at the idea of ;iibel*, telling me + was being detained, indicating that he
would fabricate an allegation of my having Pdisturbed the policeP such that he could arrest me
then and there and perform a search of my property) Deputy 2eatson (who soon was
accompanied by appro'imately , armed 1heriffBs Deputies, several with cameras and recording
eHuipment* further indicated that he didnBt want to see me around the 1heriffBBs #ffice or that
facility any more and that + better stop as?ing Huestions and Pbeing a problemP if + ?new what
was PgoodP for me) ;e conduct was e'tremely abusive, retaliatory, invasive, hostile,
threatening, and all done under color of law for all !2 81C 1ec 1,%& purposes) + am reHuesting
that a copy of this formal, written complaint be placed in his employmentpersonnel file, and
that the same be done for P9attyP) Deputy 2eatson has harassed me in that past at the
detention facility) 3umerous times + have, by 2eatson, and other Deputies, been retaliated
against in hurtful and humiliating ways, including for my failure to answer Huestions regarding
my private medical information and religious preference by both the boo?ing staff and other
personnel, including PnursesP at the detention facility) + have had e'cessive force used on me
several times and have been video taped while being subjected to a strip search) Deputies
routinely refuse to identify themselves by name when as?ed to do so, and this occurs routinely
in the conte't of see?ing a name to attach to a complaint of deputy misconduct, abuse of power,
e'cessive force, retaliation, etc) 5;+1 +1 6 $+5+765+#3 ;#$D 3#5+CE +3"#:9+37
K#8 #" 5;E 3EED 5# 96+356+3 63K 63D 6$$ D#C89E3565+#3 63D #:
:EC#:D+371 96DE +3C+DE35 5# 5;E E@E351 #" ":+D6K 6"5E:3##3
>;E:E+3 + 6((E6:ED, incident to a valid Court #rder from :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes,
ordering the return of my personal property)
5;+1 +1 6$1# 6 ":EED#9 #" +3"#:965+#3 6C5 :EU8E15 1EEG+37 6 C#(K #"
63K 63D 6$$ D#C89E3565+#3 :E$65ED 5# 9E +3 63K >6K, +3C$8D+37
6$$ 9ED+6, 2E (:#(#83DED 5# 9E 61 K#8: E6:$+E15 C#3@E3+E3CE)
"8:5;E:, 5;+1 +1 6 C#9($6+35 676+315 Deputy Durbin and Deputy CanniAAaro for
their misconduct incident to the eviction of &1<12 at 1!22 E) ,th 1t) I2, wherein they
threatened abuse of process, retaliatory arrest, etc):

http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV<3CH/!ei5r?
&!./%&
http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVssE0">;"3EK
http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVGj72aEjslr!MfeatureVchannel
+ do not wish to e'acerbate this situation) + wish to move on with my life) + went to high
school with Deputy Dohn 1arratea and law school with Deputy District 6ttorney Chris ;ic?s
and wor?ed with Deputy District 6ttorney (atricia ;alstead while we were both at ;ale $ane,
now ?nown as ;olland M ;art) + imagine all of these professionals would say that, while +
wal? a bit to the beat of my own drum, that + am essentially a harmless, honorable person who
has never much li?ed seeing an abuse of power but is capable of recogniAing that law
enforcement is not conducted in a vacuum, and that the practicalities of enforcing the law do
not always lend themselves to complying with what they average constitutional law professor
might deem just)))
+ needed to get my phone) + am trying to run a solo law practice) Dudge 3ash ;olmes (who has
been either a prosecutor or a prison warden or administrator for nearly the entirety of her
career* ordered both of my cell phones seiAed and they were retained for over one month) #ut
here in the private sector, that is a big deal, and a difficult obstacle to overcome) 5he
implications of such an order are all the more onerous for one recently twice adjudged a victim
of domestic violence, and even more so for he who is a victim of law enforcement misconduct)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin, EsH), (# 2#4 .0,<2, :E3#, 3@, %,<0., tel: //< &&% %11%, fa': ,!, ../
/!02C -achCoughlinNhotmail)com 3evada 2ar 3o: ,!/&F
E1ubject: ">: my attempt to be provided access to the grievances filed todayJ "rom: -ach
Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)com* 1ent: >ed &2%12 .:2, (9 5o:
patric??Nnvbar)orgC davidcNnvbar)orgC glennmNnvbar)org 6ttachments: 1<
attachments C@11=0&.2% Coughlin v 9erliss & 2. 2012 :ichard 7) ;ilBs 9otion for #rder to
1how Cause 6gainst Coughlin is DE3+ED)pdf (..)% G2* , notice of appeal 11 tr 2.%00 rmc
and 9otion for reconsideration set aside etc)pdf (2). 92* , (ages from mary bar?er rmc 11 tr
2.%00 order denying motion for return of bond)pdf (<0%)2 G2* , DCampbellNwashoecounty)us
emails 11 tr 2.%00)pdf (2). 92* , & 2. 12 fa' to rmc regarding address emails and car sleeping
allegations)pdf (<1), G2* , D#E$ ;6:$EK o 5ransparent3evada :9C 9arshal ;arley)htm
(&)& G2* , & 1, 12 fas to rmc marshals regarding property wcso)pdf (!0)0 G2* , 2 2! 20 fa' to
rmc regarding deficiency in record on appeal)pdf (<<). G2* , D#;3 56:5E: o
5ransparent3evada year city failed to report)pdf (2<)/ G2* , (68$ 1+":E o
5ransparent3evada sifre 200,)htm (&). G2* , (68$ 1+":E o 5ransparent3evada city of reno
&!//%&
failed to report cost of health care benefits)htm (&). G2* , 1 10 12 email from :9C +nterim
Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son re Dudge ;owards #rder of 12 1. 11)pdf (,1)! G2* ,
D815+3 :#(E: o 5ransparent3evada rmc chief marshal justin roper 2010 base pay 10,G)htm
(&)& G2* , rmc judge bios)pdf (1%)2 G2* ,
9otion_for_Continuance_to_:eno_City_6tty_:oberts_:9C)pdf (!!%), G2*
Dear 2ar Counsel, + apologiAe, + meant to attach the attached #rder Dismissing
:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)Bs 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause before Dudge "lanagan in Department
/ of the 1econd Dudicial District Court) 6lso, 9r) Ging, would you please confirm that it was,
in fact, Department & that wrote about my apparel in Department / on "riday, 9arch 2&, 2012J
Could + have a copy of that correspondence or something in writing attesting to its contentsJ
Dudge ;ardy in Department 1< is the Chief Dudge of the 1econd Dudicial District Court for
2012) 5he ;earing was in C@11=0&.2% on &2&12 in Department / before Dudge "lanagan)
1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH), (# 2#4 .0,<2, :E3#, 3@, %,<0., tel: //< &&% %11%, fa':
,!, ../ /!02C -achCoughlinNhotmail)com 3evada 2ar 3o: ,!/&
22 %"s "s te f"rst and on#& case com"ng to o'r attent"on "n w"c a ('dge as seen f"t to "m!r"son an acc'sed !erson)s defense attorne& "n
m"dtr"a#* fn* 3 %e !art"es a+e c"ted no case #",e "t and add"t"ona# researc- a#to'g not e.a'st"+e- as re+ea#ed none* /"rt'a##& 'n"form
!ract"ce enta"#s deferment of te contem!t ad('d"cat"on or of act'a# !'n"sment 'nt"# te ('r& "s d"scarged* 01t "s now we## esta2#"sed !ract"ce for
te tr"a# ('dge to reser+e !'n"sment of contem!ts 2& !art"c"!ants "n a cr"m"na# tr"a#*0 (3ates +* 4n"ted 5tates- 226 7*2d 851- 853 (re+d* "n !art on
oter gro'nds- 355 4*5* 99 :2 ;*Ed*2d 95- 68 5*Ct* 128<*$ Deferment 'nt"# com!#et"on of te tr"a# ca'ses no #oss of ('r"sd"ct"on* (5acer +* 4n"ted
5tates- 343 4*5* 1 :99 ;*Ed* 616- 62 5*Ct* 451<= ;am2erson +* 5'!er"or Co'rt- 151 Ca#* 458- 490 :91 P* 100<= 1n re >rossman- 109 Ca#*?!!* 925-
932 :293 P* 983<= @ote 100 ?*;*A*2d 439= cf* 1n re 7oote- 69 Ca#* 543 :18 P* 968<*$
Ben an acc'sed)s defense attorne& "nd'#ges "n offens"+e co'rtroom 2ea+"or- te co'rt)s o2#"gat"on to !rotect te order#& adm"n"strat"on of [18
Cal.App.3d 889] ('st"ce mo+es "nto tens"on w"t te acc'sed)s r"gt to a fa"r- s!eed& and rat"ona# ad('d"cat"on of g'"#t* Ca#anc"ng and
reconc"#"at"on are te o2+"o's needs* %e ('dge m'st we"g te need for order#& tr"a# aga"nst te des"derata of fa"r tr"a#* 1n se+era# nat"ona##&
notor"o's tr"a#s- offens"+e 2ea+"or 2& te attorne&s dwarfed te re#at"+e#& "nnoc'o's act"+"t& of te !resent attorne&* ?#to'g te a!!arent
targets of de#"2erate goad"ng- te tr"a# ('dges "n tose cases d"d not !erm"t "nterr'!t"on of te tr"a#- 2't deferred contem!t !roceed"ngs 'nt"# te
tr"a# was com!#eted* (5ee- e*g*- 5acer +* 4n"ted 5tates- s'!ra= @"ederoffer and 5m"t- Power and Persona#"t& "n te Co'rtroom: %e %r"a# of
te C"cago 6- 3 Conn*;*Ae+* 233*$ Dere- on te morn"ng of te fo'rt da& of tr"a#- te co'rt (a"#ed te attorne& for 24 o'rs- forc"ng a 24-o'r
"nterr'!t"on of te tr"a#* %e 2r"ef contem!t !roceed"ngs occ'!"ed te ent"re record for a s"ng#e da&* %e record does not sow tat te ('rors ad
2een "nstr'cted not to re!ort* 1nfera2#& te& d"d re!ort- earned te"r fees and were sent ome*
:13< Code of C"+"# Proced're sect"on 1211 !erm"ts s'mmar& !'n"sment for contem!t comm"tted "n te co'rt)s "mmed"ate !resence* %e term
0s'mmar&0 refers to te caracter of te contem!t !roceed"ng- not "ts t"m"ng- and does not demand "nstanter !'n"sment* (5acer +* 4n"ted
5tates- s'!ra- 343 4*5* at !* 9 :99 ;*Ed* at !!* 623-624<= 4n"ted 5tates +* >a#ante- 298 7*2d 62- 69 :100 ?*;*A*2d 431<= Eac1nn"s +* 4n"ted
5tates- 191 7*2d 156- 190-191= 1n re >rossman- s'!ra- 109 Ca#*?!!* at !* 932= see 1961 B"s*;*Ae+* 329- 332*$ Effect"+e +"nd"cat"on rare#&
demands "nterr'!t"on of te cr"m"na# tr"a#* 1ndeed- te federa# 5'!reme Co'rt as g"+en cogent reasons for deferr"ng !'n"sment of
cont'mac"o's co'nse#: 0Aeasons for !erm"tt"ng stra"gtwa& e.erc"se of s'mmar& !ower are not reasons for com!e##"ng or enco'rag"ng "ts
"mmed"ate e.erc"se* 7ortw"t ('dgment "s not reF'"red 2& te te.t of te :federa#< A'#e* 5t"## #ess "s s'c constr'ct"on a!!ro!r"ate as a safeg'ard
aga"nst a2'se of te !ower* 1f te cond'ct of tese #aw&ers warranted "mmed"ate s'mmar& !'n"sment on dozens of occas"ons- no !oss"2#e
!re('d"ce to tem can res'#t from de#a&"ng "t 'nt"# te end of te tr"a# "f te c"rc'mstances !erm"t s'c de#a&* %e o+err"d"ng cons"derat"on "s te
"ntegr"t& and eff"c"enc& of te tr"a# !rocess ****0 (5acer +* 4n"ted 5tates- s'!ra- 343 4*5* at !!* 9-10 :99 ;*Ed* at !!* 623-624<*$
:14< 1n a fe#on& tr"a# te a2sence of te acc'sed)s on#& tr"a# attorne& effect"+e#& a#ts te tr"a#* (;&ons +* 5'!er"or Co'rt- s'!ra- 43 Ca#*2d at !*
658*$ %e s'mmar& "m!r"sonment of a defense attorne& m"dwa& "n a cr"m"na# tr"a# as a #arge !otent"a# for arm* Co'rt de#a&s are a ards"! on
te #"t"gants and create !ro2#ems for a## !art"es concerned w"t te adm"n"strat"on of ('st"ce* (Eowrer +* 5'!er"or Co'rt- s'!ra- 3 Ca#*?!!*3d at !*
232*$ %e tr"a# co'rt)s stat'tor& d't& "s to contro# te tr"a# and anc"##ar& !roceed"ngs 0w"t a +"ew to te e.!ed"t"o's and effect"+e
ascerta"nment [18 Cal.App.3d 890] of te tr't ****0 (Pen* Code- G 1044*$ :15< 4n#ess demanded 2& o+erwe#m"ng c"rc'mstances- te
co'rt-"m!osed de#a& ca'sed 2& (a"#"ng te defense #aw&er "n m"dtr"a# "s "nerent#& wrong- damag"ng to te defendant)s r"gt to a s!eed& tr"a# and
ant"tet"ca# to te !'2#"c "nterest "n s!eed&- econom"ca# ('st"ce* %r"a# attorne&s freF'ent#& 'se recesses and e+en"ngs for !re!arator& and
"n+est"gat"+e wor,* %e (a"#"ng of an attorne& "n m"dtr"a# !'ts a F'"et's on tat wor,* %e (a"#"ng ma& come to te ears of te ('rors and ca'se an
ad+erse react"on* fn* 4 7"na##&- te t"m"ng of te act"on "n(ects "nto te tr"a# "n "rre#e+ant so'rce of !otent"a# ca'sa#"t"es w"c ma&- "n some
'nforeseen wa&- a#ter "ts co'rse or sa!e "ts res'#t*
? recent st'd& of tr"a# co'rt d"sr'!t"on s'ggests "mmed"ate assert"on of te ('dge)s contem!t !ower w"to't awa"t"ng te conc#'s"on of te
!roceed"ngs- arg'"ng tat #ater tr"a# of te contem!t "m!a"rs te ('dge)s a2"#"t& to "ncrease te !ress'res 2& a'gment"ng te se+er"t& of
s'ccess"+e !'n"sments* fn* 5%e s'ggest"on g"+es "nadeF'ate we"gt to te o+err"d"ng "m!ortance of te !end"ng tr"a#* 1t o+er#oo,s te
&!%/%&
'n!red"cta2#e emanat"ons aro'sed 2& m"dtr"a# !'n"sment of te attorne&* D'r"ng an e.tended tr"a# a ('dge ma& e.ert adeF'ate !ress're on
cont'mac"o's co'nse# 2& "m!os"ng s'ccess"+e contem!t sanct"ons 2't s's!end"ng e.ec't"on of !'n"sment 'nt"# te +erd"ct "s "n* ?noter
recommendator& 2od& s'ggests tat te tr"a# ('dge g"+e te attorne& !rom!t not"ce of "ntent"on to o#d "m "n contem!t 2't defer te act'a#
!roceed"ng 'n#ess !rom!t !'n"sment "s "m!erat"+e* fn* 9
1n t"s case te tr"a# co'rt fo'nd Er* H#e"n "n contem!t for tard"ness w"c de#a&ed te tr"a# for 15 m"n'tes- ten "tse#f forced a 24-o'r de#a& 2&
te 24-o'r (a"# comm"tment* Conce"+a2#&- a case co'#d ar"se "n w"c e.traord"nar& c"rc'mstances ('st"f& te (a"#"ng of an attorne& "n m"dtr"a#*
Dence- an 'nF'a#"f"ed r'#e f#at#& condemn"ng tat act"on wo'#d 2e "na!!ro!r"ate* :19< Aater- te "mmed"ac& or deferment of contem!t
!'n"sment "s d"scret"onar&* 0)01n a #ega# sense d"scret"on "s a2'sed wene+er "n te e.erc"se of "ts d"scret"on te co'rt e.ceeds te 2o'nds of
reason- a## of te c"rc'mstances 2efore "t 2e"ng cons"dered*0)0 (Peo!#e +* A'sse#- 99 Ca#*2d 186- 194 :60 Ca#*A!tr 210- 443 P*2d 694<*$ :16< 1n
e.erc"s"ng "ts d"scret"on te co'rt so'#d 2ear "n m"nd tat d"rect contem!t 0)"s necessar"#& of an ar2"trar& nat're- and so'#d 2e 'sed w"t great
!r'dence and ca't"on*)0 (;&ons +* 5'!er"or Co'rt- s'!ra- 43 Ca#*2d at !* 692*$ %e [18 Cal.App.3d 891] Peo!#e a+e !o"nted to no
('st"f"cat"on wate+er for te (a"#"ng of defendant)s attorne& "n m"dtr"a# and te conseF'ent s's!ens"on of te tr"a#* :18< ?## cons"derat"ons of !o#"c&
and fa"rness "m!e##ed deferment and no d"scern"2#e need ca##ed for "mmed"ate (a"#"ng= ence- te co'rt)s act"on was an a2'se of d"scret"on +"s-a-
+"s te defendant on tr"a#*****G 7@ 3* 1n Peo!#e +* Ionson- 219 Ca#* 62 :25 P*2d 408<- te defense attorne&)s d"sres!ectf'# 2ea+"or d'r"ng te
!rosec't"on)s c#os"ng arg'ment !rom!ted te ('dge to dec#are "m "n contem!t and to d"rect te 2a"#"ff to ta,e "m "n carge* ?nswer"ng a carge
of error- te 5'!reme Co'rt o2ser+ed: 05a"d co'nse# was not- owe+er- remo+ed from te co'rtroom and was !erm"tted tereafter w"t "s co-
co'nse# to !art"c"!ate "n te !roceed"ngs*0 (219 Ca#* at !* 69*$ 1nferent"a##&- te attorne&)s a2"#"t& to cond'ct te defense of "s c#"ent w"to't
"nterr'!t"on was a factor "n te f"nd"ng of #ac, of !re('d"ce*
G 7@ 4* %e federa# 5'!reme Co'rt as e.!ressed te fear tat ('r& ,now#edge of te contem!t w"## aro'se !re('d"ce* (5acer +* 4n"ted 5tates-
s'!ra- 343 4*5* at !* 10 :99 ;*Ed* at !* 624<*$ Ca#"forn"a cases ass'me #ac, of !re('d"c"a# "m!act '!on te ('r&* (Peo!#e +* Ionson- s'!ra- 219
Ca#* at !* 69= Peo!#e +* >regor&- 12 Ca#*?!!*2d 6- 15 :54 P*2d 660<= see @ote 29 ?*;*A*3d 1399*$
G 7@ 5* ?mer"can Co##ege of %r"a# ;aw&ers- Ae!ort and Aecommendat"on on D"sr'!t"on of te I'd"c"a# Process (1960$ !!* 12-13*
G 7@ 9* ?mer"can Car ?ssoc"at"on Pro(ect on 5tandards for Cr"m"na# I'st"ce- %e I'dge)s Ao#e "n Dea#"ng w"t %r"a# D"sr'!t"ons (?d+ance
Ae!ort$ !!* 19-20* Peo!#e +* 7'saro (1961$ - 18 Ca#*?!!*3d 866*
2& http:www)scribd)comdoc1...<,1,!&=&0=12=Edited=Coughlin=s="iling=Detailing=
(rejudice=to=Client=s=6ffairs="rom=>rongful=1ummary=+ncarceration=and=5heft=of=;is=
(hone=by=Dudges=;olmes=a >hile CoughlinBs brilliant !1012 filing in the 3@2 (and
hows this for defensive collateral estoppel: Dudge 2eesley has not made a Canon 2, :ule 2)1!
or 2)1< report to the 123 concerning CoughilnBs replacement upon whatever it is one calls
what happened during the %2%12 hearing, CoughlinBs replacement ;adfield clearly manifested
her and GellerBs intent to stand behind CoughlinBs !1012 filing in the 3@2 (and why not given
the very argument therein which Coughlin pointed out in his cross=e'amination of Dudge
2eesley evinced Huite a high degree of competence, li?ely can dispose of the O1,.00,000 debt
that debt buyer Cadle Company is see?ing to have declared non=dischargeable:
>hile Cadle CompanyBs &111& #pposition to attorney ;adfieldBs 2121& 91D
really wishes that CoughlinBs nettlesome !1012 filing had been withdrawn by either Geller or
CoughlinBs replacement incident to Dudge 2eesleyBs statements at the %2%12 status conference,
that replacement, attorney ;adfield had the very good sense to recogniAe when a filing goes
beast mode in the way CoughlinBs !1012) >hile CadleBs &111& #pposition purports that:
E156581 #n Duly 2, 2010, Defendant filed a @oluntary (etition for :elief under
Chapter / of 5itle 11, 8)1)C) QEC" Document 1R) 5he &!1 9eeting was held on 6ugust 12,
2010 and (laintiff filed its adversary complaint against Defendant Geller on #ctober 12, 2010
with causes of action for non=dischargeability under 11 8)1)C) SS <2&(a*(2*(6*, <2&(a*(!* and
res judicata QEC" Document 2!R) 6fter obtaining permission from the Court, (laintiff filed its
6mended Complaint on December 1%, (Case 10=0<10!=gwA Doc %! Entered 0&111& 1/:1&:1,
&!,/%&
(age & of 1<* 2011 QEC" Document &1R) Defendant then submitted his 6nswer to the 6mended
Complaint on Danuary &, 2012 QEC" Document !&R)
O"$er "$an "$e ins"an" )o"ion for *ummary Judgmen"7 all pending mo"ions $ad
6een #i"$dra#n 6y "$e par"ies a" "$e las" *"a"us %earing 6efore "$e Cour" on De!em6er F7
2012) (ursuant to an agreement of counsel, this #pposition to DefendantLs 9otion for
1ummary Dudgment will be filed on 9arch 11, 201&)P
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2.<..,&=11=1&=0<10!=<2.&,=Cadle=s=#pposition=to=Geller=s=
2=12=1&=91D=020=.2&&/=3o=3umbers
6 careful inspection of ;adfieldBs 2121& 91D reveals the defensive collateral
estoppel victory lap (?issing the trac?, lighting pose, draped in countryBs flag, finger pointing to
an adoring grandstand, winning smiles* that CoughlinBs failure to revive a dormant judgment
within two years of its going dormant under 54 Civ Code &!)001 by virtue of the the failure to
effect a reivival thereof presented in CadleBs 3:C( 11 violating vice president without a law
license filing in 200. of an 6ffidavit of "oreign Dudgment in the 2DDC) +ndeed, attorney
%adfield !learly indi!a"es "$a" su!$ F/10/12 filing 6y Coug$lin passes 3DC 1,1 mus"er where
such provides:
Case 10=0<10!=gwA Doc /% Entered 021&1&, (age & of 1< clearly e'presses that
CoughlinBs !1012 9otion to Dismiss 6dversary (roceeding (Doc?et <&* in <10! is absolutely
not withdrawn by either Geller or CoughlinBs replacement attorney ;adfield where such
provides: P++ 156581 #" 5;E C61E 5his case is set for a 1tatus Conference on December !,
2012, at 11:00 a)m), in Department 2 of the above entitled court) 2$e follo#ing ma""ers are
presen"ly pending 6efore "$is Cour"@ 1, )o"ion "o Dismiss 0dersary Dro!eeding7 IDo!'e"
C3J filed 0pril 107 2012) (laintiff submitted its #pposition on 9ay %, 2012 QDoc?et <.R) 2)
9otion to 1tri?e 6nswer and (urported Counter=Claim filed by (laintiff on 9ay %, 2012
QDoc?et </R) Defendan"Os "$en-!ounsel filed an Opposi"ion on )ay 217 2012 IDo!'e" 62J, &)
9otion for 1ummary Dudgment filed by DefendantLs then=counsel on 9ay 2&, 2012 QDoc?et
.&R) !) 6mended 9otion for 1ummary Dudgment filed by DefendantLs then=counsel on Dune ,,
2012 QDoc?et .%R) Contem/oraneou#ly 2ith the %iling o% thi# motion %or *ummary
"udgment' $e%endant ha# 2ithdra2n hi# /re-iou#ly %iled !otion to $i#mi## IDo!'e" C6J'
!otion %or *ummary "udgment U$oc5et 6&V and ?mended !otion %or *ummary
"udgment U$oc5et 68V)P
5o be clear the E9otion to Dismiss (Doc?et <.*F ;adfield indicates Geller is
withdrawing represents CoughlinBs 2H-;H-. filing, not CoughlinBs 2H-FH-. 9otion to Dismiss,
which is still very much in play (as is the EDefendan"Os "$en-!ounsel filed an Opposi"ion on
)ay 217 2012 IDo!'e" 62J9 that Coughlin filed in opposition to CadleBs desperate desire to see
the same Eliberal applicationF of :ule /01< that Cadle received from Dudge 2eesley in his
granting CadleBs 101%11 9otion to 6mend Complaint withheld from Geller sufficient to
operate as a waiver of the affirmative defense Coughlin set out in his !1012 9otion to
Dismiss (which ought operate as the functional eHuivalent of an 6mended 6nswer to whatever
&<0/%&
e'tent :ule /012 is applied sufficient preclude Geller from see?ing a dismissal based on :ule
/012 where he had already filed an answer prior to Coughlin even appearing in the matter, as
well as where CoughlinBs 1&12 6mended 6nswer might auger for a similar treatment, at least
to the issue of whether or not Geller will be permitted to file a 9otion to Dismiss as to the
newly added amended claim (1ec <2&(a*(10* vis a vis CadleBs contention that Geller ?new of or
should have ?nown of and therefore ought to have notified such an alleged potential creditor as
the 1tate of 5e'as whom assigned the judgment in Huestion to Geller* given Coughlin file an
6mended 6nswer on 1&12 (though, given the fact that such 6mended 6nswer lac?s a
verificaton by the client Geller, to whatever e'tent such a verification is reHuired the lac?
thereof may operate to preclude such a determination that that 1&12 6nswer to 6mended
Complaint operates as a waiver as to the affiramtive defenses Coughlin set out hin his !1012
9otion to Dismiss (which Coughlin pled in the alterantive as an 6mended 6nswer, regardless*
and could be dispositive of the entire adversary proceeding) "urther, while Geller via ;adfield
has withdrawn CoughlnBs
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2.<,%<2=12=1&=Coughlin=s=:eplacement=;adfield=
in=the=3@2=3otice=of=1ubstitution=of=6ttorney=Doc=!.=10=<2.&,=0<10!=020!=.2&&/
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2.<,%!2=1&=1&=0<10!=Declaration=of=Debtor=
Geller=in=1upport=of=91D=Doc=%0=Declaration=of=Geller=in=1upport=9sj=0<10!
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2.<,%&2=1&=1&=0<10!=>ithout=E'hibits=.=(age=
Declaration=of=Debtor=Geller=in=1upport=of=91D=Doc=%0=Declaration=of=Geller=in=1upport=
9sj=0<10!
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2.<%.<,=10=1&=0<10!=3@2=Geller=Doc?et=as=#f
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2.<%202=1&=1&=3@2=0<10!=Geller=s=1eparate=
1tmt=of=8ndisputed="acts=10=<2.&,=7wA=Doc=<0
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2<2!1&&=1!=12=3vb=0<10!=Geller=2eesley=
1hortened=9otion=for=E'tension=of=5ime=to="ile=2an?r=d=nev=11!021!122..
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2.1/.1,=10=1&=3@D=1&C@!!.=!%!=+"(=9otion=
(roposed=Complaint=3@D=6ction=:e=1ummary=Eviction=$oc?out=2urglaries=by=:(D=
>C1#=;ill=3orthwind=Et=6l=<.=(age
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2<2!1&&=1!=12=3vb=0<10!=Geller=2eesley=
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2&,%!,&=/=12=<.=(age=9otion="a'=5otalling=22!=
(age=3otice=of=6ppeal=9tn=:eturn=Confiscated=(ersonal=(roperty=11=5:=2.%00
&<1/%&
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!00,%!=11=12=:9C=9arshal=Coppa=6ffidavit=
Concerning=&=2&=12=(ajamas=6llegations=020!=2.%00=E'hibit=/=in=.0,/<=5iffed
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!00,,&=&0=12=020!=.2&&/=2.%00=#crd=:9C=
Dudge=;olmes=#rder=:eleasing=(roperty=:9C=Confiscated="rom=>hat=6lready=2oo?ed=
+nto=Coughlin=s=(ersonal=(roperty=at
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0102!=11=12=020!=.2&&/=2.%00=2.!0<=00.,.=
:9C=Donna=2allard=6ffidavit=to=the=123
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0100!=11=12=020!=.2&&/=2.%00=2.!0<=:9C=
@anessa=7arcia=6ffidavit=to=the=123
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0101&=&0=12=020!=.2&&/=3@2=10=0<10!=
<&.&,=2.%00=Dudge=2eesley=s=:eporting=Couglin=8nder=Canon=2=:ule=2=1<=>here=2eesley=
;ad=Duty=to=:eport=:9C=Dudge=;olm
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!010&!=1.=12=020!=2.!0<=2.%00=.,.=81(1=&/!=
/!!0%=.&22/=(hotos=of=9ail=>ith=Kellow=1tic?ers=:evealing=Delays=and=:erouting=9ore=
(hotos=+97=20120!1.=1!20<0
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0121&=1!=12=020!=.2&&/=Envelope="rom=:9C=
2.%00=:eturned=:ec=d=&=22=12=by=:9C
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0!,&&=,=12=020!=.2&&/=2.%00=:ecord=1earch=
:eHuest="orm=for=:mc=for=68D+#=":#9=5:+6$
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0!,.!=11=12=:9C=9arshal=Coppa=6ffidavit=
Concerning=&=2&=12=(ajamas=6llegations=020!=2.%00=E'hibit=/=in=.0,/<=5iffed
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0!,<!=11=12=020!=.2&&/=2.%00=2.!0<=00.,.=
:9C=Donna=2allard=6ffidavit=to=the=123=2ates=1%.<
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0!,!!=11=12=020!=.2&&/=2.%00=2.!0<=00.,.=
.0,/<=E'hibit=/=to=33D2=1ucich=s=<=&1=12=1C:=11/=(etition=$etter=to=123="rom=:9C=
9arshal=Coppa
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0!,/&=12=12=020!=.2&&/=E4;+2+5=0000<=
:9C=Dudge=3ash=;olmes=#rder=11=5:=2.%00=#rder=by=Dudge=3ash=;olmes=>ith=Clear=
and=Convicing=:(C=$anguage=020!
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0!,,!=11=12=020!=.2&&/=2.%00=2.!0<=:9C=
@anessa=7arcia=6ffidavit=to=the=123
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0<00!=1,=12=5ranscript=of=;earing=in=0&/.=
&<2/%&
>here=Dudge=Elliott=Day=;ill="iled="ee=9otion=0&.&%=020!=0.<.&0=2.!0<=0&.2%=.0&&1=
1/0%=2.%00=00.,.
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!0<02!=/=12=9otion=to=6lter=or=6mend=#rder=
6ffirming=1ummary=Eviction=0&.2%=E35+:E=E"$E4=C#92+3ED=6((E3D+4=.0&&1=
.1&%&=2.!0<=1/0%=2.%00=020!
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!12/0&=&0=12=3@2=0<10!="iling=by=Coughlin=
Detailing=(rejudice=#t=Geller=7essin=Clients=>here=1ummariy=+ncarceration=of=6ttorney=3o=
1tay=7ranted=2.%00=<0//
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2!1/&,&=&0=12=020!=.2&&/=3@2=10=0<10!=
<&.&,=2.%00=Dudge=2eesley=s=:eporting=Couglin=8nder=Canon=2=:ule=2=1<=>here=2eesley=
;ad=Duty=to=:eport=:9C=Dudge=;olm
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2<2&<!&=1!=12=3vb=0<10!=Geller=2eesley=
5E4) C+@) (:6C M :E9)C#DE SS &1)00. (>est 200%*, &!)001(a*
+s this a scenario where, in an adversary proceeding, 5he Debt 2uyer is out of luc? in that they
failed to revive the dormant judgeJ
?s to "ss'ance of e.ec't"on on dormant ('dgments- see C*I*5*- E.ec't"ons s 6
Dormant judgments, limitations and the touch of fraud) Dohn :) >ilson, &2 2aylor $):ev) &2/
(1,%0*) E'ecution <)1)
Dudgment %<&, %<,)
>estlaw 5opic 3os) 1.1, 22%)
C)D)1) E'ecutions S .)
C)D)1) Dudgments SS .&/ to .!0)
54 Civ Code S &1)00. (Dudgment not e'ecuted on within ten years become dormant and
must be revived prior to any later attempts to e'ecute thereon*)
3#5E1 #" DEC+1+#31
+n general 1
1tatute providing when a judgment becomes dormant, mus" 6e s"ri!"ly !ons"rued)
:utherford v) ;ughes, E)D)5e')1,<2, 10& ")1upp) 1.1, reversed 201 ")2d 1.1)
$imitations 1!=1.
"udgment debtor 2a# entitled to Eudgment on the /leading# in Eudgment creditor<#
action to rene2 Eudgment' #ince debtor<# a%%irmati-e de%en#e' that creditor<# action 2a# time-
barred becau#e Eudgment became dormant and creditor %ailed to bring a re-i-al action 2ithin
t2o-year /eriod o% limitation#' 2a# /ro-ed conclu#i-ely by creditor<# o2n admi##ion#. Cadle Co,
, Jen'ins (6pp) < Dist) 200%* 2.. 1)>)&d !) Dleading 3F>
&<&/%&
CoughlinBs 1&12 PDebtor GellerBs 6nswer to Cadel CompanyBs 6mended Complaint
#bjecting to Dischargeability of Debt demonstrated some apt legal wor? where such read: E)))12)
Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the 6mended Complaint (3#5E: such related to
an allegation that Geller was served the Complaint via certified mailing*, as Defendant cannot confirm
information in this section as, !on"rary "o plain"iff s"a"emen"7 De"i"ion and 0mended De"i"ion from
2rais Coun"y #ere no" a""a!$ed "o "$e pleading re!eied ei"$er #i"$ respe!" "o "$e ini"ial Complain"
or7 argua6ly7 !on!erning "$e 0mended Complain", as the undersigned is not yet registered with
E9EC" for efiling purposes)))P(CoughlinBs 1&12 PDebtor GellerBs 6nswer to Cadle CompanyBs
6mended Complaint #bjecting to Dischargeability of Debt at page ! lines 20=2.*)
+n an ironic symmetry, one could ta?e CadleBs 101,11 9otion to 6mend Complaint and
its arguments vis a vis the availability of liberally construing :ule /012 as to allowing Cadle to add a
fourth cause of against Geller based on 1ec <2&(a*(10* alleging Geller should have foreseen incident to
a ban?ruptcy he filed in 6riAona in 1,,0 some anticipated liability connected to what would become
the <2&,< stipulated judgment the subject of the adversary proceeding stemming from the ban?ruptcy
he filed in 2010 (which necessarily entails a factual inHuiry into just when Geller became aware of such
1,,2 action filed in 5e'as (from which the 1,,< consent judgment resulted*, vis a vis CadleBs
allegation that Geller had a duty to notify such an anticipated creditor incident to the ban?ruptcy he
filed in 6riAona in 1,,0)
1o, just as Cadle argued that justice reHuired freely granting it leave to amend, so too may
Geller argue for just such a liberal application of :ule /001 (6mendment of (leadings* to ta?e
advantage of, again, the game changer legal analysis laid Huite flat in a scant five pages (howBs that for
ElengthyF* in CoughlinBs !1012 filing therein where CadleBs failure to revive such <2&,< judgment
caused such to become dormant)))which is problem for Cadle considering the applicability 5e'as
statute reHuired it to revive such dormant judgment within two years of it becoming dormant, lest it be
lost forever, where Coughlin pointed out so presciently that (and, Coughlin li?ely would have nailed
this in his 1&12 filing had he not just been burglariAed by ;illBs associate and >C1# Deputy 9achen
on 11111 (really, Casey, was it really worth ris?ing liability on a O1). million dollar debt just to go
about effecting a loc?out incident to a summary eviction (which may well be declared void anyways
given the jurisdictional bar presented by Davisohn and CoughlinBs notice=pleading ad nauseum the
commercial use aspect of his tenancy and the prohibition against using the summary eviction
procedures of 3:1 !0)2<& upon a claim of possession based on other than non=payment of rent by way
of 3:1 !0)2<!(2* (ie, no summary evictions against commercial tenantBs unless the landlord proceeds
under the non-paymen" of rent basis for utiliAing a summary eviciton procedure set out in 3:1 !0)2<&,
which, again, 2a?er and ;ill decided against pursuing in their thought that pursuing such a summary
eviction on a no cause basis was Ethe path of least resistanceF)
6nd what a varied panopoly of analysis those three no cause summary evictions present
where 2a?erBs some of the time verbatim copying and pasting of the relevant landlord tenantunlawful
detainersummary eviction statutes into the 102/11 "#"C#$#11E in :ev2011=001/0% presents a
somewhat different landscape than present with Gern and (ar? 5errace 5own ;omes ;#6>39 vis a
vis the stoc? E$oc?out #rderF of &1<12 in :ev2012=000&/! and the >C1#Bs burglary at 1:00 pm
(incident to an %:&0 a)m), summary eviction proceeding just that very morning where Gern violated
:(C &)<6 in smir?ing at Coughlin as she was leaving Dudge 1chroederBs court room having procurred
the Ewrit of restitutionF (though not bond or waiver of the reHuirement thereof under 3:1 !0*, er,
&<!/%&
E$oc?out #rderF she assurred Dudge 1chroeder it was Eabsolutely fairF to issue upon Coughlin
allegedly being a couple minutes late to court where Gern and her client had yet to file the ElandlordBs
affidavitF that 3:1 !0)2<&(.* provides is a Davidsohn jurisdictional prereHuisite to the justice court
even holding such a hearing)
6nd, really, that approach by the :DC (where it really matters not that a tenant has
absolutely no advance notice of what the ElandlordBs affidavit alleges* in allowing landlordBs to file their
ElandlordBs affidavitsF in open court (in the case of the 102<11 date in :ev2011=001/0%, several hours
into the 5rial, er, Econtinuation of the 101&11 summary eviction proceedingF (upon Coughlin pointing
out that the dicates of 1C: 10, had not been followed sufficient to hold the 102<11 5rial Coughlin
had been noticed of in writing by the :DC, where, rather, than ta?ing Eno further actionF upon
determining that Coughlin had met the reHuirement that he demonstrate he had a Elegal defenseF, Dduge
1ferraAAa proceeded to force Coughlin to deposit some O2,2/< in rent escrow with the court to litigate
EhabitabilityF by way of CoughlinBs retaliatory eviction (3:1 11%6)<10* defense (in addition to his
arguments that the lease had not e'pired and that the landlord had not any such no cause termination
right under the lease even had a Edefined termination dateF in fact come to pass at such point, despite
the fact that ;illBs associate 2a?er and the landlord would be enjoying Ethe path of least resistanceF
devoid of any of the messy issues associated with ma?ing Eactually litigatedF those very habitability
issuesJ ;ey, Double, come over here, + want you to meet 1tandard)
1o much for the path of least resistance, as the 3:1 !0)2<!(2* Declaration of Casey D)
2a?er, EsH) (ursuant to 3:1 !0)2<!(2* and the various iterations and amalgams that collectively form
whatever ElandlordBs affidavitF the justice court deemd to have been filed were so fraudulent in
asserting the lease had Ee'piredF where E12 monthsF and Enot less than 12 monthsF are sufficiently
divergent from one another to preculde one from being able to declare, via affidavit (or 2uc?walter
Declaration in $ieu of (spea?ing of the legibility of pleadings and that attachments thereto, .0&1/,
Elcano, and CoughlinBs preserving the argument for Geller in his 1&12 6mended 6nswer in 0<10!
that CadleBs admission, in writing, that it failed to actually send to Geller, via Certified 9ailing the
e'hibits it attached to its original complaint sort of presents a rather problematic lac? of jurisdiction vis
a vis the sufficiency of process and the service thereof*)))sufficient to now leave 2a?er, ;ill, 9erliss,
the :(D, and >C1# (not to mention 7ayle Gern, EsH), >39, 3orthwinds 6ppartment $$C
(spea?ing of out of state corporations subjecting 3evadaBs residents to the butchery being opposite one
committing the unauthoriAed practice of law (there, 3evada Court 1ervices and Deff Chandler*, Duane
Da?ob, 9ilan Grebs, etc), etc)to argue amongst themselves and sue each other vis a vis whose bright
idea it was to burglariAe CoughlinBs law offices and rentals in light of +orio, 9ayes, and :ussell:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2<2!1&&=1!=12=3vb=0<10!=Geller=2eesley=1hortened=
9otion=for=E'tension=of=5ime=to="ile=2an?r=d=nev=11!021!122..
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2.1/.1,=10=1&=3@D=1&C@!!.=!%!=+"(=9otion=
(roposed=Complaint=3@D=6ction=:e=1ummary=Eviction=$oc?out=2urglaries=by=:(D=>C1#=;ill=
3orthwind=Et=6l=<.=(ages
(http:www)scribd)comdoc1.<&!!!</%=20=12=020!=.2&&/=0<10!=Coughlin=
3@2=1ubmitted=9otion=to=>ithdraw=5hat=3@2="ailed=to="ile
&<</%&
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./1/<<.,%=&0=12=0<10!=<2.&,=3@2=1ua=1ponte=
#rder=6uthoriAing=>ithdrawal=of=Coughlin=by=-ive=:e=2eesley *
(6s to the %2%12 hearing in 3@2=10=0<10! where CoughlinBs status as GellerBs
attorney of record was addressed, Coughlin actually submitted a fiing on %2012that the 3@2
refused to file which e'plicated the possibility of Coughlin continuing on in representing Geller
despite the ./12 #rder in .0%&% temporarily suspending CoughlinBs law license in 3evada
(meaning no disrespect to the 31C5Bs #rder, however, Coughlin presented a wealth of
authority for the position that CoughlinBs doing so would be permissible, in a desire to fulfill his
obligation to client Geller (what does it say that the 123 has not received one complaint from
any of CoughlinBs clients, even where the three ill advised summary contempt incarcerations of
then practicing attorney Coughlin (11&011 :9C Dudge ;oward, three days, 22/12 :9C
Dudge ;olmes, five days, !1,12 2DDC Dudge Elliot C:12=0&/., eight days (its not a
competition, people* undoubtedly made it Huite a bit harder for Coughlin to provide his
customary e'tremely competent level of representation* li?ely saved Dudge 3ash ;olmes and
;oward from their flagrant attempts to use CoughlinBs clients as pawns in a vindictive effort to
cause Coughlin massive professional licensure trouble and more by attempting e'act as
significant a prejudicial impact ot CoughlinBs clients affairs as possible, such was still highly
inappropriate and resulted in CoughlinBs &1!12 filin in the 3@2 in 0<10! to be less concise
than is typical of CoughlinBs wor?:
4 10 12 10- 05104 0204 He##er Nvb Cees#e& Eot"on to D"sm"ss Cad#e ...
www*scr"2d*com/***/4-10-12-10-05104-0204-He##er-Nvb-Cees#e&-Eot"o***
Ear 30- 2013 - 4 10 12 10-05104 0204 He##er Nvb Cees#e& Eot"on to D"sm"ss Cad#e Com!an&)s ?mended
Com!#a"nt J2(ect"ng %o - 7ree down#oad as %e.t f"#e
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./2&1%2&&=1!=12=3vb=0<10!=Geller=2eesley=9otion=
for=E'tension=of=5ime=to="ile=2an?r=d=nev=11!021!122..
1&=20<%1 = ))) Dul 1<, 201& = 3@2 Dudge 2eesley (whom the #2CBs Ging
fraudulently failed to identify as a witness ))))) failed to note CoughlinBs &&012 filing in Cadle
Co) v) )))
1&=02//0 = Case 1earch caseinfo)nvsupremecourt)usdocumentview)doJ
cs3ame+D)))J 1ep 11, 2012 = Coughlin) 5hen Dudge 2eesleyBs failure to disclose the e'tremely
inflammatory nature of Coughlin &&012 filigns in nvb) 10=0<10! and his ))) Q(D"R 12=&..<. =
Case 1earch caseinfo)nvsupremecourt)usdocumentview)doJcs3ame+D)))J 3ov 2%, 2012 = to
indicate that D/Bs &&012 #rder in included amongst those )))))) adversary proceedig in 3@2
(10=0<10!* Coughlin filed a 9otion "or1&=20<%1 = Case 1earch I'# 15- 2013 - NVB I'dge Cees#e&
(wom te JCC)s H"ng fra'd'#ent#& fa"#ed to "dent"f& as a w"tness ..... fa"#ed to note Co'g#"n)s 3/30/12 f"#"ng "n
Cad#e Co*
1)1&=02//0 = Case 1earc case"nfo*n+s'!remeco'rt*'s/doc'ment/+"ew*doGcs@ame1D**5e! 11- 2012 - Co'g#"n* %en
&<./%&
I'dge Cees#e&)s fa"#'re to d"sc#ose te e.treme#& "nf#ammator& nat're of Co'g#"n 3/30/12 f"#"gns "n nvb* 10-
05104 and "s .. 12-39959 - Case 5earc*@o+ 28- 2012 - to "nd"cate tat D6)s 3/30/12 Jrder "n "nc#'ded
amongst tose ......ad+ersar& !roceed"g "n NVB (10-05104$ Co'g#"n f"#ed a Eot"on 7or
http:www)scribd)comdoc1...<%/0/&=&0=12=020!=.2&&/=2.%00=#crd=:9C=
Dudge=;olmes=#rder=:eleasing=(roperty=:9C=Confiscated="rom=>hat=6lready=2oo?ed=
+nto=Coughlin=s=(ersonal=(roperty=at
http:www)scribd)comdoc1...<,1,!&=&0=12=Edited=Coughlin=s="iling=Detailing=
(rejudice=to=Client=s=6ffairs="rom=>rongful=1ummary=+ncarceration=and=5heft=of=;is=
(hone=by=Dudges=;olmes=a
2! +n his own testimony 1argent 5arter admitted to a retaliatory motive for the citation here) "urther
he opened the door to several matters this Court clearly did not want to have see the light of day) 5hese
include, the fact that 1argent 5arter told the accused he ?new he was going to turn left on "orest 1t) and
head bac? towards ;illBs law office, and that is why he pulled the accused over, in addition to the fact
that the accused, allegedly Pdid not come to a complete stop in %ront of the white line, but only after
the white lineP) 5his PinchingP into the intersection was necessary to gain a view of whether any cars
mgith be coming even cars going the wrong way down a one way street li?e "orrest (drun? or craAy
drivers do not cease to e'ist, as 1argent 5arter implied, merely because a street is designated as a Pone
wayP) +ts ironic, becasue the accused and 1argent 5arter argued about whether the rationale 1argent
5arter proferred for pulling the accused over made any sense, as, according to the accused, turning left
on "orrest to get bac? to ;illBs officew at .<2 "orrest 1t while the accused was heading east on 1t)
$aurence would have reHuired goign down the Pwrong wayP of a Pone way street, "orrestP)))it was at
about that time that 1argent 5arter decided he could hear no more from the accused) :egardless, 5arter
was tailing the accused, the accused was aware of it, and the accused carefully obeyed all law of traffic
as he suspected 5arter would try to write some phony traffic tic?et) 5his clearly contradicts 5arters
assertion that he was par?ed and not tailing the accused, nor had he begun to, until after witnessing the
alleged Pfailure to come to a complete stopP violation, which included 5arterBs highly suspect testimony
which seemed to defy the laws of physics and optics, in addition to other laws)
2< 5he Ee?"ra;udi!ial sour!e ruleF suggests that bias or prejudice caused by events that do not
appear anywhere in the record, or during the in court proceedings present a basis for
disHualification) 1;6963, $82E5 M 6$"+3+, D8D+C+6$ C#3D8C5 63D E5;+C1 11<=
11/ (9ichie2utterworth 2000* (discussing e'trajudicial source rule e'tensively and citing
8nited 1tates v) +nternational 2usiness 9achine Corp), !/< ")1upp) 1&/2 (1)D) 3)K) 1,/,*,
6ffirmed, .1% ")2D ,2& (2d Cir) 1,%0*C 8nited 1tates v) 7rinnell Corp), &%! 8)1) <.&, %. 1)Ct)
1.,%, 1. $)Ed)2D //% (1,..**)
5he authors in 1;6963 suggest that EQtRo reHuire recusal, bias or prejudice
normally must be rooted in an e'trajudicial source) P2ecause the source of the judgeBs opinion
was not e'trajudicial, it was ruled that recusal was not necessary (citing 8nited 1tates v) ;ollis,
/1% ") 2D 2// (%th Cir) 1,%&*, Cert) Den), !.< 8)1) 10&. (1,%!*C 1tate v) 6ubert, &,& 6) 2D
&<//%&
<./ (1,/%*C $ena v) Commonwealth, &!0 3)E) 2D %%! (9ass) 1,/.*C Commonwealth v) Dane
Entertainment 1ervices, +nc), !./ 3)E) 2D 222 (9ass) 1,%!**) 1;6963, supra at 11.)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 12:2 to 12:<* 6nd it became apparent to me that over a
period of a couple months at least and 5 also learned of some o"$er odd 6e$aior in some of
"$e !our"s #i"$ ;udges "$a" 5 'ne#)))P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 12:2& to 1&:%* 9:) G+37: 5he judge was just about to
testify as to the action he too? 6ased on "$e informa"ion $e re!eied, and that is the purpose of
the information is to show why he too? the action he did) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #verruled)
9:) G+37: 5han? you, Dudge) 5;E >+53E11 (3@2 D8D7E 2EE1$EK*: +Bm not Huite
sure where + was in my testimony, but 6ased on "$e dis!ussions 5 $ad7 and "$e informa"ion 5
go" from o"$er people, it became apparent to me that there wasnBt a program that was going
to )))P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1&:2& to 1!:/* 2K 9:) G+37: U + apologiAe, your
;onor, for the interruption) 2ut you were just about to testify as to what action you too? #i"$
respe!" "o "$e informa"ion you learned) 6 >hat + did was + wrote a letter to the 1tate 2ar
e?plaining #$a" $ad o!!urred #i"$ )r, Coug$lin, indicating, + believe, that + thought that in
$is !urren" s"a"e he was not a6le to represent his clients adeHuately, and that the 1tate 2ar
should loo? into it) + thin? that was the e'tent of what + did in summary))))P
Dudge 2eesley did not testify that he felt Coughlin had violated any rules of
professional conduct, despite being as?ed just that Huestion by 2ar Counsel) (;E6:+37 = @ol)
+, ((age 1!:% to 1!:11* 2K 9:) G+37: U 2ased on your actual personal ?nowledge of 9r)
Coughlin, would you believe that he has violated 3evada :ules of (rofessional ConductJF*)
:ather, Dudge 2eesley merely indicated what any reasonable person would: that CoughlinBs
having been burglariAed by the >C1# et al incident to (by the time of CoughlinBs last filing in
the 3@2 (not counting the %2012 filing the 3@2 has refused to file, which ma?es the %&012
1ua 1ponte #rder 6uthoriAing >ithdrawal of Counsel rather suspect, especially considering
Dudge 2eesleyBs comments on the record during the %2%12 hearing in 0<10!* two different
wrongful summary evictions, combined with :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes having wrongfully
summarily incarcerated a then practicing attorney (just li?e her fellow municipal court judge
Dudge ;oward did from 11&011 to 12&11 (shortly after Coughlin was hired by both 7essin
(11=3@2=<0//, and <0/%* and Geller (11=3@2=<10!, <2.&,** where denying a stay of any
length whatsoever)
Dudges ;oward and ;olmes attempted to (and so far, have succeeded* prevent
Coughlin from appealing (to the e'tent (engilly does not preclude Coughlin the defendant
appealing where Coughlin the attorney representing a client may need to pursue a writ of
mandamus)))* such flagrant abuses of the contempt power) +t also appears Huite li?ely that
Dudge 2eesley either conferred with 2DDC Dudge Elliott or was made aware of ElliottBs
summarily incarcerating Coughlin for eight days between !1,12 to !2.12 by either the
&<%/%&
123Bs Ging or 2DDC Dudge "lanagan (whether by way of Dudge ;olmes or directly*) 2oth
2DDC Dudges "lanagan and Elliott dodged CoughlinBs 1C: 110 subpoenas of 10&012*)
Dust who would be able to represent their clients adeHuately in that EstateFJ Dudge
2eesleyBs testimony fails to assign any misconduct on Coughlin part in connection with such an
assessment, and it would be highly reasonable to read into Dudge 2eesleyBs testimony that his
actions were more meant to ameliorate the prejudice to CoughlinBs clientBs cases wrought by the
misconduct of the >C1#, :(D, Dudges Elliott, ;olmes, ;oward (not to mention the Canon 1,
:ule 1)1 misconduct vis a vis the law of summary evictions by :DC Dudges 1chroeder and
1ferraAAa, and, to a lesser e'tent, Dudge Clifton incident to his cutesy 101/11 #rder ruling as
EmootF CoughlinBs 9otion for 1tay of the E5rialF that Dudge 1ferraAAa plowed ahead with on
102<11 (after remi'ing his 101&11 #rder sufficiently to address the jurisdictional bar to
holding such a trial presented by CoughlinBs invo?ing DC:C( 10,Bs reHuirement that the tenant
be served a complaint and afforded twenty days to file an 6nswer thereto prior to an E5rialF
being set* and Dudge (earson (incident to his failing to faithfully apply the law in two other
summary evictions in :ev2012=0010!% (Duly 2012* and :ev2012=0/%!&2 (1eptember=#ctober
2012*)
5his mi'ture of a sewing circle and a gang bang, some might say, veers outside the
bounds of Ejudicial discretionF into the thorny wilderness so very rarely addressed in, at least,
the decision of the 3evada Commission on Dudicial Discipline that are publicly available
(where the utter paucity of such is rather remar?able:
http:nevadastatepersonnelwatch)wordpress)com201&0/1,corruption= festers=in=
nevada=courthouses=ree?ing=with=b=s=commission=on=judicial=discipline=does=nothing
http:www)leg)state)nv)usdivisionresearchpublicationsb?groundbp%1=0%)pdf
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<,%00!,=12=1&=Coughlin=Email=to=3CDD=3@=
Commission=on=Dudicial=Discipline=:e=Complaints=and=:ejections=5hereof=020!=.2&&/=&/!=
0<10!=2.%00=221/. *)
+nterestingly, :9C Dudge ;olmes listed former
2. http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%0!,2%<,=10=1&=Doc?et=as=of=0<10!=3@2=Case=Doc?et=
:#2E:5=GE$$E:=6dversary=(roceedingprinted=#pt
2/
Dudge 1tiglich recently made indication in the appeal of the trespass matter in C:12=
12.2 that the tolling motion Coughlin filed on .2<12 li?ely vitiates ";E1&Bs effect, and that
such appeal may well go forward (the matter is being briefed currently*
&<,/%&
5he /2<12 2!2 page :#6 the :9C filed with the 2DDC, at page &1
s?ips from page 2 of CoughlinBs 21&12 3otice of 6ppeal 9otion to @acate and or 1et 6side)
DC:C( <,) DC:C( .0) 9otion for :econsiderationC 9otion for :ecusalC 9otion "or
(ublication #f 5ranscript at (ublic E'pense) (etition (or +n "oona (auperis 1tatus to page .
thereof, and the e'cised pages & to < contain highly, highly inflammatory material that the
:9C would want to go away where such e'cised pages read:
/2<12 2!2 page :#6 filed in the :9C by :9C:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1..</&%1%C:12=12.2=&0!,/,.=6ppeal="rom=9unicipal=s=Court=
Copy (not ocrBd*
CoughlinBs digitiAed version thereof: http:www)scribd)comdoc1..</<<10/=2<=12=020!=
.2&&/=2!2=(ages=.1,01=2.!0<=:#6="rom=:9C=to=2DDC=C:12=12.2=&0!,/,.=6ppeal=
"rom=9unicipal=s=Court=DigitiAed=#cr=a,=DigitiAed
/ 2< 12 to % 22 1& /.0 pages bates stameped 020!< .22&/ .1,01 2.!0< C:12=12.2 all filings
in 2DDC appeal from :9C oas of ,%1&:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1..<//!,//=2<=12=to=%=22=1&=/.0=(ages=2ates=020!<=.22&/=
.1,01=2.!0<=C:12=12.2=6ll="ilings=in=2DDC=6ppeal="rom=:9C=#cr="inal=a,
1ome real, uh, irregularities (something one completely comes to e'pect whenever
dealing with the :eno 9unicipal Court in any way whatsoever* are revealed in the 2!2 page
:#6 filed in the 2DDC by the :9C on /2<12:
3#5E, by Coughlin below is the te't of the PE'hibit 6P to (uentesB 11,12 9otion for 3ew
5rial Date that the :9C e'cised from the :#6 (should have been page 22 of 2!2 from the
/2<12 :#6 filed in the 2DDC by the :9C* reads:
E5his matter is set for trial on Danuary) 10, 2012, 6t 1:00 (9) 5he defendant moves
for a continuance of the trial date in this matter for issues related to discoveryfurther
investigation, including but limited to defense counsel having received a P CD from the City
6ttorneyBs #ffice on December 20,2011, which contains a very large number of documents and
videos that need to be reviewed in anticipation of trial in this matter) Deputy City 6ttorney Dill
Dra?e has no objection to this motion) E4;+2+5 6F
(age 2. thereof contains an admission by the :9C that 9arshal Coppa did not
provide Coughlin ";E11 at the conclusion of the 11&011 trial in 11 C: 22/1. (where such
&.0/%&
page in the :#6 in 2.!0< indicates that at such time 9arshal Coppa read Coughlin the date
and time of the 11&011 3otice of 1etting the trial in 2.!0< for Danuary 2012 upon the
11&011 #rder by >) 7ardner granting the City of :eno a continuance in light of ;illBs
schedulign a vacation conflicted with the original trial date) 1uch >) 7ardner order was
entered the same day :9C Dudge ;oward denied CoughlinBs 9otion for Continuance in 221/.)
9issing from such between pages 21 and 22 is the EE'hibit 6F reference on page
21, (uentes 9otion for a 3ew 5rial Date which (had it been there, reads: E3#5E by Coughlin ,
notice that there i s not PE'hibit 6P attached hereto in :#6 the :9C transmitted to the 2DDC,
owing to the fact that this 9otion "or 3ew 5rial Date was necessitated by :9C court
appointed defender (uentes B professional misconduct and the attendant failure to afford
Coughlin his right t o speedy trial, particularly where a continuance was already granted to the
City on 11& 0 11 for an arrest o f 111& 11) >hile the :9C removed the fa' header (which
indicates there is & pages to this fa' filing to the :9C by (uentes* on page 1 , the fa' cover
sheet, a nd comp l e t e l y r emoved page & (which would by the PE'h i bit 6P ref e renced
herein, the :9C f a iled t o e'cise the f a' header on t his page) Can you say s mo?ing gunJF
"urther, the :9C just plain e'cised altogether :9C court appointed defender
(uentes 11/12 9otion to >ithdraw as 6ttorney of :ecord from the /2<12 :#6 filed with
the 2DDC in CoughlinBs appeal of the criminal trespass conviction, where such includes the
following Ee'planationF by (uentes (which is laughable considering (uentes was still ra?ing in
the O/G a month as a side gig the :9C pay him, 5aitel, and $oomis to allegedly fulfill the
1i'th 6mendment)))2obby should try not getting paid at all for awhile then consider the
colorability of his claim that anything had made his Erepresentation unreasonably difficultF,
especially where (uentes chief argument consisted of his contention that burning a cd reHuired
some monumental level of effort or s?ill on his part (even where Coughlin provided him a copy
of the contents of of such (li?e 1otelo, (uentes too? to giving Coughlin chores whilst retaining
the entirety of the paychec? the :9C bestowed upon him, only for both to successfully move
for an #rder granting their withdrawal where neither articulated any actual specific rationale
for why they should be given a get out of wor? free pass) (uentes 11/12 9otion to >ithdraw
justifies such thusly: E5he instant matter was set for trial on Danuary 10, 2012) ;owever, a
defense motion to continue was filed on Danuary &, 2012, not opposed, and granted) 6 new trial
date is pending) 8nder 1upreme Court :ule !., the attorney in an action may be changed at any
time before judgment upon the consent of the attorney, approved by the client, or upon order of
the court or judge thereof on the application of the attorney or cl ient) 1C: !.) "urther, under
3:(C 1)1.(2*, a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if the same can be
accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the cl ientC a client insists upon
ta?ing action the lawyer considers repugnant, or with which the lawyer has fundamental
&.1/%&
disagreementC the representation has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the clientC or
other good cause for withdrawal e'ists) 1ee 3:(C 1)1.(2*(1*, (!*, (.*, (/*) ) 5he undersigned
regretfully ma?es this motion as continued representation of the defendant in this matter has
been rendered unreasonably difficult and the defendant will be better served by having an
alternative legal defender appointed to represent him) E4;+2+5 6F)
6pparently the :9C felt such was sufficient enough a basis to provide Coughlin
with an ineffective assistance of counsel argument (especially considering CoughlinBs right to a
speedy trial was then undone by (uentes having a nervous brea?down all of the sudden upon
being as?ed to actually do any defense wor?* upon (uentes delaying the trial yet again, where
his 1&12 9otion for 3ew 5rial date was necessitated by the fact that (uentes had refused to
subpoena the landlord 9erliss, despite his being a material alleged eye witness to the alleged
crime (no witness at the .1%12 criminal trespass trial actually testified that they saw Coughlin
at the property at any time prior to his being escorted into the living room to wherein ;ill and
9erliss where (thatBs the downside of the :9C, er, :eno City 6ttorney fraudulently failing to
abide by the agreement between Dra?e and (uentes vis a vis #fficer Carter being under
subpoena in the successful effort to deprive Coughlin of his 1i'th 6mendment right to confront
such arresting officer (same thing happened during the simple traffic citation trial incident to
only :(D 1argent 5arter being presented as a witness where 5arter called in an officer to
actually write the tic?et, strangely*, especially where the other alleged eye witness, ;ill, had a
manifest bias and motive (avoid malpractice lawsuit, etc* sufficient to ma?e hte landlordBs
testimony necessary)
9issing between pages &1 and &2 of the 2!2 page :#6 filed by the :9C in the
2DDC on /2<12 in 2.!0< (C:12=12.2* from CoughlinBs 21&12 filing in that :#6 by the
:9C are pages & to < thereof, which contain highly inflammatory and e'culpatory materials
that the :9C has a vested interest in e'cising from the record, where such reads:
E(rivate and confidential case file passed around li?e a hot potato by :9C Pformer
prosecutorP defenders is not in clientBs best interest) (uentes is reHuired to detail just how Pthe
representation has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the clientP and this rule is subject to
a good faith reHuirement) 5hat is, lawyers canBt invo?e it to get out of difficult or comple' cases
or to insure they only receive easy cases) Can somebody e'plain to me why Dic? ;ill going on
vacation is a sufficient justification for continuing a criminal trial, but my being evicted and
wrongfully arrested (due to Dic? ;illBs alleged bribery of the :(D and the :(DBs wrongfull
arrest of me, etc), 6nd Dic? ;illBs applying a wrongful and outlawed rent distraint upon both
my clientBs files and e'culpatory evidence in 11 C: 221/.* does not present a valid basis for a
&.2/%&
continuanceJ 6nd + told 5aitel + wanted an opposition filed to the motion for continuance, yet
it was not) 1ee attached E'hibit 1 for support for the contention that (uentes withdraw here is
inappropriate as has been most of his actions in this matter)
(#+351 63D 685;#:+5+E1 636$K1+1 +3C#:(#:65E 2K :E"E:E3CE
6$$ $6> 63D 611E:5+#31 +3 6556C;ED (6(E:1 63D ($E6D+371 63D
>:+5+371 +3 E4;+2+5 1: :econsideration >DC: 12(,*, DC: 1&))) :8$E <,) 3E>
5:+6$1C 69E3D9E35 #" D8D79E351 (a* 7rounds) )))
5he #rder allowing (uentes withdrwas fits under P 5rregulari"y in "$e pro!eedings
of "$e !our"7 ;ury, master, or adverse party, or any order of the court, or master, or abuse of
discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trialP as (uentes was at least
ommitting ?ey information to the court, if not misleading it as to his rationale for withdrawing)
(lus Dudge 7ardnerBs #rder, respectfully contains PError in law occurring at the trial and
objected to by the party ma?ing the motion) #n a motion for a new trial in an action tried
without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, ta?e additional
testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or ma?e new findings and
conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment)P 5he law simply does not
allow for such an unsupported by facts or specifics 9otion to >ithdraw to be granted) :8$E
.0) :E$+E" ":#9 D8D79E35 #: #:DE: (a* ))) 5he #rder or Dudgment is void as it
e'tends to matters for which the Court cannot rule, ie, an #rder allowing withdraw where not
good faith basis for reHuesting a withdrawal e'ists) (rosecutorial misconduct (such as the D)6)
>ithholding Pe'culpatoryP evidence that couldLve helped your defense* judicial errors (such as
the judge permitting evidence that shouldLve been e'cluded or vice versa* erroneous
application of a law or regulation improper jury instructions ineffective assistance of counsel or
other malpractice the evidence did not prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt "6+$8:E
5# 6""#:D 1+45; 69E3D9E35 :+7;5 5# C#831E$ #: 7:635 DE963D "#:
D8:K 5:+6$C another DE963D "#: D8:K 5:+6$ ;E:E2K 96DE +3 E@E35 #" 3E>
5:+6$, 1+9+$6:$K :EU8E15 "#: +3 "#:96 (68(E:+1 156581 ;E:E2K 96DE
63D 18((#:5ED 2K 6556C;ED +"( (E5+5+#3 C#3C$81+#3 Defendant6ppelant
Coughlin hereby respectfully reHuests all #rders, Convictions, Dudgments, Contempt "indings,
whatever, stemming from "ebruary 2nd ,2012 ;earing on (uentes 9otion to >ithdraw be
@acated or *et ?#ide or econ#idered and are hereby a//eal 2ith an 7(P reAue#t to 2ai-e
the %iling %ee %or the notice o% a//eal or allo2 a relation bac5 %or the %iling date u/on any
denial o% the %ee 2ai-er. (urther' a co/y o% the audio o% the 212112 )earing i# hereby
reAue#ted.) 6""+:965+#3 (ursuant to 3:1 2&,2)0&0 5he undersigned does hereby affirm
that the preceding document does not contain the social security number of any person)
D65ED this 1&th Day of "ebruary, 2011 _s -ach Coughlin -ach Coughlin DefendantF
&.&/%&
3#5E: ";E12 is invalid and none of the deadlines for Coughlin to see? any post=
conviction relief have yet begun to run where :9C Dudge ;oward did not sign the 11&011
purported PDudgment of Conviction and Court #rderP) 6 rubber stamp of what may be Dudge
;owardBs signature is affi'ed thereto, and, as such, is insufficient, and therefore no entry of
such judgment of conviction has yet occurred)
2etween pages 21 and 22 of the 2!2 :#6 filed in the 2DDC by the :9C on
/2<12 the :9C e'cised an PE'hibit 6P page attached to tne 1&12 9otion for 3ew 5rial
Date filed by CoughlinBs then court appointed counsel :oberto (uentes, which read (Coughlin
has obtained a copy of it* P5his matter is set for trial on Danuary 10, 2012, at 1:00 (9) 5he
defendant moves for a continuance of the trial date in this matter for issues related to
discoveryfurther investigation, including but limited to defense counsel having received a CD
from the City 6ttorneyBs #ffice on December 20,2011, which contains a very large number of
documents and videos that need to be reviewed in anticipation of trial in this matter) Deputy
City 6ttorney Dill Dra?e has no objection to this motion) E4;+2+5 6P
#n a related note, :C6 prosecutor ;aAlett=1tevens filed a :eHuest for 1ubmission
on %1!12 as to the /&112 9otion to Dismiss which ultimately was granted and resulte in
";E1&, prior to the e'piration of the ten days Coughlin had to file an opposition given such
9otion to Dismiss was not served on Coughlin electronically and 3:C( .(e* is applicable in
light of 2DDC Dudge ElliottBs announcing his Department %, in ";E12, applies such to measure
the computation of time over 3:1 1/%)!/2, 6nd Coughlin is entitled to rely upon such a
pronouncement of Department %Bs approach by Dudge Ellliott (see &1<12 #rder in C:11=20.!,
another appeal with the :eno City 6ttorney as the :espondent* (its not clear which rule applies
to an appeal of a criminal conviction from the justice court to the district court)))3:6(, 3:1
1/%)!/2, )!/., )!/%, )!%2, Etc), >hich is applicable in a criminal appeal, accords three days for
mailing for constructive service to be effectuated, meaning CoughlinBs #pposition was due on
:egardless, even if 3:1 1/%)!/2B1 computation of time method is utiliAed (and its far from
clear that 3:1 1/% applies to appeals of criminal convictions to the district court*, Coughlin
has shown good cause under 3:1 1/%)!/2 >here his #pposition was filed only one day late
under such an analysis given Coughlin was not provided any court appointed counsel for his
appealing despite filing on /2%12 a 9otion to (roceed +n "orma (auperis (which resulted
+n only the .1%12 trial date being transcribed, where counsel should have been appointed and
&.!/%&
all other hearings in 11 C: 2.!0< ought be transcribed, particularly where !1012 was
characteriAed as a trial date, and where <%12 involves issues integral to CoughlinBs appeal
(9ardsen, 3:1 1/%)!0<, E'tra=judicial communications, recusal, conflicts, ineffective
assistance of counsel by both (uentes, 5aitel, and $oomis, etc)*)
CoughlinBs .<12 filing in the criminal trespass matter :9C Dudge >) 7ardner not
only refused to recuse himself from, both also refused to respond to CoughlinBs 3:1 1)2&0
9otions to DisHualify him therefrom reads: EDocument Code:
-ach Coughlin, EsH)
3evada 2ar 3o: ,!/&
(# 2#4 &,.1
:eno, 3@ %,<0<
5ele: //<=&&%=%11%
"a': ,!,=../=/!02
6ttorney for (ro 1e 6ttorney (laintiff
+3 5;E :E3# 983+C+(6$ C#8:5 #" 5;E 1565E #" 3E@6D6
+3 63D "#: 5;E C#835K #" >61;#E
C+5K #" :E3#C
($6+35+"",
vs)
-6C; C#87;$+3C
DE"E3D635)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
&.</%&
*
*
Case 3o:11 C: 2.!0<
Dept 3o: 2
,967C@ 9( ?PP@??,C@ ?* C9I,*@4L !9679, 69 $7*!7**L !9679, 69
*IPP@**L !9679, (9 ? C9,67,I?,C@ 9( 67?4 ?,$ 6?,*(@ 69 !@,6?4
)@?46) C9I6
C#9E1 3#>, Defendant, -ach Coughlin, by and through himself as co=counsel to
Defendant and files the above title document on his own behalf) :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes, in
conjunction with materials provided to ;on) :9C Dudge >illiam 7ardner by his sister, ;on) >DC
Dudge $inda 7ardner has reHuest the 1tate 2ar of 3evada to perform a competency evaluation or
disability petition of some sort, utiliAing copies of motions submitted by the undersigned in the instant
case) 6s such, a continuance is appropriate pending the outcome of that 1tate 2ar inHuiry, and further,
preserved for appeal here, a respectful reHuest is made that this ;onorable Court consider whether a
recusal might be in order given the familial relationship it has with a judge whose #rder for 1anctions
was submitted to 2ar Counsel for consternation, li?ely, by way of this ;onorable CourtBs delivering it
to Dudge 3ash ;olmes, and she deliverying it to 2ar Counsel)
4@=?4 ?=I!@,6
Memorandm o! "a# $n %ppor& o! Mo&$on &o '$(m$(( &)e Compla$n&* Mo&$on &o
%ppre((* and Mo&$on !or Con&$nan+e
,n&rod+&$on
%e defendant- Kac Co'g#"n (0Co'g#"n0$ "s carged w"t cr"m"na# tres!ass 'nder
&../%&
te Aeno E'n"c"!a# Code (AEC$ 8*10*010 * %e fact'a# a##egat"ons "n te com!#a"nt are
"ns'ff"c"ent to s'!!ort s'c a carge- as s'c t"s matter so'#d 2e d"sm"ssed*
?. 6he Com/alint %ail# to e#tabli#h /robable cau#e becau#e it %ail# to allege that there 2a#
#u%%icient J2arningJ not to remain at the /ro/erty a%ter being told not to do #o and or that
Coughlin did not ha-e a right to be there.
5he summary eviction order was not appropriately served under 3:C( ., which is
e'pressly made applicable to civil landlord tenant eviction matters, commercial or residential, in 3:1
!0)!00:
3:1 !0)!00: :ules of practice) 5he provisions of 3:1, 3evada :ules of Civil
(rocedure and 3evada :ules of 6ppellate (rocedure relative to civil actions, appeals
and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of 3:1 !0)220
to !0)!20, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections)
"urther, there e'ists a wealth of precedent in support of the position that an eviction is not a
PwarningP sufficient to support a criminal trespass charge) "urther, >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice
1upervisor $iA 1tuchell has admitted in writing that >C1# Deputy 9achem signed his affidavit of
service, attesting that he personally served Coughlin the 1ummary Eviction #rder, when in fact he only
allegedly placed a copy of it on the door of the law office) 6s such, any loc?out occurring on
3ovember 1, 2011 as done prior to the constructive service reHuired by 3:C( .(e* being effectuated,
and was a wrongful loc?out) "urther, the fact that, the :eno Dustice Court was still holding on to some
O2,2/< of CoughlinBs money, when 3:1 11%6)&%< provides that Coughlin, as a tenant whose rent was
less than O1,000, should get a stay of eviction upon depositing a mere O2<0 with the :DC) ;ere, nearly
ten times that amount was, at first, improperly reHuired as a Prent escrowP depositing, despite the fact
that DC:C( %! and 3:1 !0)2<&(.* forbids the :DC from so doing absent the :DC publishing and
getting approved a corollary to DC:$@ !!, which does provide for such rent escrow deposits in the
&.//%&
conte't of a summary eviction proceeding) >C1# 1tuchell has admitted in writing that 9achem and
her office interpret the legal phrase Ppersonally servedP to be something other than giving the person to
be served the documents while that person is in the presence of the process server) 5his is contrary to
longstanding precedent in legal circles)
:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) li?es to argue that + was PservedP in compliance with all time
related rules because it was done in the Pusual custom and practice of the >C1#) >hat,
e'actly, is the Pusual custom and practice of the >C1#J + hear a lot about this Pwithin 2!
hoursP stuff)
5his whole business about E5he 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 7ranting 1ummary Eviction was
signed by #ctober 2/th, 2011) 5hat language is only found in situations inapplicable to the
current one) 3:1 !0)2<&(&*(b*(2*, and 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a* are the only sections of 3:1 !0
where this Ewithin 2! hoursF language occurs, and those situations only apply where, in:
!0)2<&(&*(b*(2*: E &) 6 notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: )))(b* 6dvise the
tenant: `) (2* 5hat 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)2<&(<*(a*: E<) 8pon noncompliance with the notice: (a* 5he landlord or the landlordLs 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) 5he 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
&.%/%&
5he way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in :eno Dustice Court
presently shoc?s the conscience and violates 3evada law) 5here is not basis for effectuating a
loc?out the way >C1#Bs Deputy 9achem did in this case) 5he above two sections containing
the Ewithin 2! hours of receiptF language are inapplicable, as those situations do not invo?e the
present circumstances, where the 5enant did file an 6ffidavit and did contest this matter)
"urther, as the 6nvui case shows, where it was disputed whether the $ease 6greement had
PterminatedP or Pautomatically renewedP there is support for the position that a < day stay
period is reHuired by law)
5o reHuire 3evadaBs tenants to get up and get out Ewithin 2! hoursF of Ereceipt of
the orderF (what does that even meanJ 5he use of terms li?e ErenditionF, ErenderedF, Enotice of
entryF, EpronouncedF, is absent here, and this Ereceipt of the orderF language is something
rarely found elsewhere in 3evada law=see attached D9@ statutory citations, and in
employment law litigations where one must file a Complaint within ,0 days of EreceiptF of a
:ight 5o 1ue $etter, a situation which follows 3:C( <(b*, and 3:C( .(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)*)
"or the sa?e of analogy, in 6braham v) >oods ;ole #ceanographic +nstitute, <<& ")&d 11! (1st
Cir) 200,*, the record did not reflect when the plaintiff received his right=to=sue letter) 5he
letter was issued on 3ovember 2!, 200.) 5he court calculated that the ,0=day 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 5itle @++ or the 6D6, a plaintiff must
e'haust administrative remedies and sue within ,0 days of receipt of a right to sue letter) 1ee
&.,/%&
!2 8)1)C) S 2000e=<(f*(1*) 1ee 2aldwin County >elcome Center v) 2rown, !.. 8)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 :ule .*))))F )))
hoe County 1heriffBs #ffice,
5hese state sponsored loc?outs under color of state law should not be being done so
fast, unless the >C1# Ppersonally serveP the tenant, + feel the law is Huite clear, you have to
effect Psubstituted serviceP which, under 3:C( .(a* and 3:C( .(e* and 3:C( <(b*(2* (and
3:C(, not DC:C( is applicable to eviction matters according to 3:1 11%6* the tenant cannot
be deemed to have received or constructively received the #rder until the & days for mailing
has passed)
(ersonal service by process server: personal service is service of process directly to the (or a*
party named on the summons, complaint or petition)
6nd even if something indicates Coughlin P?newP about the #rder, much li?e in the
case of CoughlinBs that was dismissed where the >ashoe County 1heriffBs didnBt manage to get
the Ppersonal serviceP of the 1ummons and Complaint done in time, or PsufficientlyP, opposing
counsel in that matter could tell you that Pactual noticeP is not a substitute for compliance with
the service reHuirements)
>hich is fortunate in that those li?e ;ill, wouldnBt have such an opportunity to game
the system and swoop in with loc?out then assert an argument based upon 3:1 11%6)!.0
Preasonable storage, moving, and inventorying e'pensesP subjecting the tenantBs personal
property to a lien) :ichard 7) ;ill insisted on throwing away the last thing CoughlinBs beloved
grandmother gave me before she died 2 years ago in the town dump) ;e and his contractor lied
&/0/%&
about so many things, including the fact that they used CoughlinBs own d plywood to board up
the bac? porch of the property, then submitted a bill to the court in an e'hibit for O1,0.0 for
PsecuringP the property (which doesnBt really apply to 3:1 11%6)!.0Bs Preasonable storage
moving and inventorying e'pensesP li?e it is reHuired to)))further, ;ill charged Coughlin O,00 a
month for storage and sent Coughlin a bill for such prior to CoughlinBs arrest for trespassing at
the 121 :iver :oc? location) 6dditionally, ;ill has admitted on video tape that he submitted a
bill to Coughlin, prior to the trespassing arrest, wherein ;ill purports to charge Coughlin the
same O,00 for PstorageP on a monthly basis that the landlord had previously charged for the full
use and occupancy of the dwelling))) "urther, even if ;illBs charge were for storage situations,
there are sections of 3:1 11%6 devoted to evicting someone from a storage facility, not
arresting them for trespass, and certainly not conducting a custodial) +n the videos that were
propounded by the :eno City 6ttorney and ta?en by ;ill :(D #fficer Carter and 1argent
$opeA admit they never issued a warning to me or as?ed me to leave prior to conducting a
custodial arrest (which reHuired O%00 of bail and & days in jail, no less*) B"urther, in a
subseHuent video taped interview of :(D 1argent $opeA, she admits that neither she nor
#fficer Carter announced who they were prior to the door being ?ic?ed in by, allegedly, Dr)
9erliss) 5his is in mar?ed contrast to #fficer CarterBs written 3arrative, wherein on page & of
& he writes P1gt $opeA and + ?noc?ed ont he basement door and announced loudly P:eno
(oliceP and called out for -achary to open the door) >e were met with no response) 9atthew
decided he woudl ?ic? the door open, and did so) + entered the doorway of the basement and
found -achary standing)))P) #fficer Carter goes on to write (seemingly providing a legal
opinion* P+ tried to e'plain to J-achary that he was served eviction papers and he as?ed))))P)
&/1/%&
#fficer Carter seems to base his arrest upon his legal opinion as to what PserviceP of these
Peviction papersP reHuired) 5he videos shot by ;ill do reveal Coughlin as?ing #fficer Carter
and 1argent $opeA why a warning or citation was not issued rather than a custodial arrest)
1uch statements ma?e less plausible #fficer CarterBs written 3arratives assertion on page & that
PDue to -achary not believing he has done anything wrong that the fact he believes he still has
standing there is reasonable grounds to believe -achary will return to the house) 5herefore he
did not Hualify for a misdemeanor citation)P
;illBs associate 2a?erBs prepared the 1ummary Eviction #rder, which read Pbut the
O2,2/< wonBt be released to the neurosurgeon yet, Pinstead that sum shall serve as security for
CoughlinBs cost on appeal, pursuant to 3evada DC:C( /&)))P) 2ut wait, doesnBt that mean
Coughlin then gets a 1tay of Eviction during the pendency of the 6ppealJ +sntB that was a
security that large must be forJ 2ecause the P6ppeal 2ondP is set by statute at only a mere
O2<0))))so holding on to 10 times that much of CoughlinBs cash must have been for the
P1upersedeas 2ondP mentioned a yielding one a 1tay of Eviction in 3:1 !0)&%0 and !0)&%<)
5hose 3:1 sections force the landlord, his attorneys and the :DC to choose between
viewing Coughlin as a residential tenant whose rent is less than O1,000, and whom therefore is
only reHuired to post a measly supersedeas bond of O2<0 (and remember, a supersedeas bond
eHuals a stay of eviction eHuals not trespassing* or the the other choice is to view Coughlin as a
commercial tenant, which would allow charging a higher supersedeas bond (e'cept for that
pes?y part about his rent being under the O1,000 reHuired by the statute to do so, his rent being
only O,00*, e'cept, :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) and Casey 2a?er, EsH) elected to pursue this
summary eviction proceeding under a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice, which is not allowed against
&/2/%&
a commercial tenant (ie, you canBt evict a commercial tenant using the summary eviction
procedures set forth in 3:1 !0)2<& unless you alllege non payment of rent and serve a &0 Day
3on (ayment of :ent 3otice 5o Uuit)
(olice :esponse in +llegal Eviction and #ther 5ennant$andlord 1ituations 5he "ollowing
Document is E'cerpted "rom: @E:9#35 1565E (#$+CE 5:6+3+37 28$$E5+3
3892E: = ,&=1 :8$E1 M :E78$65+#31 #(E:65+#36$ (#$+C+E1M (:#CED8:E1
5:6+3+37 28$$E5+3 3892E: = ,&=1 $63D$#:D5E3635 $6> =, @)1)6) S!!<1=
S!!.% 1ummary 5he 8)1) 1upreme Court has recently ruled that the presence of law
enforcement officers, together with their inaction during an illegal eviction violated the "ourth
6mendmentLs prohibition against unreasonable seiAures and may lead to liability under federal
civil rights law) that is the motion to suppress all the witness statements and police reports here
and any other materials gathered) +n this case, law enforcement officers who were present at an
eviction at the reHuest of the landlord, refused to ta?e the tenantLs complaint for criminal
trespass or otherwise interfere with the eviction) 5he officers informed the tenant that Eit was
between the landlord and the tenantF) 1oldal v) Coo? County, +llinois, 8)1) 1upreme Court, .1
$> !01, (1,,&*) +n ma?ing the ruling, the 1upreme Court e'pressed confidence that Epolice
will not often choose to further an enterprise ?nowing that it is contrary to state law)F 3ow, it is
more important than ever, that officers responding to landlordtenant disputes have a basic
understanding of the state law which controls this relationship) 5he following guidelines should
be used when responding to landlordtenant complaints) 6 number of reoccurring Huestions
arise which surround the issue of landlordtenantsL rights and police duties) "reHuently the
landlord or the tenant will call a police agency during a dispute and you are then put in the
unenviable position of determining what course of action, if any, to follow) 5he rights and
responsibilities of landlords and tenants are specifically set out in @ermont statutesC therefore
violation of these statutes may result in criminal violations of 5itle 1&) 9erely because it is a
Elandlordtenant disputeF does not always mean that it is a Ecivil matterL and that you should
not become involved) +n fact, failure to act may result in civil liability) Evictions @ermont law
prohibits a landlord, under any circumstances, from entering an apartment and evicting the
tenant) , @)1)6) !!.% states that if a tenant remains in possession of an apartment against the
wishes of the landlord, the landlord must bring an action for a writ of possession under 12
@)1)6) Chapter 1.,, S !%<1=!%<.) #nce a writ of possession is granted to the landlord, 12
@)1)6) S!%<! mandates that Ethe writ shall direct the sheriff of the county in which the
property or a portion thereof is located to serve the writ upon the defendant and, no sooner than
five days after the writ is served, to put the plaintiff into possession)F 8nder this procedure, a
landlord may not enter an apartment and move a tenant out) 6n eviction must proceed through
the court system and the writ allowing for eviction must be served by the sheriffC furthermore,
the tenant must be actually moved out of the apartment by the sheriff) 6bandonment 5he only
e'ception allowing for the landlord to enter the apartment without going through the procedure
outlined above occurs when the apartment has been EabandonedF by the tenant) @)1)6)
S!!.2(a* states that a tenant has abandoned a dwelling unit if: p 5here are circumstances which
&/&/%&
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the dwelling unit is no longer occupied as a full=
time residenceC p :ent is not currentC and p 5he landlord has made reasonable efforts to
ascertain the tenantLs intentions) :ule of 5humb +f the sheriff is not participating in the
eviction, it is most li?ely an illegal eviction, a violation of 5itle 1& and you should not allow it
to proceed) +f a landlord, without the assistance of a sheriff, enters an apartment in order to
evict a tenant, the landlord is in violation of 1& @)1)6), S&/0<(d*, unlawful trespass) 1uggested
Course of 6ction "reeAe the scene, maintain the Estatus HuoF, do not allow the landlord to
remove any property or to enter the tenantLs apartment) E'plain the reHuirements necessary for
an eviction to the landlord and refer both the landlord and the tenant to the appropriate referrals
contained in the 1upport 1ervices Directory) +f this is not an EinnocentF mista?e on the part of
the landlord, issue a citation) +f the landlord persists contrary to your directions, ma?e an arrest)
E$oc? #utF of the 5enant +n addition to the prohibition of an actual eviction by the landlord,
unless the steps noted above have been ta?en, @ermont law also prevents a landlord from
turning off utility services to an apartment or padloc?ing or changing the loc? to an apartment
in order to prevent a tenant from entering the apartment or gaining access to their property) ,
@)1)6) S!!.& states as follows: (a* 3o landlord may willfully cause, directly or indirectly, the
interruption or termination of any utility service being supplied to the tenant, e'cept for
temporary interruptions for emergency repairs) (b* 3o landlord may directly or indirectly deny
a tenant access to and possession of the tenantLs rented or leased premises, e'cept through
proper judicial process) (c* 3o landlord may directly or indirectly deny a tenant access to and
possession of the tenantLs property, e'cept through proper judicial process) :ule of 5humb p
2ecause it is illegal for a landlord to Eloc? outF a tenant without judicial authoriAation, a tenant
who is reHuired to use reasonable force to re=enter the apartment has not committed a crime
under 5itle 1&) 1uggested Course of 6ction p "reeAe the scene, e'plain the prohibitions of 1ec)
S!!.& to the landlordC if the landlord does not relent and allow the tenant to enter the
apartment, then your duty is to maintain the peace and allow the tenant to gain entry to the
apartment) Entry by the $andlord in a 3on=Emergency 1ituation , @)1)6) S!!.0 states as
follows: (a* 6 landlord may enter the dwelling unit with the tenantLs consent, which shall not
be unreasonably withheld) (b* 6 landlord may also enter the dwelling unit for the following
purposes between the hours of ,:00 6)9) and ,:00 ()9) on no less than !% hoursL notice: (1*
when necessary to inspect the premisesC (2* to ma?e necessary or agreed repairs, alterations or
improvementsC (&* to supply agreed servicesC or (!* to e'hibit the dwelling unit to prospective
or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, wor?ers or contractors) (c* 6 landlord may only enter
the dwelling unit without consent or notice when the landlord has a reasonable belief that there
is imminent danger to any person or to property) :ule of 5humb p 2ecause a landlord may not,
without the consent of a tenant, enter an apartment e'cept as outlined above, an entry in
violation of this section meets the criteria for violation of 1& @)1)6) S&/0<(d* = 8nlawful
5respass) 1uggested Course of 6ction p +n response to a trespass complaint from a tenant,
proceed in the same manner as any other criminal complaint) +nterview the complainant and the
accused and refer the case to your 1tateLs 6ttorney for prosecution) 5heft or Destruction of the
:ental (roperty by the 5enant , @)1)6) S!!<.(c* states: 5he tenant shall not deliberately or
negligently destroy, deface, damage, or remove any part of the premises or its fi'tures,
mechanical systems or furnishings, or deliberately or negligently permit any person to do so)
&/!/%&
6lthough a security deposit may be used to offset the loss of the property to the landlord,
intentional destruction of property or removal of property by the tenant is not necessarily a
Ecivil matterF) +ntentional destruction of rental property meets the criteria for violation of 1&
@)1)6, S&/01 = 8nlawful 9ischief) (property is defined under this section as both real and
personal property) 1ec) &/0 1(e*)* :emoving fi'tures or furnishings from the apartment with
the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession meets the criteria for a violation of
1& @)1)6) S2<01 or S2<02 = $arceny)
3:1 !0)&%0 (rovisions governing appeals) Either party may,
within 10 days, appeal from the judgment rendered) 2ut an appeal by the
defendant shall not stay the e'ecution of the judgment, unless, within the
10 days, the defendant shall e'ecute and file with the court or justice the
defendantLs underta?ing to the plaintiff, with two or more sureties, in an
amount to be fi'ed by the court or justice, but which shall not be less than
twice the amount of the judgment and costs, to the effect that, if the
judgment appealed from be affirmed or the appeal be dismissed, the
appellant will pay the judgment and the cost of appeal, the value of the use
and occupation of the property, and damages justly accruing to the plaintiff
during the pendency of the appeal) 8/on ta5ing the a//eal and %iling the
underta5ing' all %urther /roceeding# in the ca#e #hall be #tayed.
3:1 !0)&%< 1tay of e'ecution upon appealC duty of tenant who retains
possession of premises to pay rent during stay) 8pon an appeal from an
order entered pursuant to 3:1 !0)2<&:
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 O2<0 to
cover the e'pected costs on appeal) 6 surety upon the bond submits to the
jurisdiction of the appellate court and irrevocably appoints the cler? of that
court as the suretyLs agent upon whom papers affecting the suretyLs
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) 6 tenant of commercial property may obtain a
stay of e'ecution only upon the issuance of a stay pursuant to :ule % of the
3evada :ules of 6ppellate (rocedure and the posting of a supersedeas
bond in the amount of 100 percent of the unpaid rent claim of the landlord)
2) 6 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 3:1 !0)2<&)
3:1 !0)!00 :ules of practice) 5he provisions of 3:1, 3evada :ules of
Civil (rocedure and 3evada :ules of 6ppellate (rocedure relative to civil
&/</%&
actions, appeals and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of 3:1 !0)220 to !0)!20, inclusive, apply to the proceedings
mentioned in those sections)
5he language in 3:1 !0 about how the 1heriff may Premove tenant from the
property within 2! hours of receipt of the #rderP does not apply where the 5enant filed a
5enantBs 6nswer and showed up to the ;earing and litigated the matter) Especially where, as
here the lease had not terminated, by its terms, but was rather renewed) 5his is particularly true
where 3:1 11%6 prevents so terminating a holdover tenantBs lease for a retaliatory or
discriminatory purpose)
3:C( !: P(d* 1ummons: (ersonal 1ervice) 5he summons and complaint shall be
served together) 5he plaintiff shall furnish the person ma?ing service with such copies as are
necessary) 1ervice shall be made by delivering a copy of the summons attached to a copy of the
complaint as follows:)))(.* 1ervice 8pon +ndividuals) +n all other cases to the defendant
personally, or by leaving copies thereof at the defendantLs dwelling house or usual place of
abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by delivering a
copy of the summons and complaint to an agent authoriAed by appointment or by law to receive
service of process) Q6s amendedC effective Danuary 1, 200<)R (e*
1ubject: :E: >C1# Deputy 9achemBs Ppersonally servedP 6ffidavit of 1112011
2elow is a true and accurate reproduction fo the email from >C1# 1upervisor $iA 1tuchell
clarifying what Ppersonally servedP means to here and >C1# Deputy 9achem in his 6ffidavit
of 1ervice of the 1ummary Eviction #rder:
Date: 5ue, / "eb 2012 11:!0:&, =0%00
"rom: $1tuchellNwashoecounty)us 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com
&/./%&
9r) Coughlin,
#ur records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served by Deputy
9achen by posting a copy of the #rder to the residence) 5he residence was unoccupied at the
time)
$iA 1tuchell, 1upervisor
>C1# Civil 1ection
"urther, the law in our 1tate does not seem e'ceptionally clear with regard to the service
and process reHuirements and timelines, and manner of calculating time with respect to the PreceiptP of
$oc?out #rders) 5he 6ffidavit of 1ervice by 9achen states that he Ppersonally served the described
documents uponP my, -ach Coughlin)));owever, + can attest by 6ffidavit that + was not Ppersonally
servedP to the e'tent that Ppersonally servedP means or implies that + was there, that 9achen saw me or
identified me, or any of the other indicators of something, such as a Complaint, being Ppersonally
servedP such as + understand the phrase to me) 3:C( <(b*(2*(6*(i=iii*) "urther, as 2a?er and ;ill have
so often pointed out, + cannot, according to them, receive any attorneyBs fee award for appearing as pro
se attorney, as such, 3:C( <(b*(2*(6*(i=iii*, should apply to me only as a party, and not as a partyBs
attorney, and, therefore, according to 3:C( <, 1ervice: P(2* 1ervice under this rule is made by: (6*
Delivering a copy to the attorney or the party by: (i* handing it to the attorney or to the partyC (ii*
leaving it at the attorneyLs or partyLs office with a cler? or other person in charge, or if there is no one
in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place in the officeC or (iii* if the office is closed or the person to
be served has no office, leaving it at the /er#onG# d2elling hou#e or u#ual /lace o% abode 2ith #ome
/er#on o% #uitable age and di#cretion re#iding there)))P 1o, either it was my office, in which case a
3o Cause Eviction 3otice ma?es impermissible a 1ummary Eviction (roceeding under 3:1 !0)2<&,
and therefore, the #rder of 1ummary Eviction is void for lac? of jurisdiction, or, the 6ffidavit of
1ervice was on my home, and was not PhandedP to me, or Ppersonally servedP (despite the 6ffidavit
&///%&
attesting to having Ppersonally servedP me*, nor was the #rder of 1ummary Eviction served in
accordance with 3:C( <(b*(2*(6*(iii*, which reHuires: Pif the office is closed or the person to be
served has no office, leaving it at the /er#onG# d2elling hou#e or u#ual /lace o% abode 2ith #ome
/er#on o% #uitable age and di#cretion re#iding there))P
"urther, + believe posting an #rder on oneBs residence door, particularly in the conte't of
serving a 3o Cause 3otice of Eviction or 8nlawful Detainer, is only valid if the document being served
is also placed in the mail and & non judicial days are accorded for service to be complete) 1ee 3:C(
.(e*) + do not believe they can prove that at all, not even close)
+nterestingly, the signor of the Criminal Complaint here, ;ill, ?nows his case is troubled
under 3:C( <(b*(2*(6*(i=iii*, 3:C( .(e*, in addition to 3:C( 11) 5hat is why in :ichard
;illBs 3ovember 21, 2011 9otion for #rder 5o 1how Cause, on page 2, ;ills resorts to literally
grasping at straws, imagining that what the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice customarily does is
somehow automatically codified into mandatory precedent blac? letter law) 5o wit, :ichard
;ill wrote in his 9otion "or #rder 5o 1how Cause that: E"6C51 1;#>+37 C#35E9(5
#" C#8:5 .) E4;+2+5 1 was served on Coughlin on 3ovember P 2011 by the >ashoe
County 1heriffs Department, by posting same on the front door of the property in the manner
customary for evictions in >ashoe County) 5he loc?s to the premises were changed at that
time, thereby ejecting and dispossessing Coughlin of possession of the (roperty)F
6) (re=5rial +neffective 6ssistance of Counsel Claims
Defendant hereby claims before trial that all three of the :9C appointed defense counsel
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court must, before trial, conduct an inHuiry
&/%/%&
sufficient to determine the truth and scope of the defendantLs allegations) #n post=conviction review, if
no pretrial findings were made, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant was accorded representation at trial by counsel who was prepared within the reHuisite range
of competence) 6nders v) California, &%. 8)1) /&%, 1% $)Ed)2d !,&, %/ 1)Ct) 1&,. (1,./*, and 8nited
1tates v) Cronic, !.. 8)1) .!%, %0 $)Ed)2d .</, 1!0 1)Ct) 20&, (1,%!*) 1ee, (lumlee v) Del (apa, !2.)
")&d 10,<, 110& (,th Cir) 200<*) +n cases which Ecounsel entirely fails to subject the prosecutionLs case
to meaningful adversarial testing,F ineffectiveness will be presumed under Cronic)
CounselLs failure to file a motion to suppress evidence can provide the basis for a claim of
ineffectiveness, but in order to show prejudice the defendant must show that he would have prevailed
on the suppression motion, and that there is a reasonable probability that the successful motion would
have affected the outcome) @an +ran v) $indsey, 212 ")&d 11!&, 11!< (,th Cir) 2000*) 5aitel should
have never accepted this case in the first place given a patent conflict) $oomis and (uentes flatly
refused to file essential motions and subpoena material witnesses or otherwise conduct a meaningful
defense, in addition to refusing to ma?e arguments founded in fact and law, rather deeming them
PfrivolousP) Counsel ;as Constitutional Duty to +nvestigate
ECounsel has a constitutional duty to ma?e reasonable investigations or to ma?e reasonable
decisions that ma?e particular investigation unnecessary )F 1tric?land v) >ashington, !.. 8)1) .%%,
.,1, %0 $)Ed)2d ./!, 10! 1)Ct) 20<2 (1,%!*) 5he 1i'th 6mendment reHuires investigation and
preparation, not only to e'onerate, but also to secure and protect the rights of the accused) such
constitutional rights are granted to the innocent and guilty ali?e, and failure to investigate and file
appropriate motions is ineffectiveness) Gimmelman v) 9orrison, !// 8)1) &.<, ,1 $)Ed)2d &0<, 10.
1)Ct) 2</! (1,%.*) $oomis and (uentes refused to inHuire as to whether ;ill et al has asserted a bill for
the full rental value of the property in lieu of storage costs)
&/,/%&
Counsel has the constitutional and professional obligation to conduct an investigation into potential
mitigating evidence) +f counsel conducts an inadeHuate investigation Ethat fact would have no effect on
the deficient conduct prong of 1tric?land because counsel had already demonstrated ineffectiveness by
failing to thoroughly investigate the e'istence of mitigating factors)F 1ummerlin v) 1chriro, !2/ ")&d
.2& (,th Cir) 200<*)
?((7!?679, PI*I?,6 69 ,* 2&9+.0&0
5he undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the
social security number of any person)
Dated at :eno, 3evada, this !th day of Dune, 2012,
$6> #""+CE1 #" -achary 2ar?er Coughlin
Counsel for the Defendant
2y:______________________
-ach Coughlin, EsH)
3evada 2ar 3o: ,!/&
P99( 9( *@V7C@
(ursuant to 3:C( <(b*, + certify that + served a copy of the foregoing document upon the
following party by fa'ing, emailing, dropping off at their office, and placing a true and correct copy of
the foregoing document in the us mail addressed to:
&%0/%&
Christopher ;aAlett=1tevens, EsH)
:eno City 6ttorneyBs #ffice = Criminal Divison
()#) 2o' 1,00
:eno , 3@ %,<0<
(hone 3umber: //<=&&!=20<0 "a' number: //<=&&!=2!20
haAlett=stevenscNreno)gov
6ttorney for City of :eno
Dated this !th day of Dune, 2012,:
1 -ach Coughlin
-ach Coughlin, Defendant
Counsel for Defendant
7,$@K 69 @K)7+76*
1) E'hibit 1: 11 page 6E$E article:
E
Ci"e as0 2009 B6C ?@4@ !o. 4. ". 101
+113 1,&<=000/
Civil $iability $aw 1ection T Dune 200,
4andlord#' 6enant#' and Police Ci-il 4iability
Con"en"s
1. 7ntroduction
2. 4andlord#' 6enant#' and Police Ci-il 4iability
&. e#ource#
1. 7ntroduction
5he relationship between landlords and tenants is often a volatile one, with disputes arising
over a wide variety of issues, including money, the condition of the premises (and whose fault
any defects are*, the presence of pets (authoriAed or not*, landlord entry into the rented
premises, noise, the number of persons living in the apartment, lead paint, safety haAards, crime
&%1/%&
and drug or gang activity on and near the premises, and of course, eviction and tenant loc?outs,
both legal and illegal) #n occasion, police officers are summoned to a rented premises by either
a landlord (or their agent* or a tenant (or both*) 1ometimes the officers have arrived on the
scene in response to a complaint by a third person about a noisy or violent disturbance between
landlord and tenant)
Disputes arising from the landlord=tenant relationship literally Ehit home,F and can get
emotional, with the resolution sometimes determining whether the tenant will continue to have
a place to live or access to their possessions, or whether the landlord will receive the rent which
is the basis of his or her livelihood and the ability to pay for and maintain the building)
"reHuently, officers are as?ed by one of the parties to ta?e action, sometimes without
?nowledge of the origin of the dispute or some of the essential facts)
5his article ta?es a brief loo? at some of the cases in which police officers or agencies faced
possible civil liability for their response to such disputes) +t does not pretend to summariAe
landlord=tenant law, which may vary vastly between jurisdictions in its particulars) 6t the
conclusion, there are a few useful resources listed) 1!#
2. 4andlord#' 6enant#' and Police Ci-il 4iability
5he case of 1oldal v) Coo? County, +llinois, I,1=.<1., <0. 8)1) <. (1,,2* involved a family
that lived in a mobile home that they owned, which stood on rented land in a trailer par?) >hile
formal eviction proceedings were pending, the owners of the land and their agent proceeded to
forcibly evict the tenants)
6t the reHuest of the landlordLs agent, deputies from the 1heriffLs Department were there at the
eviction) 5he family claimed that the deputies ?new that the eviction was illegal and that there
was no eviction order from a court, but that they refused to ta?e their complaint for criminal
trespass or interfere with the eviction process) 5hey allegedly told the family that it was
Ebetween the landlord and the tenant)F
6 state court judge in the pending eviction case ruled that the eviction was improper, and the
familyLs trailer, which was damaged during the incident, was ta?en bac? to the par?) 5he
family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, claiming that the property owner and its agent
conspired with the deputies to carry out the unreasonable seiAure and removal of their mobile
home, in violation of their "ourth and "ourteenth 6mendment rights)
6 unanimous 8)1) 1upreme Court ruled that the seiAure and removal of the mobile home
EimplicatedF the familyLs "ourth 6mendment rights) 6 seiAure of property, for "ourth
6mendment purposes, the Court noted, happens when there is any Emeaningful interferenceF
with the ownerLs Epossessory interests in that property)F (roperty is protected against such
seiAures being carried out unreasonably even when no privacy or liberty is involved, and even
when no EsearchF has been carried out)
5he officersL presence during the illegal eviction together with their inaction, could, therefore,
violate "ourth 6mendment rights and lead to civil liability) :epossessions or attachments of
property, if they involve entering a home, intruding on the residentLs privacy, or interfering
with their liberty, also EimplicateF the "ourth 6mendment) 5he Court rejected the argument
that its ruling would lead to a Enew wave of litigationF in federal courts)
9any such seiAures, the Court reasoned, would be found constitutional under a
&%2/%&
EreasonablenessF standard) 5he Court also stated that Epolice will not often choose to further an
enterprise ?nowing that it is contrary to state law)F
+n a later case in which officers assisted a landlord in a dispute with a tenant, the court found
that they were not entitled to Hualified immunity on a false arrest claim) +n :advans?y v)
#lmsted "alls, I0&=&/,%, &,< ")&d 2,1 (.th Cir) 200<*, police arrested a man 1!3
for burglary of a home) 5he arrestee had been living as a tenant at that residence, but had a
dispute with his landlord) 5he landlord had previously called the police department after the
tenant left for "lorida for a period of time) ;e told police that the tenant owed him O100 in rent
and that the tenant still had ?eys) 5he landlord was advised that he could simply change the
loc?s and loc? the tenant out, which was incorrect under state law, which reHuired the use of
legal process to evict a tenant)
>hen the tenant returned, and found a note indicating that the loc?s had been changed, he
bro?e in for the purpose of retrieving some of his property, including his guns) #fficers placed
him under arrest, despite his possession of the note, which allegedly made it clear that he was a
tenant at the house and had been loc?ed out by the landlord over a rent dispute) 5he officers
found his driverBs license, which gave the house as his residence, and one of the officers ran his
social security number and a dispatcher responded with the houseBs address as the arresteeBs
residence) 5he officers allegedly refused to loo? at the landlordBs note, which the arrestee
claimed made it clear that he was a renter at the home)
5he burglary charges were later dropped after the arrestee entered an agreement to pay the
landlord O!00 in restitution) ;e then sued the officers for violation of civil rights and false
arrest)
6 federal appeals court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact that would
permit a reasonable jury to find that the officers lac?ed probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for
burglary) 8nder the terms of a rental agreement, a tenant is entitled to entry and use of the
premises, and cannot be a trespasser, a necessary element of burglary)
1tate law e'pressly forbids Eself=helpF evictions of tenants by landlords) ;is tenancy was
therefore only ended if he had vacated the apartment of his own accord, abandoning the
tenancy) +n this case, the evidence showed, viewed in the most favorable light, that the plaintiff
had paid most of the rent for that month, and was using the residence at that time to house his
personal possessions, clothing and furniture, ma?ing him a current tenant with the right to enter
and occupy the premises, who could not, therefore, be found liable for either criminal trespass
or burglary)
+n this case, a reasonable jury could find that the officers relied solely on the landlordBs
representations concerning the plaintiff and his status as a Eburglar,F and ignored substantial
e'culpatory evidence, including their own prior ?nowledge of the e'istence of a dispute
between the tenant and landlord, and his valid driverBs license giving the house as his address)
"ollowing a trial, however, a jury resolved the factual disputes in favor of the officers,
determining that they had probable cause for the arrest after all) 5he appeals court upheld 1!. ,
I0.=&&</, !,. ")&rd .0, (.th Cir) 200/*) >hile the officers ultimately prevailed, it was not until
after a complicated litigation process) 1!(
detention or the provision of medical, geriatric, educational counseling, religious, or similar
service)
&%&/%&
5he shelterBs programs were designed to help homeless women become financially independent
members of mainstream society, the appeals court stated, and the plaintiffs resided there only
as a result of their participation in the shelterBs programs) 5he environment at the shelter and its
location in a residential neighborhood did not diminish the Eprimary social services characterF
of the shelter) 5he shelter did not provide housing to the general public who would not
participate in, or benefit from, its primary social service program, the court concluded)
5he fact that a landlord=tenant dispute may be present does not alter the applicability of general
criminal law) (olice can proceed to ma?e arrests for criminal acts of violence, theft of property,
trespass, and other crimes, given the proper circumstances, and based, at times, simply on a
complaint from a purported victim, including a landlord or tenant) +n "ielding v) 5olla?sen,
I0.=<&,&, 200/ 8)1) 6pp) $e'is 2%,&, (8npub) 2nd Cir)*, police officers who arrested a tenant
on the basis of signed complaints from landlords had probable cause for the arrest, and were
properly granted Hualified immunity) (rosecutors in the case were entitled to absolute
prosecutorial immunity, and the landlords, who were private persons, did not act under color of
state law, so they could not be defendants in a federal civil rights lawsuit)
1imilarly, on search and seiAure issues involving law enforcement access to a premises, the
power to consent or object depends on who has privacy rights) +n @incennes v) Emmons,
I!2102=0<0!=C@=1&1, %1/ 3)E) 2nd 1<< (+nd) 200.*, the court stated that a cityBs ordinance
authoriAing warrantless inspections of rental units unless tenants object did not violate the
constitutional rights of landlords, as landlords had no reasonable e'pectation of privacy in units
rented to either residential or commercial tenants) +n instances where the landlords are
themselves the tenants, the ordinance would be interpreted as also reHuiring their consent or a
warrant)
+n ;arvey v) (lains 5ownship, I0!=11!%, !21 ") &rd 1%< (&d Cir) 200<*, the court held that a
police officer who ordered a landlord to open a door to an apartment so that a womanBs e'=
boyfriend could retrieve his possessions was not entitled to Hualified immunity on a womanBs
claim that he violated her "ourth 6mendment rights by becoming actively involved in an e'
parte private repossession)
+n this case, after a womanBs relationship with her boyfriend deteriorated, she obtained an order
of protection granting her e'clusive right of possession of their apartment) (ursuant to that
order, the boyfriend was reHuired to immediately retrieve all of his 1!-
belongings) 5he trial court denied a reHuest that he be allowed to return to pic? up furnishings
and other items that would be difficult to remove during his first trip)
5he manBs attorney sent a letter to the woman informing her that he would go to the apartment
at a particular time to retrieve his remaining belongings) 6 copy of the letter was sent to the
womanBs landlord and to the local police department) 6 police officer was sent to the apartment
at the time designated in the letter in order to E?eep the peaceF at the repossession, and the
landlord was also present at that time) 5he woman, who claimed never to have received the
letter, was not there)
5he officer allegedly directed the landlord to unloc? the door so that the man could retrieve his
property) 6fter this was done, and when the woman returned, she found the apartment in
Edisarray,F and claimed that many items were missing, including some not included in the e'=
boyfriendBs list of his property)
&%!/%&
#n appeal, the federal appeals court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the officer,
holding that a police officer actively involved in an e' parte private repossession of property
may be engaged in state action in violation of the "ourth 6mendment) +t agreed, however, that
the landlord, who opened the door at the direction of the officer, was not engaged in state
action, and upheld the result as to the remaining defendants)
5he appeals court rejected the officerBs argument that his conduct was not state action and that
he was EmerelyF present at a private repossession) 5here was evidence, including the testimony
of the landlord, that the officer directed the opening of the door, and that she never would have
opened it without the officerBs instructions) +f this was true, the officer played a Eprincipal roleF
in the entry and seiAure of the property, and a reasonable jury could conclude that he used his
public authority to help the e'=boyfriend gain entry and ta?e the property from the apartment)
5he record supported a finding that he was not a Emere spectator)F
6dditionally, the law was EunHuestionably clearF at the date of the incident, 1eptember 1,,,,
that the "ourth 6mendment prohibited unreasonable searches and seiAures of a personBs home
by the police without a warrant) 5he court also found that if the officer concluded that the
woman had consented to the repossession merely on the basis of a copy of the letter, to which
the woman did not respond (and which she claimed she never got* that was not reasonable) E6
reasonable officer at least would have refused to assist with opening the door until he was
satisfied that consent was given)F
+n some instances, cities have attempted to ma?e use of the landlord=tenant relationship for
crime control and prevention purposes) +n one case, however, the court found that the city had
gone too far) +n Coo? v) City of 2uena (ar?, I70&1&2., 200< Cal) 6pp) $e'is 10< 1!7
(Cal) !th 6pp) Dist) Danuary 2%, 200<*, the court ruled that a cityBs ordinance reHuiring a
landlord to institute eviction proceedings against a tenant when the chief of police has a
suspicion that the tenant engaged in or permitted illegal drug or gang activity was an
unconstitutional violation of procedural due process rights)
5he case involved a landlord who filed a lawsuit challenging a city ordinance which reHuires
the commencement of eviction proceedings against Eall occupantsF of a rental unit when the
chief of police suspects that the tenant has engaged in or permitted illegal drug activity, gang=
related crime, or a drug=related nuisance in or near the rented property)
5he court found that the ordinance e'posed landlords to a Esubstantial ris?F of the erroneous
deprivation of property rights through compelled eviction litigation, unwarranted fines and
penalties, and counter=suits by tenants, violating procedural due process)
5he court found that the ordinanceBs procedures were Econstitutionally infirmF in three ways)
"irst, in that the notice reHuiring the landlord to institute the eviction proceedings provided
landlords with insufficient information to successfully prosecute such a case) 1econd, the ten=
day period stated within which the landlord is reHuired to begin the eviction proceedings was
found to be too short) 6nd finally, the ordinance improperly reHuired the landlord to prevail in
the eviction action or else face fines, penalties, a lien on his or her property, or even
punishment for a misdemeanor offense)
5he plaintiff landlord had rented an apartment to an individual, and after three years of tenancy,
city police cited the tenantBs roommate for possession of drug paraphernalia) 5he roommate
subseHuently participated in a drug treatment diversion program under the terms of which his
&%</%&
plea of guilty is not considered a criminal conviction Efor any purpose)F "ollowing that, the
landlord received a letter from the cityBs police chief giving him ten business days to institute
eviction proceedings against the tenant, and to Ediligently prosecuteF the eviction, as reHuired
by the cityBs ordinance, the E3arcotics and 7ang=:elated Crime Eviction (rogram)F
5he landlord appealed the notice to the city manager within ten days of receiving it, as
provided by the notice) 5he city manager denied the landlordBs appeal, and the landlord filed
suit in state court challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance)
+n upholding the injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance, the appeals court
ac?nowledged both the landlordBs important property interests in collecting rent, and the cityBs
interest in combating criminal activity, especially drug and gang related crimes)
2ut in this case, the court found, the notices reHuired to be sent did not contain enough specific
information to aid the landlord in the eviction action, but instead only the alleged 1!8
offenderBs identity, apartment number, and the mere dates and times of the alleged criminal
activity or arrest)
5he court stated that it was not suggesting that due process reHuired that the cityBs allegation of
illegal conduct had to be documented by the observations of a law enforcement officer, but
Erather, the documented observations of any witness willing to testify, such as a neighbor or an
informant, would supply probable cause for the landlordBs unlawful detainer action and give the
landlord a chance at success in the action)F
5he ten=day time period in which to initiate the eviction proceeding was Enot nearly enough
timeF for the landlord to Ebolster his evidenceF or otherwise investigate the matter and develop
his case)
"urther, under the ordinance, if the landlord fails to prevail in the eviction action, even if this is
the result of EinadeHuate documentationF provided by the city, the penalties under the
ordinance included fines of up to O<00, misdemeanor punishment for a fourth violation, and a
lien against the property and a civil penalty if court action is reHuired to enforce the ordinance)
5he court rejected the cityBs defense of its procedures, which was based on the fact that the
landlord is allowed to appeal to the city manager the police chiefBs determination that the
ordinance applies) E2ut the ordinance provides no guidance to the city manager regarding the
adeHuacy of the police chiefBs notice and, in any event, the landlord who does not succeed in a
court of law would ta?e little comfort from the city managerBs contrary assessment of the
merits)F
6 concurring opinion by one judge on the three judge panel agreed that the ordinance violated
procedural due process but he e'pressed his misgivings that the ordinance might also suffer
from Eother, more fundamentalF constitutional problems, including Eits sweeping reHuirement
that all occupants of the premises must be evicted for the sins of one, its disparate treatment of
property owners and renters (our record reflects no nuisance abatement efforts against the
owners of property for similar crimes*, and the Damoclean substantive due process issue which
hangs over this statutory scheme)F
#ther cases of interest include:
7rimm v) 1weeney, I01=!&1, 2!, ") 1upp) 2d </1 (E)D) (a) 200&*, in which a fire chief was
held entitled to Hualified immunity for issuing a citation against the owner of rental properties
for refusal to consent to a warrantless inspection of tenantsB apartments) 5he alleged right of the
&%./%&
owner, under the "ourth 6mendment, to refuse to consent to the warrantless inspection
intended to protect the tenantsB safety, was not clearly established, 1!"
so that a reasonable building or fire code enforcement official could have believed that the
landlord had no right to refuse entry, so that he could be cited for obstructing access)
\ $oudes v) City of 9inneapolis, 9inn), I00=1210, 2&& ")&d 110, (%th Cir) 2000*, finding that
an officer was not liable for the detention of a landlord, which allegedly caused his collapse
because he needed access to his o'ygen and medical eHuipment to prevent reoccurrence of a
recent stro?e, when the officer had no information concerning the landlordBs medical condition
when she detained him while attempting to resolve a landlord=tenant dispute over tenant
property)
\ :yan v) 9ary +mmaculate Uueen, I,%=&%!,, 1%% ")&d %</ (/th Cir) 1,,,*, ruling that
apartment tenants had standing to challenge an allegedly unconstitutional search of a rented
premises when their landlord, who wanted to evict the tenants, did not have a valid order
granting him e'clusive possession at the time deputy sheriffs allegedly engaged in a search)
\ Galmas v) >agner, I.!20.=1, ,!& ()2d 1&., (>ash) 1,,/*, stating that a deputy sheriffBs
brief, invited entry into the tenantsB residence to assist a landlordBs agent in showing the
premises to potential new tenant, even if it constituted a search, was reasonable, based on the
deputyBs Ecommunity careta?ingF function) 5he deputy acted with a motive to ?eep the peace in
a dispute between tenant and landlord)
\ #sipova v) Din?ins, I,2 Civ) %,<,, ,0/ ") 1upp) ,! (1)D)3)K) 1,,<*, concluding that a
police officer was entitled to Hualified immunity for a warrantless entry into an apartment when
the landlord told him that water was lea?ing into the premises below, interfering with the
provision of heat and hot water for whole building)
\ Craig v) GrAemins?i, I%%=1<,/.! ") 1upp) 2!% (D) Conn) 1,,1*, in which a mere denial by a
landlord that he had harassed a tenant did not eliminate the officerBs probable cause to arrest
him based on the tenantBs complaint)
+n summary, some points to remember:
p Do not carry out or aid in carrying out an eviction unless there is a verifiable court order)
Doing so without an order may be a "ourth 6mendment violation) Even when a lease states
that a landlord has the right to Ereta?eF the premises under certain conditions, almost every
jurisdiction reHuires legal process and an eviction order)
p 5here are some particular rules that apply to 1ection % federally subsidiAed housing
concerning evictions, drug activities in the rented premises, etc) 2efore ta?ing any action, you
may want to chec? with the local agency administering the program concerning how these
apply)
11!
J >hen officers respond to a complaint about the presence of a trespasser, they should inHuire
as to the reason the person is there) 5he answer to that Huestion may provide probable grounds
for an arrest) 9any laws concerning trespass, however, reHuire that, prior to an arrest, a person
is as?ed to leave and is given an opportunity to comply) 9a?e sure officers are familiar with
state statutes andor local ordinances bearing on this Huestion)
p +t is not the job of an officer to resolve landlord tenant disputes) >hether the rent was fully
&%//%&
paid, or whether the landlord bro?e a promise to paint the living room, are civil disputes, and
the parties can be reminded that there are courts to resolve those disputes) #fficers can, of
course, stand by while landlord=tenant disputes are going on, but should not ta?e part on either
side) 5hey may, of course, ta?e appropriate action if an offense occurs)
p +n emergency situations, such as indications of a person in danger or distress, officers can
ma?e warrantless entry into premises without consent,
&. e#ource#
5he following are some online resources related to the topic of this article) +nclusion does not
necessarily imply agreement with the views e'pressed)
p City of Chicago :esidential $andlord and 5enant #rdinance)
p City of (hiladelphia, (a, (olice Department CitiAen +nformation 2ulletin on $andlord=5enant
Disputes)
p 3ew Kor? (olice Department (atrol 7uide (rocedure 3o) 11/=11, +llegal Evictions)
p >ebsite of the +nternational Crime "ree 6ssociation, an organiAation wor?ing to ?eep illegal
activity off rental property)
p (olice :esponse in +llegal Eviction and #ther 5enant$andlord 1ituations) E'cerpted "rom:
@ermont 1tate (olice 5raining 2ulletin ,&=1)
p 2asalt, Colorado (olice Department page on landlord=tenant disputes)
p 1uffol? County, 3)K) (olice #rder 3umber %%=1, >illful Eviction @iolations)
p Description of ;ollywood, "lorida (olice DepartmentLs $andlord >or?shop)
111K
2% http:www)scribd)comdoc1./<2<!<0%=20=1&=3@D=1&=cv=00!!.=Coughlin=+"(=
Complaint=against=:(D=Duralde=etc=i(hone=arrest=of=%=20=11=020!=.2&&/=.&&!1=202<
2, 2etween pages 21 and 22 of the 2!2 :#6 filed in the 2DDC by the :9C on /2<12 the
:9C e'cised an PE'hibit 6P page attached to tne 1&12 9otion for 3ew 5rial Date filed by
CoughlinBs then court appointed counsel :oberto (uentes, which read (Coughlin has obtained a
copy of it* P5his matter is set for trial on Danuary 10, 2012, at 1:00 (9) 5he defendant moves
for a continuance of the trial date in this matter for issues related to discoveryfurther
investigation, including but limited to defense counsel having received a CD from the City
&%%/%&
6ttorneyBs #ffice on December 20,2011, which contains a very large number of documents and
videos that need to be reviewed in anticipation of trial in this matter) Deputy City 6ttorney Dill
Dra?e has no objection to this motion) E4;+2+5 6P #n a related note, :C6 prosecutor
;aAlett=1tevens filed a :eHuest for 1ubmission on %1!12 as to the /&112 9otion to Dismiss
which ultimately was granted and resulte in ";E1&, prior to the e'piration of the ten days
Coughlin had to file an opposition given such 9otion to Dismiss was not served on Coughlin
electronically and 3:C( .(e* is applicable in light of 2DDC Dudge ElliottBs announcing his
Department %, in ";E12, applies such to measure the computation of time over 3:1 1/%)!/2,
6nd Coughlin is entitled to rely upon such a pronouncement of Department %Bs approach by
Dudge Ellliott (see &1<12 #rder in C:11=20.!, another appeal with the :eno City 6ttorney as
the :espondent* (its not clear which rule applies to an appeal of a criminal conviction from the
justice court to the district court)))3:6(, 3:1 1/%)!/2, )!/., )!/%, )!%2, Etc), >hich is
applicable in a criminal appeal, accords three days for mailing for constructive service to be
effectuated, meaning CoughlinBs #pposition was due on :egardless, even if 3:1 1/%)!/2B1
computation of time method is utiliAed (and its far from clear that 3:1 1/% applies to appeals
of criminal convictions to the district court*, Coughlin has shown good cause under 3:1
1/%)!/2 >here his #pposition was filed only one day late under such an analysis given
Coughlin was not provided any court appointed counsel for his appealing despite filing on
/2%12 a 9otion to (roceed +n "orma (auperis (which resulted +n only the .1%12 trial date
being transcribed, where counsel should have been appointed and all other hearings in 11 C:
2.!0< ought be transcribed, particularly where !1012 was characteriAed as a trial date, and
where <%12 involves issues integral to CoughlinBs appeal (9ardsen, 3:1 1/%)!0<, E'tra=
judicial communications, recusal, conflicts, ineffective assistance of counsel by both (uentes,
5aitel, and $oomis, etc)*) "urther, (particularly relevant to >C(D DoganBs 9otion to Uuash,
allegedly filed 11%12 the subpoenas Coughlin had served on Dogan (for both :C:2012=
0.&&!1Bs 111,12 and 112012 trial dates but also for the 111!12 formal disciplinary
hearing (an 1C: 110 subpoena* where the sole form of service Dogan alleged (and, to be clear,
Dogan and the >C(D lied about this, as Coughlin never received any such fa' at anytime from
Dogan or the >C(D* was alleged to be via facsimile) 5he ineHuity of allow service upon
Coughlin via facsimile (an unspo?en or implicit application of 3:1 1/%)<%, +s put into
particularly star? relief where Dudges 1ferraAAa, Clifton, and (earson have all maintained that,
due to the temporary suspension of CoughlniBs law license on ./12 that Coughlin is Pnot an
attorneyP (though all three have argued that Coughlin is an attorney when see?ing to hold some
constructive ?nowledge of some obscure rule of court to Coughlin or to apply some :ule of
(rofessional Conduct to Coughlin in CoughlinBs self representation* sufficient to Huash
CoughlinBs subpoenas and or subject Coughlin to yet another abuse of the contempt power (all
three have threatened to incarcerate Coughlin for contempt if Coughlin attempts to issue his
own subpoenas)))>hich is more of a problem than it might sound li?e where the :DC, upon
Coughlin see?ing to have a subpoena issued by the Court, violates 3@ Const) 6rt) !, 1ec) 21 in
refusing to simply issue Coughlin a subpoena, but rather, reHuiring Coughlin submit such and
receive approval from a Dudge, which 1ferraAAa denied CoughlinsB subpoena duces tecum on
:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH submitted on %21& along with CoughlinBs subpoena submission in
&%,/%&
:C:201&=0/2./< (the 3:1 1,,)2%0 1C: 111(.* (potentially* PseriousP offense prosecution of
Coughlin incident to :DC 2ailiff Dohn :eyes (trying to score some more points with the :DC
judges* physically attac?ed Coughlin on <2&1&, then proceeded to throw Coughlin over a
bench after violently twisting CoughlinBs arms behind his bac? and slamming him throw a
mangentometer, and finally, abusing process by attempting to charge Coughlin with contempt
of court (which the jail refused to accept* and charging Coughlin with two redundant felonies,
and two even more redundant misdemeanors totalling O1.,000 in bail) Coughlin submitted
subpoenas for :eyesBs wife, Cathy 6nn :eyes, whom filed a 5(# against :eyes on <212
alleging he is violent and controlling when Poff his medicationsP, which he is to ta?e for
Pserious depressionP) Coughlin also submitted a subpoena to the :DC for former :DC Chief
Civil Cler? Garen 1tancil (whom was one of the last :DC employees, besides 2ailiffs, that
Coughlin was permitted to spea? with during a 122012 conversation wherein 1tancil made
some e'tremely inflammatory admission (particularly concerning the wrongful arrest of
Coughlin on .2%12 in :C:2012=0./,%0 incident to the wrongful eviction of the same date in
:ev2012=0010!%) 5he :DC in an envelope post ma?red ,&1& issued (not signed by a Dudge* a
P3otice of Document :eceived 2ut 3ot Considered by CourtP returning such proposed
subpoena on Garen 1tancil to Coughlin in refusing to issue such, citing that such failed to
comply with the %1!1& 6dministrative #rder 201&=0. by Chief Dudge (earson despite such
being submitted well prior to such 6dministrative #rder 201&=0. being entered, much less
served) "urther, while rendering whatever it is he rendered on 11&011 Dudge ;oward failed to
inform Coughlin of the e'ceedingly short deadlien (comparatively to other states* in 3evada
under 3:1 1/.)<1< 5o file a 9otion for 3ew 5rial (Coughlin filed one 121&11*) ;owever,
given the fact that Dudge ;oward could not be bothered to, or could not muster up the energy to
actually signed the ";E12 Dudgment of Conviction (what else can he not manage to bring
himself to doJ >ell, there is upholding the dictates of the 1i'th 6mendment and 200% +ndigent
Defense #rder)))*, 5he / days to for Coughlin to file 9otion for 3ew 5rial under 3:1 1/.)<1<
;ave not yet run either)
&0 2IDC I'dge E##"ott comm"tted s"m"#ar m"scond'ct on 4/19/12 "nc"dent to BCD? DD? K* 3o'ng- &et aga"n-
+"o#at"ng te mandator& sta& 'nder @A5 168*405 "n mo+"ng for a 2a"# re+ocat"on***2't "ts o,a& for 3o'ng-
2eca'se- "n Basoe Co'nt&- 2e"ng a De!'t& D"str"ct ?ttorne& means ne+er a+"ng to sa& &o' are sorr&:
tt!://www*scr"2d*com/doc/196835552/4-19-12-Dear"ng-s-E"n'tes-7"#ed-4-25-12-"n-CA12-0369-Dogan-3o'ng-
E##"ot-Com!etenc&-E+a#'at"on-A(c-Acr2012-095930-Adr2011-093341 :
AEPJA% P53CD1?%A1C E/?;4?%1J@
De!'t& D"str"ct ?ttorne& Kacar& 3o'ng re!resented te 5tate*
Defendant was !resent w"t co'nse#- De!'t& P'2#"c Defender C"ra&
Dogan* Pro2at"on Jff"cer >a"# 7a#coner was a#so !resent*
D"sc'ss"on at te 2enc 2etween res!ect"+e co'nse# and Co'rt*
Defendant was a#so !resent at te 2enc d'r"ng te d"sc'ss"on*
Eatter tra"#ed*
Eatter reca##ed*
Co'rt- res!ect"+e co'nse# and te Defendant were !resent*
CJ4A% re+"ewed te #etters s'2m"tted from Drs* 7armer and Da+"s=
and noted "ts concerns tat te doctors were 'na2#e to com!#ete te
e+a#'at"ons d'e to te DefendantLs 'nw"##"ngness to coo!erate*
Defense co'nse# addressed te Co'rt and mo+ed to a 2-wee,
cont"n'ance to a##ow te Defendant to 2e e+a#'ated* Co'nse# for te
5tate addressed te Co'rt and mo+ed for a 2a"# re+ocat"on and tat
e 2e remanded to te c'stod& of te 5er"ff to ens're tat te
&,0/%&
Defendant can 2e e+a#'at"on d'r"ng "s "ncarcerat"on* Defense
co'nse# re!#"ed* Co'nse# for te 5tate res!onded*
CJ4A% !osed F'est"ons to te Defendant regard"ng "s w"##"ngness
to coo!erate "n order to get te e+a#'at"ons com!#eted*
Defendant res!onded*
CJ4A% JADEAED: 5tateLs mot"on for re+ocat"on of 2a"# stat's "s
>A?@%ED* Co'rt f'rter ordered Defendant sa## 2e remanded to
te c'stod& of te 5er"ff at w"c t"me te Defendant sa## s'2m"t to
a !s&c"atr"c e+a#'at"on to 2e adm"n"stered 2& two !s&c"atr"sts from
te ;a,es Cross"ng fac"#"t&* Co'rt f'rter set an add"t"ona# ear"ng*
Defendant was ta,en "nto te c'stod& of te 5er"ff*
&1 ;B,o *ubEectC
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:!! (9
5o: laurapNnvbar)org (laurapNnvbar)org*C patric??Nnvbar)org (patric??Nnvbar)org*
Dear 2ar Counsel Ging and Cler? of Court+nvestigator (eters and Chairman Echeverria,
5here is a big problem with respect to when the 1tate 2ar of 3evada actually sent the
:espondent, Coughlin the Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence (Do>1oE*
(and Coughlin has yet to received a file stamped version of that Dow1oE) "urther, Coughlin
has never received any 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default (3o+5D* from the 123) 6s such, the
notice and other procedural safeguards attendant to the ;earing set for 111!12 are severely
deficient) 5his is just the 1&th chime of the cloc?, and + have had as many Pget right with
DesusP (or any other number of nondenominational 1aviors* tal?s with 2ar Counsel Ging and
Cler? (eters as anyone deserves) 6dd to that this new thing where first 2ar Counsel says, as
reHuired by 1C: 10<(2*(c*Bs:
P5he 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) P
1ee, it doesnBt say, in 1C: 10<, 2ar Counsel can puff on about the :espondentBs right to
inspect, then pull the carpet out from under :espondentBs feet suddenly and claim to be
PcopyingP only certain things, and refusing to allow inspection of others (even where the 1C:
10< Complaint specifically invo?es such non copied materials*, and then cut short the time up
to which :espondnet may inspect) $etBs say 2ar Counsel did copy and provide those materials
on #ctober &1st, 2012) #?ay, well 1C: 10< allows Coughlin to go to the 123 and inspect Pup
to & days priorP)))so Coughlin may go to the 123 tomorrow, #ctober /th, 2012 and inspect,
noJ 6nd any refusal by the 123 is a violation of 1C: 10<, rightJ (lease advise in writing)
(lease see 1upreme Court :ule (1C:* 11,(2*, which holds that 2ar Counsel and the (anelBs
failure to follow these rules Pmay result in contempt of the appropriate disciplinary board or
hearing panel having jurisdiction)))P (lease note there has already been a 9otion for #rder to
&,1/%&
1how Cause filed against 2ar Counsel and or the 2oard or (anel in .0%&% and .1!2.)
6dditionally, please be aware that 1C: 11,(&* holds: &)ee#ther rules of procedure)eeE'cept as
otherwise provided in these rules, the 3evada :ules of Civil (rocedure and the 3evada :ules
of 6ppellate (rocedure apply in disciplinary cases)
+n that regard, the decision on the motion to bifurcate dispalyed a clear lac? 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 3:C( .(e* of 2ar Counsels #ctober 2!th, 2012
alleged mailing) 5he term PallegedP is used do to a recent visit to the 123 on #ctober &1st,
2012 at around !:!< pm when + saw in the 123 outgoing mail bo' two certified letter to myself
that Cler? of Court (eters admitted would not be pic?ed 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 ;earing did not have the Designation of
>itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence included with it, and therefore, my right to have the
Do>1oE &0 days prior to the hearing, and to receive it from the (anel, along with the 3otice
of ;earing, 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 Cler? (eters can tell you about)))*) +t is a path that :ichard
7) ;ill, EsH) often ta?es people down too)))
+ would be very interest to ?now who was on the screening (anel)))which 2ar Counsel Ging
promised to tell me, though, li?e most all of (atBs promises, he has bro?en)))could it have been
David ;amilton, EsH)J :ichard 7) ;illBs best friend, David ;amiltonJ >as it >CD6 9ary
GandarasJ 5he one included in the correspondences about my smartphone and micro sd data
card being searched and or seiAed illegally and or outside any lawful search incident to arrest
given the hand of an boo?ing it into CoughlinBs property on 22/12, only for the :9C
9arshals to return on 22%12 (at the soonest* to ta?e it bac? to Dudge 3ash ;olmesJ >hatBs
ne't, Dudges showing up in our bedrooms reading our diaries out of the blueJ
+t is my understanding that Chief 2ar Counsel David Clar? 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 ?now very
soon) (lease 1ee 1C: 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 frivolous issue, the ghostwriting allegations vis a vis 2oard 9ember 1helly #B3eillBs client,
Dohn 7essin)

"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:
:ulee120)eeCostsC bar counsel conflict or disHualification
&,2/%&
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)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
5el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
h has < files to share with you on 1?yDrive) 5o view them, clic? the lin?s 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#::EC5ED C6(5+#3)pdf
020! notice of non service of purported notice of intent to ta?e default)pdf
020! 182(#E36 >+5; D+1C$6+9E:)pdf
020! subpoena all)pdf
Download all P
&2 ;4767=?679, )94$ ,967C@ P4@?*@ @6?7, ?44 @V7$@,C@
1ent: 9on 111212 .:<2 69
5o: schornsbyNnvdetr)org (schornsbyNnvdetr)org*C patric?Nnvbar)org
(patric?Nnvbar)org*C davidcNnvbar)org (davidcNnvbar)org*C s?entNs?entlaw)com
(s?entNs?entlaw)com*C mi?eNtahoelawyer)com (mi?eNtahoelawyer)com*C cvellisNbhfs)com
(cvellisNbhfs)com*C jeNeloreno)com (jeNeloreno)com*C tsusichNnvdetr)org
(tsusichNnvdetr)org*C nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net (nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net*
:E$65ED 5# 5;E 96+$+37 #", 5;E CE:5+"+ED 96+$+37 3892E: #", 63D 5;E
E3@E$#(E 63D D#C89E351 :E58:3ED 5# 5;E 1565E 26: #" 3E@6D6,
E1(EC+6$K 5;E #3$K C#(K #" 5;E 3#5+CE #" +35E35 5# 56GE DE"68$5
5;65 C#87;$+3 E@E: :ECE+@ED 835+$ 7E55+37 6 C#(K #" 5;E "+$E #3 11 /
12 "+36$$K DE$+@E:ED 5# ;+1 (;K1+C6$ 6DD:E11 65 1!/1 E) ,5;, 15) 1imply
put, the 123 only mailed a certified version of the 3otice of +ntent 5o 5a?e Default) 5hat
10,12 mailing was not given to Coughlin by P5imP at the @assar 1tation due to the postage
thereon being insufficient) ;owever, the copy of the file provided to Coughlin lac?s any
indication of what the certified mail trac? and confirm number is for that 3otice of +ntent to
ta?e default)
&,&/%&
Coughlin reHuests that the 123 notify the panel of its error, the fact that CoughlinBs 3otice of
;earing and Dow1oE was not even scanned into the 81(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 utiliAed (&,.1
+ts more than inaccurate for 9r) Ging to suggest + have dodged service) 1ee my email to :eno
Carson below)))+ ?now + 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)
5he Disciplinary "ile provided to Coughlin lac?s a return of or proof of service of the
Complaint and for the 3otice of +ntent to ta?e Default) (lease proof of service thereof of proof
of attempts at service, including the certified mailing numbers) 7ive the primacy of such
documents to the due process of these matters, it would seem holding the 111!12 ;earing
would be reversible error and imprudent)
P5he :hinoP is Dohnno $aAetich, http:www)faceboo?)compublicDohnno=$aAetich=the=:hino
we were on the :eno ;igh 1chool bas?etball team together in 1,,!=V,<))) Dohnno ran the ball
for Gansas 1tate)
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
5el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
, 2! 12 10 & 12 10 2& 12 physical address service issues e' 020! rhino)pdf
P"rom: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com
5o: processNrenocarson)com
1ubject: chec?ing in
Date: >ed, & #ct 2012 2&:0,:<0 =0/00
Dear :eno Carson,

;i, + thin? the :hino called for me, new phone number below, same as my fa')
(lease let me ?now what + can do for you)
&,!/%&
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin
(# 2#4 &,.1
:eno, 3@ %,<0<
5el and "a' ,!, ../ /!02
-achCoughlinNhotmail)comP
&&
;B,o *ubEectC
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:!! (9
5o: laurapNnvbar)org (laurapNnvbar)org*C patric??Nnvbar)org (patric??Nnvbar)org*
Dear 2ar Counsel Ging and Cler? of Court+nvestigator (eters and Chairman Echeverria,
:espondent, Coughlin the Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence (Do>1oE*
(and Coughlin has yet to received a file stamped version of that Dow1oE) "urther, Coughlin
has never received any 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default (3o+5D* from the 123) 6s such, the
notice and other procedural safeguards attendant to the ;earing set for 111!12 are severely
deficient) 5his is just the 1&th chime of the cloc?, and + have had as many Pget right with
DesusP (or any other number of nondenominational 1aviors* tal?s with 2ar Counsel Ging and
Cler? (eters as anyone deserves) 6dd to that this new thing where first 2ar Counsel says, as
reHuired by 1C: 10<(2*(c*Bs:
P5he 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) P
1ee, it doesnBt say, in 1C: 10<, 2ar Counsel can puff on about the :espondentBs right to
inspect, then pull the carpet out from under :espondentBs feet suddenly and claim to be
PcopyingP only certain things, and refusing to allow inspection of others (even where the 1C:
10< Complaint specifically invo?es such non copied materials*, and then cut short the time up
to which :espondnet may inspect) $etBs say 2ar Counsel did copy and provide those materials
on #ctober &1st, 2012) #?ay, well 1C: 10< allows Coughlin to go to the 123 and inspect Pup
to & days priorP)))so Coughlin may go to the 123 tomorrow, #ctober /th, 2012 and inspect,
noJ 6nd any refusal by the 123 is a violation of 1C: 10<, rightJ (lease advise in writing)
(lease see 1upreme Court :ule (1C:* 11,(2*, which holds that 2ar Counsel and the (anelBs
failure to follow these rules Pmay result in contempt of the appropriate disciplinary board or
hearing panel having jurisdiction)))P (lease note there has already been a 9otion for #rder to
1how Cause filed against 2ar Counsel and or the 2oard or (anel in .0%&% and .1!2.)
&,</%&
6dditionally, please be aware that 1C: 11,(&* holds: &)ee#ther rules of procedure)eeE'cept as
otherwise provided in these rules, the 3evada :ules of Civil (rocedure and the 3evada :ules
of 6ppellate (rocedure apply in disciplinary cases)
+n that regard, the decision on the motion to bifurcate dispalyed a clear lac? 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 3:C( .(e* of 2ar Counsels #ctober 2!th, 2012
alleged mailing) 5he term PallegedP is used do to a recent visit to the 123 on #ctober &1st,
2012 at around !:!< pm when + saw in the 123 outgoing mail bo' two certified letter to myself
that Cler? of Court (eters admitted would not be pic?ed 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 ;earing did not have the Designation of
>itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence included with it, and therefore, my right to have the
Do>1oE &0 days prior to the hearing, and to receive it from the (anel, along with the 3otice
of ;earing, 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 Cler? (eters can tell you about)))*) +t is a path that :ichard
7) ;ill, EsH) often ta?es people down too)))
+ would be very interest to ?now who was on the screening (anel)))which 2ar Counsel Ging
promised to tell me, though, li?e most all of (atBs promises, he has bro?en)))could it have been
David ;amilton, EsH)J :ichard 7) ;illBs best friend, David ;amiltonJ >as it >CD6 9ary
GandarasJ 5he one included in the correspondences about my smartphone and micro sd data
card being searched and or seiAed illegally and or outside any lawful search incident to arrest
given the hand of an boo?ing it into CoughlinBs property on 22/12, only for the :9C
9arshals to return on 22%12 (at the soonest* to ta?e it bac? to Dudge 3ash ;olmesJ >hatBs
+t is my understanding that Chief 2ar Counsel David Clar? 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 ?now very
soon) (lease 1ee 1C: 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 9ember 1helly #B3eillBs client,
Dohn 7essin)

"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)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
5el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
h has < files to share with you on 1?yDrive) 5o view them, clic? the lin?s below)
supplemental to CoughlinBs designation fo witnesses and summary and production of evidence
and notice of objection 020! C#::EC5ED C6(5+#3)pdf
020! 182(#E36 >+5; D+1C$6+9E:)pdf
Download all P
&! J*+, #till ha# not /ro-ided Coughlin acce## to the material# he i# entitled to to
/re/are %or 11114112 )earing
1ent: "ri 110212 10:&. (9
5o: s?entNs?entlaw)com (s?entNs?entlaw)com*C mi?eNtahoelawyer)com
(mi?eNtahoelawyer)com*C nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net (nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net*C
patric??Nnvbar)org (patric??Nnvbar)org*C fflahertyNdlpfd)com (fflahertyNdlpfd)com*C
davidcNnvbar)org (davidcNnvbar)org*C complaintsNnvbar)org (complaintsNnvbar)org*C
tsusichNnvdetr)org (tsusichNnvdetr)org*C jeNeloreno)com (jeNeloreno)com*C
cvellisNbhfs)com (cvellisNbhfs)com*
&& attachments
all emails to loomis 2.!0< 12!20 2.%00 00.,. 0.<.&0 0.&&!1)pdf (//,)% G2*
, 2 2% 12 Contempt #rder 3ash 2.%00 2.!0< 0.<.&0 00.,. 0.&&!1 bf siAe reduced)pdf
(!!,), G2* , 11cr2.!0< puentes 0!1012_20120!10=0,0&_01cd1.f%c&aa!,b0)mp& (<)1
92* , 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com rpd police reports by coughlin 0.&&!1 duralde carter
lopeA sifre 1/0% 2.!0< 2.%00)htm (1!<)0 G2* , rpd carter police report 11 cr 2.!0<
puentes loomis 1/0% merliss rmc gardner cr12=0&/. mh12=00&2 .<0.&0 0.&&!1 rpd lopeA
&,//%&
carter police report 11 1& 12=2)pdf (.)& 92* , & & 12 attached to loomis email and filed in
rmc final motion to dismiss 11 cr 2.!0< 2.%00 0.<.&0 0.&&!1)pdf (!!2). G2* ,
goodnight jgoodnightNwashoecounty)us < 2 12 email regarding haAlett loomis mhc
1/%)!0< 0.&&!1 2.!0<)htm (1.)& G2* , all emails from ?eith loomis
?eithloomisNearthlin?)net between 2 2/ 12 and % 10 12 2.!0< 2.%00 00.,. 0.&&!1
0.<.&0)htm (&22)% G2* , & / 12 rmc 11 cr 2.!0< loomis gardner 1/%)!0< Coughlin 5rial
1etting 2.%00 00.,. 0.&&!1 0.<.&0)pdf (&21)! G2* , % , 12 $oomis second 9otion to
withdraw 12 cr 12!20 rmc see also 2.!0<)pdf (22,)2 G2* , 1tate 2ar #f 3evada nvbar
casey ba?er 1/0% 2.!0<)htm (!2)/ G2* , < . 0, email from wls ed elcano 2.!0< .0&02
garnder 01,<< 10%,. .0&02 2.%00 .0&1/ <!%!! dd)pdf (1<)& G2* , 11 1. 2011 email
from reno city attorney roberts)htm (1.)& G2* , >C1# 2ec?man, Debi Campbell,
Cummings, ;odge 1tatements on property seAied from :eno 6ttorney by :eno 9unic
Court Dudge 3ash ;olmes)pdf (1<0)& G2* , -achCoughlinNhotmail)com emails to
puentesNaol)com)pdf (222)1 G2* , pam roberts on her duty)pdf (%12)0 G2* , (atric? Ging
sbn grievance letter of & 1. 12 and Dudge 3ash ;olmes greivance of & 1! 12 rmc 11 5:
2.%00)pdf (</<)% G2* , proof of clandestine status conference on 2 2/ 12 dogan young
nash holmes schroeder rcr2012=0.<.&0 rjc rmc rpd wcso wcpd wcda = Copy)pdf (1.!!)!
G2* , proof of fa'ing notice of appeal to both rmc gardner and reno city attorney haAlett=
stevens)pdf (1!)< G2* , proof picture of personally delivering notice of appeal to city of
reno haAlett . 2/ 12 in cr12=12.2 11 cr 2.!0<)pdf (!&), G2* , records reHuest and
subpoena to :1+C)pdf (/1)2 G2* , records reHuest to rsic police)pdf (.<)% G2* , rmc 12 cr
12!20 $oomis motion to withdraw as counsel % , 12 City of :eno v Coughlin)pdf (,2.),
G2* , 9otion for Continuance to :eno City 6tty :oberts :9C)pdf (!!%), G2* , #:DE:
:E$E61+37 (:#(E:5K 11 5: 2.%00 & &0 12 nash rmc rjc rpd wcso ?ing clar? mar?ed
as recd bac? 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 cr12=12.2)pdf (2)< 92* , C:12=12.2=&0,&..%
(#pposition to 9tn )))*)pdf (,2)< G2* , C:12=12.2=&11/1<0 (#rd Dismiss 6ppeal
:emand*)pdf (/&), G2* , C:12=12.2=&11,!1. (E'hibit 1*)pdf (2)/ 92* , . 2% 12 email to
haAlett stevens showing what was served notice of appeal 11 cr 2.!0< cr12=12.2)pdf (12)%
G2* , 12 1! 11 fa' to (uentes re >C1# 6ffidavit of 1ervice :E@2011=001/0%)pdf (2!),
G2* , < . 0, email from elcano wls stating his decision is limited to hearing conduct
before judge linda gardner rmc 2.!0< 2.%00 .0&02)htm (10)& G2*
Dear (anel 9embers and 2ar Counsel,

+ called 9r) Ging (he directed me to call (anel Chair Echeverria* today to see?
clarification regarding an earlier approval he relayed to me from Chief 2ar Counsel David
Clar?, wherein 9r) Clar? 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 (ng12=020!, ng12=0!&!, ng12=0!&<)))odd, canBt
recall a single other PcaseP in all my legal research that had three case
numbers))))especially where an #rder Denying a 9otion to 2ifurcate was issued, even
&,%/%&
before the < days for me to file a :eply to the #pposition (given 3:C( is e'pressly
applicable to these matters under the 1C:Bs*)))6m + going to find out that my filings are
Ptoo longP under a view that assumes this is Pone caseP even though there are Pthree
grievance case numbersP in the caption, and where each PgrievanceP is fairly ramblingJ
6nd 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 1C:
111 (etition for the petty larceny of a Pcandy bar and some cough dropsP (ie, the Court
order that matter, .0%&%, referred to the 2oard for a Phearing at which the sole issue to be
determinedP would be my punishment for that which was noticed and adjudicated in the
.0%&% 1C: 111 (etition)
+ believe you are all now violating 3evada $aw in persisting in your denial of
my right to such a hearing wherein the Psole issueP is such, but rather trying to jam me up
with this Pcombo hearingP that see?s 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 1ferraAAaBs refusal
to testify at the 3ovember 1!th, 2012 ;earing)))which is problematic considering Dudge
1ferraAAa presided over the civil summary eviction matter in :DC :ev2011=001/0% that is
intimately connect to 6$$ 5;:EE of the grievances included in GingBs rec?less,
negligent, compromised 1C: 10< PComplaintP) "or instance:
3712=020!: :ichard 7) ;illBs Danuary 1!th, 2012 letter to 2ar Counsel Ging (whom he
had just wor?ed on the 9ilsner v) Carstarphen matter with
(http:law)justia)comcasesnevadasupreme=court2012<1.&1)html *

5oday, Ging admitted to being unaware of who Casey 2a?er, 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 stic? 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 bac? and pretend that the Claiborne
decision (e'plicated e'tensively in my attached 6ugust 1&th, 2012 (etition* does not
permit 2ar Counsel to just throw its hands up and suggest that a 9uni Court conviction
(even, in :9C 11 C: 2.!0<, presided over by the brother of the judge whose sanctions
#rders is before you in 3712=0!&<, 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 2a?er, EsH) and :ichard 7) ;ill at the Dune 1%th, 2012 criminal trespass trial
incident to the civil eviction from CoughlinBs former law office in :DC :ev2011=001/0%)
6sst) 2ar Counsel Ging also admitted that he had failed to even view the video
taped admission by :(D 1argent $opeA that she, ;ill, 9erliss, and :(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 9arch 1!th, 2012 (apparently Ging adopts Ching as to whom can be an
&,,/%&
1C: 10< complainant, and therefore within the statute of limitations, when it comes to
7ardnerBs 6pril 200, #rder, but not when it involves misconduct by a Chairman of the
Character and "itness Committee of the 123, 1pearmint :hino owner Gevin Gelly, EsH),
whom also owns a $as @egas 1trip Club that gives cabbies O10 million dollars a year to
funnel tourists to itBs doors from the airport, and the misconduct of (eter Christiansen, Dr)
and 9i?e 1anft, and others incident to CoughlinBs application for admission in 3evada,
including that of then Director of 6dmissions (atrice Eichmann, made all the more
feasible by the conduct of 9i?e 1miley :owe, EsH) and the fraudulent conduct of 9ar?
5ratos and 9ary $a"rance* when :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes (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 ?eeps
no central record of any such grievances* on to 2ar Counsel after receiving it from her co=
:9C Dudge, and the brother of the family court judge issuing the sanction order)))at right
about the time that Coughlin filed that 9arch /th, 2012 3otice of 6ppeal (and there is
plenty of case law to establish that a Psummary criminal convictionP is a final appealable
#rder, and the :9C is fraudulently conspiring with transcriptionist (am $ongoni to
violate 3:1 1%,)010=0&0 by demanding payment up front for such transcripts by indigent
criminal defendants, and $ongoni and the :9CBs fraud in that regard resulted in Dudge
Elliot denying CoughlinBs appeal of the >al=9art candy bar petty larceny conviction in
cr11=20.!, wherein Dudge Elliot actually cites to a civil statute related to transcript
preparation to justify the :9CBs fraud, seen elsewhere in C:12=101%, further the :9C
PlostB CoughlinBs 3otice of 6ppeal of the 11 cr2.!0< criminal trespass conviction appeal
(despite Coughlin having digitial confirmation of the receipt of that fa' by the :9C, and
where :9C :ules allows service thereof via that means upon both the Court and the City
6ttorney (and ;aAlett=1tevens lied about that as well, in addition to the lies he told
respecting whether the City 6ttorney had received anything from the :1+C following
CoughlinBs >al=9art arrest* in the Psummary criminal contemptP #rder stemming from
the traffic citation (California roll* trial connected to Coughlin reporting the admissions of
bribery by :ichard ;ill (:(D #fficer Carter stated as much during the 3ovember 1&th,
2011 criminal trespass arrest, now part of the 1C: 10< Complaint, incorporated by
reference, one must suppose, by ;illBs 3712=020! 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 ;illBs office to retrieve his
?eys, wallet, clientBs files, and goverment issued identification after being release from &
days in jail incident to the wrongful criminal trespass arrest)
9r) Ging is beyond incorrect is stating that he will be able to simply point to a
criminal conviction and declare that no inHuiry into the legitimacy of that conviction may
be made) 5here is a wealth of case law and precedent that holds otherwise, and 9r) Ging
has previously been made aware of that) 5his 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 thin? rather hard
before tying their reputations to the mast that is the e'tremely low bar reHuired to get a
!00/%&
conviction in the :eno 9unicipal Court these days))))and further, the (anel would be well
advised to avoid letting 9r) 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) 5his will be particularly true where 9r) Ging see?s to, in his 1C: 10<
Complaint, allege matters not even charged in that 9unicipal Court criminal trespass
proseuction) ;ow 9r) Ging will be able to allege his :(C &)% violating allegations
respecting Pbrea?ing and enteringP or Pbro?en loc?sP are relevant or admissible where
CoughlinBs dissection of the illegitimacy of the >almart candy bar petty larceny
conviction (supposedly part of the 1C: 10< Compalint))))and mentioned in ;illBs 3712=
020! grievance)))which brings to mind the Huestion)))what of matters not mentioned in any
of the three grievance numbersJ ;ow are they eligible for inclusion in some 1C: 10<
PComplaintB that lac?s a uniHue case number of its ownJ* :egardless, 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 1C:, 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)
:egardless, :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)Bs hench man, Casey 2a?er, EsH), now that the
heat is on and he and ;illBs avarice driven misdeeds are finally facing the oversight they
deserve, has now suddenly fled bac? to Gentuc?y:
http:www)nvbar)orglawyer=detail112/1

+t was 2a?er whom ;ill used to file the 3ovember 21st, 2011 and Danuary
20th, 2012 filings in :DC :ev2011=001/0% and the appeal thereof in C@11=0&.2% to ma?e
the allegatons that ;ill himself ?new unwise to ma?e in his own regard within a sworn
Declaration)))1o, despite ;ill, not 2a?er, having the eye witness ?nowledge of such events
(li?e whether the :(D identified themselves as law enforcement and issued to Coughlin a
lawful warning to leave at the ris? of a criminal trespass citation or arrest prior to the
landlord ?ic?ing down the door to a Huasi PbasementP under the property that 2a?erBs own
testimony at the Dune 1%th, 2012 trespass trail admits lac?ed any sort of e'terior loc?, and
thus would reHuire no Pbrea?ing of any sortP of the type both 1usich and Ging suddenly
felt the need to allege when considering how terribly compromised their .0,/< (etiton
and the instant 1C: 10< Pcombo=grievancesP (?ind of li?e a Pdue process value mealP that
(at Ging is serving up, and as?ing this 2oard to co=sign)))which, apparently the Chairman
finds fitting))))whatBs ne't, are you going to have lawyers dress up in ;ot Dog on a 1tic?
employee uniforms (you ?now, 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 6mendment, 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 81C 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
!01/%&
self interested aims of those leveraging such positions is apparent) :+C#)
+ am writing to reHuest confirmation of what + believe 9r) Clar? has previously
rule, ie, that +, as an indigent respondent herein, am not reHuired to pay witnesses any sort
of Pwitness feeP in issuing and or serving subpoenas and subpoens duces tecums upon
them in connection with the 3ovember 1!th, 2011 ;earing in this matter) + feel ;illBs then
associate Casey 2a?er, EsHBs testimony will be particular necessary to this hearing
(especially where ;ill admits himself that he was not present at the purported 3ovember
1st, 2011 Ploc?outP in the eviction matter (and the service of an receipt by the >C1#
with respect to any such loc?out #rder is of material relevance, as 3:1 !0)2<& reHuires
such an #rder be carried out Pwithin 2! hours of receiptP thereof)))and 2a?erBs testimony
at the Dune 1%th, 2012 criminal trespass trial, in combination with previous statements by
the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice (and please add these individuals and matters to my
designation fo witnesses and summary of evidence to be presented* 1upervisor $iA
1tuchell, :o'y 1ilve, Deputy 9achen, and administrators, supervisors, and cler?s at the
:eno Dustice Court (:DC* add up to the fact that it was ;ill, 2a?er, and the >C1#, and
:(D that were trespassing, not Coughlin, at CoughlinBs former home law office)
6ttached it the video taped admission by :(D 1argent $opeA respecting the
lies by her, :(D #fficer Carter, ;ill, 9erliss, and 2a?er leading to CoughlinBs arrest and
conviction for criminal trespass) Geith $oomis will need to answer for his failure to fulfill
the 1i'th 6mendment in that regard, in addition to the content of the unapproved and
impermissible PmeetingP with :9C Dudge 7ardner and City of :eno (rosecutor wherein,
upon information and belief, an PapproachP to handling the criminal trespass trial of
Coughlin was PdevelopedP shortly before the 6pril 10th, 2012 5rial date in that criminal
trespass matter (a 5rial 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 3:1 1/%)!0< and 3:1 <)010*) 6ny trier of fact that wishes to attempt to pull the wool
over CoughlinBs eyes, ma?e incongruous and patently compromised, often sua sponte
relevancy rulings, or otherwise coo? up a due process value meal may wish to as? :9C
Dudge 7ardner how the recent filings by Coughlin in .1,01 and the :9C 11 C: 2.!0<
are tasting right about now) #r get Dudge ;owardBs inpute with respect to the analysis of
his wor? in .0%&%)
6nd Dudge 3ash ;olmes may be able to provide some insight as to how that
approach served her, particularly where her Pcriminal summary contemptP 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 Psummary
adjudicationsP))))the are so arbitary and devoid of due process that the reHuirements
attendant thereto must be stricly adhered to))))so when Dudge 3ash ;olmes in here #rders
in 11 5: 2.%00 of 22%12 and &12 &1&, and &1&12 refers to some :9C 9arshal
allegedly peering, (eeping 5om style, through a bathroom stall wherein Coughlin was
during a restroom brea? 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
Pimmediate presenceP)))otherwise, someone would have to sign an 6ffidavit li?e a grown
up, and Coughlin would be entitled to a hearing, and li?ely appointed counsel under the
!02/%&
1i'th 6mendment before some 2ar Counsel li?e Ging could attempt to prop up any such
PconvictionP in an attempt to lend it an air of respectiability, especially where that 9arshal
;arley (whom Ging conveniently has failed to subpoena* had his own self interested
reasons for see?ing to discredit Coughlin (:9C 9arshal ;arley violated the Pcourthouse
sanctuaryP rule and contributed to an appearance of impropriety where he served Coughlin
an #rder to 1how Cause incident to one of ;illBs fraudulent 9otions see?ing to abuse
process in hopes of remaining competitive with an actual attorney li?e Coughlin (rather
than a ?nown hac? li?e ;+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 ;illBs poc?ets, and those of, apparently, even his legal assistans, whom
drive O1&0,000 9ercedes v12 1$=.00 sport coupe convertibles to crac? inspections of law
offices incident to impermissible summary evictions of commercial tenants where ;ill
chose to proceed under a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice (along with 2a?er* rather than a 3on
(ayment 3otice, and therein committed a Pwrong site surgeryP (in a litigation sense, to
borrow some of the parlance of the landlord, Dr) 9erlissBs field, wherein he is a
3eurosurgeon3eurologist in Chico, C6, apparently armed with enough money to choose
to run up O.0,000, as of 6pril 2012 in fees ot ;+ll and 2a?er in these matters rather than
settle with Coughlin for the O1,<00 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 :(D #fficers Duralde, :osa, 6la?sa,
>eaver, $oo?, 5ravis >arren, and $eedy, :(D 1argent 5arter,$opeA, 1ifre, #liver
9iller, Dye, and 2radshaw, ;illBs 6ssociate Casey 2a?er, 1heri ;ill, and to be
deterimined members of ;+llBs staff (particulary those with ?nowledge of any matters
connected to the receipt of either of the Eviction #rders by the >C1# in the eviction
matter, >C(D Dim $eslie, 2iray Dogan, Doe 7oodnight, >almart 5homas "rontino and
619 Dohn Ellis, and a yet to be determined 6( 6ssociate 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 :ules
of 3evada and the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder in .0%&%, but rather, li?e Cler?PreluctantP
+nvestigator (eters, are allowing themselves to be led down that primrose path that (at
Ging finds to pleasurable to ta?e the unwitting along in his social climbing and life of ease
and comfort, devoid of honor or intergrity, approach to life)))
6lso, 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
>atson, $ucy 2yington, 3ate -arate, Cory 7oble, the individual whose phone number is
//<&/%../&, Colton 5empleton, :obert Dawson, 3ic? Duralde, :on :osa, 5homas
6la?sa, 1avannah 9ontgomery, $inda 7ray, Gelly #dom, Gariann 2eechl?er, :(D
#fficer 1chaur and any others present at arrest of 11!12 for Pmisuse of emergency
communicationsP, and of the <=. officers whom, along with :(D Duralde pulled Coughlin
over upon his release from jail on 11&12 for the 11212 Pjaywal?ingP arrest made upon
!0&/%&
the fraudulent assertions of :ichard ;+ll, :DC Dudge Dac? 1chroeder (whom evicted
Coughlin from (ar? 5errace and granted ;ill the protection order incident to the
jaywal?ing arrest and who yelled Pdo you want to go to jailP at Coughlin at the e'tension
hearing when Coughlin broached the topic of ;illBs abuse of process, and whom
wrongfully granted the .2/12 Eviction #rder in :DC :ev2012=0010!% despite the
deficient < day notice listing the wrong court to file a tenanBts affidavit (a reHuirement
under 3:1 !0)2<&, and despite CoughlinBs numerous calls and .2.12 email to the :DC,
1DC, :(D and >C1#, 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
Clar?, and which have proven to be baseless, despite Ging tic?ing such off amongst the
top 2 reasons for the 1C: 10< Complaint he alleged he would hurriedly throw together
upon Coughlin serving Ging, the 123, Clar? and (eters the 6ugust 1&th, 2012 filing in
.0%&% and .1!2., now before the 3) 1) Ct)*)
6lso, :ichard Cornell, 5om ;all, 7eof 7iles, and 9ichael $ehrners, Dudge Doe
@an >alraven and others all whom have indicated, to one degree or another, that ;illBs
conduct incident to this eviction matter and concomitant appeal is deplorable and entirely
consistent with the way ;ill has comported himself throughout his && year career, which
began with is inheriting a large scale law practice from his father, and continued on with
;ill effecting the manner of a 10 year old boy entrusted with flying a /!/ full of people, to
this day) 6dd to the witness $ist (aul Elcano of >$1, Dudge 1teven Elliot, Dudge (atric?
"lanagan, ;ale $ane;olland and ;artBs 6nthony ;all and 5im $u?as, :ichard Elmore,
Dudge 1cott (earson, Dudge (eter D) 1ferraAAa (though he indicated on 102212 that he
declined the 123Bs reHuest that he testify, citing his sitting on the pending criminal
prosecution in :C:2011=0.&&!1*, the :DCBs 2onnie Cooper and P3eviP, Chief 2ailiff
9ichael 1e'ton, :9C Chief 9arshal :oper and 9arshal Deighton, 9arshal 5hompson,
9arshal Coppa, >CDC @an der >al, 2eatson, ;oe?stra, Cheung, unnamed deputies)
"urther, please add >estern 3evada 9anagementBs 1ue Ging, Dared 1calise, and (ar?
5errace 5ownhomes 6ssociation attorney 7ayle Gern, EsH), :oberto (uentes, $ew 5aitel,
the :9CBs 9atthew "is? and Cassandra Dac?son, Donna 2allard, Dudge ;owards past
legal assistant, Dudge 3ash ;olmess legal and administrative assistant, 9artin Crowley or
9artin >einer or whichever attorney is was Dudge 3ash ;olmes was sued for wiretapping
in the past, the :9C counter cler? PDanielP and P5homP, >DC Chief 6ppeals Cler?
9atheus, Doey #rduna ;astings, Chief Dudge David ;ardy, Dustice ;ardesty (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
>ashoe $egal 1ervices (see attached letters from >$1Bs E'ecutive Director citing Dudge
$inda 7ardnerBs 6pril 200, #rder sanctioning Coughlin as the Psole reasonP for
CoughlinBs firing (her brother, :9C Dudge >illiam 7ardner refused to recuse himself
from the criminal trespass conviction mentioned in in GingBs 1C: 10< Complaint, and
Ging admitted two wee?s ago that he was unaware that the two Dudge 7ardners were
brother and sister or related whatsoever, or that Dudge 3ash ;olmes was a prison warden
or something similar for ten years, and a lifelong prosecutor besides that (in addition to all
!0!/%&
other :9C Dudges and all :9C court appointed defenders*)
6lso, + never received any 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default from the 123, and
herein lodge my objection to any #rder by this (anel that cites thereto) 6dditionally,
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 1C: 10< Complaint incident to the agreement between (eters
and Coughlin on or about 1eptember 11th, 2012)
="orwarded 9essage 6ttachment== Close(rint Kour #nline (olice
:eport 51100<,<. ;as 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom:
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:>ed ,0/11 ,:&. (9
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com :eport 51100<,<. ;as
2een :ejectedJ "rom: 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:
>ed ,0/11 10:<1 (9 5o:
AachcoughlinNhotmail)com >eBre sorry the following
problem was found during review of your submitted report
51100<,<.: 2%5* 5* /O2 2%1 FO3.) FO3 2%5* 2<D1 OF
CO)D+05/2 %O41V13 2%5* 31DO32 40* D35/21D
0/D D0**1D O/ 2O 2%1 OFF5C13(* *.D13V5*O3 0/D
52 45++ &1 0DD31**1D) 5han? you, #fficer >#-3+6G,
:eno (olice Department Kour #nline (olice :eport 51200021,
;as 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom: 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:
1un 10%12 1:&< 69 5o:
AachcoughlinNhotmail)com Kour online report has
been successfully received and the trac?ing number is 51200021,)
Kour #nline (olice :eport 512000222 ;as 2een 1ubmittedJ
"rom: 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:1un 10%12 2:2< 69
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com Kour online report has
been successfully received and the trac?ing number is 512000222)
Kour #nline (olice :eport 51200022& ;as 2een 1ubmittedJ
"rom: 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:1un 10%12 2:!/ 69
5o: -6C;C#87;$+3N;#596+$)C#9 Kour online
report has been successfully received and the trac?ing number is
51200022&) Kour #nline (olice :eport 5120002%& ;as 2een
1ubmittedJ "rom: 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:5ue 11012
12:2, 69 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com Kour online
5120002%&) Kour #nline (olice :eport 5120002%. ;as 2een
1ubmittedJ "rom: 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:5ue 11012
1:0! 69 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com Kour online
5120002%.) Kour #nline (olice :eport 120100&00 ;as 2een
!0</%&
6pprovedJ "rom: 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:>ed
11112 &:0, (9 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com 1 attachment
report=120100&00=0)pdf (/.)! G2* Kour report has been approved
report and the permanent number of the case is 120100&00) #nline
#fficer :eno (olice Department Kour #nline (olice :eport
120100&00 ;as 2een 6pprovedJ "rom:
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:>ed 11112 &:2, (9
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com 1 attachment report=
120100&00=1)pdf (/.)! G2* Kour report has been approved
supplemental report and the permanent number of the case is
120100&00) #nline #fficer :eno (olice Department Kour #nline
(olice :eport 120100&00 ;as 2een 6pprovedJ "rom:
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:>ed 11112 &:2, (9
5o: -6C;C#87;$+3N;#596+$)C#9 1 attachment
report=120100&00=2)pdf (.2)/ G2* Kour report has been approved
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:>ed 11112 &:&2 (9
120100&00=&)pdf (.!)< G2* Kour report has been approved
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:>ed 11112 &:&< (9
120100&02=0)pdf (%1)2 G2* Kour report has been approved report
and the permanent number of the case is 120100&02) #nline
51200!<<& ;as 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom:
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:"ri .0%12 !:&, (9
been successfully received and the trac?ing number is 51200!<<&)
:eport 51200!<<! ;as 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom:
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:"ri .0%12 !:!< (9
been successfully received and the trac?ing number is 51200!<<!)
:eport 12010&!20 ;as 2een 6pprovedJ "rom:
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:9on .1112 !:10 (9
12010&!20=0)pdf (/1)! G2* Kour report has been approved report
and the permanent number of the case is 12010&!20) #nline
!0./%&
12010&!20 ;as 2een 6pprovedJ "rom:
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:9on .1112 !:11 (9
12010&!20=1)pdf (/0), G2* Kour report has been approved
12010&!20) 5han? you for using our
online reporting system and please contact us with any
suggestions you have for improving our system) #nline #fficer
:eno (olice Department Kour #nline (olice :eport 51200//0&
;as 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom: 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:
"ri ,2112 %:0, (9 5o:
AachcoughlinNhotmail)com Kour online report has
been successfully received and the trac?ing number is 51200//0&)
:eport 51200//0< ;as 2een 1ubmittedJ "rom:
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:"ri ,2112 %:!, (9
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com Kour online report has been
successfully received and the trac?ing number is 51200//0<)
:eport 12010<.0< ;as 2een 6pprovedJ "rom:
3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:5hu 100!12 &:!2 (9
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com 1 attachment report=12010<.0<=
0)pdf (10)% G2* Kour report has been approved report and the
permanent number of the case is 12010<.0<) #nline #fficer :eno
(olice Department Kour #nline (olice :eport 12010<.0< ;as
2een 6pprovedJ "rom: 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com 1ent:
5hu 100!12 &:<! (9 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com
1 attachment report=12010<.0<=1)pdf (%). G2* Kour report has
been approved supplemental report and the permanent number of
the case is 12010<.0<) #nline #fficer :eno (olice Department
&< E*+, and or Panel 2ill be brea5ing the la2 by holding a hearing tomorro2 in
-iolation o% *C 105B2CBcC /roo% attached
1ent: 5ue 111&12 &:22 (9
cvellisNbhfs)com (cvellisNbhfs)com*C eifert)ntaNatt)net (eifert)ntaNatt)net*C rosecNnvbar)org
(rosecNnvbar)org*
Kou will be criminals as of tomorrow if you hold that hearing)
1C: 10<(2*(c*, 123Ps +nde' for ;earing is holding out certificates of mailing and or proofs of
!0//%&
service on the most materials documents incident to a due process analysis (10 , 12 3otice of
+ntent to 5a?e Default was recieved as returned due to insufficient postage by the 123 on 11 %
12, + declare under penalty of perjury)))nrs <&)0!<)))further, 123 only sent one envelope of that
document, that returned for insufficient postage certified mail mailing on 10 , 12)
6dditionally, 123 is holding out 10 12 2012 certified mailing of 3otice of ;earing and
Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence as having a date of 101212 for a
constructive notice analysis, despite the 81(1 proof indicating the first scan in a 81(1 system
occurred on 101.12)
6dditionaly, 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 1C:
10, or in any other manner offered as proof of service of the Complaint) Ket that is just what
Ging has done by his +nde' putting that forward)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
5el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
11 1& 1! attachment proving 020! sbn and panel fraud scr 10<(2*(c*)pdf E
&. E:E: does :ichard ;ill have standing to file a grievance
1ent: 1un 111%12 %:!% 69
5o: davidcNnvbar)org (davidcNnvbar)org*C fflahertyNdlpfd)com
(fflahertyNdlpfd)com*C fflahertyNdyerlawrence)com (fflahertyNdyerlawrence)com*
9r) 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 ;ardesty 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
received)))which would be hard to do given 9r) Ging, the filterattac? dog for the rich,
powerful, and influential in 3orthern 3evada1ocial Climber E'traordinaire) "urther, 9r)
Ging was sued by a close personal friend of mine, 7eof 7iles, EsH), and, aside from GingBs
overt love of big ban?ing 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)))
!0%/%&
3ow, this situation is a disaster for all involved in some respects) + am worried about (at) +
thin? 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 li?e 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 bac?) + ?now for a fact his spouse is on board,
and + have arranged for a bag to be pac?ed for him and a plane tic?et to 2ilo'i)))thereBs a great
facility there, and when (at comes bac? and its the old (atty +ce we all ?now and love, he will
be just as welcome as the flowers in 9ay) >hoBs with meJ #therwise, you are left in the
rather untenable situation of trying to e'plain why (at is violating 1C: 121 with the Eastman
in C@11=00%20 prior to the filing of any (etition, why he is feeding Dudge 3ash ;olmes the
Pclear and convincing evidenceP ethical violation standard of proof language and instructions
that she should improperly transmogrify a traffic citation trial into some newfangled Psummary
disciplinary hearingP 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 Pthe misdemeanor of criminal
contemptP (we all ?now 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 li?e this)));eBs such a great guy Pwhen heBs rightP, you ?nowJ 2ut when
DaveBs not there, its li?e P:is?y 2usinessP up here)))(atty gets out the 2ob 1eager out, ta?es
them old records off the shelf))) and the dress shirtbo'er shortswhite tube soc?sdar? lensed
:ay=2ans come out too, and the ne't thing you ?now heBs got some sort of dog=horse hybrid
crapping all over the floors of the 3orthern #ffice of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada, heBs wearinB
cargo pants to Disciplinary ;earings, heBs boo?ing Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs courtroom deputy for
the same hearing that involves Dudge $) 7ardnerBs ghost grievance in 3712=0!&<, he boo?ing
the same court reporting firm (1unshine and (am $ongoni, and 1enator 7rassley would find
that dba so rich, would he notJ* that hung up on the phone on Coughlin and got his appeal
dismissed for lac? of a transcript cited to in the matter that resulted in the 1C: 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 2< year old)))2ut, why would you want to get in a throwinB stars
competition with a ninjaJ Kou wouldnBt) ;eBs failing to send out $auraBs 10,12 6ffidavit,
despite it being file=stamped) ;eBs ma?ing the 123 loo? li?e lying clowns considering the
announcing of the applicable 1C: 10<(!* procedural rules by PCler? of Court (etersP 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 5a?e Default (and Ging and (eters, by admission on their own certificate of
mailing to the file stamped 10,12 3#+5D 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, ;E:E1 5;E G+CGE:)))that 10,12 certified mailing of
the 3#+5D 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 mista?enly applied given te large manila envelope with a
!0,/%&
certified mail certificate and return receipt reHuested card (at least O<)<0 in postage* had only
O1)2< in postage affi'ed to it, which 5im, a 20 year employee of the Downtown :eno (+ might
have previously said @assar, for some reason my brain was stuc? on that)))but it was definitely,
definitely the Downtown :eno %,<0< postal station* where upon a previous attempt to collect
the certified mailing 5im failed to find it (who ?nows why, might be due to my handing him an
#fficial Change of 6ddress on #ctober <th, 2012 for my (# 2o' &,.1 %,<0< address))from
which + forward mail to my current 1!/1 E) ,th 1t) %,<12 address* or due to his loo?ing in Pthe
small bo'P whereas that mailing was in an %)< ' 11 inch envelope)))but when + returned again
on a later date, the same counter attendant, 5im, did find the 10,12 certified mailing of the
3#+5D (and Chair Echeverria doesnBt seem to get this)))+ didnBt get the 3#+5D 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 Pbig bo'P that Chair EcheverriaBs
10&012 #rder reHuired the 123 to provide me as a consolation, apparently, to actually
following the rule in 1C: 10<(2*(c* and allowing me inspect the materials Pup to & days priorP
to the 111!12 ;earing (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 >itnesses 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 ?now if Doe 7arin is going to pull the old Pactual
notice of is not a substitute for technical compliance with service rulesP card on me in .0&02,
that + am going there with the 123*, to wit, from 123 Ethics Committee member Doe 7arinBs
102212 :espondentBs 2rief in .0&02 (where Coughlin sued >ashoe $egal 1ervices, and
involving 33D2 member Gathleen 2rec?enridge, whose mess Coughlin cleaned up Huite
nicely on the i=%.! 6ffidavit of 1upport for battered immigrant spouse issue (2rec?enridge got
the O&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
;earing on 102/12 (and the earliest it was in my bo', according to 81(1 trac? and confirm
was 102212, despite a certificate of mailing by (eters indicating she sent it out
101212)))which is odd given the 81(1 5rac? M Confirm shows it was first scanned into
81(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 !:!< pm + spo?e with (eters and noticed that in the
Poutbo'P at the front des? 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 pic?ed 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 6mendment property rights,
here)))*)))1o, it would appear that (eters signed the certificate of mailing for the 3otice of
;earing (and + believe a Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence reHuires its own
file stamping and its own certificate of mailing)))and the bate stamped version of the
PDisciplinary "ile for -ach CoughlinP indicates, in the 101212 certifcate of mailing, that only
a 3otice of ;earing was sent out (ie, not a Do>1oE along with it)))regardless, 1C: 10<(2*(c*
reHuires the (anel send it out and serve it in compliance with 1C: 10, (as altered by 1C:
10<(!*, which includes (eterBs attestations of ,1112)))*) 3one of that was done correctly)
:ather, Ging persisted in his established practice of going bac? on the 123Bs word to cheat and
!10/%&
gain an advantage, and in his habit of ta?ing on the roles of the (anel or the Cler? of Court (or
the 9unicipal Court Dudge where he tells Dudge 3ash ;olmes to be sure to put the P+ find by
clear and convincing evidence violations of (insert copy and pasting with Aero specificity as to
any factual support for such a summary ethical violation order incident to a Psimple traffic
citation matterP (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 :ules of (rofessional Conduct so (at can
ignore Claiborne some more and rest on his laurels and 1C: 111(<*))))which Chair Echeverria
li?es himself Huite a bit)))only problem is that they both li?e to go with a lot of :ichard ;+ll
testimony about pajamas and slippers and livinB in the former home law office after eviction
and Pbrea?ing and enteringP some crawlspaceglorified basement under the house that never
had a loc? at any time)))not to much 1C: 111(<*, not relevant, puffing going on there, though,
huh, (atJ Chair EcheverriaJ
1C: 10<(2*(c* a?a that which (atric? #) Ging and Chair Echeverria used as a guide for
Pthings to ma?e sure we avoid providing to :espondent Coughlin so our hit piece goes off
smoothly and we both get a bunch of attaboys by the 9c7eorge 9afia and other power
bro?ers)))P along with the olB 2ar Counsel as debt collector for :ichard 7) ;ill,EsH) and Casey
2a?er, EsH) meme of Pif the (anel wonBt sign on to my ridiculous disbarment of Coughlin
reHuest, then please be sure to reHuire Coughlin to pay :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) the attorneyBs fees
award that CoughlinBs former co=wor?er 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 & PCler? of CourtB throwing a sewing circle of gossip :
P)))(c* 5ime to conduct hearingC notice of hearingC discovery of evidence against attorney) 5he
hearing panel shall conduct a hearing within !< days of assignment and give the attorney at
least &0 daysB written notice of its time and place) 5he 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 cross=e'amine witnesses, and to present evidence) 5he 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) >itnesses or evidence, other than for impeachment, which
became ?nown 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)P

5he thing is, since the (anel was not even created or named by 33D2 Chairman 1usich until
#ctober
;ereBs Doe PDoey DetroitP 7arinBs ta?e on why the 123 did a very bad thin? in pushing through
with that Disciplinary ;earing on 111!12, by analogy to .0&02, of course:
!11/%&
Pb) 5he District Court properly dismissed 5orvinen, 2rec?enridge, and 1abo from the case
because (laintiff failed to provide them proper process)
6 claim of insufficiency of process is a challenge to the content and form of a summons and
complaint) 1ee e)g), 9usgrave v) 1Huaw Cree? Coal Co), ,.! 3)E)2d %,1 (+nd) Ct) 6pp) 2012*)
6 defendant has an absolute right to demand that process be issued in a manner prescribed by
law) 1ee 9D1 Enterprises, +nc) v) 1uperior Court, 1<& Cal)6pp)&d <<<,<</,200 Cal):ptr) 2%.
(1,%!*) 6dditionally, 3evada :ule of Civil (rocedure !( d* provides,plaintiff
furnish person ma?ing copies necessary)
P5he summons and complaint shall be served together) 5he 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 ))) P (Emphasis added*) +n this case, (laintiff failed to effectuate proper process
against 5orvinen, 1abo, and 2rec?enridge because process did not comply with 3:C( !(d*)
>ith respect to 5orvinen, on #ctober 2/, 2011, (laintiff served 5orvinen with &< pages worth
of documents related to the case) (:ecord @ol) ++, 201=2!%*) 3early every page comprised of ,
pages scaled onto one page) +d) 6ccordingly, on 3ovember 1<, 2011 5orvinen filed a 9otion to
Dismiss on the grounds that (laintiffs service of process was untimely and insufficient under
3:C( !) +d) 5orvinen 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) (:ecord @ol) ++, &,!=&,.*) 5he District
Court subseHuently dismissed 5orvinen from the case for lac? of service of process) (:ecord
@ol) +@, 11/!=11.0*) 5he Court later clarified its order and found that 5orvinen was dismissed
for lac? of process) (:ecord @ol) +@, 1!/<=1!%0*) +t adopted 5orvinenBs arguments that the
papers provided were not a PcopyP within the meaning of 3:C( ! and found (laintiff did not
effectuate proper process) +d) $i?ewise, (laintiff served 2rec?enridge in a similar fashion)
2rec?enridge received a total of %, pages worth of documents some of which related to the
case and others which did not) (:ecord @ol) ++, 2%.=&%/*) 5he documents were also scaled
down in siAe) +d) 1ome pages comprised of , pages to a page, while others fit 2 pages to a page)
+d) #n 3ovember 2%, 2011, 2rec?enridge filed a 9otion to Dismiss based on non=service of
process and insufficient process) +d) 9uch li?e
5orvinen, 2rec?enridge argued that %, pages of condensed documents did not
constitute a PcopyP of a summons and complaint within the meaning of 3:C( !)
+d)
+n response, (laintiff filed two perple'ing oppositions presumably against her 9otion, the latter
of which was untimely) (:ecord @ol) ++, !1.=!.%C @ol) +++ <.,=./1*) +n the first opposition,
(laintiff dedicated two sentences to opposing 2rec?enridgeBs 9otion) (:ecord @ol) ++, !1.=
!.%*) (er the first oppositionBs title=#pposition to all DefendantBs 9otions to Dismiss and all
DefendantBs 9otions to Uuash 1ervice, 9otion for E'tension of 5ime to :espondContinuanceC
#pposition to 9otion to 5a' Costs 1imultaneously 1ee?ing E'tensions of 5ime or
Continuance to :espond=(laintiff sought to do various things in two sentences) +d) +n reality,
(laintiff failed to do anything more than ma?e a conclusory statement that he opposed the then
filed motions to dismiss) (laintiffBs second opposition while more than two sentences in length,
!12/%&
sought to raise tangential issues that were not before the Court) (:ecord @ol) +++, <.,=./1*) +n
effect, the District Court dismissed 2rec?enridge from the case) (:ecord @ol) +++, /2&=/2<*)
5he 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 3:C( !Bs reHuirements) (:ecord @ol) ++, 2<0=2.1*)
2ased on all the above, it is clear that the District Court properly dismissed 5orvinen,
2rec?enridge, 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 5orvinen, 2rec?enridge, and 1abo, that (laintiff
found a case, which he now relies on, to argue that the District Court erred in dismissing these
parties (:ecord @ol +++) /./=%.,*) (laintiff relies on the 3ew Kor? case, 9cGenAie v) 6mtra?
9 of E, /// ")1upp) 111, (1)D)3)K)
forma
1,,0*) +n 9cGenAie, a 3ew Kor? court denied a 9otion to Dismiss for defects in process
because they were attributable to court personnel) +d) at 112l) 1pecifically, the court
ac?nowledged that generally there is a strong argument for ineffective service of process
Punless a legible copy of both the summons and the Complaint are received by the defendant)P
+d) (citing @illage of >ellsville v) 6t^) :ichfield Co), .0% ")1upp) !,/ (>)D)3)K)1,%<*C (ar?er
v) 9ac?, .1 3)K)2d 11!, !/2 3)K)1)2d %%2, !.0 3)E)2d 1&1. (Ct)6pp)1,%!**) 5he Court
determined that
because court personnel in this particular jurisdiction were reHuired to ma?e 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)
5he 9cGenAie decision is not controlling and inapplicable to this case) +n citing to the
9cGenAie decision, (laintiff see?s to carve an e'ception into 3:C( !(a*, which specifically
places the responsibility to effectuate proper service of process on a plaintiff) 9oreover, the
circumstances in 9cGenAie were uniHue because that particular jurisdiction reHuired court
personnel to ma?e 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 ma?es
copies of service papers for in form pauperis applicants) 5hat is because there is no such
reHuirement or practice and 3:C( !(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) :ather, the modifications were admittedly (laintiffBs own doing) (:ecord
@ol) +++, %1.*) 5hus, 9cGenAie is not only a non=binding decision, but it is inapposite to the
rules and
overall circumstances of this case)
#verall, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 5orvinen, 2rec?enridge,
and 1abo from the case seeing as (laintiff provided insufficient process)P
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
!1&/%&
5el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
(3#5E: the following emails were included thereafter in their entirety*:
"rom: (atric?GNnvbar)org
1ubject: :E: does :ichard ;ill have standing to file a grievance
Date: "ri, 2& 9ar 2012 1/:</:2. Y0000
1ent: "riday, 9arch 2&, 2012 10:&, 69
5o: (atric? Ging
"rom: (atric?GNnvbar)org
Date: "ri, 2& 9ar 2012 1/:1%:&! Y0000
1ent: "riday, 9arch 2&, 2012 ,:12 69
5o: (atric? GingC cdba?erNrichardhillaw)com
1ubject: does :ichard ;ill have standing to file a grievanceF
&/ ;4767=?679, )94$ ,967C@ 9ctober 9th' 2012 certi%ied mailing o% ,otice o%
7ntent to ta5e $e%ault
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:&/ (9
5o: CC: slhofheinsNuspis)gov (renee)m)brownNusps)gov*C wpheisterNuspis)gov
(wpheisterNuspis)gov*C melinda)a)varsAegiNusps)gov (melinda)a)varsAegiNusps)gov*C
patric??Nnvbar)org (patric??Nnvbar)org*C davidcNnvbar)org (davidcNnvbar)org*C
rosecNnvbar)org (rosecNnvbar)org*C eifert)ntaNatt)net (eifert)ntaNatt)net*C jeNeloreno)com
(jeNeloreno)com*C cvellisNbhfs)com (cvellisNbhfs)com*C mi?eNtahoelawyer)com
(mi?eNtahoelawyer)com*C s?entNs?entlaw)com (s?entNs?entlaw)com*C
nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net (nevtelassnNsbcglobal)net*C complaintsNnvbar)org
(complaintsNnvbar)org*C fflahertyNdlpfd)com (fflahertyNdlpfd)com*C
fflahertyNdyerlawrence)com (fflahertyNdyerlawrence)com*C tsusichNnvdetr)org
(tsusichNnvdetr)org*C slhofheinsNuspis)gov (slhofheinsNuspis)gov*C slhofheinsNusps)gov
(slhofheinsNusps)gov*
Dear :eno (ostal +nspector :enee 2rown and 33D2, (anl, and 123,
!1!/%&
+ am writing to respectfully place 5;E 81(1, 33D2, (63E$ 63D 123 #3 6
$+5+765+#3 ;#$D 3#5+CE >+5; :E1(EC5 5# 63K 965E:+6$1 :E$65ED 5#
5;E 6556C;ED CE:5+"+ED 96+$+37 2K 5;E 1565E 26: #" 3E@6D6 63D #:
5;E 3#:5;E:3 3E@6D6 D+1C+($+36:K 2#6:D #: +51 (63E$ >+5; :E1(EC5
5# 5;E (8:(#:5ED 96+$+37 5# -6C; C#87;$+3 65 (# 2#4 &,.1 :E3#, 3@
%,<0< #" 6 3#5+CE #" +35E35 5# 56GE DE"68$5 +3C+DE35 5# 6 (8:(#:5ED
"+$+37 #3 %2&12 #" 6 1C: 10< C#9($6+35 +3 123 @ -6C; C#87;$+3 (3712=
020! E5 6$*) +, -6C; C#87;$+3 6((E6:ED 65 5;E D#>35#>3 :E3# (#156$
1565+#3 #3 6 3892E: #" #CC61+#31 D8:+37 #ctober and 3ovember of 2012 to
retrieve certified mailings, though + did personally hand deliver on #ctober <th, 2012 a filled
out #fficial 81(1 Change of 6ddress card to change my mailing address from (# 2#4 &,.1
:eno, 3@ %,<0< to 1!/1 E) ,th 1t), :eno, 3@ %,<12)
5rac?ing $abel: /010 2/%0 000& <!2, <!<%
5he 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 bac?ed out of a number of representations related to the service of the Complaint, which
led to the PserviceP of a 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default the 123 indicates it mailed on
10,12) #n 3ovember <th, 2012 + again chec?ed with counter attendant P5imP (tall fellow
whom + am told had surgery recently* and he retrieved a large manila (%)< by 11 inch* envelope
addressed to me, certified mail, :::, from the 1tate 2ar of 3evada affi'ed with insufficient
postage) 5im noted that it was odd that it had a postmar? in the red (itney 2owes printed
manner normal to 123 mailings with a date of 10,12 given that it was 3ovember <th, 2012
and that he had not retrieved or noticed it on "riday 3ovember 2nd, 2012 when + had come in
and as?ed for the certified mailings for my (# 2#4) :egardless, 5im also noted that that
large certified mailing envelope was Huite deficient in postage, only having O1)2< in postage on
it, for a mailing that would be at least O< postage insufficient) + did not have the money to
ma?e up for what the 123 failed to affi' to its mailing) 5im 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) 5he 81(1 5rac? M Confirm shows that envelope was delivered to the 1tate 2ar of
3evadaBs Double : 2lvd office on 11%12)
;owever, crafty 123 2ar Counsel (at Ging managed to jam through a Disciplinary ;earing on
111!12 for a Complaint that had not been served, calling witnesses for which 3otice had not
been served, based upon a 3otice of ;earing that failed to comply with 1C: 10<(2*(c* in a
multitude of ways) Ging sought to ta?e away my "ourteenth 6mendment property right, my
professional license to practice law, and thereby endanger my license to practice patent law
before the 8nited 1tates (atent and 5rademar? #ffice (81(5#* as well under &/ C": 11)2<)
!1</%&
+ placed 9r) Ging on a litigation hold notice at that with respect to the proof of the
insufficiency of the postage on that envelope, and he smir?ed P>hatBs a Blitigation hold
noticeBJP despite the fact that he has 1& (rofiler references on >estlaw) 9r) Ging has
previously claim that P-ach, things donBt wor? out for you because you donBt ta?e responsibility
for your actionsP) >ell, + believe placing insufficient postage on a filing that he is reHuired to
serve via certified mail is an instance where 9r) Ging needs to ta?e responsibility for his
actions or those for whom he has a supervisory duty)
+ would greatly appreciate it if the 81(1 would consider e'pediting any disagreement here
between myself and the 123, 33D2, and or (anel by having Downtown :eno (ostal 1tation
counter attendant P5imP 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 trac?ing label ending in <!<% and
the following one for the purported certified mailing of the Complaint on %2&12:
5rac?ing $abel: /010 2/%0 000& <!2, <2%1
+ appreciate the fine wor? you do)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin, DD
http:www)nvbar)orglawyer=detail112!<
(atent 6gent
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
tel and fa': ,!, ../ /!02
Direct Uuery = +ntranet = PUuic?P 1earch
5rac?Confirm = +ntranet +tem +nHuiry = Domestic
5rac?ing $abel: /010 2/%0 000& <!2, <!<%
Destination
#rigin
Event
DE$+@E:ED
3#5+CE $E"5
= +=a::(+a$ )t)5 83+5
+a+#5+CE $E"5
6::+@6$ 65 83+5
-+( Code: %,<0<
!1./%&
-+( Code:
Date5ime
110%2012 10:2%
+nput 9ethod: 1canned
"inance 3umber: &1/2%,
,fCffltlgrS)fj*five^9: ff,UQtf:P ^
City: :E3#
City:
$ocation
:E3#, 3@ %,<21
, vQ li9t^4:1lgliatnre W cma:) ffgCtf?^1
110/2012 1&:1/ :E3#, 3@ %,<21
11(:/2012 0/:<1 fC)E3e, 3@ %,<11
10102012 11:0, :E3#, 3@ %,<0<
+npct 9ethod: 1canned
10102012 0%: 1% :E3#, 3@ %,<0&
E3 :#85E(:#CE11ED 10102012 0!:<1 :E3#, 3@ %,<10
Entt fr :eHuest 5ype and +tem 3umber:
Uuic? 1earch (i E'tensive 1earch
has & files to share with you on 1?yDrive) 5o view them, clic? the lin?s below)
10 , 12 020! usps cert mail 3otice +ntent Default 11 % 12 returned to 123)pdf
10 10 12 usps cert trac? 11 % 12 020! <!<% notice of intent to ta?e default 020! sbn)pdf
nvbar -ach Coughlin ,!/& 112!<)pdf
Download all
E
&% ;outchens v) 1tate, /! 1)>)2d ,/. (54 1,!1*))) e'pressly held in effect that in some cases
the Court has power to ta' costs against the 1tate, if in its judgment it should do so)
(disbarment case*)
&, ;@0 motion to di#mi## attached
"rom: (atric? Ging ((atric?GNnvbar)org* 5his sender is in your safe list)
1ent: 9on 100%12 11:&, 69
5o: -ach Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)com*
!1//%&
Dear 9r) Coughlin,
6s + have e'plained, the Complaint against you has been served) Kour verified
answer is due by 5uesday 1eptember ,, 2012) Kou should file a verified answer to the
complaint)
(atric? Ging, 6ssistant 2ar Counsel)F
Epending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings))))language 1C: 111(/* versus 1C:
111(%* and the Dune /th, 2012 #rder of the 3@) 1) Ct)
1ent: >ed 101012 .:1/ 69
5o: tsusichNnvdetr)orgC davidcNnvbar)orgC laurapNnvbar)orgC patric??Nnvbar)org
Dear Chairman 1usich, 2ar Counsel, and Cler? (eters,
+ am writing formally reHuest a bifurcation of sorts, consiering:
1C: 111(/*)ee1uspension on certification)ee8pon 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)
+ thin? 2ar CounselBs argument that the PproceedingP call for in the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012
#rder (which Huotes 1C: 111(/* may include some 1C: 10< 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 ta?e away this or that right
of CoughlinBs to practice this or that in some court (an #rder which (atric? Ging reference to
me and Chief 2ar Counsel Clar?, and, apparently, to a client of mine in early 9ay 2012 (the
client is the only other place + have ever heard of such an unpublished P#rderP purporting to
have said effect* despite the dictate against 2ar CounselBs doign so in 1C: 121 (the 1C: 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 wor?ed 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 Ppending final disposition of a disciplinary
proceedingP language of 1C: 111(/*)))which is Huoted in the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #:der
(though + feel 2ar Counsel is ta?ing the Huote out of conte't and ignoring the e'press language
of 1C: 111(/* in ma?ing this argument that the Ppending final disposition of the disciplinary
proceedingsP language in the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder entitles 2ar Counsel to file a 123 v)
Coughlin Complaint deny Coughlin that afforded under 1C: 111(%* (which the D8ne /th, 2012
#rder cites to as well*, and, given CoughlinBs (etition in .1!2., filed and served on 6ugust
!1%/%&
1&th, 2012 (the service of which was consented to or waived by 2ar Counsel Ging and Clar?
where they directed Cler? $aura (eters to sign P(roof of :eceiptP thereof on 6ugust 1&th,
2012)))*, Coughlin is now entitled to an Pimmediate hearingP pursuant to 1C: 102(!*(d*, and
1C: 111(10*)
5he CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder reads, in relevant part: P(ursuant to 1C: 111, temporary
suspension and referral to the appropriate disciplinary board are mandatory when an attorney
has been convicted of a PseriousP crime, which includes theft) 1C: 111 (.*=(%*) 6ccordingly,
pursuant to 1C: 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 1C: 111(/*, we
hereby temporarily suspend -achary 2) Coughlin from the practice of law in 3evada, pending
final disposition of the disciplinary proceedings)P 3ote that the #rder says Ppending final
disposition of the disciplinary proceedingsP ) +t does not say Ppending final disposition of an
1C: 10< Complaint filed by 123 as the complainant (see Ching*) 6nd, in fact, 1C: 111(%*
clear that up further,
+ give (atric? Ging credit for ma?ing 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 ?nows e'actly what he is doing, that crafty sumBitch)
1C: 111(%*: P%)ee:eferral to disciplinary board)ee8pon 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)P
2ut the clearest e'pression of authority to defeat 2ar Counsels stated goal of PcombiningP the
;earing reHuired by the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder and the 1upreme Court :ules with some
1C: 10< (or 1C: 102, natch* style 123 v) Coughlin Complaint that 2ar Counsel wishes to file
is found in 1C: 111(/*: Pthe 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)P
6nd, right there, 2ar CounselBs attempt to combine these affairs must fail) 5hatBs the thing,
though)))the phrase Pcommenced by the appropriate disciplinary boardP) +t does not say
Pcommenced by the 1tate 2ar of 3evada as a complainant, under Ching, filing an 1C: 10<
Complaint)))+t just does not say that) 1C: 111(/*, rather, reads Pwhich shall e commenced by
the appropriate disciplinary boardP)
1o, to sum it up 2ar CounselBs attempts combine these must fail in light of the following:
!1,/%&
P1C: 111(%*: Pthe 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)P

1C: 111(/*: Pthe 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)P
;owever, 2ar Counsel and the Disciplinary 2oard should recogniAe the import of 1C: 111(/*=
(%* and refuse to allow 2ar Counsel to PcombineP or consolidate, or Pfail to bifurcate) >hat
2ar Counsel is thin?ing of is 1C: 10<(2*:)eePCommencement of formal proceedings)ee"ormal
disciplinary proceedings are commenced by bar counsel filing a written complaint in the name
of the state bar) 5he 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)P
;owever, 1C: 111(/* and 1C: 10<(2* are entirely different animals) +n one, 1C: 111(/* calls
for: Pthe court shall enter an order suspending the attorney)))pending final disposition of a
disciplinary proceeding, which shall be commenced by the appropriate disciplinary board)))P
+n the other, it is 2ar Counsel doing the PcommencingP of 1C: 10<(2*:)eePCommencement of
formal proceedings)ee"ormal disciplinary proceedings are commenced by bar counsel filing a
written complaint in the name of the state bar))))P
5he distiction and diferences are revealed in the 1upreme Court :ules by whom is doing the
PcommencingP and just what it is they are PcommencingP, ie, a Pformal proceeding (in the case
of 1C: 10<(2*, or a Pdsiciplinary proceedingP,
5here is a difference, and that difference entails bifurcating things or refusing to consolidate
these affairs, and + am formally ma?ing that reHuest upon the 2oard here now)
1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
;@0 /ending %inal di#/o#ition o% di#ci/linary /roceeding#....language *C 111B7C -er#u#
*C 111B8C and the "une 7th' 2012 9rder o% the ,V. *. Ct.
1ent: >ed 101012 ,:!! 69
Cc: David Clar? (DavidCNnvbar)org*
Dear 9r) Coughlin,
>hen you met with me and David Clar? to discuss the Complaint and the process)
9r) Clar? e'plained that since there was a conviction, Ethe sole issue to be determined was the
!20/%&
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) 6ny additional allegations that
have not already resulted in criminal convictions will need to be proved by Eclear and
convincingF evidence) 6s such, at the hearing, on the issue of your criminal convictions, the
only issue for the panel to decide is the appropriate discipline) ;owever, + will be providing
evidence as to the other allegations in the Complaint) 5he (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)
6s such, + do not intend bifurcate these proceedings) + thin? 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 6nswer to the Complaint) + have sent
you a notice of intent to proceed on a default basis) 5he hearing date is e'pected to be
>ednesday 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(30 /ending %inal di#/o#ition o% di#ci/linary /roceeding#....language *C 111B7C -er#u#
1ent: >ed 101012 11:<1 69
5o: tsusichNnvdetr)orgC laurapNnvbar)orgC davidcNnvbar)orgC patric??Nnvbar)orgC
nvsccler?Nnvcourts)nv)gov
Dear Chairman 1usich and Cler? (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 :ules, and at this point, you need to send a clear message to 2ar
Counsel that Pthe ?id stays in the pictureP, and inform 9r) Ging that he is not to attempt to ta?e
your job or duties from you) 1ame goes for Cler? (eters, especially vis a vis her admission
that Ging told her not to file CoughlinBs 9otion to Dismiss in 123 v Coughlin on 1eptember
1/th, 2012, which has now gone unopposed, and therefore, shall be granted)
1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
E@0 /ending %inal di#/o#ition o% di#ci/linary /roceeding#....language *C 111B7C -er#u#
!21/%&
"rom: $aura (eters ($aura(Nnvbar)org* 5his sender is in your safe list)
1ent: >ed 101012 .:01 (9
(lease donBt put words in my mouth, -ach) Kou are the one that indicated that you
had not received the Complaint when we tal?ed on the phone) >hy, then, would + file in a
9otion to DismissJ + am responsible for my own actions) = $aura (a?a Cler? (eters*F
E:E: pending final disposition of disciplinary /roceeding#....language *C 111B7C -er#u#
1ent: 5hu 101112 !:<. (9
5o: laurapNnvbar)org
1 attachment
1 2, 2012 letter to Cler? of Court #rduna ;astings regarding Efle' rejections with attachments
!1 pages total)pdf (,</)% G2*
Dear Cler? of Court (eters,
6re you sure + indicated one way or the other whether + received the ComplaintJ >as there
some mention of 6ugust 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 9otion to Dismss
may not be filed unless the :espondent ma?es some affirmative indcation to the Cler? of Court
as to whether he actually received a ComplaintJ 3:C( <(e* ma?es clear the Cler? of Court
and filing office of the 123 are not permitted to refuse filings) 1o, the 1eptember 1/th, 2012
9otion to Dismiss must be filed by Cler? of Court (eters, or misconduct e'ists)
"6C51
"urther, 3:C( <(e* holds that:
P(e* "iling >ith the Court Defined) 5he filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as
reHuired by these rules shall be made by filing them with the cler? 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 cler?) 6 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 8nited 1tates establishes) 6
paper signed by electronic means in compliance with the local rule constitutes a written paper
presented for the purpose of applying these rules) 5he cler? 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)P
5he filing officer cler?Bs in the 2nd Dudicial District Court for >ashoe County, and the
!22/%&
managers, supervisors, and administrators regularly refuse filing in contravention of 3:C(
<(e*) "urther, the drop bo' reHuired by >DC: 12(10* is no more) 5he drop bo' was removed
about . months ago) 5he efiling fee tripled, about si' months ago, on Duly 1, 2011) 5he
connection is hard to ignore) + seriously, seriously doubt the drop bo' was as underutiliAed as +
have heard suggested) + would imagine the hard wor?ing, 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 >DC: 12(10* were rendered null by any under use)
>ith regard to the >DC 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 Clar?, ,0! ()2d 10&,, 111 3ev)
1&./ (3ev), 1,,<*: E5his proper person petition for a writ of mandamus see?s 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 2<, 1,,<, we ordered the state to file an
answer to this petition) 5he stateBs answer was filed on 6ugust 11, 1,,<) 2 Documentation
submitted by petitioner to this court establishes that petitioner submitted to the cler? of the
district court for filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil complaint on
9ay 1<, 1,,<) 6lthough the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was in proper
form and was sworn to under penalty of perjury, the cler? of the district court did not file that
application) & 5he failure to file the application was in violation of the clear statutory mandate
that such an application be filed) 3:1 12)01<(1* provides that PQaRny person ))) may file an
affidavit Qsee?ing leave to proceed without payment of feesR)P "urther, we have repeatedly
instructed the cler? of the Eighth Dudicial District Court that such documents must be filed) 1ee
2owman v) District Court, 102 3ev) !/!, /2% ()2d !&& (1,%.* (cler? has a ministerial duty to
accept and file documents if those documents are in proper formC cler? 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 ;uebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev)
&2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1* (cler? must create an accurate record of all pleadings submitted for
filing, whether or not the documents are actually filed*C >hitman v) >hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,,
%!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2* (cler? has no authority to return documents submitted for filingC instead,
cler? must stamp documents that cannot be immediately filed Preceived,P 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 cler? of the district court has a duty to file documents and to ?eep an accurate
record of the proceedings before the court*C 7rey v) 7rey, 111 3ev) &%%, %,2 ()2d <,< (1,,<*
(cler? of district court admonished for failure to ?eep 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) 6ttached to the top of the document is a Ppost=itP note with the handwritten
notation: Papplication denied incomplete info=employment currently)P ! 5he state informs us
that the note was written by Pthe chief judge)P +n addition, petitioner alleges, and the allegation
is apparently true, that along with his PdeniedP 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 cler?s often return to
!2&/%&
prisoners unfiled motions along with letters purporting to rule on the legal sufficiency of those
motions) 5he state argues in its answer to this petition that PpetitionerBs 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) 5he Bout of
jailB address suggested an ability of the (etitioner to be employed)P 5his vague reference to an
Pout of jailP address is not e'plained in the documents before this court) 3evertheless, the
stateBs assertion that petitionerBs application was denied is incorrect) 5he handwritten notation
on petitionerBs unfiled application clearly does not constitute a proper judicial disposition of
that application) "urther, the action of the cler? of the district court in returning petitionerBs
application and civil complaint to him unfiled is in direct violation of this courtBs instructions to
the cler? of the district court in >hitman v) >hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2*)
5his court has several times confirmed the absolute obligation of the district courts to file
documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of citiAens to access to the courts,
whether indigent or not) 2arnes v) District Court, 10& 3ev) ./,, /!% ()2d !%& (1,%/*C ;uebner
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 cler? 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: PQ5Rhe cler? Qof the district courtR 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 cler? had a duty to ?eep an accurate record of
the case pending before the district court)P +d) at 102,, %!2 ()2d at /&& (citation omittedC
emphasis added*) 5hus, 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 cler? of the district court) 5o continue
the analysis, with respect to petitionerBs civil complaint which he is attempting to file
concurrently, the district court cler? had an absolute obligation to stamp the document
PreceivedP and to record the date on which the document was in fact received at the courthouse)
1ee ;uebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) 5his the cler? of the district court
did) ;owever, the cler? 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) >hitman v) >hitman, 10% 3ev)
,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2*) 5his, the cler? neglected to do) >hile ;uebner dealt with the
timeliness of a notice of appeal, the rationale compelling this courtBs ruling in ;uebner, that all
documents must be mar?ed received and dated, applies with eHual force to a partyBs submission
of a complaint) P5he legal rights of the parties to litigation, whether acting in proper person or
through counsel, often turn on the date of receipt by the cler? of the district court of documents
and pleadings)P ;uebner, 10/ 3ev) at &&0, %10 ()2d at 1211) 6s with a notice of appeal, the
!2!/%&
untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from hearing the matter on its merits) +t is
the responsibility of the cler? of the district court to ?eep an accurate record of all documents
submitted to her, whether or not they are filed) 6s in ;uebner, 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) 5he 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)
>e 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) 6 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) 3:1 &!)1.0) 5he cler? of the district court has an
absolute duty to file petitionerBs application and to properly receive and ?eep a record of
petitionerBs complaint) 6ccordingly, we grant this petition for a writ of mandamus) . 5he cler?
of this court shall serve a copy of petitionerBs application and complaint on the cler? of the
district court forthwith) 5he cler? of this court shall also issue a writ of mandamus compelling
the cler? of the district court to file petitionerBs application, and to receive petitionerBs
complaint) 5hese documents will be considered to have been filed and received on 9ay 1<,
1,,<) =============== 1 (etitioner also see?s a writ of prohibition enjoining the district court, the
cler? of the district court and her employees from denying prisoners access to the courts in the
future) >e 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) 5he cler? of this
court shall file the reply, entitled PpetitionerBs reply to petition for writs of mandamus and
prohibition,P which was received by this court on 6ugust 21, 1,,<) & 6lthough the document
was entitled PapplicationP rather than Paffidavit,P 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) 5hus, any deviation as to form was not significant enough
to justify the cler?Bs failure to file the document) 5he
cler? of the court has no discretion to ma?e any judicial ruling regarding the legal sufficiency
of a document) >hen a document in proper form is submitted to the cler?, the cler? has a
ministerial duty to file that document) ! >e 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) ;e also avers that his only asset is O.)</
in his prison account) < #ne such letter from a law cler? to an inmate states: P6ttached please
find your 9otions to (roceed in "orma (auperis which you recently submitted) 3:1 12)01<
reHuires an indigent litigant to set forth Bwith particularity facts concerning his income,
property, and other resources )))B Kour application to proceed sets forth this information very
generally)P P(lease resubmit the 9otion with a more particular statement regarding your
finances and any property you own))))P 6lthough this letter does not directly deny the motion, it
clearly has the effect of denying the motion without filing) #f course, li?e the cler? of the
district court, a judgeBs law cler? lac?s judicial authority) . 5he state represents that Pthe
District Court will file the (etitionerBs complaint upon submittal by the petitioner)P 5his
statement was based on the stateBs view that we determined in our #rder to 1how Cause that
!2</%&
petitioner should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis) >e, however, e'press no opinion
regarding the merits of petitionerBs application or complaint) >e merely determine that the
application should have been filed and judicially resolved, and the complaint should have been
properly received) >e note that petitioner has sent the original documents to this court, and
thus may not be in a position to resubmit them) 6lso, for statute of limitations purposes, the
documents must be considered filed as of the date of original receipt) 5hus, we have
determined that this petition must be granted)F 6nother very important and instructive case is
>hitman v) >hitman, 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 cler? of the district court) 6lthough the cler? of the district court stamped the
notice of appeal PreceivedP on December &0, 1,,1, the cler? did not file the notice of appeal)
+nstead, the cler? 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) >e note that the cler? 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) >e have previously stated that Pit is
e'tremely important that the cler? of the district court ?eep an accurate record of the date of
receipt of every document submitted to the cler?, regardless of whether the document is in the
appropriate form) +ndeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the cler? of the district court to
neglect this ministerial duty)P ;uebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, &&0, %10 ()2d 120,, 1211
(1,,1* (footnote omitted*) +n this case, the cler? of the district court has failed to ?eep any
record of the date of receipt of appellantBs notice of appealC instead, the cler? stamped the
document PreceivedP and returned it to appellant) 5he cler? of the district court had no
authority to ta?e such action) 6lthough the cler? 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 3:1 1,)01&(2*, the cler? had a duty
to receive the document and to ?eep 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 cler?) 1ee ;uebner v) 1tate, Q10% 3ev) ,<2R 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) :ather
than returning the notice of appeal to appellant, the cler? 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) ! 6ppellant could then have ta?en whatever action was
appropriate to pursue his appeal) +n light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant timely
submitted to the cler? 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 cler?) 6ccordingly, we grant appellantBs petition for
rehearing, and we proceed to address the merits of this appeal)F +d) 6t 12&2=12&!) 1ee, also,
2arnes v) Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court of 1tate of 3ev), +n and "or Clar? County, /!% ()2d !%&,
10& 3ev) ./, (3ev), 1,%/*)
!2./%&
1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
;@0 ,oti%ication o% @lectronic (iling in 7, @0 $7*C7P47,@ 9( Z?C)?F
C9I=)47,' ,o. 608&8
1ent: 5hu 101112 <:0< (9
5o: patric??Nnvbar)orgC laurapNnvbar)orgC davidcNnvbar)orgC tsusichNnvdetr)orgC
Dear 2ar Counsel, Chairman 1usich, and Cler? of Court (eters,
Cler? 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 6ugust 2&rd,
2012, but that she has received it bac? in the mail as unclaimed on 1eptember 10th, 2012)
Cler? (eters made representation to Coughlin that he would not be deemed PservedP the
Complaint by the 123 incident to any 6ugust 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 PservedP until a signed returned
certified mail receipt was recieved by the 123) Coughlin is entitled to rely upon representation
made by the 123Bs Cler? of Court (eters) "urther, (atric? Ging made representations that the
earliest Coughlin would be viewed as PservedP an 123 v) Coughlin Complaint would be
1eptember 2<th, 2012, providing Coughlin a guarantee that he had 20 days to file an 6nswer
from that date) 3ow it seems 2ar Counsel Ging is attempting to remi' this situation, and
potentially deem Coughlin PservedP all the way bac? to, say, < days from when Cler? of Court
(eters indicates she sent Coughlin via certified mail a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint or or about
6ugust 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 1C: 10,, but merely ma?es it up as he goes
along, contradicting himself along the well, and going bac? on representations made by the
123, sullying its image)
+n anticipation of that very sort of approach, Coughlin filed a 9otion to Dismiss on 1eptember
1/th, 2012 (which would be timely under even the most draconian interpretations of 1C: 10,,
even where the 123 is allowed to go bac? on promises and e'press indications detailed above,
sometimes in writing, too*, and Cler? of Court (eters indicated to Coughlin that 2ar Counsel
Ging forbade her from filing it, citing various specious arguments as to why 3:C( <(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 6nswer to a 123 v Coughlin Complaint to be due by
P5uesday 1eptember ,, 2012P)))which is in the past))))and which is less than 20 days from even
the 6ugust 2&rd, 2012 date the Cler? of Court (eters indicated to Coughlin she mailed, via
certified letter, a 123 v) Coguhlin Complaint)
!2//%&
(lease provide an indication of whether GingBs email of #ctober %th, 2012 contained a typo as
to the due date for an 6nswer, 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 bac? on the indications by Ging
and Cler? (eters as to when, at the earliest, such a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint woud be
deemed PservedP)
:espectfully,
-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 ?nown, plus + was adjudged a victim of domestic violence earlier this year
in "@12=001%/ and "@12=001%%, 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 Huic?ly serve me)
:E: motion to dismiss attached)
100%12
:eply q
(atric? Ging
6dd to contacts
5o -ach Coughlin
"rom: (atric? Ging ((atric?GNnvbar)org*
1ent: 9on 100%12 11:&, 69
Dear 9r) Coughlin,

answer is due by 5uesday 1eptember ,, 2012) Kou should file a verified answer
to the complaint)

(atric? Ging, 6ssistant 2ar Counsel)

1ent: 1aturday, #ctober 0., 2012 !:&. 69
5o: (atric? GingC $aura (etersC tsusichNnvdetr)org
1ubject: ">: motion to dismiss attached

Dear 2ar Counsel,

!2%/%&
(lease note that the 9otion to Dismiss that + filed in 123 v) Coughlin, on
1eptember 1/th, 2012, has gone unopposed, and therefore, should be
granted)))9r) Ging was telling me the other day: P-ach, you donBt ta?e
responsibility for your actions and that is why things donBt wor? out for you)))P +
wonder, does 9r) Ging ta?e responsibility for his actions here, or lac? thereof, in
failing to oppose my 9otion to DismissJ +t will be interesting to see)

1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
!0
:E: 9r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12 letterJ
"rom: (atric? Ging ((atric?GNnvbar)#rg* 5his sender is in your safe list)
1ent: 5hu !1,12 2:2% (9
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com (AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com*
6pril 1,, 2012 -ach Coughlin
Dear 9r) Coughlin,
6 screening panel of the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary (anel met on
6ue#day ?/ril 10' 2011 to address the grievances filed against you) 5he panel
directed me to proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing) 6s such, + will be
preparing a formal Complaint)
+ understand from the e=mail below, that you do not believe you
should have been found guilty of the theft at >al=9art and that you should not
have been found in contempt of Court) ;owever, it must concern you that you
were found in contempt of Court by more than one Dudge in two different trials)
Kou wanted to ?now how + learned of or obtained a copy of Dudge 7ardnerLs
#rder after trial that was filed in 200,) +t was sent to me by the cler? 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) Kou may be well served to e'plain what remedial measures you are
ta?ing to ma?e sure you do not repeat the conduct complained about) + cannot
give you legal advice) ;owever 7 can #ugge#t you coo/erate 2ith +ar
coun#elG# in-e#tigation and that you re#/ond #/eci%ically to the allegation#
contained in "udge )olme# and ichard )illG# grie-ance letter# to the o%%ice
o% +ar Coun#el)
(atric? GingF
;owever, 33D2 Chair 1usichBs <&112 1C: 11/ (etition in .0,/< indicates a
different date of meeting by the 1creening (anel (E2$e *!reening Danel me" on or a6ou"
0pril 167 20127 and made arious findings and re!ommenda"ions7 in!luding "$e follo#ingF
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 1C: 10< Complaint, and that, plus the
!2,/%&
fact that a number of those E'hibit included in the 2& E'hibit collection inde'ed at bates 01,.<
of the 11/12 &,0,! page production by the 123 are dated E!1112 (such as the 6ffidavits by
:9C counter cler? ECourt 1pecialistF Cassillas, :9C Court 6dministrator Cassandra
Dac?son, :9C 9arshal 1cott Coppa and 9atthew 5hompson* in addition to the fact that the
email with three attachments to Ging from :DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsend is dated
!1112 (where E'hibit ! to . appear to consist of the E9otionF in :C:2012=0.<.&0 listed
amongst the file names of the pdf attachments to 5ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging, and where
the two :DC criminal case Complaints in E'hibits ! and < belong to the very cases whose case
numbers are included in the file names of the other two attachments to 5ownsendBs 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 1C: 10<(2*(c* contains materials from !1112, (especially
those Ging obtained from :DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsend (see 6a"es 2178 in within the
&,0,! page 123 production to Coughlin four judicial days prior to the formal hearing*)
1uch :DC Dudicial 1ecretaryBs email to Ging indicates in her !1112 email to Ging
that she is attaching three separate pdf files, which may, or may not be those items listed as
E'hibits !, <, and . in the +nde' to the 2& E'hibit presentation (and, really, there is no clear
indication in such &,0,! page production that such 2& E'hibit presentation was prepared by or
presented by Ging or the 123, and if so, to whom is was presented, or whether such was
presented by somebody else to Ging and the 123) 6ll of this obfuscation by Ging and the
123 is utterly unacceptable and ma?es laughable Chair EcheverriaBs allegation in the 121!12
"#"C#$ that Coughlin Eengaged in bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processF)
"urther, the placement of such !1112 email to Ging by :DC Dudicial 1ecretary 5ownsend
occurs within that which Ging and 123 identified as the EfolderF for the Dudge 3ash ;olmes
grievance which is found at bates 2/02 to 2/,& of the &,0,! page 11/12 production, within a
EfolderF titled E=rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&5 ?0 Z. Coughlin' @#A. =0 "udge $orthy B#icC
,a#h )olme#F
5he contents of that EE=rie-ance (ile >,=12-04&5 ?0 Z. Coughlin' @#A. =0
"udge $orthy B#icC ,a#h )olme#F are Huite telling, especially when considering :DC 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 2<
year veteran of the >CD6Bs office as a prosecutor turned Dudge Clifton was able to have
himself transferred onto the :C:2012=0.<.&0 case to which :DC Dudge (atricia $ynch was
ErandomlyF assigned (also curious is the chronology given then Chief Dudge 1ferraAAaBs
handling of both the summary eviction involving ;illBs firm in :ev2011=001/0% and the
i(hone petty larceny prosecution stemming from the intial %2011 arrest made just days after
;ill and his firm began their vitriolic threats of :ambo=style 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 $oc?out case Coughlin filed against (ar? 5errace 5ownhomes on 21012 in :ev2012=
0/!!0%, only to have Dudge 1ferraAAa insert himself into such matter) 1o much for ErandomF
case assignments) Dudge Clifton has managed to get his hoo?s in every single criminal case
brought against Coughlin since that time, including that stemming from the ridiculous attac? on
!&0/%&
Coughlin by :DC attac? dog, er, 2ailiff Dohn ;olguin :eyes on <2&1&, incident to which
:eyes e'hibited Aero lac? 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 pre=trial services* totally O1.,000 worth of bail, resulting in CoughlinBs incarceration
between <2&1& and ./1&)
"urther, Dudge 1ferraAAa summarily Huashed CoughlinBs subpoena on the very
>C(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 3:1 1/%)&,/ that Ging himself summarily e'cused in
rejecting CoughlinBs grievance against Dogan via GingBs 121&12 form letter to Coughlin*
during a 111&12 (ie, Dudge 1ferraAAa insisted on holding a hearing on :eno City 6ttorney
Creigton 1?auBs 9otion to Uuash CoughlinsB subpoenas (where 1?au fraudulently obtained
CoughlinBs appearance (by lying to Coughlin in alleging that 1?au had been given permission
by Dudge 1ferraAAa to serve Coughlin via email notice of a hearing devoted to 1?auBs
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 1ferraAAa and the :eno
City 6ttorneyBs #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
non=judicial day that was 111212, it would not have been possible for the :DCDudge
1ferraAAa, and :C6 1?au to constructively serve notice of such EemergencyF 111&12 hearing
on 1?au and DoganBs 11%12 9otionBs to Uuash (where an e' parte hearing was held without
Coughlin, but with 1?au and >CD6 DD6 Koung before 1ferraAAa on 11%12*)
Consider that GingBs %2&12 Complaint reads:
E/) #n 6ugust 20, 2011, :espondent was arrested on a second larceny
charge for stealing a cell phone) 5hose charges are currently pending in :eno
Dustice Court)
%) :espondent was again arrested on Danuary 1&, 2012, for allegedly
abusing ,11 services, a gross misdemeanor)
,) #n "ebruary 21, 2012) :espondent filed a document entitled, 3otice of
6ppearance Entry of (lea of 3ot guilty , >aiver of 6rraignment, 9otion to
Dismiss, etc) in one of his pending criminal matters, Case 3o) :C:=2012 0.<.&0,
City of :eno v) -achary Coughlin) 5he document clearly shows :espondentBs
unprofessional, disruptive conduct, and lac? of respect for the court and opposing
counsel)F
>ithin the 123Bs &,0,! page production, as part of the mysterious 2& E'hibit
presentation or EcollectionF therein is:
1965 unadorned or unidenti%ied in any 2ay 7nde8 to @8hibit# %rom the 2& @8hibit
/re#entation :ing BDC /ro-ided to the *creening Panel at the se!ond meeting
thereo%' u/on :ing being in%ormed a%ter the 4110112 initial /re#entation to the
*creening Panel that he had not met hi# burdenD)))
1,/% @8h. !) 6mended Criminal Complaint filed December <, 2011, :DC Case 3o) :C:
!&1/%&
2011=0.&&!1 (i(hone petty larceny arrest of %2011*
1,%! @8h. <) Criminal Complaint filed Danuary 2&, 2012, :DC Case 3o) :C: 2012=
0.<.&0 (11!12 Emisuse of ,11F arrest*
1,%, @8h. .) 3otice of 6ppearance, Entry of (lea of 3ot 7uilty, >aiver of :ight to
6rraignmentC 9otion to Dismiss filed "ebruary 21, 2012, :DC Case 3o) :C: 2012=
0.<.&0F
>hether or not such EE'hibitsF ! through . represent the attachments to :DC
Dudicial 1ecretary 5ownsendBs !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 5ownsend reHuesting
such on his own initiative or in response to the reference to an :DC Egross misdemeanorF case
Dudge ;olmes references in her ";E% letter to the 123, or whether some :DC Dudge decided it
necessary to ta?e Eappropriate actionF and, pursuant to 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1< contacted the
:DC) Ging put on absolutely no evidence of any sort that any such Eappropriate actionF was
deemed necessary by any :DC Dudge or ever so ta?en in the form of referring some alleged
misconduct by Coughlin to the Eappropriate authorityF that is the 123)
5hen, consider that ";E%, :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmesB &1!12 grievance letter to the
123 regarding Coughlin indicates that:
Dear 9r) Clar?:
disability against -achary 2ar?er Coughlin) 5he accompanying 6o? of ma"erials
demonstrates some of the problems with the practice of this attorney being
e?perien!ed 6y myself and "$e o"$er "$ree ;udges in 3eno )uni!ipal Cour")
(3#5E: Coughlin had never once been before :9C Dudge Dilworth at the time
Dudge ;olmes wrote this, and during the 12<12 traffic citation trial Dudge
Dilworth angrily disputed such contention by Dudge ;olmes upon Coughlin
reporting it to him, with Dudge Dilworth e'pressly disclaiming that Dudge ;olmes
had any authority to spea? on his behalf whatsoever* )y "#o mos" re!en" Orders in
what should be a simple traffic citation case are self=e'planatory and are included,
together with copies of massive documents 9r) Coughlin has fa' filed to our court
in this case) 6udio recordings of two of my hearings in this matter are also
+ have another traffic case pending trial with him "$a" #as re-assigned
(3#5E: via a 22/12 #rder by 2012 and 201& :9C 6dministrative Dudge >)
7ardner so transferring such case the very same day :DC Dudge Clifton was
mysteriously transferred on to the Egross misdemeanorF in the :DC ;olmes
references in ";E%* "o me based on our Department 1 (3#5E: Dudge Dilworth,
;olmes fails to specify by name here, curiously* judge being out for surgery) 4e
have mul"iple addresses for 9r) Coughlin and canBt seem to locate him between
cases very easily) >e are setting that case for trial and attempting to serve him at
the most recent address we have (1!22 E) ,th 1t) I2 :eno 3K %,<12*, al"$oug$ 5
$eard "oday $e may 6e liing in $is e$i!le some#$ere) >e do have an address
!&2/%&
for his mother however as she recently posted part of a fine for him)
"udge :en )o2ard' $e/artment 4' had a ca#e on !r. Coughlin late
la#t year that i# no2 on a//eal to the *econd "udicial $i#trict Court. "udge
+ill =ardner' $e/artment 2' al#o ha# a matter currently /ending in hi# court
2ith !r. Coughlin a# the de%endant) 5 $ae en!losed some !opies of do!umen"s
from "$ose ma""ers7 in !$ronologi!al order7 simply 6e!ause "$ey appear "o
demons"ra"e "$a" $e is 8ui!'ly de!ompensa"ing in $is men"al s"a"us) Our staff also
made you some audio tapes of Coughlin in +epartments . and 2 (3#5E: D2 is
Dudge >) 7ardnerC D! is Dudge ;oward* so you can hear for yourself how this
attorney acts in court) Kou can see his behavior in my traffic citation case does not
appear to be an isolated incident)
7t i# my unders"anding that 3eno Jus"i!e Cour" al#o ha# a matter
/ending on thi# attorney. !y "udicial ?##i#tant #as !on"a!"ed 6y "$e 4as$oe
Du6li! Defender in Fe6ruary #$en 5 $ad )r, Coug$lin ;ailed for Con"emp" of
Cour" and "$ey s"a"ed "$a" "$ey represen" $im in a -ross )isdemeanor ma""er in
3JC, 5 $ae no o"$er informa"ion on "$a".
<ou #ill $ae "$e full !oopera"ion of myself7 "$e o"$er ;udges7 and "$e
s"aff of 3eno )uni!ipal Cour" in your pursui" of "$is ma""er) 9r) Coughlin has
positioned himself as a ve'atious litigant in our court, antagoniAing the staff and
even our pro temp judges on the mos" simple traffic and misdemeanor matters) + do
thin? this is a case of some urgency, and + apologiAe for ta?ing two days "o ge" "$is
pa!'age "o youC our +5 person was ill and could not ma?e the copies of the audios
of 9r) CoughlinBs hearings until today, and + felt it was important that the audios be
included in the ma"erials "o 6e !onsidered by the 1tate 2ar) 9n (ebruary 27'
2012' )r, Coug$lin "old me $e #as a!"iely pra!"i!ing la# and $ad appoin"men"s
#i"$ !lien"s) + do not ?now if that was true, but if so, he could be causing serious
harm to the practice of law in 3orthern 3evada and could be jeopardiAing
someoneBs freedom or property interests)P
";E%Bs letter to the 123 by Dudge ;olmesB reads:
E5he accompanying 6o? of ma"erials demonstrates some of the problems with the
practice of this attorney being e?perien!ed 6y myself and "$e o"$er "$ree ;udges in 3eno
)uni!ipal Cour")F ;owever, Coughlin had never once been before :9C Dudge Dilworth at the
time Dudge ;olmes wrote this, and during the 12<12 traffic citation trial Dudge Dilworth
angrily disputed such contention by Dudge ;olmes upon Coughlin reporting it to him, with
Dudge Dilworth e'pressly disclaiming that Dudge ;olmes had any authority to spea? on his
behalf whatsoever* that the /&12 wrongful arrest of Coughlin in violation of 1oldal v) Coo?
County that idiotic :(D #fficer 6lan >eaver and 1argent Dye committed in accord with the
threats of $t) Gevin 2rown that Coughlin would be arrested for Ecriminal trespassF at
3orthwind 6partments in light of the eviction on .2%12 from one of CoughlinBs three rentals
at such 3orthwind comple' (the /&12 arrest in :9C 12 C: 12!20, which resulted in
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 :9C Dudge >) 7ardner whom committed egregious judicial misconduct on
/<12 in raising CoughlinBs bail incident to the /&12 arrest for Edisturbing the peaceF, Efailure
to produce proof of insuranceF (where :(D #fficer >eaver indicated CoughlinBs presenting a
high definition pdf of his 8166 insurance on a !)% inch smart phone screen EdidnBt satisfy the
statuteF*, and for Efailure to secure a loadF on oneBs truc? from a bondable O1,!1< to a cash
only O&,000)
Ging made to the 33D2 during his second attempt to get a green light to proceed
with an 1C: 10< Complaint against Coughlin found at bate# #tam/ /age 01965 of the 11/12
production in E'hibits !, <, and . of such 2& E'hibit presentation to the 33D2) 5he 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*)
5ownsendBs !1112 email to Ging reads:
EP"rom: 5ownsend, $ori c $5ownsendNwashoecounty)usd 1ent:
>ednesday, 6pril 11, 2012 11:&! 69 5o: (atric? Ging 1ubject: -achary
Coughlin 6ttachments: :C:2011=0.<.&0)(dfC :C:2011=0.<.&0=
9otion)(dfC :C:2011=0.&&!1)(df
;i (atric?= ;ere are the two outstanding criminal cases against
9r) Coughlin in :eno Dustice Court) Case number :C: 2011=0.&&!1 is set
for trial on 9ay ih at ,:00 amC Case :C: 2011=0.<.&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 P(re 5rial 9otionsP he filed
in the misdemeanor case (it is in e'cess of 200 pages*, but if you would li?e
to see that, + can send you a copy) ;e is also emailing staff members with
lin?s to his Kou5ube pages) (lease let me ?now if you need anything else)
r:C:2011=0.<.&0)(dfo r:C:2011=0.<.&0=9otion)(dfo r:C:2011=
0.&&!1)(dfo $ori,
4ori 6o2n#end "udge#< *ecretary' eno "u#tice Court
() #) 2o' &00%& :eno, 3@ %,<20 //<=&2<=.<<01F
5he bates stamped &,0,! page production fails to include the attachments listed in
5ownsendBs !1112 email (E6ttachments: :C:2011=0.<.&0)(dfC :C:2011=0.<.&0=
9otion)(dfC :C:2011=0.&&!1)(dfF*, which is completely unacceptable, and is definitely not
Ebar counsel wor? productF, and completely fails to contain any sort of correspondence from
Ging to the :DC or its Dudicial 1ecretary 5ownsend (unli?e the :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) grievance
file, which contains a letter from Ging to ;ill ac?nowledging the receipt of ;illBs 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 :DC Dudges (including both
Dudge Clifton and Dudge $ynch considering the 22112 filing by Coughlin in the Emisuse of
,11F case
!&!/%&
(3#5E: there is absolutely no support or citation presented by either the (anel or
#2C that a Epetty larcenyF conviction Einvolves Efraud and dishonesty, and the balance of
american jurisprudence (not to mention the mandatory authority in Claiborne* establishes that
the majority viewpoint is such that the panel may not rule that a conviction conclusively
establishes whether or not the crime Einvolves illegal conduct that evinces fraud and
dishonestyF or is otherwise a EseriousF crime or offense or supportive of a :(C %)!(b*=(c*
violation*
6lso problematic is :9C Dudge >) 7ardnerBs statements on the record of the
!1012 trial he attempted to hold in violation of 3:1 1/%)!0< (he held a motion hearing
anyways, in violation of the stay reHuired therein* that he had e'trajudicial ?nowledge of when
the 1creening (anel would be meeting (impermissible e'tra judicial ?nowledge permeated all
of CoughlinBs cases in the :9C)))how e'actly it is appropriate for Dudge >) 7ardner to go
passinB Bround some three year old sanctions order by his sister that she ?nows full well she
vacated in entering a final Decree of Divorce that e'cised such from the (roposed
"#"C#$D#D that she ordered 1pringgate to prepare Econsistent withF her !1&0, #rder
6fter 5rial 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*)

!1 (3#5E: 123 Cler? of Court $aura (eters PCertificate #f 1erviceP for GingBs file stamped
102!12 #pposition to CoughlinBs 9otion to 2ifurcate, 9otion to Dismiss reads:
PCE:5+"+C65E #" 1E:@+CE 5he undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing #pposition to :espondentBs 9otion to 2ifurcate ;earing, 9otion to
Dismiss was deposited in the 8nited 1tates 9ai l at :eno, 3evada, postage fully pre=paid
thereon fo r certified and first class mail addressed to the fo llowing: -achary 2) Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t) :eno 3@ %,<0< D65ED this 2!th day of #ctober, 2012) s $aura (eters,
6n Employee #f 5he 1tate 2ar #f 3evadaP ;owever, 5he 81(1 5rac? M Confrim
+ndicates 5hat, Even >here (eters Certificate #f 9ailing $ac?s 5he 9i?ohn Pto 7o #ut
5hat DayP $anguage, (eters Certificate #f 9ailing +s 8ntrue >here 1uch Did 3ot Even 7o
#ut 5he 3e't Day 102<11, 2ut >as #nly (ic?ed 8p 2y 5he 8sps #n 102.12,
(rejudicing CoughlinBs 6bility 5o "ile 6 :eply 5hereto, Especially >here (anel Chair
Echeverria, Curiously (even 5hough 5he (anel ;ad #nly 2een Designated 5he (revious
Date, 10&012 2y 3ndb Chair 1usich* Entered 6n #rder #n 10&111 Denying CoughlinBs
9otions 5o 2ifurcate, Dismiss, 6nd "or 6n #rder 5o 1how Cause) 5he 8sps 5rac? M
Confrim "or 1uch 102!12 "ile 1tamped 1bn Ging #pposition 5o CoughlinBs 9otion 5o
2irfurcate, 9otion 5o Dismiss :eveals: Pyour $abel 3umber 1ervice 1tatus #f Kour +tem
Date M 5ime $ocation "eatures /0102/%0000&<!2,<<2. 3otice $eft #ctober 2/, 2012,
!:0& (m :eno, 3v %,<12 Certified 9ail 6rrival 6t 8nit #ctober 2/, 2012, .:&, 6m :eno,
3v %,<0. (rocessed 5hrough 8sps 1ort "acility #ctober 2/, 2012, !:<0 6m :eno, 3v
%,<10 Depart 8sps 1ort "acility #ctober 2/, 2012 :eno, 3v %,<10 (rocessed 5hrough 8sps
1ort "acility #ctober 2., 2012, 10:1< (m :eno, 3v %,<10P 6nd, really, such is not all that
!&</%&
surprising considering GingBs own signature on that #pposition indicates such was
P:espectfully submitted on this 2< day of #ctober, 2012 1565E 26: #" 3E@6D6
D6@+D 6) C$6:G, 26: C#831E$ 2y: s (atric? #) Ging, 6ssistant 2ar CounselP)*
"urther, beyond the fact that both Ging and 123 Cler? of Court
$aura (eters denied CoughlinBs verbal and written reHuests to so EinspectF the
materials to which Coughlin had a right to do so under 1C: 10<(2*(c* on
several occasions between the %2&12 filing of the Complaint and Eup to within
three days of the hearingF, if GingBs 102<12 signed (but file stamped 102!12,
and 81(1 5rac? M Confirm proven to have been deposited for mailing on
102.12* #ppoistion to 9otion to 2ifurcate and 9otion to Dismiss was being
truthful where Ging purported to have no objection to Coughlin so inspecting
the file (E)))the 1tate 2ar of 3evada responds as follows: -achary Coughlin may
inspe!" "$e eiden!e "$a" "$e *"a"e &ar $as per"aining "o $is dis!ipline ma""ers
up "o "$ree A3B days prior "o "$e $earing7 pursuan" "o *C3 10CA2BA!B) Coughlin
has been sent, via both certified and first class mail, a 3otice of ;earing which
was accompanied by a Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence
prepared by bar counsel pursuant to 1upreme Court :ule) 2o "$e e?"en" "$a"
Coug$lin #an"s "o reie# "$e dis!iplinary files per"aining "o $is !ase7 &ar
Counsel $as no o6;e!"ion)F*, then 2hy 2ould the Panel Chair<# 9rder o%
101&1112 order #omething other than #uch Bindicating' ob-iou#ly' more e?
par"e !ommuni!a"ions 6e"#een 1!$eerria and "$e *&/' not hard to belie-e
con#idering their o%%ice# are 2ithin a# #tone<# thro2 o% each other)*
EcheverriaBs 10&112 #rder remi'ed 1C: 10<(2*(c* (and, also,
ma?es some very telling, and interesting findings regarding what Coughlin
EfiledF and when Coughlin filed such filings when considering the manner in
which Coughlin submitting such submission for filing, and the e'tent to which
the 123 failed to place a file stamp on CoughlinBs 9otion for #rder to 1how
Cause, in addition to failing to file stamp in, or even recogniAe, the ,1/12
9otion to Dismiss (#i"$ a > page le""er "o //D& C$air *usi!$ and "$e *&/(s
=ing "$a" 1!$eerria #ould la"er referen!e in "$e $earing in his mista?en
assertion that Coughlin did not want to bifurcate the 1C: 10< Eformal hearingF
from the EhearingF reHuired by the 3evada 1upreme CourtBs ./12 #rder in
.0%&% and 1C: 111(%* that the 123 e'cised completely from the 21&1& :#6
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 tric?eration 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: E5he "ormal
;earing in these matters is scheduled to ta?e place on >ednesday, 3ovember
1!, 2012, beginning at ,:00 at the 3orthern 3evada 2ar Center, ,!<. Double :)
2lvd), 1uite 2, :eno, 3evada %,<21) *eeral mo"ions $ae 6een filed and are
pending) 5he "ormal ;earing (anel Chair has had an o//ortunity to re-ie2
!&./%&
and con#ider the %ollo2ing motion# and responsie pleadings B,96@0 Ging
only filed one #pposition, and, regardless, EpleadingsF entail only an 6nswer
and a Complaint or similar (such as a Demurrer, a 9otion to Dismiss, a 9otion
for 9ore Definite 1tatement, etc*, not #ppositions, so EcheverriaBs subseHuent
Econclusion of lawF that the allegation in GingBs Complaint E!ould 6e "a'e as
admi""ed as a ma""er of defaul"F in view of his EfindingF that Coughlin failed to
file a Eresponsie pleadingF is seriously undone*: 5herefore, +5 +1 ;E:E2K
#:DE:ED:)) 1) )o"ion "o Dismiss /re/ared 1eptember 1., 2012, and filed
#ctober 1., 2012, is DE3+ED) 2) !otion %or 9rder to *ho2 Cau#e
:egarding +mproper 6ttempt by 2ar Counsel and, (ossibly, 33D2 to Delay
and #bstruct ;earing :eHuired by Courts Dune /th, 2012 #rder in Case 3o)
.0%&% and CoughlinBs 1C: 102(!*(d* (etition in Case .1!2. prepared #ctober
2, 2012, and filed #ctober 1., 2012, is DE3+ED) &) !otion to e-ie2 and
7n#/ect +ar ecord#L !otion to +i%urcate )earingL !otion to $i#mi#s for
Complaint QsicR "ailure to 1ufficiently 1tate the Charges with 1pecificity and
1upport and for 8tter "ailure of 2ar Counsel to (erform :easonable
+nvestigation /re/ared #ctober 1<, 2012, and filed #ctober 1., 2012, is
7:635ED +3 (6:5 63D DE3+ED +3 (6:5) 2$e Offi!e of &ar Counsel
#ill arrange for !opies of "$e file "o 6e deliered "o )r, Coug$lin a" "$e
address "$a" $e $as proided "o "$e *"a"e &ar a" "$e earlies" oppor"uni"y)P
(3#5E: the Eearliest opporunityF turned out to ta?e another seven
days, meaning such were only delivered to Coughlin four judicial days before
the formal disciplinary hearing)
E;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages .:20 to /:.* E9:) EC;E@E::+6: !r. :ingD
!. :7,=0 ?# the record re%lect#' !r. Coughlin #as sered a !opy of "$e
!omplain" to the address that he is mandated to provide to the 1tate 2ar) 9:)
C#87;$+3: + donBt believe thatBs correct) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (lease donBt
interrupt, 9r) Coughlin) 7o ahead) !. :7,=0 *u6se8uen"ly7 )r, Coug$lin filed7
immedia"ely af"er #e mailed "$e !omplain" ia !er"ified and regular mail7 )r,
Coug$lin filed a mo"ion "o dismiss "$e !omplain")F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &02:1& to &0!:1<* E9:) EC;E@E::+6: +
believe that all the pleadings that have been filed would be part of the panelBs record
that would go to the supreme court) 9:) G+37: 6nything thatBs been mar?ed as an
e'hibit and identified and accepted into evidence by the panel will be part of the record)
6nd the entire transcript of the proceedings) 3o other documents at this time, anything
that hasnBt been proffered as evidence will be not admitted) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Do
the pleadings go up or just that which is offered into evidence and acceptedJ 9:)
G+37: 5o the e'tent that the complaint will certainly go up everything that's in this
pac5et will go up, &nything that you had mar5ed and accepted as evidence will !e sent
up on the record along with the entire transcript) +ut to ha-e other document# Eu#t
!&//%&
com/iled' it 2on<t hel/ the record' it 2ill ma5e it more con%u#ing) 5he supreme
!our" $as 6e""er "$ings "o do) 9:) @E$$+1: Cleadings filed they don't go
automatically, the whole case file doesn't go $ust whatever is entered hereJ 9:) G+37:
Correct) (3#5E: ;oly negligent hiring, training, supervision, 2ar Counsel David
Clar?^ 8nbelievably, here, Ging is announcing his intention to attempt to e'cise from
the :#6 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& :#6 in .2&&/, which they absolutely have done as to
several e'tremely inflammatory (yet, completely true* filings by Coughlin:
P5he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the
cler? to be filed) QCits)R) 1o, where a motion for new trial has been delivered for filing to
the cler?, it will be deemed filed even though that officer fails to ma?e the proper entry
of filing thereon)P 2rinson v) 7eorgia :: 2an? Mc) Co), !< 7a) 6pp) !<,, !.1 (1.< 1E
&21* (1,&2*) +t is beyond the purview of the cler? to be concerned with the legal
viability of a pleading presented to the cler? for filing) 1ee ;ughes v) 1i?es, 2/& 7a)
%0! (1* (<!. 1E2d <1%* (2001* (where cler? returned notice of appeal for
supplementation*C 7ibbs v) 1pencer +ndustries, 2!! 7a) !<0, !<1 (2.0 1E2d &!2*
(1,/,*) (;ood v) 1tate, .<1 1)E)2d %%, 2%2 7a) !.2 (7a) 0,2!200/*)* Qemphasis
added)R
PCausing a paper Bto be actually placed in the hands of the cler? of a trial
court within the time prescribed by law for filing the same in Qthe cler?BsR office is all
that is, in this respect, reHuired ofB a party)P 7ibbs v) 1pencer +ndustries, 2!! 7a) !<0,
!<1 (2.0 1E2d &!2* (1,/,*) P5he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper
is handed to the cler? to be filed) QCits)R) 1o, where a motion for new trial has been
delivered for filing to the cler?, it will be deemed filed even though that officer fails to
ma?e the proper entry of filing thereon)P 2rinson v) 7eorgia :: 2an? Mc) Co), !< 7a)
6pp) !<,, !.1 (1.< 1E &21* (1,&2*) +t is beyond the purview of the cler? to be
concerned with the legal viability of a pleading presented to the cler? for filing) 1ee
;ughes v) 1i?es, 2/& 7a) %0! (1* (<!. 1E2d <1%* (2001*C 7ibbs v) 1pencer +ndustries,
supra, 2!! 7a) !<0) Qemphasis added)R
+f pleadings are delivered to the cler? for filing they will be deemed filed
even though the proper entry of filing is not made thereon) 1ee 2rinson v) 7a) :) 2an?
Mc) Co), !< 7a) 6pp) !<,, !.1, supraC Cooper v) 3isbet, 11, 7a) /<2 (1*, /<< (!/ 1)E)
1/&*) (0<12/% 2oston 1ea (arty 6tlanta v) 2ryant, 2!. 1)E)2d &<0, 1!. 7a) 6pp) 2,!)*
(1ee also $avan et al) v) (hilips, &.2 1)E)2d 1&%, 1%! 7a) 6pp) </& (101,%/*)*
Qemphasis added)R
P5he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the
cler? to be filed) QCit)RP 2rinson v) 7a) :) 2an? Mc) Co), supra, p) !.1) (;) :) $ee
+nvestment Corporation v) 7roover, 22< 1)E)2d /!2, 1&% 7a) 6pp) 2&1 (0&1,/.*)*
Qemphasis added)RF http:www)lawlessamerica)cominde')phpJ
optionVcom_contentMviewVarticleMidV<10:judges=and=court=cler?s=violate=the=law=
when=your=court=filings=are=denied=or=disappearMcatidV,%:litigation=helpM+temidV22<
*
!&%/%&
)y pleadings, (3#5E: 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
Emy pleadingsF in reference to his 11/12 &,0,! bates stamped production to
Coughlin, especially where Ging is simultaneously see?ing to ?eep 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 you !an see 6y "$e &a"es
s"amp num6ers are "$ousands of pages of nonsensi!al e-mails and
disparaging e-mails) (3#5E: 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 D6@1 and "5: 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 ;ill and his associate, though,
of course, the :9C failed to accord Coughlin his 1i'th 6mendment right to
confront the arresting officer, as his presence was e'cused by Dudge >)
7ardner*, which also included pdfs of every filing in the Doshi matter and appeal
and petition for e'traordinary writ cases stemming therefrom (D@0%=011.% and
<&%&&, <!%!!* 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 >ashoe County to a degree
heretofore never done before, leveraging technology in a manner in which Ging
still has yet to comprehend, and li?ely never really will: (see CoughlinBs written
correspondence with Ging and the (anel here:
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!0,%<%<11=21=11=to=2=1=1&=6ll=Emails=
2etween=Coughlin=and=1tate=2ar=of=3evada ** 7 didn<t thin5 that that 2ould
add to thi# day or hel/ the #u/reme court. (3#5E: it certainly would
undermine the implied offensive collateral estoppel=lite approach Ging and
Echeverria coo?ed up here, lapped up by a callow, fec?less 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, :ule 2)1< E:esponding to
6ttorney and Dudicial 9isconductF, as there is not even a letter from 3@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* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + thin? the confusion, at least + have,
is whether or not the pleadings themselves, whatever file, whatever 9r)
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) 9:) G+37: +f the orders go up,
pleadings that are not admitted do not go up) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, if
+ can just interject == 9:) G+37: +n other words, everything 9r) Coughlin sent,
oftentimes with these multiple captions where heBs sending them to many
people, he might caption as a pleading, it doesnBt ma?e it a pleading) +t has to be
something that was sent to us, filed in, and that would be a pleading) 6nd if
there was such a thing as file stamped with the supreme court, it will go up) 9:)
@E$$+1: 5hat 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 9:) G+37:
Correct) 5hat would be my understanding) #nly if it was properly filed, "imely
filed, s"amped in by the court)F
;owever, GingBs PrestatementP of the law is rather incorrect, however
convenient it may ma?e his job as a prosecutor: 5he cler? of a court, li?e the
:ecorder 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 ;alladjian, 1/! ") %&! (C)C)9ass)1,0,*C 8nited 1tates, to 8se 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)6pp)1,/0*C 9alinou v) 9cElroy, ,, :)+) 2//, 20/ 6)2d !!
(1,.<*C 1tate e' rel) >anama?er v) 9iller, 1.! #hio 1t) 1/., 1//, 12% 3)E)2d
110 (1,<<)*)* (Daniel G) 9ayers Et 6l), v) (eter 1) :idley Et 6l), 3o) /1=1!1%
(0.&0/2, 8nited 1tates Court of 6ppeals for the DC Circuit)* Qemphasis
added)R
5he specific allegation in 9r) 1nyderBs complaint is that 9r) 3olen,
acting as the Circuit Court Cler?, refused to file or actually removed already
filed papers from the courtBs doc?et) 8nder +llinois law, the cler? 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) 6pp) Ct) 1,%1* (PDelivery alone
has been held to constitute filing since the person filing has no control over the
officer who receives documents) 1ubseHuent ministerial tas?s of the cler?
evidence the filing of a document but are not essential to its perfection)P
(internal citation omitted**C :oesch=-eller, +nc) v) ;ollembea?, 12! 3)E)2d ..2,
..! (+ll) 6pp) Ct) 1,<<* (P5he duty of the cler? 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)P*) (1nyder v) 3olen, &%0 ")&d 2/, (/th Circuit,
0%1&200!*)* Qemphasis added)R
5he word PfiledP the 6ct uses, is, as applied to court proceedings, a
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
!!0/%&
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
mar? on the instrument) Collected in vol) & >ords and (hrases, "irst 1eries, pp)
2/.!=2//0, inclusiveC vol) 2 >ords and (hrases, 1econd 1eries, pp) <&1, <&!,
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 ?ept by him
as a paper on file, and that the file mar? of the officer is evidence of the filing,
but it is not the essential element of the act) 6 paper may be filed without being
mar?ed or endorsed by the cler?, +n re ConantBs Estate, !& #r) <&0, /& () 101%C
;olman v) Chevaillier, 1! 5e') &&/C Eure?a 1tone Co) v) Gnight, %2 6r?) 1.!,
100 1)>) %/%C Darnell v) "lynn, ., >)@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) P5hough 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 ta?e off the file,B Mc),
from BfilumB the thread, string, or wire used in ancient practice, for connecting
the papers together) 5he term BfileB is also used to denote the paper placed with
the Cler?, and assigned by the law to his official ?eeping) 6 file is a record of
the Court)(1 $itt), 112C 2urr) $)D) tit) "ile)* +t is the duty of the Cler?, 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 authoriAes a party to file it, it simply means that he shall place it
in the official custody of the Cler?) 5hat 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) 6nd hence it is the common practice, where
that has been omitted, for the officer, with the sanction of the Court, to ma?e 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) 6nd acts thus allowed to be
done by the Cler? 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 5iddBs (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 Cler?,
which was a condition precedent to the issuing of the e'ecution in this case) 5he
object of the motion to obtain the authority of the Court for the filing of the
cler? 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 Cler? might relate bac?,
and ta?e effect from that period, as though it had been done then, when it should
have been done) (9ilton v) 8nited 1tates), 10< ")2d 2<& (<th Cir) 0/0.1,&,*)*
!!1/%&
Dohansson v) 5owson, 1// ") 1upp) /2, (9)D)7a) 021/1,<,*) Qemphasis
added)R
9ilton v) 8nited 1tates, < Cir), 1,&,, 10< ")2d 2<&, 2<<) 5he 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 :eal Estate Co) v) Commissioner of +nternal
:evenue, % Cir), 1,!2, 1&1 ")2d 210C 1chultA v) 8nited 1tates, Ct)Cl)1,<<, 1&2
")1upp) ,<&, ,<<C 9cCord v) Commissioner of +nternal :evenue, 1,!1, /!
6pp)D)C) &.,, 12& ")2d 1.!, 1.<C Central (aper Co) v) Commissioner of
+nternal :evenue, . Cir), 1,<2, 1,, ")2d ,02, ,0!) (Dohansson v) 5owson, 1//
") 1upp) /2, (9)D)7a) 021/1,<,*)* Qemphasis added)R
P1ubject: :E: pending final disposition of disciplinary
proceedings))))language 1C: 111(/* versus 1C: 111(%* and the Dune /th, 2012
#rder of the 3@) 1) Ct (rom0 4aura Peter# B4auraPRn-bar.9rgC 1ent:
>ed 101012 .:01 (9 5o: -ach Coughlin(AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com*
Plea#e don<t /ut 2ord# in my mouth' Zach. <ou are "$e one "$a"
indi!a"ed "$a" you $ad no" re!eied "$e Complain" #$en #e "al'ed on "$e
p$one, 4$y7 "$en7 #ould 5 file in a )o"ion "o DismissD 7 am re#/on#ible %or
my o2n action#. - 4aura Ba5a Cler' Peter#C================ "rom: -ach
Coughlin QAachcoughlinNhotmail)ComR 1ent: >ednesday, #ctober 10, 2012
11:<1 69 6o0 t#u#ichRn-detr.9rgL 4aura Peter#L $a-id Clar5L Patric5
:ingL n-#ccler5Rn-court#.,-.=o- 1ubject: ">: pending final disposition of
disciplinary proceedings))))$anguage 1C: 111(/* versus 1C: 111(%* and the
Dune /th, 2012 #rder of the 3@) 1) Ct)
Dear Chairman 1usich and Cler' De"ers, 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 :ules, and at this point, you need to send a clear
message to 2ar Counsel that Pthe ?id stays in the pictureP, and inform 9r) Ging
that $e is no" "o a""emp" "o "a'e your ;o6 or du"ies from you, *ame goes for
Cler' De"ers7 espe!ially is a is $er admission "$a" =ing "old $er no" "o file
Coug$lin(s )o"ion "o Dismiss in *&/ Coug$lin on *ep"em6er 17"$7 20127
#$i!$ $as no# gone unopposed7 and "$erefore7 s$all 6e gran"ed) 1incerely,
-ach Coughlin (# 2#4 &,.1)))P
5he filing of a paper ta?es place upon the delivery of it to the officer
at his office) 9ilton v) 8nited 1tates, <th Cir) 1,&,, 10< ")2d 2<&C (oynor v)
Commissioner, <th Cir) 1,&., %1 ")2d <21) >hen the mails are utiliAed for the
purpose of filing an instrument, the filing ta?es place upon delivery at the office
of the official reHuired to receive it) >ampler v) 1nyder, 1,&&, .2 6pp) D)C)
21<, .. ")2d 1,<) ((hinney v) 2an? of 1outhwest 3ational 6ssociation, &&<
")2d 2.. (<th Cir) 0%0<1,.!*)* (1ee also 8nited 1tates v) 9issco ;omestead
6ssBn +nc), 1%< ")2d 2%& (%th Cir) 11011,<0*)* (Dienstag v) 1t) (aul "ire M
9arine +ns) Co), 1.! ") 1upp) .0& (1)D)3)K) 111%1,</*C 5horndal v) 1mith,
!!2/%&
>ild, 2eebe M Cades, &&, ")2d ./. (%th Cir) 010!1,.<*C $one 1tar (roducing
Co) v) 7ulf #il Corp), 20% ") 1upp) %< (E)D)5e') 0/1/1,.2*)* Qemphasis
added)R
Clearly (as demonstrated by the following fa' and email delivery
confirmations*, Coughlin filed a 9otion to Dismiss on ,1/12 (though the 123
may arguably accord such a ,1%12 filing date, but, certainly, he 101<12 filing
date is way off:
1ent: 9on 101<12 !:!, (9
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com
Kour "a' was successfully sent to ( 1//<&2,0<22*)
Kour "a' was delivered N 11:!,:<0 (9 on 2012=10=1<)
@o'o' cnoreplyNvo'o')Comd 5ue, 1ep 1%, 2012 at 12:01 69
5o: renoattorneyNgmail)Com
Kour "a' was successfully sent to ( 1/02&%<2%/%*)
Kour "a' was delivered N 0/:01:&0 69 on 2012=0,=1%)
Kour "a' was delivered N 0/:01:!% 69 on 2012=0,=1%)
Kour "a' was successfully sent to ( 1//<2%!,<1&*)
Kour "a' was delivered N 0/:02:12 69 on 2012=0,=1%)
@o'o' cnoreplyNvo'o')Comd 5ue, 1ep 1%, 2012 at 12:&% 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 0/:&%:!% 69 on 2012=0,=1%
motion to dismiss attachedJ
"rom: -ach Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com*
1ent: 9on ,1/12 11:<, (9
5o: patric??Nnvbar)#rgC tsusichNnvdetr)#rg
6ttachments: 1 attachment
sbn v coughlin motion to dismiss (/%)1 G2*
">: motion to dismiss attachedJ
1ent: 5ue ,1%12 12:00 69
5o: davidcNnvbar)#rg
sbn v coughlin motion to dismiss (/%)1 G2* 9otion to Dismiss 123 v)
CoughlinJ
1ent: 5ue ,1%12 12:02 69
5o: tsusichNnvdetr)#rgC patric??Nnvbar)#rgC davidcNnvbar)#rg
!!&/%&
sbn v coughlin motion to dismiss)(df (/%)1 G2*P
7iven that 1C: 10<(2*(c* reHuires the (anel to conduct hearing
within a certain time frame in relation to two specific events, the (anel and 123
have failed to comply with such rule, and Coughlin should be reinstated
immediately, and both the 123 and 33D2 (anel should be held in contempt)
5hose two events are the giving, 6y "$e Danel, to Coughlin of P&0
daysB written noticeP of the formal hearing date, which the Jhearing /anel #hall
conductJ J2ithin 45 day# o% a##ignement and gi-e the attorney at lea#t &0
day#< 2ritten notice o% it# time and /laceJ. 9% course, 6sst) 2ar Counsel
Ging, in an attempt to gain a material advantage and in a demonstration of his
P6ad fai"$ o6s"ru!"ion of "$e dis!iplinary pro!essP deigned to sent out the
Pnotice of hearingP himself, allegedly sent out on 101212 (though the 81(1
5rac? M Confirm indicates such was deposited with the 81(1 for mailing, to go
out that day, per 9i?ohn, no sooner than 101<12 given the first scanning of
such Certified 9ail number occurred in the early morning of 101.12*, a good
1% days before 33D2 Chairman 1usichBs 10&012 #rder 6ppointing "ormal
;earing (anel was even entered, much less constructively served on Coughlin
(with the 123 always ma?ing 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*) 6gain, 1C: 10<(2*(c* reHuires the (anel, not 6sst) 2ar
Counsel Ging, to Pgive the attorneyP the notice of hearing)
+ts no wonder the went with an E6lphabetical $ist of DocumentsF in the :#6 it
filed on 21&12 (after the :#6 it filed on 122!12 was stric?en on account of it being such a
trife bit of codswallop* where such E6lphabetical $ist of DocumentsF (as opposed to, say, a
Doc?et, arranged in chronological order* does indicate that several of CoughlinBs submissions
were just plain not file stamped by the 123 (though purportedly included, at least in part (of
course the discs attached as e'hibits thereto and the massive bates stamped pdfs found thereon
and transcripts of hearing the 123 felt were of no ulility, and, therefore, not included amongst
that transmitted, though Coughlin filed a 9otion in .2&&/ for such to be so
transmitted))))285, 5# 2E C$E6:, 63D 5;+1 +1 +9(#:5635: there are several of
CoughlinBs filings that just plain were not included at all in any way in the :#6, including the
very 10&112 *
62&&7 7,$@K 47*6 9( $9CI!@,6* +F P?=@ ,I!+@
1=2% Complaint and "irst Designation of ;earing (anel 9embers %2&12
2,=&2 3otice of +ntent to (roceed on a Default 2ases 10,12
&&=&/ 3otice of "ormal ;earingC Desig, of >itn), 1umm) of Evidence 101212
&%=&, 6ffidavit of $aura (eters, Custodian of :ecords 10,12
!0=!& 9otion to Dismiss 101<12 (missing , page fa' to #2C33D2 of ,1212 E'h*
!&:1=109issing E'hibit 1, , page fa' to #2C33D2 of ,1212
!!=10. 9tn #rder 1how Cause, 6mend) 9tn Dismiss (3", subm) ,1/12, 101<12*
!!!/%&
10/=1<2 9otion to :eview, +nspect, 2ifurcate, 1upplem) Dismiss 101.12
1<&=1<. #pp) to :espt)Bs 9tn to 2ifurcate ;earing, 9otion to Dismiss 102!12
1</=1<% #rder 6ppointing "ormal ;earing (anel 10&012
1<,=1.2 CoughlinBs Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence 10&112
1.&=1.< #rder 10&112
1.<:1=
1..=1/. 9tn to Uuash 1ubp) Directed to :9C Dudges and Court 1taff 11212
1//=1,< E' (arte 9tn to Uuash 1ubp) Duces 5ecums, 1ubpoenas to Compel 5est) 11&12
1,.=1,/ 1upplemental Designation of >itnesses 11/12
1,%=200 #rder 11/12
201=20! 3otice of 3on=1ervice of +ntent to 5a?e Default of 6ppro') #ct),, 2012 11%12
20<=21. 1upplem):spdt)Desig)>itn)1umm) Evid), 3otice #bj), :eply)#pp)2ifur, 11%12
21/=2,/ >ell >ould Kou 9tn 1et 6side, 6lter, 6mend #rder, #pp) 9tn Uuash 11%12
2,%=&<0 Emerg) E' (arte 9tn to Dismiss, "or 9ore Definite 1tmt, 7ood Cause 111&12
&<1=&<2 #rder 111.12
&<&=/1! 9otion for 3ew 5rial, 3otice of ;ill and 2a?erBs 9alfeasance 11&012
/1<=/1%6mended 1upple) to :espondentBs Emergency 9otion to 1et 6side 11&012
/1,=/&.3otice of :9CBs "ailure "ile CoughlinBs 5imely 3otice of 6ppeal (3", 111.12*
/&/=/,0(ost=;earing 2rief, 9tn DisHualify9istrial, 5ranscript :eH, :econs #rder Uuashing,
2ifurc, , :ule 10&(/* Challenge for Cause (3", submitted 111.12*
/,1=/,. Declaration of -achary 2ar?er Coughlin (3", subm) 12/12*
/,/=1&!/ 9otion for 9istrial (>hopper Choc?ed 10,12 6ffd) (eters* (3", subm) 12&12*
1&!%=1&/1 "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw 121!12
1&/2 Certificate of 1ervice by 9ail of :ecord #n 6ppeal 21&1&
1&/&=1.,% 5ranscript of ;earing held 111!12, 3o :esponse on 1C: 11, until 121%12
1.,,=1,22 "ormal ;earing E'hibits 1=1. 111!12, 3o :esponse 1C: 11, until 121%12
1% 81C 20/. = Cler? of 8nited 1tates District Court >hoever, being a cler? of a
district court of the 8nited 1tates, willfully refuses or neglects to ma?e 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)
P5he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the cler? to
be filed) QCits)R) 1o, where a motion for new trial has been delivered for filing to the cler?, it
will be deemed filed even though that officer fails to ma?e the proper entry of filing thereon)P
2rinson v) 7eorgia :: 2an? Mc) Co), !< 7a) 6pp) !<,, !.1 (1.< 1E &21* (1,&2*) +t is beyond
the purview of the cler? to be concerned with the legal viability of a pleading presented to the
cler? for filing) 1ee ;ughes v) 1i?es, 2/& 7a) %0! (1* (<!. 1E2d <1%* (2001*C 7ibbs v)
1pencer +ndustries, supra, 2!! 7a) !<0) QEmphasis added)R
+f pleadings are delivered to the cler? for filing they will be deemed filed even
though the proper entry of filing is not made thereon) 1ee 2rinson v) 7a) :) 2an? Mc) Co), !<
7a) 6pp) !<,, !.1, 1upraC Cooper v) 3isbet, 11, 7a) /<2 (1*, /<< (!/ 1)E) 1/&*) (0<12/%
2oston 1ea (arty 6tlanta v) 2ryant, 2!. 1)E)2D &<0, 1!. 7a) 6pp) 2,!)* (1ee also $avan et al)
@) (hilips, &.2 1)E)2D 1&%, 1%! 7a) 6pp) </& (101,%/*)* QEmphasis added)R
!!</%&
P5he actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the cler? to
be filed) QCit)RP 2rinson v) 7a) :) 2an? Mc) Co), 1upra, p) !.1) (;) :) $ee +nvestment
Corporation v) 7roover, 22< 1)E)2D /!2, 1&% 7a) 6pp) 2&1 (0&1,/.*)* QEmphasis added)R 1%
8)1)C) 20/1 Case $aw: 8nited 1tates v) Conlin, <<1 ")2D <&! (2nd Cir) 0&1/1,//*C 8nited
1tates v) Claypoole, 22/ ")2D /<2 (&rd Cir) 120/1,<<*C 8nited 1tates v) Donner, !,/ ")2D
1%! (/th Cir) 0<0&1,/!*C 8nited 1tates v) 9ay, .2< ")2D 1%. (%th Cir) 0<&01,%0*C 8nited
1tates v) 1alaAar, !<< ")&D 1022 (,th Cir) 0/2!200.*C 8nited 1tates v) $ang, 3o) 02=!0/<
(105h Cir) 0!21200!*) 5his case has some very good information == 8nited 1tates v) :osner,
&<2 ") 1upp) ,1< (1)D)3)K) 121!1,/2*) 1% 8)1)C) sS 20/1 Case $aw 1earch :esults from
versuslaw)Com)
Every time Coughlin sees or thin?s about 6sst) 2ar Counsel (atric? #) Ging
(whom Coughlin made slip and pic? his dribble up with triple the numbers of sniper fire from
moral cripples being flipped at Coughlin than has ever been thrown GingBs way*, EsH) he hears
in his head that song P%ere Comes "$e %o"s"epperP: ;ttp:www)Koutube)ComwatchJ
@Vw 0 3 ! tw@ 2% 9w
62&&7 7,$@K 47*6 9( $9CI!@,6* +F P?=@ ,I!+@
(crossed with CoughlinBs @#4#4 confirmations of fa' filing with the 123 and serving a
copy thereof on 2ar Counsel*
1=2% Complaint and "irst Designation of ;earing (anel 9embers %2&12
(3#5E: the :#6 is missing the 9otion 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: 5o: renoattorneyNgmail)Com Kour "a' was successfully sent to
( 1//<&2,0<22*) Kour "a' was delivered N 0/:01:!% 69 on 2012=0,=1%) @o'o'
cnoreplyNvo'o')Comd 5ue, 1ep 1%, 2012 at 12:02 69*
2,=&2 3otice of +ntent to (roceed on a Default 2ases 10,12
&&=&/ 3otice of "ormal ;earingC Desig, of >itn), 1umm) of Evidence 101212
&%=&, 6ffidavit of $aura (eters, Custodian of :ecords 10,12
!0=!& 9otion to Dismiss 101<12 (missing , page fa' to #2C33D2 of ,1212 E'h*
!&:1=109issing E'hibit 1, , page fa' to #2C33D2 of ,1212
!!=10. 9tn #rder 1how Cause, 6mend) 9tn Dismiss (3", subm) ,1/12, 101<12*
10/=1<2 9otion to :eview, +nspect, 2ifurcate, 1upplem) Dismiss 101.12
("rom: @o'o' (noreplyNvo'o')Com* 1ent: 9on 101<12 !:!, (9 5o:
AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com Kour "a' was successfully sent to ( 1//<&2,0<22*) Kour "a'
was delivered N 11:!,:<0 (9 on 2012=10=1<)*
1<&=1<. #pp) to :espt)Bs 9tn to 2ifurcate ;earing, 9otion to Dismiss 102!12
1</=1<% #rder 6ppointing "ormal ;earing (anel 10&012
1<,=1.2 CoughlinBs Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence 10&112
(1ent: >ed 10&112 !:10 (9 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com Kour "a' was
successfully sent to ( 1//<&2,0<22*) Kour "a' was delivered N 11:10:&! (9 on 2012=10=&1)
"rom: @o'o' (noreplyNvo'o')Com**
!!./%&
(3#5E: CoughlinBs 10&112 filing of a 9otion for 1ummary Dudgment, (re=
;earing 9emorandum of $aw !! pages long with an E'hibit 1 that included a disc attaching a
multitude of filings in the cases at issue in this matter in pdf format, is missing from the :#6*
1.&=1.< #rder 10&112
1.<:1=
1..=1/. 9tn to Uuash 1ubp) Directed to :9C Dudges and Court 1taff 11212
1//=1,< E' (arte 9tn to Uuash 1ubp) Duces 5ecums, 1ubpoenas to Compel 5est) 11&12
1,.=1,/ 1upplemental Designation of >itnesses 11/12
(1ent: 9on 110<12 12:22 (9 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com Kour "a' was
successfully sent to ( 1//<&2,0<22*) Kour "a' was delivered N 0%:22:!! (9 on 2012=11=0<)
https:s?ydrive)live)comJ
cidV !&0%!.&% f &2 f < f 2% MidV !&0%!.&% " &2 " < " 2% X 21!<&& M2srcV1?y9ailM2pubV1D4)1?yD
riveMauth?eyV^6$:srf-U>2Ut 1 7g*
"rom: @o'o' (noreplyNvo'o')Com*
1ent: 9on 110<12 !:<% (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:<%:<2 69 on 2012=11=0.)
1ent: 9on 110<12 &:20 (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 11:21:00 (9 on 2012=11=0<)
1ent: 9on 110<12 &:20 (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 11:20:0% (9 on 2012=11=0<)
1,%=200 #rder 11/12
(P(3o 1ubject* "rom: -ach Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)com*
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:!! (9 5o: laurapNnvbar)org (laurapNnvbar)org*C
patric??Nnvbar)org (patric??Nnvbar)org* (attached and detailed in that email)))*P
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:&/ (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 0&:&/:20 69 on 2012=11=0/)
!!//%&
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:&% (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 0&:&,:00 69 on 2012=11=0/)
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:&/ (9
,96@0 the 211&11& 9? i# mi##ing Coughlin<# 88 /age Veri%ied ?n#2er o% 1119112' %iled
in /er#on by Coughlin Eu#t /rior to 5 /.m. 2here the *+, had clo#ed early: Coughlin
filed such by fa' prior to < 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 < p)m) as well:
*ent0 (ri 11109112 4045 P!
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:!<:0% 69 on 2012=11=10)
1ent: 9on 111212 !:<, (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:<,:1. 69 on 2012=11=1&)
1ent: 9on 111212 10:&0 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 0.:&0:0! (9 on 2012=11=12)
1ent: 1un 111112 10:!& 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 0.:!&:&2 (9 on 2012=11=11)
1ent: 1un 111112 %:&0 69
!!%/%&
Kour "a' was delivered N 0!:&0:<! (9 on 2012=11=11)
1ent: 1un 111112 /:&& 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 0&:&&:1% (9 on 2012=11=11)
1ent: 5hu 110%12 !:!/ (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:!/:10 69 on 2012=11=0,
2,%=&<0 Emerg) E' (arte 9tn to Dismiss, "or 9ore Definite 1tmt, 7ood Cause 111&12
1ent: 5ue 111&12 2:<1 (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 10:<1:0! (9 on 2012=11=1&)
1ent: 5ue 111&12 2:2% (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 10:2%:<! (9 on 2012=11=1&)
&<1=&<2 #rder 111.12
1ent: 9on 111,12 %:1. 69 (CoughlinBs $+5+765+#3 ;#$D 3#5+CE 5# 123,
1831;+3E $+5+765+#3 1E:@+CE1 63D 33D2 2#6:D 63D 33D2 (63E$ 63D
123 (:E1+DE35 "$6;E:5K*
Kour "a' was delivered N 0!:1.:!! (9 on 2012=11=1,)
1ent: 9on 111,12 %:10 69
!!,/%&
Kour "a' was delivered N 0!:10:2. (9 on 2012=11=1,)
1ent: 1un 111%12 /:1& (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 0&:1&:!% 69 on 2012=11=1,)
1ent: 1un 111%12 %:!& 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 0!:!&:<2 (9 on 2012=11=1%)
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:!< (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 0!:!<:<% 69 on 2012=11=2!)
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:&/ (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 0!:&/:20 69 on 2012=11=2!)
1ent: "ri 112&12 !:<% (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:<%:&0 69 on 2012=11=2!)
1ent: 9on 112.12 1:11 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 0,:11:20 69 on 2012=11=2.)
!<0/%&
/1<=/1%6mended 1upple) to :espondentBs Emergency 9otion to 1et 6side 11&012
1ent: >ed 112%12 .:02 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 02:02:10 (9 on 2012=11=2%)
1ent: >ed 112%12 &:2. 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 11:2.:!% 69 on 2012=11=2%)
/1,=/&. 3otice of :9CBs "ailure "ile CoughlinBs 5imely 3otice of 6ppeal (3", 111.12*
/&/=/,0 (ost=;earing 2rief, 9tn DisHualify9istrial, 5ranscript :eH, :econs #rder
Uuashing, 2ifurc, , :ule 10&(/* Challenge for Cause (3", submitted 111.12*
1ent: "ri 111.12 !:!/ (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:!/:<! 69 on 2012=11=1/)
1ent: >ed 120<12 !:1& (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:1&:2! 69 on 2012=12=0.)
1ent: 9on 120&12 10:&/ 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 0.:&/:2% (9 on 2012=12=0&)
!<1/%&
1ent: 9on 120&12 10:&2 69
Kour "a' was delivered N 0.:&2:0! (9 on 2012=12=0&)
1ent: "ri 11&012 !:&% (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:&%:&. 69 on 2012=12=01)
1&!%=1&/1 "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw 121!12
1ent: 9on 122!12 %:01 (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 0!:01:1% 69 on 2012=12=2<)
1&/2 Certificate of 1ervice by 9ail of :ecord #n 6ppeal 21&1&
1&/&=1.,% 5ranscript of ;earing held 111!12, 3o :esponse on 1C: 11, until 121%12
1.,,=1,22 "ormal ;earing E'hibits 1=1. 111!12, 3o :esponse 1C: 11, until 121%12
9utbound %a8 re/ort o% Coughlin<# %a8 %iling# to *+, bet2een 9118112 and 12124112
B2here *+, allege# Coughlin al#o #ubmitt a %a8ed %iling on 111711&C:
Kour "a' was delivered N 0/:&%:!% 69 on 2012=0,=1%)
!<2/%&
Emotion to dismiss attached
1ent: 9on ,1/12 11:<, (9
5o: patric??Nnvbar)orgC tsusichNnvdetr)org
1 attachment
-ach CoughlinF
;(30 motion to di#mi## attached
1ent: 5ue ,1%12 12:00 69
5o: davidcNnvbar)org
1 attachment
-ach CoughlinF
Aolt
;!otion to $i#mi## *+, -. Coughlin
1ent: 5ue ,1%12 12:02 69
5o: tsusichNnvdetr)orgC patric??Nnvbar)orgC davidcNnvbar)org
1 attachment
sbn v coughlin motion to dismiss)pdf (/%)1 G2*
-ach CoughlinF
"rom: @o'o' (noreplyNvo'o')Com* (,96@0 thi# %a8 contained both Coughlin<# 10115112
!<&/%&
%ile #tam/ed !otion to $i#mi## and the !otion %or 9rder to *ho2 Cau#e that the *+,
%ailed to %ile #tam/ but that Panel Chair @che-erria<# 101&1112 9rder indicate# 2a# %iled
on 10116112*
1ent: 9on 101<12 !:!, (9
;4767=?679, )94$ ,967C@ re-2011-001708 c-11-0&628' 60&&1 61&8&
1ent: 9on 101<12 <:0& (9
5o: patric??Nnvbar)orgC davidcNnvbar)orgC nvsccler?Nnvcourts)nv)gov
! attachments
sbn v coughlin C61E 3892E: 3712=020!, 37=0!&<, 37 0!&! combined %iling 10 1<
12)pdf (&/%)< G2* , DistCt#rder_:ED6C5ED cr12=101% longoni transcript defective)pdf
(1!1)! G2* , rev2011=001/0% opposition to coughlinBs second motion to contest personal
property lien merliss hill sbn)pdf (&)2 92* , C:12=12.2=&0<,2., transcript from criminal
trespass trial testimony of richard hill and his associate before :9C Dudge >illiam
7ardner)pdf (&)< 92*
Auln
;u/date /roo% o% #er-ice
1ent: >ed 101/12 11:&, 69
5he 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)
5han?s, -ach CoughlinF
(3#5E: Coughlin, having not received the 10,12 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default due to it
only being sent by one method, Certified 9ailing (ie, no" !opied ia firs" !lass mail li'e eery
o"$er mailing,,, #$i!$ is so mu!$ more suspi!ious #$en !onsidering i" seems "o $ae 6een
purposefully affi?ed #i"$ insuffi!ien" pos"age suffi!ien" "o preen" Coug$lin from 6eing
proided su!$ 6y "$e .*D**, 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 6ffidavit
of $aura (eters on Coughlin until providing it on 11/12 amongst &,0,! pages of documents*
that the purported Ppersonal serviceP by Pnon=partyP 123 Cler? of Court $aura (eters on
Coughlin on ,2<12 at the 123Bs #fficer where Coughlin was told to appear for the hearing
called for in the 31C5Bs ./12 #rder in .0%&% on such date, would be viewed as effective)
1hould the (anel view the attempted service of ,2<12 as effective, that would mean P20 days
to file a verified answer or responsive pleadingP would run on ,1.12*) Coughlin evinced a
!<!/%&
high level of honesty in his 101/12 email to Cler? of Court (eters indicating that the (roof of
1ervice of his personally delivered 9otion to Dismiss, file stamped 101.12, ought be
corrected to indicate such was only Ppersonally deliveredP on 101/12, though the 101<12
fa' by Coughlin for filing to the 123 did contain such 9otion to Dismiss (at this point,
Couglin realiAed 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 :9C "iling #fficer 1upervisor Donna
2allard written approval to do so* of a 3otice of 6ppeal9otion to @acate Dudgement of
Conviction where Coughlin, sensing the dishonesty of 2allard and the :9C, 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 utiliAed in the record on appeal sent to the 2DDC, which, of
course, it was not, and anyone who ?nows the :9CBs Donna 2allard would have no problem
believing that*)
1ent: >ed 10&112 !:10 (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 11:10:&! (9 on 2012=10=&1)
1ent: 9on 110<12 12:22 (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 0%:22:!! (9 on 2012=11=0<)
1ent: 9on 110<12 &:20 (9
1ent: 9on 110<12 !:<% (9
!<</%&
1ent: 9on 110<12 &:20 (9
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:&/ (9
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:&% (9
1ent: 5hu 110%12 !:!/ (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:!/:10 69 on 2012=11=0,)
1ent: "ri 110,12 !:!< (9
1ent: 1un 111112 /:&& 69
1ent: 1un 111112 %:&0 69
!<./%&
1ent: 1un 111112 10:!& 69
1ent: 9on 111212 10:&0 69
1ent: 9on 111212 !:<, (9
1ent: 5ue 111&12 2:2% (9
1ent: 5ue 111&12 2:<1 (9
1ent: "ri 111.12 !:!/ (9
!<//%&
1ent: 1un 111%12 %:!& 69
1ent: 1un 111%12 /:1& (9
1ent: 9on 111,12 %:10 69
1ent: 9on 111,12 %:1. 69
1ent: "ri 112&12 !:<% (9
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:&/ (9
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:!< (9
!<%/%&
1ent: 9on 112.12 1:11 69
1ent: >ed 112%12 &:2. 69
1ent: >ed 112%12 .:02 69
1ent: "ri 11&012 !:&% (9
1ent: 9on 120&12 10:&2 69
1ent: 9on 120&12 10:&/ 69
!<,/%&
1ent: >ed 120<12 !:1& (9
1ent: 9on 122!12 %:01 (9
123 GingBs 102!12 (well, it was file s"amped that day, apparently, at
least* 9//o#ition to e#/ondent<# !otion to +i%urcate )earing' !otion to
$i#mi## reads: P:espondent, -achary Coughlin (PCoughlinP* filed a mo"ion
as'ing "o reie# and inspe!" 6ar re!ordsC !otion to +i%urcate )earing and
!otion to $i#mi##) (3#5E: here, Ging reveals the e'tent to which he later forces
123 Cler? of Court (eters to remove from the record the file stamped copy of the
!otion %or 9rder to *ho2 Cau#e 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 stric?en (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 Cler? of Court+nvestigator(aralegal123
Custodian of :ecords $aura (eters wearing so very many different hats in this
formal disciplinary hearing setting* (atric? Ging, 6ssistant 2ar Counsel, on
behalf of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada responds as follows:
-achary Coughlin may inspe!" "$e eiden!e "$a" "$e *"a"e &ar $as
per"aining "o $is dis!ipline ma""ers up "o "$ree A3B days prior "o "$e $earing7
pursuan" "o *C3 10CA2BA!B) Coughlin has been sent, via both certified and first
class mail, a 3otice of ;earing which was accompanied by a Designation of
>itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence prepared by bar counsel pursuant to
1upreme Court :ule) 2o "$e e?"en" "$a" Coug$lin #an"s "o reie# "$e
dis!iplinary files per"aining "o $is !ase7 &ar Counsel $as no o6;e!"ion)
CoughlinBs !otion# to and to $i#mi## must be denied as totally
lac?ing in merit) Consistent with other pleading filed by Coughlin, the instant
motion is twenty=seven (2/* pages long including over one hundred (100* pages
of attached documents) 5ogether the motions lac?s merit and must be denied) 5he
Complaint in this matter is suffi!ien"ly !lear and spe!ifi! a# to inform Coughlin
!.0/%&
of "$e !$arges agains" $im and "$e underlying !ondu!" suppor"ing "$e !$arges)
5he Complaint in!ludes "#o !riminal !oni!"ions (3#5E: #uch #ort
o% undermine# the ,,$+ Panel<# %inding# and conclu#ion /remi#ed u/on the
-ie2 that Coughlin #u#tained t2o ;criminal contem/tN con-iction#' noJ* and a
Court #rder finding "$a" 6y !lear and !onin!ing eiden!e Coughlin iola"ed
numerous rules of professional !ondu!") 1ee 1C: 10<(2*) (3#5E: funny, no
mention of ";E2, Dudge "lanaganBs attorneyBs fee EsanctionF (well,
@presuma!ly4 rightJ 3o mention of 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardnerBs stale, laches
ridden #rder being asserted as a basis for charging Coughlin with violations of
Enumerous rules of professional conductF*
Coughlin had twenty (20* days to file a erified ans#er to the
Complaint) +nstead, Coughlin attempted to avoid service and now argues that the
Complaint be bifurcated and or dismissed) Coughlin has been temporarily
suspended by the 3evada 1upreme Court as a result of a 1C: 111 petition filed
after appeal of a misdemeanor conviction) 5he Court referred "$e ma""er to a
disciplinary panel of the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard) 5he pending
formal Complaint filed by the 1tate 2ar of 3evada #as no" 6ased e?!lusiely on
"$e *C3 111 pe"i"ion, but primarily from grievances filed #i"$ the #ffice of 2ar
Counsel)
Coughlin is misapplying "$e Cour" Order resul"ing from a
*C3 111 pe"i"ion) 5he 1upreme Court said, regarding the criminal conviction,
that the only thing to be decided is the discipline or penalty that should be
imposed) 5he CourtBs position on this is consistent with the fact that Coughlin was
found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the 1tate 2ar need not prove
that Coughlin committed the crimes) Coughlin would li?e that interpretation to
mean that that 1tate 2ar may no" 6ring mul"iple dis!iplinary !$arges agains"
Coug$lin in "$e Complain") Clearly, CoughlinBs interpretation is wrong) 5he
1upreme Court in the same #rder found that Coughlin is suspended pending a
dis!iplinary $earing) (3#5E: the phrase Eformal disciplinary hearingF as found
in 1C: 10<, is absent GingBs restatement of the .%12 #rder in .0%&%*)
CoughlinBs 9otion to Dismiss, #$ile largely unin"elligi6le, is based on CoughlinBs
assertions that 2ar Counsel failed to conduct an adeHuate investigation) 1ee
9otion page 1. ll 10= 12 where Coughlin argues as follows:
E1o Coughlin has been and continued to tell Ging about the
ridi!ulousness of "$e !oni!"ion and dismissal of "$e appeal in "$e !riminal
"respass ma""er, and Ging gets all spoo?ed about his u""er failure "o ines"iga"e,
and tries to jam through an 1C: 111 filing while on the phone with Coughlin)F
9otion page 1. ll 10=12)
2$is ma""er ha# been in-e#tigated) 5he 1upreme Court in response to
the first 1C: 111 (etition suspended Coughlin pending disciplinary hearing)
Coug$lin $as no" filed an 0ns#er "o "$e Complain") CoughlinBs 9otion to
Dismiss and 9otion to 2ifurcate should be denied) :espectfully submitted this
2<th day of #ctober, 2012) 1565E 26: #" 3E@6D6 D6@+D 6) C$6:G,
!.1/%&
26: C#831E$ 2y: s (atric? #) Ging 6ssistant 2ar Counsel 3evada 2ar 3o)
<0&< ,!<. Double :) 2lvd) , 1te) 2 :eno, 3@ %,<21
C@67(7C?6@ 9( *@V7C@ 5he undersigned hereby
certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing #pposition to :espondentBs
9otion to 2ifurcate ;earing, 9otion to Dismiss was deposited in the 8nited
1tates 9ail at :eno, 3evada, postage fully pre=paid thereon for certified and first
class mail addressed to the following: -achary 2) Coughlin 1!/1 E) ,th 1t) :eno
3@ %,<0< D65ED "$is 2F"$ day of #ctober, 2012) $aura (eters, an employee of
the, 1tate 2ar of 3evadaP
(3#5E: Dust what does Ging mean by E"$is ma""erFJ 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 9arshal Dustin :oper admitted
to Coughlin during a conversation with Coughlin that neither 9arshal ;arley, nor any other
:9C 9arshal, entered the restroom during the one restroom brea? in such 22/12 trial while
Coughlin was using such restroom (bringing to mind the Huestion of just how Dudge 3ash
;olmes could possibly testify as she did, truthfully (;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1!1:2 to 1!1:1&*
5;E >+53E11: >hen the marshals came bac? from the restroom, they told me that 9r)
Coughlin had, in fact, been recording the proceedings because he had disassembled a device
and left parts of it in the bathroom) #r left == disassembled parts of it, and then they discovered
parts of it) +n any case, when he was ta?en into custody and held in contempt of court at the jail,
he had physically two recording devices on him, a cell phone == 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#5E: >here Ging writes E grievances filed #i"$F is sort of stretching it, Ging, no,
where 3712=0!&< (the 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner EgrievanceF that Ging was forced to admit,
ultimately was filed by the 123, (ie, defensive collateral estoppel bar to GingBs attempts to
character such as conclusive evidence, or even clear and convincing evidence of any violations
of the rules of professional conduct, particularly where GingBs Complaint limited the use of
such order to only that which is Huoted therein, where the (anelBs "#"C#$ cited to protions
thereof not so Huoted in GingBs Complaint, where Ging failed to even do the whole 9irch=style
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 laAyJ $i?e, such #rder fails
to find Coughlin in contempt, and is premised upon the view that CoughlinBs EallegationsF
(3:C( 11 by way of 3:1 /)0%< involves EallegationsF, right, >illiam $) 5erry, EsH), not the
EargumentsF addressed in :(C &)&Bs (then 1C: 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 $) 7ardner (only after her #rder gave >$1Bs Elcano a prete't to fire Coughlin*
had to admit that some alimony, in fact, was appropriate (ie, hard to argue Coughlin
Eve'atiously e'tended a proceedingF by failing to buy 1pringgate and Dudge $) 7ardnerBs hard
sell of 1rpinggateBs Esettlement proposalF wherein CoughlinBs client was to waive any claim for
!.2/%&
alimony in e'change for some illusory agreement that 1pringgateBs client would be responsible
for the inflated medical debt, and third party unsecured credit card debt for which 1pringgateBs
client was the sole signatory (Coughlin provided the 123 all his filings in <&%&& and <!%!!,
which well detail the whole Edomestic duty has priority over third party debtF basis in Efact and
lawF that should have prevented the ridiculous EsanctionF by 2DDC Dudge 7ardner (especially
where Coughlin referenced his 6$: article research findings on point, where such is the
majority viewpoint in 6merican jurisprudence*) "urther, the problem with the since vacated
";E& is that 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner failed to find Coughlin in contempt and failed to refer the
matter to the 1tate 2ar or ta?e any Eappropriate actionF whilst, for about nine wee?s allowing
the ";E& !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial to stand wherein she wal?s the delicate line of attempting
to sanction Coughlin under 3:1 /)0%< (which e'pressly incorporates 3:C( 11* whilst
gingerly tip=toeing around just what e'actly were the EargumentsF Coughlin made that were not
Egrounded in law or factF (unless Dudge $) 7ardner wished to base such award of attorneyBs
fees on 3:1 /)0%<(1*(b*, which is not a basis for her (per the Eintent of the $egislatureF
e'pressly referenced in 3:1 /)0%<(2* to Eimposed sanctions pursuant to :ule 11 of theF 3:C(
as 3:1 /)0%<(b* specifically limits the imposing of such sanctions (which, again, must be done
Epursuant toF 3:C( 11 (ie, with all the attendant due process trimmings provided therein (li?e
the reHuirement 1pringgate failed to adhere to (and somehow CoughlinBs objecting to
1pringgate violating Dudge 7ardnerBs own 22<12 (re=5rial #rder, and 1pringgate failing to
file his 5rial 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 3:C( 11
prior to ma?ing such a motion for EsanctionsF resulted only in Dudge $) 7ardner e'pounding
upon her view that Coughlin (and 1pringgate (who, li?e ;ill, gets all crabby when he is
tuc?ered out and needs a juicebo', some orange wedges, and a Blil nice :M: playing paddy
ca?e in a sandbo' somewhere every now and then to recharge his batteries (ironically) the ;ill=
1pringgate beef of B,% rivaled ;agler ;earns for sheer ferocity and bloodsport*, chec? the
transcript, did not move for EsanctionsF (nor does the word EsanctionF or EsanctionsF appear
anywhere in ";E&, and, in fact, ";E& at page .:21=2& merely indicates E)))!r. "o#hi reAue#t#
rea#onable attorney<# %ee# be /aid to hi# attorney' !r. */ringgate)F, though page /:1/=22
does mention: E9r) Doshi reHuested that 9r) Coughlin personally pay his attorneyBs fees %or
4.15 )our# o% trial at the rate of O22< per hour pursuant to 3:1 /)0%<) 9r) 1pringgate
"es"ified 9r) Coughlin had not conducted any discovery, had produced no evidence regarding
9s) DoshiBs community debts (3#5E: how does that matter at all for these purposesJ* other
than her "inancial Declaration on file, had presented no evidence regarding alimony, and had
a!"ed in a -e8atiou# and unrea#onable manner in represen"ing (3#5E: it does not say Ein
e'tendingF* 9s) Doshi in this divorce proceeding)F*, he moved for an award of EattorneyBs
feesF,)))
6nd, "$ere is a differen!e 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 $egislature that the court award costs, e'penses and attorneyBs fees pursuant to this
section and impose sanctions pursuant to :ule 11 of the 3evada :ules of Civil (rocedure in all
appropriate situations to punish for and deter frivolous or ve'atious claims and defenses
!.&/%&
3:1 /)0%<(2* provides: E5he court shall liberally construe the provisions of "$is
se!"ion (3#5E: where Ethi# #ectionF is 3:1 /)0%<A2B, which, unli?e 3:1 /)0%<A1B does not
apply to that which is referenced in 3:1 /)0%<A1BA6B, (from which Dudge $) 7ardnerBs short=
lived ";E& copied and pasted the language therefrom (well, sort of, considering she, at page
1&:11=1& wrote: ;(or all the#e rea#on#' the Court %ind# that !r. Coughlin<# presen"a"ion o%
the ca#e and argumen"s in #u//ort thereo% to be un%ounded in %act' un2arranted by
e8i#ting la2 B,96@0 at thi# /oint "udge 4. =ardner con-eniently omit# the ;or 6y an
argumen" for !$anging "$e e?is"ing la# "$a" is made in good fai"$9 language contained in
3:1 /)0%<(1*(a*, from which she nearly parrots the Ewell=grounded in fact or is not warranted
by e'isting lawF phraseology*' unrea#onable' and -e8atiou# throughout thi# entire
/roceeding.NC where Dudge $) 7ardnerBs ";E& contains only some of the words and language
3:1 /)0%<(1*(a*=(b* includes Band the words she omitted therefrom or remi'ed are especially
curious where such statute reads: E1) +f a court finds that an attorney has: (a* Filed7 main"ained
or defended (becomes ECoughlinBs presentation of the caseF* a civil action or proceeding in any
court in this 1tate and such action or defense is not well=grounded in fact or is not warranted by
e'isting law or 6y an argumen" for !$anging "$e e?is"ing la# "$a" is made in good fai"$C or
(b* 8nreasonably 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, :ule 1)1 where
(much li?e Dudge 1ferraAAa ta?ing far too many liberties in remi'ing the ;Dis"ri!" courtsF in
3@ Const) 6rt) . 1ec . to ;/eada courtsF in his 122012 6dministrative #rder 2012=01F*
2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner includes a not Huite verbatim reproduction of 3:1 /)0%<(a*=(b*Bs
language E(2* 8nreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended a civil action or proceeding before any
court in this 1tate,F language therein*
";E&, at page 1&:11=1& reads: ;(or all the#e rea#on#' the Court %ind# that !r.
Coughlin<# presen"a"ion o% the ca#e and argumen"s in #u//ort thereo% to be un%ounded in
%act' un2arranted by e8i#ting la2' unrea#onable' and -e8atiou# throughout thi# entire
/roceeding.NC
3:1 /)0%<(1*(a*=(b*, however, merely /ro-ide# %or an a2ard o% attorney<# %ee#
(which is not a Esan!"ionF, especially in the 3:C( 11 conte't in which the only appearance of
the word EsanctionF appears in 3:1 /)0%<, ie, in 3:1 /)0%<(2** in favor of awarding costs,
e'penses and attorneyBs fees in all appropriate situations) 7t i# the intent o% the 4egi#lature
that the court a2ard co#t#' e8/en#e# and attorney<# %ee# /ur#uant to thi# #ection and
im/o#e san!"ions /ur#uant to ule 11 o% the ,e-ada ule# o% Ci-il Procedure in all
appropria"e si"ua"ions to punish for and deter frivolous or ve'atious claims and defenses
because such claims and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the timely
resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging in business and providing
professional services to the public)F
5hat whole bit about Ein all appropriate situationsF in 3:1 /)0%<(2* and the e'press
provision that it Ei# the intent o% the 4egi#lature that the court a2ard co#t#' e8/en#e# and
!.!/%&
attorney<# %ee# /ur#uant to thi# #ection and im/o#e san!"ions /ur#uant to ule 11 o% the
,e-ada ule# o% Ci-il Procedure in all appropria"e si"ua"ions to punish for and deter
frivolous or ve'atious !laims and defensesF (note: Eto punish for and deter frivolous or
ve'atious !laims and defensesF fails to include therein situations where an attorney Ee?"ended
a !iil a!"ion or pro!eedingFas Eclaims and defenseF do not encompass the Epresen"a"ion of
"$e !aseF Dudge 7ardner characteriAed the Emost troubling aspect of this caseF, that being E9r)
CoughlinBs rude' #arca#tic and di#re#/ect%ul presen"a"ion at trial (3#5E: Eat trialF
necessarily is narrower than Ee'tended a civil action or proceedingF*C 9r) CoughlinBs inability
to understand a balance sheetC his failure to conduct discoveryC and his lac? of ?nowledge with
regard to the rules of evidence and trial procedure) 6ll 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#5E: none
of that specified at p1&:<=10 in any way spea?s to the Eclaims and defenseF for which the only
E#anction#F Dudge 7ardner had any jurisdiction to enter pursuant to 3:1 /)0%<, especially
considering the mar?ed emphasis in 3:1 /)0%<(2* on Eclaims and defensesF and the absence of
any reference to oneBs having Ee'tended a civil action or proceedingF putting into star? 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 Elac? of ?nowledge 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, :ule
2)1< are far more appropriate and safer (read: less li?ely 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 $) 7ardnerBs campaign in 200% and
>$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 C66>Bs Doni Gaiser in
connection with CoughlinBs representation of 9ichelle Carnine in a 5(# and divorce matter
that Elcano had as?ed both 9aster Edmondson and Dudge $inda 7ardner as to whether
Coughlin was performing satisfactorily in his role as a domestic violence attorney for >$1,
and that both had given CoughlinBs wor? a EthumbBs upF (though, it seems, CoughlinBs objecting
to then 9aster 7ardnerBs entering a EConsent #rderF where no consent had been given by
CoughlinBs client in the @a'evanis 5(# e'tension hearing sufficient to transfer title to a vehicle
where there e'ists no jurisdiction for a domestic master to ma?e any such adjudication did not
go over all that well)))but, Elcano had received a EthumbBs upF review from 2DDC Dudge $)
7ardner as to CoughlinBs wor? before here just after the Carnine 5(# hearing (whereupon
C66>Bs (which runs the 2DDCBs 5(# #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 as?ed then 9asters Edmondson and $) 7ardner what they thought of CoughlinBs wor?
before them* and just before CoughlinBs filings following the @a'evanis v) 1antiago 5(#
e'tension hearing:
1ee Caryn 1ternlichtBs approachat the hearing on the #bjection to 9aster $inda
7ardnerBs :ecommendations in the the 1antiago v)@a'evanis 5(# deal "@0%=0&&%0, where
!.</%&
she filled in for Coughlin, whom too? issue with then 9aster$inda 7ardner ma?ing #rders in
5(#Bs where opposing counsel was :ichard 9oleAAo, EsH), 5hat purportedto rule on the title to
vehicles)))Despite 3:1 &&)01% 1eeming to clearly lac? 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 recharacteriAed as an PagreementP))))8h, no) "urther, then 9aster
$inda 7ardner was apparently rather upset that Coughlin pointed out that she seemed to be
overstepping her jurisdiction a bit, outside of that accorded her in 3:1 &&)01% +n a 5(#
wherein another local attorney, :ichard 9oleAAo, EsH) lined up opposite Coughlin, in "@0%=
0&&%0 = 2:E3D6 1635+67# @1 4:;15#1 @64E@63+1:
http:www)ccwashoe)compublicc?_public_Hry_doct)cp_d?trpt_framesJ
bac?toVDMcase_idV"@0%=0&&%0Mbegin_dateVMend_dateV )
;owever, C66>Bs Doni Gaiser complained about Coughlin to >$1Bs Elcano
following the
,&0, 5(# ;earing in "@0%=02021 = 9+C;E$$E C6:3+3E #2# 15#:9K @1
2:6D$EK C6:3+3E(D9*:
http:www)ccwashoe)compublicc?_public_Hry_doct)cp_d?trpt_doc?et_reportJ
case_idV"@0%=02021Mbegin_dateVMend_dateV
6t which point Elcano as?ed then 2DDC 9asters Edmondson and $) 7ardner
whether they approved of CoughlinBs wor? before them, which Elcano indicated they did
(Ethumbs upF Elcano said, from both*) 1o, between that ,&0, 5(# hearing C66>
complained to Elcano about with respect to CoughlinBs representation of 9ichelle Carnine, and
the 10&00% #bjection to then 9aster $) 7ardnerBs :ecommendation in the 2renda 1antiago
5(# matter, Elcano as?ed for a review of Coughlin wor? before her from then 9aster 7ardner,
whom Elcano claims gave CoughlinBs performance a Ethumbs upF)
6nd, it was during CoughlinBs "ebruary 200, sit down with Coughlin (in response to
>$1Bs :honda ;arrison telling Coughlin Ebite meF upon Coughlin as?ing her if she was the
Ehall monitorF upon ;arrison as?ing Coughlin why he was using the upstairs restroom at
>$1*) ;owever, it seems perhaps that CoughlinBs filing in "@0%=0&&%0 = 2:E3D6
1635+67# @1 4:;15#1 @64E@63+1, a 5(# matter then 9aster $) 7ardner presided
over, a 10&00% #bjection to then 9aster $) 7ardnerBs 101/0% 9asterBs :ecommendation
that, perhaps, some of the atmosphere surrounding the Doshi divorce trial from which ";E&
sprung (D@0%=011.%, trial held &120, and &1/0,, ";E& entered !1&0,, Coughlin
submitting written employment law based Complaint to Elcano on !1,0,, >$1Bs Elcano
suspending Coughlin on !200,, Elcano firing Coughlin on </0,, 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner
amending her !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial (";E&* in her .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce therein
"o a#ard "$e ery alimony she characteriAed as a Epresen"a"ion of the case and arguments in
support thereofF sufficient to grant E9r) 1pringgateBs reHuest that 9r) Couglin personally pay
9r) Doshi !)1< hours at the rate of O22< per hour for "$e !os" of "$e "rialF (p1&:11=1&C rather
than a Eclaim or defenseF as provided by 3:1 /)0%<(1*(a* and 3:1 /)0%<(2* as the use of the
term EpresentationF decidedly references 3:1 /)0%<(1*(b*Bs Ee'tendedF much more than it
could be said to refer to the Eclaims or defenseF referenced in 3:1 /)0%<(1*(a* and 3:1
/)0%<(2*, especially where the only jurisdiction to Eissue sanctionsF found anywhere in 3:1
/)0%< is in 3:1 /)0%<(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)
5he EConclu#ion# o% 4a2F section of Dudge $) 7ardnerBs (which was soon
superseded by the .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce, which altered and amended ";E& in
vacating the attorneyBs fee award (which was not a sanction to begin with* and removing all the
language cited to by the (anel from ";E& as supporting its ErecommendationF* ";E&Bs #rder
6fter 5rial of !1&0, begins at p/:2&) +n :e 1antosuosso ma?es clear that the E"indings of
"actF section is not EevidenceF and therefore not admissible)
P9r) Coughlin filed an 6nswer and Counterclaim on 9s) DoshiBs behalf that included
allegations unsupported by lawC and filed an #pposition to the reHuest for return of 9r) DoshiBs
passport without any factual or legal basis) "urther, at trial, 9r) Coughlin presented almost no
evidence to support 9s) DoshiBs reHuests and claims)P ((1&:1=!*
PFor all "$ese reasons, the Court finds that 9r) 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, 9r)
1pringgateBs reHuest that 9r) Coughlin personally pay 9r) Doshi !)1< ;ours at the rate of O22<
per hour for the cost of the trial is 7:635ED) 9r) Coughlin shall submit a chec? to 9r) Doshi
in the amount of O,&! within &0 days of this #rder)P ((1&:11=1/*)
5he thing about the above portion of ";E& is that it is rather odd considering the
language of 3:1 /)0%<(1*(a*=(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 well=grounded 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* 8nreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended a
civil action or proceeding before any court in this 1tate,
the court #hall reAuire the attorney /er#onally to /ay the additional co#t#'
e8/en#e# and attorney<# %ee# reasona6ly in!urred 6e!ause of su!$ !ondu!")F
";E& fails to comply with 3:1 /)0%<(1*Bs dictate that
PFor all "$ese reasons, the Court finds that 9r) CoughlinBs presen"a"ion of "$e !ase
and argumen"s in suppor" "$ereof to be unfounded in fact, unwarranted by e'isting law,
unreasonable, and ve'atious throughout this entire proceeding)
2ased upon the foregoing, 9r) 1pringgateBs reHuest that 9r) Coughlin personally
pay 9r) Doshi !)1< ;ours at the rate of O22< per hour for "$e !os" of "$e "rial is 7:635ED)
9r) Coughlin shall submit a chec? to 9r) Doshi in the amount of O,&! within &0 days of this
#rder)P ((1&:11=1/*)
1imply put, ";E& purports to base such attorney fee award (which is not, to be
clear, a EsanctionF particularly where such specifically references 3:1 /)0%<(1*(b* as the basis,
at least in part, for such attorneyBs fee award on both that which is covered by 3:1 /)0%<(1*(a*
and (1*(b*, however, the reHuirement that such attorneyBs fee award be limited to ordering Ethe
attorney presonally to pay)))attorneyBs fees reasona6ly in!urred 6e!ause of su!$ !ondu!"F)
!.//%&
5he fact that Dudge 7ardner 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 7ardner too? issue with did not start at minute one of the !)1< 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 3:1 /)0%<)
>here in 9irch the 123 attempt to characteriAe 3:C( 11 and 1C: 1/0 (what is
presently :(C &)1 E9eritorious Claims and ContentionsF:
:(C :ulee&)1)e!eritoriou# Claim# and Contention#)ee6 lawyer shall not bring
or de%end a /roceeding' or a##ert or contro-ert an i##ue therein' unle## there i# a ba#i# in
la2 and %act %or doing #o that i# not %ri-olou#' #$i!$ in!ludes a good fai"$ argumen" for an
e?"ension7 modifi!a"ion or reersal of e?is"ing la#) 6 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

7roundless 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):)1) 1%)010, 1ubd) 2(2*)
2obby 2erosini, $td) @) (eople for the Ethical 5reatment of 6nimals, 1,,%, ,/1 ()2D &%&, 11!
3ev) 1&!%, :ehearing denied) "rivolousness of claim is determined as of time claim is
initiated, rather than time of trial, for purposes of award of attorney fees to prevailing party
when opposing party brings suit without reasonable grounds or to harass prevailing party)
3):)1) 1%)010, 1ubd) 2(2*) 2aroAAi v) 2enna, 1,,., ,1% ()2D &01, 112 3ev) .&<)
Claim is groundless and will justify award of attorney fees if complaint contains
allegations which are not supported by any credible evidence at trial) 1emenAa v) Caughlin
Crafted ;omes, 1,,<, ,01 ()2D .%!, 111 3ev) 10%,) +f action is not frivolous when initiated,
fact that it later becomes frivolous will not support award of fees)
1emenAa v) Caughlin Crafted ;omes, 1,,<, ,01 ()2D .%!, 111 3ev) 10%,)
Evidence 5o support award of attorney fees without regard to recovery sought, there must be
evidence in record supporting proposition that complaint was brought without reasonable
grounds or to harass other party) 3):)1) 1%)010, 1ubd) 2(2*) 1emenAa v) Caughlin Crafted
;omes, 1,,<, ,01 ()2D .%!, 111 3ev) 10%,)
3:1 /)0%<(2* does not allow for a EsanctionF to be EissuedF for oneBs EpresentationF
during a trialF, but, rather, only for that which is set out in 3:C( 11(b*, which relates solely to
where an attorney Eby presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later
advocating* a pleading, written motion, or other paper,F somehow violates 3:C( 11(b*(1*=(!*)
6s such, there may be no EsanctionF pursuant to 3:1 /)0%< by way of 3:C( 11 unless
Coughlin is found to have Eby presenting to the court Ea pleading, written motion, or other
paperF, ie, there must be something on paper in the first place prior to any further analysis
proceeding in a :ule 11 conte't)
!.%/%&
6s such, ";E& is limited)
3:C( :8$Ee11)ee*5-/5/- #" D+10D5/-*y)
(b*e3epresen"a"ions "o Cour")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 personLs ?nowledge, information, and
belief, formed af"er an in8uiry reasona6le under "$e !ir!ums"an!es,]
(1*eit is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigationC
(2*ethe claim#' de%en#e#' and other legal contention# therein are 2arranted by
e8i#ting la2 or 6y a nonfriolous argumen" for "$e e?"ension7 modifi!a"ion7 or reersal of
e?is"ing la# or "$e es"a6lis$men" of ne# la#C
(&*ethe allega"ions and o"$er fa!"ual !on"en"ions $ae eiden"iary suppor" or, if
specifically so identified, are li?ely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity
for further investigation or discoveryC and
(!*ethe denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically
so identified, are reasonably based on a lac? of information or belief)
(c*e*an!"ions)ee+f, af"er no"i!e and a reasona6le oppor"uni"y "o respond, the court
determines that subdivision (b* has been violated, the court may, su!$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*e;ow ini"ia"ed)
(6*e2y 9otion)ee6 motion for sanctions under this rule s$all be made separately
from other motions or reHuests and shall describe the spe!ifi! !ondu!" alleged to violate
subdivision (b*) +t shall !e served as provided in Rule 1, but s$all no" 6e filed #i"$ or
presen"ed "o "$e !our" unless7 #i"$in 21 days af"er seri!e of "$e mo"ion (or such other period
as the court may prescribe*, the challenged paper7 !laim7 defense7 !on"en"ion7 allega"ion7 or
denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected) +f warranted, the court may award to the
party prevailing on the motion the reasonable e'penses and attorneyLs fees incurred in
presenting or opposing the motion) 6bsent e'ceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held
jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees)
(2*e#n CourtLs +nitiative)ee#n its own initiative, the court may enter an order
describing the spe!ifi! !ondu!" "$a" appears "o iola"e su6diision A6B 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 $imitations)ee6 sanction imposed for violation of this rule
shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct
by others similarly situated) 1ubject to the limitations in subparagraphs (6* and (2*, the
#anction may con#i#t o%' or include' directi-e# o% a nonmonetary nature' an order to /ay a
!.,/%&
/enalty into court' or' i% im/o#ed on motion and 2arranted %or effe!"ie de"erren!e, an
order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneyLs fees and other
e'penses in!urred as a dire!" resul" of "$e iola"ion)
(6*e9onetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a
violation of subdivision (b*(2*)
(2*e9onetary sanctions may not be awarded on the courtLs 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)ee>hen imposing san!"ions7 "$e !our" s$all des!ri6e "$e !ondu!"
de"ermined "o !ons"i"u"e a iola"ion of "$is rule and e?plain "$e 6asis for "$e san!"ion
imposed)
(d*e6pplicability to Discovery)ee*u6diisions AaB "$roug$ A!B of "$is rule do no" apply "o
dis!losures and dis!oery re8ues"s7 responses7 o6;e!"ions7 and mo"ions "$a" are su6;e!" "o "$e
proisions of 3ules 16,17 16,27 and 26 "$roug$ 37, *an!"ions for refusal "o ma'e dis!oery
are goerned 6y 3ules 26AgB and 37)
D:6"5E:L1 3#5EC 200! 69E3D9E35C 5he rule is amended to conform to the federal
rule, as amended in 1,,&, in its entirety) 6 cross=reference to :ules 2.(g* and &/ was added to
subsection (d* to clarify their application to discovery violations)
5he e'cision of all of the portions of ";E& cited to by the (anel in Dudge >)
7ardnerBs .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce ma?es clear all such portions cited by the (anel
from ";E& were vacated, and, as such, certainly provide no offensive collateral estoppel bar
(much less admissible evidence* where ";E& provided: P<) (reparation of the Decree = 9r)
1pringgate s$all prepare "$e de!ree of dior!e !onsis"en" #i"$ "$is memorandum de!ision)
9r) 1pringgate shall tender his proposed decree to 9r) Coughlin, pursuant to >DC: ,, within
20 days from the date of this order)P ((1&:1%=22*)
2/2 6)D)2D %&%, (3)K 2000* +n re C6(#CC+6,: 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)K)Ct):ules, S 1&0T1)1(C*) 6ttorney who defended several
routine civil consumer collection actions had full and fair opportunity to litigate issue of
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
!/0/%&
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)K)Ct):ules, S 1&0T1)1(C*) "act that an attorney may be sanctioned or criticiAed once
does not ipso facto constitute a disciplinary rule violation) 6ttorneyBs repeated sanctionable
conduct of asserting defenses and counterclaims without ma?ing good=faith 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 ?nowingly advancing unwarranted claims or defenses)
3)K)Ct):ules, SS 1200)& QD: 1T102R, 1200)&& QD: /T102R) (3#5E: as to ";E& P"inding of
"actP (which is not PevidenceP per +n re 1antosuosso* P<) 9s) Doshi reHuests spousal support)
1pecifically, 9s) Doshi reHuested spousal support Puntil her death or remarriage, whichever
occurs first)P (6nswer, p) &, $ines <=.*) 5he Court notes the following information has been
provided and has been ta?en into consideration on this issue: 9r) Doshi is <1 years of age and
9s) Doshi is !. years of age) 5he parties moved to the 8nited 1tates from 5anAania in 2001) <
9s) Doshi is a college graduate and has wor?ed continuously since the parties moved to the
8nited 1tates) 9s) Doshi is presently employed by :aleyBs as a pharmaceutical technician and
earned appro'imately O2,,<00)00 +n 200%) 9s) Doshi has testified she has raised the partiesB
children and thereby has foregone educational opportunities and has put her dreams aside) 9r)
Doshi testified he is a high school graduate) 9r) Doshi is employed as a catering manager) +n
20m&, 9r) Doshi earned appro'imately O!1,<00)00 >hile wor?ing for two companies
=6merican 2ar and :estaurant and 1ierra 1port 1ervice) 6t trial, 9r) Doshi introduced his >=2
from 6merican 2ar and :estaurant reflecting earnings of O!,1</) (5rial E'hibit PCP*C and his
>=2 from 1ierra 1port 1ervice in the amount of O&/,<0!)1% (5rial E'hibit PDP*) 9r) Doshi
testified that business is slow and he is presently wor?ing for only one company =6merican 2ar
and :estaurant) 9r) Doshi testified he has only two wee?s of wor? scheduled for 9arch, 200,C
and he filed for unemployment benefits in 9arch, 200,) 9r) Doshi reHuested the Court consider
his net income after deducting ta'es, factor in the present O.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 9s) Doshi in the event 9r) Doshi
filed for ban?ruptcy, 9r) Doshi suggested that the court maintain jurisdiction over the issue of
spousal support for five years)P (";E& page <:22=.:20* ) ";E& also contains the following
PConclusion of $awP: PC#3C$81+#31 #" $6> 1) #ngoing 1upport for the 6dult
ChildrenBs Education= (ursuant to 3:1 12<)<10(,*(2*, e'cept where a contract providing
otherwise has been e'ecuted pursuant to 3:1 12&)0%0, 5he obligation for care, education,
maintenance and support of any minor child created by any order entered pursuant to this
section ceases: (a* 8pon the death of the person to whom the order was directedC or (b* >hen
((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) 5here has been no evidence presented by 9s) Doshi justifying
a reHuest for continuing support of the partiesB adult children) 6s there has been no legal basis
presented to ma?e such a finding, the Court denies 9s) DoshiBs reHuest that 9r) Doshi financially
provide for the adult childrenBs education)P ((age /:20=%:%*)
!/1/%&
-old
"udge 4inda =ardner<# 9rder ?%ter 6rial B*+, @8hibit & at the 11114112
%ormal di#ci/linary hearingC in $V08-01168' o% 411&109 read#0
P6 Complaint for Divorce was filed by 61;>+3 D#1;+ (hereinafter 9r) Doshi*, by
and through his attorney, D#;3 () 1(:+37765E, E1U), on Duly %, 200%) 6n 6nswer and
Counterclaim was filed by 2;6:5+ D#1;+ (hereinafter B9s) DoshiB*, by and through her
attorney of record, -6C;6:K 2) C#87;$+3, E1U), on Duly 1%, 200%) 6rgument was heard
on 9arch 12, 200, and 9arch 1/, 200,) 9r) Doshi was present and represented by Dohn ()
1pringgate, EsH)C and 9s) Doshi, was present and represented by -achary 2) Coughlin, EsH), of
>ashoe $egal 1ervices)
6ll 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)
(7,$7,=* 9( (?C6
1) 5he parties were married 9ay 11, 1,%/, in 2ombay, +ndia)
2) 5he parties have two children, both of whom are now adults) 6lthough 9r) Koshi
has no obligation to support said children any longer pursuant to 3:1 12<)<10(,*(b*, 9s)
Koshi reHuests the financial assistance of 9r) Koshi so as to provide for the childrenBs
continuing education) (6nswer, pg) 2, lines 1.=1%*)
5he Court notes that on 6ugust 1, 200%, 9r) Doshi filed a B9otion "or :eturn #f
(ersonal (ropertyB reHuesting that 9s) Doshi return his passport, green card and social security
card) #n 6ugust /, 200%, 9s) Doshi, by and through her attorney of record, 9r) Coughlin, filed
an #pposition to the return of 9r) DoshiBs passport citing case law involving minor children and
their support) 9s) Koshi filed said opposition while ac?nowledging the partiesB children were
both over eighteen years of age at the time) #n 6ugust 1%, 200%, Dudge 1chumacher ordered
9s) Doshi to immediately return 9r) DoshiBs passport within five days)
&) 5here is community property to be divided)
+n 9r) DoshiBs Complaint filed Duly %, 200%, he indicated there was community
property and debts which should be divided by the Court)
9s) Doshi filed an 6nswer and Counterclaim on Duly 1%, 200%, indicating the partiesB
community property should be eHuitably divided, including 9s) DoshiBs PwomenBs wealthP, the
vehicles in each partyBs possession, the vehicles in their childrenBs possession, and P the money
the Q9s) KoshiR earned while wor?ing for $egendary $u'ury Camping 1afari in ;ouston 5e'as
which was automatically deposited in Q9r) KoshiBsR account every month for two and one=half
years, QandR which Q9r) KoshiR told Q9s) KoshiR he would give to her)P (6nswer, pg) 2, lines
21=2.*)
5he Court notes the following information has been provided and has been ta?en
into consideration on this issue:
a) P>omenBs >ealthP (roperty = 5he parties agreed that the partiesB
community interest in the PwomanBs wealthP jewelry (location un?nown* belongs to 9s) DoshiBs
E'hibitPDoshiBs d) Doshi) 9r) Doshi stated that he would contact his relatives, who may have
some of the property, and will reHuest its immediate return to 9s) Doshi)
!/2/%&
b) 9r) DoshiBs @ehicle = 9r) Doshi introduced evidence that the balance on
his 200< Chevrolet 2laAer is O1<,00,)/< as of 9arch ., 200,) (5rial E'hibit P6P*C and Gelley
2lue 2oo? value for the 2laAer is O10,,10 (E'hibit P2P*) 5herefore, a deficit in the amount of
appro'imately O!,100)00 e'ists on the vehicle) 6t the conclusion of trial, 9r) Doshi reHuested
that he be awarded the Chevrolet 2laAer) 9s) Doshi presented no evidence on thi# i##ue. 6o the
Court<# 5no2ledge' !#. "o#hi conducted no di#co-ery on thi# i##ue.
c. !#. 7o#hi<# Vehicle = 5here was no evidence introduced regarding the
value of 9s) DoshiBs car)
d) 1onBs @ehicle = 9r) Doshi testified that his adult son is presently driving
the Deep 7rand Chero?ee and is ma?ing the payments for the car directly to the lender, Clear
1tar "inancial) 2oth parties testified that 9s) Doshi and the partiesB son are named on the title)
3o evidence was presented regarding the balance owed on the Deep 7rand Chero?ee) 9s) Doshi
presented no evidence on this issue) 5o the CourtBs ?nowledge, 9s) Doshi conducted no
discovery on this issue)
e) DaughterBs @ehicle = 9r) Doshi testified that the partiesB adult daughter
drives and ma?es payments on the ;onda 6ccord and that title is held in the name of both 9r)
Doshi and the partiesB daughter) 9s) Doshi testified that she made a payment of O.,000)00 on her
credit card for said automobile and the present balance on the credit card was appro'imately
O<,000)00) ;owever, 9s) Doshi presented no evidence to corroborate this contention) 9s) 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 O<,000)00 remaining thereon) 9s) Doshi presented no further evidence
on this issue) e) $ondon 2an? 6ccount = 9r) Doshi testified that that he did not ?now if 9s)
DoshiBs earnings from 5anAania were placed in a $ondon ban? account) 9r) Doshi testified he
did not control 9s) DoshiBs money at that time) 9s) Doshi presented no evidence that her
earnings were placed in a $ondon ban? account) 5o the CourtBs ?nowledge, 9s) Doshi
conducted no discovery on this issue) f) Community 2an? 6ccounts = 9s) Doshi testified that
she reHuested access to the ban? accounts from 9r) Doshi, but that he would not let her see the
ban? statements) "urther, 9s) Doshi testified that she did have her own credit and she did have
access to 9r) DoshiBs credit card statements) 5here was no further evidence presented as to the
community ban? accounts) !) 5here is community debt to be divided) 5he Court notes the
following information has been provided and has been ta?en into consideration on this issue: a)
7eneral Credit Card Debt = 9r) Doshi testified that he owes appro'imately O1<,.<0 in credit
card debt (5rial E'hibit PEP*, and argued the charges were incurred for community e'penses,
holidays, family e'penses and household e'penses) 9s) Doshi presented no evidence regarding
community credit card debt) b) 2est 2uy Credit Card Debt = 9r) Doshi stated that the parties
purchased a computer and 5)@) at 2est 2uy for appro'imately O1,&1!)00) 9r) Doshi testified
9s) Doshi has both of these items) 9r) Doshi reHuested he be awarded the computer presently in
9s) DoshiBs possession and that she retain the 5)@) 9s) Doshi presented no evidence on this
issue) c) 9edical Debt = 9r) Doshi testified he owes O.,/&<)00 to 1t) 9aryBs ;ospital for
surgery in 9ay 200% (5rial E'hibit P"P* and O<00)00 to :E916 (5rial E'hibit P7P*) 6t trial,
9r) Doshi offered to pay these community debts) 9s) Doshi presented no evidence that her
earnings were placed in a $ondon ban? 5here was no further evidence presented as to the
!/&/%&
community ban? accounts) 5he Court notes the following information has been provided and
has been ta?en 9r) d) P9s) Doshi presented no evidence on this issue) 5o the CourtBs
?nowledge, 9s) Doshi conducted no discovery on this issue) d) "amily Debt = there are two
debts owing to family members or on behalf of family members that were presented at trial)
9r) Doshi introduced evidence at trial regarding a O<,000)00 debt to :od and 9eena "owler
(5rial E'hibit P;P* in the form of a letter from :od and 9eena "owler) 5he letter states that the
parties owe money in the amount of O.,000)00, which was Plong overdueP by appro'imately
si' (.* years, for money loaned to 9r) DoshiBs mother when she was ill) 5he letter references a
Pcopy of your letter agreeing to pay us bac?P, but did not attach a copy of said letter) 6t trial,
9r) Doshi testified that he did not have a copy of the referenced letter) 9s) Doshi testified that
this debt was Pmade up)P 9r) Doshi testified regarding a debt of appro'imately O<,000 owing to
a family member by the name of 6shi? 3anaby (spJ*, for buying plane tic?ets for the Doshi
family to come to the 8nites 1tates in 2001) 9s) Doshi testified that she could not obtain any
information regarding this debt as the other party Pwanted to stay out of the divorce)P 6t trial,
9r) Doshi offered to pay these community debts) e) 7eneral Community Debt = 9r) Doshi
testified that he pays appro'imately O.00 per month for community debts, e'cluding his car
and insurance) 9s) Doshi presented no evidence regarding general community debt) 9r) Doshi
offered to pay the community debt in his name that he had been paying and ta?e an uneHual
division of community debt) <) 9s) Doshi reHuests spousal support) 1pecifically, 9s) Doshi
reHuested spousal support Puntil her death or remarriage, whichever occurs first)P (6nswer, p)
&, lines <=.*) 5he Court notes the following information has been provided and has been ta?en
into consideration on this issue: 9r) Doshi is <1 years of age and 9s) Doshi is !. years of age)
5he parties moved to the 8nited 1tates from 5anAania in 2001) O!,1</) CP*C 9s) Doshi is a
college graduate and has wor?ed continuously since the parties moved to the 8nited 1tates) 9s)
Doshi is presently employed by :aleyBs as a pharmaceutical technician and earned
appro'imately O2,,<00)00 in 200%) 9s) Doshi has testified she has raised the partiesB children
and thereby has foregone educational opportunities and has put her dreams aside) 9r) Doshi
testified he is a high school graduate) 9r) Doshi is employed as a catering manager) +n 20m&,
9r) Doshi earned appro'imately O!1,<00)00 while wor?ing for two companies = 6merican 2ar
and :estaurant and 1ierra 1port 1ervice) 6t trial, 9r) Doshi introduced his >=2 from 6merican
2ar and :estaurant reflecting earnings of O!,1</) (5rial E'hibit PCP *C and his >=2 from 1ierra
1port 1ervice in the amount of O&/,<0!)1% (5rial E'hibit PDP*) 9r) Doshi testified that business
is slow and he is presently wor?ing for only one company = 6merican 2ar and :estaurant) 9r)
Doshi testified he has only two wee?s of wor? scheduled for 9arch, 200,C and he filed for
unemployment benefits in 9arch, 200,) 9r) Doshi reHuested the Court consider his net income
after deducting ta'es, factor in the present O.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 9s) Doshi in the event 9r) Doshi filed for
ban?ruptcy, 9r) Doshi suggested that the court maintain jurisdiction over the issue of spousal
support for five years) <) 9s) Doshi reHuests reasonable attorneyBs fees be paid to >ashoe $egal
1ervices for the services of 9r) Coughlin) 9r) Doshi reHuests reasonable attorneyBs fees be paid
to his attorney, 9r) 1pringgate) 5he Court notes the following information has been provided
and has been ta?en into consideration on this issue: #n Duly 1%, 200%, 9r) Coughlin filed a
!/!/%&
1tatement of $egal 6id :epresentation which states Defendant is receiving Pfree legal
assistanceP from >ashoe $egal 1ervices pursuant to 3:1 12)01<)
client PPC#3C$81+#31 #" $6> #n #ctober &, 200%, Dudge Dordan presided over the
partiesB Case 9anagement Conference) 6t that hearing, the parties were unable to reach a
settlement) "urther, on 9arch 12, 200,, Dudge 7ardner conducted a 1ettlement Conference for
appro'imately one and one=half hours, prior to starting the trial at appro'imately &:00 pm) 5he
parties did not agree on settlement and trial was commenced) +n his closing argument at trial,
9r) Coughlin, on behalf of 9s) Doshi, stated that he did not understand and could not agree
with eHualiAing debt when one party ended up with a nicer car) ;e stated that he hadP crunched
the numbersP and could not see it the other way) 9r) Coughlin cited an 6$: article regarding
community debt and stated his client P does not have much for the creditors to ta?e)P ;e
reHuested that his client assume one=half the community debt and that the Court find (laintiffBs
two O<,000 debts to family members and friends as 9r) DoshiBs separate debts) 9r) Coughlin
stated his client is being as?ed to Pfoot the billP for (laintiffBs debts and referenced that 9s)
Doshi is a caring and committed mother) 9r) Doshi testified that he had paid 9r) 1pringgate
O!,000)00 since Duly, 200%, for attorneyBs fees and costs) 9r) Doshi reHuested that 9r) Coughlin
personally pay his attorneyBs fees for !)1< hours of trial at the rate of O22< per hour pursuant to
3:1 /)0%<) 9r) 1pringgate testified 9r) Coughlin had not conducted any discovery, had
produced no evidence regarding 9s) 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 9s) Doshi in this divorce proceeding)
C#3C$81+#31 #" $6> 1) #ngoing 1upport for the 6dult ChildrenBs Education= (ursuant
to 3:1 12<)<10(,*(b*, e'cept where a contract providing otherwise has been e'ecuted pursuant
to 3:1 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* 8pon the death of the
person to whom the order was directedC or (b* >hen if (ursuant (utterman v) (utterman, a)
P>omenBs >ealthP = 5he parties have agreed that the partiesB DoshiBs 9r) 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) 5here has been no evidence presented by 9s) Doshi justifying a reHuest
for continuing support of the partiesB adult children) 6s there has been no legal basis presented
to ma?e such a finding, the Court denies 9s) DoshiBs reHuest that 9r) Doshi financially provide
for the adult childrenBs education) 2) Community (ropertyDebt = (ursuant to 3:1 12<)1<0(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) 5he Court must ma?e written findings as to why such a division is appropriate) a)
P>omenBs >ealthP = 5he parties have agreed that the partiesB community interests in the
PwomenBs wealthP belongs entirely to 9s) Doshi according to their customary beliefs, and
thereby should be declared her sole and separate property) 6s such, 9r) Doshi is ordered to
contact any and all relatives who may have this property and immediately return said property
to 9s) Doshi as soon as possible) b) 9r) +oshiBs @ehicle = 5he 200< Chevrolet 2laAer shall be
considered 9r) DoshiBs sole and separate property) 9r) Doshi shall be responsible for the debt
remaining thereon) 6s the car is worth O10,,10) 00 but there is O1<,00,)/< due and owing on
!/</%&
said car, the Court will consider 9r) DoshiBs assumption of this asset as an underta?ing of
community debt of appro'imately O!,100)00) c) 9s) +oshiBs @ehicle = 9s) DoshiBs car shall be
considered her sole and separate property) 9s) Doshi shall be responsible for any debt
remaining thereon) 6s 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 =
6s the only evidence presented on this issue was the fact that the partiesB adult son drives this
vehicle and ma?es the payments thereon, this asset will not be divided among the community)
h) 1) 5elevision = D) ?) e) DaughterBs @ehicle = 5he only evidence presented on this issue was the
fact that the partiesB adult daughter drives this car and ma?es payments thereon) 9s) Doshi
presented no evidence of a balance owing on the car or its fair mar?et value) 5hereby, this car
will not be divided as a community asset) f) $ondon 2an? 6ccount = there was no evidence
presented to the Court verifying said ban? account e'ists) 6s such, there is no factual basis to
support an order dividing it as a community asset) g) Community 2an? 6ccounts = there was no
evidence presented as to the e'istence of community ban? accounts) 6s such, there is no factual
basis to support an order dividing it as a community asset) h) Computer = 9r) Doshi is awarded
the computer purchased at 2est 2uy) 9s) Doshi shall deliver said computer to 9r) 1pringgateBs
office on or before "riday, 6pril 1/, 200,, at <:00pm) 1) 5elevision 9s) Doshi is awarded the
television purchased at 2est 2uy) +t is the CourtBs understanding this television is currently in
9s) DoshiBs possession) D) 7eneral Credit Card Debt = 5he evidence presented indicates a
general debt of appro'imately O1<, .<0)00 which has been e'pended for community purposes)
9r) Doshi agreed to be responsible for this debt at trial) 6s such, 9r) Doshi shall be solely and
separately responsible for this debt) 2est 2uy Credit Card Debt = 5he evidence presented
indicates there is a debt of appro'imately O1,&1!)00 outstanding for the purchase of the
television and computer) 9r) Doshi agreed to be responsible for this debt at trial) 6s such, 9r)
Doshi shall be solely and separately responsible for this debt) 1) 9r) &) 1upport= divorce)P
1,.,<! &/,&, 1) 9edical Debt = 6s 9r) Doshi has offered to pay these debts, he shall be solely
and separately responsible for the payment of O.,/&<)00 to 1t)9aryBs ;ospitalC and O<00)00 to
:emsa) m) "amily Debt = 5here was no documentary evidence presented as to the debt owing
to 6shi? 3anaby (spJ* for buying plane tic?ets for the Doshi family) "urther, as the only
evidence provided regarding the O<,000)00 debt to :od and 9eena "owler indicates said debt
was incurred for the benefit of 9r) DoshiBs mother) 6s 9r) Doshi has agreed to ta?e on both of
these debts, they shall henceforth be his sole and separate responsibility) n) 7eneral
Community Debt = 5here was no evidence other than testimonial evidence to establish
community debts) 6s 9r) 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 9r) Doshi)
5he Court notes 9r) Doshi has li?ely incurred an uneHual distribution of the community debt in
this case) 5he Court finds his testimonial acHuiescence at trial to ta?e on this debt is a
compelling reason to ma?e an uneHual distribution of the community debt) &) 1pousal 1upport =
5he statutory mandate for alimony is that it be Pjust and eHuitable)P 3:1 12<)1<0(1*(a*)
6limony is an eHuitable award to serve the post=decree needs and rights of the former spouse)
>olff v) >olff, 112 3ev) 1&<<, ,2, ()2d ,1. (1,,.*) 6lthough post=decree incomes need not
be eHualiAed, in marriages of some duration, alimony may be used to narrow large gaps
between the post=divorce earning capacities of the parties and to allow the recipient spouse to
!/./%&
liveP as nearly as possible to the station in life enjoyed before the divorce) P 1hydler v) 1hydler,
11! 3ev) 1,2, 1,. ,<! ()2d &/, &, (1,,%*) 5he individual circumstances of each case will
determine the appropriate amount and length of any alimony award) +d) %*, %* 2,!<% 200%, %*(%*
(%*(%*("ees= 1,,%*)* 1%)010(the))) /)0%<, (ursuant to 3:1 12<)1<0(2*, there are eleven (11*
factors the court shall consider in awarding alimony) 9s) 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) 9s) Doshi testified that she is healthy and has always wor?ed) 5here was no reference
to any of the eleven factors in 3:1 12<)1<0(2* in 9s) DoshiBs presentation and argument in
support of an award of spousal support) 5he Court finds that the parties presently earn
appro'imately the same amount, 9s) Doshi earns O2,!<0 per month and 9r) Doshi earned
appro'imately O&,12< per month in 2002, but testified he is wor?ing substantially less in 200,
and has filed for unemployment benefits the beginning of 9arch 200,) (1ee 3:1 12<)1<0(2*
(a**) 5he parties have been married 21 years and 9s) Doshi has always been employed during
that time) (1ee 3:1 12<)1<0(2*(d**)
9s) Doshi obtained a college degree prior to marriage and 9r) Doshi has a high school degree)
(1ee 3:1 12<)1<0(2*(h**) 2oth parties are healthy and able to wor?) (1ee 3:1 12<)1<0(2*(?**)
2ased upon the evidence presented and the applicable law, this Court does not believe 9s)
Doshi is entitled to an award of alimony) !) 6ttorneyBs "ees = 5his Court enjoys discretion to
award attorneyBs fees in a divorce action) (1ee 3:1 12<)1<0(&*C $ove v) $ove, 11! 3ev) </2,
,<, ()2d <2& (1,,2*)* 6lso, pursuant to 3:1 12)010(2*(b*, the court has authority to order
attorneyBs fees Pwhen the court finds that the ))) defense of the opposing party was brought or
maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party)P "inally, pursuant to
3:1 /)02<, 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 well=grounded 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
9r) Doshi statingPP1 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) 6t trial, 9r) 1pringgate stated that 9r) Coughlin
had conducted no discovery in this case) +n addition, 9r) Coughlin failed to present one
documentary piece of evidence at trial on behalf of 9s) DoshiBs claims) 9r) Coughlin argued
incessantly with the Court throughout trial and made sarcastic, derogatory remar?s to the Court,
9r) 1pringgate, and 9r) Doshi throughout trial) 5he Court notes that there were well over !0
objections during four (!* hours of trial) 9r) 1pringgateBs objections were well=founded and
continuously sustained e'cept in one instance) 9r) Coughlin was overruled on every objection
e'cept one and argued with the Court over most rulings) 9r) Coughlin was admonished
appro'imately 1< times by the Court to Huit arguing, to as? specific Huestions, to discontinue
as?ing Huestions calling for a legal conclusion, and to refrain from ma?ing degrading remar?s
to both 9r) foshi and 9r) 1pringgate) 5he Court notes that at one point, after an e'hibit had
been admitted, 9r) Coughlin could not find the copy provided by 9r) 1pringgate in discovery)
9r) Coughlin demanded a copy be provided at trial, stating P am + supposed to be rifling
through my papersJ 9y understanding is that you are supposed to provide a copy)P >hen
!///%&
as?ed if he had the copy of the document, 9r) Coughlin stated, P+ do not ?now) + could spend
my time and mental energy loo?ing around for 9r) 1pringgateBs document li?e + am his
assistant, or we could as? 9r) 1pringgate to provide a copy at the time he is see?ing admission
li?e + believe the rule states)P 9r) Coughlin cited no rule and then proceeded to interrupt the
proceedings twice appro'imately five (<* minutes and twelve (12* minutes post ruling to re-
argue the /oint) 9r) 1pringgate replied to the arguments by referencing when e'actly the copy
had been provided to 9r) Coughlin during discovery and where the copy could be located) 5he
Court had to admonish 9r) Coughlin to Huit arguing the point and reiterate that the e'hibit had
been admitted) 9r) Coughlin filed an 6nswer and Counterclaim on 9s) DoshiBs behalf that
included allegations unsupported by lawC and filed an #pposition to the reAue#t %or return o%
!r. "o#hi<# /a##/ort 2ithout any %actual or legal ba#i#) "urther, at trial, 9r) Coughlin
presented almo#t no e-idence to support 9s) DoshiBs reHuests and claims) 5he most troubling
aspect of this case was 9r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic and disrespectful presentation at trialC 9r)
CoughlinBs inability to understand a balance sheetC his %ailure to conduct di#co-eryC and his
lac5 o% 5no2ledge 2ith regard to the rule# o% e-idence and trial /rocedure)
6ll of this was compounded with a continuously antagonistic presentation of the
case that resulted in a shift from a fairly #im/le divorce case to a contentious divorce trial
lasting an e'cessive amount of time) "or all these reasons, the Court finds that 9r) 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, 9r) 1pringgateBs reHuest that 9r) Coughlin personally pay 9r) Doshi !)1< hours at
the rate of O22< per hour for the cost of the trial is 7:635ED) 9r) Coughlin shall submit a
chec? to 9r) Doshi in the amount of O,&! within &0 days of this #rder) <) (reparation of the
Decree 9r) 1pringgate shall prepare the decree of divorce consistent with this memorandum
decision) 9r) 1pringgate shall tender his proposed decree to 9r) Coughlin, pursuant to >DC:
,, within 20 days from the date of this order) 7##D C681E 6((E6:+37, +5 +1 1#
#:DE:ED)P
5he "ebruary 2&rd, 200, ;earing on the #bjection to 9aster 7ardnerBs
:ecommendations that Coughlin filed (relating to 9aster 7ardner 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 5(# ;earing is not the appropriate setting for such subject matter, especially where
9aster 7ardner lac?ed jurisdiction to rule as she did)
1ee CoughlinBs 112/12 filing in .210! (Doc?et .210! Document 2012=&/&.&*:
;*u//lemental to 11 2& 12 corre#/ondence regarding di#co-ery in "o#hi 54844' ?/ril 2009 9rder
#anctioning Coughlin
1ent: 1un 112<12 1:!1 69
5o: (s?entNs?entlaw)com* (s?entNs?entlaw)com*C (jeNeloreno)com* (jeNeloreno)com*C
(patric??Nnvbar)org* (patric??Nnvbar)org*C (eifert)ntaNatt)net* (eifert)ntaNatt)net*C
!/%/%&
(cvellisNbhfs)com* (cvellisNbhfs)com*C (jgarinNlipsonneilson)com* (jgarinNlipsonneilson)com*C
(pelcanoNwashoelegalservices)org* (pelcanoNwashoelegalservices)org*C
(linda)gardnerNwashoecounty)us* (linda)gardnerNwashoecounty)us*
1 attachment
0&01% to 0&0!1 Dudge $inda 7ardner listed by 123 Ging as greivant in ng12=0!&< fyi prosecutorial
misconduct blog smaller siAe)pdf (10)< 92*
+ believe + informed >$1 of this previously, but + did try to have discovery send out in
Doshi, but Deborah (ringle and then >$1 #ffice 9anager :obin Gunce indicated it would ta?e
something on the order of si' wee?s to get a chec? cut for anything, such as for witness fees or those
associated with a subpoena duces tecum, and the 5rial of 9arch 12th, 200, in Doshi was not far out
enough to account for such an unanticipated indication from >$1 as to what would be reHuired to
conduct what Dudge 7ardner indicated in her 6pril 200, #rder as the sort of discovery she felt would
be necessary to rebut an inference of ve'atiousness for not immediately caving to 9r) 1pringgateBs
1iragusa argument) "urther, it was never my understanding that either 9s) 1antiago or myself PagreedP
to then 9aster 7ardner entering an #rder PresolvingP the dispute as to the car title in the 5emporary
(rotection #rder hearing in 1antiago v) @a'evanis)
>hat is interesting is that, on one hand, 9r) Elcano is being told to fire me or else by
C66> and 5ahoe >omenBs 1ervices for allegedly not being Aealous enough in advocating their
agendas, er, for the victims of domestic violence in the Carnine and ;aubl matters, , "urther, in early
Danuary 200,, >$1Bs :honda ;arrison is saying Peat meP to Coughlin when he attempts to use the
upstairs restroom at >$1) Couglin sens a written complaint about that to 9r) Elcano, and he holds a
meeting with Coughlin which results in, as 9r) Elcano testified at the Disciplinary ;earing, his
Pstanding by my employeeP) +t would seem true that 9r) Elcano did jut that, at that time (ie, stand by
his employee, Coughlin*) +n fact, it was during a %ace to %ace meeting 2ith Coughlin in (ebruary
2009 or #o that @lcano told Coughlin about the a//rai#al# o% Coughlin<# 2or5 by "udge =ardner
and !a#ter @dmond#on' 2ith both' e##entially' gi-ing Coughlin a Jthumb<# u/J re-ie2 (ie, good
enough wor? not to be fired, etc)*) +t was at that point that !r. @lcano ca#ually mentioned that he
had done #omething in the /a#t %or "udge =ardner (it didnBt sound as ominous coming from (aul as
it does when + write it))))* and that' e##entially' that 2a# #ome indicia o% reliability a# to "udge
=ardner<# candor to @lcano in a##e##ing Coughlin<# 2or5 at that time' and there%ore' !r. @lcano
2a# rein%orced in hi# belie% in hi# /o#ition that it 2ould be ina//ro/riate to let C??3 and
6ahoe 3omen<# *er-ice#' e##entially' tell him 2ho to %ire or not)
2ut the irony is that + was fired, according to 9r) ElcanoBs letters to me of 9ay 1, 200, and
9ay /, 200, because of the 6pril 1&th, 200, #rder by Dudge $inda 7ardner finding my conduct at trial
to be ve'atious) +t is inaccurate and overly convenient to now attempt to remi' that assessment, as 9r)
Elcano did in his testimony on 111!12 to indicate my advocacy was merely BincompetentB) "urther,
testimonial evidence is evidence, as such, Dudge 7ardnerBs #rder is inaccurate to the e'tent is suggests
no evidence was put on as to, say a 5onopah formula approach is determing the alimony Huestion)
>hereas Dudge 7ardner found + advocated too Aealously on behalf of a battered woman (to the point of
ve'atiousness, no less*, 5ahow >omenBs 1ervices and C66> had, in close pro'imity and previous to
Dudge $) 7ardnerBs 6pril 200, #rder, complained that + did not advocate strenously enough, apparently
(9r) Elcano has refused to release those writings to me*)
5ahoe >omenBs 1ervices (which apparently changed its name to something less gender
polariAing upon CoughlinBs critiHue thereof, as it is now ?nown as Crisis +ntervention 1ervices*
provided a written complaint about CoughlinBs performanc eot Elcano in "@0%=022<! = (6#$6 C)
(E:E- ;682$ @1) 63D:E> 6) C:6+7) Coughlin hereby reHuests, again, a copy thereof)
!/,/%&
$i?ewise, the Committee to 6id 6bused >omen (C66>* (no name change as of yet*
complaint in writing to Elcano about Coughlin with respect to his representation of 9ichelle Carnine in
a 5(# and or divorce matter) Coughlin hereby reHuests a copy of any written complaints submitted by
anyone with respect to either of those Carnine matters:
C61E 3#) "@0%=02021 9+C;E$$E C6:3+3E #2# 15#:9K @1) 2:6D$EK C6:3+3E
C61E 3#) D@0%=01<&2 9+C;E$$E C6:3+3E @1) 2:6D$EK C6:3+3E
5he funny thing is, for prosecutors (and see Dudge 7ardnerBs apparent P"K+P
correspondence to the 1tate 2ar of 3evadaBs (at Ging in 3712=0!&<, bate stamping indicating Dudge
$inda 7ardner as the grievant, and the blog entry related to prosecutorial misconduct being ta?en note
of place directly after the fate stamped folder name listing Dudge $) 7ardner as the grievant in that 0!&<
case)))with both Dudge $) 7ardner and her brother, :9C Dudge >) 7ardner being lifelong prosecutors
before ta?ing the bench, li?e most judges in >ashoe County, though they are two of the rare e'ceptions
who did not go to 9c7eorge*)
1ome might say the District 6ttorney and :eno City 6ttorney #ffices influence as
prosecutors e'tends to the District,Dustice, and 9unicipal Courts to an impermissible e'tent)))and now,
with the firing of Coughlin from >ashoe $egal 1ervices, and the entering into the Early Case
:esolution (EC:* contract between the >CD6Bs #ffice and >$1 to deliver some sort of approach that
some say violates the 1i'th 6mendment, 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 >$1Bs Don 1asser, especially regarding 6222. in the landlord tenant
conte't along with CoughlinBs 2oyd 1chool of $aw early, unaccredited days, classmates, 6ssemblymen
>illiam ;orne and Dason "rierson, in conjunction with 5i? 1egerblom*) 6 Huic? loo? 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 ta?ing a mar?edly laisseA faire approach to prosecutorial
misconduct, in mar?ed contrast to the seemingly overly aggressive approach by lifelong prosecutorBs
turned judges :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes, :9C Dudge Genneth ;oward, :9C Dudge >illiam 7ardner,
and 1econd Dudicial District Court Dudge $inda 7ardner in Pprotecting the publicP from the wor? of
one -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, EsH) (whom has held himself out as an attorney who ta?es on cases of
prosecutorial and police misconduct)))a type of attorney whom the 123Bs (atric? #) Ging seems to
have carved out a specialty in prosecuting, right, Dames 6ndre 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 :e the Discipline of Dames 6ndre 2oles, EsH)J +s 123 2ar Counsel
(atric? #) Ging, EsH) puttinB in wor? for prosecutors and police ali?eJ*:
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 DD6 -ach Koung (9c7eorge B0!* ma?ing
argument in filings with the :eno Dustice Court in :C:2011=0.&&!1 that alleged communitcations
between EC#99,11 dispatch and the :(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 :(D of Pa possible
fightP, which DD6 Koung and :(D #fficer 3ic? Duralde (whose wife, Dessica Duralde was wor?ing
that night at a ,11 dispatcher and whose voice may be on the tapes only released by :eno City
6ttorney 1?au on 111&12 incident to an Emergency ;earing on 9otions to Uuash CoughlinBs
subpoenas (and, really, Dudge 1ferraAAa admitted later that the hearing was also based on 9otion to
Uuash that were not even filed, but rather just a sua sponte overall intention by Dudge 1ferraAAa, the
!%0/%&
longest tenured 9ayor in :enoBs history, a former Chairman, @ice=Chairman and >ashoe County
Commissioner from 1,,%=200/, to Uuash pretty much every subpoena Coughlin drafted in any way
related to anyone in goverment*)

5he prosecutorial misconduct has been detailed at length in CouglinBs filing with the 3evada 1upreme
Court this year, save, perhaps the new instances where DD6 KoungBs assertions of dispatch alerting
:(D #fficers of Pa possible fightP prior to their arriving to respond on %2011 (and the utility thereof
incident to the ;earing on CoughlinBs 9otion to 1uppress* has been thoroughly disproved by City
6ttorney 1?auBs only finally releasing those tapes on 111&12, after he secured CoughlinBs attendane at
a ;earing on his 9otion to Uuash 1ubpoenas by alleging the court had granted him the power to effect
service thereof by emailing Coughlin (and Coughlin 123 form Disciplinary ;earing was held the ne't
day 111!12, where Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs bailiff was assigned to the affair, the same bailiff present at
the 6pril 12th, and 1/th, 200, 5rial dates in the Doshi matter that became .0&02 and <!%!!) Dudge
7ardnerBs 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 6ttorneyBs :oberts (in .0%&%* and ;aAlett=1tevens (in .1,01* in addition to that of DD6 -ach
Koung (three different prosecutions, each one more retaliatory than the last* and the multitude of
violations of the stay reHuired by 3:1 1/%)!0< (in consideration of 3:1 <)0/1, especially*)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin
1!/1 E) ,th 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
5el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
-achCoughlinNhotmail)comF
6nd 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 li?e most every other attorney puttinB in wor? 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, :ichard 7)
;ill, or (aul Elcano, whereupon he will throw 9otley Crue no brown 9M9Bs
rider mandate levels of tantrums sufficient to honor his ;ale $ane, er, ;olland
M ;art roots (you donBt ?now from fun until you have ?ic?ed it with a guy who
wrestled for the Citadel, seriously, some Eastern European >6C 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 81C grads during the crest of
the obno'ious $einart2ush years) (ut it this way: when (atricia ;alstead is the
Enice oneF, yer in the jungle, baby, and yer gonna dieeeeeeeeeeeeee^^^
(and, under 2reliant Dudge 7ardnerBs Eadjudicatory boundariesF were limited to the
referenced 3:1 /)0%<, particularly where such ";E& contained nothing in the way of a
reference to the courtBs Einheret authorityF or >DC: 21, much less 3:1 1%)010(2*(b**
anywhere in 3:1 /)0%< must necessarily related (given the @and imposed# E ma?e clear that a
!%1/%&
judge finding that an attorney simply Eunreasonably and ve'atiously e?"ended a civil action or
proceeding before any court in this 1tateF (much less that E9r) 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&:,=10* is simply not an Eappropriate situationF
for her to Eimpose sanctionsF give the fact that 3:1 /)0%<(2* specifically includes the language
in 3:1 /)0%<(1*(a* where it fails to so include the language in 3:1 /)0%<(1*(b*
(2* 8nreasonably and ve'atiously e'tended a civil action or proceeding before any court in
this 1tate,
,* 7. 085. Payment o% additional co#t#' e8/en#e# and attorney<# %ee# by
attorney 2ho %ile#' maintain# or de%end# certain ci-il action# or e8tend# ci-il action# in
certain circum#tances
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 well=grounded 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* 8nreasonably 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) 5he 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 $egislature that
the court award costs, e'penses and attorneyBs fees pursuant to this section and impose
sanctions pursuant to :ule 11 of the 3evada :ules of Civil (rocedure in all appropriate
situations to punish for and deter frivolous or ve'atious claims and defenses because such
claims and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of
meritorious claims and increase the costs of e%$a$i%$ i% busi%ess a%d pro*idi%$ pro&essio%al ser*ices to
the public.
(1ee .0&02, .0&1/* Coughlin actually just grew tired of the double standard Elcano
subjected Coughlin to daily at >$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 EHualiAationBs ruling that non=profit >$1 must pay its for profit
landlordBs property ta'es in the days preceding the very trial from which 2DDC Dudge $)
7ardnerBs ";E& #rder stems, etc), and the minute Coughlin voices any annoyance with not
being given the raise promised upon his being employed at >$1 for one years time (where
Coughlin had been employed 1% months by that point*, >$1, rather than address the reasons
behind >$1 (resident Gathleen 2rec?enridge ordering and obtaining a copy of the "@0,=
00%%. 5(# 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
included two men* at a clinic that Emen cannot be victims of domestic violenceF for an idea of
!%2/%&
why >$1 would prefere to jump on the prete'tual EDudge $) 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter
5rial entitles us to fire youF=train, instead of address >$1 2rec?enridgeBs obtaining a copy of
the recording (as noted in the doc?et in such case* of the &120, 5(# hearing prior to the entry
of such ";E& #rder by 2DDC Dudge 7ardner (the doc?et notates that 2rec?enridge, apparently
in response to Complaints by the same C66> run 2DDC 5(# office, that Coughlin sued in
.0&1/, obtained a copy of such 5(# hearing wherein Coughlin represented a male victim of
domestic violence whom was beaten with an alarm cloc? swung repeatedly from its cord, on
!100,, compared to the !1&0, entry date of Dudge $) 7ardnerBs ";E& #rder 6fter 5rial*)
6nd, actually, hey, &120,, thatBs the same day as the first day of
trial in the D@0%=011.% divorce trial wherein Dohn 1pringsna?e, 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 $) 7ardnerBs 22<0,
(re=5rial #rder*, in addition to failing to abide by 3:C( 11Bs reHuirement that a
Efiling readyF 21 day safe harbor motion be served on Couglin prior to
1pringgate moving for 3:1 /)0%< sanctions (which 1pringgate did, in his
closing arguments during the second day of the divorce trial in D@0%=011.%,
which occurred on &1/0,, (ie, two judicial days apart were the two trial dates
in that divorce case, contrary to >$1 Elcano sworn testimony and his Enot in
the heat of battleF commentary in his termination letter to Coughlin of </0,
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 112:1 to 112:%* 6nd one of the things that was
relevant there is that this hearing too? place in two sectionsC + want to say they
were a wee? or ten days apart) 6nd the conduct and the criticisms of the conduct
by the judge in the first hearing, 9r) Coughlin came bac? 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 :9C
Dudge 3ash ;olmes upon her receiving it from :9C 6dministrative Dudge >)
7ardner, whom admitted to Coughlin, finally, during :9C Dudge >) 7ardner
refused to recuse himself from the criminal trespass trail stemming from ;illBs
burglary of CoughlinsB former home law office and ;illBs concomitant false
statements to a police officer to effect a wrongful arrest (see .1,01*, failed to
disclose 2DDC Dudge $) 7arnder is his sister despite prompting on during a
2212 hearing in that criminal trespass case, violated 3:1 1/%)!0< on during
the !1012 trial and hearing he held, wherein, finally, after serious prompting,
he disclosed his that 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner is his sister, though he did indicate
that it was Ethe first time + have hear of thatF upon being informed that :9C
Dudge 3ash ;olmes had passed the very #rder by his sister that :9C Dudge
7ardner admitted to ta?ing from his sister and distributing to his fellow :9C
Dudges, on to the 123*, Ging was forced to admit (and Cler? of
Court+nvestigator (eters shady and snea?y commentary during a 101<12
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
meeting with Coughlin, the %1&12 in person meeting with Coughlin and 2ar
!%&/%&
Counsel David Clar?, and the conversation between Ging and Coughlin in Dune
2012, and 101212 and 101<12)))if only there was a verbatim transcript of
such conversations)))would that not be interesting, rightJ*
!2 ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2!!:1. to 2/0:11*
9:) EC;E@E::+6: $et me as? you a Huestion,
sir) #n 6ugust 2&rd the 1tate 2ar sent by certified mail
and first class mail a copy of the complaint) Kou were
offered 20 days to respond) 5he rules reHuire a response
or an answer verified within 20 days) 5hat apparently
didnBt arrive)
+ then entered an order granting you until
"riday, "ebruary ,th == +Bm sorry, 3ovember ,th at <:00
()9) to file a verified answer or response)
Do you claim to have filed such a verified
answer or responseJ
9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm not sure) + believe that
calls for a legal conclusion) + donBt ?now that + ?now
e'actly what technically a verified answer response means)
+ thin? a motion to dismiss might Hualify as that)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Do you understand what a
verified response isJ
9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs something + would li?e to
do more research on) + would imagine it involves a
declaration or maybe an affidavit) 2ut then that gets
into the e'tent to which pro se for self=representing
parties == and Dudge 3ash ;olmes purported to do this,
where she tried to ma?e those representing themselves be
subject to sworn testimony to one e'tent or another,
although she was very ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >eBre not tal?ing about 3ash
;olmes here) +Bm as?ing you if you claim to have filed a
verified response or answer to the complaint)
9:) C#87;$+3: 5o answer that + would have to
?now how one is able to file something) 6nd thatBs
involved representation by Cler? (eters and 9r) Ging and
the 2ar that, + believe, have been gone bac? on)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ir, +Bd li?e you to focus on
whether or not you believe you filed a verified answer or
response to the complaint)
9:) C#87;$+3: 6t allJ 6t any timeJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes) (rior to 3ovember ,th,
which is ==
!%!/%&
9:) C#87;$+3: +f + can just ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: == two months and a couple
wee?s after the complaint) +n that interim did you file
anything that you would call a verified answer or
responseJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd youBre sua sponte as?ing me
thisJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm as?ing it)
9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd thatBs ta?ing up my time to
put on my case, as + had hoped to put it on)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm as?ing 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 ==
9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? + ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: == you have complied with the
supreme court rule that reHuires the respondent in a
compliant by the 1tate 2ar to file a verified answer or
response to the complaint) ;ave you done soJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + believe + have)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat pleading is thatJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + believe various different
pleadings could be characteriAed as such)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hich onesJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + would li?e to loo? into that
more)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Do you still have confusion
as to what verified meansJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? itBs something that can
mean different things in different settings) 1o +Bm not
sure who weBre tal?ing about, who it means what to)
5hen + thin? that goes a large e'tent to how
the procedural rules apply here) 2ecause if you file a
motion to dismiss, and it winds up jamming you up for
time) 6nd 9r) Ging is able to manipulate this process
such that heBs the one who pic?s the hearing date) ;e is
the one who sets up the notice of hearing way before the
panel is even empaneled) 5hen + get jammed up or the
chairman who is ruling on things before + even have an
opportunity to file a reply to his opposition)
6nd then one, +Bll testify under penalty of
perjury + didnBt get the notice of intent to ta?e default)
+Bll testify that + went to the 8nited 1tates (ost #ffice
!%</%&
and attempted to pic? up on at least == on multiple
occasions) #n one occasion a 5im at the @assar station in
downtown :eno apparently couldnBt find the envelope) 5he
ne't time + went bac?, he did find the envelope that had a
postmar? date of 10=,=12, #ctober ,th, 2012, and it had
postage of about 1)2<) +t was a certified mailing upon
information and belief it was the notice of intent to ta?e
default)
+Bll note that in the file that was given to
me by 9r) Ging this certificate of mailing on that
document indicates it was sent by only one method,
certified mail) >here + believe every other documentBs
been sent, if you loo? at the certificates of mailing
attached at the end of the documents has been sent in
two == by two methods, first class mail and certified
mail)
1o itBs a little strange that notice of intent
to ta?e default == maybe this is some ?ind of old school
2ar counsel tric?) + donBt ?now) 2ut it was only sent by
one method, certified mail) 1o + go to pic? it up once,
the guy doesnBt find it) + go the ne't wee?, and this is
the guy 5im ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;ow did you ?now to pic? it
upJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 2ecause + got the little slip)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: #?ay)
9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd then the ne't time he did
find it) 6nd right before he gave it to me he noticed
that it only has == itBs a large manila envelope, he
noticed it only has O1)2< postage on it) 5hat means itBs
insufficient postage, and he wonBt give it to me unless +
pay the difference, which is li?e some five dollars that +
donBt have) 1o it gets sent bac?)
+ chec? the 81(1 and confirm for that number,
and 9r) Ging and the 1tate 2ar received it on 3ovember
,th) 9r) GingBs been very, very evasive about this, and +
believe very dishonest)
+ saw 5im notate the insufficiency of postage)
Kesterday 9r) Ging told me he didnBt see anything about
insufficiency of postage on the envelope) 6nd the whole
point is + never got notice of intent to ta?e default)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou replied to it)
9:) C#87;$+3: >hatBs thatJ
!%./%&
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou replied to it)
9:) C#87;$+3: + replied to your orders)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o, you replied before +
entered the order) Kou replied and provided your own
witness list that parroted the witness list ==
9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? itBs probably == sorry)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: == that parroted the witness
list that the 1tate 2ar proffered, you filed your own)
9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? + was replying to the
witness list, the Dow1oE)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6nd that came with the notice
of intent to ta?e default)
9:) C#87;$+3: 3o) 5he Dow1oE == along with
the Dow1oE they sent a notice of hearing) Keah, notice of
hearing) 6nd this is pursuant to 1C: 10<2(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) >hich under 1C: 10, can be
by certified mail)
6lthough + donBt believe it can be when, and
+Bll testify under penalty of perjury on the phone, if not
also in writing, Cler? (eters told me + could rely on the
fact, + could ban? on it that the 1tate 2ar of 3evada
would not assert that %=2&=12 certified mailing would be
proffered as affecting service of the complaint on me in
any way at any time)
6t 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 undertoo? a lot of research in this
regard, because there is case law that says when the
2ar == not in this jurisdiction) 2ut when the 2ar sends
you a certified mailing, + thin? they can say within three
days you are served, whether you ever pic?ed it up or not,
you ?now) 1o + was worried about that, you ?now)
2ut + called and tal?ed to Cler? (eters) 6nd
+ believe when a court, particularly a cler? of court,
ma?es an e'press e'plicit representation to you that you
can rely on something, that youBre entitled to, you ?now)
6nd + thin? itBs == it doesnBt set a good precedent for
the 1tate 2ar to essentially be pulling the rug out from
under people li?e me)
!%//%&
6t that time on, + believe it was 1eptember
11th, she said, oh, + got bac? that certified mailing of
the complaint) 5hat was, + guess, sent %=2&, the date
that itBs stamped, the complaint) 1he got it bac?) 1he
said it was returned as undelivered or something) 6nd +
said you thin? (at is going to try to ta?e a defaultJ
5his or thatJ 6nd she said definitively, no, weBll not do
that) Kou are not served == she said, + believe, and +
would li?e to chec? my notes, but she said youBre not
served until we get that signature on the thing) 6nd 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 ta?e default) 6nd only
upon that not being pic?ed up would, + guess, a default be
ta?en)
1o + felt completely entitled to rely upon
that) ;owever, 9r) Ging, and this is found in $aura
(etersB affidavit + found in the file that + have only si'
days to review)
9r) Ging has coyly prevented me from accessing
this file since 9arch) Kes, he gave me some audio, and +
appreciate that) + donBt appreciate the e'tent to which
heBs preventing me from getting it into the record here
today) (articularly where itBs something really
disgusting going on) >here the judge is saying something
thatBs just not true) +tBs just not true)
(enalty of perjury, it is completely false for
her to say that she as?ed me if + was recording or had a
recording device at any time prior to the one bathroom
brea?) 5hatBs just not true)
5here was a bathroom brea?) 6nd immediately
after + got bac? from that bathroom brea? she starts
interrogating me sua sponte about recording)
+ should say == + would li?e to play it for
you to ?now e'actly what was said, e'actly what my
response was ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, we have already
addressed that issue) 1o now weBre on == + have been
trying to determine from you whether you believe you have
filed a verified answer or response to the complaint at
any time) 6nd you indicated youBll have to research that
issue, and +Bll afford you that opportunity) 2ecause,
Huite fran?ly, + have not seen anything that you filed
!%%/%&
that has been verified)
1o letBs go on with your ne't witness) +Bm
affording you the opportunity of putting on a case ==
9:) C#87;$+3: + would li?e to testify in a
narrative)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm sorry) + ?eep tal?ing ==
9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm sorry, sir) + really am)
+Bm sorry) + donBt mean to do it) 5hat is a hallmar? of
6DD, sir) +t is)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1o we have not conducted this
hearing as a default hearing, in deference to you)
9:) C#87;$+3: + appreciate that)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1o now +Bm as?ing you to
proffer your ne't evidence)
9:) C#87;$+3: +Bd li?e to just testify in the
narrative, if + may, sir)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou want to testifyJ
9:) C#87;$+3: "irst can + admit into evidence
these materialsJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hich materialsJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 5he thing + tried to file, the
e' parte emergency motion with the D@Ds attached)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hich e' parte motionJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 5he one that bears == 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 ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +s that the one with the
handwritten captionJ
9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat appears to be an appeal
from the 1tate of 3evada versus == +Bm sorryJ
9:) C#87;$+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) 6nd +
started to get scared that + wasnBt getting something in
the record on this)
6nd so + just said, you ?now what, youBre
crossing that out, and youBre filing this in the 1tate 2ar
so you get something)
1o + thin? this could be characteriAed as a
verified response) 6nd + do appreciate the e'tent == +
!%,/%&
believe you made a law of the case now that youBre not
tal?ing a default on me here)
6nd + believe == +Bd li?e to loo? at my
records more, but + believe + was told + could fa' file at
least, if not also e=mail file by Cler? (eters)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat you filed with the 1tate
2ar is one thing) Kou as?ed me earlier if + had consented
to being served by e=mail, and + have not) Kou as?ed, and
+ have == 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 wor? on this, but you
have attempted to fa' to my office in e'cess of /00 pages
of documents) 5hatBs Huite a lot of documents that, at
least from my e'perience, reHuires a lot of time to
prepare) 1o + ta?e it a little bit disingenuously that
youBre complaining about a lac? of time)
9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, thatBs not what + meant,
sir) +Bm sorry) + didnBt mean to interrupt you) + spent
all my time on this) + didnBt mean it li?e that)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 8nfortunately, you havenBt
deemed it necessary to file a verified answer or response
that + can identify as a verified answer or response) Kou
have filed documents entitled, >ow, >ould Kou $oo? 6t
5hat) Kou filed ==
9:) C#87;$+3: Can + as? what 9r) Ging is
doing right nowJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: == in response to this ==
9:) C#87;$+3: +s this appropriate, 9r) Ging,
during my case for you to be wal?ing around handing out
pamphletsJ
9:) G+37: 5o the e'tent, 9r) Coughlin == if
you donBt mind, 9r) Chairman == to the e'tent youBre
ma?ing representations of what the 1tate 2ar said ==
9:) C#87;$+3: KouBve been brea?ing me down
all day for not following process, and he just gets up and
is doing that, and you donBt say anything)
9:) G+37: 5he e=mail you say 9r) Ging ==
9:) C#87;$+3: == slamming me all day)
9:) G+37: +f + can ma?e the record,
9r) Chairman) 6 letter that was fa'ed to me ==
!,0/%&
9:) C#87;$+3: + object)
9:) G+37: == 9r) Coughlin, which says,
9r) Ging, this is the first +Bve heard of you wanting a
physical address for me, in contravention of :ule /, which
reHuires that he provide an address)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: $etBs address that after
9r) Coughlin ma?es his point, which +Bm trying to get him
to do succinctly, but which +Bm failing at)
+Bm interested now, do you have any further
evidence to offer in your caseJ
9:) C#87;$+3: Kes)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat is itJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + would li?e to submit these
materials + prepared into evidence) +f itBs a case of you
feel + havenBt verified them, and + thin? some of that
might be due to the difficulty inherent to
self=representation where == itBs li?e 9r) Ging isnBt
filing things under penalty of perjury) 6nd + gather that
the client needs to sign a verification ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he rule is very specific
that says the attorney against whom a grievance is made
and a complaint is filed, the attorney, that attorney,
must file a verified response)
9:) C#87;$+3: +f + hire David 7rundy to
represent me, then + still have to sign something that
attaches to David 7rundy the answer he files for me saying
+ verify yes that the factual assertions in here are trueJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes)
9:) G+37: #bjection) ;ypothetical)
9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) +Bll do that right now)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o) +Bm as?ing if you filed
that) 6nd youBve indicated, one, youBre not sure what
verified means) 6nd two, that you need to research it)
1o what is your ne't piece of evidence you
intend to offer, sirJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + intend to ta?e these
materials that + have already filed and say + declare
under penalty of perjury, 3:1 <&)0!<, that the assertions
herein are true and correct to the best of my ?nowledge,
e'cept for those materials based on information and
belief)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6nd a verification cannot be
made on information and belief) 1o is everything in there
!,1/%&
true and correctJ
9:) C#87;$+3: +f + had hired David 7rundy, +
donBt thin? that would be the standard) 2ecause David
7rundy could stand in my stead and sign it under 3:C( 11)
9:) G+37: 3o, he couldnBt)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat is the ne't piece you
have to offer, 9r) CoughlinJ
9:) C#87;$+3: Kou ?now what thoughJ 5his
stuff is true, you ?now) 1ome of itBs opinion, you ?now)
2ut do you thin? you file this much stuff if you are
lyingJ Kou ?now) Do + stri?e you as somebody who would
lie a lot or do + stri?e you as somebody that doesnBt have
much of a filter and maybe tells the truth too muchJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hatBs your ne't piece of
evidenceJ
9:) C#87;$+3: KouBre not letting me admit
this eitherJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou still havenBt identified,
because + have seen at least three documents entitled an
e' parte motion, and you havenBt identified which one it
is yet)
9:) C#87;$+3: E' parte motion) #?ay)
9:) G+37: + would object on two grounds)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: $etBs identify what it is
heBs offering) + still donBt ?now)
9:) C#87;$+3: + would li?e 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)
9:) G+37: DonBt change it now, 9r) Coughlin)
9:) C#87;$+3: +Bll get a ==
9:) G+37: +tBs already stamp filed) + donBt
want you to alter a file copy)
9:) C#87;$+3: == a new file stamp on it)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou have just added some
writing to that document that was lodged with the 1tate
2ar on #ctober &1J
9:) C#87;$+3: Keah)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +tBs the one dated 1eptember
12thJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 3o) + really donBt see you
nitpic?ing (at Ging li?e this) 6nd (at Ging violated
every aspect of 1C: 10<2(c*) Every aspect) 6nd + donBt
!,2/%&
see you nitpic?ing him a bit)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +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)
9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm offering the one +Bm
offering today)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >e donBt ?now which one that
is)
9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs the one that +Bm offering
today)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1o identify it for us,
please)
9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou havenBt shown it to us)
9:) C#87;$+3: #ne second, please, sir)
9:) G+37: + realiAe 9r) 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 dis? attached to the bac? that should definitely
not come in, because there is no foundation for it
whatsoever)
6nd 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) 6nd for
him to suggest heBs filing e' parte documents to the chair
of the panel to avoid the 1tate 2ar is inappropriate)
6nd lastly, + thin? itBs a great concern that
9r) Coughlin is adding) +nstead of creating a new
document or as?ing for leave to file a new document is
apparently interlineating or adding to the document thatBs
already been proffered and stamped) 1o + donBt ?now what
it was originally) 3ow + ?now heBs added to it, but itBs
not the same document anymore)
9:) C#87;$+3: +t a new document +Bm filing
right now) 5hatBs new) +tBs different and new) +t might
!,&/%&
be substantially similar to one previously filed, but itBs
new)
9:) G+37: "or those reasons + would object)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, would you as?
the court reporter to please mar? it and ma?e it part of
the record)
9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) + apologiAe)
9:) G+37: Can + as? the dis? be removedJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +t hasnBt been admitted yet)
DoesnBt matter) ;eBs offering it) + want it to be part
of the record)
9:) C#87;$+3: + want the dis? too)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he ne't issue is whether it
will be admitted)
(E'hibit 1! mar?ed)*
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, let me
understand this) KouBve added some handwriting to this
from something you had previously filedJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + attempted to use something)
+ believe thatBs a copy of what was previously filed) 6nd
+ attempted to notate that) +Bm not attempting to mislead
anybody) + thin? + 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) 6nd + would be happy to further verify it
if this court would be so ?ind as to give me an education
of what it might li?e to see in that regard)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: + 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 == + thin?
this one addresses Dudge ;olmesB order)
5o me this is a document that was used to ==
originally entitled 3otice #f Errata 6nd :evised
1upplemental 9otion "or 3ew 5rial, #r 6lternatively
1upplemental 9otion 5o @acate Dudgment #r Conviction #r +n
5he 6lternative 9otion "or 6rrest #f Dudgment that appears
to have been filed in the underlying case)
+t appears that 9r) Coughlin is now attempting
to refile that document which addresses issues of the
underlying case in this current 1tate 2ar proceeding, and
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)
9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, it ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hatBs my ruling, sir)
9:) C#87;$+3: 6ll right)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 2ut it is part of the record)
9:) C#87;$+3: + thought you just ruled you
werenBt accepting it)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +tBs part of the record)
+tBs just not admitted into evidence) 2ut you can argue
to the supreme court that + committed error)
+tBs now &:&. or so, and + want to afford both
sides the opportunity to present a final argument)
9:) C#87;$+3: 1o ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Do you have any additional
evidenceJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 1o the amount of time today
went from ,:00 oBcloc? to 2:&0 for 9r) Ging, and you gave
me an hourJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o) +Bm giving you 1<
minutes == the ruling was it was &0 minutes per witness,
1< minutes per each side) +Bm giving you the opportunity
to present your ne't evidence)
9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) + would li?e to
present == give me one second, please) + would li?e to
move into evidence a declaration)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: $etBs have the reporter mar?
it)
(E'hibit 1< mar?ed)*
9:) EC;E@E::+6: + believe == did you just
handwrite some information on thisJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 5hatBs attorney=client
privilege)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou did it in the presence of
the panel) + saw you writing on some document,
9r) Coughlin) >as this ==
9:) C#87;$+3: + donBt thin? thatBs been
proven)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: == was this the document that
you were writing onJ
9:) C#87;$+3: +Bve been writing on lot of
stuff today)
!,</%&
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hen did you file this
documentJ
9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm just giving that to you
right now) + donBt see a file stamp)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou havenBt filed it yetJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + donBt see a file stamp on it)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm as?ing, did you file this
with the 1tate 2arJ 5his is a pleading)
9:) C#87;$+3: 5hatBs a declaration)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +tBs a pleading in a case
entitled 1tate 2ar of 3evada, (etitioner, versus -ach
Coughlin, reference in cases 3712=020!, 37=0!&<, and
37=0!&!) 5he caption of the document + have seen) +
believe it was stuc? under my door at my office last
night)
9:) C#87;$+3: 5hatBs a different one)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6 different oneJ
9:) C#87;$+3: Keah)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Did you serve this one on
anybodyJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 5hatBs a whole new thing)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o) KouBve completely
written on this) +Bm just trying to understand what you
are attempting to offer here)
9:) C#87;$+3: +f you change one blade of
grass, itBs a different field, a different ball game)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1o this is a document that
you want now entitled Declaration) 6nd what is that wordJ
@erified responseJ 6nd this is what you are offering as
your verified response to the 1tate 2arBs complaintJ
9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs what +Bm offering into
evidence right now)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Ging, any commentJ
9:) G+37: + havenBt seen that) +Bm sorry)
"irst of all, + will object to it, and + would strongly ==
+ believe itBs e'tremely inappropriate for 9r) Coughlin to
have written on this document, and then to have suggested
he doesnBt ac?nowledge your Huestion, but he just wrote on
this particular document)
9:) C#87;$+3: + donBt ?now that thatBs what +
said) +Bve written on a lot of things today) >ell, maybe
not that many things)
9:) G+37: 5he document purports to be similar
!,./%&
to other irrelevant pleadings that have been filed in the
past, essentially incoherent)
#f great concern to me is that attached to the
document again purport to be dis?s that 9r) Coughlin has
created or handwritten on) 6nd in addition, for him to
have essentially altered a document in an attempt to
proffer it as some sort of motion or evidence today +
thin? is objectionable and should be refused)
9:) C#87;$+3: 6lteredJ
9:) G+37: + donBt ?now what it says,
actually)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >ould you as? the court
reporter to mar? this document as the ne't)
(E'hibit 1. mar?ed)*
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 2ecause of the unusual
circumstances presented by this, unless panel members
disagree, +Bm going to admit both E'hibits 1< and 1.,
because + thin? the manner == and E'hibit 1. + will
identify, first of all, as a document that + received a
phone call at about /:00 oBcloc? 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)
9:) C#87;$+3: 5hereBs no file stamp on that)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm sorryJ
9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm as?ing ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm showing you E'hibit 1.)
+t has a file stamped copy that was shoved under my door)
9:) C#87;$+3: Did + give you the wrong oneJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'hibit 1. will spea? for
itself)
+Bm going to admit E'hibits 1< and 1., because
+ thin? they bear relevancy on the issue of competency,
candor with the tribunal)
1< and 1. are admitted, 9r) Coughlin) 3e'tJ
(E'hibits 1< and 1. admitted into evidence)*
9:) C#87;$+3: + would li?e ==
9:) @E$$+1: 6re those admitted with the
transcript or tape on the bac?J 2ecause + thin? 9r) Ging
had objected to the tapes)
9:) G+37: + donBt have the capability, nor do
+ want to ma?e copies of the dis?s so + will have to as?
how that gets accomplished) 5o the e'tent itBs going to
be made part of the record that goes to the supreme court,
!,//%&
$aura will ma?e copies) Do you want her to ma?e copies of
those documents nowJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm admitting these for the
limited purpose, not for the truth of whatBs in here ==
9:) G+37: + totally understand)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: == or admitting the dis? 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)
9:) C#87;$+3: 6lteringJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm sorry, 9r) CoughlinJ
9:) C#87;$+3: 6lteringJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes, altering)
9:) C#87;$+3: >hat are you purporting that +
told youJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he record will spea? for
itself ==
9:) C#87;$+3: == get out of the room)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: == this panel writes its
decision, + will e'plain my reasoning for it) 2ut +Bm
trying to do it now)
Kou 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 == attempted to
change it to a verified response)
+ believe the fact that you did that == +Bm
not admitting them for the truth of anything in there)
+Bm admitting it because + thin? it bears on the issue as
to the competency and the ability to represent people in a
tribunal)
9:) C#87;$+3: >hy canBt + admit ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm not arguing with you,
9r) Coughlin, +Bm e'plaining my decision) >eBre not going
to argue) Do you have any other evidence to presentJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + would li?e to preserve for
the record that + am see?ing 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)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm admitting it for the ==
9:) C#87;$+3: 3o) Kou said you are admitting
!,%/%&
it for a more limited purpose)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes)
9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd +Bm saying + would li?e to
admit it for the truth of the matter asserted)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm going to overrule that
objection)F
!& 5he 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)Q&R 5o this end, the notice should be
reasonably specific)Q!R +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)Q<R 6n 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)Q.R Q"3&R 8)1)]9atter of Glein, !0/ ") 1upp) </0 (1)D)
3)K) 1,/.*) >yo)]9endicino v) >hitchurch, <.< ()2D !.0 (>yo) 1,//*) (roper notice
given 6la)]+n re 7riffith, 2%& 6la) <2/, 21, 1o) 2D &</ (1,.,*) "la)]5he "lorida 2ar v)
Curry, 211 1o) 2D 1., ("la) 1,.%*) Q"3!R 8)1)]9atter of Glein, !0/ ") 1upp) </0 (1)D)
3)K) 1,/.*) Q"3<R 8)1)]+n re $os 6ngeles County (ioneer 1oc), 21/ ")2D 1,0 (,th Cir)
1,<!*) 3otice timely 8)1)]+n re 1arelas, &.0 ") 1upp) /,! (3)D) +ll) 1,/&*, 6ffBd, !,/ ")2D
,2. (/th Cir) 1,/!*) 1)C)]+n re 9i'son, 2<% 1)C) !0%, 1%, 1)E)2D 12 (1,/2*) Q"3.R 8)1)]
1e'ton v) 6r?ansas 1upreme Court Committee on (rofessional Conduct, /&0 ") 1upp) 2%<
(>)D) 6r?) 1,,0*) :eHuirements of statutes or rules of procedure for disciplinary
proceedings with respect to form and service of notice should be observed) 8)1)]1chwebel
v) #rric?, 1<& ") 1upp) /01 (D) D)C) 1,</*, #rder affBd, 2<1 ")2D ,1, (D)C) Cir) 1,<%*)
>)@a)]Committee on $egal Ethics of >est @irginia 1tate 2ar v) 1cherr, 1!, >) @a) /21,
1!& 1)E)2D 1!1 (1,.<*) 6ttorney 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) 8)1)C)6) Const)6mend) 1!) 1tate e' rel) #?lahoma 2ar 6ssBn v) ;aave, 2012 #G ,2,
2,0 ()&D /!/ (#?la) 2012*) >here the respondent had full notice of a disciplinary
proceeding and ac?nowledged 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)K)]9atter of 3i'on, <& 6)D)2D 1/%, &%< 3)K)1)2D &0< (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 9ortg) Corp) @) Coleman, 2! Gan) 6pp) 2D .<0, ,<1 ()2D <!%
(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
did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that attorney had deliberately evaded
!,,/%&
?nowledge of the inHuiry) +n re #wusu, %%. 6)2D <&. (D)C) 200<*) 6ttorney in disciplinary
proceedings was not entitled to have deemed=admitted 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):ules, :ule 1,, $awyer
Disciplinary Enforcement :ule, S %(C*, % $16T:)1) +n re 2oyer, 2. 1o) &D 1&, ($a) 2010*)
6mendment at close of hearing 6mending 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 6ssBn v) >enger, !<! 3)>)2D &./ (+owa 1,,0*)
Due process rights violated 5he 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) 1imece?, %& #hio 1t) &D &20, 1,,% =#hio=,2, .,, 3)E)2D
,&& (1,,%*) +t is necessary that the attorney be fairly and specifically informed of the charges
against him or her)Q!R 5he 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)Q<R ;owever, 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)Q.R 6mendments)
6mendments 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)Q/R
>here 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)Q%R +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)Q,R +ssues,
proof, and variance) #rdinarily, an attorney can be tried only on the charges contained in the
complaint)Q10R ;owever, while proof of acts not charged generally will not justify
disciplinary action,Q11R 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)
Q12R Q"3!R 8)1)]Committee on (rofessional Ethics and 7rievances of @irgin +slands 2ar
6ssBn v) Dohnson, !!/ ")2D 1., (&d Cir) 1,/1*) 6r?)]>eems v) 1upreme Court Committee
on (rofessional Conduct, 2</ 6r?) ./&, <2& 1)>)2D ,00 (1,/<*) Gan)]1tate v) 5urner, 21/
Gan) </!, <&% ()2D ,.., %/ 6)$):)&D &&/ (1,/<*) $a)]$ouisiana 1tate 2ar 6ssBn v)
;amilton, &!& 1o) 2D ,%< ($a) 1,//*) 9d)]2ar 6ssBn of 2altimore City v) Coc?rell, 2/0
9d) .%., &1& 6)2D %1. (1,/!*) (a)]#ffice of Disciplinary Counsel v) Campbell, !.& (a)
!/2, &!< 6)2D .1. (1,/<*) 5e')]:ey v) 1tate, <12 1)>)2D !0 (5e') Civ) 6pp) El (aso
1,/!*, writ refused n):)E) @a)]1eventh Dist) Committee of @irginia 1tate 2ar v) 7unter,
212 @a) 2/%, 1%& 1)E)2D /1& (1,/1*) Q"3<R #hio]Cuyahoga Cty) 2ar 6ssn) @) Dudge, ,.
<00/%&
#hio 1t) &D !./, 2002 =#hio=!/!1, //. 3)E)2D 21 (2002*) Due process rights violated 5he
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) 1imece?, %& #hio 1t) &D &20, 1,,% =#hio=,2, .,, 3)E)2D ,&& (1,,%*) Q"3.R
"la)]5he "lorida 2ar v) 3owac?i, .,/ 1o) 2D %2% ("la) 1,,/*) 6llegation sufficient 6n
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)
9ass)]+n re 6bbott, !&/ 9ass) &%!, //2 3)E)2D <!& (2002*) Q"3/R 8)1)]Coughlan v)
8)1), 1. 6las?a !0/, 2&. ")2D ,2/ (,th Cir) 1,<.*) $eave to amend properly granted 6 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 stri?e was granted) #hio] Columbus
2ar 6ssn) @) Dougherty, ,, #hio 1t) &D 1!/, 200& =#hio=2./2, /%, 3)E)2D .21 (200&*)
6mendment at close of hearing 6mending 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 6ssBn v) >enger, !<! 3)>)2D &./ (+owa 1,,0*)
Q"3%R Cal)]5omlinson v) 1tate 2ar, 1& Cal) &D <./, 11, Cal) :ptr) &&<, <&1 ()2D 111,
(1,/<*) Q"3,R Colo)](eople v) :ichards, /!% ()2D &!1 (Colo) 1,%/*) Q"310R 8)1)]9atter
of 6brams, <21 ")2D 10,! (&d Cir) 1,/<*) +ll)]+n re Doyle, 1!! +ll) 2D !<1, 1.& +ll) Dec)
<1<, <%1 3)E)2D .., (1,,1*) +owa]Committee on (rofessional Ethics and Conduct of
+owa 1tate 2ar 6ssBn v) Crary, 2!< 3)>)2D 2,% (+owa 1,/.*) >yo)]9endicino v)
>hitchurch, <.< ()2D !.0 (>yo) 1,//*) Q"311R 9ich)]+n re Corace (1tate :eport 5itle:
1tate 2ar v) Corace*, &,0 9ich) !1,, 21& 3)>)2D 12! (1,/&*) "indings of misconduct
within scope of accusations 6 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)]5he "lorida 2ar v) 1olomon, /11 1o) 2D 11!1 ("la) 1,,%*) Q"312R (a)]+n
re Disbarment (roceedings, &21 (a) %1, 1%! 6) <, (1,&.*) 5he 123 and 33D2 (anelBs
failure to abide by 1C: 10<(2* and 10<(2*(c* was e'tremely prejudicial to CoughlinBs
defense, by design: Cal)]5aylor v) 1tate 2ar, 11 Cal) &D !2!, 11& Cal) :ptr) !/%, <21 ()2D
!/0 (1,/!*) 5he passage of time in itself is neither a denial of due process nor a
jurisdictional defect (Ko?oAe?i v) 1tate 2ar (1,/!* 11 Cal) &D !&., !!, Q11& Cal):ptr) .02,
<21 ()2D %<%RC 5aylor v) 1tate 2ar (1,/!* 11 Cal) &D !2!, !&! Q11& Cal):ptr) !/%, <21
()2D !/0R*, absent a showing of specific prejudice (Caldwell v) 1tate 2ar (1,/<* 1& Cal) &D
!%%, !,. Q11, Cal):ptr) 21/, <&1 ()2D /%<R*) 5he 123(anelBs defects are not merely
directory or limited to failing to accord CoughlinBs the time periods provided by 1C: 10< or
1C: 110, rather, the prejudicial nature thereof e'tends to where the 123 simply failed to
<01/%&
ever provide that reHuired by 1C: 10< to Coughlin irrespective of failing to do so in a
timely manner) 6dditionally, 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 lac?ing
in 9c7eorge Class of 1,// school spirit)
!! (>here 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 ta?en have been
prescribed)Q1R 1uch proceedings may be governed e'clusively by the statutes or rules
specifically covering them)Q2R) "ailure of board to follow its procedural rules 5he 2oard of
Disciplinary 6ppeals 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 20=day notice of the hearing) 5e')]9atter of
>augh, ,&2 1)>)2D !%/ (5e') 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) 5e')]
7alindo v) 1tate, <&< 1)>)2D ,2& (5e') Civ) 6pp) Corpus Christi 1,/.*) Q"32R #hio]
1mith v) Gates, !. #hio 1t) 2D 2.&, /< #hio #p) 2D &1%, &!% 3)E)2D &20 (1,/.*) 1)C)]+n
re 9i'son, 2<% 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) :ptr) 1/<, <20 ()2D ,,1 (1,/!*) Q"3&R 8)1)]+n re 9ing, !.,
")2D 1&<2 (/th Cir) 1,/2*) Conn)]6pplication of Courtney, 1.2 Conn) <1%, 2,! 6)2D <.,
(1,/2*) 6s to the inherent power of the courts to regulate the conduct of attorneys, generally,
see SS <, &/) +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) :ptr) 1/<, <20
()2D ,,1 (1,/!*) ;owever, because of their Huasi=criminal nature, disciplinary proceedings
must accord the respondent the essentials of due process of law)Q%R 5hus, the respondent
must be given reasonable notice of the proceedings, and an opportunity to be heard in
defense)Q,R 6ppointment #f Counsel "or 6ttorney "acing Disciplinary Charges, %. 6)$):)
!5h 10/1) Q"3%R 8)1)]+n re :uffalo, &,0 8)1) <!!, %% 1) Ct) 1222, 20 $) Ed) 2D 11/
(1,.%*C +n re 9ing, !., ")2D 1&<2 (/th Cir) 1,/2*) 7eneral rules invo?ed to insure
compliance Cal)]Emslie v) 1tate 2ar, 11 Cal) &D 210, 11& Cal) :ptr) 1/<, <20 ()2D ,,1
(1,/!*) Due process shown $awyers received sufficient due process before temporary
suspensions, where each lawyer received notice of the grounds for see?ing 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) 9ass)]9atter of Ellis, !2<
9ass) &&2, .%0 3)E)2D 11<! (1,,/*) Q"3,R S ,&) +n e'ercising discretion to grant a
continuance in attorney disciplinary proceedings, the hearing officer may consider the
<02/%&
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
6gainst 1anai, 1./ >ash) 2D /!0, 22< ()&D 20& (200,*)*
6s to (anel Chair EcheverriaBs coy avoidance here of the fact that 1C: 10<(2*(c*
was violated in every possible way, as was 1C: 10<(2*, consider GingBs continued Pbad faith
obstructionP of CoughlinBs right to inspect the P#ummary /re/ared by bar coun#el o% the
e-idence again#t the attorney, and the eiden!e i"self, of the Pnames of the witnesses !ar
counsel intends to call for other than impeachmentP, and of the P6rief s"a"emen" of "$e fa!"s "o
#$i!$ ea!$ #ill "es"ifyP
;ecord#
1ent: 5hu 110112 ,:0& 69
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com (AachcoughlinNhotmail)com*
7ood 9orning 9r) Coughlin,
Kour 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 ta?ing place at the state bar office #o you 2ill not be
/ermitted in the building)F
;@0 ecord#
1ent: 5hu 110112 !:!& (9
5o: (atric? Ging (patric??Nnvbar)org*C fflahertyNdlpfd)com (fflahertyNdlpfd)com*C
tsusichNnvdetr)org (tsusichNnvdetr)org*C DENE$#:E3#)com (jeNeloreno)com*C
Dear 9r) 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 PaccessP 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)
+ thin? you might find that the attached video of 1argent $opeA pretty much vitiates
the criminal trespass conviction (and that conviction, and all of Dudge 3ash ;olmes orders are
void in light of there violation of 3:1 1/%)!0< vis a vis 3:1 <)010 and the admission in Dudge
3ash ;olmes 9arch 1!th, 2012 letter to the 123, and beyond that +n re #liver and the fact that
Dudge 3ash ;olmes admits on the record to be basing her #rderBs upon conduct not committed
<0&/%&
in her Pimmediate presenceP (an allegation of having a :9C 9arshals loo? P(eeping 5omP
style through a bathroom stall doesnBt cut it*))) +nteresting that you have chosen to subpoena
your former 6ttorney 7eneralBs cowor?e Dan >ong rather than City 6ttorney #rmaas (given
her presence at the 22/12 11 5:2.%00 5rial from which the Psummary criminal contemptP
order stems, and the allegations of her and that :9C 9arshal ;arley (whom violated the
Pcourthouse sanctuaryP doctrine in one of the worst ways imaginable with his barging in on a
plea bargain session to Ppersonally serveP a 3otice of #rder to 1how Cause on behalf of
:ichard 7) ;ill (and the 11 tr 2.%00 case involved traffic citations immediately after :(D
5arter told Coughlin to leave ;illBs office, albeit without his wallet, ?eys, clientBs files, or state
issued identification))))* then to have the same >C1# Deputy 9achen who lied about
personally serving the loc?out order on Coughlin (in the eviction involving ;ill* again lie in his
& / 2012 6ffidavit attesting to have served the notice of the & 2& 12 #:der to 1how Cause
hearing (the one :9C 9arshal ;arley served for him, then got all jumpy and whispering in
#rmaasBs, and, apparently while Coughlin was in the restroom, made allegations to Dudge 3ash
;olmes (and afterwards incident to the 1+56* see?ing to cover up his misconduct and that of
#rmaas) Claiborne is not going to allow you to feign ignorance, 9r) Ging, nor is the proof of
receipt of all my emails and writings and media) ;ave fun reviewing it all)
:egardless, its not Psummary contemptP if all essential elements of the allegation,
under any iteration of 3:1 22 are not alleged to have occurred in the Pimmediate presenceP of
the Dudge)))where, as here, that is not the case, those :9C 9arshal are going to have to sign
their names to affidavits li?e the big boys they strut around acting li?e 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)
6gain, today, you have reverted to your old tric?s) + want everything, not just that
which you or Cler?+nvestigator (eters deem PrelatedB to the 1C: 10< PComplaintP (which has
three case numbers on it ng12=020!, ng12=0!&!, and ng12=0!&<*) 2oth you and (eters get real
evasive when it comes times to answer for who submitted or filed the ng12=0!&< grievance
consisting of a three year old #rder by "amily Court Dudge $inda 7arnder, yet which bares a
file stamp of 9arch 1<th, 2012 by the 123)))then there is Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs brother, :9C
Dudge >illiam 7ardner refusing to recuse himself from the criminal trespass case, resulting in a
conviction
9r) 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) Kou have failed to uphold
that promise as well) "urther, you and Cler?+nvestigator (eters have remained evasive and
contradictory respecting who filed 3712=0!&<, when, and under what circumstances it came to
be a grievance) + thin? you will find that a review of the hearings you finally provided in 11 C:
2.!0< (6pril 10th and 9ay %th, 2012* will yield some really intersting statements on the record
by Geith $oomis, EsH) (your 9inden associate* and Dudge >illiam 7ardner of the :9C
(brother to "amily Court Dudge $inda 7arnder, whose 200, sanctions order was file stamped
by the 123 on 9arch 1<th, 2012 and is now called 3712=0!&<, though neither you nor (eters
<0!/%&
will say anything all that sensible about the genesis of that grievance, etc) Dudge 7ardner ma?es
some pretty curious statements respecting the competency analysis, the decision to plow ahead
with a 5rial 1etting on 9arch /th, 2012 for 6pril 10th, 2012 (intersesting considering Coughlin
filed the 3otice of 6ppeal of the final, appealable Psummary criminal contemptP conviction on
that same date, 9arch /th, 2012 that now forms part of the asis for Dudge 3ash ;olmes ng12=
0!&! PdecompensatingP grievance, incident to her 9arch 1!th, 2012 letter to the 123))))you
might want to have Dudge 7ardnerBs statements on the record from !1012 and <%12 and
$oomisBs transcribed, as your possession of the audio thereof arguably puts a Claiborne=esHue
duty upon you to inHuire as to the candor and veracity of some of those statements, especially
vis a vis the PmeetingsP 7ardners being the :9CBs P6dministrative DudgeP, etc), etc) "urther,
you have refused to allow me access to a number of materials that neither you nor (eters deem
Ppart of the complaintP (the 1C: 123 v Coughlin complaint)))though to the e'tent one or more
of ng12=020!, ng12=0!&!, 0!&< mention the :9C, arguably, + am entitled to anything at all
related to me, whether submitted by the >C1#, :9C, City of :eno, City of :eno 9arshals,
etc)
(atric? Ging ((atric?GNnvbar)org* 6dd to contacts &2/12 5o:
AachcoughlinNhotmail)com "rom: (atric? Ging ((atric?GNnvbar)org*5his sender is
in your safe list) 1ent: 5ue &2/12 ,:2! 69 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com
(AachcoughlinNhotmail)com* 9arch 2/, 2012 Dear 9r) Coughlin, (erhaps you are
not fully aware of your behavior) 6t our brief meeting yesterday + perceived you as
very hostile and even threatening) 8nder 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) Kou said you did not have time and simply wanted
to argue about your receipt of e=mail 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)
6s + attempted to e'plain, + will be meeting with a panel to have them ma?e a
determination about the grievances that have been made against you by 9r) ;ill and
the Dudge from Department & that you read at my office) + have as?ed for a written
response to those grievances) +n response + received many e=mails with attachments)
+ will soon be sharing the grievances with a disciplinary panel and will advise them
of your responses to date) + will ?eep you advised of the panelLs determination)
1incerely, (atric? Ging 6ctions -ach Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)com*
&2.12 5o: patric??Nnvbar)org, glennmNnvbar)org, davidcNnvbar)org Dear 9r)
Ging, 5his correspondence is sent to confirm that + visited the Double : 2lvd)
offices of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada today and attempted to be provided access the the
various Pother different judgesP grievances that +, prior to last "riday, was
completely unaware of) + have sent you several written correspondences detailing the
tampering and other problems with my 81(1 mail incident to the two domestic
abuser attac?s + have been subject to since appro'imately 1112, and as? that you
<0</%&
copy my on all correspondences or document production via email and fa') 5oday,
you showed me a two page letter from Dudge 3ash ;olmes) Did you interpret it to be
a PgrievancePJ ;ow is that designation arrived atJ Kou 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) + as?ed for a copy of the
large bo' of documents, and other "#+6 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) 9y 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 ?now if you received any sort of Preturn to
senderP letter for that mailing) 1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH), (# 2#4 .0,<2,
:E3#, 3@, %,<0., tel: //< &&% %11%, fa': ,!, ../ /!02C
-achCoughlinNhotmail)com 3evada 2ar 3o: ,!/& i 2012 9icrosoft 5erms
(rivacy Developers English (8nited 1tates*
"rom: (atric? Ging ((atric?GNnvbar)org*
1ent: 9on !0212 &:</ (9
Dear 9r) Coughlin, + have opened & disciplinary files against
you) 5hey are identified by number below: 3712=020! -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH) 2ar 3o) ,!/& (200<* 9r) ;ill 3712=0!&< -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH) 2ar 3o) ,!/& (200<* Dudge ;olmes 3712=0!&! -achary 2)
Coughlin, EsH) 2ar 3o) ,!/& (200<* Dudge 7ardner Kou have received the
grievance from 9r) ;ill and also the grievance from Dudge ;olmes) 5he
7rievance from Dudge 7ardner relates to her E#rder 6fter 5rialF in the case
of 6shwin Doshi v 2arti Doshi, Case 3umber D@0%=011.%, 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 >al=9art, and
an incident report from 9arshals 5hompson and Coppa regarding your
conduct on 9arch 22, 2012) + also have the recordings of the court
proceedings at issue) 6t 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, (atric? Ging, 6ssistant 2ar Counsel
"rom: (atric? Ging ((atric?GNnvbar)org* 5his sender is in your safe
list)
1ent: 5hu !1,12 2:2% (9
<0./%&
6pril 1,, 2012
-ach Coughlin
Dear 9r) Coughlin,
6 screening panel of the 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary (anel
met on 5uesday 6pril 10, 2011 to address the grievances filed against
you) 5he panel directed me to proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing)
6s such, + will be preparing a formal Complaint)
+ understand from the e=mail below, that you do not believe
you should have been found guilty of the theft at >al=9art and that you
should not have been found in contempt of Court) ;owever, it must
concern you that you were found in contempt of Court by more than
one Dudge in two different trials) Kou wanted to ?now how + learned of
or obtained a copy of Dudge 7ardnerLs #rder after trial that was filed in
200,) +t was sent to me by the cler? 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) Kou may be well served to e'plain what remedial
measures you are ta?ing to ma?e sure you do not repeat the conduct
complained about) + cannot give you legal advice) ;owever + can
suggest you cooperate with 2ar counselLs investigation and that you
respond specifically to the allegations contained in Dudge ;olmes and
:ichard ;illLs grievance letters to the office of 2ar Counsel)
(atric? Ging
-ach has fff2% MpageVbrowseMresidV !&0%!.&%"""^!0<! MscV(hotosMauth?eyV^
6+D3hGfo(Cfii&1. files to share with you on 1?yDrive) 5o view them, clic? the lin?s below)
E96+$1 5# (65:+CGGN3@26:)#:7 (65:+CG G+37 26: C#831E$)pdf
emails from -achCoughlinNhotmail)com to (atric? Ging patric??Nnvbar)org since & 2&
12 )pdf
emails since & 2& 12 from patric??Nnvbar)org (atric? Ging 2ar Counsel 1tate 2ar of
3evada)pdf
< ! 0, attachment to wlc elcano email gardner 2.!0< 01,<< .0&02 ltrCoughlin 2 ndDraft)pdf
< / 0, termination letter from wls elcano linda gardner Aachcoughlin 0!0/0, )pdf
<0//%&
< . 0, email from wls ed elcano 2.!0< .0&02 garnder 01,<< 10%,. .0&02 2.%00 .0&1/
<!%!! )pdf
11 5: 2.%00 :9C 022/12 0&1!12 _ 20120&12 = 10&& _ 01 cd 00& b % f 0%<1 d 0 )mp &
11 C: 2.!0< 0<0%12 $oomis_ 20120<0% = 110! _ 01 cd 2 d 0 a .2/ f < f ,0 )mp &
11 5: 2.%00 :9C 022/12 0&1!12 _ 2012022/ = 1<0/ _ 01 ccf <.1% f /. c !.0 )mp &
& 1. 12 ng 12 = 0!&! 123 Ging letter containing :9C Dudge 3ash ;omes & 1! 12 grievance
against Coughlin and ng 12 = 0!&< linda gardner sanction from ! 10 0, 2.%00 00.,. <!%!! )pdf
2 1! 12 123 G+37 $E55E: >+5; ;+$$ 7:+E@63CE 6556C;ED :C: 2011 = 0.&&!1
:(D :9C 11 C: 00.,. >C1# 181+C; 9E)pdf
11 cr 2.!0< puentes 0!1012 _ 20120!10 = 0,0& _ 01 cd 1. f % c & aa !, b 0 )mp &
rpd sargent lopeA i have a Huestion for you 11 cr 2.!0< 00.,. 2.%00 )wmv
2 2/ 12 and & % 12 6ffidavits of 1ervice by >C1# 9achen in 1/0% and 0&.2% 2.%00 00.,.
marshal harley)pdf
rerevised e'hibit 1 2.!0< .1,01 >+5; 265E1 3892E:+37)pdf
12 = &2.%< 10 1< 12 scr 111 ( ! * in re coughlin petition criminal trespass conviction .1,01 2.!0<
1/0% 2.%00 12!20 hill sbn)pdf
Download all ;K(E:$+3G Phttps:s?ydrive)live)comredir)asp'J
cidV !&0%!.&% f &2 f < f 2% MpageVdownloadasAipMresidV !&0%!.&% " &2 " < " 2% ^ !0<! Mauth?eyV^
6+D3hGfo(Cfii & KM2pubV1D4)1?yDriveM2srcV1?y9ailP P
PJ*+, #till ha# not /ro-ided Coughlin acce## to the material# he i# entitled to to
1ent: "ri 110212 10:&. (9
&& attachments
all emails to loomis 2.!0< 12!20 2.%00 00.,. 0.<.&0 0.&&!1)pdf (//,)% G2*
<0%/%&
, 2 2% 12 Contempt #rder 3ash 2.%00 2.!0< 0.<.&0 00.,. 0.&&!1 bf siAe reduced)pdf
(!!,), G2* , 11cr2.!0< puentes 0!1012_20120!10=0,0&_01cd1.f%c&aa!,b0)mp& (<)1
92* , 3v:eno(dNcoplogic)com rpd police reports by coughlin 0.&&!1 duralde carter
lopeA sifre 1/0% 2.!0< 2.%00)htm (1!<)0 G2* , rpd carter police report 11 cr 2.!0<
puentes loomis 1/0% merliss rmc gardner cr12=0&/. mh12=00&2 .<0.&0 0.&&!1 rpd lopeA
carter police report 11 1& 12=2)pdf (.)& 92* , & & 12 attached to loomis email and filed in
rmc final motion to dismiss 11 cr 2.!0< 2.%00 0.<.&0 0.&&!1)pdf (!!2). G2* ,
goodnight jgoodnightNwashoecounty)us < 2 12 email regarding haAlett loomis mhc
1/%)!0< 0.&&!1 2.!0<)htm (1.)& G2* , all emails from ?eith loomis
?eithloomisNearthlin?)net between 2 2/ 12 and % 10 12 2.!0< 2.%00 00.,. 0.&&!1
0.<.&0)htm (&22)% G2* , & / 12 rmc 11 cr 2.!0< loomis gardner 1/%)!0< Coughlin 5rial
1etting 2.%00 00.,. 0.&&!1 0.<.&0)pdf (&21)! G2* , % , 12 $oomis second 9otion to
withdraw 12 cr 12!20 rmc see also 2.!0<)pdf (22,)2 G2* , 1tate 2ar #f 3evada nvbar
casey ba?er 1/0% 2.!0<)htm (!2)/ G2* , < . 0, email from wls ed elcano 2.!0< .0&02
garnder 01,<< 10%,. .0&02 2.%00 .0&1/ <!%!! dd)pdf (1<)& G2* , 11 1. 2011 email
from reno city attorney roberts)htm (1.)& G2* , >C1# 2ec?man, Debi Campbell,
Cummings, ;odge 1tatements on property seAied from :eno 6ttorney by :eno 9unic
Court Dudge 3ash ;olmes)pdf (1<0)& G2* , -achCoughlinNhotmail)com emails to
puentesNaol)com)pdf (222)1 G2* , pam roberts on her duty)pdf (%12)0 G2* , (atric? Ging
sbn grievance letter of & 1. 12 and Dudge 3ash ;olmes greivance of & 1! 12 rmc 11 5:
2.%00)pdf (</<)% G2* , proof of clandestine status conference on 2 2/ 12 dogan young
nash holmes schroeder rcr2012=0.<.&0 rjc rmc rpd wcso wcpd wcda = Copy)pdf (1.!!)!
G2* , proof of fa'ing notice of appeal to both rmc gardner and reno city attorney haAlett=
stevens)pdf (1!)< G2* , proof picture of personally delivering notice of appeal to city of
reno haAlett . 2/ 12 in cr12=12.2 11 cr 2.!0<)pdf (!&), G2* , records reHuest and
subpoena to :1+C)pdf (/1)2 G2* , records reHuest to rsic police)pdf (.<)% G2* , rmc 12 cr
12!20 $oomis motion to withdraw as counsel % , 12 City of :eno v Coughlin)pdf (,2.),
G2* , 9otion for Continuance to :eno City 6tty :oberts :9C)pdf (!!%), G2* , #:DE:
:E$E61+37 (:#(E:5K 11 5: 2.%00 & &0 12 nash rmc rjc rpd wcso ?ing clar? mar?ed
as recd bac? 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 cr12=12.2)pdf (2)< 92* , C:12=12.2=&0,&..%
(#pposition to 9tn )))*)pdf (,2)< G2* , C:12=12.2=&11/1<0 (#rd Dismiss 6ppeal
:emand*)pdf (/&), G2* , C:12=12.2=&11,!1. (E'hibit 1*)pdf (2)/ 92* , . 2% 12 email to
haAlett stevens showing what was served notice of appeal 11 cr 2.!0< cr12=12.2)pdf (12)%
G2* , 12 1! 11 fa' to (uentes re >C1# 6ffidavit of 1ervice :E@2011=001/0%)pdf (2!),
G2* , < . 0, email from elcano wls stating his decision is limited to hearing conduct
before judge linda gardner rmc 2.!0< 2.%00 .0&02)htm (10)& G2*

+ called 9r) Ging (he directed me to call (anel Chair Echeverria* today to see?
clarification regarding an earlier approval he relayed to me from Chief 2ar Counsel David
<0,/%&
connection with this disciplinary matter (ng12=020!, ng12=0!&!, ng12=0!&<)))odd, canBt
recall a single other PcaseP in all my legal research that had three case
numbers))))especially where an #rder Denying a 9otion to 2ifurcate was issued, even
before the < days for me to file a :eply to the #pposition (given 3:C( is e'pressly
applicable to these matters under the 1C:Bs*)))6m + going to find out that my filings are
Ptoo longP under a view that assumes this is Pone caseP even though there are Pthree
grievance case numbersP in the caption, and where each PgrievanceP is fairly ramblingJ
6nd 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 1C:
111 (etition for the petty larceny of a Pcandy bar and some cough dropsP (ie, the Court
order that matter, .0%&%, referred to the 2oard for a Phearing at which the sole issue to be
determinedP would be my punishment for that which was noticed and adjudicated in the
.0%&% 1C: 111 (etition)
+ believe you are all now violating 3evada $aw in persisting in your denial of
my right to such a hearing wherein the Psole issueP is such, but rather trying to jam me up
with this Pcombo hearingP that see?s 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 1ferraAAaBs refusal
to testify at the 3ovember 1!th, 2012 ;earing)))which is problematic considering Dudge
1ferraAAa presided over the civil summary eviction matter in :DC :ev2011=001/0% that is
intimately connect to 6$$ 5;:EE of the grievances included in GingBs rec?less,
negligent, compromised 1C: 10< PComplaintP) "or instance:
3712=020!: :ichard 7) ;illBs Danuary 1!th, 2012 letter to 2ar Counsel Ging (whom he
had just wor?ed on the 9ilsner v) Carstarphen matter with
(http:law)justia)comcasesnevadasupreme=court 2012 <1.&1 )html *

5oday, Ging admitted to being unaware of who Casey 2a?er, 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 stic? 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 bac? and pretend that the Claiborne
decision (e'plicated e'tensively in my attached 6ugust 1&th, 2012 (etition* does not
permit 2ar Counsel to just throw its hands up and suggest that a 9uni Court conviction
(even, in :9C 11 C: 2.!0<, presided over by the brother of the judge whose sanctions
#rders is before you in 3712=0!&<, 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 2a?er, EsH) and :ichard 7) ;ill at the Dune 1%th, 2012 criminal trespass trial
incident to the civil eviction from CoughlinBs former law office in :DC :ev2011=001/0%)
<10/%&
6sst) 2ar Counsel Ging also admitted that he had failed to even view the video
taped admission by :(D 1argent $opeA that she, ;ill, 9erliss, and :(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 9arch 1!th, 2012 (apparently Ging adopts Ching as to whom can be an
1C: 10< complainant, and therefore within the statute of limitations, when it comes to
7ardnerBs 6pril 200, #rder, but not when it involves misconduct by a Chairman of the
Character and "itness Committee of the 123, 1pearmint :hino owner Gevin Gelly, EsH),
whom also owns a $as @egas 1trip Club that gives cabbies O10 million dollars a year to
funnel tourists to itBs doors from the airport, and the misconduct of (eter Christiansen, Dr)
and 9i?e 1anft, and others incident to CoughlinBs application for admission in 3evada,
including that of then Director of 6dmissions (atrice Eichmann, made all the more
feasible by the conduct of 9i?e 1miley :owe, EsH) and the fraudulent conduct of 9ar?
5ratos and 9ary $a"rance* when :9C Dudge 3ash ;olmes (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 ?eeps
no central record of any such grievances* on to 2ar Counsel after receiving it from her co=
:9C Dudge, and the brother of the family court judge issuing the sanction order)))at right
about the time that Coughlin filed that 9arch /th, 2012 3otice of 6ppeal (and there is
plenty of case law to establish that a Psummary criminal convictionP is a final appealable
#rder, and the :9C is fraudulently conspiring with transcriptionist (am $ongoni to
violate 3:1 1%,)010=0&0 by demanding payment up front for such transcripts by indigent
criminal defendants, and $ongoni and the :9CBs fraud in that regard resulted in Dudge
Elliot denying CoughlinBs appeal of the >al=9art candy bar petty larceny conviction in
cr11=20.!, wherein Dudge Elliot actually cites to a civil statute related to transcript
preparation to justify the :9CBs fraud, seen elsewhere in C:12=101%, further the :9C
PlostB CoughlinBs 3otice of 6ppeal of the 11 cr2.!0< criminal trespass conviction appeal
(despite Coughlin having digitial confirmation of the receipt of that fa' by the :9C, and
where :9C :ules allows service thereof via that means upon both the Court and the City
6ttorney (and ;aAlett=1tevens lied about that as well, in addition to the lies he told
respecting whether the City 6ttorney had received anything from the :1+C following
CoughlinBs >al=9art arrest* in the Psummary criminal contemptP #rder stemming from
the traffic citation (California roll* trial connected to Coughlin reporting the admissions of
bribery by :ichard ;ill (:(D #fficer Carter stated as much during the 3ovember 1&th,
2011 criminal trespass arrest, now part of the 1C: 10< Complaint, incorporated by
reference, one must suppose, by ;illBs 3712=020! 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 ;illBs office to retrieve his
?eys, wallet, clientBs files, and goverment issued identification after being release from &
days in jail incident to the wrongful criminal trespass arrest)
9r) Ging is beyond incorrect is stating that he will be able to simply point to a
criminal conviction and declare that no inHuiry into the legitimacy of that conviction may
<11/%&
be made) 5here is a wealth of case law and precedent that holds otherwise, and 9r) Ging
has previously been made aware of that) 5his 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 thin? rather hard
before tying their reputations to the mast that is the e'tremely low bar reHuired to get a
conviction in the :eno 9unicipal Court these days))))and further, the (anel would be well
advised to avoid letting 9r) 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) 5his will be particularly true where 9r) Ging see?s to, in his 1C: 10<
Complaint, allege matters not even charged in that 9unicipal Court criminal trespass
prosecution)
;ow 9r) Ging will be able to allege his :(C &)% violating allegations
respecting Pbrea?ing and enteringP or Pbro?en loc?sP are rele-ant or admi##ible where
CoughlinBs dissection of the illegitimacy of the >almart candy bar petty larceny
conviction (supposedly part of the 1C: 10< Complaint))))and mentioned in ;illBs 3712=
020! grievance)))which brings to mind the Huestion)))what of matters not mentioned in any
of the three grievance numbersJ ;ow are they eligible for inclusion in some 1C: 10<
PComplaintB that lac?s a uniHue case number of its ownJ* :egardless, 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 1C:, 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)
:egardless, :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)Bs hench man, Casey 2a?er, EsH), now that the
heat is on and he and ;illBs avarice driven misdeeds are finally facing the oversight they
deserve, has now suddenly fled bac? to Gentuc?y:
http:www)nvbar)orglawyer=detail 112/1

+t was 2a?er whom ;ill used to file the 3ovember 21st, 2011 and Danuary
20th, 2012 filings in :DC :ev2011=001/0% and the appeal thereof in C@11=0&.2% to ma?e
the allegatons that ;ill himself ?new unwise to ma?e in his own regard within a sworn
Declaration)))1o, despite ;ill, not 2a?er, having the eye witness ?nowledge of such events
(li?e whether the :(D identified themselves as law enforcement and issued to Coughlin a
lawful warning to leave at the ris? of a criminal trespass citation or arrest prior to the
landlord ?ic?ing down the door to a Huasi PbasementP under the property that 2a?erBs own
testimony at the Dune 1%th, 2012 trespass trail admits lac?ed any sort of e'terior loc?, and
thus would reHuire no Pbrea?ing of any sortP of the type both 1usich and Ging suddenly
felt the need to allege when considering how terribly compromised their .0,/< (etiton
and the instant 1C: 10< Pcombo=grievancesP (?ind of li?e a Pdue process value mealP that
(at Ging is serving up, and as?ing this 2oard to co=sign)))which, apparently the Chairman
finds fitting))))whatBs ne't, are you going to have lawyers dress up in ;ot Dog on a 1tic?
<12/%&
employee uniforms (you ?now, 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 6mendment, 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 81C 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) :+C#)
+ am writing to reHuest confirmation of what + believe 9r) Clar? has previously
rule, ie, that +, as an indigent respondent herein, am not reHuired to pay witnesses any sort
of Pwitness feeP in issuing and or serving subpoenas and subpoens duces tecums upon
them in connection with the 3ovember 1!th, 2011 ;earing in this matter) + feel ;illBs then
associate Casey 2a?er, EsHBs testimony will be particular necessary to this hearing
(especially where ;ill admits himself that he was not present at the purported 3ovember
1st, 2011 Ploc?outP in the eviction matter (and the service of an receipt by the >C1#
with respect to any such loc?out #rder is of material relevance, as 3:1 !0)2<& reHuires
such an #rder be carried out Pwithin 2! hours of receiptP thereof)))and 2a?erBs testimony
at the Dune 1%th, 2012 criminal trespass trial, in combination with previous statements by
the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice (and please add these individuals and matters to my
designation fo witnesses and summary of evidence to be presented* 1upervisor $iA
1tuchell, :o'y 1ilve, Deputy 9achen, and administrators, supervisors, and cler?s at the
:eno Dustice Court (:DC* add up to the fact that it was ;ill, 2a?er, and the >C1#, and
:(D that were trespassing, not Coughlin, at CoughlinBs former home law office)
6ttached it the video taped admission by :(D 1argent $opeA respecting the
lies by her, :(D #fficer Carter, ;ill, 9erliss, and 2a?er leading to CoughlinBs arrest and
conviction for criminal trespass) Geith $oomis will need to answer for his failure to fulfill
the 1i'th 6mendment in that regard, in addition to the content of the unapproved and
impermissible PmeetingP with :9C Dudge 7ardner and City of :eno (rosecutor wherein,
upon information and belief, an PapproachP to handling the criminal trespass trial of
Coughlin was PdevelopedP shortly before the 6pril 10th, 2012 5rial date in that criminal
trespass matter (a 5rial 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 3:1 1/%)!0< and 3:1 <)010*) 6ny trier of fact that wishes to attempt to pull the wool
over CoughlinBs eyes, ma?e incongruous and patently compromised, often sua sponte
relevancy rulings, or otherwise coo? up a due process value meal may wish to as? :9C
Dudge 7ardner how the recent filings by Coughlin in .1,01 and the :9C 11 C: 2.!0<
are tasting right about now) #r get Dudge ;owardBs inpute with respect to the analysis of
his wor? in .0%&%)
6nd Dudge 3ash ;olmes may be able to provide some insight as to how that
approach served her, particularly where her Pcriminal summary contemptP 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 Psummary
adjudicationsP))))the are so arbitary and devoid of due process that the reHuirements
attendant thereto must be stricly adhered to))))so when Dudge 3ash ;olmes in here #rders
<1&/%&
in 11 5: 2.%00 of 22%12 and &12 &1&, and &1&12 refers to some :9C 9arshal
allegedly peering, (eeping 5om style, through a bathroom stall wherein Coughlin was
during a restroom brea? 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
Pimmediate presenceP)))otherwise, someone would have to sign an 6ffidavit li?e a grown
up, and Coughlin would be entitled to a hearing, and li?ely appointed counsel under the
1i'th 6mendment before some 2ar Counsel li?e Ging could attempt to prop up any such
PconvictionP in an attempt to lend it an air of respectiability, especially where that 9arshal
;arley (whom Ging conveniently has failed to subpoena* had his own self interested
reasons for see?ing to discredit Coughlin (:9C 9arshal ;arley violated the Pcourthouse
sanctuaryP rule and contributed to an appearance of impropriety where he served Coughlin
an #rder to 1how Cause incident to one of ;illBs fraudulent 9otions see?ing to abuse
process in hopes of remaining competitive with an actual attorney li?e Coughlin (rather
than a ?nown hac? li?e ;+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 ;illBs poc?ets, and those of, apparently, even his legal assistans, whom
drive O1&0,000 9ercedes v12 1$=.00 sport coupe convertibles to crac? inspections of law
offices incident to impermissible summary evictions of commercial tenants where ;ill
chose to proceed under a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice (along with 2a?er* rather than a 3on
(ayment 3otice, and therein committed a Pwrong site surgeryP (in a litigation sense, to
borrow some of the parlance of the landlord, Dr) 9erlissBs field, wherein he is a
3eurosurgeon3eurologist in Chico, C6, apparently armed with enough money to choose
to run up O.0,000, as of 6pril 2012 in fees ot ;+ll and 2a?er in these matters rather than
settle with Coughlin for the O1,<00 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 :(D #fficers Duralde, :osa, 6la?sa,
>eaver, $oo?, 5ravis >arren, and $eedy, :(D 1argent 5arter,$opeA, 1ifre, #liver
9iller, Dye, and 2radshaw, ;illBs 6ssociate Casey 2a?er, 1heri ;ill, and to be
deterimined members of ;+llBs staff (particulary those with ?nowledge of any matters
connected to the receipt of either of the Eviction #rders by the >C1# in the eviction
matter, >C(D Dim $eslie, 2iray Dogan, Doe 7oodnight, >almart 5homas "rontino and
619 Dohn Ellis, and a yet to be determined 6( 6ssociate 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 :ules
of 3evada and the CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder in .0%&%, but rather, li?e Cler?PreluctantP
+nvestigator (eters, are allowing themselves to be led down that primrose path that (at
Ging finds to pleasurable to ta?e the unwitting along in his social climbing and life of ease
and comfort, devoid of honor or intergrity, approach to life)))
6lso, 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!/%&
>atson, $ucy 2yington, 3ate -arate, Cory 7oble, the individual whose phone number is
//<&/%../&, Colton 5empleton, :obert Dawson, 3ic? Duralde, :on :osa, 5homas
6la?sa, 1avannah 9ontgomery, $inda 7ray, Gelly #dom, Gariann 2eechl?er, :(D
#fficer 1chaur and any others present at arrest of 11!12 for Pmisuse of emergency
communicationsP, and of the <=. officers whom, along with :(D Duralde pulled Coughlin
over upon his release from jail on 11&12 for the 11212 Pjaywal?ingP arrest made upon
the fraudulent assertions of :ichard ;+ll, :DC Dudge Dac? 1chroeder (whom evicted
Coughlin from (ar? 5errace and granted ;ill the protection order incident to the
jaywal?ing arrest and who yelled Pdo you want to go to jailP at Coughlin at the e'tension
hearing when Coughlin broached the topic of ;illBs abuse of process, and whom
wrongfully granted the .2/12 Eviction #rder in :DC :ev2012=0010!% despite the
deficient < day notice listing the wrong court to file a tenanBts affidavit (a reHuirement
under 3:1 !0)2<&, and despite CoughlinBs numerous calls and .2.12 email to the :DC,
1DC, :(D and >C1#, 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
Clar?, and which have proven to be baseless, despite Ging tic?ing such off amongst the
top 2 reasons for the 1C: 10< Complaint he alleged he would hurriedly throw together
upon Coughlin serving Ging, the 123, Clar? and (eters the 6ugust 1&th, 2012 filing in
.0%&% and .1!2., now before the 3) 1) Ct)*)
6lso, :ichard Cornell, 5om ;all, 7eof 7iles, and 9ichael $ehrners, Dudge Doe
@an >alraven and others all whom have indicated, to one degree or another, that ;illBs
conduct incident to this eviction matter and concomitant appeal is deplorable and entirely
consistent with the way ;ill has comported himself throughout his && year career, which
began with is inheriting a large scale law practice from his father, and continued on with
;ill effecting the manner of a 10 year old boy entrusted with flying a /!/ full of people, to
this day) 6dd to the witness $ist (aul Elcano of >$1, Dudge 1teven Elliott, Dudge (atric?
"lanagan, ;ale $ane;olland and ;artBs 6nthony ;all and 5im $u?as, :ichard Elmore,
Dudge 1cott (earson, Dudge (eter D) 1ferraAAa (though he indicated on 102212 that he
declined the 123Bs reHuest that he testify, citing his sitting on the pending criminal
prosecution in :C:2011=0.&&!1*, the :DCBs 2onnie Cooper and P3eviP, Chief 2ailiff
9ichael 1e'ton, :9C Chief 9arshal :oper and 9arshal Deighton, 9arshal 5hompson,
9arshal Coppa, >CDC @an der >al, 2eatson, ;oe?stra, Cheung, unnamed deputies)
"urther, please add >estern 3evada 9anagementBs 1ue Ging, Dared 1calise, and (ar?
5errace 5ownhomes 6ssociation attorney 7ayle Gern, EsH), :oberto (uentes, $ew 5aitel,
the :9CBs 9atthew "is? and Cassandra Dac?son, Donna 2allard, Dudge ;owards past
legal assistant, Dudge 3ash ;olmess legal and administrative assistant, 9artin Crowley or
9artin >einer or whichever attorney is was Dudge 3ash ;olmes was sued for wiretapping
in the past, the :9C counter cler? PDanielP and P5homP, >DC Chief 6ppeals Cler?
9atheus, Doey #rduna ;astings, Chief Dudge David ;ardy, Dustice ;ardesty (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
>ashoe $egal 1ervices (see attached letters from >$1Bs E'ecutive Director citing Dudge
<1</%&
$inda 7ardnerBs 6pril 200, #rder sanctioning Coughlin as the Psole reasonP for
CoughlinBs firing (her brother, :9C Dudge >illiam 7ardner refused to recuse himself
from the criminal trespass conviction mentioned in in GingBs 1C: 10< Complaint, and
Ging admitted two wee?s ago that he was unaware that the two Dudge 7ardners were
brother and sister or related whatsoever, or that Dudge 3ash ;olmes was a prison warden
or something similar for ten years, and a lifelong prosecutor besides that (in addition to all
other :9C Dudges and all :9C court appointed defenders*)
6lso, + never received any 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default from the 123, and
herein lodge my objection to any #rder by this (anel that cites thereto) 6dditionally,
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 1C: 10< Complaint incident to the agreement between (eters
and Coughlin on or about 1eptember 11th, 2012)))P
P@0 *+, #till ha# not /ro-ided Coughlin acce## to the material# he i# entitled to to
1ent: "ri 110212 11:!< (9
5o: patric??Nnvbar)org (patric??Nnvbar)org*C davidcNnvbar)org (davidcNnvbar)org*C
complaintsNnvbar)org (complaintsNnvbar)org*
5o: s?entNs?entlaw)comC mi?eNtahoelawyer)comC nevtelassnNsbcglobal)netC
patric??Nnvbar)orgC fflahertyNdlpfd)comC davidcNnvbar)orgC complaintsNnvbar)orgC
tsusichNnvdetr)orgC jeNeloreno)comC cvellisNbhfs)com
1ubject: 123 still has not provided Coughlin access to the materials he is entitled to to prepare
for 111!12 ;earing
Date: "ri, 2 3ov 2012 22:&.:!. =0/00
+ called 9r) Ging (he directed me to call (anel Chair Echeverria* today to
see? clarification regarding an earlier approval he relayed to me from Chief 2ar Counsel David
connection with this disciplinary matter (ng12=020!, ng12=0!&!, ng12=0!&<)))odd, canBt recall a
single other PcaseP in all my legal research that had three case numbers))))especially where an
#rder Denying a 9otion to 2ifurcate was issued, even before the < days for me to file a :eply
to the #pposition (given 3:C( is e'pressly applicable to these matters under the 1C:Bs*)))
(3#5E: the entirety of that email is then included therein*P
3#5E: is ia particularly telling the e'tent to which the (anel completely glosses
over all the due process deprivations and violations of 1C: 10<(2*, and 1C: 10<(2*(c* here, in
<1./%&
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 Cler? 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 lac? of service of process, in addition to the multitude of 1C:
10<(2*(c* deficiences, not to mention to impermissible consolidating of the Eformal hearingF
reHuired by 1C: 111(%* and the Eformal disciplinary proceedingsF reHuired for an 1C: 10<
complaint)
"urther, if the %2&12 6ffidavit of 9ailing by Cler? of Court $aura (eters attached
to the %2&12 Complaint in GingBs ";E1 is truthful and correct, and GingBs presentation of it
not a violation of :(C &)1, &)&, &)!, and %)1, then why would Ging write the following:
;@0 citation to legal authorityD
1ent: 5ue ,2<12 10:!, 69
1eptember 2<, 2012
7ood 9orning 9r) Coughlin,
5his morning you were served with the Disciplinary Complaint, for Case 3o:
3712=020!, 3712=0!&< and 37 12=0!&!)
6 verified :esponse or 6nswer to this Complaint must be filed with the #ffice of 2ar
Counsel, 1tate 2ar of 3evada, ,!<. Double :) 2lvd, 1te) 2, :eno, 3evada %,<21 within
20 days) 5he (rocedure regarding service is addressed in 1C: 10,)
5he reason + have reHuested your physical address is to facilitate our ability to
contact you) 5he mail that was sent to you via certified mail was returned to the 1tate 2ar
as unclaimed)
(atric? Ging, 6ssistant 2ar CounselF
E@0 ,oti%ication o% @lectronic (iling in 7, @0 $7*C7P47,@ 9( ... C9I=)47,' ,o.
608&8
1ent: 9on 100%12 ,:!2 69
+mportant ^^^
Dear 9r) Coughlin
(lease understand that you #ere personally sered #i"$ "$e Complain" on
*ep"em6er 2C7 #$en you !ame "o offi!e of "$e s"a"e 6ar, in :eno) 6s 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 6nswer 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) 7n your late#t e-mail you ac5no2ledge the Com/laint by
a##erting that it i# ;combo /ac5age.N) + encourage you to file your answer to theComplaint)
<1//%&
;@0 ,oti%ication o% @lectronic (iling in 7, @0 $7*C7P47,@ 9( Z...C9I=)47,' ,o.
608&8
1ent: 9on 100%12 ,:<. 69
5o: -ach Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)com*C David Clar? (DavidCNnvbar)org*C
$aura (eters ($aura(Nnvbar)org*C barcounseloversightcommissionNgmail)com
(barcounseloversightcommissionNgmail)com*C tsusichNnvdetr)org (tsusichNnvdetr)org*
9r) Coughlin was served with the Complaint by regular and by certified mail) +n an
abundance of caution 9r) Coughlin was personally served with the Complaint on 1eptember
2<, 2012 when he came to the office of the state bar) 9r) Coughlin has not yet filed a verified
6nswer to the Complaint)
(atric? Ging, 6ssistant 2ar CounselF
;@0 motion to di#mi## attached
1ent: 9on 100%12 11:&, 69
Dear 9r) Coughlin,
answer is due by 5uesday 1eptember ,, 2012) Kou should file a verified answer to the
complaint)
E:E: pending final disposition of disciplinary /roceeding#....language *C 111B7C -er#u#
1ent: 5hu 101112 !:<. (9
1 attachment
1 2, 2012 letter to Cler? of Court #rduna ;astings regarding Efle' rejections with attachments
!1 pages total)pdf (,</)% G2*
Dear Cler? of Court (eters,
6re you sure + indicated one way or the other whether + received the ComplaintJ >as there
some mention of 6ugust 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 9otion to Dismiss
may not be filed unless the :espondent ma?es some affirmative indcation to the Cler? of Court
<1%/%&
as to whether he actually received a ComplaintJ 3:C( <(e* ma?es clear the Cler? of Court
and filing office of the 123 are not permitted to refuse filings) 1o, the 1eptember 1/th, 2012
9otion to Dismiss must be filed by Cler? of Court (eters, or misconduct e'ists)
"6C51
"urther, 3:C( <(e* holds that:
P(e* "iling >ith the Court Defined) 5he filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as
reHuired by these rules shall be made by filing them with the cler? 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 cler?) 6 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 8nited 1tates establishes) 6
paper signed by electronic means in compliance with the local rule constitutes a written paper
presented for the purpose of applying these rules) 5he cler? 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)P
5he filing officer cler?Bs in the 2nd Dudicial District Court for >ashoe County, and the
managers, supervisors, and administrators regularly refuse filing in contravention of 3:C(
<(e*) "urther, the drop bo' reHuired by >DC: 12(10* is no more) 5he drop bo' was removed
about . months ago) 5he efiling fee tripled, about si' months ago, on Duly 1, 2011) 5he
connection is hard to ignore) + seriously, seriously doubt the drop bo' was as underutiliAed as +
have heard suggested) + would imagine the hard wor?ing, 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 >DC: 12(10* were rendered null by any under use)
>ith regard to the >DC 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 Clar?, ,0! ()2d 10&,, 111 3ev)
1&./ (3ev), 1,,<*: E5his proper person petition for a writ of mandamus see?s 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 2<, 1,,<, we ordered the state to file an
answer to this petition) 5he stateBs answer was filed on 6ugust 11, 1,,<) 2 Documentation
submitted by petitioner to this court establishes that petitioner submitted to the cler? of the
district court for filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil complaint on
9ay 1<, 1,,<) 6lthough the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was in proper
form and was sworn to under penalty of perjury, the cler? of the district court did not file that
application) & 5he failure to file the application was in violation of the clear statutory mandate
that such an application be filed) 3:1 12)01<(1* provides that PQaRny person ))) may file an
affidavit Qsee?ing leave to proceed without payment of feesR)P "urther, we have repeatedly
instructed the cler? of the Eighth Dudicial District Court that such documents must be filed) 1ee
2owman v) District Court, 102 3ev) !/!, /2% ()2d !&& (1,%.* (cler? has a ministerial duty to
accept and file documents if those documents are in proper formC cler? must not e'ercise any
judicial discretion*C 2arnes v) District Court, 10& 3ev) ./,, /!% ()2d !%& (1,%/* (prisonerBs
<1,/%&
right of access to court cannot be denied on basis of indigency*C ;uebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev)
&2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1* (cler? must create an accurate record of all pleadings submitted for
filing, whether or not the documents are actually filed*C >hitman v) >hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,,
%!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2* (cler? has no authority to return documents submitted for filingC instead,
cler? must stamp documents that cannot be immediately filed Preceived,P 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 cler? of the district court has a duty to file documents and to ?eep an accurate
record of the proceedings before the court*C 7rey v) 7rey, 111 3ev) &%%, %,2 ()2d <,< (1,,<*
(cler? of district court admonished for failure to ?eep 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) 6ttached to the top of the document is a Ppost=itP note with the handwritten
notation: Papplication denied incomplete info=employment currently)P ! 5he state informs us
that the note was written by Pthe chief judge)P +n addition, petitioner alleges, and the allegation
is apparently true, that along with his PdeniedP 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 cler?s often return to
prisoners unfiled motions along with letters purporting to rule on the legal sufficiency of those
motions) 5he state argues in its answer to this petition that PpetitionerBs 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) 5he Bout of
jailB address suggested an ability of the (etitioner to be employed)P 5his vague reference to an
Pout of jailP address is not e'plained in the documents before this court) 3evertheless, the
stateBs assertion that petitionerBs application was denied is incorrect) 5he handwritten notation
on petitionerBs unfiled application clearly does not constitute a proper judicial disposition of
that application) "urther, the action of the cler? of the district court in returning petitionerBs
application and civil complaint to him unfiled is in direct violation of this courtBs instructions to
the cler? of the district court in >hitman v) >hitman, 10% 3ev) ,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2*)
5his court has several times confirmed the absolute obligation of the district courts to file
documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of citiAens to access to the courts,
whether indigent or not) 2arnes v) District Court, 10& 3ev) ./,, /!% ()2d !%& (1,%/*C ;uebner
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 cler? 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: PQ5Rhe cler? Qof the district courtR 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 cler? had a duty to ?eep an accurate record of
the case pending before the district court)P +d) at 102,, %!2 ()2d at /&& (citation omittedC
emphasis added*) 5hus, 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
<20/%&
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 cler? of the district court) 5o continue
the analysis, with respect to petitionerBs civil complaint which he is attempting to file
concurrently, the district court cler? had an absolute obligation to stamp the document
PreceivedP and to record the date on which the document was in fact received at the courthouse)
1ee ;uebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) 5his the cler? of the district court
did) ;owever, the cler? 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) >hitman v) >hitman, 10% 3ev)
,!,, %!0 ()2d 12&2 (1,,2*) 5his, the cler? neglected to do) >hile ;uebner dealt with the
timeliness of a notice of appeal, the rationale compelling this courtBs ruling in ;uebner, that all
documents must be mar?ed received and dated, applies with eHual force to a partyBs submission
of a complaint) P5he legal rights of the parties to litigation, whether acting in proper person or
through counsel, often turn on the date of receipt by the cler? of the district court of documents
and pleadings)P ;uebner, 10/ 3ev) at &&0, %10 ()2d at 1211) 6s 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 cler? of the district court to ?eep an accurate record of all documents
submitted to her, whether or not they are filed) 6s in ;uebner, 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) 5he 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)
>e 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) 6 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) 3:1 &!)1.0) 5he cler? of the district court has an
absolute duty to file petitionerBs application and to properly receive and ?eep a record of
petitionerBs complaint) 6ccordingly, we grant this petition for a writ of mandamus) . 5he cler?
of this court shall serve a copy of petitionerBs application and complaint on the cler? of the
district court forthwith) 5he cler? of this court shall also issue a writ of mandamus compelling
the cler? of the district court to file petitionerBs application, and to receive petitionerBs
complaint) 5hese documents will be considered to have been filed and received on 9ay 1<,
1,,<) =============== 1 (etitioner also see?s a writ of prohibition enjoining the district court, the
cler? of the district court and her employees from denying prisoners access to the courts in the
future) >e 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) 5he cler? of this
court shall file the reply, entitled PpetitionerBs reply to petition for writs of mandamus and
prohibition,P which was received by this court on 6ugust 21, 1,,<) & 6lthough the document
was entitled PapplicationP rather than Paffidavit,P it was sworn to under penalties of perjury,
provided information concerning petitionerBs financial condition and clearly sought a judicial
<21/%&
ruling regarding the Huestion of whether petitioner would be allowed to proceed with a civil
action without the payment of fees) 5hus, any deviation as to form was not significant enough
to justify the cler?Bs failure to file the document) 5he
cler? of the court has no discretion to ma?e any judicial ruling regarding the legal sufficiency
of a document) >hen a document in proper form is submitted to the cler?, the cler? has a
ministerial duty to file that document) ! >e 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) ;e also avers that his only asset is O.)</
in his prison account) < #ne such letter from a law cler? to an inmate states: P6ttached please
find your 9otions to (roceed in "orma (auperis which you recently submitted) 3:1 12)01<
reHuires an indigent litigant to set forth Bwith particularity facts concerning his income,
property, and other resources )))B Kour application to proceed sets forth this information very
generally)P P(lease resubmit the 9otion with a more particular statement regarding your
finances and any property you own))))P 6lthough this letter does not directly deny the motion, it
clearly has the effect of denying the motion without filing) #f course, li?e the cler? of the
district court, a judgeBs law cler? lac?s judicial authority) . 5he state represents that Pthe
District Court will file the (etitionerBs complaint upon submittal by the petitioner)P 5his
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) >e, however, e'press no opinion
regarding the merits of petitionerBs application or complaint) >e merely determine that the
application should have been filed and judicially resolved, and the complaint should have been
properly received) >e note that petitioner has sent the original documents to this court, and
thus may not be in a position to resubmit them) 6lso, for statute of limitations purposes, the
documents must be considered filed as of the date of original receipt) 5hus, we have
determined that this petition must be granted)F 6nother very important and instructive case is
>hitman v) >hitman, 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 cler? of the district court) 6lthough the cler? of the district court stamped the
notice of appeal PreceivedP on December &0, 1,,1, the cler? did not file the notice of appeal)
+nstead, the cler? 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) >e note that the cler? 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) >e have previously stated that Pit is
e'tremely important that the cler? of the district court ?eep an accurate record of the date of
receipt of every document submitted to the cler?, regardless of whether the document is in the
appropriate form) +ndeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the cler? of the district court to
neglect this ministerial duty)P ;uebner v) 1tate, 10/ 3ev) &2%, &&0, %10 ()2d 120,, 1211
(1,,1* (footnote omitted*) +n this case, the cler? of the district court has failed to ?eep any
record of the date of receipt of appellantBs notice of appealC instead, the cler? stamped the
document PreceivedP and returned it to appellant) 5he cler? of the district court had no
<22/%&
authority to ta?e such action) 6lthough the cler? 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 3:1 1,)01&(2*, the cler? had a duty
to receive the document and to ?eep 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 cler?) 1ee ;uebner v) 1tate, Q10% 3ev) ,<2R 10/ 3ev) &2%, %10 ()2d 120, (1,,1*) :ather
than returning the notice of appeal to appellant, the cler? 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) ! 6ppellant could then have ta?en whatever action was
appropriate to pursue his appeal) +n light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant timely
submitted to the cler? 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 cler?) 6ccordingly, we grant appellantBs petition for
rehearing, and we proceed to address the merits of this appeal)F +d) 6t 12&2=12&!) 1ee, also,
2arnes v) Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court of 1tate of 3ev), +n and "or Clar? County, /!% ()2d !%&,
10& 3ev) ./, (3ev), 1,%/*)
1incerely,
-ach CoughlinF
;@0 ,oti%ication o% @lectronic (iling in 7, @0 $7*C7P47,@ 9( Z?C)?F
C9I=)47,' ,o. 608&8
1ent: 5hu 101112 <:0< (9
5o: patric??Nnvbar)orgC laurapNnvbar)orgC davidcNnvbar)orgC tsusichNnvdetr)orgC
Dear 2ar Counsel, Chairman 1usich, and Cler? of Court (eters,
Cler? 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 6ugust 2&rd,
2012, but that she has received it bac? in the mail as unclaimed on 1eptember 10th, 2012)
Cler? (eters made representation to Coughlin that he would not be deemed PservedP the
Complaint by the 123 incident to any 6ugust 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 PservedP until a signed returned
certified mail receipt was recieved by the 123) Coughlin is entitled to rely upon representation
made by the 123Bs Cler? of Court (eters) "urther, (atric? Ging made representations that the
earliest Coughlin would be viewed as PservedP an 123 v) Coughlin Complaint would be
1eptember 2<th, 2012, providing Coughlin a guarantee that he had 20 days to file an 6nswer
from that date) 3ow it seems 2ar Counsel Ging is attempting to remi' this situation, and
<2&/%&
potentially deem Coughlin PservedP all the way bac? to, say, < days from when Cler? of Court
(eters indicates she sent Coughlin via certified mail a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint or or about
6ugust 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 1C: 10,, but merely ma?es it up as he goes
along, contradicting himself along the well, and going bac? on representations made by the
123, sullying its image)
+n anticipation of that very sort of approach, Coughlin filed a 9otion to Dismiss on 1eptember
1/th, 2012 (which would be timely under even the most draconian interpretations of 1C: 10,,
even where the 123 is allowed to go bac? on promises and e'press indications detailed above,
sometimes in writing, too*, and Cler? of Court (eters indicated to Coughlin that 2ar Counsel
Ging forbade her from filing it, citing various specious arguments as to why 3:C( <(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 6nswer to a 123 v Coughlin Complaint to be due by
P5uesday 1eptember ,, 2012P)))which is in the past))))and which is less than 20 days from even
the 6ugust 2&rd, 2012 date the Cler? 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 6nswer, 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 bac? on the indications by Ging
and Cler? (eters as to when, at the earliest, such a 123 v) Coughlin Complaint woud be
deemed PservedP)
:espectfully,
-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 ?nown, plus + was adjudged a victim of domestic violence earlier this year
in "@12=001%/ and "@12=001%%, 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 Huic?ly serve me)
Continuance#0 6ttorney 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 wor? on his case over the holidays, where attorney stated on the record that he
needed no more than one wee?Bs notice of the continued hearing, and was aware from
3ovember 1/ that he needed to find counsel immediately, attorney was notified no later than
<2!/%&
December . of new hearing date, and even from December ., attorney had four wee?s to
obtain new counsel and to prepare for the continued hearing) +n re Discipline of 1chaefer,
2001, 2< ()&d 1,1, 11/ 3ev) !,., modified on denial of rehearing &1 ()&d &.<, certiorari
denied 122 1)Ct) 10/2, <&! 8)1) 11&1, 1<1 $)Ed)2d ,/!)
5he 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 see?ing 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 :#6 at:
(3#5E: Coughlin submitted for filing, just prior to < p)m), on 11,12 a E@erified 6nswer or
:esponseF that was %% pages long and contained an e'hibit that the 123 has chosen to leave
out of the :#6 completely or in any way alert the 31C5 of, one that even further than had
already been done, denied all the allegations in the Complaint*)
2,%=&<0Emerg) E' (arte 9tn to Dismiss, "or 9ore Definite 1tmt, 7ood Cause 111&12
/1<=/1% 6mended 1upple) to :espondentBs Emergency 9otion to 1et 6side 11&012
/1,=/&.3otice of :9CBs "ailure "ile CoughlinBs 5imely 3otice of 6ppeal (3", 111.12*
/&/=/,0(ost=;earing 2rief, 9tn DisHualify9istrial, 5ranscript :eH, :econs #rder Uuashing,
2ifurc, , :ule 10&(/* Challenge for Cause (3", submitted 111.12*
"urther, the :#6 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&,
6lso, the fraud of the 123 and (anel is on full display where the :#6 of 21&1& is
missing pages / and % of the transcript where such details such importance matters as GingBs
admitting the forcing the cler? to unfile CoughlinBs the 9otion to Dismiss Coughlin filed
Eimmedia"ely af"erF the 123 Emailed the complaint via certified and regular mailF and
CoughlinBs entering a spe!ial appearan!e, 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
:#6 relates to service of the Complaint (;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age .:21 to .:2<* 9:) G+37:
0s "$e re!ord refle!"s, )r, Coug$lin #as sered a !opy of "$e !omplain" to the addre## "$a"
$e is manda"ed "o proide "o "$e *"a"e &ar) 9:) C#87;$+3: + don(" 6eliee "$a"(s !orre!",
)3, 1C%1V13350@ Dlease don(" in"errup"7,,,9B A/O21@ =ing(s s"a"emen"7 :as "$e re!ord
refle!"sF certainly is interesting when considering the 1019112 ?%%ida-it o% 4aura Peter# that is
included in the :#6, but which #as no" sered on Coughlin until four judicial days prior to the
hearing, in a bo' of &,0,! other pages of documentation, especially where GingBs statement
Esered a copy of the complaint "o "$e address "$a" $e is manda"ed "o proideF certainly refers
to 1C: 10, service via 81(1 Certified 9ail, rather than the attempt at forcing the 123 Cler?
of Court (eters to Epersonally serveF Coughlin the Complaint on ,2<12 at the 123Bs 3orthern
<2</%&
#fficer upon Coughlin being duped into showing up for a hearing that Cler? of Court (eters
admits she noticed Coughlin on and which she admits was on calendar (such events of ,2<12
being detailed both in CoughlinBs 101.12 9otion for #rder 5o 1how Cause and the 10,12
6ffidavit of $aura (eters**:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, (Dages 7@1 "o 8@2C* E((63E$ C;6+:
EC;E@E::+6* )))9r) Coughlin) 7o ahead) 9:) G+37: 1ubseHuently, )r, Coug$lin
filed7 immedia"ely af"er #e mailed "$e !omplain" ia !er"ified and regular mail7 )r,
Coug$lin filed a mo"ion "o dismiss "$e !omplain") 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + thin? his
argument here is that he wasnBt notified that Dudge 2eesley would be a potential witness)
9:) G+37: >e sent a supplemental notice to 9r) Coughlin that we intended to call
Dudge 2eesley) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5(m sorry, 5f 5 !an ;us" in"er;e!" 8ui!'ly) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin) 9:) C#87;$+3: == 6efore "$e pro!eeding == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
(lease donBt interrupt) 9:) C#87;$+3: )ay 5 re!ord "$e pro!eedingsJ 9:) G+37:
+Bm handing, with the chairmanBs permission, a copy of the supplemental notice) +n
addition, as + indicated, "$e purpose of !alling )r, &eesley is "o assis" "$e panel "o
unders"and )r, Coug$lin(s !ondu!" in $is !our", and also as a potential rebuttal
witness) 8nfortunately, Dudge 2eesley is in $as @egas and is only aaila6le between
,:00 and ,:&0) 1o what + would as? the panel to do is to allow, as an offer of proof,
allow Dudge 2eesley to testify) 6nd then if the panel subseHuently determines for some
reason that itBs not appropriate, rebuttal testimony == !. C9I=)47,0 7<m #orry. 5
need "o en"er7 "$is is a spe!ia l (3#5E: Coughlin said E)))special appearance to contest
jurisdiction, personal, subject matter, and authorityF * == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r)
Coughlin) 9:) C#87;$+3: == 5 need "o su6mi" "$a" for "$e re!ord) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: (lease donBt interrupt) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5 need "o su6mi" "$a" for
"$e re!ord) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: <ou(ll ge" your oppor"uni"y) (3#5E: under some
authority, a litigants failure to immediately at the outset indicate the limited nature of
their appearance waives any such rights* 9:) G+37: Dudge 2eesley, my name is
(atric? 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 D8D7E 2EE1$EK: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Dust a second,
9r) Ging) $et me state on the record that because of the time constraints, +Bm going to
rule that we can ta?e the)))F
(,96@0 #o' "#o ery7 ery impor"an" issues 2ere addre##ed in "$ose "#o
pages of "$e "rans!rip" #$i!$ "$e *&/ purposefully e?!ised %rom the 211&11& 9?)
6t some point, when a bro?en cloc? has never, ever been right, one is entitled to accuse
the cloc? of something funny) 1uch pages / and % of the &&2 page transcript should be
included in the :#6 between pages 1&/% and 1&/, therein (Ging and Cler? (eters also
too? out a .0 page >ord +nde' at the bac? 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, li?e Ging and Clar? see? to do*) 6lso missing from the
transcript of the formal hearing of 111!12, are pages &1 and &2 therefrom (which
should have appeared in the :#6 between pages 1!00 and 1!01, where such pages also
<2./%&
include ?ey material conveniently removed by the 123, where such read:
E;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2<,:2 to 2<,:,* 9:) G+37: + would object on two grounds)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: $etBs identify what it is heBs offering) + still donBt ?now) 9:)
C#87;$+3: + would li?e 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) 9:) G+37: DonBt change it now, 9r) Coughlin))))P GingBs PdonBt
change it nowP is Huite rich when considering all the Ptrue and correctP copies of
documents he submitted in his E'hibit 1 Ppac?et and in other e'hibits (";EBs 2,&,!, <, .,
/ (not sure about %*, ,, 10, 11, 12, 1& (though, the :#6 should be stric?en or the 123
made to correct it where the new bates stamping is so conveniently place in such
21&1& :#6 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
";E1 (ac?et, 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 :(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
:#6 1: E2. e#/ondent 2a# ad-i#ed o% the grie-ance# -ia I.*. mail' e-mail and by a
brie% meeting 2ith !r. :ing at the *tate +ar 9%%ice in eno. e#/ondent did no"
!oopera"e #i"$ "$e ines"iga"ion and rather than respond to the grievances as
re%uested' e#/ondent #ent non-re#/on#i-e and di#/araging e-mail#)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) 5hat 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 see?ing to admit any letter he purports to have sent to Coughlin reHuesting
Coughlin to respond to Dudge 3ash ;olmesB grievance, or some EgrievanceF by 2DDC
Dudge $) 7ardner, 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 $)
7ardner herself, and now that the shadiness of Dudge 3ash ;olmes forwarding Dudge $)
7ardnerBs three year old sanctions order in ";E& to the 123 after Dudge $) 7ardner
provided such to her !rother :9C Dudge >) 7ardner (where both Dudge 3ash ;olmes
and >) 7ardner admit >) 7ardner provided such e'tra=judicial information to all the
other :9C Dudges (including those li?e G) ;oward, whom still is presiding over :9C
11 C: 221/. (which begat .0%&%* and needs to adjudicate the very 22112 9otion for
3ew 5rial by Coughlin that even further than CoguhlinBs multiple other filings with the
:9C (including a filing in the very 11 5: 2.%00 traffic citation case on 1,12 in which
Dudge 3ash ;olmes professed to have such difficulty ElocatingF Coughlin and only
managed to mail one copy of such dubious 22%12 #rder to an address from which she
<2//%&
?new Coughlin had been wrongfully evicted on 11111, involving the very :ichard 7)
;ill, 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 :ichard 7)
;illBs 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 .20=.21 of the 11/12 &,0,! page production email from Coughlin to 123 Ging
of !1.12 1ubject: 9r) GingBs assertion in his &1.12 letter wherein Coughlin writes:
E6nyway, 5 deny guil" on each an e-ery allegation made again#t me by )ill' "udge ,a#h
)olme#' and 2hoe-er el#e ha# %iled a grie-ance or com/laint and al#o 2ith re#/ect to any
criminal charge again#t me' including that 2hich re#ulted in a con-iction in 11 C 22176'
2hich' 7 thin5 2ill ultimately re-eal 2a# re/lete 2ith /ro#ecutorial mi#conduct' lying by
the 3al-!art lo## /re-ention a##ociate' and lying by the t2o *7C /olice o%%icer#' in
additional to abu#e o% di#cretion and other error# by "udge )o2ard....7n addition' !r.
:ing no2 in%orm# me that he ha# o/ened a grie-ance on behal% o% "udge 4inda !.
=ardner' 7ncident to a 9rder %or *anction# #he entered in ?/ril 2009. )r, =ing $as
refused "o indi!a"e "o me #$o su6mi""ed "$is Order for *an!"ions or o"$er#ise proided i" "o
&ar Counsel as a Complain" or -riean!e or o"$er#ise,F 5herein Coughlin further details to
e'tended delays (due to the 81(1, >estern 3evada 9anagement, 7ayle Gern, EsH)Bs
wrongfully interferring with CoughlinBs right to receive his own mail and that born of the
domestic violence directed against Coughlin by his former housemates at 1!22 E) ,
th
1t) I2
detailed in the two 5emporary (rotection #rders Coughlin obtained against them in "@12=
001%/, "@12=001%/* receiving the &1.12 correspondence from the 123Bs Ging found at
bates 2/,& (GingBs &1.12 letter to Coughlin indicating the #2C Ehas received several
grievances concerning your conduct as a lawyer)))+ will ma?e available for your review and
inspection the supporting documents and audio recordingsF*
(age 1/&. of the 21&1& :#6 is enormously problematic considering there is no
indication such was attached to the 10,12 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default, and it is e'tremely
prejudicial to allow for the inclusion of (not to mention the presentation of it to the (anel* of
such a fugitive document, is not an affidavit, its not even signed, and its not sworn, and it goes
to one of the very biggest issue of the case, one that affects the legitimacy of the entire case, the
121!12 "#"C#$, and the holding of a formal disciplinary hearing on 111!12, ie, whether
the Complaint was ever properly served*)
#f course, CoughlinBs 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause (which the 123 had to
include in the :#6 because EcheverriaBas 10&112 #rder referred to it and denied it
(otherwise, such would not have even been included in the :#6) 6s it stands, Ging ordered
Cler? 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& :#6, where such 9otion reads (see :#6
!,=<0*:
E/) Coughlin appeared at the northern officer the 1tate 2ar for the calendared,
<2%/%&
agreed upon, noticed, and se" *ep"em6er 2C7 2012 %earing notice to him and the 33D2Bs
Chairman 1usich and reHuired by this CourtBs Dune /th, 2012 #rder and 1C: 111(%*)
>hile Coughlin sat waiting in the lobby out wal?ed Cler? of Court (eters and 2ar
Counsel (atric? Ging, Ging $olding a s"a!' of papers "$en $anding "$em "o Cler'
De"ers, and Ging whom greeted Coughlin and entere a conversation that when
appro'imately li?e this :
E:ing0 -ach) Cler? (eters: + am supposed to hand you this Complaint) :ing0 KourBre
served (motioning to Cler? (eters to hand Coughlin the stac? of papers*) Kou are
officially served) *$e(s "$e Cour" Cler') KouBre served) Coughlin: 6w)) + thin? one
has to be served by a non/party under 1C: 10,) :ing0 3o, youBre served, s$e(s "$e
Cler' of Cour", so ta?e it) *$e(s sering you, your are officially served and so + will
issue a default judgment against you if you donBt accept it) (eters: + mailed it out)
Coughlin: +s my hearing going to be held right nowJ :ing0 "irst, ta?e this) Coughlin:
>hat about my %earing "$a"(s #$a" 5(m $ere for rig$" no#) :ing0 "irst, ta?e this)
Coughlin + thin? you a!"ually !an(" sere people #$en "$ey are s$o#ing up for a
%earing) Ging yes + can absolutely can) Coughlin: 5 $ae !ases "$a" say you !an(")
:ing0 + absolutely can) 2$ings don(" go your #ay 6e!ause you don(" a!!ep"
responsi6ili"y (=ing gra6s "$e s"a!' of papers from De"ers and a""emp" "o inser"
"$em in"o Coug$lin(s sui" ;a!'e" af"er pulling "$e middle 6u""on on Coug$lin(s
6laKer a#ay from Coug$lin(s "orso' 2hereu/on :ing gi-e# u/ on that a//roach*)
+Bll drop it at your feet here your served (Ging bends down and places the stac? of
papers on top of Coughlin dress shoes*) Coughlin: you are a party though it has to be
a non=party thatBs the law :ing0 -ach) DonBt play games^ Coughlin: +tBs not a game,
(at, itBs the law) (eters: -ach, pleaseJ Coughlin: >here is my hearingJ :ing0 ;i
(aula where you witness that 5(m sering or "$a" ra"$er +aura is sering -ach
Coughlin with the Complaint) (aula: 1ureJ ($oo?ing bewildered beyond all measure*)
Ging ;ere is this, ta?e it, ta?e it, -ach) Coughlin: >e go to have my hearing todayJ
:ing0 "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 oer
a !andy 6ar so` Ging are going to ta?e the complaint itBs a formal complaint +Bm
been a default you him him) Kou can pretend you didnBt get it else is ta?e a default
Coughlin: Da"7 5 filed a mo"ion "o dismiss, *eems li'e you are "rying "o pu" Cler' of
Cour" De"ers in 'ind of a 6ad spo") :ing0 /o7 you $aen(" filed i" i"(s 6een re;e!"ed7
Coug$lin@ &y #$o7 "$e prose!u"orH 2$e prose!u"or re;e!"ed i"7 Da"H =ing@ +is"en
"$e Cler' of Cour" De"ers re;e!"ed i" 6e!ause i" doesn(" say #$a" i"(s dismissing, <ou
are no" een a!'no#ledging "$a" you $ae 6een sered so "a'e "$e Complain" and
"$en you !an ans#er i", <ou(re 6een sered rig$" no# Coughlin: well + guess youBre
free to argue that, that you a par"y that is sering me) :ing0 3o, the Cour" Cler' is
sering you) Kour a" "$e *"a"e &ar offi!e being sered with a Complaint Coughlin: +
+Bve got cases this the you can serve a criminal defendant when they show up to a civil
proceeding :ing0 5his is 1tate 2ar) Coughlin: #h, + get it) >eBre playinB prison rules,
huhJ $i?e in that movie 5he Cable 7uy when Dim Carrey is playing pic?up ball and
<2,/%&
says P#h, weBre playing prison rules,huhJP 5o the guys who just fouled him so hardJ
5 guess7 #e are Gplayin( (prison rules(G do#n $ere a" "$e *"a"e &ar7 $u$J 6re we
going to have my hearing todayJ 2ecause the ;earing is limited in scope and
purpose, rightJ :ing0 -ach, listen to the Cour" Cler') Coughlin: #?ay) Peter#0 2hen
you and 7 tal5ed about the date %or *e/tember 25th that 2a# a tentati-e thing. 7
ha-e not %ormally noticed that. 7 ne-er did) :ing0 2ecause you did not answer the
Complaint)))2ecause you did not an#2er the Com/laint by me e'plain 9r)
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
1C: 102(!*(d* (etitionJ 4$y didn(" you ans#er "$a"7 Da"H /o#7 5 #in on "$a" on
defaul"7 "ooJ :ing0 5hatBs the 1upreme Court))) 5hey suspended you
pending)))(ending a disciplinary Complaint which is what that is (motioning to a
stac? of papers Ging had earlier laid at CoughlinBs feet*)N
;P;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2!/:10 to 2<2:1%* 5hen + thin? that goe# a
large e8tent to ho2 the pro!edural rules a//ly here) 2ecause if you file a mo"ion
"o dismiss, and it winds up jamming you up for time) 6nd )r, =ing is a6le "o
manipula"e "$is pro!ess such that heBs the one who pic?s the hearing date) ;e is the
one who sets up the notice of hearing way before the panel is even empaneled) 5hen +
get jammed up or the chairman who is ruling on things before + even have an
opportunity to file a reply to his opposition) 6nd then one, +Bll testify under penalty of
perjury 6 didn't get the notice of intent to ta5e default, +Bll testify that + went to the
8nited 1tates (ost #ffice and attempted to pic? up on at least == on multiple
occasions) #n one occasion a 5im at the @assar station in downtown :eno apparently
couldnBt find the envelope) 5he ne't time + went bac?, he did find the envelope that
had a postmar? date of 10=,=12, #ctober ,th, 2012, and it had postage of about 1)2<)
+t was a certified mailing upon information and belief it was the notice of intent to
ta5e 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)
>here + believe every other documentBs been sent, if you loo? at the certificates of
mailing attached at the end of the documents has been sent in two == by two methods,
first class mail and certified mail) 1o itBs a little strange that notice of intent to ta?e
default == maybe this is some ?ind of old school 2ar counsel tric?) + donBt ?now) 2ut it
was only sent by one method, certified mail) 1o + go to pic? it up once, the guy
doesnBt find it) + go the ne't wee?, and this is the guy 5im == 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
;ow did you ?now to pic? it upJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 2ecause + got the little slip) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: #?ay) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd then the ne't time he did find it)
6nd right before he gave it to me he noticed that it only has == itBs a large manila
envelope, he noticed it only has O1)2< (ostage on it) 5hat means itBs insufficient
postage, and he won't give it to me unless 6 pay the difference which is li5e some five
dollars that 6 don't have) 1o it gets sent bac?) + chec? the 81(1 and confirm for that
number, and !r. :ing and the *tate +ar recei-ed it on ,o-ember 9th. )r, =ing(s
<&0/%&
6een ery7 ery easie a6ou" "$is7 and 5 6eliee ery dis$ones", 5 sa# 2im no"a"e
"$e insuffi!ien!y of pos"age, <es"erday )r, =ing "old me $e didn(" see any"$ing
a6ou" insuffi!ien!y of pos"age on the en-elo/e. ?nd the 2hole /oint i# 7 ne-er got
notice o% intent to ta5e de%ault) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou replied to it) 9:)
C#87;$+3: >hatBs thatJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou replied to it) 9:)
C#87;$+3: + replied to your orders) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o, you replied before
+ entered the order) Kou replied and provided your own witness list that parroted the
witness list == 9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? itBs probably == sorry) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
== that parroted the witness list that the 1tate 2ar proffered, you filed your own) 9:)
C#87;$+3: + thin? + was replying to the witness list, the Dow1oE) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 6nd that came with the notice of intent to ta?e default) 9:)
C#87;$+3: 3o) 5he Dow1oE == along with the Dow1oE they sent a notice of
hearing) Keah, notice of hearing) 6nd this is pursuant to 1C: 10<2(c*) +t says "$e
panel af"er 6eing empaneled s$all proide a" leas" 30 days from #$en i"7 "$e panel7
no" &ar !ounsel7 seres "$e Do#*o1 and "$e no"i!e of $earing 6y "$e same me"$od
in #$i!$ "$e !omplain" is sered, 4$i!$ under *C3 10> can be by certified mail)
6lthough 5 don(" 6eliee i" !an 6e #$en, and +Bll testify under penalty of perjury on
the phone, if not also in writing, Cler' De"ers "old me 5 !ould rely on "$e fa!"7 5
!ould 6an' on i" "$a" "$e *"a"e &ar of /eada #ould no" asser" "$a" 8-23-12
!er"ified mailing #ould 6e proffered as affe!"ing seri!e of "$e !omplain" on me in
any #ay a" any "ime) 6t that time on the phone, +Bm swearing this under penalty of
perjury, s$e said #e are going "o send i" ou" "o you again7 "$e !er"ified mailing) +
actually undertoo? a lot of research in this regard, because there is case law that says
when the 2ar == not in this jurisdiction) 2ut when the 2ar sends you a certified
mailing, + thin? they can say within three days you are served, whether you ever
pic?ed it up or not, you ?now) 1o + was worried about that, you ?now) &u" 5 !alled
and "al'ed "o Cler' De"ers, 0nd 5 6eliee #$en a !our"7 par"i!ularly a !ler' of !our"7
ma'es an e?press e?pli!i" represen"a"ion "o you "$a" you !an rely on some"$ing7
"$a" you(re en"i"led "o, you ?now) 6nd + thin? itBs == it doesnBt set a good precedent for
the 1tate 2ar to essentially be pulling the rug out from under people li?e me) 6t that
time on, + believe it was 1eptember 11th, she said, oh, + got bac? that certified mailing
of the complaint) 5hat was, + guess, sent %=2&, the date that itBs stamped, the
complaint) 1he got it bac?) 1he said it was returned as undelivered or something) 6nd
+ said you thin? (at is going to try to ta?e a defaultJ 5his or thatJ 6nd s$e said
defini"iely7 no7 #e(ll no" do "$a", <ou are no" sered == she said, + believe, and +
would li?e to chec? my notes, but she said you(re no" sered un"il #e ge" "$a"
signa"ure on "$e "$ing, 0nd if #e don(" ge" "$e signa"ure on "$e "$ing af"er "$e
se!ond "ime #e(re going "o mail i" "o you7 "$en #e(ll send ou" for seri!e a no"i!e of
in"en" "o "a'e defaul") 6nd only upon that not being pic?ed up would, + guess, a
default be ta?en) 1o + felt completely entitled to rely upon that) ;owever, 9r) Ging,
and "$is is found in +aura De"ers( affidai" 5 found in "$e file that + have only si'
days to review) 9r) Ging has coyly prevented me from accessing this file since
9arch) Kes, he gave me some audio, and + appreciate that) + donBt appreciate the
<&1/%&
e'tent to which heBs preventing me from getting it into the record here today)
Dar"i!ularly #$ere i"(s some"$ing really disgus"ing going on) 3here the Eudge i#
#aying #omething that<# Eu#t not true. 7t<# Eu#t not true) (enalty of perjury, it is
completely false for her to say that she as?ed me if + was recording or had a recording
device at any time prior to the one bathroom brea?) 5hatBs just not true) 5here was a
bathroom brea?) 6nd immediately after + got bac? from that bathroom brea? she
starts interrogating me sua sponte about recording) + should say =- 5 #ould li'e "o play
i" for you "o 'no# e?a!"ly #$a" #as said7 e8actly 2hat my re#/on#e 2a# ==)))P
P(3o 1ubject*
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:!! (9
5o: laurapNnvbar)org (laurapNnvbar)org*C patric??Nnvbar)org
(patric??Nnvbar)org*
Dear 2ar Counsel Ging and Cler? of Court+nvestigator (eters and Chairman
Echeverria,
:espondent, Coughlin the Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of Evidence
(Do>1oE* (and Coughlin has yet to received a file stamped version of that Dow1oE)
"urther, Coughlin has never received any 3otice of +ntent to 5a?e Default (3o+5D*
from the 123) 6s such, the notice and other procedural safeguards attendant to the
;earing set for 111!12 are severely deficient) 5his is just the 1&th chime of the
cloc?, and + have had as many Pget right with DesusP (or any other number of
nondenominational 1aviors* tal?s with 2ar Counsel Ging and Cler? (eters as anyone
deserves) 6dd to that this new thing where first 2ar Counsel says, as reHuired by
1C: 10<(2*(c*Bs:
P5he 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) P
1ee, it doesnBt say, in 1C: 10<, 2ar Counsel can puff on about the :espondentBs right
to inspect, then pull the carpet out from under :espondentBs feet suddenly and claim
to be PcopyingP only certain things, and refusing to allow inspection of others (even
where the 1C: 10< Complaint specifically invo?es such non copied materials*, and
then cut short the time up to which :espondnet may inspect) $etBs say 2ar Counsel
did copy and provide those materials on #ctober &1st, 2012) #?ay, well 1C: 10<
allows Coughlin to go to the 123 and inspect Pup to & days priorP)))so Coughlin may
go to the 123 tomorrow, #ctober /th, 2012 and inspect, noJ 6nd any refusal by the
123 is a violation of 1C: 10<, rightJ (lease advise in writing)
<&2/%&
(lease see 1upreme Court :ule (1C:* 11,(2*, which holds that 2ar Counsel and the
(anelBs failure to follow these rules Pmay result in contempt of the appropriate
disciplinary board or hearing panel having jurisdiction)))P (lease note there has
already been a 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause filed against 2ar Counsel and or the
2oard or (anel in .0%&% and .1!2.) 6dditionally, please be aware that 1C: 11,(&*
holds: &)ee#ther rules of procedure)eeE'cept as otherwise provided in these rules,
the 3evada :ules of Civil (rocedure and the 3evada :ules of 6ppellate (rocedure
apply in disciplinary cases)
+n that regard, the decision on the motion to bifurcate dispalyed a clear lac? 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 3:C( .(e* of 2ar Counsels
#ctober 2!th, 2012 alleged mailing) 5he term PallegedP is used do to a recent visit to
the 123 on #ctober &1st, 2012 at around !:!< pm when + saw in the 123 outgoing
mail bo' two certified letter to myself that Cler? of Court (eters admitted would not
be pic?ed 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 ;earing did not have the Designation of >itnesses and 1ummary of
Evidence included with it, and therefore, my right to have the Do>1oE &0 days prior
to the hearing, and to receive it from the (anel, along with the 3otice of ;earing,
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 Cler? (eters can tell you about)))*) +t is a
path that :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) often ta?es people down too)))
+ would be very interest to ?now who was on the screening (anel)))which 2ar Counsel
Ging promised to tell me, though, li?e most all of (atBs promises, he has
bro?en)))could it have been David ;amilton, EsH)J :ichard 7) ;illBs best friend,
David ;amiltonJ >as it >CD6 9ary GandarasJ 5he one included in the
correspondences about my smartphone and micro sd data card being searched and or
seiAed illegally and or outside any lawful search incident to arrest given the hand of
an boo?ing it into CoughlinBs property on 22/12, only for the :9C 9arshals to
return on 22%12 (at the soonest* to ta?e it bac? to Dudge 3ash ;olmesJ >hatBs
+t is my understanding that Chief 2ar Counsel David Clar? 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 ?now very soon) (lease 1ee 1C: 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 9ember 1helly #B3eillBs client, Dohn 7essin)

"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)
:eno, 3@ %,<12
5el and "a': ,!, ../ /!02
-ach has < files to share with you on 1?yDrive) 5o view them, clic? the lin?s below)
supplemental to CoughlinBs designation fo witnesses and summary and
production of evidence and notice of objection 020! C#::EC5ED C6(5+#3)pdf
020! 182(#E36 >+5; D+1C$6+9E:)pdf
Download allP
5he e'tremely apparent behind the scenes voodoo, +nside 2aseball, shenanigans
engaged in between >ashoe $egal 1ervices, 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner, 1pringgate, and the 2DDC
"iling #fficeBs 9ichelle (urdy (whom manages to ?eep a straight face when alleging that
Coughlin somehow twists her words* is especially evident upon reviewing the circumstances
surrounding CoughlinBs timely <200, :eply to 1pringgateBs <1&0, #pposition to CoughlinBs
!&00, 9otion for :econsideration, etc):
3#5E by Coughlin: despite having a <200, filing stamped date, which made
timely CoughlinBs :eply to 1pringgateBes <1&0, #pposition to CoughlinBs 9otion for
:econsideration, Dudge 7ardnerBs <210, #rder Denying CoughlinBs 9otion actually has a
numerically prior efle' number assigned to it, owing to the 2DDC originally rejecting
CoughlinBs filing just long enough to snea? Dudge $) 7ardnerBs <210, #rder through, to wit,
efle': D@0%=011.%=10/,.2/ (#rd Denying )))*)(df D@0%=011.%=10%&20. (:eply)))*)(df)*)pdf
D@0%=011.%=10%&20. (:eply)))*)pdf
;ow all this influence peddling and abusing the power in oneBs position by failing to
abide by the duties inherent thereto is much different from ta?ing bribes is not readily apparent
<&!/%&
to most) ;owever, what it clear is that a long line of former >ashoe County District 6ttorneyBs
#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 cler?s who augment their, uh, approach)
>itness former >CD6Bs #ffice prosecutor turned :DC Chief Dudge (earsonBs
dropping on Coughlin (via courthouse service by Deputy 6ugustin 9edina, naturally, where
:DC Chief 2ailiff 1e'ton, and :eyes have obstructed Coughlin and CoughlinBs agentBs ability to
serve 9otions to DisHualify on :DC Dudge (earson, Clifton, and 1ferraAAa (a handy tric? the
not too original :9C 6dministrative Dudge >) 7ardner (whom copied verbatim Dudge
1ferraAAaBs especially specious 122012 6dministrative #rder 2012=01 in his very own
6dministrative #rder 201&=01, followed suit with in obstructing on multiple occasions,
including on <11&, <21&, <1&1&, and %1!1& CoughlinBs attempts to serve 9otions to
DisHualify in the wretched abuse of process that is :C6 Dan >ongBs dual prosecutions of
Coughlin in 1& C: &,1&, and &,1! for dubious allegations that Coughlin allegedly submitting
documents for filing with 123 Cler? of Court (eters somehow violated the specious
>or?place ;arassment (rotection #rders granted the 123 on 122012 and 11!1& in
:C(2012=000.0/ (Cler? of Court (eters adopts the same fraudulent approach ta?en by :9C
Cler? Donna 2allard, :DC Cler?Bs Christine Eric?son, Cathy >ood, and :obbin 2a?er, and the
2DDCBs 9ichelle (urdy and former 2DDC Cler? turned "ernley 9unicipal Court Dudge $ori
9atheus in admitting to destroying documents she purports to believe Coughlin submitted for
filing*)
"urther, Cler' of Cour" De"ers $as no# !ommi""ed per;ury in furtherance of the
fraudulent attempts to obstruct justice she and 6sst) 2ar Counsel Ging have underta?en in their
abuse of process within the >or?place ;arassment (rotection #rder in :C(2012=000.0/ (:DC
Dudge 1ferraAAa, in a /2,1& #rder denying CoughlinBs 3:1 &&)2/0(,* 9otion to 9odify or
Dissolve such E(# added to his spree owhere (eters lied in her sworn testimony on the record
at the 1!1& e'tension hearing in contradicting the statements she made to the :(D respecting
the purported attempt by Coughlin to have a Ethird partyF submit a 3:C( <2, <,, etc) 9otion
on the final day of of the ten day deadline to submit such a filing pursuant to the 121!12
"#"C#$ by Chair Echeverria in the Etrial courtF portion of the matter now on appeal .2&&/)
Consider the statements attributed to the 123Bs Cler? of Court $aura (eters in :(D Detective
5homas KturbideBs police report 3arrative concerning the 1&1& purported attempt by
Coughlin to have a third=party submit a document for filing with the 123Bs Cler? of Court just
prior to < p)m) on the final day to timely submit a 3:C( <2 or <, 9otion in connection with
the 121!12 "#"C#$ in the matter now on appeal in .2&&/) (9atter of Kengo, /2 3)D) !2<
3ote: :eno Dustice Court Dudge David CliftonBs ordering O10? bail for suspended attorney
-ach Coughlin on 21212 +3 :C:2012=0.<.&0 for allegedly being late to court for the
vindictive prosecution against Coughlin for Pmisuse of ,11 servicesP where Coughlin had been
arrested on 211&, vindicitively by Dept 6lt) 1entencing, spent five days in jail, obtained #rder
for Competency Evalu on 2<1&, which Clifton violated, arrerrested wrongfully again on
2%1& (alleged violat) #f epo 123 obtained from (earson, where :(D Detective Kturbide
wilfully overcharged Coughlin with a felony and gross misdemeanor where both alleged
<&</%&
violations were specifically identified as mere simple misdemeanors on the 5(# and E(#
Kturbide himself possessed and claims to have been a PdetectiveP conducting an PinvestigationP
relative to) :DC Dudges Clifton and (earson both admit to directly appointing their favorite rope
a dope, :) 2ruce $indsay, EsH) 5o CoughlinBs cases, in violation of Canon 2 :ule 2)1&
(P6dministrative 6ppointments* as so thoroughly criticiAed in the 200. $)6) 5imes article on
the subject)* Detective Kturbide wrote:
P,arrati-e: E'tended #rder is valid until 2&<, hours on 01=0!=201! "#$$#>=
8( DE56+$1: #n 01=2<=201& + was assigned the original case for 1&=100&0.) During
my investigation + determined the above information about the (rotection #rder through
court records) 6fter spea?ing with the witness $aura (eters, who wor?s for the 1tate 2ar
of 3evada at ,!<. Double : 2lvd) I2, + found that -achary violated the order on two
separate occasions)
#n 01=0&=201& at about 1700 $ours as $aura was closing the office at the above
location an un?nown male individual contacted her through the front glass door which
faces to the south of the building) 5he male as'ed "o file a do!umen" #i"$ "$e offi!e and
he was denied due to the hour and the office !losing) 2$e male said no"$ing else, but
pla!ed "$e do!umen" "$roug$ "$e mail slo") $aura pic?ed up the document and saw it
was a motion by -achary Coughlin representing himself in a case that $e 6eliees is
6eing $andled 6y "$is offi!e) $aura 'ne# this to be a violation of the above listed order
as she has had previous contact with -achary and ?new of the e'isting order)
$ater that same night as +aura was leaving the above office s$e sa# "$e
un'no#n male ge" in "o a e$i!le "$a" s$e 'ne# #as o#n 6y Ma!$ary Coug$lin) $aura
?new this as she has had previous contacts with -achary and this vehicle) +aura said
s$e sa# the un5no2n male get in a# a /a##enger o% thi# -ehicle' 6u" did no" see "$e
drier)
5his corroborated that this mo"ion #as 6eing filed on behalf of -achary by an
agen" of his)
+n the temporary order it states that, P7t i# %urther ordered that you' the
?d-er#e Party BZachary CoughlinC' are /rohibited' either directly or through an
agent' %rom contacting' intimidating' u#ing' attem/ting to u#e' or threatening the
u#e o% /hy#ical %orce' or other2i#e inter%ering in any 2ay 2ith the em/loyer' an
em/loyee o% the em/loyer 2hile the em/loyee i# /er%orming hi# dutie# o%
em/loyment and any /er#on 2hile the /er#on i# /re#ent at the 2or5/lace o% the
em/loyer' including' but not limited to' in /er#on' by tele/hone' "$roug$ "$e mail '
through electronic mail Be-mailC' %ac#imile B%a8C' or through another /er#on.P
-achary violated this by having an agen" contact the office located at ,!<.
Double : 2lvd)
>hile spea?ing 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
order until 01=0!=201!)
<&./%&
4aura 2ent on to tell me that on the morning o% 01-17-2013 2hen #he came
in to 2or5 at about F;FF hours there 2a# a %a8 being /rinted %rom the %a8 machine
that 2a# #u//o#ed to be &71 /age#) +aura saw that the cover page was addressed
from PAachcoughlinP and !an!eled "$e res" of "$e fa? and unplugged "$e ma!$ine .
4aura 'ne# thi# 2a# a -iolation to the e8tended /rotection becau#e o% the %ollo2ing.
+n the E'tended #rder for (rotection 6gainst ;arassment in the >or?place it
states, Pthe 6dverse (arty (-achary Coughlin*, are prohibited, either directly or through
an agent, from !on"a!"ing, 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 wor?place of the employer, including, but not
limited to, in person, by telephone, through electronic mail (e=mail*, facsimile (fa'*, or
through another person) 6dverse (arty may submit documents to the 1tate 2ar only
through the 8)1) 9ail but those documents must not contain threats or other intimidating
statements)
>hile referring to the e?"ended pro"e!"ion order it is a violation for -achary to
have sent a facsimile (fa'* to the 1tate 2ar of 3evada located at ,!<. Double :) 2lvd)
-achary could have mailed this to the office utiliAing the 8)1) 9ail and it would not
have been a violation of the protection order)
6fter 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 01=&0=201&) + have not been
able to identify this subject positively as -achary Coughlin)
6ttached with this report are copies of the restraining orders and the affidai"s of
seri!e) Copies of these were also boo?ed in to evidence along #i"$ "$e do!umen"s
dropped off 6y "$e un'no#n male su6;e!" a" "$e *"a"e &ar of /eada on 01-03-2013
and a !opy of "$e fa!simi201&) 6lso boo?ed in to evidence are copies of condensed
<&//%&
<&%/%&
<&,/%&
transcript and findings of fact and conclusion of law for the 1tate 2ar of 3evada
3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard cases concerning -achary Coughlin)
18996:K: #n 01=0&=201& -achary Coughlin violated the temporary
protection order served against him as documented bove) #n 01=1/=021& -achary
Coughlin -iolated the e8tended /rotection order served against him as documented
above)
C61E 8(D65E: #n 02=0%=201& Offi!ers 4addle and 4ilson of the :eno
(olice Department contacted -achary at his residence at 1!/1 E) ,th 1t) and arrested
him on the above listed charges) 3"DP
<!0/%&
+n contrast to the statements attributed to (eters in :(D Detective KturbideBs police
report regarding the 1&1& purported attempt by Coughlin to file a 3:C( <2 or <, 9otion 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&:
;C9I60 B90&6040 a.m.' transcript available here: ))) and she can testify from
where she is there at the counsel table
:7,=0 1o you up in sworn can you state your name and occupation please,
P@6@*0 $aura Peter# paralegal with the 1tate 2ar of 3evada at the :eno
office,
:7,=0 6nd, could you describe what occurred last night)
P@6@*0 Jast night at a li""le 6i" af"er fie another employee and + were leaving
the building and a man !ame #al'ing up "o "$e door ;us" as #e #ere a6ou" "o lo!' i" $e
$ad i"s some paper#or' from Ma!$ and "o Ma!$(s !redi" $e didn(" !ome $imself $e
sen" some6ody $e #as #ai"ing a" "$e end of "$e drie#ay 6u" $e $ad some paper#or'
#i"$ and "$e guys said 5 #an" "o file "$is and 5 said you(re no" going "o file i" and 5
"$re# i" on "$e floor 6e!ause $e #as "ry "o s"uff in"o "$e door and then we just left we
just loc?ed it and he left too)
:7,=0 Kour ;onor, 6 consider that to !e a direct violation of the order because,
number one, itBs that same in"imida"ing approa!$ of !oming af"er $ours #$en i"(s dar'
waiting for the women to be leaving the building, or still securing it) 0nd7 $e #as in "$e
!ar a" "$e "ime7 is "$a" !orre!"J
P@6@*0 <es)
:7,=0 -ach Coughlin was) 1o, itBs not li?e he arranged to have it delivered by a
third=party, #$i!$ #ould s"ill 6e a iola"ion) +t says in the #rder that Eyou are
prohibited from either directly or "$roug$ an agen" from !on"a!"ing)))F) 6nd, 5 $ae
e?plained "o )r, Coug$lin "$a" $e $as no reason "o !on"a!" us, ;e Eshall not contactF
us) +tBs a violation of the order to not come to the office) + told them especially
repeatedly to realiAe what youBre doing coming to the office af"er $ours and his
comment is Eyou are prose!u"ing meF) 1o, itBs an attempt on his part, + guess, "o
in"imida"e me from doing my ;o6 so on !ehalf of the staff and for our protection, 5
would as? that the court e'tend the #rder)
C9I6 B"C Chie% "udge *cott Pear#onC0 Does he have, you touched on this
briefly, but, does $e $ae any legi"ima"e reason or does $e $ae any rig$" "o file
do!umen"s #i"$ your offi!eJ
G+37: >ell, 5 #ould "a'e "$e same approa!$ "$a" "$e ;us"i!e !our" did, 5hey
ac5no2ledge that it<# o/en to the /ublic and that people have certain rights to file
<!1/%&
certain documents or to avail themselves of the court system) 4e are no" a !our", we are
a nonprofit organiAation, and $e does no" $ae a rig$" "o do any"$ing, other than the
fact that, as a member of the bar, he is currently suspended, as the court now ?nows,
a""orneys $ae a du"y "o file do!umen"s #i"$ "$e *"a"e &ar7 a duty to notify us of his
current address, things such as that, and to pay dues and $e is no" pre!luded from doing
"$a" 6y us) + would as? the court to only allow 9r) Coughlin to su6mi" any re8uired
do!umen"s 6y .* mail and no o"$er me"$od, 5he document that the court saw this
morning that $e dropped off at the office in!luded a CD ideo"ape that is appro'imately
100 pages) 5hat document was e=mailed to me as well, and then $e fa?es or a""emp"s "o
fa?, the Cour" Cler' has ordered $im and $as #ri""en "o $im indi!a"ing no" "o7 no" "o
fa?7 no" e-mail you<re not allo2ed to (,:!<:<% a)m)*, as well as the (anel Chair saying
donBt e=mail) 5f you #an" $er "o "es"ify s$e !an)
(3#5E by Coughlin: 5hatBs not true (eters only e=mailed 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 6ffidavit 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 ma?ing an enormous deal
of her and the 12333D2Bs fraudulent reneging on that, much to CoughlinBs prejudice*
C#8:5: /o7 "$a"(s fine, + just wanted to ma?e sure) (3#5E: 6pparently
Ema?ing sureF to Dudge (earson means refusing to hear any actual sworn testimony to
support an attorneyBs hearsay assertions*)
G+37: 6nd, so, 7 do thin5 it 2ould be appropria"e for "$e Order "o allo# )r,
Coug$lin "o file or sere re8uired do!umen"s ia .* mail.F
>hereas :(D Detective KturbideBs police report indicates: P#n 01=0&=201& at
about 1700 $ours as $aura was closing the office at the above location an un?nown
male individual contacted her through the front glass door which faces to the south of
the building) 5he male as'ed "o file a do!umen" #i"$ "$e offi!e and he was denied due
to the hour and the office !losing) 5he male said nothing else, but pla!ed "$e do!umen"
"$roug$ "$e mail slo") $aura pic?ed up the document and saw it was a motion by
-achary Coughlin representing himself in a case that $e 6eliees is 6eing $andled 6y
"$is offi!e) $aura 'ne# this to be a violation of the above listed order as she has had
previous contact with -achary and ?new of the e'isting order)
$ater that same night as +aura was leaving the above office s$e sa# "$e
un'no#n male ge" in "o a e$i!le "$a" s$e 'ne# #as o#n 6y Ma!$ary Coug$lin) $aura
?new this as she has had previous contacts with -achary and this vehicle) +aura said
s$e sa# the un5no2n male get in a# a /a##enger o% thi# -ehicle' 6u" did no" see "$e
drier)
5his corroborated that this mo"ion #as 6eing filed on behalf of -achary
by an agen" of his)))P
<!2/%&
(eters sworn testimony at the 1!1& >or?place ;arassment 5(#
e'tension hearing demonstrates what an utter liar (eters is:
PP@6@*0 $aura Peter# paralegal with the 1tate 2ar of 3evada at the :eno
office,
:7,=0 6nd, could you describe what occurred last night)
P@6@*0 Jast night at a li""le 6i" af"er fie another employee and + were leaving
the building and a man !ame #al'ing up "o "$e door ;us" as #e #ere a6ou" "o lo!' i" $e
$ad i"s some paper#or' from Ma!$ and "o Ma!$(s !redi" $e didn(" !ome $imself $e
sen" some6ody $e #as #ai"ing a" "$e end of "$e drie#ay 6u" $e $ad some paper#or'
#i"$ and "$e guys said 5 #an" "o file "$is and 5 said you(re no" going "o file i" and 5
"$re# i" on "$e floor 6e!ause $e #as "ry "o s"uff in"o "$e door and then we just left we
just loc?ed it and he left too)
:7,=0 Kour ;onor, 6 consider that to !e a direct violation of the order because,
number one, itBs that same in"imida"ing approa!$ of !oming af"er $ours #$en i"(s dar'
waiting for the women to be leaving the building, or still securing it) 0nd7 $e #as in "$e
!ar a" "$e "ime7 is "$a" !orre!"J
P@6@*0 <esG,
4aura Peter# 5no2# 2hen to #ing %or her #u//er' and ?##t. +ar Coun#el :ing need
only call the tune.
3ote, under Ging, and :C6 Chief Criminal Deputy DanBs interpretation of :DC
Dudge (earsonBs 122012 5(#, Coughlin was not even permitted to file documents between
being allegedly served such #rder by an :DC 2ailiff on 122.12 during one of the convenient
for the :DC wee?ly probation chec? ins Coughlin has been subjected to since 3ovember 2012,
within the D61 chec? in booth in the area it shares with the :DC, and the 1!1& e'tension
hearing)
$oathsome :C6 >ong indicates to Coughlin that he feels Coughlin need have
sought to have such 122012 5(# modified or dissolved pursuant to 3:1 &&)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 3:C( <2 or <, 9otion in relation to the 121!12 "#"C#$)
Coughlin, though not having been served any such 123 5(#, heard rumors of such a 123
5(# and called the :DC reHuesting an emergency 9otion to 9odify teleconference with the
123 see?ing 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 post=PdecisionP motion, etc) are governed by 1C: 11,(&* and 1C:
10<(!*) Dudge (earson indicated to Coughlin that he would not modify the 123Bs 5(# and
hung up on Coughlin after indicating that he had set the matter for an e'tension hearing on
1!1& in :C(2012=000.0/)
<!&/%&
3:1e&&)2/0ee3e8uiremen"s for issuan!e of "emporary or e?"ended orderC
e'pirationC rig$" "o !$allenge "emporary orderC award of costs and attorneyLs fees to prevailing
partyC interlocutory appeal of e'tended order))))
P)))(,*)ee8pon 2 daysL notice to an employer who obtained a temporary order for
protection against harassment in the wor?place without notice or on su!$ s$or"er no"i!e "o "$e
employer as "$e !our" may pres!ri6e7 "$e person #$o allegedly !ommi""ed "$e $arassmen"
may appear and moe "$e dissolu"ion or modifi!a"ion of "$e "emporary order for pro"e!"ion
agains" $arassmen" in "$e #or'pla!e) .pon "$e filing of su!$ a mo"ion7 "$e !our" s$all
pro!eed "o $ear and determine the motion as e?pedi"iously as "$e ends of ;us"i!e re8uire) 0"
"$e $earing, the court may dissolve, modify or e'tend the order)P
>hile Dudge (earson denied CoughlinBs motion to clarify or modify the 122012
5(# suffficient to enable Coughlin to be able to timely file a motion in the vein of 3:C( <2 or
<, within 10 days of the 121!12 "#"C#$, Dudge 1ferraAAa, a a realy sha?y loo?ing
signature, entered an #rder on /2,1& that denied outright CoughlinBs 9otion to 9odify the
123Bs E(# without even affording Coughlin the hearing reHuired by 3:1 &&)2/0(,*Bs P.pon
"$e filing of su!$ a mo"ion7 "$e !our" s$all pro!eed "o $earP) 5hat is, Dudge 1ferraAAa just
simply refused to give Coughlin any hearing whatsoever) 6nd that is typical of Dudge
1ferraAAaBs approach to jurisdictional mandates and reHuirements)))that is, they simply do not
e'ist when he is on the bench) ;e does whatever he feels li?e doing) "or instance, while 3:1
!0)2<&(.* reHuires the landlord to have filed an unlawful detainer affidavit prior to the court
holding a summary eviction hearing, Dudge 1ferraAAa e'cused landlord 9erlissBs 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 Ppaid your rentP in a no-!ause summary eviction case)
"urther, in the i(hone petty larceny trial in :C:2011=0.&&!1, Dudge 1ferraAAa, despite plainly
being confronted with 1hepp v) 1tate, and 1taab, indicated that a Preceiving stolen propertyP
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 blac? letter law are but minor annoyances along with way to Dudge 1ferraAAa
accomplishing his agenda)
:eally, in the :eno Dustice Court, there is but one rule, 3DC:C( :ule 1, interpreted
in a manner wherein the interests of justice and judicial economy, or Pliteral interpreation
would wor? an injusticeP language therein is applied in a manner which really means Pwhatever
the judges of the :eno Dustice Court want to do, they shall do, because ?eeping them happy and
furthering their agenda is the only Pinterest of justiceP they are interested inP) 6nd, 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
6ttorneyBs #fficer, local law enforcement, and, of course, their own tempermental and insecure
2ailiffs at every turn) 6nd, it usually wor?s out pretty good for :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), too)
1o, on 6ugust 1!th, 201&, with his having set an artificially far out from the
101!1& trial date in :C:201&=0/2./< (the prosecution of Coughlin for, again 3:1 1,,)2%0
<!!/%&
incident to :DC 2ailiff Dohn ;olguin :eyes scoring some points by attac?ing Coughlin in
response to CoughlinBs <2&1& filing with the :DC see?ing copies of sensitive filing that are
allegedly freely available in the public record* of %1,1& for Coughlin to submit pre=trial
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
>CD6Bs #ffice vindictive and haphaAard 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 >CD6Bs #fficer 6D6 (hil $ipparelli admitting to Coughlin
during a conversation on !121& that $ipparelli full well countenances the burglaries on
tenantBs that the >C1# underta?es in its current approach to conducting loc?outs in summary
evictions)))though sometimes in relation to the >ashoe County jail giving an attorney li?e
CoughlinBs personal property, such as his smart phone or a data card, to 9unicipal Court Dudge
3ash ;olmes, then see?ing to cover that up, where no warrant or court order e'ists allowing
for such a confiscation and violation of CoughlinBs "ourth 6mendment rights)*)
Chief Dudge (earsonBs recent P6dministrative #rder 201&=0.P relates to CouglinBs
cases almost as much as his &221& 6dministrative #rder 201&=02 related to CoughlinBs cross=
e'aminations and arguments made during the &1,1& trial date in :C:201&=0.<.&0, where
such &221& 6dministrative #rder 201&=02 essentially announced, nearly 1% months after the
law went into effect, 6222. and the concomitant major changes to the way summary evictions
are done in 3evada (with 3:1 !0)2<&(&*(b*(1* being a particularly bone of contention in the
/&112 hearing on CoughlinBs 9otions in :ev2012=0010!% before Dudge (earson incident to a
.1!12 < Day 8nlawful Detainer 3otice that listed 1par?s Dustice Court as the court, pursuant
to the reHuirement to list the court in 3:1 !0)2<&(&*(b*(1*, in which Coughlin must file a
5enantBs 6nswer or 6ffidavit within < days) Coughlin so submitted a 5enantBs 6nswer to
1par?s Dustice Court within < judicial days of the Huasi=constructive 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 Pdwelling unit or apartmentP that 3orthwinds
6partments rented Coughlin upon 3C1 being unable to gain entry in its attempts to burglariAe
CoughlinsB rental and commit a trespass in hopes of effecting personal service of such < Day
3otice on Coughlin)
6t such /&112 hearing, Dudge (earson practiced law on behalf of 3orthwindBs
6partments to whatever e'tent was necessary to fill in the gaps where he also permitted an
unauthoriAed practioner of law, 3evada Court 1ervices Deff Chandler, to cross the bar and
ma?e arguments on behalf of his PclientP, and out of state corporation, in violation of 3:C(
11) Dudge (earson roundly rejected CoughlinBs 3:1 !0)2<&(b*(1* arguments relative to the <
Day 3otice being deficient for the purposes of obtainin a summary removal order from the
:eno Dustice Court where it listed the 1par?s Dustice Court as the place for Coughlin to file a
5enantBs 6nswer or 6ffidavit) 6pparently, in Dudge 1cott (earsons courtroom, unauthoriAed
practitionerBs of law have a net to fall in to save them when they commit PmalpracticeP)
6nyways, Dudge (earsonsBs %1!1& 6dministrative #rder 201&=0. is noteworthy
<!</%&
where it purports to subject Coughlin to the threat of imprisonment of up to 2< days for each
violation of it order applying DC::5 10 to P6$$ D#C89E351 1829+55ED 2K
-6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 5# 5;E :E3# D815+CE C#8:5P whether such are
submitted by Coughlin the tenant in a Plandlord tenant matterP where DC::5 2 clearly states
that DC::5 10 does not apply to Plandlord tenant mattersP and 3DC:C( %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 3:1 !0 and 3:1 11%6)
"urther, Dudge (earsons attempts to abuse the contempt power by, essentially, violating the
spirit of >DC: 1% (no tic?y tac? civil law procedural rules that violate 3:C( <(e* anyways
where someoneBs liberty is at sta?e, ie, in a criminal case*:
>DC: :ulee1%:eePPa/er# 2hich do not com/ly 2ith rule#)ee1?!ep" in !riminal
!ases and #ri"s arising from !riminal !ases, 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 :ules of Civil (rocedure, the District Court :ules, or applicable
statutes)P
Dudge (earsons 6#1&=0. is further interesting where, despite (earson and his fellow
lifelong prosecutor turned Dudge, Dudge CliftonBs insistence (along with 1ferraAAa* that
Coughlin is not able to issue his own subpoenas given the temporary suspension of his law
license (CoughlinBs law license with the 81(5# 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 720&&*) ;owever, Coughlin is representing
himself in a number of criminal cases in the :DC where the court appointed conflict counsel
that Dudge Clifton (and Dudge (earson* admits he directly appointed himself, in an apparent
violation of Canon 2 :ule 2)1&Bs P6dministrative 6ppointmentsP language given the fallout
from the 200. $)6) 5imes articles on such appointments, :) 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 :C:201&=0.<.&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 co=counsel and did so in
fact appear (the :DCBs Criminal Division Cler? :obbin 2a?er and $indsayBs officeBs Diana
1imms play it pretty fast and loose with those appearances as attorney or record)))and
sometimes there is fallout to that, and Dudge Clifton should not be permitted to will that away
with a dismissive glare*) 6nyways, where the :DC judges ta?e the position that Coughlin may
not issue his own subpoenas, Dudge (earsonBs 6#1&=0. applies to Coughlin protions of DC::5
10 that only apply to PattorneysP)
>hereas DC::5 10 reads: P2) 3o original pleading or paper may be amended by
ma?ing erasures or interlineations thereon, or by attaching slips thereto, e'cept by leave of
court) C) 5he following information shall appear upon the first page of every paper presented
for filing: (1* 5he name, 3evada 1tate 2ar identification number, address and telephone
number of the attorney and of any associated attorney appearing for the party filing the paperC
<!./%&
whether such attorney appears for the plaintiff, defendant, or other partyC or the name, address
and telephone number of a party appearing in proper person, shall be set forth to the left of
center of the page beginning at line 1 and shall be single spaced) 5he space to the right of
center shall be reserved for the filing mar?s of the cler?) 369E 26: 3892E: 6DD:E11
C+5K, 1565E, -+( C#DE 5E$E(;#3E 3892P
6lso interesting is Dudge (earsonBs attempts to apply DC::5 11(7* (rebranded as
(m* of the P(:#CED8:6$ :8$E1 "#: 6$$ D#C89E351 1829+55ED 2K -6C;6:K
26:GE: C#87;$+3 5# 5;E :E3# D815+CE C#8:5P* to even CoughlinBs summary
eviction cases) 1uch attempt to apply DC::5 11(7* therein by Dudge 1ferraAAa has now
become Huite a big issue in .1&%&, the appeal of the initial horrifically handled by Dudge
1ferraAAa and the :DC, summary eviction from CoughlinBs former home law office in :ev2011=
001/0% (well, actually, the precursor sister case, :ev2011=001!,2 might be considered the
PinitialP one, especially given the favorable 3:1 11%6)<10(e* analysis such provides to
Coughlin*, where Dudge 1ferraAAa PenteredP a (ost=+t 3ote #rder atop one of CoughlinBs filings
(though such was never, li?e, actually mailed to Coughlin or the opposing party or file
stamped, etc)))* that purported to either deny CoughlinBs 9otion for 1tay or just plain fail to
adjudicate it based upon Dudge 1ferraAAaBs contention that DC::5 11(7* applied in landlord
tenant matters)
$as @egas has a DC:$@ :ule !0 that just so limits the number of motions for stay,
and motions to vacate in an eviction case that a tenant can file) ;owever, to get that :ule 20 on
the boo?s, the Dustice Court for $as @egas 5ownship had to, and did, comply with 3@ DC:C(,
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 6#1&=0. purports to enact a rule applicable only to
Coughlin (where such analog in DC::5 11(7* does not apply to anyone else in a Plandlord
tenant matterP per DC::5 2*, such is violative of 3ev) Const) 6rt) ! 1ect) 21, where it reads:
P(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)P
5his echoes Dudge 1ferraAAaBs approach as revealed from the transcript of the
11/11 hearing before him in :ev2011=001/0%: P(10:0. 69*)))
"udge0 )))5 $ae already denied "$e mo"ion for s"ay #$i!$ on!e made !anno" 6e made again
"o "$e !our" you can address that to the District Court 1ir) 2ut, what + am willing to consider
this morning is what + indicated previously is the de/o#it of O22/< >ith the CourtBs) 6nd, since
9r) Coughlin this was your motion + will allow you to argue first and then we will hear from
9r) 2a?er his response)))P
6nd, really, the wording of DC:$@ :ule !0 addresses a lot of the problems that
occurred in the summary evictionBs Coughlin was subjected to, especially vis a vis the 9otion
to 1tay, and the :DCBs failure to properly adjudiciate them, the :DC Cler?s refusal to accept
CoughlinBs supersedeas bonds, etc), etc) (not to mention the failure to timely transmit the :#6
to the district court, or in any way comply with 1C: 10, 11, applicable in light of 3:1 !0)!00*)
<!//%&
1imilarly, Dudge 1ferraAAa responded to CoughlinBs 11211 @erified Complaint for
+llegal $oc?out in response to landlord 9erlissBs attorneys 2a?er and ;ill, along with the
>C1# burglariAing CoughlinBs property, by scrawling out on a (ost=+t 3ote P#rderP that was
never served on either party and only uncovered upon the transmission of the incredibly
deficient :ecord on appeal some seven wee?s later P11&11 5his needs to be transmitted to the
District Ct) ;e appealed) (1P)
6ctually, under 3evada law, the justice court needs to give Coughlin a hearing
within & days of his filing a @erified Complaint for +llegal $oc?out, period) >hether or not
Coughlin appealed the matter would not change that) Dudge 1ferraAAa ?nows not whether ;ill
and or 2a?er told Coughlin they were charging him the same O,00 Pfull rental valueP for the
time after their burglary (which the rebrand as a Ploc?outP* that previously entitled Coughlin to
Pfull use and occupancyP sufficient to create a new lease, or otherwise withdraw the eviction,
and, regardless, even were that not the case, an illegal loc?out is an illegal loc?out, and just
because Dudge 1ferraAAa may thin? Pah, whatBs the difference if they did the loc?out too soon,
you were going to be loc?ed out soon enoughP does not vitiate CoughlinBs rights under 3:1
11%6)&,0(1*(a*,(<*(a*=(b*))
6 similar (ost +t 3ote #rder (unserved, of course* by Dudge 1ferraAAa was affi'ed
atop the 122211 3otice of (osting 1upersedeas 2ond as 1et 2y 1tatute, >here is 9y 1tay
filing by Coughlin, which the :DC still refuses to transmit to the 2DDC and fraudulently failed
to include in either the 1!12 or !11& 1upplementals so transmitted) 5hat 122211 (ost +t
3ote #rder by Dudge 1ferraAAa misapplies the plenary 3:1 !0)&%0 standard to the appeal of a
summary eviction where 3:1 !0)&%< has not Pwithin 10 daysP reHuirement, where such (ost +t
3ote #rder reads: P122211 the stay was denied an no bond was posted within 10 days)
Defendnat needs to have District Court address this on appeal) (1P) 1uch PrulingP is especially
rich given Dudge 1ferraAAaBs order at the conclusion of the 102<11 summary eviction
proceeding where he rebranded the O2,2/< he impermissibly reHuired Coughlin to deposit as a
3:1 11%6)&<<(<* Prent escrowP deposit as CoughlinBs Pbond on appealP) #ne, the :DC
retaining that O2,2/< was plenty sufficient a PdepositP where 3:1 !0)&%< reHuired only O2<0
be deposited by Coughlin to obtain a stay) 5wo, even had 3:1 !0)&%0 been applicable, such
involves Ptwice the judgmentP, and where there was no money judgment against Coughlin in
the Pno cause summary eviction proceedingP that Dudge 1ferraAAa ?ept trying to turn into a non=
payment of rent summary eviction, the reHuired PdepositP would have been twice of nothing)
"C4V uleS40.SS!otion# to #tay in e-iction ca#e#.
(a*e0 "enan" in an ei!"ion !ase may only file 1 mo"ion "o s"ay or 1 mo"ion "o a!a"e per
!ase7 on a form approed 6y "$e !our")
(b*eI/on the %iling o% a motion to #tay under subsection (a*, any pending ei!"ion order
s$all 6e s"ayed un"il fur"$er order of "$e !our")
(c*e6 motion to stay #ill 6e reie#ed 6y "$e !our" #i"$in 1 ;udi!ial day)))
Q6ddedC effective 6ugust 11, 2010)RP
<!%/%&
3ow, why would the Dustice Court of $as @egas 5ownship need go to the trouble to
publish and get approved by the 3evada 1upreme Court DC:$@ :ule !0 when it already has a
nearly identical analog to DC::5 :ule 11(7* in DC:$@ :ule 11(f*: P(f*e/o mo"ion on!e
$eard and disposed of s$all 6e rene#ed in "$e same !ause7 nor s$all "$e same ma""ers
"$erein em6ra!ed 6e re$eard7 unless 6y leae of "$e !our")PJ
3@ DC:C( :8$Ee%1)ee6(($+C62+$+5K +3 7E3E:6$
(a*e6o 3hat Proceeding# ?//licable)ee2$ese rules do no" goern pro!edure and
pra!"i!e in any spe!ial s"a"u"ory pro!eeding insofar as "$ey are in!onsis"en" or in !onfli!"
#i"$ "$e pro!edure and pra!"i!e proided 6y "$e appli!a6le s"a"u"e) >here 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)ee:ule %!, relating to chief justices of the peace, shall apply
to all proceedings in the justice courts, #$e"$er !riminal7 !iil or o"$er#ise)P
,* 40.400 ule# o% /ractice: P5he provisions of 3:1, 3evada :ules of Civil
(rocedure and 3evada :ules of 6ppellate (rocedure relative to civil actions, appeals and new
trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of 3:1 !0)220 to !0)!20,
inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sectionsP
9ichael Dordan had to deal with the PDordan :ulesP) 3@ DC:C( does not allow the
:DC to subject -achary 2ar?er Coughlin alone, in violation of 3evada Constitution 6rticle !
1ection 21 to the P(:#CED8:6$ :8$E1 "#: 6$$ D#C89E351 1829+55ED 2K
-6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 5# 5;E :E3# D815+CE C#8:5P)
,V "CCP I4@S8&.SSI4@* +F "I*67C@ C9I6*: PEach justice or
justice court in a township )))!y action of a ma$ority of the $ustices thereof, may from "ime "o
"ime ma'e and amend "$e rules goerning i"s pra!"i!e no" in!onsis"en" #i"$ "$ese rules)
Copies of rules and amendmen"s so made 6y any ;us"i!e !our" s$all upon "$eir promulga"ion
6e furnis$ed "o "$e *upreme Cour"7 6u" s$all no" 6e!ome effe!"ie un"il af"er approal 6y "$e
*upreme Cour" and pu6li!a"ion) +n all cases not provided for by these rules the justice courts
may regulate their practice in any manner not inconsistent with these rules)P
6nd the :DC further violates 3@ DC:C( %& where it ignores 3:1 !0)&%<Bs setting
the amount reHuired to get a stay by ma?ing the supersedeas bond O2<0, per statute, in Dudge
1ferraAAaBs admission, during the 11/11 hearing, that the :DC always ma?es such supersedeas
bond Pthree times the monthly rentP (which also brings to mind the Huestion, why didnBt
Coughlin get a stay if Dudge 1ferraAAa had the :DC hold on to CoughlinBs O2,2/< as CoughlinBs
Pbond on appealP between #ctober 2<th, 2011 until such money was finally returned to
Coughlin (most of which he had to use to put up his bail for the criminal trespass arrest he
sustained at his former home law office in the meantime* on 111<12) +t seems Dudge
1ferraAAa was trying to find a way to get that O2,2/< to ;ill and his client, and did not realiAe
there is no Pappeal bondP in an appeal of a summary eviction, and that the only thing he could
be referring to as a Pbond on appealP was a supersedeas bond)))and upon figuring out that there
was no possible way to award ;ill and his client the rent escrow deposit 1ferraAAa wrongfully
<!,/%&
ordered pursuant to 3:1 11%6)&<<(<* in a no=cause summary eviction, even where the tenant
set out in e'cruciating detail that he, if at all, invo?ed only 3:1 11%6)&.0, and never did
invo?ed 3:1 11%6)&<<(<*, and that was only because Coughlin completely hammered it home
with his analogy to DC:$@ :ule !! vis a vis the Plocal ruleP referenced in 3:1 11%6)&<<(<*,
which had no applicability anyways, but, hey, its 1ferraAAa, so whaddyagonnadoJ 6re you
getting an idea of a what a, uh, fluid approach Dudge 1ferraAAa (and add to that Clifton and
(earson* have to jurisdictional principles in their :DC day to day activities*J
P"udge0 well + did specifically enter an order saying that you were to be evicted no later than <
(9 #ctober &1 + changed it to say that no earlier) + did review this but the last paragraph
provides the sums currently on de/o#it with the court in the amount of O22/< are the property
of the landlord but shall not immediately be relea#ed to him) + am going to modify that that the
O22/<` 6nd + will e'plain this` 5here is no rent due in this case, this was not an action for
non/ayment of rent so + do thin? it was inappropriate for the court to order that that money go
to the landlord) 5he court had no jurisdiction over that) 6nd so + am going to order that it be
surrendered to 9r) Coughlin) >ith respect to the appeal, + am going to order thatBs if the #tay is
granted by the District Court that the bond amount shall be three times the rents which is
O2/00) 5he District Court could amend that if they wish but that is what we always charge in
this court) 5hree months rent) 1o, if the District Court wishes to modify that thatBs fine but
youBll get your money bac? 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) 6ll rightJ
Plainti%%0 may + just reHuest clarification Kour ;onor) 1o if + understand correctly, the court is
modify the order to reflect that the O2,2/< currently on the de/o#it is going to 9r) Coughlin,
that itBs going to be relea#ed) ;owever, if 9r) Coughlin ever appeals this case and wants to
#tay, he needs to post a supersedeas bond in an amount of three months worth of rent
"udge0 O2/00)
Plainti%%0 O2/00, that would be a supersedeas bond, understood)P
#ne really has to Huestion whether or not Dudges (earson, Clifton, and 1ferraAAa (as
they have seen fit to group each other as a triumvirate in both of these embarrassing
6dministrative #rders* have any conception of how slippery a slope the concept of ma?ing up
different sets of rules for different litigants truly is)
,V "CCP I4@S84.SSC)7@( "I*67C@* 9( 6)@ P@?C@)))
P(b*e:esponsibilities)ee5he chief justice of the peace in a township shall:
(1*e2e responsible for the administration of court rules and regulations)))
(<*e#versee all administrative and clerical wor? and functions of the court as set forth
in 3:1 Chapter !)
(.*eCall and preside over meetings with the other justices of that township, ))) to
discuss and set policy on procedures, planning, !aseload dis"ri6u"ion, judicial training,
vacations, court improvements, personnel and any o"$er ma""ers of 6enefi" or !on!ern "o "$e
!our")P
5he opinion in $ippis is instructive with respect to CoughlinBs criticisms of the
<<0/%&
manner in which the :DC and >C1#Bs approach avoiding 3:1 !0)2<&(<*Bs reHuirement that
the tenant have PreceiptP of the summary removal order for at least 2! hours prior to the >C1#
conducting a loc?out, Dust as PDC:C( 10. is))) iola"ie of ar"i!le F7 se!"ion 217 #$i!$
proides "$a" Gall la#s s$all 6e general and of uniform opera"ion "$roug$ou" "$e *"a"eP
(noting P5here is no reason why parties to landlord=tenant law suits should be denied the right
of appeal, while all other justicesB courtsB litigants are allowed to e'ercise this right)P*, so too, is
the refusal by the >C1#, >CD6, :DC, :(D, etc) to follow 3:1 !0)2<&(<*Bs Pdirecting the
sheriff to remove the tenant within twenty=four hours of receipt of the orderP language where
every other county in 3evada manages to)
DC::5 :ule 11 also does not apply to Plandlord tenant mattersP per DC::5 2 (and
if the :DC wishes to change its rules, it must cease doing an end run around the reHuirements of
3@ DC:C( %! or otherwise enforcing unwritten Phouse rulesP li?e it has in the past* to 6$$ of
CoughlinBs cases (including the multitude of summary eviction based landlord tenant matters
(which begat the very wrongful criminal prosecutions of Coughlin that the :DC is now citing to
in attempts to buttress its judicial misconduct in see?ing to enforce now two specious
6dministrative #rders against Coughlin whilst a fifth criminal prosecution of Coughlin by the
>CD6Bs office in the :DC is set for trial on 101!1& incident to an alleged violation of such
initial 6dministrative #rder of dubious legality by Coughlin on <2&1&, for which the out of
control :DC 2ailiff Dohn :eyes (whose wife file a domestic violence protection order against
him, alleges he suffers from severe depression and is Poff his medicationsP and becomes hostile
and violent when such is the case, and the 1heriffBs deputies have been out to the :eyes home
in the past to respond to at least one domestic disturbance (also, Coughlin filed a
1tal?ing;arassment 5(# application against :eyes in :C(2012=0000/0 on 21<12, just prior
to the <212 5(# application by Cathy 6) :eyes*
5he increased due to the :DC Dudges own misconduct and failure to abide by
3evada law, and countenancing of the burglaries the >C1# conducts instead of according
tenants the P2! hoursP from the tenantBs PreceiptP of a summary removal order prior to the
>C1# effecting a loc?out)))all of which the :DC and >CD6 now wish Coughlin to foot the
bill for or otherwise ma?e Coughlin atone for their own sins*
+3 5;E 6D9+3+15:65+@E 9655E: #": D#C89E351 1829+55ED 2K
-6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3, ?$!7,7*6?67V@ 9$@ 201&-06 contains some
really rich moments:
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 is a party to several cases in this
CourtC and
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 regularly submits documents to
the Court which fail to include a case number in the caption or lis" mul"iple !ases in "$e
!ap"ionC and
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 regularly su6mi"s do!umen"s "o "$e Cour"
#$i!$ fail "o in!lude a !er"ifi!a"e of seri!e or clearly s"a"e an e?!ep"ion "o "$e e? par"e
<<1/%&
ruleC and (this is really rich where there is no opposing party in these 6dministrative #rder
PcasesP, further, the initial 122012 6dmin #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 DC::5 :ule 11(6*, reHuires a Pproof of serviceP for P9otionsP, not
for the P:eHuest for 6udio Copy of (roceedingsP that the %<1& P3otice of Document
:eceived but 3ot Considered by the CourtP had attached, served by ;owden)))so, now,
realiAing that DC::5 :ule 11(a* doesnBt apply to such ministerial reHuests, Dudge (earson
adds to his %1!1& 6dmin #rder: P2) -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 shall not reHuest a
copy of a document or transcript #i"$ou" firs" filing a )o"ion which complies with the
attached :ules) 0ny su!$ mo"ion mus" 6e suppor"ed 6y an affidai" of CO.-%+5/ #$i!$
mus" address "$e 6asis for "$e re8ues", #$y simply ie#ing "$e do!umen" is no" suffi!ien"
and #$e"$er "$e do!umen" $as 6een preiously proided "o $imG,
)ow Coughlin could (and why he should have to is a whole nother story* submit a motion just
to reHuest an audio transcript where P0ny su!$ mo"ion mus" 6e suppor"ed 6y an affidai" of
CO.-%+5/ #$i!$ mus" address "$e 6asis for "$e re8ues", #$y simply ie#ing B,96@0
2hat doe# that mean a# to JhearingJ a audio tran#cri/tDC "$e do!umen" B,96@0
recordingDC is no" suffi!ien" and #$e"$er "$e do!umen" $as 6een preiously proided "o
$imGG,
6he reAuirement that Coughlin Jaddre## the ba#i# %or the reAue#tJ echoe#
"udge Pear#on# in#truction# to Coughlin at a 611611& hearing in C2011-06&&41 2here
he indicated Coughlin 2ould need to e8/lain 2hy he 2anted a co/y o% #omething be%ore
deci#ion on 2hether or not to /ro-ide Be-en %or /urcha#eC Coughlin 2ith a co/y o% #uch a
document or recording in the /ublic record 2ould be /ermitted. 6hat i# /ro/o#terou#.
"udge Pear#on# #eem# to ha-e #/ent too long being the only one 2ho get# to decide Bor
5no2 the ba#i# %or hi# deci#ionC 2hether to relea#e +rady material and i# a//lying that
a//roach 2here it ha# no bu#ine## in the Eudiciary a# to mini#terial matter#. 6he an#2er
to Pear#on and Cli%ton<# current Auandry i# not to limit Coughlin<# acce## to item# in the
/ublic record' but rather' to a-oid -iolatin ,* 178.405' e#/ecially -ia im/ermi##ible
e8tra-Eudicial communication#' in addition to cea#ing the im/ro/rer admini#trati-e
a//ointment#' e#/ecially tho#e in-ol-ing . +ruce 4ind#ay' @#A
6he "C %ailed to #er-e a co/y o% "udge *%erraMMa<# 712911& 9rder# denying
Coughlin<# !otion# to !odi%y' etc. the 3or5/lace @P9# in CP2012-000607 and
CP2012-000599' and no2 i# re%u#ing to e-en allo2 Coughlin to /urcha#e co/ie# o% #uch'
%urhter the "C 2ill not indicate to Coughlin 2hether it 2ill i##ue the #ub/oena on +aili%%
eye# 2i%e# Cathy ?. eye# that Coughlin #ubmitted' and other #uch #ub/oena#' li5e the
one on %ormer "C Chie% Ci-il Cler5 no2 */ar5# "u#tice Court Cler5 :aren *tancil
2hom 2a# one o% the la#t "C non-+aili%% em/loyee# Coughlin #/o5e to /rior to the
im/lementation o% the 12120112 ?dmini#trati-e 9rder 2012-01. Coughlin di#cu##ed 2ith
*tancil the circum#tance# o% the 6128112 e-iction in e-2012-001048 and concomitant
arre#t in C2012-067980 2here the "C' de#/ite at lea#t t2o /hone call# bet2een
<<2/%&
*tancil and Coughlin and one 6126112 email %rom Coughlin to *tancil and
"C3ebR2a#hoecounty.u# B2hich 2a# at one /oint 2ithin the %ile in 1048' underneath
the doc5et on the le%t hand #ide' but 2hich u/on Coughlin<# re-ie2ing #uch on 81111& 2a#
no longer to be %oundC alerting the "C to the Euri#dictional de%iciencie# in the 6114112 5
$ay ,otice o% Inla2%ul $etainer allegedly J/er#onally #er-edJ on Coughlin by ,e-ada
Court *er-e#' 2hich li#ted' /ur#uant to ,* 40.25&B&CBbCB1C' the -ery */ar5# "u#tice
Court 2ith 2hich Coughlin #ubmitted a 6enant<# ?n#2er B!otion to $i#mi##C %or %iling
on 6126112 at noon' 2hich the *"C %ailed to %ile' 2here the "C<# "udge *chroeder then
entered a 4oc5out 9rder on 6127112 de#/ite the de%icieny in the ,otice. I/on Coughlin'
on 81111&' attem/ting to %ile a Veri%ied Com/laint %or 7llegal 4oc5out a# to a rental at
J,orth2ind# ?/artment#J 2ith the #ame :aren *tancil' no2 a counter cler5 at the
*/ar5# "u#tice Court' *tancil re%u#ed #uch document %or %iling' in a non-mini#terial
reEection o% #uch' by noting that J,orth2ind# ?/artment#J i# located 2ithin the con%ine#
o% eno' no */ar5#.
ule 11. !otion#0 Procedure %or ma5ing motion#L a%%ida-it#L rene2al'
rehearing o% motion#.
6) 6ll motions shall contain proof of the service of the same))))
") "actual contentions involved in any pre=trial or post=trial 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#5E: where was DD6 KoungBs P6ffidavitPin his #pposition to CoughlinBs
9otion to 1uppress of 22112 or in KoungBs e' parte 112.12 emeregency 9otion to (rohibit
Coughlin form fa'ingJ 6lso, 2iray DoganBs 11%1& 9otion 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 >C(D pursuant to 3:C( <(b*(2* to be
so served electronically*, and similar to that is :eno City 6ttorney 1?auBs fraudulence (perhaps
in conjunction with Dudge 1ferraAAa* in obtaining CoughlinBs appearance at an insufficiently
noticed 111&12 hearing in :Cr2011=0.&&!1 by alleging 1ferraAAa had PauthoriAed service by
emailP*
the Court which are copies of documents previously filed with the Court that have been
redacted or editedC (3#5E: what does the >CD6Bs #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 5his is li?e complaining that Coughlin does not use
the right eggshell white type of printing paper*)
the Court which are not legible or otherwise fail to clearly #tate the relie% reAue#tedC (3#5E:
the >CD6Bs #ffice Complaints failing to ever Pclearly stateP the facts supporting the charges
<<&/%&
has never seemed to be much of a problem* and
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 regularly reAue#t# co/ie# o%
tran#cri/t# or document# %rom the Court 2hich ha-e been /re-iou#ly /ro-idedC (even if
that were true, which it is not, the :DC is now attempting to prevent Coughlin from obtaining
copies even where he would pay money for them*)
>;E:E61, several of the types of documents referenced above are attached heretoC
and (it is interesting that (earson attaches a simple, ministerial at best P:eHuest for 6udio Copy
of (roceedingsP by Coughlin, which the :DCBs own unsigned, unattributed %<1& round of
ridiculous P3otice of Document :eceived but 3ot Considered 2y 5he CourtP, uh)))well, they
are on pleading paper, and have a caption, they just lac? 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, wee?s after Coughlin
submitted them for filing, especially where Dudge (earson then drops this new 6dministrative
#rder on 5hursday %1!1& (after wee?s of the :DC refusing to indicate to Coughlin if his
filings were being file stamped, refusing to even provide CoughlinBs copies of any PreceivedP
stamped cover page of his submissions, and refusing to allow Coughlin to view, or even
purchase copies of the doc?ets in his cases, even in his criminal cases*, where he had put in
place a 9onday, %1,1& deadline for Coughlin to file his pre=trial motions for a trial set for
101!1&, where 3evada law under 3:1 1/!)!<0 accordsa Pfifteen days prior to trialP deadline
for Coughlin to file such pre=trial motions) 6lso, its Dudge ElliottBs former 6dministrative
6ssistant ta?ing over for $ori 5ownsend, which is arguably another conflict reHuiring
removing the :DC from all of CoughlinBs cases considering Dudge ElliottBs gross misconduct in
so many of CoughlinBs cases in the last 1% months) :egardless, the PCertificate of 9ailingP for
such %<1& P3oticesP is signed by ;owden, and indicates Pa true copy of the atached
documentP was provided to >CD6 DD6 Koung by Pinteroffice mailP, which seems a bit off)
>;E:E61, filings by pro se petitioners, Phowever inartfully pleaded, P are held Pto
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers) P ;aines v) !0! 8)1) <1,,
<20, ,2 1) Ct) <,!, &0 $) Ed) 2D .<2 (1,/2*C and (3#5E: this is interesting, as if Coughlin is
not a PlawyerP as Dudges (earson, and Clifton alternately indicates he is or isnBt, depending on
the utility to their agenda either characteriAation provides in the various instances in which they
so choose to ma?e 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 Plandlord tenant mattersP or Pcriminal casesP by (earsonBs 6dministrative #rder
essentially attempting to reduce to a new set of rules or an P#rderP that which Coughlin had
been arguing is tantamount to criminal misconduct by the :DC 2ailiff and Cler?s (ie, applying
DC::5 10 and 11 to Coughlin in Pcriminal casesP and Plandlord tenant mattersP where DC::5
2 is Huite clear that neither DC::5 10 nor 11 apply to Coughlin, or anyone else, in those
settings*)
>;E:E61, friolous or e?a"ious !laims and defenses o-erburden limited
Eudicial re#ource# B,96@0 maybe, but probably not as much as Dudges 7one >ild legislating
<<!/%&
away all the protections to tenantBs rights the $egislature reduced into blac? 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 :DC continues to insist
upon)))also, clearly :C:2012=0./,%0 was a Pfrivolous claimP brought by the >CD6Bs
#ffice)))so where is >CD6 DD6 -) KoungBs own special set of procedural rulesJ*' hinder the
timely re#olution o% meritoriou# claim# and increa#e the co#t# o% engaging in bu#ine## and
/ro-iding /ro%e##ional #er-ice# to the /ublicC and >;E:E61, the citiAens of this
community have a right to a just, speedy, and ine'pensive determination of every action and
this right is infringed if "$e Cour" allo#s a !ase7 !iil or !riminal7 "o !onsume more "$an i"s
reasona6le s$are of "$e Cour"(s "ime) 1ee, 8nited ,& ")1upp) 1,0, 1,1 (D) 9ass)1,<0*(P5he
Court has obligations to other parties who have cases to be heard)P*C 6nd
>;E:E61, courts possess the inherent power (3#5E: well, Dudge (earson clearly
was ta?ing notes when Coughlin pointed out the fraudulent misstatement by Dudge 1ferraAAa in
the initial 6dmin #rder of 122012 vis a vis it purporting 3@ Const 6rt . 1ec . to apply to
P3evadaBs courtsP versus PDistrict CourtsP)))and really, these new citations to Dordn and
Chambers have no applicability to Pcourts of limited jurisdictionP because, right along with that
Plimited jurisdictionP is an incredibly limited Pinherent powerP possessed that in no way
justifies the judicial hot mess that this new 6dministrativ #rder 201&=0. 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 >CD6Bs #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 system=wide burglariAing 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) <01 8)1) &2 (1,,1* 6nd Dordan v) 1tate e' re+) #f 9otor
@ehicles M (ub) 110 ()&D &0, !! (200<*, abrogated on other grounds by 2uAA $$C v) #f 3)
$as 1%1 ()&D ./0 (200%*C and >;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 was
admitted to the 3evada 1tate 2ar on 9arch 2<, 200< and later suspended on Dune /, 2012C
>;E:E61, this Court has previously found in 6dministrative #rder 2012=01 that
v) -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 has repea"edly !aused a dis"ur6an!e in "$e filing
offi!e of "$e 3eno Jus"i!e Cour", disrupted the orderly business of the Court and overburdened
the limited judicial resources of this Court thereby hindering the timely resolution of
meritorious claims and increasing the costs of engaging in business and providing professional
services to the publicC and
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 has been the subject of
disciplinary hearings before the 1tate 2ar of 3evada 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard
wherein the 2oard found 9r) Coughlin Pcommitted multiple violations of the :ules of
(rofessional conductP and that 9r) Coughlin Pengaged in 6ad fai"$ o6s"ru!"ion of "$e
dis!iplinary pro!essPC and (3#5E: actually, and the the 123Bs 5(# 6pplication to (earson
contained a complete copy of the it, the 121!12 "#"C#$ contains no such PfindingP but does
contain somewhat similar language in the PDecision and :ecommendationP section, where such
<<</%&
reads: P"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 1C:
10<(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)P
#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 Pengaged in bad faith obstruction
of the disciplinary processP merely by Pfailing to file the pleading re%uired by 1C: 10<(2*(c*
(6nswer not mandatory 8nder a state supreme court rule governing pleadings in a formal
hearing in investigation of an attorney, an answer to an order to show cause in a disciplinary
hearing is only permissive and not mandatory, and a failure to answer is not in itself grounds
for a disciplinary action) 6riA)]+n re Gastensmith, 101 6riA) 2,1, !1, ()2D /< (1,..*)* saying
such is PreHuiredP is ta?ing it a bit far, its li?e saying one is PreHuiredP to answer a lawsuit)))one
might face the spectre of a default being entered if they donBt, but they are hardly PreHuiredP in
the general sense of the term to file an 6nswer) 1C: 10<(2*(c* in no way provides for such a
Pestablish(ing*P of Pbad faith obstruction of the disciplinary processP (the fact they are saying
that and the :DC is repeating is ma?es one have no respect at all for either, really, some might
say,* where such rule reads: P6 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 counselLs office) 5he 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
mista?e, inadvertence, surprise, or e'cusable neglect)P*
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 has been a party in both civil and
criminal matters before this Court including cases before the %onora6le De"er *ferraKKa7 "$e
%onora6le *!o"" Dearson7 and "$e %onora6le Daid Clif"on wherein 9r) Coughlin $as 6een
admonis$ed for failing to follow the CourtBs orders and directivesC and >;E:E61,
-6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 is currently the 1ubject of an E'tended #rder for
(rotection against ;arassment in the >or?place reHuested by the >ashoe County (ublic
DefenderBs #ffice, his previous counsel in several cases before this CourtC and ,
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 is currently the subject of an
E'tended #rder for (rotection 6gainst ;arassment in the >or?place reHuested by the 1tate 2ar
of 3evada 6ased upon )r, Coug$lin(s $arassing and disrup"ie 6e$aior #i"$ employees and
offi!ers of "$e *"a"e &arC and
>;E:E61, to protect the peaceful and effective operation of this Court, +5 +1
;E:E2K #:DE:ED:
1) -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 shall not submit a document to this Court
which does not comply with the attached (:#CED8:6$ :8$E1 "#: 6$$ D#C89E351
<<./%&
1829+55ED 2K -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 5# 5;E :E3# D815+CE C#8:5)
2) -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 shall not reHuest a copy of a document or
transcript #i"$ou" firs" filing a )o"ion which complies with the attached :ules) 0ny su!$
mo"ion mus" 6e suppor"ed 6y an affidai" of CO.-%+5/ #$i!$ mus" address "$e 6asis for
"$e re8ues", #$y simply ie#ing "$e do!umen" is no" suffi!ien" and #$e"$er "$e do!umen"
$as 6een preiously proided "o $im)
&) 0ny iola"ion of this #rder may be considered contempt of court and punished
pursuant to 3:1 Chapter 22 by a fine of up to O<00 andor incarceration for up to 2< days in
the >ashoe County Detention "acility) (3#5E: so what now, Coughlin is going to have Chief
2ailiff 9ichael 1e'ton do an encore of his 2121& threats to Coughlin (made in a holding cell
shortly after Coughlin had been ta?en into custody for allegedly being late to court* where
1e'ton taunted Coughlin that Pyou still have those < individual violations of the 6dministrative
#rder hanging over your head)))thatBs 2< days in jail for each violation)))P*) 5here is no way
Coughlin should be subjected to the threat that every time he files some :eHuest for 6udio
Copy of (roceeding that some :DC 2ailiff will either arrest him or serve an #rder to 1how
cause li?e Dudge (earsonBs shameful 22<1& #1C in connection with the 122012 6dmin
#rder that (earson subseHuently put through a round of musical case numbers that assisted the
:DC in avoiding processing CoughlinBs appeal thereto and in fraudulently foisting 2ruce
$indsay on Coughlin as his Psole counselP in settings where Coughlin never assented to such,
resulting in more of CoughlinBs filing being rejected, $indsay bil?ing the system, and (earson
and Clifton violating Canon 2, :ule 2)1& per the P6dministrative 6ppointmentsP sections)))and
really, what is this new 6dmin #rder in response toJ CoughlinBs reHuesting to be provide, even
once, a copy of the audio transcript of the 2<1& hearings in :C:2012=0.<.&0 (or PtrialP*,
both portions, and the interlude in :C:2011=0.&&!1 occurring shortly after the impermissible
e'tra=judicial communications between Dudges (earson and Clifton at issue in C:1&=0<<2)
P5he cover up is worse than the crimeP comes to mind) 5he :DC and its 2ailiffs playing the
Pblame it on B>endyBP whom they allege is alleging already provided Coughlin copies of such
hearings (finally the :DC caved and provided at least some of the afternoon portion of the
&1,1& trial in :C:201&=0.<.&0 after months of Coughlin hounding it for such* 6nd really,
why not just tell the 2ailiffBs to leave Coughlin the hell alone, Huit co=signing all the >CD6Bs
#ffice bs prosecutions and harassment of Coughlin, dump the probations, and these 6dmin
#rders, and see what sort of jurisdiction was retained where Coughlin filed tolling motions, and
get this ship righted))
&) 5his #rder is effective upon personal seri!e upon 9r) Coughlin)
Dated this of 6ugust, 1!th, 201&) s Dudge 1cott (earson, Chief Dustice of the (eace
(3#5E: thereafter Dudge (earsonBs #rder includes a slightly modified, tailored to Coughlin
version of DC::5 10*P
5he :DC has further, by way of a E3otice of Document :eceived 2ut 3ot
Considered by the CorutF that is file stamped %221&, and which contains a Certificate of
9ailing by former 2DDC Dudge ElliotBs former Dudicial 6ssistant ;eidi ;owden indicating such
was mailed on %221& (despite the envelope it arrived in baring a postmar? of %2.1&* refused
<<//%&
to transmit CoughlinBs 3otices of 6ppeal of :DC Dudge 1ferraAABa /2,1& #rderBs denying
CoughlinBs 9otions to 9odifyDissolve the specious >or?place ;arassment E(#Bs :DC Chief
Dudge (earson granted the 123 and E>ashoe CountyF in :C(2012=000.0/ and :C(2012=
000<,,, both of which have caused a terribly prejudicial impact to CoughlinBs ability to, say,
personally serve (or have such done* a subpoena on >C(DBs Dogan, $eslie, 7oodnight, etc),
much less the 123 (which is rather pressing considering the %2%1& trial date in the :9C for
the dual prosecutions of Coughlin for alleged violations of the dubious 5(#E(# granted by
:DC Chief Dudge (earson to the 123)
Chief Dudge (earsonsBs recent %1!1& (time of filing stamped as 11:1& a)m)*
6dministrative #rder 201&=0. (which lac?s a case number, much li?e the 122012
6dministrative #rder 2012=01 the Dudge (earsons subseHuently assigned a criminal case
number, :C:201&=0/1!&/ to, in a display of a judge ma?ing a prosecutorBs charging decisionP*
reads:
P +3 5;E 6D9+3+15:65+@E 9655E: #": D#C89E351 1829+55ED 2K
-6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3,
?$!7,7*6?67V@ 9$@ 201&-06
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+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
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+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
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 regularly reHuests copies of
transcripts or documents from the Court which have been previously providedC
>;E:E61, several of the types of documents referenced above are attached heretoC
and
>;E:E61, citiAens, whether or not indigent, have a constitutional right to access
to the courts with the protection of due process of lawC and
>;E:E61, filings by pro se petitioners, Phowever inartfully pleaded, P are held Pto
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers) P ;aines v) !0! 8)1) <1,,
<20, ,2 1) Ct) <,!, &0 $) Ed) 2D .<2 (1,/2*C and
<<%/%&
>;E:E61, Pa litigantBs right to access the courts in proper person and with in
forma pauperis status is not without limitsP, 1ee Dordan v) 1tate e' re+) #f 9otor @ehicles M
(ub) 110 ()&D &0, !! (200<*, abrogated on other grounds by 2uAA $$C v) #f 3) $as 1%1 ()&D
./0 (200%*C and
>;E:E61, pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules) Ging v) 6tiyeh,
")2D <.<, <./ (,th Cir) 1,%/*C
>;E:E61, %ri-olou# or -e8atiou# claim# and de%en#e# o-erburden limited
Eudicial re#ource#' hinder the timely re#olution o% meritoriou# claim# and increa#e the
co#t# o% engaging in bu#ine## and /ro-iding /ro%e##ional #er-ice# to the /ublicC and
>;E:E61, the citiAens of this community have a right to a just, speedy, and
ine'pensive determination of every action and this right is infringed if "$e Cour" allo#s a !ase7
!iil or !riminal7 "o !onsume more "$an i"s reasona6le s$are of "$e Cour"(s "ime) 1ee, 8nited
,& ")1upp) 1,0, 1,1 (D) 9ass)1,<0*(P5he Court has obligations to other parties who have
cases to be heard)P*C 6nd %1! 1tates v) 8nited 1tates 1hoe
>;E:E61, 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) <01 8)1)
&2 (1,,1* 6nd Dordan v) 1tate e' re+) #f 9otor @ehicles M (ub) 110 ()&D &0, !! (200<*,
abrogated on other grounds by 2uAA $$C v) #f 3) $as 1%1 ()&D ./0 (200%*C and
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 was admitted to the 3evada 1tate
2ar on 9arch 2<, 200< and later suspended on Dune /, 2012C
>;E:E61, this Court has previously found in 6dministrative #rder 2012=01 that
v) -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 has repea"edly !aused a dis"ur6an!e in "$e filing
offi!e of "$e 3eno Jus"i!e Cour", 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
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 has been the subject of
disciplinary hearings before the 1tate 2ar of 3evada 3orthern 3evada Disciplinary 2oard
wherein the 2oard found 9r) Coughlin Pcommitted multiple violations of the :ules of
(rofessional conductP and that 9r) Coughlin Pengaged in bad faith obstruction of the
disciplinary processPC and
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 has been a party in cases before
the :eno 9unicipal Court including cases before the ;onorable Dorothy 3ash ;olmes and the
;onorable Genneth ;oward wherein 9r) Coughlin was held in contempt of court for failing to
follow the CourtBs orders and directivesC and
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 has been a party in both civil and
criminal matters before this Court including cases before the %onora6le De"er *ferraKKa7 "$e
%onora6le *!o"" Dearson7 and "$e %onora6le Daid Clif"on wherein 9r) Coughlin $as 6een
admonis$ed for failing to follow the CourtBs orders and directivesC and >;E:E61,
-6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 is currently the 1ubject of an E'tended #rder for
<<,/%&
(rotection against ;arassment in the >or?place reHuested by the >ashoe County (ublic
DefenderBs #ffice, his previous counsel in several cases before this CourtC and ,
>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 is currently the subject of an
E'tended #rder for (rotection 6gainst ;arassment in the >or?place reHuested by the 1tate 2ar
of 3evada 6ased upon )r, Coug$lin(s $arassing and disrup"ie 6e$aior #i"$ employees and
offi!ers of "$e *"a"e &arC and
>;E:E61, to protect the peaceful and effective operation of this Court, +5 +1
;E:E2K #:DE:ED:
1) -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 shall not submit a document to this Court
which does not comply with the attached P9C@$I?4 I4@* (9 ?44
$9CI!@,6* *I+!766@$ +F Z?C)?F +?:@ C9I=)47, 69 6)@ @,9
"I*67C@ C9I6)
2) -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 shall not reHuest a copy of a document or
transcript #i"$ou" firs" filing a )o"ion which complies with the attached :ules) 0ny su!$
mo"ion mus" 6e suppor"ed 6y an affidai" of CO.-%+5/ #$i!$ mus" address "$e 6asis for
"$e re8ues", #$y simply ie#ing "$e do!umen" is no" suffi!ien" and #$e"$er "$e do!umen"
$as 6een preiously proided "o $im)
&) ?ny -iolation o% thi# 9rder may be con#idered contem/t o% court and
/uni#hed /ur#uant to ,* Cha/ter 22 by a fine of up "o EC00 and/or in!ar!era"ion for up
"o 2C days in the 3a#hoe County $etention (acility)
&) 5his #rder is effective upon personal seri!e upon 9r) Coughlin)
Dated this of 6ugust, 1!th, 201&) s Dudge 1cott (earson, Chief Dustice of the (eace
(3#5E: thereafter Dudge (earsonBs #rder includes a slightly modified, tailored to Coughlin
version of DC::5 10*
P9C@$I?4 I4@* (9 ?44 $9CI!@,6* *I+!766@$ +F
Z?C)?F +?:@ C9I=)47, 69 6)@ @,9 "I*67C@ C9I6 6ll documents
submitted by -achary 2ar?er Coughlin must meet the following rules: (a* 6ll 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.=lb) >eight and % 112 by 11 inches in siAe) 6ll papers
shall be typewritten or prepared by some other process that will produce clear and permanent
copies eHually legible to printing) 5he print siAe shall not be more than 12 points) Carbon or
photocopies may not be filed) #nly one side of the paper may be used) (2* 6ll papers presented
for filing, receiving, or lodging with the cler? shall be prepunched with 2 holes, centered 2 &!
inches apart and 112 inch to <% inch from the top edge of the paper) 6ll original papers shall
be stamped #:+7+36$ between the punched holes in red in?) 5he 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 ma?ing
erasures or interlineations thereon, or by attaching slips thereto, e'cept by leave of the Court)
(D* 5he following information shall appear upon the first page of every paper presented for
<.0/%&
filing: (1* 9r) 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) 5he space to the right of
center shall be reserved for the filing mar?s of the cler?) 369E 6DD:E11 C+5K, 1565E,
-+( C#DE 5E$E(;#3E 3892E:
&* 5he 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)7): D#;3 D#E, l (laintiff, l vs) l :+C;6:D :#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): :DC 2000 =00000 (E'ample* Dept)
3o): 1 (E'ample* (<* 5he 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) 5he title
must be sufficient in description to apprise the respondent and cler? of the nature of the
document filed, or the relief sought, e)7): DefendantBs 9otion for 1ummary Dudgment 6gainst
(laintiff Dohn DoeC (laintiffBs 9otion to Compel 6nswers to +nterrogatories) (E* 6 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) ("* 6ll e'hibits attached to pleadings or papers must be %
112 by 11 inches in siAe) E'hibits which are smaller must be affi'ed to a blan? sheet of paper
of the appropriate siAe) 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 siAe) 6ll 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) (7* >hen a decision of the 1upreme Court of
the 1tate of 3evada is cited, the citation to 3evada :eports must be given together with the
citation to >estBs (acific :eporter and the year of the decision) >hen a decision of an appellate
court of any other state is cited, the citation to >estBs :egional :eporter 1ystem must be given
together with the state and year of the decision) >hen a decision of the 8nited 1tates 1upreme
Court is cited, the 8nited 1tates :eports citation and year of decision must be given) >hen a
decision of the court of appeals or of a district court or other court of the 8nited 1tates has been
reported in the "ederal :eporter 1ystem, that citation, court, and year of decision must be
given) (;* 6ll 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) 7* 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 post=trial 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* 6ny 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) 6ffidavitsW shall contain only factual,
evidentiary matter, shall conform with the reHuirements of 3:C( <.(e*, and shall avoid mere
general conclusions or argument) 6ffidavits substantially defective in these respects may be
<.1/%&
stric?en, wholly or in part) (9* 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
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*
6ll discovery motions shall include the affidavit of Coughlin establishing that after
consultation with opposing counsel, he has been unable to resolve the matterPP
5hen Chief Dudge 1ferraAAa entered an P6dministrative #rder 2012=01 +n re -achary
CoughlinP file stamped 122012 at !:&% p)m), which purported that Coughlin had been
Padmonished by Dudges including soon to be 3JC C$ief Judge Dearson, despite such not being
at all true) 6t such point CoughlinBs sole interactions with Dudge (earson consisted of a /&112
and 10212 landlord tenant matter hearing in :ev2012=0010!% and :ev2012=0/%!&2) >hile
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 PadmonishedP) +nterestingly, Chief Dudge
(earson indicated to Coughlin during a .1.1& status conference in a trumped up probation
violation charge that the >CD6Bs #ffice had the Department of 6lternative 1entencing ma?e
against Coughlin incident to an unlawful warrantless arrest of Coughlin after / p)m) in his own
home by D61 #fficers >ic?man and :amos in violation of 3:1 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 amuc?, and just generally benefitting from giving local law enforcement
everything they want, and they want it all)
5hough having been served the arguably more ridiculous >or?place ;arassment
5(# the same >CD6 >atts=@ial that fraudulently obstructed CoughlinBs 1C: 110 subpoenas
on 2DDC cler?s, judges, and the 2DDC Custodian of :ecords
(http:www)scribd)comdoc1./</%1//10=&0=12=020!=.2&&/=1C:=110=1ubpoen=on=2DDC=
Dudges=Elliot=and="lanagan=and=Cler?=of=Court=;astings=and=>ise=Custodian=of=:ecords=
(roof=of=1ervice=by http:www)scribd)comdoc1<!/1<!/.11=1&=12="a'=020!=>cda=>atts=
@ial=:esponse=to=1ubpoena=a, * obtained for E>ashoe CountyF in :C(2012=000<,, where
involved a 5(# 6pplication >C(D Dim $eslie admits to filing for himself, where such was
actually filed by >atts=@ial (with both trying to massage there way around the problems
associated with the reHuirement in 3:1 &&)2<0, )2/0 that the employer (the >C(D is not
EemployedF by >ashoe County* file for such 5(# on behalf of an employee (ie, the employee
may not file for a >or?place ;arassment 5(# 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, 5 would as? that the court e'tend the #rderF)
<.2/%&
;owever, just li?e with Dim $eslie filling out the application himself for a
>or?place ;arssment (rotection #rder (and >CD6 >atts=@ial attempted to pass of his filing
of such >or?place 5(# 6pplication as a filing by >C(D $eslie, to get around the odious
conflicts of interest that >atts=@ial ?nows full well ma?e his conduct tantamount to
professional misconduct*, $aura (eters actually filled out the >or?place 5(# 6pplication in
her own handwriting, only to use white out to obscure her signature and have Ging add his over
it upon the 123 realiAing that an employee cannot apply for such a >or?place 5(# on their
own behalf, at which point Ging decided to go with the Ethe women are afraidF angle, though it
was (eters whom pushed the 5(# 6pplication 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 ";E1 by Ging of
(eters %2&12 6ffidavit of 1ervice of the Complaint, and failure to serve on Coughlin in a
timely manner the odd 10,12 6ffidavit of $aura (eters place in the formal hearing file
3evada=E'cuse=for="ailing=to=#bey=1C:=10<=2=c amongst other pleadings (though, again, in
the 11/12 &,0,! page 1C: 10<(2*(c* violating production of documents to Coughlin, the
bates stamping on such 10,12 6ffidavit of $aura (eters places such after the 10&112 #rder
by Chair Echeverria, where such filings within the "ormal ;earing (leadings file contained
filin121&fdd!=.//2=!.ac=%/,e=&%c!,&def%0,general.,&2,gs in chronological 5his message
was intended for AachcoughlinNhotmail)com) >ant to control which emails you receiveorder,
and the bates stamps on such identified (eters 10,12 file stamped 5his message was intended
for AachcoughlinNhotmail)com) >ant to control which emails you receivefrom @o'o'J 7et
@o'o': http:download)vo'o')com and adjust your 3otifications in the1ettings(references
window) @o'o' by 5elCentris, +nc) is located at 101%0 5elesis Ct), 1an Diego,
C6,210,)6ffidavit of $aura (eters as the last filing in such file, where the bates stamped
10&112 #rder is immediately preceding such 10,12 6ffidavit of $aura (eters)
Consider GingBs contradictory statements as reported by Coughlin in the 101.12
file stamped 9otion for #rder 5o 1how Cause (Coughlin provided a verbatim transcript of the
interactions between Ging, (eters, and Coughlin therein at pages <=%*, #$erein =ing dis!laims
any !on"rol of "$e :Cour" Cler'9 in response "o Coug$lin(s a!!usa"ion "$a" =ing ordered $er
no" "o file Coug$lins( >/17/12 )o"ion "o Dismiss (which :ing admitted to recei-ing at the
time' only he did not admit it to be an actual ;!otion to $i#mi##N becau#e ;it doe#n<t #ay
2hat it<# #ee5ing to ha-e di#mi##edF*, with GingBs ,2<12 email to Coughlin, wherein Ging
purports to be the one whom decides how the 123Bs Cler? 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)
>hilte 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 9otion to Dismiss via facsimile on ,1/12)
<.&/%&
9I6+9I,$ (?K @P96*' V9K9K #ho2ing %iling# by Coughlin 2ith the
Cler5 o% Court o% the *tate +ar o% ,e-ada B,96@0 the 123Bs fa' number is 1//<&2,=0<<2,
the times of delivery are according to a time Aone % hours ahead of (15, 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
1ent: 9on 122!12 %:01 (9
1ent: >ed 120<12 !:1& (9
1ent: 9on 120&12 10:&/ 69
1ent: 9on 120&12 10:&2 69
1ent: "ri 11&012 !:&% (9
<.!/%&
1ent: >ed 112%12 .:02 69
1ent: >ed 112%12 &:2. 69
1ent: 9on 112.12 1:11 69
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:!< (9
1ent: "ri 112&12 %:&/ (9
1ent: "ri 112&12 !:<% (9
<.</%&
1ent: 9on 111,12 %:1. 69
1ent: 9on 111,12 %:10 69
1ent: 1un 111%12 /:1& (9
1ent: 1un 111%12 %:!& 69
1ent: "ri 111.12 !:!/ (9
1ent: 5ue 111&12 2:<1 (9
<../%&
1ent: 5ue 111&12 2:2% (9
1ent: 9on 111212 !:<, (9
1ent: 9on 111212 10:&0 69
1ent: 1un 111112 10:!& 69
1ent: 1un 111112 %:&0 69
1ent: 1un 111112 /:&& 69
<.//%&
1ent: "ri 110,12 !:!< (9
1ent: 5hu 110%12 !:!/ (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 12:!/:10 69 on 2012=11=0,)
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:&% (9
1ent: 5ue 110.12 /:&/ (9
1ent: 9on 110<12 !:<% (9
1ent: 9on 110<12 &:20 (9
<.%/%&
1ent: 9on 110<12 &:20 (9
1ent: 9on 110<12 12:22 (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 0%:22:!! (9 on 2012=11=0<)
1ent: >ed 10&112 !:10 (9
Kour "a' was delivered N 11:10:&! (9 on 2012=10=&1)
1ent: 9on 101<12 !:!, (9
<.,/%&
Kour "a' was delivered N 0/:&%:!% 69 on 2012=0,=1% (3#5E:, this represents CoughlinBs
,1/12 9otion to Dismiss*
E:E: citation to legal authorityJ (rom0 Patric5 :ing ((atric?GNnvbar)#rg* 1ent:
5ue ,2<12 11:&! 69 5o: -ach Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com* Cc0 $a-id Clar5
B$a-idCRn-bar.9rgCC $aura (eters ($aura(Nnvbar)#rg* ,=2<=2012
Dear 9r) Coughlin, Plea#e be ad-i#ed that the *tate +ar o% ,e-ada 2ill not
a!!ep" or file any document# #ubmitted by you ia e-mail) "urther, if you intend to send or
serve me with a copy of a document it 2ill not 6e a!!ep"ed i% #ent ia e-mail) 1incerely,
E:E: )o"ion "o Dismiss 123 v) Coughlin (rom0 4aura Peter#
B4auraPRn-bar.9rgC 1ent: >ed ,2.12 11:<! 69 5o: B-ach CoughlinB
(AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com* + never said that you could file items ia e-mail T + donLt ma?e
those calls) 5 $ae "o file do!umen"s in so you $ae "o sere "$em $ere, 5 #an" "o !oopera"e
#i"$ you 6u" 5 !anO" !$ange "$e pro!edural re8uiremen"s) $aura ========================="rom:
-ach Coughlin Qmailto:AachcoughlinNhotmail)ComR 1ent: 9onday, 1eptember 2!, 2012 2:<0
(9 5o: $aura (etersC (atric? GingC David Clar?C tsusichNnvdetr)#rg 1ubject: ">: 9otion to
Dismiss 123 v) Coughlin
Dear Cler? of the Court of the 1tate 2ar of 3evada (eters, Dlease no"e "$e
for#arded )o"ion "o Dismiss 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
?now anything + should ?now about the ;earing tomorrow, 1eptember 2<th, 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 1C:102(!*(&* (etition .1!2.)
Dlease ma'e sure &ar !ounsel is a#are of "$e e?"en" "o #$i!$ you preiously
guaran"eed me "$a" no seri!e of any Complain" in *&/ , Coug$lin sen" 6y !er"ified mail
#ould 6e deemed effe!"ua"ed 6y "$e *&/ #$ere 6ased merely upon "$e re"urn "o sender of
"$e firs" a""emp" "o so sere me under *C3 10> su!$ a Complain"7 #$i!$ you indi!a"ed you
$ad ;us" re!eied as re"urned "o sender on *ep"em6er 10"$7 20127 and #$ere you %urther
indicated that 5 !ould sere any filings on my 6e$alf "$ereaf"er u/on the *+, -ia electronic
mean# in!luding fa? or email))))=================== "rom: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com 5o:
tsusichNnvdetr)#rgC patric??Nnvbar)#rgC davidcNnvbar)#rg 1ubject: )o"ion "o Dismiss
123 v) Coughlin Date: 5ue, 1% 1ep 2012 00:02:<! =0/00 -ach CoughlinF
</0/%&
E;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages .:20 to /:.* E9:)
EC;E@E::+6: !r. :ingD !. :7,=0 ?# the record re%lect#' !r.
Coughlin #as sered a !opy of "$e !omplain" to the address that he is mandated
to provide to the 1tate 2ar) 9:) C#87;$+3: + donBt believe thatBs correct)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: (lease donBt interrupt, 9r) Coughlin) 7o ahead) !.
:7,=0 *u6se8uen"ly7 )r, Coug$lin filed7 immedia"ely af"er #e mailed "$e
!omplain" ia !er"ified and regular mail7 )r, Coug$lin filed a mo"ion "o
dismiss "$e !omplain")F
111!12 "#:96$ D+1C+($+36:K ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &02:1& to &0!:1<*
E9:) EC;E@E::+6: + believe that all the pleadings that have been filed would be part of the
panelBs record that would go to the supreme court) 9:) G+37: 6nything thatBs been mar?ed as
an e'hibit and identified and accepted into evidence by the panel will be part of the record) 6nd
the entire transcript of the proceedings) 3o other documents at this time, anything that hasnBt
been proffered as evidence will be not admitted) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Do the pleadings go up
or just that which is offered into evidence and acceptedJ 9:) G+37: 5o the e'tent that the
complaint will certainly go up, everything thatBs in this pac?et will go up) 6nything that you
had mar?ed and accepted as evidence will be sent up on the record, along with the entire
transcript) 2ut to have other documents just compiled, it wonBt help the record, it will ma?e it
more confusing) 5he supreme court has better things to do) 9:) @E$$+1: (leadings filed, they
donBt go automatically, the whole case file doesnBt go, just whatever is entered hereJ 9:)
G+37: Correct) 9y pleadings, for instance, as you can see by the 2ates stamp numbers are
thousands of pages of nonsensical e=mails and disparaging e=mails) + didnBt thin? that that
would add to this day or help the supreme court) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + thin? the confusion, at
least + have, is whether or not the pleadings themselves, whatever file, whatever 9r) 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) 9:) G+37: +f the orders go up, pleadings that are not admitted do not go up) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, if + can just interject == 9:) G+37: +n other words, everything 9r)
Coughlin sent, oftentimes with these multiple captions where heBs sending them to many
people, he might caption as a pleading, it doesnBt ma?e it a pleading) +t has to be something that
was sent to us, filed in, and that would be a pleading) 6nd if there was such a thing as file
stamped with the supreme court, it will go up) 9:) @E$$+1: 5hat 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 9:)
G+37: Correct) 5hat would be my understanding) #nly if it was properly filed, timely filed,
stamped in by the court)
!< "urther, while rendering whatever it is he rendered on 11&011 (be it ";E11 (which, in
contrast to the 11&011 EDudgment of Conviction and Court #rderF (where the ECourt #rderF
was apparently the initial community service reHuirement that Dudge ;oward later e'cised
</1/%&
upon remem!ering that the continuance of the 111!11 original trial date was due to no fault of
CoughlinBs (Coughlin was in custody and brought to the courthouse to stand trial, however,
CoughlinBs being clothed in jail reds, indicating CoughlinBs competency was sufficiently in
Huestion to reHuire suspending the trial pursuant to 3:1 1/%)!0<, and 3:1 1/%)!1< (Dudge
;oward, li?e where the :9C fails to actually mail notices and orders to defendants in the name
of saving a buc?, refused to order such a competency evaluation because it would cost the
:9C money*, then e'cised such community service reHuirement from CoughlinBs sentence*
does appear to actualy have a real signature by Dudge ;oward, which lends even more
legitimacy to CoughlinBs contention that the 11&011 #rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt was
in no way served on him or even presented to him on 11&011 and further was not placed with
CoughlinBs property at the jail (see page 2& in the /2<12 :#6 in C:12=12.2 from the trespass
case in 11 C:2.!0<, where, on a 3otice of 1etting of a Danuary 2012 trial date in the trespass
case of 11&011 there is a handwritten interlineation indicating that 9arshal Coppa read out
the date and time of such new trial date in the trespass case and that Coughlinr refused to sign
for such where such interlineation mentions only the 11&011 EDudgment of Conviction and
Court #rderF attached as E'hibit 2 to the %2&12 Complaint (see ";E1* and fails to indicate
the 11&011 #rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt from 221/. was then attempted served on
Coughlin by 9arshal Coppa (whom failed to appear in response to CoughlinBs 1C: 110
subpoena and which failure 33D2 Chair 1usich has yet to meet his 1C: 110(!* duty to report
such for contempt proceedings to Ea district court judgeF in the 1econd Dudicial District) or that
attached as E'hibit 2 within ";E1 Dudge ;oward failed to inform Coughlin of the e'ceedingly
short deadlien (comparatively to other states* in 3evada under 3:1 1/.)<1< 5o file a 9otion
for 3ew 5rial (Coughlin filed one 121&11*) ;owever, given the fact that Dudge ;oward could
not be bothered to, or could not muster up the energy to actually signed the ";E12 Dudgment
of Conviction (what else can he not manage to bring himself to doJ >ell, there is upholding
the dictates of the 1i'th 6mendment and 200% +ndigent Defense #rder)))*, 5he / days to for
Coughlin to file 9otion for 3ew 5rial under 3:1 1/.)<1< ;ave not yet run either)
:9C 9arshal Coppa, who is unprofessional in the e'treme (li?e 2ailiffs :eyes and
9edina, 9arshal Coppa regularly commits criminal law violations in the courthouse in failing
to accept for filing the submissions Coughlin is reHuired, via :9C 6dministrative Dudge >)
7ardnerBs ridiculous 11.1& 6dministrative #rder 201&=01, to submit only through :9C
9arshals*, and stri?es one as somebody who becomes awfully tough when a badge or gun and
some color of law is placed as the lipstic? on his pig, ought be reHuired to answer not only for
that, but also for his standing witness to 9arshal Doel ;arleyBs supposition based accusation vis
a vis whether Coughlin EliedF to Dudge ;olmes, in addition to CoppaBs pulling >C1# jail
Deputy Cheung aside upon Coughlin being transported to the jail on 22/12, vis a vis the :9C
returning the ne't day and retrieving CoughlinBs smart phone, micro sd card, and cellular
phone, which had already been boo?ed into CoughlinBs property) which 3@2 Dudge 2eesley
really ought be made to answer for his failure to ta?e some Canon 2, :ule 2)1< action in
response to CoughlinBs &&012 filings in 3@2=10=0<10! apprising 2eesley of such) Dudge
2eesley clearly did not want to get into specifics vis a vis any of the three cases Coughlin had
</2/%&
before him in the 3@2 in his testimony of 111!12, and 2eesley should be reHuired to recuse
himself from the Geller case in 3@2=10=0<10!, and 3@2=10=<2.&, as clearly 2eesley now
has a vested interest in discrediting Coughlin and covering up for Dudge ;olmes with respect to
her misconduct (which is legion*, and 2eesley should not have presided over the 7essin
matters, arguably*
+4) DisHualification to 6ct in (articular Case 2) 7rounds 2) +nterest b) (articular
+nterests (2* Dudge as (arty or >itness Q 99. "udge a# 2itne## Dudges !<, <0 6)$):) $ibrary
DisHualification of judge on ground of being a witness in the case, 22 6)$):)&D 11,% 6 judge
will not be disHualified from presiding at a trial by the mere fact that he or she may be a
witness,Q"31R or is familiar with the proceeding and supplements the record with observations,
Q"32R though it has been said that when a judge ta?es the stand, it is eHuivalent to his or her
withdrawing as a judge from the case,Q"3&R and a judge who does so testify should recuse
himself or herself)Q"3!R +n some jurisdictions, the judge, by statute, may be a witness in any
case tried before him or her,Q"3<R and in many jurisdictions, a judge who testifies is
disHualified only if he or she is a necessary or material witness in the caseQ"3.R or is li?ely to
be a material witness)Q"3/R 1ome courts ta?e the view that whether a trial judge should
disHualify himself or herself when he or she is called as a witness in a case tried by the judge is
within his or her discretion,Q"3%R and in some jurisdictions, appellate judges have ta?en the
position, even without a statute or rule, that they should disHualify themselves where they have
testified in the trial court)Q"3,R
Q"31R Gennedy v) 1tate, <, #?la) Crim) 11, << ()2D /,2 (1,&.*) = 6ttempts to
disHualify judges by indicating that the judge will be called as a witness are not favored and are
rarely granted, and such an easy method of disHualifying a judge should not be encouraged or
allowed) 1tate e' rel) Gaufman v) -a?aib, 20/ >) @a) ..2, <&< 1)E)2D /2/ (2000*) = Q"32R
Davis v) 1tate, <,% 1)>)2D <%2 (9o) Ct) 6pp) >)D) 1,%0*) = Q"3&R Com) @) 1coleri, !1< (a)
21%, 202 6)2D <21 (1,.!*) = Q"3!R Elmore v) 1tate, 1& 6r?) 6pp) 221, .%2 1)>)2D /<%
(1,%<*C Collins v) Di'ie 5ransport, +nc), <!& 1o) 2D 1.0 (9iss) 1,%,*C 9unicipal (ublications,
+nc) @) Court of Common (leas of (hiladelphia County, <0/ (a) 1,!, !%, 6)2D 12%. (1,%<*) =
Q"3<R 1tate e' rel) (hillips v) ;enderson, 220 5enn) /01, !2& 1)>)2D !%, (1,.%*) = Q"3.R S
101) = Q"3/R 1tate v) 2lac?mon, ..! 1)>)2D .!! (9o) Ct) 6pp) 1)D) 1,%!*) = 6s to
disHualification where a judge is a potential witness, see S 100) = Q"3%R 1iva? v) 1tate, 112
+daho 1,/, /&1 ()2D 1,2 (1,%.*C (eople v) ;ayes, !, +ll) 2D 2,%, 2/& 3)E)2D %&% (1,/1*) =
Q"3,R 7arland v) 7ray, 10% 7a) 6pp) &0&, 1&2 1)E)2D %&! (1,.&*) = 6s to a judgeBs duty to
disHualify himself or herself, generally, see S S 1.,, 1/0) ?!"I "I$=@* Q 99
>here the Geller case was (and is* still pending at the time of his testimony of
111!12, it would have hardly been appropriate for Dudge 2eesley to be weighing in as to the
legitimary of CoughlinBs arguments (and by addressing such Coughlin in no way waives his
objection to the prejudicial impact of 2eesleyBs only being identified as a witness via
constructive notice the day before the hearing, and not for impeachment purposes, in flagrant
violation of 1C: 10<(2*(c*, and where CoughlinBs wor? in the 3@2 was never notice=plead to
</&/%&
any degree whatsoever*) Clearly, the gross misconduct of judges ;oward, ;olmes, and Elliott
in summarily incarcerating a then practicing attorney is li?ely to have had an enormously
negative impact on CoughlinBs ability to represent his client (much less represent himself, as
CoughlinBs had never wor?ed on a criminal law case as of the 11&011 trial in 221/., and ?new
not of (and was not apprised of by Dudge ;oward* 3evadaBs e'ceedingly, and comparitively,
scant timeline to file a 9otion for 3ew 5rial (seven calendar days, where CoughlinBs summary
incarceration for three days starting at the conclusion of the 11&011 trial (which, ridiculously,
went on until %:&0 p)m)))so much for judicial economy, hurray for the overtime say the :9C
staff incident to Dudge ;owardBs obvious and inappropriate personal animus against Coughlin
shining threw completely where Dudge ;oward was completely intent on avoiding any
continuance of any sort in order to deprive Coughlin of the ability to obtain the e'cuplatory
evidence Coughlin referenced in see?ing a continuance, including the receipt from minutes
prior to his arrest from CoughlinBs purchase of O%&)%2 worth of groceries that did, contrary to
the perjured testimony of both >al=9artBs "rontino and :1+C #fficer Gameron Crawford,
contain an entry with the e'act same 8(C for the e'act same Duract Cough 9elts as those
Coughlin was accused of having stolen, in addition to the videos and audio of >al=9art
previously e'pressing an intent to abuse process against Coughlin in retaliation for Coughlin
complaining about >al=9artBs fraudulent approach in its cler?s, managers, and supervisors
selectively remember the terms of its return policy and or remi'ing it, not to mention the videos
and still images there from of Coughlin providing :1+C #fficers Crawford and 2raunworth his
3evada driverBs license, which defeats the proferred e'ception to the prohibition against the
arrest and search incident thereto here (and to be clear, this was EfalseF fruit, as the Coughlin
drops Crawford testified to having found in CoughlinBs poc?et were those corresponding with
the entry of the 8(C thereof on the receipt for O%&)%2 worth of groceries that >al=9art admits
Coughlin had just purchased*) Clearly, due to the improper summary incarceration of then
practicing attorney Coughlin (whom was ?nee deep in litigating matters for Geller, Eastman,
2ell, ;arris, Carpentier, and himself, etc), Coughlin was unable to timely submit a 9otion for
3ew 5rial (in addition to the :9CBs refusing to provide Coughlin a copy of ";E11 (11&011
#rder (unishing 1ummary Contempt* or allowing Coughlin to purchase audio of the hearing
until 121&11, in addition to the fact that at the conclusion of the 11&011 trial :9C 9arshals
Coppa et al refused to allow Coughlin to save the notes he had ta?en throughout the trial on his
netboo? (thatBs a netboo?, not a laptop*, which cause Coughlin to lose all such notes and greatly
prejudiced Coughlin in the preparation of both a 9otion for 3ew 5rial and in his appeal where
such 9arshals abruptly forced Coughlin into handcuffs and refused to allow Coughlin to save
his wor? on his netboo?*)
S 100) Dudge as witnessW?# /otential 2itne## Dudges !<, <0 ?.4.. 4ibrary
Dis8ualifi!a"ion of ;udge on ground of 6eing a #i"ness in "$e !ase, 22 6)$):)&d 11,%
9any courts hold that a trial judge is not disHualified from presiding in a trial merely because
of a possibility that he or she might become a witness in the case,Q"31R although other court# ha-e held
to the contrary)Q"32R
5n some !ases7 i" $as 6een $eld "$a" a ;udge is dis8ualified on a "rial if $e or s$e presided a" a preious
pro!eeding in or affe!"ing "$e same a!"ion and mig$" 6e !ompelled "o "es"ify a6ou" i" a" a la"er
</!/%&
pro!eeding)Q"3&R +n other cases, the judge has been held not to be disHualified where the material evidence
#i"$in "$e ;udge(s 'no#ledge could be obtained from other witnessesQ"3!R or from the record of a prior
related proceeding over which the judge presided)Q"3<R
Q"31R :ush v) >allace, 2& 6r?) 6pp) .1, /!2 1)>)2d ,<2 (1,%%*C (eople v) ;annon, !% +ll) 2d
!.2, 2/& 3)E)2d , (1,/1*C (eople v) ;orton, !/ 9isc) 2d <%, 2.1 3)K)1)2d ,.. (1up 1,.<*C 1tate e' rel)
1mith v) >ilco'en, 1,</ #G C: <1, &12 ()2d 1%/ (#?la) Crim) 6pp) 1,</*C 1to?es v) 1tate, %<& 1)>)2d
22/ (5e') 6pp) 5yler 1,,&*C "ay v) @an Ells, 1&! @t) <&., &./ 6)2d 1./ (1,/.*) = Q"32R +n re
DisHualification of Corrigan, !/ #hio 1t) &d .02, <!. 3)E)2d ,2< (1,%,*C 1tate e' rel) Carroll v) Dun?er, /,
>ash) 2d 12, !%2 ()2d //< (1,/1*) = Q"3&R Deople , Dennis7 1F 5ll, 0pp, 3d F>37 302 /,1,2d 6C1 A1s"
Dis", 1>73B L *"a"e e? rel, *mi"$ , 4il!o?en7 1>C7 O= C3 C17 312 D,2d 187 AO'la, Crim, 0pp, 1>C7B , =
Q"3!R 2resnahan v) $uby, 1.0 Colo) !<<, !1% ()2d 1/1, 22 6)$):)&d 11,& (1,..*) = Q"3<R >alls v) 1pell,
/22 1o) 2d <.. (9iss) 1,,%*) = 69D8: D8D7E1 S 100
Q 101. "udge a# 2itne##W?# material or nece##ary 2itne## Dudges !<, <0 6)$):) $ibrary
DisHualification of judge on ground of being a witness in the case, 22 6)$):)&D 11,% +n some jurisdictions,
a trial judge who has been, or is to be called, as a witness in a case tried before him or her is disHualified
from presiding in the case if he or she is a material or necessary witness in the case)Q"31R 5he Code of
Dudicial Conduct states that a judge should disHualify himself or herself if he or she is li?ely to be a material
witness in the proceeding)Q"32R 5he rule is statutory in some jurisdictions)Q"3&R 6 trial judge is not a
PmaterialP witness in the case unless his or her testimony is actually material and necessary to the
determination of the case)Q"3!R 6 judge is not a material witness where there are other available witnesses
who can give the same testimony)Q"3<R 6 trial judge who is to be called as a character witness on behalf of
a criminal defendant is disHualified as being a material witness)Q"3.R
Q"31R 9alone v) 1tate, 2%. 6la) /&., 2!2 1o) 2D !10 (1,/0*C 2resnahan v) $uby, 1.0 Colo)
!<<, !1% ()2D 1/1, 22 6)$):)&D 11,& (1,..*C (eople v) (ifer, %0 +ll) 6pp) &D 2!, &< +ll) Dec) !/., &,,
3)E)2D &10 (2d Dist) 1,/,*C 1tate v) 5alley, </2 1o) 2D 2&0 ($a) Ct) 6pp) 11t Cir) 1,,0*C Davis v) 1tate,
<,% 1)>)2D <%2 (9o) Ct) 6pp) >)D) 1,%0*C Dames v) 1tate, <. 3)D) 1uper) 21&, 1<2 6)2D &%. (6pp) Div)
1,<,*C Coslow v) 1tate, 1,/1 #G C: !<1, !,0 ()2D 111. (#?la) Crim) 6pp) 1,/1*) = Q"32R 6)2)6) Code
of Dudicial Conduct, Canon & E (1*(d*(iv*) = Q"3&R 1tate e' rel) "errera v) 1andler, 1<2 "la) <1/, 12 1o) 2D
2,% (1,!&*C 1tate v) Gelley, 2!1 $a) 22!, 12% 1o) 2D 1% (1,.1*C 1tate e' rel) 1mith v) >ilco'en, 1,</ #G
C: <1, &12 ()2D 1%/ (#?la) Crim) 6pp) 1,</*C Com) @) 9usto, &!% (a) &00, &< 6)2D &0/ (1,!!*) = Q"3!R
1tate e' rel) "errera v) 1andler, 1<2 "la) <1/, 12 1o) 2D 2,% (1,!&*C (eople v) :odriHueA, 1! 6)D)2D ,1/,
221 3)K)1)2D <&2 (2d DepBt 1,.1*) = Q"3<R 2resnahan v) $uby, 1.0 Colo) !<<, !1% ()2D 1/1, 22 6)$):)&D
11,& (1,..*C Com) @) 9usto, &!% (a) &00, &< 6)2D &0/ (1,!!*) = +n order to disHualify a judge on the basis
that he or she might be called as a witness at trial, there must be a showing that the judge will testify as to a
material fact about which no other witness might testify) (eople 6gainst 5a' :evenue 9ismanagement,
+nc) @) :eynolds, </1 1o) 2D !,& ("la) Dist) Ct) 6pp) 11t Dist) 1,,0*) = Q"3.R 1tate v) Gelley, 2!1 $a) 22!,
12% 1o) 2D 1% (1,.1*) =69D8: D8D7E1 S 101
6dditionaly Dudge 2eesleyBs former presidency of the 123, and his status as a fi'ture at the
123 on various committeeBs and seemingly constant participation in hit pieces, er, disciplinary proceedings
(9irch* etc), and the dubiously incongrous nature of his testimony in +n :e 1tephen :) ;arris, EsH) (:eallyJ
3o drop off in ;arrisBs competency whilst in the grip of a alcohol, shopping, and se' addictions that
resulted in ;arris admittedly misappropriating /<0,000 candy bars, er, ma?e that, dollars, from clientsJ
:eallyJ 5hatBs just not something one hears that much)))something along the lines of E#h, heBs really just
been doing wonderfully since his dissent into alcohol, se', and lu'ury goods shopping addictions, really just
blossomed^ ;is wor? has really ta?en on another level of professionalism since his compulsions got
completely out of controlF )))Ket, that is essentially what 2eesleyBs testimony was at ;arrisB formal
disciplinary proceeding*
;ttp:www)3ycourts)7ovipjudicialethicsopinions0%=1%&_and_0%=202_and_0,=
</</%&
112);tm
1imilar to the incredibly inappropriate testimony of Dudge 2eesley is all of the shanty court
jurisprudence spewed by Dudge Elliott in all matters Dudge Elliott presided over wherein Coughlin was a
party, especially in C@11=01,<< (with a dismissal of CoughlinBs appeal in .0&1/ that was e'tremely
dubious, especially considering the decision overturning, in part, the companion case in .0&02 (which
brings up the incongruity in 2DDC Dudge 1teinheimmer finding Coughlin entitled to +"( status in a civil
case in her %1<11 #rder in C@11=01%,. where :9C Dudge ;oward refused to even appoint per se
indigent Coughlin defense counsel in the prosecution of a 1C: 111(.* EseriousF offense crime (or one that
could potentially be view as such)))and really, the utility of the definitions of such in 1C: 111(.* is put into
the most serious doubt by .0%&%, as admitted to by Ging himself, especially where Ging himself mused as
to how ridiculous a display of personal animus was evinced by Dudge ;oward compounding his convicting
Coughlin of what would li?ely be deemed a 1C: 111(.* EseriousF offense, where denying Coughlin both a
continuance (even one* and his 1i'th 6mendment :ight to Counsel, only to then violate (engilly and
9cCormac?, in presiding over the trial of CoughlinBs alleged contempt over Coughlin motion for Dudge
;oward to recuse himself (ie, beyond the clearly prete'tual nature of ;owardBs finding Coughlin in
contempt less than ten minutes into the 11&011 trial, ;owardBs delay in imposing such summary
punishment vitiates the his ruling that Coughlin was in summary contempt (where a reHuirement of such is
that the conduct reHuired Eimmediate vindicationF by the Court)))and where such in ruling that Coughlin
was in contempt occured
5he courts have in some cases held that the antipathy of a judge toward counsel for a litigant is
sufficiently shown to justify disHualification,Q"3&R often on the basis that the hostility between a partyBs
attorney and a judge would lead a reasonable=minded person to Huestion whether the judgeBs impartiality
might be Huestioned)Q"3!R 1ome courts have indicated that bias toward the attorney for a party may
sometimes disHualify a judge but have found that the facts relied on to prove prejudice were insufficient to
disHualify)QQ"3&R Dames v) 5heobald, <</ 1o) 2D <,1 ("la) Dist) Ct) 6pp) &D Dist) 1,,0*) = 6 trial judgeBs
antipathy toward a plaintiffBs case, and chastising, $olding in !on"emp", and summarily removing his trial
counsel after four days of trial with only two and one=half days for replacement counsel to prepare,
sufficiently prejudiced the plaintiff so as to reHuire a new trial) 1anta 9aria v) 9etro=3orth Commuter :):),
%1 ")&D 2.< (2d Cir) 1,,.*) = Q"3!R 1)1) @) >a?efield, /.! ()2D /0 (Colo) 1,%%*C Davis v) 3eshoba
County 7eneral ;osp), .11 1o) 2D ,0! (9iss) 1,,2*) = 6s to disHualification of a judge on the basis that the
judgeBs impartiality might reasonably be Huestioned, generally, see S 1!0) (69D8: Dudges*)
Dudge ;owardBs holding Coughlin in contempt ten minutes into the 11&011 trial in the case
that resulted in the current temporary suspension in .0%&% was beyond ridiculous (please, please listen to
the proceedings, as even a typed out transcript does little justice to the obvious enmity, hostility, and bias on
full display in Dudge ;owardBs tone of voice (though his words alone, certainly, demonstrate a patent bias
against Coughlin*, and essentially deprived Coughlin of even the right to defender himself where Dudge
;oward obviously was not satisfied in depriving Coughlin of his 1i'th 6mendment :ight to Counsel at
public e'pense due to CoughlinBs indigency)
6dditionally, Dudge ;oward made numerous comments during such trial in 221/. violating
3CDC :ule 2)&:
E3CDC Canon 2, :ulee2)&)ee2ias, (rejudice, and ;arassment)
(6*e6 judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or
prejudice)
(2*e6 judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, 6y #ords or !ondu!" manifes" 6ias or
pre;udi!e7 or engage in $arassmen"7 in!luding 6u" no" limi"ed "o 6ias7 pre;udi!e7 or $arassmen" 6ased
upon ra!e7 se', gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, se'ual orientation, mari"al
s"a"us7 so!ioe!onomi! s"a"us7 or poli"i!al affilia"ion7 and s$all no" permi" !our" s"aff7 !our" offi!ials7 or
o"$ers su6;e!" "o "$e ;udgeOs dire!"ion and !on"rol "o do so)F
</./%&
Despite the fact that CoughlinBs parents divorced when he was two and half years old, and that
his father is a family physican in a managed care era whom remarried a woman who already had two
children to support, and had a child with such, to go along with the two biological sisters Coughlin has from
CoughlinBs fatherBs first marriage, where CoughlinBs biological mother has wor?ed full time since such
divorce and recently retired at a wage of O20)00 per hour, Dudge ;oward clearly manifested a bias against
Coughlin and made remar?s indicating he view Coughlin as some sort of child or privilege whom was
tal?ing down to the :1+C #fficer 2raunworth whom was so busy perjurying himself and just generally
responding to Huestioning in a manner suggesting 2raunworth lac?s sufficient cognitive abilities to even
possess a firearm)
Even Ging noted the e'tent to which the :9CBs Dudge ;oward appeared to be completely
unglued in his patent, manifest vitriol directed towards Coughlin whilst recogniAing Dudge ;owardBs
mar?ed antipathy directed towards Coughlin incident to Dudge ;owardBs e'press belief that Coughlin was
being EcondescendingF to :1+C #fficer Donnie 2raunworth (really, just how much respect is Coughlin
supposed to direct towards 2raunworth and his trainee :1+C #fficer Gameron Crawford when they both
perjured their testimony again and again, over a Ecandy bar and some cough dropsF that Coughlin did not
even steal just so what, they can high five it up in the loc?eroom about wrec?ing some lawyerBs career (not
to mention to interpersonal devastation such wronful arrest and conviction caused not just to Coughlin, but
to his mother, father, sisters, nieces, nephew, e'=domestic partner, etc), etc) 3either of those officers, nor
"rontino conducted themselves in a manner to be respected)))not before, during, and after the arrest, and not
in their sworn testimony) 5hey behaved in an absolutely shameful manner made all the more odious by the
distasteful e'tent to which :9C Dudge ;oward and his simpatico prosecutor (amela 7) :oberts, EsH),
where so obviously willfully countenancing the perjury of such witnesses*) 1o, EcondescendingF is
applying a ?ids glove treatment where, actually, all three of those witnesses deserve to be incarcerated for a
significant length of time, and where Dudge ;oward should at the very least be publicly censured, and
:oberts suspended from the practice of law for no less than two years, if not 3ifonged completely) 5he
:9C is obviously an out of control mess where the vindictive, testosterone addled whimsy of its 9arshals
can result in a chain of events wrea?ing significant carnage on the appearance of the bench and bar ali?e,
bringing a concomitant lessening of the publicBs trust in the legal system along with it:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &12:21 to &1&:<* 2ut he went through an entire day trial with a
judge who did what at the end of the trialJ 5"(s no" li'e i" #as enoug$ "$a" 5(m going "o find you guil"y of
"$is serious !rime7 #$i!$ "$a" ;udge !er"ainly is e?perien!ed enoug$ "o 'no# if 5 find you guil"y7 and
you(re a la#yer7 you(re going "o $ae a serious pro6lem, %e $eld $im in !on"emp" of !our" and pu" $im
in ;ail,,,9 where Ging referenced Dudge ;owardBs characteriAation of CoughlinBs cross=e'amination of
#fficer 2raunworth as E!ondes!ending9 (&1&:.*) Dudge ;oward e'pressly noted CoughlinBs superior
education to #fficer 2raunworth (which was really rich considering Coughlin was, has been since, and is
indigent in the e'treme whilst 2raunsworth is a well paid police officer with a generous benefits pac?age*,
ma?ing Dudge ;owardBs patent Canon 2, :ule 2)& prejudice against Coughlin for what he perceived to be
CoughlinsB e'alted Esocioeconomic statusF reversible error in addition to being judicial misconduct) +t is
not Dudge ;owardBs place to measure reasonable doubt based upon whether he feels Coughlin is
EcondescendingF towards someone Dudge ;oward views as less privileged in a Esocioeconomic statusF
sense thant that which Dudge ;oward manifestly viewed Coughlin to possessing (however, truly ignorant
such a view held by Dudge ;oward that was*)
+ndeed, Dudge ;oward refused Coughlin another of the few inviolable rights a criminal
defendant has in refusing to allow Coughlin to testify in his own defense at such 11&011 trial in 221/.
upon Coughlin as?ing Dudge ;owad to Erepeat the HuestionF once, where #fficer 2raunworth as?ed
Coughlin to Erepeat the HuestionF appro'imately thirty times in his scant direct e'amination (with ;oward
displaying an utterly laisseA faire approach to some patent contempt by 2raunworth, other than to, again,
chastiAe Coughlin for reminding Dudge ;oward of all those rich white :eno ;igh 1chool ?ids he
<///%&
remembers from the two years he spent at :eno ;igh 1chool prior to transferring to the then newly opening
;ug ;igh 1chool (where ;oward became its first 1tudent 2ody (resident* which ;oward is so well ?nown
throughout the local community for hating with a purple passion) 6dditionally, CoughlinBs father is :eno
City 6ttorney GadlicBs personal physician and has ties to the same Dudge 2reen, 9D (whom violated the
recent 3inth Circuit decision indicating something along the lines that courtBs are not permitted to use
public funds to shove their Efirst century Christianity66 narcissim, er, fantanticism down defendantBs
throats in the way that Dudge 2reen did in having Coughlin removed (much to CoughlinBs fatherBs delight*
from the 9ental ;ealth Court on <2!12 (where Dudge 2la?e failed to upon CoughlinBs initial appearnace
and where the 9;CBs :eno 2iondo committed manifest fraud (along with the 9C;Bs 1haron Dollarhide
and >C(DBs Dennifer :ains and Doe 7oodnight* in lying about the terms of the contract Coughlin entered
into with the 9C; on <1112 where 2reen refused to provide Coughlin a rationale for removing Coughlin
from the 9ental ;ealth Court other than to co=sign Dollarhide and 2iondoBs lies in disputing the fact that
the 9;C contract Coughlin entered into did not, in any way, prohibit Coughlin, whom is diagnosed with
6D;D and 9ajor Depressive Disorder (9DD* from ta?ing 6dderall (something 66 fanatics li?e Dudge
2reen and CoughlinBs father typically eschew*)
Dudge 2reenBs summary removal of Coughlin from the 9;C in 9;12=00&2 by way of a
<2!12 #rder was followed by arrests of Coughlin on .2%12, /&12 (1% day incarceration during which
Coughlin was prevented from filing within ten days a 3:C( <, motion as to ";E2*, 211&, 2%1&,
2121&, and <2&1& with Coughlin being evicted from all three of his rentals at 3orthwinds 6partments in
Dune and Duly (in separate case numbers, though combined hearings, naturally, even where the :DC refused
to file in the 5enantBs 6ffidavits Coughlin submitted, as an incarcerated indigent defendnat, timely, on
/1012 as to those matters (:ev2012=0010%2, :ev2012=0010%&, :ev2012=0011./, :ev2012=0011.%* is
hardly a monument to judicial discretion in the name of judicial economy and conserving judicial resources,
especially where such necessitated the trial dates in :C:2011=0.&&!1 of /1.12, %2/12, %2,12, ,<12,
102212, 11%12, 111&12, 111,12, and 112012 (to be followed by an appeal in C:12=202< and soon
to be filed petitions for post=conviction relief*, and the trial or hearing dates in :C:2012=0.<.&0 of
11.12, 112012, 112/12, 121112, 1221&, 2<1&, 2121&, 21&1&, &1,1&, and !21& (followed by
an appeal in C:1&=0.1!*, in addition to the trial dates of .1%12 (where such date was set on <1012 in
violation of 3:1 1/%)!0< where there e'isted a multitude of basis reHuiring the stay Eof all proceedingsF
(where :9C Dudge >) 7ardner was provided notice in writing of his fellow :9C Dudge ;olmes &1!12
letter in the 123 in ";E%, :DC Dudge CliftonBs 22/12 #rder for Competency Evaluation (where
jurisdiction was not remanded to the :DC from 2DDC Dudge Elliott until <2!12 (the :DCBs Criminal
Division Cler?s :obbin 2a?er and Cathy >ood constantly willfully violated 3evada law in pushing
forward criminal cases and setting hearings (and swapping hearing dates in CoughlinBs cases to allow DD6
Koung and :DC Dudge 1ferraAAa to attempt to leverage their patent desire to prejudice CoughlinBs defense of
the 111!12 formal disciplinary matter by swapping out a hearing date of 111,12 in :C:2012=0./,%0 (a
case the :DC and >CD6Bs #ffice DD6 always intended to dismiss in light of the judicial misconduct
inherent to the :DCBs Dudge 1chroeder and then :DC Chief Civil Cler? Garen 1tancil ?nowingly issuing a
wrongful summary removal order (loc?out order* on .2/12 incident to a .1!12 < Day 8nlawful Detainer
3otice in :ev2012=0010!% that listed 1par?s Dustice Court as the forum in which Coughlin must file a
tenantBs affidavit (which Coughlin did, despite Dudge (earsonsB patent misconduct at the /&112 hearing in
smugly as?ing Coughlin for the Efile stampedF copy of such where (earson and the :DC were fully apprised
of the 1par?s Dustice CourtBs failure to file in such 5enantBs 6ffidavit Coughlin filed (its filed, whether some
croo?ed cler? puts a stamp on it or not* incident to Coughlin submitting such for filing to the 1par?s Dustice
Court 11:<, a)m), on .2.12
+ncidentally, former :DC Chief Civil Cler? 1tancil, on %11& refused to file in CoughlinBs
@ertified Complaint "or :elief "rom +llegal $oc?out that Coughlin submitted for filing at the Spar5s
Justice Court for beyond ministerial reasons that 1tancil and :DC Dudge 1chroeder clearly failed to apply to
</%/%&
CoughlinBs benefit incident to 3evada Court 1ervices successfully see?ing a loc?out order in the summary
eviction in :ev2012=0010!% from the :DC (at the 1DC on %11& 1tancil told Coughlin she was refusing to
file in his submission because she ?new that 3orthwindBs 6partments was a E:eno addressF and the E1par?s
Dustice Court does not have jurisdictionF )))which, again, did not stop 1tancil and :DC Dudge 1chroeder from
issuing a summary removal order on .2/12 that resulted in a custodial arrest of Coughlin on .2%12 in
:C:2012=0./,%0 where the .1!12 < Day 3otice the landlord was reHuired to submit with his .2/12
application for such a summary removal order listing, pursuant to 3:1 !0)2<&(&*(b*(1*, the 1par?s Dustice
Court as the forum in which Coughlin must file his tenantBs affidavit* and trial dates during the pendency of
such orders for competency evaluations (though, naturally, they refuse to allow a defendant to do anything
on his or her case during such pendency*
Q 102. !ember#hi/ in organiMation or body' generally Dudges !2, !< 6)$):) $ibrary
9embership in fraternal or social club or order affected by a case as ground for disHualification of judge, /<
6)$):)&D 1021 5he interest which a judge has in a public Huestion merely because he or she is a member of
the civic body that may be affected by the Huestion is not a disHualifying interest)Q"31R 6 judge does not
have an affirmative duty to withdraw from cases which merely tangentially relate to his or her participation
in an organiAation or committee)Q"32R 9embership in a bar association or integrated bar is not a basis for
disHualification in a case in which a bar association is a party)Q"3&R 3o recusal is necessary in an action
where one of the issues involves the validity of a statute and the presiding judge was a member of the
;ouse of :epresentatives when the statute was enacted, since the validity of the statute is a pure Huestion of
law)Q"3!R ;owever, membership by a judge in a cooperative association on whose behalf or against whom
an action has been brought has been held to act as a disHualification)Q"3<R
Q"31R Chumbley v) (eopleBs 2an? M 5rust Co), 1.< 5enn) .<<, </ 1)>)2D /%/ (1,&&*) = Q"32R 1tate v)
Gnowlton, 12& +daho ,1., %<! ()2D 2<, (1,,&*) = 5he fact that a judge was an alumni of the law school at a
university affiliated with a medical clinic, and that the judge contributed to the law schoolBs alumni
association, did not reHuire the judgeBs recusal in an action brought by clinic employees alleging that clinic
administrators and affiliated university physicians submitted false claims, as such contact would not
reasonably lead one to Huestion the judgeBs impartiality) 8)1) E' rel) ;ochman v) 3ac?man, 1!< ")&D 10.,
(,th Cir) 1,,%*) = Q"3&R Dacey v) Connecticut 2ar 6ssBn, 1/0 Conn) <20, &.% 6)2D 12< (1,/.*C 9innesota
1tate 2ar 6ssBn v) Divorce Ed) 6ssociates, &00 9inn) &2&, 21, 3)>)2D ,20 (1,/!*C 6lamo 5itle Co) @)
1an 6ntonio 2ar 6ssBn, &.0 1)>)2D %1! (5e') Civ) 6pp) >aco 1,.2*, writ refused n):)E), ("eb) 1&, 1,.&*)
= 9erely alleging membership in a large bar association that offered a reward for the capture and conviction
of the individuals who ?illed the victim was not a legally sufficient basis for disHualifying the judge in a
capital murder prosecution) 5effeteller v) Dugger, /&! 1o) 2D 100, ("la) 1,,,*) = Q"3!R 3ewburyport
:edevelopment 6uthority v) Com), , 9ass) 6pp) Ct) 20., !01 3)E)2D 11% (1,%0*) = Q"3<R (ahl v) >hitt,
&0! 1)>)2D 2<0 (5e') Civ) 6pp) El (aso 1,</*) 69D8: D8D7E1 S 102
!. +t is not Huite clear how the :9C is able to contract out its court appointed
defense counsel to attorneyBs maintaining private practices (including the very 5aitel whom
was appointed to represent Coughlin in the criminal trespass case in 2.!0< (.1,01* where
Coughlin was attempting to sue 5aitel, and, arguably, 5aitel himsel in C@11=0&0<1 incident
to the same wrongful summary eviction from which such criminal trespass prosecution
issued*) (ublic defenders, private practice prohibited, see 3:1 1%0)010, 1%0)0&0, 6nd
2.0)0!0)
5he :9CBs Dudge ;oward had no jurisdiction to deny CoughlinBs 102.11
6pplication for Court 6ppointed counsel where such contained a sworn declaration by
Coughlin indicating CoughlinBs yearly income was O10,000 and that he had little to no
money to his name, and had been ordered evicted the day before) Dudge 1tiglich has so far
</,/%&
denied Coughlin the appointment of co=counsel in any of the criminal matters wherein
Coughlin is a party before her, and denied CoughlinBs 9otion for (reparation of 5ranscript at
(ublic E'pense in C:1&=0011, and so far in C:1&=0.1!, even though 0.1! represents the
appeal of what in +n :e 2ec?ett (at least, though substantially different factual circumstances
at issue therein* was deemed a 1C: 111(.* PseriousP offense conviction per 3:1 1,,)2%0*
P5he 1upreme Court will appoint counsel and fi' fees whenever such orders
appear necessary to the proper e'ercise of its appellate function) 3):)1) /)12<, 1ubd) &(2*,
/)1!<, 1ubd) 1) 2rac?enbrough v) 1tate, 1,/., <<& ()2D !1,, ,2 3ev) !.0)P 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):)1) /)12<,
1ubd) 1) Digesti v) 5hird Dudicial Dist) Court +n and "or County of $yon, 1,,&, %<& ()2D
11%, 10, 3ev) <&2) 1upreme Court will only review lower courtBs decision regarding court=
appointed counselBs claim for e'cess fees in e'traordinary circumstances) >ood v) 1tate,
1,,/, ,<1 ()2D .01, 11& 3ev) 1!<<)
5rial courtBs denial of attorneyBs motion see?ing 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):)1) /)12<, 1ubd) !) 2eury v) 1tate, Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court, 1,,1, %12 ()2D
//!, 10/ 3ev) &.&, 1ubseHuent mandamus proceeding %2. ()2D ,<., 10% 3ev) 21,)
!/ (at the , minute !% second mar? of the first audio file attached from 22/12:
http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV=U0@=D-5-10 (only restroom brea? during the 22/12
trial in 11 5: 2.%00 separating the two portions of the official audio recording from the :9C
for that trial date* http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVi2Ei>EaGvp0 *
PDudge: *ir7 5 #ould li'e you "o raise your $and "o 6e s#orn7 6e!ause i"s my
e?perien!e "$a" people #$o represen" "$emseles "end "o "es"ify a #$ole lo" #$en "$ey are
as'ing o"$er people 8ues"ions7 so le"(s ;us" s"ar" "$a" #ay and "$en #e #on(" $ae "o do i"
la"er7 so s#ear $im in and "$en #e(ll ge" going
9arshal: 5estimony (inaudible*)))you are about to (inaudible* understand (inaudible*
truth, whole truth, nothing but truth, solemnlyJ
Coughlin: Kes, 1irJP
;owever, from there, throughout the 5rial Dudge 3ash ;olmes interrupts Coughlin
during his Huestioning of 5arter to indicate to Coughlin that he is as?ing Huestions and not
testifying, or that he will have an opportunity to ma?e some point when its his turn to testify, if
he chooses to testify, etc), etc, and eventually Dudge 3ash ;olmes as?s Coughlin, after the
restroom brea?, if he intends to testify on his own behalf)))P3or does the trial judgeBs
speculation that 6ppellant Emight use his closing argument to present unsworn testimony)P
1oto, 1&, 1)>)&d at %</)
!% "raudulent conduct by the :eno City 6ttorneyBs Dra?e and ;aAlett=1tevens in connection
with CoughlinBs former court appointed defender :oberto (uentes, EsH), resulted in Coughlin
being deprived his 1i'th 6mendment right of confrontation as to arresting :(D #fficer Chris
<%0/%&
Carter, Dr at the .1%12 trial in 11 C: 2.!0< for the 111&11 criminal trespass arrest: E1ubj:
:e: -) Coughlin Date: 121!2011 12:00:01 ()9) (acific 1tandard 5ime "rom:
Dra?eDNreno)#ov 5o: (8E35E1$6>Naol com :ichard ;ill and Casey 2a?er ))) ;ave you
discussed 9;C w+ your clientB =====#riginal 9essage===== "rom: (8E35E1$6>Naol)Com
5o: Dra?eDNreno)7ov Date: "ri, , Dec 2011 1,:1<:1< =0<00 (E15* 1ubject: -) Coughlin (age
+ of + Dill: Can you please tell me who is under subpoenanotice for your case in chief so r donBt
duplicate effortsJ 5han?s, :oberto G#2E:5# (8E35E1 D:) 62#76D# 655#:3EK 65
$6>F
!, +t is important to note that on that very day, 22/12, :DC Dudge (and former 2< year
prosecutor for the >CD6Bs #ffice* Clifton was mysteriously transferred onto the :C:2012=
.<.&0 case Ging references in his Complaint in alleging CoughlinBs filing therein of 22112
(which :DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsend emailed Ging, apparently in response to GingBs
writing her reHuesting a copy of the cases Dudge 3ash ;olmes referenced in her ";E% &1!12
written grievance letter to the 123, wherein Dudge 3ash ;olmes alleges that the >C(DBs
#ffice called her EDudicial 6ssistantF, purportedly to simply indicate that it was representing
Coughlin on a Egross misdemeanorF in the :DC (the only gross misdemeanor Coughlin has
ever been charged with was the Emisuse of ,11F case in :DC :C:2012=0.<.&0*) +t seems
rather plausible (though the >C(D absolutely refuses to e'plain Dudge 3ash ;olmesB
statements respecting itBs calling her judicial assistant on 22/12, and :DC Dudge 1ferraAAa
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 spo?en with Dudge 3ash ;olmes during a 9ardsen=lite hearing
before Dudge Clifton* then proceeded to refuse to answer CoughlinBs Huestion as to whether he
had ever spo?en with Dudge 3ash ;olmesB Dudicial 6ssistant 9arilyn 5ognoni (where, of
course, Dudge Clifton allowed DoganBs non=response upon ruling that such matter was
irrelevant, in a mar?ed laisseA faire approach to ensuring competent representation by defense
counsel in contrast to Dudge ;olmesB &1!12 grievance against Coughlin to the 123 resulting
in Coughlin being charged with alleged :(C violation as to duties the 123 alleges Coughlin
owes to himself)
>here Dudge Clifton (whom current :DC Chief Dudge (earson indicates receives
at least half of the criminal cases doc?eted in the :DC to ensure the >CD6Bs #fficeBs
approach is smeared all over everything, er, just because, really, no reason given)))which the
+nterim 1uspension in ;alverson indicated might not be all that acceptable (in referencing a
similar redistribution of cases by then Chief Dudge ;ardcastle which is reminiscent of
current 2DDC Chief Dudge ;ardyBs .111& #rder moving nearly all of CoughlinBs cases in
the 2DDC into Dudge ElliottBs replacement in Department %, Dudge 1tiglich (?ind of s?ews the
jurisprudence in >ashoe County where former 2< year veteran prosecutor for the >CD6Bs
#ffice Clifton is assigned at least half of the criminal cases doc?eted 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.<.&0 case on 22/12 (the file in the :DC contains nothing more to e'plain Dudge
CliftonBs mysteriously being transferred on to 0.<.&0 on 22/12 besides the following:
<%1/%&
PGin?ead, Catherine "rom: 2a?er, :obbin 1ent: 5o: 9onday,
"ebruary 2/, 2012 %:<< 69 Gin?ead, Catherine 1ubject: "> Coughlin
:C:2012=0.<.&0 +mportance: ;igh \\:obbin 2a?er :e 0 Dustice Court
Deputy Court Cler? (//<* &2<W.<&< (//<* &2<W.<10 (fa'* "rom: Dogan, 2iray
1ent: "riday, "ebruary 2!, 2012 2:!, (9 5o: 2a?er, :obbin Cc: Koung, -ach
1ubject: ">: Coughlin :C:2012=0.<.&0 +mportance: ;igh
;i :obbin,
5he 1tate and defense have agreed to continue this case out &0 days
for another 91C) 5han? you, b) =================="rom: 1ent: 5o: 1ubject:
Koung, -ach "riday, "ebruary 2!, 2012 12:0/ (9 Dogan, 2iray :E: Coughlin
2ecause this is the first 91C setting, + am o?ay with a &0 day continuance) +
will 313 ne't set as well for 91C) 5han?s, -ach =============="rom: Dogan,
2iray 1ent: 5hursday, "ebruary 2&, 2012 1:0/ (9 5o: Koung, -ach 1ubject:
Coughlin 5he 91C is 9onday) Coughlin wants to get his case continued) >hat
sayeth youJ (3#5E thereon such page containing all the above emails is hand
interlineated PI1 (crossed out* I< 5ransfer D< Clifton case 91C &2,12
N1:&0 p)m)*P
3#5E: in the :DC such 0.<.&0 case is listed in the doc?et (prima facie evidence of
fact pursuant to 3:1 !)2!0* 6s assigned to Department 1Bs Dudge $ynch) Dudge Clifton is in
Department <) Coughlin had contacted >C(D Dogan on 21%12 to indicate a conflict between
the setting of the trial in the :9C 11 5: 2.%00 at 1:00 pm on 22/12 and the 9andatory
1tatus Conference in the :DC in 0.<.&0 at 1:&0 p)9) :ather than owning up to his violatin of
3:1 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 :DC 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 3:1 1/%)!0< #rder
"or Competency Evaluation in a gross misdemeanor, the indentity of the medications Coughlin
ta?es 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
that Coughlin was on 6dderall in violation of the ;+(66 rights th >C(D and $a?es Crossing
touted incident to having Couglin summarily incarcerated for eight days between !1,12 and
!2.12 upon DD6 Koung violating 3:1 1/%)!0< Ket again in moving for such in arguing
Coughlin had not divulged sufficient information to $a?eBs Crossing in the conte't of its hugely
invasive competency evaluation, which includes something a?in to a search incident to arrest,
and where $a?eBs 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 $a?eBs Davis and "armer abruptly stormed out of, only to
then file a lied filled !1%12 letter with the 2DDC and Dudge Elliott in C:12=0&/.*)*)
<0 ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1.2:! to 1.2:/* E9:) C#87;$+3: 5he thing is, anything that
would tend to rebut the inference of guilt, you always rule itBs not relevant) 1o +Bm wondering
<%2/%&
whatBs the point of calling me thenJF
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages .0:2& to .2:!* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Did
1ergeant $opeA, the female sergeantJ 6 1he may have, but + donBt recall) U Did you have
a video camera with youJ 6 >e had Dr) 9erlissBs phone) U Did you ta?e 1! videos that
you propounded to the :eno city attorney that dayJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) :elevance)
5;E >+53E11: >e gave them what we had) 5he number + donBt recall) 2K 9:)
C#87;$+3: U >as there some reason == 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 6 9r) Coughlin == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, the issue
here is whether or not youBre competent to be an attorney and should continue in the practice
of law) KouBre focusing on a rather minor detail, and + would li?e you to focus on the
broader issues) 9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs not just competency, itBs candor) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: KouBve indicated you want to impeach him) 5he issue is 9r) ;ill has
testified that the police identified themselves) Kou say something different) +Bve as?ed you
for an offer of proof) KouBve laid the foundation) $etBs proceed) 9:) C#87;$+3: +t also
goes to == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (lease proceed, 9r) Coughlin) Kou would do yourself
some good if you will focus on the issues, if you will)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages /2:& to /<:<* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 9r) ;ill, is it
somewhat incongruus for you to assert to this panel that + completely lac? competency, and
yet you ran up, counting the trial court O20,000 you as?ed for, and the O!2,000 you were
ultimately awarded in that appellate courtJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) 6rgumentative and
irrelevant) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained) 9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? it goes to his
credibility) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm sorryJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, + thin? it goes
to his credibility to the e'tent that heBs saying, well, 9r) Coughlin is so baseless and
ve'atious, yet + was able to bill .0 grand for it) 5o me itBs li?e, 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 9:) G+37: 9r) Chairman, if + could
respond by pointing out the fact that the order from Dudge "lanagan, which has been
admitted, suggests that that was == that those fees were generated because of 9r) CoughlinBs
ve'atious conduct) 6nd that the fees were reasonable and were awarded against 9r)
Coughlin, not one cent of which has been paid) 1o + thin? any suggestion to the contrary is
irrelevant, because Dudge "lanaganBs order is to be accepted by the panel) 9:) C#87;$+3:
Kour ;onor, if + can Huic?ly counter that) + donBt ?now thatBs actually pled in your
complaint, 9r) Ging, or included amongst one of the three grievances) 5he e'tent to which
== am + here today because this li?e Dudge 7ardnerBs sanctions coming up two years laterJ
6m + here today on Dudge "lanaganBs sanctionJ +s he a grievant and accorded a case number
tooJ 9:) G+37: 9r) Chairman, + was responding to his Huestion) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +
believe youBre here today to measure all of your conduct as a practicing lawyer) 1o +Bd li?e to
move on) +f you have further Huestions of 9r) ;ill, please as? them) +Bve now afforded you
in e'cess of 20 minutes) +Bll give you another five) 9:) C#87;$+3: 1o weBre not here
today based on whatBs been noticedJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >eBre not here today to relitigate
orders that have been filed that you have appealed, and that you have lost) 9:)
C#87;$+3: +Bm not as?ing == +Bm as?ing what is it limited toJ 2ecause it sounds li?e from
<%&/%&
what you just said itBs not limited) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm saying what heBs limited to, your ;onor) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5he 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: Ket this is entered into
evidence) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5his is whatJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 5his order has been
entered into evidence) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'hibit 2 has) 9:) C#87;$+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) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou 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
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &20:1< to &21:2* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm really
sorry, 9r) Coughlin) 2ut + would li?e you to assist the panel in following our directions) +Bve
as?ed you to address, one, whether or not youBre competent to continue to practice law) 5wo,
ho2 #hould 2e deal 2ith the supreme !our"(s manda"e "$a" #e are "o !onsider "$e na"ure
and in"en" of punis$men" as a resul" o% that the%t con-iction and o"$er mis!ondu!", and if
you believe punishment is warranted, what the nature of that punishment should be) 6f we
can focus on those issues it would help this panel do its job a lot better than trying to
understand 9r) ;arrisB situation or some other lawyerBs situation) Could you focus on that
for me, pleaseJF*) 9ega=hypocrites li?e Echeverria really do not li?e confronting the
incongruity of their money plays approach to life and law) ;owever, 1C: 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 1C: 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 @evidence4 (see
+n :e 1antosuossoBs ruling that @findings of fact4 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 1C: 111(<*Bs Ea conviction is conclusive proof that the :espondent 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 1C: 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*) >hile Echeverria refused to countenance
CoughlinBs arguments that 3) 1) Ct)Bs decision to refrain from referring the matter of the
1C: 111(!* (etition in .1,01 to a disciplinary panel provides a defensive collateral estoppel
bar to any attempt to characteriAe 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)
5he lac? of any such 1C: 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 :(C %)!(a*=(d*, (much less that sua sponte
attempts by Echeverria to graft such criminal trespass conviction and the testimony by
:ichard 7) ;ill, 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 6s to such criminal trespass conviction,
Echeverria, again, sua sponte, argued such provided support for and notice=pleading to
Coughlin that ";E2 (the Eprevailing party attorneyBs fee awardF @sanction4 by the district
court in the appeal of the summary eviction ;illBs associate handled
;illBs associate Casey D) 2a?er, 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 6ugust of 2012 whereupon ;ill appeared in such matter to defend against
CoughlinBs 3:C( .0 motions) 1uch a late arrival to the party hardly ma?es ;ill a material
witness (much less Hualified to testify about such* with respect to those matters wherein his
associate appeared*) +ndeed, ;ill 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 ;ill arguably (Ching notwithstanding (so confusing the :(C !)2 analysis there* is an
interested party given Ging identified ;ill as the grievant in E3712=020!F)))and where
Dudge ;olmes was listed as the grievant in E3712=0!&!F, and Dudge $) 7ardner the grievant
in E3712=0!&<F 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 (tal?
about a gang bang, wow, nobody runs a train on someone Huite li?e >ashoe County runs a
train on someone, rightJ *
<1 5he thing is defensive collateral estoppel applies to all of the 123Bs allegations of misconduct,
especially with respect to ";E2, &, ! (Dudge ;olmes 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 ta?ing another swing at the plate as to anything
Coughlin allegedly did in court during the 22/12 trial in ";E<, her &1212 #rder, which itself is
<%</%&
void and an e'ample of Dudge ;olmesB constant judicial misconduct where such was either a willful
violation of 3:1 1/%)!0< #r an e'ample of Dudge ;olmes (whom purported to be some sort of
Huasi=e'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 ";E% is hilarious in that regard
where within two sentences Dudge ;olmes admits she feels Coughlin is PHuic?ly decompensatingP
mentally, but that she is, also, attempting to Pset for trialP the PotherP (a traffic citation case is not a
Pcriminal matterP * 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 ";E!* ";E10 (which merely ruled that CoughlinBs +"( was denied and
did not ma?ing any PfindingP or PconclusionP 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)7), +n re 1egal, /1, 3)E)2D !%0, !%< (9ass) 1,,,*
(tQ7Reneral rules of collateral estoppel govern Qbar discipline casesR))*C #ffice of Disciplinary
Counsel v) Giesewetter, %%, 6)2D !/, <! ((a) 200<* (6ttorney collaterally estopped in bar discipline
case on basis of federal courtues civil judgment for fraud established by clear and convincing
evidence*C +n re Capoccia, /0, 3)K)1)2D .!0, .!2)!% (3)K) 6pp) Div) 2000* (6ttorney 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, ,<. 1)>)2D ,10, ,12)1! (9o) 1,,/* (3on=mutual
offensive collateral estoppel applied in bar discipline case on basis of federal court sanctions for
same activity*C +n re 2ruAga, /12 6)2D 10/%, 10/, (3);) 1,,%* (;olding 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, <&2 3)E)2D 2!%, 2<2 (+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 uacan more confidently rely on a
criminal conviction as resting on accurate factual findings) >here uaan attorney who has been
found guilty of a criminal offense ) ) ) ;as 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 <%&, <%/ (8tah 1,%0* (declining to
give offensive collateral estoppel effect to factual findings underlying a federal courtues judgment
for fraud because to do so would be contrary to the obvious intent of a 8tah statute uathat reHuires
the 2oard to ma?e its own findings based upon Qits ownR evidentiary hearing,) 2ut concluding that
the record in the prior civil proceeding would be admissible as evidence where relevant in
disbarment hearing*)
<2 Defending $awyers in Disciplinary (roceedings, &1 69D8: 5:+6$1 .&&): P)))1ec) !%)
@-identiary con#ideration#: 5he rules of evidence for civil jury trials, with slight
variations, generally apply to attorney=discipline proceedings)Q/R ;owever, it has also been
said that, at disciplinary hearings, the rules of evidence are Prela'ed,PQ%R and considerable
latitude is allowed the accused attorney to bring in evidence of good moral character,
particulary on the issue of mitigation)Q,R
E'hibits should be readied for Huic? and easy introduction into evidence by
organiAing them and offering them for mar?ing for identification at the beginning of the
hearing or at the pre=hearing conference)Q10R 1uch e'hibits include time sheets,Q11R carbon or
duplicate original of the contract of employment,Q12R photocopies of all or part of the former
clientBs file where appropriate,Q1&R !orresponden!e #i"$ "$e !omplainan" and o"$ers,Q1!R
<%./%&
telephone logs and messages,Q1<R ;udi!ial re!ords of rela"ed !our" pro!eedings,Q1.R any
pertinent public recordsQ1/R and offi!ial ines"iga"ion repor"s,Q1%R and documents and hospital
records where pertinent)Q1,R >ritings used to refresh memoryQ20R are not mar?ed, but they
should be ready for offering to witnesses who need assistance in recalling events)
5he burden of proof is, of course, on the attorney assuming the prosecution role)Q21R
6s 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,Q22R
but they do not agree on whether a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient or whether the
proof must be clear and convincing)Q 2&R
*ection 48 (ootnote#:
Q"3/R 626 1tandards for $awyer Discipline, 1tandard %)&2) / 6m) Dur) 2D,
6ttorneys at $aw S ,!) 1ubpoena for attendance of witness at disciplinary hearing, 2 6m) Dur)
(leading and (ractice "orms, 6ttorneys at $aw, "orm 2,/T2,%) Q"3%R Emslie v) 1tate 2ar of
California (1,/!* 11 Cal &d 210, 11& Cal :ptr 1/<, <20 (2d ,,1) Q"3,R Committee on $egal
Ethics v) (ietranton (1,</* 1!& > @a 11, ,, 1E2d 1< )6dmissibility and sufficiency of
evidence in attorney disciplinary proceedings, / 6m) Dur) 2D, 6ttorneys at $aw SS ,!, ,<)
Q"310R "oundation for 6dmission of 1econdary Evidence, &< 6m) Dur) (roof of "acts 2d 1!/C
"oundation for #ffering 2usiness :ecords and Evidence, &! 6m) Dur) (roof of "acts 2d <0,C
6dmissibility of ComputeriAed 2usiness :ecords, 1! 6m) Dur) (roof of "acts 2d 1/&)
Q"311R QR 6dmissibility of business records) 2usiness records and boo?s, and entries
therein, are generally admissible if ?ept in the ordinary course of business and if properly
authenticated) 8nder modern statutes, and under :ule %0&(.* of the "ederal :ules of Evidence,
it generally is not necessary that the person actually ma?ing the records testify, if the custodian
or other Hualified witness testifies to the identity and mode of preparation of the records) 1ee &0
6m) Dur) 2D, Evidence SS ,&/, ,<0) Q"312R QR 6dmissibility of carbon copies of documents)
9any courts have held that a carbon copy of a document ran?s 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 PribbonP 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
respect to which the usual rules as to the necessity and sufficiency of e'plaining nonproduction
of the original are applicable) 1ee 6m) Dur) 2D, Evidence SS !%/, !%%)
Q"31&R QR 6dmissibility 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 ?ept in the regular course of business) 1ee 2, 6m) 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 :ules 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 : 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 : Evid 100&*)
Q"31!R QR 6dmissibility of letters) 6 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) 5he authenticity of a letter is usually proved by establishing its identity as the
letter of the person by whom it purports to be written) 5his 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, 6m) Dur) 2D, Evidence SS %/%T%%0) Q"31<R
"oundation for 5elephone Conversation, &. 6m) Dur) (roof of "acts 2d .0<) Q"31.R QR (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 ta?e 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) 6 court will ta?e judicial notice of its own records in the immediate case
before it, including all prior proceedings in the same case (2, 6m) Dur) 2D, Evidence S </*) 5he
courts ordinarily do not ta?e 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, 6m) Dur) 2D, Evidence S <%*) 5hus, 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 6m) Dur) 2D, Evidence
SS ,/&T,,0)
Q"31/R QR :ecords and reports of public officials) 8nder 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) 5he facts stated in the documents, however, must have been within the personal
?nowledge or observation of the recording official or his subordinates) :eports based on
general investigations and on second=hand information are not ordinarily admissible as public
records) #ther records which have been held inadmissible under this e'ception to the hearsay
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 6m) Dur) 2D,
Evidence S ,,1) Q"31%R QR #fficial investigative reports) :eports made by public officials
regarding the cause of an accident or other occurrence resulting in property damage are not
ordinarily admissible in evidence (see / 6m) Dur) 2D, Evidence S 1002*) 3evertheless it is
recogniAed 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 lac? of trustworthiness (see "ed : Evid %0&(%**) Q"31,R QR 6dmissibility of hospital
records or medical reports) ;ospital 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 authoriAed agent of the hospital must verify that the records were made in the regular
course of business) 1ee !0 6m) Dur) 2D, ;ospitals and 6sylums S !&: 2 Dones on Evidence (.th
ed)* S 12:12)
Q"320R QR 8se of writing to refresh memory of witness) 6 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) ;owever, 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, 6m) Dur) 2D, Evidence SS %/.,
%//) Q"321R 626 1tandards for $awyer Discipline, 1tandard %)&%) Q"322R 626 1tandards
for $awyer Discipline, 1tandard %)!0) 1ee, :e 9ayberry (1,&.* 2,< 9ass 1<<, & 3E2d 2!%,
10< 6$: ,/.C 9addy v) "irst Dist) Committee of 1tate 2ar (1,.!* 20< @a .<2, 1&, 1E2d
<.) Q"32&R / 6m) Dur) 2D, 6ttorneys at $aw S ,<)P Defending +a#yers in Dis!iplinary
Dro!eedings, &1 69D8: 5:+6$1 .&&)
<& 2er?e v) Chattanooga 2ar 6ssBn, !&. 1)>)2D 2,. 5enn) 6pp),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 :ules, rule &%C 5)C)6) S 2,=&0%(1, <*)
1tate e' rel) 3ebras?a 1tate 2ar 6ssBn v) 7udmundsen, 1. 3)>)2D !/! 3eb),1,!!
6 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 ta?en at trial of civil action is
admissible for such purpose)
+n re 3oell, ,. 1)>)2D 21& 9o)6pp),1,&. 1tatement, made by attorneyBs counsel on
appeal to 2oard of 5a' 6ppeals 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) :)1)1,&,, S 1&&2% (@)6)9)1) S !%!)1,0*)
+n re 1antosuosso, .2 3)E)2D 10< 9ass),1,!< 6 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) 5he "lorida 2ar v) 2ennett, 2/. 1o)2D !%1 "la),1,/& :esults of a civil suit
are not necessarily conclusive of disciplinary actionC there must be proof of a breach of the
Code of (rofessional :esponsibility for 6ttorneys before discipline will result)
1tate e' rel) 3ebras?a 1tate 2ar 6ssBn v) 7udmundsen, 1. 3)>)2D !/! 3eb),1,!!
6 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 ta?en at trial of civil action is
admissible for such purpose)
Committee on (rofessional Ethics v) >right, 1/% 3)>)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)
6he (lorida +ar -. +ennett, 2/. 1o)2d !%1 ("la),1,/&* :esults of a civil suit are
not necessarily conclusive of disciplinary actionC there must be proof of a breach of the Code of
(rofessional :esponsibility for 6ttorneys before discipline will result)
6s to issue preclusion or collateral estoppel in civil actions, generally, see C)D)1),
Dudgments SS //, to %02) Doctrine of offensive collateral estoppel 8nder 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) 9ass)]+n re Cohen, !&< 9ass) /, /<& 3)E)2D /,, (2001*)
5he summary nature of both the contempt orders in ";E!, ";E<, and ";E10 all
deprived Coughlin of any such Pfull and fair opportunity to challengeP the validity fo such, to
say nothing of the violations of the mandatory stays under 3:1 1/%)!0<)
$etermination# in /rior /roceeding#0 +n some jurisdictions, a prior conviction of a
criminal offense may conclusively establish guilt of the offense charged in attorney disciplinary
proceedings)Q1/R $i?ewise, a foreign jurisdictionBs adjudication of guilt may be deemed
conclusive proof of guilt of the attorney misconduct charged)Q1%R 5he 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)Q1,R >hile 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,Q20R 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)Q21R 9oreover, 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)Q22R
Q"31/R 3)D)]+n re 2oylan, 1.2 3)D) 2%,, /!! 6)2D 1<% (2000*) 9ass)]9atter of
Concemi, !22 9ass) &2., ..2 3)E)2D 10&0 (1,,.*) Consideration of underlying conduct not
precluded 6 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
Ciardelli, 11% +ll) 2D 2&&, 11& +ll) Dec) ,!, <1! 3)E)2D 100. (1,%/*) Q"31%R "la)]5he "lorida
2ar v) 9ogil, /.& 1o) 2D &0& ("la) 2000*) 8nsupported finding disregarded 6 finding by a
board, in an out=of=state 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) 9o)]+n re >einer, <&0 1)>)2D 222, %1 6)$):)&D
12/2 (9o) 1,/<*, 1upplemented, <!/ 1)>)2D !<, (9o) 1,//*) 2urden of showing infirmity of
foreign proceeding 5he 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) 3ebras?a 1tate 2ar 6ssBn v) Dineen, 2&< 3eb) &.&, !<< 3)>)2D 1/%
(1,,0*) Q"31,R S 100) Q"320R 5enn)]2er?e v) Chattanooga 2ar 6ssBn, <% 5enn) 6pp) .&.,
!&. 1)>)2D 2,. (1,.%*) Q"321R +owa]Committee on (rofessional Ethics v) >right, 1/%
3)>)2D /!, (+owa 1,/0*) 5enn)]5ennessee 2ar 6ssBn v) 2er?e, !% 5enn) 6pp) 1!0, &!!
<,0/%&
1)>)2D <./ (1,.0*) Q"322R 5enn)]2er?e v) Chattanooga 2ar 6ssBn, <% 5enn) 6pp) .&., !&.
1)>)2D 2,. (1,.%*)*
(3#5E: he 1upreme Court on review of a decision of the 2oard of 7overnors
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
7overnors but should give due consideration and accord persuasive force to such findings and
recommendations) Copren v) 1tate 2ar, .! ,e-) &.!, 1%& ()2d %&& (1,!/**)
7n re *?,69*I9**9, &1% 9ass) !%,, .2 3)E)2d 10<, 1.1 6)$):) %,2 (1,!<*:
E>e 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 ta?en by the single justice in the present
case in connection with his action in overruling the demurrer to the respondentLs answer) >e
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 li?e any other evidence is to be given such
weight as the single justice shall deem OO108 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)
5he foregoing view finds support in such cases as +n re $acy, 2&! 9o)6pp) /1, 112
1)>)2d <,!C +n re (ate, 2&2 9o)6pp) !/%, 11, 1)>)2d 11C 1tate v) 7udmundsen, 3eb), 1.
3)>)2d !/!C >erner v) 1tate 2ar, 2! Cal)2d .11, 1<0 ()2d %,2, and "airfield County 2ar v)
5aylor, .0 Conn) 11, 22 6) !!1, 1& $):)6) /./) 1ee also 9atter of 2ec?er, 22, 6pp)Div) .2,
.<=.., 2!1 3)K)1) &.,C +d), 2<< 3)K) 2&&, 1/! 3)E) !.1C >igmore on Evidence, &d Ed), S !(/*)
+n the 7udmundsen 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: O494 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
evidence) "or this purpose the evidence ta?en at the trial of the civil action and all other
competent evidence is admissibleL (page !/. of 1. 3)>)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 >erner 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 5aylor case a judgment had been obtained against an attorney, whose
disbarment was sought, by a party whose case was based on allegations that 5aylor had
defrauded him) +n disbarment proceedings against 5aylor the court held that the hearing of the
<,1/%&
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) 6mos, 2!. +ll) 2,,, ,2 3)E) %</, 1&% 6m)1t):ep) 2&,, and cases
cited in < 6m)Dur), 6ttorneys at $aw, ss) 2,&, 2,!) 5he Huestion was left open by this court in
9atter of Geenan, 2%/ 9ass) <//, <%!, 1,2 3)E) .<, ,. 6)$):) ./,) +n now deciding the issue,
for the reasons already advanced based upon the reHuirements of public policy and the
necessity O495 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)
>e 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 9ass) 102,
10, 3)E) %&0C 1idlow v) 7osselin, &10 9ass) &,<, &,.=&,/, &% 3)E)2d ..<) >hen a judge
ma?es a report of facts under the statute, Zhe does not ma?e 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)L
(lumer v) ;oughton M Dutton Co), 2// 9ass) 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) 7osselin, &10 9ass) &,<,
&,.=&,/, &% 3)E)2d ..<) 5he suit in eHuity in Huestion was finally determined on the merits in
2oston v) 1antosuosso, &0/ 9ass) &02, &0 3)E)2d 2/%) 5he present proceeding is not a suit in
eHuity) +t is an independent proceeding, and owing to its nature we thin? that the record in
Huestion is OO109 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 #L2rien, ,< @t)
1./, 1/%, 11& 6) <2/, 1! 6)$):) %<,)F*
2ut, see, 2ar Counsel v) 2oard of 2ar #verseers, .!/ 3)E)2D 11%2, 11%!Y , 9ass)
(1,,<*: Collateral estoppel should be applied to bar discipline cases to same e'tent that it
applies to civil cases) CEJJ&'9R&J 9S'ECC9J &S & B&S6S *ER &''ERN9D +6SC6CJ6N9(
'H9 N9L' S'9C, < 7eo) D) $egal Ethics 1, &&)
C"* ?ttorney X Client Q 101. ?dmi##ibility o% e-idence , !<?<&(1*, <&(2*
E5he 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,Q1R while rules of
the criminal law as to admissibility of evidence are not applicable)Q2R ;owever, 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)Q&R 5he tribunal presiding over a disciplinary
proceeding has a duty to consider all admissible evidence)Q!R 5he person charged should be
<,2/%&
permitted to avail himself or herself of all the recogniAed competent evidence that would tend
to disprove such charge and vindicate his or her character)Q<R +rrelevant and immaterial
testimony is not admissible, however)Q.R >here the basis for a disbarment proceeding is a
continuous course of conduct, conduct throughout a reasonable period may be shown)Q/R
Q"31R 6la)]E' parte 9ontgomery, 2!! 6la) ,1, 12 1o) 2D &1! (1,!&*) +ll)]+n re
9elin, !10 +ll) &&2, 102 3)E)2D 11, (1,<1*) 6s to the admissibility of evidence in civil actions,
generally, see C)D)1), Evidence SS 1,/ to 2!<) Q"32R Cal)];erron v) 1tate 2ar of Cal), 2! Cal)
2D <&, 1!/ ()2D <!& (1,!!*) 6s to the nature of a disciplinary proceeding as civil, rather than
criminal, see S ,0) Q"3&R 9ass)]+n re >elans?y, &1, 9ass) 20<, .< 3)E)2D 202 (1,!.*) 3)K)
]+n re 1hufer, 12 6)D)2D 20%, 20, 3)K)1)2D <!< (1st DepBt 1,.1*) :ules invo?ed only to
insure fairness Cal)]Emslie v) 1tate 2ar, 11 Cal) &D 210, 11& Cal) :ptr) 1/<, <20 ()2D ,,1
(1,/!*) Q"3!R Cal)]Emslie v) 1tate 2ar, 11 Cal) &D 210, 11& Cal) :ptr) 1/<, <20 ()2D ,,1
(1,/!*) Q"3<R Cal)]6llen v) 1tate 2ar of Cal), 21% Cal) 1,, 21 ()2D 10/ (1,&&*) +ll)]+n re
Donaghy, &,& +ll) .21, .. 3)E)2D %<. (1,!.*) 5e')]1mith v) 1tate, !,0 1)>)2D ,02 (5e')
Civ) 6pp) Corpus Christi 1,/2*, writ refused n):)E), (6pr) 2<, 1,/&*) Q"3.R Cal)]9ost v)
1tate 2ar, ./ Cal) 2D <%,, .& Cal) :ptr) 2.<, !&2 ()2D ,<& (1,./*) 3)K)]+n re 7oldstein, 2&.
6)D) 2&&, 2<% 3)K)1) <!% (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)]9atter of
>ireman, 2/0 +nd) &!!, &./ 3)E)2D 1&.% (1,//*) Q"3/R 9o)]$eimer v) ;ulse, &<2 9o) !<1,
1/% 1)>)2D &&< (1,!!*)
6n 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)Q%R #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)Q,R >here proof that an attorney
was convicted of a crime is conclusive of $is or $er guil" "$ereof, such proof renders other
evidence on the Huestion inadmissible)Q1<R #n the other hand, 2here a con-iction i# not
conclu#i-e 2ith re#/ect to the #anction to be im/o#ed in the di#ci/linary /roceeding'
e-idence i# admi##ible to e8/lain or mitigate the #igni%icance o% the con-iction'U16V to #ho2
the character o% the crime'U17V and 2hat #anction' i% any' #hould be im/o#ed.U1%R
Documentary evidenceC recordings) Do!umen"ary eiden!e is admissi6le in a dis!iplinary
pro!eeding as in o"$er pro!eedings7 #$ere i" is properly iden"ified and is !ompe"en"7 relean"7
and ma"erial)Q1,R +n the absence of a proper foundation, or where they are incompetent,
irrelevant, or immaterial, documents are not admissible, however)Q20R
Q"3%R #?la)]1tate e' rel) #?lahoma 2ar 6ssBn v) ;atcher, 1,!, #G 1/<, 201 #?la)
.%&, 20, ()2D %/& (1,!,*) Q"3,R Colo)](eople e' rel) Gent v) Denious, 11% Colo) &!2, 1,.
()2D 2</ (1,!%* (overruled on other grounds by, 6drian v) (eople, //0 ()2D 12!& (Colo)
1,%,**) Q"310R 7a)]5homas v) 1tate, ,1 7a) 6pp) %0!, %/ 1)E)2D 2&, (1,<<*) 3)D)]+n re
9ischlich, .0 3)D) <,0, 2,2 6)2D 2& (1,/2*) #?la)]1tate e' rel) #?lahoma 2ar 6ssBn v)
1canland, 1,/0 #G ,!, !/< ()2D &/& (#?la) 1,/0*) Community 6n 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 >right, 1&1 @t) !/&, &10 6)2D 1, ,2 6)$):)&D .&, (1,/&*) Q"311R >is)]
1tate v) 2eaudry, <& >is) 2D 1!%, 1,1 3)>)2D %!2 (1,/1*) Q"312R $a)]$ouisiana 1tate 2ar
6ssBn v) 1ac?ett, 2&! $a) /.2, 101 1o) 2D ..1 (1,<%*) #hio]#hio 1tate 2ar 6ssBn v) 9oore,
!< #hio 1t) 2D </, /! #hio #p) 2D %!, &!1 3)E)2D &02 (1,/.*) 6s to criminal convictions as
grounds for disciplinary proceedings, generally, see S /2) Q"31&R #hio]5oledo 2ar 6ssBn v)
$ichota, 1< #hio 1t) 2D 21/, !! #hio #p) 2D 1,2, 2&, 3)E)2D !< (1,.%*) Evidence with
respect to punishment 6ny 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)K)]$evy v) 6ssociation of the 2ar of City of 3ew
Kor?, &/ 3)K)2D 2/,, &/2 3)K)1)2D !1, &&& 3)E)2D &<0 (1,/<*) Q"31!R S 102) Q"31<R 6r?)
] 1upreme Court Committee on (rofessional Conduct v) Dones, 2<< 6r?) 10.,, !,, 1)>)2D
.1, (1,/&*) $a)]$ouisiana 1tate 2ar 6ssBn v) ;amilton, &!& 1o) 2D ,%< ($a) 1,//*) Q"31.R
9ich)]+n re 1auer, &,0 9ich) !!,, 21& 3)>)2D 102, /. 6)$):)&D 10<! (1,/&*) 3)K)]$evy
v) 6ssociation of the 2ar of City of 3ew Kor?, &/ 3)K)2D 2/,, &/2 3)K)1)2D !1, &&& 3)E)2D
&<0 (1,/<*) Q"31/R 3)K)]$evy v) 6ssociation of the 2ar of City of 3ew Kor?, &/ 3)K)2D
2/,, &/2 3)K)1)2D !1, &&& 3)E)2D &<0 (1,/<*) Q"31%R Cal)]+n re Girsch?e, 1. Cal) &D ,02,
12, Cal) :ptr) /%0, <!, ()2D <!% (1,/.*) +ll)]+n re 6ndros, .! +ll) 2D !1,, 1 +ll) Dec) &2<,
&<. 3)E)2D <1& (1,/.*) $a)]$ouisiana 1tate 2ar 6ssBn v) 5unis, &<2 1o) 2D .2& ($a) 1,//*)
3)D)]+n re 9ischlich, .0 3)D) <,0, 2,2 6)2D 2& (1,/2*) 3)K)]$evy v) 6ssociation of the 2ar
of City of 3ew Kor?, &/ 3)K)2D 2/,, &/2 3)K)1)2D !1, &&& 3)E)2D &<0 (1,/<*) Q"31,R 9d)
]+n re $ombard, 2!2 9d) 202, 21% 6)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 ?new or, by e'ercise of reasonable diligence, could
have ?nown that the client was a nonresident) @a)]Campbell v) 5hird Dist) Committee of @a)
1tate 2ar, 1/, @a) 2!!, 1% 1)E)2D %%& (1,!2*) :eceipt of letter Cal)]1odi?off v) 1tate 2ar, 1!
Cal) &D !22, 121 Cal) :ptr) !./, <&< ()2D &&1 (1,/<*) Q"320R 8)1)]+n re Echeles, !&0 ")2D
&!/ (/th Cir) 1,/0*)F
7n re 92en#, 12< +ll)2d &,0, 12< +ll)2d &,0, <&2 3)E)2d 2!% (1,%%*: E9ore
recently, however, a substantial change has occurred in the application of collateral estoppel:
elimination of the mutuality reHuirement) 8nder the mutuality doctrine, neither party could use
a prior factual finding as an estoppel against the other unless both parties were bound by the
judgment) (1ee +n re ;utul (1,/&*, <! +ll)2d 20,, 2,. 3)E)2d &&2)* 5he mutuality reHuirement
was removed in +llinois 1tate Chamber of Commerce v) (ollution Control 2oard (1,/,*, /%
+ll)2d 1, /, &! +ll)Dec) &&!, &,% 3)E)2d ,) 5his 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,
6s the 8nited 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) 6s stated by the 8nited 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 seeL attitude, in the hope that the first action by another plaintiff will result in
a favorable judgment) QCitations)R 5hus offensive use of collateral estoppel will li?ely 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 (ar?lane ;osiery
Co) v) \&,, 1hore (1,/,*, !&, 8)1) &22, &&0, ,, 1)Ct) .!<, .<1, <% $)Ed)2d <<2, <.1)
6lthough this consideration does not directly apply to this disciplinary case, it
cautions against the unrestricted use of offensive collateral estoppel generally)
6 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) 5his places him in a difficult predicament if a later suit occurs
and involves potential liability infinitely larger than that involved in the first suit) 6lso, as
pointed out in Car5lane 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
OO252 OOO567 defendant procedural opportunities unavailable in the first action, opportunities
that could readily cause a difference in the result obtained) (ar?lane ;osiery, !&, 8)1) at &&0,
,, 1)Ct) at .<1, <% $)Ed)2d at <.1)
5he 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) 5he 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 O400 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)
3e turn no2 to the #/eci%ic Aue#tion 2hether %actual %inding# ba#ed on ;clear
and con-incing e-idenceN in an ordinary ci-il ca#e may %orm a ba#i# %or collateral
e#to//el in a di#ci/linary action. 5he 6dministrator emphasiAes that, in accordance with +n re
1cott (1,%&*, ,% +ll)2d ,, 1., /! +ll)Dec) <1, !<< 3)E)2d %1, an attorneyLs 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
:) /.1)* 5he 6dministrator 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
6ccordingly, in the 6dministratorLs view, there is no reason to preclude giving collateral
estoppel effect in the instant case to the factual Huestions previously decided)
?lthough thi# court nece##arily relie# u/on the a##i#tance o% the )earing and
<,</%&
e-ie2 +oard# in en%orcing the Code' it i# the re#/on#ibility o% thi# court to determine
2hat conduct i# di#ci/linable and to determine the #e-erity o% di#ci/line in a /articular
ca#e. 6hi# ultimate re#/on#ibility ne-er #hi%t#' and it i# not 2ithout he#itation that thi#
court 2ill relegate the %act-%inding %unction to /roceeding# out#ide o% %ormal di#ci/linary
/roceeding#. 3ith regard to /roceeding# %or crime# in-ol-ing moral tur/itude' there i#
am/le Eu#ti%ication %or doing #o' %or #e-eral rea#on#. (ir#t' the burden o% /roo% in #uch
ca#e# i# e8tremely high' higher than i# the burden o% /roo% in a di#ci/linary /roceeding.
*econd' although both a ci-il %raud action and a criminal charge in-ol-ing moral
tur/itude are #eriou#' the gra-ity o% #uch a criminal charge' both in term# o% damage to
oneG# re/utation and threat O401 to oneG# liberty and li-elihood' i# on a le-el 2hich #im/ly
cannot meaning%ully be com/ared to a ci-il /roceeding. (or the#e rea#on#' thi# court can
be better a##ured that an attorney 2ho ha# been %ound guilty o% a criminal o%%en#e
in-ol-ing moral tur/itude ha# been #o %ound only a%ter he ha# made e-ery rea#onable
e%%ort to ca#t doubt on hi# guilt' and thu# thi# court can more con%idently rely on a
criminal con-iction a# re#ting on accurate %actual %inding#.
3e 2ill not' ho2e-er' go beyond /ermitting the conclu#i-e u#e o% a criminal
con-iction and begin gi-ing o%%en#i-e collateral e#to//el e%%ect in a di#ci/linary
/roceeding to %actual %inding# in a ci-il %raud action. 2$e ris' of unfairly imposed
dis!ipline is "oo grea"7 and "$e e!onomy "o 6e gained "oo minimal7 "o #arran" su!$ an
a6ridgemen" of "$e dis!iplinary pro!ess.
"or the foregoing reasons, respondents are certainly entitled to an evidentiary
hearing on the underlying facts of the complaint)F 7n re 92en#, 12< +ll)2d &,0, 12< +ll)2d &,0,
<&2 3)E)2d 2!% (1,%%*)
+n re 1trong, .1. ()2d <%&, <%/ (8tah 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 8tah statute that reHuires the 2oard to ma?e
its own findings based upon Qits ownR evidentiary hearing, but concluding that the record in the
prior civil proceeding would be admissible as evidence where relevant in disbarment hearing*)
(3#5E: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 221:/ to 222:,* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm
going to reHuire you to lay a foundation for whatever it is you proffer) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes,
sir) + provided to this court and the 2ar true and accurate copies of the official audio transcripts)
6nd in some instances the pleadings have gone in typed out things) +n one instance for at least
probably %0 percent of the summary eviction + too? advantage of a free trial) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +Bm focusing on what youBre proffering now) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5his is a transcript of the trial for your traffic citationJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he one that Dudge ;olmes issued an order
finding you in contemptJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Did you appeal itJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + tried to) 1he wouldnBt let me) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6nd itBs a final orderJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + did the research on that, but she is saying == + donBt ?now what she is
saying) 2ut she is not letting me appeal it, 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3e 5no2 2hat #he #aid in
her order. *o 7<m not going to entertain an inAuiry into the conduct o% the trial on your
tra%%ic citation it#el%. 'hat issue has !een litigated)F*)
(3#5E: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages //:12 to /%:!* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 9r)
<,./%&
;ill, what rules of procedure apply in a summary evictionJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) :elevance)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, he got to testify as to how heBs
wor?ed so much on this case, and he had to bill so much) 6nd + would just li?e to ?now if he
?nows what rules of pro!edure go to) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained) 3e't Huestion) 9:)
C#87;$+3: 1o it was relevant when he was tal?ing about all that, but when + want to as?
him about that, itBs not relevant) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: <ou(re as'ing a spe!ifi! 8ues"ion a6ou"
#$a" rule of pro!edure, 2$a"(s irrelean" in "$is $earing, (roceed) 9:) C#87;$+3: 2ut ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: (roceed, 9r) Coughlin)F*
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2&<:% to 2&<:1/* sustained the objection) 9:)
C#87;$+3: +Bd li?e to play a copy of a video + too? of 1ergeant $opeA admitting certain
things with respect to the criminal trespass) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) GingJ 9:) G+37: +
would object to the e'tent that 9r) 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) 6nd
to retry that + thin? shouldnBt occur here))));E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages .2:< to .!:21* 2K 9:)
C#87;$+3: U >ho served the eviction notice == no) ;ow did the eviction notice get from
the justice court to the sheriffBsJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) 2eyond the scope of direct, and
irrelevant) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, +Bm going to sustain) $etBs address the issues ==
9:) C#87;$+3: Can + ma?e an offer of proofJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: == this panel has been
as?ed to loo? at) 5he 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) 5hatBs not the function of
this panel) 5his panel is to determine, by supreme court order, what, if any, punishment you
should be subject to) +Bd li?e you to focus on that issue) (lease proceed) 9:) C#87;$+3:
>hether the punishment under Claiborne is binding authority upon you entails more than a
cursory, receiving a certified conviction in the mail from a cler? of court, and not underta?ing
any diligent inHuiry in that regard) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: KouBre focusing on some very minor
details as to who said what at the time == do you admit you were behind the barricaded doorJ
9:) C#87;$+3: + would li?e to ma?e an offer of proof, your ;onor) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
(lease do so) +Bll give you two minutes) 9:) C#87;$+3: ;ave you read anything + filed in
this caseJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bve read Huite a bit of it) +Bm not sure it helps you) 9:)
C#87;$+3: +f that order was stale, itBs 9r) ;ill == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hatBs the offer of
proofJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs that if + can demonstrate that that order was stale, it would be
9r) ;ill who was trespassing, not me) 6nd that entails finding out == and the sheriff has been
very unhelpful in this regard) 6nd 9r) ;ill and his associate testified, perhaps to their
detriment, that the trespass trial as to when that loc?out order was == 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
>hatBs the offer of proofJ KouBre testifying) 5ell me what the proof is) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5he
important thing is the law in 3evada says within 2! hours of the sheriff receiving that eviction
order theyBve got to do the loc?out) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hatBs all been litigated, hasnBt itJ
DidnBt you raise these issues belowJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +n which conte'tJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +n the trespass conviction) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
#?ay) $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 == 9:) C#87;$+3: >hatBs all this living
in the basement stuff have to do with thatJ Desus) 5his is :ichard ;ill in a nutshell) (rejudicial
nonsense) ;earsay) Character assassination) 6nd then you try to rebut it, and this is not the
<,//%&
issue, itBs not relevant) 3othing he says is relevant) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + didnBt say that) +t is
relevant) Kour conviction is relevant) KouBre trying to relitigate == 9:) C#87;$+3: ;eBs
tal?ing about slippers ==F*
(3#5E: while both the :C6 prosecutor ;aAlett=1tevens and ;ill 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 ;ill and his
landlord neurologist client, 9erliss, reveal such allegations to be complete and utter lies)
Coughlin is seen in such wearing sweat pants and a tee=shirt) @ideos ta?en of Coughlin at scene
and time of 111&11 custodial arrest for trespassing in :9C 11 C: 2.!0< by ;ill and his
client 9erliss demonstrating ;ill and ;aAlett=1tevens lying about EpajamasF and EslippersF
(note to mention how irrelevant and prejucial allusions to such are, in violatino of :(C &)< and
!)!* http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVEh2'yc=,cg0 *
(;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages /.:< to //:11* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Did you, 9r)
;ill, 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 9:) G+37:
#bjection) :elevance) ;e was convicted) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he relevance, sirJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: >ell, it goes to the legitimacy of the conviction) (lus, it goes to == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: KouBve already litigated that) 1ustained) 3e't Huestion) 9:) C#87;$+3:
+Bm not offering proof, just the legitimacy of the conviction) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hatBs what
you just said, and + sustained the objection) 9:) C#87;$+3: +t was a multifaceted basis for
that) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hatBs the rest of itJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hat it goes to impeach
9r) ;illBs credibility) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;ow soJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +f heBs standing
behind this assertion that + demonstrated a lac? of candor or fairness to opposing counsel, even
where he ?nows 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 9r) GingBs complaint 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
6nything furtherJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, sir) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained) 3e't
Huestion)F*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages /2:& to /<:<* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 9r) ;ill, is it
somewhat incongruus for you to assert to this panel that + completely lac? competency, and yet
you ran up, counting the trial court O20,000 you as?ed for, and the O!2,000 you were ultimately
awarded in that appellate courtJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) 6rgumentative and irrelevant) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained) 9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? it goes to his credibility) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +Bm sorryJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, + thin? it goes to his credibility to
the e'tent that heBs saying, well, 9r) Coughlin is so baseless and ve'atious, yet + was able to
bill .0 grand for it) 5o me itBs li?e, 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 9:) G+37: 9r) Chairman, if + could respond by pointing out the fact
that the order from Dudge "lanagan, which has been admitted, suggests that that was == that
those fees were generated because of 9r) CoughlinBs ve'atious conduct) 6nd that the fees were
reasonable and were awarded against 9r) Coughlin, not one cent of which has been paid) 1o +
thin? any suggestion to the contrary is irrelevant, because Dudge "lanaganBs order is to be
accepted by the panel) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, if + can Huic?ly counter that) + donBt
<,%/%&
?now thatBs actually pled in your complaint, 9r) Ging, or included amongst one of the three
grievances) 5he e'tent to which == am + here today because this li?e Dudge 7ardnerBs sanctions
coming up two years laterJ 6m + here today on Dudge "lanaganBs sanctionJ +s he a grievant
and accorded a case number tooJ 9:) G+37: 9r) Chairman, + was responding to his Huestion)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: + believe youBre here today to measure all of your conduct as a practicing
lawyer) 1o +Bd li?e to move on) +f you have further Huestions of 9r) ;ill, please as? them) +Bve
now afforded you in e'cess of 20 minutes) +Bll give you another five) 9:) C#87;$+3: 1o
weBre not here today based on whatBs been noticedJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >eBre not here today
to relitigate orders that have been filed that you have appealed, and that you have lost) 9:)
C#87;$+3: +Bm not as?ing == +Bm as?ing what is it limited toJ 2ecause it sounds li?e from
what you just said itBs not limited) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm saying what heBs limited to, your ;onor) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5he 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: Ket this is entered into evidence) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5his is whatJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 5his order has been entered into evidence)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'hibit 2 has) 9:) C#87;$+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) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Fou 2ere noticed that the i##ue o% your con-iction
o% tre#/a## 2a# an i##ue' that your handling o% that ca#e 2a# an i##ue' and it<# rele-ant a#
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 off=base, fraudulent misapplication of a haAy hint of offensive
collateral estoppel line of argument)))however, no such applications (non=mutual, 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 notice=pleading* in any way the .2<12 #rder awarding attorneyBs fees
based upon a void application of the Eprevailing partyF attorney fee award in 3:1 .,)0<0
given the stench of graft its association with :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), inevitably carried, not to
mention the aw?ard fact of GingBs %&012 email to Coughlin attaching the very %2%12 #rder
by the same 2DDC Dudge "lanagan that conclusively establishes the ";E2 was not a sanction)
"urther, Coughlin was not permitted the Efifteen minutes per witnessF to cross=
e'amine himself upon Ging calling Coughlin in GingBs case in chief: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +,
((ages 20,:20 to 210:2* 9:) G+37: 9r) 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 + than? you) + have no further Huestions of 9r)
Coughlin) +Bm not done with my case, because + want to ma?e a statement) 2ut if the panel has
any Huestions)))
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 211:! to 211:1.* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + actually thin?
thatBs argument, 9r) Ging) 9:) G+37: + thought + might have to do that in my case) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: Do you have any other evidenceJ 9:) G+37: >ith that said, + have no other
<,,/%&
evidence) 9:) C#87;$+3: KouBre see?ing to amend your complaint here today about my
conduct todayJ +s this li?e a summary disciplinary proceeding nowJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
9r) Coughlin, the 1tate 2ar has rested) Kou may call your ne't witness))))
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 212:2< to 21&:<* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin,
letBs ta?e a recess until 2:&0) +tBs now 20 minutes after 2:00) 6nd weBll offer you an opportunity
== 9:) C#87;$+3: + would li?e the == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm sorry) + didnBt mean to tal?
while you interrupted) 7o ahead and interrupt) (3#5E: there Coughlin made his case for cross=
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*)))
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 21&:/ to 21&:1%* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: "or that weBll ta?e
a brea? until 2:&0 according to the 1tate 2ar cloc?) (:ecess ta?en)* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: $et
the record reflect the panel is present, reconvening at 2:&1) 9r) Coughlin, are you prepared to
proceed with your portion of the caseJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 7o
ahead) Do you have a witnessJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm going to go ahead and put on my case)
Dudge 3ash ;olmes lied today)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 21!:1 to 21!:11* 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm going to put on
some evidence right now) 5his is the audio from the trial, Dudge 3ash ;olmesB deal) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: Do you have a copy for usJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, + do) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: Do you have a transcriptJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 5he audio transcriptJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: + donBt ?now what you are offering, so + would li?e to see a transcript) 9:)
C#87;$+3: 5he official audio from the muni court))))P;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 21!:1/ to
21!:2!* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hich proceeding is thisJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 5he traffic case
that she testified to today where she said, + as?ed you if you were recording, and then you got
all snea?y, and then you wanted to go to the bathroom) 6nd + 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 ;olmes will be))))P ;E6:+37 = @ol) +,
((ages 2&,:1< to 2!0:1* >hat 9r) Coughlin is attempting to do is to steer you bac? 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) 6nd 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
videos other than 9r) Coughlin himself) + thin? theyBre irrelevant, and in this case would be
highly prejudicial, plus a waste of time))))P 5hen Echeverria stumbles all over himself in
e'cused GingBs lying that he had was see?ing to adit a certified copy of ";E& when what he
offered bore no such certification, only for Echeverria to e'cuse such alleging ElcanoBs
testimony was able to authenticate such ";E&, only to then refuse to allow Coughlin to testify
to authenticate the audio transcript he obatined from the :9C (via subterfuge involving his
mother upon CoughlinBs second attempt to so obtain such transcript of the 22/12 and &1212
trial dates in 11 5: 2.%00 being met with an onslaught of :9C functionaries 6ffidavits
(PCourt 1pecialistP Daniel Casillas, 9arshals 1cott Coppa and 9atthew 5hompson, Court
6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son, "iling #fficer 1upervisor Donna 2allard, counter cler?
@anessa 7arcia all responded with 6ffidavits detailing CoughlinBs &2212 attempts to file a
:ecords :eHuest for such from the :9C and the ensuing harassment of Coughlin by the
.00/%&
:9CBs bouncers, er, 9arshals)))"unny thing, the ";E& 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 ";E& includes a footer identifying such as Pa 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 :9C was was she obtained from the :9C
herself (never mind that she ultimately testified as to that* apply to ElcanoBs wrongfully
purpoting that ";E& was what he and >$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 lac? of a certification for ";E& 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 :9C in light of such lac?ing a
PcertificationP) Echeverria is just flat out a corrupt jo?e, period: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages
222:. to 22&:12* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >e ?now 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) 5hat issue has
been litigated) 6nd 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)
9:) C#87;$+3: Did he have a witness to say the order was such and suchJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: Kes) +tBs called a certification) 9:) C#87;$+3: ;e got orders that werenBt
certified into the record today) 9r) Elcano == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;e laid a separate
foundation for them) +Bm giving you an opportunity to lay a foundation for what you are about
to play) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm not going to ta?e it on your word)
9:) C#87;$+3: >hy notJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 2ecause the law reHuires a foundation to
be laid) +ndependent) 9:) C#87;$+3: +ndependent of what + can lay for itJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: :ight) + want something from the court that says this is an official transcript)
9:) C#87;$+3: 9y objection, + believe + am able to lay a foundation) +Bll testify under oath
this is an official copy of the audio transcript in that case)P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2!0:2& to 2!&:2* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: $etBs return to
the video that you claim to have ta?en that you now intend to proffer) +s it a video of your arrest
that ultimately led to your conviction for criminal trespassJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 3ot the one of
the admission by 1ergeant $opeA) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat is it that you intend to play of
1ergeant $opeAJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 6 video where +Bm as?ing her some stuff about police
misconduct) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (olice misconduct) 5hatBs not an issue here) 9:)
C#87;$+3: +ncident to the :ichard ;ill deal) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bll rule it as irrelevant)
(roceed) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) Can + play a video where, incident to the >almart
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 lac? of giving him my driverBs license) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hat is not an issue for
this panel to determine) 5he supreme court specifically directed that the only issues with
respect to that conviction was the nature and e'tent of punishment) >eBre not going to relitigate
your conviction for theft) 9:) C#87;$+3: 1o the == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3e't, 9r)
Coughlin) 9:) C#87;$+3: Can + enter my objectionJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (ardonJ 9:)
.01/%&
C#87;$+3: Can + enter my objection or basis for my objectionJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 2asis
for your objection to your ownJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >anting to put that in an offer of proof, +
guess) 1omething li?e that) ;ave you read the Claiborne caseJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Does that have any applicability hereJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm governed by
the case that the supreme court decided with respect to -achary 2ar?er 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) >eBre not to address the underlying
issues involving that conviction) 9:) C#87;$+3: ;ow are you addressing so many issues
completely divorced from that >almart theft caseJ ;ow did you do that todayJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, +Bm dealing with one issue at a time) Kou have proffered a
videotape that the supreme court tells us is not relevant) (roceed with your ne't witness)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age /1:10 to /1:20* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + 6eliee "$e issue
"$a" "$is panel $as "o de"ermine is #$a" "$e degree7 if any7 of punis$men" s$ould 6e for "$e
!ondu!" "$a" you $ae alleged "o $ae 6een inoled #i"$7 in "erms of !andor "o "$e !our"7
!andor "o !ounsel7 !andor "o #i"nesses7 !ompe"en!y "o pra!"i!e la#) 9:) C#87;$+3:
+ncluding == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + believe those are the issues that this panel should focus on)
&u" 5 do no" in"end "o in any #ay limi" #$a" you "$in' s$ould 6e impor"an")F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 11,:1/ to 122:1<* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hatBs
your understanding with respect to the position ta?en by me in that trial vis=a=vis the majority
viewpoint of law on setting off or offsetting domestic duties li?e alimony or child support with
third=party debts in a property settlement or debt settlement conte'tJ 6 +Bm still not sure +
understand the Huestion) 2ut there were no children, as + recall, so child custody had no issue in
it) 6nd in terms of the offset, + donBt ?now what law you proffered) U >ell, a duty li?e
alimony) 6 domestic duty) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5o me thatBs an incomplete Huestion) >hatBs
the complete HuestionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + guess +Bm trying to ascertain 9r) ElcanoBs
awareness of the position) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hatBs your understanding of the
permissibility of setting off a debt with a duty, a domestic dutyJ 9:) G+37: #bjection)
+rrelevant) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained) 9:) C#87;$+3: Did you say relevancyJ 9ay +
respond to it, your ;onorJ Dust to the e'tent 9r) Elcano is here today purporting to critiHue my
wor? in that regard, + thin? it is relevant to ascertain whether or not he has any sort of
conception of permissibility of setting off a domestic duty, li?e alimony, with some debt) 9y
point) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6re you finishedJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Keah) 6nd + didnBt end it
very well, but + didnBt want to give away what + feel the answer is or the majority viewpoint of
6merican law) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he objection is sustained) 9r) Coughlin, itBs now 11:!1)
Kou have five more minutes) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) :eallyJ 5he relevancy objection is
sustained) ;e gets to testify as to how clueless + am) 6nd this when + as? to see if he has any
sort of ?nowledge in this area, itBs not relevantJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;eBs 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hey
are all relevant when he was tal?ing about them) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hose issues are, sir)
>hether or not he ?nows the intricacies of some fine point of law to me is irrelevant) 3ow, if
you have some Huestions to address to 9r) Elcano, please do so, and letBs not argue) 9:)
C#87;$+3: #?ay) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 9r) Elcano, for you to have any sort of
.02/%&
legitimate informed bases for the opinion you proffered here today with respect to my
competency incident to my wor? in that Doshi case, wouldnBt you need to ?now whether or not a
domestic duty is accorded greater significance and protection in the law than is a third=party
debt == 6 3o) U == thereinJ +tBs not permissible to do essentially what Dudge 7ardner 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 9r) 1pringgateBs client saying he set it off by the debts, by
ta?ing them on, even though they could never get at her anyway because he was the sole
signatory) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +s there a Huestion there, 9r) CoughlinJ 5;E >+53E11: +
donBt understand) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #r is that a statementJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +t is a
statement) + thin? == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hen as? a == 9:) C#87;$+3: ;eBs tal?ing about
things he doesnBt ?now about)F
1ome people are stuc? on stupid) #thers are stuc? on their e') Chair Echeverria is
stuc? on s?ipping 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 1C: 111(<* application, to wit:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1//:2& to 1%0:22* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin,
e'cuse me) Do you remember the HuestionJ 5;E >+53E11: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
>hat was the HuestionJ 5;E >+53E11: Did + receive this) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6nd the
answerJ 5;E >+53E11: +Bm wor?ing my way through it mentally as to how + got this) 9:)
G+37: +f +Bm not mista?en, weBre past that) Kou said you did receive it) ;e doesnBt recall how)
6nd my follow=up Huestion was: Did you respond to the allegations by Dudge ;olmes that are
contained in that letter, and by the accompanying documentsJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r)
Coughlin, if you could focus on answering that Huestion, that would be helpful to the panel)
5;E >+53E11: #ne, this letter is not to me) + would li?e to read it) 6gain, thatBs where the
notice part of due process is ?ey, you ?now) +f + was noticed on the idea that + didnBt respond to
this == and +Bll enter my objection) + would li?e to see where (3#5E: 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 ";E& and 3712=0!&<, the grievance EreceivedF from
2DDC Dudge $inda 7ardner, according to GingBs !212 email to Coughlin, where such !1,12
email form Ging to Coughlin reads: E)o2e-er 7 can #ugge#t you coo/erate 2ith +ar
coun#elG# in-e#tigation and that you respond spe!ifi!ally "o "$e allega"ions !on"ained in
Judge %olmes and 3i!$ard %illOs griean!e le""ers to the o%%ice o% +ar Coun#el)F ;owever,
nothing in Dudge ;olmesB Egrievance letterF (";E%* references the ";E& #rder (and the use of
the term E#rderF in ";E&Bs E#rder 6fter 5rialF 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 1C: 111(<*Bs Ea conviction is conclusive proof of guiltF
to even orders in civil proceedings wherein Couglhin was not even a party# by 2DDC Dudge
7ardner that had already been vacated* in the complaint it says 9r) Coughlin failed "o respond
.0&/%&
or !oopera"e #i"$ &ar !ounsel) +t might) +Bd just li?e to be sure) >here does it say where == 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 ?now when + got this today, and respond intelligently in that regard)
(E'hibit , mar?ed)* 9:) G+37: 9r) Chairman, may + move onJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kou
may) 5;E >+53E11: 9ay + answer as best as + can remember thenJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +f
you will answer the Huestion, it would be helpful) 2ut these rambling discourses are not
helpful) 5;E >+53E11: 5heyBre not winning any points on notice and due processJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5his is a preliminary investigation) &ar rules re8uire a""orneys "o !oopera"e
#i"$ "$e preliminary ines"iga"ion, 0s 5 unders"and7 )r, =ing is "rying "o es"a6lis$ #$e"$er
or no" you did so, 2$a"(s an issue "$a" 5 6eliee is relean" "o "$e de"ermina"ion of "$e degree
of punis$men"7 if any7 "$a" s$ould flo# "o you as a resul" of your !ondu!", *o7 )r, =ing7
moe on7 please) 9:) G+37: 5han? you) 5;E >+53E11: Kour ;onor, can + just Huic?ly
attempt to more thoroughly address that issueJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + thin? youBve been
afforded adeHuate opportunity to do so) ;ow you choose to respond is up to you) 9r) Ging,
ne't Huestion, please) 9:) G+37: 5han? you) 5;E >+53E11: 5hatBs the whole notice thing)
KouBre as?ing me to answer a Huestion based upon a two=page letter where + havenBt been
noticed on the idea that + will be as?ed to) 6nd then if + donBt == if +Bm wor?ing through it, youBre
cutting me off, not letting me put it in the record) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Ging, you cited in
one of your pleadings a reHuest that all issues pending before you be heard at one hearing)
5here was a letter you sent to the state 2ar that you Huote in one of your pleadings) 5;E
>+53E11: + reHuested thatJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes, sir) 5;E >+53E11: Kou havenBt
read my pleadings) 9y 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 brea?s tuc?ered him out or something, he
rather decided to s?ip 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
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 <1!0, from the !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial where
such also amended ";E& to award the very alimony which Dudge $) 7ardner told CoughlinBs
client, 9rs) Doshi EdonBt listen to your attorney^F after hissing E1hut 8p^F at Coughlin upon
Coughlin pointing out to 9s) Doshi some of the 2G <2&a< and <2&a1< 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 bro?e their their bac?s climbing up
that mountain atop of which would be such memoriesJ*
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 22%:& to 22%:10* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 9om, did
you have to buy an audio of the trial with that Dudge 3ash ;olmesJ 6 Did + have to buy an
audioJ U Keah) Did you buy a copy of the proceedingJ 6 Kes) U Did you give it to meJ 6
.0!/%&
#h, 7od) + thin? so) P ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 22,:1 to 22,:1<* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U
9om, was it an official copyJ 6 + donBt ?now) U Did you go to the court and say + want a
copy of the proceeding, and you paid the money they as?ed you to payJ 6 + donBt ?now that it
was official or not) 2ut + reHuested a copy, yes) + would assume it would be official) + was
reHuesting it in the courthouse) U 6nd you filled out whatever form it was they made you fill
out, and paid whatever money it was they wanted rightJ 6 Kes) 9:) C#87;$+3: + would
li?e to move to admit that into evidence)P ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2&1:1. to 2&1:2<* :)
G+37: + have no Huestions of the mother, but + would thin? it was patently clear when the
direct Huestion was, did you give me the official copies, she said + donBt ?now) 6nd thatBs how
it was left) 6nd 9r) Coughlin does not have the official copies which would be identified on
the dis? by the court as an official copy) 1ince he does not have them or they are == whatever he
has downloaded on the record may not be the official one, + would still object)P ;E6:+37 =
@ol) +, ((ages 2&2:1& to 2&&:%* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6nything further to offer in terms of
laying a foundationJ 9:) C#87;$+3: (enalty of perjury, +Bm going to play an official copy
of it) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bve given you the opportunity to go
review the stuff to your heartBs content if +Bm lying) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (laying it doesnBt lay
a foundation) >e need a foundation laid)
9:) C#87;$+3: "oundation is == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Do you have anything
further to offerJ 9:) C#87;$+3: == +, -ach Coughlin, under penalty of perjury, this is the
official transcript, audio transcript) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat do you base that onJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: 5hat the court gave it to us) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o, the court didnBt) 9:)
C#87;$+3: 5his is just amaAing) #?ay) $etBs move on)P 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 bac?wards to help Ging and Elcano get ";E&
admitted into evidence: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages ,,:! to 100:1<* 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell,
he said it was certified) 1o my objection is, letBs see the proof) Did you get it from Doey or 7ina
;astings or did you get it from the cler? of court of the muni courtJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r)
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) 5he objection is this lac?s foundationJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: 3o) 5hat this certification hadnBt been proved or even spo?en to besides == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +s it your position == 9:) C#87;$+3: == certified) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ==
position that only legal documents can be admitted that are certifiedJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell,
+ didnBt ma?e a position on that) 9y position is he said it was certified) 1o +Bm contesting that)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +s this certifiedJ 9:) G+37: $et me get the cler? to bring the
certification copies, unless she gave them to you already, which + understood she did) Did she
bring you copiesJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5his particular one is not certified) Do you have one thatBs
certifiedJ 9:) G+37: + have already introduced == the copies do not show that itBs certified)
9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, if + can Huic?ly interject for the record, + mean that not
disrespectful) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6re we on the recordJ 6re you getting this, 9s) :eporterJ
5;E C#8:5 :E(#:5E:: Kes) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 7o ahead) 9:) G+37: 9r)
Chairman, +Bll lay == + 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
.0</%&
different way and withdraw the representation that the copy + gave is a certified copy)P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 10<:% to 10<:1.* 9r) Ging, proceed to lay the foundation for E'hibit
&) 2K 9:) G+37: U E'hibit &) 5han? you) Kou just testified that this is the order that
emanated from the hearing you heardJ 6 Kes) U 6nd why were you concerned about this
particular orderJP ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 112:10 to 11.:11* 9:) G+37: + very much
appreciate your testimony and candor) +Bll pass the witness) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5han? you,
9r) Ging) 9r) Coughlin, itBs now 11:&1) Kou have 1< minutes) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir)
5han? you) 9:) G+37: + apologiAe) + meant to have this admitted) Did + lay a proper
foundationJ + would move for E'hibit & to be admitted) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6ny objection
now, sirJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + didnBt hear the foundation) +Bm sorry) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he
foundation was 9r) Elcano attended the hearing, reviewed this order, and determined it to be ==
5his is a true and correct copy of the order that you loo?ed at following the hearingJ 5;E
>+53E11: Kes) 5he one that was transmitted to us by the judge) 9:) C#87;$+3:
5ransmitted just by the judgeJ 5;E >+53E11: >e have a copy of it in our file) 9:)
C#87;$+3: 5ransmitted to youJ 5;E >+53E11: >ashoe $egal 1ervices) + chec?ed it with
my order) +t appears to be the same order)
9:) C#87;$+3: 2ut youBre not saying how it was transmitted to the 1tate 2arJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm interested in how it was transmitted) +Bm interested in if this is a true
and correct copy of the order issued by Dudge 7ardner in the Doshi case == 9:) C#87;$+3:
Kou mentioned he attended trial) ;e didnBt attend the trial) 9:) G+37: ;e said he == 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kou said he attended the trial) 2ut he didnBt attend the trial) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Elcano testified he attended the hearing) 5;E >+53E11: 3o, +
reviewed the tape of the hearing) + wasnBt at the hearing) 2ut in the family court they are on
tape) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm focused on whether or not this is a true and correct copy of the
order issued by Dudge 7ardner) 6nd have you determined this to be the true and correct copyJ
5;E >+53E11: Kes) +tBs the order + relied on) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +t will be admitted)
(E'hibit & admitted)* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 7o ahead, 9r) Coughlin) 9:) C#87;$+3: #ne
thing, your ;onor, with respect to the received stamp on it) 5hatBs something that was on the
order) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (ardon meJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 1ee the receivedJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: :ight) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hatBs 1tate 2ar) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: :ight)
9:) C#87;$+3: (ut that there) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: :ight) 9:) C#87;$+3: 1o itBs not
really a copy of the order) +t has something that was not on the order) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
#?ay) #verruled) +s that your objectionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +t has a funny < on it) +tBs one day
after Dudge 7ardner submitted hers) +t seems ?ind of funny, li?e ghost reading is going on,
because we donBt ?now who submitted this) >ho submitted it, (atJ 9:) @E$$+1: 9r) Elcano,
do you have another copy of the order that you received from the court after the hearing that
you compared this one toJ + thin? you said you didJ 5;E >+53E11: + compared it to it) 9ine
has two blan? spots in it though, two short areas, but otherwise they seem to be verbatim and
end on the same pages) 9:) @E$$+1: +s there a stamp from the 1tate 2ar on the one that you
got from the courtJ
9:) C#87;$+3: Kou didnBt get this from Doey or 7ina ;astings == 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, +Bm not going to permit Huestions among the attorneys) 5hatBs
improper) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1o if you have a Huestion, you
.0./%&
need to address it to the panel) 9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs improper to say itBs certified when itBs
not) 5;E >+53E11: 5he copy + reviewed is filed electronically by ;oward Conyers, the cler?
of the court) 9:) @E$$+1: 6nd thereBs no stamp from the 1tate 2ar on the one that you
reviewedJ 5;E >+53E11: 3o) 9:) @E$$+1: 5hatBs the one you received from the courtJ
5;E >+53E11: Kes) 9:) @E$$+1: 6nd that one is the same as the one thatBs been admitted,
E'hibit &J 5;E >+53E11: 1ave and e'cept two blan? spots that are the fault of the copier)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, itBs admitted) (roceed)P ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 10.:1
to 10.:.* 9:) C#87;$+3: == whether theyBre filed or not, whether they will accept, who
controls who, who the cler? of court has independence from) + donBt ?now whatBs being done by
anybody, what + need to do for a subpoena, whether + have to pay witness fees, or whether the
certified mailing of 6ugust 2&rd is going to be used ==F
6lso, 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 6ffidaivt 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 wea? aspect of GingBs
case, Echeverria too? the bit in his mouth and e'cused Ging from ma?ing 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 1C: 110 subpoenas were not Eproperly issuedF (Ging failed to ma?e such argument
because he ?nows damn well that Coughlin sought a clarification in that regard from 33D2
2oard Chair 1usich, 33D2 (anel Chair Echeverria, Ging and 2ar Counsel Clar? and all
referred Coughlin to Clar?, and Ging relayed to Coughlin Clar?Bs announcement that, despite
the temporary suspension, Coughlin was, in fact, permitted to issue his own 1C: 110
subpoenas)))regardless, Echeverria then carefully based his granting GingBs 11212 9otions 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 9oiton just enough to allow Dudges 2eesley and 3ash ;olmes to testify to just that,
there Emental processesF in ma?ing rulings in the matters involving Coughlint that they
presided over an in ta?ing Canon 2, :ule 2)1< Eappropriate actionF (formerly Canon &(D*
(2*)))see 9irch and the line of argument that the differences in 1C: 1%0 (3ow :(C &)&
meritorious claims* and 3:C( 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 !:!< pm) 1uch is patently
unfair) 5hat 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)
.0//%&
Committee on Pro%e##ional @thic# -. 3right, 1/% 3)>)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)
6ll of the admissibility arguments and objections further relate to CoughlinBs right
to, in fact, attac? the legitimacy of the conviction:
+n re Disciplinary (roceedings 6gainst Carroll, /2. 3)>)2D 2!. !<+( C*Discipline
!<?<,)1(unishmentC Disposition !<?<,)1%G) :eciprocal disciplineC effect of other discipline)
>is),200/ :eciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the 1upreme Court of +owa, which
revo?ed attorneyBs license, was reHuired for attorneyBs conviction of second=degree 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 lac?ing in proof that finding of
misconduct could not be accepted as final, or that misconduct justified substantially different
discipline in >isconsin) 8)1)C)6) Const)6mend) 1!C 1C: 22)20) 5urton v) 1tate 2ar of 5e'as,
//< 1)>)2D /12 5e')6pp)1an)6ntonio,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) @)5)C)6), 7overnment Code S %1)0/%C 1tate 2ar :ules,
@)5)C)6), 7overnment Code 5itle 2, 1ubtitle 7 6pp), 6rt) 10, SS /(%*, 2.(2, 7*) +n re
9ostman, /.< ()2D !!% Cal),1,%, 6ttorneyBs 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) >estBs
6nn)Cal)2us) M (rof)Code SS .101(a, e*, .102(d*) +n re Ciardelli, <1! 3)E)2D 100. +ll),1,%/
>hile 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) #?lahoma 2ar 6ssBn v) Dones,
<.. ()2D 1&0 #?la),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 framewor? of show
cause proceedingC at this point, burden shifts to charged member, who may see? hearing with
right to submit brief and evidence to e'plain his conduct or see? mitigation) :ules Creating and
Controlling the #?lahoma 2ar 6ssBn, art) 10, S !(6, b*, < #)1)6) C) 1 6ppendi' 1) +n re
6ndros, &<. 3)E)2D <1& +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 6gainst Carroll, /2. 3)>)2D 2!. !<+( C*Discipline
.0%/%&
!<?<,)1(unishmentC Disposition !<?<,)1%G) :eciprocal disciplineC effect of other discipline)
>is),200/ :eciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the 1upreme Court of +owa, which
revo?ed attorneyBs license, was reHuired for attorneyBs conviction of second=degree 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 lac?ing in proof that finding of
misconduct could not be accepted as final, or that misconduct justified substantially different
discipline in >isconsin) 8)1)C)6) Const)6mend) 1!C 1C: 22)20) 5urton v) 1tate 2ar
of 5e'as, //< 1)>)2D /12 5e')6pp)1an)6ntonio,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) @)5)C)6),
7overnment Code S %1)0/%C 1tate 2ar :ules, @)5)C)6), 7overnment Code 5itle 2, 1ubtitle 7
6pp), 6rt) 10, SS /(%*, 2.(2, 7*) +n re 9ostman, /.< ()2D !!% Cal),1,%, 6ttorneyBs 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) >estBs 6nn)Cal)2us) M (rof)Code SS .101(a, e*,
.102(d*)
+n re Ciardelli, <1! 3)E)2D 100. +ll),1,%/ >hile 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) #?lahoma 2ar 6ssBn v) Dones, <.. ()2D 1&0 #?la),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 framewor? of show cause proceedingC at this point,
burden shifts to charged member, who may see? hearing with right to submit brief and
evidence to e'plain his conduct or see? mitigation) :ules Creating and Controlling the
#?lahoma 2ar 6ssBn, art) 10, S !(6, b*, < #)1)6) C) 1 6ppendi' 1) +n re 6ndros, &<. 3)E)2D
<1& +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, <11 ()2D 11./ Cal),1,/&, :ecord 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) >estBs 6nn)2us) M (rof)Code, SS .101, .102(b*)
+n re 8rias, !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) >estBs 6nn)2us)
M (rof)Code, S .101)
+n re Geogh, 2./ 3)K)1)2D %/ 3)K)6pp)Div)2)Dept),1,.< $egislative grant of
.0,/%&
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)
6ttorney 7rievance ComBn of 9aryland v) >ingerter, ,2, 6)2D !/ 9d),200/ >hile
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) 9d):ule 1.=//1(g*) 1C: 111(.* spea?s only to temporary suspension, it does not
provide that conviction of a crime which includes amongst its elements PtheftP will utlimately
be deemed a PseriousP crime for the purposes of determining the nature and e'tent of a
:espondentBs punishment or the admissisbility of evidence spea?ing to the circumstances of
such conviction or criminal act)
9atter of >ines, ..0 ()2D !<! 6riA),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) 1/6 6):)1)
1up)Ct):ules, :ule 2,(d*)
+n re :othroc?, 1<! ()2D &,2 Cal),1,!! >hether 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) >estBs 6nn)2us) M (rof)Code, SS .100=.102)
+n re (etal, &0 1o)&D /2% $a),2010 >hen 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):ules, :ule 1,, $awyer Disciplinary
Enforcement :ule, S 1,(E*, % $16:) 1)
#ffice of Disciplinary Counsel v) 5robac?, &%& 6)2D ,<2 (a),1,/% >hile a certificate of
conviction of a crime by an attorney is conclusive evidence of commission of that crime in
any disciplinary proceeding based upon that conviction, 1upreme Court may and should
e'amine underlying facts involved in criminal charge to weigh impact of conviction upon
measure of discipline)
<! http:www)scribd)comdoc1.<%!02<,/=1=0%=to=%=!=0,=D@0%=011.%=1tac?ed=Combined=
7ardner=#cr=.2&&/
<< :#6 1, GingBs Complaint alleged: E,) #n "ebruary 21, 2012) :espondent filed a document
entitled, 3otice of 6ppearance Entry of (lea of 3ot guilty , >aiver of 6rraignment, 9otion to
.10/%&
Dismiss, etc) in one of his pending criminal matters, Case 3o) :C:=2012 0.<.&0, City of :eno
v) -achary Coughlin) 5he document clearly shows :espondentBs unprofessional, disrup" ie
conduct, and lac? of respect for the court and opposing counsel)))
determined to be #i"$ou" meri") 5he motion, on its face, demonstrates that :espondent lac?s
competence to practice law)F
>ell)))o?ay, GingBs Complaint actually did not seem to alleged that paragraph ,
therein, in referencing CoughlinBs 22112 9otion to Dismiss in 0.<.&0 was EinjectingF
irrelevant material in the sense of violating :(C &)!(c*, but, rather, Ging indicates such was
Edisruptive conductF (+ m/artiality and $ecorum o% the 6ribunal' :(C &)<(d* states P6 lawyer
shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal*, which is even better, as it reveals the
negligent hiring, training, and supervision 2ar Counsel David Clar? is guilty of in unleashing
the ?rac?en that is an 6ssist) 2ar Counsel that is unaware that Ethe disrup"ion must have occurred
in the courtroom) #ne cannot disrup" a tribunal with !ondu!" outside of the courtroom) +n re 9ichael
1tuhff, 10% 3ev) .2,, %&/ ()2d %<& (1,,2*F)
2ut, still)))Ging plead such in paragraph , in his Complaint (:#6 2* then chose to (or is it
that he was forced toJ* not see? to introduce such 22112 9otion to Dismiss in 0.<.&0 by Coughlin
into evidence or ma?e any argument directed to it)
6lso, where GingBs complaint at para) , attempts to ride the 7ardner family wave some
more by indicating E)))12) :espondent, representing himself as co=counsel, filed a &.=page motion to
dismiss on 9arch <, 2012) 5he motion 2a# denied by "udge 3illiam =ardner and 2a# determined
to be #i"$ou" meri") 5he motion, on its face, demonstrates that :espondent la!'s !ompe"en!e to
practice law)F
>hatJ 3o Eon its face, demonstrates that :espondentF violated :(C &)1 E9eritorious
Claims and ContentionsFJ >hy would Ging not attempt to run his 1C: 111(<*implicit offensive
collateral estoppel hustle as to the Edenial by Dudge >illiam 7ardnerF (Dudge >) 7ardner* there tooJ
>here Ging was so hemmed up by CoughlinBs alleged lac? of competence (read: aAA
whooping given to Ging left him with few options (witness the e'cision from GingBs Complaint
revealed by the numbering of the paragraphs therein with those between 1, and 2< missing, in addition
to the deletion of paragraph 2. therein where Ging attempted to ma?e up for having nothing to wear to
the formal hearing, essentially, by begging 2eesley and Elcano to come down to Double : with ne't to
no notice and sully their reputations a bit by engaging in such a barbaric and tac?y spectacle, which
neither of them had the good sense not to do* that he dared not to introduce Dudge >) 7ardnerBs &2012
shameful, ridiculous E#rder I1F (which can be found at bates 11%, and bates 20!. as @8h. 10 to the
!1.12 2& E'hibit presentation Ging apparently put on during the second bite at the apple the
33D2 1creening (anel gave Ging upon apparently being as put off as Coughlin by Ging and
(eters slipshod, half=ass approach to trying to ta?e away a fellow lawyerBs law license during
the initial !1012 presentation to the 1creening (anel: (#rder I1 filed 9arch 20, 2012, Case
.11/%&
3o) 11 C: 2.!0< dubiously declaring CoughlinBs arguments in CoughlinBs 21&12 filed 9otion
in 2.!0< and e'posing of the burglary by ;ill, the >C1#, and :(D as Ewithout meritF*)
Ging failure (or choice, whichever it may have been* to put into evidence >)
7ardnerBs &2012 E#rder I1F really put the (anel in a tough spot, as it was forced to just
vaguely ad lib li?e a teenager e'plaining to Dad why he was not bac? with the car at the time
he was directed to have returned it by)))where E(@*F is devoid of any specifics (much less
citations in support thereof* whatsoever: E(@* 5he record clearly and convincingly establishes
that Coughlin continuously and repetitively files irrelevant pleadings) pleadings unrelated to the
issue at hand and continuously and repetitively injects irrelevant matters into proceedings)F*
6s such, the (anel was left in (>*, (4*, and (K* to lamely improvise that the
EinjectingF at issue in the :(C &)!(c* allegations somehow support the :(C &)1 charges
B2hether a ;claim or contentionN ha# merit B2hich in-ol-e# a determination o% 2hether
#uch ha# a ba#i# in la2 and %actC or not i# #omething %ar di%%erent than 2hether it i#
;rele-antN or ;irrele-antN' ie' a contention.
("or instance, whether :(C 1argent 5arter vindictively retaliated against Coughlin
(by first pulling Coughlin over just after Coughlin had complied with 5arterBs ordering him to
leave the area around ;illBs office*, then charging Coughlin with three traffic citations
(including failing to allow Coughlin to loo? for the proof of insurance and registration that
Coughlin did have at the time where his vehicle was cluttered with items incident to the
burglaries by ;ill of the preceding wee?s*, and lying in court during his testimony in indicating
that Coughlin failed to come to a complete stop at the stop sign* for reporting to him (and thus
placing a reporting burden on 5arter* the idiotic comments by :(D #fficer Chris Carter, Dr)
(which are arguably an admission that :(C #fficer Carter was bribed by ;ill to arrest
Coughlin, though a more plausible e'planation is that the approach Carter too? to a very
serious decision was entirely lac?ing in any actual thought, rather than involving a bribe*
shortly after Carter placed Coughlin under arrest on 111&11 and charged him with criminal
trespass where Carter admitted on the very videos that ;ill and his landlord client 9erliss
filmed and propounded to the :eno City 6ttorney (whom indicated to Coughlin that Carter was
under subpoena for the trial, then failed to produce Carter, where Dudge >) 7ardner neither
granted a continuance in that regard, nor found such to violate CoughlinBs 1i'th 6mendment
:ight of Confrontation* 6lso, the EconclusionF in (>* that E1he also found that Coughlin
repeatedly injected attorney :ichard ;ill into Huestions and statements when 9r) ;ill was in no way
involved in the traffic citation trialF beyond being patently ridiculous, fails to conclude or find (and
neither did ;olmeBs ";E<* that Coughlin failed to obey any command by Dudge ;olmes to cease so
injecting Eattorney :ichard ;ill into Huestions and statementsF much less cease to only in those
instances Ewhen 9r) ;ill was in no way involved in the traffic citation trialF, as Coughlin did cease
even mentioning ;ill in such a manner upon Dudge ;olmes abusing the contempt power during the trial
of 22/12 in threatening to put Coughlin if jail if he said ;illBs name one more time (which was
;olmesB Aero to .0 singular instance of warning Coughlin in any way whatsoever in that respect*)
.12/%&
5he idea at Coughlin violated both :(C &)1 and &)!(c* in that 22/12 trail in 2.%00
is just ridiculous, particularly should one actually review, word for word, the transcript from
such (whether via listening to it (why does the :9C get to cut corners everywhere, but
Coughlin cannot utiliAe an audio transcriptJ* or reading to portions Coughlin has been able to
type out himself so far*) Dudge 3ash ;olmes failed to indicate how and when Coughlin
violated the myriad :(CBs she copied and pasted into ";E< because doing so would reveal her
own patent misconduct) Coughlin is absolutely privileged to testify that 1argent 5arter lied
during 5arterBs testimony) CoughlinBs doing so is not EinjectingF irrelevant material or ma?ing
some Eclaim or contentionF that lac?s merit) ;ow would Dudge 3ash ;olmes ?now whether
such lac?s meritJ Coughlin was not even allowed to testify as to what 1argent 5arter lied
about^ 2y the time Coughlin finished the phrase E1argent 5arter liedF Dudge 3ash ;olmes was
banging her gavel down and announcing that Coughlin was being held in contempt)
6s such, no one really can say what Eclaim or contentionF Coughlin was then
ma?ing as Dudge 3ash ;olmes interrupted CoughlinBs testimony by holding him in contempt
(and its not li?e CoughlinBs initial allusion and references to :(D #fficer CarterBs admissions
(which Dudge 3ash ;olmes too? to be related to EbriberyF and EretaliationF* support a finding
of misconduct (its hard to imagine a scenario where such a limited broaching of an issue could
so support such a finding, but this is certainly not one*)))
"urther, the entire :(C &)!(c* accusation is just laughably thin and off=base: (DD*
:(C &)!(c* states P6 lawyer shall not: (?*nowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal
e'cept for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation e'ists)P
+ncidentally, :(D #ffice CarterBs assertion as to why Coughlin was not merely cited
for trespass, and instead, subject to a custodial arrest is revealed to be a lie by the very videos
that ;illBs office propounded to the :eno City 6ttorney and which Chair Echeverria was
absolutely sure to avoid allowing Coughlin to have admitted into evidence) Doli!e mis!ondu!",
according to Echeverria, Eis not an issue hereF)
P;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 22:20 to 2&:2!* U >as your testimony earlier today
that the first time you recall being aware of me was when + appeared at the 9arch 1<th hearing
in Cado Company v) Geller at 2:&0 ()9) 1hortly after being evicted at gunpoint by the >ashoe
County 1heriffs == 6 + actually thin? you had appeared in front of me one time before that) 2ut
that was my first strong recollection of you appearing in front of me) U 6nd it was that brief
interaction whereupon you formed your opinion that + wasnBt fit to practiceJ 6 3o) + thought it
was odd, but + do understand that people have adversity in their lives sometimes, which
happens == U Kou too? it to be adversity rather than misconduct by the sheriffJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, you interrupted the witness) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 7o ahead, Dudge) 5;E >+53E11: 6nd + believe that you had filed some
pleading in that case) 6nd + went to the pleadings, and they fran?ly didnBt ma?e any sense) 6nd
+ thin? you subseHuently filed pleadings in other cases which also didnBt ma?e any sense, and +
became concerned) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 6t what point did you == 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
.1&/%&
E'cuse me, 9r) Coughlin) Uuit interrupting the witness) 9:) C#87;$+3: + thought he was
done, sir) +Bm sorry)))F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2&/:20 to 2&%:1* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6nything elseJ
9:) C#87;$+3: +t also goes to mitigation, + thin?) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;ow soJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: + thin? it places me in a lot more sympathetic light to the e'tent that it shows
police misconduct))));E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2!0:2& to 2!&:2* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: $etBs
return to the video that you claim to have ta?en that you now intend to proffer) +s it a video of
your arrest that ultimately led to your conviction for criminal trespassJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 3ot
the one of the admission by 1ergeant $opeA) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hat is it that you intend to
play of 1ergeant $opeAJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 6 video where +Bm as?ing her some stuff about
police misconduct) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (olice misconduct) 5hatBs not an issue here) 9:)
C#87;$+3: +ncident to the :ichard ;ill deal) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bll rule it as irrelevant)
(roceed) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) Can + play a video where, incident to the >almart
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 lac? of giving him my driverBs license) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hat is not an issue for
this panel to determine) 5he supreme court specifically directed that the only issues with
respect to that conviction was the nature and e'tent of punishment) >eBre not going to relitigate
your conviction for theft) 9:) C#87;$+3: 1o the == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3e't, 9r)
Coughlin) 9:) C#87;$+3: Can + enter my objectionJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (ardonJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: Can + enter my objection or basis for my objectionJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 2asis
for your objection to your ownJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >anting to put that in an offer of proof, +
guess) 1omething li?e that) ;ave you read the Claiborne caseJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kes) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Does that have any applicability hereJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bm governed by
the case that the supreme court decided with respect to -achary 2ar?er Coughlin in which they
tell us that the only issue that this panel is to determine is what the nature and e'tent of the
punishment is flowing from your conviction for theft) >eBre not to address the underlying
issues involving that conviction) 9:) C#87;$+3: ;ow are you addressing so many issues
completely divorced from that >almart theft caseJ ;ow did you do that todayJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, +Bm dealing with one issue at a time) Kou have proffered a
videotape that the supreme court tells us is not relevant) (roceed with your ne't witness)P
(E(>* Dudge 3ash ;olmes found, for e'ample, that Coughlin repeatedly injected
allegations of bribery, perjury and police retaliation in a simple traffic case involving the failure
to stop at a stop sign) 1upra / 1he also found that Coughlin repeatedly injected attorney :ichard
;ill into Huestions and statements when 9r) ;ill was in no way involved in the traffic citation trial)
1upra / 1he also found that pleadings filed subseHuent to CoughlinBs 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 10
(4* 5he record establishes that in the 9erliss eviction action, CoughlinBs conduct
was so ve'atious and frivolous as to result in substantial sanction of attorneyBs fees) 1upra 21
.1!/%&
1ee ;earing E'hibit 2, ( 2, $ % =1&C (&, $ ! =11)
(K* 5he (leading Doc?et in this matter establishes also that CoughlinBs filings, even in his
own defense of the disciplinary matter, inject lengthy, irrelevant facts and legal issues into this
proceeding)
<. ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 11,:1/ to 122:1<* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hatBs your
understanding with respect to the position ta?en by me in that trial vis=a=vis the majority
viewpoint of law on setting off or offsetting domestic duties li?e alimony or child support
with third=party debts in a property settlement or debt settlement conte'tJ 6 +Bm still not
sure + understand the Huestion) 2ut there were no children, as + recall, so child custody had
no issue in it) 6nd in terms of the offset, + donBt ?now what law you proffered) U >ell, a
duty li?e alimony) 6 domestic duty) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5o me thatBs an incomplete
Huestion) >hatBs the complete HuestionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + guess +Bm trying to ascertain
9r) ElcanoBs awareness of the position) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hatBs your
understanding of the permissibility of setting off a debt with a duty, a domestic dutyJ 9:)
G+37: #bjection) +rrelevant) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained) 9:) C#87;$+3: Did you
say relevancyJ 9ay + respond to it, your ;onorJ Dust to the e'tent 9r) Elcano is here today
purporting to critiHue my wor? in that regard, + thin? it is relevant to ascertain whether or not
he has any sort of conception of permissibility of setting off a domestic duty, li?e alimony,
with some debt) 9y point) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6re you finishedJ 9:) C#87;$+3:
Keah) 6nd + didnBt end it very well, but + didnBt want to give away what + feel the answer is
or the majority viewpoint of 6merican law) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he objection is
sustained) 9r) Coughlin, itBs now 11:!1) Kou have five more minutes) 9:) C#87;$+3:
#?ay) :eallyJ 5he relevancy objection is sustained) ;e gets to testify as to how clueless +
am) 6nd this when + as? to see if he has any sort of ?nowledge in this area, itBs not relevantJ
9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;eBs 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hey are all relevant when he was tal?ing
about them) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hose issues are, sir) >hether or not he ?nows the
intricacies of some fine point of law to me is irrelevant) 3ow, if you have some Huestions to
address to 9r) Elcano, please do so, and letBs not argue) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) 2K 9:)
C#87;$+3: U 9r) Elcano, for you to have any sort of legitimate informed bases for the
opinion you proffered here today with respect to my competency incident to my wor? in that
Doshi case, wouldnBt you need to ?now whether or not a domestic duty is accorded greater
significance and protection in the law than is a third=party debt == 6 3o) U == thereinJ +tBs
not permissible to do essentially what Dudge 7ardner tried to force on my client, which is
accept a settlement, whereby a setoff is made whereby my client waived her alimony in
e'change for 9r) 1pringgateBs client saying he set it off by the debts, by ta?ing them on,
even though they could never get at her anyway because he was the sole signatory) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +s there a Huestion there, 9r) CoughlinJ 5;E >+53E11: + donBt
understand) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #r is that a statementJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +t is a
statement) + thin? == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hen as? a == 9:) C#87;$+3: ;eBs tal?ing
about things he doesnBt ?now about)F*
.1</%&
</ ;bar grie-ance again#t ichard )ill' Ca#ey +a5er' and :eith 4oomi#' oberto
Puente#' 4e2 6aitel
1ent: 5hu 101%12 %:02 69
shornsbyNnvdetr)org
5o: laurapNnvbar)orgC patric?Nnvbar)orgC rosecNnvbar)orgC
glennmNnvbar)orgC davidcNnvbar)orgC tsusichNnvdetr)orgC
complaintNnvbar)orgC complaintsNnvbar)orgC shornsbyNnvdetr)org
1ubject: $+5+765+#3 ;#$D 3#5+CE rev2011=001/0% cv11=0&.2%,
.0&&1 .1&%&, 123 v) Coughlin C61E 3892E: 3712=020!, 37=
0!&<, 37 0!&!
Date: >ed, 1/ #ct 2012 1.:<,:</ =0/00
Dear #ffice of 2ar Counsel, +nvestigator (eters, Chairman 1usich, et al,
(lease find important attachments supporting the assertions herein here:
https:s?ydrive)live)comredirJresidV!&0%!.&%"&2"<"2%^&<%/
(lease donBt try to old Pmy +5 guy said + couldnBt open it, because of viruses and
stuffP) 5hat is no more plausible an e'cuse for reviewing materials material to your
investigation than would be suggesting your fear of Panthra'P potentially being mailed to you
prevents you from opening your paper mail)))Kou 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 as? 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 9erliss, and refused to ma?e argument directed to issue + provided wealth of
support on, ie, the invalidity of the eviction order where the loc?out occurred outside of the
Pwithin 2! hours of receiptP window in the statue, and where technical service reHuirements
were not met, vis a vis 3:1 !0)!00, 3:C( .(e*, and 3:C( <(b*(2*, and where $oomis acted
on matter during pendency of Competency Evluation in cr12=0&/.)

6lso, will you please have the 37= 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 :ichard 7) ;ill, Casey 2a?er, and Christopher ;aAlett=
1tevensJ
.1./%&
note: please forward this written correspondence on to 2ar Counsel Ging and
+nvestigatorCler? of Court (eters in light of their apparent and sudden, somewhat technical
PissuesP with emails from Coughlin, which in no way is interpreted as providing indications
that they now see? to sully the 123Bs image by attempting to add Coughlin to their bloc?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 ;olmes or :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH) (in contrast to the whole Pattac? dog for the rich and
powerfulP image, some might say, the 123 has built up))))
+t is ironic, that ;ill and 2a?erBs own writing in their 3ovember 21st, 2011
#pposition to CoughlinBs 3ovember 1.th, 2011 9otion to Contest (ersonal (roperty lien may
now be used against them, in light of the staleness, voidness, and invalidity of the #ctober
2<th, 2011 and #ctober 2/th, 2011 Eviction Decision and #rder and "indings of "act,
Conclusions of $aw and #rder for 1ummary Eviction in :DC :ev2011=001/0%) 1ee >illiams
v 3agel, .!& 3)E) 2d %1. and >olf=$illie, <0! ") 1upp 1) 2a?er wrote on ;illBs behalf:
P;ere, Coughlin filed his first motion pursuant to 3:1 11%6=!.0 on
3ovember 1.,2011) 5hat motion was timely) ;owever, 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
9erlissB counsel that he do so) 6s a sole and direct result of 9r) CoughlinBs
refusal to cooperate with the court to set his own hearing, that hearing never
happened) 5he 10 days in which to hold the hearing under 3:1 !0)2<&(%*
have now e'pired) 9r) CoughlinBs motion is stale, and the relief he see?s is
now time=barred) 2ecause he abandoned that motion, it was, effectively,
denied)P
5o 2a?erBs 3ovember 21st, 2011 #pposition (how clever, 2a?er writes it so he can ma?e
rec?less allegations that arenBt true in it that ;ill would not be so free to ma?e, given he was
there during the 3ovember 12th, 2011 arrest*, is attached the signed, sworn, 3ovember 21st,
2011 Declaration of :ichard ;ill, which reveals at the least an intent to mislead the tribunal by
;ill, and also reveals ;ill and 9erliss contributed to a false arrest to a material e'tent) 5hat
Declaration reads:
P!) #n #ctober 2/, 2011, this court signed a summary eviction order, and on 3ovember 1,
2011, the >ashoe County 1heriffs Department served that order) 5he notice was posted on the
door of the home by the >ashoe County 1heriffs Department in the manner customary in
>ashoe County for evictions) 5he loc?s on the front door and bac? door were changed, and we
retained all ?eys to the home)
<) 6fter that date, + began to notice that it loo?ed li?e 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 PsomebodyP had been getting
in) + thought + had secured the means of entry being used by whoever it was that
was getting in) ;owever, on later visits to the home, it was clear that the home was still
being surreptitiously accessed)
.1//%&
.) #n 3ovember 1&, 2011, Dr) 9erliss came to :eno because he wanted to
inspect the home) 8pon entry, it was clear that somebody had again accessed the home)
/) >e tried to enter the basement and found the door was barricaded, not loc?ed, from the
inside) >e were concerned that whoever had been accessing the home was inside, so we called
the police)
%) >hen the police arrived, they agreed with us that it was very li?ely that somebody was
barricaded in the basement) 5he police tried to coa' the person to come out, but without
success)
,) >hen the police declined to brea? down the door, Dr) 9erliss did so) 5he police loo?ed
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) 6fter Coughlin was ta?en to jail, Dr) 9er;ss and + tried to videotape the contents of the
basement where Coughlin had been hiding) +t was too dar? 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, li?ely even before the loc?out) + observed that
Coughlin had a bed set up) ;e had several computer monitors) ;e had a store ofhoth food
and water) ;e had electric space heaters)
12) 1ince the eviction order was served, my associate, 9r) 2a?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)
9r) Coughlin had no reason to possibly thin? he was permitted on the property) >e had
tried to coa' him to cooperate on getting his possessions Uut, without success, or even a
response)
1&) 6s a result of9r) CoughlinBs brea?=ins, Dr) 9erliss has incurred a bill of O1,0.0 with a
licensed contractor to secure the premises) 5hat does not include the cost of the door that was
bro?en in order to get Coughlin out) 5hat does not include the numerous hours of me and my
staff to deal witb 9r) CoughlinBs repeated brea?=ins at the home)
1!) + am no e'pert, but + believe 9r) Coughlin is wbat is called a Phoarder)P
;e has many car seats throughout the house) ;e has many dead televisions) ;e has a bo' of car
window servo motors) 5he attic, which can only be accessed through a very narrow
opening, is full of items, including dead electronic devices)
1<) >e have found drugs at the home) >e found a bag of what loo?s li?e
marijuana on the ?itchen counter) + found a crac? pipe) 5he contractor found what he said
was a large Huantity of pills)
1.) 9r) Coughlin has been harassing and stal?ing me, and possibly, my staff)
#n 3oyember 1<, 2011, he burst into my office and created a scene) 5hen, he was parading up
and down the sidewal? across the street with a video camera screaming obscenities at
me and my staff)P
3ow, if one reads that Declaration by ;ill, then watches the videos ;ill too? of the
moments before, during, and after CoughlinBs arrest for criminal trespass on 3ovember 1&th,
2011)))well, one must conclude ;ill and 9erliss lied, and bro?e the law, resulting in profound
.1%/%&
reputational damage to Coughlin and vast damage to his family and career) 5hey should do
time for this, period) >here, in that Declaration, so soon after the arrest it is almost an Pe'cited
utteranceP is 1usich or Gings allegation of Pbrea?ing and enteringP and the Ploc?s being
bro?enPJ >hy wouldnBt ;ill just say that in the Declaration if it was trueJ >here is the video
of the basement that ;ill mentions attempting to ta?e) 5here wasnBt one provided in the
materials ;ill gave to the city attorney, which were discovered to Coughlin) >hy doesnBt ;ill
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 PwarningP) 5hat basement was fi'ed up to be, basically, a studio apartment addition to
the main floor for over a year before the eviction, and ;ill admits this appears to be the case in
another filing) ;ill misleads the court above where he fails to mention the numerous times
Coughlin indicated he had added ;+ll to his Pbloc?ed senders listP and or indicated he did not
consent to any form of electronic service or notice of anything, and where 2a?er was on
vacation in early 3ovember) 5he videoBs ;ill too? title -achBs arrest 000/=001!, found at the
above lin?, show particularly well the fraud and criminal conduct by 9erliss and ;+ll including
lying to effectuate a false arrest and criminal trespass and invasion of privacy)
>hat is actually stalid, invalid, void, null, e'pired, or otherwise ineffective is the #ctober
2<th and 2/th 1ummary Eviction #rders by Dudge 1ferraAAa in light of the >C1#Bs admission
that on 3ovember 1st, 2011 (allegedly at !:&0 pm*, Deputy 9achen bro?e into CoughlinBs
former home law office with ;ill or 2a?er in tow (and probably one of those lawyers legal
assistantvideographers whom drive a new 9ercedes 1$=.00 convertible coup))))the ?ind with a
@=12 engine)))thatBs right, a @=12, O1&0,000 new, three times the engine found in CoughlinBs
four banger 1,,. ;onda 6ccord $4 (at least its not a D4, rightJ* with 110,000 miles on it*:
6ll the case cited below are relevant, and most are terrible, for ;ill, 2a?er and 9erliss, in
addition to ma?ing the criminal trespass conviction e'tremely suspect:
+orio, !10 3K1 2d 1,<
:ussell v Galian, !1! 6)2d !.2
2urhams, %, ()&d .2,
:oswic?, 2&1 2: %!1
;ammond, <1< 1E 2d 1%2
6lbert, !,0 3K1 2d ,<1
unused, untimely eviction warrant needs to be reissued, 7reen, &!! 1E 2d <0/,
6)2d !.2: e'pired warrant for eviction no good
$eese v ;orne, !/ ()2d &1., 2urhams, %, ()&d .2,, :oswic?, 2&1 2: %!1, ;ammond, <1< 1E
2d 1%2, 6lbert, !,0 3K1 2d ,<1, #B2rien v) 8)1), !!! 6)2d ,!., 1tate v) 9Ernar, /%. 6)2d
.1,/%&
1!1 (01*, Canavan v) 1tate &% 1o) &d %%<, Dordan @) 1tate, %02 1o) 2d 11%0 (01*, 1tate v) 6sh,
12 1> &d %00 (53 B,,*) Dordan v) 1tate 110 ()&d at !/, >illiams v) 3agel .!& 3E 2d %1.,
Goenig, /!2 ()2d .!,,3elson, ,0, 3E 2 .!2, claim of right #Bbanion <1, 1E 2d %1,, 2ean !.<
()2d 1!!1
attorney charged with Psummary criminal contemptP one reported decision ever, +n :e
Gunstler) .0. 3K1 2d .0/)
CanBt join in same proceeding a disbarment and contempt proceeding: Dic?erson v) 1tate 1/,
1> &2!)
Dudge 3ash ;olmes continues to refuse to allow Couglin to appeal the Psummary criminal
contemptP #rder, even though, given the incarceration was served, it is a finally appealable
order, see 7ilman 2/< @) Comm !/!, .</ 1E 2d !/!)
2ifurcate disciplinary matters:
+n re (orep (3ev) 1,!1* 111 ()2d <&&, +n re Gaemmer, 1/% 1> 2d !/!, 5errell v) 9iss) 2ar
.&< 1o 2d 1&//, 9att of 2riggs <02 3E 2d %/,, +n :e ;ines !%2 6) 2 &/%, triem ,2, ()2d .&!,
1mith %< () <2!, +n re "insh 2/ 6) &d !01, +n re Character, ,<0 3E 2 1//, 5oledo v) Coo? %%
3E 2d ,/&(B0/*, Cohn, 1<1 1> &d !// (B0!*, +n re Crandell, /<! 3> 2 <01, +n re Cobb, %&%
3E 2d 11,/, +n :E 7insberg .,0 3> 2d <&,, 3orth Carolina 2ar v) :ogers, <,. 1E 2d &&/)
1nyder /,2 6) 2d <1<
joinderprejudice to Coughlin, 2<, ()2d /, +n :e :ichardson .,2 6) 2d !2/
unused, untimely eviction warrant needs to be reissued, 7reen, &!! 1E 2d <0/,
6)2d !.2: e'pired warrant for eviction no good
$eese v ;orne, !/ ()2d &1., 2urhams, %, ()&d .2,, :oswic?, 2&1 2: %!1, ;ammond, <1< 1E
2d 1%2, 6lbert, !,0 3K1 2d ,<1, #B2rien v) 8)1), !!! 6)2d ,!., 1tate v) 9Ernar, /%. 6)2d
1!1 (01*, Canavan v) 1tate &% 1o) &d %%<, Dordan @) 1tate, %02 1o) 2d 11%0 (01*, 1tate v) 6sh,
12 1> &d %00 (53 B,,*) Dordan v) 1tate 110 ()&d at !/, >illiams v) 3agel .!& 3E 2d %1.,
Goenig, /!2 ()2d .!,,3elson, ,0, 3E 2 .!2, claim of right #Bbanion <1, 1E 2d %1,, 2ean !.<
()2d 1!!1)))F
<% a!"ually e?poses "$e /e, Cons", 0r", F *e! 21 iola"ions "$a" "$e ;udi!iary in 4as$oe
Coun"y and 3eno $ae 6een !oun"enan!ing in doing mu!$ more "$an "urning a 6lind eye
"o "$e s"a"e sponsored 6urglaries 6y "$e 4as$oe Coun"y *$eriff(s Offi!e in failing "o
.20/%&
a!!ord "enan"s "$e :2F $ours from9 "$e "enan"(s :re!eip" of "$e9 Asummary remoalB
:order9 prior "o "$e 4C*O !ondu!"ing a lo!'ou" in!iden" "o a summary ei!"ion7 #$ere
page 16 "$ereof A#$i!$7 again7 #as e?!ised 6y ei"$er "$e 3)C in proiding su!$ "o "$e
*&/7 or 6y "$e *&/7 6u" !learly no" 6y Coug$lin in fa?ing su!$ "o "$e 3)C as "$e fa?
$eaders and pagina"ion "$erein "ell "$e "ale and lo!' "$e *&/ and 3)C in a finger
poin"ing !on"es" #$ere su!$ e?!ised page 16 reads:
E5his whole business about E5he 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 7ranting
1ummary Eviction was signed by #ctober 2/th, 2011) 5hat language is only found in
situations inapplicable to the current one) 3:1 !0)2<&(&*(2*(2*, and 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(6*
are the only sections of 3:1 !0 where this Ewithin 2! hoursF language occurs, and
those situations only apply where, in: !0)2<&(&*(2*(2*: E &) 6 notice served pursuant to
subsection 1 or 2 must: )))(2* 6dvise the tenant: `) (2* 5hat 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)2<&(<*(6*: E<) 8pon noncompliance with the notice:
(a* 5he landlord or the landlordLs 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) 5he 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 5he way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in :eno
Dustice Court presently shoc?s the conscience and violates 3evada law) 5here is not
basis for effectuating a loc?out the way >C1#Bs Deputy 9achem did in this case) 5he
above two sections containing the Ewithin 2! hours of receiptF language are
inapplicable, as those situations do not invo?e the present circumstances, where the
5enant did file an 6ffidavit and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen) 5o
reHuire 3evadaBs tenants to get up and get out Ewithin 2! hoursF of Ereceipt of the
orderF (what does that even meanJ 5he use of terms li?e ErenditionF, ErenderedF,
Enotice of entryF, EpronouncedF, is absent here, and this Ereceipt of the orderF language
is something rarely found elsewhere in 3evada law=see attached D9@ statutory
citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a Complaint within ,0
days of EreceiptF of a :ight 5o 1ue $etter, a situation which follows 3:C( <(b*, and
3:C( .(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 6braham v) >oods ;ole
#ceanographic +nstitute, <<& ")&D 11! (1st Cir) 200,*, 5he record did not reflect when
the plaintiff received his right=to=sue letter) 5he letter was issued on 3ovember 2!,
200.) 5he court calculated that the ,0=day period commenced on 3ovember &0, 200.,
based on three days for mailing after e'cluding 1aturdays and 1undays)F
.21/%&
9eanwhile, at bates /0& (age 1/ of CoughlinBs &<12 9otion to Dismiss in 2.!0<
and at bates /2! an illegible reproduction of page &, of !0 page fa' to :9C from Coughlin
with >C1# 1tuchellBs admission that Deputy 9achenBs 6ffidavit 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)
<, (at the , minute !% second mar? of the first audio file attached from 22/12:
http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV=U0@=D-5-10 (only restroom brea? during the 22/12
trial in 11 5: 2.%00 separating the two portions of the official audio recording from the :9C
for that trial date* http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVi2Ei>EaGvp0 *
5he transcript from the 22/12 certified audio recording of the traffic citation 5rial
at the 1 hour and . minute 1% second mar? of the running time and one file for the
continuation fo the trial on &1212* of file one:
EDudge 3ash ;olmes (Dudge*: 1ir, 9r) Coughln, sit down, + am done with you)
Coughlin: Dust to preserve for the record, Kour ;onor)
Dudge: 1it down, sit down, you are done) "or the record the defendant is loo?ing in his poc?ets
and behind his bac? and turning around and clowning around and showing utter disprespect for
this court and if you say another word or do another little antic li?e that you are going out of
this Court in handcuffs) Do you have any other witnessesJ (rosecutorJ
(rosecutor #rmaas: 3o, Kour ;onor, the City rests)
Dudge: 1ir, do you wish to testifyJ
Coughlin: Can + call #fficer 5arter as my own witnessJ
Dudge: you can call anyone you wish to testify)
Coughlin: + am sorry, Kour ;onor, but + really need to use the restroom)
Dudge: Kou have two minutes) 9arshal (;arley*, you will escort him to the restroom, donBt ta?e
anything with you, 1ir)))
Coughlin: Can + ta?e my notes with meJ
Dudge:3o, turn them upside down)
Coughlin: Can + ta?e the one pageJ
Dudge: 3o, turn them upside down)
Coughlin: :eallyJ
Dudge: 5urn them upside down) 9arshal you will go with him to the restroom)
Coughlin: >ill + be able to go into the stall aloneJ Dust chec?ing)
Dudge: Kou have two minutes) Kou have two minutes)
Coughlin: #?ay)
(that ends the first audio file attached for 22/12, which represents the entirety of the
proceeding prior to the #3$K restroom brea? during that 5rial*
(1tart of the second audio file of 22/12, which represents the entirety of the proceedings of
that day following the #3$K restroom brea? of the day*)
proceedingsJ
.22/%&
Dudge: 1irJ
Coughlin: >ell, + would li?e to as? a follow up on the rolling stop citation)))P
5hereafter Dudge 3ash ;olmes does not as? any other Huestions of Coughlin in any
way related to recording or recording devices, nor did Dudge 3ash ;olmes as? any Huestions of
anyone related to recording or recording devices besides) Dudge 3ash ;olmes did as?, before
the restroom brea?, of Coughlin, if Coughlin had any evidence or proof to support his
contention that he attempted to provide to either :eno City 6ttorney >ong or #rmaas
discovery or information related to the statement to Coughlin, incident to the 3ovember 1&th,
2011 custodial criminal trespass arrest of Coughlin at his former law office incident to an
impermissible summary eviction of a commercial tenant not based on the non=payment of rent
(ie, a 3o Cause Eviction 3otice was posted and a $andlordBs 6ffidavit alleged a 3o Cause
basis for proceeding relative to :(D #fficer CarterBs statement to Coughlin in response to
Couglhin as?ing him E1o, are you on :ichard 7) ;illBs payroll, tooJF, whereupon #fficer
Carter stated to Coughlin: EKes, :ichard ;ill pays me a lot of money, so + do what he says to
do and + arrest who he says to arrest)F*)
#n the second audio file from 22/12, at the < minute mar?, the follow occurs on
the record:
PCoughlin: )))was + thereJ Do + remember the name of the other officer who was there with him
who went into :ichard ;illBs law office for twenty minutes with him and hung outJ
Dudge: 7% you mention the name ichard )ill again 7 am going to hold you in contem/t
becau#e 7 ha-e told you re/eatedly to #tic5 to the rele-ant i##ue# about the boule-ard
#to/.P
(6t the 11:1/ minute mar? of the second audio from 22/12 the following occurs on
the record*:
Dudge: #fficer (said to :(D 1argent 5arter*, you are e'cused) 1ir, do you intend to testifyJ
Coughlin: Kes, Kour ;onor)
Dudge: 5hen testify, you donBt need to ta?e the stand, you can testify right there, you donBt have
to as? yourself Huestions, just give me a short narrative version of what happened, and donBt
refer to yourself in the third person, he was sworn in at the beginning of the case, donBt refer to
yourself in the third person, just tell me what happened)
.2&/%&
Coughlin: <es7 your $onor7 5 repor"ed a 6ri6e "o *argen" 2ar"er7 "$en $e re"alia"ed agains"
me)
Dudge: 1ir^ 1ir^ Geep it relevant^
:eno City 6ttorney #rmaas: O6;e!"ion7 moe "o s"ri'e^
Dudge: Geep it relevant about whether or not the boulevard stop occurred and what happened:
Coughlin: 1argent 5arter perjured his testimony today=
Dudge: 1ir, 1ir, answer about the boulevard stop)
Coughlin: Kes, Kour ;onor, this incident occurred when + went over to :ichard ;illBs office)
Dudge: 1ir)
Coughlin: + canBt get into thatJ #?ay)
Dudge: 1ir, boulevard stop)
Coughlin: Sargent 'arter lied today when he)))
Dudge: 6ll right, 1ir^
Coughlin: )))a6ou" "$e 6ouleard s"op7 5 am saying7+ disagree=
Dudge: 5a?e him into custody, you are in contempt of court, you will spend the ne't five days
in jail, this court is finished, this matter is continued
Coughlin: Kour ;onor 5 moe for a s"ay7 5 $ae a "rial,,and 5 $ae !lien"s #$o need me,
Dudge: 5hat is your problem, 1ir) (or the record you are in contem/t o% court because you
have 6een insu6ordina"e, you have di#regarded all o% my reAue#t#' direction#' order#'
caEoling' my e%%ort# to get you to %ollo2 the in#truction# o% the court' to act li5e a la2yer'
or e-en to act li5e a de%endant re/re#enting him#el% in thi# court' you ha-e made %ace#'
belittled' you ha-e argued' you ha-e /layed' you ha-e been ridiculou# in thi# courtroom
and brought u/ i##ue# that are irrele-ant and immaterial and to di#ru/t thi# /roceeding'
and there are only %i-e or #i8 /eo/le here that you could di#ru/t' you ha-e done
e-erything you can to di-ert %rom the matter at Aue#tion and to 5ee/ u# %rom re#ol-ing
the i##ue o% 2hether or not you ha-e committed the tra%%ic -iolation o% the boule-ard #to/'
and you are in utter contem/t o% thi# court and ha-e done nothing to deal 2ith the %act# o%
thi# ca#e...you are being an o6s"ina"e ;a!'ass' 7 am ha-ing a hard time belie-ing you are a
la2yer' you ob-iou#ly missed the class on on e-idence' courtroom decorum and on criminal
la2...P
+nterestingly, where Coughlin was denied any due process whatsoever in this regard
(including Dudge 3ash ;olmes stri?ing from the :ecord several 3otices of 6ppeal by Coughlin
(and, regardless of whether the scenario receives a (engilly style Ean attorneyBs remedy to
challenge a contempt finding is by way of a petition for e'traordinary writF application or
whether Coughlin is viewed as a defendant with a right to appeal, 3:1 1%,)010 has been
willfully violated by Dudge ;olmes) 1he, li?e Dudge "lanagan had no right to stri?e CoughlinBs
<201& 3otice of 6ppeal in C@11=0&.2% (from which ";E2 issued* in his <2,1& #rder, was
without any jurisdiction whatsoever to stri?e CoughlinBs &/12 3otice of 6ppeal and 9otion to
(roceed +"( see?ing a copy of the audio of the 22/12 trial from which ";E! issued)
;olmes also either struc?, ignored, or coordinated a :9C wide affidavit writing
campaign criticiAing CoughlinBs fashion sense incident to Coughlin delivering to the :9C on
&2212 his "#+6 :eHuest6udio :ecord :eHuest again see?ing a copy of the audio of the
22/12 (and possibly the &1212* trial audio transcript)))which the :9C again failed to
.2!/%&
respond to in any way, aside from :9C Court 6dministrator Cassandra Dac?son sending Ging
several materials (although, Dac?son is not eligible to ma?e any 3CDC Canon 2, :ule 2)1<
referral to an Eappropriate authorityF, and her doing so certainly should not preclude Coughlin
from prevailing on his defensive collateral estoppel arguments vis a vis any matters not
presided over by Dudge 3ash ;olmes)
>hat is apparent is that Dudge 3ash ;olmes and the :9C 9arshals (and the
>ashoe County Dail, and perhaps the >CD6Bs #ffice* have some real BsplaininB to do) 5his is
particularly true where >C1# Deputy ;odge admitted to Coughlin on &1,12 that the :9C
9arshals had returned to the jail on 22%12, the day after CoughlinBs summary arrest in 2.%00,
and retrieved from where such was already boo?ed into CoughlinBs personal property,
CoughlinBs ;5C 72 smart phone, a &272 micro sd data card, and CoughlinBs flip style cellular
phone, and that the :9C still had such items, and that Coughlin would need to retrieve them
from the :9C, and, in fact, the jail had given them to the :9C because it would Ejust be
easierF for Coughlin to get such items from the :9C)
>hat is also clear is that the #rder in ";E! is from 22%12 time=stamped E&:!/
p)m)F, which is not e'actly contemporaneous with her summary contempt ruling resulting in
the matter concluding Ewithout a verdict about !:&0 p)m), after the court held the defendant in
!riminal !on"emp" for his beha-ior and a!"ii"ies !ommi""ed in "$e dire!" presen!e of "$is
!our" during "$e "rialF)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1&0:< to 1&0:1!* 2K 9:) G+37: U +Bm holding in my
hand an order that was signed by you dated the 2%th of "ebruary, 2012, in the matter of 11 5:,
which + assume stands for traffic, 2.%00 21) 6nd itBs an order finding the defendant in contempt
of court and imposing sanctions) Do you recall e'ecuting such an orderJ 6 Kes, + did) + wrote
it myself, and + signed it, and + found him in contempt, in direct contempt during the
proceeding, and rig$" af"er "$a" did "$e order)F
+f it it true that Dudge ;olmes Edid the orderF Eright afterF EthatF (ie, her finding
Coughlin in Ein direct contempt during the proceedingF then its a bit odd that such order was
not file stamped that day, 22/12, much less until &:!/ p)m), the following day)
2loom v 1uperior Court (1,%.* 1%< C6&d !0,, !12, 22, C: /!/C +n re 7rossman,
(1,/2* 2! C6&d .2!, .2%, 101 C: 1/.C +n re "oote (1%%%* /. C <!&, <!!, 1% ( ./%
(jurisdiction lost because no action ta?en until <0 days after direct contempt occurred*)
5he court must sign and enter the written judgment e'peditiously, particularly if imprisonment
is ordered, because the contemner cannot challenge the validity of the judgment until it is
entered) +n re Easterbroo? (1,%%* 200 C6&d 1<!1, 1<!!T1<!<, 2!! C: .<2 (untimely order set
aside by reviewing court*C +n re Dones (1,/<* !/ C6&d %/,, %%1, 120 C: ,1! (contempt order
signed and entered eight days after contemner was jailed was deemed too lateC writ of habeas
corpus was issued releasing contemner from jail*) 5he judgment must be entered in the courtLs
permanent minutes, not just in the case file) !/ C6&d at %%1)
SS&)&%T&)&, "or discussion of staying e'ecution, 1tay of E'ecution of Contempt
#rder a) QS&)&%R 9andatory 1tay (rovisions Code of Civil (rocedure SS12%(b* and 120,(c*
reHuire a stay of e'ecution of a contempt order affecting Ean attorney, his or her agent,
investigator, or any person acting under the attorneyLs direction, in the preparation and conduct
of any action or proceeding)F 5he e'ecution of any sentence with respect to these persons must
.2</%&
be stayed for three court days to enable the contemner to file a petition for e'traordinary relief
testing the lawfulness of the contempt order) 1imilar mandatory stay provisions apply to an
order affecting a Epublic safety employeeF for failure to comply with a subpoena (see CC(
SS12%(c*, 120,(d**, a victim of se'ual assault for refusal to testify concerning the assault (see
CC( S12%(d**, and a victim of domestic violence for refusing to testify concerning the violence
(see CC( S12%(e**) 5he mandatory stay provisions contain an e'ception for a contempt order
that is based on conduct proscribed by 2us M ( C S.0.%(b* relating to an attorneyLs duty to
maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers) 1ee CC( SS12%(b*, 120,(c*) 9any
judges recommend granting a stay, even though the statute does not mandate it) S12%(D**, and
a victim of domestic violence for refusing to testify concerning the violence (see CC( S12%(e**)
5he mandatory stay provisions contain an e'ception for a contempt order that is based on
conduct proscribed by 2us M ( C S.0.%(b* relating to an attorneyLs duty to maintain the
respect due to courts and judicial officers) 1ee CC( SS12%(b*, 120,(c*) 9any judges
recommend granting a stay, even though the statute does not mandate it)
+. $irect Contem/t Procedure
1. UQ&.&&V Cautiou# @8erci#e o% $irect Contem/t Po2er
6 direct contempt may be punished summarily by the court) CC( S1211C Boysaw v Superior Court (2000*
2& C!th 21<, 21,T22&, ,. C:2d <&1) 6ll that is reHuired is an order reciting the facts adjudging the person
guilty and prescribing the punishment) 1ee CC( S1211C 2& C!th at 220) 2ecause this action lac?s the usual
procedural safeguards and is subject to possible abuse by an arbitrary judge, direct contempt orders in
particular are carefully reviewed and strictly construed by appellate courts) 5herefore, a trial judge must
carefully comply with all procedural reHuirements) Smith v Superior Court (1,.%* .% C2d <!/, <.0, .% C:
1)
5he power to adjudicate direct contempt must be used prudently and with a view toward promoting the
orderly administration of law rather than any form of vindication of a judgeLs character) Jyons v Superior
Court (1,<<* !& C2d /<<, /.2, 2/% (2d .%1, Huoting Ceople v 'urner (1%<0* 1 C 1<2)
+n 3allagher v Municipal Court (1,!%* &1 C2d /%!, /,!, 1,2 (2d ,0<, the California 1upreme Court
cautioned:3M43 Co'rtroom Contro#: Contem!t and 5anct"ons -3.33
2roadly spea?ing, judges are empowered to punish summarily for contempt of court in order to facilitate
the orderly administration of justice) Disobedience of the court orders tends to lessen the effect of those
ordersC intemperate behavior in the course of a trial QcitationsR lessens the mastery of the trial judge over the
progress of the proceedings and thus tends to obstruct the course of the trial) Considerable summary power,
not usually available to the officers of any other branch of government, is therefore vested in judges) +f that
power is not wisely e'ercised, it can readily become an instrument of oppression) +n a summary contempt
proceeding the judge who metes out the punishment is usually the injured party and the prosecutor as well)
1ince such a situation invites caprice, appellate courts almost without e'ception reHuire that the order
adjudging a person in direct contempt of court recite in detail the facts constituting the alleged transgression
rather than the bare conclusions of the trial judge)
+n dealing with conduct that allegedly is disrespectful of the court, the judge must be Elong of
fuse and somewhat thic? of s?in)F +e3eorge v Superior Court (1,/!* !0 C6&d &0<, &12, 11! C: %.0C see
6n re 3rossman (1,/2* 2! C6&d .2!, .2%, 101 C: 1/. (judge should consider in serenity of chambers
whether reaction is simply judicial nerves on edge*)
+t was incredibly inappropriate for Dudge 3ash ;olmes and Dudge ;oward to curtly dismiss
CoughlinBs motions for a stay of their summary contempt incarceratiosn where Coughlin pointed out
his concern for the prejudice to his clients) 1imply put, these judges turned their animosity towards
Coughlin and desire to effect punitive conseHuences into an e'ercise where CoughlinBs clientBs became
.2./%&
pawns, and the damages done to their affairs something these judges sought to leverage in arguing to
have Coughlin disbarred) Dudge ;oward was PsaddenedP however, so, thereBs that:
6lso, while Dudge 3ash ;olmes rendered some e'tended e'plication into the record
on 22/12 contemporaneous to her announcing CoughlinBs being held in contempt of
court)))nothing she said at that time contained any indication what so ever that she believed
Coughlin had been ElyingF) ;owever, apparently due to 9arshal ;arleyBs ordering another
:9C 9arshal to Ego tell Dudge 3ash ;olmes Coughlin lied^ ;e was recording^F during the
inventory search incident to arrest of CoughlinsB poc?ets upon Couglin being held in Edirect
contemptF at the :9C, Dudge 3ash ;olmes adopted 9arshal ;arleyBs supposition born of
finding a smart phone and a micro sd card in CoughlinBs poc?ets (which is hardly conclusive
EproofF that ECoughlin liedF or that Coughlin Ewas recordingF (by the way, whatever could
9arshal ;arley and :C6 deputy prosecutor (and 3ash ;olmes* be so terribly afraid that
Coughlin might have recordedJ >hat sort of activities are going on down there in the :9C
that the thought of a defendant recording such would generate such a response from these
threeJ*
1o, Dudge 3ash ;olmes apparently relying on nothing more than 9arshal ;arleyBs
hunch EheldF in what she now purports to be a EsummaryF ruling sufficient to preclude
Coughlin any right to due process to disprove olB 9arshal ;arleyBs hunch (Coughlin subpoened
;arley and had him served by a non=party with a lawfully issued subpoena that Chair
Echeverria failed to Huash, yet 33D2 2oard Chair 1usich appears to continue to abdicate his
duty under 1C: 110(&*=(!* to refer such matter to Ea district courtF judge in the 1econd
Dudicial District Court for contempt proceeding against 9arshal Doel ;arley*, being that it
occurred Ein the presence of the courtF (though the term EimmediateF is missing from ";E!,
Edirect presenceF does ma?e an appearance at page 2:! of ";E!*) 2y the &1212 ";E< Dudge
;olmes had released the remi'ed version of ";E! apparently as ";E< saw fit to characteriAe
";E! as Edirect criminal contemptF (";E< page 2:.=/ E5he document purported to appeal this
courtBs #rder holding him in direct criminal contempt)F*)
;owever, certainly, upon having CoughlinBs smart phone, micro sd data card, and
cellular phone retrieved by the :9C 9arshals from the >ashoe County jail and ta?en bac? to
the :9C, Dudge ;olmes and the :9C failed "o find any a!"ual eiden!e that Coughlin had
been ElyingF in any way (Bs hard to say about just what she felt Coughlin was lying Bbout,
though as all ";E! indicates in that regard is that CoughlinBs contemptuous conductF included
EdefendantBs lying "o "$e !our" in response "o dire!" 8ues"ions posed 6y "$e !our" #i"$ regard
"o $is re!ording "$e pro!eeding9 5here simply is no indication as to just what such ElyingF
consisted of)
2ut, !er"ainly7 if "$e 3)C and Judge %olmes $ad found some eiden!e "$a"
Coug$lin $ad a!"ually 6een :lying9 or doing any"$ing illegal7 one !an 6e sure su!$ eiden!e
#ould $ae 6een produ!ed 6y no#7 and "$ere simply $as no" 6een any"$ing produ!ed, and
now ;olmes, the (anel, the 2ar, the >C1# (the jail* and possibly the >CD6Bs #ffice (and
:eno City 6ttorneyBs #fficeJ* are all really, really hoping to parlay this whole summary order
thing all the way out of actually needing to provide Coughlin anything li?e due process)))which
would entail all sorts of messy, ic?y stuff that the :9C and ;olmes would have to answer for)
6lso, ";E< represents Dudge ;olmes ta?ing a second bite at the apple or swing at
.2//%&
the plate or otherwise amended what she purported to be a summary order on 22%12 over two
wee?s after the 22/12 trial to which she (and the 123(anel, etc* now purport to be entitled
to deny Coughlin any due process thereto under a willful violation of the law in asserting such
is a summary order with such allegations violations being Ecommitted in the direct presenceF of
the court sufficient to dispense with such procedural due procss niceties) ";E< provides:
E2ased upon the "o"al !ir!ums"an!es of this case, the in=court performance of the
defendant, as o!served !y this court, the written documents fa'ed to the court for filing by this
defendant, the statements and !ehavior of this defendant and his overall conduct herein, this
court finds, !y clear and convincing evidence, that -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, an attorney
licensed to practice law in the 1tate of 3evada, has committed numerous acts of attorney
misconduct, including, but not limited to, violating the following :ules of (rofessional
Conduct: %)!(c*=engaging in dis$ones"y7 fraud7 de!ei" or misrepresen"a"ionC %)! (d*=engaging
in conduct that i# /reEudicial to the admini#tration o% Eu#ticeC &)& (a*=la!' of !andor "o "$e
!our" 6y 'no#ingly ma'ing false s"a"emen"s "o a "ri6unalC)))C &)!(c*=being unfair to opposing
counsel by !on"inually alluding "o ma""ers "$e la#yer does no" reasona6ly 6eliee are
relean" or suppor"ed 6y admissi6le eiden!eC )))+n addition, ))) Coughlin, li'ely also violated
3evada 1upreme Court :ule 22,, section 2(b*, as amended by 6DG5 !!, on 6ugust 1, 2011,
6y surrep"i"iously re!ording "$e "raffi! !i"a"ion "rial of Fe6ruary 277 2012 #i"$ou" "$e
adan!e permission of "$is !our" and "$en lying "o "$is !our" #$en 8ues"ioned a6ou" i" and
denying "$a" $e $ad done so) 4$e"$er or no" "$ere are medi!al reasons "o e?plain )r,
Coug$lin(s a!"ions is no" for "$is !our" "o de!ide))))F
(3#5E: uh, yeah, actually such is for that court to decide pursuant to 3:1 1/%)!0<*)
+t is not totally clear whether Dudge ;olmes means to indicate she merely thin?s Coughlin
Eli?elyF was Esurrep"i"iously re!ording "$e "raffi! !i"a"ion "rial of Fe6ruary 277 2012 #i"$ou"
"$e adan!e permission of "$is !our" and "$en lying "o "$is !our" #$en 8ues"ioned a6ou" i"
and denying "$a" $e $ad done so9 or whether ";E< should be read to mean ;olmes believes
Coughlin Eli?elyF violated 1C: 22,)))
Compare ";E!Bs EdefendantBs lying "o "$e !our" in response to direct Huestions
posed by the court with regard to his recording the proceedingsF to the transcript of the only
Huestioning of Coughlin that day in any way related to Erecording the proceedingsF ne't to
Dudge ;olmesB testimony at the formal disciplinary proceeding:
(1tart of the second audio file of 22/12, which represents the entirety of the
proceedings of that day following the #3$K restroom brea? of the day*)
proceedingsJ
.2%/%&
Dudge: 1irJ
that are different from the area that we gave gone over already)))P
Dudge 3ash ;olmes was eager to change the subject upon being cross=e'amined by
Coughlin as to her ";E! and ";E< e'pressions as to Coughlin ElyingF about)))rather than
directly answer CoughlinBs Huestion as to the ElyingF allegation, )olme# -eer# o%% and latche#
on to the the ;beha-ing im/ro/erly in courtF aspect of ";E<, upon being confronted with
the put up or shut up moment vis a vis her allegation that Coughlin was lying (ie, whereBs the
proof, huhJ 1he confiscated the phone or &/ days and had it returned to her in the :9C, so
whereBs the proofJ* only to then go on the offensive with her inappropriate Eas you are now,
apparentlyF blast)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1<1:/ to 1<1:1%* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 4$en you
say7 al"erna"ely you #ere pro6a6ly lying, 0nd "$en you pu" in your order7 G5 find 6y !lear
and !onin!ing eiden!e "$a" $e lied7G is "$a" am6iguous "$ereJ ;ow do you reconcile thatJ
6 ;ow do + reconcile whatJ U 5he fact that your order says you find by clear and
convincing evidenceJ 6 2ecause thatBs what + wrote) + did find by clear and convincing
evidence) + found by a6solu"ely con-incing e-idence that you 2ere 6e$aing improperly in
!our", as you are now, apparently)F
Chair Echeverria had to throw Dudge ;olmes a life jac?et upon her finding herself in
the deep end of a cross=e'amination:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1<1:1, to 1<2:,* U KouBre saying you found by clear
and convincing evidence that a licensed attorney lied to the court) 6nd then you characteriAe
that as probably, well, + ?ind of thin? he was) + thin? he was, because + ?now some unattributed
hearsay that +Bm going to base it on) +Bm going to get the order + thin? is wrong about the
bathroom brea?) (3#5E: Coughlin believes the transcript is a bit inaccurate here as what
Coughlin communicated that Dudge 3ash ;olmesB testimony was patently inaccurate regarding
her assertion that her sua sponte interrogation of Coughlin regarding ErecordingF and
Erecording devicesF only occurred after Coughlin got Eall sHuirmyF in response to some
Huestioning (which does not really ma?e much sense either)))as ;olmes attempted to buttress
some Huasi reasonable suspicionprobable cause analysis to support such impromptu
interrogation with and allegation that Coughlin responded suspiciously to just such line of
Huestioning, a timeline based logical fallacy* +Bm not going to have a marshal sign an affidavit)
5hen +Bm going to remi' a criminal contempt statute with a summary contempt statute and pic?
and choose and ma?e it as retaliatory as + possibly can) +snBt that a fair characteriAation of your
approach as a judgeJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Dudge, you donBt need to answer that Huestion) 5hat
was way out of line, and e'tremely argumentative) 5;E >+53E11: 5han? you)F 5han? you,
indeed)
6 judge is responsible for ?nowing or researching the proper contempt procedures) 6 judgeLs
ignorance or misuse of these procedures may constitute bad faith and justify disciplinary proceedings for
willful and prejudicial misconduct) 1ee, e)g), "loepfer v Commission on Judicial Cerformance (1,%,* !,
C&d %2., %<%, 2.! C: 100 (injudicious use of contempt power was willful and prejudicial misconduct*C
.2,/%&
Ryan v -3.34 Ca#"forn"a I'dges Cencg'"de 3M44
Commission on Judicial Cerformance (1,%%* !< C&d <1%, <&&, 2!/ C: &/% (e'perienced judge should have
?nown that contempt order was both substantively and procedurally invalid*C Cannon v Commission on
Judicial Mualifications (1,/<* 1! C&d ./%, .,!, 122 C: //% (judge never sought to establish grounds on
which contempt citations were based*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1!!:11 to 1!<:10* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Fet you
te#ti%ied today that !r. Coughlin a#5ed to u#e the bathroom right a%ter 7 a#5ed him about
recording. )o2 do you e8/lain thatJ 6 + donBt ?now the seHuence of events) + donBt recall ==
U Kou just said you == 6 + listened to the audio at the time when things happened) 6nd when
you came bac? from the bathroom, either way + determined from == + concluded that you were
most li5ely recording without my permission) U 1arlier your "es"imony #as "$a" you as'ed
)r, Coug$lin if $e #as re!ording, and he got real sHuirmy and as?ed to use the bathroom) +s
that correctJ 6 Kes) U 3ow are you remi'ing that testimonyJ 6 3o) U Kou just said, +
donBt ?now the seHuence of events) 6 >ell, + donBt recall the seHuence of events) 5 'no# "$a" 5
as'ed you if you #ere re!ording, <ou denied you #ere, 5 as'ed you a !ouple "imes if you
#ere re!ording7 if you $ad go""en permission "o re!ord7 #$a" you #ere doing, 0nd a" some
poin" i" #as de"ermined "$a" you mos" li'ely #ere)))F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1<0:11 to 1<1:1* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hat were
you referring to when you wrote, PDefendant lying to the court in response to direct HuestionsPJ
6 >ell, 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 a6ou" or misrepresen"ed
"$a" you #ere no" re!ording7 6e!ause 5 6eliee you pro6a6ly #ere, 5 don(" 'no#, 5 6eliee you
pro6a6ly #ere) 6t the same time there were things that you and the prosecutor were arguing
about with regard to discovery) 6nd she disagreed with you and said you were lying to her
about that) 6nd there were other items that you went bac? and forth about that appeared to me
that you were not totally honest about))))F
6lso, at the formal disciplinary hearing, Dudge ;olmes attempted to pass where she
EheldF Coughlin had been ElyingF in ";E! as relating to whether or not Coughlin had an
Erecording devicesF
6lso interesting, especially vis a vis the (anelBs and 123 purporting ";E! to be a
Ecriminal convictionF sufficient to apply offensive collateral estoppel to the :(C=(alooAa
Dudge ;olmes copied and pasted into her &1212 #rder in ";E<, ";E! actually characteriAes
itself as imposing a EsanctionF (Egood cause appearing therefore, the following sanctiosn are
imposed)))F, which does not e'actly jibe with its assessment that CoughlinBs violation of E3:1
22)100F did Econstitute the misdemeanor of criminal contemptF, but, cut Dudge ;olmes a brea?
because, clearly, she was being very ambitious there, and was really doinB big wor?, or trying
to, trying to do awfully big wor?, for)))well)))just whom was she doing this forJ
8m)))for)))er)))uh))))fer justice, yeah, yeah, thatBs the tic?et^ 1he did it all for justice)
8pon the :9C refusing CoughlinBs payment method (where there is no indication
that Coughlin was reHuired to pay, in full, O<00, that very minute to avoid the incarceration*
Econtemptuous conductF to include (at ";E! page &:!=<* Edefendan"(s lying "o "$e !our" in
response "o dire!" 8ues"ions posed 6y "$e !our" #i"$ regard "o $is re!ording "$e pro!eedingsF
to be in contempt, no of those included any"$ing in any way purporting to find that Coughlin
.&0/%&
ElyingF about anything) 6s such, Dudge ;olmes now has some e'plaining to do as to upon just
what allowed her to then, about twenty four hours later, enter ";E! (which fails to specify
what burden of proof was allegedly met incident to her summary ruling)))which is especially
mur?y considering Dudge ;olmes cited to a plenary civil contempt statute in 3:1 22)100 while
characteriAing her actions as having Eheld the defendant in criminal contemptF*
Coughlin was ta?en into custody whereupon a search incident to arrest was
performed in the holding areabac? room of the :9C by 9arshal Doel ;arley with 9arshal
1cott Coppa assisting, and 9arshal Coppa was one of two 9arshals transporting Coughlin to
the >ashoe County Detention "acility where he served the < days in jail Dudge 3ash ;olmes
ordered (and the :9C refused to return the O100 that CoughlinBs mother paid into the :9C
when counter cler? P5omP promised her the Court would issue an #rder resulting in Coughlin
being released from jail one day early)))however, aside from the >CDC wal?ing Coughlin
down in handcuffs from his cell to the boo?ing des? and bac?, there was no release from
custody and CoughlinBs mother was not returned her O100 payment in e'change for an early
release by either the :9C or the >CDC)
>hile conducting the search incident to arrest, :9C 9arshal ;arley went through
CoughlinBs poc?ets and too? out a simple flip style cell phone, a smart phone, a micro sd card,
and an electronic shaver) 8pon ta?ing possession of the micro sd card 9arshal ;arley
immediately began interrogating Coughlin as to whether it would wor? with the smartphone,
then directed another 9arshal to Pgo tell the Dudge that Coughlin was recording^P without any
other support for such an accusation) 3one of this occurred in the restroom and Chief 9arshal
:oper has indicated to Coughlin that 9arshal ;arley, in carrying out Dudge 3ash ;olmes
#rder to escort Coughlin to the restroom, did not actually go in the restroom, but rather waited
outside its door)
Coughlin has received no response from the :C6, :9C, or its 9arshal to his
written reHuest that Chief 9arshal :oper, 9arshal ;arley, and 9arshal Coppa, and Dudge
;olmes correct the misrepresentations made by Dudge 3ash ;olmes (whether or not they were
purposeful or where something was lost in translation and the affidavit reHuirement of 3:1
22)0&0 for Pcontempt not in the immediate presence of the CourtP was not followed by Dudge
3ash ;olmes incident to her 22%12 #rder, wherein Dudge 3ash ;olmes writes, on page 2 of
her 22%12 #rder "inding the Defendnat in Contempt of Court and +mposing 1anctions: P5he
matter was called at appr'oimately &:00p)m) and concluded withoua verdict about !:&0 p)m)
after the court held the defendnat in criminal contempt of court for his behavior and activites
committed in the direct presence of this court during the trial) 5he court finds that defendantBs
contemptuous conduct conside of his ))))deceitful)))behavior during trial, all of which appeard to
be done to ve' an annoy the court, the witness, and the opposing party, and to disrupt the trial
process) 5he court finds that the following occurred, and constitute contempt))))P,* defendantBs
lying to the court in response to direct Huestions posed by the court with regard to his recording
the proceedings)))(page &*)))5he court finds that the defendnatBs actions were intentional and
done in utter disregard and contempt for the court, an in the presence of the cour, for purposes
of disrupting and delaying the proceedins and dishonoring the rule of law and this court, and
appearing therefore7 "$e follo#ing san!"ions are imposed@ 52 5* O3D131D7 pursuan" "o
.&1/%&
/3* 22,100, that the defendant be incarcerated at the >ashoe County :egional Detention
"acility for the term of five (<* days, from the time he was ta?en into custody on this courtBs
order on "ebruary 2/, 2012, and that sentence shall not be reduced for any reason)))P
5he time stamping on that 22%12 #rder "inding the Defendant in Contempt of
Court and +mposing 1anctions indicate P&:!/P) >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice personnel
Deputy ;odge, (atricia 2ec?man, :9C
1omehow, in her 22%12 #rder (and during the 5rial* Dudge 3ash ;olmes found it
relevant that, allegedly, the :(D Pgave Coughlin a brea?P over his driverBs license being
e'pired (actually, CoughlinBs then valid, current, driverBs license was being withheld by :ichard
7) ;ill, EsH), as Coughlin reported to 1argent 5arter)))and it was li?ely an old D$ that the :(D
is referring to as Pe'piredP when mentioning the Pbrea?P, which, again, was somehow relevant
enough to find its way into the #rder, but the withholding of CoughlinBs then current, valid
driverBs license by ;ill was sustained as irrelevant during the 5rial (and in fact seems to have
been one of a myriad of vague basis for issuing a summary criminal contempt #rder reHuiring
then licensed attorney with clientBs depending upon him, Coughlin, immediately being ta?en to
the >CDC for < days in jail)))*)
Coughlin hereby reHuests the :9C, >CD6, and >CDC to indicate the e'tent to
which his property was boo?ed into his personal property at the >CDC, only to have the
>CDC and or >CD6 release the property to the City of :eno 9arshals the following day,
well after any timeframe to conduct a search incident to arrest (33D2 9ember 9ary Gandaras
was involved in this matter, and in fact, despite Dudge 3ash ;olmes ordering the property
released on &&012, it too? until !/12 and approval by 9ary Gandaras before the property
was so released) wcso12=1%0< c=!/,<1)
>ith local attorney (am >ilmore standing, watching, and or hearingparticipating in
the conversations, on or about 9arch 21st, 2012 >C1#Bs () 2ec?man handed Coughlin a note
that read P(er Dudges #rders, call 9arshal DeightonP and provided a phone number for
Coughlin to see? further e'planation as to the admission that the City of :eno 9arshals had
returned to the jail on 22%12 and retrieved items of CoughlinBs personal property, including
his PflipP phone, his smart phone, and his micro sd card) Deputy ;odgeBs admission that,
contrary to the indications by >C1# Cummings and Campbell that the micro sd card was
released to CoughlinBs agent on 22,12, but rather, was not so release, combined with his
statement that the smartphone, micro sd card, etc) were released to the 9arshals because it
would be easier for Coughlin to get his property bac? through them, reveal that a search not
incident to arrest occurred here by the :9C on 22%12 and or the City of :eno 9arshals, or,
to be fair, at least some sort of PseiAureP did (especially considering that upon the smart phone
and micro sd card finally being returned to Coughlin on or about !/12 by >C1# Deputy +ver,
2randi 2erriman, and (atricia 2ec?man (and only after P9addyP got approval from DD6
Gandaras, and after Coughlin was threatened with abuse of process by Deputy 2eatson*) 5he
:9CBs 9arilyn 5ognoni also made some indications respecting the smartphone and micro sd
card to Coughlin) (erhaps, the allusion to >C1#12=1%0< c=!/,<1 in Dudge 3ash ;olmes
&&012 #rder :eleasing CoughlinBs property indicates whether a warrant or some other lawful
#rder allowed for the 9arshals to retrieve those items a day after they were boo?ed into
.&2/%&
CoughlinBs personal property at the jail)))but Coughlin has not been provided any such >arrant
or #rder and hereby reHuests that he be so provided a copy of it now, and that, given important
data was lost to Coughlin upon his discovery the micro sd card and smartphone had been
wiped, that any copies of the data then stored therein be provided to Coughlin (the DiaA case in
the 3inth Circuit seems to provided a great deal of latitude to law enforcement to search digital
data within the reach of one whom is subject to a custodial arrest, and perhaps even copy it)))in
which case))))is would be appreciate if a copy thereof could be provided to Coughlin, and some
compensation for the e'tent to which his &2 72 micro sd card was rendered useless upon its
return, as was his ;5C 72 cell phone (which never Huite wor?ed the same from then on and
was rendered totally inoperative a short time thereafter)))the &2 72 micro sd card having an
appro'imate value of O%< and the ;5C 72 smartphone a used value of around O1/<)00*)
1imply put, there was no Huestioning by Dudge 3ash ;olmes of Coughlin as to
whether he was recording anything or whether he possessed a Precording deviceP until 6"5E:
the one and only restroom brea? Dudge 3ash ;olmes mentions on the audio record) Dudge 3ash
;olmes did as? Coughlin if he had any proof that City 6ttorneyBs >ong and #rmaas failed, in
some way, to received or follow up on some offer by Coughlin to provide materials related to
CoughlinBs contentions respecting the statement mad6nd that sua sponte interrogation of
Couglin occured +99ED+65E$K 6"5E: 5;E :E15:##9 2:E6G, 6 2:E6G +3
>;+C; D8D7E 361; ;#$9E1 :E"81ED 5# 6$$#> C#87;$+3 5# 56GE ;+1
KE$$#> $E76$ (6D >+5; ;+9 63D >;+C; #CC8:ED 6"5E: C#87;$+3 96DE
6 @E:26$ (:E1E:@65+#3 #3 5;E :EC#:D #" 5;E >;+1(E:+37 +3 E6C;
#5;E:B1 E6:1 2K C+5K 655#:3EK 6$$+1#3 #:9661 63D 96:1;6$ ;6:$EK
(>;# 1EE9ED 6 2+5 8(1E5 62#85 1#9E #" 5;E U8E15+#31 C#87;$+3
61GED 5;E9 +99ED+65E$K 2E"#:E 5;E 5:+6$ (D8:+37 5;65 (E:+#D #"
5+9E >;E:E D8D7E 361; ;#$9EB1 611+15635 +3D+C65ED, #3 5;E :EC#:D +3
#3E #" 5;E #5;E: C61E1 #3 5;65 156CGED D#CGE5, 5;65 Dudge 3ash ;olmes
just couldnBt be found, and how odd that was)))which is odd, considering what was going on in
11 cr 221/., 11 cr 2.!0< 12 cr 00.,. and 11 tr 2.%00, and rcr2012=0.<.&0 and rcr2011=
0.&&!1 at the time (lots of reasons for and indications that local law enforcement and
prosecutors and public defenders were non too happy with Coughlin)))
and consider the 22!12 email vacating the 22/12 status conference between
young and dogan that neither Koung nor Dogan wish to testify about)))but which seems to have
been held anyways after a written communication of its being reset was transmitted to
Coughlin by Dogan, wherein, during the time Dudge 3ash ;olmes couldnBt be found (maybe
she was at one of the group meetings amongst Dudges about Coughlin that :9C 6dministrative
Dudge >illiam 7ardner referenced on the record in 11 C: 2.!0<J +nteresting the 3otice of
6ppeal in .0&02 was filed that same day too, 22/12* Dogan got his #:der for Competency
Evaluation of Coughlin in rcr2012=0.<.&0 (apparently in retaliation for CoughlinBs filing of
22112, and DD6 -ach Koung was still smarting from a filing by Coughlin of appro'imately
112%12, which resultd in Koung promptly amending his complaint in rcr2011=0.&&!1 to add
a charge that was duplicative, even where K#ung failure to allege theft or possessingreceiving
.&&/%&
Pfrom anotherB under 1taab ma?es his so charging Coughlin in that i(hone case a :(C &)%
violation, which is K#ungBs specialty, apparently) 5hat, and violating 3:s 1/%)!0<, which
K#ung did by filing in rcr2011=0.&&!1 with a stamp of 2:<<pm a fugitive document of his
own, an #pposition to CoughlinBs or the >C(D 9otion to 6ppear as Co=Counsel on
22/12)))3ever mind Koung tried to hold a 5:+6$ on </12 in that case despite the #rder
finding Coughlin competent in cr12=0&/. didnBt even get signed and entered until <,12)))ditto
the 5rial seeting of <%12 in :9C 11 cr 2.!0<, the criminal trespass case) 3ot much respect
for nrs 1/%)!0< (including within 3:1 <)010* here in 3orthern 3evada))
Coughlin didnBt received the 22%12 Contempt #rder in 11 tr 2.%00 until Duly
2012)))but did file a 3otice of 6ppeal &/12)))despite Psummary criminal contemptP being a
final appealable order, Dudge 3ash ;olmes continues to refuse to follow 3:1 1%,)010=0<0
+t is true that contempt committed in a trial courtroom can under some
circumstances be punished summarily by the trial judge) 1ee Coo?e v) 8nited 1tates, 2./ 8)1)
<1/, <&, ) 2ut adjudication by a trial judge of a contempt committed in his immediate presence
in open court cannot be li?ened to the proceedings here) "or we held in the #liver case that a
person charged with contempt before a Pone=man grand juryP could not be summarily tried)
Q&!, 8)1) 1&&, 1&%R 5he power of a trial judge to punish for a contempt committed in his
immediate presence in open ))) +n re #liver, &&& 8) 1) 2</) 1i'th 6mendment :ight to Counsel
of Coughlin violated in both 11 cr 221/. and 11 tr 2.%00, also orders no sufficiently detailed or
capable of being ?nown how to comply with, not sufficient warning, violates ;ouston v Eighth
Dudicial District (3ev)*)
5his is why +n :e #liver and Coo?e reHuire all elements of Psummary criminal
contemptP occur P in the Pimmediate presenceP of the Court) 9aybe 9arshal ;arley and some
other 9arshal have misled Dudge 3ash ;#lmes, or maybe something worse is going on
here))))but what Dudge 3ash ;#lmes said on the recording is entirely misleading an inaccurate,
if not an outright lie (again, maybe not a lie by Dudge 3ash ;olmes, maybe she is repeating a
lie, but regardless her reliance on unattributed hearsay is disturbing an inappropriate,
particularly where she not only purports to issue a Psummary criminal contemptP conviction
against an attorney, but also where Dudge 3ash ;olmes appears to try to transmogrify what she
sees as Pa simple traffic citation trialP into a full blown 1C: 10< disciplinary hearing where she
is both 2ar Counsel and the (anel)))
5hat 9arshal needs to sign an affidavit, under 3:1 22)020 and Dudge 3ash ;olmes
ought to have to put something on the record, under oath, in response to CoughlinBs recent
subpoena (and 123 (at Ging wishes to let Dudge 3ash ;olmes phone in her testimony, and it
probably wonBt even be sworn testimony, but rather just some musings by Dudge 3ash ;olmes
purporting to ma?e PrulingsP finding Pby clear and convincing evidenceP all sorts of things
outside her jurisdiction* on 111!12, on, (artic? #) Ging, 123 2ar Counsel has also filed
9otion to Uuash the 1ubpoenas Coughlin attempted to have served on 9arshal Doel ;arley,
9arshal Deighton, Dudge 3ash ;olmes, Dudge >illiam 7ardner, Dudge 7ardners
6dministrative 6ssistant $isa >agner, who canBt Huite find the 3#tice of 6ppeal Coughlin
fa'ed to her (allowable under the :9C :ules* on Dune 2%th, 2012 in 11 C: 2.!0< (the appeal
.&!/%&
was dismissed under an 3:1 1%,)010 analysis by Dudge Elliot, whom also got Coughlin appeal
of the 11 cr 221/. conviction resulting in this CourtBs ./12 temporary suspension #rder in
cr11=20.!, which was denied based upon a civil preparation of transcript down payment rule,
in that criminal appeal, where the :9C has a thing in place with this (am $ongoni that violates
3evada law in that it refused to give Coughlin the audio cd of the trial for some time, insisting
only $ongoni would be allowed to transcribe it, and that the transcriptBs preparation would
absolutely not start until a down payment was made) (lus, even where Coughlin caved to the
payment demands))$ongoni repeatedly hung up the phone on him and otherwise ignored his
communications (there may be an issue of the email $ongoni holding out to the public issuing a
Pbouncebac?P)))but she needs to sign an affidavit as to whether she put Coughlin on a bloc?ed
list, and upon information and belief, Coughlin fa'ed his reHuest to the number the :9C held
out for her on her behalf too)))
+n her 9arch 1!th, 2012 grievance against Coughlin to the 123 Dudge 3ash ;olmes
details some concerns she has with CoughlinBs wor? as a self representing attorney defending a
traffic citation (now 3712=0!&!, and perhaps, 3712=0!&<, depending upon whom you as? and
what Ging means by PCler? of CourtP)))because in GingBs &2&12 email to Coughlin he
apparently identifies 9s) 9arilyn 5ognoni as PCler? of Court of Department &P)))whoever,
wouldnBt it be 1econd Dudicial District Court Cler? of Court Doey #rduna ;astings that would
need to send "amily Court Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs 6pril 200, #rder sanctioning Coughlin to
the 123Bs Ging for Ging now apparent contention that the 3712=0!&< Pghost grievanceP
consisting of Dudge $) 7ardnerBs 6pril 200, #rder was not filed by the :9C DudgesJ
6s to the application of the Pcourthouse sanctuaryP doctrine to :9C 9arshal ;arley
serving the #rder to 1how Cause upon Coughlin at appro'imately 1:2< pm in one of the
conference rooms right outside the interior of Courtroom 2 at the :9C:
http:caselaw)findlaw)comny=district=court1&/2!.<)html
.0 ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2&/:21 to 2!0:1* 9:) C#87;$+3: +t also goes to mitigation, +
thin?) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: ;ow soJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? it places me in a lot more
sympathetic light to the e'tent that it shows police misconduct) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r)
GingJ
9:) G+37: 9r) Chairman, there has been a multitude of videos ta?en by 9r)
Coughlin) *ome you mig$" re!all #$en $e #as in $is 6edroom in $is pa;amas, and he was
tal?ing about things li?e 9r) ;ill ta?ing bribes) ;e posted information about court personnel,
their salaries, et cetera) 6ho#e' all o% tho#e Fou6ube' ha-e been ta5en o%% o% Fou6ube by
!r. Coughlin #o they cannot be acce##ed) + have viewed a videotape of 9r) Coughlin and the
,=1=1 calls where every other word out of his mouth is starting with "=you to the police
officers) 9:) C#87;$+3: #bjection) $ac? of foundation) 9:) G+37: ;owever, itBs not
admitted in this case ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'cuse me) 9r) Coughlin, +Bve tried to be very patient in
terms of your interruptions) Kou continue to do so) Can you find it within yourself to refrain
from doing thatJ Kou will have every opportunity to respond) 2ut + do not appreciate your
continuing interruptions of virtually every person that spea?s, including your mother) 1o please
.&</%&
refrain from doing it) (roceed, 9r) Ging)
9:) G+37: +n review of some of the e'cerpted videos that 9r) Coughlin submitted
to me, they are cut, and + donBt ?now the word, because + canBt do it, +Bm not an editor, but
theyBre not complete, they donBt show the story) 6nd + suspect that whatever heBs going to show
you would put him in a more sympathetic light, because + suspect heBs ta?en out all of the
derogatory things he said to the police officers) 9ore important, those were not part of my case
against 9r) Coughlin) + did not allege in the complaint that he abused the police officers, or
resisted arrest, or used profanity with the police officers) + said he was convicted of theft,
convicted of criminal trespass, and has demonstrated here a pattern of contempt for the court,
and a lac? of ability to practice law)
>hat 9r) Coughlin is attempting to do is to steer you bac? 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) 6nd 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 videos other than 9r)
Coughlin himself) + thin? theyBre irrelevant, and in this case would be highly prejudicial, plus a
waste of time)P
1o)))just how is Ging himself not guilty of Einjecting irrelevant materialF (and
therefore violating :(C &)!(c* in much the same way the (anel concluded Coughlin did at
E(77*F or outright lying when he so mischaracteriAes his Complaint and injects such
prejudicial and unsupported allegations, and where Ging engages in supposition to a
sanctionable e'entJ
"or instance: ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2&%:& to 2&%:,* 9:) G+37: 9r) Chairman,
there has been a multitude of videos ta?en by 9r) Coughlin) 1ome you might recall when he
was in his bedroom in his pajamas, and he was tal?ing about things li?e 9r) ;ill ta?ing bribes)
;e posted information about court personnel, their salaries, et cetera) 5hose, all of those
Kou5ube, have been ta?en off of Kou5ube by 9r) Coughlin so they cannot be accessed)F
#ne, Ging fails to indicate upon what basis he alleges such videos belong to
Coughlin or that Coughlin posted such videos to Kou5ube) "urther, there are si' year old
children who ?now to download a video from Kou5ube or otherwise retain evidence of what a
particular video posted to Kou5ube is purported to demonstrate) Ket, 6ssistant 2ar Counsel
Ging, armed with an E+nvestigator (etersF is here wee?ly claiming Ethey cannot be accessedFJ
Ging and (eters are e'cuse machines, coming up with another one every other minute (9r)
Coughlin scared them so they had to violated 1C: 10<(2*(c*) 9r) Coughlin Efailed to indicate
what its dismissingF so its o?ay that Ging ordered ECler? of CourtF (eters to unfile CoughlinBs
,1%12 9otion to Dismiss and remove any record thereof form the EfileF) 6lso, its a bit
convenient for Ging to argue that because Ging is a dog that refuses to learn any new tric?s that
Coughlin should be precluded from having admitted e'culpatory video and audio)
.&./%&
6dditionally, where Ging admits to having been provided audio of court
proceedings from Dudge 3ash ;olmes (and her &1!12 grievance to the 123 references her
providing such audio of hearings, which itself undermines GingBs contention that (insert e'cerpt
of transcript relative to GingBs objections to such audio transcripts from the :9C*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 21!:1 to 21!:&* 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm going to put on
some evidence right now) 5his is the audio from the trial, Dudge 3ash ;olmesB deal)F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 2&%:2< to 2&,:1!* 9:) G+37: +n review of some of the
e?!erp"ed videos that 9r) Coughlin submitted to me, they are cut, and + donBt ?now the word,
6e!ause 5 !an(" do i", +Bm not an editor, but theyBre no" !omple"e, they don(" s$o# "$e s"ory)
6nd + suspe!" that whatever heBs going to show you would put him in a more sympathetic light,
because + suspect heBs ta?en out all of "$e deroga"ory "$ings $e said "o "$e poli!e offi!ers)
9ore important, "$ose #ere no" par" of my !ase agains" )r, Coug$lin) 5 did no" allege in "$e
!omplain" "$a" $e a6used "$e poli!e offi!ers7 or resis"ed arres"7 or used profani"y #i"$ "$e
poli!e offi!ers) + said he was convicted of theft, convicted of criminal trespass, and has
demonstrated here a pattern of contempt for the court, and a lac? of ability to practice law)F
$etBs just see about that, (at:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2&,:, to 2&,:11* 7 did not allege in the com/laint that
he abu#ed the /olice o%%icer#' or re#i#ted arre#t' or u#ed /ro%anity 2ith the /olice o%%icer#)F
GingBs %2&12 Complaint at :#6 2:1<=1, reads: E1&) #nce :espondent was evicted,
an order was obtained to remove his belongings from the home) :espondent interfered with the
contractor who was hired to remove :espondentBs personal belongings) 2$e poli!e #ere !alled and
af"er "al'ing #i"$ 3esponden" "$ey re!ommended "$a" $e find some"$ing else "o do, 3esponden"
refused "o "$eir adi!e and #as su6se8uen"ly arres"ed 6y "$e 3eno poli!e,F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2!1:% to 2!1:10* 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (olice misconduct)
5hatBs not an issue here)F
+n (anel Chair EcheverriaBs world, police misconduct has no relevance to anything at issue
in .2&&/, not even under a mitigation analysis, which is preposterous and shameful)
Ging and Chair Echeverria did not Huite have their synchroniAed swimming routine
audience ready on 111!12, with Ging admitting to e' parte communications and productions to
Echeverria, or Echeverria (and see GentBs getting caught in a lie in this regard too* lying about whether
or not he was provided copies of the discs attached to CoughlinsB filings (and they are filings whether
$aura (eters places a stamp on them or not, given a croo?ed Cler? of Court li?e $aura (eters the power
to deem something not filed merely because she fails to place a red stamp on it is a recipe for disaster*,
or GingBs admitting that Echeverria had e'tra=judicial information to ta?e into account in his decision
ma?ing, and or Ging and (eters lies with respect to having told Coughlin the 123 provides every (anel
member a complete copy of everything (including all e'hibits attached thereto* that any respondent
(even Coughlin* submits for filing (in e'cusing their refusal to provide Coughlin with any contact
.&//%&
information for the (anel members*:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2&%:& to 2&%:.* 9:) G+37: 9r) Chairman, there has been a
multitude of videos ta?en by 9r) Coughlin) *ome you mig$" re!all #$en $e #as in $is 6edroom in $is
pa;amas, and he was "al'ing a6ou" "$ings li'e )r, %ill "a'ing 6ri6es,F
1o)))just where in the 21&1& :#6 by the 123 in .2&&/ is there anything to have provided
Echeverria a basis to ErecallF having viewed and or provided any such videosJ
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2&%:10 to 2&%:22* (G+37*: E))) 5 $ae ie#ed a ideo"ape of )r,
Coug$lin and "$e >-1-1 !alls #$ere eery o"$er #ord ou" of $is mou"$ is s"ar"ing #i"$ F-you "o "$e
poli!e offi!ers) 9:) C#87;$+3: #bjection) $ac? of foundation) 9:) G+37: ;owever, itBs not
admitted in this case == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: E'cuse me) 9r) Coughlin, +Bve tried to be very patient in
terms of your interruptions) Kou continue to do so) Can you find it within yourself to refrain from
doing thatJ Kou will have every opportunity to respond) 2ut + do not appreciate your continuing
interruptions of virtually every person that spea?s,)))F
1o, Chair Echeverria e'pects Coughlin to sit Huietly by while Ging does his character
assassination of Coughlin via Einjecting irrelevant materialsF of a highly prejudicial nature that
Echeverria would not let Coughlin admit any evidence to rebut where such was deemed EirrelevantFJ
3ot only that, but Coughlin ma?ing such a EtimelyF objection is an e'ample of Coughlin
EinterruptingFJ
"urther, how some video Ging purports to have viewed and GingBs statement that he
EsuspectsF that Coughlin will have favorably edited any videos he see?s to admit into evidence
possibly justifies wholesale ruling as inadmissible any videos Coughlin see?s to introduce is an
e'ample of the laughable judicial hellhole that is the 33D2 (anelBs approach) 1urely, if Coughlin had
EalteredF any such videos or audio transcripts, Ging could utiliAe the videos and audio transcripts he
was provided (both by Coughlin and those provided to Ging by the :9C as referenced in ";E%* to
impeach such evidence offered by Coughlin or, even, to support some allegation that Coughlin was
violating 1ierra 7lass (though Coughlin will never be capable of violating 1ierra 7lass in anything near
the breathta?ingly blatant manner in which Ging did in ";E, in e'cising from the & page EE'hibit 1F
attachment (since when do judges orders have attachments, anywaysJ $ifelong prosecutinB habits die
hard, apparently* to the &1&12 #rder 1tri?ing "ugitive Document that Dudge ;olmes provided to the
123 page 1 of & of such, where such page identifies Coughlin as an attorney, which completely
e'poses the :(C &)% violation inherent to GingBs alleging Coughlin committed an ethical violation
incident to filing such document (only a portion or EeditF or Ee'cerptF of such Ging provided in
";E,)))and irony is not the word here)))its something more li?e multiple personality disorder levels of
hypocrisy by Ging and Echeverria, whom seem to have formed some sort of emeshed, codependent,
pathological liar discrediting union here*)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages <%:1< to <,:<* 9:) C#87;$+3: + would li?e to show 9r) ;ill
a video of 9arsha $opeA, the sergeant with him that day, admitting that 9r) ;illBs account is wrong)
9:) G+37: +Bm going to object to any video or display of videos) 6nd the reason + will object is,
number one, they are irrelevant) 3umber two, "$ey(re all edi"s) 6nd number three, heBs trying to show
that something didnBt occur by showing an e'cerpt of a video) +t would be totally irrelevant and
.&%/%&
immaterial) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bll address the admissibility of the video when that appears) :ight
now 9r) Coughlin has as?ed 9r) ;ill whether the police identified himself) 9r) ;ill said that they
have) + thin? youBve laid the groundwor?) +f you have impeachment testimony thatBs admissible, when
you offer it ==F
#ne, Echeverria commits reversible error when he obstructs Coughlin from having the
ability to refresh ;illBs recollection via the use of the video, in addition to obstructing CoughlinBs
opportunity to impeach ;illBs testimony) 5wo, GingBs assertion that Ethere all editsF is an e'ample of
Ging violating :(C &)1 and 3:C( 11 himself where he has, and provides, absolutely no basis for what
he later admits (only after he obtained the ruling he sought as to admissibility here* that he merely
EsuspectsF that Coughlin will have edited the Ee'cerptsF, whatever that may mean) Ging certainly was
able to read Ee'cerptsF that he chose (edited from the complete #rder* into the record, prior to such
even being admitted, for ";E2)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age <%:20 to <%:21* (G+37* EtheyBre all edits)F
.1 :obinsonC 8nited 1tates @), ,22 ")2D 1<&1 (11th Cir) 1,,1*: P+n reviewing the sufficiency
of the evidence in support of a finding of criminal contempt, Pwe must determine whether the
evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the government, would permit the trier of fact
to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt)P 8nited 1tates v) 2urstyn, %/% ")2D
1&22, 1&2! (11th Cir)1,%,*) P5he conviction will be sustained if there is substantial evidence to
support it)P +d) P5o support a conviction, the government must prove: (1* that the court entered
a lawful order of reasonable specificityC (2* the order was violatedC and (&* the violation was
willful)P +d) 2utlerBs challenge to the sufficiency of the criminal contempt finding is based on
the grounds that (1* the courtBs ruling was not specific and she was thus not sufficiently warned
of it, and (2* she did not violate the courtBs order willfully) 6) 1pecificity . P5he reasonableness
of the specificity of an order is a Huestion of fact and must be evaluated in the conte't in which
it is entered and the audience to which it is addressed)P 8nited 1tates v) 5urner (+n re ;oward
.&,/%&
9oore, Dr)*, %12 ")2D 1<<2, 1<.< (11th Cir)1,%/*) 5he government claims that the incident for
which the court found 2utler in contempt, her statement relating to admission of the
photographs, was an improper spea?ing objection which violated the $ocal :ule of the 9iddle
District of "lorida <)0&(2*(12*) 5hat rule states: P+n ma?ing objections counsel should state
only the legal grounds for the objection and should withhold all further comment or argument
unless elaboration is reHuested by the Court)P 6s a member of the bar of the 9iddle District of
"lorida, 2utler is charged with ?nowledge of the rules) 1ee $ocal :ule 2)01(2* (reHuiring
members of the bar to certify their familiarity with the local rules*) / 5he language in :ule
<)0&(2*(12*, however, is precatory rather than mandatory) 9oreover, according to :ule
<)0&(6*, the rules in chapter < are neither mandatorily nor uniformly enforced inasmuch as
individual district judges may impose rules in addition to those listed or may e'cuse
compliance with those listed) 5herefore, we cannot easily assume that 2utler was on notice of
the judgeBs rule against spea?ing objections simply because of her membership in the bar) %
2utler argues that the court did not give a specific warning that the statement she made in
regard to the photographs would constitute contempt) 1he admits that the court gave her a
warning not to continue to as? a Huestion after an objection to that Huestion had been sustained)
1ee supra note 1) 2ut as?ing Huestions was not the reason for which the court found 2utler in
contempt) 5he court also admonished 2utler not to argue with the courtBs rulings)< 2ut again,
argumentativeness was not the enunciated reason for the courtBs finding) 5hough the courtBs
warning against argumentativeness clearly indicates the level of the courtBs annoyance with
2utler, it cannot be construed to constitute a clear order or warning against spea?ing objections)
5he government, however, points to the courtBs e'hortation concerning 2utlerBs comment about
a witness never having been in a business class as a specific warning against spea?ing
objections) 1ee supra note 1) 2utler admits that her remar? regarding the business class was
sarcastic and inappropriate) 5he remar?, however, was made after the objection was sustained
and so was not technically a spea?ing objection) +t would, therefore, be difficult to construe
Dudge 9ooreBs scolding regarding the business class remar? to be a specific order against
spea?ing objections) 6t any rate, even if 2utlerBs remar? could in some way be considered a
spea?ing objection, the judgeBs statement that the remar? was inappropriate is not comparable
in specificity to orders this Court has previously found specific enough to sustain a finding of
contempt) 1ee, e)7), 5urner, %12 ")2D at 1<.! (in which the district judge told attorneys that an
issue was not to be submitted to the jury and Pif anybody ma?es that argument to this jury they
are going to be held in contempt and + want that clearly understood)P*) 2) >illfulness ,
P>illfulnessP is defined as P Ba deliberate or intended violation, as distinguished from an
accidental, inadvertent, or negligent violation of an order)B P 8nited 1tates v) 2aldwin (+n re
1teven Dac?son*, //0 ")2D 1<<0, 1<<% (11th Cir)1,%<* (Uuoting "alstaff 2rewing Corp) @)
9iller 2rewing Co), /02 ")2D //0, /%2 (,th Cir)1,%&**, Cert) Denied, !/< 8)1) 1120, 10. 1)Ct)
1.&., ,0 $)Ed)2D 1%2 (1,%.*) +n applying this standard, this Court has found an attorney
willfully in contempt where it could be shown that the attorney ?new of a specific court order
and was aware that noncompliance with it would constitute disobedience to the court) 1ee, e)7),
2aldwin, //0 ")2D at 1<<% (where attorney ?new he was ordered to appear in court on a certain
date and had been warned that his failure to do so would ma?e him subject to contempt, his
.!0/%&
conduct was deemed willful*) +n the instant case, however, it has not been shown that 2utler
was aware of the courtBs strong prohibition against spea?ing objections) +t therefore cannot be
assumed that her violation was willful) :ather, it would appear that her statement in regard to
the photographs was more of an Pinadvertent or negligent violation)P 1ee id) 10 9oreover, the
1upreme Court has stated that Pit is the right of counsel for every litigant to press his claim,
even if it appears farfetched and untenable, to obtain the courtBs ruling) "ull enjoyment of that
right, with due allowance for the heat of controversy, will be protected by appellate courts
when infringed by trial courts)P 1acher v) 8nited 1tates, &!& 8)1) 1, ,, /2 1)Ct) !<1, !<<, ,.
$)Ed) /1/ (1,<2*) :ule !2(a* was thus envisioned for use in the Punusual situation ))) >here
instant action is necessary to protect the judicial institution itself)P ;arris v) 8nited 1tates, &%2
8)1) 1.2, 1./, %. 1)Ct) &<2, &<<, 1< $)Ed)2D 2!0 (1,.<*) +n light of the 1upreme CourtBs
guidance, 2utlerBs action in the heat of pressing her claim should not be deemed willful and
contemptuous) 11 +n sum, the government has not shown, and there is nothing in the trial
transcript included in the record on appeal that could show, beyond a reasonable doubt with
substantial evidence that 2utler willfully violated a specific order of the district court) 1ee
2urstyn, %/% ")2D at 1&2!) 2utlerBs conduct, therefore, though perhaps lac?ing decorum,
cannot be said to constitute contempt) ConseHuently, a remand to the district court to allow
compliance with :ule !2(a* would be fruitless).+++) C#3C$81+#3P
.2 EDate: >ed, 1! Dec 2011 1.:2.:!/ =0%00
"rom: :operDNreno)gov
5o: -achCoughlinNhotmail)com
1ubject: 9essage left on 121&2011
9r) Coughlin,
+ received your message that you left on my phone on December 1&, 2011 in
regards to a complaint against 9arshal 9enAel) 5he 9arshal Division ta?es all citiAen
complaints seriously and investigates all complaints received in writing or verbally)
;owever, + 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) 6s to your reHuest to obtain a copy of
9arshal 9enAelBs personnel file, + am unable to provide that to you without a valid
subpoena or warrant)
Kou also stated you were attempting to obtain a copy of your Dudgement of
Conviction from Dept) !, specifically @eronica $opeA, you can reach her at &2.=../&) + am
aware that a copy of your Dudgement of Conviction was provided to you and boo?ed into
your property on the night you were arrested) Kou are entitled to another copy should you
wish)
5han? you, Dustin :oper Chief 9arshalDepartment of 6lternative 1entencing,
:eno 9unicipal Court //<= &&!=12<!F

E1ubject: :E: 9essage left on 121&2011
1ent: >ed 121!11 .:<2 (9
.!1/%&
5o: roperjNreno)govC fis?gNreno)govC ballarddNreno)govC
renomunirecordsNreno)gov
Dear Chief 9arshal :oper, and the :9C,
5han? you for your Huic? reply) + actually reHuested a copy of some
documentation related to my complaints about both incidents with 9arshal 9enAel be
placed in his employment or personnel file, not that you provide me a copy of his file) +
would li?e one, or a copy of any complaints against any 9arshals, but + realiAe a subpoena
would li?ely be reHuired to have any chance at that) 3egligent 5raining, ;iring,
1upervision)
+ never received a copy of the Contempt "inding and 7uilty
@erdictDudgment#:der or whatever from the 11 &0, 2011 5rial before Dudge ;oward in 11
C:221/. 2+, though P@eronicaP (no one will tell me her last name, but she wor?s closely
with the :9C Dudges* said the only PserviceP of those #rders that was ever attempted on
me occured while + was handcuffed, after which point some 9arshals (+ did not catch their
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 ;owards #rder and Contempt
finding) 5his is truly reprehensible to not even let me save my damn notes and act li?e +
was some perp who just ?noc?ed 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
9arshals were involved in that in their employmentpersonnel files as well) (lease provide
me a copy of any complaints you have received against any 9arshals)
+ would li?e a copy of the 11 &0, 2011 #rder and the audio of the 5rial) + believe
you have a duty to find out what those 9arshals did with this document that P@eronicaP
alleges they attempted to serve on me, though, even 1! days after the 5rial, the Pdoc?etP in
the :9C 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 5rial of 11 &0, 2011, despite an
e'igent need for such to prepare :elief from Dudgment 9otions that have deadlines of 10=20
days from PserviceP of the P#rderP, and who ?nows how that will be measure) >hy it was
necessary to cost the public a bunch of overtime pay for the < or so 9arshalls, and who
?nows how many court staff to stay until nearly ,pm on 11 &0, 2011 to complete this
P5rialP, and how it was such a damn emergency, especially where :ichard ;ill was able to
get a continuance because he was going to be on vacation in the trespass case against me 11
C: 221%< 2+, despite the fact that $ew 5aitel never receive my consent to such a 9otion for
Continuance, and further 5aitel was arguably conflicted out of representing me considering
his PassociationP 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 5aitelBs appointment and representation) +f the :9C
can afford all that damn overtime for everyone, why couldnBt it appoint me a defense
attorney in :9C 11 C: 221/., especially where Dudge ;oward ruled, not 20 minutes into
5rial 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 5rialJ
"urther 9) 9enAel clearly bumped Donna 2allard out of the way in his Aeal to
.!2/%&
establish dominance of me, a person who was providing absolutely no resistance at the time)
9enAel went on to start order me to leave the premises after my conversation with 2allard
and the file cler? was done) Duh, 9enAel, it was <:00 pm or so Pclosing timeP what do you
thin? + am going to do, hang out and chill with you guysJ $oo? at the 3otice of ;earing or
Doc?et in :9C 11 C:221/. 2+ (+ am also hereby reHuesting a copy of the audio or video
of the hearing from the :9C* and the hand written interlineations + made on the document
9) 9enAel provided me in court on 10 11, 2011, where + mention the problems associated
with as?ing Huestions about my 1i'th 6mendment :ight to Counsel where only the
possibility of jail time e'ists) + as?ed 9enAel at that time a Huestion about the process and
he got very angry, threatening, and insulting with me, then later, criticiAed my appearance
before Dudge 7ardner, + believe he said + was PsarcasticP and or rude to the Dudge in the
same way + had been to 9enAel himself) + submit that citiAens trying to access justice
should not be ta?en as a personal affront to :9C employees li?e 9enAel, and that he needs
to strongly consider how he comes across to the public when he acts the way he does, and
carries a firearm, color of law, a badge, and apparently, the blessing of the :9C in carrying
out behavior that seems more fitting for a nightclub bouncer than a 9arshal) "urther, the
video played at arraignments is overly hostile and threatening in my opinion, especially the
parts where Dudge 7ardner ma?es statements on the Pe'tremelyP poor choice it would be to
represent oneBs self pro se and all these tones and words used that ma?e it sound li?e pro se
defendants will be punished for not either copping a plea or going with one of the Pfour
former prosecutorsP who are now drawing a paychec? from the :9CCitiAenry to fulfill the
1i'th 6mendment) + am something completely other than impressed with the wor? done by
$ew 5aitel, EsH) for me in :9C 11 C: 221%< 2+, in that regard) >hy shouldnBt defendants
in the :9C, after viewing the arraignment video and receiving representation li?e that
which + received from 5aitel, feel li?e lambs being led to slaughterJ 2aah, baaaaaaaaah^
5wo other 9arshals were there yesterday when 9enAel was berating me, + would li?e their
names, please)
3ow, just awhile ago, P:9C Court 5ranscriptionist (am $ongoniP called me on
the phone (Pwhile drivingP according to 9s) $ongoni* and informed me that the :9C must
permit her access to the audio files, and that, while she is lin?ed into Ptheir systemP
(meaning the :9CBs*, the :9C must ta?e some additional step to allow 9s) $ongoni to
access the audio files and continue with the process of tending ot a reHuest for a 5ranscript
on 6ppeal) + was told by a female :9C counter cler? that + would not ever be provided a
copy of the audio recording of the 11 &0, 2011 5rial, but that + may purchase from 9s)
$ongoni an official transcript, and that Pappeal transcripts are billed at O!)10 per pageP etc)
and that a substantial deposit would be reHuired, and that P3o 5ranscript is considered to be
official ordered, and commencement of transcription will not begin, until receipt of the
reHuired deposit)))P + as?ed 9s) $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 :9C in an 6ppeal conte't, until the :9C allowed 9s) $ongoni to
access the :9C PsystemP and viewhear the audio of the 11 &0, 2011 5rial in 11 C:221/.
2+) 9s) $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 :9CBs P@eronicaP (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 :9C attempt
to appropriately (or almost appropriately* serve me a copy of the Contempt "inding and
7uilty #rder stemming from the 11 &0, 2011 5rial in :9C 11 C: 221/. 2+) (lease have
this reHuest and communication reiterated to whoever it concerns at the :9C, and have
such a copy of those documents emailed, fa'ed, and mailed in the 81 (ostal 1ervice mail
immediately) "urther, please do the same with respect to the audio of the 11 &0, 2011 5rial
in :9C 11 C: 221/. 2+, and of course + will pay a reasonable cost for the cd to the e'tent
my +"( is not granted) 5he :DC and >ashoe District Court charge about O&0 per cd) 5he
also provide copies of the doc?ets in cases without demanding a subpoena force them to
first) (lease as? the gentleman 9s) 2allard saw me wor?ing with yesterday what he said in
that regard about providing me a copy of anything, much less the doc?et in either :9C 11
C: 221/. 2+ or :9C 11 C: 221%< 2+)
+ believe + am entitled to a copy of the audio recording Huic?ly, whether or not a
transcript has been officialy ordered, for the purposes of appeal or for any other purposes) +
believe in something called PtransparencyP in goverment) 1unshine)
$et me as? you a Huestion: +f a Dudge told you to jump off a bridge, would youJ
+t is my belief that Dudge ;oward ordered everyone to clear the courtroom, including a
female, shortly after my 11 20, 2011 5rial began and it became clear that + was not going to
lay down mee?ly for the Court, or for >al=9art, or for the :eno City 6ttorney) 2 million of
my people starved to death during a P7reat "amineP between 1%!%=1%<0 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 ;oward merely as?ed 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 7uantanamo, er, +
mean the >ashoe County Detention "acility after the 9ilitary 5ribunal, er, the 5rial in
:9C) +nterestingly, while at the >ashoe County Detention "acility, + have been made to
strip na?ed while being videotaped, wear a green dress for days on end, go without a
toothbrush for days, refused any opportunity to ma?e phone calls to protect my clients cases
from prejudice, forced to spread apart my buttoc?s and allow an overly long loo? at my anus
by 1heriffBs Deputies, and further, + was forced to submit to a position on my ?nees in the
immediate vicinity of two 1heriffBs Deputies crotches in some sadistic forced simulation of
performing oral se' upon those men) :ico3egligent ;iring, 5raining, 1upervision, !2
81C 1ec) 1,%& Deprivation of Civil :ights 8nder Color of 1tate $aw, etc), etc) Uui 5am,
>histleblower) 9r) :oper, + doubt a "ederal Court Dudge would reHuire that + have come
obtained a 1tatement "rom you to complain about any 9arshalBs conduct) + am pretty sure
this and my other correspondences have placed you on notice)
1incerely,
-ach Coughlin, EsH) %1/ 3) @irginia 1t) I2 :eno, 3@ %,<01 tel: //< 22,=./&/ fa': ,!,
../ /!02 -achCoughlinNhotmail)com 3evada 2ar 3o: ,!/&F
.!!/%&
.& http:www)scribd)comdoc1.<%!02<,/=1=0%=to=%=!=0,=D@0%=011.%=1tac?ed=Combined=
7ardner=#cr=.2&&/
5he official 2DDC "amily Court video (with audio* of the transcript form both trial
dates in the Doshi divorce matter is available here:
&120, &:10 p)m) 1tart of 5rial: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVbd37n/g1s;E
&1/0, %:21 a)m), to %:2% a)m) :esumption of 5rial: http:www)youtube)comwatchJ
vV3D(nCG>.8(w
%:2%:&, a)m) to %:2%:<, a)m): 2"$C "udge 4. =arner 2arn# Coughlin that he might be held
in contem/t i% he /er#i#t# 2ith hi# then current tact. Coughlin' o% cour#e' 2a# not held in
contem/t. ?# #uch' de%en#i-e collateral e#to//el a//lie# to de%eat the *+, argument#
Bho2e-er' unclearly elucidated and de-oid o% #/eci%ication or actual indication# o% 2hat'
#/eci%ically' /ro-ide# %actual #u//ort %or 2hich #/eci%ic -iolation i# allegedC' and the
Panel<# ultimate ;%inding# o% %actN and conclu#ion#N o% la2 a# to anything that 2ould
counteract "udge =ardner<# %inding and conclu#ion that Coughlin did not engage in any
!on"emp"uous !ondu!" Band' thu#' under the *+, and Panel<# a//roach' any ule# o%
Pro%e##ional Conduct in connection thereto' e-en though that are only -aguely related to
a contem/t %inding Bie' i% "udge )o2ard# ()@11' and "udge )olme# ()@4 #u%%ice to
;conclu#i-ely /ro-e that Coughlin -iolated PC &.5BdC B;PC &.5BdC #tate# J? la2yer #hall
not engage in !ondu!" in"ended "o disrup" a "ri6unal...NC 8'y' M' the 2"$C "udge 4. =ardner<#
%ailure to hold Coughlin in contem/t mu#t ;conclu#i-ely /ro-eN that Coughlin did not
-iolate tho#e #ame -ery PC#' rightDC during any /ortion o% the trial0
http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVfnjt=&wh;_8
%:2, a)m), to %:!. a)m): http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV>=_Hn.fgpE?
10:2. a)m), to 10:!% a)m) (end*: http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV%U2?rm$g1fs
6s to 3712=0!&<, 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner, and ";E&, the 121!12 "#"C#$
indicates:
GingBs %2&12 Complaint failed to attached to it ";E&, and failed to Eincorporate by
referenceF the content of such ";E& (pursuant to 9irchBs seemingly to reHuired language
specifically incorporating such by reference, and, perhaps, attaching such to the Complaint as
well to meet 3evadaBs notice=pleading standard in a disciplinary setting*, and such Complaint
.!</%&
merely provided the following e'cerpt from ";E&:
E )))2<) #n 6pril 10, 200,, District Dudge $inda 7ardner of the 1econd Dudicial District
Court e'ecuted an P#rder 6fter 5rial,P in case 3o) D@0%=011.%) +n that case, :espondent represented
the DefendantCounter Claimant) +n her #rder Dudge 7ardner e'plained :espondentBs inappropria"e
6e$aior in part as follows: 5he most troubling aspect of this case was 9r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic
and disrespectful presentation at trialC 9r) CoughlinBs ina6ili"y "o unders"and a 6alan!e s$ee"C his
failure "o !ondu!" dis!oery and his la!' of 'no#ledge #i"$ regard "o "$e rules of eiden!e and "rial
pro!edure) 6ll of this was compounded with a continuously antagonistic presentation of the case that
resulted in a shift from a fairly #im/le divorce case to a contentious divorce trial lasting an e'cessive
amount of time)))
2/) +n light of the forgoing :espondent violated :(C 1)1 (Competence*C :(C 1)2
(Diligence*C :(C &) 1 (9eritorious Claims and Contentions*: :(C &)& (Candor to the 5ribunal*: :(C
&)! ("airness to #pposing (arty and Counsel*C :(C &)< (+mpartiality and Decorum of the 5ribunal*C
:(C !) 1 (5ruthfulness in 1tatements to #thers*: :(C !)! (:espect for the :ights of 5hird (ersons*C
:(C &)<6 (:elations with #pposing Counsel*C :(C %)1 (Disciplinary 9atters*C :(C %)2 (Dudicial and
$egal #fficials*C and :(C %)! (9isconduct*)
Aoltan
;owever, the (anel merely addressed ";E& and 3712=0!&< as follows:
E)))2.) Dudge 7ardner san!"ioned Coughlin personally and a#arded a""orney(s fees
to )r, Jos$i in the amount of O,&! to be paid personally by Coughlin within &0 days of the
order) *ee )earing @8hibit P 1&' 4 14 -17) (E2ased upon the foregoing, 9r) 1pringgateBs
reHuest that 9r) Coughlin personally pay 9r) Doshi !)1< ;ours at the rate of O22< per hour for
the cost of the trial is 7:635ED) 9r) Coughlin shall submit a chec? to 9r) Doshi in the
amount of O,&! within &0 days of this #rder)F*
2/) 2ased on the order and CoughlinBs conduct in the Doshi matter, Coughlin was
terminated by >ashoe $egal 1ervices) 1ee 5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!,
2012, ( 110, $/=%) (E;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 110:/ to 110:,* (E$C63#*: E)))9r) Coughlin
to do that) &e!ause of "$e Jos$i ma""er $e #as "ermina"ed, and + didnBt have any further
contact with him)F*
2%) +n 9r) ElcanoBs opinion, Coughlin is not competent to practice law) 1ee
5ranscript of ;earing >ednesday, 3ovember 1!, 2012, ( ,!, $ & =%) (;E6:+37 = @ol) +,
((age ,!:& to ,!:%* U (G+37* +Bll first as? what that opinion is, then wor? bac?ward as to why
you feel that way) >hat is your opinion currently of 9r) CoughlinBs ability to practice lawJ 6
(E$C63#* Currently + donBt believe heBs competent to practice law based on the information +
have)F*)))
7m/artiality and $ecorum o% the 6ribunalW
(++* :(C &)<(d* states P6 lawyer shall not engage in !ondu!" in"ended "o disrup" a
"ri6unal)))
.!./%&
($$* 5he various orders of !on"emp" (3#5E: there is a great deal of reliance upon
alleged conduct in a Ewash roomF in ";E! and ";E<, or through a fa' machine, apparently
while the court was not even open for business, all not Ein a courtroom* or imposing san!"ions
issued by Dudges =enne"$ -ardner B,96@0 Chair @che-erria erred here in mi#ta5enly
re%erring to "udge :enneth )o2ard thu#lyC, +inda -ardner, Dorothy 3ash ;olmes and
(atric? "lanagan each describe a #imilar pa""ern of !ondu!" and beha-ior that i#
in"en"ionally disrup"ie o% the tribunal) (3#5E: 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 !' /' 10'
21 and 2<)
(!) CoughlinBs conduct during the trial of the petit larceny case on 3ovember &0,
2011, in which Coughlin appeared in propria persona, was so di#ru/tive that Dudge ;oward
found Coughlin in dire!" contem/t of court and sentenced him to jail that same day to be
released on December &, 2011 at %:00 (9) "udge )o2ard #/eci%ically %ound Coughlin<#
conduct to be di#orderly and 2a# ei"$er contem/tuou# or beha-ior in#olent to2ard the
Eudge in that Coughlin refused:
P))) to obey directives of the Dudge, !on"inuing lines of in8uiry after being
advised by the Court to refrain from doing soC demeaning the Court with
statements such as P>#>P in response to court rulingsC laughing during
testimony and further Huestioning the court and its authority)P
1ee ;earing E'hibit 11 #:DE: "#: 18996:K (83+1;9E35 #"
contem/t C#99+55ED +3 5;E +99ED+65E @+E> 63D (:E1E3CE #" 5;E
C#8:5, 3ovember &0, 2011)
(3#5E: ;owardBs #rder for 1ummary (unishment (2hich ha# ne-er included a
Certi%icate o% *er-ice attached to it, in any iteration thereof* not in 33D2 2oard Chair
1usichBs use of it as E'hibit . to his <&112 retreated of ;illBs associate 2a?er and GingBs
machinations in the 1C: 11/ .0,/< (etition, not in GingBs attaching one version of it (with
a different EcertificationF by :9C 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 ;olmesB &1212 #rder (li?e the version thereof that became
";E<* and that attachments to it, and not in ";E11, the same 11&011 #(1C by :9C
Dudge ;oward))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 :C6 :oberts was not even present for the additional three
minutes on the record occurring at %:&0 p)m), when Dudge ;oward had Coughlin brought
bac? into the court room in handcuffs, such was rendered in absentia and the deadline to
appeal such therefore (and ;oward 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 :9C or :C6 finally files a 3otice of
Entry of #rder, etc) (the use of the term ErulingF by Dudge Elliott in ";E12 now ma?es
more sense* failed to chec? the bo' in that form order that Ging needed to be chec?ed to
have any chance of the offensive collateral estoppel he is see?ing 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 :9C failed
.!//%&
to ever serve Coughlin a notice of Entry of #rder for that #1(#C, made in absentia of
either or both Coughlin and :C6 (amela :oberts, EsH) (whom everybody can than? for
turning our legal community into as big a roc? fight in the street as she could**)
(see, supra Huotation from (age 22 of ,< from CoughlinBs filing in Doc?et .0%&%
Document 2012=1%,.2*
5he 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 :9CBs
Chief 9arshal Dustin :oper of 121!11)
/) Dudge 3ash ;olmes ordered Coughlin into custody on "ebruary 2/,
2012 and to be incarcerated at the >ashoe County :egional Detention "acility for the term
of five (<* days) 0l"erna"iely Coughlin could pay a fine of O<00) 5he CourtBs sentence was
6ased on i"s de"ailed findings regarding Coug$lin(s !ondu!" in $is o#n defense)
P5he court finds that defendantBs !on"emp"uous !ondu!" consisted of his
rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic, deceitful,
di#ru/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
di#ru/t the trial process) 5he court finds that the following occurred, and !ons"i"u"e
!on"emp": 1* defendantBs mimeli'e, !lo#nis$ an"i!s of ma?ing faces at the courtC
sagging down into his seat and hanging his headC loo?ing behind himself and inside
his coat as if searching for a better way to as? a HuestionC rolling his eyesC and
mimic?ing others wordsC 2* defendantBs incessant arguing with the court, tal?ing over
the court, and interrupting the courtC &* defendan"(s repea"edly res"a"ing ma""ers
af"er 6eing "old 6y "$e !our" "o Gmoe onG or Gas' "$e ne?" 8ues"ionCP !*
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 P2oulevard 1topCP <* defendantBs repeatedly
trying to insert P3i!$ard %illP 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 !on"inually posing improper 8ues"ions af"er 6eing dire!"ed 6y "$e !our" "o
properly p$rase $is 8ues"ions /* defendantBs continually accusing the court of
denying $im "$e rig$" or a6ili"y "o as' 8ues"ions and telling the court to Pgive me a
list of Huestions you want me to as?CP %* defendantBs suggesting that the court Ptell
me what would ma?e you happyCP ,* defendantBs lying "o "$e !our" in response to
direct Huestions posed by the court with regard to his recording the proceedingsC and
10* defendantBs failing and refusing "o properly e?amine "$e #i"ness7 despi"e
numerous admoni"ions 6y "$e !our" "o s"op repea"ing 8ues"ions7 miss"a"ing
ans#ers7 in;e!"ing irrelean" ma"erial7 arguing #i"$ "$e #i"ness and
mis!$ara!"eriKing "$e "es"imony)P
1ee ;earing E'hibit ! #:DE: "+3D+37 5;E DE"E3D635 +3 contem/t
#" C#8:5 63D +9(#1+37 163C5+#31) (3#5E: Ging failed to attach ";E ! to his
Complaint)*
.!%/%&
10) Dudge 3ash ;olmes 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:
P)))purported to be yet another motion in this case entitled P9otion to
:eturn Cell (honesC 9otion to 1et 6side 1ummary contem/t #rderC and notice
of 6ppeal of 1ummary contem/t #rder)P >ith scant discussion of, or relevance
;oward in a Department ! case and again contains more than 200 pages of string
legal citationsC lyrics to roc?s (sic* songsC 9r) CoughlinBs personal family historyC
discussion of an e-iction case and another contem/t caseC disjointed legal
citations and other nonsensical matters that have no apparent relevance to his
traffic citation case) (3#5E: GingBs Complaint faile to notice plead any of the
above, much less incorporate it by reference or even attach it as an e'hibit: P1!) +n
the case of City of :eno vs) -achary 2ar?er Coughlin, Case 3o) 11 5: 2.%00 21,
a trial was held on a traffic citation issued to :espondent) 5he matter was called at
appro'imately &:00 p)m) and concluded without a verdict at about !:&0 p)m) after
the court held :espondent in !riminal !on"emp" of court for hi# beha-ior and
activities !ommi""ed in "$e dire!" presen!e of "$e !ourt during trial)P
21) #n behalf of his client Dr) 9erliss, 9r) ;ill sought and obtained an
order in favor of Dr) 9erliss and against Coughlin awarding Dr) 9erliss attorneyBs fees in
the amount of O!2,0.<)<0) >ashoe District Court Dudge (atric? "lanagan entered the
order on Dune 2<, 2012) 1ee 5ranscript of (roceedings of >ednesday, 3ovember 1!,
2012, ( !/, $ &=/) =1ee ;earing E'hibit 2, ( &, $ 10=11) 5he motion see?ing attorneyBs
fees was based on CoughlinBs conduct in the defense of the e-iction matter, which
conduct was characteriAed as frivolous and ve'atious and presumably so found by Dudge
"lanagan) 1ee ;earing E'hibit 2 ( 2, $ %=1&C ( &, $ !=11)
2<) Judge -ardner(s order in "$e Jos$i ma""er indicated that
Coughlin $ad !ondu!"ed no dis!oery in the ca#e and %ailed to /re#ent any
do!umen"ary e-idence at the trial o% the matter on behal% o% hi# client !r#. "o#hi) 1ee
;earing E'hibit & ( 12, $ ! =.)
6fter commenting on various negative aspects of CoughlinBs representation of his
client 9rs) Doshi, (1ee ;earing E'hibit ( 12, $ , =( 1&, $ !0* Judge -ardner specifically held:
P5he most troubling aspect of this case was 9r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic and
disrespectful presen"a"ion at trialC 9r) CoughlinBs inability to understand a balance sheetC
$is failure "o !ondu!" dis!oery (3#5E: within the "indings of "act section of ";E&
(which is not even admissible anyways, and where ";E& was vacated and or superseded
by the "inal Decree of Divorce of .1,0,) 6dditionally, CoughlinBs 102%0, (etition
for >rit of 9andamus in <!%!!, which the (anel and 123 were provided, destroyed all
of these positions)* Dudge $) 7ardner merely notes that 1pringgate made such allegation
that Coughlin failed to conduct discovery) 6nd 1pringgateBs response to CoughlinsB
Huery as to what, if any discovery 1pringgate conduct (never mind whether conducting
discovery would have be useful for any purpose in such setting, versus, say, doing the
.!,/%&
legal research necessary to uncover the legal positions and citation in support thereof that
Coughlin did vis a vis the impermissibility of setting of a duty with a debt* is laughable
where 1pringgate responded E+ did my discovery in the 1.)1F where Coughlin could
clearly say the e'act same thing)))further, 1pringgate appears to be referring to his
propounding materials to Coughlin at that time rather than see?ing to discover some
materials or documentationC regardless, there are mechanisms to address any discovery
related complaints 1pringgate may have had, and they do not included moving for
sanctions under 3:1 /)0%< in his closing argument divorce case where the procedural
reHuirements of 3:C( 11 were not adhered to, which is a jurisdictional bar to issuing
any attorney fee award pursuant to 3:1 /)0%<, particularly should such be characteriAed
as a EsanctionF*C and his lac? of ?nowledge with regard to the rules of evidence and trial
procedure) 6ll 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) P
*ee )earing @8hibit &' P 1&' 4 5 -10:
(P6t trial) 9r) 1pringgate stated that 9r) Coughlin had conducted no
discovery in this case) +n addition, 9r) Coughlin failed to present one
documentary piece of evidence at triall on behall of 9a) DoshiBs claims) 9r)
Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court throughout trial and made sarcastic,
derogatory remar?s to the Court, 9r) 1pringgote, and 9r) Doshi throughout trial)
5he Court notes that there were well overr !0 objections during four (!* hours of
trial) 9r) 1prlnggateBs objections were well=founded and continuously sustained
e'cept in one instanceP*)
(3#5E: Ging failed to attach 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial
(";E&* 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#5E: just as Coughlin was Enot a partyF for purposes of appealing
any part of the #rder 6fter 5rial (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, 9s) 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 ";E& (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 >$1Bs Elcano to provide foundations for or
authenticate that produced by Ging in ";E& 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 :9C
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
:9C* for both the 22/12 and &1212 trail dates resulting in, respectively, ";E!,
.<0/%&
and ";E<*)
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 <210, (roposed Decree
and ";E&Bs own dictate that 1pringgate (repare such a "inal Decree consistent with ";E&)))*
(erhaps if 6sst) 2ar Counsel Ging had not cheated li?e a cheap weasel by failing to
disclose his intention to call Elcano as a witness until constructively noticing Coughlin thereof
one judicial day prior to the 111!12 formal hearing, Coughlin would not have been prejudice
in his defense sufficient to prevent e'posing the multitude of inconsistencies and base
e'aggerations integral to >$1Bs ElcanoBs testimony, including:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 11/:2& to 11%:1* E)))the judge ?indly tried to give you
direction, which you totally eschewed) <ou did "$is for "$ree or four $ours "$e firs" "ime7
!ame 6a!' a #ee' or "en days la"er and did i" again,F
6ctually, the transcript of the first trial date reveals that such too? place between
&:10 p)m), and !:<< p)m) #ne hour and forty five minutes is a bit different than Ethree or four
hoursF) "urther, where the first trial date too? place on &120, and the concluding second trail
date occurred on &1/0,, a mere five calendar days intervened between the two (a mere two
judicial days*, which is substantially different than ElcanoBs contention that Ea wee? or ten days
laterF Couglin Edid it againF)
CoughlinBs 102%0, (E5+5+#3 "#: >:+5 #" 963D65E in <!%!! includes (note:
CoughlinBs wor? in that (etition was pretty off base, as it seems to proceed under the
assumption that he was held in contempt, which he was not) ;owever, one cannot really blame
Coughlin too much given the circumstances, his ine'perience at that time (Coughlin was
admitted to practice in 9arch of 200<, whereupon he wor?ed at ;ale $ane (now ;olland M
;art* for four and a half months (Duly 200/=December 200/*, then basically did not do much
legal wor? at all until being hired by >ashoe $egal 1ervices in 6ugust of 200/, where he
wor?ed until being terminated in 9ay of 200/ (soley due to ";E& according to his termination
letter from >$1Bs E'ecutive Director (aul Elcano*, wherupon Coughlin received ,, wee?s of
.<1/%&
unemployment during Ethe worst recession since the 7reat DepressionF, then Coughlin grossed
O1&,<00 wor?ing full time as a solo practitioner between Duly 2011 to his suspension in Dune
2012 (Dudge 2eesley apparently does not feel offering his opinion as to oneBs competency
entails any sort of inHuiry into the length one has been practicing or there e'perience level, or
how much they were paid for the services provided) Dudge 2eesley refused to answer
CoughlinBs Huestions as to the level of negligence on 2eesleyBs part such an approach evinced)
>hen does surgical immunity become a thingJ "urther, somehow Elcano escapes
remonstrance for his EtrainingF methods vis a vis CoughlinJ:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 11.:22 to 11%:2* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 3hen you
2ere telling me' gi-ing me #ome mentoring' that #$en you #al' in"o "$a" !our"room7 "$a"
!our"room is yours, 5"(s no" "$e ;udge(s7 i"(s no" opposing !ounsel(s7 i"(s yours) +oes that
sound li5e something you said to meJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) :elevance) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
>as there an objectionJ + didnBt hear it) 9:) G+37: Kes) #bjection) :elevance) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +Bll overrule it) 7o ahead) 5;E >+53E11: <es, Ou" of !on"e?", &u" "$a"(s a
s"a"emen" 5 #ould ma'e7 yes) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U ;ow is that reconciled with your
criticism of my wor? in the Doshi caseJ 6 + donBt understand the Huestion) 2ut your wor? in
the Doshi case was that it was incompetent) +t had nothing to do with whether or not you too5
over the courtroom) 5here were no == it was a divorce case) 5here was no s"a"emen" or
i"emiKa"ion of "$e !ommuni"y proper"y) 5here was no statement or itemiAation of the
community debts) Kou were completely at a loss as "o issues of relean!e) Kou made
objections li?e you did today that went over and over and over again without legal basis, and
incorporated strange rules) 5he judge ?indly tried to give you direction, which you totally
eschewed) <ou did "$is for "$ree or four $ours "$e firs" "ime7 !ame 6a!' a #ee' or "en days
la"er and did i" again) +t had nothing to do with whether or not you too? control of the
courtroom)F*
7n the 9inutes by Cler5 "anet 6aylor %rom the 10&0% Case
9anagement Conference held before 1enior Dudge 1cott Dordan filed 10100% the %ollo2ing is
indicated:
E(resent in Court were (laintiff 6shwin Doshi, represented by counsel Dohn
1pringgate, EsH)C and Defendant 2harti Doshi, represented by counsel -achary
Coughlin, EsH)
5his matter was #cheduled a# a Ca#e !anagement Con%erence, and the
parties have agreed to put the following issues before the Court:
9r) 1pringgate informed the Court that the parties have two children that are
no longer minorsC therefore !us"ody will not !e at issue) Plainti%% ha# a %amily debt o%
a//ro8imately H5'000.00 incurred in bringing the %amily o-er %rom 6anMania. )e
agree# to 5ee/ that debt. 6he /artie# ha-e con#umer debt o% a//ro8imately
H20'000.00 that the /artie# #hall be di-ided eAually)
Plainti%% al#o ha# a EF87000,00 medi!al 6ill) 6lthough it is a community
debt, he will continue to pay and accept liability for it) 9r) 1pringgate has e'plained to
.<2/%&
(laintiff that #hould he be #ued %or that medical debt he could %ile ban5ru/tcy.
?lthough Plainti%% i# not /ondering ban5ru/tcy at thi# /oint' #hould it become
nece##ary' it #ill 6e a grea" deal of family de6" Dlain"iff #ill no longer 6e responsi6le
for . (or that rea#on they a gree "o "$e Cour" 'eeping ;urisdi!"ion on alimony %or %i-e
year# at H1.00 /er year to /rotect $e%endant #hould a ban5ru/tcy be %iled.
5here are "#o signifi!an" i"ems of personal proper"y in dispu"e7 a "eleision
and a !ompu"er, (laintiff reHuests his personal papers located at the residence in order
to apply for citiAenship)
+n regard to the automobiles, (laintiff shall ?eep the 5railblaAer and
maintain, and Defendant shall ?eep the Caravan and maintain payments on that vehicle)
?ll other -ehicle# belong to the children.
Defendant has a claim about her EwomanLs wealthF brought into the
marriage, and gifts) (laintiff testifies that he does not have it, and does not ?now where
it is) )e belie-e# it may be 2ith hi# #i#ter in 6anMania) 1ince he doesnLt have it, he
cannot agree to give it to her) ;e does, however agree that it belongs to Defendant and
i# not community /ro/erty) (laintiff agrees to notify his family that it should be
delivered to Defendant and will attempt to e'pedite that delivery)
9r) Coughlin states that Defendan" ha# con#idered the o%%er and i# not at a
/oint to agree to it. $e%endant i# troubled by the lac5 o% e%%ort on Plainti%%G# /art to
obtain the 2omanG# 2ealth. Defendan" s"rongly fees some alimony a#ard is in order,
(laintiff verified that he wor?s at a catering company and has no other
employment)
5he Court indicates that itsL goal is to attempt to settle this matter) +n regard
to the marital wealth, both parties agree it should be awarded to Defendant) +t is
important (laintiff cooperate in returning those items to Defendant) 6he Court ha# no
other /o2er to order their return other than a2arding them to $e%endant)
5he medical debt i# being treated a# a !ommuni"y de6", and Plainti%%
agree# to /ay in %ull) 'he Court wants to ma5e sure the parties understand that should
Claintiff !e sued for non/payment of the medical de!t the doctors have the right to
pursue +efendant for payment) )er re!ourse #ould 6e "o sue Dlain"iff,
6he Court #tate# that in regard to alimony' under ,e-ada rule# alimony
i# a2arded 2hen there i# an im6alan!e 6e"#een earnings of "$e par"ies. +a#ed u/on
the in%ormation' 6o"$ par"ies earn "$e same amoun" #o "$ere is no 6asis for alimony.
*in!e Dlain"iff is "a'ing more "$an R "$e de6"7 "$is s$ould offse" any !laim for
alimony)
+n regard to the issue of personal property, each party is to ?eep what they
currently have in their possession) (laintiff does not want the television but reHuests the
financial information from the hard drive of the computer)
5he Court states it has no power to order custody or visitation but encourages
the parties to have a meaningful relationship for the benefit of the children)
5he parties agreed to recess and attempt a settlement)
5he Court was informed that the /artie# could not #ettle, therefore it did
not reconvene)F
.<&/%&
Coughlin wrote >$1Bs Elcano in an email (and possibly a fa'* transmitted
successfully on !1,0,:
P(E:1#36$ 63D C#3"+DE35+6$ "rom: -ach Coughlin
(AachcoughlinNhotmail)com* 1ent: 1un !1,0, /:<2 (9 5o: (aul Elcano
(pelcanoNwashoelegalservices)org*C 5;+1 9E1167E +1 +35E3DED "#: (68$
E$C63# #3$K, ($E61E D# 3#5 :E6D 83$E11 K#8 6:E 5;E +35E3DED
:EC+(+E35) 6pril 1<th, 200,
Dear (aul, + wish to ma?e another formal complaint alleging a hostile wor?
environment that includes harassment, se'ual harassment, wor?place bullying,
discrimination and other prohibited conduct directed towards due to my race, gender,
religion, national origin, political affiliation, se'ual orientation, and age)
k+ have been harassed, se'ually harassed, and discriminated against by
employees of >ashoe $egal 1ervices on many occasions) 5his is ongoing) + have
informed you and others at our wor?place of this harassment many times) 1ome, but not
all, of the prohibited behavior directed towards me includes inappropriate se'ually
charged comments, racially charged comments, gender discrimination, screaming, the
use of disparaging and foul language, bullying, and intimidation) 9uch of this conduct
has focused on my gender, se'ual orientation, national origin, political affiliation or
viewpoint, race and other immutable characteristics) 5his conduct has continued to
occur and is presently ongoing) 9arc 6shley, Garen 1abo, and Dohn 1asser were
definitely made aware of this by me in one of our sit down meetings and + informed
them of my wish to file a formal complaint at that time, though + do not believe my
reHuest was followed up on) + recently filed a formal complaint appro'imately two
months ago but have yet to hear bac? from anyone with >ashoe $egal 1ervices
regarding that complaint)
+ am in no way going to detail every single inappropriate or prohibited act by
a >ashoe $egal 1ervices employee directed at me in this communication) +t is my firm
desire that we all just get along, serve our clients well, and ma?e efficient use of the
grants bestowed upon us, and + would hate to see anyone lose their job without a real
opportunity to address these issues) 5his inappropriate conduct has included a variety of
activities, not all of which + will be able to fully detail in this complaint but will be able
to provide details at an appropriate time)
+ would li?e a copy of this and my other complaints placed in my
employment file) + reHuest that the formal complaint and grievance process begin soon)
1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH)P
Gathy 2rec?enridge, EsH) (2oard (resident for >$1 in 200, at the time of
CoughlinBs termination* along with DD6 9ary Gandaras, EsH) (involved in the confiscation on
22%12 of CoughlinBs smart phone, cell phone, and micro sd data card well after it any period
in which a Psearch incident to arrestP could permissibly be done, and after such items were
boo?ed into CoughlinBs personal secured property at the >ashoe County jail, and the return of
such items, albeit with all the data wiped, a full / days after the &&012 #rder by Dudge 3ash
.<!/%&
;olmes in 2.%00 reHuiring that >CD6 DD6 Gandaras and the >C1# release them to
Coughlin*, sit on the 33D2 and should not have been on the 1creening (anel, nor should have
:ichard 7) ;ill, EsH)Bs admitted best friend David ;amilton, EsH)
Geep in mind that the doc?et in "@0,=00%%., Dose 8ribe v Garina @aldeA (a 5(#
case Coughlin wor?ed on representign a male victim of domestic violence (>$1Bs Caryn
1ternlicht announced to a domestic violence victim clinic with two male victims in attendance
that Emen canBt be victims of domestic violence in 200%* reveals the >$1 2oard (resident
Gathy 2rec?enridge reHuested the D6@1 transcriptrecording of the &200, 5(# ;earing from
which the 1econd Dudicial District CourtBs C66> run protection office advocate 10=6(:=200,
E0!:<1 (9 \\ 3otes ))) Entry: CD 28:3ED ;E6:+37 D65E 0&=20=
200, :EU8E15ED G65;$EE3 2:ECGE3:+D7E C6$$ED "#: (+CG 0!=10=200,D6F)
P1ubject: >$1
"rom: Gathy 2rec?enridge (?athyN?brec?enridgelaw)com*
1ent: "ri !2!0, ,:2/ 69
1 attachment Coughlin ltr 6pr2&, 0,)pdf (!)! G2*))) @+6 E=96+$ 65
AachcoughlinNhotmail)com 63D 81 96+$
Dear 9r) Coughlin: *e-eral e-ent# relating to your employment with >ashoe
$egal 1ervices have transpired in the last wee? that must and will be addressed in an
orderly and timely manner) Ene of these events is the order i##ued by "udge =ardner
#anctioning your conduct) Four em/loyment 2a# #u#/ended 2ith /ay to gi-e
3a#hoe 4egal *er-ice# the o//ortunity to in-e#tigate and ta5e a//ro/riate action to
addre## concern# re#ulting %rom the#e e-ent#) >e have ordered the tape of the hearing
before "udge =ardner and will be reviewing it as part of our investigation) 6s +
informed you during our conversation on 6pril 22, we are conducting an investigation
and you will have the opportunity to present the facts from your perspective)
9n ?/ril 20' 2009' af"er your employmen" suspension ' you /re#ented u#
2ith a letter 2here you noti%ied u# that you had /re-iou#ly %iled com/laint# 2ith
3a#hoe 4egal *er-ice#) 3e 2ill e8tend the #co/e o% our in-e#tigation to co-er your
com/laint#. 6gain, you will have the opportunity to e'plain the basis of your complaints)
>e will contact you within the ne't wee? to schedule your interview)
+n your 6pril 20 letter, you reHuested a copy of your personnel file) + have
as?ed (aul to ma?e a copy of your file) (lease email my 6ssistant at
taraN?brec?enridgelaw)com to let her ?now the address for us to send the file to you) +f
you would prefer to pic? up a copy of your personnel file from my office, let my
6ssistant ?now when to e'pect you)
@ery truly yours, Gathleen 5) 2rec?enridge, EsH) (resident of 5he 2oardP
Eemployment complaint of -ach Coughlin, EsH)
1ent: 9on !200, !:&0 (9
.<</%&
5o: ?athyN?brec?enridgelaw)com
2 attachments
$etter to 2oard (resident 2rec?enridge)doc (&,)0 G2* , Complaint for >ashoe $egal 1ervices
2oard)doc (2.)0 G2*
32: attachments contain the same as that which is pasted below:

Gathleen 5) 2rec?enridge, EsH)
2oard (resident, >ashoe $egal 1ervices
Gathleen 5) 2rec?enridge $td)
!.2 Court 1treet
:eno, 3@ %,<01
6pril 20th, 200,
Dear Gathleen,
3ormally + would not write to you at this juncture in the process, however, you
apparently are already aware of some situation now e'isting between >ashoe $egal 1ervices
and myself) + do not ?now whether you are aware that + had already filed complaints and or
grievances with >ashoe $egal 1ervices and am awaiting a response) 5his communication is
intended to ma?e sure that you are aware of this)
+ am concerned for my clients and wish to have access to my office and files so that
+ may comply with the :ules of (rofessional :esponsibility) "urther, one case, the 2harti Doshi
matter contains a ruling that orders me to personally pay attorneyLs fees to the opposing party)
:econsideration of this #rder after 5rial must be sought immediately and + would li?e some
indication from >ashoe $egal 1ervices as to whether + am EallowedF to see? such
reconsideration) + intend to see? to have this order reconsidered and would li?e some direction
as to whether you, the 2oard, or >ashoe $egal 1ervices intends to continue to, in some way,
prevent me from having a chance to have my personal liability in that case reconsidered in
addition to preserving the clients avenues for reconsideration)
(aul Elcano, E'ecutive Director of >ashoe $egal 1ervices, has directed me to have
no involvement in any of my cases, and to refrain from entering the building at 2,, 1)
6rlington 6venue regardless of any duty + may have under the :ules of (rofessional
:esponsibility or otherwise) ;e indicates this is the 2oardLs directive as well) ;e further
indicates that he and the 2oard have decided that + will not be allowed to retrieve anything
from my office until further notice, including my personal belongings) + would li?e some
indication, in writing, that that is the case, as + feel + have a responsibility to my clients to
protect their interests to the fullest e'tent possible and that it is impossible to do so while
obeying these directives)
+ still have yet to be told what it is + am being accused of, or by whom, and + have
not been interviewed or Huestioned in that regard prior to implementation of the 2oardLs
apparent decision to suspend me) "urther, the employment complaints and grievances (and
there is more than one* that + filed prior to any such suspension have yet to be responded to in
.<./%&
any way that + am aware of) >hether any retaliation for my complaints is occurring is
certainly up for debate)
+ reHuest that + am given proper written notice of what is alleged against me and by
whom, that + be in all appropriate ways included in this process, and that + am allowed to
retrieve my personal belongings and ta?e the appropriate steps to assure the protection of my
clientsL interests)
>ith regard to being ordered to personally pay attorneyLs fees in the Doshi divorce
matter, + feel + have Huite a strong argument for overturning that #rder) 2asically, the award of
attorneyLs fees relates to my refusal to accept a settlement offer whereby my client would agree
to ta?ing O1)00 of alimony for five years in e'change for the opposing party agreeing to be
responsible for about O&0,000 of consumer debt) 5his consumer debt was largely incurred on
the opposing partyLs credit cards, to which my client was not a co=signer or authoriAed user and
was never allowed to e'amine any sort of itemiAed statement of the charges incurred (despite
my written reHuests to opposing counsel and indication that allowing her to do so would further
settlement negotiations*) >hile these credit card debts were presumptively community
property and my client could have her share of the community property (for which there was
none, they are paychec? to paychec? people who donLt own a house* used to satisfy the
community credit card debt, she faced no personal liability) 5his was a 21 year marriage with a
O12,000 yearly income disparity favoring the opposing party) 9y client had been the primary
caregiver to their now 20 year old children)
+ argued against accepting such a settlement (though + certainly informed my client
that the decision to go to trial was largely hers*) + anticipated the trial would result in an
alimony award to my client of roughly O<00 per month, potentially for over 10 years) 1hould
my client have been ordered to pay half the community credit card debt (for which her personal
property probably could not be used to satisfy as she was not a cosigner on the account*, any
subseHuent failure on her part to do so could arguably not be used as a proper basis to set off
any alimony award received)
+t seems + was ordered to personally pay attorneyLs fees for failing to accept the
settlement and pursuing an argument that the court did not feel was warranted by e'isting law)
;owever, as detailed below, there does appear to be a good deal of e'isting law supporting the
position we too? in rejecting the settlement offer) + in no way told my client to disobey any
order of the court) $i?e many domestic violence cases, the settlement offered e'erted a good
deal of inappropriate Epower and controlF (a la the Duluth model* over my client and her rights
and + objected to that and am proud for having done so in the face of much arm twisting)
5he court in each of the following cases determined that an offset against an
arrearage of alimony for payments to various third parties on behalf of a former spouse,
including tuition and sums spent in satisfaction of a ban? loan or credit card charges, would not
be permitted)
5he court in 9orel v 9orel (1,%2, $a 6pp <th Cir* !2< 1o 2d 12%,, cert den ($a*
!&0 1o 2d ,,, refused to allow as an offset against delinHuent alimony pendente lite and child
support several noncomplying e'penditures by the husband, including the payment of the
childrenBs tuition, a community debt, when the amount e'pended could be recovered by him at
the time of the settlement of the marital community, and the payment was not made pursuant to
.<//%&
the spousesB agreement) 6 reHuest by the wife that the husband ma?e such payments during a
later time period was found irrelevant to the instant indirect payments)
>here the wife testified that she used the credit card to Pbalance outP household
e'penses for herself and the children while the couple was separated, the court in Koungberg v
Koungberg (1,%., $a 6pp !th Cir* !,, 1o 2d &2,, would not permit an offset against post=
divorce permanent alimony and child support arrearages for one=half of the credit card charges)
5he husband had been ordered to pay alimony pendente lite and child support during the period
in which the charges were made, but was current in his payments at that time, and asserted that
the wife made the charges without the his permission) 5he wife maintained that the credit card
charges were for e'penses for which the husband was responsible) 5he court concluded that
neither spouse intended such a credit when the husband paid the credit card account balance,
denying the offset apparently based on the lac? of evidence of an agreement between the
parties)
+n 7ottsegen v 7ottsegen (1,%/, $a 6pp !th Cir* <0% 1o 2d 1.2, the court
disallowed credit against past=due permanent alimony for pre=award payments made on
veterinarian and cable television bills when those items could not be considered necessary for
the wifeBs support, pursuant to $a):)1) ,:&10, which provided for the retroactive effect of such
awards subject to credit for any support provided)
Credit card charges for the purchase of luggage and an airline tic?et by the wife
immediately prior to separation, which apparently fell to the husband to pay, were not offset
against arrears in alimony pendente lite by the court in :auch v :auch (1,%%, $a 6pp <th Cir*
<&< 1o 2d 1&1/, when the husbandBs claim was not PliHuidatedP within the meaning of $16=
C)C) art) 1%,&, the statutory setoff provision)
6lthough affirming the lower courtBs postponement of a decision respecting the
husbandBs right to credit until the divorce trial because this aspect of the decision was not
appealed, the court in Geff v Geff (1,%&, &d Dept* ,< 6pp Div 2d %%%, !.! 3K12d 2,,
remar?ed that a judgment reHuiring the husband to pay the full amount of the claimed arrears in
temporary maintenance and child support would have been appropriate, notwithstanding a
claimed setoff for amounts paid by him for attorneyBs fees owed by the wife) 5he court noted
that the husband neither moved for relief of the support order, nor proffered any reason for his
neglect, and his unilateral reduction of support was improper)
5he court in 7luc? v 7luc? (1,%/, 2d Dept* 1&! 6pp Div 2d 2&/, <20 3K12d <%1,
concluded that a husbandBs payment of the spousesB credit card bills, apparently prior to
divorce, could not be offset against arrears in (temporary* maintenance and child support owed
to his wife)
+n 2runer v 2runer (1,/%, $a 6pp 2d Cir* &<. 1o 2d 1101, cert gr ($a* &<% 1o 2d
.!1, it was held that the trial court erred in allowing a husband credit or an offset against a
claimed arrearage of alimony pendente lite for payments made by him to third parties on his
wifeBs behalf where the evidence did not show that the payments were made at the reHuest of,
or with the consent of, his wife)
6 husband was not entitled to credit against arrears in pendente lite maintenance and
child support for voluntary payments he made to third parties for his wifeBs and childrenBs
benefit, according to the court in GrantA v GrantA (1,,1, 2d Dept* 1/< 6pp Div 2d %.<, </&
.<%/%&
3K12d /&%, on the ground that several of the payments also satisfied the husbandBs contractual
obligations)
:emanding the case for a new trial to determine whether the wife consented to
certain payments to third parties in lieu of alimony and child support arrearages due under a
separation agreement, the court in $opeA v $opeA (1,%0, 6pp* 12< 6riA &0,, .0, (2d </,,
observed that support payments, whether for the wifeBs or childBs support, are to be disbursed by
the supported spouse as she sees fit, and the supporting spouse ordinarily is not entitled to
credits against past=due support for monies that he paid to third parties on his own accord and
without her consent, unless eHuitable e'ceptions so demand and such an allowance would not
do an injustice to the supported spouse) 5he husband had reHuested credit for payments made
by him through his insurance company, to doctors and dentists on behalf of his wife and
children, and one=half of the payment made on a lot purchased by him in both partiesB name)
6nd, in Gerpen v Gerpen (1,,1, 2d Dept* 1/2 6pp Div 2d !,., <./ 3K12d %!,, the
court refused to credit a husband with voluntary payments made on behalf of his wife for Pclub
and other itemsP toward the sum of money owed by him for maintenance and child support
under a pendente lite order)
+ feel strongly that e'isting law did indeed warrant the position we too? at trial) 5he
court also too? some issue with my repeated objections to opposing counsel entering e'hibits
into evidence without providing a copy to me at the time they were being introduced
(indicating that the documents were produced at an earlier stage of the litigation*) ;owever,
the courtLs own (re=5rial #rder indicated that should more than ten e'hibits be used at trial, the
introducing party is to provide opposing counsel with copies that are bound, tabbed, and
inde'ed) + believe more than ten e'hibits were introduced into evidence)
5here are a number of pressing matters relating to my clients and cases that must be
dealt with at once) "urther, it is impossible for me to identify all such matters while being
denied access to my files and office) "or instance, $idia Davenport, your former client, has a
deadline of today, + believe, for which to submit a subpoena duces tecum to the various lenders
that 9r) Davenport was able to convince to give him appro'imately O2,000,000 in loans
(despite his current contention that he is a flat bro?e s?i instructor , even considering the
3+3D6 loan economic climate of the time*, otherwise she will be barred from introducing any
evidence related to that reHuest at trial) >e see? to obtain copies of the loan applications filled
out by 9r) Davenport for purposes of establishing his income, which is relevant to both the
alimony and property distribution issues) "urther, a deadline is fast approaching to see?
reconsideration of Dudge ;ardyLs +nterim #rder after 1ettlement Conference whereby 9rs)
Davenports monthly spousal support award was reduced to O<00)00 and no specific
performance, even on a temporary basis, of the 6ffidavit of 1upport obligation was ordered)
9y research indicates that 9r) Davenport has a contractual obligation that 9rs) Davenport can
see? specific performance of in state court, pursuant to the language of % 8)1)C)6) 11%&a(e*(1*
and the Kounis, Cheshire, 1tump, and Davis cases) 5his is true regardless of whether 9rs)
Davenport is see?ing to be employed, and perhaps even where she is employed, and even
where such parties have divorced) 6m + allowed to file such a motion for reconsideration,
according to >ashoe $egal 1ervicesJ
"urther, + would li?e to file some sort of 1ummary Dudgment 9otion in this
.<,/%&
Davenport case see?ing to find out whether Dudge ;ardy will rule on the 6ffidavit of 1upport
obligation as to liability and damages prior to trial in hopes of avoiding the possibility of
having another award personally reHuiring me to pay attorneys fees)
+ reHuest that a copy of all the employment complaints + have provided >ashoe
$egal 1ervices be included in my employment file) 6lso, + reHuest that + be provided a copy of
my employment file, to be mailed to my home address, or that arrangements are made which
will allow me to ma?e such a copy)
+ regret that + feel the need to send a communication such as this to you and certainly
appreciate and respect the altruistic contributions you ma?e to our community in serving as the
2oard (resident for >ashoe $egal 1ervices)
1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH)F
5o: pelcanoNwashoelegalservices)orgC
1ubject: (E:1#36$ 63D C#3"+DE35+6$
Date: 1un, 1, 6pr 200, 1,:<2:!1 =0/00
(aul Elcano, E'ecutive Director
>ashoe $egal 1ervices
2,, 1) 6rlington 6ve)
:eno, 3@ %,<01
6pril 1<th, 200,
Dear (aul,
+ wish to ma?e another formal complaint alleging a hostile wor? environment that
includes harassment, se'ual harassment, wor?place bullying, discrimination and
other prohibited conduct directed towards due to my race, gender, religion,
national origin, political affiliation, se'ual orientation, and age))) (the remained of
that email was therein included*F
Clearly, CoughlinBs written complaint of !1,0,, successfully transmitted to Elcano
via digital transmission on !1,0,, was before any Pemployment suspensionP 2rec?enridge
indicates occurred on !200, above) 3either 2oard (resident 2rec?enridge, nor anyone else
with >$1 ever indicated to Coughlin what the Pseveral eventsP were mentioned in
2rec?enridgeBs letter of !2!0,, above) ;owever, that letter does not indicate that any events
other than the #rder by Dudge 7ardner involved any consternation directed at any conduct by
Couglin)
+n a !220, email Elcano sent three days after the successful transmission of
CoughlinBs !1,12 written complaint of employment discrimination, and hostile wor?
environment issue at >ashoe $egal 1ervices, Elcano wrote:
..0/%&
E1ubject: (3o 1ubject*
"rom: (aul Elcano (pelcanoNwashoelegalservices)org*
1ent:>ed !220, %:<% 69
5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com Cc:?athyN?brec?enridgelaw)comC
toddtorvinenNsbcglobal)net
Dear -ach, "or some reason your e=mail did not come through on my
computer so + just received it yesterday from a board member) 6hi# matter 2a#
re%erred to the +oard inde/endently' not by me' and a# a re#ult they are handling
it) 2ecause of this situation + am not to be communicating directly with you) 5he
purpose of this communication is to clarify my status and address a misunderstanding
about your personal belongings) Kou are free to pic? up any personal affects you want)
>e only reHuest that you do so outside of business hours and with me and a board
member present) 6rrangements to do so, and all further communication about this
matter should be made to our 2oard (resident Gathy 2rec?enridge at
GathyN?brec?enridgelaw)com with a copy to 5odd 5orvinen at
toddtorvinenNsbcglobal)net) +f they instruct you differently then you should follow
their instructions)
1incerely, (aul ElcanoP
P"rom: -ach Coughlin Qmailto:AachcoughlinNhotmail)comR 1ent: "riday,
6pril 2!, 200, 11:02 (9 5o: (aul ElcanoC 9arc 6shley 1ubject: 5he email
you were sent last 1unday
Dear (aul, ;ere is the email you were sent last 1unday) 9y
account shows that it was received by you) (lease place a copy of this in my
employment file)
1incerely, -ach Coughlin (a copy of CoughlinBs email to Elcano
from !1%0, detailing his employment law based complaints was included
thereafter, for which no unsuccessful transmission messages were received
(CoughlinBs !1,0, email to Elcano was thereafter included*P
P:E: 5he email you were sent last 1unday
"rom: (aul Elcano (pelcanoNwashoelegalservices)org* 1ent: 9on !2/0,
,:&. 69 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com
-ach,
5his e=mail states it is intended for my eyes only)
8nfortunately, it reHuests a copy of the e=mail be placed in your personnel
file) 2y placing it in the personnel file it has become available to the 2oard
who is handling this matter) =(aul )))(a copy of CoughlinBs email to Elcano of
!2!0, at 11:02 (9 was included below this email from Elcano*P
P1ubject: >$1 "rom: (aul Elcano (pelcanoNwashoelegalservices)org* 1ent: "ri <010, %:<2
69 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com Cc: Gathy 2rec?enridge (?athyN?brec?enridgelaw)com*
..1/%&
1 attachment ltrCoughlin2ndDraft)doc (&0)< G2* $etter attached)
Dear -ach, + have been authoriAed by the 2oard to handle this matter)
1) Four current #u#/en#ion 2a# a re#ult o% the order entered by "udge =ardner
in the "o#hi matterC
2) 1uspension means that you are no longer to /artici/ate a# a la2yer in any ca#e
a##igned to you by 34* until further notice) Kou may a//ear on your o2n behal% to litigate
the order o% #anction# entered by "udge =ardner) +f any lawyer contacts you about a >$1
case you must refer them to Caryn 1ternlicht or 9arc 6shleyC
&) ?ccording to the CourtG# order, you were sanctioned for arguing ince##antly'
being un/re/ared' ma5ing #arca#tic and derogatory remar5# to the Court' and %or rude
and di#re#/ect%ul conduct) Kou were personally fined O,&! as a result of this conductC
!) + could not evaluate your conduct at trial until + recei-ed the tape of the hearingC
thi# ta/e 2a# /rom/tly ordered, and was %inally recei-ed on 6hur#day' ?/ril 2&rd) + have
not yet reviewed this tape in its entirety)
<) Kou have reHuested a co/y o% your /er#onnel %ile) 5his has been made available
to youC
.) >e have delivered a copy of the tape of the Doshi matter to youC
/) Kou reHuested a formal response to your complaint concerning :honda) 5his was
investigated by me within !% hours of your complaint) 5here is no Huestion that your office
behavior (which included yelling, and calling her a hall monitor, etc)* upset her, and as a direct
result she made a comment to you) 1he was counseled as to the type of language she used, and
specifically told that even though she was upset this language (Ebite meF* was not appropriate
for the wor?place) + did not realiAe you wanted a formal response to this incident) (lease
consider this your formal response) + am unaware of any specific written complaints other than
the one you made to me about :honda) (lease provide me with copies of all other written
complaints sent by you to me prior to the entry of Dudge 7ardnerLs order) (lease ma?e sure
they are dated) + will review them and indicate to you what the disposition of those matters may
be)
%) Counseling for difficulties in office interaction had already been scheduled when +
received Dudge 7ardnerLs order) Kou did not appear for the mandatory meeting at which +
announced this counselingC
,) >e have received a copy of a <0 page motion for reconsideration you filed in the
Doshi matter) + will review this in its entirety) +f there is any other written material you want me
to review in determining whether or not your employment should continue with >$1 you must
provide it to me by <:00 pm 9onday, 9ay !th) + will be happy to pic? up any such material at a
reasonable time and place if you are not comfortable emailing it to me)
2ased on the forgoing + will be ta?ing the following action:
1) + will review the tape in the Doshi matter, your fifty page motion for
reconsideration and any other written material you provide to me) 5f your !ondu!" #as as
represen"ed 6y Judge -ardner you #ill 6e "ermina"ed) 2$is "ermina"ion #ill 6e 6ased
e?!lusiely on "$e manner in #$i!$ you !ondu!"ed "$is $earing7 and #ill no" 6e rela"ed "o
any ul"ima"e ou"!ome regarding "$e san!"ions order) >$1 can not maintain an employment
relationship with a lawyer who argues incessantly, appears unprepared and ma?es sarcastic and
..2/%&
derogatory remar?s to the court, and otherwise conducts his or her case in a rude and
disrespectful manner) 5his determination will be made by me by 10:00 am >ednesday
morning, 9ay ., 200,)
2) +f the hearing tape does not justify Dudge 7ardnerLs order >$1 will reHuire you to
participate in the previously referred to employee counseling pursuant to the directives of our
industrial psychologist) 5his counseling is currently going on with other employees at >$1)
5he counselor will determine the e'tent to which you will participate and maintain a case load)
Kou will maintain your employment status, and will receive pay and benefits throughout this
course of counseling)
&) +f you wish to discuss any resolution of this matter between now and >ednesday
morning at 10 am + will be available to meet with you at any convenient time and place,
including this wee?end) Kou may bring any person you would li?e to a resolution discussion) +
will come alone unless you reHuest otherwise) 5his has been sent to you by email) (lease
advise me as to the address to which a hard copy of this transmittal should be delivered)
1incerely, (aul ElcanoP
1trangely, despite Elcano indicating that >$1 complied with CoughlinBs reHuest for
a copy of his personnel file, what was produced by >$1 contained neither CoughlinBs Danuary
200, written employment law complaint to Elcano following %ormer +ee#ley Pec5 +ee#ley
Pec5 /artner and then 34* Chie% Child ?d-ocacy ?ttorney :aren *abo' @#A.<* Ba5a'
%ormal hearing 2itne## ,V+ "udge +ruce 6. +ee#ley0 ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1/:1 to
1,:%* U Can you describe any connection between myself and Garen 1abo that you might be
aware ofJ 6 +Bm not aware of any) 9:) G+37: #bjection) :elevance) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
5he relevance, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + couldnBt hear the judge, sir) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: +Bm as?ing you the relevance of that Huestion) 9:) C#87;$+3: 2ut to the
e'tent that the judgeBs spea?er is right ne't to 9r) Ging, + believe itBs affording him an
impermissible advantage) + couldnBt hear what the judge just said) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
DoesnBt matter) Kou as?ed a Huestion about was Dudge 2eesley aware of any relationship
between you and this lady) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes) Dust for == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >ait a
minute) 9r) Ging objected on relevance) Kour proffer of relevancyJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell,
sir, if + can just preserve for the record) Kou said that if 9r) Ging is obtaining an impermissible
advantage it doesnBt matter to you) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: + didnBt say that) 9:) C#87;$+3:
5hatBs what + heard) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: (lease address the issue at hand) >hat is the
relevancy of your relationship with this former lawyer and 9r) 2eesleyBs law firmJ KouBre
pausing on that == 9:) C#87;$+3: 2ecause this is a respected federal judge, sir) 2ut + am
suing 9s) 1aboBs organiAation right now) 9:) G+37: + would object on the ground that it goes
beyond the scope of direct) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5he relevancy of thatJ 9:) C#87;$+3:
;is objection is relevant) 9y response, with all due respect to the ;onorable Dudge 2eesley, it
goes somewhat to witness bias) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, the issue is very narrow)
5he Huestion is what is the relevancy of your relationship with this 9s) 1aboJ ;ow is that
relevant to the issues in this proceedingJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + believe it bears on Dudge
2eesleyBs testimony) + donBt ?now Huite the e'tent to which == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #bjection
sustained) 9:) G+37: "or the record, the judge did answer) 6nd for 9r) CoughlinBs benefit,
..&/%&
he said he was not aware of any such relationship) Did + mischaracteriAe your testimony, your
;onorJ 5;E >+53E11: 5hatBs what + said) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3e't Huestion, please) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Can + clarifyJ ;e wasnBt aware of any such relationship meaningJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, please address another issue) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6 basis for
conflict) Kes, sir)FC
... &eesley Pec5 /artner and then >$1 Chief Child 6dvocacy 6ttorney :aren
*abo' @#A.Bs paralegal :honda ;arrison yelling Pbite meP at Coughlin when Coughlin,
blanching at her interrogation as to why he might be using the upstairs restroom at >$1, as?ed
her if she was Pthe hall monitorP, nor any letters from or to >$1 regarding Coughlin and
9ichelle CarnineDoni Gaiser of C66>, or former client (aula ;aubl vis a vis the Cecilia
7onAaleA5ahoe >omenBs 1ervices issues
5here was one 5(# hearing before either 9aster Edmondson (D) 8ribe v) G) @aldeA,
"@0,=00%%. ;ttp:www)Ccwashoe)Compublicc?_public_Hry_doct)Cp_d?trpt_framesJ
2ac?toVDMcase_idV"@0%=00%%.Mbegin_dateVMend_dateV * where one of CoughlinBs rare male
clients was either denied an e'tension of a 5(# or afforded e'tremely limited visitation rights
to his children even where he was beaten with a metal toaster being swung from its electric
cord and or an alarm cloc? wielded in the same manner) 5his was a hispanic gentleman, and
the term PfatherBs being treated li?e special needs fourth gradersP may have been included in a
filing challenging the iniHuity of such limited visitation rights gien "$e presump"ions !rea"ed
upon a finding of domes"i! iolen!e 6eing !ommi""ed 6y "$e opposing par"y7 "$ere7 "$e
mo"$er7 ValdeK)
6s usual, the advocates from C66>, whom run and staff the 5(# #ffice for the
1econd Dudicial District Court and e'clude males from the office, to Dudge >ellerBs dismay
(though Dudge $inda 7ardner, in her 200/ application to be a :DC Dustice of the (eace and in
interview lists Dudge >eller as a reference and a mentor, though hopefully he did not assist her
in her approach to the Doshi D@0%=011.% matter, particularly after the 2DDC, 1pringgate, and
>$1, and Dudge 7ardner did what they did to ?eep Coughlin out of the loop as to
developments in that case once he was removed as attorney of record therein (a review of the
Certificates of 1ervices for all filings in that matter post 6pril 200, reveals some disturbing
things, particularly with respect to the allegedly ve'atious, sanctionable conduct by Coughlin
incident to the 1iragusa alimonyban?rupctymarital property settlement issues underpinning
CoughlinBs basis for following his client's e=press wishes with respect to whether to accept or
reject the settlement proposal
>$1 has been completely obstructive in failing to provide Coughlin access to his
wor? computer, 91 #utloo? archive of emails, notes, calendar, notes, and other attorney wor?
product and correspondence particularly necessary to defending himself, and which was denied
Coughlin during that crucial 10 day period in which to file a 9otion for :econsideration of
Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial in D@0%=011.%, and thereafter *)(9ost, not
all, of the 5(# #ffice personnel from C66> hassled Coughlin refused to let Coughlin use the
victimBs center to fill out his 5(# application on 12&12 in "@12=0001%% and "@12=001%/
(which were ultimately granted and which involved CoughlinBs abusers admittedly interferring
with his access to his mail at the 1!22 E) ,th 1t) I2 address to which 2ar Counsel admits
mailing a 21!12 letter to Coughlin (admitted at the 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing
..!/%&
despite 2ar Counsel Ging violating the rule of completeness and other evidentiary safeguards
in only including a portion of what was mailed, particularly where what was admitted itself
does not include any identification or specification as to what else was attached to it*)
P1ubject: >$1
"rom: (aul Elcano (pelcanoNwashoelegalservices)org*
1ent: >ed <0.0, ,:&% 69
Dear -ach,
Fou are correct about the letter being deli-ered on ?/ril 20th' 7 misread my
timeline) 9y decision is limi"ed "o "$e $earing !ondu!") Kou have proffered nothing that
indicates that the way you acted in court is in any way related to any outside event) Kour <0
page motion for reconsideration before Dudge 7ardner has not lin?ed your conduct in any way
to an outside event) Kou have refused to give me a time and date to meet once again, and + will
issue my determination tomorrow morning at ,:00 am)
6ccess to your computer materials, will be made at a convenient time and place with
our office manager, e'ecutive director or designee and our computer specialist present) 5his is
a business computer, and without further research + will not give you access to it privately) Kou
have been given a tape of the two Doshi hearings) 5o date, you have not agreed to meet at any
time and place to discuss these hearingsC and you ha-e not spe!ifi!ally re8ues"ed any
iden"ified item#' document# etc. that 2ere rela"ed "o your !ondu!" in "$is $earing) Kour
series of Huestions about the 2oard is irrelevant) 5he 2oard delegated this matter to me to
handle as a personnel matter) =(aul P
517109 6ermination 4etter to Coughlin %rom 34*<# @lcano:
PDear 9r) Coughlin,
7 ha-e re-ie2ed the %ollo2ing0 1. 6he "o#hi hearing C$' 2. Four
%i%ty /age !otion %or econ#ideration be%ore "udge =ardner' &. Four
#e-enteen /age letter to me' 4. @ach and e-ery one o% your email# and
attachment# to date' including your e-mail o% !ay 7' 2009 #ent at 1045 am.'
5. 6he "o#hi %ile.
+n an attempt to resolve this matter + have tried to schedule a meeting
with you) + have left you voicemails as?ing you to call me, and + have indicated
that + would meet you at any convenient time and place to discuss resolution) "or
whatever reason, you have not scheduled such a session) +n addition, + have
attempted through independent means to schedule meetings with you) 5his
involved discussion with persons + believe to be your mentors prior to and during
your employment here) +t is my understanding that they also have been unable to
schedule a meeting with you)
7 ha-e re-ie2ed the hearing# in detail and ha-e concluded that
your conduct in the#e t2o hearing# 2arrant# termination. 6he judgeLs
..</%&
findings that you argued incessantly, made rude and sarcastic remar?s, and
refused to heed the CourtLs admonitions were well founded. Four conduct
ob#tructed the hearing /roce##. Fou re%u#ed to or 2ere unable to %ollo2 the
#im/le#t in#truction# %rom the "udge. 3a#hoe 4egal *er-ice# cannot em/loy
an attorney 2ho re/eatedly conduct# him#el% 2ith #uch lac5 o% ci-ility and
/ro%e##ionali#m in court.
Four /er%ormance in the #econd hearing 2a# -irtually a re/eat o%
the %ir#t' e-en though the hearing# 2ere %i-e day# a/art. 7 ha-e there%ore
concluded that Yheat o% the battleN 2a# not a #igni%icant %actor in your
ina//ro/riate conduct. "udge =ardner 2a# not rude or antagoni#tic. 1he
repeatedly e'plained how she wanted you to handle matters and you refused to
conform your conduct to her wishes. 6he hearing C$ #/ea5# %or it#el%0 #o 7 2ill
not analyMe it any %urther in the body o% thi# letter.
Kour employment termination i# e%%ecti-e a# o% !onday' !ay 11'
2009 at <:00 pm) Kour %inal /aychec5 2ill be a-ailable !onday' !ay 11' 2009
at <:00 pm) +t will be made by direct deposit unless you reHuest otherwise) Kour
medical bene%it# 2ill terminate in con%ormity 2ith thi# letter' and a//licable
la2) Kou may schedule a time with me outside of business hours to pic? up your
personal effects) Com/uter content# 2ill be handled a# di#cu##ed in my
/re-iou# email) +f you wish to resign from your employment to avoid an
involuntary termination on your employment records, you must meet with me
prior to 9onday, 9ay 11, 200, at <:00 pm to discuss this issue)
1incerely, Paul @lcano @8ecuti-e $irectorP (emphasis added*)
;owever, in his sworn testimony at the 111!12 formal disciplinary
hearing, Elcano too? the coaching 6ssistant 2ar Counsel Ging gave him to heart,
and changed his tune, indicating the firing and basis for Dudge $) 7ardnerBs
!1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial in D@0%=011.% was in light of CoughlinBs lac? of
EcompetencyF
E;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages ,&:21 to ,!:%* U (Ging* 6nd in your capacity
wor?ing for >ashoe County $egal 1ervices, did you come to wor? with 9r)
CoughlinJ 6 (Elcano* Kes) U +n your wor? with 9r) Coughlin, did you form
an opinion as to his competency to practice law in 3evada as a lawyerJ 6 Kes)
U +Bll first as? what that opinion is, then wor? bac?ward as to why you feel that
way) >hat is your opinion currently of 9r) CoughlinBs ability to practice lawJ 6
Currently + donBt believe heBs competent to practice law based on the information
+ have)F
E;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 10.:2< to 112:12* U +f you recall the Huestion, it
was, why did you find that == or did you find that order importantJ 6 8nder this
.../%&
order 9r) Coughlin was sanctioned for attorneyBs fees in, + forget the amount,
O,00=some as + recall) O,&!) 91) (E6:$: Can you spea? up, pleaseJ + can
barely hear you) 5;E >+53E11: O,&! he was sanctioned in attorneyBs fees)
6nd as a result of the sanction, + reviewed the transcript) 2K 9:) G+37: U
5his hearing, you testified that this hearing and the resulting order were one of
the factors that you used to determine that 9r) Coughlin is not competent to
practiceC is that correctJ 6 Kes) 5hatBs the first, the first really major one) U
5he court specifically == 9:) C#87;$+3: #bjection) 5hat wasnBt pled in
relevancy) 6nd 9r) Elcano has not been Hualified as an e'pert to provide the
opinion as to someoneBs competency to practice law) 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
#verruled) 2K 9:) G+37: U Could you == for the record could you read from
(age 1& of the #rder, which is the one that contains her signature, the paragraph
that begins at $ine 3o) < and goes to $ine 1&J 6 Kes) P5he most troubling
aspect of this case was 9r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic, and disrespectful
presentation at trial) 9r) CoughlinBs inability to understand the balance sheet, his
failure to conduct discovery, and his lac? of ?nowledge with regard to the rules
of evidence and trial procedure) 6ll of this was compounded with a continuously
antagonistic presentation of the case that resulted in a shift from a fairly simple
divorce case to a contentious divorce trial lasting an e'cessive amount of time)P
U +n the ne't sentence the court also finds that the Parguments in support
thereof to be unfounded in fact, unwarranted by e'isting law, unreasonable, and
ve'atious throughout this entire proceeding)P +s that a correct statement of that
orderJ 6 "or the most part, yes) U +s there anything that needs to be clarifiedJ
6 3o, + donBt thin? so) +Bm just saying that my review of the transcript confirmed
that) U >hen you listened to the == were you a supervisor == at this time were
you a supervisor of 9r) CoughlinJ 6 Kes) U Did you determine == did you
have an opinion at that time, having listened to the hearing itself, did you
determine that the position of the judge was correctJ 6 Kes) U >hat was
another factor that formed your opinion that 9r) Coughlin is not currently
competent to practice lawJ 6 1everal things have happened since) 5here have
been two issues that +Bm personally aware of dealing with dishonesty) 9:)
C#87;$+3: #bjection) 5;E >+53E11: 5he Huality == 9:) C#87;$+3:
"oundation) ;earsay) :elevancy) 5;E >+53E11: 5he Huality of the wor? ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: #verruled) 5;E >+53E11: == that has comes across my
des? has been disjointed, filled with irrelevant material, and has not met
reasonable competency standards) ;eBs had a tortious residential pattern, and +
donBt believe heBs made any type of regular office, so it would be difficult for
clients to contact him based on what + have seen and ?now) 6nd + donBt believe
he has a mental status thatBs capable of e'hibiting judgment to counsel people in
what they should and shouldnBt do with their legal situations) 2K 9:) G+37: U
+n your capacity as a supervisor and somebody who said they li?e 9r) Coughlin,
did you attempt to advise 9r) Coughlin to see? mental health or assistance with
his circumstancesJ 6 3o, + donBt believe +Bve ever advised 9r) Coughlin to do
..//%&
that) 2ecause of the Doshi matter he was terminated, and + didnBt have any further
contact with him) U Did you have contact with his familyJ 6 +Bve had,
subseHuent to his termination, + believe somewhere in the neighborhood of two
or three telephone calls with his father, maybe four, trying to find a way to get
him some help) U 5o your ?nowledge, has 9r) Coughlin ever heeded the
recommendation that he get helpJ 6 + have no ?nowledge one way or another)
U 5here are some times when a person has an issue or mental infirmity or
whatever is going on if they are nice) ;ow would you describe, in terms of 9r)
Coughlin, his demeanor in his current stateJ 6 6s we sit here todayJ U +f you
?now what his == 6 + havenBt seen -ach since == + havenBt seen him for a long
time) 5oday is the first time +Bve seen him) U 2ac? when you were supervising
him, and he wasnBt acting appropriately, how would you describe his demeanorJ
6 >ell, we had him for this given period of time) 6nd initially + wor?ed on
virtually == when we hired him, + ?new that -ach had had some issues in the past)
+ did not ?now he had any mental issues) #r even if he did, + donBt ?now that to
this day) 6nd so + mentored him and watched him very closely for a period of
time, and his wor? seemed to improve) >e had some complaints from the two
womenBs shelters, C66> and 5ahoe >omenBs 1ervices, over the course of, +
couldnBt be e'act, + would have to chec?, but maybe the first year) +Bm very
protective of my employees) + met with the people from those two shelters) +
thought they were biased in part) 6nd + reviewed some of 9r) CoughlinBs clients,
and + didnBt really thin? there was a critical issue) 6nd after about a year, 1%
months, he started to deteriorate, in my opinion, started to have difficulties,
serious difficulties, relating with other employees) 6nd then about this time the
order came down from Dudge 7ardner) 6nd after + reviewed the transcript, +
didnBt believe we could maintain him as an employee) 6nd one of the things that
was relevant there is that this hearing too? place in two sectionsC + want to say
they were a wee? or ten days apart) 6nd the conduct and the criticisms of the
conduct by the judge in the first hearing, 9r) Coughlin came bac? and behaved
e'actly the same way in the second hearing, he had not heeded anything the
judge had told him) 6nd 9r) Coughlin is not stupid) 1o + too? that in large part to
be a competency issue) 9:) G+37: + very much appreciate your testimony and
candor) +Bll pass the witness) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5han? you, 9r) Ging)F
E;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 11.:22 to 12!:.* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hen
you were telling me, giving me some mentoring, that when you wal? into that
courtroom, that courtroom is yours) +tBs not the judgeBs, itBs not opposing
counselBs, itBs yours) Does that sound li?e something you said to meJ 9:) G+37:
#bjection) :elevance) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >as there an objectionJ + didnBt
hear it) 9:) G+37: Kes) #bjection) :elevance) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: +Bll
overrule it) 7o ahead) 5;E >+53E11: Kes) #ut of conte't) 2ut thatBs a
statement + would ma?e, yes) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U ;ow is that reconciled
with your criticism of my wor? in the Doshi caseJ 6 + donBt understand the
..%/%&
Huestion) 2ut your wor? in the Doshi case was that it was incompetent) +t had
nothing to do with whether or not you too? over the courtroom) 5here were no ==
it was a divorce case) 5here was no statement or itemiAation of the community
property) 5here was no statement or itemiAation of the community debts) Kou
were completely at a loss as to issues of relevance) Kou made objections li?e you
did today that went over and over and over again without legal basis, and
incorporated strange rules) 5he judge ?indly tried to give you direction, which
you totally eschewed) Kou did this for three or four hours the first time, came
bac? a wee? or ten days later and did it again) +t had nothing to do with whether
or not you too? control of the courtroom) U ;ave you reviewed the mandamus
position + filed in response to that sanctionJ 6 + donBt ?now) + donBt recall) U
Kou fire an attorney based on, in your words, solely in light of her order, yet you
donBt recall whether or not you reviewed a petition for writ of mandamus that
attorney filedJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) 6rgumentative, and mischaracteriAes the
testimony) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hat attorney that is suing your organiAation right
now) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: KouBve compounded the Huestion) 5he Huestion is:
Do you recall reviewing the writ of mandamusJ ;is answer is no, he doesnBt
recall having reviewed it) 7o on to your ne't Huestion) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U
5o clarify, your answer is you donBt recallJ 6 + donBt recall reviewing the
mandamus) + recall reviewing your motion for reconsideration of .0=some pages
or <% pages, but not mandamus) U 1o even == did that reconsideration motion
evince any more competency or s?ill in that family law setting than you felt was
shown at the trialJ 6 3o) U 6re you aware of whether or not the majority
viewpoint of the law was argued by me vis=v=vis the setoff or impermissibility
thereof of a domestic duty with a third party debt, such as was presented by 9r)
1pringgateBs illusory settlement offer of waiving alimony in e'change for his
client agreeing to be responsible for a multitude of third=party debts on which he
was the sole signatureJ 6 + donBt understand the Huestion) U 6nd yet you ==
9:) EC;E@E::+6: >ait a minute) ;e indicated he didnBt understand the
Huestion) Uuite fran?ly, + didnBt either) + felt it was compound) Do you want to
as? simple HuestionsJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U
>hatBs your understanding with respect to the position ta?en by me in that trial
vis=a=vis the majority viewpoint of law on setting off or offsetting domestic
duties li?e alimony or child support with third=party debts in a property
settlement or debt settlement conte'tJ 6 +Bm still not sure + understand the
Huestion) 2ut there were no children, as + recall, so child custody had no issue in
it) 6nd in terms of the offset, + donBt ?now what law you proffered) U >ell, a
duty li?e alimony) 6 domestic duty) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5o me thatBs an
incomplete Huestion) >hatBs the complete HuestionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + guess
+Bm trying to ascertain 9r) ElcanoBs awareness of the position) 2K 9:)
C#87;$+3: U >hatBs your understanding of the permissibility of setting off a
debt with a duty, a domestic dutyJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) +rrelevant) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 1ustained) 9:) C#87;$+3: Did you say relevancyJ 9ay +
..,/%&
respond to it, your ;onorJ Dust to the e'tent 9r) Elcano is here today purporting
to critiHue my wor? in that regard, + thin? it is relevant to ascertain whether or
not he has any sort of conception of permissibility of setting off a domestic duty,
li?e alimony, with some debt) 9y point) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6re you finishedJ
9:) C#87;$+3: Keah) 6nd + didnBt end it very well, but + didnBt want to give
away what + feel the answer is or the majority viewpoint of 6merican law) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5he objection is sustained) 9r) Coughlin, itBs now 11:!1) Kou
have five more minutes) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) :eallyJ 5he relevancy
objection is sustained) ;e gets to testify as to how clueless + am) 6nd this when +
as? to see if he has any sort of ?nowledge in this area, itBs not relevantJ 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: ;eBs 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hey are all
relevant when he was tal?ing about them) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hose issues
are, sir) >hether or not he ?nows the intricacies of some fine point of law to me
is irrelevant) 3ow, if you have some Huestions to address to 9r) Elcano, please
do so, and letBs not argue) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U
9r) Elcano, for you to have any sort of legitimate informed bases for the opinion
you proffered here today with respect to my competency incident to my wor? in
that Doshi case, wouldnBt you need to ?now whether or not a domestic duty is
accorded greater significance and protection in the law than is a third=party debt
== 6 3o) U == thereinJ +tBs not permissible to do essentially what Dudge
7ardner tried to force on my client, which is accept a settlement, whereby a
setoff is made whereby my client waived her alimony in e'change for 9r)
1pringgateBs client saying he set it off by the debts, by ta?ing them on, even
though they could never get at her anyway because he was the sole signatory)
9:) EC;E@E::+6: +s there a Huestion there, 9r) CoughlinJ 5;E >+53E11:
+ donBt understand) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #r is that a statementJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: +t is a statement) + thin? == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hen as? a ==
9:) C#87;$+3: ;eBs tal?ing about things he doesnBt ?now about) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 5hen as? a Huestion) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >as it
appropriate for Dudge 7ardner to tell my client, 9s) Doshi, not to listen to her
attorney in a close=range informal settlement conferenceJ 6 + donBt recall that
issue) + have no opinion on it) U Kou donBt recall that issueJ 6 3o) U Do you
?now whether or not Dudge 7ardner in sitting informally with myself and 9s)
Doshi in the settlement conference impromptu five minutes before the trial told
me to shut upJ 6 3o, + have no ?nowledge of that) U Do you ?now whether
she told my client not to listen to her attorneyJ 6 + have no ?nowledge of that
settlement conference) U Do you ?now whether or not all these materials were
cited in filingsJ 6 + donBt understand that Huestion) + donBt ?now what materials
youBre tal?ing about) U >ere those issues brought up in filings that you have
purported to this panel to have read and reviewedJ 6 3o, + read the order) U
2ut you didnBt just read the orderC rightJ 9:) G+37: #bjection) 6rgumentative)
./0/%&
9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hat is argumentative) Kou can as? it in a way that is not
argumentative) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U DidnBt you testify earlier that you read
the motion for reconsiderationJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >eBre not interested in
what he previously testified to) 5hatBs on the record) 6s? a direct Huestion) 2K
9:) C#87;$+3: U Did you read anything besides the orderJ 6 2ac? at the
time of your termination + did go through the file) + donBt remember currently
what + read) + read your motion for reconsideration when it was filed)F
EF;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 12<:1, to 12.:22* U Did you have a
communication with me incident to some of these complaints or a complaint, +
donBt ?now if it was the 5ahoe one or C66> one or if it was :honda or
something, in about Danuary="ebruary 200,, wherein you said, you ?now whatJ
+ as?ed 9aster Edmondson about you, and + as?ed Dudge 7ardner == might have
been it was Dudge 7ardner by that point == and they both gave you thumbs up, or
something similar to thatJ 6 3o) + donBt thin? youBre characteriAing what + said
correctly) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Kour time has e'pired, 9r) Coughlin) Do you
want to as? one more HuestionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes) + would li?e him to
clarify as to where +Bm amiss there) >hat it is that he might have said) 9:)
EC;E@E::+6: 7o ahead, if you can, 9r) Elcano) 5;E >+53E11:
(eriodically + as? judges how our employees are doing, and especially if thereBs a
complaint) 6nd somewhere early on or to the middle of 9r) CoughlinBs
employment + as?ed one or two judges if he was doing o?ay, and they said he
was doing o?ay) 1o as a result, + did not pursue the complaint of the two shelter
organiAations) 1o + stood by my employee at that time 9:) EC;E@E::+6:
6nything further, 9r) GingJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >as one of those judges, Dudge
7ardnerJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin, your time has e'pired)F
1o, basically, Elcano gets tripped up every other sentence, from his
indicating he never suggested mental health counseling to Coughlin (where his <!0,
letter ot Coughlin indicates it would be a condition of his return to >$1* to indicating
Dudge 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder is the only thing he reviewed, only to admit he reviewed
CoughlinBs 9otion for :econsideration (too bad that Elcano, allegedly, failed to read
anything from CoughlinBs <&%&& or <!%!! 6ppeal9andamus cases incident thereto,
which specifically mentions matters that Elcano testified to having Eno awareness ofF
(li?e Dudge 7ardner telling Coughlin to shut up in front of his client, 9s) Doshi, during
the informal 1ettlement Conference, in addition to her telling 9s) Doshi: EdonBt listen to
your attorneyF*)
>hat is e'ceedingly clear from reading ElcanoBs </0, 5ermination $etter
to Coughlin then reviewing his 111!12 sworn testimony is the e'tent to which Elcano
is willing to lie to help out 2ar Counsel Ging) Elcano obviously recharacteriAes his
rationale for firing Coughlin from the EconductF (-er#u# the ;claim# and de%en#eN
that 2ould nece##arily need be the #ubEect o% any san!"ions order /ur#uant to ,*
7.085B2C* issues he harps on in his </0, 5ermination $etter to the EcompetencyF
issues he repeats again and again at 5rial) Ging already had all the EconductF #rders he
./1/%&
needed from the :9C, so, he attempts to get Elcano to provide some :(C 1)1
testimony and to characteriAe the !1&0, #rder as relating to CoughlinBs EcompetencyF
when, really, at best, that #rder spea?s to :(C &)1 issues (in a 3:1 /)0%< invo?es
3:C( :ule 11 which is ?ind of li?e :(C &)1, a la the 9irch approach*) 2ut the
problem is, competency (not a .0,/< 1C: 11/ competency analysis, though Elcano,
Ging and the panel consistnetly confused the two, see?ing to essentially turn the
111!12 hearing into one addressing 33D2 1usichBs ;ill2a?er copy and pasted ready
made 1C: 11/ (etition* and conduct or contemptuous conduct are two very different
species) +ndeed, one involves a willful failure to due that which one could do (ie, not
behave in a contemptuous conduct type of fashion*, whereas the other, seemingly
involves the inability to perform up to a reHuired level of s?ill or EcompetencyF)
5here is no aspect to :(C 1)1 that involves any of the EconductF, ErudenessF,
etc), etc), that Elcano focuses on e'clusively in his </0, 5ermination $etter to
Coughlin, which purports to base his decision to Coughlin solely on the hearing and
order to which ElcanoBs 111!12 sworn testimony focused in purporting to provide
testimony as to CoughlinBs EcompetencyF (though Ging, whether purposefully or not,
never really made clear in what sense he was utiliAing the word EcompetencyF or
EcompetenctF (ie, unclear whether in a :(C 1)1 or 1C: 11/ sense, and, it would seem,
they are different*:
E:ulee1)1)eeCompetence)ee6 lawyer shall provide competent representation to
a client) Competent representation reHuires the legal ?nowledge, s?ill,
thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation)F
"urther, Elcano is forced to admit he lac?s any understanding whatsoever of
the particular domestic relationsban?ruptcy points of law at issue in the Doshi trial
(funny how the #2CBs Ging feels Elcano was an Ee'pert witnessF, never mind the
obvious bias attendant to Elcano being sued for wrongful termination by Coughlin, in a
matter presided over by Dudge Elliott in C@11=01,<<, where Dudge Elliott failed to
disclose his 2oard (residency of C66>Bs E'ecutive 2oard to Coughlin where C66>
was one of Elcano and >$1Bs co=defendants (that matter is now before Dudge ElliottBs
successor, former >CD6Bs #fficer prosecutor now 2DDC Dudge Elliott 1attler, whom
recently ruled stric?en from the record a (etition for 9andamus that Coughlin filed in
C:1&=0<<2 see?ing relief from :DC Dudges (and former career long >CD6Bs #ffice
prosecutors* (earson and CliftonBs violation of the mandatory stay under 3:1 1/%)!0<
(especially attendant to the &1,1& trial before Dudge Clifton in :C:12=0.<.&0, given
Dudge (earson having ruled previously ElcanoBs sha?y, contradictory, biased view of
these matters is evident especially when comparing his 517109 6ermination 4etter to
Coughlin %rom 34*<#' 2here it read#:
P7 ha-e re-ie2ed the %ollo2ing0 1. 6he "o#hi hearing C$' 2. Four
%i%ty /age !otion %or econ#ideration be%ore "udge =ardner' &. Four
#e-enteen /age letter to me' 4. @ach and e-ery one o% your email# and
attachment# to date' including your e-mail o% !ay 7' 2009 #ent at 1045 am.'
5. 6he "o#hi %ile...
./2/%&
7 ha-e re-ie2ed the hearing# in detail and ha-e concluded that
your !ondu!" in the#e t2o hearing# 2arrant# termination. 6he judgeLs
findings that you argued incessantly made rude and sarcastic remar5s and
refused to heed the CourtNs admonitions were well founded. Four !ondu!"
ob#tructed the hearing /roce##. Fou re%u#ed to or 2ere unable to %ollo2 the
#im/le#t in#truction# %rom the "udge. 3a#hoe 4egal *er-ice# cannot em/loy
an attorney 2ho re/eatedly !ondu!"s $imself #i"$ su!$ la!' of !iili"y and
professionalism in court.
Four /er%ormance in the #econd hearing 2a# -irtually a re/eat o%
the %ir#t' e-en though the hearing# 2ere fie days apar". 7 ha-e there%ore
concluded that Yheat o% the battleN 2a# not a #igni%icant %actor in your
inappropria"e !ondu!". "udge =ardner 2a# not rude or antagoni#tic. 1he
repeatedly e'plained how she wanted you to handle matters and you refused to
conform your conduct to her wishes. 6he hearing C$ #/ea5# %or it#el%0 #o 7 2ill
not analyMe it any %urther in the body o% thi# letter... Com/uter content# 2ill
be handled a# di#cu##ed in my /re-iou# email) 1incerely, s Paul @lcano
@8ecuti-e $irectorP (emphasis added*)
5here simply is nothing in ElcanoBs above assessment and accusations in his
</0, 5ermination $etter that is consistent with ElcanoBs 111!12 sworn testimony
where that testimony consistently spo?e to ElcanoBs ta?e on CoughlinBs EcompetenceF
or EcompetencyF, which, under :(C 1)1 (the only pleading or notice Coughlin had as to
anythign related to EcompetencyF or EcompetenceF in this matter, whether in the
%2&12 Complaint, etc), relates to :(C 1)1, not 1C: 11/, and indeed, the (anel lac?s
jurisdiction to attempt to rule on .0,/<, and Coughlin was not provided notice or an
opporutnity to be heard as to .0,/< or 1C: 11/ issues) :(C 1)1 involves whether
one : EE:ulee1)1)eeCompetence)ee6 lawyer shall provide competent representation to
a client) Competent representation reHuires the legal ?nowledge, s?ill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation)F >here :(C 1)1 indicates a
Elawyer shall provide competent representation to a clientF it clearly contemplates
specific instances of failign to do so as to specific clients, not some vague overall lac?
of the ability to do so in general such as Ging continually attempted to assert and elicit
testimony related thereto) Elcano li?ely had no idea whether the 111!12 hearing was
over issues raised in .0,/<1C: 11/ conte't, or in some 3712=020!, 0!&!, 0!&< :(C
1)1 conte't) 6s such, his testimony is worthless to Ging for yet another reason)
ElcanoBs testimony is actually rather useful for CoughlinBs defense, on a multitude of
levels)
1pea?ing of where oneBs Econduct obstructed the hearing processF, Elcano
(whom claimed in his testimony to be Every protective of E his employees* and >$1
were too busy refusing Coughlin access to any of the materials necessary to defend
himself against Dudge $) 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial and claiming to have
scheduleoffered Coughlin opportunities to meet with >$1 during the scant time for
Coughlin to file a 9otion for :econsideration3:C( <2<, 9otions to challenge that
#rder)
./&/%&
E:E: >ashoe $egal 1ervices meeting "rom: Zach Coughlin
(AachcoughlinNhotmail)com* 1ent: 9on !2/0, ,:22 69 5o:
jproctorNmbareno)com Dear 9r) (roctor, ))) 7 ha-e been %orbid acce## to
the#e client %ile#' my /er#onal note#' my o%%ice and calendaring #y#tem' etc. 7
ha-e no remote acce## to 34*<# com/uter #y#tem) ))) 5 $ae a )o"ion For
3e!onsidera"ion due "oday in "$e &$ar"i Jos$i ma""er and 5 $ae 6een
preen"ed 6y 4+* from a!!essing my files7 emails7 no"es7 re!ords7 and offi!e
for "$e purposes of defending ei"$er )s, Jos$i(s o6;e!"ies or my o#n #i"$
regard "o "$e a""orney(s fees ordered, Dlease ma'e "$ese ma"erials aaila6le
immedia"ely) 1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH) E
34* @lcano 2rote Coughlin a letter on "une 25' 2009 which read:
PDear 9r) Coughlin:
:egarding your correspondence of Dune ,th and Dune 11th, (lease note
the following:
1) Kour unu#ed accrued -acation was paid in your final chec?)
2) >ashoe $egal 1ervices employees are enrolled in the >ashoe
County 7roup ;ealth (lan) 5he plan is administered by >ashoe County ;uman
:esources Department) (remiums are pro=rated to the last day of employment)
Kour Cobra Coverage documents were mailed to you by the plan administrator
on 9ay 11th, 200, as reHuired by law) ;andling of benefits pursuant to
termination is within the purview the plan administrator) (lease review the
documents which were mailed to you and direct any Huestions to the contacts
listed in the letter) 6 copy of the letter is attached for your reference)
&) Kour personnel file was delivered to you)
!) 8pon review, we found some loose documents that inadvertently
were not delivered to you) 6n inventory is attached as E'hibit 6) Kou may pic?
up these documents at the reception des? at 5odd 5orvinenBs office between the
hours of ,am=12pm or 1pm to <pm on or after Dune 2., 200,)
1incerely,
Paul @lcano' @8ecuti-e $irector
E4;+2+5 6: $+15+37 #" $##1E D#C89E351 ":#9 -6C;
C#87;$+3B1 #""+CE)))Draf" of le""er da"ed 10/1C/08 from Daul 1l!ano "o
)s, =aiser a" C004 . (& pages*P (emphasis added*)
"udge 4inda =ardner<# 2125109 Pre-6rial 9rder in $V08-01168 actually
provides supports for the very objection made by Coughlin that Dudge 7ardner too? most
umbrage to:
kP(:E=5:+6$ #:DE:: 5his matter is set for trial on 9arch 12, 200,
at 1 :&0 p)m) 7ood cause appearing, +5 +1 ;E:E2K #:DE:ED that, if a party
./!/%&
intends to offer more than ten trial e8hibit# , the /ro/o#ed e8hibit# mu#t be
bound' tabbed and inde8ed) (laintiffBs e'hibits will be mar?ed in alphabetical
seHuence and DefendantBs e'hibits will be mar?ed in numerical seHuence) @ach
/arty #hall #ubmit t2o co/ie# o% the /ro/o#ed e8hibit# to the Court and one
co/y to the o//o#ing coun#el) Counsel shall contact 9artha CasiHue=6ndrews
at //<=&2<=.//, to schedule a time with the Cler? to organiAe and mar? e'hibits)
"or trials set for one full day or more, counsel shall meet with the Court Cler? no
later than & :00 p)m) on the "riday prior to trial to mar? the trial e'hibits) "or
trials which are scheduled for less than one full day, e'hibits shall be mar?ed
immediately prior to the convening for trial, and counsel shall arrive at least 1<
minutes before the scheduled time of trial) (rior to meeting with (ile Court
Cler?, counsel shall meet and discuss the admissibility of proposed e'hibits) 6t
the time of mar?ing the e'hibits with the Cler?, the Cler? shall be told which
E'hibits may be admitted without objection) 6t 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 8CCD6
declaration) Courte#y co/ie# o% the trial #tatement #hall be hand-deli-ered to
o//o#ing coun#el and "udge =ardner<# chamber# by no later than 5000 /.m.
%i-e B5C day# /rior to trial. "ailure to timely deliver these documents may result
in sanctions against the offending party as set forth in 3:C( &/) +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)P
5o wit, Coughlin believe at the time that 1pringgate offered more than the number
of e'hibits specified in Dudge $) 7ardnerBs 22<0, (re=5rial #rder (wherupon presenting such
an e'cess of e'hibits would reHuired doing so in a bound, tabbed, and inde'ed form* at 5rial,
upon Coughlin objecting, Dudge 7ardner actually wound up punishing Coughlin for relying
upon her own (re=5rial #rder of 22<0, in 011.%) 6dditionally, it was Coughlin who file his
5rial 1tatement timely on 9arch <th, 200, (and paralegal Deborah (ringle certainly deserves a
good share of the credit for such systematic and timely filings*, compared to 1pringgate filing
his (re=5rial 1tatement just the day before the 5rial on &1112)
"urther, the "inal #rder Dudge 7ardner entered in the Doshi 011.% matter overrides
her #rder 6fter 5rial of !1&0,, and that "inal #rder contains none of the language that the
123 Huoted from that !1&0, #rder in itBs %2&12 Complaint) Dudge 7ardner was forced to
ma?e a concession to the various arguements Coughlin raised against her #rder of !1&0,, and
that resulted in the much more temperate language in her "inal #rder in 011.%)
5his concession and the difficulty Dudge 7ardner faced in resolving the conflict
inherent in her !1&0, #rder is underscored by >$1 6ttorney 9arc 6shleyBs commentary in
the following email to Couighlin from .!0,:
P:E: >DC: , (roposed "inal Decree, :E: discovery"rom: 9arc 6shley
(mashleyNwashoelegalservices)org* 1ent: 5hu .0!0, &:1, (9 5o:
./</%&
AachcoughlinNhotmail)comC Deborah (ringle (dpringleNwashoelegalservices)org*C Caryn
1ternlicht (csternlichtNwashoelegalservices)org*
-ach, 1orry for the delay in getting bac? to you on this) +Lve been out of the office
and this is my first day bac?) 3hen #ummariMing the e-idence in her order' the Eudge did
mention that !r. "o#hi #ugge#ted that maintenance be 5e/t o/en %or 5 year# a# /rotection
again#t hi# de%ault on the debt# he 2a# ordered to /ay. ;owever, when she got to that
portion of her order concerning maintenance she specifically denied maintenance after
reviewing relevant factors such as the partiesN relative ages earning capacities and state of
their health, 1pringgate recalls di#cu##ing the a2ard o% H1 /er year maintenance %or 5 year#
#o it could be re-i#ed to account %or any de%ault on hi# clientG# /art and also has said that he
thought the provision was going to be part of the order) )o2e-er, he feels that the clause
cannot be included in light o% the EudgeG# /lain #tatement that maintenance i# denied (+
would assume also because it doesnLt benefit his client*, so the final decree was submitted as
originally proposed) >e have filed a motion to amend it on the basis of mista?e or
inadvertence) 9arc 6shley 1taff 6ttorney >ashoe $egal 1ervicesP (emphasis added*)
Do you see how funny this is) 1pringgate is giving up things that go against his
clientBs interestBs in the name of giving CouglinBs former client things that both 1pringgate and
Dudge 7ardner allege she does not deserve)))and Coughlin is being ve'atious)
Chimera)))illusory)))5ahoe >omenBs 1ervices and C66> thin? Coughlin isnBt pushing the
battered women hard enough to go for the 5(#s (even where, in former client (aula ;aublBs
case, she admitted to Elcano that she found 9s) Cecelia 7onAales from 5>1 (or the more
gender neutral name that subseHuently adopted, Crisis, though they still put on performances of
'he )agina Monologues with grant funds* to be pressuring her too much to see? an e'tension
of the 5(# she had against her domestic partner) +n fact, ;aubl informed Elcano that she
actually appreciate the more client objectives focused approach ta?en by Coughlin) 6s for
9ichelle Carnine, former client, and or C66>1Doanie Gaiser1ternlichtBs issues with
Coughlin, they certainly did not seem to prevent Carnine from achieving the goals she
e'pressed at the outset in both her 5(# and divorce with custody matters, and Carnine
ultimately indicated to Elcano that she approved of the wor? Coughlin did on her behalf)
+f Garen 1abo was upset by CoughlinBs mass email soliciting support for his trip to
Edingburgh to participate in the :un for (rostate ;ealth 10? too soon after a similar, yet
somewhat different email from 1abo, then she would probably not be too into the Pthough
provo?ing and unearthingP run of performances of 'he Cenis +iatri!es one local legal aid
entity is purportedly planning to underta?e via a generous contribution from the 3evada $aw
"oundation)
"urther, >ashoe $egal 1ervices has been obstructionist is failing to afford Couglin
access to essential materials necessary to his defense against not only the !1&0, #rder within
the conte't of 011.% and <!%!!, but now in this formal disciplinary hearing setting, including
the failure to provide Coughlin the materials he mentions in the following email (and the failure
to provide Coughlin even constructive notice of the calling of Elcano as a witness, much less an
e'pert witness, until the day before the 111!12 hearing, much less the %2&12 Complaints
failure to attach as an E'hibit the !1&0, #rder in 011.% or the 123 failure to otherwise prove
././%&
it ever provided it to Coughlin or sufficiently pled it such that it would appropriately be at issue
is further grounds for stri?ing of vacating those portions of the 121!12 "#"C#$ and
:commendations that rest upon such materials:
P"rom: -ach Coughlin Qmailto:AachcoughlinNhotmail)comR 1ent: 5hursday, 9ay
2%, 200, 10:!. 69 5o: 9arc 6shleyC Deborah (ringleC Caryn 1ternlicht 1ubject: ">: >DC:
, (roposed "inal Decree, :E: discovery reHuests
Dear >ashoe $egal 1ervices, (lease see my concerns in the emails below) 6he
/ro/o#ed $ecree #ubmitted by !r. */ringgate /re#ent# real /roblem# %or !#. "o#hi.
*/eci%ically the debt di#tribution i# in no 2ay re%erred to a# being characteriMed a# in lieu
o% alimony or gi-en any #imilar treatment) 5here i# a 2ealth o% authority, some of which +
have provided and #ome o% 2hich i# contained in my email# to !r. */ringgate during the
/re-trial /ha#e o% the "o#hi litigation that spells out why this is disadvantageous to 9s) Doshi)
Ban5ruptcy law specifically 10.a(-1# could potentially see Mr, Joshi upon the re%uisite
showing !e discharged of the de!t distri!uted in the decree and not forced to pay alimony)
1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH)P
+n a letter to Coughlin from Dohn 1pringgate, EsH, of <2%0,, 1pringgate wrote:
E9ay 2%, 200, @+6 E96+$ -achary Coughlin, EsH) ,!< >est 12th 1treet :eno, 3@ %,<0&
9r) Coughlin: 5his is in response to your emails) + doubt very much that + will continue to be
corresponding with you via email) + should also advise you that + am continuing to run the
cloc? on this matter, so that you have fair warning that if you continue on this, + will see?
additional fees and sanctions) 5o be clear, + will not clarify what + said to you previously) +t
seems fairly straight forward) 1econdly, + will not respond to your reHuests for additional data)
5hird, + will not notify the court or ta?e other steps that you reHuest + do) +f you thin? the rules
have not been complied with, ?indly file an objection to the proposed Decree) + suggest that
you find reasons that you believe it does not conform with the final order) Kou have been doing
a pretty good job with your objections so far, so + see no reason that an additional one should
not be filed) 3e't, with regards to your most recent email regarding copies of correspondence
or communications, please note that + copied you on the correspondence with 9r) 9eador
because he is appointed by the 1upreme Court) "urther, there has been no correspondence with
Dudge 7ardner, other than documents as reflected in the court file) + understand communication
about e' palie matters) Kou should pay attention to your communications in that regard)
3othing further will be provided to you) 6nd, to the e'tent that you continue to complain to
other pmiies about my proposed actions, be prepared to bac? those up with documentation or
filings, because you are crossing the line into personal communications which, as + recall, is
what got you in trouble in the first place) $astly, with regards to 9r) 9eadorBs communication,
+ believe he was indicating that he could serve as settlement counsel in this matter, but was
see?ing our opinion as to whether or not we felt a recusal was in order) Kou will note from my
copy of the correspondence to you that + did not believe that to be the case) Kou seem to
indicate in your emails that there is some belief that + may not be forwardingWthe entirety of the
communication to you) 5hat is insulting) Dust wanted to let you ?now where we stood) @ery
.///%&
truly yours, D#;3 () 1(:+37765E, E1U) 1F
:
E(etitioner -ach Coughlin submits this (E5+5+#3 "#: >:+5 #" 963D6981
63D (:#;+2+5+#3 with the following (oints and 6uthorities) 5his (etition is brought
pursuant to 3:6( 21(a* for issuance of a writ of mandate directing the district court to
withdraw any sanctions against (etitioner) 5he issues presented are whether the lower courtBs
#rder 6fter 5rial was appropriate with regard to sanctioning (etitioner and whether it was
sufficiently detailed in describing the conduct sanctioned) 5he form of this (etition is summary
in nature, with attachments but without transcripts (though video of the entire trial does e'ist
and may present a more useful and economical approach for review*) 5he relief sought is this
CourtBs intervention by way of e'traordinary writ, nullifying any sanctions issued
against(etitioner)
D65ED this =2.th day of =#ctober 200,)
-ach Coughlin, EsH)
,&1 "orest 1t)
:eno, 3@ %,<0, 5el: //< &&% %11%
"a': %01 /.0 .20/
(#+351 63D 685;#:+5+E1
1) 1563D6:D "#: +11863CE #" 6 >:+5
6 writ of mandamus will issue to compel the performance of an act which the law reHuires as a
duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, and where there is no
plain, speedy, and adeHuate remedy in the ordinary course of law) ;ic?ey v) District
Court, 10< 3ev) /2,, /%2 ()2d 1&&. (1,%,*C 3:1 &!)1.0) 6 writ of mandamus is
available when the respondent has a clear, present legal duty to act, or to control an arbitrary or
capricious e'ercise of discretion) :ound ;ill 7en) +mp) Dist) v) 3ewman,
,/ 3ev) .01, .&/ ()2d <&! (1,%1*) 5he writ is the appropriate remedy to compel
performance of a judicial act) 1olis=:amireA v) Eighth Dudicial Dist) Court e' rel)
County of Clar?, 112 3ev) &!!, ,1& ()2d 12,& (1,,.*) 1imilarly, the purpose of a
writ of prohibition is not to correct errors, but to prevent courts from transcending
their jurisdiction, and they are issued to arrest the proceedings of a district court
e'ercising its judicial functions when those proceedings are in e'cess of the
jurisdiction of that courtC it also is to issue where there is no plain, speedy, and
adeHuate remedy at law) 7uerin v) 7uerin, 11! 3ev) 12/, ,<& ()2d /1. (1,,%*C 7ladys 2a?er
#lsen "amily 5rust v) District Court, 110 3ev) <!%, %/! ()2d //%
(1,,!*C 3:1 &!)&20) 5he writ is the correct mechanism for prohibiting the use of enforcement
./%/%&
orders effectuating an underlying order that was issued without
jurisdiction) 7olden v) 6verill, &1 3ev) 2<0, 101 () 1021 (1,0,*) 6s to both varieties
of writs, they are intended to resolve legal, not factual disputes) :ound ;ill 7en) +mp)
Dist), supra) 5he Court may in its discretion treat a petition for writ of mandamus as one for
prohibition, or vice versa, or treat a notice of appeal interchangeably as a
(etition for a >rit) 9essner v) District Court, 10! 3ev) /<,, /.. ()2d 1&20 (1,%%*C
+n re 5emporary Custody of "ive 9inors, 10< 3ev) !!1, /// ()2d ,01 (1,%,*) +n this
case, the essential facts are somewhat in disupte (although, as noted below, that some of the
lower courtBs commentary in dicta is arguably unsupportable*, and the main
disputes are as to matters of law, going both to a duty to act, and a duty to refrain
from acting, both of which duties arguably have been violated by the lower court,
reHuiring an order by way of an e'traordinary writ from this Court)
+++) "6C51 63D (:#CED8:6$ ;+15#:K
6 Complaint for Divorce was filed by 61;>+3 D#1;+ (hereinafter 9r) Doshi*,
by and through his attorney, D#;3 () 1(:+37765E, E1U), on Duly %, 200%) 6n
6nswer and Counterclaim was filed by 2;6:5+ D#1;+ (hereinafterB9s) DoshiB*, by and
through her attorney of record, -6C;6:K 2)C#87;$+3, E1U), on Duly 1%,
200%) 6rgument was heard on 9arch 12, 200, and 9arch 1/,200,) 9r) Doshi was
present and represented by Dohn () 1pringgate, EsH)C and 9s) Doshi, was present and
represented by -achary 2) Coughlin, EsH), for >ashoe $egal 1ervices)
5he District Court entered and #rder 6fter 5rial on 6pril 1&th, 200, sanctioning
attorney Coughlin) 9r) Coughlin ceased representing 9s) Doshi) 9r) Coughlin
filed a 9otion for :econsideration followed by an #pposition followed by a :eply followed by
a denial of 9r) Coughlin 9otion for :econsideration) 5he
District Court subseHuently entered a "inal #rder (after 9r) Coughlin had ceased representing
9s) Doshi* that awarded alimony) 5he District CourtBs #rder 6fter
5rial sanctioned 9r) Coughlin, at least in part, for see?ing alimony)
+@) 5;E D+15:+C5 C#8:5B 1 #:DE: 6"5E: 5:+6$ +118+37
163C5+#31 1;#8$D 3#5 1563D
(ursuant to 3:1 1%)010(2*(b*, the court has authority to order attorneyBs fees
Pwhen the court finds that the))) defense of the opposing party was brought or
maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party)P "urther,
pursuant to 3:1 /)0%<, 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 well=grounded 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 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)
3:1 /)0%< references 3:C( 11) (ursuant to (engilly v) :ancho 1anta "e ;omeowners
6ssociation, 11. 3ev)
.!., < ()&d <., (2000*, the 3evada 1upreme Court ruled that the appropriate manner
in which to review a District Court finding of contempt as to an attorney was by writ
of mandate) 5he District CourtBs #rder 6fter 5rial is not valid and is not in
compliance with 3evada law in that the #rder directly violates 3:1 1%)010(2*(b*,
and 3:1 /)0%<, and 3:C( 11 as it misstates the law and does not contain the facts constituting
the conduct in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge and
contains only conclusory, ad hominem, statements, and allowed no advance notice or
hearing) "urther, the #rder sanctioned the attorney for arguing for an award of
alimony, despite the fact that the same court awarded alimony in the courtBs "inal #rder)
6rguments set forth in 9r) CoughlinBs 9otion for :econsideration and :eply
to 9r) 1pringgateBs #pposition to 9otion for :econsideration are incorporated herein
by reference if its please the Court and in the interest of judicial economy and
reducing the volume of paper involved in this (etition for >rit of 9andate)
5he District CourtBs #rder 6fter trial gives an e'plication of the basis for the
sanctions) :ather than try to summariAe that basis for the District Court, this (etition
will merely respond, line by line, to the rationale and basis offered by the District
Court) 5he District CourtBs #rder 6fter 5rial is set forth in bold, infra, in its entirety
with respect to the basis for the sanctions followed by (etitionerBs own precedent and analysis
addressing the propriety of so sanctioning counsel)
6t trial, 9r) 1pringgate stated that 9r) Coughlin had conducted no discovery
in this case) +n addition, 9r) Coughlin failed to present one documentary piece
of evidence at trial on behalf of 9s) DoshiB s claims) +n adversary ban?ruptcy 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
.%0/%&
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) :e Coupe, (1,%<, 2C 3D #hio* <1 2: ,&,)
9r) Coughlin was seriously limited in what evidence he could produce by the
District Courts ruling, in response to a misstatement of 3evada law by 9r)
1pringgate, that 9s) Doshi would not be allowed to admit any evidence whatsover
of domestic violence, for purposes of either a distribution of propertydebt or
alimony calculation, despite the fact that 3evada law allows for such evidence to be
introduced (not for the purposes of a fault analysis but for earning capacity issues as well as
intimidation and control of finances arguments, amongst other reasons*)
>heeler v) 8pton=>heeler, 11& 3ev) 11%<, ,!. ()2d 200 (1,,/*Cand Prepetitive
acts of physical or mental abuse by one spouse Pcausing a condition in the injured
spouse which generates e'pense or affects that personBs ability to wor?) :odrigueA
v) :odrigueA, 11. 3ev) ,,&, ,,%=,,, 1& ()&d !1< (2000*)
"urther, 9r) Coughlin did put on a multitude of evidence in support of 9s)
DoshiBs claims) 9s) Doshi testified as to the factors in an alimony and or property
distribution analysis so well that the District Court was moved to award her alimony
and a lesser portion of the community debt)))after the the District Court had sanctioned 9r)
Coughlin for not putting on a colorable claim in either regard))) 5he
District Court made the seemingly incongruous ruling in its "inal #rder awarding
9s) Doshi alimony and a lesser debt apportionment after 9r) Coughlin had ceased
representing 9s) Doshi)
9r) Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court throughout trial
5he District Court ruled on several of 9r) 1pringgateBs objections prior to providing 9r)
Coughlin any opportunity to respond) :esponding to objections for
the record is is necessary for is one fails to state an argument for the record, the
issue is not preserved for appeal) 9r) 1pringgate introduced e'hibit after e'hibit
that did not comply with the District CourtBs own (re=5rial #rder and various court rules
(e'amined in detail in the 9otion for :econsideration*) Counsel heeded the
common rule of thumb that continuing objections are generally not the best practice,
especially in light of the fact that many courts now reHuire that objections be made
stating the specific ground of objection) Dic?erson v) Com), 1/! 1)>)&d !<1
(Gy)200<*, Davis v) Com), 1!/ 1)>)&d /0, (Gy)200!*C Elwell v) 1tate, ,<! 1o) 2d
10!, ("la) 2nd DC6 200/* review granted, ,.& 1o) 2d 22/ ("la) 200/*) 5his was
especially difficult terrain to navigate in this case (balancing preserving issues for
appeal with attempting to avoid upsetting the District CourtBs pursuit of the orderly
.%1/%&
administration of justice* given that some situations brought up issues of
foundation, hearsay, and procedure all at the same time)
"inding, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that
a defense attorney had committed and intended to commit a wilful contempt, the
court in Connell v 1tate ( 1,0/* %0 3eb 2,., 11! 3> 2,! (ovrld on other grounds 1tate e' rel)
>right v 2arlow, 1&2 3eb 1.., 2/1 3> 2%2*, reversed a lower court
judgment of contempt on two counts of addressing the court in what was variously described as
disrespectful, humiliating , and insulting language) 5he first count was
predicated upon the attorney Bs comments after the trial judge had flatly overruled
an objection to a Huestion propounded by the prosecutor to a witness ) +n ta?ing an
e'ception to this ruling, the attorney stated that the point was one that he wanted to present, but
that if the court had made up its mind he would not go into it)))>ith
reference to the charge of contempt based on this language , the court on appeal first
noted that the transcript of this and other incidents revealed that the judge had been
led into controversy and argument when nothing was reHuired but a prompt decision))) 1tating
that such a remar? as the attorneyBs initial reference to the judgeBs
having made up his mind would , when made in open court , ordinarily be regarded
as more or less offensive , the court reasoned that the implication plainly was that
the point was an important one which merited discussion , and the insinuation was that the
court had made an important ruling with a closed mind and without proper
consideration of the matter))) the court pointed out that the judge , instead of ta?ing
measures to prevent such discussion, had continued it by a remar? which could only
be calculated to produce the reply which followed) 6s?ing to please be allowed to state an
objection for the record is not Huite the
same thing as where an attorney used contumacious , contemptuous language and
court was justified in finding in contempt attorney who, after motion to vacate
clientBs conviction was denied, told judge PKou have e'hibited what your
partisanship is) Kou shouldnBt be sitting in court) Kou are a disgrace to the benchP and
continued arguing after being held in contempt) Gunstler v 7alligan, (1,,1, 1st
Dept* 1.% 6pp Div 2d 1!., </1 3K12d ,&0, affd /, 3K2d //<, </, 3K12d .!%,
<%/ 3E2d 2%.)
.%2/%&
=and made sarcastic, derogatory remar?s to the Court, 9r) 1pringgate, and 9r) Doshi
throughout trial) ))Pto refrain from ma?ing degrading remar?s to
both 9r) Doshi and 9r) 1pringgate)P 6 defense attorney was held in contempt of court in :e
Cohen (1,/&, DC 3K*
&/0 ") 1upp 11.., upon 1& incidents of misbehavior, including the use of sarcastic
and disrespectful language in addressing the court))) the specifications of
misconduct were (1* e'pressions of dis=pleasure with the trial courtBs rulings in
language such as Pthis is ridiculous,P P+ have never seen anything li?e this circus,P
Pthis is a travesty,P and Pthis is a farcePC (2* the attorneyBs use of a scatological term,
to wit, Pa pile of sh\t,P when the trial judge reHuested him to sit downC and (&* the
statement, made in what was characteriAed as a sarcastic and moc?ing response to
the judgeBs reHuest that the attorney ?eep within the bounds in his summation,
P>ould your ;onor li?e me to discuss a burlesHue show or a rodeo)P +n finding the
attorney in contempt, the court observed that what was presented was neither a case
of an isolated instance of contemptuous conduct which at times occurs under the pressure of a
trial where an attorney is carried away by misguided Aeal in his clientBs
behalf, nor was it a case in which the attorney could plausibly claim that his acts or
conduct were triggered by or in response to the acts or attitude of the judge)
9r) Coughlin made no statements whatsoever that bear any resemblance to
those cited in the precedents set forth above) "urther, the District Court ma?es
mention that 9r) Coughlin was Padmonished appro'imately 1< times by the
Court to Huit arguing, to as? specific Huestions, to discontinue as?ing Huestions calling for a
legal conclusion, and to refrain from ma?ing degrading remar?s
to both 9r) Doshi and 9r) 1pringgate ))) 6 common thread amongst all these 1< alleged
instances (that number estimate is believed to be high* is that they are either
not reHuired by law (one is allowed to as? an open ended or general Huestion, in fact, it is a
fairly useful tactic with some witnessesC further, it is pretty hard to garner
a statement against interest or admission if one is not allowed to as? a witness if
they were careless or if some item was bought to benefit to community, particularly
where consel has made clear he is not see?ing a legal conclusion from the witness*
or not supported by anything other than the comparatively milHeutoast Pli?e + am
opposing counselBs assistant) +t is Huite telling that the District Court could not
manage to Huote a single derogatory, insulting, or sacrcastic remar? made during the
5rial) +f something was said worth sanctioning it should not be that burdensome to
remember it or print it and the importance to the legal profession that decisions be
.%&/%&
made in the sunshine of transparency call for such detail)
Comments made by defense attorney in criminal trial after trial court had
sustained prosecutionBs objections to attorneysB Huestions on cross e'amination and in which
attorney had stated Pnobody seems to want to get to the truth here,P and,
upon being as?ed by trial court whether he was accusing court of suppressing truth,
included P+ may just have to do that later,P did not tend to interfere with the courtBs
business, and therefore did not constitute contempt) + (1,/%, $a* &<< 1o 2d 12%%) +f
suggesting that there is a reason to anticipate needing to impugn the courtBs credibility at a later
point in a trial is not sanctionable , no statements in the District
Courts opinion is) +n re 9ettler, ( 1,1<*, <0 9ont) 2,,, 1!. () /!/ an attorneyBs contempt
conviction for refusing to sit down at trial was overturned when the contempt order
was found fatally defective for failing to recite the complete factual basis of the
contempt, stating that mere general allegations of insolence will not suffice) +n addition to the
statutory reHuirement of an order setting forth the facts of the
contempt, the contemnor must be granted an opportunity to e'plain or e'cuse
himself) 1uch opportunity allows the individual to potentially purge himself or
show no contempt was intendedC again, general allegations of insolence, insulting or
contemptuous behavior, unsuported by any details in the lower courtBs sanction
order, would not provide a proper order of sanctions ) :an?in v) District Court, <%
9ont) at 2,1 , 1,1 () at //.) 1ee, also, (almieri v) 9arean, %& 3)K)1) %!&, %!&=!!
(6pp) Div) 1,0& * (vacating a fifty dollar contempt fine against (almieri in a 9anhattan civil
trial for refusing to sit down*C
6t one point in the 5rial, the District Court referred to 9s) DoshiBs counsel as
P9r) -ach ) 1uch familiarity may stri?e some as untoward and dismissive,
however, it is entirely li?ely the Court was not guilty of some "reudian slip, but rather made a
simple linguistic inversion of counsel B s first and last names) "urther
9r) 1pringgate surely meant no disrespect when arguing against admitting evidence
of domestic abuse when he stated that Pwhile 9r ) Coughlin was not practicing in
those unfortunate days when fault was included in the calculation of alimony, + was
and let me tell you))) >hether or not opposing counsel had received a license to practice law at
the time a particular precedent was passed down is of dubious utility
in e'plaining this particular evidentiary issue)
5he Court notes that there were well over !0 objections during four (!* hours
of trial) 9r) 1pringgateB s objections were well=founded and continuously sustained e'cept in
one instance) 9r) Coughlin was overruled on every
.%!/%&
objection e'cept one and argued with the Court over most rulings)
6gain it would seem the nothing in the following 6$: suggests that ma?ing an
objection once every ten minutes or so is sanctionable) Conduct of attorney in
connection with ma?ing objections or ta?ing e'ceptions as contempt of court, .%
6)$):)&d &1!) "urther, the District CourtB s statement regarding factual issues (such as a rate of
success arguing objections* is e'aggerated)
5he Court notes that at one point, after an e'hibit had been admitted, 9r)
Coughlin could not find the copy provided by 9r) 1pringgate in discovery)
9r) Coughlin demanded a copy be provided at trial , statingPam + supposed to be rifling
through my papersJ 9y understanding is that you are supposed to
provide a copy)P >hen as?ed if he had the copy of the document, 9r)
Coughlin stated,P+ do not ?now) + could spend my time and mental energy
loo?ing around for 9r) 1pringgate B s document li?e + am his assistant, or we could as? 9r)
1pringgate to provide a copy at the time he is see?ing admission
li?e + believe the rule states )P 9r) Coughlin cited no rule and then proceeded
to interrupt the proceedings twice appro'imately five (<* minutes and twelve
(12* minutes post ruling to re=argue the point) 9r) 1pringgate replied to the
arguments by referencing when e'actly the copy had been provided to 9r) Coughlin during
discovery and where the copy could be located ) 5he Court
had to admonish 9r) Coughlin to Huit arguing the point and reiterate that the e'hibit had been
admitted)
#pposing counsel should not be reHuired to let 9r) 1pringgate lead in the
dance that is litigation) (etitionerBs 9otion for :econsideration and :eply to
#pposition do thoroughly e'plicate e'actly why 9r) 1pringgateBs trial practice violated several
rules, partiuclarly with regard to attempting to admit e'hibits that
had not been identified, mar?ed, inde'ed, or propounded in violation of court rules
and the District CourtBs own (re=5rial #rder) "urther, this situation relates to the
dangers of relying on continuing objections, as mentioned supra, particularly where 9r)
1pringgate is see?ing admission of hearsay in the form of a O<,000 community
debt to 9r) DoshiBs friend in 5anAania supported by an email) 9s) Doshi repeatedly
and passionately implored counsel to fight to get her alimony, citing the difficulties
of supporting two twenty year olds trying to gain an education) 9r) Coughlin filed an 6nswer
and Counterclaim on 9s) Doshi B s behalf that
included allegations unsupported by lawC
CounselBs 9otion for :econsideration and #pposition provided pages of
support for the positions ta?en) 9r) 1pringgate has yet to provide any such support, particularly
.%</%&
for as?ing the court to award sanctions against opposing counsel ta?ing
the majority position in 6merican jurisprudence on a particular point of law)
6lthough an order granting or denying a motion for reconsideration is not itself
appealable, the 1upreme Court can consider arguments raised in the motion for
reconsideration so long as the District Court considers the motion on the merits, the notice of
appeal is filed after the order disposing of the motion, and the motion and
order are included in the record on appeal) 6rnold v) Gip, 1.% ()&d 10<0 (3ev)
200/*)
and filed an #pposition to the reHuest for return of 9r) Doshi B s passport without any factual or
legal basis) "urther, at trial, 9r) Coughlin presented
almost no evidence to support 9s) Doshi B s reHuests and claims) 5he most
troubling aspect of this case was 9r) CoughlinBs rude, sarcastic and
disrespectful presentation at trialC 9r) CoughlinBs inability to understand a
balance sheetC his failure to conduct discovery C and his lac? of ?nowledge with
regard to the rules of evidence and trial procedure ) 6ll 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) "or all these reasons, the Court finds
that 9r) Coughlin Bs 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)
Dudge 1chumacher already made a (re=5rial ruling with regard to the passport
issues, several months before the 5rial in this case) 3o sanctions were issued, and law of the
case doctrine prevent the District Court from e'huming that issue to
autopsy the propriety of 9r) Doshi demanding the courts rush in and have all his
things delivered to him while he fails to ma?e a single phone call for months and
months (he was still promising to do so at the 5rial* to help 9s) Doshi get that to
which their culture dictates is afforded her upon divorce, her ceremonial gold PwomanBs
wealth , traditionally held by the groomBs family) ;ow the District Court
is aware of e'actly what discovery was conducted by either sideBs counsel is unclear, but
certainly 9r) 1pringgate did not present any more discovery reHuest to
9s) Doshi than her counsel did to 9r) Doshi) "or some reason the District Court
provided no indication of how 9r) 1pringgateBs violating the (re=5rial #rder and
various court rules results in sanctioning opposing counsel for not immediately
identifying the court rules pertaining to those transgressions) "urther, this arguably
.%./%&
was not such a simple divorce case considering all the authority and precedent that
forms the 9otion for :econsideration) 5he fact that (etitioner was sanctioned for
arguing the majority view on an issue that is arguably without precedent in 3evada (and which
may present an opportunity for the 3evada 1upreme Court to issue
some precedent that may curb the need to return to District Courts for additional
hearings to enforce property distribution rulings or modify alimony terms* is
inappropriate) 626 Criminal Dustice 1tandards, 1pecial "unctions of the 5rial Dudge,
1tandard .=!)& (2d ed)1,%0* reHuires a clear warning if the conduct was not
Pwillfully contemptuous) +d) 1tandard .=!)2(a* 5he District CourtBs #rder 6fter
5rial does not seem to contemplate any intent reHuirement, much less find counselBs conduct
willfully contemptuous) 5hus, the 1tandards would reHuire a warning in
this case and the #rder 6fter 5rial ma?es no mention of such a warning)
@+) C#3C$81+#3
6 >rit of 9andate should be issued forthwith, directing the lower court to do
that which is reHuired by law, and to cease doing that which is prohibited by law) "urther, 9r)
Coughlin should be reimbursed for costs (O2<0 filing fee, O%% real party
in interest appearance fee, O2<0 supersedeas bond, O&% District Court filing fee, O1<0 copying
costs* and time spent on this action (!<)< hours at O22< per hour*)
D65ED this =2.th day of =#ctober 1 200,)
-ach Coughlin, EsH)
"udge 4inda =ardner<# (inding# o% (act' Conclu#ion# o% 4a2' and $ecree o%
$i-orce B(9(C94$9$C in $V08-01168 o% 6119109 held:
P(inding# o% (act' Conclu#ion# o% 4a2' and $ecree o% $i-orce
5he above=entitled matter came on for trial before this Court on 9arch 11, 200, and
9arch 12,200,) 61;>+3 D#1;+, (laintiff, was present and represented by his counsel, D#;3
() 1(:+37765E, E1U) 2;6:5+ D#1;+, Defendant, was present and represented by her
counsel, -6C; C#87;$+3, E1U) 5he Court issued its #rder 6fter 5rial which was filed on
6pril 1&, 200,)
(7,$7,=* 9( (?C6
1) (laintiff is a resident of the 1tate of 3evada, and for a period of more than si' (.*
wee?s before commencement of this action has resided and been physically present and
domiciled in the 1tate of 3evada)
2) Defendant is a resident of the 1tate of 3evada, and for a period of more than si'
(.* wee?s before commencement of this action has resided and been physically present and
domiciled in the 1tate of 3evada)
&) (laintiff and Defendant were married on 9ay 11, 1,%/ in 2ombay, +ndia, and
.%//%&
ever since that date have been, and now are, ;usband and >ife)
!) 5here are two children of this marriage, both of whom are now adults)
<) Defendant is not pregnant at this time)
.) (laintiff and Defendant have become, and continue to be, incompatible in
marriage, and no reconciliation is possible)
/) 5he current address of (laintiff is 1.!! "ieldcrest Drive, 1par?s, 3@ %,!&!)
%) 5he current address of Defendant is 2.0 2ooth 1treet, 6pt) U, :eno, 3@ %,<0,)
,) 5he Court adopts, as "indings of "act, each and every Conclusion of $aw below,
which by this reference are e'pressly incorporated herein)
C9,C4I*79,* 9( 4?3
1) D8:+1D+C5+#3) 5his Court has jurisdiction of (laintiff and Defendant, and of
the subject matter herein)
2) 7:#83D1) (laintiff is entitled to a Decree of Divorce from Defendant on the
grounds of incompatibility)
&) C;+$D 18((#:56D8$5 C;+$D:E3B1 ED8C65+#3) 9r Doshi will not be
held responsible for the continuing education of the adult children of this marriage)
!) C#9983+5K (:#(E:5KDE25)
6* >omenBs >ealth: 5he PwomenBs wealthP at issue herein is the sole
and separate property of the Defendant) (laintiff is to contact any and all relatives who may
have this property and immediately as? them to return said property to the Defendant as soon
as possible)
2* 9r) DoshiBs @ehicle: 5he 200< Chevrolet 2laAer shall be considered as
(laintiffBs sole and separate property and (laintiffshall be responsible for the debt remaining
thereon) 1ince the car is worth about O10,,10)00 and there is O1<,00,)/< due and owing on the
vehicle, 9r) DoshiBs assumption of this asset is to be considered as an underta?ing of
community debt of appro'imately O!,100)00)
C* 9s) DoshiBs car shall be considered as her sole and separate property
and she shall be responsible for any debt remaining thereon) 1ince no evidence was presented
to the Court as to the value of the auto, either positive or negative, there is no value for this
community asset)
D* 1onBs @ehicle: 5his vehicle is not considered as an asset and will not
be divided among the community)
E* DaughterBs @ehicle: 5his vehicle is not considered as an asset and will
not be divided among the community)
"* $ondon 2an? 6ccount: 5here is no factual basis to support that this
account e'ists and therefore it is not being considered a community asset)
7* Community 2an? 6ccounts: 5here is no factual basis to support that
community ban? accounts e'ist and therefore the same is not being considered a community
asset)
;* Computer: 5he computer which was purchased at 2est 2uy is
awarded to 9r Doshi)
+* 5elevision: 9s) Doshi is awarded the television which was purchased at
2est 2uy) 1aid television is currently in 9s) DoshiBs possession and shall be deemed her sole
.%%/%&
and separate property)
D* 7eneral Credit Card Debt: 5here is general debt of appro'imately
O1<,.<0)00 which has been e'pended for community purposes) 9r) Doshi has agreed to be
responsible for this debt and the same shall be considered as his sole and separate
responsibility)
G* 2est 2uy Credit Card Debt: 5here is an appro'imately balance of
O1,&1!)00 outstanding for the purchase ofthe television and computer) 9r) Doshi has agreed to
be responsible for this debt and the same shall be considered as his sole and separate
responsibility) DaughterB1 E* G* 9s) DoshiBs @ehicle: 9s) DoshiBs car shall be considered as her
sole and separate property and she shall be responsible for any debt remaining thereon) 1ince
no evidence was presented to the Court as to the value of the auto, either positive or
$* 9edical Debt: 5here is a debt due to 1t) 9aryBs ;ospital for O.,/&<)00
and a debt to :E916 for O<00)00) 9r) Doshi has agreed to be responsible for these debts and
the same shall be considered as his sole and separate responsibility)
9* "amily Debt: 5here is a debt due to 6shi? 3anaby and a O<,000)00
debt due to :od and 9eena "owler) 9r) Doshi has agreed to be responsible for these debts and
the same shall be considered as his sole and separate responsibility)
3* 7eneral Community Debt: 5here was no evidence to establish
community debt) 9r) Doshi agreed to ta?e the remaining community debt in his name that is
outstanding and the debt shall be his sole and separate responsibility) +t should be noted that
9r) Doshi has li?ely incurred an uneHual distribution of the community debt of the parties and
the Court finds his testimony to be a compelling reason for ma?ing an uneHual distribution
ofthe community debt)
<) 1pousal 1upport: 5he Court has found that 9r) Doshi is <1 and 9s) Doshi is !.C
the parties earn roughly eHuivalent amountsC the parties have been married 21 years but 9s)
Doshi has always been employed during that timeC 9s) Doshi has a college degreeC both parties
are able to wor?C and after consideration of the net income, deduction of ta'es, and the amount
paid in community debt by 9r) Doshi, an award of alimony in the amount of one dollar (O1)00*
shall be awarded to 9s) Doshi pursuant to 3:1 12<)1<0, >olffv) >olff 112 3ev) 1&<<,,2,
()2d 1,., and 1hydler v) 1hydler, 1,! 3ev) 1,2, 1,.,,<! ()2d &/, &, (1,%%*)
"I$=@!@,6 ?,$ $@C@@ 9( $7V9C@ ,93' 6)@@(9@' 76 7* )@@+F
9$@@$' ?$"I$=@$' ?,$ $@C@@$
1) (laintiff, 61;>+3 D#1;+ be, and he is, finally and absolutely divorced from
Defendant, 2;6:5+ D#1;+, and that the bonds of matrimony heretofore e'isting between
(laintiff 61;>+3 D#1;+, and Defendant, 2;6:5+ D#1;+, be, and they hereby are,
dissolved, and the parties hereto are restored to the status of single and unmarried persons)
2) 5here DefendantBs name shall be restored to that of 2;6:5+ :) D6@E)
&) 5he matter, as set forthin the preceding "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw, and
Decree of Divorce, is hereby ratified, adopted, and approved, and the parties are #rdered to
comply with the terms of such) 7##D C681E 6((E6:+37, +5 +1 1# #:DE:ED)P
@mail# %rom */ringgate to Coughlin0
122%0, Dohn 1pringgate :e: (roposed #rder for :eturn of 6ppeal 2ondJ
122%0, Dohn 1pringgate :e: DonationJ
.%,/%&
121<0, Dohn 1pringgate :e: $etter
120,0, Dohn 1pringgate $etter
%1%0, Dohn 1pringgate :e: 1tipulation for E'tension of 5ime
%1%0, Dohn 1pringgate :e: 1tipulation for E'tension of 5ime
.1/0, Dohn 1pringgate :e: Doc?eting 1tatement 6ttached
<2%0, Dohn (3o 1ubject*J <2.0, Dohn 1pringgate :e: >DC: , (roposed "inal Decree, :E:
discovery reHuests
<2.0, Dohn 1pringgate :e: Doshi 1upreme Court 6ppeal
<1%0, Dohn 1pringgate :e: returning your call
+n a letter to Coughlin from Dohn 1pringgate, EsH, of <2%0,, 1pringgate wrote:
E9ay 2%, 200, @+6 E96+$ -achary Coughlin, EsH) ,!< >est 12th 1treet :eno,
3@ %,<0&
9r) Coughlin:
5his is in response to your emails) + doubt very much that + will continue to be
corresponding with you via email) + should also advise you that + am continuing to run the
cloc? on this matter, so that you have fair warning that if you continue on this, + will see?
additional fees and sanctions)
5o be clear, + will not clarify what + said to you previously) +t seems fairly straight forward)
1econdly, + will not respond to your reHuests for additional data)
5hird, + will not notify the court or ta?e other steps that you reHuest + do) +f you
thin? the rules have not been complied with, ?indly file an objection to the proposed Decree) +
suggest that you find reasons that you believe it does not conform with the final order) Kou
have been doing a pretty good job with your objections so far, so + see no reason that an
additional one should not be filed)
3e't, with regards to your most recent email regarding copies of correspondence or
communications, please note that + copied you on the correspondence with 9r) 9eador because
he is appointed by the 1upreme Court) "urther, there has been no correspondence with Dudge
7ardner, other than documents as reflected in the court file) + understand communication about
e' palie matters) Kou should pay attention to your communications in that regard) 3othing
further will be provided to you)
6nd, to the e'tent that you continue to complain to other pmiies about my proposed
.,0/%&
actions, be prepared to bac? those up with documentation or filings, because you are crossing
the line into personal communications which, as + recall, is what got you in trouble in the first
place)
$astly, with regards to 9r) 9eadorBs communication, + believe he was indicating that he could
serve as settlement counsel in this matter, but was see?ing our opinion as to whether or not we
felt a recusal was in order) Kou will note from my copy of the correspondence to you that + did
not believe that to be the case) Kou seem to indicate in your emails that there is some belief that
+ may not be forwardingWthe entirety of the communication to you) 5hat is insulting)
Dust wanted to let you ?now where we stood) @ery truly yours,
D#;3
() 1(:+37765E, E1U) 1
D@0%=01<&2 M6CH9JJ9 C&RN6N9 )S, BR&+J9D C&RN6N9 (+.#
1&=96:=200, ;eard=1ettled C#831E$ C#87;$+3 5# (:E(6:E DEC:EE

0%=6(:=200, \\ 3otes )))CD 28:3ED ;E6:+37 D65E 0&=1&=200, :EU8E15ED 2K
-6C;6:K 2) C#87;$+3 C6$$ED "#: (+CG 8( 0!=0%=200,D6

2/=6(:=200, \\\9inutes Entry: &1&0, 1E55$E9E35 C#3" = 5ransaction /&&0/& =
6pproved 2y: 3#:E@+E> : 0!=2/=200,:12:!0:2.
"@0,=00%%. JES9 7R6B9 )S, "&R6N& C&M&CHE )&J+9B (+M# 10=96:=200, 5C =
5(# = C;+$D:E3
1&=96:=200, E'tended (rotection #rd Entry: E45E3DED "#: #3E KE6: (3#5E:
following E(# ;earing held on &120,*)))E4(+:E1 65 11:<, (9 #3 &=1&=10
1&=96:=200, ;rg E'hibits 9aintnd in "ile Entry: 6(($+C635B1 E4;+2+5
6)))#""E:ED, 96:GED 63D 6D9+55ED
20=96:=200, 12:12 (9 ;eard )))Entry: 6(($ >+5; C#831E$C 6D@( (:# (E:
D6@1;:7 :9 67D
20=96:=200, 12:12 (9 #rd 6fter ;earing)))Entry: 9#D+"+ED E(# :E
@+1+565+#3 E4C;637E1
0&=6(:=200, 10:22 69 E'=(arte 9tn)))Coughlin, EsH), -achary Entry: 5#
69E3D E45E3DED (:#5EC5+#3 #:DE: 676+315 D#9E15+C @+#$E3CE
0&=6(:=200, :eHuest for 1ubmissionCoughlin, EsH), -achary Entry: D#C89E35
5+5$E: E4 (6:5E 9#5+#3 5# 69E3D E45E3DED (:#5EC5+#3 #:DE: 676+315
D#9E15+C @+#$E3CE (6:5K 1829+55+37: -6C;6:K C#87;$+3, E1U D65E
1829+55ED: 0!0&0, 1829+55ED 2K: D3 D65E :ECE+@ED D8D7E #""+CE:
-F/&CR/.FF: F2(1- CM ?? Notes ,,,9ntry(CD &.3/1D %1035/- D021 03-20-200>
31S.1*21D =02%+11/ &31C=1/35D-1
.,1/%&
A/O21@ &31C=1/35D-1 40* 4+*(* &O03D D31*5D1/2 02 2%5* 25)17 0/D
&O2% *%1 0/D 1+C0/O CO/V1/51/2< F05+1D 2O D5*C+O*1 2%02 2%1 V13<
*0)1 2%1)1* D31*1/2 5/ CO.-%+5/(* 0DVOC0C< FO3 )0+1 DO)1*25C
V5O+1/C V5C25) JO*1 .35&1 O/ 3/12/0> 0/ 3/30/0> A1135+< *5)5+03 2O 2%1
3/12/0> 0/D 3/17/0> D021* OF 2%1 JO*%5 D5VO3C1 2350+ 5/ DV08-01168 2%02
31*.+25/- 5/ 2%1 F/13/0> A/O217 1/2131D ?(6@ 34* P@*7$@,6
+@C:@,7$=@ )?$ ?4@?$F P7C:@$ IP 6)@ C$ *)@ CI79I*4F
@PI@*6@$ 9( C9I=)47,<* 39: 7, 6)@ &112109 I7+@ @P9
)@?7,=C,,,*11 %13 F/2F/12 +12213 2O CO.-%+5/ 0/D 1+C0/O(*
*2021)1/2(* 5/ %5* F/20/0>7 C/1/0>7 0/D C/7/0> +12213* 2O CO.-%+5/
0//O./C5/- 2%1 &0*5* FO3 2%1 )1+OD30)02C5 5))1D5021 *.*D1/*5O/
&0335/- CO.-%+5/ F3O) 4+* D3OD132<7 2%1 *COD1 OF 2%1
:5/V1*25-025O/97 0/D 2%1 &0*5* FO3 CO.-%+5/(* 213)5/025O/7 5/
CO)D035*5O/ 2O 2%1 OV13+< CO/V1/51/2 31V5*5O/5*2 %5*2O3<
21*25F51D 2O ./D13 O02% &< 1+C0/O 02 CO.-%+5/(* 11/1F/12 FO3)0+
D5*C5D+5/03< %1035/-BC0++1D FO3 D5C=
Certainly, it is not lac?ing in irony that Elcano testified as to CoughlinBs competency
at the 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing when a review of the 1tate of 3evada 2oard of
EHualiAation ta' appeal matter that Elcano as?ed Coughlin to address suddenly on
appro'imately 5hursday,9arch <
th
, 200, and to which Coughlin returned to Elcano (without
whining about something not Ebeing part of my job description)))especially considering
1ternlicht refused to help out in nearly any way with covering CoughlinBs cases upon ElcanoBs
negligent decision to attempt to Huic?ly fire Coughlin with hel of the impermissible attempt to
use the prestige of Dudge 7ardnerBs judicial office, in violation of 3evada Code of Dudicial
Conduct Canon 2, to further >$1Bs Elcano, C66>Bs, and, some might say, Dudge $) 7ardner
and 1pringgateBs own personal interest by firing Coughlin with what ultimately they would
attempt to assert as a loc?tightimpenetrable justification for doing so, an #rder 6fter 5rial by a
sitting District Court Dudge (almost as strong as a $etter of :ecommendation for Dudicial #ffice
on Dudicial 1tationary*) 2eyond Elcano merely glomming on in a rec?less, phony, shallow
fashion to Dudge $) 7ardnerBs !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial (not even a final #rder, as is calls for
1pringgate to (repare a "#"C#$ and Decree of Divorce, which, ultimately subsumed on
.1,0, and language relied upon by the 123 in its %2&12 Complaint against Coughlin in
3712=0!&< or the (anel Chair EcheverriaBs solo 121!12 "indings of "act, Conclusions of
$aw (which is not even an appealable #rder, Decision, or :ecommendation given the untrained
jurist Chair EcheverriaBs failure to so title the document thusly, and as a result, in K.00;, Cler?
$indemanBs 122!12 +ssued 3otice of 2riefing 1chedule2ar Discipline) Due date: &0 days) +f
no opening brief is filed, the matter will be submitted for decision on the record without
briefing or oral argument)
http:www)leg)state)nv)uscourtrules
http:www)leg)state)nv)uscourtrules:(C)html
.,2/%&
12=2!=2012 "iled :ecord of 2ar (roceedings, (leadings and 5ranscript of ;earings)
@ols) 1 through &)
12=2!=2012 +ssued 3otice of 2riefing 1chedule2ar Discipline) Due date: &0 days) +f
no opening brief is filed, the matter will be submitted for decision on the record without
briefing or oral argument)
0!=10=200,D6 21=96K=200, 12:1, (9 1ubstitution of Counsel 6shley, EsH), 9arc
Entry: 96:C 61;$EK E1U 18215+585+37 #2# 6(($+C635 +3 ($6CE
#" -6C;6:K C#87;$+3, E1U
!inute# %rom the &120, 5rial date in $V08-011.%: E;E6:+37 =1E55$E9E35
C#3"E:E3CE5:+6$
5;E C#8:5 ;E$D 6 1E55$E9E35 C#3"E:E3CE #"" :EC#:D) 3#
67:EE9E35 >61 :E6C;ED 63D 5;E 9655E: C#3@E3ED #3 5;E
:EC#:D "#: 5:+6$)
(lantiff 6shwin Doshi was present with counsel, -achary Coughlin, EsH), and was sworn to
testify)
Defendant 2harti Doshi was present with counsel, Dohn 1pringgate, EsH), and was sworn to
testify)
9r) 1pringgate waived opening statement and called 9r) Doshi to testify) !r. "o#hi
te#ti%ied on direct-e8amination0 +s renting his residence for appro'imately the last , months
when he had to leave the marital residence as per a (rotection #rder) ;e too? some belongings
but the bul? of the belongings are at the marital residence) 2eside the cars, the 5@ and
computer are at issue) ;e wants the computer) ;is information (files* was wiped off the
computer) 5estified regarding DefendantLs e'hibits 6 (Clearstar statement* and 2 (Gelley 2lue
2oo? value print out*) Mr, Springgate offered the e=hi!its into evidence, 'hey were admitted
with no o!$ection !y Mr, Coughlin, 9r) Doshi testified he used to wor? for two employers, has
wor?ed si' hours in the past 2 wee?s and has filed for unemployment) ;e hasnLt received
unemployment yet but e'pects to receive O&20 per wee?) ;e has projected &0 hrs) of wor? ne't
wee?, &0 hrs) during three days following that, and no other projected wor? for the following 2
months) ;e testified regarding accounts, balances, and his e'penses, referring to DefendantLs
e'hibit E) 9r) Coughlin objection to a Huestion regarding purchase of the computer as a
community e'pense arguing it is leading) 'he o!$ection was overruled and the %uestion ruled
foundational, 9r) Doshi testified regarding the Discover account) 9r) Coughlin objection to a
Huestion regarding whether it was community e'pense arguing it calls for a legal opinion) 'he
o!$ection was sustained, 9r) Doshi testified further regarding Discover, >a9u, >ells "argo,
other debts, and that the 1t) 9aryLs account is from an operation he had in 9ay) ;e didnLt have
insurance, didnLt have insurance through his employer because he forgot and missed the
enrollment period, and thought he was on his wifeLs insurance) 1t) 9aryLs discounted the bill)
.,&/%&
9r) Doshi testified regarding DefendantLs e'hibit ", the 1t) 9aryLs bill) 9r) Coughlin stated he
was not provided a copy, he may have or not been provided one (on 9r) 1pringgateLs comment
that it was provided to him prior*, and had no objection to its admittance) 9=hi!it * was
admitted,
Mr, Coughlin moved to not admit the Remsa (mar5ed as e=hi!it 3# !ill as an e=hi!it
stating he wasnNt provided a copy, Mr, Springgate provided a prior one it was mar5ed as
ClaintiffNs e=hi!it 3 and Mr, Springgate stated it was provided in his supplemented production
of documents to Mr, Coughlin on *e!ruary -;th, Mr, Coughlin stated he didnNt 5now if he
received it, 'he Court overruled Mr, CoughlinNs o!$ection as him having already received a
copy, Mr, Coughlin argued further, 'he Court continued to hear testimony,
9r) Doshi testified regarding e'hibit 7) 9=hi!it 3 was admitted, 9r) Doshi testified
regarding the anesthesiology bill) 9=hi!it 9 was offered and admitted with no o!$ection,
5estimony continued) 9r) Doshi testified further regarding medical bills and money owed to
friends who facilitated the partiesL move to the 81 and to his sister and brother in law) 9=hi!it
H was mar5ed, 9r) Doshi testified to e'hibit ;, transfers from his sister and brother in lawC the
debt in the amount of w&).00 (appro'imately O<,000*) Regarding the letter referenced in the
e=hi!it Mr, Joshi stated it was no his computer, Mr, Coughlin stated he doesnNt 5now if he
o!$ects to the e=hi!it, 9=hi!it H was admitted) 5estimony continued) 9r) Doshi stated
information on money owed to his friends was on his computer, 9rs) Doshi cancelled his email,
and he doesnLt ?now if he can retrieve it from the company)
Mr, Coughlin o!$ected on hearsay, 'he Court found that the e=hi!it was already admitted,
'he o!$ection was overruled, Mr, Coughlin argued further that Mr, Springgate is to !ring a
copy for him, 'he Court reviewed the applica!le rule and found that copies have !een
provided and the statute has !een complied with, Mr, Coughlin argued further, 5estimony
continued) Mr, Coughlin o!$ected to the testimony on hearsay, Mr, Springgate rephrased the
%uestion and continued his direct/e=amination, 9r) Doshi testified further regarding money
owed to friends) Mr, Coughlin o!$ected that a %uestion called for a legal conclusion, 7pon
arguments presented the Court overruled the o!$ection, 5estimony continued) 9r) Doshi
testified regarding the vehicles)
Mr, Coughlin o!$ected regarding the earlier discussion as to production of documents, 'he
Court found that Mr, Springgate complied with the rule,
Mr, Joshi continued his testimony regarding the vehicles, Mr, Coughlin o!$ected on
hearsay, 'he o!$ection was overruled, Mr, Coughlin argued further, 9r) 1pringgate continued
the Huestioning) Mr, Coughlin o!$ected, 'he o!$ection was overruled, 5estimony continued
regarding the vehicles, 9rs) DoshiLs EwomanLs wealthF, and regarding the parties debt) Mr,
Coughlin o!$ected that Mr, SpringgateNs %uestioning is discussing settlement discussions,
7pon arguments presented the o!$ection was overruled, 5estimony continued and concluded
on direct e'amination)
!r. "o#hi te#ti%ied on cro##-e8amination by !r. Coughlin0 9r) Doshi testified regarding
his tip earnings) Mr, Springgate o!$ected that a %uestion regarding his tips in that Mr, Joshi is
incompetent to spea5 as to the 6RS and re%uested the %uestion !e rephrased, Mr, Coughlin
rephrased the %uestion, 5estimony continued) &n o!$ection !y Mr, Springgate was sustained,
5estimony continued regarding his unemployment and probability of employment in the ne't
.,!/%&
wee?) Regarding his line of %uestioning Mr, Coughlin agreed that he would stipulate to Mr,
JoshiNs earnings as shown on his A. and has %uestions to Mr, JoshiNs testimony that he is
earning less, 5estimony continued) 9r) Doshi testified further regarding his employment) Mr,
Springgate o!$ected to a %uestion as argumentative, 'he Court found the %uestion was as5ed
and answered, Mr, Coughlin argued further, &fter discussion the Court allowed the %uestion,
Mr, Springgate o!$ected that the %uestion @&re you lying84 is argumentative improper and
pre$udicial, &fter discussion the Court directed proceeding !eyond the %uestion, 9r) Doshi
testified further regarding his unemployment filing and medical billings from :eno (hysicians)
'he Court noted Mr, Joshi testified that !ill has !een paid off and no longer an issue as
community de!t, En in%uiry !y the Court as to his %uestioning of the !ill Mr, Coughlin stated
his %uestion goes to impeachment, 9r) Doshi continued testimony regarding his medical bills)
'wo o!$ections !y Springgate as argumentative were sustained, Mr, Joshie argued further, 'he
Court sustained the o!$ections, 5estimony continued) 'here was a further o!$ection as
argumentative and further discussion, 6fter discussion, testimony continued regarding the
charges incurred) 'here was an o!$ection on relevance regarding loans to family, &fter
discussion %uestioning continued, 9r) Doshi testified regarding charges incurred) &n o!$ection
!y Mr, Springgate that a %uestion calls for a legal conclusion was sustained, Uuestioning
continued) &n o!$ection !y Mr, Springgate as argumentative was sustained, Uuestioning
continued) 9r) Doshi testified regarding accounts and whose name they are in, and regarding
debts) &n o!$ection !y Springgate regarding certain e=penditures and whether they are
community in that the %uestion calls for a legal conclusion was sustained and the Court
directed %uestions !e as5ed that donNt call for a legal conclusion, 5estimony continued) Mr,
Springgate o!$ected, 'he Court heard arguments, 'he o!$ection was sustained, 5estimony
continued) 9r) Doshi testified regarding a trip with his sister, regarding account balance
transfers, his medical operation, his legal representation charges, and the +:1 income ta' filing)
Mr, Springgate o!$ected on relevancy to a %uestion regarding the 6RS refund used for legal
charges, 'he o!$ection was sustained, 6he Court rece##ed and the matter 2a# continued to
!arch 17' 2009 at 8015 am. (end of 9inutes from &120, 5rial date in D@0%=011.%*)
9inutes from second day of 5rial in D@0%=011.%, &1/0,: E)@?7,=-
C9,67,I@$ 67?4
(laintiff 6shwin Doshi was present with counsel, -achary Coughlin, EsH), and was sworn to
testify)
Defendant 2harti Doshi was present with counsel, Dohn 1pringgate, EsH), and was sworn to
testify)
5his matter continued from 9arch 12
th
) (laintiff ?#h2in "o#hi, too? the stand and
continued his testimony on cross=e'amination) 9r) Doshi testified: ;e paid attorneyLs fees
with a credit card (81 2an?* that he then paid with a ta' refund and testified further regarding
the debts) &n o!$ection !y Mr, Springgate as a mischaracteriGation of Mr, JoshiNs prior
testimony was sustained, 5estimony continued regarding debts) Mr, Springgate o!$ected on
relevance to a %uestion regarding community property, Mr, Coughlin argued that Mr, Joshi is
ma5ing a concerted effort to determine what is community property, 'he o!$ection was
.,</%&
sustained, 5estimony continued) 9r) Doshi stated the vehicles were all purchased during the
marriage and testified further regarding the vehicles) &n o!$ection !y Mr, Springgate that a
%uestion regarding the cars listed in the financial declaration is compound and
misrepresentative of the testimony was sustained, Mr, Joshi argued further, 'he Court
informed Mr, Joshi the o!$ection was sustained and re%uested he proceed with %uestioning,
Mr, Joshi stated he is going to respond though sustained, 'he Court held a !ench conference
with the attorneys,
5he matter reconvened) 9r) Doshi continued his testimony on cross e'amination: ;e didnLt
collect unemployment last year and testified further regarding his employment and debtsC
testified regarding family visits, travels, and costs covered by him and 9s) Doshi) 'ow
o!$ections !y Mr, Springgate on hearsay was sustained, &n o!$ection !y Mr, Springgate on
relevance was overruled, 5estimony continued) 9r) Doshi testified that 9s) DoshiLs employment
chec? was not deposited to any ban? account in $ondonC 9s) DoshiLs earnings while in
5anAania were used by the household, she had control of them, and were not deposited into an
accountC testified further regarding the ;onda) Mr, Coughlin o!$ected to testimony that the
daughter is paying for the car, 'he o!$ection was sustained, & %uestion !y Mr, Coughlin was
o!$ected to !y Mr, Springgate as argumentative, 'he o!$ection was sustained, 'he Court noted
that the Honda was purchased with cash from Ms, Joshi advanced from a credit card, 9r)
Doshi testified further: ;e and his daughter too? the cash to the seller, purchased the car, and
the car was titled in his and the daughterLs nameC the daughter made payments to him by
transfer from her account to 9r) DoshiLs account, 9r) Doshi too? the payment and deposited into
9s) DoshiLs account to pay the credit cardC when he was out of the house, the daughter started
paying 9s) Doshi directly) Mr, Springgate testified as argumentative to a %uestion as to
whether he has proof and argued that Mr, Coughlin could o!tain proof on discovery, Mr,
Coughlin argued that Mr, Springgate doesnNt 5now what documents he has on discovery, 'he
o!$ection was sustained, 'here was further discussion,
5estimony continued) 9r) Doshi testified further regarding accounts) E!$ections as
argumentative !y Mr, Springgate were sustained, 5estimony continued) 9r) Doshi stated he
hasnLt made an effort to as? his family about 9s) DoshiLs womanLs wealth, 9s) Doshi is on
tal?ing terms with them and can as? themC stated 9s) Doshi left her womanLs wealth with his
mother, his mother has passed, and then left it with his sister, but he really doesnLt ?now) &fter
discussion regarding testimony %uestioning continued, 9r) Doshi stated he doesnLt ?now about
a specific custom but the bride retains her wealth that she brings with her, she ?eeps it, and she
decides whether to ?eep it anywhere else) Mr, Springgate o!$ected that Mr, Coughlin is
arguing with the witness, 'he o!$ection was sustained, 'here were a further o!$ection and
discussion regarding the %uestioning regarding womanNs wealth, 'he Court addressed the
issue of o!$ections, 5estimony continued) 9r) Doshi testified further that his understanding is
that 9s) Doshi left her womanLs wealth with his sister) Mr, Springgate o!$ected to %uestion
whether he attempted to retrieve it from his sister as argumentative, 'he o!$ection was
sustained, 'he Court cautioned counsel a!out !road arguments a!out the manner of
%uestioning and a!out !eing argumentative with the witness, 9r) Doshi stated he told 9s) Doshi
she could call his sister and to not involve himC testified regarding loans from friends and
familyC testified as to what he (vs) 9s) Doshi or them both* paid for during the marriage) 5here
.,./%&
were no further Huestions on cross=e'amination)
!r. "o#hi testified on re=direct e'amination: During his surgery, he was off wor?, applied
for unemployment but didnLt receive any) &n o!$ection !y Mr, Coughlin as argumentative was
overruled, 9r) Doshi stated there are trips of 9s) DoshiLs also placed on the cards=a vacation to
+ndia for two wee?s) &n o!$ection !y Mr, Coughlin to a %uestion !y Mr, Springgate in that it
calls for a legal opinion was sustained, 9r) Doshi testified regarding his legal fees and
payments) &n o!$ection !y Mr, Coughlin as leading was overruled, 9r) Doshi testified further
regarding his legal costs) #n re=cross, 9r) Doshi testified that he has paid his attorney O!000=by
the end of "ebruary, he paid his attorney O!,000, paid O.00 a couple of days ago, stated he has
it in writing, and agreed he has paid a total of O!.00C he didnLt receive unemployment because
he was hospitaliAedC he didnLt receive any money from the government) 5here were no other
Huestions and the witness was e'cused)

!r. */ringgate re#ted Plainti%%G# ca#e.
!r. Coughlin called !#. "o#hi to te#ti%y. !#. "o#hi testified on direct e'amination: 1he
didnLt as? for access to ban? statementsC as?ed for credit card statements but didnLt get themC
she could have access to >ells "argo because the statements were lying around the house but
not to credit card statementsC she as?ed the companies for statements) 'wo o!$ections !y Mr,
Springgate to hearsay were sustained, 5estimony continued) 9s) Doshi stated she went to 81
2an? and was told she couldnLt have access with 9r) Doshi present) &n o!$ection !y Mr,
Springgate to leading was sustained, 5estimony continued) 9s) Doshi stated she was never
made aware of any of the O<000 loansC she incurred e'penses related to immigrationC regarding
the letter, e'hibit ;, stated she thin?s they are trying to ma?e up a debtC she never too? any
money from them) &n o!$ection !y Mr, Springgate was sustained, 9s) Doshi continued her
testimony regarding the daughterLs car, thereLs O<000 still owedC testified regarding the Deep=
thereLs a loan with Clearstar, she and her sonC testified further regarding the carsC her children
help her pay the rent, phone, pays e'penses with her paychec?C as?ed for spousal support=got
some initially but is not anymore) E!$ections !y Mr, Springgate to %uestions regarding
whether she considers Mr, Joshi should !e half responsi!le for her living costs were sustained,
9s) Doshi testified that stated she thin?s 9r) Doshi made up the other O<000 debt owed to 9r)
DoshiLs friendC she as?ed the friend about it and the friend stated he wanted to stay out of the
divorce and didnLt want to discuss itC she didnLt inHuire to the "owlerLs regarding the other
debtsC she sent an email to 9r) DoshiLs sister regarding her womanLs wealth and received no
responseC 9r) Doshi also sent his sister an email after hers) 'here was discussion regarding Mr,
JoshiNs email Mr, Coughlin stated heNs not sure if he has a copy and re%uested to as5
%uestions a!out it, 'he re%uest was denied, 9s) Doshi testified regarding a safety deposit bo'
listed in 9r) DoshiLs deposit bo') 'here was argument regarding Mr, CoughlinNs %uestioning,
'he Court directed Mr, Coughlin to as5 %uestions on direct without impeaching his own
witness or arguing with her, 9s) Doshi continued her testimony regarding the safety bo')
E!$ections !y Mr, Springgate as argumentative were sustained, Mr, Springgate o!$ected on
relevance to a %uestion regarding whether Mr, Joshi threaten her, Mr, Coughlin argued in
response that it goes toward determination of Mr, Josh running up de!ts, Mr, Springgate
stated his o!$ection is !ased on RodrigueG v, RodrigueG --K Nev ::0, Mr, Coughlin was
.,//%&
admonished for interrupting, Mr, Coughlin argued that the %uestion was not made to
determine fault for purposes of alimony !ut for purposes of the validity of the de!t, 'he
o!$ection was sustained, 5estimony continued) 9s) Doshi stated she got a 5(# on 9r) Doshi)
Mr, Springgate o!$ected on the same !asis as the prior o!$ection, 'he Court admonished Mr,
Coughlin to !e respectful and too5 $udicial notice, Mr, Coughlin argued further, Mr,
Springgate o!$ected to a %uestion regarding whether accepting alimony made her responsi!le
for de!ts in that it called for a legal conclusion, 'he o!$ection was sustained,
5estimony continued) 9s) Doshi testified further regarding the debtsC regarding the car
loans, stated each should ta?e the loan for hisher carC testified regarding her careta?ing of the
children) Mr, SpringgateNs o!$ection on lac5 of foundation was sustained, 9s) Doshi stated she
has basically always wor?edC gave up some of her dreams for the family and believes 9r) Doshi
did not ta?e the same responsibility to the marriage) &n o!$ection !y Mr, Springgate to a
%uestion whether Mr, Joshi e=erted control over the marriage was overruled, 9r) Coughlin had
no further Huestions,
!#. "o#hi te#ti%ied on cro##-e8amination0 9s) Doshi stated the parties didnLt have joint
accountsC testified regarding the car debt=her daughter ma?es the payments directly to the credit
card account around O200) E!$ections !y Mr, Coughlin to a %uestion whether Mr, Joshi should
sign the title over to the daughter on the !asis that it calls for speculation on relevance and
argumentative were overruled, 9s) Doshi stated she is concerned about 9r) Doshi owning the
car and the debt for it of about O<000C the son is paying for his car and itLs in his name) Mr,
Coughlin o!$ected on relevance to whether the partiesN children live with her was overruled,
9s) Doshi stated she has a safety deposit bo', her womanLs wealth is not in itC her womanLs
wealth from 9r) Doshi was left with his familyC her womanLs wealth from her side is with her)
&n o!$ection on relevance to whether she has attorneyNs fees was overruled, 9s) Doshi
continued testimony: +n 5anAania 9r) Doshi owned a restaurant and she helped him in the
businessC testified regarding her employment in the 81C she has a degree in commerce from
2ombayC she has individual accounts in her name)
!#. "o#hi te#ti%ied on re-direct e8amination. 9s) Doshi testified that there was domestic
violence during the marriage) Mr, Springgate o!$ected on relevance, Mr, Coughlin argued that
it goes toward her a!ility to have any reasona!le opportunity to o!$ect to any incurred de!ts,
Mr, Springgate argued that whether or not she incurred de!ts (for representation# are relevant
to community de!t and domestic violence is not relevant, 7pon arguments presented the
o!$ection was sustained, 5here were no other Huestions and the witness was e'cused)
5here were no other witnesses or testimony) 5he Court recessed) 8pon reconvening, the
Court heard closing arguments from the attorneys)
9r) 1pringgate moved the Court for attorneyLs fees, imposed on 9r) Coughlin directly,
under 3:1 /)0%<) 9r) Coughlin argued in response and in opposition) 6he Court too5 the
matter under #ubmi##ion and 2ill i##ue an 9rder. Bend o% 9inutes from &1/0, 5rial
date in D@0%=011.%*)
.! Dudge $inda 7ardnerBs "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw, and Decree of Divorce
("#"C#$D#D* in D@0%=011.% of .1,0, held:
.,%/%&
GingBs Huoted therefrom in his !1&0, Complaint* where such final Decree reads: P(inding# o%
(act' Conclu#ion# o% 4a2' and $ecree o% $i-orce ))),) 5he Court adopts, as "indings of "act,
each and every Conclusion of $aw below, which by this reference are e'pressly incorporated
herein) C#3C$81+#31 #" $6>
!) C#9983+5K (:#(E:5KDE25)
2* 9r) DoshiBs @ehicle: 5he 200< Chevrolet 2laAer s$all 6e !onsidered
as Dlain"iff(s sole and separa"e proper"y and Dlain"iff s$all 6e responsi6le for "$e de6"
remaining "$ereon) 1ince the car is worth about O10,,10)00 and there is O1<,00,)/< due and
owing on the vehicle, 9r) DoshiBs assumption of this asset is to be considered as an underta?ing
of community debt of appro'imately O!,100)00)
C* 9s) DoshiBs car shall be considered as her sole and separate property
and she shall be responsible for any debt remaining thereon) *in!e no eiden!e #as presen"ed
"o "$e Cour" as "o "$e alue of "$e au"o7 ei"$er posi"ie or nega"ie7 "$ere is no alue for "$is
!ommuni"y asse")
D* 1onBs @ehicle: 5his vehicle is no" !onsidered as an asse" and will not
be divided among the community)
E* DaughterBs @ehicle: 5his vehicle is not considered as an asse" and will
not be divided among the community) (3#5E: Coughlin elicted testimony from 9rs) Doshi
with respect to 9rs) Doshi being liable or cosigning for the daughters vehicle, which arguably is
supportive of the alimony claim*)))
D* =eneral Credit Card $ebt: 5here is general de!t of appro'imately
O1<,.<0)00 #$i!$ $as 6een e?pended for !ommuni"y purposes) 9r) Doshi has agreed to be
responsible for this debt and the same s$all 6e !onsidered as his sole and separate
responsibility) )))
$* !edical $ebt: 5here is a debt due to 1t) 9aryBs ;ospital for
H6'7&5.00 and a debt to :E916 for O<00)00) 9r) Doshi has agreed to be responsible for these
debts and the same shall be considered as his sole and separate responsibility) )))
3* 7eneral Community $ebt: 5here was no evidence to establish
community debt) 9r) Doshi agreed "o "a'e "$e remaining !ommuni"y de6" in $is name that is
outstanding and the debt shall be his sole and separate responsibility) +t should be noted that
9r) Doshi has li?ely incurred an uneHual distribution of the community debt of the parties and
the Court finds his testimony to be a compelling reason for ma?ing an uneHual distribution
ofthe community debt)
.,,/%&
<) */ou#al *u//ort: 5he Court has found that 9r) Doshi is <1 and 9s) Doshi is !.C
"$e par"ies earn roug$ly e8uialen" amoun"sC the /artie# ha-e been married 21 year# 6u"
Ms, Joshi has always !een employed during that timeC 9s) Doshi has a college degreeC both
parties are able to wor?C and after consideration of the net income, deduction of ta'es, and "$e
amoun" paid in !ommuni"y de6" by 9r) Doshi, an a#ard of alimony in "$e amoun" of one
dollar (O1)00* shall be awarded to 9s) Doshi pursuant to 3:1 12<)1<0, >olff v) >olff, 112
3ev) 1&<<, ,2, ()2d 1,., and 1hydler v) 1hydler, 1,! 3ev) 1,2, 1,., ,<! ()2d &/, &, (1,%%*))))
+5 +1 1# #:DE:ED)P
5he only o"$er differen!e between 1pringgateBs (roposed Decree and the final
Decree of Divorce Dudge $) 7ardner entered is found in paragraph <: E<) 1(#816$
18((#:5: 5he Court has found that 9r) Doshi is <1 and 9s) Doshi is !. and the parties earn
roughly eHuivalent amounts and that, after consideration of net income, deduction of ta'es,
in!luding "$e amoun" paid on paying off !ommuni"y de6"7 as se" for"$ a6oe, and in lig$" of
"$e fa!" "$e par"ies $ae 6een married for "#en"y-one A21B years and )s, Jos$i $as al#ays
6een employed during "$a" "ime, inclusive of the fact that she obtained a college degree prior
"o marriage, both parties being healthy and able to wor?, the Court does no" belie-e that !#.
"o#hi i# entitled to an a2ard o% alimony, pursuant to /3* 12C,1CA1BA0B, >olff v) >olff, 112
3ev) 1&<<, ,2, ()2d 1,. (1,,.*, and 1hydler v) 1hydler, 1,! 3ev) 1,2, 1,., ,<! ()2d &/, &,
(1,%%*)
>itness the alterations to 1pringgateBs (roposed Decree above in the final Decree of
Divorce Dudge $) 7ardner ultimately entered: E<) */ou#al *u//ort: 5he Court has found that
9r) Doshi is <1 and 9s) Doshi is !.C the parties earn roughly eHuivalent amountsC the /artie#
ha-e been married 21 year# 6u" Ms, Joshi has always !een employed during that timeC 9s)
Doshi has a college degreeC both parties are able to wor?C and after consideration of the net
income, deduction of ta'es, and "$e amoun" paid in !ommuni"y de6" by 9r) Doshi, an award of
alimony in the amount of one dollar (O1)00* shall be awarded to 9s) Doshi pursuant to 3:1
12<)1<0, >olff v) >olff, 112 3ev) 1&<<,,2, ()2d 1,., and 1hydler v) 1hydler, 1,! 3ev) 1,2,
1,.,,<! ()2d &/, &, (1,%%*F
;owever, "udge 4. =ardner<# %inal $ecree o% $i-orce 2ould u/ highlighting the
%act that Coughlin did' in %act' /ut on e-idence #u//orti-e o% an alimony claim, the fact
that the parties had been married 21 years, (where, at least under the E5onopah 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 $) 7ardnerBs final Decree of Divorce altered the language in 1pringgateBs
(roposed Decree in a manner which accentuates such fact (which Coughlin argument during
trial and direct e'amination of his client, 9s) Doshi, established, in CoughlinBs ma?ing
argument for an award of alimony that was, in fact, based in fact and law (in addition to
CoughlinBs insightful invocation of an 6$: 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* 7eneral Credit
Card Debt: 5here is general debt of appro'imately O1<,.<0)00 #$i!$ $as 6een e?pended for
!ommuni"y purposes, 9r) Doshi has agreed to be responsible for this debt and the same shall be
/00/%&
considered as his sole and separate responsibility)F (and where 9r) DoshiBs have a selection of
credit cards in his name only, and for #$i!$ only $e $ad "$e Dulu"$ )odel :po#er and
!on"rol9 (how do you li?e that, C66>J 5>1J C+1J* to monitor or incur charges under, and
for which there was no Edo!umen"ary eiden!eF (where ";E& originally criticiAed Coughlin
for putting on only Etestimonial evidenceF to support the claim for alimony)))which is similar to
";E& alleging Coughlin E!ondu!"ed no dis!oeryF (which was not litigated, and where >$1
and Elcano completely obstructed CoughlinBs ability to disprove such, including refusing to
allow Coughlin to access his former coughlinANwashoelegalservices)org email account or 91
#utloo? files* especially where Coughlin is not in privity with 9s) Doshi* where 1pringgateBs
retort to CoughlinBs inHuiring as to just what discovery 1pringgate himself conducted was met
with the specious response that E5 did my dis!oery in "$e 16,1F (see 1pringgate email to
Coughlin to support the blan?et assertion that such EJ, -eneral Credi" Card De6"F (which
"udge 4. =ardner #to/# #hort o% ;%indingN to be ;community debtN Be#/ecially 2here her
%inal $ecree #/eci%ically indicate# ;"$ere #as no eiden!e "o es"a6lis$ !ommuni"y de6"NC
where such decision only unders!ores "$e legi"ima!y of "$e argumen"s Coug$lin made
during "$e "rial re#/ecting the attenuated chance# any #uch un#ecured third /arty credit
card creditor#' e#/ecially 2here #uch ;general credit card debtN 2a# di-ided among#t a
number o% card# #uch that no one account 2a# #u%%iciently large to e8/ect an e8ten#i-e
litigation /ro-ing #ome ;doctrine o% the nece##arie#N ba#i# %or holding !r#. "o#hi
/er#onally liable %or the credit card account# %or 2hich her hu#band 2a# the #ole
#ignatory #u%%icient to Eu#ti%y Coughlin Eoining "udge =ardner and */ringgate<#
immediately-be%ore-the-trial-;*ettlement Con%erenceN Ba//arently' according to
*/ringgate' a C!C count# a# a #econd ;#ettlement con%erenceNC hard #ell to hi# client'
!r#. "o#hi #ee5ing her a//ro-al' e##entially' %oregoing her right to a//eal any ad-er#e
deci#ion by "udge =ardner' e#/ecially a# to her alimony claim (9rs) Doshi was adamant at
the time, that even a 1iragusa, jurisdictional reservation was not satisfactory, and that she
needed some actual, liHuid, alimony)))(see <!%!!, <&%&&))) 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 >$1 on !200,
(the day after his written complaint to Elcano of a hostile wor? environment and other issues*
incident to Dudge $) 7ardners wor? in ";E&, particularly with respect to the final Decree of
Divorce and the impact thereof as to the #rder 6fter 5rial presented at the formal disciplinary
hearing as ";E&)
E:EU8E15 "#: 1829+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) ?dditionally' coun#el %or $e%endant ha# re-ie2ed the decree and
a//ro-ed it a# con%orming 2ith the Court<# 9rder) D65ED this 1$ day of 9ay, 200,) s
Dohn () 1pringgate, EsH) CE:5+"+C65E #" 1E:@+CE (ursuant to 3:C( <(b*, + hereby
celiifKthat + am an employee of 5;E $6> #""+CE1 #" D#;3 1(:+37 765E, and that on
this date + personally served at :eno, 3evada, a true copy of the within "#: fully addressed to:
9arc 6shley, EsH) >ashoe $egal 1ervices 2,, 1) 6rlington 6venue :eno, 3@ %,<01 4 for
/01/%&
mailing by first class mail, postage prepaid Dated this 21st day of 9ay, 200,) s $inda 6)
GnowldenP)
E"rom: -ach Coughlin Qmailto:AachcoughlinNhotmail)comR 1ent: 5hursday, 9ay
2%, 200, 10:!. 69 5o: 9arc 6shleyC Deborah (ringleC Caryn 1ternlicht 1ubject: ">: >DC:
, (roposed "inal Decree, :E: discovery reHuests Dear >ashoe $egal 1ervices, (lease see my
concerns in the emails below) 5he proposed Decree submitted by 9r) 1pringgate presents real
problems for 9s) Doshi) 1pecifically the debt distribution is in no way referred to as being
characteriAed as in lieu of alimony or given any similar treatment) 5here is a wealth of
authority, some of which + have provided and some of which is contained in my emails to 9r)
1pringgate during the pre=trial phase of the Doshi litigation that spells out why this is
disadvantageous to 9s) Doshi) 2an?ruptcy law specifically <&2a(1<* could potentially see 9r)
Doshi, upon the reHuisite showing, be discharged of the debt distributed in the decree and not
forced to pay alimony) 1incerely, -ach Coughlin, EsH) (3#5E: thereafter Coughlin included
his email to 1pringgate: EE>DC: , (roposed "inal Decree, :E: discovery reHuestsJ "rom:
-ach Coughlin (AachcoughlinNhotmail)com* 1ent: 1un <2!0, /:1, (9 5o:
springgatelawNsbcglobal)net ;i Don, ;ave you submitted a "inal Decree or
"indings of "act yetJ >ill you be providing me a copy) 6pparently, + am not able to access
efile for this case, so + assume that means you could not serve me such a document via efile) Do
you intend to assert that + am not entitled to a copy of the proposed order, pursuant to >DC:
,J +f + am, + have < days to object to it, etc)))5 'no# #e preiously dis!ussed language for
6an'rup"!y !on!erns in our se""lemen" dis!ussion7 6u" 5 feel i" is impor"an" for "$e final
order "o spe!ify #$a" is for #$a" so "$a" any C23-a-1C or C23-a-C issues do no" 6e!ome
pro6lema"i!C granted she is >$1Bs client)))%o#eer7 "o "$e e?"en" "$a" "$e Final De!ree spells
ou" "$e san!"ions7 5 6eliee 5 am en"i"led "o C days "o reie# any proposed Final De!ree prior
"o your su6mi""ing i") )))Can you respond to my earlier Huestion, see below, regarding #$e"$er
you eer sen" any dis!oery re8ues"s "o )s, Jos$iJ 1incerely, -ach Coughlin)))) EF
E:E: >DC: , (roposed "inal Decree, :E: discovery reHuestsJ "rom: 9arc
6shley (mashleyNwashoelegalservices)org* 1ent: 5hu .0!0, &:1, (9 5o:
AachcoughlinNhotmail)comC Deborah (ringle (dpringleNwashoelegalservices)org*C
Caryn 1ternlicht (csternlichtNwashoelegalservices)org* -ach, 1orry for the delay in getting
bac? to you on this) +Lve been out of the office and this is my first day bac?) >hen
summariAing the evidence in her order, the judge did mention that 9r) Doshi suggested that
maintenance be ?ept open for < years as protection against his default on the debts he was
ordered to pay) ;owever, when she got to that portion of her order concerning maintenance,
she specifically denied maintenance after reviewing relevant factors such as the partiesL relative
ages, earning capacities and state of their health) 1pringgate recalls discussing the award of O1
per year maintenance for < years so it could be revised to account for any default on his clientLs
part and also has said that he thought the provision was going to be part of the order) ;owever,
he feels that the clause cannot be included in light of the judgeLs plain statement that
maintenance is denied (+ would assume also because it doesnLt benefit his client*, so "$e final
de!ree #as su6mi""ed as originally proposed, 4e $ae filed a mo"ion "o amend i" on "$e 6asis
of mis"a'e or inader"en!e) 9arc 6shley 1taff 6ttorney >ashoe $egal 1ervices 2,, 1)
6rlington 6ve)F (3#5E: >$1Bs 6shley failed to provide Coughlin any copy of the 9otion to
/02/%&
6mend he references in his email, and the Certificate of 1ervice on such 9otion to 6mend of
<2/0, by >$1Bs 6shley does not list Coughlin amongst those to whom it was mailed*
>$1Bs 6shleyBs <2/0, !otion to Correct Pro/o#ed $ecree somewhat
incorporated the legal analysis Couglhin email to >$1 on <2.0,, where such reads:
E9#5+#3 5# C#::EC5 (:#(#1ED DEC:EE 2;6:5+ D#1;+,
DefendantCounterclaimant, by her attorneys, >ashoe $egal 1ervices by 9arc 6shley, objects
to the form of the "indings of "act, Conclusions of $aw, and Decree of Divorce and moves that
it be corrected because ?ey provisions have been omitted through mista?e, inadvertence or
e'cusable neglect, as more fully set forth in the attached 9emorandum of (oints and
6uthorities) )))D65ED this 2.th day of 9ay, 200,) 1 9arc 6shley, EsH), >ashoe $egal
1ervices)
!@!9?,$I! 9( P97,6* ?,$ ?I6)9767@* 3:C( :ule .0 allows a
Court to relieve a party from the terms of a final judgment, order or other proceeding on the
grounds of mista?e, inadvertence or e'cusable neglect) $e%endant in thi# ca#e contend# that
the %inal decree 2a# to ha-e contained certain /ro-i#ion# to /rotect her in ca#e Plainti%%
%ail# to /ay the indebtedne## he ha# been ordered to /ay. 6he#e debt# are in $e%endant<#
name and they 2ill be a##erted again#t her i% he doe# not /ay or %ile# ban5ru/tcy.
*/eci%ically' in it# 9rder ?%ter 6rial' /age 6 line# 18-20' the Court note# that <<to /rotect
!#. "o#hi in the e-ent !r. "o#hi %iled %or ban5ru/tcy' !r. "o#hi #ugge#ted that the court
maintain Euri#diction o-er the i##ue o% #/ou#al #u//ort %or %i-e year#.J 7t 2a# $e%endant<#
under#tanding that thi# 2a# to be done through an a2ard o% maintenance o% 9ne $ollar
BH1.00C Per year %or %i-e year#. 7% Plainti%% cea#ed /aying the debt#' #he 2ould then be able
to reAue#t maintenance to o%%#et the added /ayment#.
+n discussing the form of the decree with Plainti%%<# attorney' he 2a# li5e2i#e o%
thi# under#tanding and maintained that the H1.00 Per year language 2ould be in the %inal
decree. )o2e-er' in /re/aring the %inal /a/er# he noticed that the court denied
maintenance altogether at /age 11' line# 17-18' #o did not include the e8/ected language.
?ccordingly' $e%endant moes "$e !our" "o amend "$e order "o in!lude an a#ard of
main"enan!e in the amount o% 9ne $ollar BH1.00C Per year %or %i-e year#, so Defendan" will
have recourse to protect $er credit i% Plainti%% de%ault# on the debt# in $er name, 2$e de6"
on "$e !ar #$i!$ is "i"led in Dlain"iff(s name and "$eir daug$"er is also in Defendan"(s
personal name) $e%endant 2a# of the understanding that Claintiff was also to re/title the car
in the name of +efendant and their daughter' and $e%endant mo-e# %or amendment o% the
order to accom/li#h thi#) Dated this 2.th day of 9ay, 200,) 1 9arc 6shley, EsH)
C1325F5C021 OF *13V5C1 &< )05+ (ursuant to 3:C( <(b*, + hereby certify
that + am an employee of >ashoe $egal 1ervices, and that on th)) Day of 9ay, 200,, + served
the foregoing: 9#5+#3 5# C#::EC5 (:#(#1ED DEC:EE by depositing with the 8nited
1tates (ostal 1ervice, postage prepaid, at :eno, 3evada, a true and correct copy of the within
document addressed to: $aw #ffices of Dohn () 1pringgate, EsH) 20& 1outh 6rlington 6venue
:eno, 3@ %,<01 s Deborah (ringle, C( 6n employee of >ashoe $egal 1ervicesF
1o, where 1pringgate, the 2DDC, and >$1 did not see fit to include Coughlin on
numerous Certificates of 1ervice (or, indeed serve him such documents, never mind >$1
utterly failing to defend Coughlin, support him in having the !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial vacated,
/0&/%&
or allow him access to his email to 9rs) Doshi and others (including >$1 employees whom
Coughlin would need obtain chec?s 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 ta?ing the
positions he too? at trial*, and the 2DDC removed Coughlin from the list of individuals able to
access such case on e"le', unless Coughlin paid an O%% real party in interest first appearance
fee (which >$1 refused to pay on CoughlinBs behalf*, and Coughlin was not allowed to
EappealF the #rder 6fter 5rial in that he is not considered a EpartyF (or in privity, really per
6lbany v) 6rcata* 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%=011.% by Coughlin, in addition to
all of those on file in <&%&& and <!%!! (as were all the members of the (anel* beyond simple
ta?ing such ";E& from Dudge 3ash ;olmes in her Ebo' of materialsF she collected and
submitted along with ";E%, her &1!12 grievance letter to the 123 and mon?eying 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 &1<12F with the E<F in E1<F going through many, uh, changes
over the months and through the various iterations thereof) "urther, both 123 Cler? of Court
(eters, and Ging made statements and writing despite >DC: , 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 >$1 to let Coughlin continue to litigate an
appeal and then a (etition for >rit all the while being unaware that 2DDC Dudge 7ardner had
entered an #rder on .1,0, which vitiated completely the !1&0, attorney fee sanction)
+t is entirely clear why Dudge $) 7ardner, 1pringgate, and >$1 did not want
Coughlin to be aware of the .1,0, Decree, specifically to the e'tent that the changes from the
#rder 6fter 5rial to the final Decree completely undermine >$1Bs rationale proffered for firing
Coughlin, which rested entirely, (Esole reasonF according to Elcano* upon Dudge $) 7ardnerBs
since !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial, where Elcano, on behalf of >$1 (see .0&02, .0&1/* made the
decision to terminate Coughlin employment, announcing such to Coughlin on </0,, ma?ing
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 >$1Bs rationale for
terminating Coughlin)
E"rom: AachcoughlinNhotmail)com 5o: springgatelawNsbcglobal)net 1ubject:
dis!oery re8ues"s Date: 9on, 1% 9ay 200, 0,:!&:1/ =0/00 ;i 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
:e: >DC: , (roposed "inal Decree, :E: discovery reHuests "rom: Dohn
1pringgate (springgatelawNsbcglobal)net* ) 1ent: 5ue <2.0, <:1! (9 5o:
AachcoughlinNhotmail)com 1 attachment 200,0<2.1/11<%/<%)pdf (&!<)0 G2* 1) 5he
proposed order was filed 9ay 21) + have attached a copy via pdf) + ?ept it very sparse on the
sanctions) 2) 5he ban?ruptcy 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 E5ahoe >omenBs 1ervicesF upon Coughlin failing to
/0!/%&
satisfy EadvocateF Cecilia 7onAaleABs standard as to just how much he should have e'orted his
then client (aula ;aubl to proceed at the e'tension hearing for the order of protection she
obtained against her husband, where 9rs) ;aubl was e'tremely conflicted in that regard, and
where ;aubl actually spo?e with and wrote to Elcano praising CoughlinBs representation of her
incident to Elcano conducting an investigation in response to 5>1Bs 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 E?nowledge of procedural rules and rules of evidenceF
where 1pringgate, not Coughlin violated Dudge $) 7ardnerBs (re=5rial order respecting the
reHuirement to provide Coughlin a copy of the Emore than ten e'hibitsF that 1pringgate offered,
Eprior to trialF in a form that is Ebound, tabbed, and inde'edF (ironically, 1pringgateBs violation
of such procedural order (Dudge 7ardnerBs ";E& ta?es Coughlin to tas? 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 (re=5rial #rder that Coughlin, not 1pringgate, complied
with*)
+ndeed, Dudge $) 7ardnerBs #rder of /1<0, further e'plained: E7n#o%ar a# ... the
a2ard o% attorney<# %ee#'..."$e Cour" did no" in"end "$e a#ard of a""orney(s fees "o 6e
in!luded in "$e De!ree of Dior!e))))#n 9ay 1&, 200,, a 9otion to 1tri?e was filed by Dohn ()
1pringgate, EsH), alleging ))) "$ere #as no final ;udgmen" en"ered in "$is ma""er ye" as "$e
Order 0f"er 2rial $ad no" 6een memorialiKed in"o a Findings of Fa!"7 Con!lusions of +a#7
Judgmen" and De!ree of Dior!eF)F
7iven that, the stipulation to an &mended +ecree !etween Springgate and AJS on
;H..HF:, and "udge 4. =ardner entering an 9rder ado/ting #uch on 712&109, along with
Judge J, 3ardner e=cising from Springgate's Croposed +ecree the attorney fee award included
therein,
#f course 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner is annoyed with >$1Bs Elcano (li?e many
people* incident to his ta?ing her #rder 6fter 5rial and using it for that which it was never
intended) :egardless, 1pringgateBs invocation of 3:1 1%)010(2*(b* is more than misguided,
and clearly fails to support any view that the ";E&, !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial by 2DDC Dudge
$) 7ardner 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:
E102?1,!)!! ?) 2ad "aith or 9eritless $itigation) 9ost Cited Cases Defendant did
not bring or maintain counterclaims without reasonable ground, as would support statutory
award of attorney fees to plaintiffs in their action for breach of contractC defendant was
successful in his counterclaim for breach of contract, as reflected in supplemental judgment
allowing him an offset against plaintiffsB judgment for loans that one plaintiff did not repay to
defendant, and while defendant was not successful on his other counterclaims, he presented
some evidence and testimony to factually and legally support them) >estBs 3:16 1%)010(2*
(b*) ;alls v) (hillips 1lip Copy, 2010 >$ &%&%!%/ (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 3:C 1%)010(2*(b* is premature, and
/0</%&
thus, the award must be reversed) Gahn, 121 3ev) at !/,=%0, 11/ ()&d at 2&% (reversing an
entire fee award made under 3:1 1%) 010(2*(b* when a summary judgment was reversed in
part and affirmed in part on appeal*) 3ev),2010) Edwards v) 3ational Credit 6djusters, $$C
1lip Copy, 2010 >$ &%&%.,& (3ev)*F
"urther, had no alimony award ultimately been entered, 1pringgateBs client would
have arguably obtained a recovery e'ceeding O20,000, therefore ta?ing such out of the purview
of 3:1 1%)010(2*(b*)
2ut really, basically what happened was Coughlin filed his doc?eting statement in
<&%&& with the attachment thereto, and 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner decided she did not need any
of that, and that this was 1pringgateBs and Elcano>$1Bs problem now, and she undid her
!1&0, sanctions #rder by entering
.< ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 2!0:& to 2!0:1!* 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, if + could just
enter for the record) 9r) DohnsonBs been on his smart phone throughout this proceeding) + mean
you no disrespect, sir) 9aybe he doesnBt feel much of a connection to whatBs going on here
today) 6nd + would indicate that to the e'tent that this is presented as a panel, and somehow
some sort of consensus thereby suggested, + would just enter for the record, )r, Jo$nson does
no" seem "o find mu!$ of a !onsensus 6eing found $ere "oday, *o mu!$ so "$a" $e(s 6een on
$is smar" p$one "$roug$ou" "$is pro!eeding) 6nd +Bm just going notate that for the record)F
(3#5E: both (eters and Ging had indicated to Coughlin previous to the hearing that
Ethe only one with any power is the (anel Chair) ;e controls everythingF*
..1.</ E6dditional Case +nformationF listed for original 111!11 date of bench
trial indication: E& city 2itne##e# had a//eared %or bench trial...$@(@,$?,6 3?* 7,
CI*69$F ?6 67!@ ?,$ $?6@ 9( +@,C) 67?4L $@(@,$?,6 3?*
6?,*P96@$ +I6 ,96 +9I=)6 7,69 C9I6...+?74 (9(@76I@
C?,C@44@$F where such references :9C Dudge ;owardBs having revo?ed CoughlinBs bail,
setting it at O1,000 where such is normally O&.0)00 on 111!12 upon ;oward allegedly
believing Coughlin failed to appear) ;owever, this 111<11 3otice 1etting 5rial proves that
;oward was aware that Coughlin did not fail to appear, incident to which the E26+$
"#:"E+58:E C63CE$$EDF, however, in denying the 9otion for Continuance Coughlin
submitted on 112,11 (where this 111<11 3otice 1etting the 5rial Date was not appropriately
served on Coughlin in that it was mailed to the very E121 :iver :oc? 1t)F address from which
Coughlin had informed the :9C he had been wrongfully summarily evicted via his 102.11
E6pplication and 6ffidavit for 6ppointment of $egal DefenderF thereof (as such the 11&011
5rial 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 >al=9art employeemanager, whom failed to appear,
where no continuance was granted in light of such and where no contempt procedures were
thereafter followedC further, :9C Dudge ;owardBs 122211 6ppeal 2ond #rder is inconsistent
/0./%&
with his 102/11 #rder Denying 6ppointment of $egal Defender and 121<11 #rder Denying
DefendantBs 9otion to (roceed +n "orma (auperis, 9otion for (ublication of 5ranscript at
(ublic E'pense, 9otion to @acate, and :ecusal, etc) where such 122211 6ppeal 2ond #rder
applies the O&.0 (no O100)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 :9C, where such departure
was also demonstrated by Dudge >) 7ardner in the criminal trespass case where Coughlin
served three days in jail (typically given O100)00 credit per day spent in jail as an offset of the
normal bail schedule, which for criminal trespass in the :9C at such time amounted to a
O&10)00 fine, where Dudge >) 7ardner converted the entirety of the O&10)00 bail (as set by the
:9C 2ail 1chedule* Coughlin posted on 111<11, 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 O1,000 fine, Dudge >) 7ardnerBs departure from the :9CBs own bail schedule
and usual custom and practices is yet another mar?ed 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 >) 7ardnerBs sisterBs ";E& #rder being the subject of a mandamus petition by Coughlin,
even where >$1 had announced it had fired Coughlin solely in response to 2DDC Dudge $inda
7ardnerBs #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 :DC :C:2011=0.&&!1, ,,11 >al=9art candy bar petty
larceny arrest in the :9C in 11 C: 22/1., and 111&11 criminal trespass arrest in the :9C in
11 C: 2.!0<* totaling O1,&<0, 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 :9C Dudge ;oward 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 O1,&<0 to bail Coughlin out
on all three charges, where Coughlin was informed by the :9C that the O2,2/< he was
wrongfully forced to deposit under a fraudulent application of 3:1 11%6)&<<(<* in a no=cause
summary eviction where even had Dudge 1ferraAAa 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, 3:1 11%6)&.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 off=set any such rent amount Dudge 1ferraAAa deemed owed*)
8pon Eastman bailing him out on 111<11, Coughlin drove straight to the (ostal
1tation where the Certified 9ailing the :DC utiliAed to return Coughlin such O2,2/< rent
escrow deposit was signed for and retrieved) ;owever, cashing such chec? was made more
difficult by ;ill withholding CoughlinBs wallet (and indentification therein*) ;owever,
Coughlin cashed such chec? and paid Eastman that same day all the amount Eastman put up for
the cash only bail (O1,&<0* (where, subseHuently, upon the O!.<)00 bail reHuired at such time
for the %2011 i(hone arrest in the :DC in :C:2011=0.<.&0 being ordered returned, in
December 2012, Eastman realiAed a windfall in receiving such bac? less charges for Ewitness
/0//%&
feesF that :DC Dudge 1ferraAAa placed upon Coughlin despite his having failed to grant a
continuance to Coughlin or institute contempt procedures upon material witness 3ichole
>atson failing to comply with CoughlinBs lawfully issued subpoena properly served pursuant to
3:1 1/!)&!<*) 5he transcript of the 111,12 trial date in the i(hone petty larceny trial further
reveals the egregious judicial misconduct Dudge 1ferraAAa (whom Eastman claims to have been
a tribal court bailiff for and where Coughlin filed a 9otion in the :DC on 112/12 that the :DC
failed to transmit in the :#6 in the appeal thereof in C:12=202< that moves to disHualify
Dudge 1ferraAAa 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 1C: 121,
which was apparent in early 9arch 2012 upon Eastman accusing Coughlin of having been
Ebanned from filing anything in the ban?ruptcy court* the substance of which was Eastman had
been told Eby friends in the courthouseF (Eastman is a former >C1# Deputy whom left such
position in appro'imately 200, to become an insurance salesman*, that Dudge 1ferraAAa Ehad it
in forF Coughlin and was Eout to getF Coughlin, in addition to the allegation by Eastman that
Dudge 1ferraAAa has a terrible problem with alcohol and that Eastman, on many occasions, was
forced to drive a too inebriated to drive home Dudge 1ferraAAa home after a day spent
into'icated adjucating matters in the tribal courts, where Eastman was his bailiff at times)
:DC Dudge (earson, upon becoming Chief Dudge in Danuary 201& (though,
inappropriately, then 2012 Chief Dudge 1ferraAAaBs shameful 122012 6dministrative #rder
2012=01 lists Dudges Clifton, 1ferraAAa, and (earson as having previously EadmonishedF
Coughlin (E>;E:E61, -6C;6:K 26:GE: C#87;$+3 has been a party in both civil and
criminal matters before this Court including cases before the ;onorable (eter 1ferraAAa, the
;onorable 1cott (earson, and the ;onorable David Clifton wherein 9r) Coughlin has been
admonished for failing to follow the CourtBs orders and directivexC EF such #rder reads at page
1:10=1! 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 :C:2012=0010!% (where, troublingly, the 101012 %, page
document Coughlin submitted for filing (which is EfilingF technically* is not in the :DCBs file
nore is such notated in the 3:1 !)2!0 doc?et for such in the :DC, though the :DC 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' (noreplyNvo'o')Com*
5his sender is in your safe list) 1ent: >ed 101012 12:&1 (9 5o: AachcoughlinNhotmail)Com
;i Aachcoughlin, Kour "a' was successfully sent to !ba<,.&,=c2/b=!b!2=,ed%=
cf!e&de&a&/dgeneral.,&2,% ( 1//<32C671C*) Kour "a' was delivered N 0/:&1:1% (9 on
2012=10=10F http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%1&&<2/=&0=1&=020!=.2&&/=./,%0=10!%=#cr=
:DC=Doc?et=as=of=>here=Coughlin=s=.=2.=12=Email=to=:DC=and=1tancil=>as=:emoved=
"rom=8nderneath=by=:DC=a,* wherein Dudge (earson misstated 3evada law in allowing an
unauthoriAed practitioner of law do far more than file and serve a ElandlordBs affidavitF in a
summary eviction matter (http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVm!h01-fd5D!
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%0.<12%=21=12=020!=0./,%0=10!%=12!20=7rievance=6gainst=
3C1=to=123="a'ed=and=Emailed http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%0.1,,!=12=12="a'=to=
123=#2C=Complaints=7rievance="#+6=3:1=2&,=1creening=(anel=and=Gern=6ttached=to=,=
%=12=and=!=1.=12=Email=5oo=020! http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%0<,/<&=1,=12=020!=&/!=
/0%/%&
Email=to=3vbar=2ar=7rievance=:eporting=6bout=Gern=and=>nm
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%11!//,=22=12=020!=.2&&/=:ev2012=0/%!&2=@erified=
Complaint=for=+llegal=$oc?out=6gainst=1uperior=1torage=$$C=,=22=12=Coughlin=v=1uperior=
1torage=$$C=Et=6l=1 *, and a 10212 hearing incident to CoughlinBs ,2212 @erified
Complaint for E'pedited :elief from +llegal $oc?out (where Dudge (earson countenanced the
attorney misconduct of CoughlnBs former co=wor?er at ;olland M ;art where :ic? Elmore,
EsH), appears to have violated :(C &)<6 where his client snuc? 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 3:1 1/%)&,/ on 21!12
(a subject of CoughlinBs 22112 9otion to Dismiss in the :DC in :C:2012=0.<.&0 that is
referenced as an e'ampled of CoughlinBs incompetence in GingBs Complaint and which was
emailed to Ging by :DC Dudicial 1ecretary $ori 5ownsend on !1112* (interestingly, during a
.1.1& status conference incident to an allegation that Coughlin violated his probation in
:C:2011=0.&&!1 by being the subject of an attac? and wrongful arrest by :DC 2ailif Dohn
:eyes on <2&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 3:1 1/%)&,/, which Dudge (earson dismissed as Enot a critical stageF of the
proceedings) Dudge (earson, as far as Coughlin ?nows, has failed to report the misconduct of
either Dogan or Dudge 1ferraAAa in violation of his Canon 2, :ule 2)1< obligation)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.!%0.<0&/=1%=1&=020!=.2&&/=Email=to=2DDC=Cler?=
;astings=:ecords=of=6ny=7rievance
"urther, Dogan and the >C(DBs #fficer fraudulently asserted that it fa'ed Coughlin
a 9otion to Uuash 1ubpoena in :C:2011=0.&&!1 on 11/12 where Coughlin never, at any
time, received a fa' of such from Dogan or the >C(D (or anyone*) :egardless, Coughlin had
never at any time provided Dogan either verbal nor written permission to serve him via
facsimile, and the ugly irony of Dudge 1ferraAAa Uuashing CoughlinBs subpoena on Dogan
(whilst abusing his contempt power yet another time in threatening to have Coughlin Eta?en 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 1ferraAAa carries out his
judicial duties*)
5:631C:+(5 #" (:#CEED+371 = @ol) +, ((ages !:2 to 1&:%* :E3#, 3E@6D6,
9#3D6K, 3#@E92E: 1,, 2012, ,:1< 6)9) \\y)y\\ 5;E C#8:5: >eBre ready to go)
>hat weBre going to do first is supposedly remaining objections to the subpoenas) + have
previously ruled on the motions for mistrial which was denied) 5he 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 5ecum) 1o the following subpoenas are the only ones that are
going to be honored today) 5he one for 3icole >atson, is 3icole >atson hereJ #?ay) >as she
servedJ Did you pay her or not witness feeJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, you told me that
was either waived or deferred) 5;E C#8:5: + did not say that) + said if you presented proof to
/0,/%&
me that + ordered that it be waived or deferred, + would consider that) + reviewed everything
you furnished meC + did not see such a document) 9:) C#87;$+3: + believe + have an audio
recording on the record that we discussed my indigency) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, + donBt want to
hear what you believeC do you have it cued upJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, + donBt) 5;E C#8:5:
6ll right) +Bm not going to do anything on that) $ucy 2yingtonJ + gave you until last 5hursday
to give me that) $ucy 2yington) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bll just enter for the record, your ;onor,
that + had a 2ar disciplinary == a full=day hearing) 5;E C#8:5: + understood that, but + gave
you additional time so you could get that) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd 9r) 1?au, + would li?e to
preserve for the record, he lied to the court asserting that he was given + believe authority to
serve me by e=mail for a hearing == 5;E C#8:5: ;e was not == 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hatBs
what he represented to me) 5;E C#8:5: 6nd that was an additional service to ma?e sure that
you got it, sir) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hatBs not his representation) 5;E C#8:5: Colton
5empletonJ #?ay) 9r) 5empleton is here so we will honor that subpoena) :obert DawsonJ
#?ay) 6ny proof that he was offered a witness fee or that + waived itJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +
believe he hung up on me and you did waive it, itBs on the record, your ;onor) +Bve got the C D,
your ;onor) +Bll testify under penalty of perjury that you did) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, youBll have
an opportunity later today) 1ir, sit down) 9:) C#87;$+3: + just need to correct for perjuryBs
sa?e, your ;onor, that + believe you reserved the right to ma?e me pay it later if it wasnBt
outright waived) 5;E C#8:5: 6ustin $ichtyJ 6ll right) 9r) $ichty is here so we will
proceed with him) 6ny other subpoenas +Bve already ruled onJ 6nd + ?now 9r) Dogan is here,
but + believe + ruled on your subpoena as well it was, if it was among those that + previously
ruled on) 5;E >+53E11: Kour ;onor, am + free to leaveJ
9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, + do not believe anybody presented a subpoena on
his behalf) Certainly the City 6ttorney doesnBt represent the public defender) 5;E C#8:5:
6ll right) 9r) Dogan, tell me why you want the subpoena HuashedJ 9:) D#763: Kour
;onor, + filed a motion to Huash the subpoena that was served upon me by 9r) Coughlin) 5here
was no response, itBs an admission that my motion is worthy) 6lso + have no ?nowledge of the
facts == 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, can we have him sworn if heBs going to testifyJ 5;E
C#8:5: >ait a second, sir) Kou sit down, heBs an attorney) Kou are not, come on) 9r)
DoganJ 9:) D#763: Kour ;onor, +Bm not a percipient witness) + have no personal
?nowledge of the == 5;E C#8:5: +Bm just trying to find your motion) Kou said you did file a
motion with the courtJ 9:) D#763: 5hatBs correct, your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: Do you
?now what date it wasJ 9:) D#763: 6bout two wee?s ago, + believe) 5;E C#8:5: #?ay)
+ have one from 9r) 1?au) 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, + have a copy of 9r) DoganBs motion,
if you would li?e to see itJ 5;E C#8:5: + would but +Bm sure itBs in here) 9:) K#837: +t
was filed stamped of 3ovember /th, and + would was served a copy of this so thatBs how + have
a copy) 9:) K#837: 9otion to Uuash 1ubpoena Duces 5ecum filed stamped 3ovember /,
2012, at 10:2!) 5;E C#8:5: + do have it, it was one of the first ones == it is in the order) >hat
it responds is that the material reHuested by the 1ubpoena Duces 5ecum was previously
furnished to 9r) Coughlin and further, that 9r) Dogan does not have that and + granted that
motion)
9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, + was never served that) 5;E C#8:5: 3ever
served whatJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, + never received that) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, sir,
/10/%&
according to this, it was mailed to you or fa'ed) 9:) C#87;$+3: +t was fa'edJ 5;E
C#8:5: 6nd the subpoena you served him with wasnBt about == sir, on top of that, the
subpoena you served him with wasnBt a valid subpoena) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm going to note
for the record that my attorney, 2rian Dogan, is smir?ing at me menacingly) 5;E C#8:5: +
would say itBs not menacingly) 9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? heBs changed his e'pression since
you == 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, could we move onJ 5;E C#8:5: + thin? he has smiled,
and thereBs no rule against smiling) 6nyhow, 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) 9:) K#837: "or the record, +Bm showing 9r) Coughlin a copy of the
motion) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, just for the record, + believe notice an opportunity to
be heard dictates == 5;E C#8:5: Kou had notice and opportunity to be heard, sir, and +Bve
ruled and weBre done) 5;E >+53E11: + was not served this, your ;onor, and even if he did
fa' it which + donBt believe is accurate, thatBs not appropriate service) 5;E C#8:5: 1ir, +
furnished you everything in this file, and you had the opportunity to review it) 9:)
C#87;$+3: >hen you did furnish me everything in this fileJ 5;E C#8:5: 6t the last
hearing we had in this case) 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, you didnBt) Kou printed off a doc?et sheet)
5;E C#8:5: Kes, which shows == 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hatBs not everything in the file) 5;E
C#8:5: 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) 6dd it right now == 9:) C#87;$+3: Kou
furnished me everything in the fileJ 5;E C#8:5: 3o) + furnished you a list of everything that
was in the file) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay, that was #ctober 22nd) 5his is 3ovember /th) 5;E
C#8:5: + understand but you were given e'tra time to respond to the subpoenas) 5he issue
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) Kou had that subpoena or if you
didnBt have the subpoena, it never e'isted, sir) Did you not == 9:) C#87;$+3: Kou ruled on
==
5;E C#8:5: Did you not purportedly serve 9r) Dogan with a subpoenaJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: + didnBt personally) 5;E C#8:5: 3o, but did you draft it upJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: 5hat doesnBt notice to me that he filed a motion to Huash) 5;E C#8:5: +Bm not
tal?ing about the motion to Huash) + was ruling on all the subpoenas that you had attempted to
serve or served and + told you that) 9:) C#87;$+3: + wasnBt noticed that the hearing would
be about that) 5;E C#8:5: Kes) Kou were noticed that by 5hursday, 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: Even if +
hadnBt made a motionJ 5;E C#8:5: Even if he had not made a motion to Huash it) 5here
were lots of people who didnBt ma?e motions to Huash their subpoenas) 9:) C#87;$+3:
Kou Huashed it because == 5;E C#8:5: 2ecause they were either == + told you directly that
you would have to present proof that they were subpoenas validly issued by the court and
properly served) 6s 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) Kou were given an opportunity to
present that to me, and you still havenBt done that) 6nyhow, 9r) DoganBs subpoena is Huashed)
/11/%&
9:) C#87;$+3: +f + could just do an offer of proof for the record) ;e has refused to tell me
much in the way of his communications with Dorothy 3ash ;olmes) 9:) K#837: + object,
your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: 5hatBs irrelevant to this case and + have == itBs irrelevant) 1it down
or you will be escorted out of the room, 9r) Coughlin) 9r) Dogan, youBre free to go) 6ll right)
6re we ready to go 9r) CoughlinJ 3ot 9r) Coughlin, 9r) KoungJF
5:631C:+(5 #" (:#CEED+371 in :C:2011=0.&&!1 of 111,12= @ol) +,
((ages 21:1, to 2%:!* 9:) C#87;$+3: +<ll call 9%%icer $uralde. 6)@ C9I60 7<m
#orryD !. C9I=)47,0 7<ll call 9%%icer $uralde. 6)@ C9I60 95ay. 3here i# the
#ub/oenaD !. C9I=)47,0 7 belie-e 7 had to gi-e it to you' your )onor' and then 7
couldn<t get it bac5 in time to #er-e the re#t o% them on (riday becau#e 7 called the court
and a#5ed %or them but the order 2a#n<t ready' that 2a# a%ter deli-ering them to the
court on 3edne#day 7 belie-e. 6)@ C9I60 *ir' 7 2ill allo2 you to come u/ here and
loo5 at the#e. !r. Foung can go through them one at a time. *ho2 them to !r. Foung a#
you go through them because == 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd just on that note, + donBt see 9s)
>atson here) 5;E C#8:5: + thin? + already called her) 9:) C#87;$+3: 2ut you didnBt
Huash her subpoena, sir) 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, we shouldnBt have any discussions at the
bench) 5his is just for him to review the subpoenas) 5;E C#8:5: 5his is just for you to
identify the subpoenas that you claim were properly issued and served) + believe this might ==
9:) K#837: + would as? that we donBt have any conversations at the side bar, it needs to be
recorded) 5;E C#8:5: Kou, sir, just show me the subpoena that you claim was served)
5hese are the ones youBve already been furnished) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kou say +Bve been
furnished meaningJ 5;E C#8:5: 5hese are the ones that are attached that + said were
properly served, but + was reserving ruling on whether or not you had proffered the witness fee
as reHuired by == these are all attached to the order, sir)
9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir, and + thin? + was given that order this morning) 5;E
C#8:5: >ell, you were sent it last "riday by your preferred method of service) 9:)
C#87;$+3: +Bm not seeing any of the officers in here) 5;E C#8:5: 5hese are 1ubpoenas
Duces 5ecum in which no documents were specified) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hat one doesnBt say
1ubpoena Duces 5ecum + donBt believe) 5;E C#8:5: 5hese werenBt served) 9:)
C#87;$+3: + believe they were) 5;E C#8:5: 5hereBs a 1ubpoena Duces 5ecum with no
documents specified) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5here was the matter of this inclusion in what was
mailed was set forth all the : ( D case numbers that was + was reHuesting) 5;E C#8:5:
>hat about themJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +t says e'actly what specific documentation +Bm
reHuesting) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, +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) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) 6nd all
these were == well, this one wasnBt because + couldnBt get it bac? from the court after delivering
on >ednesday one day after my 1tate 2ar hearing where they were going to disbar me) 5;E
C#8:5: Kou didnBt deliver these to the court on >ednesday) 5hey were delivered 5hursday
at almost <:00 oBcloc?) + waited for them to come in) 9:) C#87;$+3: >as the 1!th
>ednesdayJ + ?now it was the day after the 1!th) 5;E C#8:5: 5he 1<th was 5hursday) 9:)
C#87;$+3: #?ay, yes, sir) +Bm sorry, + was mista?en in that regard) 2ut the : ( D ones that
are the 1ubpoenas Duces 5ecum ones, they would be right here) 1avannah 9ontgomery,
dispatcher, :on :ossa and 6le'a and 9r) >eese, itBs my understanding those were
/12/%&
appropriately served under 3 : 1=1/!)&!<, 6nd +Bve not seen any of those witnesses here
today) + would move for a continuance) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, where is the one for #fficer
DuraldeJ 5he same problem, #fficer Duralde is not in here by the way) 9:) C#87;$+3:
9y understanding is that + included that in the envelope) + donBt want to misspea?) + donBt
believe he was served the original but his was on ==
5;E C#8:5: 5he bottom line is that you have the right reHuested order to show
cause if you show proof and you proffered them the witness fee) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour
;onor, you told me + didnBt have to proffer them the witness fee) 5;E C#8:5: + did not tell
you that) Kou told me + told you that) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, +Bve asserted that under oath)
5;E C#8:5: #?ay) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd itBs not been rebutted by 9r) Koung who was
there + believe) 5;E C#8:5: +Bm sorryJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs not been rebutted by 9r)
Koung) 5;E C#8:5: +tBs been rebutted by me) + said that you had to furnish me proof by
5hursday) Kou have not, the transcript) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6 typed=out transcriptJ 5;E
C#8:5: 3o) 6ll you had to do was refer to the line of the audio) + told you all that) +Bm not
going to waste any more time) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd earlier you as?ed me if + had it ?eyed
up) +f + had it ?eyed up now, can + show it to youJ 5;E C#8:5: +f you have it ?eyed up, yes)
9:) C#87;$+3: #r + can show it to you laterJ 5;E C#8:5: Kou can show it to me later
but right now, you need to proceed with your trial, sir) >eBve been here for almost a half hour
and as far as +Bm concerned, youBve accomplished nothing) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd, your
;onor, the last point of issue would be that + was finally given the materials that 9r) $eslie
refused to give me, even though he had subpoenaed them from EC#9 on #ctober &rd, and
those materials include the dispatch recordings between :eno ( D and EC#9 and + believe it
demonstrates misconduct in that 9r) Koung has asserted to this court, in filings and through
argument and by eliciting testimony, that == + believe itBs the basis for a mistrial that the
information from dispatch was that there was a possible fight) + have those recordings) 5hereBs
no indication of a possible fight being communicated to the :eno ( D either in the dispatch log
or in the recordings) 9:) K#837: + would object to that being untimely, and thereBs no basis
for it other than his statements)
5;E C#8:5: >ell, + donBt even ?now what heBs as?ing for so itBs denied) 9:)
C#87;$+3: + have the audio recording between dispatch and the :eno ( D) 5he whole point
of the suppression hearing which you reserved the right to retain == enter a ruling on still is that
part of the basis == the main basis for the pat down and the probable cause to do the search
incident to arrest is that 9r) Koung 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) 5;E C#8:5: 5hatBs 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 cross=e'amine Duralde in the conte't of
Dudge 1ferraAAa violating 3:1 1/%)!0< in the following from the ,<12 trial date in 0.&&!1:
E5:631C:+(5 #" (:#CEED+371 = @ol) +, ((ages !.:1% to !%:1%* 5;E
C#8:5: >ell, we can have him e'amined again, but + do want to finish with this witness)
;eBs been here multiple times) ;eBs on the stand, and + believe that at least 9r) $eslie you can
Huestion him) 1o if you have any Huestions) 2K 9:) $E1$+E: U Kes) #fficer, do you have
any relation to the dispatcher that dispatched you to the scene in this caseJ 6 + donBt recall
/1&/%&
who the dispatcher was but my wife is a dispatcher) U 6nd to your ?nowledge, was she
involved in this caseJ 6 3o) U #?ay, very well) Did you notice any inconsistencies when
you arrived on scene between what the different witnesses were telling you had happenedJ 6
3ot that + remember) U Do you recall any inconsistency between 9r) 7oble and 9r) -arate,
one saying that 9r) Coughlin had allegedly ta?en the phone from some third party that nobody
?nows who they are and then the other saying that 9r) Coughlin just pic?ed the phone up
directly from where it was lyingJ 6 +t was my impression, at the time of the case, + donBt
have any recollection of the third party) + was later reading 9r) -arateBs statement and noticed
that a third party was listed in it but at the time, + didnBt have ?nowledge of that) U + donBt
have any further Huestions) 5;E C#8:5: 9r) Koung, any further HuestionsJ 9:) K#837:
3o, your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: #?ay) KouBre 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
9r) CoughlinBs competency going all the way bac? 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 as? both counsel to provide
the evaluator with any documentation or anything else they might have with respect to his
competency and as? the evaluator to review his prior competency hearings, especially the one
at 3691 when he went there and itBs my understanding the same thing happened there as
well)F
:DC Dudge 1ferraAAaBs 11%12 #rder in :C:2011=0.&&!1 reads: EE4 (6:5E
E9E:7E3CK #:DE: (E3D+37 ;E6:+37 5his matter has come before the Court based
upon the following circumstances: 6) 5he :eno City 6ttorneyBs #ffice (P:C6#P* represents a
number of City of :eno employees who have been named in subpoenas) 5he :C6# 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 :C6# to file and serve its substantive
motion and provide notice that the matter would be heard on 3ovember %, 2012 at ,:00 am)
5he City of :eno filed its motion on 3ovember /, 2012) 2) 6t the hearing o:n this matter on
3ovember %, 2012, Deputy City 6ttorney Creig 1?au appeared on behalf of the :C6# and the
City employees reHuesting protective relief) -ac? Koung was present in court) 9r) Coughlin
did not appear) 9r) 1?au 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 9r) Coughlin, that he learned 9r) Coughlin represented himself this morning and
attempted to call and left a voice mail message with a phone number believed to be 9r)
CoughlinBs at %:&0 this moming) C) 5he Court is advised that the (ublic Defe))Der, Deremy
2osler and the City of :eno Chief Crimina+ Deputy City 6ttorney, Dan >ong, may also ha))E
received subpoenas and filed reHuests for relief similar to the :C6#Bs reHuests) ) 5he Court
read the :C6#Bs motion in preparation for the hearing) Due to the absence of notice to 9r)
Coughlin, no argument was received on the merits of the motion) 1 &, 2012) 5lt6CE v !) =2=
;owever, the Court finds that the :C6#Bs motion and supporting materials present a sufficient
evidentiary basis to issue this #rder) 5he Court deeming itself sufficiently informed and good
cause appearing therefore, +5 +1 ;E:E2K #:DE:ED as follows: 1) 6 hearing on the merits
of these matters is hereby set before this Court for ,:00 a)9) #n 3ovember #ral presentations
/1!/%&
shall be limited to 10 minutes each) 5he Cler? shall notify 9r) 2osler and 9r) >ong of the
hearing) 2) 6ny subpoena not properly issued by the cler? or otherwise not properly issued in
accordance with 3:1 1/!)&0< +s hereby Huashed) 6ny subpoena not personally served by a
non=party or otherwise properly served in accordance with 3:1 1/!)&!< +s hereby Huashed)
5he Court reserves its ruling on any other grounds such as relevancy or undue burden until
the12 hearing on the merits) &) 6 protective order is hereby granted pursuant to +C:C( :ule
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 2ar?er 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 :eno City 6ttorneyBs #ffice is directed to
promptly attempt to21 serve a copy of this #rder and the :C6#Bs motion and any supplements
by personal service upon -achary 2ar?er Coughlin at the address in the CourtBs file, 1!/1 E)
,5h 1treet, :eno, 3K %,<12, with a copy mailed to said address) 1ervice shall also be
attempted by email at PAachcoughlinNhotmail)ComBP Dated this %th day of 3ovember, 2012)
1 (eter D) 1ferraAAa, Dustice of the (eacePF
111,12 transcript from 0.&&!1 reveals further the misconduct of both Dudge
1ferraAAa and DD6 -achary 3orman Koung, EsH): E5:631C:+(5 #" (:#CEED+371 =
@ol) +, ((ages 20<:2 to 21/:&* 365;63+E$ -6:65E E469+365+#3 2K 9:)
C#87;$+3: U 7ood afternoon, 9r) -arate) 5han? you for being here today, sir) +Bm going
to == let me as? you do you recall on the night in Huestion, 6ugust 20, 2011, someone who you
might have referred to earlier as Pthe man with the si' pac?P holding the i(hone and offering it
up to people in the par?J 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, objection hearsay, itBs the truest
definition of hearsay, as +Bve objected to already) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd, your ;onor, if +
could just Huic?ly offer a counter to thatJ 5;E C#8:5: >ell, you can just as? him the
Huestion if he recalls == you said, P5hat you testified to earlier)P Kou as?ed him to recite
testimony from a prior proceeding) 9:) C#87;$+3: #h == 5;E C#8:5: + guess you can
as? him the Huestion if he saw someone hold up a phone) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Keah)
Did you see did someone hold up a phone that nightJ 6 Kes) U ;e offered it up to the
people in the par?J 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, again + would object to that as hearsay) 5;E
C#8:5: 6ll right) >ell, +Bm going to overrule that because it was as?ed 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 ?nowing it e'cept for that) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes,
sir) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 9r) -arate, will you answer that, pleaseJ 6 Kes, there was a
man holding up the phone) U Did the man say something to the effect of, P1omebody claim
this phone or +Bm going to throw it in the river)P 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, +Bm going to
object to that) + ?now for a fact that has not been introduced in evidence and again, thereBs no ==
+ have not heard an e'ception to the hearsay rule provided by 9r) Coughlin and that very again
clearly is hearsay) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd, your ;onor, may + just offer a hearsay e'ceptionJ
5;E C#8:5: >hatBs the hearsay e'ceptionJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + would say one, didnBt e'ist
in mental, emotion or physical condition would apply as would present sense impression ==
/1</%&
5;E C#8:5: 6ll right) +Bm going to overrule the objection) 7o ahead)
2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Kou may answer, sir) 6 5o which HuestionJ U Did
somebody hold the phone up and say, P+Bm going to throw it in the river if somebody doesnBt
claim it,P or something substantially similarJ 6 + donBt remember that that man specifically
said, P+Bm going to throw it in the river)P U Did he say anything li?e thatJ 6 + donBt
remember him saying anything li?e that) U Do you recall 3icole >atson admitting to
hearing thatJ 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, now weBre at li?e two levels of hearsay) 5;E
C#8:5: 5hat is sustained) 5his witness can answer what he heard== 9:) K#837: 9r)
Coughlin ?nows what hearsay is and throughout this entire day, he has attempted to elicit
almost nothing but hearsay) 5;E C#8:5: 5hatBs fine but that prior Huestion the one that he
answered + thin? is an e'ception but this one is not and itBs double hearsay on top of it, sir) 9:)
C#87;$+3: #?ay, your ;onor, itBs not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, itBs
offered == 5;E C#8:5: + donBt care) +Bm sustaining it) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U #?ay) Do
you recall seeing me with some cameras and recording eHuipment about a wee? after the
arrestJ 9:) K#837: #bjection relevance) 5;E C#8:5: >hatBs the relevanceJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: #ne, + believe it goes to e'culpatory material in the sense that if someone == if
9r) -arate heard me as? that Huestion and heard someone admit to hearing the man say heBs
going to throw it in the river == 5;E C#8:5: + sustain the objection) 9:) C#87;$+3:
#?ay) Can + as? 9r) -arate to authenticate a recording that was made with him present in
which his voice is onJ 5;E C#8:5: Kou may) 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, if this is a video
ta?en a wee? after the incident which he was referring to, + would object to that) 5;E C#8:5:
+f itBs a wee? after, then + sustain the objection) +f it was contemporaneous with the incident, +
will allow it) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, it was a wee? after the incident == 5;E C#8:5: 1o the
objection is sustained, itBs not relevant to this charge today, sir) 9:) C#87;$+3: 1o if
individuals have percipient ?nowledge of the events on the night of the arrest a wee? later a
videotape describing the arrest, thatBs not relevant or the events involved thereinJ 5;E
C#8:5: 5he arrest is not the issue, itBs whether or not you stole the cell phone)
9:) C#87;$+3: 5he actions incident to the arrest or resulting in the arrest) +f
they are testifying or not testifying but commenting a wee? later on videotape ?nowing theyBre
being recorded as to what actions were involved in the arrest and what precipitated what, thatBs
not relevant) 5;E C#8:5: 1ir, tell me specifically what == you can ma?e 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir, and +Bll just note Huic?ly + reviewed the tape
of the #ctober 22nd hearing date and at the !%=minute mar? of this second file on that, you note
that + will be afforded the right to waive witness fees for subpoenas and therein, + suggest that
my properly serving 3icole >atson incident to 3 : 1=1/!)&!< == 5;E C#8:5: >ell, actually
that is proper service but itBs not one that she has to obey because itBs by mail) 1o if she doesnBt
get it and if she didnBt sign for it, then itBs not evidence that she was served, it may comply with
the technicality of statute but it doesnBt give me the power to order him to be here or to issue a
warrant for her non=appearance) 9:) C#87;$+3: 2ut + do believe it provides a basis for a
continuance) 5;E C#8:5: 3o, sir, not unless you made a proper motion based upon that)
9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd +Bm ma?ing that now, sir) 5;E C#8:5: +tBs denied) 9:)
C#87;$+3: >ell, as to your prompting me to issue an offer of proof, this recording and +
/1./%&
have a video of it and an audio of it as well, you might remember 9r) 5empleton referencing
that + carried multiple devices, will show 9r) -arate standing ne't to 9s) >atson when 9s)
>atson admits to hearing the man with the si'=pac? hold the i(hone up and threaten to throw it
in the river if someone didnBt claim it immediately) 9:) K#837: ;ow 9r) Coughlin does not
see that as hearsay is beyond me) 5;E C#8:5: 6ll right) KouBre saying that 9s) >atson said
that on the videoJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir, with 9r) -arate there) "urther, + thin? itBs
relevant to the e'tent that 9r) -arate then clearly appears to dissuade her from further
contradicting what he allegedly told the police that night and + believe therein is indicated a
motive on his part to cover up the e'tent to which his statements to the police resulted in my
arrest) 5;E C#8:5: 6ll right) +Bm going to sustain the objection) 7o ahead)
9:) C#87;$+3: + would just note for the record, your ;onor, + do believe +
complied with the record as far as serving 9s) >atson) 5;E C#8:5: + 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
?now what == 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, she wasnBt here today) 5;E C#8:5: 3o, she is no
longer in this community) 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, she is) + confirmed that sheBs a student at
9cUueen ;igh 1chool) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, according to the testimony earlier today == 9:)
C#87;$+3: + donBt recall any) 5;E C#8:5: 5here was testimony today that she is no
longer here) 9:) C#87;$+3: 2y 9r) $ichty, + recall him saying that he wasnBt aware == he
hadnBt tal?ed to her in a year) 5;E C#8:5: 6nd he also indicated that he believed she had
moved) 9:) C#87;$+3: + donBt recall that) + believe he indicated he didnBt ?now what was
her current state) 5;E C#8:5: #?ay) $et me loo? at the == actually, + donBt have one for her,
but + assume that you have a certificate for herC do you have it with youJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +
provided it to the court, your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, the one that + had did not show it)
9:) C#87;$+3: >ould it be all right, your ;onor, could + review it Huic?lyJ 5;E C#8:5:
>ell, it doesnBt matter right now) + am ruling that what she would have testified both to would
have been hearsay and also probably not relevant to whether or not it was a theft) + ?now your
argument that somehow this was found property but what some third party did or didnBt do is
not going to be at issue in this case when we finish it) 9:) C#87;$+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 wal?ing ==
5;E C#8:5: +f someone said that, + donBt ?now number one that they did because
itBs hearsay as objected to by 9r) Koung) 1o +Bm sustaining his objection as to hearsay but even
if it wasnBt hearsay, the bottom line is + donBt ?now number one, if the person would have done
that or not) + donBt ?now how they came into possession of the cell phone) 5hirdly, you did
claim the phone from that person, according to what +Bve heard) 9:) C#87;$+3: 2ut if you
had heard all those things from me, then you perhaps would reconsider allowing this e'cited
utterance or present=sense impressionJ 5;E C#8:5: #?ay) + will allow you to argue it, all
right) Kou can argue anything you want, but the bottom line is the evidence will be what +
decide on and that is not evidence that the hearsay testimony of someone whoBs not here and
even if they were here, it would still be hearsay) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir, your ;onor, 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
/1//%&
what he told the police in which effected a wrongful arres ==
5;E C#8:5: +t still is sustained) + thin? itBs, at best, marginally relevant on some
tangential issue to this case which is whether or not == and +Bve told you this three times,
whether or not you did willfully and unlawfully steal, ta?e and carry away the personal
property of another, thatBs one count) 5hen the other count is whether on or about the 20th day
of 6ugust, you did willfully and unlawfully possess or withhold stolen goods) 6ll rightJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: +f + could just Huic?ly == maybe this isnBt the right time but if + could just Huic?ly
indicate, your ;onor, + respectfully + believe it goes to the willfulness aspect and the aspect of
another) +f something is going to be in the river, + thin? itBs one, itBs no longer == 5;E C#8:5:
KouBre done, all right) +Bve already ruled on it twice now) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd perhaps itBs
just my e'perience, your ;onor == 5;E C#8:5: (erhaps it is but the bottom line is + have
ruled and you can proceed) 9:) C#87;$+3: 7ranted but isnBt there a negative == 5;E
C#8:5: + guess +Bm not getting through to you) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm sorry, your ;onor)
5;E C#8:5: + have denied == + have sustained the objection and denied your reHuest for a
continuance to bring in this witness, all right) 7o ahead) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir and your
;onor, +Bm not able to preserve for the record why + == 5;E C#8:5: Kou already have
preserved for the record, + thin? itBs Huite apparent) + understand what your argument is) 9:)
C#87;$+3: 6nd +Bm just wondering if this winds up in a conviction if the appellate court
might view it that way) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, + donBt ?now what the appellate court would do if
you are convicted) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir, your ;onor, neither do +)F
E111,12 in 0.&&!1: 5:631C:+(5 #" (:#CEED+371 = @ol) +, ((ages 2&<:/ to
2!0:20* 9:) C#87;$+3: 5han? you, 9r) -arate) 5;E C#8:5: Do you have any other
witnessesJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir, and + have the citation and the audio ?eyed up for
where you told me you would waive the witness fees, itBs the !%=minute mar? of file two on
#ctober 22nd) +Bm sorry, your ;onor, you might have already told me you ruled on this, but +
would li?e to call 3icole >atson and :obert Dawson, but they failed to appear == and +Bm sorry,
if youBve already ruled on this, your ;onor) +Bve been not getting much sleep lately) Even
though the 2ar hearing was last wee? thereBs been a lot of post hearing wor? associated with it)
5;E C#8:5: >ell, they are not here but anyhow, let me hear what you have on the tape) Kou
can play that) +Bll allow you to) 9:) C#87;$+3: Can + play the tape of 3icole >atsonJ 5;E
C#8:5: 3o, of my order) 9:) C#87;$+3: #h yes, sir) Kou said it was cued up and ready
to go) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) 5here we go) (5he tape was played)* 5;E C#8:5: #?ay,
sir, what + was tal?ing about is + would waive the service costs by the sheriff which we can do
through the in forma pauperis) >e have no means of waiving the witness fees or providing the
witness fees) >e have no fund for that, but we do have the ability to order the sheriff to serve a
subpoena without payment) 3ow, + donBt even ?now if you file the motion for in forma of
pauperis to waive any service fee)
9:) C#87;$+3: + believe + filed a motion for in forma pauperis and == 5;E
C#8:5: Kou filed a motion for in forma pauperis but whether you filed one since that date
covering the service fees but be that as it may, + did not waive the witness fee) +n fact, +
specifically said the contrary if you listen to it) 9:) C#87;$+3: + believe + heard you
verbatim say waive the witness fees) 5;E C#8:5: 6nd by that + meant the service fees but
o?ay) +f you listen to that again, youBll hear what + said) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay, your ;onor)
/1%/%&
+ believe + reasonably relied upon a reasonable interpretation that in fact it was not == 5;E
C#8:5: >ell, a reasonable interpretation when + said the court has no funds to pay
witnessesJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, + believe that goes to where you later said, P2ut + may
defer that and ma?e you pay them later)P 5;E C#8:5: Keah) + said + may defer it) 9:)
C#87;$+3: 3o) + believe you said, P+ may ma?e you pay it later)P 2ut you were definitely it
seemed to me being rather charitable to me, sir, and allowing me to attempt to get the truth out
there even though +Bm indigent) 5;E C#8:5: 2ut the problem is this, sir, a witness does not
have to respond absent a witness fee being advanced) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, sir, + donBt have
to show up for 9r) City 6ttorney 1?auBs e=mailing me notice of a hearing) 5;E C#8:5: Kou
didnBt have to show up) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, he told me you said + did so + did) 5;E
C#8:5: 3o) >hat + said was + wanted to ma?e sure you were served one way or the other) 1o
+ said that in addition to serving you by regular service, that he attempt to get ahold of you by
e=mail because + do ?now thatBs how you communicate with the court) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd
he seems to have interpreted that to authoriAe service ==
5;E C#8:5: >ell, 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) 9:)
C#87;$+3: >ell, typically thatBs where the courthouse sanctuary comes in) Kou say, P>ell,
+ wouldnBt have been here because you didnBt have personal jurisdiction and you couldnBt drag
me into the state)P 5;E C#8:5: 1ir, + didnBt drag you into the state) + gave you an opportunity
to argue against a motion which was made properly) +n addition, + gave you a chance to
respond by last 5hursday) 1o as far as +Bm concerned, the response was, to some e'tent, o?ay
and to some e'tent, it was nonresponsive but to the e'tent it was responsive, + did order that
those subpoenas + would reserve ruling on and we are now at that point) + am finding, as a
matter of fact, that + did not authoriAe you to serve subpoenas without proffering the witness
fees) + did indicate that we had no funds to pay them but that + would allow you to serve them
without costs) 5he bottom line is + did rule that these people were served, but + am finding that
they were not proffered the witness fees) 2y your own testimony you indicated that you did not
include a chec? for these people) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, may + play that portion
againJ 5;E C#8:5: 3o, you may not) + already heard it) Kou will have whatever argument
you have is reserved for the future) 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, one thing just for purposes of
the record that + would li?e to put on the record) >ith respect to the motion to continue by 9r)
Coughlin due to 9s) >atsonBs non=appearance 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 9r) Coughlin and the attempts to get 9s)
>atsonBs 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) 5;E C#8:5: + already ruled on that) 9:) K#837: + just want that
on the record) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd to the e'tent 9r) Koung has made an argument, if + may
indicate, your ;onor, one of the elements is from another if something is about to be thrown in
a trash can itBs arguably no oneBs anymore) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, youBll be able to argue that)
5he only thing +Bm ruling on right now is +Bm denying your continuance to bring in these
witnesses, the two witnesses) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir)F
Consider the following from the 102212 hearing date in 0.&&!1 (i(hone case*:
/1,/%&
E;E6:+37, ((ages !,:20 to <2:1.* 5;E DE"E3D635: + understand, your ;onor, and if +
could just Huic?ly address the e'tent to which 9r) Koung has purported case law allows you to
consider other matters beyond this proceeding and this analysis, + would object to the e'tent
that + was == 5;E C#8:5: +Bm considering this matter, sir) 5;E DE"E3D635: >ell, but
previously on the record, youBve referenced eviction matters) 5;E C#8:5: + did and + will tell
you this, you donBt even need to go any further because +Bm going to grant your reHuest)
;owever, +Bm going to appoint 9r) $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 5;E DE"E3D635: Kes, sir) 5;E C#8:5: 6nd + will further order if you
prepare a proper motion +n "orma (auperis that youBll be able to subpoena witnesses without
e'pense and ==
5;E DE"E3D635: Kour ;onor, if + could just interject, would that e'tend to
1ubpoena Duces 5ecum as wellJ 5;E C#8:5: +t will e'cept we have no fund to pay for the
witness fees so that is == + will enable you to subpoena witnesses) + donBt ?now how we
compensate them) 5;E DE"E3D635: + would imagine the >ashoe County (ublic Defender
has some means of doing that) 9:) $E1$+E: +f heBs going to represent himself, he doesnBt dip
into our public funds) 5;E DE"E3D635: Kou havenBt spent a dime on me yet) 5;E
C#8:5: 1ir, + am going to allow you to subpoena witnesses, and you need to get crac?ing on
that so you get it done) 5;E DE"E3D635: +tBs my understanding thatBs a right of mine as a
criminal defendant to be able to subpoena witnesses) 5;E C#8:5: +t is, the only thing +Bm
allowing you to subpoena them without advancing the fees) 5;E DE"E3D635: #?ay) 5;E
C#8:5: + may, at a later point, order that you pay those fees but in the meantime, + will allow
you to subpoena witnesses without advancing the fees)
5;E DE"E3D635: 6ll right, yes, sir, and your ;onor, + would just preserve my
objection that the >ashoe County (ublic Defender should have to pay) 5;E C#8:5: +tBs not
an objection, sir) 5;E DE"E3D635: #r ma?e a motion that the >ashoe County (ublic
DefenderBs == 5;E C#8:5: >ell, you can ma?e a written motion separately from todayBs
proceeding) 9:) $E1$+E: 1o now + get to litigate with himJ 1eriously, your ;onor, is that
what weBre doingJ 5;E C#8:5: 3o) +n fact, on reconsideration, you cannot do that) 5;E
DE"E3D635: +Bm sorry, your ;onor whatJ 5;E C#8:5: Kou cannot argue as to the (ublic
Defender paying the fees) KouBre choosing to represent yourself) 5;E DE"E3D635: Kes, sir,
your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: 1o at a later point in time, + will determine your financial ability to
pay the witness fees) 5;E DE"E3D635: Kes, sir, and would that also e'tend to the
1ubpoena Duces 5ecum fees as wellJ 5;E C#8:5: Kes)F
"rom the 111,12 trial date in 0.&&!1: E5:631C:+(5 #" (:#CEED+371 = @ol)
+, ((ages 2<2:1. to 2</:1* 9:) C#87;$+3: >hy, can + put the police report in evidenceJ
9:) K#837: + would object to that) 5;E C#8:5: 3o) 5he police report they canBt even put
in evidence) Kou could have cross=e'amined on the police report) 9:) C#87;$+3: + canBt
put the police report in evidenceJ 5;E C#8:5: 3o) 9:) C#87;$+3: + canBtJ +t
completely contradicts testimony by all of these witnesses) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, sir, that is
something you cannot do) 9:) C#87;$+3: +tBs a business == 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor,
weBve wasted another five minutes) >e still donBt have an answer whether he wants to testify or
not) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kou canBt put a police report in evidenceJ 5;E C#8:5: + just told
/20/%&
you you canBt) 1top as?ing me) 9:) C#87;$+3: Can + testify to what it saysJ 5;E C#8:5:
3o) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm sorry, +Bm not e'perienced == 5;E C#8:5: >ell, then you should
have had an attorney represent you, sir) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, he wouldnBt have put it into
evidence) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, he couldnBt, he ?nows that) +f itBs a prior inconsistent statement,
it can be used for cross=e'amination) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, thatBs where +Bm hamstrung by
the fact that + did get a return receipt reHuested for #fficer Duralde and + believe those other
officers and + do have a verbatim by you indication on the record of #ctober 22nd that you
were waiving witness fees, not service fees by the sheriff) Kou made no mention of service
fees) Kou said witness fees and + reasonably relied upon that) 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor,
because 9r) Coughlin is representing himself, he has a duty of candor to the court) 5hat is a
complete waste of time, and + would as? that you as? 9r) Coughlin whether he wants to testify
or not, have him give you an answer) +f he fails to give you an answer, hold him in contempt)
5;E C#8:5: >ell, +Bm not going to hold him in contempt) +Bm just going to conclude the
trial, sir) 9:) K#837: ;owever you want to do it because heBs wasting everyoneBs time)
5;E C#8:5: Do you want to testify or notJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + do, your ;onor
but == 5;E C#8:5: #?ay, then ta?e the stand) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6nd +Bll just preserve for
the record the fact that + feel li?e + was just == 5;E C#8:5: Either ta?e the stand or we
conclude the trial) 9:) K#837: "or the record, the implication he just made +Bm not coercing
him, itBs totally his right) 9:) C#87;$+3: KouBre as?ing to put me in jail again li?e you did
at the competency hearing) 9:) K#837: 5hat has nothing to do with whether he has the right
to e'ercise his right to testify or not) 5;E C#8:5: + did not agree with 9r) Koung) + told you
that if you do not testify, we will conclude the trial) >eBre not going to put you in jail for not
testifying) ;owever, if + convict you, you may go to jail but thatBs a different story, all rightJ
9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir, your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: 6ll right) (lease raise your right
hand) (5he witness was sworn)* 5;E C#8:5: #?ay) 7o ahead, sit down and proceed) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, to the e'tent +Bm testifying and that enables me to play videos,
should + grab themJ 5;E C#8:5: + didnBt say it enables to play videos) +f you == 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) 1o the whole argument thing was we have to get him
to testify) 5;E C#8:5: +tBs not an argument, sir) 9:) C#87;$+3: 2y 9r) Koung) 5;E
C#8:5: + 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 cross=e'amination) 9:)
C#87;$+3: :ight but once + start, + also get to == thereBs some good that goes along with it,
things that people might view as bad) + actually welcome the cross=e'amination == 5;E
C#8:5: >ell, + donBt want to argue anymoreC are you going to start or notJ 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kes) :espectfully, your ;onor) + thin? that means + can bring up my materials,
as +Bm functioning in a dual role) 5;E C#8:5: 3o) Kou are not going to read your materials)F
5hen, consider the 111&12 improperly noticed hearing in 0.&&!1: E9#5+#3
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 12:. to 22:.* 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, your ;onor, + guess it was
my understanding + didnBt thin? + was supposed to serve the original on the parties) 5;E
C#8:5: 3o but you need to file them with the court) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay, and +Bve been
told the fa' is an original and + believe by this court and + believe those have been fa'ed in)
/21/%&
5;E C#8:5: 3o, sir, + never told you a fa' is an original) 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, not by
you, sir) + mean by the administrator, 9s) 2a?er) Kour ;onor, + believe thereBs something
pertinent to point out here is that under 3 : 1=1/!)&/<, + believe service in a misdemeanor trial
can be the effectuated by certified mailing, and there have been uncertified mailings here that +
thin? might ?ind of ma?e all these arguments mute) + would imagine 9r) 1?auBs clients have
received those by this point) + thin? the legibility issues are off base) + believe these are largely
typed and are materials that were served incident to these == e'plicate the basis == 5;E
C#8:5: Do you have copies of any of the ones or the originals actually because youBve said
theyBve been served) 1o you have the originals to file with the courtJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell,
+ believe + fa'ed the originals)
5;E C#8:5: ;ow could you fa' an original, sirJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, +Bve
been told by this court, not by you, your ;onor, that a fa' is an original) 5;E C#8:5: 3o, itBs
not) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, weBve ?ind of gone around about this over the last year) 5;E
C#8:5: Kou canBt have a seal of a court on the fa') 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bve maintained these
documents, your ;onor, in the event that thatBs necessary to bring the e'act == 5;E C#8:5:
>ell, it will be necessary if you show up to court for trial and youBre e'pecting people to be
here, if you havenBt paid them their witness fee) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, you waived the
witness fee, your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: 3o, + didnBt waive the witness fee) 9:) C#87;$+3:
#n 1022, at the #ctober 22 hearingJ 5;E C#8:5: + donBt believe + waived any witness fee)
5;E >+53E11: >e tal?ed about my indigency) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, we may have tal?ed
about your indigency to proceed and represent yourself) Kou chose to do that) 5he court has no
fund to pay witness fees) 5he public defender does but you chose not to use the public
defender) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, they wouldnBt issue any subpoenas, your ;onor, and that
brings up some more Huestions here) 6pparently, on the third == 5;E C#8:5: #?ay) $etBs go
bac? to what you originally said) Kou said 1/!)&/< 6llows service by certified mail) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kes, sir and it brings up the Huestion == 5;E C#8:5: +tBs not in there, but
1/!)&/< 5al?s about subpoena == 9:) C#87;$+3: &!<, +Bm sorry)
5;E C#8:5: &!<J 9:) C#87;$+3: Keah, and the public defender served a
subpoena or you ?now, + ?now &0< 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 ?now why) 5hey didnBt mail them out) +nstead we wander
around for a year tal?ing about how weBre going to get 3icole >atson served) >ell, about just
use 1/!)&!< 6nd mail it to her) 9r) 2ony and it appears 9r) 1?au and 9r) == + donBt ?now
about 9r) >ong but they ?eep citing to these civil rules) 5;E C#8:5: 1ir, have you filed the
certificates of mailing with the courtJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + filed == + fa'ed something in an
attempt to file) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, youBre here today) +t says, P+f a 1ubpoena is served by
mail, a Certificate of 9ailing must be filed with the court within two days after the subpoena is
mailed)P 9:) C#87;$+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 thin?ing of) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, 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) 5he green
receipts will have to be filed with the court eventually on that day if a person doesnBt show up)
/22/%&
2ut you will need to file the certificate of mailing with the original subpoena) 9:)
C#87;$+3: + believe that was done, your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: DownstairsJ
9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, it was fa'ed in) 5;E C#8:5: 3o) Kou canBt fa' in == +Bve
been through this with you) + have no way of ?nowing, at this point, if what you served these
people with was a subpoena issued out of this court) KouBre telling me that you have the
embossed signature of $indsey #berman on these subpoenasJ 9:) C#87;$+3: #n the ones
that have her signatures, yes, those are embossed) 3ow, it was my understanding subseHuently
that a subpoena was crafted == 5;E C#8:5: Kou canBt just copy one of those and use it as a
subpoena) 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, sir, it was my understanding anything else that was served
did not have any sort of attempt to hijac? $indsey #bermanBs signature and this courtBs
embossing, it was more of an attorney issued subpoena + believe that you granted me the right
to do on #ctober 22nd) 5;E C#8:5: Kou are not an attorney right now, sir) Kour own
documents you wrote on them that you are not == 9:) C#87;$+3: + thin? that shows a
carefulness on my part) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: + need to chec? the tape of the hearing, your ;onor, but to
some e'tent whatever was served along with the ones that bear $indsey #bermanBs signature
could be viewed as e'plicating what is as?ed for in those ones that do bear the embossing ==
5;E C#8:5: >ell, this is what +Bm going to order you to do, sir) +Bm going to order that you
file with the court, no later than today, any subpoenas that you served or you claim you served
together with the relevant reason, it can be a one=page document, as to why you believe this
particular person is necessary to be here for the trial of a theft of a cell phone) 9:)
C#87;$+3: Kour ;onor, + have an unbifurcated hearing trial, disciplinary panel tomorrow,
itBs unbifurcated) +Bve been getting about two hours of sleep a night for the last three wee?s
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 5hursdayJ
5;E C#8:5: +Bll do 5hursday but sir, + will ma?e a ruling on 5hursday as to
whether or not any of those people need to appear and it will be based on whatever written
documentation == 9:) C#87;$+3: 5he scape orders == are you going to rule on whether the
cape orders need to appearJ 5;E C#8:5: +f they were properly served) ;eBs not representing
them) 9:) C#87;$+3: 1o thatBs why +Bm as?ing == 5;E C#8:5: 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, thatBs not the
standard, your ;onor, itBs is it calculated to yield admissible evidence) 2eing there on that day
== 5;E C#8:5: 6dmissible evidence is not a fight that you had with someone on a different
dayC all rightJ 9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, if thereBs a coordinated effort to discredit me or ruin
me or ma?e it so that the CityBs liability or municipalities liability is distinguished, + thin? that
does bear) 5;E C#8:5: 5hat might bear on the civil action you have against the City) 9:)
C#87;$+3: + thin? it bears in a criminal matter) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, + donBt care what you
thin?, sir, itBs what + decide) 1o you will furnish that) +f you donBt furnish it, then your
subpoenas will not be honored) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) Kour ;onor, may + have an
opportunity to present citation to authority to support that point that it is relevant and does bear
/2&/%&
in that circumstanceJ 5;E C#8:5: 6bsolutely but +Bm not going to read through 100 pages, it
will be one page per subpoena, all rightJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) 5;E C#8:5: 6nd
serve a copy on him so those that deal with him which is the City people not your witnesses)
5he witnesses that were s?ateboarders, heBs not representing them) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir)
Can we approach the topic that given itBs become material relevance of these dispatch tapes
between : ( 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) 5he public defender
subpoenaed them on #ctober &rd) 5heyBve refused to provide me what was propounded, and +
believe a continuance of the hearing itself might be necessary)
5;E C#8:5: 5hereBs not going to be any continuance but sir, do you ?now if the
dispatch tapes were ever furnished through the public defenderJ 9:) 1G68: + do not ?now
that) >hat + can add to that discussion, your ;onor, is that the City of :eno was improperly
served with documents that did reHuest a huge amount of documents that were absolutely
unintelligible and way beyond any == 5;E C#8:5: >hat were the documents that were
prepared for him to pic? upJ 9:) 1G68: Kes) >hat we did is we found out == 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 9r) Coughlin that he could pic? 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) + thin? itBs O10/) >ith payment of that, he is more than welcome to get those dispatches)
9:) C#87;$+3: + believe that was represented as a subpoena fee)F
:DC Dudge 1ferraAAaBs 111.12 #rder reads: P#:DE: >ith 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 onBthe merits in this
case, or did not specify what documents, if any, were being subpoenaed) 5he attached
subpoenas were validly issued arid served by mail, all other subpoenas are hereby Huashed) 5he
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)
b D65ED this 1.th day of 3ovember , 2012 s (eter D) 1ferraAAa Dustice of the (eaceP (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 #:der being entered with respect to what subpoenas will and
will not be Huashed at the 111,12 5rial, is obvious, and distrubing, especially with respect to
Dudge 1ferraAAaBs inconsistent, misleading (at best* statements and rulings with respect to
whether Coughlin had to pay witness fees, and if so, when, especially considering the >CD6Bs
#fficer admits it never pays witness fees until after one has testified)
:DC Dudge 1ferraAAaBs 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 #:der being
entered with respect to what subpoenas will and will not be Huashed at the 111,12 5rial, is
obvious, and distrubing, especially with respect to Dudge 1ferraAAaBs inconsistent, misleading
(at best* statements and rulings with respect to whether Coughlin had to pay witness fees, and if
/2!/%&
so, when, especially considering the >CD6Bs #fficer admits it never pays witness fees until
after one has testified) "rom 111&12 hearing in .&&!1: 9#5+#3 ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages
1&:2! to 1!:21* 5;E C#8:5: >ell, 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) 9:)
C#87;$+3: >ell, you waived the witness fee, your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: 3o, + didnBt
waive the witness fee) 9:) C#87;$+3: #n 1022, at the #ctober 22 hearingJ 5;E C#8:5:
+ donBt believe + waived any witness fee) 5;E >+53E11: >e tal?ed about my indigency) 5;E
C#8:5: >ell, we may have tal?ed about your indigency to proceed and represent yourself)
Kou chose to do that) 5he court has no fund to pay witness fees) 5he public defender does but
you chose not to use the public defender)
9:) C#87;$+3: >ell, they wouldnBt issue any subpoenas, your ;onor, and that
brings up some more Huestions here)P 9#5+#3 ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age &&:& to &&:1,*
5;E C#8:5: >hat 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 ?now how you got them but
if you happen to have blan? 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: 6ll right but + believe +Bm
entitled to rely upon your ruling as rendered on #ctober 22, 201&) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, + donBt
have the ruling) Kou havenBt presented that to me yet) +f + waive the subpoena fee, then thatBs a
different story)P (3#5E: then Dudge 1ferraAAaBs statements on the transcript of 111&12 with
respect to Pservice feesP reveal completely the e'tent to which he ?eeps ma?ing it up as he goes
along and changing it every time he gets cornered, its completely ridiculous, when considering
his statements regarding Pservice feesP on the 111,12 transcript in 0.&&!1)
5he 111&12 portion: P9#5+#3 ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages &/:21 to &,:2!* 5;E
C#8:5: 1aying whatJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + need to chec? my records but some people are
saying, P>ell, if you have a witness fee waiver, then you need to show us the order)P 5;E
C#8:5: 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) 9:) K#837: 6ll right) 5hereBs just
some to Huestion confusion with respect to == 5;E C#8:5: >ell, + donBt ?now whatBs
confusing about that) 5he 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: >itness fee or subpoena fee in the case of a 1ubpoena Duces
5ecum) 5hen thereBs this issue of service fees) 5;E C#8:5: Kes) 1ervice fees would have to
be specifically ordered that they be waived, that has not been done in this case, whether + said it
orally or not) +f youBre having the sheriff serve it == 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, + mean li?e a
processing fee or something) 9r) 1?au here his office is saying they want O%0)00) 5;E
C#8:5: ;eBs saying under the #pen 9eeting $aw, theyBre entitled to the cost of the copies)
9:) C#87;$+3: 5heyBre charging me for their time) 5;E C#8:5: 5heyBre charging you
for the cost of the copies) 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o) +t says in their invoice it says P(rocessing
feeP or something) 9r) 1?au ma?e a comment on that) 5;E C#8:5: 1ir, you ?now, this is
ridiculous argument) ;eBs already said they will be furnished to you without cost) 1o now
/2</%&
youBre wasting everyoneBs time for no reason) 9:) C#87;$+3: 2ut itBs come up in other
circumstances and itBs == 5;E C#8:5: + donBt care about other circumstances) 5his 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) Kou will need a statement of relevance and proof that they can be
served without a witness fee, if thatBs what you said + ordered) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir)
5;E C#8:5: 6nd then + P)))P
9#5+#3 ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages !1:1 to !2:22* the statute == 5;E C#8:5:
Kou told me it was already filed by fa' but + donBt even see that, sir) 2ut +Bm e'tending for two
days for you to file a Certificate of 9ailing from today which would be 5hursday with any
documentation that you have to issue subpoenas) +Bve ordered the cler?s not to issue any
subpoenas to you without my reviewing them, and the only subpoena that will be effective
without a witness fee will be one signed by me) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir) 5;E C#8:5:
6nd 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir, and
if + can just preserve == the court has sanctuary argument with respect to any service) 5;E
C#8:5: 5he court has sanctuary == 5;E >+53E11: >ell, itBs my understanding + came here
today to somewhat contest the notice and service of the order for this hearing or the motion and
it seems as though itBs purported that +Bm being served because +Bm here and the court house
sanctuary doctrine says == 5;E C#8:5: 1ir, you ?now what, +Bm telling you even if you
werenBt served, you could show up for trial and +Bm not going to honor the subpoenas, if they
werenBt valid, even if he hadnBt filed a motionC understoodJ 9:) C#87;$+3: Kes, sir, your
;onor) 5;E C#8:5: 1o the motion is almost irrelevant to the e'tent that you served an
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 ma?e
sure theyBre properly served) +ndependent of his having filed a motion, + had already loo?ed 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/) 5here are == thereBs a number of pages) + told them not to file them
with the court because they werenBt validly filed) Kou need to have the documentation to
support these and we have a fa' which was filed on 11/, 1& pages)PF
111,12 0.&&!1 5:631C:+(5 #" (:#CEED+371 = @ol) +, ((ages 2%:% to
&0:1.* 9:) C#87;$+3: 6ctually, +Bll call 3icole >atson) 5;E C#8:5: +s 3icole >atson
hereJ 9:) K#837: 1he is not, your ;onor) 5;E C#8:5: 6ll right) 9:) C#87;$+3: +
would move for a continuance, sir) 5;E C#8:5: Denied) 9:) K#837: Kour ;onor, based
on the motion to continue, + canBt imagine what she should have to offer this court thatBs of
substance thatBs necessary under ;illbustos) 1o unless + hear otherwise, + would also oppose the
continuance) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, the continuance is denied) Kou did not present the proof that
+ reHuested on 5hursday, sir) 9:) C#87;$+3: >ith respect to witness feesJ 5;E C#8:5:
Kes) 9:) C#87;$+3: #h, + offered to pay them) 5;E C#8:5: Kou offered to pay them)
5hen you proffered her the witness feeJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + couldnBt verify whether or not it
was her on the phone) 5;E C#8:5: 3o) >hen you delivered the subpoena, sir, did the person
that delivered the subpoena have a chec? from youJ 9:) C#87;$+3: +t was mailed) 5;E
C#8:5: >ell, did you enclose the chec? with the mailingJ 9:) C#87;$+3: + donBt believe
so) 5;E C#8:5: 6ll right) >ell then, sit down and call your ne't witness) 9:) C#87;$+3:
/2./%&
Kes, sir) 1o if + can just clarify, sir, it seems li?e you pulled aside one of the subpoenas and said
you were reserving ruling on those until + show you the payment proofJ 5;E C#8:5: Kes)
5hose are the ones that + == 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) ;owever, + reserve ruling on whether or not the service was
completed because of the reHuirement that they be proffered the witnesses fee) 6ll right) 1o go
ahead) 9:) C#87;$+3: 5hat differs mar?edly from == 5;E C#8:5: 3o, it doesnBt differ
from what + told you at the last court date, sir) + told you to submit that to me by 5hursday) 9:)
K#837: Kour ;onor, you have as?ed 9r) Coughlin no less than five times to call his first
witnessC can we move on) +tBs Huarter to 10:00) 5his is ta?ing a while) 5;E C#8:5: 6ll right)
7o ahead)F
1o, not only did Dudge 1ferraAAa deny Coughlin his constitutionally protected right
to cross=e'amine #fficer Duralde, he did so while violating 3:1 1/%)!0<Bs stay upon his
#rdering a Competency Evaluation (never mind the fact that >C(D $eslie had interjected the
Huestion of CoughlinBs competency prior thereto*:
5:631C:+(5 #" (:#CEED+371 = @ol) +, ((ages !2:& to !%:1%* :E3#,
3E@6D6, >ED3E1D6K, 1E(5E92E: <, 2012, 1:&0 ()9) \)\ 5;E C#8:5: #?ay) 5his
is the case of 1tate @ -achary Coughlin, and we are bac? on the record in Case B0.) Kou were
sworn) >ill you ta?e the stand) 9:) $E1$+E: Kour ;onor, + donBt believe + have any further
Huestions) +Bve conferred with 9r) Coughlin and + canBt get any straight answers from him about
any additional materials) + have no further Huestions at this time) 5;E >+53E11: Kour
;onor, earlier did you indicate that + would have an opportunity to confer with 9r) $eslie at the
conclusion of his crossJ 5;E C#8:5: Kou did) 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, + didnBt, sir) 9:)
$E1$+E: +Bm happy to ta?e five more minutes, if the court please, to afford 9r) Coughlin the
time he reHuests) 5;E C#8:5: + will give you five more minutes and thatBs it, 9r) Coughlin,
because we had an intervening period of almost 10 minutes before lunch) 9:) C#87;$+3:
9r) $eslie refused to meet with me) 5;E C#8:5: Kou were out in the hallway with him)
9:) C#87;$+3: 3o, your ;onor, + wasnBt) 9:) $E1$+E: 6nyway, your ;onor,
if you want to ta?e five minutes, it will probably ta?e 1< minutes to argue the point or we can
ta?e the five minutes) 5;E C#8:5: 6ll right) + will give you the five minutes but thatBs it) (6
recess was ta?en)* 5;E C#8:5: 5he record will reflect that 9r) Coughlin was given an
opportunity to consult with counsel) 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o sir, your ;onor, + wasnBt) 5;E
C#8:5: 3o, that is the record that == if you want to do it in court with me present, we can do
that) 9:) C#87;$+3: Do what, your ;onorJ 5;E C#8:5: Consult with him) Kou just
went outside to consult with him) 9:) C#87;$+3: 3o) + went outside and 9r) $eslie
wouldnBt meet me out there and then 2ailiff 1e'ton ordered me to meet him in the hallway
where witnesses == 5;E C#8:5: 6ll right) +Bm not going to play any more games, 9r)
Coughlin) Kou can tal? to him right here) + will as? 9r) Koung and the other people in the
courtroom who are not court personnel to step outside, and +Bll give you four minutes) 9:)
K#837: +Bll leave right now, your ;onor)
5;E C#8:5: +Bm going to ma?e a record as well, your ;onor, with regard to the
client competency) (6 recess was ta?en)* 5;E C#8:5: 6ll right) >e are ready to proceed in)
5he court, during the recess, + did personally observe 9r) Coughlin tal?ing to his counsel,
/2//%&
although + did not listen to anything or hear anything, but + believe that there has been an
attempt to communicate with 9r) Coughlin and we will proceed) 9:) $E1$+E: Kour ;onor, if
+ may, itBs my belief that 9r) Coughlin is not legally competent to proceed at this time) +Bm
going to ma?e a motion for the courtBs determination of whether 9r) Coughlin should be
e'amined by a psychiatrist to determine if heBs legally competent) 5;E C#8:5: >ell, +
believe he was already e'amined) 9:) $E1$+E: + believe he was) 5;E C#8:5: 6nd he was
determined to be competent) 1o at this point, the motion will be denied and == + shouldnBt say
that) + will give you a chance to argue further) + donBt thin? thereBs been any change in
circumstances == 9:) $E1$+E: >ell, + thin? itBs just based on the record as a whole) + thin? for
the == to a large e'tent, itBs the observations the court has made of his behavior and his
reasoning and mental state) Keah) +Bm just raising the issue) + had a Huestion in my mind) 5;E
C#8:5: + 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 ==
9:) $E1$+E: #?ay) 5;E C#8:5: 5he District Court ruling is heBs competent
based on the psychiatric evaluation) + donBt ?now if it was an actual psychiatrist) 9:) K#837:
5here was two separate ones, your ;onor) 5here was a competency evaluation in this case and
then there was == where he met with one, + donBt ?now if it was a social wor?er 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 ?now if thereBs been a
change between then and now or if itBs just 9r) CoughlinBs behavior thatBs posing the
difficulties, but certainly == itBs not my call what to do) 1ince itBs been raised, +Bll defer to the
court if you feel li?e itBs appropriate to conduct a brief hearing again) +Bll step out and you can
as? any Huestions just so you can determine whether itBs warranted or not) 5;E C#8:5: >ell,
we can have him e'amined again, but + do want to finish with this witness) ;eBs been here
multiple times) ;eBs on the stand, and + believe that at least 9r) $eslie you can Huestion him) 1o
if you have any Huestions) 2K 9:) $E1$+E: U Kes) #fficer, do you have any relation to the
dispatcher that dispatched you to the scene in this caseJ 6 + donBt recall who the dispatcher
was but my wife is a dispatcher) U 6nd to your ?nowledge, was she involved in this caseJ 6
3o) U #?ay, very well) Did you notice any inconsistencies when you arrived on scene
between what the different witnesses were telling you had happenedJ 6 3ot that + remember)
U Do you recall any inconsistency between 9r) 7oble and 9r) -arate, one saying that 9r)
Coughlin had allegedly ta?en the phone from some third party that nobody ?nows who they are
and then the other saying that 9r) Coughlin just pic?ed the phone up directly from where it was
lyingJ 6 +t was my impression, at the time of the case, + donBt have any recollection of the
third party) + was later reading 9r) -arateBs statement and noticed that a third party was listed in
it but at the time, + didnBt have ?nowledge of that) U + donBt have any further Huestions) 5;E
C#8:5: 9r) Koung, any further HuestionsJ 9:) K#837: 3o, your ;onor)
5;E C#8:5: #?ay) KouBre 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 9r)
CoughlinBs competency going all the way bac? 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 as? both counsel to provide the
evaluator with any documentation or anything else they might have with respect to his
/2%/%&
competency and as? the evaluator to review his prior competency hearings, especially the one
at 3691 when he went there and itBs my understanding the same thing happened there as
well)F
./ (";E2 never was a sanction, ";E& was superseded by the "inal Decree, which e'cised and
superseded such sanction and ultimately awarded the very alimony ";E& purported
Coughlin to have litigated ve'atiously for see?ing for his client*:
2) 6mendment and Correction &) (rocedure and :elief 5opic 1ummary :eferences
Correlation 5able s &%%) #peration and effect, in general >estBs Gey 3umber Digest >estBs
Gey 3umber Digest, Dudgment ? &&0 >estBs Gey 3umber Digest, Dudgment ? &&1 7enerally,
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,Q1R as
between the parties, the amendment or correction relates bac? to the original judgment and
becomes a part of it, and gives the judgment the same effect as though the defects or mista?es
had never e'isted)Q2R ;owever, it usually does not ma?e a new judgment or confer any new or
additional rights,Q&R although any substantive modification of a judgment constitutes an
opening of the judgment,Q!R 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)Q<R 7enerally, an amendment leaves the original judgment effective
and unimpaired)Q .R >here the court stri?es part of a judgment, the remaining portion stands,
so that the court need not enter a new judgment with the stric?en part omitted)Q/R 6n order
amending a clerical error in a judgment does not supersede the judgment or incorporate it into
the order, and the cler?Bs act in correcting the judgment pursuant to that order is ministerial and
does not affect the materiality or finality of the judgment or order)Q%R 6n amendment or
correction of a judgment is binding on those parties who were afforded an opportunity to be
heard,Q,R 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)Q10R
C898$65+@E 18(($E9E35 Cases: 6ny 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$5 Dealer 7roup,
$td) v) 6meriCredit "inancial 1ervices, +nc), &&. 1)>)&d %22 (5e') 6pp) ;ouston 1st Dist)
2011*) QE3D #" 18(($E9E35R
================================================================================ Q"31R #?la)=7aines v)
7aines, 1,!! #G 1!2, 1,! #?la) &!&, 1<1 ()2d &,& (1,!!*) Q"32R 6r?)=5)D) 9oss 5ie Co) v)
9iller, 1., 6r?) .</, 2/. 1)>) <%. (1,2<*) Conn)=Co'e v) Co'e, 2 Conn) 6pp) <!&, !%1 6)2d
%. (1,%!*) +ll)="irst 2an? of #a? (ar? v) :eAe?, 1/, +ll) 6pp) &d ,<., 12% +ll) Dec) %0., <&<
3)E)2d 20 (1st Dist) 1,%,*) #?la)=7aines v) 7aines, 1,!! #G 1!2, 1,! #?la) &!&, 1<1 ()2d
&,& (1,!!*) 6s to amendments nunc pro tunc, see s &%,) Q"3&R Cal)=9cConville v) 1uperior
Court within and for $os 6ngeles County, /% Cal) 6pp) 20&, 2!% () <<& (2d Dist) 1,2.*) #?la)=
9ason v) 1lonec?er, 1,2& #G .,<, ,2 #?la) 22/, 21, () &</ (1,2&*) Q"3!R Conn)=
Commissioner of 5ransp) v) :oc?y 9ountain, $$C, 2// Conn) .,., %,! 6)2d 2<, (200.*) 6s
to the effect of opening a judgment, see s !/0) Q"3<R Cal)=9cConville v) 1uperior Court within
and for $os 6ngeles County, /% Cal) 6pp) 20&, 2!% () <<& (2d Dist) 1,2.*) Q"3.R Cal)=
/2,/%&
9cConville v) 1uperior Court within and for $os 6ngeles County, /% Cal) 6pp) 20&, 2!% ()
<<& (2d Dist) 1,2.*) Q"3/R +nd)=Elliott v) 7ardner, 11& +nd) 6pp) !/, !. 3)E)2d /02 (1,!&*)
Q"3%R Cal)=9cConville v) 1uperior Court within and for $os 6ngeles County, /% Cal) 6pp)
20&, 2!% () <<& (2d Dist) 1,2.*) Q"3,R +owa=1ame? v) 5aylor, 20& +owa 10.!, 21& 3)>) %01
(1,2/*) (a)=6ltoona 5rust Co) v) "oc?ler, &11 (a) !2., 1.< 6) /!0 (1,&&*) Q"310R 3)K)=Emmet
v) :unyon, 1&, 6)D) &10, 12& 3)K)1) 102. (2d DepBt 1,10*) >estlaw) (c* 201& 5homson
:euters) 3o Claim to #rig) 8)1) 7ovt) >or?s) CD1 D8D79E351 s &%%
Consent judgment may supersede pleadings +ll)=City of 9arseilles v) :ad?e, 2%/ +ll)
6pp) &d /</, 22& +ll) Dec) 1%1, ./, 3)E)2d 12< (&d Dist) 1,,/*)
+n fact, Dohn 1pringgate, EsH), agreed to a Consent Decree in the *
Cover=up is always worse than the crime) 8nlawful seiAure of attorneyBs smart phone, micro sd
card, and cellular phone then erasing all the data thereon (clever, ?ind of hard for Coughlin to
prove he didnBt lie to Dudge 3ash ;olmes as she indicated in her 22%12 #rder finding
Coughlin in contempt, summarily, when the data that would provide proof of such is erased)))so
much easier to just have a Dudge say it is so Pby clear and convincing evidenceP absent any due
process being accorded to Coughlin, especially where ;olmesB rendition of the rationale for
finding Coughlin in contempt as verbaliAed at the conclusion of the 22/12 trial date in 11 5:
2.%00 ma?es no mention of any PlyingP or Phaving liedP by Coughlin, much less any allusions
to anything having to do with PrecordingP or Precording devicesP))))the nearly twenty fours
hours it too? for Dudge ;olmes to enter an order e'plaining the basis for such a summary
incarceration (much less one of a practicing attorney, especially where she (li?e :9C Dudge
;oward on 11&011 (three days summary contempt incarceration* and 2DDC Dudge Elliott
(!1,0, summarily incarcerating Coughlin absent any notice or opportunity to be heard on the
matter, for eight days*, 9arshals returning to jail day after property had already been boo?ed
into CoughlinBs personal property at the jail, no warrant, no court order, no good)
(lease copy 1tate 2ar of 3evada on this as Coughlin gets arrested if he sends them anything
directly) >aters, arm of the court, no an e' parte communication, therefore)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./.2/21/#:DE:=:E$E61+37=(:#(E:5K=11=5:=2.%00=&=
&0=12=3ash=:mc=:jc=:pd=>cso=Ging=Clar?=9ar?ed=as=:ecd=2ac?=by=:mc=!=1&=12=:eturn=
to=1ender=(thoa=;y
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./.2%,0<2=2/=12=020!=2.%00=>C1#=Detention=(roperty=
:ecord="orm=$isting=Coughlin=s=1martphone=6=1econdary="lip=(hone=6nd=a=$oose=9icro=
1d=Card=Coughlin=(rope
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./.2/00<&=%=12=2.%00=3ash=2ar?er=Denial=:eturn=of=2ail=100=
>cso=:mc=020!=00.,.
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./.2.,<&10=!=12=#rder=1tri?ing=6ppeal=in=2.%00=020!=0!&!=
3ash=7ardner=Elliott=Elcano=9cgeorge=<10!=&/!
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.//,,,1112=1&=12=>C(D=$eslie=9emo=:egardin=;is=
/&0/%&
Conspiring=>ith=>CD6=and=123=to=$everage=Criminal=(rosecutions=and=5(#s=to=9itigate=
County=Civil=$iability=0./,
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.//,,%%<12=1&=12=020!=.2&&/=2.%00=33D2=9ember=DD6=
Gandaras=Conspiring=>ith=>C(D=$eslie=to=6buse=(rocess=>ith=5(#=2efore="orm=>CD6=
Criminal=Division=DD6=3ow=:D
>C1#Bs (atricia 2ec?manBs &2012 fa' to Coughlin provides: P9arch 1,,2012
5#: -ac? Coughlin
"a' 3umber ,!,=../=/!02
":#9: 5rish 2ec?man, 6dmin 1ecretary 1upervisor
>ashoe County 1heriffs #ffice
"orensic 1cience Division
:E: >C1# 12W1%0<C CW!/,<1
0&202012 0/:!< I&!! ()001001

(er our telephone conversation this afternoon, a""a!$ed is a lis" of i"ems su6mi""ed "o "$e
4as$oe !oun"y *$eriff(s Offi!e 1iden!e/Droper"y 3oom) 5he following items as described
by Deputy Kon?er who submitted them are "$e only i"ems in eiden!e lis"ed under >ashoe
County 1heriffBs #ffice Case 3umber 12W1%0<) 5hese items were received by our secured
evidenceproperty room cler? on Fe6ruary 2>7 2012) *in!e re!eiing "$em into our custody,
they have not been released to anyone and remain in secure evidence) *0)*./- C1++
D%O/17 2-)O&5+ C1++ D%O/1L &30./ 1+1C235C 30MO3 5 !an only respond "o
your in8uiry for "$e i"ems lis"ed a6oe and as of "$e da"e "$e i"ems #ere re!eied 6y our
diision, 5he incidents prior to our receiving the items as you describe them in your email
dated 9arch 1,, 2012 are un?nown to this division) 5he incident on 9arch 1!th as you
described it did not ta?e placeC as these items have not been out of our custody)
5" is my unders"anding "$a" "$ese i"ems #ere su6mi""ed "o eiden!e a" "$e 6e$es" of
Judge /as$ %olmes) 'o release these items we will need a written release from Judge Nash/
Holmes) 5he rest of your inHuiries are outside the purview of this Division) (lease contact the
court and reHuest Dudge 3ash=;olmes authoriAe the release of these items) 5he release may be
submitted to the >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice "orensic 1cience Division via fa' at //<=&2%=
2%&1) 6ny future +nHuiries regarding these +tems need to be made in writing) 5hey may be
submitted to me via the email address tbec?manNwashoecountv)8s or to the 81 (ostal
6ddress of >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice, "orensic 1cience Division, ,11 E (arr 2lvd, :eno,
3@ %,<12)P
1o, >C1# 2ec?man really wants nothing to do with e'plaining what was done with
CoughlinBs separate micro sd card and where such was done with it, and by whom, between the
!:!< p)m) boo?ing of such into CoughlinBs personal property at the >ashoe County jail, and the
22,12 time at which >C1# 2ec?man indicates Pthese itemsP (where such list does not
include the separate micro sd card listed on the 22/12 >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice
Detention (roperty :ecord form)))which is odd because upon Coughlin finally being returned
/&1/%&
his smart phone &/ days later, a micro sd card was placed therein with all the data on it and the
phone erased (Coughlin hereby reHuests the return of the copy of any data contained on any of
the property he entered the jail with on 22/12 to be returned to him immediately*, considering
there was no micro sd card inserted into CoughlinBs smart phone at the time of it being boo?ed
into CoughlinBs personal property by the jail on 22/12, and where the jail noted a separate,
free standing micro sd card amongst CoughlinBs other property*)
;owever, >C1# CummingBs &1&12 email to Coughlin indicates something different)
1o, for all of Deputy +verBs tal? on !/12 upon Coughlin being provided a Psealed envelopeP
from the jailBs evidence room that +ver alleged had not been opened since it was sealed at the
time of its being received by the secured evidenceproperty room cler? (which 2ec?man
indicates occurred on 22,12*, it is ?ind of hard to imagine how a micro sd card that both
2ec?man and Cummings admit was not amongst the items received by the 1heriffBs
Evidence(roperty :oom was able to wiggle its way inside a PsealedP envelope, then insert
itself into CoughlinBs smart phone, and, somehow, erase all the data on itself, and on CoughlinBs
smart phone as well)
>C1# 2ec?man noted P5he following items as described by Depu"y <on'er #$o
su6mi""ed them are "$e only i"ems in eiden!e lis"ed under >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice
Case 3umber 12W1%0<) 5hese items were received by our secured evidenceproperty room
cler? on Fe6ruary 2>7 2012) *in!e re!eiing "$em into our custody, they have not been
released to anyone and remain in secure evidence) *0)*./- C1++ D%O/17 2-)O&5+
C1++ D%O/1L &30./ 1+1C235C 30MO3 5 !an only respond "o your in8uiry for "$e
i"ems lis"ed a6oe and as of "$e da"e "$e i"ems #ere re!eied 6y our diision,,G
1o, it would be good to hear from Deputies Kon?er, ;odge, and +ver as to the
incongruity of the various contradictory statements by the >C1#Bs #fficeBs () 2ec?man,
Deputy D) ;odge, and 5) Cummings, especially in conjunction with :9C 9arshal Deighton
(spelled 1gt) PDaytonP on the the note the >C1#Bs #ffice provided
Coughlin: http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%0.20/&=21=12=(er=Dudges=#rders=9arshal=
Deighton=:mc=11=5r=2.%00 * indicating to Coughlin that he PdonBt ?now what yer tal?inB
BboutP while his eyes loo? upward and to the right as Coughlin loo?ed into them)
Dudge ;olmesB &&012 #rder has an interesting way of putting things: PP#:DE: +5 +1
#:DE:ED that the >ashoe County 1heriffs #ffice shall release to the Defendant, -6C;6:K
26:GE: C#87;$+3, "$ree i"ems "a'en from $im on Fe6ruary 277 205 27 al "$e 4as$oe
Coun"y 3egional De"en"ion Fa!ili"y during $is 6oo'ing for in!ar!era"ion pursuan" "o
imposi"ion of a C-day ;ail sen"en!e for Con"emp" of Cour" in "$e a6oe-en"i"led !ase7 "o #i"@
one *amsung Cell D$oneL one 2-)o6ile Cell D$oneL and one &raun 1le!"ri! 3aKor, as
identified in Case 3umber >C 12=1%0< and referred to under Control I C=!/,<1 ) Dated this
2,th day of 9arch, 2012) 1 Dorothy 3ash ;olmes :eno 9unicipal DudgeP
P1ubject: 9issing property
Date: 5ue, 1& 9ar 2012 10:1!:<, =0/00
/&2/%&
"rom: DCampbellNwashoecounty)8s
9r) Coughlin: Kour email regarding your missing secure property was forwarded to
me for response) + apologiAe for the delay in responding to you but it too? me a little while to
figure out the issue) Kour two cell phones and electric raAor were put into evidence at the
reHuest of Dudge 3ash=;olmes on Fe6ruary 287 2012) +n order for us to release them to you,
we will need an order from Dudge 3ash=;olmes that the evidence can be released to you)
5o ma?e this matter smoother for you all documentation should reflect >ashoe County
1heriffLs #ffice case number 12=1%0< and evidence number C=!/<,1) 5he court case number
corresponding to this issue is 115:2.%00) +f you have any Huestions all of my contact
information is listed below)
Debi Campbell, Detention #perations 9anager >ashoe County 1heriffBs #ffice ,11
(arr 2lvd :eno, 3@ %,<12=1000 (//<* &2%=2%,& (#ffice* (//<* &2%=.&0< ("64*
dcampbellNwashoecounty)8sP
6dditionally, the 22/12 >ashoe County Dail +nmate Detention (roperty :ecord "orm
((roperty 5ag 02/0, 2oo?ing 3umber 12&!20* lists amongst CoughlinBs property two cellular
phones (one blac?, one grey* and a Pmicro sd cardP, which, necessarily would be separate from
either phone were listed separately amongst the other items therewith (ie, Pelectric shaverP,
etc)*
(erhaps such Pmicro sd card P is what Dudge 3ash ;olmes was referring to in her
sworn testimony at CoughlinBs 111!12 formal disciplinary hearing) :eno City 6ttorney Don
ChristensenBs obstructionist tactics in failing to even provide Coughlin the policemarshal
report (the full one, not just the probable cause sheet* incident to such 22/12 summary
contempt arrest is troubling, as is :9C 9arshals 1cott Coppa and Doel ;arley failing to obey
CoughlinBs 11.12 1C: 110 subpoena, and the e'tent to which the 33D2 (anel Chair
Echeverria and or 33D2 2oard Chair 1usich have apparently failed to (CoughlinBs view is that
the (anel Chair lac?s jurisdiction to adjudicate 1C: 110(&*=(!* 9otions to Uuash 1ubpoenas
(li?e that filed by 123 Ging on 11212* report the contempt of 9arshals Coppa and ;arley to
Pa district court judgeP in the 1econd Dudicial District Court for the implementation of contempt
proceedings) #f course, the 2DDC itself, with Dudges "lanagan, Elliott, and Cler? of Court
;astings, and 6sst) Cler? of Court >ise has its own answering to do with respect to CoughlinBs
10&112 1C: 110 subpoena thereon)
+t is li?ely that Chief Dudge ;ardy is not yet aware of such failure to comply with
CoughlinBs 1C: 110 subpoenas given the nature of the approach >CD6 DD6 >atts=@ial
typically ta?es) 5he fact that the >CD6Bs #fficeBs >atts=@ial subseHuently violated 3evada
law and a bevy of :(CBs in moving for a >or?place ;arassment 5(#E(# against Coughlin
on behalf of the very >C(D $eslie and the >C(D whom was representing Coughlin as of the
day >atts=@ial filed his 5(# application, especially where the >CD6Bs #ffice was
prosecuting Coughlin (too many conflicts, head turning to mush trying to fathom the
/&&/%&
illegitimacy of the approach ta?en by the >CD6Bs #ffice, former >CD6Bs #ffice lifelong
prosecutors turned :DC Dudges Clifton and (earson (whom refuse to release the audio transcript
of the 121%12 e' parte hearing wherein >C(D $eslie admitted to violating his duty of
confidentiality as to his then client Coughlin, alleging he had the 123Bs David Clar? and (at
GingBs blessing in doing so
9aybe 9arshal 1cott Coppa, who pulled >ashoe County Dail Deputy Cheung aside
while Coughlin was being boo?ed after 9arshal Coppa and 9arshal Dean (ierre PD(P 9oser
transported Coughlin to the >ashoe County jail upon Dudge ;olmes summarily incarcerating
him on 22/12 at !:1< p)m) ought be made to e'plain the inconsistencies in >C1# CampbellBs
&1&12 statement that PKour two cell phones and electric raAor were put into evidence at the
reHuest of Dudge 3ash=;olmes on "ebruary 2%, 2012) P
P9emorandum
5o: -ach Coughlin file, :C:12=0./,%0, (D number 1!!%2<
"rom: Dim $eslie Chief Deputy (ublic Defender
:e: 5hreat
Date: 121&12
#n the above date, + re!eied a re"urn !all from Da"ri!' =ing and Daid Clar' a" "$e
*"a"e &ar) 5hey were responding to my email to Ging yesterday regarding possible threat by
Coughlin as contained in an email Coughlin had sent to me, other attorneys in this office, and
several other recipients) Copy of that email is attached hereto as E'hibit P1P and copy of the
website that the end of the first paragraph of the email leads to is attached hereto as E'hibit
P2P) :ing and Clar5 both agreed that the email %rom Coughlin' in conte8t and 2ith the
re%erence to the 2eb#ite 2ith the ideo cli/ and o"$er ma"erials %rom JCa/e (earJ'
con#titute# a threat o% -iolence again#t me and other attorney# in our o%%ice)
5hey disclosed that they had had their own problems with Coughlin, in!luding $aing "o
$ae armed se!uri"y a" $is *"a"e &ar $earing and "$a" "$ey ea!$ $ad !onsidered o6"aining
res"raining orders agains" $im and pro6a6ly #ill do so upon !omple"ion of "$e &ar
pro!eeding) 5hey both stated that Pheightened alertP is appropriate in light of the email he sent
and generally when dealing with 9r) Coughlin) 2$ey "old me "$a" if 5 refer "$e email in
8ues"ion "o la# enfor!emen" "$ey #ould no" !onsider i" a 6rea!$ of a""orney !lien"
!onfiden"iali"y under 3ule 1,6A!B and also because 9r) Coughlin includes so many recipients
in the email that he has waived confidentiality) D indicated + was intended to as? to be relieved
of the remaining case our office has with Coughlin, and they agreed + could and should do so) +
am moving forward with as?ing to be relieved from CoughlinBs case in :C:12=0./,%0 and am
also considering possible referral of the email to law enforcement) E3DP
http:www)scribd)comdoc1<!/1<,!<11=1!=12=020!=0.&&!1=>CD6=Gandaras=s=7alli=
Email=6ttachment=9otion=to=Uuash=1ubpoenas
http:www)scribd)comdoc1<!/1<!/.11=1&=12="a'=020!=>cda=>atts=@ial=:esponse=to=
/&!/%&
1ubpoena=a,
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%00!,.12=!=12=020!=Email=to=123=and=>C(D=$eslie=9ore=
of=the="ormal=7rievance=6gainst=1?au=$eslie=Dogan=Koung=Etc=0.<.&0=020!=0./,%0=
0.&&!1=202<=0.1!
http:www)scribd)comdoc1.//,,,1112=1&=12=>C(D=$eslie=9emo=:egardin=;is=
Conspiring=>ith=>CD6=and=123=to=$everage=Criminal=(rosecutions=and=5(#s=to=9itigate=
County=Civil=$iability=0./,
http:www)scribd)comdoc1<<2!!1&12=.=1&=020!=0.&&!1=6#12=01=Email="rom=>CD6=
6D6=;elAer=:e=(lease=:espond=to=1ubpoenas=+=Did=3ot=:ead=5his=and=+ndicates=
+ntercepted=Email=1ent=to=DD6=>
http:www)scribd)comdoc1<!/1<.1/12=20=12=020!="ull="#"C#$=.0/=123=5(#=
6pplication=a,=Copy=Copy=Copy
1 ! 1& :DC :C( 2012=000.0/ >or?place 5(#
010!1&coughlin2 http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVDhC9lf7h(fc
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%10&/112=1%=12=<,,=>cpd=>atts=5po=6pplication=1tamped=
"a'ed="ull=020!
1 4 1& "C CP2012 000599 @P9 hearing
01041&coughlin10 htt/011youtu.be18+?9h%/o,25
$""p@//###,s!ri6d,!om/do!/136383C07/>-8-11-"o-1-3-13-emails-"o-reno-go-addresses-020F-
60838-26800-22176-26F0C-006>6-12F20
http:www)scribd)comdoc1&.&%&0.1200,=to=12=2!=12=020!=Emails=to=3vbar=org=,2<=
(ages=2ate=1tamped=3eeds=6ttachments=(art1=Document=(art
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%1210!11=1.=12=1?au=7rievance=9aterials=Combined=020!=
0.&&!1
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%120!!11=1!=12=020!=020!=0.&&!1=Email=to=>CD6=(anel=
123=:C6=33D2=City=6tty=1?au=8pdated=Discovery=in=i(hone=Case
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%11,!111=1&=12=020!=.2&&/=202<=.&&!1=5ranscript=of=
(roceedings=1%,1..gw="ull :eally, really bad wor? by :eno City 6ttorney 1?au and >C(D
/&</%&
2iray Dogan here, and :DC Dudge 1ferraAAaBs approach spea?s for itself)
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%11%%!11=%=1&=020!=0.&&!1=202<=5ranscript=9otion=
;earing=3ovember=1&=2012=1%/<!,bgw="ull ditto to the 111&12 hearing e'cept this 11%1&
hearing was held e' parte, without Coughlin present, though the rest of the gang were notified
of the hearing and, of course, attended (:DC Dudge 1ferraAAa, :C6 1?au, >CD6 DD6 -)
Koung, etc)*
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%121&!11=2.=12=020!=.&&!1=:C6=1?au=s=:eHuest=for=
6udio=of=11=%=12=and=11=1&=12=;earings=Compare=to=:DC=:ejection=of=%=<=1&=of=Coughlins=
:e=$ac?=of=(roof=of
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%2/02%11=/=12=020!=0.&&!1=d=:C6=1?au=s=9otion=for=
(rotective=#rder=to=Uuash=1ubpoenas=and=for=(rotective=#:der=:E=+ssuance=of=1ubpoenas
http:www)scribd)comdoc1./%2/.&/11=.=12=020!=.2&&/=Dig=1C:=110=1ubpoena=on=
9arshal=;arley=Coppa=Deighton=5ownsend=and=:9C=Custodian=of=:ecords=2.%00=&/!=
0<10!
11 0% 12 :DC ;earing before Dudge 1ferraAAa where :eno City 6ttorney Creig 1?au lies to
compel attendance at emergency hearing on 9otion to
Uuash CoughlinBs subpoenas:
http:www)youtube)comwatchJvVf$u%hcHwpdo
111&12 follow up hearing that just had to be schedule for the day before CoughlinsB formal
disciplinary hearing in .2&&/, even where Dudge 1ferraAAa and :C6 1?au had to lie to
accomplish service of notice of the hearing, some might say (Cliff 3otes version is 1ferraAAa
Huashes any subpoena Coughlin served on anyone in government*:
http:www)youtube)comwatchJvV.l"(;%s&Ggw
P"rom: Gandaras, 9ary
1ent: 5hursday, December 1&, 2012 10:20 69
5o: $eslie, Dim
1ubject: :E: 5he 5hree EBsC wcpd failure to provide essential ,11 call cd discovery of %1& and
%1/, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012=0.<.&0
+mportance: ;igh
Dim:
+ believe that you should send this) 1upreme Court :ule 10!(a* authoriAes 1tate bar counsel to
investigate all matters involving possible attorney misconduct or incapacity called to bar
counselBs attention, whether by grievance or both) 5his potentially involves misconduct
(violation of law* and incapacity)
9ary Gandaras Deputy District 6ttorney Civil Division >ashoe County
//< =&&/ =</2& direct phone
/&./%&
=====#riginal 9essage===="rom: $eslie, Dim 1ent: >ednesday, December 12, 2012 <:11 (9 5o:
Gandaras, 9ary 1ubject: :E: 5he 5hree EBsC wcpd failure to provide essential ,11 call cd
discovery of %1& and %1/, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012 =0.<.&0
5han?s, please do) ;e came to our office after my email to you and caused a disturbance) >e
called the police, but he fled before they arrived) jim
=====#riginal 9essage===="rom: Gandaras, 9ary 1ent: >ednesday, December 12, 2012 &:1/
(9 5o: $eslie, Dim 1ubject: :E: 5he 5hree EBsC wcpd failure to provide essential ,11 call cd
discovery of %1& and %1/, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012=0.<.&0
+ will have to review this tomorrow and get bac? to you)
9ary Gandaras Deputy District 6ttorney Civil Division >ashoe County
//< =&&/ =</2& direct phone
=====#riginal 9essage===="rom: $eslie, Dim
1
5he below email from 9r) Coughlin contains a reference at the end of the first paragraph to a
website containing a video
clip from the movie Cape "ear) (lease advise whether any action is reHuired of our office or
yours regarding this
possible veiled or indirect threat of violence against attorneys in this office by 9r) Coughlin)
1ent: >ednesday, December 12, 2012 2:<, (9 5o: Gandaras, 9ary 1ubject: ">: 5he 5hree
EBsC wcpd failure to provide essential ,11 call cd discovery of %1& and %1/, 2012 to Coughlin
in rcr2012=0.<.&0
9ary:
(lease review my transmittal to (atric? Ging at the bar, below, and let me ?now if + should do
anything else from a civil perspective)
5han?s,
Dames 2) $eslie, EsH)
Chief Deputy (ublic Defender
=====#riginal 9essage===="rom: $eslie, Dim 1ent: >ednesday, December 12, 2012 2:!, (9 5o:
Bpatric??Nnvbar)orgB 1ubject: ">: 5he 5hree EBsC wcpd failure to provide essential ,11 call cd
discovery of %1& and %1/, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012 =0.<.&0
9r) Ging:
5han? you,
Dames 2) $eslie, EsH) Chief Deputy (ublic Defender >ashoe County (ublic DefenderBs #ffice
&<0 1outh Center 1treet
"ifth "loor :eno, 3@ %,<0,
=====#riginal 9essage===="rom:
-ach Coughlin Qmailto:AachcoughlinNhotmail)comR
1ent: >ednesday, December 12, 2012 2:&< (9
5o: $eslie, DimC 2osler, DeremyC Dogan, 2irayC 7oodnight, Doseph >C "ortier, ChrisC 5uttle,
1teveC Gandaras, 9aryC Koung,
/&//%&
-achC s?aucNreno)govC wongdNreno)govC ?adlicjNreno)govC complaintsNnvbar)orgC
cvellisNbhfs)comC
jeNeloreno)comC patric??Nnvbar)orgC davidcNnvbar)orgC rosecNnvbar)orgC
laurapNnvbar)orgC s?entNs?entlaw)comC
mi?eNtahoelawyer)comC eifert)ntaNatt)netC nevtelassnNsbcglobal)netC fflahertyNdlpfd)comC
fflahertyNdyerlawrence)com
1ubject: 5he 5hree EBsC wcpd failure to provide essential ,11 call cd discovery of %1& and
%1/, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 =0.<.&0
5he 5rial yesterday in :C:2012=0.<.&0 featured e'tended discussions regarding the failure of
the >C(D, Dogan, and $eslie, to turn over discovery propounded by DD6 Koung in the form
of cdBs featuring ,11 calls DD6 Koung provided to the >C(D on %1&12 and %1/12 ))) 6nd
the heavy hitters were there, too (Elliot 1attler* ))))) despite numerous written reHuests from
Coughlin that the >C(D do so, and multiple trips to the >C(D personally by Coughlin to pic?
such materials up, and despite more flip flopping on their story by $eslie and Dogan regarding
whether they ever gave Coughlin some pac?age of materials responsive to CoughlinBs reHuest
for his PfileP ))) 2ut, Dim $eslie is stuc? with the /2/12 date he mentions in his email, then he
is stuc? with what his recent email wherein he purports to have therein digitally transmitted
Coughlin his PfileP, which obviously does not include the cdBs of ,11 calls)))P
-achary 2ar?er Coughlin 1!/1 E) ,th 1t) :eno, 3@ %,<12 5el and "a': ,!, ../
+s it not ?ind of an issue (e' parte communications, e'trajudicial source rule, etc* that the :9C
Dudges have admitted to having meetings together regarding Coughlin, even passing around
Dudge >) 7ardnerBs three year old attorney fee award in D@0%=011.% (which is particularly
suspect when considering that such !1&0, #rder 6fter 5rial was vacated by virtue of the
language at its conclusion directing opposing counsel 1pringgate to prepare the "inal Decree
consistent with such #rder 6fter 5rial where 1pringsna?eBs <210, (roposed "inal Decree was
eschewed by 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner in favor of one (see her .1,0, "inal Decree of Divorce
that e'cised the attorney fee award and added the very alimony award where such fee award
was premised upon the idea that CoughlinBs ma?ing a claim for alimony was Pnot based in law
or factPJ
Dudge 3ash ;olmes is in flagrant violation of 3:1 1%,)0&0, does not the :eno City 6ttorneyBs
#ffice, as the attorney for the municipality which owns the :eno 9unicipal Court, have any
e'posure where it countenances such willful misconductJ
/&%/%&
(3#5E: tellingly, the (anel fails to identify either contempt order as a Ecriminal convictionF in
this :(C %)!(b* conte't, which is counter the characteriAations of such the (anel ma?es
elsewhere) 7iven this admission by the (anel that such contempts orders are not EconvictionsF
of EcrimesF, the 1C: 111(<* approach falls apart, and the 123 is stuc? with meeting a clear
and convincing evidence burden of proof that it completely failed to even attempt to meet) 6t
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 pic? them apart, conduct much more
e'tension cross=e'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 :eno 9arshals*, Dudge ;oward, Dudge 3ash ;olmes, Dudge >) 7ardner, etc), etc) 5he :DC
and 2DDC decided not to join the party Ging threw, and for good reason) 5he :9C either was
not smart enough to do that, or had to deal with the rash, imprudent, acts of judicial conduct
that it had already committed to record (.0%&% (abuse of the contempt power, misconduct in
willfully violating Canon 1 :ule 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 3:1
1/%)!0<, ridiculously biased approach throughout the case (not right to confront the arresting
officer even*, the :9CBs $isa 7ardner trashing the timely notice of appeal Coughlin filed on
.2%12, and, li?e in the case resulting in .0%&%, the :9C willingly and ?nowingly
countenance a multitude of instances of misconduct by City of :eno prosecutors and the
contract based court appointed defense counsel the :9C or City of :eno employs*, and Dudge
3ash ;olmesB hysterical offensive, etc)
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1&0:! to 1&0:2<* (E'hibit ! mar?ed)* 2K 9:) :ing0 U +Bm holding
in my hand an order that was signed by you dated the 2%th of "ebruary, 2012, in the matter of
11 5:, which + assume stands for traffic, 2.%00 21) 6nd itBs an order finding the defendant in
contempt of court and imposing sanctions) Do you recall e'ecuting such an orderJ 6 Kes, + did)
+ wrote it myself, and + signed it, and + found him in contempt, in direct contempt during the
proceeding, and right after that did the order) U +Bm reading from (age & of your order, which is
the final page that has your signature on it before the service, certificate of service) 2ut in that
final paragraph it says, P5he court finds that the defendantBs actions were intentional and done
in utter disregard and contempt for the court, and in the presence of the court, for purposes of
disrupting and delaying the proceedings and dishonoring the rule of law and this court, and
appearing therefore, the following sanctions are imposed)P ;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1!/:12 to
1!/:21* U +s it proper for you to call something summary criminal contempt when you cite to a
civil contempt statuteJ 6 + donBt ?now what is proper in your boo?, 9r) Coughlin) + ?now that
the behavior that + saw, + ?now that + held you in contempt, + held a precise == you committed
direct contempt in front of me in my court == U Criminal contempt or civil contemptJ 6 == +
held you in contempt on the spot, and then + went and wrote the order)
/&,/%&
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1!%:% to 1<1:1* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Dudge, did your order
characteriAe it as misdemeanor criminal contemptJ 6 + 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) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bll note on (age & at line 1! it says, 9isdemeanor
of criminal contempt, a violation of 3:1 22)010) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hich order are you
referring to, 9r) CoughlinJ 9:) C#87;$+3: "ebruary 2%th order) (age &, line 1!)
9:) :ing0 + thin? itBs E'hibit 3o) !) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: #?ay) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U
Dudge, is 3:1 22)010 a civil contempt statuteJ 9:) :ing0 #bjection) 5;E >+53E11: 9r)
Coughlin, you can consult the statutes) + donBt have my boo?s right in front of me) 3:1
identifies in Chapter 22 contempt) 6nd the :eno 9unicipal Code has sections relating that or
incorporating those sections into the :eno 9unicipal Code) Either way, what you did in front
of me was direct contempt, and + held you in direct contempt, and you went to jail for five days
because of it) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U +s it permissible for a judge to call a civil contempt
statute a criminal contempt statute, vis=a=vis == this is 22)010, a civil contempt statute) 6nd the
law in 3evada does have 3:1 1,, == + believe itBs 2!0 == which is the criminal contempt
statute) +s it permissible for you to cite to a == easier to meet civil contempt statute, and then
recharacteriAe it as criminal contemptJ 9:) :ing0 #bjection) 5;E >+53E11: 9r) Coughlin,
+Bm not going to argue the law with you) Kou have the statutes there) Kou can consult them
yourself) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U #n (age & at line !, sub ), == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: >hich
e'hibit, sirJ 9:) C#87;$+3: E'hibit !, your ;onor) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U Kou wrote,
defendant lying to the court in response to direct Huestions posed by the court) >hat were the
lies in your vague order that lac?s any specificity to support a summary contempt finding, what
were those lies that you failed to elucidate in your orderJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r) Coughlin,
that Huestion is argumentative) Do you want to rephrase itJ 9:) C#87;$+3: 1ure) 2K 9:)
C#87;$+3: U >hat were you referring to when you wrote, PDefendant lying to the court in
response to direct HuestionsPJ 6 >ell, 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 ?now) + believe you probably were) 6t the same time there were things that you
and the prosecutor were arguing about with regard to discovery) 6nd she disagreed with you
and said you were lying to her about that) 6nd there were other items that you went bac? and
forth about that appeared to me that you were not totally honest about))))P
Dudge 3ash ;olmes s?ips from wanting such to be Eirrefutable proofF to admitting she only
though Coughlin EprobablyF had done what she entered an #rder in ";E< finding that he had
done Eby clear and convincing evidenceF:
/!0/%&
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1&/:1, to 1&%:,* 9r) Coughlin) 1o E'hibit < is admitted) (E'hibit <
admitted into evidence)* 2K 9:) G+37: U Dudge ;olmes, was it your intention == you made
these findings by clear and convincing evidence, which is the standard of proof necessary for
disciplinary proceedings) >as it your intention that this order be accepted by the panel as proof
of his == as irrefutable proof of his violation of these rulesJ 6 Kes, it was) 6nd +Bm not
intending to substitute myself for the panel) + understand, and did understand, that it was their
job to conclude that) 2ut + did want to tell them that in my e'perience, and based on my judicial
position, + did find that established by that particular level of proof) 6nd + do believe that it has
that, in my e'perience with him)F
1uper slippery Dudge ;olmes could not decide what caused her suspicion that Coughlin was
recording, whether it was having hear that Coughlin Ehas been ?nown to do thatF or whether
her suspicions were aroused by Coughlin as?ing to go to the bathroom upon her as?ing him
Epoint blan?F (+ love a good Epoint blan?F, really sounds li?e the judge is doing a hit or
something, li?e at Epoint blan? rangeF* in court if your were recordingF:
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((age 1!0:, to 1!0:1.* 5;E >+53E11: 9r) Coughlin as?ed for a
bathroom brea?) + originally said + would not give the brea?) 6nd then + said that + would, but
he had to leave all his materials in the courtroom) 0nd 5 said "$a" 6e!ause 5 suspe!"ed "$a" $e
#as "ape-re!ording "$e !our" pro!eedings #i"$ou" my permission7 and #i"$ou" as'ing
permission firs", &e!ause $e(s apparen"ly 6een 'no#n "o do "$a")))F
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1!1:2< to 1!2:10* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hat evidence, and
what objectJ 6 + just described it as some sort of a recording device) 4$e"$er i" #as a !ell
p$one and $e "oo' "$e *5) !ard ou" or #$a"eer i" #as7 5 #asn(" sure) 2ut + had as?ed you,
9r) Coughlin, point blan? in court if you were recording, and you told me no) 6nd then you
as?ed immediately to go to the bathroom, and + said no) 6nd then you 6egged and
s8uirmed and said you had to relieve yourself, and + had to let you go to the bathroom) 6nd
then when you did that, you went into the bathroom ==P
;E6:+37 = @ol) +, ((ages 1<1:/ to 1<&:1<* 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hen you say,
alternately you were pro6a6ly lying) 6nd then you put in your order, P+ find by clear and
convincing evidence that he lied,P is "$a" am6iguous "$ereJ ;ow do you reconcile thatJ 6
;ow do + reconcile whatJ U 5he fact that your order says you find by clear and convincing
evidenceJ 6 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 Fou<re #aying you %ound by clear and con-incing e-idence that a licen#ed
attorney lied to the court. ?nd then you characteriMe that a# /robably' 2ell' 7 5ind o%
thin5 he 2a#. 7 thin5 he 2a#' becau#e 7 5no2 #ome unattributed hear#ay that 7<m going to
ba#e it on. 7<m going to get the order 7 thin5 i# 2rong about the bathroom brea5. 7<m not
going to ha-e a mar#hal #ign an a%%ida-it. 2$en 5(m going "o remi? a !riminal !on"emp"
s"a"u"e #i"$ a summary !on"emp" s"a"u"e and pi!' and !$oose and ma'e i" as re"alia"ory as 5
possi6ly !an, 5sn(" "$a" a fair !$ara!"eriKa"ion of your approa!$ as a ;udgeJ
/!1/%&
(3#5E: +n re >hitney, 1! Cal)!5h 1 3ote: >e also accept the commissionBs conclusion that
Dudge >hitneyBs 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 6dams v) Commission on Dudicial
(erformance (1,,<* 10 Cal)!5h %.., %//=%/% Q!2 Cal):ptr)2D .0., %,/ ()2D <!!RC 7ubler v)
Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%!* &/ Cal)&D 2/, !.=!/, <, Q20/ Cal):ptr) 1/1, .%%
()2D <<) Gloepfer v) Commission on Dudicial (erformance (1,%,* !, Cal)&D %2., %&%T%.&,
2.! Cal):ptr) 100, /%2 ()2D 2&, Qwillful and prejudicial misconduct for failing to protect the
rights of defendants, and abuses of power involving contempt procedure, orders to show cause,
and bench warrantsRC Cannon v) Commission on Dudicial Uualifications, supra, 1! Cal)&D ./%,
.,&T.,!, 122 Cal):ptr) //%, <&/ ()2D %,% Qfailure to follow the law regarding contempt
proceduresR)**
)))9:) EC;E@E::+6: Dudge, you donBt need to answer that Huestion) 5hat was way out of
line, and e'tremely argumentative) 5;E >+53E11: 5han? you) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: Do you
want to as? a legitimate Huestion, 9r) CoughlinJ 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U 4$a" 6asis do you
$ae "o asser" in your order "$a" defendan" lying "o "$e !our" in response "o dire!" 8ues"ions
posed 6y "$e !our" #i"$ regard "o $is re!ording "$e pro!eedingsJ 6 5he opinion is self=
e'planatory) + do not have it in front of me, 9r) Coughlin) Kou have access to the tapes and the
opinion) 6nd + stand by what + wrote, and + stand by the proceedings that day) U 2ut itBs ?ind of
hard to pic? inconsistencies in your testimony today and those materials when you refuse to
testify now, isnBt itJ 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 6rgumentative, 9r) Coughlin) Kou are not assisting
yourself here) 9:) C#87;$+3: +Bm as?ing her) +tBs a Huestion) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 3o) 9:)
C#87;$+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 == listen to the recording, and therefore she is
not subjecting herself to putting forth any further inconsistencies) 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 9r)
Coughlin, the time for argument is later, not now) 9:) C#87;$+3: #?ay) 1o +Bm objecting)
+tBs nonresponsive) 2K 9:) C#87;$+3: U >hat was your basis == 9:) EC;E@E::+6: 5hat
objection is overruled)P
/!2/%&
3#5E: Dudge 3ash ;olmesB 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 ";E ! is
file stamped 22%12, with &:!/ p)m) +ndicated as the time of filing) ;ouston and the body of
summary contempt jurisprudence place a high burden on entering such orders nearly
immediately after summarily incarcerating one (ie, Dudge 3ash ;olmes does not get twenty
four hours to have her 9arshals go down to the >ashoe County Dail and pull some s"rings 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 :9C and >C1# have since lied about in
attempting to cover such up, but, darn it, Deputy ;odge 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 ;olmes in response
to her enormously inappropriate sua sponte interrogation of him immediately after the one
restroom brea? 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)
5he fact that Echeverria and the 123 have clumsily sought to ma?e 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
Clar? @ellis tal?ing himself out of his guilty 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 :#6 (where Gent missed such because he admitted not to
loo?ing 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
just what will be included in the :#6, and just how such determination are come to*)
1incerely,
-achary 2ar?er Coughlin 1!/1 E) ,th 1t) :eno, 3@ %,<12 5el and "a': ,!, ../
.% 6ctually, in the 3inth Circuit, per $opeA=(astrana, shoplifting or petty larceny is not a
EseriousF crime: 8)1) v) $opeA=(astrana, 2!! ")&d 102< (,th Cir) 2001*: P>e vacate the
sentence and remand for resentencing on the grounds that $opeA=(astranaBs prior conviction
/!&/%&
for shoplifting should not have been counted in determining his criminal history
category))))+n 1,,&, Defendant was convicted of violating :eno 9unicipal Code 1 %)10)0!<
(1,,%* (shoplifting* (3#5E: such provision of the :eno 9unicipal Code has since merged
together with the crime Coughlin was convicted of, misdemeanor petty larceny under :9C
%)10)0!0* after he attempted to steal a wallet valued at O1, from a local department store) ;e
was fined O200 and sentenced to si'teen hours of community service (3#5E: Coughlin was
fined O&.0)00 and was not sentenced to any community service reHuirement or other
probation whatsoever*))))>e review de novo a district courtBs determination that a prior
conviction should be counted for criminal history purposes under the 1entencing 7uidelines)
8nited 1tates v) 1andoval, 1<2 ")&d 11,0, 11,1 (,th Cir) 1,,%*) (3#5E: as such, the
3evada 1upreme Court should review any (anel (or its own of ./12 or the te't of 1C:
111(.*, though, to be clear, such only spea?s to whether a temporary suspension is in order,
not to whether any convictions for offenses listed in 1C: 111(.* are EseriousF*
determination that any of those the (anel purport to be EseriousF offense Ecriminal
convictionsF are, in fact, EseriousF*
5he issue sHuarely presented by this case, therefore, is whether a minor #ho/li%ting
o%%en#e is Esimilar toF any listed offense) 6s discussed below, we hold that it is similar "o "$e
offense of insuffi!ien" funds !$e!')))"irst, we turn to the Huestion of what is meant by Esimilar
toF as used in 8)1)1)7) S !61)2(c*(1*) >e then compare $opeA=(astranaBs shoplifting
conviction to the enumerated offense of Einsufficient funds chec?)F "inally, we conclude that
the two offenses are similar for the purpose of calculating a defendantBs criminal history score)
6) E1imilar 5oF as used in S !61)2(c* >e have articulated two separate tests for
determining whether a particular offense is Esimilar toF an offense listed in S !61)2(c*) +n
8nited 1tates v) 9artineA (Clyde*, ,0< ")2d 2<1 (,th Cir)1,,0*, we e'plained the rationale for
e'cluding the listed offenses: they Eoffer no 6asis for predi!"ing fu"ure signifi!an" !riminal
a!"ii"y 6y "$e defendan"C the conduct they involve is not uniformly criminaliGed and when it
is the penalty is usually light)F +d) at 2<&) 8nder the 9artineA (Clyde* test, an offense must
Eoffer a more substantial basis for predicting future criminal activity than do the minorF lis"ed
offenses be%ore it may be counted to2ard# a de%endant<# criminal hi#tory #core) 8nited
1tates v) 1andoval, 1<2 ")&d at 11,2) +n essence, this test defines Esimilar toF on the basis of
the underlying seriousness of the offense)2 +n 8nited 1tates v) 9artineA (Carlos*, ., ")&d ,,,
(,th Cir)1,,<*, however, we chose not to apply the 9artineA (Clyde* test and instead defined
Esimilar toF with reference only to E#$e"$er "$e a!"ii"y underlying I"$e prior offenseJ is
similar "o "$e a!"ii"ies underlying "$e lis"ed offenses,F 9artineA (Carlos*, ., ")&d at 1000
(citing 9artineA (Clyde*, ,0< ")2d at 2<<=2<. (>allace D), concurring**)&
8nder either of these approaches, $opeA=(astranaBs conviction for s$oplif"ing is
similar to an insufficient funds chec? offense and therefore e?!luded under 8)1)1)7) S
!61)2(c*(1*)!
2) 9artineA (Clyde*: Eseriousness of the offenseF test) 6pplying the 9artineA
(Clyde* Eseriousness of "$e offense9 "es"7 #e $old "$a" s$oplif"ing is no more indi!a"ie of
fu"ure !riminal 6e$aior "$an is passing a 6ad !$e!'))))
5he core Huestion under 9artineA (Clyde* is 2hether the o%%en#e at i##ue ;o%%erU#V
UaV ba#i# %or /redicting %uture #igni%icant criminal acti-ity)F ,0< ")2d at 2<&) 5f so, the
/!!/%&
prior offense Eis signifi!an" for sentencing purposesF ))) +d) at 2<!) *o!ie"y(s in"eres" in
punis$ing "$e offense i#' o% cour#e' rele-ant to thi# Aue#tion. ?l#o relean" is "$e leel of
punis$men" imposed %or a -iolation) 6pplication 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 li?ely distort
than improve the process for W determining an appropriate sentence)F +d) at 2<&C 1ee 8nited
1tates v) Gemp, ,&% ")2d 1020, 102& (,th Cir)1,,1* (9artineA (Clyde* analysis includes a
comparison of the elements of the listed offense and the prior offense*))))we ta?e 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 leel of
!ulpa6ili"y inoled, and the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates a
li?elihood of recurring criminal conduct) 8nited 1tates v) ;ardeman, ,&& ")2d 2/%, 2%1 (<th
Cir)1,,1*)
Both shoplifting and insufficient funds chec5 are punished under the same provision
of Nevada law) 3):)1) S 20<)0%&2) 5he penalty for the two crimes is identical and depends
entirely on the value of the property ta?en) 3):)1) S 20<)0%&<) 5his indi!a"es "$a" "$e "#o
offenses are per!eied as e8ually serious, +n the present case, the defendant received a
minimal sen"en!e of 16 $ours of !ommuni"y seri!e and a E200 fine) 5he a!"ual
punis$men" imposed7 "$erefore7 :pla!es I"$e s$oplif"ing !oni!"ionJ in an argua6ly lesser
!a"egoryF than the listed offense of insufficient funds chec?)< 8nited 1tates v) 6lmodovar,
1,,. >$ 11!,&0, \< (E)D)(a)1,,.*)
+n addition, the two offenses share many of the same elements) 5here are four
distinct ways to violate the :eno 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) :)9)C) S %)10)0!<(a*(2*, (a*(&* (1,,%*) Despite
these minor variations, the essential elements of a shoplifting violation under the :eno
9unicipal Code are 1* willfully 2* ta?ing 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 chec? under 3evada $aw if he E?nowingly W draws or passes a chec?, and in e'change
obtains property or services, if he ?nows that the chec? will not be paid when presented)F
3):)1) S 20<)0%&2)
2oth offenses reHuire willfulness) 2oth offenses reHuire the conversion of the
property of another) 6nd both offenses reHuire the specific intent to deprive the owner of the
value of that property) 5he two offenses are similar) 1ee 8nited 1tates v) 1anders, 20< ")&d
<!,, <<& (2nd Cir)2000* ( Efare=beatingF (i)e) entering the subway without paying* is Esimilar
toF insufficient funds chec? because the two offenses share elements and are subject to eHually
lenient punishments*)
C) 9artineA (Carlos*: JEconductF testJ >e reach the same conclusion after applying
the 9artineA (Carlos* EconductF test to 6ppellantBs shoplifting conviction) 8nli?e the
9artineA (Clyde* test, the 9artineA (Carlos* test does not reHuire analysis of the defendantBs
prior offense to determine if it is predictive of future criminal behavior) :ather, the 9artineA
/!</%&
(Carlos* test focuses only on whether the conduct underlying the defendantBs prior offense is
Ea?in to the conduct underlying any of the listed offenses)F 1andoval, 1<2 ")&d at 11,2
(applying the 9artineA (Carlos* test*)
+n 9artineA (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 9artineA (Carlos*, ., ")&d at 1001) >e held that vandalism was not
Esimilar toF the offenses listed in 8)1)1)7) S !61)2(c*(2* because vandalism is not a victimless
crime and because vandalism involves malicious intent). +d) at 1000=01)
8nder the 9artineA (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)/ 5his test overlaps, but is more narrow than, the 9artineA (Clyde*
test) >hereas similar elements may be considered under 9artineA (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 9artineA (Carlos* test)
6s indicated above, the conduct underlying $opeA=(astranaBs conviction for
shoplifting is similar to the conduct that underlies an insufficient funds chec? offense as
defined by 3evada law)% (fn%: %) 5he dissent concludes that the Etrespassory ta?ingF
necessary for shoplifting is Esimply differentF from the fraudulent ta?ing underlying an
Einsufficient funds chec?F offense) Dissent at 10&<=&.) >e do not believe this distinction
overrides the considerable similarities between the offenses) >e note, however, that to the
e'tent a bad chec? offense contains the additional element of deception, it is arguably more
serious than the shoplifting offense at issue here)* Compare :)9)C) S %)10)0!< (1,,%* with
3):)1) 20<)0%&2(,*)
#ur decision in 8nited 1tates v) 1andoval provides further support for todayBs order) +n
1andoval, we applied the 9artineA (Carlos* EconductF test and held that petty theft was not
similar to any of the offenses listed in S !61)2(c*(2*) 1andoval, 1<2 ")&d at 11,2) >e
based this holding on the fact that none of the offenses listed in S !61)2(c*(2* involve
Eta?ing anotherBs property with the intent to deprive that person of the property)F +d) 5his
cannot be said of those offenses listed in S !61)2(c*(1*, the provision at issue in this case)
+nsufficient funds chec? is a form of stealing) 5he implication of 1andoval, therefore, is
that petty theft (li?e shoplifting* is similar to other minor theft offenses (li?e insufficient
funds chec?*) 5he district court erred in including this offense when calculating $opeA=
(astranaBs criminal history score))))+n conclusion, shoplifting and insufficient funds chec?
offenses share similar elements, similar penalties, and similar underlying conduct) 5he
offenses are therefore EsimilarF within the meaning of 8)1)1)7) S !61)2(c*(1* and $opeA=
(astranaBs shoplifting sentence should not have been included in his criminal history
calculation) )))++) 8nder 3evada law, shoplifting is petit larceny))))Defendant pleaded guilty
to EshopliftingF under :eno 9unicipal Code S %)10)0!< (1,,%*) 6t the time, shoplifting
was a subset of petit larceny (essentially, petit larceny in a store*, the elements of which
were set out in :eno 9unicipal Code S %)10)0!0 (1,,%*)F
., (3#5E: so the 123 shows Eby clear and convincing 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 E"o presere an unla#ful "enan!yJ*
/0"urther, the filings in .0%&%, .1!02, and .1,01, <&%&&, <!%!!, .0&&1, .1&%&, C@11=
0&.2%, D@0%=011.%, C@11=01,<<, C@11=01%,., .0&02, .0&1/, 11 C: 221/., .0.&0, C:11=
20.<, 11 C: 2.!0<, C:12=12.2, :C:2011=0.&&!1, :C:2012=0.<.&0, :C:2012=0./,%0
(and :ev2012=0010!%, :ev2012=000&/!, :ev2011=001/0%, :ev2012=0/!!0%, :ev2012=
0/%!&2, :ev2012=0010%2, 10%&, 11./, 11.% etc), etc)*, 12 C: 12!20, :C(2012=00001%, 11
5: 2.%00, 12 C: 00.,., C:12=0&/., .&&!2, .&0!1, .2%21, .210!, .0,/< that Coughlin
attached as e'hibits to ";E1< and as e'hibits to previous filings in this matter (its not li?e 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 :#6s 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 3:1 1/1)1&.,
1/1)12.., 1/!)&!<, and 3:1 !0)2<!, 3:1 !0)2<&(<*(a*Bs dicates in accord with 3@ Const) 6rt)
! 1ec) 21 against the >C1#, :(D, :ichard 7) ;ill, EsH), 7ayle Gern, EsH), 3evada Court
1ervices, the :eno City 6ttorneyBs #fficer, >CD6Bs #fficer, :9C, :DC, EC#99, :1+C,
>al=9art, 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 ma?e 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 EKF means such filing is notated as E(endingF on the doc?et in the 31C5*:
ele-ant to e-erything in 62&&7 o-erall:
61462:
0%1&2012 (etition for Dissolution of 5emporary 1uspension (ursuant to 1upreme Court :ule
102(!*C andor alternatively, 1C: 111(/* (etition to 1how 7ood Cause "or the Court 5o 1et
6side +ts #rder 5emporarily 1uspending 6ttorney from the (ractice of $aw) ((endingJ K* 12=
2<!1.
62104: (where the 123 represents the Efact finderF in .2&&/ 33D2, interestingly
(conflict, muchJ*
111!2012 "iled (etition for >rit of 9andamus (etition for >rit of 9andamus #rdering 123
and (anel to Comply >ith 1C: 10<(2*(c*K 12=&.0<&
112/2012 "iled 9otion for E'tension of 5ime +"( 3:6( 2! "iling "ee) K 12=&/&.&
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!) K 12=&/<02
0%2%201& "iled 9otion to (roceed in "orma (auperis wE'hibits) K 1&=2<!./
6&&42:
0.11201& "iled (roper (erson (etition for >rit of 9andamus or (rohibition and 9otion to
/!//%&
(roceed in "orma (auperis and Declaration of 1upport thereofC 9otion for :elease) K 1&=
1.,/<
0.11201& "iled (roper (erson 9otion to (roceed in "orma (auperis and Declaration in
1upport thereof for this (etition for >rit of 9andamus or #ther 6ppropriate :elief) 1&=
1.,//
0/1.201& "iled #rder 7ranting 9otion and >aiving "iling "ee) 3o filing fee is due for this
peititon) 1&=20%22
0/1%201& "iled 3otice) K 1&=210.%
0/2!201& "iled 9otion to 6mend (etition for E'traordinary >rit) K 1&=21/12
0/2!201& "iled E'hibits to 9otion) 1&=21/1<
6&041:
0!1%201& 3otice of 6ppeal Documents = 3otice of 6ppeal(roper (erson "ast
5rac? "iled 3otice of 6ppeal(roper (erson "ast 5rac?) "iled certified copy of proper
person notice of appeal) ("ast trac? notice issued to trial counsel)* 1&=
11<2. 0!1%201& 3otice#utgoing = 3otice to :eHuest :ough Draft 5ranscripts +ssued
3otice to :eHuest :ough Draft 5ranscripts) Due date: 10 days) 1&=11<2%
0<1!201& #rder(rocedural = #rder "iled #rder :edesignating 6ppeal) 5his
appeal was inadvertently doc?eted in this court as a fast trac? appeal) 5his appeal should have
been doc?eted as a proper person appeal) 5he parties shall disregard the briefing notices issued
by this court on 6pril 1%, 201&) 5his appeal shall proceed as a proper person appeal)
1&=1!1/0 0<2&201&#rderDispositional = #rder Dismissing 6ppeal "iled
#rder Dismissing 6ppeal) P#:DE: this appeal D+19+11ED)P 13(1&=979D31
1&=1<2/1 0.1/201&:emittitur = :emittitur +ssued :emittitur)
1&=1//!& 0.1/201&Case 1tatus 8pdate = :emittitur +ssuedCase Closed
:emittitur +ssuedCase Closed 0.1,201& #ther = :eturned
8nfiled Document :eturned unfiled untimely motion to proceed +"( on rehearing and
rehearing petition submitted via E="le' by -achary Coughlin)
ele-ant to the 3al-!art /etty larceny con-iction at i##ue in 608&8 re#ulting in
re%erral to ,,$+:
608&8:
0.112012 9otion for $eave to "ile #pposition or to 1how Cause why 5emporary 1uspension
is not in #rder) 12=1%1<<
0.1%2012 9otion for $eave to "ile 6mended or 1upplemental #pposition or 9otion to 1et
6side, 6lter, 6mend 1uspension) 12=1%,.2
%1&12:J why is there not a filing in .0%&% for this date of that filed in .1!.2 at that time in
2012=2<!1.*
100<2012 9otion for #rder to 1how Cause or Contempt #rder 6gainst 2ar Counsel and
33D 12=&1!&! (and note, the 3evada 1upreme Court Cler?s too early remittitur and beyond
ministerial refusal to file other documents in .0%&% has resulted in a (etition for >rit against it
in .&%22 filed %1,1& see Documents of 0%1,1& K 1&=2!&/., 0%20201&, 1&=2!!<, and 1&=
2!!.0, 0%2%201&, 1&=2<!.&*
606&0:
0!102012 3otice of 6ppeal Documents = 3otice of 6ppeal(roper (erson "iled)12=11&!!
/!%/%&
0.1!2012 3otice of 6ppeal Documents = Case 6ppeal 1tatement "iled) 12=1%.!2
0.1!2012 3otice of 6ppeal Documents = Case 6ppeal 1tatement "iled)12=1%/!<
0.1%2012 "iled 3otice of +ntent to "ile #pening 2rief) 12=1%,<.
6&8220
0%1,201& "iled 9otion 5o (roceed +n "orma (auperis to file (etition for >rit :espectfully
6gainst the Cler?Bs #ffice, >hom Coughlin ;as 9uch 7ood "eeling 5owards) K 1&=2!&/.
0%20201& "iled E'hibits (copies*) E'hibits: p1p1 continuation of e'hibit 1) 1&=2!!<,
0%20201& "iled E'hibits (copies*) E'hibits: p/) 1&=2!!.0
0%2%201& "iled 3otice with E'hibits) 1&=2<!.
ele-ant to ,=12-0204 and ,=12-04&4 ichard =. )ill' @#A. and "udge
)olme# grie-ance# B()@4' 5' 8' 9C and the criminal tre#/a## con-iction at i##ue in 61901
B()@1&C' and the #ummary e-iction matter and a//eal# thereo% in-ol-ing )ill B()@2C:
60&&1:
Doc?et Entries
Date 5ype1ubtype Description (endingJ Document
022,2012 "iling "ee = "iling "ee due "iling "ee due)
022,2012 3otice of 6ppeal Documents = 3otice of 6ppeal "iled 3otice of
6ppeal) 6ppeal doc?eted in the 1upreme Court this day) (5:631"E::ED 5# D#CGE5 3#)
.1&%& (E: #:DE: "+$ED !2!1&*) 12=0.!/! 0&0,2012
#rder+ncoming = District Court #rder "iled District court order) Copy of #rder
Denying 9otion to (roceed +n "orma (auperis filed in district court on &%2012 and Case
6ppeal 1tatement or, (led in the alternative, 9otion for E'tension of 5ime to Correct
Deficiencies in 6ppeal (apers) (5:631"E::ED 5# D#CGE5 3#) .1&%& (E: #:DE:
"+$ED !2!1&*) 12=0///1
0!0,2012 9otion = 9otion "iled 6mended Case 6ppeal 1tatement and
:eHuest for E'tension of 5ime to (ay "iling "ee and 2ring "ilings into Compliance with
@arious :ules) (5:631"E::ED 5# D#CGE5 3#) .1&%& (E: #:DE: "+$ED !2!1&*)
12=1120!
0!1&2012 3otice of 6ppeal Documents = Case 6ppeal 1tatement "iled
Case 6ppeal 1tatement) (5:631"E::ED 5# D#CGE5 3#) .1&%& (E: #:DE: "+$ED
!2!1&*) 12=11,.!
0%2/2012 9otion = 9otion "iled 6ppellantBs 9otion to Continue +n "orma
(auperis or "or E'tension of 5ime to (ay "iling "ee) (5:631"E::ED 5# D#CGE5 3#)
.1&%& (E: #:DE: "+$ED !2!1&*) 12=2.,!2
0%2/2012 2rief = #pening 2rief:eceived 6ppellantBs #pening 2rief (via E="le'*)
("+$ED (E: #:DE: #" !2!1&*) 110,2012 3otice+ncoming = 3otice
:eceived document entitled P1ubmission of appendi' and notice of :DCBs failure to
file 3otice of 6ppeal of 122011 order on 122.11)P (*)("+$ED (E: #:DE: #" !2!1&*)
11202012 #rder(rocedural = #rder "iled #rder) 5his court notes that the
motion filed in this court does not comport with the reHuirements of 3:6( 2!, and the motion
is denied) #n 1eptember ., 2012, appellant paid the filing fee) 5his appeal may therefore
proceed) 12=&.%./
/!,/%&
0!2!201& #rderDispositional = #rder to 6dministratively Close Doc?et "iled
#rder) Doc?et 3o) .0&&1 was erroneously doc?eted, and is hereby administratively closed in
favor of Doc?et 3o) .1&%&) 5he cler? of this court shall transfer all documents filed in Doc?et
3o) .0&&1 to Doc?et 3o) .1&%&) "urther, the filing fee paid in Doc?et 3o) .0&&1 shall be
applied to Doc?et 3o) .1&%&) 6ccordingly, appellantBs motion for reconsideration in Doc?et
3o) .1&%& is granted and that appeal is reinstated) 3os) .0&&1.1&%&) Case Closed3o
:emittitur +ssued) 1&=11,/.
0!2!201& 2rief = #pening 2rief"iled 6ppellantBs #pening 2rief) (5:631"E::ED
5# D#CGE5 3#) .1&%& (E: #:DE: "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&=11,%&
0!2!201& 3otice+ncoming = 3otice "iled 1ubmission of 6ppendi' and
3otice of (osting bond on 6ppeal with ;ill) (5:631"E::ED 5# D#CGE5 3#) .1&%& (E:
#:DE: "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&=11,%!
61&8&:
0/&12012 "iled 3otice of 6ppeal(roper (erson (ilot (rogram) "iled certified copy of proper
person notice of appeal) 12=2!12,
110/2012 "iled #rder Dismissing 6ppeal) 5o date, appellant has not paid the filing fee or
otherwise responded to this courtBs notice) 6ccordingly, cause appearing, this appeal is
dimissed) 12=&<1,!
111,2012 "iled 3otice of +mproper Dismissal of 6ppeal, 9otion for :econsideartion or to
:einstate 6ppeal, or 6lter or 6mend Dudgment of Court Cler?) 12=&..<.
010/201& "iled 1ubmission of appendi' and notice of :DCBs failure to file 3otice of 6ppeal
of 122011 order on 122.11) 1&=00!!&
0!2!201& "iled #rder Doc?et 3o) .0&&1 was erroneously doc?eted, and is hereby
administratively closed in favor of Doc?et 3o) .1&%&) 5he cler? of this court shall transfer all
documents filed in Doc?et 3o) .0&&1 to Doc?et 3o) .1&%&) "urther, the filing fee paid in
Doc?et 3o) .0&&1 shall be applied to Doc?et 3o) .1&%&) 6ccordingly, appellantBs motion for
reconsideration in Doc?et 3o) .1&%& is granted and that appeal is reinstated) 3os)
.0&&1.1&%&) 1&=11,%2
0!2!201& "iled 3otice of 6ppeal) (5:631"E::ED ":#9 D#CGE5 3#) .0&&1 (E:
#:DE: "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&=11,,/C "iled 6mended Case 6ppeal 1tatement and :eHuest for
E'tension of 5ime to (ay "iling "ee and 2ring "ilings into Compliance with @arious :ules)
(5:631"E::ED ":#9 D#CGE5 3#) .0&&1 (E: #:DE: "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&=
1200,, 1&=12010, 1&=1201.
0!2!201& "iled 6ppellantBs #pening 2rief) (5:631"E::ED ":#9 D#CGE5 3#) .0&&1
(E: #:DE: "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&=12020
0!2!201& "iled 1ubmission of 6ppendi' and 3otice of (osting bond on 6ppeal with :ichard
7) ;ill) (5:631"E::ED ":#9 D#CGE5 3#) .0&&1 (E: #:DE: "+$ED !2!1&*) 1&=
12021
0<1<201& "iled #pposition to 9otion to Dismiss 6ppeal and 1tay 2riefing 1chedule) 1&=
1!&00
0<1<201& "iled E'hibits (art 1) 1&=1!&01
0<1<201& "iled E'hibits part 2) 1&=1!&02
0<1<201& "iled #pposition to 9otion to Dismiss 6ppeal and 1tay 2riefing 1chedule with
/<0/%&
"onts corrected) 1&=1!&0&
0<1/201& "iled 3otice of 6ttaching 9eta=:ecord on appeal to this 3otice and :eHuest that it
be 9ade (ublicly 6ccessible via this CourtBs Case 9anagement 1ystem) 1&=1!<%/
0<1/201& "iled E'hibits to 3otice of 9:#6) 1&=1!<%,
0<20201& "iled :eply to #pposition QsicR to 9otion to Dismiss and 9otion to 1tay 2riefing
1chedule) 1&=1!%<%
0<21201& "iled E'hibits (copies*) E'hibits: v2p1p! 1&=1!,&1, v2p.p1 1&=1!,&&, v2p% 1&=
1!,&,, v&p< 1&=1!,!0, v!p2 1&=1!,!1, v<p% 1&=1!,!!, v.p!p%and, 1&=1!,!<, v/p1 1&=
1!,!., v/p<p1 1&=1!,!/
0<21201& "iled 3otice of filing amended notice of appeal) 1&=1!,<2
0<22201& "iled E'hibits (copies*) E'hibits: v%p1 1&=1<0!, v%p.to% 1&=1<0!&, v10p2 1&=
1<0!!, v1&p1 1&=1<0!<, v1< 1&=1<0!.
0<2%201& #rderDispositional = #rder Dismissing 6ppeal "iled #rder
Dismissing 6ppeal) P#:DE: this appeal D+19+11ED)P "n1Q:espondentBs 6pril 2., 201&,
motion see?ing to dismiss this appeal for lac? of jurisdiction on other grounds and his 6pril 2.,
201&, motion to stri?e are denied as moot) 2o "$e e?"en" "$a" responden" see's a""orney fees
6ased on "$e mo"ion "o dismiss "$is appeal7 "$a" re8ues" is denied) >e further deny as moot
other reHuests for relief pending in this matter)R 13(1&=979D31) 1&=1<<%/
0.0/201& :eturned, unfiled, (etition for :ehearing) (1ubmitted without reHuired filing fee)*
0.10201& "iled 9otion to proceed +"( for 3:6( !0 and !06)C (etition for En 2anc
:econsideration and (etition for :ehearing) 1&=1.%1<
0.10201& "iled 9otion and Emergency 3otice) 1&=1.%1.
0.1&201& "iled Declaration of -achary Coughlin) 1&=1/&2%
0.21201& "iled #rder 7ranting 9otion to >aive "ee for :ehearing) 6ppellantBs (etition for
rehearing will be filed without the payment of the fee) 1&=1%2%%
0.2<201& :eceived e=mail from -achary Coughlin stating that he tried to submit his
rehearing petition via e=fle' on .2!1&, but the system was down)
0.2.201& "iled 6mendment or 1upplemental, or :eHuest to 1ubmit 1uch as to the (etition
for :ehearingC or, in the 6lternative, 9otion to Consider @iewing this 6ppeal as a (etition for
E'traordinary >rit, 1uch as a (etition for >rit of 9andamus, (rohibition or Certiorari)
K 1&=1%/.2
0/0%201& "iled Declaration of -achary Coughlin) 1&=1,/!1
0/12201& "iled 9otion to 5reat as >rit) K 1&=20&%1
0/1<201& "iled Declaration of -achary 2ar?er Coughlin in 1upport of 9otion to ;old in
Contempt 6ll 5hose ;erein Detailed as Deserving and for E'traordinary +ntervention) K 1&=
20<%1
0%2%201& "iled 9otion for 1tay 3:1 !0)&%< wE'hibits)K 1&=2<!..
ele-ant to ,=12-04&5 2"$C "udge 4. =ardner ;grie-anceN ()@& and
@lcano<# te#timony:
5&8&&:
0<20200, "iled Certified Copy of 3otice of 6ppeal1ettlement) 3otice :e 1ettlement
Conference (rogram and 1uspension of :ules mailed to all counsel) (5he reHuesting of
/<1/%&
transcripts and briefing are stayed pursuant to 3:6( 1.(a*(1*) Doc?eting 1tatement "orm
mailed to counsel for appellant(s*)* 0,=12!%0
0<20200, "iled Certified Copy of 3otice of 6ppeal) 1econd notice of appeal filed on <120,)
0,=12!%2
0<20200, "iled Certified Copy of 3otice of 6ppeal6mended1upplemental) 0,=12!%&
0<20200, "iled Certified Copy of 3otice of 6ppeal6mended1upplemental) 1econd
6mended 3otice of 6ppealC or 6lternatively (etition for >rit of 9andamus or #ther
E'traordinary >rit) 0,=12!%!
0.0!200, (etitionerBs 9otion to 5reat 1econd 6mended 3otice of 6ppeal or (led in the
6lternative (etition for >rit of 9andamus as a (etition for >rit of 9andamus #nly and 3ot a
3otice of 6ppeal)0,=1!0&2
0,0,200, "iled #rder) as to appellant -achary Coughlin) "n1Qthe cler? shall amend the
caption accordinglyR) 9r) Coughlin was not a party to the proceedings below and thus cannot
personally appeal from the district courtBs order) >e deny 9r) CoughlinBs motion to treat
second amended notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus only and not a notice of
appeal) 5his denial is without prejudice to 9r) CoughlinBs right to file an original writ petition
with this court) 5he settlement judge reports that appellant 2harti Doshi and respondent 6shwin
Doshi have agreed to a settlement) 6ppellant: 1< days to file stipulation or motion to dismiss)
0,=21%<0
54844:
102%200, "iled (etition for >rit) (etition for >rit of 9andamus 0,=2.&0<
60&02 Bdi#Auali%ication#0 )arde#tyC: add all filings therein by Coughlin
60&17 (very relevant to Dudge ElliottBs rampant misconduct in ";E12,1&, C@11=
01,<<, C:11=20.!, C:12=12.2, C:12=0&/., C:1&=0.1!, and that by his replament in
Department 10, Dudge 1attler (see .&0!1, C:1&=0<<2, where 1attler sits on >$1Bs 2oard of
Directors and may at the time of CoughlinsB firing (similarly, Dudge ;ascheff signed the
probable cause review incident to CoughlinBs <2&1& arrest in :C:201&=0/2./<, resulting in
CoughlinBs fourteen day incarceration where Dudge ;ascheff was a member of the 2oard of
Directors of >$1 at the time of CoughlinBs firing on <1!0,*: 6dd all of CoughlinBs filings
therein to this list
EC#ose Pr"nt
/<2/%&
.MC +er&$!/$n0 do+men&( $n(&ead o! %e+ond 1d$+$al
/<&/%&
/<!/%&
/<</%&
/<./%&
7rom:2a+) Co0)l$n (zacco'g#"nNotma"#*com$5ent:Eon 12/16/12 3:49
?E%o:(oe&*ast"ngNwasoeco'rts*'s ((oe&*ast"ngNwasoeco'rts*'s$= ('dge*ard&Nwasoeco'rts*'s
(('dge*ard&Nwasoeco'rts*'s$= (oe&*ord'naNwasoeco'rts*'s ((oe&*ord'naNwasoeco'rts*'s$=
nc(d"nfoN('d"c"a#*state*n+*'s (nc(d"nfoN('d"c"a#*state*n+*'s$= da+"d*ard&Nwasoeco'rts*'s
/<//%&
(da+"d*ard&Nwasoeco'rts*'s$= ff#aert&Nd#!fd*com (ff#aert&Nd#!fd*com$= ff#aert&Nd&er#awrence*com
/<%/%&
(ff#aert&Nd&er#awrence*com$
/<,/%&
/.0/%&
/.1/%&
Dear C#er, of Co'rt Dast"ngs and C"ef I'dge Dard&-
1 res!ectf'##& s'2m"t t"s for &o'r cons"derat"on* 1 noted C"ef I'dge Dard&)s s!ec"a#
e.!ert"se "n t"s area "n tat e grad'ated w"t a Easter)s Degree "n I'd"c"a# 5t'd"es from
te 4n"+ers"t& of @e+ada "n 2008 and "s !resent#& a I'd"c"a# 5t'd"es P*D* st'dent at te
4n"+ers"t& of @e+ada (!re#"m"nar& d"ssertat"on to!"c: @e+ada %err"tor"a# 5'!reme Co'rt: ?
%rans"t"ona# 1nf#'ence from 7ront"er ;aw#essness to 5tateood$ and of co'rse Pres"dent of te
@e+ada D"str"ct Co'rt I'dges ?ssoc"at"on***and grad'ated from Cr"gam 3o'ng 4n"+ers"t&-
magna c'm #a'de- and w"t onors from Cr"gam 3o'ng 4n"+ers"t& ;aw 5coo# were e
ser+ed as manag"ng ed"tor of te C34 ;aw Ae+"ew* 1 grad'ate from 4@;/)s Co&d 5coo# of
;aw "n 2001* J'r O1 ran,ed st'dent (get got !rett& m'c a 4*0- someow- a## te wa&
tro'g$ was re(ected 2& C34)s I* Ae'2en C#ar, ;aw 5coo#***2't at #east we ad Ia& C&2ee to add some
!rest"ge to o'r ten 'naccred"ted #aw scoo# "n a 2ro,en down former e#ementar& scoo# r"gt off te /egas
5tr"!*
1 note tat I'dge E##"ott as- a!!arent#& on Decem2er 9t- 2012- rece"+ed te fo'rt
stra"gt 0random0 ass"gnment of a cr"m"na# matter/a!!ea#- were"n 1 am a !art&***des!"te
BDCA reF'"r"ng te random ass"gnment of s'c matters ('n#ess 1 am m"sread"ng te
r'#e- "f so- 1 wo'#d great#& a!!rec"ate some e#'c"dat"on "n tat regard$* P#ease note Car
Co'nse# H"ng)s adm"ss"on "n "s ema"# 2e#ow- "n te conte.t of AEC I'dge B1##"am
>ardner (2roter of 5econd I'd"c"a# D"str"ct Co'rt I'dge ;"nda >ardner$ adm"tt"ng-
d'r"ng te ?!r"# 10t- 2012 %r"a# (w"c was +"o#at"ng @A5 168*405 "n cons"derat"on of
@A5 5*061***$ tat e got "ssister's ?!r"# 2009 Jrder sanct"on"ng Co'g#"n (B"c Basoe
;ega# 5er+"ces c"ted as te so#e reason for f"r"ng Co'g#"n$ from "s s"ster- I'dge ;1nda
>ardner- and forwarded "t aro'nd to "s fe##ow AEC I'dges***were'!on I'dge @as
Do#mes- a!!arent#&- "nc#'ded "t "n er 2o. of mater"a#s s'2m"tted w"t er Earc 14t-
2012 gr"e+ance to te @ortern Jff"ce of te 5C@***to'g I'dge B* >ardner-
?dm"n"strat"+e I'dge of te AEC "nd"cates 0"t was a## +er& caref'##& !#anned
o't0***so***ma&2e tat "s w& te ?!r"# 2009 Jrder 2& "s s"ster ad a f'nn& #oo,"ng 050 "n
te 0Earc 15t0 rece"+ed date 2& te 5C@G Jr wat H"ng was red'ced to attem!t"ng to
a+e 'nnot"ced mater"a# w"tness B;5)s Pa'# E#cano a'tent"cate te ?!r"# 2009 Jrder at
te forma# d"sc"!#"nar& ear"ng on 11/14/12 (2eca'se- E#cano sa"d e watced a ta!e of
te ear"ng- so- e co'#d a'tent"cate an Jrder from &o'r Co'rt- r"gtG$***
?nd des!"te H"ng)s statements on 4/19/12 "n "s ema"# 2e#ow***Co'g#"n ma& ('st 2e a2#e
to !ro+e H"ng ma,"ng "nd"cat"ons to te contrar& d'r"ng te face to face H"ng and
Co'g#"n ad on 3/29/12***es!ec"a##& cons"der"ng wat H"ng sa"d ten a2o't te tree
d"fferent I'dge s'2m"tt"ng gr"e+ances a2o't Co'g#"n 2& tat !o"nt***and te fact tat
/.2/%&
H"ng "s st'c, w"t not"ng com"ng from I'dge Cees#e& 'nt"# after te 3/30/12 f"#"ng 2&
Co'g#"n 2efore I'dge Cees#e& "n @/C 10-05104 deta"#"ng te conf"scat"on 2& te AEC
Earsa# and AEC I'dge @as Do#mes of Co'g#"n)s smart!one and m"cro sd data
card***w"c was on#& ret'rned to "m- on 3/30/12 ("nterst"ng- same date Co'g#"n f"#ed "n
te @/C- 2efore I'dge Cees#e&- attacments deta"#"ng wat I'dge @as Do#mes d"d on
2/26/12 and 2/28/12 "n e.!#a"n"ng te !re('d"ce to "s c#"ent- He##er$ (not w"t"n a searc
"nc"dent to arrest- and 2es"des- te wo#e arrest was !rett& s's!ect- as was te
s'mmar&/!#enar&/c"+"#/cr"m"na#/transmogr"f"ed "nto a forma# d"sc"!#"nar& ear"ng re!#ete
w"t 5caefer)s 0c#ear and con+"c"ng e+"dence0 #ang'age contem!t "ncarcerat"on 2& AEC
I'dge @as Do#mes:
?#so- someow te 5C@ managed to get adm"tted "nto e+"dence Co'g#"n)s former Co-
wor,er I'dge 7#anagan)s JAder sanct"on"ng Co'g#"n P42-050 "n attorne&)s fees
!ersona##& "n c+11-03928 "nc"dent to te a!!ea# of te s'mmar& e+"ct"on 0%r"a#0 from
Co'g#"n)s former ome #aw off"ce- "n+o#+"ng r"card g* "##- esF****wo f"#ed te mot"on for
attorne&)s fees te da& after I'dge 5te+en E##"ott remanded co'g#"n "nto c'stod& on
4/19/12 (were'!on Co'g#"n was &an,ed off "s med"cat"on 2& (a"# staff and ad "s
med"ca# records/!r"+ac& r"gts ra!ed on Jrders of I'dge E##"ott "n cr12-0369- w"t some
e#! 2& wc!d C"ra& Dogan$***@ot F'"te c#ear ow I'dge 7#anagan)s Jrder was 0cert"f"ed0
or oterw"se a'tent"cate s'ff"c"ent to 2e adm"tted "nto e+"cence at te 11/14/12 forma#
d"sc"!#"nar& ear"ng (so #",e#&- '!on Ca"r Ece+err"a do"ng wat "s tr'st"ng "s tong'e
o't at Co'g#"n re!eated#& d'r"ng te 11/14/12 forma# ear"ng s'ggested e w"## do- "e-
recommend tat Co'g#"n 2e d"s2arred for some +ag'e c"rc'#ar reason"ng de+o"d of
s!ec"f"c fact'a# s'!!ort a##egat"ons/0f"nd"ngs0***$- te 5econd I'd"c"a# w"## 2e !o"nted to for
!ro+"d"ng te s'!!ort for s'c an act"on 2& wa& of JAders of I'dge 7#anagan and I'dge
>ardner- and I'dge Da+"d Dard&-
H"ngs ema"# a2o't te 0gost gr"e+ance0 F'a#"t& of ng12-0435- te I'dge ;* >ardner/
?!r"# 2009 Jrder sanct"on"ng Co'g#"n- gett"ng "m f"red from Basoe ;ega# 5er+"ces-
t"ng:
7rom: Patr"c, H"ng (Patr"c,HNn+2ar*org$
5ent: %' 4/19/12 2:28 PE
%o: zacco'g#"nNotma"#*com (zacco'g#"nNotma"#*com$
?!r"# 19- 2012
/.&/%&
Kac Co'g#"n
Dear Er* Co'g#"n-
? screen"ng !ane# of te @ortern @e+ada D"sc"!#"nar& Pane# met on %'esda& ?!r"# 10- 2011 to address te
gr"e+ances f"#ed aga"nst &o'* %e !ane# d"rected me to !roceed to a forma# d"sc"!#"nar& ear"ng* ?s s'c- 1 w"## 2e
!re!ar"ng a forma# Com!#a"nt*
1 'nderstand from te e-ma"# 2e#ow- tat &o' do not 2e#"e+e &o' so'#d a+e 2een fo'nd g'"#t& of te teft at
Ba#-Eart and tat &o' so'#d not a+e 2een fo'nd "n contem!t of Co'rt* Dowe+er- "t m'st concern &o' tat &o'
were
fo'nd "n contem!t of Co'rt 2& more tan one I'dge "n two d"fferent tr"a#s* 3o' wanted to ,now ow 1 #earned of
or
o2ta"ned a co!& of I'dge >ardnerLs Jrder after tr"a# tat was f"#ed "n 2009* 1t was sent to me 2& te c#er, of te
co'rt at
m& reF'est- !'rs'ant to m& "n+est"gat"on*
1t wo'#d e#! me and !era!s &o'rse#f- "f &o' wo'#d res!ond and e.!#a"n w& &o' were con+"cted of teft and
w& &o' were e#d "n contem!t of Co'rt* 3o' ma& 2e we## ser+ed to e.!#a"n wat remed"a# meas'res &o' are
ta,"ng to
ma,e s're &o' do not re!eat te cond'ct com!#a"ned a2o't* 1 cannot g"+e &o' #ega# ad+"ce* Dowe+er 1 can
s'ggest &o'
coo!erate w"t Car co'nse#Ls "n+est"gat"on and tat &o' res!ond s!ec"f"ca##& to te a##egat"ons conta"ned "n
I'dge
Do#mes and A"card D"##Ls gr"e+ance #etters to te off"ce of Car Co'nse#*
Patr"c, H"ng
0Does te 5econd I'd"c"a# D"str"ct Co'rt a+e !os"t"on on te AEC
cert"f&"ng doc'ments to 5C@ Jff"ce of Car Co'nse# on 2ea#f of te
5econd I'dc""a# D"str"ct Co'rtG 7'rter te 5C@)s JCC as "nd"cated
/.!/%&
tat te gr"e+ance tat "s n'm2er @>12-0435 res'#ted from te 0C#er,
of Co'rt0 forward"ng te Jrder on to Car Co'nse# at "s reF'est
(c'r"o's#& c#ose "n t"me to te 3/14/12 s'2m"ss"on of a gr"e+ance 2&
I'dge @as Do#mes aga"nst co'g#"n* P#ease "nd"cate weter "t was
te 0C#er, of Co'rt0 for te 5econd I'dc"a# D"str"ct Co'rt wom so
forward on te ?!r"# 2009 Jrder 2& 5econd I'd"c"a# D"str"ct Co'rt D14
I'dge ;"nda >ardner tat Basoe ;ega# 5er+"ces c"ted as te so#e
reason for f"r"ng Co'g#"n "n Ea& 2009 (w"c 2egat a Pet"t"on for
Eandam's 2& Co'g#"n "n 54844 and a wrongf'# term"nat"on #aws'"t
aga"nst B;5 "n 90302- and were des!"te I'dge ;* >ardner ten
rec's"ng erse#f "n te ne.t case "n w"c Co'g#"n was attorne& or
record- c"t"ng te #"tt#e 'sed 01 f#at o't ate tat attorne& too m'c to
a+e tem "n m& co'rtroom 2*11(a$ canon (te #aw&er)s coro##ar& to
tat cost)s #",e P300 !er$- "n Ce## +* >reer 7/11-02498- f"#ed
8/10/11***I'dge ;* >ardner)sbrother AEC I'dge B"##"am >ardner ref'sed
to rec'se "mse#f from a cr"m"na# tres!ass !rosec't"on "n te AEC
aga"nst Co'g#"n- w"c +"o#ated @A5 168*405 +"s a +"s @A5 5*010 a
m'#t"t'de of t"mes ("nc#'d"ng wen- "n ED12-0032- I'dge Creen- ED-
wom ;"nda >ardner c#er,ed for s'mmar"#& remo+ed Co'g#"n from
te EDC were Do##ar"de- C"ondo- and Creen read"#& adm"t te& do
not fee# EDC !art"c"!ants deser+e te sanct"t& of contract tat normal, less
inferior !eo!#e deser+e$* 7'rter- at te 4/10/12 %r"a# "n tat cr"m"na#
tres!ass matter (w"c 2egat 91901- and for w"c te %r"a# sett"ng on
3/8/12 was +"o#at"+e of @A5 168*405$- I'dge B* >ardner was
cornered "nto adm"tt"ng tat "s sister I'dge ;* >ardner ad ('st !assed
to "m '!on AEC I'dge Hennet Doward gett"ng e.treme#& angr&
w"t Co'g#"n* ?nd e+en after his sister's ?!r"# 2009 Jrder 5anct"on"ng
Co'g#"n 2ecame a c#'ms"#& and#ed/s'2m"tted/f"#ed gr"e+ance "n
@>12-0435- I'dge B* >ardner st"### ref'sed to rec'se "mse#f* De
d"d #et Co'g#"n)s co'rt a!!o"nted defense co'nse# He"t ;oom"s- EsF*
rec'se "mse#f* ?ct'a##&- ;oom"s does tat ('st a2o't e+er& cance
e gets- see,"ng and o2ta"n"ng Jrders grant"ng "s w"tdrawa# for
tose defendants wo don)t ta,e to "s 0!rosec't"on grease0 st&#e of
defend"ng* I'dge Doward rema"ned f'r"o's eno'g to ,ee! ema"#"ng
/.</%&
te 5C@ a2o't Co'g#"n e+en after gett"ng Co'g#"n)s #aw #"cense
s's!ended "n 90838- were tat AEC 11 CA 22169 case "n+o#+ed te
st"## contested !ett& #arcen& con+"ct"on of a cand& 2ar from a Ba#-Eart-
2ased '!on an arrest 2& tr"2a# !o#"ce off"cers for2"dden 'nder @A5
161*1255- "n AEC 11 CA 22169- and was com!#ete#& de+o"d of d'e
!rocess-te AEC cont"n'es to m"sstate te #aw regard"ng te
!re!arat"on of transcr"!ts for criminal defendants w"t res!ect to weter
a down !a&ment "s reF'"red (and "t goes 2e&ond tat$- I'dge Doward
angr"#& ref'sed to a##ow te cont"n'ance tat AC? Ao2erts- EsF*
agreed to "n wr"t"ng as to te 11/30/12 %r"a# date- were I'dge
Doward "ncorrect#& asserted tat Co'g#"n as ca'sed te 11/14/11
%r"a# date to 2e cont"n'ed (I'dge Doward ad to correct "mse#f #ater
tat n"gt wen te %r"a# f"na##& conc#'ded at a2o't 9 !m- and e
a!!arent#& fe#t remo+"ng te 24 o'rs of comm'n"t& ser+"ce w"t"n 2
wee,s (after com!#et"ng te tree da&s s'mmar& "ncarcerat"on$
reF'"rement '!on a f'## t"me attorne& was s'ff"c"ent
ame#"orat"on***to'g e !ers"sted "n "s "mmed"ate "ncarcerat"on for 3
da&s 'nder a 0s'mmar& contem!t for sa&"ng 0Bow0 standard- to'g
e d"d ment"on e was 0saddened0 2& te damage s're to "n're to
Co'g#"n)s c#"ent)s "nterests "n #"gt of "s s'mmar"#& den&"ng a sta& of
an& #engt watsoe+er***on#& to ten m"sstate te #aw w"t res!ect to
te a!!ea#a2"#"t& of a s'mmar& contem!t con+"ct"on- and f'rter "ns"st
Co'g#"n wo'#d not 2e !erm"tted to a!!ea# 'n#ess e !a"d te ent"re
cost of te transcr"!t '! front- e+en were Co'g#"n !roceeded as a
cr"m"na# "nd"gent defendant de!r"+ed "s 5".t ?mendment A"gt to
Co'nse#- "n +"o#at"on of te mandator& a'tor"t& !resented 2&
?"gers"nger- !art"c'#ar#& were I'dge Doward ad not r'#ed at te
o'tset tat tere was no !oss"2"#"t& of (a"# t"me***see 90838***and
e.!#a"n ow I'dge E##"ot manages to cont"n'e to d"sm"ss cr"m"na#
a!!ea#s 2ased '!on civil transcr"!t stat'tes- or w& tere e."sts no
Jrder "n te doc,et for te 8 da& "ncarcerat"on I'dge E##"ot s'2(ected
Co'g#"n to "n CA12-0369 for mere#& as,"ng weter te ;a,e)s
Cross"ng Com!etenc& E+a#'ators wo'#d a+e a 02#an, cec,0 w"t
res!ect to access"ng Co'g#"n)s !r"+ate med"ca# and menta# ea#t
/../%&
care records***0 "s not ent"re#& c#ear***0*
1s "t te 5econd I'd"c"a# D"str"ct Co'rt)s stance te te re+ocat"on of 2a"# for mere#& as,"ng
I'dge E##"ot "n D10 a F'est"on a2o't one)s D1P?? r"gts "nc"dent to a forced com!etenc&
e+a#'at"on w"t reF'"rements contract arrangement ;a,e)s Cross"ng (te& of te f"#"ng of
mater"a#s on 4/18/12 w"t te Co'rt tat are ne"ter 2& a !art&- nor on !#ead"ng !a!er- nor
"n com!#"ance w"t BDCA 10- nor an act'a# Com!etenc& E+a#'at"on- 2't rater a
reta#"ator& #etter- not sworn- tat ma,es defamator& and fa#se acc'sat"ons$* 7'rter-
tere seems to 2e an a rater 2#ase att"t'de amongst te #oca# ('d"c"ar& w"t res!ect to
te "m!ort of @A5 168*405- and "n !art"c'#ar ow tat "nteracts w"t @A5 5*010* Jne
t"ng seems c#ear- tere "s not a !ro!er 2as"s for re+o,"ng Co'g#"n)s 2a"# and remand"ng
"m "nto c'stod& for 8 da&s to sa,e- 2& force- o't of "m "s conf"dent"a# med"ca#
"nformat"on***w"c BCPD C"ra& Dogan !'r!osef'##& entered "nto te record "mmed"ate#&
after Co'g#"n to#d "m not to ("e- te name of te med"cat"on Co'g#"n ta,es was
anno'nced 2& Dogan "nto te record on 4/29/12 "n CA12-0369* P#ease !#ace a co!& of
t"s Com!#a"nt "n I'dge E##"ot)s em!#o&ment- !ersonne#/e#ected off"c"a# 0f"#e0* 1 a+e a
P42-050 attorne&)s fee award aga"nst me now "nc"dent to a!!ear"ng !ro se "n te a!!ea#
from te wrongf'# s'mmar& e+"ct"on were non !a&ment of rent was not !#ed connected
to m& former commerc"a# tenanc& at m& former ome #aw off"ce- a## "n +"o#at"on of @A5
40*253* %e Eot"on for ?ttorne&)s 7ee ?ward was f"#ed te da& 1 was remanded "n to
c'stod& "n C/11-03928- and 1 was de!r"+ed of m& med"cat"on and 2eaten w"#e "n (a"#- "n
add"t"on to te t&!"ca# de!r"+at"on of !a!er and te a2"#"t& to f"#e #ega# doc'ments w"t te
co'rts* %en tere "s te matter of I'dge E##"ot d"sm"ss"ng m& a!!ea# "n CA12-1292
were 1 !ro+ed tat 1 t"me#& f"#ed te @ot"ce of ?!!ea# on 2ot te AEC and te Aeno C"t&
?ttorne& (wose Cre"g 5,a' ('st #ast wee, !'r!orted to a+e ser+ed me +"a ema"# for an
e. !arte emergenc& mot"on to F'as 2ased '!on "s content"on tat m& ser+"ce of a
s'2!oena was "m!ro!er#& done$* 1nterest"ng#&- "n te C/08-01609 - I C?APE@%1EA-
E%?;/ ??EE5 74@D1@> I'dge 7#anagan (aga"n- m& former co-wor,er at Da#e ;ane
wo ref'sed to rec'se "mse#f- e+en were t"ngs ended te wa& te& d"d o+er te t"ngs
te& ended o+er at o'r former wor,!#ace***$ D6 sanct"oned me for !o"nt"ng o't te d'e
!rocess "ss'es attendant to a ser+"cer/2an, owned 2& te #aw f"rm on te case send"ng
te 5'mmar& I'dgment Eot"on o't to an address for one no #onger attorne& of record
and #"st"ng tat same attorne& "n te 2an,r'!tc& cred"tor matr".- and terefore- ma,"ng
rater #",e#& m& ten c#"ent)s wo'#d not rece"+e not"ce or o!!ort'n"t& to !'rs'e te 2enef"ts
of a A 3001 !roof of c#a"m a!!roac tere"n***a## were AC5/Q;5 ad te wrong co'rt
name "n te ca!t"on- wrong case n'm2er- wrong address "n "m!ortant cert"f"cates of
ma"#"ng- etc- etc**
?dd"t"ona##&- "t "s "na!!ro!r"ate for Ear& Handaras to 2e "n+o#+ed w"t an&t"ng to do w"t
/.//%&
me- AEC 11 %A 29800 or te gr"e+ance I'dge @as Do#mes f"#ed "nc"dent tereto ng12-
0435- or te conf"scat"on of m& smart !one- m"cro sd card- etc**G* 5e was "nt"mate#&
assoc"ate w"t te "m!ro!er 0searc "nc"dent to arrest0 'nderta,en a f'## da& after te
!ro!ert& was 2oo,ed "nto m& !ro!ert& at te BCDC "n connect"on w"t te 0s'mmar&
cr"m"na# contem!t0 5 da& "ncarcerat"on orderd 2& I'dge @as Do#mes "n 11 %A 29600
(anoter A"card D"## t"ng res'#t"ng "n me gett"ng arrested- and tat da&- 2/26/12- DD?
3o'ng and C"ra& Dogan e#d a 0c#andest"ne stat's conference0 des!"te a+"ng not"ced
me on 2/24/12 tat "s was reset to Earc 29t- 2012- an o2ta"ned an Jrder for
Com!etenc& E+a#'at"on from I'dge C#"fton "n rcr2012-095930- and des!"te adm"tt"ng to
comm'n"cat"ons w"t te BCPD "n er 3/14/12 gr"e+ance aga"nst me to te 5C@- I'dge
@as Do#mes !ers"sted "n o#d"ng a %r"a# "n 11 %A 29800 #ater tat da& (after er ('d"c"a#
ass"stant was f"na##& a2#e to trac, er down***2egg"ng te F'est"on- d"d I'dge @as
Do#mes and or I'dge B"##"am >arder/te BCD?/te BCPD/te 5C@ a+e a 0strateg&
sess"on0 res'#t"ng "n I'dge @as Do#mes transmogr"f&"ng te 0s"m!#e traff"c c"tat"on %r"a#0
"nto some 0s'mmar& cr"m"na# D"sc"!#"nar& Dear"ng0 !ast"ce***and w& d"d se f#at o't #"e
a2o't te order of te one restroom 2rea, and er s'a s!onte "nterrogat"on of Co'g#"n
"mmed"ate#& fo##ow"ng "t (a#ong w"t some nonsense a2o't Co'g#"n d"sassem2#"ng a
smart !one and "d"ng a !art of "t "n te restroom- were 0te Earsa#0 #ater fo'nd "t-
a##eged#& (f'nn& ow te 0m"sdemeanor of cr"m"na# contem!t0 con+"ct"on se entered "n
er Jrder F'otes a c"+"# contem!t stat'te***ten manages to a!!#& "t "n a s'mmar& fas"on
(to'g- to 2e s're- o#) Earsa# Ioe# Dar#e&- 5cott Co!!a- and %ownsend (te Earsa#-
not te I'd"c"a# ?ss"stant- s're d"d not a+e to s"gn an& aff"da+"ts a #a @A5 22*030(3$$ as
to a##eged cond'ct (Co'g#"n to#d no #"es tat da& and tere was no d"sassem2#"ng of
an&t"ng "n te restroom- and tere was no F'est"ons regard"ng record"ng te
!roceed"ngs 2e"ng recorded an&wa& an "n te !'2#"c record 'nt"# after te restroom
2rea,***w"c ma,es I'dge @as Do#mes test"mon& at Co'g#"n)s 11/14/12 D"sc"!#"nar&
Dear"ng tat se 0as,ed Co'g#"n "f e was record"ng or ad an& record"ng de+"ces and
e got a## snee,"t& r"gt awa&- te as,ed to go to te restroom- ten sa"d e wasn)t or
d"dnt)- ten F'ote- too, te f"ft***0 (or somet"ng rea# c#ose to tat- 1 don)t a+e te
transcr"!t &et of tat Ec>eorge 5coo# of ;aw 1966 re'n"oner- 1 mean te 11/14/12
D"sc"!#"nar& Dear"ng (a!!earances tere"n or references tereto "n te com!#a"nt:
Dardest& )65- @as Do#mes )66- E#cano )68- Cees#e& )69- Hent )80- Doward )81- ;oom"s
)82- >amm"c, )82- Handaras )91 (co'#dn)t get te smart!one or m"cro sd card
conf"scatde a da& after "t was 2oo,ed "nto 0e+"dence0 +"a some e.terme#& atten'ated
"nte!ret"on of te word 0"nc"dent0 "n te te !rase 0searc "nc"dent to arrest0- w"c
meant te AEC Earsa#s came to te (a"# and too, "t 2ac, te te AEC- 'nt"# Ear&
Handaras s"gned off on "t- e+en were I'dge @as Do#mes a#read& ad***and "s "t se
wo and#es &o'r s'2!oenasG ?nd "s on te @@DCG 1sn)t tat a conf#"ctG$
1n Cannon + Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Q'a#"f"cat"ons (1965$ 14 Ca# 3d 968- 122 Ca# A!tr 668- 536 P2d 898- te
co'rt- fo##ow"ng a 'nan"mo's recommendat"on of te Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Q'a#"f"cat"ons- ordered te
remo+a# from off"ce of a m'n"c"!a# co'rt ('dge fo'nd to a+e engaged "n 21 acts of w"##f'# m"scond'ct and
e"gt oter acts of !re('d"c"a# cond'ct* ?mong tese were se+era# a2'ses of te contem!t !ower "n w"c-
accord"ng to te co'rt- te 2ad fa"t of te ('dge was esta2#"sed 2& te fact tat se com!#ete#& "gnored
!ro!er !roced'res !ro+"ded "n te c"+"# code for !'n"s"ng a contem!t comm"tted "n te "mmed"ate !resence of
/.%/%&
te co'rt* %e co'rt fo'nd tat "n c"t"ng !'2#"c defenders for d"rect contem!t- se w"##f'##& fa"#ed to ma,e orders
rec"t"ng te facts const"t't"ng te contem!t and !rescr"2"ng te !'n"sment- tat se em2ar,ed on a !rogram
2& w"c te !'2#"c defenders were carged and "ncarcerated as cr"m"na#s des!"te er ,now#edge tat te&
wo'#d 2e ent"t#ed to 2e re#eased 2& e.traord"nar& wr"t- tat se c"ted tem on gro'nds se ne+er so'gt to
esta2#"s- tat se demonstrated no con+"nc"ng "nterest or ('d"c"a# res!ons"2"#"t& "n te contem!t !roceed"ngs
after ascerta"n"ng tat te !'2#"c defenders ad 2een s'2(ect to 2oo,"ng !roced'res- and tat er cond'ct
was somet"mes +'#gar- #ac,"ng "n 'mane 'nderstand"ng and gro'nded "n retr"2't"on and ost"#"t&* %e co'rt
deemed to 2e !art"c'#ar#& egreg"o's te 2ad fa"t and ma#"c"o'sness w"t w"c te ('dge ar2"trar"#& ordered
te "mmed"ate "ncarcerat"ons of de!'t& !'2#"c defenders wo d"s!#eased er- and den"ed te effect"+e r"gt to
co'nse# to te"r c#"ents- wo were reF'"red to defend aga"nst carges "n ongo"ng cr"m"na# !roceed"ngs w"t
s'2st"t'ted co'nse# wo were afforded no reasona2#e o!!ort'n"t& to !re!are* %e co'rt stated tat te
"n+o#'ntar& remo+a# of an& attorne& was a se+ere #"m"tat"on on a defendant)s r"gt to co'nse# and m"gt 2e
('st"f"ed- "f at a##- on#& "n te most f#agrant c"rc'mstances of attorne& m"scond'ct or "ncom!etence wen a##
oter ('d"c"a# contro#s ad fa"#ed* %e co'rt a#so stated tat w"to't determ"n"ng weter an& of te ('dge)s
contem!t c"tat"ons were warranted- "t was ne+erte#ess man"fest tat "n none of te "nstances was te cond'ct
of te !'2#"c defenders so f#agrant tat te ('dge was ('st"f"ed "n a2r'!t#& s'2st"t't"ng co'nse# w"to't te !r"or
conc'rrence of te attorne&s and defendants "n+o#+ed* %e co'rt noted tat te s'mmar& contem!t !ower
was te '#t"mate wea!on and so'#d a+e 2een te ('dge)s #ast- rater tan f"rst- means of contro##"ng
!roceed"ngs "n er co'rtroom* 7"na##&- te co'rt e#d tat as te ('dge)s 'n('d"c"a# cond'ct d"d not amo'nt to
mora# t'r!"t'de- se wo'#d 2e !erm"tted to res'me te !ract"ce of #aw*
nas o#mes and oward
1n A&an + Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Performance (1988$ 45 Ca# 3d 518- 246 Ca# A!tr 368- 654 P2d 624- 69
?;A4t 951- te co'rt- ado!t"ng te recommendat"on of te Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Performance- ordered
tat a m'n"c"!a# co'rt ('dge 2e remo+ed from off"ce for fo'r acts of w"##f'# m"scond'ct "n off"ce and fo'rteen
acts of cond'ct !re('d"c"a# to te adm"n"strat"on of ('st"ce* %wo of te "nstances of w"##f'# m"scond'ct "n+o#+ed
a2'se of te contem!t !ower* 1n te f"rst "nstance- an attorne&- wo was "n co'rt for an 'nre#ated matter-
o2ser+ed a fr"end a!!ear"ng 2efore te ('dge on se+era# m"sdemeanor carges* %e attorne& attem!ted to
"nter+ene on 2ea#f of "s fr"end on te "ss'e of re#ease on 2a"#* %e ('dge tan,ed te attorne& 2't stated tat
e ad a#read& made "s dec"s"on* %e ('dge ten #eft te co'rtroom* Ben te co'rt sess"on ended- te
attorne& a!!roaced anoter attorne& "n te co'rtroom and (o,"ng#& as,ed wen te ne.t ('d"c"a# e#ect"on
wo'#d 2e e#d* %e ('dge)s co'rt c#er, o+ereard te attorne&)s F'est"on and stated tat te comment was
"na!!ro!r"ate* %e ens'"ng con+ersat"on 2etween te attorne& and te c#er, 2ecame eated and te 2a"#"ff
ad to "nter+ene* %e c#er, "mmed"ate#& went to te ('dge)s cam2ers and "nformed "m of wat ad
trans!"red* %e ('dge ca##ed te attorne& "nto "s cam2ers* 7o##ow"ng an 'nsworn rec"tat"on of te facts 2&
certa"n w"tnesses- te ('dge e#d te attorne& "n contem!t of co'rt and s'mmar"#& sentenced "m to a P200
f"ne or 3 da&s "n (a"#- g"+"ng te attorne& 3 da&s to !a& te f"ne* %e attorne& "mmed"ate#& f"#ed a !et"t"on for wr"t
of a2eas cor!'s "n te s'!er"or co'rt* 5oon after- te ('dge to#d te !ress tat e "ntended to dro! te
contem!t carge* Dowe+erte ('dge as,ed te d"str"ct attorne& to researc contem!t #aw for "m and d"d not
"nform te a##eged contemnor tat e was dro!!"ng te contem!t order 'nt"# 2 wee,s #ater* %e contem!t
order was #ater "n+a#"dated 2& te s'!er"or co'rt* %e co'rt '!e#d te Comm"ss"on)s determ"nat"on tat te
('dge so'#d a+e ,nown tat te contem!t order was s'2stant"+e#& and !roced'ra##& "n+a#"d- and tat te
('dge)s cont"n'ed !'rs'"t of te contem!t case was done "n 2ad fa"t* %e co'rt e#d tat te ('dge ad
com!#ete#& "gnored te !roced're reF'"red for "ss'"ng contem!t orders 2& f"nd"ng te attorne& g'"#t& of
contem!t mere#& on te 2as"s of 'nsworn test"mon& wen te stat'tor& !roced're for "nd"rect contem!t
reF'"red an aff"da+"t 2e !resented to te ('dge rec"t- "ng te facts const"t't"ng contem!t* (5ee- I'dge @as
Do#mes re#&"ng on er attr"2't"ons to AEC Earsa# Dar#e&- and er 0gett"ng conf'sed0 a2o't te Jrder of er
s'a s!onte "nterrogat"on of Co'g#"n a2o't 0record"ng or record"gn de+"ces0 and wen te on#& restroom
2rea, too, !#ace tat da&***to 2e c#ear- Co'g#"n D1D @J% #"e to I'dge @as Do#mes d'r"ng te %r"a# "n 11 %A
/.,/%&
29800- no matter wat I'dge @as Do#mes ma& a+e 0fo'nd 2& c#ear and con+"c"ng e+"dence0 or oterw"se
Jrdered* Eoreo+erte co'rt agreed w"t te Comm"ss"on tat te comment made 2& te attorne& regard"ng
te ne.t ('d"c"a# e#ect"on was m"#d- te eated con+ersat"on w"t te c#er, d"d not r"se to te #e+e# of
contem!t'o's 2ea+"or- te attorne&)s cond'ct d"d not "nterfere w"t co'rt !roceed"ngs- nor d"d "t #ower
esteem for te ('d"c"ar&* Ae"terat"ng "ts o#d"ng "n Cannon + Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Q'a#"f"cat"ons (1965$ 14
Ca# 3d 968- 122 Ca# A!tr 668- 536 P2d 898 (t"s sect"on$- tat fa"#"ng to fo##ow !ro!er contem!t !roced'res-
w"to't more- const"t'ted 2ad fa"t for an e.!er"enced ('dge- te co'rt e#d tat te ('dge- wo was a#so
e.!er"enced* ()old )ave 3no#n or ()old )ave re(ear+)ed &)e proper +on&emp& pro+edre( and &)a&
$0noran+e o! &)e pro+edre( +on(&$&&ed bad !a$&) nder &)e &#opron0 &e(& !or bad !a$&) or mal$+e4
$n&en&$onal +omm$(($on o! a+&( #)$+) a 5d0e 3ne# or ()old )ave 3no#n #ere be/ond )$( po#er* !or
a prpo(e o&)er &)an &)e !a$&)!l d$(+)ar0e o! 5d$+$al d&$e(. %e co'rt a#so e#d tat te ('dge)s !'rs'"t
of te matter w"t te d"str"ct attorne& e+en after e rea#"zed tat te contem!t order was "n+a#"d- and "s
fa"#'re to not"f& te a##eged contemnor tat te matter was dro!!ed 'nt"# 2 wee,s #ater a#so const"t'ted 2ad
fa"t* 7"na##&- te co'rt e#d tat 2eca'se te m"scond'ct for w"c te ('dge was 2e"ng remo+ed d"d not
amo'nt to gro'nds for d"s2arment- e wo'#d 2e !erm"tted to !ract"ce #aw on cond"t"on tat e !ass te
Profess"ona# Aes!ons"2"#"t& E.am"nat"on*
#"nda gardner: #"sted 2& 5C@ as te gr"e+ant "n ng12-0435 (to'g te 5C@)s H"ng fa"#ed to ma,e
a C"ng arg'ment #"st"ng te 5C@ as gr"e+ant- to'g e attem!ts to c#ean t"ngs '! w"t "s 4/19/12 ema"#
!'r!ort"ng to a+e rec"e+ed I'dge ;* >ardner)s ?!r"# 2009 Jrder form 0te c#er, of te co'rt0
1n I'd"c"a# 1nF'"r& R Ae+"ew Cd* of 5'!reme Co'rt + 7"n, (1986$ 519 Pa 208- 532 ?2d 358- te co'rt ordered
te remo+a# of a co'nt& ('dge on se+era# gro'nds of m"scond'ct- "nc#'d"ng a2'se of cr"m"na# contem!t
!owers* 1n a !roceed"ng to determ"ne weter c'stod& of a r'nawa& g"r# so'#d go to er fater or one of er
2roters- te ('dge demanded a !r"+ate meet"ng w"t anoter son of te !#a"nt"ff fater and attem!ted to
con+"nce te son tat "s fater)s #aw&er was not to 2e tr'sted* %e co'rt fo'nd tat te ('dge 'nderm"ned te
attorne&-c#"ent re#at"ons"!- ten attem!ted to 'se te son to "m!ose a so#'t"on to te case w"c te ('dge
fa+ored and w"c was contrar& to te re#"ef reF'ested 2& te fater and te d"sfa+ored attorne&* Ben te
fater)s attorne& fo'nd o't a2o't te e. !arte comm'n"cat"on- e mo+ed for rec'sa#- c"t"ng te ('dge)s 2"as
aga"nst "m* %e ('dge den"ed te mot"on and reF'ested te attorne& to f"#e te mot"on "n wr"t"ng* Cefore te
wr"tten mot"on was f"#ed- 2't after te ('dge ad re+"ewed te ora# mot"on from te transcr"2ed notes of
test"mon&- te ('dge s'mmoned te attorne& to "s off"ce- s'mmar"#& e#d "m "n contem!t and f"ned "m
P300* %e attorne& ad 2een g"+en no not"ce of te !end"ng contem!t carge* %e s'!er"or co'rt re+ersed
te contem!t c"tat"on* %e co'rt stated tat te stat'tor& e#ements of cr"m"na# contem!t "nc#'de te "ntent to
d"sr'!t ('d"c"a# !roceed"ngs and te act'a# o2str'ct"on of te adm"n"strat"on of ('st"ce* %e ('dge- "n test"mon&
2efore te 2oard of "nF'"r&- adm"tted tat te attorne&)s mot"on for rec'sa# d"d not o2str'ct te c'stod&
!roceed"ng* %e 2oard ad conc#'ded tat te ('dge +"o#ated te code of ('d"c"a# cond'ct* %e co'rt- "n
acce!t"ng te recommendat"ons of te 2oard- e#d tat "s cond'ct "n te contem!t matter rose to te #e+e# of
o'trageo'sness*
sferrazza ca##"ng AIC c"+"# d"+"s"on C#er, Ionas as "s own B"tness (,"nd of #",e 5C@ H"ng ma,"ng ;a'ra
Peters- 5C@ 0C#er, of Co'rt0 f"#ed "n- o't of order- on 10/31/12- an ?ff"da+"t of 10/9/12- were"n Peters dances
aro'nd te wo#e 0se ga+e Co'g#"n !erm"ss"on to f"#e 2& fa.0 fact$ and mo+"ng for s'mmar& ('dgment
aga"nst Co'g#"n at te 12/20/11 ear"n "n r(c re+2011-001608- te Dear"ng on Co'g#"n)s 11/19/12 Eot"on to
//0/%&
Contest Persona# Pro!ert& ;"en*
- 4[a] 1d0e6( +ond+& &o#ard par&/78eld 0rond( !or d$(+$pl$ne or removal
:C'm'#at"+e 5'!!#ement<
1n te fo##ow"ng cases- "n+o#+"ng m"scond'ct of a ('dge toward a !art& "n te 'se of te contem!t !ower- te
co'rts e#d tat te m"scond'ct warranted remo+a# or s's!ens"on of te ('dges* 1n Benger + Comm"ss"on on
I'd"c"a# Performance (1981$ 29 Ca# 3d 915- 165 Ca# A!tr 420- 930 P2d 954- te co'rt ordered te remo+a# of
a ('dge- for- "nter a#"a- a2'se of te contem!t !ower* %e f"rst "nstance of a2'se of te contem!t !ower arose
"n an act"on 2& a woman aga"nst er ne"g2or for c'tt"ng 2rances of er tree tat o+er'ng "s #and* ?t a
ear"ng "t was esta2#"sed tat te defendant f"n"sed te !r'n"ng 2efore 2e"ng ser+ed w"t a restra"n"ng
order* %e case was and#ed as a sma##-c#a"ms matter- a'tor"z"ng te ('dge to ma,e an "nde!endent
"n+est"gat"on* 1t was te ('dge)s 'nderstand"ng tat te defendant ad agreed to !a& wate+er damages te
co'rt fo'nd* %e ('dge wrote a #etter to te defendant- stat"ng tat te defendant ad ca'sed damages of P45
and order"ng 0!roof of correct"+e meas'res0 2& a certa"n date* %e defendant)s attorne& re!#"ed 2& a #etter
not"ng tat te ('dge ad eard te matter on an order to sow ca'se re !re#"m"nar& "n('nct"on- not a tr"a# of
te facts- and tat te ('dge)s and#"ng of te case smac,ed of star-cam2er* %e attorne& mo+ed to
d"sF'a#"f& te ('dge* %e ('dge den"ed te mot"on* De s'ggested tat te !#a"nt"ff)s attorne& f"#e te
a!!ro!r"ate aff"da+"ts "f te !#a"nt"ff w"sed to enforce te ear#"er 'nderstand"ng concern"ng damages 2&
contem!t !roceed"ngs* ? wee, #ater- te ('dge "ss'ed a not"ce of order to sow ca'se ear"ng regard"ng a
contem!t of co'rt* %e ('dge regarded te defendant)s noncom!#"ance w"t te 'nderstand"ng to !a&
damages a contem!t of co'rt e+en to'g no ('dgment ad 2een entered* %e ('dge e#"c"ted test"mon& of te
!#a"nt"ff)s +ers"on of te 'nderstand"ng from "s 2a"#"ff and c#er, ten ca##ed te defendant to te stand* %e
defendant)s attorne& "n+o,ed te !r"+"#ege aga"nst se#f-"ncr"m"nat"on* %o o+ercome tat o2(ect"onte ('dge
w"tdrew "s contem!t order aga"nst te defendant* %e ('dge ten as,ed te defendant "f "s attorne& ad
ad+"sed "m not to com!#& w"t te ('dge)s order to !a& damages* %e attorne& ten "nter!osed te attorne&-
c#"ent !r"+"#ege and te ('dge treatened 2ot w"t contem!t* %e defendant ten test"f"ed a2o't "s attorne&)s
ad+"ce and oter as!ects of te case* %e co'rt e#d tat contem!t was not a !ro!er remed& to enforce te
s'!!osed st"!'#at"on to !a& damages* %e co'rt a#so e#d tat w"#e te ('dge was ('st"f"a2#& angered 2& te
"ntem!erate #ang'age of te 0star-cam2er0 #etter- and !ro!er#& m"gt a+e ta,en remed"a# ste!s s'c as
demand"ng an a!o#og&- te ('dge "nstead so'gt +"nd"cat"on tro'g m"s'se of te contem!t !ower* %e co'rt
e#d tat te ('dge)s "m!ro!er "n(ect"on of "mse#f "nto te !roceed"ng and "s a2'se of te contem!t !ower
were w"##f'# m"scond'ct* ?noter "nstance of a2'se of te contem!t !ower "n+o#+ed a traff"c defendant wo
made remar,s tat te ('dge deemed offens"+e* D'r"ng a recess- te defendant #eft- ta,"ng w"t "m te co'rt
doc,et on "s case* %e ('dge "mmed"ate#& "ss'ed a 0no 2a"#0 arrest warrant c"t"ng te traff"c offenses and
m"sdemeanor contem!t and teft* %e warrant stated tat a +er"f"ed com!#a"nt ad 2een made 2efore te
('dge concern"ng te offenses set fort "n te warrant- 2't- a!art from te traff"c "nfract"ons- no com!#a"nt ad
2een f"#ed* %e ('dge rece"+ed a #etter from te defendant conta"n"ng te sto#en doc,et- a forma# a!o#og& and
a cec, for P10- te or"g"na# 2a"# set on te c"tat"on* 5e+en da&s #ater te defendant was arrested on te
warrant* ?fter te ('dge ad 2een ser+ed w"t a a2eas cor!'s !et"t"on- e s"gned 0an aff"da+"t "n s'!!ort of
ear"ng on contem!t*0 %e ('dge d"rected "s c#er, to 2ac,date te aff"da+"t to te date on w"c e rece"+ed
te defendant)s #etter- te date on w"c- e c#a"med- e started te ro'g draft* ?t te a2eas ear"ng te
('dge adm"tted 'nder cross-e.am"nat"on 2& te defendant)s attorne& tat te aff"da+"t ad 2een t&!ed a wee,
after te attorne&)s c#er, ad e.am"ned te f"#e and ascerta"ned te a2sence of an& aff"da+"t concern"ng
contem!t* %e co'rt fo'nd tat te ('dge)s mot"+at"on for 2ac,dat"ng te aff"da+"t was not c#ear- 2't tat "t was
done de#"2erate#&* %e co'rt e#d tat te ('dge ,new or so'#d a+e ,nown tat te 2ac,dat"ng wo'#d create
a fa#se "m!ress"on tat e ad s"gned on te ear#"er date* %e co'rt stated tat wate+er te ('dge)s !'r!ose-
te 2ac,dat"ng was w"##f'# m"scond'ct* 1n 7're& + Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Performance (1986$ 43 Ca# 3d
1296- 240 Ca# A!tr 859- 643 P2d 919- te co'rt ordered te remo+a# of a ('st"ce co'rt ('dge after f"nd"ng e"gt
"nstances of w"##f'# m"scond'ct and ten "nstances of !re('d"c"a# cond'ct- "nc#'d"ng n'mero's "nc"dents of
a2'se of te contem!t !ower* Jne "nstance of !re('d"c"a# m"scond'ct arose from a !roceed"ng "n w"c a
!ro2at"oner was to acco'nt for "s comm'n"t& ser+"ce* %e !ro2at"oner attem!ted to e.!#a"n to te ('dge tat
e was "n !a"n and ad a med"ca# a!!o"ntment- 2't te ('dge "nterr'!ted "m- d"rect"ng "m to ret'rn "n te
afternoon w"t "s attorne&* %e ('dge treatened to f"nd "m "n contem!t* %e !ro2at"oner re!#"ed- 0?## r"gt* 1
//1/%&
don)t ,now w& &o' are arass"ng me*0 %e ('dge "mmed"ate#& e#d "m "n contem!t for "s 'tterance and
remanded "m to c'stod&* 1n te afternoon- te !ro2at"oner)s co'nse# a!!eared and reF'ested te ('dge to
set 2a"#* %e ('dge set 2a"# 2't ordered te !ro2at"oner to rema"n "n c'stod& and to 2e med"ca##& e.am"ned "n
te co'nt& (a"#* %e ne.t da&- te ('dge !'rged te !ro2at"oner)s contem!t fo##ow"ng an a!o#og&* %e co'rt
e#d tat "n #"gt of te fact tat- at te t"me of te "nc"dent- te ('dge ad occ'!"ed "s off"ce for a mere 1 or 2
monts- "s a2'se of te contem!t !ower was not s'ff"c"ent#& aggra+ated to const"t'te w"##f'# m"scond'ct- 2't
was mere#& !re('d"c"a# cond'ct* ?noter "nstance of !re('d"c"a# m"scond'ct occ'rred wen an 'nre!resented
traff"c defendant a!!eared 2efore "m to reF'est more t"me to !a& a f"ne* ?noter ('dge ad !re+"o's#&
"m!osed on "m te sentence of P300 or 10 da&s "n !r"son* %e ('dge ref'sed te reF'est* %e defendant
!o"nted o't tat oters "n co'rt were o2ta"n"ng cont"n'ances- 2't te ('dge warned "m to sa& not"ng f'rter
and remanded "m to ser+e 10 da&s* ?s te defendant was 2e"ng d"rected toward te (a"#- e m'ttered te
word 0tremendo's*0 %e ('dge "mmed"ate#& fo'nd "m "n contem!t and sentenced "m to 5 da&s "n (a"#* %e
defendant ten 'ttered te s&##a2#e 0s-0 w"c te ('dge 2e#"e+ed was fo##owed 2& 0"t0= e aga"n e#d te
defendant "n contem!t and "m!osed anoter sentence of 5 da&s* ;ater tat da&- a de!'t& !'2#"c defender
"nterceded on
e##"ott and c#"fton:
C@1&=00,02 = GE@+3 D) 9+:C; @1) :;#3D6 C$+"5#3 E56$ (D!
http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?backto=P&case_id=CV13
!!"!#&be$i%_date=&e%d_date=
http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_&rames?backto=P&case_id=C'13
!((#&be$i%_date=&e%d_date=
)owe*er+ i% C'13!((# a%d -3!.1 /see -33.# as well0 where Cou$hli% &iled a 1a%damus Petitio% be&ore 21!3s 4attler a$ai%st
his &ormer coworker+ 'o%da Cli&to%3s husba%d+ '5C 5ud$e 2a*id Cli&to% where he will&ully *iolated 6'4 178..!(+ a%d %ow he a%d
his &ormer coworker at the 9C2:3s ;&&ice a%d %ow curre%t '5C 5ud$e 4cott Pearso% are re&usi%$ to release the audio
tra%scripts /throu$h u%si$%ed <6otices o& 2ocume%t 'ecei*ed but 6ot Co%sidered by the Court< that '5C 5udicial 4ecretary
)eidi )owde% /&ormerly 5ud$e =lliott3s :dmi%istrati*e :ssista%t0 se%ds out i% respo%se to Cou$hli%3s requests &or audio+ &rom
the seco%d heari%$ o& the day o% #/(/13 i% rcr#!11!-33.1 a%d both heari%$s that day i% rCr#!1#!-(-3! because+ some
mi$ht say+ it is pate%t >udicial misco%duct &or Cli&to% to $o back to the >ud$es3 lou%$e a%d e?hort his &ellow 5ud$e Cli&to% to
<ame%d< the ;rder @or Compete%cy =*aluatio% he si$%ed %ot twe%ty mi%utes be&ore...
:lso+ Cli&to% seemed to attempt to a*oid admitti%$ his wi&e is :A 'o%da Cli&to% or 'ho%da Cli&to% i% respo%se to Cou$hli%3s
asserti%$ a co%&lict or basis &or recusal duri%$ the 3/1"/1# heari%$ i% 'C'#!1#!-(-3! upo% Cou$hli%3s appeal o& 5ud$e =lliott3s
striki%$ most o& his &ili%$s i% C'1##!#( bei%$ appealed i% -#8#1+ resulti%$ i% the :A3s ;&&ice appeari%$ as attor%ey o& record
therei%... http://www.youtube.com/watch?*=a8B@@2o;l)= http://www.youtube.com/watch?*=t9iiysCwa*k
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.77.31/73113!#!.'5CPears6oticeo&'eceipto&2ocume%t6otCo%sideredbyCourt
-(-3!-33.1-7"8!'equests&or:udio71.377#-7(
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-!.(181#/81.13!#!.-#33771.377#-7(Complete9ith:ttachme%ts'5C5ud$ePearso%
:dmi%istrati*e;rder#!13!-1!.837.17!8-7"8!-33.1-(-3!;cr:"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.8(!1./.#13!#!.!-(-3!!-33.1!((#=mer$e%cyPetitio%&or9rito&1a%damusa%d
D@P1otio%
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1((8#-!-"/.313!#!.!-(-3!!-33.1C'13!((#;rderby@ormer9C2:6ow5ud$e4attler
4triki%$Cou$hli%s1a%damusPetitio%'eViolatio%so&4tayE%der6'4178.
//2/%&
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.8.(!7/.1813!#!.-3!.1Cou$hli%*'e%o5usticeCourtCli&to%Pearso%6oticeo&:ppeal
1311(#-2i$
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.8.(!8/.1#13C'13!((#!#!.-3!.1Cou$hli%*'e%o5usticeCourtCli&to%Pearso%
6oticeo&:ppeal#52C4ee-33.#
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1-8.88!-1/71813!#!.-33.#6;BDC=71(13-33.#
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1(8#783!8/7#.13!#!.-33.#4tamped4tacked1otio%to:me%dPetitio%&or9rit9ith=?
1Parts1to1!
-33.#: C;EA)CD6 /F:C):'G0 V4. CCD@B;6
http://casei%&o.%*supremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?docume%t=rror=13
#171(H3:IBhisIdocume%tIisIcurre%tlyIu%a*ailable.ID&IyouI%eedIaIcopyIo&IthisIdocume%tH#CIpleaseIco%tactIClerk
H#7sI;&&iceIatIH#877(H#"-8.1-!!.&csDD2=31(#(
tt!://www*ccwasoe*com/!'2#"c/c,S!'2#"cSFr&Sdoct*c!Sd,tr!tSdoc,etSre!ortG2ac,toTPRcaseS"dTC/13-
00902R2eg"nSdateTRendSdateT
C/13-00902 - HE/1@ I* E1ACD /5* ADJ@D? C;17%J@ E%?; (D4$
1n 7're& + Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Performance (1986$ 43 Ca# 3d 1296- 240 Ca# A!tr 859- 643 P2d 919- te
co'rt ordered te remo+a# of a ('st"ce co'rt ('dge after f"nd"ng e"gt "nstances of w"##f'# m"scond'ct and ten
"nstances of !re('d"c"a# cond'ct- "nc#'d"ng n'mero's "nc"dents of a2'se of te contem!t !ower* Jne "nstance
of !re('d"c"a# m"scond'ct arose from a !roceed"ng "n w"c a !ro2at"oner was to acco'nt for "s comm'n"t&
ser+"ce* %e !ro2at"oner attem!ted to e.!#a"n to te ('dge tat e was "n !a"n and ad a med"ca#
a!!o"ntment- 2't te ('dge "nterr'!ted "m- d"rect"ng "m to ret'rn "n te afternoon w"t "s attorne&* %e
('dge treatened to f"nd "m "n contem!t* %e !ro2at"oner re!#"ed- 0?## r"gt* 1 don)t ,now w& &o' are
arass"ng me*0 %e ('dge "mmed"ate#& e#d "m "n contem!t for "s 'tterance and remanded "m to c'stod&*
1n te afternoon- te !ro2at"oner)s co'nse# a!!eared and reF'ested te ('dge to set 2a"#* %e ('dge set 2a"#
2't ordered te !ro2at"oner to rema"n "n c'stod& and to 2e med"ca##& e.am"ned "n te co'nt& (a"#* %e ne.t
da&- te ('dge !'rged te !ro2at"oner)s contem!t fo##ow"ng an a!o#og&* %e co'rt e#d tat "n #"gt of te fact
tat- at te t"me of te "nc"dent- te ('dge ad occ'!"ed "s off"ce for a mere 1 or 2 monts- "s a2'se of te
contem!t !ower was not s'ff"c"ent#& aggra+ated to const"t'te w"##f'# m"scond'ct- 2't was mere#& !re('d"c"a#
cond'ct* ?noter "nstance of !re('d"c"a# m"scond'ct occ'rred wen an 'nre!resented traff"c defendant
a!!eared 2efore "m to reF'est more t"me to !a& a f"ne* ?noter ('dge ad !re+"o's#& "m!osed on "m te
sentence of P300 or 10 da&s "n !r"son* %e ('dge ref'sed te reF'est* %e defendant !o"nted o't tat oters
"n co'rt were o2ta"n"ng cont"n'ances- 2't te ('dge warned "m to sa& not"ng f'rter and remanded "m to
ser+e 10 da&s* ?s te defendant was 2e"ng d"rected toward te (a"#- e m'ttered te word 0tremendo's*0 %e
('dge "mmed"ate#& fo'nd "m "n contem!t and sentenced "m to 5 da&s "n (a"#* %e defendant ten 'ttered te
s&##a2#e 0s-0 w"c te ('dge 2e#"e+ed was fo##owed 2& 0"t0= e aga"n e#d te defendant "n contem!t and
"m!osed anoter sentence of 5 da&s* ;ater tat da&- a de!'t& !'2#"c defender "nterceded on 2ea#f of te
defendant and !ers'aded te ('dge- on te defendant)s a!o- #og&- to !'rge te contem!t and grant a
cont"n'ance to !a& te f"ne* %e co'rt e#d tat te ('dge ad not fo##owed te mandated contem!t !roced're
and ad acted 'n('d"c"o's#& toward te defendant* @ot"ng tat te ('dge ad ten 2een on te 2enc #ess
tan a#f a &ear- te co'rt e#d tat te a2'se of te contem!t !ower mere#& const"t'ted !re('d"c"a# cond'ct*
?noter "nstance of !re('d"c"a# cond'ct occ'rred wen a traff"c defendant a!!eared 2efore te ('dge to
d"sc'ss "s "na2"#"t& to !a& a f"ne* %e ('dge ,new tat te defendant was "nd"gent and !oss"2#& menta##&
'n2a#anced* De a#so 2e#"e+ed- on te 2as"s of r'mors regard"ng an ear#"er "nc"dent "n te co'rto'se- tat te
defendant was !otent"a##& +"o#ent* %e ('dge ordered te defendant)s 2ag- w"c was o't of te defendant)s
reac- to 2e searced* %e searc re+ea#ed some food and a sma## !ar"ng ,n"fe meas'r"ng 2are#& 4 1/4
"nces* %e ('dge !rom!t#& fo'nd te defendant "n +"o#at"on of a sect"on of te !ena# code w"c !ro"2"ts
2r"ng"ng "nto a co'rtroom a ,n"fe w"t a 2#ade "n e.cess of 4 "nces* De was remanded to c'stod& and 2a"#
//&/%&
was set at P10-000* ;ater- on te ('dge)s "n"t"at"+e- a de!'t& !'2#"c defender a!!eared w"t te defendant* %e
('dge fo'nd te defendant "n contem!t for enter"ng te co'rtroom w"t a ,n"fe and sentenced "m to 5 da&s "n
(a"#* De f'rter ordered a menta# e.am"nat"on* Ben te de!'t& !'2#"c defender o2(ected to te e.am"nat"on-
te ('dge "m!osed on te defendant a P500 f"ne- to 2e ser+ed at te rate of P30 !er da&- and cont"n'ed to
"ns"st on te menta# e+a#'at"on* %e defendant res!onded 2& ma,"ng se+era# 2"zarre comments* %e ('dge
fo'nd "m g'"#t& of two more co'nts of contem!t- eac of w"c was !'n"sed 2& a consec't"+e sentence of 5
da&s- !#'s f"nes of P500 for eac co'nt- to 2e ser+ed at te rate of P30 !er da&* %e defendant was
s'2seF'ent#& re#eased on a wr"t of a2eas cor!'s* %e co'rt fo'nd a2'se of te contem!t !ower* %e co'rt
e#d tat remand"ng te defendant to c'stod& "n"t"a##& co'#d not 2e ('st"f"ed for fa"#'re to !a& te f"ne for te
'nder#&"ng "nfract"on nor was "t a!!ro!r"ate as !'n"sment for contem!t for a+"ng a ,n"fe "n te co'rtroom "n
te a2sence of wr"tten f"nd"ngs and an order* %e co'rt noted tat te searc of a 2ag on te 2as"s of r'mors
regard"ng an ear#"er "nc"dent was "tse#f F'est"ona2#e- as was te ('dge)s o+erreact"on to a sma## !ar"ng ,n"fe
tat was 2e&ond te defendant)s reac* %e co'rt was tro'2#ed 2& te fact tat wen te de!'t& !'2#"c
defender F'est"oned te order for a menta# o2ser+at"on 2eca'se te e.am"nat"on m"gt not 2e !oss"2#e w"t"n
te 5-da& (a"# term- te ('dge "m!osed an add"t"ona# f"ne- ,now"ng te defendant was "nd"gent and wo'#d a+e
to wor, off te t"me "n (a"#* %e co'rt e#d tat te ('dge ad t's "ncreased te !ena#t& for contem!t 2e&ond
te 5 da&s !erm"tted 2& #aw to an effect"+e !er"od of some 22 da&s "n (a"# to ens're tat te defendant wo'#d
2e e#d #ong eno'g for a menta# e.am"nat"on* %e co'rt a#so e#d tat te two contem!t co'nts were a#so
defect"+e 2eca'se te& "m!osed consec't"+e sentences for a s"ng#e co'rse of cond'ct* %e co'rt- not"ng tat
te Comm"ss"on ad conc#'ded tat te ('dge)s fears ar"s"ng o't of re!orts of a !r"or ,n"fe "nc"dent m"t"gated
te ('dge)s cond'ct- e#d te act"ons to 2e !re('d"c"a# rater tan w"##f'#* @ot"ng tat te cond'ct for w"c te
('dge was 2e"ng remo+ed d"d not amo'nt to gro'nds for d"s2arment or s's!ens"on from te !ract"ce of #aw-
te co'rt e#d tat e co'#d cont"n'e to !ract"ce #aw- 2't wo'#d 2e reF'"red to !ass te Profess"ona#
Aes!ons"2"#"t& E.am"nat"on w"t"n 1 &ear*
nas o#mes:
1n A&an + Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Performance (1988$ 45 Ca# 3d 518- 246 Ca# A!tr 368- 654 P2d 624- 69
?;A4t 951- te co'rt ordered te remo+a# of a m'n"c"!a# ('dge for a2's"ng "s contem!t !ower* %e ('dge
ordered a defendant "n a c"+"# matter to !a& a ('dgment* %e defendant was '!set and !rotested te dec"s"on-
2't #ater a!o#og"zed for er o't2'rst* ?s se was #ea+"ng te co'rtroom- se remar,ed- 0&o' can)t get 2#ood
o't of a t'rn"!*0 %e ('dge eard te comment and ordered "s 2a"#"ff to ta,e te defendant "nto c'stod& for
contem!t* %e ('dge s'mmar"#& sentenced er to (a"# for 24 o'rs w"to't not"ce or an o!!ort'n"t& to 2e eard*
%e ('dge ten re#"ed on "s 2a"#"ff for ad+"ce as to te code sect"on to c"te "n "s order* %e order c"ted te te
wrong sect"on of te !ena# code and d"d not "nc#'de a s'mmar& of facts const"t't"ng contem!t* %e defendant
ser+ed 24 o'rs "n te co'nt& (a"#* %e co'rt e#d tat te ('dge ad a2'sed "s contem!t !ower 2&
com!#ete#& "gnor"ng contem!t !roced'res* %e co'rt a#so e#d tat te ('dge ad comm"tted 'n('d"c"a#
cond'ct "n re#&"ng on "s 2a"#"ff for te #ega# c"tat"ons to !'t "n "s order* %e co'rt a#so e#d tat te
m"scond'ct for w"c te ('dge wo'#d 2e remo+ed d"d not amo'nt to gro'nds for d"s2arment and e#d tat- "f
oterw"se F'a#"f"ed- e wo'#d 2e !erm"tted to !ract"ce #aw on cond"t"on tat e !ass te Profess"ona#
Aes!ons"2"#"t& E.am"nat"on
nas o#mes:
//!/%&
1n Ae Aoss (1981- Ee$ 428 ?2d 858- te co'rt s's!ended a ('dge-at-#arge of te d"str"ct co'rt for 90 da&s
for cond'ct +"o#at"+e of te code of ('d"c"a# cond'ct- "nc#'d"ng two "nstances of a2'se of te contem!t !ower*
%e ('dge ad sentenced a defendant wo adm"tted !ossess"on of a 'sa2#e amo'nt of mar"('ana- a c"+"#
+"o#at"on- to !a& a forfe"t're of P100 or to 2e "m!r"soned- ser+"ng o't te f"ne at te rate of P10 !er da&* %e
defendant #eft te co'rtroom and- "n te !resence of co'rt off"cers and oters- made +'#gar and derogator&
statements a2o't te ('dge* ? co'rt off"cer re!orted te statements to te ('dge- wo ad te defendant
reca##ed to te co'rtroom were- "n +'#gar- a2's"+e- and "ntem!erate #ang'age- e "ncreased te forfe"t're
from P100 to P200 and canged te !er d"em rate of ser+"ng o't te f"ne from P10 !er da& of conf"nement to
P5 !er da&* %e co'rt e#d tat te ('dgment was "##ega# "n se+era# res!ects* %e co'rt noted tat te on#&
!ena#t& !ro+"ded for a c"+"# +"o#at"on was a f"ne- !ena#t&- or forfe"t're* %e co'rt a#so e#d tat te ('dge
a!!arent#& ad "ncreased te f"ne and canged te !er d"em rate to #engten te term of "m!r"sonment
2eca'se te defendant ad engaged "n a##eged 2't 'n!ro+en cont'mac"o's cond'ct* Dowe+erte co'rt
f'rter !o"nted o't tat te !roced're for dea#"ng w"t cont'mac"o's cond'ct was s!ec"f"ed "n te r'#es of
cr"m"na# !roced're: an order for s'mmar& contem!t 'sed to !'n"s cond'ct const"t't"ng contem!t w"c was
seen or eard 2& te ('dge and comm"tted "n te act'a# !resence of te co'rt ad to rec"te te facts
const"t't"ng te contem!t and ad to conta"n a cert"f"cate 2& te ('dge tat e saw or eard te cond'ct and
tat "t was comm"tted "n te !resence of te co'rt* Eoreo+erte co'rt noted tat a cr"m"na# contem!t not
seen or eard 2& te ('dge and not comm"tted "n te act'a# !resence of te co'rt ad to 2e !rosec'ted on
not"ce and after ear"ng* %e co'rt e#d tat te ('dgment was entered w"to't an& attem!t to com!#& e"ter
w"t te s'mmar& !roced're or te !#enar& !roced're and const"t'ted a w"##f'# d"sregard of te reF'"rements
of te #aw* 1n te second matter- a d"+orce act"on o+er w"c te ('dge ad !res"ded from te 2eg"nn"ng- a
ear"ng was sced'#ed on te w"fe)s !ost('dgment mot"on to a+e te 's2and e#d "n contem!t* %e ('dge
was 'na2#e to attend te ear"ng= no ad+ance not"ce of "s 'na+a"#a2"#"t& ad 2een g"+en to te !art"es* %e
w"fe)s attorne& arr"+ed at co'rt- fo##owed sort#& 2& te 's2and- w"to't co'nse#* %e w"fe)s attorne& s!o,e to
te ('dge on te te#e!one* %e ('dge ten s!o,e to te 's2and and as,ed "m "f e was go"ng to com!#&
w"t an order of te co'rt* %e 's2and sa"d e wo'#d not* %e ('dge warned te 's2and of te
conseF'ences of "s fa"#'re to com!#&* %e ('dge ten "nstr'cted te w"fe)s co'nse# to !re!are an order
f"nd"ng te 's2and "n contem!t of co'rt* %e ('dge entered te order w"c fa#se#& asserted tat a ear"ng
ad 2een e#d* %e order conta"ned 0f"nd"ngs of fact0 r'nn"ng o+er two !ages and fo'nd te 's2and to 2e "n
contem!t of a !r"or order of te co'rt* 1t d"rected tat te 's2and 2e (a"#ed 'nt"# e !'rged "mse#f of
contem!t 2& !erform"ng a ser"es of acts set fort "n te order* %e 's2and was arrested !'rs'ant to te
order and ad ser+ed a wee, "n (a"# wen e was re#eased 2& an order from anoter +or&. 9)e +or&
re5e+&ed &)e 5d0e6( +on&en&$on &)a& &)e &elep)one +onver(a&$on )e )ad #$&) &)e #$!e6( +on(el and
#$&) &)e )(band +on(&$&&ed a )ear$n0. 9)e +or& (&a&ed &)a& an ev$den&$ar/ )ear$n0 #a( a !ormal
pro+eed$n0 $n +or&* (CJEP?AE %J C;17%J@- 57EAA?KK?)5- ?@D 5CDAJEDEA)5 JADEA5 7JA
CJEPE%E@C3 E/?;4?%1J@5$ %e co'rt f'rter stated tat 2efore a ear"ng on a contem!t c"tat"on co'#d
res'#t "n te "ncarcerat"on of te "nd"+"d'a# c"ted- tere ad to 2e !roof tro'g sworn test"mon& tat tere ad
2een a w"##f'# fa"#'re to com!#& w"t a co'rt order 2& an "nd"+"d'a# a+"ng te a2"#"t& to com!#&* %e co'rt e#d
tat a#to'g te order "ss'ed 2& te ('dge conta"ned a #engt& rec"tat"on of facts a##eged to a+e 2een fo'nd-
tere was no e+"dent"ar& 2ase for te f"nd"ngs* %e co'rt f'rter e#d tat- were s'c cond'ct to 2e !erm"tted-
tere wo'#d 2e not"ng to !re+ent a ('dge- as a res'#t of a te#e!one ca## or a cance enco'nter on te street-
from "ss'"ng an order res'#t"ng te te de!r"+at"on of a c"t"zen)s #"2ert& w"to't e+en a sem2#ance of te
ear"ng mandated 2& 2ot te federa# and state const"t't"ons*
1n Ae 3engo (1966$ 62 @I 425- 361 ?2d 41- te co'rt ordered te remo+a# of a m'n"c"!a# ('dge wo te
co'rt determ"ned ad cont"n'a##& a2'sed te ('d"c"a# !rocess* Jne case "n+o#+ed a d"sorder#& !ersons
com!#a"nt aga"nst a woman 'nre!resented 2& co'nse# and- accord"ng to te record- "ne2r"ate- !ro2a2#& s"c,-
//</%&
and d"sres!ectf'# "n er att"t'de* ?noter ('dge ad "ss'ed warrants to te same woman for fa"#'re to a!!ear
on oter 'nanswered d"sorder#& !ersons com!#a"nts* %e ('dge ear"ng te com!#a"nts cons"dered tese
fa"#'res to a!!ear as con-tem!ts* %e co'rt fo'nd tat te ('dge ad fa"#ed to ad+"se te defendant of er
const"t't"ona# r"gts- ad fa"#ed to ad+"se er of er r"gt to an attorne&- ad fa"#ed to swear w"tnesses or ta,e
test"mon&- ad s'mmar"#& sentenced er to 120 da&s "n te co'nt& !en"tent"ar&- ad made comments and
engaged "n cond'ct tat was ars- ar2"trar& and contrar& to #aw and ad e."2"ted an att"t'de tat was
'nd"gn"f"ed- d"sco'rteo's and !art"a# to te "nterests of te state. 9)e +or& (&a&ed &)a& &)e 5d0e6( +ond+&
#a( no& m$&$0a&ed b/ &)e de!endan&6( $mper&$nen& and de!$an& a&&$&de* )old$n0 &)a& &)e de!endan& #a(
d$(advan&a0ed and de!en(ele(( and &)a& &)e 5d0e #a( a 5d0e and )$( +ond+& )ad &o be evala&ed
a( (+). :C;M<A.= 9; C",>9;N AN' B==C8"=. ,N 0?5?30@. 1n anoter case- te co'rt e#d tat te
('dge)s cond'ct was "ntem!erate- ars- ar2"trar& and contrar& to #aw* %e co'rt fo'nd te ('dge tota##&
'ns'"ted 2& tem!erament for ('d"c"a# off"ce- and e#d tat 2& "s cont"n'o's a2'se of te ('d"c"a# !rocess e
was g'"#t& of m"scond'ct "n off"ce*
1n Ae 5ar"son (1996- 2d De!t$ 26 ?!! D"+ 2d 499- 280 @352d 236- re+d on oter grnds 21 @32d
39- 289 @352d 255- 233 @E2d 269- #ater a!! (2d De!t$ 29 ?!! D"+ 2d 91- 289 @352d 339- affd 22
@32d 808- 292 @352d 906- 239 @E2d 949- rem"tt"t'r amd 22 @32d 910- 295 @352d 36- 242 @E2d
69 and cert den 393 45 1119- 22 ;* Ed* 2d 121- 89 5 Ct 991- te co'rt ordered te remo+a# of an
e#ected d"str"ct co'rt ('dge for a n'm2er of acts comm"tted w"#e te ('dge was ser+"ng as a ('st"ce
of te !eace and as d"str"ct co'rt ('dge* ? neg#"gence act"on for damages arose from a co##"s"on
2etween te !#a"nt"ff)s a'tomo2"#e and an a'tomo2"#e o!erated 2& an 'n,nown dr"+er wo ad
emerged from te defendant)s dr"+ewa&* %e co'rt fo'nd te ('dge g'"#t& of treaten"ng te
defendant w"t contem!t for fa"#'re to re+ea# te name of te a'tomo2"#e owner !r"or to te tr"a# and
of "m!ro!er#& order"ng te co'rt attendant to ta,e er "nto c'stod&* %e defendant was !#aced "n a
ce## 'nt"# se was re#eased 2& order of te co'rt c#er,* %e co'rt e#d tat te ('dge)s g'"#t on a tota#
of s". carges- and "s "n+ocat"on "n te "n+est"gator& ear"ng of "s const"t't"ona# !r"+"#ege aga"nst
se#f-"ncr"m"nat"on sowed a
1n Ae 5ar"son (1996- 2d De!t$ 26 ?!! D"+ 2d 499- 280 @352d 236- re+d on oter grnds 21 @32d 39-
289 @352d 255- 233 @E2d 269- #ater a!! (2d De!t$ 29 ?!! D"+ 2d 91- 289 @352d 339- affd 22 @32d 808-
292 @352d 906- 239 @E2d 949- rem"tt"t'r amd 22 @32d 910- 295 @352d 36- 242 @E2d 69 and cert den 393
45 1119- 22 ;* Ed* 2d 121- 89 5 Ct 991- te co'rt ordered te remo+a# of an e#ected d"str"ct co'rt ('dge for a
n'm2er of acts comm"tted w"#e te ('dge was ser+"ng as a ('st"ce of te !eace and as d"str"ct co'rt ('dge* ?
neg#"gence act"on for damages arose from a co##"s"on 2etween te !#a"nt"ff)s a'tomo2"#e and an a'tomo2"#e
o!erated 2& an 'n,nown dr"+er wo ad emerged from te defendant)s dr"+ewa&* 9)e +or& !ond &)e 5d0e
0$l&/ o! &)rea&en$n0 &)e de!endan& #$&) +on&emp& !or !a$lre &o reveal &)e name o! &)e a&omob$le
o#ner pr$or &o &)e &r$al and o! $mproperl/ order$n0 &)e +or& a&&endan& &o &a3e )er $n&o +(&od/. 9)e
de!endan& #a( pla+ed $n a +ell n&$l ()e #a( relea(ed b/ order o! &)e +or& +ler3* %e co'rt e#d tat te
('dge)s g'"#t on a tota# of s". carges- and "s "n+ocat"on "n te "n+est"gator& ear"ng of "s const"t't"ona#
!r"+"#ege aga"nst se#f-"ncr"m"nat"on sowed a !attern w"c came w"t"n te com!ass of 0ca'se0 for remo+a#*
?fter an
a!!ea# "n w"c a carge (not "n+o#+"ng a2'se of te contem!t !ower$ was dro!!ed and te ca'se
rem"tted for recons"derat"onte co'rt e#d tat te rema"n"ng +a#"d carges st"## const"t'ted ca'se
for remo+a#* %e co'rt ordered tat te ('dge 2e !ro"2"ted from tereafter o#d"ng an& ('d"c"a#
//./%&
off"ce- a!!o"nt"+e or e#ect"+e
>?AD@EA I4;3 5%D C?1; DE?A1@>:
I'dge)s a2'se of contem!t !owers "n s". cases 2& fa"#"ng to fo##ow !roced'ra# !rotect"ons
a!!ro!r"ate to "nd"rect contem!ts and reF'"r"ng !'n"t"+e (and "n one case- !ro"2"t"+e- #ead"ng to 29-
da& "ncarcerat"on$ 2a"# for "nd"rect contem!ts of traff"c-co'rt orders ('st"f"ed !'2#"c re!r"mand* 1n re
1nF'"r& Concern"ng Perr&- 941 5o* 2d 399 (7#a* 1994$*
@?5D DJ;EE5 ?@D 5ferrazza
P'2#"c re!r"mand- as we## as "m!os"t"on of f"ne and costs- rater tan remo+a# from off"ce-#a( #arran&ed !or
5d0e #)o $mproperl/ (en&en+ed de!endan& nder #ron0 (&a&&e* #)o $mproperl/ eA&ended
de!endan&6( proba&$on* and wo a2'sed contem!t !owers= ('dge ad a#read& 2een defeated "n an e#ect"on
after com!#a"nt ad 2een f"#ed* Code of I'd* Cond'ct- Canons 1- 2- s'2ds* ?- C- 3- s'2ds* ?(1$- C(1$*
E"ss"ss"!!" Com)n on I'd"c"a# Performance +* C&ers- 656 5o* 2d 991 (E"ss* 2000$* C;17A%J@ DJ;D1@>
?AA?1>@EE@% PA1JA %J CJEP;?1@% C E1@> 71;ED 1@ J@ @J/EECEA 26%D- 2011*
1n Benger + Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Performance (1981$ 29 Ca# 3d 915- 165 Ca# A!tr 420- 930 P2d 954- te
co'rt- a#to'g order"ng te remo+a# of a ('dge on oter carges- ref'sed "n one "nstance to s'sta"n a carge
of a2'se of te contem!t !ower on w"c te Comm"ss"on on I'd"c"a# Performance ad fo'nd te ('dge
g'"#t&* %e ('dge ad 2efore "m a s'"t for 'n#awf'# deta"ner of a dwe##"ng* %e defendants ad f"#ed an answer
sett"ng '! 2reac of "m!#"ed warrant& of a2"ta2"#"t& and en'merat"ng ser"o's defects "n te !rem"ses* %e
('dge- t"n,"ng "t "ncred"2#e tat an&one wo'#d #"+e "n a o'se 'nder te cond"t"ons a##eged- s's!ected !er('r&-
and w"to't cons'#t"ng te !art"es- made "nF'"r"es of te co'nt& 2'"#d"ng and ea#t de!artments* %e ('dge
#ater rece"+ed a co!& of a #etter to te !#a"nt"ff from a co'nt& 2'"#d"ng "ns!ector #"st"ng re!a"rs reF'"red on !a"n
of an order to +acate* %e re!a"rs corres!onded to some 2't not a## of te defects a##eged 2& te defendants*
%e ('dge a#so rece"+ed a ca## from a ea#t de!artment em!#o&ee wo sa"d tat te o'se was not
s'2standard 2& an& stretc of te "mag"nat"on* C't- e.ce!t to re!ort 0water good0 and 0se!t"c JH0 te ea#t
de!artment em!#o&ee d"d not e.!ress#& contrad"ct te a##eged defects* ?t a !retr"a# conference- te ('dge
anno'nced "s "n+est"gat"on- dec#ared "s s's!"c"on tat te defendants) a##egat"ons were fa#se- and "nd"cated
e m"gt o#d a ear"ng on weter te& were "n contem!t* De ten sa"d e wo'#d d"sF'a#"f& "mse#f from a
tr"a# on te mer"ts* ;ater te same da&- te ('dge wrote to te 2'"#d"ng de!artment- enc#os"ng a co!& of te
defendants) answer and reF'est"ng an "ns!ect"on of te o'se 's"ng te a##egat"ons "n te answer as s!ec"a#
!o"nts to cec,* D"s stated !'r!ose for te reF'est was to determ"ne weter or not !er('r& ad 2een
comm"tted* ? wee, #ater- te co'nt& re!#"ed tat te 2'"#d"ng was +acant and wo'#d 2e !osted as azardo's*
%e ('dge ten a2andoned te "nF'"r& and te#e!oned te defendants) attorne& to a!o#og"ze* %e s'"t was
d"sm"ssed on te !#a"nt"ff)s mot"on* %e co'rt e#d tat te ('dge ad comm"tted !re('d"c"a# cond'ct 2&
"m!ro!er#& "n(ect"ng "mse#f "nto a !roceed"ng* Dowe+erte co'rt a#so e#d tat te ('dge d"d not a2'se te
contem!t !ower- o#d"ng tat "t "s not m"scond'ct for a ('dge to "n"t"ate contem!t !roceed"ngs after ear"ng a
case "n w"c !ro!er#& !resented e+"dence "nd"cated !ro2a2#& de#"2erate fa#s"t& "n a +er"f"ed !#ead"ng* 9)e
+or& (&a&ed &)a& &)e 5d0e6( m$(&a3e #a( abandon$n0 )$( ad5d$+a&or/ role !or an $nve(&$0a&$ve one.
////%&
1n Ae %err& (1965$ 292 1nd 996- 323 @E2d 192- re den 292 1nd 608- 329 @E2d 38 and cert den 423 45
896- 49 ; Ed 2d 96- 99 5 Ct 129- te co'rt ordered te remo+a# of a co'nt& co'rt ('dge fo'nd g'"#t& of
n'mero's "nstances of ('d"c"a# m"scond'ct w"c +"o#ated se+era# r'#es of te state code of ('d"c"a# cond'ct*
Jn one occas"on te ('dge e.am"ned a (a"# matron a2o't er a##eged ref'sa# to o2e& te ('dge)s order on
+"s"t"ng o'rs* 9)e +or& )eld &)a& &)e a+&$on #a( proper* b& no&ed &)a& dr$n0 &)e eAam$na&$on* &)e
5d0e (&a&ed &)a& )e #a( no& +onv$n+ed &)a& d$re+& +on&emp& )ad &a3en pla+e* b& &)a& $n &)e (lo#
pro0re(( o! an appeal* &)e (en&en+e* $! $mpo(ed* #old be (erved be!ore &)e de&erm$na&$on o! &)e
appeal. 9)e +or& )eld &)a& &)e (&a&emen& $nd$+a&ed an $rre(pon($ble and non5d$+$al a&&$&de &o#ard
&)e eAer+$(e o! &)e
+on&emp& po#er(* (CJEP?AE %D?% %J I4D>E DJB?AD5 5%?%EEE@%5 1@ %DE EU%A? 3 E1@4%E5
%?CHED J@ %J %DE ?4D1J %A?@5CA1P% 1@ 22169$*
E##"ott:
I'dge)s m"scond'ct "n a2's"ng er contem!t !ower and er "m!ro!er bond revo+a&$on +on(&$&&ed
per($(&en& and pbl$+ +ond+& pre5d$+$al &o &)e adm$n$(&ra&$on of ('st"ce and warranted a 90 da&
s's!ens"on w"to't !a&* ;5?MConst* ?rt* 5- V 25(C$= Code of I'd*Cond'ct- Canons 1- 2(?$- 3(?$(1- 3$- 8 ;5?-
A*5* 1n re I'dge 5assone- 959 5o* 2d 859 (;a* 2006$*
cec, to see wat a!!ened w"t a## te +ar"o's 2onds wen E##"oott !#aced Co'go"n "n c'stod& on
?!r"# 19t and w& te (a"# seemed to 2e "d"ng tat fact***
5ferrazza- @as Do#mes- etc*
Do#d"ng !rosec'tor "n contem!t wen #aws !ro+"d"ng for contem!t d"d not a!!#&- o#d"ng c#er, of co'rt "n
contem!t to address adm"n"strat"+e matters- "nc#'d"ng c#er,)s a##eged #ate de#"+er& of !a&cec,s- $0nor$n0
pro+edral pro&e+&$on( a!!orded $nd$v$dal( +)ar0ed #$&) +on&emp&* and !a$l$n0 &o ma$n&a$n de+orm
$n +or&room* w"c "nc"dents were w"de#& re!orted "n #oca# med"a- +"o#ated ('d"c"a# cond'ct canons reF'"r"ng
('dge to '!o#d "ntegr"t& and "nde!endence of ('d"c"ar&- to a+o"d "m!ro!r"et& and a!!earance of "m!ro!r"et&-
and to !erform d't"es of off"ce "m!art"a##& and d"#"gent#&- and was cond'ct !re('d"c"a# to adm"n"strat"on of
('st"ce 2r"ng"ng ('d"c"a# off"ce "nto d"sre!'te* ;5?MConst* ?rt* 5- V 25(C$= Code of I'd*Cond'ct- Canons 1- 2-
3- s'2ds* ?(1M3$- C(1$- 8 ;5?MA*5* 1n re Iefferson- 653 5o* 2d 181 (;a* 2000$*
1n Ae Crown (1964- %e.$ 512 5B2d 316- te co'rt e#d tat a ('dge)s 'ns!ec"f"ed "nstances of too
read"#& f"nd"ng !ersons "n contem!t of co'rt were "m!ro!er- 2't were not acts w"c ('st"f"ed
d"sc"!#"nar& act"on*
Dont 7orget I'dge Doward fa"#ed to fo##ow @A5 1*250 or wate+er wen Co'g#"n- on te record-
//%/%&
mo+ed for "s rec'sa# c"t"ng 2"as- etc* "n 22169* 5ame goes for C#"fton and Pane# Ca"r Ece+err"a-
wom "s #"sted "n as on te Aeno D"g Donor Ao## w"t Pa'# E#cano "n 1992- and E##"ott- E#cano- and
Ece+err"a attended 5tanford 4n"+ers"t& "n te #ate 1990s* ?nd I'dge E##"ott wor,ed for Ion
Ece+err"a)s fater)s #aw f"rm- Ece+err"a and Js2orne* ?nd I'dge E##"ott "s or was on C??B)s
2oard* and !res"ded o+er c+11-01955 were Co'g#"n s'ed C??B and Basoe ;ega#
5er+"ces/E#cano (E#cano f"red Co'g#"n c"t"ng I'dge ;* >ardner)s ?!r"# 2009 Jrder- ;* >ardner)s
2roter- AEC I'dge B* >arnder ref'sed to rec'se "mse#f from cr"m"na# tres!ass !rosec't"on of
Co'g#"n "n 11 cr 29405- tr"a# 9/18/12***and I'dge @as Do#mes 5 da& 0m"sdemeanor of cr"m"na#
contem!t0 order/t"ng "n 11 tr 29800 stemmed from traff"c c"tat"ons o'ts"de r"card g* "##- esF*)s
off"ce- and ('st 2efore te tr"a# on 2/26/12- "## ad te wcso de!'t& macen ser+e co'g#"n I'dge
7#anagan)s JAder to sow ca'se of 2/10/12 (w"c Co'g#"n- as an ef"#er- a#read& was ser+ed
an&wa&s$- and wcso macen ad AEC Earsa# Dar#e& +"o#ate co'rto'se sanct'ar& doctr"ne "n
ser+"ng "t for "m****"n te conference room "ns"de te doors to Co'rtroom C at te AEC***and I'dge
@as Do#mes F'otes Earsa# Dar#e& "n s'!!ort of te o'tr"gt fa#s"t& a2o't a com!onent !art of a
record"ng de+"ce 2e"ng "dden "n a restroom d'r"ng a restroom 2rea, tat- accord"ng to I'dge @as
DJ#mes (wo "s f#at o't incorrect "n er assert"on- ta!e don)t #"e- cec, te co'rt)s own a'd"o
transcr"!t- to'g H"ng managed to get Ece+err"a to a##ow E#cano to a'tent"cate I'dge ;*
>arner)s ?!r"# 2009 order- e+en w"#e r'#"gn as 'na'tent"cated and "rre#e+ant/"nadm"ss"2#e- te
a'd"o transcr"!t Co'g#"n 2o'rgt from te AEC of te 11 tr 29800 tr"a# 2efore ('dge nas o#mes
on 2/26/12- !ro+"ng ('dge @as o#mes test"mon& to 2e- '- "ncorrect- c#ear#&***(to'g "t s're so'nd
more s's!"c"o's to te## "t tat wa&- "e- s'ggst Co'g#"n as,ed to 2e a##owed to go to te restromm
?7%EA some F'est"on"ng a2o't record"ng or record"ng de+"ces***des!"te te act tat tere was @J
54CD Q4E5%1J@1@> 'nt"# ?7%EA te restroom 2rea,*****o we##- ('d"c"a# "mm'n"t&- r"gtG too 2ad
for Co'g#"n tat I'dge @as Do#mes got 0m".ed '!0***and can)t get at Dar#e& r"gt- c'z e d"dn)t
s"gn an aff"da+"t (d"dn)t a+e to- 2eca'se- rater tan c"t"ng nrs 22*030 to s'!!or ter s'mmar&
contem!t f"nd"ng- I'dge @as Do#mes attem!t to caracter nrs 22*010 2& wa& of 22*100 as 0te
m"sdemeanor of cr"m"na# contem!t0 (to'g no ment"on of nrs 199*340***c#e+er ga#- got te 2est of
a## wor#ds tat wa&***no !#enar& !roced'ra# !rotect"ons***st"## gets te s'mmar& "n nat're***gets to
ma,e "t so'nd worse for co'g#"n 2& ca##"ng "t 0m"sdemeanor of cr"m"na# contem!t0***2ada 2"ng 2ada
2oom- tat)s ow &a do "t***2r"ng"n) a## tat !rosec'tor"a# ,now ow and get r done s!"r"t to te 2enc-
w"t ('st a to'c of !r"son warden/de!t of correct"ons adm"n"strator !anace trown "n*
Best)s He& @'m2ers I'dges 11(1$-(6$
A."... "$brar/
1nde. to ?nnotat"ons- Contem!t 1nde. to ?nnotat"ons- D"sc"!#"ne and D"sc"!#"nar& ?ct"ons 1nde. to
?nnotat"ons- I'dges 1nde. to ?nnotat"ons- I'st"ce of te Peace 1nde. to ?nnotat"ons- Eag"strates
Pr"or Ae!resentat"on or ?ct"+"t& as Prosec't"ng ?ttorne& as D"sF'a#"f&"ng I'dge from 5"t
t"ng or ?ct"ng "n Cr"m"na# Case- 85 ?*;*A*5t 461 A"gt to a!!o"ntment of co'nse# "n contem!t
!roceed"ngs- 32 ?*;*A*5t 31 D"sF'a#"f"cat"on of ('dge as affect"ng +a#"d"t& of dec"s"on "n w"c oter
//,/%&
nond"sF'a#"f"ed
('dges !art"c"!ated- 29 ?*;*A*5t 622 D"sc"!#"nar& act"on aga"nst ('dge on gro'nd of a2's"+e or
"ntem!erate #ang'age or cond'ct toward attorne&s- co'rt !ersonne#- or !art"es to or w"tnesses "n
act"ons- and te #",e- 89 ?*;*A*4t 268 Aemo+a# or d"sc"!#"ne of state ('dge for neg#ect of- or fa"#'re
to !erform- ('d"c"a# d't"es- 86 ?*;*A*4t 626 Contem!t: state co'rt)s !ower to order "ndef"n"te
coerc"+e f"ne or "m!r"sonment to e.act
!rom"se of f't're com!#"ance w"t co'rt)s orderWant"c"!ator& contem!t- 81 ?*;*A*4t 1008 1nto."cat"on
of w"tness or attorne& as contem!t of co'rt- 49 ?*;*A*4t 238 D"sF'a#"f"cat"on of ('dge "n state
!roceed"ngs to !'n"s contem!t aga"nst or "n+o#+"ng
"mse#f "n o!en co'rt and "n "s act'a# !resence- 36 ?*;*A*4t 1004
Jra# comm'n"cat"ons "ns'#t"ng to !art"c'#ar state ('dge- made to t"rd !art& o't of ('dge)s
!&s"ca# !resence- as cr"m"na# contem!t- 30 ?*;*A*4t 155
?ttorne&)s fa"#'re to attend co'rt- or tard"ness- as contem!t- 13 ?*;*A*4t 122
5anct"ons aga"nst defense "n cr"m"na# case for fa"#'re to com!#& w"t d"sco+er& reF'"rements- 9
?*;*A*4t 836
Conf"dent"a#"t& of !roceed"ngs or re!orts of ('d"c"a# "nF'"r& 2oard or comm"ss"on- 5 ?*;*A*4t 630
Power of co'rt to "m!ose standard of !ersona# a!!earance or att"re- 63 ?*;*A*3d 353
Pardon as restor"ng !'2#"c off"ce or #"cense or e#"g"2"#"t& terefor- 58 ?*;*A*3d 1191
E"scond'ct "n ca!ac"t& as ('dge as 2as"s for d"sc"!#"nar& act"on aga"nst attorne&- 56 ?*;*A*3d
1150
Power of co'rt to remo+e or s's!end ('dge- 53 ?*;*A*3d 882
Aemo+a# of !'2#"c off"cer for m"scond'ct d'r"ng !re+"o's term- 42 ?*;*A*3d 991
/%0/%&
Pre('d"c"a# effect of o#d"ng acc'sed "n contem!t of co'rt "n !resence of ('r&- 29 ?*;*A*3d 1399
Ae#ease of "nformat"on concern"ng fortcom"ng or !end"ng tr"a# as gro'nd for contem!t
!roceed"ngs or oter d"sc"!#"nar& meas'res aga"nst mem2er of te 2ar- 11 ?*;*A*3d 1104
De#a& "n ad('d"cat"on of contem!t comm"tted "n te act'a# !resence of co'rt as affect"ng co'rt)s
!ower to !'n"s contemnor- 100 ?*;*A*2d 439
C"rc'mstances 'nder w"c one co'rt can !'n"s a contem!t aga"nst anoter co'rt- 99 ?*;*A*2d
1100
Bat const"t'tes offense of off"c"a# o!!ress"on- 83 ?*;*A*2d 1006
I'r"sd"ct"on of and 5tand"ng Cefore te 4n"ted 5tates I'd"c"a# Conference or "ts Comm"ttee on
I'd"c"a# Cond'ct and D"sa2"#"t&- 52 ?*;*A* 7ed* 2d 226
?ttorne&)s cond'ct as ('st"f&"ng s'mmar& contem!t order 'nder A'#e 42(a$ of te 7edera# A'#es
of Cr"m"na# Proced're- 58 ?*;*A* 7ed* 22
Pro!r"et& of "m!r"sonment 'nder 18 4*5*C*?* V 401(3$ for contem!t of co'rt order reF'"r"ng
com!#"ance w"t stat'te not a'tor"z"ng "m!r"sonment for "ts +"o#at"on- 41 ?*;*A* 7ed* 900
7a"#'re to r"se "n federa# co'rtroom as const"t't"ng cr"m"na# contem!t- 26 ?*;*A* 7ed* 915*
P#ease cons"der t"s a forma# com!#a"nt aga"nst @@DC Pane# Ca"r Ion Ece+err"a for cont"n'"ng
on w"t te ear"ng after Co'g#"n mo+e for "s rec'sa# 2ased '!on e+"dent "m!art"a#"t& (same w"t
AEC I'dge Doward and C#"fton$*
Kac Co'g#"n
1461 E* 9t 5t*
Aeno- @/ 89512
%e# and 7a.: 949 996 6402
/%1/%&
KacCo'g#"nNotma"#*com
Zach has 33 f"#es to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them, click the links below.
1 2, 2012 letter to Cler? of Court #rduna ;astings regarding Efle' rejections with
attachments !1 pages total)pdf 9 11 12 de m"n"m"s 36 cfr 11*25(3$(a$ not a ser"o's offense s'!!ort and
11*25(3$(c$ #ac,"ng d'e !rocess 90838 0204*!df 9 18 12 12-18992 90838 "n re co'g#"n scr 111 f"#ed
stam!ed*!df 9 18 12 90930 co'g#"n + c"t& of reno 0204 12-18959*!df 9 25 12 stam!ed Co'g#"n)s mot"on
for e.tens"o nto f"#e 2r"ef and e."2"t 90302*!df 9 25 12 stam!ed 90302 EJ%1J@ 7JA PEAE1551J@ %J 71;E
JPE@1@> CA1E7 ?7%EA DE?D;1@E D?5 A4@*!df 8 13 12 91429 stam!ed Co'g#"ns PE%1%1J@ 5CA
102(4$(D$ ?@D 5CA 111(6$ 1@ AE CJ4>D;1@ 8 13 12*!df 8 26 12 stam!ed 90331 ?PPE;;?@%)5 Eot"on 17P
w"t attaced !ro!osed J!en"ng Cr"ef*!df 8 28 12 stam!ed 90302 co'g#"n + w#s a!!e##ant)s o!en"ng
2r"ef:1<*!df 8 28 12 stam!ed 90302 Co'g#"n)s J!en"ng Cr"ef w#s 90302 12-26202 0204*!df 09-29305
Pet"t"on for Br"t of Eandam's Co'g#"n + 5econd I'd"c"a# D"str"ct Co'rt I'dge ;"nda >ardner sanct"on B;5 f"res
Co'g#"n 29405 er 2roter AEC 29800 90302 01955*!df 10 5 12 90838 f"#e stam!ed !roof of ser+"ce of
Pet"t"on 1n Ae Co'g#"n*!df 10 5 12 f"#e stam!ed !roof of ser+"ce of Pet"t"on 1n Ae Co'g#"n Pet"ton for
D"sso#'t"on*!df 10 5 12 f"#estam!ed 90838 Eot"on to 5ow Ca'se contem!t scr 119(2$ "n re co'g#"n 90838
Co'g#"n*!df 10 15 12 stam!ed 91901 H"ngs 5CA 111(4$ !et"t"on for 29405 tres!ass con+"ct"on*!df 10 22 12
90203 gar"n)s res!ondent)s 2r"ef 2ac, from t"ff*!df 10 24 12 stam!ed mot"on for #ea+e to f"#e o!!os"t"on 91901
12-33624*!df 10 31 12 mar,ed as rece"+ed 2& C#er, of Co'rt Jrd'na and !roof of ser+"ce 2& A"c, Aeasoner
0204*!df 11 5 12 000364 not"ce tat noa was not f"#e stam!ed mot"on for new tr"a# !ttoa 0204*!df 11 8 12
stam!ed 90302 AEQ4E5% 7JA EU%E@51J@ J7 %1EE %J 71;E ?PPE;;?@%)5 AEP;3 CA1E7*!df 11 9 12
stam!ed 90302 @ot"ce of ;ac, of ?ccess w"t 2ot !arts of e."2"t 1*!df 12 19 11 ema"# to
!#ongon"Ncarter*net #ongon" and 12 21 11 ema"# to 2a##arddNreno*go+ regard"ng #ongon" 22169 29800 0204
0435*tm 12 21 11 ema"# to rmc regard"ng no res!onse from ;ongon"*!df 12-32985*!df cr12-1018 rmc
transcr"!t !am #ongon" fa"#'re to !re!are and forward on a!!ea# nrs 189*030*!df cr12-1018 rmc transcr"!t !am
#ongon" fa"#'re to !re!are and forward on a!!ea# nrs 189*030ot(#*!df C/11-03928-3046262 (E."2"t 1$ as,
ord'na ast"ngs and mate's a2o't t"s*!df D"stCtJrderSAED?C%ED cr12-1018 #ongon" transcr"!t
defect"+e*!df f+08-03380 sortened %PJ 5ant"ago + /a.e+an"s Easter ;"nda >ardner Co'g#"n B;5 29405
54844 90302 s(!r*!df rmc #ongon" ando't demand"ng !a&ment on transcr"!ts on a!!ea#s "n +"o#at"on of
ne+ada #aw 29405 cr11-2094 cr12-1292 29409 11 tr29800 ocr*!df rmc #ongon" ando't demand"ng !a&ment
on transcr"!ts on a!!ea#s "n +"o#at"on of ne+ada #aw 29405 cr11-2094 cr12-1292 29409 91901 90302 11
tr29800*!df AEC transcr"!ts on a!!ea# fa"#'re to !e!are Pam ;ongon" cr12-1018*!df 12 10 12 0.<.&0
final motion recuse conflict continuance with e'hibits and cover pages)pdf Download all

E
/1 B,96@0 too bad Ging failed to notice-plead an allegation that Coughlin displayed a pattern
of continuing misconduct in his Complaint* and includes, without limitation: the disrup" ion of
the proceedings (3#5E: the (anel fails to cite to any specifics here because the fa' filings by
Coughlin that ";E< ta?es issue with do not occur Ewithin the courtoomF, and as such, under +n
:e 1tuhff are inadmissible for supporting such contention*a
/%2/%&
/2 5here does not appear to be an indication in the record as to when, if ever, Ging reHuested a
response from Coughlin as to anything related to 2DDC Dudge $) 7ardner:
E;@0 my attem/t to be /ro-ided acce## to the grie-ance# %iled today
1ent: 5ue &2/12 ,:2! 69
9arch 2/, 2012
Dear 9r) Coughlin,
(erhaps you are not fully aware of your behavior) 6t our brief meeting yesterday +
perceived you as very hostile and even threatening) 8nder 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)
Kou said you did not have time and simply wanted to argue about your receipt of e=mail 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) 6s + attempted to e'plain, + will be meeting with a panel to
have them ma?e a determination about the grievances that have been made against you by 9r)
;ill and the Dudge from Department & that you read at my office) + have as?ed for a written
response to those grievances) +n response + received many e=mails with attachments) + will
soon be sharing the grievances with a disciplinary panel and will advise them of your responses
to date)
+ will ?eep you advised of the panelLs determination)
1incerely, (atric? GingFF
/& http:www)scribd)comdoc1.%1.00.211=21=11=to=2=1=1&=6ll=Emails=2etween=Coughlin=
and=123="ormat=5e't=#nly=>ordpad=@ersion=:edone
/%&/%&

9 16 13 Iteration 12 14 12 0204 62337 Wordpad Version Begin Bookmarking and Endnotes FOFCOL Interlineatting Just Cited Protions and 8 23 12 Complaints Master Final With Argumentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

9 16 13 Iteration 12 14 12 0204 62337 Wordpad Version Begin Bookmarking and Endnotes FOFCOL Interlineatting Just Cited Protions and 8 23 12 Complaints Master Final With Argumentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Declaration under penalty of perjury:

You might also like