You are on page 1of 60

p

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I THE JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWSHI
COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
9 THE STATE OF NEVADA,
10 Plaintiff,
11 vs.
Case No. ALL CASES
2: 46
12 ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Dept. No. ALL DEPARTMENTS
13 Defendant.
14
/
15
ORDER
16 Pursuat to Justice Court Rules of Civil Proce
d
ure Rule 84(b)(1) as Chief
17
Justice of the Reno Justice Court I a responsible for the administration of court rules and
18 regulations.
19
Pursuant to Rule 84(b)(5), the Chief Judge oversees all administrative and
20
clerical work and fnctions of the court.
21
Pursuat to Rule 5( e) of the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may
22
by local rule permit papers to be fled, signed or verifed by electronic meas that are consistent
23
with technical stadads, if any, that the Judicial Conference of the United States establishes.
24
Curently, Reno Justice Court has not adopted a rule perittin

papers to be fled
25
electronically.
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-
Justice Court Rules of Reno Township Rule 1O(f provides that the clerk must
not accept for fling ay pleading or documents which do not comply with this rule, but for
good cause shown, the Court may permit the fling of noncomplying pleadings ad documents.
Henceforth,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant, Zachary Coughlin, shall not be
peritted to file ay frther documents in ay and all departments of Reno Justice Court by
electonic meas including, but not limited to, fax or email. I the event he violates this Order,
he will be in contempt of court and subject to twenty-fve (25) days imprisonment for each
violation.
DATED this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTICATE OF SERVCE
Lori Townsend, certifes: (a) she is a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of
age, and not a party to the with acton, and () that affant served a copy of the attached on the
persons, at the addresses, on the date, and in the maner indicated below:
Name:
Address to which
maileddelivered:
November 28, 2012
Name:
Addess to which
maileddelivered:
November 28, 2012
LOR TOWNSEND, Secretay to
PETER J. SFERZZA, Justice of the Peace
Reno Justice Court, Deament 2
Zach Youg, Esq.
Deputy Distict Attorey
P. O. Box 30083
Reno, NY 89520
date hand delivered.
date placed in county interoffce mail.
date placed in county mailing system for postage
and deposit in U.S. mail.
Zachary Couglin
1741 East Nint Steet
Reno, NY 89512
date hand delivered.
date placed in county interofce mail.
date placed in couty mailing system for postage
and deposit in U.S. mal.
Kinkead, Catherine
From: Baker, Robbin
Sent:
To:
Monday, February 27, 2012 8:55 AM
Kinkead, Catherine
Subject: FW Coughlin RCR2012-065630
Importance: High
*****************************
Robbin Baker
Re 0 Justice Court
Deputy Court Clerk
(775) 3256535
(775) 3256510 (fax)
From: Dogan, Biray
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:49 PM
To: Baker, Robbin
Cc: Young, Zach
Subject: F: Coughlin RCR2012-065630
Importance: High
Hi Robbin,
The State and defense have agreed to continue this case out 30 days for another MSC. Thank you, b.
From:
Snt:
To:
Subjec:
Young, Zach
Friday, February 24, 2012 12:07 PM
Dogan, Biray
RE: Coughlin
Because this is the first MSC setting, I am okay with a 30 day continuance. I will NSN next set as well for MSC.
Thanks,
Zach
From: Dogan, Biray
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:07 PM
To: Young, Zach
Subject: Coughlin
The MSC is Monday. Coughlin wants to get his case continued. What sayeth you?
I
77
AA
11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732
PAGE 01/15
Wo$Oe COuly DI8l||Cl AhO|ey
RICHARD A. GAMMICK
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
November 13,2012
Zachary B. Coughlin
1471 E. 9th Street
Reno, NV 89505
Re: State Bar of Nevada v. Zachary B. Coughlin
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
This letter is written pursuant to NRCP 45(c)(2)(B) to object to the slbpoena you issued wbich
allegedly requires Judge Elliot, Judge Flanagan, Joey Ordma and Julie Wise to appear and
testify to the legal basis for incarcerating in CR120376" and as to several other cases ad
topics at the Nevada State Bar on November 14,2012.
By your own admision at the top of the subpoena. , you are temporarily suspended from the
practice of taw. It follows that you have no authority to issue subpoenas, and that there is no
duty to comply with the same. NRCP 45(3).
Substantively, your subpoena is extremely confusing, consisting of run-on sentences which bleed
trom topic to topic and case to case, making it unreasonably difficult for the winesses you name
to discern the topics upon which you seek testimony 01 the documents you seek, and for the
undersigned to object. For this reason, the subpoena is objected to in its entirety.
Fitlally, the State Bar has quashed what appear to be similar subpoel1as you have issued to
municipal court judges and other individuals. See attached. This objection incorporates by
reference each of the bases raised by State Bar Counsel, ad the Orders attached, as bases for
objection as wel. Certified copies of attached Orders have been provided to bar counsel.
Sitlcere1y,
RICHARD A. GAMMICK
Dep\lty District Attorney
DWV/cm
Attach11lent
P.o. Box I113O.Reno. NV B952O-OO2/ 32B-32OO
JU5\lL |lK31. bOFb
I/lwww.woshoecounI/.us/do

^

''
BO

_
Jeseong.::: e:.
.
c nt"_
02/15
17
Case No: NG120204, NG12-0434 and NG120435
11/13/2012
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
PAGE
FfLED
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
|
NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY
16:41 7753375732
STATE BAR OF NEVADA,
Complainant,
vs,
ZACHARY b. COUGHLIN
8ar No
.
9473
__ . _ _ _ _ __
ORDER
16
The Formal Hearing in these matters is scheduled to take place on Wednesday,
November 14, 2012, and will now begin at 8:45 a.m. The Formal Hearing Panel Chair has
had an opportunity to review and onl0Orthe following pending motions:
ThOrOlolO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1, The State 8ar's Ex Parte Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces' Tecllm and
Subpoenas to Compel Testimony is GRANTED. The Subpoenas issued to 8ar Counsel
David Clark, Assistant Bar Counsel Patrick King, Northern Nevada Discipline Board Chair J,
18
Thomas Susich, Esq .. and State Bar employee Laura Peters were inappropriately issued
and are considered invalid They were nOithOr signed by a licensed attorney in good
standing nor by a Clerk of Court pursuant to Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure ("NRCP")
19
45(3). Also see Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 1 06(1) regarding privilege and immunity
20
issues.
21
2. The Motion to Quash Subpoenas Dl|OO|Od to Municipal Court Judges and
Court 8!af is GRANTED. The Subpoenas were improperly issued and are considered
23
'nval|d Authorities cited in the State 8ar's Motion speak to the issue ofimmunity of Judicial
24
Oficers and the Orders they issue
25
_"

;
.

He
11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732
PAGE 03/15

3. It is the intention of the Panel to complete the formal hearing in this matter in
2
onE (1) day The hearing, nOw scheduled to begin at 8:45 on the morning of November 14,
3
2012, will adhere to the following rules:
4
a.
All evidence introduced by either pary shall require a short and
5
concise offer of proof not to exceed to minutes as required by the Chair.
6
b. The presentation of live testimony shall be limited to fifeen (15)
7
minutes pOr witness by each pary
.
8
As a reminder to Mr. Coughlin, neither the Office of Bar Counsel nor the Formal
9
Hearing Panel has received a Verified Answer to the State Bar's Complaint. You were
10
instructed in a previous Order filed October 31, 2012, to file an Answer by November 9,
11
2012, or the State Bar would proceed on a default basis. Your Verified Answer must be
12
presented for filing by the Office of Bar Counsel no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 9,
13
2012, or the panel will proceed with the formal hearing on a default basis.
14
DATED this day of November, 2012.
15
16
L
17
JOhn P Ec
18 Formal
. -
19
20
21
23
24
25
verria, Esq., Chair
mg Panel

12
|

CERTllCATlOlSERVLl`
s|+s-c..;,
05C1
(/ti$lle o@9itvcecese%t+ai

l
> i
'
'
'
'
'
11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732
PAGE
2
Tie Iwdcrsigncd hereby cerifies that a true and corect copy of the f(lfcgoin
g
Order was
3 deposited in the United States Mail a1 Reno, Nevada,
p
osta
g
e ti.llly pre-paid there,on t()f certified and
4 lirSI elflSS n)il addressed t the rollowing:
5 Zachary 11 Coughlin
147IE,9thSt.
6
Reno NY 8Q505
7
8
9
10
11
04/15
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7"
C6P1|FlE0MA|L
,

lvmt|l1IK
llm

,
+
ORDER GRANTNG RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732
PAGE 05/15
L11
Electronically
08-27-2012:10:-10:50 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
1 Clerk of the COI)rt
TrDsactiqn.t 1D1
2
J
5
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
6
7
IN AND FOR THE COUNlY OF WASHOE
8
***
9
10 ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN,
11
Appellant, Case No.: CR12-1262
1.2
vs. Dept. No.: 10
13
I
C! OF RENO, a municipal
corporation,
15
16
17
18
I9
Presently before |h0 Court, is 1 Motion I0 Dismiss Appeal filed by K050u00D|CD
20
OF RENO (Respondent" on July 31, 2012. Following, on August 14, 2012, Respondent
21
filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the matter for the Court's consideration.
22
On August 15, 2012, Appellant ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN CAppellantfiled an
23
Opposition to Mo|iOnto Dismiss.
24
On November 13, 2011, Appellant was charged WitTrespassing under Reno
2S
Municipal Coe, Section 8.10.010 by way of Criminal Complaint upon arrest On June 18,
26
2012, Appel|ant was found guilty of trespassing by the Honorable William Gardner of the
27
K000 Municipal LOUl1. On July lb,z01Z, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in this matter.
28
5
10
15
20
25
A

19
21
22
24
11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732 PAGE 06/15
1 Respondent files this instant Motion to Dismiss Appeal based on Appellant's untimely
2
filing pursuant to NRS 189.010, NRS 189.010 establishes the time within which an appeal
3
from a Municipal Court must be flied. In relevant part, NRS 189.010 states that a
4
Defendant in a criminal action tried before a justice of the peace may appeal from the final
judgment therein to the district court ... , at any time within 10 days from the time o|the
6
rendition O|the judgment.
7
Afer considering the papers and pleadings on fle |10r0lh, this Court has determined
8
that Appellant would have to |1v0filed his Appeal on or before June 28, 2012. Appellant
9
did not file his Notice of Appeal until July 18, 2012, afer the deadline had passed.
Accordingly, Respondent's motion is granted.
11
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to
12
Dismiss is GRANTED.
1
3
I
DATED this
16
17
18
District Judge
23
26
27
28
-
2
-
CERIFICATE OF MAILIN
5

I5
Z0


HElD! OW

11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732 PAGE 07/15


J

I hereby certify that I 8|8l0n|CI|yfiled the foregoing with the C|0|ko|the Counby
3
using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
4
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN
CHRIS HAZLm-STEVENS, ESQ. for CIY OF RENO
Jll DRKE for CI OI RENO
b
7
DATED this dayofA"g",
b
9
Ju0i0ia| Assistant
I1

I3
l
I.b
1
Ib
I9
Z1
ZZ
ZJ
2+
Z6

?b
-3-
17
25
11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732 PAGE 08/15
L11
lectcr|cally
06-25-2012:12:38:15 PM
Joey Orduna estinq=
C|er-oftroCocr|
1anauctou#

30030I
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE SECONUJUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STIl TE OF NEVADA
7
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
8
9 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, Case No.: CVI J -03628
10
Appellat, Dcpt. No.: 7
11
vs.
12
MATT MERLISS,
13
Respondent.
14
15
ORDER
16 Currently before this Court is Respondent M/TT MERlSS's ("Mcrliss") MOlion fiJI
I
Attorney's Fees cd on April 19, 2012. In ihe absence of any opoi tion from Appellan
18 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN ("Coughlin"), Mcrls ubmicd this matter for decision 0
19 May 9, 2012 .

Howcvcr, ,)n Junc 9, 2012, Coughlin d a Supplement to Opposition to Motio


2() jar Attorey's Fees. [n response, Merliss filed a Reply to Supplement to Opposition /0 Motiol
21 })ritorey'sFees on unc14,2012, aod submIItcdthe mattelagain-that same day.
22 Merliss requests this Court to award attore
y
's fees in the amount of $42,06550 agains
23 Cu_hIin in !ho underlying summary eviction matter pursuant to NRS 69.050 and NRS 7.085.
24 Mcrliss and his counsel aver these fees arc rcoonoblc, particularly given Coughlin'
"deliberate[] ... pattern of abusive, vexatious, and most importantly, expensive behavior in bot
26 this appeal aod in thc case below [in Reno Justice Court] (Mot. at p. 2)(Origina| emphasis.
27 Mcrl Iss avers Coughlin's litigation strategy "was simply to kccp the fight going" r.nd "required
28 substa.tial additional work by Merliss' rounscI, for beyond unyhing in a 'non,ll' eviction:
16
Holdings Cor.,
14
23
11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732 PAGE 09/15
(Mot. at p. 3.) Merliss asserts this additional work was necessary because he "could not risk th
2 court accepting some random citation in Coughlin's papers and entering a) adverse ruHn
3 beoausc [he1 had not opposed it." (Mot. at p. 5.)
4 Vurther, Merliss's counsel, Richard O. Hill, aJlegcs these fees "do not include
5 substatial aountof editing and Mher activities perfonned by (Mr. Hill] in this case." (Mot. a
0 p. 6; Mot. Ex. 4.) Mcrliss contends "[iJt is hard to imagine a more appropriate case tball this n
? whi ch to award the maimum amount justified by the substanti al evidence before the court,'
8 (Mot. at p. 6.) Merliss goes even frther and staes;

As proven above and below, the frivolity and vexatiousness of Coughlin's


maintenance od extclls.ion of this matter has been so beyond reason, and so
I
(lutrageous, and the nexus of his behavior to the fees incmcd by Merliss so direct
and indisputable, that nothing less than a full award of those fees should even be
|1
considered by the c(lUrL To not impose hc0iIImeasure of the hann Coughlin has
12 caused would I'cward and <llCOtLrage his vexatiousness in tbis and other cases.
There needs to be a day of reckoning for Coughlin's antics.
13
(Mot. at p. 8.)
1 S
Nevada luw r.o"idc for "0 rMoonoblo uttoma} fo" to be f>lcd and allowod by tho diotrio
cour Jor all services rendered il behalf of the prevailing party" on appeal from j\lstice court.
17 Nlw. REV. STAT. .050. It addit ion NRS 7.085 requires the district court (0 order an a(lome)
18
personatly to pay reasonable attoreys fees incurred as a result of the filing, maintaining a
19
defending of civil action where "such action or defense is not weUgroundcd i tlct or is not
20 wa.rramed by exist.ing law. . . NEV. REV. S11. 7.085(1)(a). The same applies to
21 attorey wh() has "[ujnreasonably and vexatiously extended a civil a.elton + " NEV. REv.
22 StAt. ]7.08()(b).
Jf grounds exist to award attorey's fees, Nevada courts follow the lodestar rulalysis. Sc
24
Shuctte v. Beazer Homes 121 Nev. 837, 864, 124 P.3d 530,549 (2005) (Th
25 lodestar approach involves multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent on the case by a
2( reasonable hourly rate.") (Quotations and citations omi tted,) IndetClmining the l'easonablenes
27
of the Ieee award, the district court should consider the following four Iootors.(l)the advocates'
28 qualI:ics;(2)the chmRcter of the vor<
-
(3)the vor<perfored; and (4) the result obtained. Sc
2
Brunzell,,,Y.
_\_ |o:Hjting Air Conditioning.
rcnzcII
5
BrunzclI,
10
15
20
25
<
B
,
3

LANAGAN
District Judge
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732 PAGE 10/15
Golden Gate Natl Bank, 85 Nev, 345, 349, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (J99) (ciIation
2 omitted); v. Mt. &
J24 Nov. 821, 829g 192 P.3d 730, 73
3 (2008) (per curiam) (oppIyingtbo Ior|ors)
4 Af,er reviewing Merliss' s moving papcrs-including Iho detai led and thorough summa
of fees and his cotmsels' accompanying Decarationsand after considering all of the parties'
6 aguments this Court concludes MerlssS aItomey'sfeesrequest is authorized by Nevada law
7 Thls Court also has considered the factors set forth in :ara. Afer anaIyz.ng lhos
8 factors, and given the unique features of this c, this C0rI0nIdc McrI>`sl:req\lest i
9 reasonable.
Accordingly, MorIiss`s Motion {;r Attorney's Fees Is GRANTED in the sum o.
11
12
S42,065.50.
13 DATED this _]_day of June, 2012.
14
PATRICK
16
17
18
19
2J
22
23
24
26
27
28
5
10
15
20
25
CERTIF]CATEOF 5[RVCE
~ ~ -
4
11/13/2012 16:41 7753375732
PAGE 11/15
2
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I a .In employee of the Second Judicial
3
District Cour of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe; that on this ___[_day of June, 2012,
I electronically filed the following with the Clerk of the Cour byusing the ECF system which
will send a notice of electronic fling to the following:
6 Richard Hill, Esq. for Matthew Merliss; and
7
Zachary Coughlin, Esq. for himself.
8
1 depos.ited in the Washoe County mailing system for postage and mailing with the
9
United States Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true copy of the attached document addressed
to:
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
/
@RDERA)[IRMIU= hUI
I= F]RbQ@ MUNICIPALCU@I
13
PAGE 12/15
11/13/2012 16:41
L11
Electronically
03-15-2012:06:21:48 PM
.Joey Orduna Hastings
1
Clerk of the Court
Tran.a.ctlon # 2829786
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE 5LCOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
7
***
8
_ ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN,
10 Appellant, Case No.; CRll2064
11
vs. Dept. No.: 10
12
CITY OF RENO, a municipal corporation,
I
Respondent
lb
\h
Presently before the Court is an Appeal from a ruling of the Reno Municipal Cour,
17
filed by Appellant ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN (hereafter "Appellant") on December 23,
18
2011. Following, on February 7, 2012, Appellant filed his Opening Brief on Appeal.
19
Thereafer, on February 23, 2012, Respondent L! OF RENO (hereinafer "Respondent")
20
fled its AnswOrinQ Brief The matter is now before th8 Cour for its consideration.
21
This mater comes before the Court on a criminal appeal from the Reno Municipal
22
Court. On November 30, 2011, Appellant was convicted of Petit Larcery, a violation of
23
RMC 8.10.040. Thereafer, on December 13, 2011, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with
24
the Court.
25
Although Appellant's arguments on appeal are unclear, Appellant raises a wide
26
variety of Issues, including, Inter d/' that he was denied hiS Sixth Amendment Right to
27
Counsel, that the Municipal Court erred in failing to grant him a continuance, that IH0
28
prosecution engaged in misconduct, that he was refused an opportunity to testify on his
17
28 ///
PAGE 13/15
11/13/2012 16:41
own behalf, that cerain evidence should have been suppressed p
ursuant to the Fourth
Z Amendment of the United States Constitution, that his conviction is not supported by
3
1
sufficient evidence, and that "[f]urther Improprieties and due process deficienCies"
4 occurred.
5 Unfortunately, Appellant neither supports his arguments with relevant authority nor
b citations to relevant portions of the record. Most importantly, Appellant has failed to
7 provide this Cour with a copy of the transcript of relevant proceedings in the Reno
8 Municipal Court, The Nevada Supreme Court has held that an "[a]ppellant has the ultimate
' responsibility to provide this court with 'portions of the record essential to determination of
10 issues raised in appellant's appeal:" U0m5 v. b|/7, I0 Nev. J7 n. 4, 83 P.3d 818
11 (2004) (citingNRAP 30(b)(3). Further, NRAP 28(e) provides that "[e]very assertion in
12 briefs regarding maters in the record shall be supported by a reference to the page 0Ithe
I3 transcript or appendix where the mater relied on is to be found."
1
While Appellant did provide this Court with a Compact Disc containing i recording of
15 the Municipal Court proceedings, Appellant did not cite to the portions of the Compact Disc
J6 th at he felt supported his arguments, and it is not the responsibility of this Court to guess
which portions of the Compact Disc might support Appellant's arguments. In short,
18 Appellant did not satisfy his responsibility to supply and 6|*7 *0relevant porions of tile
19 record merely by producing a Compact Disc recording of the entire Municipal Court
20 proceeding.
21 In light of Appellant's failure to provide this Court with an adequate appellate
22 record, and Appellant's correspondent failure to cite to such a record, this Court is unable
/`
to conduct a meaningful review of Appellant's appeal, Thus, Appellant has failed to meet
/ ///
2
5 ///
26
///
7 ///
-
2
-
>
ELLIO
11/13/2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
J
?

26
27
28
16:41
his burden in providing an adequate appellate record, and this Court must affirm the ruling
of the Reno Municipal Court.
!
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ruling of the Reno
Municipal Cour is AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded back to the Reno
MuniCipal Court for all further proceedings.
DATED this day of March, 2012.
EVEN P.
Distric Judge
PAGE 14/15
1 It is worh notig that, puruant t NRS 4.410(2), "[t]he fees for transcripts and copies [of municipal ccun
roceed|ogsj must be paid by the party ordering them. In a civil case the preparation of the transcript need
not commence until the fees have befn deposited with the deputy clerk of the court." Accordingly, NRS
189.030, which requires the municipal court to transmit variOUS papers t the district court upon appeal, does
not require action until such fees have been paid. Here, it appears that Appellant never paid the requisite
fees \" secure the transcription of the raceed:ags. For this reason, the appellate record Is |a:om|ete.
6@IQF}tNMUM
5
dd'

10
15
20
25
1.3
PAGE 15/15
11/13/2012 16:41
1
2
I hereby Can|Iythat I elecronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by
J
uSing the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
4
/'HKCOUGHLN, E5Q. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN
PAMEL kO0k15, 5Q.I0rCI OF RENO
6
7 DATED this /
8
9
Judicial Assistant
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
-4-
5
1

p.o
v
, 'I
s1n1


,.: ..
10
15
20
25
2
3
4
6
1U13 JAN \ S Pt,\ \: 31
I 1urMuxcrticotu1or
cotx1vorwnsuor,
7 I THE ADMINISTRATIVE MA TTTER OF:
8 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
9 /
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2013-01
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been the subject of disciplinary
hearings before the State Bar of Nevada Norther Nevada Disciplinary Board where the Board found
Mr. Coughlin "committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional conduct" and that Mr.
Coughlin "engaged in bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process"; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has been a party in cases before the
Reno Municipal Court, including cases before the Honorable William L Gardner, the Honorable
Dorothy Nash I-lohnes, the Honorable Jay Dilworth and the Honorable Kenneth Howard, wherein Mr.
Coughlin was held in contempt of court by the Honorable Kenneth Howard and the Honorable
Dorothy Nash I-Iohnes for failing to follow the Court's orders and directives ; ad
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN has been a party in both civil and
criminal matters before the Reno Justice Court, including cases before the Honorable Peter Sferrazza,
the Honorable Scott Pearson, and the Honorable David Clifon, wherein Mr. Coughlin has been
admonished for failing to follow the Court's orders and directives; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is currently the subject of an Order
for Protection against Harassment in the Workplace in effect until January 4, 2014, requested by the
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Washoe County Public Defender's Ofce, his counsel in several cases before the Reno Justice Court
,
and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN is currently a party in cases before
this Court and citizens, whether or not indigent, have a constitutional right to access to the courts with
the protection of due process oflaw; and
WHERAS, frivolous or vexatious claims and defenses overburden limited juridical
resources, hinder the timely resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging in
business and providing professional services to the public; and
WHEREAS, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN has repeatedly caused a disturbance
in and around the Clerk's Otlce of the Reno Municipal Court, 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 public; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to NRS 22.010(2) "[a] breach ofthe peace, boisterous conduct or
violent disturbance in the presence of the court, or in its immediate vicinity, tending to interrpt the
due course of the trial or other judicial proceedings" constitutes contempt of court in the State of
Nevada; and
WHEREAS, "[dJisabedience ar resistance to any lawful writ, order, rule or process
\
issued by the court orjudge at chambers," NRS 22.0 10(3), constitutes contempt of court in the state of
Nevada; and
WHEREAS, Nevada's courts are constitutionally authorized to issue all writs "proper
and necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction." Nev. Const. at. 6, 6(1); and
2
15
19
24
25
WHEREAS, to protect the peaceful and effective operation of this Court,
2
I lS HEREBY ORDERED:
3
1. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN shall not enter the
p
remises of the Reno
4
Municipal Court at One South Sierra Street, Reno, Nevada except a follows:
5
A. If ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN wishes to file a document with the Reno
6
7
Municipal Court or attend a hearing in the Reno Municipal Court, he must notif the security
8
personnel at the main security screening entrance located at the east entance of One South Sierra
9
Street and wait for a marshal of the Reno Municipal Court to respond to his location.
10
B. If ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN wishes to make a request of the Reno
11
Municipal Court for copies, transcripts, access to a court fle or ask a question, hc shall do so in
12
writing and either mail the request to Reno Municipal Cour or deliver the written request to a marshal
13
14
of the Reno Municipal Court by first contacting the Marshal's OHce through court security as detailed
above. The marshal will then fle the document for Mr. Coughlin and provide a file-stamped copy to
16
Mr. Coughlin in return.
17
C. IfZACHARY BARER COUGHLIN wishes to attend a Court hearing in the
18
Reno Municipal Cour, he shall be escorted by a marshal of this Court.
20
2. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHUN shall not be present in the exclusive premises
21
of the Reno Municipal Court including the Clerk's Ofice, courtrooms, ASU Ofice, administrative
22
offces on the second and third floor of the South 'rower of One South Sierra Street, Reno, Nevada,
23
without escort of a marshal of this Court and without first following the notification
p
rocedures a
outlined above.
3. ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLI is prohibited from contacting any employee of
26
27
the Reno Municipal Court other than a Reno Munici
p
al Court Marshal.
28
3
5
10
15
20
25
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
1
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
4. If ZACHAR Y BARKER COUGHLIN is a paty to a case, he may address the Court
during the Courl proceedings.
5. Any violation of this Order may be considered a contempt of court and punished
pursuant to NRS Chapter 22 by a fine of up to $500 and/or i ncarceration for up to 25 days in the
Washoe County Detention Facility.
6. This Order is effctive upon the date of persona) service upon ZACHARY
BARKER COUGHLIN.
Dated this &day of January, 2013.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
4
Close Print
RE: i need to update the proof of certi of service with the
rjc
From: Helzer, John (jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us)
Sent: Mon 1/14/13 7:44 AM
To: 'Zach Coughlin' (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Cc: Halstead, Patricia (phalstead@da.washoecounty.us)
Mr. Coughlin:
Nothing is wrong with Mr. Youngs e-mail and you know that is the case. I will be evaluating your effort to
circumvent what was set up in this Office to cut off your communications. It appears it may be necessary to block
your electronic communications entirely based upon this most recent effort.
As previously indicated, this Office took steps to try and accommodate your requests and at the same time restrict
your communications to Mr. Young which in MY opinion were excessive by design, arguably abusive and could be
viewed as threatening. I better understand why the Judicial Ethics Office eliminated you from being able to fax.
I will let you know what we decide. As you were told, if this Office cuts off your ability to e-mail (and that is likely)
you will have to proceed by motions with the courts to obtain compliance with what you perceive is needed.
John Helzer
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
thisSent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:43 PM
To: Halstead, Patricia
Subject: i need to update the proof of certi of service with the rjc

Dear Future District Court Judge Halstead,

DDA Young's email is acting funny, would you mind forwarding this to him?

Dear DDA Young,


I likely need to update the proof of certi of service with the rjc s the one on file likely
indicates this was personally deliver to the wcda on 1 7 13. however, dda young did
not show up to the hearing on 1 7 13 (and he asked for me to be taken into custody
when I didn't show up on 8/6/12, despite that being because the WCPD failed to notify
me in any way of that combo-hearing, as legal assistant Linda Gray admitted to failign
to mail out the written notice thereto in light of her belief that my then po box 3961
address was no longer "good".

not sure you are even supposed to be served this under nrs 1.235, but here it is...
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
7402 ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Zach has a file to share with you on SkyDrive. To view it, click the link below.
1 7 13 0204 067980 filing by Coughlin Motion to Disqualify RJC Judge Clifton and all RJC Judges and
Conflict out WCDA.pdf


Leslie, Jim
From: Kandaras, Mar
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM
To: Leslie, Jim
Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and
8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012-065630
Imporance: High
Jim:
I believe that you should send this. Supreme Court Rule 104(a) authorizes State bar counsel to investigate all matters
involving possible attorney misconduct or incapacity called to bar counsel's attention, whether by grievance or both.
This potentially involves misconduct (violation of law) and incapacity.
Mary Kandaras
Deputy District Attorney Civil Division
Washoe County
775 - 337 - 5723 direct phone
-----Original Message----
From: Leslie, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:11 PM
To: Kandaras, Mary
Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 -065630
Thanks, please do. He came to our office after my email to you and caused a disturbance. We called the police, but he
fled before they arrived.
jim
-----Original Message----
From: Kandaras, Mary
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:17 PM
To: Leslie, Jim
Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012-065630
I will have to review this tomorrow and get back to you.
Mary Kandaras
Deputy District Attorney Civil Division
Washoe County
775 - 337 - 5723 direct phone
-----Original Message----
From: Leslie, Jim
1
The below email from Mr. Coughlin contains a reference at the end of the first paragraph to a website containing a video
clip from the movie Cape Fear. Please advise whether any action is required of our office or yours regarding this
possible veiled or indirect threat of violence against attorneys in this office by Mr. Coughlin.
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:59 PM
To: Kandaras, Mary
Subject: FW: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012-065630
Mary:
Please review my transmittal to Patrick King at the bar, below, and let me know if I should do anything else from a civil
perspective.
Thanks,
James B. Leslie, Esq.
Chief Deputy Public Defender
Washoe County Public Defender's Office
350 South Center Street
Fifth Floor
Reno, NV 89509
1-800-762-8031
Direct Dial: 775-337-4828
Fax: 775-337-4856
Email: jleslie@washoecounty.us
The contents of this communication and all accompanying documents and attachments contain CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION, are legally privileged, and are intended for use and review only by the party sending same and the
intended reCipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, use or taking any action reliant on said contents are CONFIDENTIAL and strictly prohibited. If you received
this communication in error, please immediately notif us at 775-337-4800 to arrange return of the original
transmittal. Thank you.
-----Original Message----
From: Leslie, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49 PM
To: 'patrickk@nvbar.org'
Subject: FW: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 -065630
Mr. King:
Thank you,
James B. Leslie, Esq.
Chief Deputy Public Defender
Washoe County Public Defender's Office
350 South Center Street
Fifh Floor
Reno, NV 89509
2
1-800-762-8031
Direct Dial: 775-337-4828
Fax: 775-337-4856
Email: jleslie@washoecounty.us
The contents of this communication and all accompanying documents and attachments contain CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION, are legally privileged, and are intended for use and review only by the party sending same and the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, use or taking any action reliant on said contents are CONFIDENTIAL and strictly prohibited. If you received
this communication in error, please immediately notify us at 775-337-4800 to arrange return of the original
transmittal. Thank you.
-----Original Message----
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:35 PM
To: Leslie, Jim; Bosler, Jeremy; Dogan, Biray; Goodnight, Joseph W; Fortier, Chris; Tuttle, Steve; Kandaras, Mary; Young,
Zach; skauc@reno.gov; wongd@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; complaints@nvbar.org; cvellis@bhfs.com;
je@eloreno.com; patrickk@nvbar.org; davidc@nvbar.org; rosec@nvbar.org; laurap@nvbar.org; skent@skentlaw.com;
mike@tahoelawyer.com; eifert.nta@att.net; nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net; fflaherty@dlpfd.com;
fflaherty@dyerlawrence.com
Subject: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 -065630
The Trial yesterday in RCR2012-065630 featured extended discussions regarding the failure of the WCPD, Dogan, and
Leslie, to turn over discovery propounded by DDA Young in the form of cd's featuring 911 calls DDA Young provided to
the WCPD on 8/13/12 and 8/17/12 ... And the heavy hitters were there, too (Elliot Sattler) ..... despite numerous written
requests from Coughlin that the WCPD do so, and multiple trips to the WCPD personally by Coughlin to pick such
materials up, and despite more flip flopping on their story by Leslie and Dogan regarding whether they ever gave
Coughlin some package of materials responsive to Coughlin's request for his "file" ... But, Jim Leslie is stuck with the
7/27/12 date he mentions in his email, then he is stuck with what his recent email wherein he purports to have therein
digitally transmitted Coughlin his "file", which obviously does not include the cd's of 911 calls (the one's DDA Young took
up an enormous amount of court time playing, over and over (well, Young only played over and over the paricular calls
he felt were strongest for his case and most prejudicial, claiming some "cutting room floor mishap" for the reoccurrence
of certain calls, arguing that such a "happy accident" justified playing them again and again, at ever increasing volumes,
etc., etc.). Apparently, I am here to subsidize Young's baby making, just like I was with Ms. Gorman, as a continuance of
prejudicial length of afforded to the State where none was forthcoming to Coughlin, despite Leslie and Dogan's
obstructionist tantrums, ones of a quality that would. I remember when my life featured happy moments like the birth
of twins ... but that was before your leviathan legal system wrecked shop on my existence. What, sir, shall be my
compensation? Do you mind if I put my arm around .... http:/tinyurl.com/bgmlfdr
This is a formal grievance against Dogan, Leslie, Bosler, Young ... etc.
If Svengali/Diann Ross Diva Jim Leslie is going to micromanage Dogan and Goodnight's cases, and gag order them, he
better be sure not to screw up the cases requiring a mistrial by failing to provide the client the cd's of 911 calls DDA
Young gave the wcpd on 8/13 and 8/17/12 in rjc rev2011-065630, and clearly, any packet from 7/27/12 wouldn't have
them (not to even get into the flip flopping contradictory accounts by Leslie and Dogan as to who gave Coughlin the
packet, or who didn't or blah blah blah) ... and certainly Leslie email below only contained a 57 page pdf...way to close to
the 12/11/12 trial date, and containing materials Coughlin had never been given before .... so much easier, Jimmy Sleazy
to email the client a "digital transmittal" proving what you gave and when" .... but, no, that would make it so hard to
3
fudge the accounts of what was contained therein, or who handed what to whom, or who failed to pick up this or that,
or Dogan's slippery nonsense:
"From: Jleslie@washoecounty.us
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: BDogan@washoecounty.us
Subject: 911 Case
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:09:08 +0000
Mr. Coughlin:
Attached are the discovery materials in the above-referenced case that you had requested and we had made an
additional copy of for you in response to your request. Please note that the July 27, 2012, cover letter was for your pick
up and you never picked it up. Note also that the July 27,2012, packet encloses a copy of the April 17, 2012, hand
delivery transmittal of the very same documents which you received.
Since we have been removed from the 911 case, we are closing our file. The attached materials were sitting at our front
desk. Since you failed to retrieve them, we provide the attached courtesy copy before final closure of our file.
No response to this transmittal is required from you.
James B. Leslie, Esq."
So, while Dogan states on 7/27/12 in 65630 "Your Honor, I have never even spoken with Judge Dorothy Nash
Holmes" ... he coyly fails to indicate whether he spoke with anyone with the RMC, Marilyn Tognoni, included, or why his
2/28/12 fax to Coughlin was so insistent that it was "Lake's Crossing's Bill Davis, Ph.D." who must conduct the
"Competency Evaluation", or how it was Judge Clifton's 2/27/12 Order for Competency Evaluation could have possibly
known and included Judge Elliott as the "randomly assigned judge" to that Competency Case in CR12-0376 (Judge Elliott
on Committee to Aid Abused Women's Board, (CAAW) .. .Judge Elliott presiding over Coughlin's wrongful termination
lawsuit against WCDA's Office ECR Partner, Washoe Legal Services, its Executive Director Paul Elcano, and CAAW, in
CVll-01955.. .Judge Elliott fails to disclose conflict or recuse himself, Judge Elliott manages to "randomly" be assigned
Coughlin's two criminal appeals from RMC convictions (the Wal-Mart "candy bar" petty larceny leading to a 6 months, so
far, temporary suspension of Coughlin's law license in 11 cr 22176 in the RMC, then crll-2064 in the appeal Judge Elliott
canned based upon a civil statute requiring a down payment for the preparation of transcripts and Elliott's contention
that he need not address the merits of Coughlin's appeal given the lack of a written transcript (Coughlin paid for the
audio cd, and its not even clear that the RMC is a court of record anyways, and the RMC distributes to defendants
instructions sheets and enforces "house rules" regarding the preparation of transcripts that require one utilizing the
services of RMC "oficial transcriptionist Pam Longoni (whom hung up on Coughlin twice, and refused to prepare the
4
transcript in 11 cr 22176/crl1-2064, failed to return emails/faxes, etc.)" and where the RMC refused to even give
Coughlin the audio recording for some time, insisting Coughlin could merely have it made available to Longoni. ... Oh,
Coughlin didn't get no continuance from Judge Howard in that 11 cr 22176 (even where he was wrongfully evicted in
Rev2011-001708 (now on appeal in 60331 and 61383) on 11/1/11, then wrongfully arrested on 11/13/12 in 11 cr 26405
(now feature in 61901, 62104, 54844, 60302, 60317, etc .. ) and incarcerated between 11/13/12 and 11/15/12, no
continuance for the 11/30/12 Trial in 11 cr 22176, despite an agreement in writing with City Attorney Pamela Roberts
(whom put on perjured testimony by three witnesses where she possess a video and other evidence conclusively
proving that Coughlin did provide his driver's license to RSIC Oficer Crawford ... and where Robert's prosecuted based on
an arrest for a misdemeanor by tribal officers where NRS 178.1255 bars such an arrest, and where Wal-Mart's Thomas
Frontino and Roberts herself admit no citizen's arrest was effectuated .... so, about that RPC 3.8 violation ... ). Then there
is the appeal in cr12-1262 that Judge Elliott, again, was "randomly" assigned from the conviction by RMC Judge William
Gardner in 11 cr 26405 based upon the criminal trespass complaint signed by Richard G. Hill, Esq. (opposing counsel in
the summary eviction from Coughlin's former home law office in rjc rev2011-001708, presided over by Judge Sferrazza,
though Hill and his associate Casey D. Baker, Esq. fax, on October 17th, 2011 to Judge Clifton (who was not Chief Judge
at the time, or anything) an Emergency Ex Pare Motion for Inspection of Coughlin's Law Office, and where in his
October 19th, 2011 Order in that matter 001708, Judge Clifton ruled as "moot" Coughlin' 11/17/12 Motion to Set Aside
the 11/13/12 Order following Summar Eviction Proceeding by Judge Sferrazza setting the matter for "Trial" on
10/25/12, on the condition that Coughlin deposit a rent escrow of $2,275 with the RJC (though Judge Sferrazza admitted
later on the record on 11/7/12 that the RJC Judges had a meeting wherein they all had to agree that Coughlin was
absolutely correct that the RJC was violating Nevada law in having an unpublished "house rule" corollary to JCRLV 44
requiring such rent escrow deposits in landlord tenants matter here JCRCP 83 had not been followed in that the RJC had
not published and had approved by the N. S. Ct. any such deviation from the statutory remedies set forth in NRS 40 and
118A. Judge Elliott managed to torpedo that appeal of the criminal trespass conviction stemming from the criminal
complaint and custodial arrest at Coughlin's former home law office by co-signing RMC Judicial Assistant Lisa Wagner's
and the RMC's nonsense about not having received Coughlin's Notice of Appeal timely under NRS 189.010. The proof of
delivery fax confirmation indicates otherwise, Lisa. And regardless. the conveniently timed arrest of Coughlin on
6/28/12, and the tolling nature of Coughlin's 6/26/12 Motion for New Trial in that matter, and the kited, dated 7/10/12
jailhouse Notice of Appeal by Coughlin, and the curiously failure to grant Coughlin tier time in the interim while Judge
Gardner manageed to push through his 7/11/12 Order Denying Coughlin's Motion for New Trial, is all the more reason
to apply consternation to Judge Elliott's work on the appeal on CR12-01262.. Then there is Judge Linda Gardner being
Judge Peter Breen, MD's law clerk, and Breen kicking Coughlin out of the Mental Health Court based upon Sharon
Dollarhid, Rene Biondo, and Breen and the MHC's own breach of contract (if they provide program materials,
acceptance, and a contract that list certain medications as disallowed, how is it they can claim non-compliance or
"failure to abide" by the rules for taking a medication not listed therein? Don't ask WCPD Joe Goodnight or Jennifer
Rains ... they know what side their bread is buttered on .... MH12-0032 ... so DDA Young tries to jam through a trial in
063341 on May 7th, 2012, despite the mandatory stay in NRS 178.405 and the then still pending Order for Competency
Evaluation in rjc 2012-065630 from the clandestine status conference Dogan and Young never quite seem to refute
happening on 2/27/12 ... 0h, and Judge Clifton, then DA Dorothy Nash Holmes, and Judge Linda Gardner were all co
workers once upon a time, working closely with then Sparks City Attorney/prosecutor Steven Elliott, whom worked for
the law firm of the father of the Panel Chair for Coughlin's 11/14/12 SBN v. Coughlin formal Disciplinary Hearing in
NG12-0204, 0434, 0435 (the last two being grievances against Coughlin filed, in part, by RMC Judge William Gardner,
prior to Gardner failing to recuse himself from the criminal trespass case against Coughlin before him in 11 CR
26405 ... even where Judge Gardner's sister Judge Linda Gardner's April 2009 Order sanctioning Coughlin was cited by
WLS's Elcano as the sole basis for firing Coughlin, and where Coughlin filed a Mandamus Petition in 54844 challenging
those sanctions, and where ng12-0435 was one of three grievances forming the 8/23/12 SCR 105 Complaint against
Coughlin (strangely ... the Wal-Mar "candy bar" petty larceny conviction and the formal hearing for the "sole purpose" of
determining Coughlin's punishment for such required by SCR 111(8) and the Court's 6/7/12 Order got particularly short
shrift in the 8/23/12 triple grievance numbered SCR 105 Complaint by Bar Counsel Pat "Patty Ice" King, a/k/a Pat Salieri,
whom wants no part of explaining his statements to Coughlin during the 3/26/12 appearance at the SBN by Coughlin, for
the sole purpose of taking King up on his offer to let Coughlin review the materials submitted along with the grievances
(therein King claimed to have received grievances against Coughlin from three different Judges .... though, by 3/26/12, it
couldn't have been Beesley, as Coughlin only filed the exhibits detailing Judge Nash Holmes and the WCSO and WCDA
o
impermissibly confiscating Coughlin's smart phone without a warrant or court order and well after the end of the period
to do a search incident to arrest (the arrest was 2/27/12 for some pastiche of summary plenary civil criminal contempts
statuts that Judge Nash Holmes whipped up ... though she avoid NRS 22.030 and definitely there wasn't no affidavit
sign in' by 01' RMC Marshal Harley for alleged conduct in a restroom or restroom stall, which assuredly was not "under
the watchful eye of the court" or "in the immediate presence" of the court .... so much easier for Bar Counsel to feed
Judge Nash Holmes the "clear and convicing evidence" standard from Schaefer required to prove an ethical violation,
have here copy and paste some RPC's into a second bite at the apple and more than 10 days later (civil statute, NRS
22.010, NRCP and JCRCP 59 allow sua sponte amending within 10 days, no 12 days ... 2/27/12 to 3/12/12 .... void Order of
3/12/12 by Judge Nash Holmes, so, sorry Patty Ice, nice try, no SCR 111(5) "an Order or conviction is conclusive proof of
guilt and I don't recognize Claiborne as binding authority because it makes my job harder .... " .. ..
Thank You Jim for continuing to prevaricate in writing, your recent email combined with some, uh, other materials that
have been culled, will surely be helpful in exposing you for the fraud that you are. And Biray Dogan too ... Oh, by the way,
that 11/7/12 fax confirmation page or proof of faxing? How is that coming along, because I need to see it from you. My
records show absolutely no receipt of any fax of that sort, not on that day, not on any day ... which means the ball is in
your court to show how Dogan's representations to Judge Sferrazza on 11/19/12 in court were not displaying a lack of
candor to the tribunal and How Leslie Tibbals' certificate on serice therein is not fraud.
Oh, attached is Goodnight's 12 19 11 Request for Discovery, which includes:
"REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY
COMES NOW, the Defendant, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, by and through his attorney of record, Joseph W.
Goodnight, Deputy Public Defender, and hereby requests the following discovery pursuant to NRS 174.235 to NRS
174.295, inclusive. 1. Inspect and receive copies or photograph any written or recorded statements or confessions made
by the Defendant or any witness, or copies thereof, within the posseSSion, custody or control of the State, the existence
of which is known or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the prosecutor. NRS 174.235(1)(a). This
request includes any video and audio recordings, including those presered on pocket recording devices, 9-1-1
emergency calls, and any dispatch logs, written or recorded, generated in connection with this case."
Jim, then there is you chiming in, in your role as "standby counsel", attempting to aid the Court and DDA Young in
coercing from me my Fifth Amendment rights at the 9:06 am mark on the transcript from 11/20/12 ("Your Honor, I'll
remind the Court that I am here to jump in in my role as standby counsel anytime the Court's feels he is dragging his
feet .... He is wasting County assets!" ... very Atticus Finch, Jim).
So, then there is Jim's 10/3/12 subpoena to Ecomm/Kelley Wood ... and given he was counsel of record until 10/22/12,
yet completely failed to turn over anything (responsive or not) in relation to that subpoena, and the fact that the entire
Suppression Motion turned on "what information the RPD received from dispatch", and the fact that the audio of the
"radio traffic" between the RPD and Dispatch on that night (or at least the portions of it I have been able to extract from
the powers that be) reveal, one, no report of a possible fight was received by RPD (they were on the scene by the time
the 11:27:11 pm text was sent to the displays in their vehicles, and the one audible "radio traffic" recording contains no
mention of anything beyond "check for possible larceny of a cell phone that just occurred, suspect still on the scene, also
reports of a loud verbal disturbance ... ". Then there is Jim and Goodnight completely whiffing on the detaining
argument, in addition to the whole "assuming we win on the pat down, make sure to oppose the notation that there
was sufficient probable cause for an arrest and search incident thereto .... ", not to mention that it was Coughlin (whose
filings Jim managed to cheerfully announce "The Public Defender's Ofice is not joining in on those fugitive
documents ... ", despite the 2/21/12 Filings by Goodnight that do just that.. .. ) that pointed out the whole NRS 171.360
basis for throwing out the search (which Jim managed to not cite to or quote from in his closing argument as the
Suppression Hearing ... where Jim did manage to ask Cory Goble questions on cross that were designed to do nothing
more than establish a citizen's arrest suficient to rebut the NRS 171.360 basis for throwing out the arrest and fruits
culled therefrom ... ).
Oh, then there is your ofice blacking out the numbers of the callers on the dispatch logs and refusing to turn over even
a redacted version of the alleged victim's call records for the time in question, thereby completely obstructing the
defendant's ability to impeach the various lies testified to by all the witnesses. And "Coach" DDA Young can tell you all
about his 40 minutes coaching sessions visible through the plexiglass in the Justice Cour lobby with Zarate, Goble,
Lichty, and Templeton, and their constant parroting (along with RPD Duralde) of "prosecutor buzzwords" ("willfully
withheld", "report from dispatch of a possible fight", "my training and experience", "detained", "I don't remember who
made the call", "I can't remember which one of my friends it was who was with me", etc., etc.) Also, the WCPD practice
of blacking out locations and addresses sure makes it difficult to establish inconsistencies between testimony and the
reports/Witness Statements or otherwise utilize them for impeachment purposes.
So, now today, we get this Jim Leslie email with all it's revisionist history ... which only contradicts the position Leslie and
Dogan have taken that Coughlin already picked up this 7/27/12 packet (at first Dogan claimed to have personally handed
it to Coughlin, then changed his story 2 minutes later and said he saw Leslie personally hand it to Coughlin .... and Dogan
asserts to the Court at the 11/27/12 Hearing in rcr2012-065630 that he has never spoken with Judge Dorothy Nash
Holmes (see materials regarding clandestine status conference of 2/27/12 and subsequent fallout with Judge Nash
Holmes of 2/27/12 a couple hours after Dogan secured his 2/27/12 1:31 pm Order for Competeny Evaluation in 065630
from Judge Clifton).
The SBN v. Coughlin Complaint of 8/23/12 specifically mentions the arrest of 1/14/12 that theis 065630 case is based on,
in addition to the 063341 iPhone arrest, and RJC Judicial Secretary Lori Townsend sent Coughlin's 2/21/12 in 065630 to
the SBN, and offered to send Coughlin's 2/15/12 filing in 063341 to the SBN ... and Judge Nash Holme's 3/12/12 Order in
11 TR 26800 mentions Coughlin quoting "rock lyrics" in a filing as a basis for her transmogrifing a "simple trafic
citation" to a "formal disciplinary hearing on an ethics violation" wherein she quotes the Schaefer standard for an ethical
violation that Bar Counsel had fed her earlier in the day ... and that window between the 1:00 pm noticed start time of
the traffic citation trial in 11 tr 26800 and the 3:30 pm eventual star time includes the 1:25 pm courthouse sanctuary
doctrine violating service upon Coughlin (by RMC Marshal Joel Harley, on behalf of WCSO Deputy Machen, hired by
Richard G. Hill, Esq., at whose office Coughlin was retaliated against by RPD Sargent Tarter with the three traffic citations
shortly after Coughlin reported to Tarter the admissions regarding bribery by Richard G. Hill, Esq. by RPD Officer Chris
Carter, Jr .... and Marshal Harley was serving the Order to Show Cause for the 3/23/12 Hearing in the appeal of the
summary eviction from Coughlin's former law office (where RPD Carter made the trespass arrest now detailed in N. S.
Ct. case 61901), on behalf of Deputy Machen, in the conference room within the Courtroom B of the RMC, despite
Coughlin, an efiler, having already been sered it). However, the only filing by Coughlin that could be said to quote "rock
lyrics" is the 2/21/12 filing in Dogan's case 065630 (the one where Dogan had appeared as attorney of record then failed
to show up for a hearing on 2/13/12, then retaliated against Coughlin for Coughlin's 2/21/12 filing in 065630 by moving
for a Competency Evaluation and basically doing absolutely nothing on the case for the next 9 months besides raping
from Coughlin his medical privacy rights along with Judge Steven Elliot and DDA Zach Young at the 4/19/12 hearing in
CR12-0376 (one of 3 criminal appeals Judge Elliot was "randomly" assigned in which Coughlin is a party ... to go along
with the wrongful termination suit by Coughlin that Judge Elliot presided over in CV11-01955 wherein Coughlin sued
CAAW and WLS, despite Judge Elliot Sitting on CAAW's Board, and where Judge Elliot, the Panel Chair at Coughlin's
formal disciplinary hearing of 11/14/12, and Washoe Legal Service's Paul Elcano all went to Stanford together, and
where Judge Elliot worked for Panel Chair John Echeverria's father's law firm, Echeverria and Osborne). Then there is
Linda Gardner being Judge Breen's law clerk, and Judge Breen removing Coughlin from Mental Health Court in MH12
0032, where the MHC's Rene Biondo and Sharon Dollarhide lied about what medications were listed as accepted or not
in the materials provided by Goodnight and or the MHC along with the contract entered into with Coughlin, whom was
accepted into the MHC. Then there is WCPD Joe Goodnight and Jennifer Rains refusal to file anything directed towards
enforcing the MHC's contract with Coughlin, wherein they both demonstrated they know what side their bread is
buttered on and indicated "there just isn't a basis for seeking reconsideration of Judge Breen's Order". Judge Peter
Breen, MD.
7
Funny how Dogan did not state to Judge Clifon that he never spoke with anyone else at the Reno Municipal Court about
Coughlin .... including Marilyn Tognoni ... but, rather Dogan just indicated he never spoke with Judge Nash Holmes, in his
best innocent little boy voice that he cops when he isn't busy tittering away with Jim Leslie in the spectator area during
the 11/19 and 11/20 Trial in 063341 (where he failed to apprise Judge Sferrazza of the fraud attendant to his earlier
attestations regarding proof of service (by fax no less) of his 11/7/12 Motion to Quash Coughlin's Subpoena ....
Also, its a bit strange how Dogan and the WCPD redact or black out the names of the RPD Officers and Dispatch
Operators beginning on page 16 of the 56 page file Jim Leslie finally emailed me today titled "Coughlin Discovery 911
Case", which, as is their wont, he and Dogan have continued to change their stories about whether they had or had not
provided to me already until the last possible minute before trial, whereupon, with a Trial date of December 11th, 2012
in rcr2012-065630, Jim Leslie finally emails me a 56 page pdf purporting it to be my "file". One wonders where any
audio recordings, dispatch recordings, 911 call recordings or other media are any why Leslie and Dogan did not provide
them. Coughlin appeared at the WCPD's Office today and asked for the hard copy of his file, yet was told by front desk
receptionist "Paula" (of course, no last name provided) that she "spoke with an associate" and they told her that Jim
Leslie had already provided Coughlin his file and that he, therefore, would not be given the hard copy. "Paula"
eventually seemed to have to admit that the misleading use of the term "associate" actually did not connote her having
spoken with an attorney about the matter ... but rather Linda Gray, whom has been curiously silent as to the apparent
misconduct attendant to her admitting that she did not mail out any written notice to Coughlin of the August 6th, 2012
"combo-hearing" in rcr2012-067980 or rcr2012-065630 (Leslie glossed over that fact by sending Coughlin a note about
how he "saved the day" with his "advocacy" ... skipping past the part about how the client, Coughlin, was not noticed on
the hearing in any matter, much less in writing .... Leslie later refused to indicate with any specificity whatsoever how he
"knew" Coughlin had been noticed on the 8/6/12 hearing in writing ... and RJC Judges are only too willing to "believe" Jim
Leslie, Esq. when he explains away vaguely such things ...
Mr. Leslie, the thing is, I have a Trial in this case rcr2012-065630. You have continued in your way (similar to how you
approached the rcr2011-063341 case where Joe Goodnight, Esq. was counsel of record until you had him removed on
7/16/12, the morning of Trial. .. afer Mr. Goodnight and I have completed a video conference final trial preparation at
4:30 pm on Friday, July 13th, 2012 while I was in custody (pursuant to an arrest on July 3rd, 2012, ordered by RPD
Sargent Kim Bradshaw, she of the 1/12/12 custodial jaywalking arrest along with RPD Sargent Paul Sifre) .... Things fall
through the cracks, Mr. Leslie, when you place a gag order on the associates you claim to supervise, then stubbornly,
petulantly, and retaliatorily refuse to work the cases you have snatched back from your associates .... Simiiarly, WCPD
Fortier's email to me of February 6th, 2012 may have contributed to Mr. Dogan's confusion in failing to attend the
Hearing on Feburary 13th, 2012, which begat my filing of February 21st, 2012, which begat Mr. Dogan's procurring the
February 27th, 2012 Order for Competency Evaluation, which begat the 5 day summary incarceration for
summary/plenary/criminal/civil/transmogrified disciplinary hearing on an ethics violation/what is jurisdiction? Order by
RMC Judge Nash Holmes on 2/27/12 at 4:40 pm ... which begat NG12-0434, and probably 0435 (the SBN v. Coughlin SCR
105 Complaint of 8/23/12).
However, Mr. Dogan, you are not of the hook just because Jim Leslie places a gag order on you. Mr. Leslie sent this
email today with a 56 page pdf file purporting to be my "file". I, as now a former client, have rights to "my file". I have
requested my file in writing from your office on numerous occasions, and given your removal as counsel of record on
11/22/12 (amazingly Mr. Dogan probably managed to say 200 words on a case that he had been counsel of record on for
nearly a year, and had not managed to file a single document in that case, RCR2012-065630, and had managed to get
upset that a client would take issue with his missing the 2/13/12 Hearing, even though WCPD Fortier's 2/6/12 email
makes clear, the matter was assigned to Mr. Dogan at that point, and he had already sat down and discussed the case
with Coughlin for over one hour on or about February 8th, 2012, where Coughlin went to check in with Mary Watson,
whom was then represented by WCPD Branzell, who dragged Watson over to the Sparks Justice Court Bailiff and
demanded they breathalyze her client. They did, she was taken into custody.
8
So, after sitting down with Dogan for at least an hour and discussing various things, some including matters related to
the case he was then attorney of record on RCR2012-065630, the February 13th, 2012 court date (Dogan and Coughlin
have conflicting views as to what was agreed upon and the applications of NRS 178.388).
NRS 178.388 provides that the defendant must be present at arraignment, trial, and sentencing and provides that the
defendant may waive his appearance when certain conditions are met.
Its kind of odd how Judge Clifton (whose attached bio indicates he has deep and longstanding ties to the domestic
violence industry infrastructure) knew instantaneous to signing the Order for Competency Evaluation of 2/27/12 at 1:31
pm that the matter would be randomly assigned to District Court Judge Steven Elliot (also a lifelong prosecutor with
deep and longstanding ties to the domestic violence industrial complex, and a member of the Committee to Aid Abused
Women's (CAAW, one of the named defendants in the wrongful termination lawsuit Coughlin brought and over which
Judge Steven Elliot presided in CV11-01955, where he failed to point out his per se conflict of interest to plaintiff
Coughlin at any time, and where he ultimately pulled out just about every wrinkle in the insufficiency of service and or
process and or serice of process (a movie showing a non party over 18 years of age sering a senior paralegal at
Washoe Legal Serices, whose Executive Director Paul Elcano went to Stanford with Judge Elliot and the Panel Chair of
Coughlin's 11/14/12 Formal Disciplinary Hearing before the State Bar of Nevada, John Echeverria in the late 1960s ... and
Judge Elliot worked at John Echeverria's father's law firm, Echeverria and Osborne Board of Directors, in addition to
being a former ass
In CVI1-01955, Coughlin sued his former employer Washoe Legal Services, whose Executive Director Paul Elcano went
to Stanford in the late 1960s with Judge Steven Elliot and John Echeverria, the Panel Chair of Coughlin's 11/14/12 Formal
DiSCiplinary Hearing before the State Bar of Nevada .. and Judge Elliot worked at John Echeverria's father's law firm,
Echeverria and Osborne, and Judge Elliot served on the Board for CAAW, and was a prosecutor as the Sparks City
Attorney.
Also, Mr. Leslie, while the 56 page pdf you finally sent me (gosh, was it that hard to click "attach", load a 2 mb pdf file
and hit "send" on an email to me? No debatin', no arguing about whether Leslie and Dogan left the package at the desk,
whether Dogan already gave it to Coughlin, or whether Dogan then changed his story and said Leslie gave it to Coughlin,
whether Coughlin already picked it up, no claims by Jessica the Receptionist of anyone kickin' furniture ... nothing like
that, just a digitally verifiable means of ascertaining what you transmitted and when ... was that so hard? Heck, Jim, you
could probably just email those ECOMM recordings too ... and if attachment size is an issue, sign up for a
www.outlook.com (the new HoTMaiL, allowing up to 300 mb attachments via the SkyDrive functionality, and up to 100
mb attachments via plan email, and over 25 free gb of storage on the Skydrive, etc., etc ... ). But its Leslie finally sent the
S6 page "client's file" on or about 12/7/12, yet he failed to include the insipid Motion of 11/26/12 by DDA Young
(wherein, just after Judge Clifton finishes telling Coughlin at the 11/27/12 Hearing that Coughlin is not allowed to even
think about the other two RJC shotgunnin' style splatter paint prosecutions by DDA Young, as "they are just not relevant
to this proceeding" ... and anytime Coughlin would point out specific basis for undertaking a recusal or conflict analysis vis
a vis either Judge Clifton, the RJC, DDA Young, the WCPD, or the WCDA, Judge Clifton would say "your're losing
me ... your're losing me ... " as if Coughlin was speaking in tongues all the sudden ...
So, while Coughlin is reportedly not even allowed to email DDA Young about cases not even before Judge Clifton, or
something like that .. . DDA Young is able to get an unnoticed, ex parte, emergency Motion to Prho
9
Sincerely.
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
From: Jleslie@washoecounty.us
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail,com
CC: BDogan@washoecounty.us
Subject: 911 Case
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:09:08 +0000
Mr. Coughlin:
Attached are the discovery materials in the above-referenced case that you had requested and we had made an
additional copy of for you in response to your request. Please note that the July 27, 2012, cover letter was for your pick
up and you never picked it up. Note also that the July 27, 2012, packet encloses a copy of the April 17, 2012, hand
delivery transmittal of the very same documents which you received.
Since we have been removed from the 911 case, we are closing our file. The attached materials were sitting at our front
desk. Since you failed to retrieve them, we provide the attached courtesy copy before final closure of our file.
No response to this transmittal is required from you.
James B. Leslie, Esq.
Chief Deputy Public Defender
Washoe County Public Defenders Office
350 South Center Street
10
2/11/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=4bb3803b-bceb-458c-a85b-0f255326b98e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 1/8
FW: RE: RJC, WCDA, 2JDC, SBN conflicts of
interest
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 1/02/13 4:25 PM
To: complaints@nvbar.gov; rosec@nvbar.org
Agai nst Davi d Watts vi al and Mary kandaras
-----Ori gi nal Message-----
From: Caren Jenki ns
Sent: 2 Jan 2013 16:49:52 GMT
To: 'Zach Coughl i n'
Subject: RE: RJC, WCDA, 2JDC, SBN confl i cts of i nterest
Dear Mr. Coughlin,

Please note that the Nevada Commission on Ethics has no jurisdiction over the matters asserted in your
email (See NRS Chapter 281A for more information regarding the Commission). Please do not include us
on any further communications on this topic.

Thank you.

Caren Cafferata-Jenkins, Esq.
Executive Director
Nevada Commission on Ethics

2/11/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=4bb3803b-bceb-458c-a85b-0f255326b98e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 2/8

704 W. Nye Lane, Suite 204, Carson City, NV 89703
775.687.5469, ext. 222 - office . 775.687.1279 - fax
http://www.ethics.nv.gov

CONFIDENTIALITY : The contents of thi s message and any attachments hereto may be subject to the confi denti al i ty
provi si ons contai ned i n NRS 281A.440 and shoul d not be di scl osed to other parti es, di stri buted, or copi ed i n any way.
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:51 AM
To: mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us; dwatts-vial@da.washoecounty.us; Judicial Information; Caren Jenkins;
rsweet@nvcourts.nv.gov; zyoung@da.washoecounty.us
Subject: RJC, WCDA, 2JDC, SBN conflicts of interest

Dear DDA Kandaras and DDA Watts-Vial,

Were you a member of the screening panel incident to my formal disciplinary
matter? The SBN agreed to divulge the identifies of those on my Screening
Panel, yet have failed to. It your participation in the matters involving me and
your membership on the NNDB and ethical violation in your opinion? In the
recent Brady material propounded by DDA Young, wherein RPD Sargent
Sifre makes admissions as to the Soldal v. Cook County violating
implorations by the RPD on 1/14/12 (in addition to those of 9/21/12 and
7/3/12 through 7/5/12, as admitted to during the 12/3/12 trial in RMC 12 CR
12420 by Sargent Dye) that implicate the Reno Justice Court's complicity, do
you find that your offices failure to timely propound such a recording had a
prejudicial effect on my formal disciplinary hearin before the SBN? Does
your offices, and the RJC's participation in both RJC Rev2012-001048 and
RJC RCR2012-067980 (the lockout and NRS 197.190 charge by the same
2/11/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=4bb3803b-bceb-458c-a85b-0f255326b98e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 3/8
WCSO Deputy Machen whose supervisor, Liz stuchell admitted filed a false
affidavit in RJC Rev2011-001708, the eviction from my former home law
office)




NRS 197.190 Obstructing public officer. Every person who, after due notice, shall refuse or neglect to make or furnish
any statement, report or information lawfully required of the person by any public officer, or who, in such statement,
report or information shall make any willfully untrue, misleading or exaggerated statement, or who shall willfully hinder,
delay or obstruct any public officer in the discharge of official powers or duties, shall, where no other provision of law
applies, be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Is your office considering prosecuting Richard G. Hill or anyone else in
connection with Hills violation of NRS 197, detailed in Coughlin's 10/29/12
Motion for New Trial in the RMC 11 CR 26405 and:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56AWn6evldM

Is RPD Carter's police report for 11 CR 26506 all that truthful in light of the videos Hill himself
filmed of the arrest where Coughlin clearly is not indicating he would fail to leave upon a warning,
contrary to the rational for arresting versus issuing a citation provided in Carter's report? Is Hill
testimony at the 6/18/12 Trial truthful in light of the videos he hiimself filmed, the witness
statements he signed, the criminal complaint he signed, and his Declarations of 11/21/11 in RJC
REv2011-001708 and 2JDC CV11-03628 of 1/21/12?

NRS 197.130 False report by public officer. Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading
statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a
gross misdemeano


Is it appropriate that the RJC has still failed to transmit to me a copy of the record on appeal in
CR12-2025, or the fact that this marks the four straight "random" assignment of a case wherein
2/11/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=4bb3803b-bceb-458c-a85b-0f255326b98e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 4/8
Couglin is a a party to Judge Elliott in D10? Is there not an issue with respect to the attorney's fees
award by Judge Flanagan being cited as a rationale for disbarring Coughlin where the Motion for
those Attorney's Fees was filed the same day Judge Elliott wrongfully incarcerated Coughlin in
CR12-0376 for asking a Hipaa question incident to a competency evaluation, only to be released
some 8 days later, whereupon DDA Young sough to violate NRS 178.405 even further by attempting
to go to Trial in rcr2011-063341 on 5/7/12, despite the still pending 2/27/12 Order for Competency
Evaluation by Judge Clifton (whom, just like Judge Nash Holmes mysteriously being transferred the
jaywalking arrest case based upon Richard G. Hill, Esq's complaint on 1/12/12 by and Order by
RMC Judge W. Garnder on 2/27/12, curiously himself had RCR2012-065630 transferred to him on
2/27/12 from Judge Lynch, whereupon Judge Clifton somehow "knew" the District Court case for
such a competency evaluation would be "randomly" assigned to Judge Elliott (who sat on CAAWs
Board and the matter in which Coughlin sued CAAW and WCDA ECR partner Washoe Legal Services
in CV11-01955, then on appeal in 60317)?





Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Zach has a file to share with you on SkyDrive. To view it, click the link below.
10 29 11 26405 RMC stamped Notice of Errata and Revised Supplemental Motion for New Trial etc 42
pages 1262 62337 0204 0434 0435.pdf
From: stuttle@washoecounty.us
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
2/11/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=4bb3803b-bceb-458c-a85b-0f255326b98e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 5/8
CC: CWood@washoecounty.us; RBaker@washoecounty.us
Subject: RE: Zach Coughlin has shared a folder with you
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:39:02 +0000
Mr. Coughlin:

Reno Justice Court has no record of your attempted filing on 10/18/12. If you choose to pursue this filing
action, you will need to bring the documents in because we do not accept filings via email. Any
documents filed with the court will be retained by the court and we will not make copies for you, the DA
or PD. Providing the appropriate parties copies of your filing is your responsibility, not the court. You
may also bring in your confirmation of transmission from the 10/18/12 filing attempt and we will retain
that receipt as part of the court record. Steve

Steve Tuttle

Court Administrator
Reno Justice Court

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 9:39 PM
To: Tuttle, Steve
Subject: Zach Coughlin has shared a folder with you

Dear Mr. Tuttle,
I perused the file in RCR2011-063341 and noticed that the document I submitted for filing on or about 10 18 12
was not file stamped or even in the file, though I have confirmation of receipt of transmission. Can you please
indicate why it is not appearing in the file and find attached another copy of the exhibit 1 thereto.
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28!3600
Zach has 460 files to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them, click the links below.
2/11/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=4bb3803b-bceb-458c-a85b-0f255326b98e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 6/8
102611coughlin2 CRC 11-063341 Motion Competency Hearing DPD Goodnight and DDA Darcy
Spencer.wmv
102611coughlin1 CRC 11-063341 Motion Competency Hearing DPD Goodnight and DDA Darcy
Spencer.wmv
101211coughlin CRC 11-063341 Competency Evaluation Hearing that got continued.wmv
090512coughlin2 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde.wmv
082712 coughlin2 plea bargain hearing rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc
wcso.wmv
082712coughlin3 plea bargain hearing rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc
wcso.wmv
071612coughlin rcr2011-063341 rjc .wmv
082712 coughlin1 plea bargain hearing rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc
wcso.wmv
082912 coughlin2 RJC RCR2011-063341 iPhone Trial Leslie Young Bosler rpd rmc wcso Duralde
Goble Zarate testimony - Copy.wmv
082912 coughlin1 RJC RCR2011-063341 iPhone Trial Leslie Young Bosler rpd rmc wcso Duralde
Goble Zarate testimony.wmv
090512coughlin3 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde.wmv
2/11/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=4bb3803b-bceb-458c-a85b-0f255326b98e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 7/8
082912coughlin3 RJC RCR2011-063341 iPhone Trial Leslie Young Bosler rpd rmc wcso Duralde Goble
Zarate testimony.wmv
090512coughlin4 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde.wmv
090512coughlin5 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde.wmv
090512coughlin7 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde.wmv
090512coughlin6 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde.wmv
090512coughlin1 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde -
Copy.wmv
082912 coughlin2 RJC RCR2011-063341 iPhone Trial Leslie Young Bosler rpd rmc wcso Duralde
Goble Zarate testimony.wmv
090512coughlin5 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde 1.wmv
090512coughlin3 rjc rcr2012-063341 iphone leslie goodnight young rpd rmc wcso duralde 1.wmv

Share your files with
2/11/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=4bb3803b-bceb-458c-a85b-0f255326b98e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 8/8


3/4/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay158.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=012bf369-7073-11e2-9858-00237de3fb3e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 1/2
RE: please respond to my subpoenas
From: Helzer, John (jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us)
Sent: Wed 2/06/13 7:36 AM
To: 'Zach Coughlin' (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Cc: Covington, Mark H. (MCovington@da.washoecounty.us)
I did not read this and will move to have your e-mails to me directed to a storage file. Since your e-mails
will not be received they will not be read or acted upon. John Helzer
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 7:25 AM
To: Watts-Vial, David; dwatts-vial@washoecounty.us
Subject: please respond to my subpoenas

Dear Mr. Watts-Vial,

I received you 11/13/12 fax citing NRCP 45 and my current temporary
suspension of my law license in Nevada (but not before the USPTO) as a basis
for your office failing to comply with my subpoenas. Please note that NRCP
45 is inapplicable as SCR 110 applies. Further, the SBN/OBC/Panel/Board
gave me express permission to issue my own subpoenas (ie, no court seal
required) in this SCR 110 context, and waived any witness or subpoena duces
tecum fees. Please consider all those materials requested as included in this
NRS 239 Open Records Request and included the fax logs between the RJC
(Judges Chambers, I guess, and Civil Division filign office) and the WCSO
Civil Division where all eviction orders are faxed for the time period between
October 25th, 2011 at 3pm to November 2nd 2011 at 3pm, with a specific
focus applied to the 121 River Rock St. address an information related to just
when the WCSO "received" the two different Eviction Orders for that same
address.

3/4/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay158.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=012bf369-7073-11e2-9858-00237de3fb3e,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 2/2
Sincerely,
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
7402 ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
leslie, Jim
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Kandaras, Mary
Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM
leslie, Jim
RE: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 9ll call cd discovery of 8/13 and
8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in rcr2012-065630
High
Jim:

I believe that you ,hould "nd thi'_ supreme 104(a) authori'e< State bar coun,,1 to inmtigate all matte"
involving possible attorney misconduct or incapacity called to bar counsel's attention, whether by grievance or both.
This potentially involves misconduct (violation of law) and incapacity.
Mary Kandaras
Deputy District Attorney Civil Division
Washoe County
775 -337 - 5723 direct phone
-----Original Message----
From: leslie, Jim .
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:11 PM
To: Kandaras, Mary
Subject: RE: The Three E's; wcpd failure to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012-065630
Thanks, please do. He came to our office after my email to you and caused a disturbance. We called the police, but he
fled before they arrived.
jim
-----Original Message----
From: Kandaras, Mary
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:17PM
:
e
: he Three E's; wcpd failure.to provide essential 911 call cd discovery of 8/13 and 8/17, 2012 to Coughlin in
rcr2012 -065630
I will have to review this tomorrow and get back to you.
Mary Kandaras
Deputy District Attorney Civil Division
Washoe County
775 - 337 - 5723 direct phone
-----Original Message----
From: Leslie, Jim
By Facsimile Only (325-67
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
(775) 348-0888
rhill@richardhillaw.com FA (775) 348-0858
RICHRD G. HILL
CASEY D. BAKER Post Ofce Box 2551 www.richardhillaw.com
cdbaker@richardhillaw.com Reno, Nevada 89505
SALLY S. GALLAGHER, Legal Asistant
sgalJagher@richardhillaw.com
SHERRI L. HILL, Legal Assistant
shill@richardhillaw.com
KREN A. NIELSEN, Legal Assistant
knielsen@richardhillaw.com
October 20, 2011
Honorable Peter J. Sferrazza
Department 2
Reno Justice Court
PO Box 30083
Reno, Nevada 89520
Re: EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR HEANG
Merliss v. Coughlin (Case No. R2011-001708)
Dear Judge Sferrazza:
Reference is made to my letter to Judge Clifon, dated October 18, 2011, a
copy of which is encosed for your reference.
The purose of this letter is to request an emergency hearing on
two specifc issues that need to be brought before the court in advance of the
hearing currenty scheduled for October 25, 2011. Those issues are:
(1) Whether Mr. Coughlin's notce of appeal, fled on October 18,2011, divests
this court of jurisdiction to proceed with the October 25, 2011 hearing. We believe tat it
does not, and that the hearing should go forward; and
(2) Merliss'motion fororderrequiringinspection ofreal proper,fl edherein
on October 18, 2011. Merliss is entitled to inspect the property. But, in fairness, Mr.
Coughlin needs to have an opportunit to be heard on the matter.
_
y
Letter to Hon. Judge Sferrazza
Re: EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR HERNG
October 20, 2011
Page 2 of 2
In the event the parties are not able to be heard on the matter, and Merliss is
unable to inspect the propert before nex Tuesday's hearing, we will likely have no choice
but to seek to adjourn that hearing at some point to go inspect the property in order to meet
any proof that Mr. Coughlin might present. For that reason, I believe that an emergency
hearing either this afernoon (October 20, 2011), or frst thing the morning of October 21,
2011, would be the best use of the court's time, and would avoid any unnecessary further
continuances of this matter.
If lor my staf can do anything to speed up the process, please do not hesitate
to call on us.
Sincerely,
C
-.
G -
Casey D. Baker, Esq.
Encl.
- Letter to Judge Clifon dated October 18, 2011
cc: Zach Coughlin (by email (with enclosures): zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
1 |8O$Jm)]0 ul_ (25-61)
. (775) 34-
.
RIC G. HIL 652 Foret Stree
. rhlll@rlcharhlllaw.cm Reno, Nevada 89509 FA (775) 30
CS D. BA Pot Ofc B 2551 www.richardhlllaw:com
cdbaker@rlchardhtllaw.cm Reno, Nvaa 8505
SY S. GA GHE, Leal Assnt
sgllagher@rlchardhlllaw.com
. SHER L. HIL, Lega A/tant
snlli@rlcharhUlaw.cm
KE A NEE, Legal As Isnt
knlelen@rhardhillow.com
0Ob0t 19, 2011
HODt8bl0 8VU LlHOu
O08tIm0ut 5

K0DO Ju8tO0 LOutI
VmX 30083
K0D, N0V0U8 89520
Re: BMERGENCYRQUTFRCONFBRENCECALL
Merliv. Couhlin (Cs No. R2011-001708)
08t JuUg0 LlOu.
I l8k0 tb0 uuu8u0 8l of Wlug you dt0OIly b0O8u80 lm0 8 O the
.
888uOO, 8uU I uuO0t8t8DU JU0g0 b0tt8838 !O 0 Ou O tbO ofc.
My OOC t0t080D8 t.e l8udlOtU, t. M8lU0W M0rl88, u lh8 Summ8Q
0V0UOu O8SO. Jb0 l0u8ul, Mt. LOuglu, 8 a UOD0y. u OIOb0t 13 2011, W0 b8U 8
bOtug u tODl O JuUg0 b0O3 Jb8l D08tug w OOuluu00 1O Ju0U8y, COb0t 25,
2011, u OtU0t lO 8ll0W Mr. LUgbluH8dUl0u8l UgQ0HUuQ to t0S0B! 0VU0D00O

8ub8l8ul8l0 b8 l0gM U00u80 O 8!l0g0 b8DMDlQ 8uU w\8l8lOQ 0V0UOu. u Ocbr
17, 2(11, yOu du0U Mt. Lugulu8 mOlOu tON8l0 JuUg0 b0tt82t88 OtU0t 80t DC8tu.
.
A8O Ou 0Ob0t 18, my OHO0 0d 8 MOtOu Ot O K0Qut 1uS6O0B
o K08l tO0Qt8u0ul lO NJLKL 34, 8uU 8l8 8u 0X 8tI0 mUOu Ot OtU0t SbOH0Bug
lb0 bt0u 8Ob0du0 o lb8l mOt0D 1u te m0lOu O1 OtU0t 8bOtI0uug lm0, I O0U0U
tO U0 OOuH lb8t lh0 mODOu had b00u 80ul 0 Mr. LUuglu Dy 0m8l, 8uU by B0nU U0lV6Q. .
Mr. LOugDlu8 tOu80 lO my 8m8l,Wh0bN8 80ul lO m0 8t?^8.m.,lBSmODu@8

0u 80U Mr. LOlu ObVOu3ly tO0W008 OOy O \h0 mOlOn. Jb0 AdVt. b0t0Wlb.
O AU0ml0U b0CO0 tOm K0uO L8t8Ou M088ug0t b0CO0 8 8l8O 0uOlO80d b0t6WU. A
D00~8l8uUug 00tUO8l0 of 80tVO0 8 b6ug l0U lO08y.
~~ ..
V
Baketq

J
I
Leter to Hon. Davd Clifon
Re: EMERGENC REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE CLL
October 19, 2011
Page2of2 .
I am requestg a emergencconference cal wt the cOlrttO
address te moon for order requg ispeon of the propert. A set for
inthe.notion, Mr. Cuhlin b repetedly denied my client accesto the propen, on no
les than three bcsions. If Mr. Couhlin i going to atempt to subsate a defense
based on habitabiit, ten Mer1iss is entitled to see the evdence Coughlin wn b asking
.
the cour to rely on.
Te hearing in tis matter is set for Tuesday, Octobe 25,2011. Therefore,
time is ofthe essence. Ifl or my stf Gn do anything to speed up te process, please do not
hesitte to cll on us.
Sincerely, . .
Casey D. .
Enc!.
Email from Cughlin dated Oct ober 18, 2011
. .
- Afdavt of Attempted Serce
cc: ch Coughlin (by email (wth enclbsurs):zachcoughlin@hotmail.om)
w.avg,

Casey Baker
Fr: Zach Coughlin [zachcoughlln@hotmail.com]
,Sent: Wednesday, October 19,20112:36 AM
To: cdbaker@richardhlflaw.com; rhlll@richardhlllaw.com
SubJ,ct: RE: REV2011-001708
Zaeb Cougblin, Eq.
121 River Rock St.
Relo, NV 891
7753388118
Licensed in Nevada
** Notiee**, Tis message and accompanying documets a coveed by te eetonic Cmunication Pivac
Act, 18 U.s.C. 2510-2521, and may conta confdental inforaton intended for te secifed indlyidual (8)
ony. If you are not the itended recipient o an aget resposile for delivering it t te intended reci
p
ient you ae
hreby notfed tat you have received this documen in eror and that ay review, disseination, coying, or t'
taking o any action based on the content of.this inforation is sticty prohibited.
lNN1AL1T N1LL
10$ m0$$00 $ 6Mj000t00t00000 Myj0l th0 00mmT0t00t{$] 000m0y t00f00l0j0O0tM th0tis
lV0000tt0O0y Wolkl00utt 0l 0X0mt jl0M 0$t0$uM 0R00l 0t000 0W. j y0u0l0 00t th0
0t00000I000t($], y0u0I0 00tj00 fh0t0Oy0$t0$ul0, cQyI0, 0$tl0to 0l00y 0ttM tdk00 0l
0mtt00t0.be token 0l000te0B th0 t00t0Ot8 0j th$ 0j0m0t00 $l0ht00000m0y 0u00pu.Ifg0u
r0c0v0th$ m0$$0 08ll0l 0l0l0 00tth000m00l0t00t{$],00$000tjyth0$0000l, 000t0thl$0-m0R
jf0m y0ult0mut0l 0m00$tl000t0880 00y j0lm mm0d0t0y. 0t0t y00y000 0th0I tP0 t0#
00m00f0c00t{$]$ 00t 0 W0v0l0j00y0tt0D0yt00fW0l8 D0uCt0l0th0l0t00glv00.
$Lftu0l23Q U$00$ul0. 100$ul0 tM00t0W0leul0m00l$ 0$my th0t0O0Revenue
0lV00 W00j0O y0u th0t 00U.S. j000l0t0X00Vt0t00t00000 th$to u0t0t00 {|0tu0 00y
dttdchm0Nt$]W0$ 00t nt00000 0lWltt00t00 u$00, 0000d000t 0 u$00, y 00y0l$00 j0l th0 uQ0$e0j
(]dV00Dtax-related pen(lties 0l(ii) prmtin, mmeting o reco nding t0n0th0reno 0ny
U0$00tm0 0lmtt8l00l0$$m0th$tM0t0t00.
No virus found In this mesage.
Ceke byAVG -
, Version: 2 012.0.1831/ Virus Datbase: 2092/4560 Release Dat: to/18/11
10119/2011
3
9
Ta
Q0

D

I
'AFFIDAVIT OF ATTEMPTED SERVICE
1
STATE OF NEVADA
2
55
COUNTY OF WASHOE
4
KX^ bKPbK K-41, b0Dg Ht8I duy 8w0, d0Q0808 md 88y8.
88DI 8 8 0II20D 0 l0 LD\l0d Ol8I08, 0V0| l y08|8 0 8g0 D0I 8 Q8|ly I0 D0| DI0|08I0d D
5
wID 80II0D, md H8u008Q80ly 8 00D80d I080tV0 0V Qt00088 Dl0 bl8I0 0 0V8d80Dd0
6
00DS0 #322 88K0W00g0 0 I0 00WDg 8C|8.
On I0 18th day of October, 2011 8HmIt000V0dI0 SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM R HEARING; EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME; MOTION FOR
7
ORDER REQUIRING INSPECION OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO NJCRC 34 80Dg

wl D8IH0lI0D8 I080tV0
8
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
10
^I I08ddt0880.
11
121 RIVER ROCK STREET
RENO, NV 89503
12
10/18/11 620PM: NO ANSWER AT DOOR. HOUSE DAR
10/19/11 846AM: NO ANSWER AT DOOR. CARD GONE. CARIN
13
DRIVEAY LlC #: 838-NER.
14
15
16 PI, 0D I0 bI80l0 800V0 ID0m8I0D, 88 000D 0D8b0l0S0D0:
17
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
18
P8DI 0008 0t0by 8m uDd0t
M d8Vl 8|0 IH0.
-1-
RENO CRIMINAL
CASE SUMMARY
CASE No. RCR2013-071437
The State of Nevada
vs.




Location: Reno Criminal
Judicial Ofcer: Pearson, Scott
Filed on: 03/06/2013
Zachary Barker Coughlin
CAS.E INH)l{MATlON
Offense
Case Type: Misdemeanor
1. Contempt of court
Deg
M
Date
12/20/2012
Case Status: 03/06/2013 Active
DATE
Plaintiff
Defendant
DAl
12/20/2012
1212012012
0212512013
02/2812013
03/0512013
03/05/2013
03/1112013
03111/2013
Current Case Assignment
Case Number
Court
Date Assigned
Judicial Oficer
The State of Nevada
Coughlin, Zachary Barker
CASE ASSIGNMENT
RCR2013-071437
Reno Criminal
03/0612013
Pearson, Scott
PARTY INFORMATION
EVENTS & ORDERS ('THI COlRT
Criminal Complaint Filed
Administrative Order 2012-01
Summons Issued
No Summons Issued - Administrative Order Issued and Served
Order Show Cause Filed
Motion Filed
Order to Show Cause (2:00 PM) (Judicial Oficer: Pearson, Scott)
Parties Present: Defendant Coughlin, Zachar Barkr
Hearing Result (Judicial Oficer: Pearson, Scott )
Upon the order of Judge Scott Pearson, Bruce Linda of the Bob Bell Group, is hereby
appointed to represent the Defendant in this matter and the Administrative Order.
Order to Show Cause (8:30 AM) (Judicial Ofcer: Pearson, Scott)
Parties Present: Conflict Attorey Lindsay, Bruce Robert
Defendant Coughlin, Zachary Barkr
Order to Show Cause Hearing Held (Judicial Oficer: Pearson, Scott )
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER TO REMAIN IN EFFECT.
PAGE 1 OF 1
Lead Attorneys
Lindsay, Bruce Robert
Retained
775-786-7117(W)
IN1X
Printed on 0312012013 at 4:46 PM

You might also like