You are on page 1of 7

2/26/13 Outlook Print Message

https://bay158.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=9046785b-6e1d-11e1-8327-00237de3fb08,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 1/7
RE: Trial Date
From: Keith Loomis (keithloomis@earthlink.net) You moved this message to
its current location.
Sent: Wed 3/14/12 2:35 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

My obligation under Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2 is to abide by a clients decision concerning
the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4 to consult with the client as to the means by
which the objectives of representation are to be pursued. In a criminal case the lawyer shall abide by the
clients decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial
whether the client will testify.

Under Rule 1.4 (a)(5) a lawyer shall consult with the client about any relevant limitations on the lawyers
conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law.

Under Rule 2.1. In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment
and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other
considerations such as moral economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the clients
situation.

Under Rule 3.1. A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue
therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith
argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for a defendant in a criminal
proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that
every element of the case be established.

Under Rule 3.2(a) and (b). A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with
the interests of the client.
2/26/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay158.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=9046785b-6e1d-11e1-8327-00237de3fb08,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 2/7
The duty stated in paragraph (a) does not preclude a lawyer from granting a reasonable request from
opposing counsel for an accommodation, such as an extension of time, or from disagreeing with a clients
wishes on administrative and tactical matters, such as scheduling depositions, the number of depositions to
be taken, and the frequency and use of written discovery requests.

Under Rule 8.4(d) It is misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct which is prejudicial to the
administration of justice.

These, and others, are the professional rules I operate under in providing legal representation to you in case
number 11 CR 26405, a case in which you are charged with the crime of trespass. It is my understanding
that your objective in this criminal case is that you be acquitted of the crime of trespass. That is my purpose
in representing you. I am happy to work towards that outcome to the best of my ability. It is my opinion,
however, that much of what you ask to be done is not in compliance with the above rules. Accordingly, I
will not be filing a motion to dismiss based upon NRCP 6(a) and (b), I see that argument as frivolous. I will
not be proceeding with the summoning of an out-of-state witness (Merliss) unless you can establish his
materiality to the defense. Nor will I be subpoenaing the personnel records of law enforcement personnel
unless you can establish to my satisfaction why they are relevant to this case. I have no intention at this time
of conducting any depositions in the case or sending requests for production of documents or interrogatories
in the case. I see these actions as unduly burdensome on the judicial system, and unwarranted by anything
you have provided to this point. I also see them as frivolous and an attempt to utilize the criminal justice
system to accomplish objectives not relevant to my purpose in representing you.

If you are dissatisfied with the limitations I perceive to exist regarding my representation of you, you are
welcome to terminate my representation of you. You may then ask the Court to appoint a new lawyer to
represent you.

It is my understanding that Deputy Machem will be testifying in the case along with Richard Hill and Casey
Baker.

I do think that there are some interesting angles to the case upon which a defense can be based and I will be
pursuing those angles. I have asked you in previous e-mails to provide information which I believe will be
helpful to the defense of your case.

I advise you that the City has offered to recommend time-served as a sentence if you enter a no-contest
plea to trespass. It is also my understanding that you have other criminal cases pending in both Reno Justice
Court and in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. It is my understanding further that all
2/26/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay158.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=9046785b-6e1d-11e1-8327-00237de3fb08,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 3/7
of the criminal cases can be resolved in a single plea to a misdemeanor offense if you will obtain
psychological counseling. It is my obligation to inform you of the availability of these resolutions to the
present criminal case in which I provide representation. I will, of course, abide by your decision as to
whether to accept these resolutions or not.

I note that there is a psychiatric evaluation scheduled for you in 2
nd
Judicial District Court Case No. CR12-
0376 on April 3, 2012. The outcome of that evaluation could have an important impact on this case. I am
asking that you authorize a release of the information contained in the evaluation to me so that I may
determine what impact it could have on your behalf in this case.

I remain prepared to represent you in the trespass case. I think that a trial of the case will be interesting.
My representation, however, is circumscribed by the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct.

Keith Loomis

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:29 PM
To: keithloomis@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: Trial Date

Dear Mr. Loomis,

In your motion to dismiss, I would like you to really focus on and set forth to the court
the fact that the eviction order needed to be served in compliance with NRCP 6(a) and
6(e). NRS 40.400 Rules of practice. The provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and Nevada Rules of
Appellate Procedure relative to civil actions, appeals and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions
of NRS 40.220 to 40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections.

The language about "removing the tenant with in 24 hours of receipt of the order" is only applicable to those
situations where the tenant does not file a Tenant's Answer or Tenant's Affidavit. I did file such a Tenan'ts
Affidavit, and litigated the matter thoroughly. In those situations, NRS 40.400 requires NRCP to apply,
specifically NRCP 6(a) and 6(e), and clearly WCSO Machem (please subpoena and identify as witnesses
Mary Kandaras, Esq. of the WCDA Civil Disvision, WCSO Deputy Machem, and WCSO Civil Division
supervisor Liz Stuchell for the trial in this matter, and further send out a request for production and subpoena
duces tecum to the WCDA and the WCSO askign them to specify, in writing and in detail, the exact
2/26/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay158.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=9046785b-6e1d-11e1-8327-00237de3fb08,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 4/7
procedures and policies in place with respect to the service and conducting of such lockouts (ie, not default
lockouts where there is not a summary eviction hearing, but one's like the present one, where there was a
Tenant's Answer and hearing held, etc....). Be sure to ask whether the are aware of what "personally
served" means, and whether they mail the Orders on top of merely posting them to the door. Further, I
have been told that the WCSO has a policy or penatly system in place whereby the deputies must get these
lockouts performed "within 24 hours of receipt of the order" the receipt being the WCSO's receipt, and not
the tenant's receipt. I don't ncessarily read the statute that way, but....the WCSO policy and punishment
system would be at least some indication of what the legislature meant (I guess, but I dont' really think so,
though, you will note that Hill was left with nothing but citing to the "usual and customary practice of the
WCSO" in serving the Eviction ORders and performign lockouts, I believe, because the law does not
contain much to support Hill's contention and therefore he wishes to see the WCSO "customary practices"
being given the weight of law.

Please see some specific selections attached from the eviction matter. I know, I know, you want to curtail
the scope of your representation to an immaculate degree....but Hill can clearly be seen in his various
Motion to Show Cause, State Bar Grievances, Temproary Protection Order Applications, etc., etc., to be a
punk who doesn't much like competing on an even playing field, like any good private schooler, he would
rather sick an attack dog on somebody than get in the octogon and go toe to toe mentally. Regardless, Hill
shows a continual desire to subvert NRCP 6(e), which applies to service of documents filed elecronically in
the Second Judicial District Court. He would rather withhold opposing counsels computers, laptops, client
files, driver's license, etc. The last thing he wants is to go argument for argument, research for research,
writing for writing. Private school and daddy's pleading bank. Hill files a Motion to Show caue allegeing
Coughlin subvreted an Order that was filed on January 11th, 2012 with Couglin's action of January 12th,
2012. Under NRCP 6(e), the Order Denying the TRO had not even been served yet, and there has been
no indidcation that Hill gave the Order at the town dump to anyone other than an RPD Officer.

Further, it is not all that clear why Hills Motion for ORder to Show Cause deserves a full blown hearing
when D7 does not indicate a hearing will be accorded to the appeal. This is particularly suspect given that
Anvui sets forth that appeals in summary eviction matters are done on a trial de novo basis.
There are a number, but how about your complete lack of communication with me prior
to so setting that date. How about Mr. Taitel and Mr. Puentes's failure in this matter and
the prejudice to my case so created? How about your failing to identify yourself as the
public defender to a room full of defendants in jail at the arraignment?
There are other reasons as well, including, but not limited to, your resistance to subpoena
the materials I have and am requesting.

I wish for you to subpoena the personnel files of both RPD Sargent Monica Lopez and
Officer Chris Carter. I wish for you to list Dr. Merliss as a witness and subpoena his
appearance and appropriately notice the City of Reno in that regard, same goes for
Richard Hill and Casey Baker (Baker, by letter dated November 10th, 2011 demands the
full rental value for the property as "storage" under NRS 40.253, while also asserting he
will go after moving and inventory costs, in addition to Hill's contractor Phil Stewarts later
ridiculous charges and perjury. Please subpoena Stewart as well.
2/26/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay158.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=9046785b-6e1d-11e1-8327-00237de3fb08,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 5/7

Most importantly subpoena Washoe County Sheriff's Office Deputy Machem to testify
and serve a subpoena dueces tecum, requests for production, and interrogatories seeking
records and responses from the WCSO as set forth in the letter I sent Liz Stuchell (see
attached) on or about February 10th, 2012. You see, the WCSO and Deputy Machem
may be committing a fraud upon the public by repeatedly filing affidavits of service that
attest to personal service where Liz Stuchell, of the WCSO admits that they clearly do not
know, or choose to "remix" the legal meaning of "personally serve".

Further, please inform the City of Reno and appropriately notice the same as to the
existence and intent to offer into evidence a video of Richard Hill, Esq., admitting that he
and his firm, on behalf of Dr. Merliss, were withholding the accused personal property, in
addition to the client's files from the former commercial lease home law office of the
accused and asserting a lien, under NRS 40.253 for "storage", however, as the video tape
shows, Hill admits to charging the undersigned the same $900 per month rent as was
charged for the "full use and occupancy" of the premises at 121 River Rock St., Reno,
NV 89512. Hill further demands that property be removed in a certain order, regardless
of whether his articifically inflated lien was paid or not. Additionally, Hill committed
fraud upon the court in a number of instances and filed false police reports wherein he
alleges that he agreed to or otherwise made available to the accused items such as the
accused's clients files (and for a time wallet and state issued driver's license) where,
clearly, without requiring any payment by the accused, however, clearly, the facts show
that Hill never actually lived up to those assertions and repeatedly failed to show provide
such items absent payment of his artifically inflated lien.

Further, I wish for you to divulge and provide notice that it is available for pickup and that
we intent to introduce into evidence a video of RPD Sargent Monica Lopez admitting that
she and RPD Officer Carter did not identify themselves as police officers or otherwise ask
the accused to leave 121 River Rock St. on the date of the arrest prior to Merliss opening
the door to the basement. This is apparently in direct contradiction to the sworn filings
made by Richard Hill, Esq. in his affidavits attached to his various Motions to Show
Cause, the Reply to Opposition thereto, Opposition to TRO, etc., etc. (in RJC Rev2011-
001708 and the appeal in CV11-03628). For that reason alone Merliss' presence is
required. He was a precipient witness and you are asking me why he should be there?
You have a duty to zealously advocate on my behalf, Mr. Loomis. You are paid, by the
public, to do so. Please divulge any prior associations you have with anyone employed
by or workign as an independent contractor with the RMC and or the Reno City
Attorney, including anyone you went to law school with or attended the same law school
as, within a 5 year period.

Further, I wish for you to file a motion seeking a mistrial or otherwise requiring the
recusal of the RMC and further disclosing why it is that Judge Gardner seemingly has
recused Judge Dilworth (why wouldn't Judge Dilworth recuse Judge Dilworth?) in one
2/26/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay158.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=9046785b-6e1d-11e1-8327-00237de3fb08,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 6/7
case, without detailing why exactly, while Judge Gardner apparently is intent on remaining
on in 11 CR 26405, despite the fact that an apparent conflict exists, one which he only
disclosed upon prompting from the accused, with respect to Judge Gardner's very recent
employment with the Reno City Attorney's office and the existing and or brewing litigation
(or, at least, possible litigation) between the accused and the City of Reno, Reno City
Attorney, and possibly, the RMC.

Zach Coughlin, Esq., 1422 E. 9th St. #2, RENO, NV 89512, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402;
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Nevada Bar No: 9473

From: keithloomis@earthlink.net
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Trial Date
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:26:35 -0700
I can do that if there is a good reason to vacate the date. What is the reason?

Keith
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 6:28 PM
To: keithloomis@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: Trial Date

Please file something with the court seeking to vacate that trial date and
explaining that you failed to even once consult with your client prior to setting
it.
Zach Coughlin, Esq., 1422 E. 9th St. #2, RENO, NV 89512, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402; ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473
From: keithloomis@earthlink.net
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Trial Date
2/26/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay158.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=9046785b-6e1d-11e1-8327-00237de3fb08,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 7/7
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:44:17 -0800
See attached

You might also like