You are on page 1of 71

1

2
3

Electronically Filed
Nov 19 2012 12:34 p.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
Clerk of Supreme Court

4
5
6
7
8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA


ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant.

9
10

vs.

11
12

)
)
)
) Supreme Court No: 61383
)
) District Court No: CV11-03628

MATT MERLISS, MD; MATTHEW J.


MERLISS LIVING TRUST;

13
14

Respondents

15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND 11 15 12 61383 Notice of Improper Dismissal of


Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement
of Court Clerk; Rule 103(7) challenges for cause and SCR 105(2)(a) Motion to remove
Panel Chair Echeverria and Panel Member Kent; Post-Hearing Brief, or, alternatively,
Motion for Leave to File Post-Hearing Brief; Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for
immediate release of recordings of 11/14/12 HEARING AND WHATEVER
TRANSCRIPT MATERIALS CURRENTLY EXISTS TO BE RELEASED TO
COUGHLIN ABSENT AN PAYMENT UP FRONT WHATSOEVER; MOTION FOR
MISTRIAL; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER QUASHING
SUBPOENAS, AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BIFURCATE; request to
combine or consolidate appeals where legally tenable this appeal with 60331 and
amendment to case appeal statmeent and clarification of notice of appeal incident thereto
to indicate that D7's 3/30/12 Order in included amongst those appealed.

26
27
28

http://sdrv.ms/Tt4dYf
- 1/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk
Docket 61383 Document 2012-36656

1
2

http://sdrv.ms/XmRkVL
coughlin apologizes for the formatting and length and is doing his best but this is a natural

byproduct of bar counsel bathing in scr 106 immunity and completely destroying any notions of fair play

incident to the 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing, justiyin SCR 119(3) contempt snactions against bar counsel

for all the attendant due proceed, notice, and service violations arising therin.

6
7
8

included herein is an excusable neglect basis or good cause for reinstating the appeal beyond the fact that the
$250 filing fee was paid and the receipt and or docket show it was paid for this case...and an ifp is pending in
the associate 60331.

9
10
11

Supreme Court has obligation in disciplinary proceeding to look beyond label given to attorney's
conviction to true nature of facts, in order to determine whether underlying circumstances of
conviction warrant discipline. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 111, subd. 3. State Bar of Nevada
v. Claiborne, 1988, 756 P.2d 464, 104 Nev. 115. Attorney And Client 39

12

2. Indictment

13

Where the only relevant factual allegation contained in Disciplinary Board's affidavit, filed in support of its
petition for attorney's temporary suspension from the practice of law, was that a criminal indictment had
been filed against the attorney, this sole allegation, without more, was insufficient to justify summary
suspension and the immediate imposition of temporary restrictions. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rules 102, subd. 4(a),
111, subd. 1. Matter of Monteiro, 1984, 684 P.2d 506, 100 Nev. 440. Attorney And Client 48

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3. Serious crime
Attorney was not convicted of serious crime within meaning of rule regarding attorney suspension where
attorney did not engage in any criminal conduct whatsoever, did not engage in a conspiracy, and actually
entered plea of nolo contendere to nonexistent offense. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 111, subd. 2. Sloan v. State Bar
of Nevada, 1986, 726 P.2d 330, 102 Nev.
436. Attorney And Client 39

request to combine or consolidate appeals where legally tenable this appeal with 60331
and amendment to case appeal statmeent and clarification of notice of appeal incident
thereto to indicate that D7's 3/30/12 Order in included amongst those appealed.
couglin hereby reserves all defense under nrcp 12 g:(h) Waiver or Preservation of Certain Defenses.
(1) A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of
process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it
is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof
permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.
(2) A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party
indispensable under Rule 19, and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in
any pleading permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a), or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial
on the merits.
(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the
subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.
- 2/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

Time to add some more Richard G. Hill, Esq. chestnuts to the lie pile, especially
considering Hill's testimony under oath at Coughlin's 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing and
the follow sworn testimony by Hill from the 6/18/12 Trial, viewed in conjunction with the
statements Hill made to the RPD Officer Chris Carter and Sargent Marcia Lopez just prior
to and at the time of the 11/13/11 custodial arrest of Coughlin at his former home law
office for trespassing:
THE COURT: When Mr. Hill is here to ask some questions that I think
you've explored the possibilities, and I don't know what else you can offer
the Court in terms of this case via cross-examination.
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I'll wrap this up quickly. BY
MR. COUGHLIN: Q Mr. Hill, at any time on that day, November 13th,
did the owner of the premises warn the arrestee to leave the property?
A
I think the message was communicated.
Q
Via what medium?
A
The fact that you were handcuffed and arrested. Didn't
you get the picture?
Q Okay, prior to the handcuffing and the arresting, did anybody say, "You
need to leave the premises?" A I didn't hear that. Q Nobody said that? A I
did not hear that, sir. Q Did you say it? A No. Q Did Dr. Merliss? A Not
that I heard. Q Did the police? A No, not that I heard. Q So, nobody that
you heard of warned the person
arrested for trespassing?
Page -1 1 0Copperfretti v. Shephard, 271 N.Y.S. 284 N.Y.App.Div.2.Dept.,1934
Tenant held entitled to set aside default judgment in summary proceedings
on showing that landlord acquired title under void judgment, irrespective
of tenant's excuse for default or defense upon merits.
I, Zach Coughlin, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to NRS
54.045 that the following numbered statements are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge:
1. The locksmith who did the lockout on 1/11/11 is named Sean
Cheathum of All American Lock & Safe P.O. Box 51869 Sparks, Nevada
89435-1869 (775) 626-5397. Mr. Cheathum indicated to mer personally
that he arrived to do the lockout that day at, 11/1/11 at 121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501 just about the time the Sheriff's two Deputies and the
two landlord's agents did and that it was getting very close to 5 pm. 5 pm
represented an urgent deadline to the landlord's agents and the Sheriff's
- 3/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

Deputies, by which the lockout must be done, recalled Mr. Cheatum. Mr.
Cheathum indicated that the lockout occurred no earlier than 4:48 pm and
was fairly sure that it came down to the wire in terms of effecting the
lockout prior to 5 pm. Cheathum indicated that he postulated at the time
that the urgent 5 pm deadline was due to a wish by the landlord's agents
and the Sheriff to avoid running into the tenant should the tenant be
coming home from work after a typical 9 am to 5 pm schedule.
Cheathum's memories of that day are strong enough to specifically recal
the types of locks, the uniqueness of the location (mentioning how it was
near the Harrah's Auto Musuem, the Section 8 Housing to the South of
Court Street, and the Truckee River) and that the back door lock was very
easy to gain entrance through given that a key was broken off in it, which
enable him to open or pick the lock by merely turning a screw driver
pressed to it.
2. I spoke with Maureen and Roxy Silva of the Washoe County Sheriff's
Office on numerous occassions. On more than one occasions Ms. Silva
slammed the phone down on me in anger. However, on other occasions
she spoke at length about the way the WCSO carries out evictions,
particularly wit respect to the "within 24 hours of receipt of the Order"
language in NRS 40.253. Roxy Silva, Maureen, and Civil Division
Supervisor Liz Stuchell indicated that the WCSO received the "Eviction
Order" on 11/1/11 at 8:05 am, and that the data entered in there computer
system confirms this. Silva, "Maureen" and Stuchell also indicated that
the WCSO does not keep any records of when it receives Eviction Orders
beyond manually inputting the time that the Orders are taken from the fax
machine to which the Reno Justice Court sends such Orders (and RJC
Chief Civil Division Clerk Karen Stancil has indicated to Coughlin that it
is the usual custom and practice of the RJC to fax Eviction Orders over to
the WCSO the day the are entered or the next day. There is some
confusion over whether the 10/25/11 "Eviction Decision and Order"
signed by Judge Sferrazza on file stamped on that date is an "Order" and it
does appear that Ms. Stancil and Bonnie Cooper are correct in their
assertion that the typical RJC "form' eviction order is on a different "form"
or "template" than that 10/25/12 "Eviction Decision and Order". Whether
that means that 10/25/12 Order was not faxed to the Sheriff in accordance
with the "usual custom and practice" of the RJC does not seem clear, nor
has anyone with the RJC responded to requests for documentation or
information in that regard. Former IT employee Curtis Harvey may have
some information in that regard. Additionally, the RJC fax appears to
bare an incorrect time stamping fairly regularly. Further, Chief Civil
Clerk Stancil's apparently correct assertion that the WCSO does not file
anything along with their typical one page Affidavit of Service (which
bares a time stamping of sorts representing, apparently, when the lockout
was conducted...and WCSO's Deputy John Machen's Affidavit of Service
file stamped 11/7/11 indicates a time of 4:30 pm for "personally serving"
- 4/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Coughlin. Locksmith Cheathum disputes Richard Hill's trial testimony in


11 CR 26405, where Hill indicates the WCSO attempted to "personally
serve" Coughlin the Eviction Order, but that Coughlin "ran away".
Cheathum indicates there was no indication any tenant was at the 121
River Rock location, nor was their any discussion by anyone there,
includign the two Sheriff's Deputies and two landlord's agents to that
effect. Hill admits to not having even been there for the lockout. Casey
Baker, Esq. testified on 6/18/12 that he and Sheri Hill were present and
waited with the Sheriff's deputies until "the locksmith finally arrived".
NOTE, Baker's Order of 10/27/12 is void in that it fails to included the
specific language called for in NRS 40.253(5), as the "within 24 hours"
language is not there, and Bakers testified as to this in 11 CR 26405, when
he also testified that he did somethign with the WCSO on October 28th,
2011 in connection with the lockout.
NOTE: COUGHLIN FILES T HIS WITH THE CAVEAT THAT, WHILE SOME SECTIONS
MAY BE A DECLARATION OR SAY SOMEYHIGN ABOUT PERJURY, COUGHLIN NEEDS MORE
TIME TO CLEAN THIS DOCUMENT UP, YET THE IMMINENT THREAT OF ATTACK AND OR
RETALIATION BY THE SBN, LOCAL PROSECUTORS, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT DICTATES
SUBMITTING THIS FILING NOW, DUE TO THE EXIGENCIES INVOLVED, WHICH EXISTS
SOLELY DUE TO THEIR MISCONDUCT AND IN NO WAY STEM FROM ANY FAILURE ON
COUGHLIN'S PART TO UNDERTAKE DUE DILIGENCE IN EVERY WAY.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Docket entry for the trial court matter this case was appealed from, cv11-03628 (a Notice of Appeal was
filed, it appears on 7/30/12, though Coughlin may have filed one in jail, where Judge Linda Gardner's
brother (see Mandamus Petition by Coughlin against Linda Gardner in 54844 and the attached 8/17/11
recusal Order by Linda Gardner where she cites to the "I just outright hae a bias against you" judicial canon
in 2.11(a) in explianing her recusal...and that case proves, amongst other proof that the address Coughlin was
evicted from was indeed being used as and held out as the location for Coughlin's law practice (as was the
case on the www.nvbar.org contact information at the time for Coughlin, for over one year prior to the
unlawful summary eviction the subject of this appeal, along with the record setting attorney's fees by Judge
Patrick Flanagan, who refused to recuse himself despite he and Coughlin being former co-workers at Hale
Lane (now Holland & Hart) and there existing a multitude of basis incident thereto for a finding that recusal
was mandatory) shows the impropriety of the Clerk of Court dismissing the appeal for lack of paying a filing
- 5/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

fee. Couglhin was provided a receipt showing that he had paid the filing fee for 61383, and Coughlin has an

IFP pending in 60331. The docket confirms this in the trial court matter from which both of these appeals

stem:

06-SEP-2012 04:55 PM $Notice/Appeal Supreme Court COUGHLIN, ZACHARY

5
6

Entry: APPEAL FEE PAID FOR THE 7-30-12 NOTICE OF APPEAL - IMAGE ATTACHED TO JULY
FILING

7
http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?

8
9
10

backto=P&case_id=CV11-03628&begin_date=&end_date=

11

06-SEP2012
04:55 PM

12

Entry:

$Notice/Appeal Supreme Court

COUGHLIN, ZACHARY

APPEAL FEE PAID FOR THE 7-30-12 NOTICE OF APPEAL - IMAGE ATTACHED
TO JULY FILING

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The Nevada Supreme Court Docket seems to miss the part where Coughlin paid the filing fee in
61383 and one has to wonder, given Richard G. Hill, Esq. testifying before the NNDB that he is a member
of at Coughlin's 11/14/12 Dsiciplinary Hearing (largely predicated upon arrests that Hill directed the RPD to
make) given the appeal in 61383 was dismissed (without a signature by an actual Justice....) just days prior
thereto. 07/31/2012Filing Fee - Filing Fee dueFiling Fee due for Appeal.07/31/2012Notice of Appeal
Documents - Notice of Appeal/Proper Person Pilot ProgramFiled Notice of Appeal/Proper Person Pilot
Program. Filed certified copy of proper person notice of appeal.12-24129
07/31/2012Notice/Outgoing - Notice to Pay Supreme Court Filing FeeIssued Notice to Pay Supreme Court
Filing Fee. No action will be taken on this matter until filing fee is paid. Due Date: 10 days.12-24133
11/07/2012Order/Dispositional - Order Dismissing AppealFiled Order Dismissing Appeal. To date,
appellant has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to this court's notice. Accordingly, cause
appearing, this appeal is dimissed.12-35194

26
27

Zach Coughlin, plaintiff, submits this filing (notice/ motion /objection) on his own behalf. Judge

28

Dorothy Nash Holmes just lied and lied under oath at Coughlin's 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing, especially
- 6/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

with regard to her assertion that she, in the traffic citation trial in 11 TR 26800 that she held on February

27th, 2012 from 3:30pm to 4:45 pm, despite she and or the RMC being aware that Coughlin had been

ordered to have a competency evaluation by RJC Judge Clifton's Order of 2/27/12, baring a file stampe of

1:31 pm...which is just about the time that Judge Nash Holme's judicial assistant announced on the record in

open court that nobody with the RMC could seem to find Judge Nash Holmes, and how weird that

was....which was just about the time DDA Young and Biray Dogan held their "clandestine status

conference" in rcr2012-065630 case where DDA Young persists in his retaliatory prosecution of Coughlin

for calling 911 to report police misconduct causing Coughlin to perceive an emergency being present and a

danger to his safety...) Anyways, NRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010 require Judge Nash Holmes to "stay all

10

proceedings" when such competency issues or Orders arise...not to do what she did, which is plunge

11

headlong into a retaliatory intent to find something to convict Coughlin for (Judge Nash Holmes

12

transmogrified a traffic citation matter, for a "Boulevard Stop", ie, a "California Roll" into a full blown

13

Disciplinary Hearing before the NNDB and State Bar of Nevada after she was coached up by Bar Counsel

14

Pat King to make sure to find "by clear and convincing evidence" that Coughlin had violated some Rule of

15

Professional Conduct or other (Nash Holmes decided to copy and past the whole lot of RPC's, and then

16

proceeded to muse aloud in her 3/12/12 continuation of the traffic ticket trial in 11 tr 26800 that Coughlin

17

had "probably" violated this or that rule...but when it came time to sign an Order, Judge Holmes remixed that

18

and decided that Coughlin had done so by "clear and convicing evidence".. This traffic citation trial stems

19

from Coughlin going to opposing counsel in the summary eviction from Coughlin's former home law office

20

(Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey Baker, Esq) after he was released from 3 days in jail incident to Richard G.

21

Hill's signing a criminal trespass complaint in 11 cr 26405 against Coughlin, after Hill and his neurologist

22

client, Dr. Matthew Joel Merliss were able to lie to and with the Reno Police Department's Officer Chris

23

Carter, Jr. and Sargent Marcia Lopez about whether anyone issued Coughlin a trespass warning, whether the

24

police identified themselves as law enforcement prior to the landlord kicking the door to the basement down

25

(the police apparently did not feel strongly enough in their cause or right to be undertaking the actions they

26

did to kick the door down themselves...though, RPD Officer Carter to Coughlin later that day that "Richard

27

Hill pays me a lot of money so I arrest who he says to arrest and I do what he says to do" may need some

28

more consternation....though don't hold your breath waiting for Bar Counsel Patrick O. King, Esq. to
- 7/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

undertake any, or Reno City Attorne's John Kadlic, Esq., Daniel Wong, Esq., or the prosecutor who

suborned all that perjury by Richard G. Hill, Esq. on the stand, Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq.(Hazlett-

Steven's was provided indisputable video evidence showing that Hill's testiony was lies, at the 6/18/12

criminal trespass trial presided over by RMC Judge William Gardner, whom refused to recuse himself

despite Coughlin suing his sister, Judge Linda Gardner in 54844, and Judge Linda Gardner filing a grievance

against Coughlin in ng12-0435 (the SBN and NNDB held a disciplinary hearing on 11/14/12 despite the

panel not even being chosen until 10/30/12...don't worry though, Chair John Echeverria was able to step in

so quickly, that before Chair Susich's Order announcing Echeverria as Panel Chair could be staped to the

proof of service, much less mailed, Chair Echeverria had denied every Motion Coughlin filed and granted

10

everything Bar Counsel King could ask for...with the added plus that they (Bar Counsel Patrick O. King and

11

NNDB Chair J. Thomas Susich and, perhaps, some others) cooked up a Panel (despite the Complaint and

12

List set out fully in 61901...if the Office of the Clerk will file what Coughlin submitted for filing...which it

13

did not on May 24th, 2012 in 60838....

14

Why Bar Counsel Patrick O. King, Esq. and J. Thomas Susich, Esq. of the NVDETR (conflicted

15

out, or should have been via the matter of Maureen Cole, Esq. incident to her attempts to prevent Coughlin

16

from suing Washoe Legal Services in 2009...and its kind of hard to object to propsed Panel members when

17

the SBN does not serve the Complaint under SCR 109, then submits fraudulent materials to indicate the SBN

18

has done so, just as Laura Peters and Patrick O. King, Esq. did with the 10/9/12 file stamped Notice of Intent

19

to Take Default (which Coughlin hereby swears under penalty of perjury that the USPS downtown Reno,

20

Vassar Station would not give to Coughlin in light of it only having $1.25 worth of postage printed out on it

21

in the red "Pitney Bowes" SBN style typical of all SBN mailings (and where, and this is verfied by the

22

SBN's Peter's certificate of mailing attached to that 10/9/12 Notice of Intent To Take Default, the SBN only

23

sent that 10/9/12 file stamped NOITD via one method, certified mail,

24
25
26
27

Some might call it the "McGeorge Mafia" but...that is a bit much, no? However, that law school,
which is renown for long failing out over two thirds of its class (despite glady taking their money while the
relationship lasted) may, to some, seem to produce a certian type of lawyer or judge....the good points?
Teamwork demonstrated in spades....the bad points? Well, some might say the teamwork is mostly directed

28
- 8/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

to retaliation, zero sum game playing, and "failing out" anyone who dares to cross them. Some might say

that....Coughlin is not saying that.

-more cooking up a fine Panel and Disciplinary Hearing by King, Susich, the Washoe County Sheriff's

Office and the Second Judicial District Court, Reno City Attorney's Office, and Washoe County District

Attorney's Office, and SBN: Judge Linda Gardner's bailiff (and she was present for both days of trial in the

divorce matter wherein Coughlin, on behalf of Washoe Legal Services represented a domestic violance

victim, and took a position supported by the majority viewpoint in American law (though WLS Executive

Director Paul Elcano claims Coughlin's performance in the hearing justified and was the "sole reason" for

Coughlin being fired from WLS- which makes convenient (maybe that "big favor Linda Gardner owes"

10

him?) the fact that Coughlin was really fired for a variety of reasons, and under the typical comparator

11

analysis in employment law, whistleblower retaliation laws, hostile work environment, discrimination, and

12

other laws...the way Elcano ran WLS (involved lots of "old boys and girls network" style intimidation and

13

influence rather than any actual managerial or executive skill or rolling up of one's sleaves...and Thursdays

14

always competely devoted to the skeet shooting range, and practially daily trips from the pharmacy to his

15

mother's home to deliver medications (despite most pharmacy's offering that service for free in Reno...and

16

even one instance shortly before Coughlin's firing where Elcano had Coughlin ghost write a 20 page or so

17

memorandum to the Nevada Department of Taxation that may well have managed to get WLS out of the

18

bind attendant to it entering a lease where the non-profit 503(c), WLS, would be required to pay the property

19

taxes on behalf of the private for profit, landlord...and lots of comparing Coughlin to Seabiscuit, constant

20

critiques of and enforcements of a "dress code" that applied only to Coughlin, etc., etc.)...Anyways, finally,

21

after over 8 months of Coughlin requesting the materials, the SBN King's arranged to have Coughlin's SCR

22

105(2)(c) rights raped a little less than the have been, in getting Chair Echeverria (whom works remarkably

23

fast in disposing of all of Coughlin's motion with a denial and granting all of Kings, and don't be fooled...the

24

Chair was appointed on October 30th, 2012, by October 31st, 2012 he was signing orders disposing of all of

25

Coughlin's Motions (though upon a cross examination of Chair Echeverria it became quite clear he had not

26

read practically anything of what Coughlin worked hard on and submitted to the SBN and the Chair (and the

27

Chair's ruling an a motion that he was not sent by any means other then electronic service is even more

28

evidence of the acceptance of such service by the SBN and the Panel...though now the Panel and SBN are
- 9/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

attempting to "have it both ways" and alternately claim that King has forwarded all of Coughlin's filing on to

the Panel Members (but King got caught lying about that at the Hearing, to which Panel Member McGeorge

SOL class of 1980 Stephen Kent brazenly gave King a pass and indicated he wouldn't review the exhibits

attached to Coughlin filings anyway, including those containing "tape don't lie" excuplatory video and audio

evidence (and even where the Panel seeks to lazily rest on the language in SCR 111 about a "conviction is

conclusive proof" despite being presented with Claiborne and other authority (including 37 CFR 11.25(3)(a),

(c), which will likely result in the SBN and various local judges work being dissected in fine detail in a

federal setting given Coughlin's being licensed to practice patent law before the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO).

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Also grounds for a mistrail in that SBN v Coughlin Disciplinary Matter are apparent where Reno
City Attorney Crieg Skau, Esq. appears to have lied about Judge Sferrazza ordering that an Emergency Ex
Parte Motion to Quash Coughlin's Subpoenas (seen both in the disciplinary proceeding and in the petty
larceny of an iPhone that Nicole Watson was videotaped admitting some guy found on the ground in
downtown Reno, and held aloft, (and this started off this whole ordeal with local law enforcement on
8/20/11) offered it up, then announced, loudly that he was going to "throw it in the river" if someone did not
claim it....

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Any assertion by the SBN that Respondent has actual notice of this the NOITD, the DoWSoe, or
any Supplemental to the Designation of Witnesses, and knowledge of such somehow excuses proper service
or process, misses the point. The Nevada Supreme Court has long acknowledged that notice of a litigation is
not a substitute for proper service of process. C.H.A Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Engineers, Inc.,
794 P.2d 707, 709 (Nev. 1990). Similarly, Defendant's notice of this litigation does not excuse Plaintiff's
insufficient service and insufficent process process. As such the SBN's (and Hill just testified at the
11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing and about matters related to this appeal even therein) holding the 11/14/12 in
such a matter as to unduly prejuedice or provide excusable neglect or good cause basis for any failure on
Coughlin's part to move this appeal along. But the thing is, is that the Clerk's Office rejected a filing of

28
- 10/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Coughlin's just last week that spoke to the appeal bond (in short, Richard Hill, Esq. has it, by way of his

failing to comply with Nevada law respectign tenant's deposits.

So Judge Linda Gardner's April 2009 Order sanctioning attorney Coughlin personally, under NRS

7.085 (despite there being no service by McGeorge SOL Class of 1985 opposing counsel John Springgate,

Esq. of a filing ready 21 day safe harbor NRCP 11 Motion for Sanctions....but rather an impromptu Motion

by Springgate during closing argument about facts not in evidence in support of his Motion for Sanctions....

(and the Order for sanctions by Judge Linda Gardner took the biggest issue with Coughlin's saying, upon

being asked if he had one of the over 10 exhibits that were not bound or previously marked that Springgate

sought to introduce at trial. Coughlin hereby incorproates by reference (an nifty trick Bar Counsel King

10

manages to do in avoiding doing any actual work, Mirch style, by just attaching extremely suspect

11

convictions ("conclusive proof of guilt" according to King, Claiborne and Burleigh be damned), and,

12

though King did not actually make or reserve this argument or cite to any authority like the Mirch case to

13

support what he probably now wishes he had, therefore, seek to find support to rebut the objections Coughlin

14

preserved for the record as to the lack of notice, specificity, factual support for contentions or allegations,

15

service, service of process, sufficiency of either service of process (see Garin's argument in 60302...okay,

16

now apply those to King's blurry exhibits, which were often printed on both sides of the page and contained

17

fraudulent certificates of mailing). The thing is Judge Linda Gardner's Pre-Trial Order itself ruled that either

18

attorney in that trial, who sought to introduce more than 10 exhibits, would be required to have them bound

19

and marked with an index prior to trial and a copy thereof provided to oppsoing counsel. Yet, upon

20

Coughlin voicing concerns that are directly related to and in support of the rationale behind such an Order...

21

(Coughlin is quoted in the Order as saying, in response to whether he has some document that Springgate

22

sought to introduce as about his 12th or 13th Exhibit where Judge Linda Gardner's April 2009 Order reads :

23

"The Court notes that at one point, after an exhibit had been admitted, Mr. Coughlin could not find the copy

24

provided by Mr. Springgate in discovery. Mr. Coughlin demanded a copy be provided at trial, stating: "am I

25

supposed to be rifling through my papers? My understanding is that you are supposed to provide a copy."

26

When asked if he had the copy of the document, Mr. Coughlin stated, "I do not know. I could spend my time

27

and mental energy looking around for Mr. Springgate 's document like I am his assistant, or we could ask

28

Mr. Springgate to provide a copy at the time he is seeking admission like I believe the rule states ." Again it
- 11/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

would seem the nothing in the following ALR suggests that making an objection once every ten minutes or

so is sanctionable. Conduct of attorney in connection with making objections or taking exceptions as

contempt of court, 68 A.L.R.3d 314. Further, the District Court' s statement regarding factual issues (such as

a rate of success arguing objections) is exaggerated.

Another basis for a mistrial here is all the lies and nonsense from the SBN and various local

governmental offices about the Subpoenas Coughlin issued and had served in the manner he was provided

authority to do so by the SBN and Panel. Also, Reno City Attorney Creig Skau fraudulently secured

Coughlin's attendnat at in improperly notice ex parte hearing the day before the 11/14/12 Disciplinary

Hearing in the iphone case set for 11/19/12 Trial (how conveniently terribly prejudicial to deny Coughlin a

10

continuance either in the Disciplinary Hearing or that iphone RJC case...). Witness the followign fraudulent

11

manner in which Skau secured Coughlin's attendance at an improperly noticed hearing before Judge

12

Sferrazza (who was also the Judge on the summary eviction proceeding/"Trial" that represents such a serious

13

liability to the RJC and arguably should require Judge Sferrazza recusing himself. Speaking of, former

14

WCSO Deputy Peter Eastman, aside from breaking an entering into Coughlin's rental from Jeff Nichols of

15

Cobblestone Masonry, and assiting Nichols in improperly evicting Coughlin through violenet "self help"

16

(despite NRS 118A.160 an the attached work Coughlin did for Nichols in exchange for the rental, required

17

by the fraudulently procurred summary eviction in RJC REv2012-000374 (another reason the RJC should

18

not be hearing cases with Coughlin as a criminal defendant...but Peter Eastman claims to have formerly been

19

Judge Sferrazza's court room deputy in tribal court and that "friends in the court house" indicate that Judge

20

Sferrazza "has it out" for Coughlin or otherwise "has a problem with" Coughlin. Eastman also admits that

21

he and his wife received communicatiosn from SBN Bar Counsel Patrick King, Esq. that violated SCR 121

22

and which also slandered Coughlin, given Eastman's admission that Bar Counsel King told the Eastman's

23

that NVB Judge Beesley had entered an Order, as of May 7th, 2012, barring Coughlin from practicing in the

24

NVB (which is patently untrue...and further evidence of the lengths to which Pat King will go to show his

25

masters he is a good little attack dog for the rich and powerful in Northern Nevada, McGeorge Mafia

26

included, Richard G. Hill, Esq. included, etc., etc.). But, back to Skau's misconduct: From: "Creighton C.

27

Skau" <skauc@reno.gov> To: zachcoughlin@hotmail,com Cc: "Jeannie Homer" <HomerJ@reno.gov>

28

Date: 11/09/2012 11:45 AM Subject: Fwd: FW: Case No. RCR2011-063341 Dear Mr. Coughlin, Please be
- 12/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

advised that Judge Sferaza authorized service upon you by email in an Order. Accordingly, authorized

service has already been effected.

Also, Coughlin hereby states under NRS 53.045 penalty of perjury that the following exchange

occurred between Coughlin and SBN's Laura Peters on September 11th, 2012 at 4:51 pm wherein SBN's

Laura Peters, whom has and has been by King and Clark repeatedly held out as the "Clerk of Court for the

State Bar of Nevada" and in charge of matters relating to the filing of documents (though Pat King seems to

manage to control every aspect of these proceedings, from directing around NNDB Chairman Susich, to

putting Chair Echeverria where he needs him (they got a real routine goin') to directing Clerk of Court Peters

to effect personal service of the Compalint on Coughlin on 9/25/12 when Coughlin showed up for the

10

Hearing required by the Court's 6/7/12 Order and SCR 111(7)-(8) and SCR 102(4)(d) incident to 60838's

11

6/7/12 Order and the 8/13/12 Petition Coughin filed in 61426, which was served upon the SBN, both the

12

North and South versions, on August 17th, 2012...the same date that Peters noticed Coughlin in writing of

13

the hearing she calendared for Coughlin, admitting it was to be for the "sole purpose" of addressing the

14

conviction in 60838.. King also failed to tell the Court in his SCR 111 Petition that Coughlin complied with

15

SCR 111(2) in self reporting the conviction resulting in his supsension in 60838. Anyways, here is what was

16

communicated between Coughlin and Peters on 9/11/12, contrary to the file stamped Affidavit of Peters in

17

the SBN's filed that was not served upon Coughlin....Coughlin swears under penalty of perjury that the

18

following communciations were made between he and Peters (done in a rush due to Bar Counsel and Panel

19

Chair coercion and flauting of SCR 105(2)(c):

20
21
22
23
24

"Coughlin: Now if I did get a Complaint and I need to serve an Answer, can I
serve it just by faxing it to you?
Clerk Peters: Um...yeah you can.
Coughlin: I have read the rules, they seem to say you go by NRCP except for
( See SCR 105(4))
Peters: ...you can... but it has got to be stamped.
Coughlin: By who? The filing office? The State Bar?

25

Peters: By me, I am a Court Clerk

26

Coughlin: Will you stamp a faxed document if I fax it in?

27
28

Peters: I can, but I need to know how I can get it back to you.
Coughlin: I have a fax, its the one listed on the Bar's website 949 667 7402"
...
- 13/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3

Coughlin: ...what day is it measured from if you guys filed a Complaint?


Peters (one the effect of certified mailings of the Complaints under SCR 109)
Okay i go 20 days from when I get that green card back, I go 20 days from after
when I get that little green card, so if you picked it up, say last Thursday, then I
go 20 days from last Friday...

Coughlin: Its not 20 days from the file stamped date on the Complaint or
something?

Peters: No, I go 20 days from that certified receipt, I want you to receive the
Complaint before the time starts ticking. That's the way I do it?

Coughlin: and if somebody doesn't pick up that letter, though, they'll will send it
back like after 15 days, and then what, you guys will go 20 days from then? Or
I imagine you guys might even push it a little more and say "no, its 20 days
from when we mailed it"

Peters: I do it from the receipt of the certified copy, so if you received it


yesterday it would be 20 days from today?

10

Coughlin: from my receipt of the certified copy as evinced by my signature on


the card?

11
12

Peters: right, as soon as you sign it and that shows when you got it, that's when
the time starts..I don't starting the counting until I get the green card back with
your signature saying you received it."

13

...

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Peters: Tom Susich's only involvement is setting the panel really....once a


Complaint has been filed we have 20 days or whenever until we receive the
Answer and then once we receive the Answer then we set a Panel...I have the
unclaimed Complaint I got it back September 10th, 2012...you haven't
technically received teh Complaint, even if you may hae received the first class
mail version we sent...
Coughlin: are you sure that at some point somebody with the SBN isn't going to
say "you know what, Zach, by now you have constructive notice of the
Complaint..." and they will try to hold me to that?
Peters: Nobdy is going to do that.
Coughlin: Are you sure? Typically we playin' prison rules in bar hearings...
Peters: Nobody is going to do that. I am the one that controls that, and as far as
I know you didn't receive the Compliant, because I have that certified mail
package right here as it was returned to me...as the Clerk of the Court of the Bar
I am telling you that you did not recieve this Complaint, because it came back
to me unclaimed... and so I am going to send it back out, send it back to you,
and if you pick this up and sign the green card...I will not attempt to do a Notice
of Intent to Take Default before I sent this Complaint back out via certified
mailing again, and I will send this back out and stamp it tomorrow and then
when you get it in the mail and sign the green card, that is when the 20 days to
file
Peters trips up and says Susich sets the Panel, but then says the SBN sets the
Panel (which occurred here pretty mcuh given the SBN purports to have mailed
at the Notice of Hearing and Designation of Witnesses and Summary of
Evidnece on 10/12/12 (SCR 105(2)(c) requires the Panel send those essential
filings, yet King and Peters did in this matter a ful 18 days before Susich's order
setting the panel was even signed and stamped."
- 14/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

And Patty Ice, aka Pat King, there is more of this coming, guy...more about what you said and what you
said Chief Bar Counsel Clark said about Coughlin's right to issue subpoenas and waiever of witness or
subpoena fees and the manner of service, etc., etc. More to come, boys, more to come....And Chair
Echeverria will want to ask Theresa about that person calling themselves an "attorney" when answering the
phone for his office...which has a name plate that sounds and looks more like a venture captial firm...'The
Echeverria Group"....so coughlin preserver and continues to preserve his objetion to having his case in
chief or defense unnecessrily cut short and not being able to call witnesses or enforce the subpoenas given
the sudden and fraudulent flipping of the script by the panel and or sban obc clerk of court regarding the
rules attached thereto.
Further there is new supplmental evidenc eot and witnesses to support Coguhlin's contention that the
eviction lockout was based upon a void order and fraud is connecte thereto, with the wcso refusing to
comply with records requests and or subpoenas, as well as the RJC., which had jammed coughlin into the
iphone trial today in rcr2011-063341, which is overly prjejducing a variety of cases and Coguhlin's health...
Further, in light of the declaration made by the SBN and Peters upon, upon which Coughlin
reasonably relied, the established pattern and practice of the SBN not starting the running of deadlines
pursuant to the service of items under SCR 109 until the SBN gets back the signed green certified mail slip
must be accord to the October 27th, 2012 certified mailing return receipt slip that, while, it is signed by
Coughlin, it is signed by Coughlin's then housemate "Juliano" as "received by". See, Pat King...that's
called credibility....ie, not sittin' there wasting the Hearing Panel's time arguing that the audio transcripts
the RMC provided you and that you had copied for the Screening Panel are "irrelevant" or "not certified" or
"worthless becuase there is not an prohibitably expensive certified transcript of that Hearing to provide
"context"...(and this after Pat King was caught lying about whether the April 2009 Order he sought to
introduce of Jduge Linda Gardners (resulting Coughlin's firing from WLS...which Chair Echeverria saw no
issue having WLS's ED Elcano provide certification of the Order entered some two weeks after the trial
that, contrary to Echeverria's remixign, Elcano did not "attend" but merely watch the tape of (and under
King's analysis, despite paying $35 for the Second Judicial's tape of that Trial, it still would not be a
"certified copy". The fact that anyone lying about the tape could be cross examined provides plenty of
"certification", doesn't it?

17

20

Also, so cute how Pat King, in the bate stamped copy of the "Disciplinary File" (which Coughlin
should in no way be billed for given the deprivation of his SCR 105(2)(c) rights herein, nor should Couglin
have to pay for any of this Disciplinary Hearing, particulary given all the notice, service, and process
deficiencies attendant to Pat King's impermissible attempts to cheat Coughlin out of his due process and
therefore obtain a result King and the SBN do not deserve.

21

So, its really cute how in the Disciplinary File at 02954 there is the Affidavit of Mailing from the
23rd of August 2012, wherein Laura Peters swears, under penalty of perjury that

18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Also, Pat King brought his dog to work and let it wander around the halls of the SBN the day of the
hearing, and he wore cargo pants along with a horrific tie, then he sauntered up to Coughlin at a urinal and
salivated over the "pretty good grub, huh, Zach?" Patty Ice wasn't feelin' so chipper a day or so later when
Coughlin was interrogating him about the fraud King committed in the bate stamped copy of the
Disciplinary file, especially vis a vis the fact that curiously, all the SBN filings except for the two most key,
the Complaint and First Designation of Hearing Panel Members (would have been nice to have actually been
served that in accord with the rules and the policies held out by the SBN and justiably relied upon...as a
peremptory challenge would have definitely been issued for both Stephen Kent, as well as Chair Echeverria
(however, nice a men they may be outside the impermissible conflicts of interest they had which should have
prevented them from ever sitting on this Panel. So, where Coughlin now files and affidavit (to whatever
extent he did not so file one or a declaration or verificaton previously, which is not clear) contesting the
August 23rd, 2012 Affidavit of Mailing filed by Peters...which may be undone somewhat by the October
9th, 2012 Affidavit by Peters that is included in the file and filestamped but for which Coughlin was never
- 15/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

sent a copy or otherwsie served (and the big box copy of the NOITD of 10/9/12's certifcate of mailing does
not indicate that any such affidavit was included therein, so...the Disciplinary Hearing contains a filing that
is file stamped, yet was not sent to Coughlin (and if it was sent to Chair Echeverria or Chairman Susich,
that's misconduct. So King and Peters and the SBN have gotten all cute with this here bate stampe "copy of
the Disciplinary File" consolation prize for the SBN and Panel defenestrating Coughlin's right under SCR
105(2)c)...Peers therein swears she is "employed as a paralegl for the SBN. That in such capactity Affidant is
Cutodian of Records for the Discipline Department of the State Bar of Nevada...." Then Peters goes on to
swear that the "Complaint and First Designation of Hearin Panel Members were served on the following by
placy a copy in an envelope which was then seald and postage fully prepaid for ....despostted in the US. mail
at Rreno...."...Its odd because every other certifeid mail filing in that file bate stamped and copied to
coughlin by the SBN a scant 6 days prior to the Hearing proudly displays the green certified mailing card
(well, there is a distinction between the return receipt requested" card stock card and the more squarish,
certified mailing square slip with a tracking number (which does not involved getting a signature from the
addressee...So when the SBn sent Couglin on 10/12/12 the Notice of Hearing (which SCR 109 requires be
served in the same manner as Complaint (which entails and adoption of the rules Peters set out to Coughlin,
including in their September 21st, 2012 conversation....so, somehow, in that bate staped file for page 02954
is that Affidavit of Mailing by Peters on 8/23/12 wherein she swears that the " "Complaint and First
Designation of Hearin Panel Members were served on the following by placy a copy in an envelope which
was then seald and postage fully prepaid for"...which is clearly not true and or in accord with Peters
statements to and representatiosn and agreements with Coughlin on September 11th, 2012 at 4:41pm.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

"LAURA PETERS, under penalty of perjury, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: That
Affiant is employed as a paralegal for the discipline department of the State Bar of Nevada and in such
capacity is the custodian of records for the State Bar of Nevada; , That on September 11, 2012, at
approximately 4:45 p.m., Zachary Coughlin called Affiant to confirm that a hearing was still scheduled to
take place on September 25, 2012. Affiant explained that the hearing would not take place on September
25th and that date had been scheduled prior to the filing of a formal Complaint. Mr. Coughlin reacted as if he
had no knowledge of a Complaint. Affiant then explained that, in fact, a copy of the Complaint, sent via
certified mail on August 23, 2012, from the Reno office of the State Bar, had been returned and marked
"unclaimed". Affiant further explained that since service had not been affected, a new certified copy would
go out the next day. Affiant requested that when Mr. Coughlin received said copy, he should return the
postcard attached to the mailing and his twenty (20) day period in which to answer the Complaint would
start running at that point. However, in speaking to Assistant Bar Counsel Patrick King, it was determined
that personal service should be affected upon Mr. Coughlin. Reno Carson messenger service was engaged to
attempt personal service despite Mr. Coughlin not providing the State Bar with a physical address. On
September 25, 2012, Mr. Coughlin arrived at the Reno office of the State Bar allegedly expecting a hearing
to take place. At that time, Mr. Coughlin was again told, both by Affiant and Assistant Bar Counsel Patrick
King, that no hearing would be taking place that day and that an answer to the State Bar's Complaint had not
been received. Affiant personally served Mr. Coughlin with a copy of the Complaint on his visit to the Bar
office on September 25th as witnessed by Paula Campbell, an employee of the State Bar. Mr. Coughlin
insisted that the hearing which had been previously scheduled for that day should be taking place because he
needed to be removed from temporary suspension. Mr. Coughlin has also been instructed by Assistant Bar
Counsel Patrick King that he cannot file pleadings with the State Bar via e-mail, which he continues to
attempt. The Motion to Dismiss, which Mr. Coughlin now insists should be granted as it has gone
unopposed by the State Bar, was never presented to Affiant for filing but was rather emailed prior to
Affiant's conversation with Mr. Coughlin on September 11th when Mr. Coughlin under no uncertain terms
told Affiant that he had not yet received the Complaint. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Dated this 91h day of October, 2012. "

26
27

SCR 103: 7. Hearing panel members shall not participate in any proceeding in which a judge similarly

28
- 16/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

situated would be required to abstain. Any member whose term expires while the member's

panel is considering a complaint shall remain a member until its disposition.


8. The chairs of the hearing panels and screening panels shall deliver reprimands and sign
all
documents on behalf of the panel to carry out the provisions of Rules 102(6), 102(7), and
103(6).
9. A grievance received against a member of a disciplinary board and processed in
accordance
with Rule 105(1) shall be referred to the other disciplinary board.
So, the policy announced by SBN PetersAs to that "received by" signature on October 27th, 2012
by "J. Juliano", under the established policies of the SBN as set forthe by the SBN and Clerk of Court
Peters during the September 27th, 2012 conversation with Coughlin wherein Peters established and
confirms that deadlines incident to service via certified mailing do not begin running until she or the SBN
receives back the green certified mail return receipt requested slip that, and or until two attempts at
such certified mailing service have gone unclaimed, whereupon, a Notice of Intent to Take Default
would be sent via certified mail (and Peters indicated all such certified mailings are sent in duplicate
via first class mail as well (though, strangely, the 10/9/12 Notice of Intent to Take Default's certificate
of mailing indicates that it was sent via only one method, certified mail (ie, not also by first class
mail) and, curiosly, despite every other SBN filing in the bate stamped Discipinary File in SBN v.
Coughlin having the certified mail slip included therein, the NOITD fails to (and this is likely due to
Pat King realizing (and SCR 109 requires that the Notice of Hearing and DoWSoE of
evidence.Coughlin could probably pull a Pat King and refuse to acknowedge that the cd's Pat King
he and the SBN had a problem in that upon doing a USPS Track and Confirmlf received from the
RMC were "certified" or otherwise appropriate for admitting into evidence (as to whether they are certified,
that depends who is doing to "defining" of what is certified...but it also begs the question, why would the
SBN be putting to a Screening Panel audio transcripts that are not certified? Also, the bit from the 2/27/12
trial in 11 TR 26800 about where Coughlin tells Judge Nash Holmes "that's quite a sound byte, Your
Honor" in response to her stating "I don't care about bribery, I don't care about corruption, I don't care
about retaliation...all I care about is the Boulevard Stop" (need to listen really closing to that Trial, or
somehow get the RMC and Longoni (whose Sunshien Reports should have never been allowed to do this
Hearing, no disrespect to Ms. Hummel, though, but a conflict clearly exists, particulary where Coughlin's
appeal in the conviction resulting in his current suspension was denied due to the failur of Longoni and the
RMC to prepare the transcript even though Nevada law required they do so upon Coughlin filign his Notice
of Appeal instant to NRS 189.010-.050... that statute is not advisory...is is the law, and D10 Judge Elliot's
mentioning a civil statute's stance on the prepareation of appeals and down payments thereto does not
change that. It is fraud by Longoni and the RMC So, if something is missing from the RMC's $35 audio
transcript that Coughlin was only able to obtain after drafting his own mother, Mary Barker, into the
pursuit (the RMC made up excuse after excuse for refusing to fill Coughlin's audio transcript request and
evne had its Marhals start manufacturing grievances against Couglin with the RMC (see their ridiculous
"greivance" or letters to the RMC and their even more ridiculous "Incident Reports". (even for the limited
purposed of demonstrating what King and Peters gave to Coughlin purporting them to be "leftovers" from
the Screening Panel on October 10th, 2012 that RMC Judge William Gardner obnoxiously claimed to know
so much about to Coughlin in court on 4/10/12, shortly after Judge Gardner announced that he and
McGeorge Mafia, class of 2006 member Reno City Attorney Hazlett-Steven's and Coughlin's McGeorge
Mafia SOL court appointed counsel Keith Loomis, Esq. had a secret meeting that morning prior to trial in
some backroom of the RMC where they all had a great time, uh, practicing their lines. And what a forced
lifeless performance it ultimately was when that troupe presented to indigent criminal defendant Coughlin
and attempted to navigate their way through the murky waters of violating NRS 178.405 (in light of the
2/27/12 Order for Competency Evaluation in RCR2012-065630 that the RMC Judges were well aware of,
incident to their "at least one meeting" when they brainstormed how to get Coughlin and the
communications between Judge Nash Holmes and the Washoe County Public Defender and or Biray
Dogan, Esq., counsel of record for Coughlin in that rcr2012-065630, whom can tell you all about how
- 17/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

DDA Young violated NRS 178.405 in filing at 2:55pm a fugitive document in seeking to oppose
Coughlin's Motion to Appear as Co-Counsel, despite the OR

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

First, despite Peters Affidavit of October 9th, 2011 (here is no proof of service of that Peters Affidavit on
Coughlin, and it it was served on the Panel or Chair, unbeknownst to Couglhin, that is an impermissible ex
parte communication) being filestamped an included in the materials that were only finally provide to
Coughlin on November 8th, 2011:08:55:54
further, Coughlin one hundred percent categorically denies Pat King's unsupported allegation of Coughlin
attempting to dodge service. One, the hearsay of Johhno Lazetich is in the form of a bill, not a sworn
affidavit, and further, it clearly contains mere conjecture on Lazetich's part. Further, Coughlin setn
Lazetich and his father's company Reno Carson Messenger Service an email and a voice mail asking what
he could do for them, along with emails and a fax to the SBN offering to meet a process server somewhere
or otherwise assist in having the Complaint appropriately served, however, King and the SBN chose to lied
to Coughlin instead, and go back on what Peters definitively declared during the September 11, 2012
conversation on the telphone with Coughlin that her unserved, yet file stamped, October 9th, 2012
Affidavit asserts. It is interesting that King and Peters say nothing about faxing motions...consdiering that
Peters clearly gave Coughlin permission to fax file motions (and in accord with other such forms of
electronic filing, Coughlin's fax filed motions, and arguably email filed Motions (including the skydrive
link files atached thereto should be made a part of the record and the file and the Panel should be provided
with them and reminded that they have a duty to review them. This is true, especially for anything prior to
the September 25th, 2012 email by King purporting to refuse email filing (and arguably, at that point, it
was too late for King to change the rules of procedure set forth by Laura Peters and or Susich's or the
Panel's failure to oppose such filings by Coughlin. REgardless, the file as King had it bate stamped and
provided to Coughlin at such a very late stage (November 8th, 2012 upon the first attempt to deliver it from
Sierra Document Processing Coughlin received it an signed for it, and thereby his SCR 105(2)(c) right to
inspeact "up to 3 days prior to the hearing" was violated, especially considering Coughlin was continually
refused the opportunity to inspect such records as the SBN at every stage since Pat King's phony offers to
allow such in March 2012...Further, the bate stamped Formal Hearing File SBN v. Zachary B. Coughlin is
missing a number of cd/dvd exhibits that Coughlin submitted for filing. Pat King admits to just choosing to
remove them from the file and or fail to copy the committee on them, while at the same time maintaining
he and the SBN and Peters have demonstrated Fidelity in their stated practice of providing everything
Coughlin files to the Panel. Additionaly, Peters Affidavit is quite fraudulent. One. clearly a Motion to
Dismiss dated September 17th, 2012 that Coughlin has a fax confirmation of and also email to Bar Counsel
and Susich was not "created prior
The Motion to Dismiss fax filed on September 17th, 2011 should be file stamped an included in the
file. Why else would Laura Peters Affidavit not indicate someting contrary to Coughlin's sworn assertion
that he was given permission to fax file by the SBN? Regardless, Coughlin's hadn delivered Motion to
Dismiss of Cctober 15th, 2012 (or it may have been October 16th, 2012, given Coughlin missed his self
imposed deadline of delivering to the SBN a Motion to Dismiss by midnight of some night, and sent Clerk
PEters and email the next day indicating the proof of service should be adjusted in that regard. Further the
Chairs assessment that Coughli nfailed to file a "verified response or answer" or that such "may not contain
anything stated upon infromation and belief" is contested and just flat out wrong. Coughlin's signature on
page 61/62 on the Motion for ORder to Show Cause may be a bit high above the signature line (though
the /s/ is operative in electronic filing, which the SBN gave Coughlin permission to do.
Judge Linda Gardner is a lifelong prosecutor turned Judge, like her brother RMC Judge William

26

Gardner, like his fellow RMC Judge whom he admitted passed the April 2009 Order sanctioning Coughlin

27

resulting in Coughlin's firing from WLS in 60302 (and a Mandamus filed against Linda Garnder by

28

Coughlin in 54844, and a grievance filed by both Judge Linda Gardner and Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes
- 18/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

(also a lifelong prosecutor turned Judge...like Judge Kenneth Howard too) (on behalf of all of the RMC

Judges) against Coughlin in both NG12-0434 and NG12-0435...which along with the Richard G. Hill, Esq.

grievance (Rich was just fulfilling his RPC 8.3 duty, y'all...don't hate) in NG12-0204, SBN Bar Counsel of

the North Pat King whipped up in a SBN v. Coughlin Complaint, that he purports to have served under SCR

109 via a certified mailin of 8/23/12 that was returned to the SBN, and to which SBN Clerk of Court Laura

Peters indicated to Coughlin would absolutely, under no circumstances, ever be used as a return of or proof

of service of the Complaint against Coughlin given the fact that she herself received it as returned to send on

9/10/12, and especially where she told Coughlin he coudl rely upon her then indication that she would, in

accord with the SBN's pattern and practice and established policies, resend it once again the following day

10

via certified mail, and only upon that mailing not being met with a signed certifed mail signature of

11

Coughlin's would the SBN send out a Notice of Intent to Take Default, served in the same manner as that

12

which was attempted with the Complaint itself. Of course, Pat King attempted to cheat the system by

13

turning all those SBN-Coughlin agreements into lies, because if there is one thing Pat King will not stand for

14

it is competition or a level playing field. King recoils from such like a vampire from a coming sunrise.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SCR Rule 110. Subpoena power, production of documents, witnesses, and pretrial
proceedings.
1. Issuance of subpoenas by hearing panels and bar counsel. Bar counsel and a member
of
a hearing panel who is also a state bar member, in matters under investigation by either,
may
administer oaths and affirmations and issue and compel by subpoena the attendance of
witnesses
and the production of pertinent books, papers, and documents. The attorney may also
compel by subpoena the attendance of witnesses and the production of pertinent books,
papers,
and other documents before a hearing panel. Subpoena and witness fees and mileage
shall be the same as in a district court.
2. Confidentiality stated on subpoena. Subject to the provisions of Rule 121, subpoenas
shall clearly indicate on their face that they are issued in connection with a confidential
investigation
under these rules and that it is regarded as contempt of the supreme court or
grounds for discipline under these rules for a person subpoenaed to in any way breach
the confidentiality
of the investigation. It shall not be regarded as a breach of confidentiality for a
person subpoenaed to consult with counsel or to answer questions asked by bar counsel
or the
attorney to determine the facts known by the witness.
3. Attachment of person for failure to obey subpoena or produce documents. Whenever
any person subpoenaed to appear and give testimony or to produce books, papers, or
other
- 19/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

documents as required by subpoena, or requested to provide documents pursuant to


Rule
78.5(1)(b), refuses to appear or testify before a hearing panel, or to answer any pertinent
or
proper questions, or to provide the requested documents, that person shall be deemed in
contempt
of the disciplinary board, and the chair of the disciplinary board shall report the fact to a
district judge of the county in which the hearing is being held or the investigation
conducted.
The district court shall promptly issue an attachment in the form usual in the court,
directed to
the sheriff of the county, commanding the sheriff to attach such person and bring such
person
forthwith before the court. On the return of the attachment, and the production of the
person
attached, the district court shall have jurisdiction of the matter; and the person charged
may
purge himself or herself of the contempt in the same way, and the same proceedings
shall be
had, and the same penalties may be imposed, and the same punishment inflicted as in
the case
of a witness subpoenaed to appear and give evidence on the trial of a civil cause before
a district
court of the State of Nevada.
4. Contest of subpoena. A contest of a subpoena shall be heard and determined by the
chair
of the appropriate disciplinary board.
5. Restriction on discovery. Discovery by the attorney, other than under Rule 105(2)(c),
is
not permitted prior to hearing, except by the order of the chair for good cause upon
motion under
Rule 103(5) or Rule 103(6).
6. Prehearing conference. At the discretion of the chair, a prehearing conference may be
ordered for the purpose of obtaining admissions or otherwise narrowing the issues
presented
by the pleadings. The conference may be held before the chair or the chair's designee.
7. Deposition in lieu of appearance. With the approval of the chair, testimony may be
taken
by deposition or by commission if the witness is not subject to subpoena or is unable to
attend
or testify at the hearing because of age, illness, or other infirmity.
8. Confidentiality of deposition. Depositions are subject to the protective requirements
and
confidentiality provided in Rule 121.
CREDIT(S)
Added, eff. Feb. 15, 1979. As amended, eff. Jan. 2, 1996; Mar. 1, 2007.
LIBRARY REFERENCES
Attorney and Client 47.1.
Westlaw Topic No. 45.
C.J.S. Attorney and Client 73, 89.

26
27
28
- 20/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

-Judge Beesley's testimony on 11/14/12 is curious in light of the solid thumbs up he gave the no temporary

suspension getting Stephen R. Harris, in 57507, and the fact that Judge Beesley was hard pressed to provide

a single detail in support of his strong contentions that Coughlin's work and filings before him in the NVB

indicated Coughlin not competent to practice there. Coughlin is a National Merit Finalist who was ranked

10th in his class at a top 80 law school, has been a licensed Patent Attorney, and passed the July 2001 State

Bar of Nevada's Bar Examination a year before those matriculating as full time students with him to UNLV's

Boyd School of Law in August 2001 would even take that examination, meaning he passed it after his

second year of law school. Further, the attached filings by Coughlin before Judge Beesley in the NVB

clearly demonstrate a skill level beyond the baseline competency required to practice therein, something all

10

the more impressive given they represent the very first two or three bankruptcy cases Coughlin ever took on.

11

It is literally a textbook example of a solo attorney starting out and not taking on too many cases, sufficient

12

to be able to extricate himself and his client's from even the most unexpected calamities and circumstances

13

foisted upon them by the misconduct of others (including having Judge Beelsey's McGeorge SOL 1977

14

classmate RMC Judge Nash Holmes (who was sued for wiretapping attorney Martin Weiner or Crowley,

15

Esq.), whom unlawfully and, apparently in conjunction with her former coworkers at the WCDA Office (and

16

NNDB Panel Member Mary Kandaras was intimately involved in the process...in fact WCSO Deputy

17

Madeline refused to return the smart phone and sd card to Coughlin even after Judge Nash Holmes' Order

18

required the WCSO do so...with Madeline indicating she needed to get Mary Kandaras' permission first

19

before complying with Judge Nash Holmes order (funny, didn't see Madeline getting hemmed up with an

20

instant incarceration and summary criminal contempt charge there...)...shortly after (and Pam Wilmore, Esq.

21

was there and heard all of this, though her partnership or sharing of an office with McGeorge SOL 1985

22

John Springgate, Esq (opposing consel in 54844 April 2009 Judge Linda Gardner sanction order getting

23

Coughlin fired in 60302 from WLS) may prevent too clear a recounting...Then WCSO Deputy Hodge got

24

caught in a, uh, story, about whether the micro sd card was included in the materials booked and then in the

25

materials released to Coughlin's friend, whom picke them up on 2/28/12 (interestingly...Coughlin's smart

26

phone and micro sd card were booked into Coughlin's property upon intake at the jail...but a full day later the

27

RMC Marshals returned (and Marshal Scott Coppa seemed to communicate and intent to do so to WCSO

28

Deputy Cheung when he pulled him aside into a back room in the sally bay during the conclusion of the
- 21/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

RMC Marshals transporting Coughlin to the WCDC o 2/27/12....Then Marshals Coppa and Marshal

Townsend retaliated against Coughlin's valid complaints thereto (and other criticisms of the extent to whih

the RMC is a monument to a lack of transparency or separation between the court's Departments and the

Court's filing office) by filing a nonsensical criticism of Coughlin's clothin choices when visiting a muni

court filing office counter to check on a traffic citation with the SBN...which King promptly mentioned to

Coughlin in a deliberately misleading way, via King's 3/23/12 email to Coughlin (King plays little games

with the moniker "Clerk of Court"....King, Marilyn Tognoni is not a "Clerk of Court"...neither is Cassandra

Jackson...and neither King nor Second Judicial District Clerk of Court Joey Orduna that likely wound up in

Judge Flanagan issuing a rash ruling on 3/30/12 disposing of Coughlin's appeal in the Richard G. Hill, Esq.

10

appeal of the summary conviction from Coughlin's former hom

11

(so as for cooking up a Panel...Susich and King got Panel Chair John Echeverria, whom had to admit he and

12

WLS's Paul Elcano were boyhood chums and that both went to Stanford University in 1966 (add to that the

13

fact that Echeverria went to Hastings Law School along with WLS's Caryn Sternlicht (whom Coughlin is

14

suing, along with Elcano in 60302) and Reno City Attorney Pamela Roberts, Esq (whose prosecutorial

15

misconduct in putting on perjured testiomny by Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino and the Reno Sparks Indian

16

Colony's Kameron Crawford (asserting that a custodial arrest and search incident thereto was permissible,

17

despite NRS 171.1255 on some assertion that Coughlin failed to provide his driver's license...even where

18

Roberts herself was given the "Interrogation Room" videos by Wal-Mart showing Coughlin giving his

19

driver's license to Officer Crawford, whereupon Crawford copies down the information therefrom onto the

20

Arrest Report and Probable Cause sheet and radios into his dispatch Coughlin's Nevada driver's license

21

number...add to that the fact that Coughlin's detention intake property sheet lists that he was booked into jail

22

with his Nevada driver's license...and Officer Crawford and Thomas Frontino's lies are clearly exposed,

23

which Pamela Robert's purposefully allowed them to tell in her retaliatory rush to get a conviction shortly

24

after she back out of a written agreement to a continuance...and where Judge Howard specifically based his

25

refusual to grant Coughlin a continuance upon his mistaken/incorrect belief that it was Coughlin whom was

26

responsible for the 11/14/12 Trial date being continued. Judge Howard had to admit, later, on the record,

27

that he was mistaken in that regard (so instead of declaring a mistrial, Judge Howard just admitted his

28

mistake and proceeded with putting Coughlin in jail for 3 days for NRS 22.030 "summary contempt" despite
- 22/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Judge Howard having failed to grant Coughlin's motion for counsel, even though the Nevada Courts of

Limited Jurisdiction Bench Book points out that Aigersinger is mandatory authority, and therefore,

appointed counsel is required where even the possibility of jail time exits. In his pre-trial Order denying

Coughlin's Sixth Amendment Right, Howard ruled that Coughlin was not entitled to counsel, even where he

had established he was indigent (and evicted just days prior thereto) because "jail time is not the typical

sentence" for first offense shoplifting of a de minimis amount of food. However, it is important to note that

Judge Howard did not rule out the possibility of jail time, and therefore Aignersinger applies. Further, Judge

Howard, who had been occupying the RMC Bench for 14 years at that point, announced during the rendition

of his conviction order that, not only was the summary contempt conviction not appealable (and, of course

10

no stay would be availalbe...the RMC having a perogative to expedite matters before it an all (so much so

11

that Judge Howard kept a supposedly financially strapped City of Reno Staff of RMC Marshals and RMC

12

Court Staff in court on overtime pay until 9:00 pm at night in his mad rush to conclude the petty larceny

13

trial, first offense, of a de minimis amount of food, from a megaconglomerate corporation, where the arrest

14

was made in violation of NRS 171.1255, by tribal police, on land that police force's employers (the Reno

15

Sparks Indian Colony) rent to Wal-Mart. Judge Howard refused Coughlin (then a licensed attorney whose

16

property right, his law license, under the Fourteenth Amendment, would necessarily be imperiled upon an

17

SCR 111(6) "serious offense" conviction (stealing a grape would invoked that rule according to Pat

18

King...though Stephen R. Harris stealing $740,000 from his clients and using it on hookers and designer

19

luxury products did not, nor did it result in a temporary suspension either...and it didn't prevent Judge

20

Beesley from singing the praises of Stephen R. Harris, Esq. in 57507 even where an improperly noticed

21

phoned in testiony by Judge Beesley at Coughlin's Discipilinary Hearing saw Judge Beesely (who had to

22

admit that he had a longtime long partnership relationship with someone Coughlin is suing, Washoe Legal

23

Service's Karen Sabo, Esq., whom admitted to Paul Elcano that she could never, and would never work with

24

Caryn Sternlicht, Esq., finding her personality so odious and detestable...though Ms. Sabo had no issues

25

expecting Coughlin to cheerfully bare the brunt of such while he worked as a domestic violence attorney at

26

WLS...Also Judge Beesley is a close friend of Paul Elcano's, attending a very intimate West Fourth Street

27

Bistro invite only WLS party in 2008 at Elcano's invitation. Upon Coughlin cross examing Judge Beesley as

28

to just what he was basing his sudden (and never before had Judge Beesley actually made and ruling or
- 23/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

otherwise voiced any consternation whatsoever to Coughlin about his work respresenting client's before the

NVB...so it was a zero to trash Coughlin as a Disciplinary Hearing approach by the measured, impartial

jurist Beesley, who graduate from McGeorge SOL in 1979, right between two other witnesses at Coughlin's

11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing cook-off thrown by Chair Echeverria and Pat King (whom wore cargo pants

to work that day, whereupon he asked the Panel to disbar Coughlin based upon a petty larceny conviction of

a candy bar, a criminal trespass convction that only saw a SCR 111(4) Petition (ie, King had to admit it did

not qualify as a "serious offense" despite his trying to find leverage by threateing to file an SCR 111(6) for

months) even where opposing counsel in this summary eviction from Coughlin's former home law office

was applying an unlawful rent distraint under NRS 118A.520 to exculpatory videos and materials that would

10

demonstrate Coughlin's innosence and the fact that on occasions previous to the 9/9/12 arrest, including on

11

July 7th, 2011, West 7th St Wal-Mart Assistant Store Manager John Ellis and an as yet to be indentified AP

12

Associate specificaly told Coughlin that they would retaliate against him via an abuse of process (of course

13

Judge Howard ruled that, even if they did, that was not relevant) (supplemented to King's Designation of

14

Witnesses 4 days before the Hearing of 11/14/12, along with Judge Beesley, despite neither having anything

15

to testify to that Pat King did not know about for over six months...its just that, Pat King got real worried

16

about the fact that he violated SCR 121 by communicating to Coughlin's then client and or his wife, Peter

17

Eastman and Pam Eastman that Judge Beesley (McGeorge SOL, class of 1979) had issued an order

18

prohibiting Coughlin from practicing in the Nevada Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada (which is

19

absolutely not true...and even if Judge Beesley had actually wanted to at that time...he would not have the

20

authority to...but there is plenty of evidence that Judge Beesley had no such intention towards any such

21

Order at the time of the May 7th, 2012 communication by Peter Eastman to Coughlin that revealed that Bar

22

Counsel Patrick O. King has told the Eastman's that their then attorney, Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., had been

23

"suspended from practicing in the Bankruptcy Court" in light of Judge Beesley entering an Order so

24

preventing Coughlin from doing so. King, during a meeting with Coughlin and King's boss, Chief Bar

25

Counsel David Clark on August 17th, 2012 (a three hour meeting) grew flustered upon Coughlin querying

26

him on his quizzical stated intent to have Coughlin disbarred...whence Coughlin asked King just what sins

27

supported such a motive...amongst the first two things King mentioned to Coughlin and Clark was the fact

28

that the NVB Judge Beesley had entered an Order prohibiting Coughlin from practicing in Bankruptcy
- 24/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Court....This was "news" to Coughlin, whom had never been served any such Order, and had never heard

any such thing besides from his former clients (the Eastman's, whom were extremely late in making a

number of payments to Coughlin in exchange for his hard work and respresentation of Peter

Eastman)...Shortly after Coughlin was told of Bar Counsel's violation of SCR 121. Incident to Judge

Beesley (McGeorge School of Law, class of 1979) presiding over the Cadle Company v. Robert Keller

adversary proceedig in NVB (10-05104) Coughlin filed a Motion For Continuance wherein he attached

materials revealing that Judge Beesley's McGeorge School of Law classmate, Reno Municipal Court Judge

Dorothy Nash Holmes (McGeorge School of Law 1977) had violated Nevada law in purporting to rule that

NRS 22.010 was "the misdemeanor of criminal contempt" (actually, criminal contempt in Nevada is found at

10

NRS 199.340...but that statute doesns't specifically allow for a "summary" finding of guilt, so, instead, Judge

11

Nash Holmes too the bits she liked out of it, then renamed it NRS 22.010

12
13
14
15
16

NRS 22.010 Acts or omissions constituting contempts. The following acts or omissions shall be
deemed contempts:
1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while the judge is holding court,
or engaged in judicial duties at chambers, or toward masters or arbitrators while sitting on a
reference or arbitration, or other judicial proceeding.
2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance in the presence of the court, or
in its immediate vicinity, tending to interrupt the due course of the trial or other judicial
proceeding.

17

3. Disobedience or resistance to any lawful writ, order, rule or process issued by the court or judge
at chambers.

18

4. Disobedience of a subpoena duly served, or refusing to be sworn or answer as a witness.

19

5. Rescuing any person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of
such court or judge at chambers.

20

6. Disobedience of the order or direction of the court made pending the trial of an action, in
speaking to or in the presence of a juror concerning an action in which the juror has been
impaneled to determine, or in any manner approaching or interfering with such juror with the intent
to influence the verdict.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

7. Abusing the process or proceedings of the court or falsely pretending to act under the authority
of an order or process of the court.
NRS 22.030 Summary punishment of contempt committed in immediate view and presence of
court; affidavit or statement to be filed when contempt committed outside immediate view and
presence of court; disqualification of judge.
1. If a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge at
chambers, the contempt may be punished summarily. If the court or judge summarily punishes a
person for a contempt pursuant to this subsection, the court or judge shall enter an order that:

28
- 25/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

(a) Recites the facts constituting the contempt in the immediate view and presence of the court or
judge;

(b) Finds the person guilty of the contempt; and

(c) Prescribes the punishment for the contempt.

2. If a contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge at
chambers, an affidavit must be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the
contempt, or a statement of the facts by the masters or arbitrators.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

3. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if a contempt is not committed in the immediate
view and presence of the court, the judge of the court in whose contempt the person is alleged to be
shall not preside at the trial of the contempt over the objection of the person. The provisions of this
subsection do not apply in:
(a) Any case where a final judgment or decree of the court is drawn in question and such judgment
or decree was entered in such court by a predecessor judge thereof 10 years or more preceding the
bringing of contempt proceedings for the violation of the judgment or decree.
(b) Any proceeding described in subsection 1 of NRS 3.223, whether or not a family court has been
established in the judicial district.
NRS 199.340 Criminal contempt. Every person who shall commit a contempt of court of any one
of the following kinds shall be guilty of a misdemeanor:
1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior committed during the sitting of the court, in its
immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the
respect due to its authority;
2. Behavior of like character in the presence of a referee, while actually engaged in a trial or
hearing pursuant to an order of court, or in the presence of a jury while actually sitting in the trial
of a cause or upon an inquest or other proceeding authorized by law;
3. Breach of the peace, noise or other disturbance directly tending to interrupt the proceedings of
a court, jury or referee;
4. Willful disobedience to the lawful process or mandate of a court;
5. Resistance, willfully offered, to its lawful process or mandate;
6. Contumacious and unlawful refusal to be sworn as a witness or, after being sworn, to answer
any legal and proper interrogatory;
7. Publication of a false or grossly inaccurate report of its proceedings; or
8. Assuming to be an attorney or officer of a court or acting as such without authority.

22
But, actually, contrary to Judge Beesley's sworn testimony at the 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing,
23
Judge Beesley could have somehow ruled in a manner seeking to regulate Coughlin's appearances before his
24
Court, or providing, in any manner whatsoever, some indication to Coughlin as to any sort of displeasure
25
with Coughlin's performances therein (which Judge Beesley absolutely never did) prior to Judge Beesley
26
(upon being supplemented to the Designation of Witnesses list four days prior to the 11/14/12 Disciplinary
27
Hearing related to Coughlin's lawsuit against WLS and Paul Elcano (McGeorge SOL, Class of 1978, and
28
- 26/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

therefore a classmate of both Judge Beesley and Judge Nash Holmes, in addition to a class mate of Panel

Member Stephen Smiley (McGeorge SOL, Class of 1980, whom., therfore, was necessarily a class mate of

RMC Judge Kenneth Howard (McGeorge SOL, class of 1981....and speaking of Panel Member Kent...he

glared at Coughlin continuously throughout the 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing and upon Pat King being

caught in several lies that day (King told the panel an Order , the one that got Coughlin fired from Washoe

Legal Services over three years ago but which suddenly became a grievance when teh RMC Judges decided

to do their hit piece on Coughlin's life and law license because they got scared that their Court and the

Municipality that owns it, and the police force and Marshals that is leverages against the citizenry to collect

a tax disguised as justice (and the RMC had $700K or so turn up missin' in 2011, and explained that away by

10

saying the shortfall was do to data entry errors and stuff) was a certified copy when it was not....no matter,

11

Elcano's boyhood chum and fellow Stanford '66 alumni Panel Chair Echeverria allowed Elcano to provide

12

certification of the Order in light of Elcano claiming to have "reviewed the video tape of the Trial" (which

13

Echeverria tried to remix into "having attended the Trial" that led to Coughlin filing a Mandamus Petition

14

against Judge Linda Gardner in 54844... Which was odd considering that Chair Echeverria refused to admit

15

into evidence the certified copy of the audio of the 11 TR 26800 traffic citation trial on 2/27/12 Couglin

16

offered into evidence (Chair Echeverria refused to allow Coughlin to testifyin to it being a certified copy or

17

otherwise even look at the cd itself which Coughlin had to have his mother buy from the Reno Muncipal

18

Court after months of the RMC and Judge Nash Holmes refusing to let Coughlin purchase a copy of it. That

19

certified copy was to be used to impeach the lies by Judge Nash Holmes in the traffic citation trial Holmes

20

held despite her admitting (see the 3/14/12 grievance against Coughlin Judge Nash Holmes sent to the SBN

21

"on behalf of all the RMC Judges"...which is odd because one of those Judges William Gardner tried to

22

pretend he wasn't aware of that, and just barely contained himself from holding the trespass trial on

23

4/10/12....though he did manage to violate NRS 178.405 numerous other times himself (including the 3/8/12

24

trial setting, and teh March 8th, 2012 Trial Setting the matter for 6/18/12 despite the Order on the

25

Competency Evaluation not having been signed and entered until 5/9/12....yet Judge Nash Holmes

26

constantly seeks to play hype man to some alleged "authority" and profound knowledge she feels she

27

possesses with respect to mental health care and competency issues in general. Tell that to her 3/14/12

28

grievance to the SBN, wherein she manages to write:


- 27/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

"This letter constitutes a fonnal complaint of attorney misconduct and/or


disability against Zachary Barker Coughlin. The accompanying box of materials
demonstrates some of the problems with the practice of this attorney being
experienced by myself and the other three judges in Reno Municipal Court. My
two most recent Orders in what should be a simple traffic citation case are selfexplanatory and are included, together with copies of massive documents Mr.
Coughlin has fax-filed to our court in this case. Audio recordings of two of my
hearings in this matter are also included. He failed to appear for the second one
this past Monday. I have another traffic case pending trial with him that was reassigned to me based on our Department 1 judge being out for surgery. We have
multiple addresses for Mr. Coughlin and can't seem to locate him between cases
very easily. We are setting that case for trial and attempting to serve him at
the most recent address we have (1422 E. 9th St #2, Reno NY 89512),
although I heard today he may be living in his vehicle somewhere. We do
have an address for his mother, however, as she recently posted part of a fine
for him. Judge Ken Howard Department 4 had case on Mr. Coughlin late last year
that is now on appeal to the Second Judicial District Court Judge Linda Gardner,
Department 2, also has a matter currently pending in his court with Mr. Coughlin
as the defendant. I have enclosed some copies of documents from those matters,
in chronological order, simply because they appear to demonstrate that he is
quickly decompensating in his mental status. Our staff also made you some audio
tapes of Coughlin hearings in Departments 2 and 4 so you can hear for yourself
how this attorney acts in court. You can see his behavior in my traffic citation
case does not appear to be an isolated incident.
You will the full cooperation of myself the other judges, and the staff of
Reno Municipal Court in your pursuit of this matter. Mr. Coughlin has positioned
himself as a vexatious litigant in our court, antagonizing the staff and even our pro
temp judges on the most simple traffic and misdemeanor matters. I do think this is
a case of some urgency and I apologize for taking two days to get this package to
you; our IT person was ill and could not make the copies of the audios of Mr.
Coughlin's hearings until today, and I felt it was important that the audios be
included in the materials to be considered by the State Bar. On February 27, 201
Mr. Coughlin told me he was actively practicing law and had appointments with
clients. I do not know if that was true, but if so, he could be causing serious harm
to the practice of law in Northern Nevada and could be jeopardizing someone's
freedom or property interests. Please contact me if you need any other
information. My direct line is 775-334-3823 and my cell phone is 775-250-0330"

And regardless of whether the materials the RMC's Nash Holmes provided King
are certified (good gawd they should be considering what it is she is trying to do with
them!, Coughlin was entitled to have them admitted for the purpose of showing what King
was provided by Nash Holmes with "the full cooperation of" her and "the ohter three RMC
Judges"

23
24
25
26
27
28

AT the 11/14/12 Hearing Judge Nash Holmes lied when she testified that she
"started asking Coughlin questions about whether he was recording the proceeding or
whether he had a recordign device and he immediately go all sneakity and then said no, he
was not and didn't have a recording device, then he switched up his story and said that
was, get this, a "Fifth Amendment" thing...then he immediately asked to go to the
restroom, and I let him, but ORder RMC Marshal Harley to go with him, and refused to
allow Coughlin to take anything with him, even his yellow legal pad, and Marshal Harley
- 28/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

reported to me that Coughlin disassembled a smart phone or recording device in the


restroom and hid parts of it there, which the Marshals later discovered after Coughlin was
handcuffed and arrested, and I think Coughlin probably lied about whether he was
recording the proceeding, so I found by "clear and convincing" evidence that Coughlin
violated all these rules of professional conduct that I conversed with Bar Counsel about,
and I am not trying to take Bar Counsel's place or nothin', but I am just tryin' a chip in an
do my part to make the public safe from this "attorney" whose writing is the most
frightening and unorthdox display of immense, immense talent that I have ever had the
misfortune of having been subjected to..." (Chair Echeverria was terrified of the prosepct
of the cook off, er, Disciplinary Hearing being recorded, and refused to allow Coughlin to
do so, lying that it was being record by the court reporter, though now Sunshine
Reporting, whose reporte Carol Hummel did the trancribing, is saying no recording was
made, and that, yes RMC "exclusive"transcritpinist Pam Longoni is amongst there
employees and that (and this combines with Judge Linda Gardner's current and then
deputy on the April 2009 trial being the deputy assigned the the 11/14/12 Discipinary
Hearing (what did I tell you? Can Patty Ice stacks a deck for hisself or what?
Tommy Susich, too. You just don't mess with the NV DETR or Maureen Cole, right
Tommy?). See attached materials related to the RMC and Longonis continuously
violating Nevada law in NRS 189.010-050 regarding the preparation of criminal
indigents transcripts on appeal.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TRANSCRIPTS ON APPEAL/OTHERS CASSANDRA JACKSON Interim Court


Adminisu-ator J'USTJi'i ROPEI{ Chief Marshal - Depanmcnt of Alternative Sentenc
ing If you wish to order a transcript of your proceedings in the Reno Municipal
Court, you may do so by contacting Pam Longoni at (775) 530-5251. The following
information is provided to assist you in placing an order for a transcript: I. Orders
will require the date of the court appearance, type of proceeding, (trial, arraignment,
etc.), department number in which the proceeding was held, and also include the
appropriate deposit as indicated below. Payment may be made by check or money
order. No transcript will be prepared until the required deposit is received. ---~
7..,eost. Appeal transeripts are billed at $4.10 per page, which includes an original (to
be filed willi District Court), one copy for the appeilant, and one copy for the
opposing counsel. Transcripts ordered for purposes other than appeal, where only
one copy and original transcript is required, are billed at $3.00 per page. 3. Deposits.
Deposits required are as follows: $75.00 for arraignment/sentencing; a minimum
deposit of$200.00 for any trial transcript; and a minimum deposit of$500.00 for very
lengthy trials (those lasting more than three hours). NO TRANSCRIPT IS
CONSIDERED TO BE OFFICIALLY ORDERED, AND COMMENCEMENT OF
TRANSCRIPTION WILL NOT BEGIN, UNTIL RECEIPT OF THE REQUIRED
DEPOSIT. 4. Follow-up on Transcript Preparation. You will be notified when your
transcript has been prepared. If the actual cost of the transcript is less than the
amount of the deposit paid, a iefund will he issued with the transcript. And, likewise,
any outstanding balance due after completion of the transcript must be paid before
the Original is filed with District Court or any copies released. 0 refunds of deposits
will be given for transcripts once they have been prepared and no responsibility will
- 29/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2

be taken for the dismissal of any -appeal by District Court because no Original was
filed due to non payment of an out~ !and ing balance due. 5. Questions. Pam Longoni
will be happy to answer any qustions you may have"

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

Panel Chair flat out refused to let a single piece of evidence be admitted that would in any way call
into legitimacy the convictions at issue in that Disciplinary Hearing. Supreme Court has obligation in
disciplinary proceeding to look beyond label given to attorney's conviction to true nature of facts, in order to
determine whether underlying circumstances of conviction warrant discipline. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 111, subd.
3. State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne, 1988, 756 P.2d 464, 104 Nev. 115. Attorney And Client 39 2.
Indictment Where the only relevant factual allegation contained in Disciplinary Board's affidavit, filed in
support of its petition for attorney's temporary suspension from the practice of law, was that a criminal
indictment had been filed against the attorney, this sole allegation, without more, was insufficient to justify
summary suspension and the immediate imposition of temporary restrictions. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rules 102, subd.
4(a), 111, subd. 1. Matter of Monteiro, 1984, 684 P.2d 506, 100 Nev. 440. Attorney And Client 48 3. Serious
crime Attorney was not convicted of serious crime within meaning of rule regarding attorney suspension
where attorney did not engage in any criminal conduct whatsoever, did not engage in a conspiracy, and
actually entered plea of nolo contendere to nonexistent offense Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 111, subd. 2. Sloan v.
State Bar of Nevada, 1986, 726 P.2d 330, 102 Nev. 436. Attorney And Client 39 4. Suspension of rule In
interest of justice, Supreme Court suspended court rule requiring it to order suspension of attorney upon
receipt of certificate of his conviction where attorney was impeached federal judge, who was arguably
beyond Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and attorney had voluntarily refrained from practice of law after his
release from incarceration, pending resolution of disciplinary proceeding. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 111. State Bar
of Nevada v. Claiborne, 1988, 756 P.2d 464, 104 Nev. 115. Attorney And Client 39
Further, SBN Bar Counsel King lied continuously to Coughlin, every step along the way, in the
disciplinary matter. King's lies are too numerous to fully detail here, but, one was with regard to the
following, where King wrote to Coughlin about two grievances and an "Order" he had received: "The
grievances include supporting evidence in the form of: audio of your conduct in court proceedings. I am
enclosing with this letter copies of a grievance letter, from the Municipal Court and a copy of an Order

28
- 30/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

from District Court Please respond to allegations pertaining to your conduct. I will make available for your

review and inspection the supporting documents and audio recordings." King lied for months about this

purported offer to "make available for your review and inspection the supporting documents and audio

recordings". Simply put, Pat King is a cheap cheater. He cheats constantly in his role as Bar Counsel,

perverting and descreatign SCR 105(2)(c) at every turn, lying constantly to opposing counsel and

Respondent's (King told Coughlin that David Clark had given Coughlin permission to issue subpoenas for

the Disciplinary Hearing, suspended attorney or not, only to then file Ex Parte Motions to Quash the

Subpoenas based upon their not being issued by a licensed attorney...and Chair Echeverria grants King's Ex

Parte Motions the day they are filed...but admits to having not even bothered to read those filed by Coughlin.

10

Clearly, stogie smokin' Boss Hog Echeverri had failed to review the multitude of materials Coughlin

11

provided him. And clearly King had lied (and in fact, once caught doing so at the hearing, was reduced to

12

back peddling furiously) to Coughlin (as did Peters) when they asserted that everything Coughlin filed with

13

the SBN was copied and provided to all the Panel Members (whose addresses the SBN refused to provide to

14

Coughlin, as did the SBN refuse to provide any set of rules of procedure that the Panel had adopted under

15

SCR 105. King was caught at the Hearing upon cross examination by Coughlin, having to admit that he did

16

not provide the CD/DVD's that Coughlin attached to his various filings. Panel Member Stephen Kent

17

responded by announcing that he did not care that King lied about copying the Panel members on the

18

cd/dvds attached as exhibits to Coughlin's filing and that, even if King had so attached those cd/dvds, Kent

19

wouldn't have review them anywas. However, 1980 graduate of McGeorge School of Law Stephen Smiley

20

Kent, Esq. (a perfect choice by King and Susich for the Panel given the apparent connection to Mike Smiley

21

Rowe, Esq (whom Coughlin named in a grievance related to the fraudulent conduct by the SBN incident to

22

his application for admission) and the act that, a McGeorge SOL 1980 graduate would necessarily have

23

strong ties to Judge Howard (McGeorge '81), Keith Loomis (McGeorge '82, and for whom the grievance

24

Coughlin filed against King disposed of with great quickness and shallow rationale), as well as Judge Nash

25

Holmes, McGeorge '77, Judge Beesley, McGeorge '79, WLS's Paul Elcano, McGeorge '78, etc., etc.. Kent,

26

besides glaring at Couglhin throughout the Disciplinary Hearing also attempted to take the spotlight off the

27

lie that Coughlin had just caught Bar Counsel King and Clerk Peters in when the Panel members and King

28

admitted that King and the SBN had failed to provide copies of the exhibits Coughlin attached to his filings,
- 31/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

despite the SBN having agreed to do so and represented to Coughlin that it would. Kent announced,

brazenly, that he didn't care if King copied him or the panel on the attachments to Coughlin's filings or that

King has indicated to the Panel that he was so copying the Panel on the entirety of Coughlin's filings, yet did

not point out that he actuall, was not, choosing to excise the dvd/cd attachments to those filings (and it does

not seem clear that King even did in fact have teh SBN copy the Panel member on all of Coughlin's filings,

particulary where Laura Peters had previously told Coughlin he could file by email or fax, and that the SBN

would never attempt to assert that the 8/23/12 certified mailing would be proof of or return of service. Once

the SBN makes a representation, SCR 109 goes out the window, and it is shameful that Pat King was fully

aware of that representation, and co-signed by his September 25th, 2012 attempts to get Coughlin to show

10

up the the SBN for a hearing that was noticed and calendared to Coughlin and Susich for 9/25/12...only for

11

King to refuse to hold the hearing, and instead seek to jam a bunch of other matters into a "combo-hearing"

12

including pending criminal charges in violation of Monteiro. Furhter Burleigh was violated in ever way due

13

process wise, and the Panel outright flouted Nevada Law by refusing to recognize Claiborned. And so

14

curious how the dismissal of this appeal is not signed by a Justice, and occurs just in time for the

15

Disciplinary Hearing. (to go along with Michael Johnson apparently checking his twitter or facebook

16

acount on his smartphone for most of the day....the only Panel members who displayed any professionalism

17

at all were Clark Vellis, Esq. and laymember Karen Pearl, though it was entirely inappropriate for any of

18

them to agree to sit for the hearing at all given the per se violations of SCR 105(2)(c), and thus, the total lack

19

of jurisdiction to hold such a hearing. He is literally the cheapest, sleaziest attorney I have ever come across

20

in my life...and I have dealt with Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey Baker, Esq. Pat King is literally more

21

chicanerous than anyone I have every witnessed in my life. He has this Disciplinary Hearing thing sewn up

22

to the point where he revels in SCR 106 immunity so much so that he brazenly lies at every turn, and

23

encourages, and often forces "Clerk of Court/Investigator" Laura Peters to lie as well, which she does readily

24

and often (telling Coughlin that she had the authority to and di so grant Coughlin the right to issue and have

25

served subpoenas without paying witness fees, and further, that Respondent's never pay witness fees in these

26

Disciplinary Hearings (good luck figuring out which rules apply, as clearly the NRCP do not, given Chair

27

Echeverrias utter disregard for the NRCP and all of SCR 105(2)(c), typically done while Echeverria cackles

28

and smiles menacingly at the Respondent, plays grab ass with his boyhood chum Elcano, and smokes a big
- 32/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

old stogie, Boss Hog style during the numerous "breaks" he insisted were a better use of the time for a

Hearing than affording Couglin an opportunity to, say, ask Judge Nash Holmes question about her

participation in the "clandestine status conference" on 2/27/12 wherein the Order for Competency Evaluation

was directed to Coughlin in rcr2012-065630 or the "strategy sessions" and "meetings" the RMC Judges and

court appointed defenders (like Loomis and City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens,Esq admit to having with Judge

William Gardner in the morning, secret to Coughlin prior to the 4/10/12 Trial date in the trespass matter

(which was set for Trial by Loomis and the RMC on 3/8/12 at a time when both tyhe RMC, Judge W.

Garnder, Loomis, and City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens knew full well that there was the 2/27/12 Order for

Competency Evaluation pending against Coughlin in RCR2012-065630 (and NRS 178.405 vis a vis NRS

10

5.010, in combination with Judge Nash Holmes accustation "on behalf of all RMC Judges" in her 3/14/12

11

greivannce against Coughlin (and Judge W. Gardner lied on the record during the April 10th, 2012 "Trial"

12

and Motion Hearing in 11 CR 26405 when he alleged that none of Judge Nash Holmes Orders or her

13

grievance letter the the SBN mentioned any "competency" issues related to Coughlin. Perhaps what is so

14

distrubing is the extent to which these Judges lies are so easily disproven, indicating they have very little

15

regard for the idea that this judicial system will ever take them to task for so doing. (and he refused to allow

16

Coughlin more than and hour and a half to put on his case, most of which was, of course, wasted listening to

17

Echeverria rule as irrelevant or inadmissible every single piece of evidence Coughlin sought to introduce,

18

even a certified copy of the audio of the Trial n 11 TR 26800 that would prove that Judge Dorothy Nash

19

Holmes lied and lied during her testimony. Not only did Coughlin have the audio cd that King finally gave

20

to him

21

SCR Rule 105. Procedure on receipt of complaint.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2. Commencement of formal proceedings. Formal


disciplinary proceedings are commenced by bar counsel
filing a written complaint in the name of the state bar. The
complaint shall be sufficiently clear and specific to inform
the attorney of the charges against him or her and the
underlying conduct supporting the charges. A copy of the
complaint shall be served on the attorney and it shall direct
that a verified response or answer be served on bar counsel
within 20 days of service; the original shall be filed with
bar counsel's office. The time to respond may be
- 33/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

extended once by the chair for not more than 20 days


for good cause or upon stipulation of the parties. In the
event the attorney fails to plead, the charges shall be
deemed admitted; provided, however, that an attorney who
fails to respond within the time provided may thereafter
obtain permission of the appropriate disciplinary board
chair to do so, if failure to file is attributable to mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
(a) Challenges to and ad hoc appointments of panel
members. The complaint shall be served with the list of
members of the appropriate disciplinary board. The
attorney, or each if more than one, and bar counsel may
exercise five peremptory challenges each to the people on
the list by delivering such in writing to bar counsel on or
before the date a response to the complaint is due. "
(COUGHLIN HEREBY EXCERCISE HIS RIGHT TO
PEREMPTORILY REMOVE PANEL CHAIR
ECHEVERRIA AND McGeorge SOL Class of 1980
Stephen Smiley Kent (and anyone who went to McGeorge
for that matter, or even applied there) (whose classmates at
McGeorge include RMC Judge Kenneth Howard, who
denied Coughlin even one continuance in the first offense
petty larceny of a de minimis amount of food from a WalMart at a time when Coughlin was besieged with an
unlawful summary eviction from his former home law
office, and had an impermissible NRS 40.253(6) violating
"rent escrow" deposit of $2,275 required by the RJC just to
preserve Coughlin's right to litigate at the 10/25/12 "Trial"
Date (the RJC, noticed in writing the parties on the fact that
that was a "Trial" date in light of Judge Sferrazza's ruling at
the 10/13/11 summary eviction proceeding based upon a
No Cause Notice only (ie, non payment of rent was not
pled, making Hill and Baker's use of the summary eviction
process violative of nevada law against commercial tenant
Coughlin, particularly where Coughlin held the address out
to the public under SCR 79 as his law office, where filings
such as the one on 8/10/11 by Coughlin on behalf of then
client Robert Bell (in the matter that Judge Linda Gardner
recused herself from citing judicial cannon 2.11(a) (just
admitting a flat out bias against Coughlin) as the basis for
doing so) in fv11-02864 and the associated TPO
demonstrate via the 121 River Rock address in the caption
for then attorney Coughlin that the location was Coughlin's
law office, and that Coughlin was a commercial tenat, who
- 34/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

possessed a law license at the time and where it is not clear


the "home office" exception to any requirement to have a
City or STate business license, particulary where Coughlin
was making less than $28,500 per year, attach in any way...
Coughlin objections to Panel Chair Echeverria's
participation go beyond the evident impartiality
demonstrated in all his various quick fire approvals of
King's Motions (including Motions to Quash Subpoenas
that fail to recongize the lies King and the SBN told
Coughlin with Respect to Chief Bar Counsel Clarks, Kings
and Clerk of Court Peters representations to and
agreements with Couglin vis a vis the application and
interpreation of SCR 110. "Subpoena power, production so
documents, witnesses, and pre-trial proceedings"...
Challenges to any member for cause under Rule 103(7)
shall be made as soon as possible after receiving either
actual or constructive notice of the grounds for
disqualification, and shall be made by motion to the chair
in accordance with these rules. In no event will a motion
seeking the disqualification of a member be timely if the
member has already heard, considered or
ruled upon any contested matter, except as to grounds
based on fraud or like illegal conduct of which the
challenging party had no notice until after the contested
matter was considered. Any challenge that is not raised in a
timely manner shall be deemed waived.
The chair may make ad hoc appointments to replace
designated panel members in the event challenges or
disqualification reduce the number to less than the number
required for the hearing panel. Ad hoc appointees shall be
subject to disqualification under Rule 103(7) and any
remaining peremptory challenges unexercised by either
the attorney(s) or bar counsel. A hearing panel as finally
constituted shall include a non-lawyer.
"(b) Assignment for hearing; venue. Following service of a
responsive pleading, or upon failure to plead, the
matter shall be assigned by the chair of the disciplinary
board to a hearing panel...."
There has not even been service of the complaint yet!!!!
Peters 10/9/12 Affidavit and Coughlin's various filings
and 11/19/12 Affidavit establish that conclusively.

27
28
- 35/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

(c) Time to conduct hearing; notice of hearing;


discovery of evidence against attorney. The hearing
panel shall conduct a hearing within 45 days of
assignment and give the attorney at least 30 days'
written notice of its time and place. The notice shall be
served in the same manner as the complaint, and shall
inform the attorney that he or she is entitled to be
represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, and
to present evidence. The notice shall be accompanied by
a summary prepared by bar counsel of the evidence
against the attorney, and the names of the witnesses bar
counsel intends to call for other than impeachment,
together with a brief statement of the facts to which
each will testify, all of which may be inspected up to 3
days prior to the hearing. Witnesses or evidence, other
than for impeachment, which became known to bar
counsel thereafter, and which bar counsel intends to use
at the hearing, shall be promptly disclosed to the
attorney. For good cause shown, the chair may allow
additional time, not to exceed 90 days, to conduct the
hearing.
(d) Quorum; time for decision of panel; votes required to
impose discipline. Any five members of the panel shall be a
quorum. The hearing panel shall render a written
decision within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing,
unless post-hearing briefs are requested by either bar
counsel or the attorney and allowed by the panel or
requested by the chair, in which event the decision shall
be rendered within 60 days of the conclusion of the
hearing. The decision shall be served pursuant to Rule
109(1), accompanied by the panel's findings and
recommendation, all of which shall be filed with bar
counsel's office. A decision to impose or recommend
discipline requires the concurrence of four members of the
panel.
COUGHLIN REQUESTS A LEGITIMATE
OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A MORE APPROPRIATE
VERIFIED ANSWER OR RESPONSE ON FILE IN THIS
MATTER...FURTHER, COUGHLIN HEREBY
REQUEST AN OPPORUTNITY TO SUBMIT A POST
HEARING BRIEF...EVEN THOUGH THE HEARING
HE STILL REQUESTS BE STRIKEN OR VIEW MORE
AS A INTRODUCTORY MEETING...AND COUGHLIN
REMIND THE COMMITTEE THAT UPON THE
HEARING DATE OF 11/14/12 BEING RULE AS VOID
- 36/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

FOR LACK OF DUE PROCESS, NOTICE, SERVICE,


PROCESS, JURISDICTION, ETC...THE PANEL WILL
SOON RUN UP AGAINST THE "WITHIN 45 DAYS OF
ASSIGNMENT" DICTATE
(e) Rules of evidence; support of panel's decision. The rules
applicable to the admission of evidence in the district
courts of Nevada govern admission of evidence before a
hearing panel.
Evidentiary rulings shall be made by the chair of the panel,
if one has been designated, or by the chair of the
appropriate disciplinary board prior to such a designation.
The findings of the panel must be supported by clear
and convincing evidence. And under SCR 104(3) and
SCR 103(7) Coughlin seeks to have SBN King removed
or conflicted out of this case for all the greivance
drumming up, for his impermissible communications
with Coughlin's then client's the Eastman's in early
may 2012, for feeding Judge Nash Holmes the "by clear
and convincing evidence" standard inserted into her
3/12/12 Order transmogrifying the trafficat case to a a
summary disciplinary hearing (and her testimony on
11/14/12, you could tell, was already anticipating the
jeers and offering mea culpas in that regard, or at least
caveats to spare...
(f) Court reporter. All formal hearings shall be reported by
a certified court reporter, which cost may be assessed
against the attorney pursuant to Rule 120. Any party
desiring to have any other disciplinary proceedings
reported must arrange in advance for a certified court
reporter at the party's own expense.
Zach Coughlin, J.D.
Patent Agent, USPTO
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tele and Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
November 17th, 2012,
RE: LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE REGARDING EVERY RECORDING,
DOCUMENT, DRAFT OF ANY SORT, OR PIECE OF DATA COLLECTED WITH
RESPECT TO THE ILLEGALLY HELD DISCIPLINARY HEARING OF 11/14/12 AT
THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA, AT WHICH CAROL HUMMEL WAS THE COURT
REPORTER OF RECORD AND FOR WHICH IT HAS BECOME KNOWN THAT PAT
- 37/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KING HAS A COPY OF THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING ALREADY AND


THEREFORE HAS BEEN GIVEN YET ANOTHER IMPERMISSIBLE ADVANTAGE
REQUIRING ANY RECORDINGS, ROUGH DRAFTS, WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS,
OR AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS BE IMMEDIATELY TURNED OVER TO COUGHLIN
NOTICE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN ZACH COUGHLIN AND SUNSHINE
REPORTING SERVICES GIVEN SUNSHINE'S ADMISSION THAT PAM LONGONI
IS ON ITS STAFF AND MS. LONGONI'S DIRELECTION OF HER DUTIES IN 11 CR
22176, WHICH RESULTING IN A DISMISSAL OF COUGHLIN'S APPEAL IN CR112064 AND THE CURRENT TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF COUGHLIN'S LICENSE
TO PRACTICE LAW IN 60838

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

John Peter Echeverria, Esq., Panel Chair


Echeverria Law Office/Echeverria Group
9432 Double R Blvd.
Reno , NV 89521
Tel: 7757864800 Fax : 7757864808 JE@ELORENO.com
State Bar of Nevada, Office of Bar Cousnel
David Clark, Esq., Chief Bar Counsel
Las Vegas: 600 E. Charleston Blvd
Las Vegas, NV 89104 Phone: 702-382-2200 Fax: 702-385-2878
Patrick O. King, Assistant Bar Counsel
9456 Double R Blvd, Suite B

Reno, NV 89521 Tel: 775-329-4100 Fax: 775-329-0522


Dear Chair Echeverria, Panel Members, and SBN Office of Bar Counsel,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Please provide to me immediately all materials (including the sound recording) of


the 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing that Pam Longoni coworker and Sunshine Reproting
Services employee, CCR Carol Hummel was the CCR on at the State Bar of Nevada from
approximately 8:30 am to approximately 6 pm. As you are aware, I have a conflict with
Pam Longoni that likely will entail substantial litigation, to whatever extent there is not
already litigation ongoing. Please review the attached materials for more explication in
that regard. However, while I am not purporting to give you legal advice, I believe it was
wrong for that firm to work the 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing. I am writing to request to
be given immediately, and absent any sort of payment or agreement whatsoever, all
materials recording, transcribed, reported, or otherwise collected in any way by Sunshine
Reporting Services and or Carol Hummel at that 11/14/12 Hearing and any other materials
connected thereto, including correspondence or agreements with the State Bar of Nevada,
the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board, and the Panel (including Panel Chari John
Echeverria, Esq. and the Echeverria Group) in addition to the materials Pat King himself
has.

28
- 38/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

DUE TO MR. KING'S AND LAURA PETERS THREATS OF ABUSE OF


PROCESS (INCLUDING CALLING THE POLICE FOR SPURIOUS REASONS OR
PURSUING A PROTECTION ORDER, I AM HEREBY SERVING THE SBN, KING,
PETERS, AND PANEL CHAIR ECHEVERRIA A STAY AWAY ORDER OF MY
OWN. ANY ENTREATIES ONTO MY PROPERTY, WHICH IS MARKED WITH A
LARGE "NO TRESPASSING" SIGN, MUST BE APPROVED IN ADVANCE AND
REQUIRE A PHONE CALL PRIOR THERETO AND EXPRESS APPROVALY BY
ZACH COUGHLIN AND ONLY ZACH COUGHLIN. FURTHER, COUGHLIN
HERERBY DEMANDS THAT ALL OF HIS FAX FILINGS BE FILESTAMPED AND
THAT A COMPLETE COPY OF THE RECORD AND DISCIPLINARY FILE BE
PROVIDED TO COUGHLIN, INCLUDING HIS OWN FILINGS, AND THAT THE
SBN COMPLY WITH THE STATES RULES AND POLICIES IT ARTICULATED TO
COUGHLIN ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE PANEL AND
BOARD AND PANEL CHAIR, BY PROVIDING COMPLETE COPIES OF
EVERYTHING COUGHLIN HAS SUBMITTED (INCLUDING THE CD/DVDS
ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS) TO ALL PANEL MEMBERS.
I am indigent, severly so, and the State Bar of Nevada and Chair Echeverria, some
might say, are fraudulently attempting to take away my Fourteenth Amendment property
right, my law license, chiefly through their numerous violations of SCR 105(2)(c) and and
any other due process rules, law, or concepts they can desecrate. There simply was no
colorable basis for ruling that I was not permitted to record the proceedings...although,
neither the DCR nor NRCP appear to have any rules either prohibiting the recording of
Disciplinary Proceedings (made applicable via SCR 105(4), unless the Panel has enacted
some unpublished rules that it has so far refused to give me, as is the case with the SBN.
FURTHER, THE SBN AND NNDB PANEL AND ITS CHAIR, AND HIS LAW
OFFICE AND ECHEVERRIA GROUP ARE HEREBY PLACED ON A LITIGATION
HOLD NOTICE. PAT KING MAKES CUTE JOKES LIKE "WHAT'S A LITIGATION
HOLD NOTICE"...ITS SOMETHING THAT WILL SUBJECT YOU TO CONTEMPT,
PAT, NEVERMIND YOUR ILLUSIONS RESPECTING SCR 106 AND YOUR
"UNLIMITED IMMUNITY"...MR. KING, I AM HEREBY ONCE AGAIN PLACING
YOU ON NOTICE THAT LITIGATION IS LIKELY TO ARISE REQUIRING YOU TO
MAINTAIN AND TURN OVER AT SOME POINT THE MANILA ENVELOPE THAT
THE SBN PLACED INSUFFICIENT POSTAGE ON IN MAILING OUT ON 10/9/12
(OR AT LEAST PRINTING THE RED PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE THEREON ON
THAT DATE...AND PLEASE REALIZE, THE SBN DID NOT SEND THAT NOITD
BY FIRST CLASS MAIL IN ADDITION TO A CERTIFIED MAILING...PROBABLY
SOME TACTICAL DECISION BY KING TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE, CHECK THE
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING...THE LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE EXTENDS TO
ALL CALL RECORDS BETWEEN THE SBN IN ANY WAY WITH CHAIR
ECHEVERRIA OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PANEL, INCLUDING ACTIVITIES
INVOLVING LAURA PETERS. CHAIR ECHEVERRIA'S STAFF LEFT COUGHLIN
A PHONE CALL IN RESPONSE TO HIS INQUIRY REGARDING A MUNDANE,
NON-SUBSTANTIVE MATTER (DEENA, NOT TERESA, AND YOU WILL WANT
TO REVIEW NRS 199.340(7) REGARDING SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS),
AND DEENE COMMUNICATE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THE CHAIR WOULD
- 39/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

NOT SPEAK TO COUGHLIN, EVEN THOUGH HE IS PROCEEDING WITH SELF


REPRESENTATION AND IT IS MORE THAN COMMON FOR RESPONDENT'S
COUNSEL TO REGULARLY COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHAIR. I HAVE READ
ALL THE DECISIONS AND GRABBED THE RECORDS ON APPEAL. PLEASE
IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE ME A COPY OF ANY PROCEDURAL RULES THE
BOARD HAS ADOPTED INCIDENT TO SCR 105 AND EXPLAING WHY THE
10/9/12 AFFIDAVIT OF LAURA PETERS IS FILE STAMPED, YET WAS NEVER
SENT TO COUGHLIN. PLEASE FURTHER EXPLAIN WHY THE "DISCIPLINARY
FILE" HAS BEEN DOCTORED TO EXCLUDE THE GREEN CERTIFIED MAIL
TAGS FOR THE COMPLAINT (WHICH USPS TRACK & CONFIRM REVEALS WAS
NEVER SIGNED FOR BY COUGHLIN, AND IN FACT, JUST AS CLERK PETERS
ADMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2012 AT 4:55 PM, WAS RETURNED TO SEND
AND SIGNED FOR BY THE SBN ON 9/10/11. PLEASE HAVE CLERK PETERS
FILL OUT A NON FRAUDULENT RETURN OF SERVICE OR PROOF OF SERVICE
OF THE COMPLAINT REFLECTING HER DECLARATION OF SBN AND PANEL
RULES AND POLICY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE 8/23/12 CERTIFIED MAILING
WOULD NEVER BE PUT FORTH AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE
COMPLAINT....WHICH LEAVES THE SBN AND PANEL TO EXPLAIN WHY KING
UNILATERALLY ALTERED THE DECLARATIONS MADE BY PETERS TO
COUGHLIN RESPECTING THE PROCEDURAL POLICIES AND ADOPTED RULES
AND PRACTICES OF THE BOARD, SBN, AND PANEL IN THESE DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING HER ATTESTATION THAT SHE HAD AUTHORITY
TO REPRESENT TO COUGHLIN THAT NO TIME DEADLINES WOULD RUN FOR
ANY EVENT WHOSE SERVICE REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH SCR 109
(MEANING ALL MATTERS MENTIONED IN SCR 105(2)(C), MEANING THE
NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS DEFICIENT, GIVEN COUGHLIN'S SIGNATURE
INDICATES A DATE OF 10/27/12, IE, FAR LESS THAN THE "AT LEAST 30 DAYS"
BEFORE THE HEARING MAY TAKE PLACE (17 DAYS IS NOT EVEN CLOSE),
AND THE Designation of Witnesses and Summary of Evidence is not listed in the
certificate of mailing, nor is it file stamped upon a review of the bate stamped filed box
that somehow took 7 days to copy (because Pat King needed to go back through it and
remove the certified mailing slips for which the SBN had not secured a signature from
Coughlin, including the NOITD (because the SBN placed insufficient postage thereon, and
Tim, counter attendant at the Downtown Reno Station would not release that 10/9/11
NOITD unless Coughlin paid the SBN's postage, which he clearly is not required to
do...Further, the Supplemental DoWSoE was not served in accord with SCR 109
considering the policies, rules, and practices the SBN, NNDB, and Panel held out to
Coughlin and upon which he justifiably relied. Basically, the entire hearing must be
thrown out, mistrial, recusal of Echeverria and Kent, and King is conflicted out too.
My issues with Ms. Longoni related primarily to her hanging up on me on more
than one occasion in December 2011 when I was attempting to comply with the dictates
she and the Reno Municipal Court put forth to criminal appellant's, including ones like me
who were indigent at that time.

28
- 40/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

I need the materials I am requesting above immediately, TIME IS OF THE


ESSENCE with respect to a number of actions I must take to preserve my rights, and even
the roughest draft of the transcript and the audio recordings made that day are completely
vital to my protecting my rights. I believe you would be substantially mitigating your
potential liability by having these emailed to me immediately, though you should consider
getting counsel from your own attorney in that regard.
Further, I believe your firm and or Ms. Longoni may still be required to prepare
and provide to me the transcript for 11 CR 22176, (I am providing you via a cd/dvd in the
mail and a link to a SkyDrive contaning the audio therefor) as well as the transcript for 11
TR 26800 (a notice of appeal was filed on 3/7/12 and again sometime thereafter, and
during that time the RCM continued its illegal practice of holding Ms. Longoni out as the
only court reporter it would release the audio recordings to (certified or not), and further,
as demonstrated by the attached handout given to all criminal defendant appellants by the
RMC, Ms. Longoni and the RMC maintained a practice that was violative of NRS
189.030:
NRS 189.030 Transmission of transcript, other papers, sound
recording and copy of docket to district court.
1. The justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of
appeal is filed, transmit to the clerk of the district court the
transcript of the case, all other papers relating to the case and
a certified copy of the docket.
2. The justice shall give notice to the appellant or the
appellant's attorney that the transcript and all other papers
relating to the case have been filed with the clerk of the district
court.
3. If the district judge so requests, before or after receiving the
record, the justice of the peace shall transmit to the district
judge the sound recording of the case.

21
22
23
24
25

I am prepared to move forward with respect to pursuing whatever lawful action I


may take in connection with this impermissible conflict of interest (which I believe I can
prove you knew full well about) in addition to the misconduct by Ms. Longoni in
connection with RMC 11 CR 22176. Nice touch having Judge Linda Gardner's courtroom
deputy work the hearing.

26
27
28

Coughlin hereby demands that the SBN comply with the agreement and rules
requiring the SBN reveal the names of the Screening Panel members from the hearing on
or about 4/10/12. Pat doesn't get around to saying he meant the "Clerk of Court" of a
- 41/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4

Department in the RMC, even though the Order is from D14 of the Second Judicial
District Court (whose courtroom deputy worked the 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing along
with one of Pam Longoni's co-workers...Carol Hummel (no offense to Ms. Hummel...I
blame Pat King and or Susich here, as King is now backing out of an agreement to
indicate who was on the Screening Panel and the Panel for the Hearing was obviously
hand picked to arrive at the most biased crowd available or possible.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3. Review by supreme court.


(a) Time and manner of appeal. A decision of a hearing
panel shall be served on the attorney, and service shall be
deemed Notice of Entry of Decision for appeal purposes.
Except as provided in Rule 105(3)(b) a decision is final and
effective 30 days from service, unless an appeal, is taken
within that time. To the extent not inconsistent with these
rules, an appeal from a decision of a hearing panel shall be
treated as would an appeal from a civil judgment of a
district court and is governed by the Nevada Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
(b) De novo review of public discipline. Except for
disbarments by consent pursuant to Rule 112 or a public
reprimand agreed to in writing by the attorney pursuant to
Rule 113, a decision recommending a public reprimand,
suspension or disbarment shall be automatically reviewed
by the supreme court. Review under this paragraph shall be
commenced by bar counsel forwarding the record of the
hearing panel proceedings to the court within 30 days of
entry of the decision. Receipt of the record in such cases
shall be acknowledged in writing by the clerk of the
supreme court.
The attorney and bar counsel shall have 30 days from the
date the supreme court acknowledges receipt of the record
within which to file an opening brief or otherwise advise
the court of any intent to contest the hearing panel's
findings and recommendations. If an opening brief is filed,
briefing shall thereafter proceed in accordance with NRAP
31(a). Extensions of time to file briefs are disfavored and
will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. The
parties shall not be required to prepare an appendix, but
rather shall cite to the record of the disciplinary
proceedings. If no opening brief is filed, the matter will be
submitted for decision on the record without briefing or
oral argument.

28
- 42/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

4. Rules of procedure. The chairs, after consulting with


their respective disciplinary boards, may adopt rules of
procedure, subject to approval by the board of governors.

1
2
3
4

1. In general

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Violations of professional conduct rules not charged in attorney disciplinary complaint


could not be considered by Supreme Court. In re Discipline of Schaefer, 2001, 25 P.3d
191, 117 Nev. 496, modified on denial of rehearing 31 P.3d 365, certiorari denied 122
S.Ct. 1072, 534
U.S. 1131, 151 L.Ed.2d 974. Attorney And Client 52 SO COUGHLIN OBJECTS TO
KING AND ECHEVERRIA'S ATTEMPTS TO TURN THE 11/14/12 HEARING IN
TO SOME SUMMARY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDIGN FOR DECLARATION
MAKING IN THEIR PRESENCE, WHETHER LEVERAGING PAST FILINGS
REBRANDED OR NOT...
2. Due process
Procedure in which Board of Governors, the body responsible for finances of bar
association, functioned as factfinder in disciplinary proceeding against attorneys,
involving costs which were substantial and which were recoverable by state bar only
upon finding of misconduct, violated due process. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rules 85, 85, subd. 2,
86, subds. (1-4, 7, 12), 104, subd. 7 (1978); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Matter of Ross,
1983, 656 P.2d 832, 99 Nev. 1, rehearing denied 668 P.2d 1089, 99 Nev. 657. Attorney
And Client 54; Constitutional Law 4273(3)
Individual members of disciplinary board had no personal financial stake in outcome of
their deliberations and no executive responsibilities for finances of state bar which
would be inconsistent with due process requirements for disciplinary proceedings,
despite potential for recovery by bar of fines and costs. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rules 86, 103,
subds. 1, 3; U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.
14. Burleigh v. State Bar of Nevada, 1982, 643 P.2d 1201, 98 Nev. 140. Constitutional
Law 4273(3)
State cannot exclude person from practice of law without due process of law.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14. Burleigh v. State Bar of Nevada, 1982, 643 P.2d 1201, 98
Nev.
140. Constitutional Law 4273(1)
Practice of a profession is valuable property right, of which one cannot be arbitrarily
deprived. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14. Burleigh v. State Bar of Nevada, 1982, 643 P.2d
1201, 98 Nev.
1
4. Degree of proof

28
- 43/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

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

Ethical violations by attorney must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re


Discipline of Schaefer, 2001, 25 P.3d 191, 117 Nev. 496, modified on denial of
rehearing 31 P.3d 365, certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 1072, 534 U.S. 1131, 151 L.Ed.2d
974. Attorney And Client 53(2)
In bar disciplinary matters, higher degree of proof is required than in ordinary civil
proceedings; clear and convincing evidence must support any findings of misconduct.
Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 105, subd. 2(e). In re Discipline of Drakulich, 1995, 908 P.2d 709,
111 Nev. 1556. Attorney And Client 53(2)
In determining questions of fact, higher degree of proof is required in disciplinary
matters han in ordinary civil proceedings; standard is whether findings are supported by
clear and convincing evidence. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 105, subd. 2(e). In re Discipline of
Stuhff, 1992, 837 P.2d 853, 108 Nev. 629. Attorney And Client 53(2)
To determine questions of fact, higher degree of proof is required in attorney
disciplinary matters, than in ordinary civil matters; standard is whether findings are
supported by clear and convincing evidence. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 105, subd. 2(e). Gentile
v. State Bar of Nevada, 1990, 787 P.2d 386, 106 Nev. 60, certiorari granted 111 S.Ct.
669, 498 U.S. 1023, 112 L.Ed.2d 662, reversed 111 S.Ct. 2720, 501 U.S. 1030, 115
L.Ed.2d 888. Attorney And Client 53(2)
5. Recommendation of board
Although recommendations of disciplinary panel are persuasive, Supreme Court is not
bound by panel's findings and recommendation, and must examine record anew and
exercise independent judgment, in attorney disciplinary proceeding. In re Discipline of
Schaefer, 2001, 25 P.3d 191, 117 Nev. 496, modified on denial of rehearing 31 P.3d
365, certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 1072, 534 U.S. 1131, 151 L.Ed.2d 974. Attorney And
Client 57
Disciplinary board's recommendation is not final and binding upon Supreme Court, even
though attorney has consented in writing to Board's decision. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 105,
subd. 3(b). Matter of Kenick, 1984, 680 P.2d 972, 100 Nev. 273. Attorney And Client 57
6. Continuances
Attorney was not entitled to continuance of second hearing date in attorney disciplinary
proceedings to obtain counsel, on basis that second hearing was reset for January 4, not
later in the month, and attorney not able to find new counsel because no one wanted to
work on his case over the holidays, where attorney stated on the record that he needed no
more than one week's notice of the continued hearing, and was aware from November 17
that he needed to find counsel immediately, attorney was notified no later than
December 6 of new hearing date, and even from December 6, attorney had four weeks to
obtain new counsel and to prepare for the continued hearing. In re Discipline of
Schaefer, 2001, 25 P.3d 191, 117 Nev. 496, modified on denial of rehearing 31 P.3d
365, certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 1072, 534 U.S. 1131, 151 L.Ed.2d 974. Attorney And
Client 54

27
28
- 44/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

ASSUMING THERE HAS BEEN SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT,


WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOW, COUGHLIN REQUEST HIS FIRST
CONTINUANCE...

Sup. Ct. Rules, RULE 105, NV ST S CT RULE 105

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

NRCP RULE 12. DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS


WHEN AND HOW PRESENTEDBY PLEADING OR
MOTIONMOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
PLEADINGS
(a) When Presented.
(1) A defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days after
being served with the summons and complaint, unless
otherwise provided by statute when service of process is
made pursuant to Rule 4(e)(3).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Coughlin was never served with the Summons and


Complaints under SCR 109, and Bar Counsel cited no
authority to support its apparent contention that merely
mailing a certified mailing purporting to included the
Complaint is sufficient, especially where, as here, Bar
Counsel and the SBN made representations Coughlin was
permitted to reply upon to the effec that the 8/23/12
certified mailing Bar Counsel asserts would never be
offered as proof of or return of service.
(2) A party served with a pleading stating a cross-claim
against that party shall serve an answer thereto within 20
days after being served. The plaintiff shall serve a reply to
a counterclaim in the answer within 20 days after service of
the answer or, if a reply is ordered by the court, within 20
days after service of the order, unless the order otherwise
directs.
(3) The State of Nevada or any political subdivision
thereof, and any officer, employee, board or commission
member of the State of Nevada or political subdivision, and
any state legislator shall file an answer or other responsive
pleading within 45 days after their respective dates of
service.
(4) The service of a motion permitted under this rule alters
these periods of time as follows, unless a different time is
fixed by order of the court:
- 45/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(A) if the court denies the motion or postpones its


disposition until the trial on the merits, a responsive
pleading shall be served within 10 days after notice of
the courts action;
Chair Echeverria's Order purporting to require
Couglin file averified Response in less time than allotted
upon any purported ruling on Coughlin's Motion to
Dismiss, makes holding the Hearing on 11/14/12 and
and Order connected thereto void (even whether Bar
Counsel has perpetrated a fraud in standing behind a
certificate of mailing that is knows is not true as to the
October 9th, 2012 certified mailing only (in contrast to
practically everything else the SBN mailed, according to
its certificate's of mailing, the SBN sent the 10 9 12
Notice of Intent to Take Default by certified mial only,
ie, it was not sent via first class mail as well).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(B) if the court grants a motion for a more definite


statement, a responsive pleading shall be served within 10
days after service of the more definite statement.
(b) How Presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a
claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be
asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is
required, except that the following defenses may at the
option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of
jurisdiction over the person, (3) insufficiency of process,
(4) insufficiency of service of process, (5) failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, (6) failure to
join a party under Rule 19. A motion making any of these
defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading
is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being
joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a
responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a
claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to
serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at
the trial any defense in law or fact to that claim for relief.
If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (5) to
dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading
are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion
shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed
- 46/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2

of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given


reasonable opportunity to present all material made
pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

Couglin presented all the above bolded defense and


Chair Echeverria did not dispose of all such Motions made
by Coughlin.

...

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(d) Preliminary Hearings. The defenses specifically


enumerated (1)-(6) in subdivision (b) of this rule, whether
made in a pleading or by motion, and the motion for
judgment mentioned in subdivision (c) of this rule shall be
heard and determined before trial on application of any
party, unless the court orders that the hearing and
determination thereof be deferred until the trial.
(e) Motion for More Definite Statement. If a pleading to
which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or
ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required
to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for
a more definite statement before interposing a
responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the
defects complained of and the details desired. If the motion
is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10
days after notice of the order or within such other time as
the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to
which the motion was directed or make such order as it
deems just.
(f) Motion to Strike. Upon motion made by a party before
responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is
permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party
within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the
party or upon the courts own initiative at any time, the
court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.
(g) Consolidation of Defenses in Motion. A party who
makes a motion under this rule may join with it any other
motions herein provided for and then available to the party.
If a party makes a motion under this rule but omits
therefrom any defense or objection then available to the
party which this rule permits to be raised by motion, the
party shall not thereafter make a motion based on the
defense or objection so omitted, except a motion as
- 47/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2

provided in subdivision (h)(2) hereof on any of the grounds


there stated.
[As amended; effective September 27, 1971.]

(h) Waiver or Preservation of Certain Defenses.

(1) A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person,


insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of
process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the
circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it is
neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a
responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by
Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

(2) A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief


can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party
indispensable under Rule 19, and an objection of failure to
state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any
pleading permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a), or by
motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the
merits.
(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or
otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject
matter, the court shall dismiss the action.

15
16

http://sdrv.ms/Tt4dYf

17
18
19

Also available at that link is the transcript from the criminal trespass Trial on 6/18/12
where HIll and Baker testify, before Judge L. Gardner's (whom recused herself from a

20
21

case Coughlin represented Robert Bell in, filed August 11, 2011, which further proves that

22

Coughlin was a commercial tenant practicing law at the 121 River Rock address,

23

something pled in Coughlin's Tenant's Affidavit and set forth repeatedly ad nausuem

24

throughout the trial court case, which Hill mistakenly alleges, in his lie filled testimony at

25

the criminal trespass trial, that Coughlin "did not plead" that he was a "commercial tenant"

26
27
28

in the trial court eviction case. Wrong, Mr. Hill. The record is quite clear that Coughlin
did. And Judge L. Gardner's recusal (and Judge Flanagan's Presidency of the SBN during
- 48/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

a period of time in which Coughlin now has pending grievances against members of the

Character and Fitness Committe further complicates matters and augured for a recusal,

3
4
5
6

beyond the apparent bad mouthing of Coughlin by Judge Flanagan and Coughlin's former
firm, where they were both a part of at the same time in 2005, to the CBX (unless the CBX
is lying or bluffing, which is entirely possible, as anyone who has ever met a bar counsel

could tell you) is just another reason why recusal was appropriate. Additionally, the

lockout pursuant to the eviction Order, whether the Eviction Decision and ORder of

9
10
11
12

October 25th, 2011 or the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Lw....of 10/27/11 (depending
on how one view NRS 40.253's "within 24 hours" dictate) was either performed to early or
too later, and therefore the Order was stale or

13

void at time WCSO Machen and Baker conduted the lockout. (too early under the analysis

14

respecting the application, via nrs 40.400 of NRCP 5 and NRCP 6 requiring 3 days for

15

mailing for "constructive service" of such and Order, and beyond that the Second Judicial

16

District Court appears to have refused for filing from Couglin a filing that may have

17
18

operated as a MOtion to STay under NRAP 8 sometime between October 26th, 2011 and

19

November 2nd 2011 in CV11-03051 or CV11-03126, in violation of Whitman, Sullivan,

20

Donoho and NRCP 5(e)'s dictate against clerk's rejecting filings regardles of what a local

21

rule says) or the lockout was conduct too late in light of the testimony by Baker

22

concerning how and when the wCSO received the lockout order or either of the eviction

23
24

orders (Baker indicated his office relied upon the usual practice of the RJC to transmit it to

25

the wCSO, but curiously the RJC seems to now assert is has no record of such a

26

transmission, and the WCSO is lawyering up when it comes to such information.

27

Herman v. Style Line Greetings, Inc., 289 So.2d 876

28
- 49/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

La.App.4.Cir.,1974Where eviction proceeding was taken under advisement and judgment

of eviction was rendered on following day and out of presence of counsel, statute

3
4
5
6

providing that if court finds


lessor or owner entitled to relief sought, court shall render immediately a judgment of
eviction

ordering delivery of possession of premises to lessor or owner had not been complied with

and judgment was invalid. LSA-C.C.P. art. 4732.

9
10
11
12
13

Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey Baker, Esq. (who has now conveniently absconded back to
Kentucky now that his lies have imperiled Coughlin's law license (see Coughlin's recent filing in 61901 and
60838 for more explication thereof) failed to comply with Nevada law respecting the return of Coughlin's
security/damage/cleaning deposit ($500 for security/damage, $200 for "cleaning" deposit, with the Standard
Rental Agreement giving Coughlin certain options thereto). Coughlin is indigent (largely due to the fraud of

14

Baker, Hill, and their client, Dr. Matt Merliss, MD) and asks this Court to recognize that the failure of the

15

landlord to comply with Nevada law vis a vis the itemization or return within 30 days of the deposits should

16

fulfill any $500 bond on appeal, and then some. Further, the Reno Justice Court is still refusing to return the

17

$250 Coughlin deposited with it in compliance with NRS 118A.380 and 118A.385 (further, it is not clear

18

how NJCRCP 72 or 73 could apply to summary eviction (even ones like this one that were notice, in writing,

19

by the RJC, as a "Trial" after Judge Sferrazza had ruled that Coughlin had met his NRS 40.253 burden to

20

prove there was a "genuine issue of material fact", both at and following the 10/13/11 "summary eviction

21

proceeding" and during the first part, at least, of the "Trial" which curiously transmogrified into, apparently,

22

something other than a Trial when Baker managed to point out, the consequences thereof. Regardless,

23

Coughlin filed a Notice of Appeal on October 18th, 2011 (and see also the appeal and associated general

24

civil Complaint in the District Court). Also, court clerk's Michelle Purdee and or Lori Matheus seemed to

25

refuse to file in a document from Coughlin sometime between October 17th to November 1st, 2011 that may

26

have arguably operated as a NRAP 8 Motion to Stay, in violation of the dictates in Nevada law against court

27

clerk's unilaterally refusing to file things, like in Whitman, Sullivan, Dohono, Barnes, and their progeny.

28

Further,
- 50/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Now the SBN intends to hold a hearing on November 14th, 2012 pursuant to its SCR 105

Complaint against Coughlin wherein all subpoena by Coughlin are sought quashed, even where the SBN

states that Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes will appear by phone to answer question (but apparently not testify,

and she hasn't recused herself from the two matters she has Coughlin as a criminal defendant before her in)

(Coughlin totally objects ot Judge Nash Holmes phoning it in, especially where her 3/14/12 grievance to the

SBN in ng12-0434 and the possible ghost-grievancing done in ng12-0435 (in concert with RMC jUdge W.

Gardner and his sister WDC Family Court Judge LInda Gardner and SBN's Pat King and Laura Peters in

attempts to allow RMC W. Gardner to avoid recusing himself from the richard hill signed criminal trespass

complaint in 11 cr 26405...It may be necessary to check up on rmc judge w. gardner's 2/27/12 order

10

transferring jurisdiction of the richard hill incuced january 12th, 2012 custodial arrest of coughlin for

11

jaywalking in RMC 12 cr 00696 (and consider all the copying and or erasing of Coughlin's laptops,

12

smartphones, and data cards incident to all this arrests under State v. Diaz, including the in court arrest on 11

13

30 11 with rmc judge howard in RMC 11 cr 22176 (which resulted in this Court's 6/7/12 temporary

14

suspension of Coughlin's law license) (summary contempt for saying "wow"...and the 2/27/12 arrest by reno

15

marshals (marshal harley lied during the SITA and issued directive to another marshal to go repeat his lie to

16

Judge Nash Holmes....finding a smartphone during a SITA does not entitle Harley to bark out "got tell judge

17

nash holmes Coughlin lied! He was recording!....or for judge Nash Holmes to later, in the tape from the

18

3/12/12 hearing in 11 tr 26800 to indicate some marshall told her he saw Couglin dissessmbling a smart

19

phone in the bathroom stall (this would have been before Judge Nash Holmes even asked Coughlin any

20

questions regarding recording or recording devices...whatever she means by "recording device" (wouldn't

21

every laptop brought with any defendant or lawyer be a "recording device" under Judge Holme's apparent

22

analysis?) to testify with regard to Respondent's conduct in connection with Case No. 11-TR-26800 12 in

23

Reno Municipal Court.

24
25
26
27
28

Incident to Judge Nash Holmes "summary criminal


contempt" Order against Coughlin within the traffic
citations issued to Coughlin outside Richard Hill's law
office after Coughlin showed up to get his Marshal harley
- 51/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

violating the courthouse sanctuary rule, on behalf of wcso

deputy machen, whom hill sent to the 2/27/12 trial

3
4
5
6

regarding the richard hill traffic citations of 11/15/11 to


serve coughlin the ORder to show cause for the 3/23/12
Hearing in the richard hill eviction appeal in cv11-03628,

based upon a fraudulent motion to show cause and

declaration filed by Hill, his associate Casey Baker, and

Hill's trusy licensed contractor, NBI's Phil Stewart

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

to having been informed by the Washoe County Public Defender's Office of the Order for
Comptency Evaluation directed to Cogulin in RCR2012-065630 (the retaliatory "misuse of 911" custodial
arrest and prosecution incident to an arrest made by the same RPD Sargent Sifre, on 1/14/12, who ordered
Couglin arrested by then trainee Officer Wesley Leedy (whom applied excessive force to Coughlin, out of
the blue and prior to any sort of warning, along with another dishonorable and shameful RPD Officer Travis
Look, all captured on video tape as well (though Panel Chair ruled all of that inadmissible as well...though
that pending jaywalking prosecution was not ruled irrelevant or dismissed form King's Complaint.
Somehow, Chair Echeverria accepted Kings argument that video taping of events did not provide reliable
evidence of what happened...rather, having Richard Hill and the McGeorge Mafia come in an wrech shop on
a career of Coughlin's that was many years in the making (and all in Nevada mine you, from kingdergarten
through law school) (in February 2009 Elcano had admitted to Coughlin that he asked several judges,
including Master Edmonson and Judge Linda Gardner what they thought of Coughlin's work before them
and that both of those judges gave Coughlin a positive review....and at that time Elcano also stated that "and
Judge Linda Gardner owes me because I did a big, big favor for her a long time ago...so if she say's your all
right, then...". Elcano has also finally managed to get WLS's fingers in the pie that is the ECR program that
is partners with the Washoe County District Attorney's Office with in denying indigent criminal defendants
their Sixth Amendment Rights (an RMC Court appointed defender, Lew Taitel, was originally Coughlin's
appointed counsel in the Donnie and Marie conflict yet no recusal criminal trespass complaint signed by
- 52/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Richard Hill (whom also got Coughlin subject to a custodial arrest for "jaywalking" on January 12th, 2012,

incident to Hill lying to RPD Officers that Coughlin "has lost his appeal" (though the appeal was not decided

until 3/30/12...Further, Hill filed a Declaration on 1/20/12 in that appeal CV11-03628 which clearly contains

numerous lies when reviewing the video tape of that incident....and 61901 further provides video evidence of

the extent to which Richard G. Hill, Esq. is allowed to terrorize the citizenry of Washoe County with his lies

and Rambo litigation tactis, all with more than a little enabling by a cadre of local judges) and the court

appointed defender for Couglin (Keith Loomis, Esq., McGeorge SOL, Class of 1982) who has managed to

collect a paycheck while twice refusing to advocate on Coughlin's behalf (garnering two Orders granting his

withdrawal by RMC Judges, one, in the criminal trespass cases (61901) that Judge William Gardner refused

10

to recuse himself on, stemming from Richard G. Hill, Esq. lying to and with the police in 11 CR 26405, even

11

where Judge Gardner then had a pending grievance against Coughlin (NG12-0435, wherein Judge Nash

12

Holmes filed one on "behalf of all the RMC Judges, from whom you will have our full cooperation" and

13

assitance in carrying out a scheme to discredit and destroy Coughlin that they "planned out" "very carefully"

14

(Judge Nash Holmes lied during Coughlin's 11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing when she testified under oath that

15

she had (because of some unattributed hearsay that Panel Chair Echeverria would not let Coughlin ask

16

follow up questions on) "heard Coughlin likes to record things" and that upon her questioning about whether

17

he was recording the proceedings and or had a recording device Coughlin during that traffic ticket trial,

18

Holmes testified that Coughlin immediately grew very shitfy and uncomfortable and asked to be allowed to

19

use the restroom, whereupon Holmes ordered RMC Marshal Joel Harley to follow Coughlin into the

20

bathroom, whereupon Judge Nash Holmes testified that Marshal Harley witnessed Couglin disassembling a

21

recording device in the bathroom and leaving a portion of it in the bathroom, which the RMC Marshal

22

discovered later). One, that is a god damn lie. Coughlin did not disassemble anything in the bathroom.

23

Two, Judge Nash Holmes lied under oath when she testified that she asked Coughlin any questions

24

whatsoever about recording devices or recording the proceedings prior to the ONE restroom break that Judge

25

Nash Holmes allowed before she had Coughlin arrested for the "misdemeanor of criminal contempt...NRS

26

22.010" . Judge Nash Holmes lied during her sworn testimony in saying that the one restroom break came

27

AFTER she interrogated Coughlin about whether he had an recording devices or was recording . The

28

certified audio of the Trial clearly reveals there was one, and only one restroom break and that, clearly,
- 53/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Judge Nash Holmes asked Coughlin questions related to recording or having recording devices only AFTER

that one restroom break. Judge Nash Holmes clearly lied during her testimony in that regard, seeking to

rewrite the orders of events in an attempt to suggest that she interrogated Coughlin (sua sponte, of course, as

is her wont, wherein she mixes in her experiences as a prison warden type with her lifelong devotion to

being a prosecutor, wiretapping attorneys, etc., etc....ask Henry Sotelo, Esq., the RMC defender that says he

left the law for awhile completely given what a terrible taste was left in his mouth after working under her

while she was the Washoe County District Attorney in 1993-1996 or so...or ask the Washoe County Deputy

whom Coughlin overhead, during one of his several trips to the Courthouse (it wasn't Cummings, and it

wasn't the Hawaiian one, but it was the other one) reveal the extent to which he felt Judge Nash Holmes was

10

completely out of her mind and inordinately punitive, sentencing a youth whom she had the week previous

11

"put in some hug a thug program" to six months in jail following his reappearring before her one week later

12

after having bee arrested for "jaywalking". (As to her 2/28/12 and 3/12/12 Orders speaking to the

13

"contempt conviction" actually, Judge Nash Holmes just chose the most penal aspects of a variety of

14

criminal and civil contempts statutes, along with making a pastiche of theose sanctions requiring the least

15

due process attendant thereto, and also managaed to transmogrify the "simple traffic citation trial" into a full

16

blow Disciplinary Hearing, whereupon on February 12th, 2012, she took another bite at the apple (not

17

satisfied with her 2/28/12 Contempt Finding and Order of Sanctions or the fact that she and her Court

18

promised Coughlin's mother that her payng $100.00 would get Coughlin released one day early on the

19

unfathomable 5 day jail sentence she ordered to start immediately after Coughlin testified that "RPD Sargent

20

Tarter lied when he..." (BOOM...Coughlin didn't even get to finish his sentence...Judge Nash Holmes

21

immediately found Coughlin in contempt and had him cuffed, and laughed at the idea of granting any sort of

22

stay to allow Coughlin, then a licensed attorney, and opportunity to make arrangements for his client's

23

interests to avoid being prejudiced. Judge Kenneth Howard, (McGeorge SOL, '81), while noting that it

24

"saddened him" to think of the 3 day contempt incarceration that he himself ordered upon Coughlin to start

25

immediately following the 11/30/11 rendition of the conviction of petty larceny of a "candy bar and some

26

coughlin drops" (at the Wal-Mart that is on land rented from the Indian Colony, in an arrest made by tribal

27

police for a misdemeanor-Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino testified that neither he nor anyone with Wal-Mart

28

made a citizens arrest on 9/9/11 of Coughlin) that violated the law in that NRS 171.1255 forbids tribal police
- 54/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

from making arrests other than those for gross misdemeanors and felonies.

Michael Smily Rowe, Esq, a person whom Coughlin had indicated would invoked a conflict upon a showing

of sufficient connection thereto...)

13

SBN cLERK OF cOURT Laura Peters (the SBN has filed not proof of service of the
summons and complaint sufficient to satisfy SCR 109 in view of the representations made
by the State Bar of Nevada, including those by Laura Peters on the phone and in writing
to Coughlin and found in Peters Affidavit on file in this matter. The first alleged certified
mailing of 8/23/12 is not sufficient to show service where Peters herself (and this is
spoken to in her affidavit) represented that the SBN would not be attempting to use it to
proof service of any sort of the Complaint, but rather, Peters would send, soon after
September 11th, 2012 a certified mailing copy of the SCR 105 SBN v zach Coughlin
complaint to Coughlins SCR 79 address, and that the complaint would not be deemed
served or by the SBN, nor would the SBN attempt to represent in any way that it had
been served, until zach coughlin had signed the return receipt requested and or certified
letter signature card and it had been received by the SBN.
2. 11/14/12 hearing go forward, which it clearly should not, at least not in its current
unbifurcated, due process violating, unnoticed, no service of the 10/9/12 NOtice of INtent
to Take Default, no "at least 30 days" service of the Designation of Witness and Summary
of Evidence BY THE PANEL, NOT BY THE SBN, BAR COUNSEL, OR THE CLERK
OF THE SBN, under SCR 105(2)(c)

14

Herman v. Style Line Greetings, Inc., 289 So.2d 876

15

La.App.4.Cir.,1974Where eviction proceeding was taken under advisement and judgment

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

16

whom appears to be related to

of eviction was rendered on following day and out of presence of counsel, statute

17
18

providing that if court finds

19

lessor or owner entitled to relief sought, court shall render immediately a judgment of

20

eviction

21

ordering delivery of possession of premises to lessor or owner had not been complied with

22

and judgment was invalid. LSA-C.C.P. art. 4732.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Dear Bar Counsel and Panel Members,


Please find attached my Emergency Ex Parte Motion (perhaps not "ex parte" given Bar Counsel was
provided it). Also, please note, the October 9th, 2012 certificate of mailing by the SBN for the Notice of
Intent to Take Default was never served on me in any way shape or form until I received the copy of the
"entire" file form Sierra Legal Duplicating. The State Bar of Nevada knows this. They put the wrong postage
on the certified mail envelope containing the Notice of Intent to Take Default. When I went to pick it up
"Tim" USPS counter attendant at the Vassar Postal Station here in downtown Reno refused to allow me to
pick up that certified mailing given that is was about $5.00 deficient in postage. I did not have $5.00 and it is
not be responsibility to pay it, as far as I know. In fact, I have asked the Bar and this Panel to allow me to
- 55/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

27

proceed in forma pauperis in this matter, and am doing so again here (I am flat broke, I have a 1996 Honda
Accord, rent a room for $300 a month, have less than $200 in my bank account, no stocks, no bonds).
I have been mislead or lied to by the SBN in numerous ways in this proceeding. I was told I could issue
subpoenas despite being a suspended attorney (and there is case law that says even when suspended, one is
still an "attorney"). I was told I would not be required to pay subpoena fees. I was told the August 23rd, 2012
certified mailing would absolutely not be used to prove proof of service of the Complaint in this matter, SBN
v. Coughlin. Yet a review of the files reveals that the SBN and Panels only Return of Service (and see SBN
Ethics Committee Member Joseph Garin's recent Brief in 60302 seeking to dismiss my entire wrongful
termination lawsuit against Washoe Legal Services) for a real ironic example of just why the hearing on
November 14th, 2012 must not go forward. It is fraudulent for the State Bar of Nevada to stipulate with me
that the August 23rrd, 2012 certified mailing of the Complaint is alleges was sent and that Clerk of Court
Peters admits to having received back on September 10th, 2012 would never be cited to as effecting service
of the Complaint upon me or otherwise put forward as proof of return of service etc. Now the SBN seeks to
get around the inconvenient fact that, instead of holding my hearing on September 25th, 2012 (Clerk Peters
told me it was on the calendar, I was noticed of it in writing, I agreed to that date for the Hearing amongst a
choice of dates, etc..) Bar Counsel King attempted to shove a document he alleges was the Complaint in my
suit jacket, then persisted in ordering Clerk of Court Peters (whom King alternately claims to have
separation from and no authority over with ordering her not to file my Motion to Dismiss, attempting to
reneg on stipluations and representations made by the SBN, etc). Further, it is wrong for Clerk of Court
Peters to be signing the certificates of mailing for both the SBN and for the Panel Chair. Additionally, under
SCR 105(2)(c), it is the Panel that must send the Respondent the Notice of Hearing "at least 30 days" prior to
the Hearing date, and that Notice must include with it the Designation of Witnesses and Summary of
Evidence, and it must be served in the same manner as the Complaint. It is impermissible for Pat King to
attempt to mail out the Notice of the Hearing and Designation of Witnesses weeks before the Panel is even
announced (how can you possibly be pretending to take your duty as a Panel member seriously when you are
essentially showing up the day of the first game, skipping all the practices and pre-season games....we all
saw how that turned out for Bret Farve in his last season. It is appalling to me that you intend to hold this
hearing given these blatant violations of SCR 105(2)(c), but when you add to that the fraudulent conduct of
Pat King, in failing to amend his and or Clerk of Court Peters certificate of mailiing or return of service for
the purported certified mailing (and, contrary to the SBN's established practice detailed in the certificates of
mailing I have review upon finally being granted a copy of the "file", though, the rule says I get to go to the
SBN's offices and review certain things "up to three days"...not have Pat King and Laura Peters manufacture
some nonsense about why I am not allowed at the building or otherwise violating my rights (which is
something King and Peters do everytime they get caught violating the rules.) Further, I have been (and some
might say this was largely by design) jammed into having this Disciplinary Hearing on November 14th,
2012 in impermissible proximity to the petty larceny trial in rcr2011-063341 (see Montiero for why it is not
even appropriate for King to be seeking to force me to prejudice my defense in that matter) on November
19th, 2012, in Department 2, before Judge Sferrazza, whom presided over the summary eviction/unlawful
detainer "Trial" from my former home law office that the criminal trespass arrest, jaywalking arrest (King's
Complaint doesn't manage to specify that the January 12th, 2012 arrest was for jaywalking outside my
former home law office shortly after my collecting video evidence revealed the fraud attendant to Hill's
contractor havig used my own plywood to board up the back porch of the property....Hill, also, at that time,
went and got a TPO that was based largely upon an outright lie, ie, that I "climbed up on" the contractor Phil
Stewart's truck). I believe this Panel should review (I cannot affor the $35 to $70 for the video of the two
hearings on Hill's Motion for Order to Show Cause of January 20th, 2012 (the Order to Show Cause was
served by RMC Marsm hal Harley, despite what WCSO Deputy Machen said he personally served in his
affidavit (Machen also lied about personally serving the eviction lockout order for HIll, and HIll lied at the
trespass trial when he testified that Machen "posted it on the door becaues you ran away", Hill also lied at
trial when he alleged the Reno PD announced themselves as law enforcement and issued a lawful order to
emerge form the basement prior to the landlord kicking in the door, and Hill also lied about whether anyone
that day warned Coughlin to leave the property prior to Hill's signing the criminal complaint to affect a
custodial arrest for criminal trespass).
Additionally. I moved recently, and updated my SCR 79 address in compliance with that Supreme Court

28

Rule well within the 30 days of my moving. Further, I filed an official Change of Address with the USPS,

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

- 56/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

and that caused delays in receiving my mail incident to the typical forwarding procedures of the USPS, and I

have the yellow stickers on the envelopes to prove it. Further, besides submitting an official Change of

Address form to the Vassar Station on October 5th, 2012, Coughlin wrote the SBN on October 14th, 2012,

and provided his new 1471 E. 9th St. mailing and physical address, in addition to updating the online portal

and the NV CLE Board even prior to that, all in compliance with SCR 79.

"We nevertheless conclude that discipline orders appearing in the Nevada Lawyer may
be cited to this court for the limited purpose of providing examples of the discipline
imposed in similar fact situations. This approach has also been taken by several other
courts. n22
n22 See. e.g., Berman v. City of Daly City, 21 Cal. App. 4th 276, 26 Cal. Rptr, 2d 493,
496 n.5 (Ct. App. 1993); Marez v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 638 P.2d 286, 289 n.2 (Colo. 1981);
Manderfeld v. Krovitz, 539 N.W.2d 802, 807 n.3 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995): Leisure Hills of
Grand Rapids v. DHS, 480 N.W.2d 149, 151 n.3 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)." LAUB.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Then there is Judge Hardesty being a one of the three Justices signing the 6/7/12 Order that
temporarily suspended Coughlin's law license over a conviction for petty theft of "a candy bar and some
cough drops" (despite the recently reinstated Stephen R. Harris, Esq. not having a temporary suspension
even where he admitted to, upon being forced to by his wife law partner, misappropriating some $740,000
and using it on...(NVD Judge Beesley's, a Bankruptcy Judge in Federal Court who has a specialization in
"Creditor's Rights" listed on his contact page at www.nvbar.org, (McGeorge Law School class of 1979,
meaning he attended with Reno Municipal Court Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes name was supplmeneted to
the Designation of Witness by a November 7th, 2012 filing by Bar Counsel King...which means Couglhin
did not have much notice at all that Beesley would testify. Neither did, apparently, Judge Beesley, as, for
one testifying as to whether a man shoudl retain his law license and the Judge being willing to so weigh in
with definitive opinions (even where a multitude of conlficts of interests where present that should have
arguably precluded him from so doing under the canons of his profession....Nash Holmes/McGeorge
connection, Karen Sabo/Beesley Peck/Coughlin suing Washoe Legal Services/ Beesley close personal friend
of Elcano's angle) Judge Beesley sure didn't have much in the way of specifics to support his strong
opinions. IN fact, he seemed to trip up on things rather easily and wish to vague it all way when Coughlin
pressed for specifics. One thing that seems particularly untoward is the extent to which Judge Beelsey failed
to, in any way, mention the extremely noticeable filing (made accesible to all via the RECAP plugin on

28
- 57/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Firefox for those using Pacer, wherein Judge Beesley's McGeorge Class mate (they were one year apart and

are almost exactly the same age) Dorothy Nash Holmes illegally confiscating an pro se attorney defendant's

smart phone and micro sd data card, well after any period for her Marshals to conduct a "search incident to

arrest" and without any warrant or Order made available to Coughlin was mentioned and extensive

supporting documentation was provided for in the adversary proceeding 10-05104 Cadle Company v. Keller.

Further, Coughlin dispalyed a profound level of professionalism in connection with the John Gessin

adversary proceedings, particulary where Coughlin owned up to the extent to which the rules of court as

currently applied in the NVD make one attorney or record regardless of whether the agreement between

attorney and client is of an "unbundled services" nature, and regardless of Gessin himself telling Coughlin he

10

was monitoring the case on Pacer, did not want Coughlin to work any further on the case, etc.... Gessin soon

11

became Panel Member Shelly O'Neill's client.

12

Regardless, a review of Coughlin's filing in the three NVB cases wherein Coughlin practice before

13

Judge Beesley will reveal extremely comptenet work. Perhaps what Judge Beesley was unable to elucidate

14

specifically in support of his contentions (which, again, sought to accomplish through a leveraging of the

15

Coe Swobe/mental health care apparatus that which is not supportable through more straighforward means)

16

is that Judge Beesley's McGeorge SOL Class of 1977 class mate, RMC Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes'

17

extremely questionable conduct and rulings in RMC 11 TR 26800 on 2/27/12, 2/28/12, and 3/12/12

18

(resumption of Trial in spite of NRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010 and Holmes' own assessment of Coughlin's

19

"mental health" issues in both her 2/28/12 Order and here 3/12/12 ruminations rendered and subsequent

20

contradictory Order signed, in addition to the), 3/13/12 (various other orders by Judge Nash HOlmes, and

21

3/14/12 (grievance letter to SBN), and 10/4/12 (again, Judge Nash Holmes refuses to follow NRS 189.010-

22

050 in striking another attempt by Coughlin to have the fact that a summary contempt order is a final

23

appealable order, and therefore the RMC and Judge Nash Holmes, once again, are permitted to skirt the law

24

with respect to the Court, under NRS 189.030 being required to order the preparation of the criminal

25

appellant's transcript (and certainly, if Judge Nash Holmes wishes to issue a "misdemeanor of criminal

26

contempt" conviction in a summary fashion (based upon unattributed hearsay by "some Marshal" whom,

27

contrary to the dictates of NRS 22.030 did not have to sign an affidavit to have a contempt finding for

28

conduct allegedly occurring outside the presence of the court be consiered (good thing for Marshal Joel
- 58/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Harley...because either he is lying or Judge Nash Holmes is lying some more, specifically with respect to

this categorically false non-sense about Coughlin "disassembling a smart phone" or recording device in the

restroom and leaving part of it there (the implication being, given Judge Nash Holmes lies about the order of

her sua sponte interrogation of Coughlin regarding recording issues and Coughlin needing to use the

restroom-ie, Judge Nash Holmes lied, under oath, on 11/14/12 when she said Coughlin's request to use the

restroom came only AFTER she began her interrogation about recording or recording device...which, if

Chair Echeverria would have allowed Coughlin to enter the certified copy he had to have his mother buy for

him (becuase the RMC thrice rejected Coughlin's attempts to buy one himself, and in fact, Judge Nash

Holmes attempted to levy some unfathomable sanction or sua sponte disbarment about some piddly

10

nonsense related to Coughlin's filing of an in forma pauperis application (truly a low, even here...especially

11

where Judge Nash Holmes alternately writes bar counsel on 3/14/12 a greivance directed to Coughlin where

12

she mentions, via some unattributed hearsay (which seems to be a common theme running through Judge

13

Nash Holmes work) that ) using an Affidavit that was from November 22, 2011 in a March 2012 filing (IFP

14

Orders typically last 6 months, so....? And to whatever extent Judge Nash Holmes seeks to make Coughlin's

15

interlineating a different case number on that notarized IFP or Coughlin's adding "Request for Audio

16

Recording of Trial in 11 TR 26800" onto that IFP as tantamount to conduct supporting her desire to sua

17

sponte disbar Coughlin...welll...Coughlin wonders why that Hug-a-Thug program was not given more of a

18

chance before Judge Nash Holmes went all "six months in County for jaywalking" on him. Coughlin's

19

friend Geof Giles, Esq. (big ups to the Masjid here in Reno, including Rafik Beekun, a member of the

20

Muslim centers board of directors and everyone there who was so kind in giving Coughlin a place to go for

21

food and pleasant company, during their celebration of Ramadan, no less, incident to Coughlin attempting to

22

recover from the Leviathan wrath of the Reno Municipal Court and the McGeorge Mafia's, some might say,

23

"approach") may have said it best when he mentioned something about "the community college professors of

24

the legal landscape..."

25

Also Panel Chair Echeverria is running the Panel like a thug, basically. See WLS's attorney Joe

26

Garin's argument respecting Coughlin's right to insist on technical compliance with service rules....NOw

27

what that mean? It mean that the SBN and King and Peters do not get to put on testimony by Judge Beesley

28

and Elcano (even though lots of stuff was said by both that damages the SBN's case and only further drives
- 59/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

home the McGeorge Mafia meme, and the extent to which King and Echeverria cheerfuly defile any

conception of due process that might attache to a Dsiciplinary Hearing (to which they seem to drag along

Clerk Peters...what is she supposed to do? Get fired like Coughlin at WLS? See Caryn Sternlicht's approach

at the hearing on the Objection to Master Linda Gardner's Recommendations in the the Santiago v.

Vaxevanis TPO deal FV08-03380, where she filled in for Coughlin, whom took issue with then Master

Linda Gardner making Orders in TPO's where opposing counsel was Richard Molezzo, Esq., that purported

to rule on the title to vehicles...despite NRS 33.018 seeming to clearly lack any jurisdictional basis for her to

do so, particularly where the vehicle was being given to the accused abuser, and further where that Order

was seemingly later recharacterized as an "agreement"....uh, no. See a similar "this ORder is an agreement

10

so no appeals will be allowed from it, even the 12/26/12 one you filed, Coughlin" this summary eviction

11

"Trial" appeal (from which this 61383 atty fees of $42, 050 appeals stems...) incident to the 12/20/11

12

Hearing (six weeks late because Hill (but what about Casey Baker, Esq., who has absconded to Kentucky

13

and left Rich to face the music?) had to go on a six week vacation, a fact about which he claimed to be able

14

to control the RJC into not complying with NRS 40.253(7)-(8). Coughlin hereby asks this court to stop the

15

trial of 11/19/12 in rcr2011-063341 (the iphone case presided over by judge sferrazza, whom managed to

16

confiscate all of Coughlin's subpoenas on the auspices that Skau's fraudulently noticed ex part motion

17

provided sufficient grounds too...but then failed to return any of them to Coughlin in time to have them

18

served for the 11/19/12 hearing...and entered an Order that purports to take away from Coughlin the right to

19

have served subpoenas issued propertly under a reading that doesn't include the rendered order by Judge

20

SFerrazza of 10-/22/12 in 063341)...So, while Coughlin likes and respects Judge Sferrazza, he must recuse

21

himself from that continuation of Trial in 063341 on 11/19/12.

22

Also, both Echeverria and Pat King are seeking to take a page out of the Judge Nash Holmes

23

"Contempt Statute Pastiche Cookbook" to accomplish their nefarious aims, includign disobeying the

24

following authority by trying to "preserve for the record" and "admitting for the limited purpose of establish

25

Coughlin's "altering" a previously filed document, where Coughlin, in complete exasperation at Echeverria

26

demonstrating the highest possible level of evident impartiality in ruling irrelevant or not properly

27

authenticated every single thing Coughlin offered into evidence

28
- 60/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

As for Coughlin's inability to get Echeverria to admit anything into evidence for any purpose other than in

support of some Summary Disciplinary Hearing violation of the RPC that Echeverria sought to enter in an

Order in violation of Schaeffer (when Echeverria was not grimacing noticeably and telegraphing displeasure

to Coughlin at Coughlin mere mention of the mitigating quality of local law enforcement misconduct or that

of members of the judiciary or prosecution team...much less Echeverrias verbally suggest that Coughlin

forget about the permission to do so found in Laub and instead cease comparing his case to Stephen R.

Harris, Esq.'s (despite the ripe ground to consiering Judge Beesley's improprly notice (no signed green car

certifie dmailin in compliance with the requirements of SCR 109 considering Laura Peter's announcing of

the rules on September 11th, 2012 and subsequent indications of assent to electronic service by the nndb,

10

sbn, and panel, and declaration of the rules attendnat to the running of time vis a vis materials required

11

served under scr 109, incident to a certified mailing (ie, Peters announced the SBN and Panel would only

12

begin the running of such time periods upon the date on which Coughlin's signature was made on one of the

13

green certified mailin return receipt requested cards...and given the SBN can't show as much for the

14

Supplemental notice announcing the Designation fo Witnesses of Judge Beesley or WLS's Elcano

15

(Echeverria seemed to indicate he did not understand what Coughlin was referring to when Coughlin

16

suggested that given he was suing wls and elcano in 60302, and garin was elcano and wls's attorney of

17

record there, that questioning elcano may be tantamount to communications with represented parties (dollars

18

to donuts elcano has not told garin about this, and Coughlin didn't have the time to given the "jUdge

19

sferrazza auhtorize me to serve you notice of the ex parte emergency hearing to quash your subpoenas on

20

basis that judge sferrazzas himself seemed to approve your using in connection with utilizing such

21

subpoenas on 10/22/12 in rcr2011-063341" by Reno City Attorney Creig Skau (who, ironically sought to ex

22

part quash Coughlin's subpoenas based upon insufficiency of procedural rules compliance grounds even

23

where he was apparently lying about Jduge SFerrazza granting him the authority to serve Coughlin notice of

24

the hearing by email....and or of the 11/7/12 order by Judge sferazzaa. Local government really doesn't like

25

complying with subpoenas...just ask the SEcond Judicial District Court and WCDA's Office, whom

26

waitinged until 11/13/12 at 4:46 to even fax Coughlin notice of its intent to fail to appear at the 11/14/12

27

Disciplinary Hearing (despite the fact that the basis for such objections by Watts-Vial (and thats another

28

thing...is that the Watts-Vial whom is a 2nd Judicial judges staff member? Is the Judicial Assistant
- 61/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Townsend in the RMC connected to the Marshal Townshend? Is Sargent AVansino of the RSIC connected

to Dena Avansino? We know ecomm 911 dispatcher jessica duralde is married to rpd Nick Duralde, the

officer who effected the wrongful, admittedly retaliating "how's that?" arrest on 8/20/11 in rcr2011-063341

that started all this off....and that jessica duralde was on duty that day and that wcda jim leslie failed to

provide the materials or response from kelley odom and ecomm incident to the 10/3/12 subpoena he sent her

(Judge Sferrazzaoffering the scant time Coughlin's case in chief was accorded, which amount to 1/8th of the

total running time of the on the record portion of the proceedings (and the stoagie breaks "Boss Hog"

Echeverria (and his med mal background provides yet another specious connection to Elcano via the

"panopay" case Elcano constantly reminsces about...) grew more and more frequent once the Hearing turned

10

to the time allotted to Coughlin's case in chief...), a couple people name Cummings in the WCSO/WCDC,

11

ec., etc.

12

But as to King and Echeverria's attempt to make the Discipinary Hearing one where some summary

13

profssional conduct ORder may be issued (an allegation that coughlin "altered a previously filed document"

14

is so laughable from Echeverria where Coughlin is alleged to have scratch out and or notated his doing so a

15

file stamp on the 10/31/12 Pre Hearing Memorandum of Law, and interlineated that the document was now

16

being titled a "Declaration" or something similar in an exasperated attemtp to get somethign, anything, into

17

the record in that ng12-0204 case...Violations of professional conduct rules not charged in attorney

18

disciplinary complaint could not be considered by Supreme Court. In re Discipline of Schaefer, 2001, 25

19

P.3d 191, 117 Nev. 496, modified on denial of rehearing 31 P.3d 365, certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 1072, 534

20

U.S. 1131, 151 L.Ed.2d 974. So, if the SBN and Echeverria want to charge coughlin with some violation

21

there, it will require due process, and they must refrain from a Nash Holmsian transmogrification of one type

22

of proceeding into another type wholly unsupportable under the law (judge Nash Holmes sought to make a

23

traffic citation trial a full blown "Summary Disciplinary Proceeding" in 11 tr 26800, whereas Echeverria and

24

King seek to turn a Disciplinary Proceeding that they have rigged to cheat Coughlin out of every single due

25

process protection possible into a "Summary Disciplinary Proceeding"...which doesn't even exist in Nevada

26

law. a SCR 102(5)? maybe....but not a Summary Disciplinary Proceeding Order Finding Coughlin to have

27

"Altered" a Previously Filed Document just because Chair Echeverria was flummoxed by the ingenuity of

28

Coughlin in getting into the record all that stuff on the cd/dvd's and in the two different "Declarations" or
- 62/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

similarly titled submissions into evidence that had those cd/dvd's attached to them....(and the panel and nndb

and sbn's assent to electronic service makes required that the materials in the SkyDrive and via email

attachments, as well as the cd/dvd's Coughlin provided be included in the record on appeal).

4
5

Plus, it was wrong for Chair Echeverria to deny Coughlin the right to record the
11/14/12 Disciplinary Hearing and Couglin HEREBY PLACES THE STATE BAR OF

6
7

NEVADA, SUNSHINE REPORTING SERVICES, CAROL HUMMEL, LINDA SHAW,

PAT KING, LAURA PETERS, THE NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD

AND ITS PANEL ON NG12-0205 ET AL ON A LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Also, kind of odd that NVB Judge Beesley didn't mention the 3/30/12 (hey, thats the same date Judge
Flanagan dismissed Coughlin's appeal of the summary eviction /"Trial" from his former home law office...."
filing by Couglin in Cadle Company v. Keller wherein Coughlin attached as exhibits that pesky filing of a
notice of appeal by coughlin against the RMC and City ATtorney and Judge Nash HOlmes following his
release from 5 ays summary incarceration, no stay (though Judge Nash HOolmes sure does care about those
clients, to be sure, right? she wouldn't, nor would Jduge Howard, be seeking to get back at Coughlin more by
attempting to arrange greater damage theml;kjasdfl;

19
20
21
22
23
24

/It is categorically false for Judge Nash Holmes to assert, in the audio record on
3/12/12 the order of events and when she asked Coughlin her questions about
recording, considering when a restroom break took place an exactly what it is she
asked Couglin and when, and what his responses were, and when some allegations by

25

"the Marshal" were made, what they consisted of, etc.. on 3/12/12 in 11 tr 26800 the

26

audio transcript reads 7 minutes into the audio record the RMC provided the SBN:

27
28

Judge Nash Holmes (Nash): It appears to me in this case that the defendant is suffering from
some extreme form of mental illness. during the trial I asked the defendant attorney
repeatedly if he was recording the proceedings he denied that vehemently a few times and
- 63/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

then he quote took the fifth a few other times and then he requested to be excused to go to the
bathroom and the Marshal later reported to me that while the gentleman was in the
bathroom he disassembled a recording device in his pocket and took the memory out of it
and it was later found in that, uh, by the Marshal no one else had gone into the bathroom
and that was retrieved and it was put into his possession at the Sheriff's office and when they
booked him into jail for the contempt charge that was booked into evidence and I asked the
Sheriff's office to hold that into evidence. I believe he has violated Supreme Court Rule
229(2)(B) which was amended by ADKT 440, August 1st, 2011...."
One Coughlin did not do anything of the sort indicated by Judge Nash Holmes (by way of
unattributed hearsay, like her car sleeping allegations in her 3/14/12 letter re Coughlin to the SBN)
above.
NRS 178.405 should have prevented anything said or done by Judge Nash Holmes following her
statement at the 7 minute mark that "It appears to me in this case that the defendant is suffering
from some extreme form of mental illness." Further, that which Judge Nash Holmes had
communicated to her prior to the start of Trial on 2/27/12 in 11 tr 26800 needs to be testified to
under oath, rather than have Bar Counsel assert to half baked "can't ask the judge about her mental
processes" loophole, as he has done.

10
11
12
13

City Attorney Ormaas sure could be made to explain her statements on the record regarding
whether the citation or report in 11 tr 26800 contained any mention of retaliation, given she was
looking right at it and given what she said in court. Also, the whispering with Marshal Harley, and
the bits about Coughlin reporting to Ormaas what RPD OFficer Carter said to Coughlin in 61901,
and Ormaas's responses thereto on 2/27/12, and Dan Wong, ditto at an earlier hearing on that
matter...

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Simply put, there was no questioning by Judge Nash Holmes of Coughlin as to whether he was recording
anything or whether he possessed a "recording device" until AFTER the one and only restroom break Judge
Nash Holmes mentions on the audio record. And that sua sponte interrogation of Couglin occured
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RESTROOM BREAK, A BREAK IN WHICH JUDGE NASH HOLMES
REFUSED TO ALLOW COUGHLIN TO TAKE HIS YELLOW LEGAL PAD WITH HIM AND WHICH
OCCURED AFTER COUGHLIN MADE A VERBAL PRESERVATION ON THE RECORD OF THE
WHISPERING IN EACH OTHER'S EARS BY CITY ATTORNEY ALLISON ORMAAS AND
MARSHAL HARLEY (WHO SEEMED A BIT UPSET ABOUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
COUGHLIN ASKED THEM IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE TRIAL (DURING THAT PERIOD OF
TIME WHERE JUDGE NASH HOLME'S ASSISTANT INDICATED, ON THE RECORD IN ONE OF
THE OTHER CASES ON THAT STACKED DOCKET, THAT Judge Nash Holmes just couldn't be found,
and how odd that was...which is odd, considering what was going on in 11 cr 22176, 11 cr 26405 12 cr
00696 and 11 tr 26800, and rcr2012-065630 and rcr2011-063341 at the time (lots of reasons for and
indications that local law enforcement and prosecutors and public defenders were non too happy with
Coughlin...and consider the 2/24/12 email vacating the 2/27/12 status conference between young and dogan
that neither YOung nor Dogan wish to testify about...but which seems to have been held anyways after a
written communication of its being reset was transmitted to Coughlin by Dogan, wherein, during the time
Judge Nash Holmes couldn't be found (maybe she was at one of the group meetings amongst Judges about
Coughlin that RMC Administrative Judge William Gardner referenced on the record in 11 CR 26405?
Interesting the Notice of Appeal in 60302 was filed that same day too, 2/27/12) Dogan got his ORder for
Competency Evaluation of Coughlin in rcr2012-065630 (apparently in retaliation for Coughlin's filing of
2/21/12, and DDA Zach Young was still smarting from a filing by Coughlin of approximately 11/28/12,
which resultd in Young promptly amending his complaint in rcr2011-063341 to add a charge that was
duplicative, even where YOung failure to allege theft or possessing/receiving "from another' under Staab
makes his so charging Coughlin in that iPhone case a RPC 3.8 violation, which is YOung's specialty,
apparently. That, and violating NRs 178.405, which YOung did by filing in rcr2011-063341 with a stamp of
2:55pm a fugitive document of his own, an Opposition to Coughlin's or the WCPD Motion to Appear as
- 64/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2

CoCounsel on 2/27/12...nevermind YOung tried to hold a TRIAL on 5/7/12 in that case despite the Order
finding Coughlin competent in cr12-0376 didn't even get signed and entered until 5/9/12...ditto the Trial
seeting of 5/8/12 in RMC 11 cr 26405, the criminal trespass case. NOt much respect for nrs 178.405
(including within NRs 5.010) here in Northern nevada..

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Coughlin didn't received the 2/28/12 Contempt ORder in 11 tr 26800 until July 2012...but did file a Notice of
Appeal 3/7/12...despite "summary criminal contempt" being a final appealable order, Judge Nash HOlmes
continues to refuse to follow NRS 189.010-050 (so Coughlin has to type the transcript, yay....
It is true that contempt committed in a trial courtroom can under some circumstances be punished summarily
by the trial judge. See Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539 . But adjudication by a trial judge of a
contempt committed in his immediate presence in open court cannot be likened to the proceedings here. For
we held in the Oliver case that a person charged with contempt before a "one-man grand jury" could not be
summarily tried. [349 U.S. 133, 138] The power of a trial judge to punish for a contempt committed in his
immediate presence in open ... In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of Coughlin
violated in both 11 cr 22176 and 11 tr 26800, also orders no sufficiently detailed or capable of being known
how to comply with, not sufficient warning, violat Houston v Eighth Judicial District (Nev.).
See, this is why In Re Oliver and Cooke require all elements of "summary criminal contempt" occur " in the
"immediate presence" of the Court. Maybe Marshal Harley and some other Marshal have misled Judge
Nash HOlmes, or maybe something worse is going on here....but what Judge Nash HOlmes said on the
recording is entirely misleading an inaccurate, if not an outright lie (again, maybe not a lie by Judge Nash
Holmes, maybe she is repeating a lie, but regardless her reliance on unattributed hearsay is distrubing an
inappropriate, particulary where she not only purports to issue a "summary criminal contempt" conviction
against an attorney, but also where Judge Nash Holmes appears to try to transmogrify what she sees as "a
simple traffic citation trial" into a full blown SCR 105 disciplinary hearing where she is both Bar Counsel
and the Panel...That Marshal needs to sign an affidavit, under NRS 22.020 and Judge Nash HOlmes ought to
have to put something on the record, under oath, in response to Coughlin's recent subpoena (and SBN Pat
King wishes to let Judge Nash HOlmes phone in her testimony, and it probably won't even be sworn
testimony, but rather just some musings by Judge Nash Holmes purporting to make "rulings" finding "by
clear and convincing evidence" all sorts of things outside her jurisdiction) on 11/14/12, on, Partick O. King,
SBN Bar Counsel has also filed Motion to Quash the Subpoenas Coughlin attempted to have served on
Marshal Joel Harley, Marshal Deighton, Judge Nash HOlmes, Judge William Gardner, Judge Gardners
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wagner, who can't quite find the NOtice of Appeal Coughlin faxed to her
(allowable under the RMC Rules) on June 28th, 2012 in 11 CR 26405 (the appeal was dismissed under an
NRS 189.010 analysis by Judge Elliot, whom also got Coughlin appeal of the 11 cr 22176 conviction
resulting in this Court's 6/7/12 temporary suspension Order in cr11-2064, which was denied based upon a
civil preparation of transcript down payment rule, in that criminal appeal, where the RMC has a thing in
place with this Pam Longoni that violates Nevada law in that it refused to give Coughlin the audio cd of the
trial for some time, insisting only Longoni would be allowed to transcribe it, and that the transcript's
preparation would absolutely not start until a down payment was made. Plus, even where Coughlin caved to
the payment demands..Longoni repeatedly hung up the phone on him and otherwise ignored his
communications (there may be an issue of the email Longoni holding out to the public issuing a
"bounceback"...but she needs to sign an affidavit as to whether she put Coughlin on a blocked list, and upon
information and belief, Coughlin faxed his request to the number the RMC held out for her on her behalf
too...

26
27
28

In her March 14th, 2012 grievance against Coughlin to the SBN (now NG12-0434, and perhaps,
NG12-0435, depending upon whom you ask and what King means by "Clerk of Court"...because in King's
3/23/12 email to Coughlin he apparently identifies Ms. Marilyn Tognoni as "Clerk of Court of Department
- 65/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

3"...whoever, wouldn't it be Second Judicial District Court Clerk of Court Joey Orduna Hastings that would
need to send Family Court Judge Linda Gardner's April 2009 Order sanctioning Coughlin to the SBN's King
for King now apparent contention that the NG12-0435 "ghost grievance" consisting of Judge L. Gardner's
April 2009 Order was not filed by the RMC Judges? Oh, Clerk of Court Orduna Hastings? Do you have
anything to say about this? Judge Nash Holme's 3/14/12 grievance to bar counsel reads:
"

Re: Zachary Barker Coughlin, Nevada Bar No. 9473


Dear Mr. Clark:
This letter constitutes a formal complaint of attorney misconduct and/or disability against
Zachary Barker Coughlin. The accompanying box of materials demonstrates some of the problems
with the practice of this attorney being experienced by myself and the other three judges in Reno
Municipal Court. My two most recent Orders in what should be a simple traffic citation case are
self-explanatory and are included, together with copies of massive documents Me. Coughlin has
faxfiled to our court in this case. Audio recordings of two of my hearings in this matter are also
included. He failed to appear for the second one this past Monday.
I have another traffic case pending trial with him that was re-assigned to me based on our
Department I judge being out for surgery. We have multiple addresses for Mr. Coughlin and can't
seem to locate him between cases very easily. We are setting that case for trial and attempting to
th
serve him at the most recent address we have (1422 E. 9 St. #2 Reno NY 89512), although I
heard today he may be living in his vehicle somewhere. We do have an address for his mother,
however, as she recently posted part of a fine for him.
Judge Ken Howard, Department 4, had a case on Mr. Coughlin late last year that is now
on appeal to the Second Judicial District Court. Judge Bill Gardner, Department 2, also has a
matter currently pending in his court with Mr. Coughlin as the defendant. I have enclosed some
copies of documents from those matters, in chronological order, simply because they appear to
demonstrate that he is quickly decompensating in his mental status. Our staff also made you some
audio tapes of Coughlin in the him and him and him and him and him and him and him him and I
will him and him and him and him and him in Departments 2 and 4 so you can hear for yourself
how this attorney acts in court. You can see his behavior in my traffic citation case does not
appear to be an isolated incident.

21
22
23
24

It is my understanding that Reno Justice Court also has a matter pending on this attorney.
My Judicial Assistant was contacted by the Washoe Public Defender in February when I had Mr.
Coughlin jailed for Contempt of Court and they stated that they represent him in a Gross
Misdemeanor matter in RJC. I have no other information on that.

25
26
27
28

You will have the full cooperation of myself, the other judges, and the staff of Reno
Municipal Court in your pursuit of this matter. Mr. Coughlin has positioned himself as a vexatious
litigant in our court, antagonizing the staff and even our pro temp judges on the most simple
traffic and misdemeanor matters. I do think this is a case of some urgency, and I apologize for
- 66/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

taking two days to get this package to you; our IT person was ill and could not make the copies of
the audios of Mr. Coughlin's hearings until today, and I felt it was important that the audios be
included in the materials to be considered by the State Bar. On February 27, 2012, Mr. Coughlin
told me he was actively practicing law and had appointments with clients. [ do not know if that
was true, but if so, he could be causing serious harm to the practice of law in Northern Nevada
and could be jeopardizing someone's freedom or property interests. "

/Rule 120. Costs; bar counsel conflict or disqualification.


1.
An attorney subjected to discipline or seeking reinstatement under these rules may be assessed the costs, in
full or in part, of the proceeding, including, but not limited to, reporter's fees, investigation fees, bar counsel
and staff's salaries, witness expenses, service costs, publication costs, and any other fees or costs deemed
reasonable by the panel and allocable to the proceeding.
2.

If, for any reason, bar counsel is disqualified or has a conflict of interest, the board of
governors shall appoint an attorney, ad hoc, to act in the place of bar counsel.

12
13
14

Coughlin is truly severly indigent at this point and requests, to whatever

15

extent and IFP has not already been granted herein, and Order allowing him to

16

proceed In Forma Pauperis

17

http://sdrv.ms/Tt4dYf

18
19
20

Docket entry for the trial court matter this case was appealed form shows the impropriety of the Clerk of
Court dismissing the appeal for lack of paying a filing fee:

21

06-SEP-2012 04:55 PM $Notice/Appeal Supreme Court COUGHLIN, ZACHARY

22

Entry: APPEAL FEE PAID FOR THE 7-30-12 NOTICE OF APPEAL - IMAGE ATTACHED TO JULY

23

FILING

24
25

http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?
backto=P&case_id=CV11-03628&begin_date=&end_date=

26
27
28

06-SEP2012
04:55 PM

$Notice/Appeal Supreme Court

COUGHLIN, ZACHARY

- 67/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

APPEAL FEE PAID FOR THE 7-30-12 NOTICE OF APPEAL - IMAGE ATTACHED TO
JULY FILING

Entry:

2
3
4
5

06-SEP-2012
04:56 PM

**Payment Receipted

Entry:

A Payment of -$34.00 was made on receipt DCDC375290.

7
8
9

conclusion
please reinstate the appeal and or grant ifp status or provide time to submit a proper ifp as

10

bar counsel clearly is gunning for a Panel Order that entails Coughlin paying back this unconcionable

11

attorney fee award prior to reinstatement, and that is if Bar Counsel Pat King doesn't get his stated

12

wish to have Coughlin disbarred. Further, the District Court's 3/30/12 Order should be added to this

13

appeal given the circumstances, to whatever extent Coughlin failed to file a timely notice of appeal

14

thereto, as should the notice of appeal of the justice court's 12/21/11 Order Resolving Coughlin's

15

November 17th, 2011 Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien consdiering the RJC failed to file

16

stamp in Coughlin's timely 12/26/11 notice of appeal thereto in rjc rev2011-001708, as the rjc did in

17

another summary eviction from a commercial lease involving coughlin's former home law office in rjc

18

rev2012-000374...further RMC Judge Nash Holmes has similarly refused to follow the rules on

19

transmitting appeals in 11 TR 26800 ( a case whee Richard Hill had RMC Marshal Joel Harley violate

20

courthouse sanctuary doctrine where Harley personally served Coughlin notice of the 3/23/12 order to

21

show cause hearing in the district court appeal of this matter (and really, on October 19th, 2011,

22

Coughlin alreaqdy had a District court appeal in this matter in cv11-03126 or cv11-03051...thus

23

making void the entire appeal in cv11-03628, perhaps).

24
25
26
27
28
- 68/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030

1
2

The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the

3
4

social security number of any person. The assertions herein are made, pursuant to NRS

53.045 under penalty of perjry and based upon my first hand knowledge of these matters,

except to perhaps a very, very few aspects of a a very few assertions which are made upon

information and belief.

8
9

Dated this November 17th, 2012,

10
11
12

/s/ Zach Coughlin, signed


electronically
Zach Coughlin, Esq.

13

Appellant

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 69/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

Proof of Service:

1
2
3

On this date, I, Zach Coughlin electronically served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document to all registered efilers, and to those whom are not I placed a true and
correct copy of the foregoing document in the usps mail on this date:

4
5
6
7

Richard G. Hill, Esq.


Casey Baker, Esq.
Richard G. Hill, CHTD.
Attorneys for Respondent Merliss

652 Forrest St.

Reno, NV 89509

10
11
12

DATED THIS: Dated this November 17th, 2012


/s/ Zach Coughlin

13

Zach Coughlin

14

Appellant

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 70/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

INDEX TO EXHIBITS:

2
3

1. Exhibit 1: various relevant materials.

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
- 71/71 -

Notice of Improper Dismissal of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration or to Reinstate


Appeal, or Alter or Amend Judgement of Court Clerk

You might also like