Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case No 12 CR 12420 21 Dept. 1: in The Municipal Court of The City of Reno County of Washoe, State of Nevada

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    8 views1 page
    Dear Ms. Rogers, The RMC has failed to provide three different audio transcripts in CR13-0011 that are not just relevant, as they are of material relevance. Such audio transcripts required by Judge Stiglich's 8/25/13 Order in CR13-0011 include the following dates: 7/5/12, 7/19/12, and 9/3/12. A review of the 8GB flash drive provided by the reveals that several dates are missing from those audio transcripts ordered by Judge Stiglich, which, obviously, has a material effect on Coughlin's ability to meet the deadline for filing his Opening Brief in CR13-0011, particularly where the 7/5/12 unnoticed emergency bail increase hearing, the 7/19/12 hearing, and the 9/3/12 trial date. It is particularly pathetic that the RMC has failed to transmit even a trail date from 9/3/12 where NRS 189.030(1) requires it to transmit the actual typed out transcript. Just thinking about all the corruption the RMC is infested with can make one physically ill and feeling like they need a shower. The RMC ruled Coughlin was indigent, so even former 2JDC Judge Elliott's fraudulent application of NRS 4.410(2) (in his 3/15/12 Order Affirming Ruling of the RMC in CR11-2064) fails to excuse this failure to abide by NRS 189.030(1) by the RMC. Additionally, despite RCA Chief Wong's fraudulent arguments in support of the RMC's criminal misconduct in failing to transmit Coughlins' fax filed Notice of Appeal of 6/28/12 in CR12-1262 (speaking of judicial economy...how much paper and ink has been sacrificed litigating that ridiculous display of graft by the RMC and RCA?), the RMC indeed did transmit a fax filed Notice of Appeal in RMC 12 CR 12420 (now on appeal in CR13-0011, as the docket in the 1/3/13 quasi-ROA filed by the RMC indicates: "21 DECEMBER 2012 Defendant faxed notice of appeal.". Regardless, the RMC and RCA Wong's fraudulent end run around NRS 178.589 is not legal: NRS 178.589  Use of facsimile machine. 1.  Except when personal service of a person is ordered by the court or required by specific statute, a person who is represented by an attorney may be lawfully served with any motion, notice or other legal document by means of a facsimile machine ... 5.  As used in this section: (a) “Facsimile machine” means a device that sends or receives a reproduction or facsimile of a document or photograph which is transmitted electronically or telephonically by telecommunications lines. (b) “Person” includes, without limitation, a government, governmental agency or political subdivision of a government." (Added to NRS by 1999, 51) Obviously, some might say, the RMC is a horrible money grubbing embarrassment to the judiciary in Nevada, along with the RJC: State v. Connery : 99 Nev. 342; Lewis v. State : 155 Miss. 810; State v. McMurphy : 291 Or. 782 (Admin order can't contradict statute like NRS 178.589 Which clearly allows for faxing); City of Spokane v. J-R Distributors, Inc. : 90 Wash.2D 722 (Admin Orders of RJC and RMC violated requirement that court rules must be uniform and general); Smith v. Love : 101 N.M. 355; Helbush v. Helbush : 209 Cal. 758; Ackerman v. Union & New Haven Trust Co. : 91 Conn. 500; Additionally, the RMC's conduct in regularly violatin RMC 5.075 Is another basis for revoking the City of Reno's ordinance self declaring the RMC as a "court of record"; the RJC's flat out refusing to allow Couglhin to even access dockets in his criminal cases violates NRS 4.230 And 4.240 (And the dockets in CR12-2025 are obviously violative of NRS 4.230); Note: Cf. Hill v. Sheriff, supra, and Stockton v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 94, 482 P.2D 285 (1971). Neither is it a case where the prosecutor willfully disregarded important procedural rules. Cr. Maes v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 317, 468 P.2D 332 (1970). Nor is this a case where the prosecutor exhibited a conscious indifference to rules of procedure affecting the accused's rights. Cf. State v. Austin, 87 Nev. 81, 482 P.2D 284 (1971). Downey v. Sheriff, Clark

    Original Title

    1 3 13 RMC Judge Dilworth's Notice of Appeal Filed in District Court Failing to State That Which NRS 189.030(1) Requires, Especially as to the Transmission of the Transcript CR13-0011 12 CR 12420 Appeal Proceedings 1048 067980

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Dear Ms. Rogers, The RMC has failed to provide three different audio transcripts in CR13-0011 that are not just relevant, as they are of material relevance. Such audio transcripts required by Judge Stiglich's 8/25/13 Order in CR13-0011 include the following dates: 7/5/12, 7/19/12, and 9/3/12. A review of the 8GB flash drive provided by the reveals that several dates are missing from those audio transcripts ordered by Judge Stiglich, which, obviously, has a material effect on Coughlin's ability to meet the deadline for filing his Opening Brief in CR13-0011, particularly where the 7/5/12 unnoticed emergency bail increase hearing, the 7/19/12 hearing, and the 9/3/12 trial date. It is particularly pathetic that the RMC has failed to transmit even a trail date from 9/3/12 where NRS 189.030(1) requires it to transmit the actual typed out transcript. Just thinking about all the corruption the RMC is infested with can make one physically ill and feeling like they need a shower. The RMC ruled Coughlin was indigent, so even former 2JDC Judge Elliott's fraudulent application of NRS 4.410(2) (in his 3/15/12 Order Affirming Ruling of the RMC in CR11-2064) fails to excuse this failure to abide by NRS 189.030(1) by the RMC. Additionally, despite RCA Chief Wong's fraudulent arguments in support of the RMC's criminal misconduct in failing to transmit Coughlins' fax filed Notice of Appeal of 6/28/12 in CR12-1262 (speaking of judicial economy...how much paper and ink has been sacrificed litigating that ridiculous display of graft by the RMC and RCA?), the RMC indeed did transmit a fax filed Notice of Appeal in RMC 12 CR 12420 (now on appeal in CR13-0011, as the docket in the 1/3/13 quasi-ROA filed by the RMC indicates: "21 DECEMBER 2012 Defendant faxed notice of appeal.". Regardless, the RMC and RCA Wong's fraudulent end run around NRS 178.589 is not legal: NRS 178.589  Use of facsimile machine. 1.  Except when personal service of a person is ordered by the court or required by specific statute, a person who is represented by an attorney may be lawfully served with any motion, notice or other legal document by means of a facsimile machine ... 5.  As used in this section: (a) “Facsimile machine” means a device that sends or receives a reproduction or facsimile of a document or photograph which is transmitted electronically or telephonically by telecommunications lines. (b) “Person” includes, without limitation, a government, governmental agency or political subdivision of a government." (Added to NRS by 1999, 51) Obviously, some might say, the RMC is a horrible money grubbing embarrassment to the judiciary in Nevada, along with the RJC: State v. Connery : 99 Nev. 342; Lewis v. State : 155 Miss. 810; State v. McMurphy : 291 Or. 782 (Admin order can't contradict statute like NRS 178.589 Which clearly allows for faxing); City of Spokane v. J-R Distributors, Inc. : 90 Wash.2D 722 (Admin Orders of RJC and RMC violated requirement that court rules must be uniform and general); Smith v. Love : 101 N.M. 355; Helbush v. Helbush : 209 Cal. 758; Ackerman v. Union & New Haven Trust Co. : 91 Conn. 500; Additionally, the RMC's conduct in regularly violatin RMC 5.075 Is another basis for revoking the City of Reno's ordinance self declaring the RMC as a "court of record"; the RJC's flat out refusing to allow Couglhin to even access dockets in his criminal cases violates NRS 4.230 And 4.240 (And the dockets in CR12-2025 are obviously violative of NRS 4.230); Note: Cf. Hill v. Sheriff, supra, and Stockton v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 94, 482 P.2D 285 (1971). Neither is it a case where the prosecutor willfully disregarded important procedural rules. Cr. Maes v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 317, 468 P.2D 332 (1970). Nor is this a case where the prosecutor exhibited a conscious indifference to rules of procedure affecting the accused's rights. Cf. State v. Austin, 87 Nev. 81, 482 P.2D 284 (1971). Downey v. Sheriff, Clark

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    8 views1 page

    Case No 12 CR 12420 21 Dept. 1: in The Municipal Court of The City of Reno County of Washoe, State of Nevada

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    Dear Ms. Rogers, The RMC has failed to provide three different audio transcripts in CR13-0011 that are not just relevant, as they are of material relevance. Such audio transcripts required by Judge Stiglich's 8/25/13 Order in CR13-0011 include the following dates: 7/5/12, 7/19/12, and 9/3/12. A review of the 8GB flash drive provided by the reveals that several dates are missing from those audio transcripts ordered by Judge Stiglich, which, obviously, has a material effect on Coughlin's ability to meet the deadline for filing his Opening Brief in CR13-0011, particularly where the 7/5/12 unnoticed emergency bail increase hearing, the 7/19/12 hearing, and the 9/3/12 trial date. It is particularly pathetic that the RMC has failed to transmit even a trail date from 9/3/12 where NRS 189.030(1) requires it to transmit the actual typed out transcript. Just thinking about all the corruption the RMC is infested with can make one physically ill and feeling like they need a shower. The RMC ruled Coughlin was indigent, so even former 2JDC Judge Elliott's fraudulent application of NRS 4.410(2) (in his 3/15/12 Order Affirming Ruling of the RMC in CR11-2064) fails to excuse this failure to abide by NRS 189.030(1) by the RMC. Additionally, despite RCA Chief Wong's fraudulent arguments in support of the RMC's criminal misconduct in failing to transmit Coughlins' fax filed Notice of Appeal of 6/28/12 in CR12-1262 (speaking of judicial economy...how much paper and ink has been sacrificed litigating that ridiculous display of graft by the RMC and RCA?), the RMC indeed did transmit a fax filed Notice of Appeal in RMC 12 CR 12420 (now on appeal in CR13-0011, as the docket in the 1/3/13 quasi-ROA filed by the RMC indicates: "21 DECEMBER 2012 Defendant faxed notice of appeal.". Regardless, the RMC and RCA Wong's fraudulent end run around NRS 178.589 is not legal: NRS 178.589  Use of facsimile machine. 1.  Except when personal service of a person is ordered by the court or required by specific statute, a person who is represented by an attorney may be lawfully served with any motion, notice or other legal document by means of a facsimile machine ... 5.  As used in this section: (a) “Facsimile machine” means a device that sends or receives a reproduction or facsimile of a document or photograph which is transmitted electronically or telephonically by telecommunications lines. (b) “Person” includes, without limitation, a government, governmental agency or political subdivision of a government." (Added to NRS by 1999, 51) Obviously, some might say, the RMC is a horrible money grubbing embarrassment to the judiciary in Nevada, along with the RJC: State v. Connery : 99 Nev. 342; Lewis v. State : 155 Miss. 810; State v. McMurphy : 291 Or. 782 (Admin order can't contradict statute like NRS 178.589 Which clearly allows for faxing); City of Spokane v. J-R Distributors, Inc. : 90 Wash.2D 722 (Admin Orders of RJC and RMC violated requirement that court rules must be uniform and general); Smith v. Love : 101 N.M. 355; Helbush v. Helbush : 209 Cal. 758; Ackerman v. Union & New Haven Trust Co. : 91 Conn. 500; Additionally, the RMC's conduct in regularly violatin RMC 5.075 Is another basis for revoking the City of Reno's ordinance self declaring the RMC as a "court of record"; the RJC's flat out refusing to allow Couglhin to even access dockets in his criminal cases violates NRS 4.230 And 4.240 (And the dockets in CR12-2025 are obviously violative of NRS 4.230); Note: Cf. Hill v. Sheriff, supra, and Stockton v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 94, 482 P.2D 285 (1971). Neither is it a case where the prosecutor willfully disregarded important procedural rules. Cr. Maes v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 317, 468 P.2D 332 (1970). Nor is this a case where the prosecutor exhibited a conscious indifference to rules of procedure affecting the accused's rights. Cf. State v. Austin, 87 Nev. 81, 482 P.2D 284 (1971). Downey v. Sheriff, Clark

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    1

    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    DISTRICT C
    TH,
    a
    UNO
    MCIALCOIT
    0 ..190
    An, N 15
    (1) J:U
    Case No 12 CR 12420 21
    Dept. 1
    IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO
    COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
    ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    CITY OF RENO,
    Respondent.
    1
    **********
    NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
    IN
    Comes now the above-named Court does hereby inform the Appellat in this matter
    that this case was fled in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for
    te County of Washoe, on the 3, day of January, 2013. The case number in District Court is
    CR13-0011.
    DATED this 3, day of January, 2013,
    cc:
    Deputy City Atorey
    Pam Longoni (fax)
    by:
    o JA Y, JUDGE
    ent One
    Court Clerk

    You might also like