Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 27 13 Doc 94 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part MSJ Bankr.D.nev. - 10-05104 - 94 - 0

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    6 views2 pages
    Dear Ms. Purdy, Please see the attached Order of 8/19/13 granting an eflex waiver in cv11-08196. Please accord the rejected filing the filing date associated with its original submission date. CV11-01955 and CV11-01896 are easily confused, as they both have a caption that consists of "Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services"...but 01955 adds to other co-defendants (CAAW and TWS (now CIS)). Judge Stiglich's 8/19/13 Order After Hearing seems to contemplate that when a party is granted IFP status (as Coughlin was in 01896 back on 8/9/11...though the RMC refused to accord Coughlin court appointed counsel on 10/26/11 and 12/15/11, despite 01896 being a civil case and the case on appeal/petition in CR11-2064 being a criminal case that ultimately took away Coughlin's law license), they ought automatically be granted an eflex waiver, at least as to that case (though collateral estoppel seems to apply everywhere the state or county ever needs it to). The filing in 01896 is somewhat of a "time is of the essence" quality, though Mr. Garin has failed to respond to my entreaties to seek clarification from WLS's Exec. Director as to just what he meant incident to his expounding upon "black people's brains" back in early 2009. It would be nice to have an opportunity to question WCDA Bruce Hahn about his knowledge of that as well considering Hahn sat on the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board (NNDB) Screening Panel in April 2012 that decided to put Coughlin and his family through this ridiculous, barbaric spectacle, largely based upon a 4/13/09 Order After Trial in DV08-01168 that was vacated by the 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce (so 2JDC Judge L. Gardner's vacated 4/13/09 Order After Trial was not only cited by Elcano as the sole reason for Coughlin's firing, but also formed one of the basis for the WCDA's Office's Hahn (whom clearly either knows not what a basis to disqualify himself from such an adjudicatory position would be (much like RJC Judge Hascheff, also a WLS Board of Directors member, whose finding that there was probable cause for the shameful 5/23/13 arrest of Coughlin (incident to RJC Bailiff John Reyes attacking Coughlin and throwing him over a bench) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMU_qWIwZbY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllvEBtk6C4 Of course, RJC Judge David Clifton ruled during the 9/24/13 status conference in that RCR2013-072675 case that Coughlin would not be afforded court appointed counsel (despite Clifton indicating Coughlin could so avail himself of the Sixth Amendment at the 6/19/13 status conference), and that Coughlin had somehow waived his right to a speedy trial incident to Clifton taking Coughlin's Motion to Proceed IFP/Application for Court Appointed Counsel On The Condition That Coughlin Be Permitted to Appear as Co-Counsel and Retain All Final Decision Making Authority As to Means, Tactics, Objectives and Any Other Matter and running with it sufficient to stick Coughlin was R. Bruce Lindsay as his sole counsel (though such appointment was not even made until, at the very earliest, 6/6/13) and Lindsay allegedly waiving such rights on Coughlin's behalf (despite the fact that Lindsay had already threatened to murder Coughlin, which Coughlin reported to the RJC. Of course, Clifton abused his contempt power some more at the 5/30/13 hearing in 072675 when he made more of hsi threats to have Coughlin gagged with the duct tape the RJC Bailiffs were brandishing upon Coughlin pointing out the flaws in Clifton's scheme to stick Coughlin with Lindsay again (where Lindsay was so instrumental in the RJC's fraudulent "musicial case numbers" approach to denying Coughlin any redress or review of its fraudulent 12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01, which Judge Pearson rebranded as a criminal case on 3/6/13 (assigning case number RCR2012-071437, in a display of a former prosecutor turned judge losing his judicial immunity where reverting to the prosecutorial role he formerly occupied as part of the execut

    Original Title

    9 27 13 Doc 94 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part MSJ Bankr.D.nev._10-05104_94_0 (1)

    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. Purdy, Please see the attached Order of 8/19/13 granting an eflex waiver in cv11-08196. Please accord the rejected filing the filing date associated with its original submission date. CV11-01955 and CV11-01896 are easily confused, as they both have a caption that consists of "Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services"...but 01955 adds to other co-defendants (CAAW and TWS (now CIS)). Judge Stiglich's 8/19/13 Order After Hearing seems to contemplate that when a party is granted IFP status (as Coughlin was in 01896 back on 8/9/11...though the RMC refused to accord Coughlin court appointed counsel on 10/26/11 and 12/15/11, despite 01896 being a civil case and the case on appeal/petition in CR11-2064 being a criminal case that ultimately took away Coughlin's law license), they ought automatically be granted an eflex waiver, at least as to that case (though collateral estoppel seems to apply everywhere the state or county ever needs it to). The filing in 01896 is somewhat of a "time is of the essence" quality, though Mr. Garin has failed to respond to my entreaties to seek clarification from WLS's Exec. Director as to just what he meant incident to his expounding upon "black people's brains" back in early 2009. It would be nice to have an opportunity to question WCDA Bruce Hahn about his knowledge of that as well considering Hahn sat on the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board (NNDB) Screening Panel in April 2012 that decided to put Coughlin and his family through this ridiculous, barbaric spectacle, largely based upon a 4/13/09 Order After Trial in DV08-01168 that was vacated by the 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce (so 2JDC Judge L. Gardner's vacated 4/13/09 Order After Trial was not only cited by Elcano as the sole reason for Coughlin's firing, but also formed one of the basis for the WCDA's Office's Hahn (whom clearly either knows not what a basis to disqualify himself from such an adjudicatory position would be (much like RJC Judge Hascheff, also a WLS Board of Directors member, whose finding that there was probable cause for the shameful 5/23/13 arrest of Coughlin (incident to RJC Bailiff John Reyes attacking Coughlin and throwing him over a bench) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMU_qWIwZbY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllvEBtk6C4 Of course, RJC Judge David Clifton ruled during the 9/24/13 status conference in that RCR2013-072675 case that Coughlin would not be afforded court appointed counsel (despite Clifton indicating Coughlin could so avail himself of the Sixth Amendment at the 6/19/13 status conference), and that Coughlin had somehow waived his right to a speedy trial incident to Clifton taking Coughlin's Motion to Proceed IFP/Application for Court Appointed Counsel On The Condition That Coughlin Be Permitted to Appear as Co-Counsel and Retain All Final Decision Making Authority As to Means, Tactics, Objectives and Any Other Matter and running with it sufficient to stick Coughlin was R. Bruce Lindsay as his sole counsel (though such appointment was not even made until, at the very earliest, 6/6/13) and Lindsay allegedly waiving such rights on Coughlin's behalf (despite the fact that Lindsay had already threatened to murder Coughlin, which Coughlin reported to the RJC. Of course, Clifton abused his contempt power some more at the 5/30/13 hearing in 072675 when he made more of hsi threats to have Coughlin gagged with the duct tape the RJC Bailiffs were brandishing upon Coughlin pointing out the flaws in Clifton's scheme to stick Coughlin with Lindsay again (where Lindsay was so instrumental in the RJC's fraudulent "musicial case numbers" approach to denying Coughlin any redress or review of its fraudulent 12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01, which Judge Pearson rebranded as a criminal case on 3/6/13 (assigning case number RCR2012-071437, in a display of a former prosecutor turned judge losing his judicial immunity where reverting to the prosecutorial role he formerly occupied as part of the execut

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    6 views2 pages

    9 27 13 Doc 94 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part MSJ Bankr.D.nev. - 10-05104 - 94 - 0

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    Dear Ms. Purdy, Please see the attached Order of 8/19/13 granting an eflex waiver in cv11-08196. Please accord the rejected filing the filing date associated with its original submission date. CV11-01955 and CV11-01896 are easily confused, as they both have a caption that consists of "Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services"...but 01955 adds to other co-defendants (CAAW and TWS (now CIS)). Judge Stiglich's 8/19/13 Order After Hearing seems to contemplate that when a party is granted IFP status (as Coughlin was in 01896 back on 8/9/11...though the RMC refused to accord Coughlin court appointed counsel on 10/26/11 and 12/15/11, despite 01896 being a civil case and the case on appeal/petition in CR11-2064 being a criminal case that ultimately took away Coughlin's law license), they ought automatically be granted an eflex waiver, at least as to that case (though collateral estoppel seems to apply everywhere the state or county ever needs it to). The filing in 01896 is somewhat of a "time is of the essence" quality, though Mr. Garin has failed to respond to my entreaties to seek clarification from WLS's Exec. Director as to just what he meant incident to his expounding upon "black people's brains" back in early 2009. It would be nice to have an opportunity to question WCDA Bruce Hahn about his knowledge of that as well considering Hahn sat on the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board (NNDB) Screening Panel in April 2012 that decided to put Coughlin and his family through this ridiculous, barbaric spectacle, largely based upon a 4/13/09 Order After Trial in DV08-01168 that was vacated by the 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce (so 2JDC Judge L. Gardner's vacated 4/13/09 Order After Trial was not only cited by Elcano as the sole reason for Coughlin's firing, but also formed one of the basis for the WCDA's Office's Hahn (whom clearly either knows not what a basis to disqualify himself from such an adjudicatory position would be (much like RJC Judge Hascheff, also a WLS Board of Directors member, whose finding that there was probable cause for the shameful 5/23/13 arrest of Coughlin (incident to RJC Bailiff John Reyes attacking Coughlin and throwing him over a bench) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMU_qWIwZbY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllvEBtk6C4 Of course, RJC Judge David Clifton ruled during the 9/24/13 status conference in that RCR2013-072675 case that Coughlin would not be afforded court appointed counsel (despite Clifton indicating Coughlin could so avail himself of the Sixth Amendment at the 6/19/13 status conference), and that Coughlin had somehow waived his right to a speedy trial incident to Clifton taking Coughlin's Motion to Proceed IFP/Application for Court Appointed Counsel On The Condition That Coughlin Be Permitted to Appear as Co-Counsel and Retain All Final Decision Making Authority As to Means, Tactics, Objectives and Any Other Matter and running with it sufficient to stick Coughlin was R. Bruce Lindsay as his sole counsel (though such appointment was not even made until, at the very earliest, 6/6/13) and Lindsay allegedly waiving such rights on Coughlin's behalf (despite the fact that Lindsay had already threatened to murder Coughlin, which Coughlin reported to the RJC. Of course, Clifton abused his contempt power some more at the 5/30/13 hearing in 072675 when he made more of hsi threats to have Coughlin gagged with the duct tape the RJC Bailiffs were brandishing upon Coughlin pointing out the flaws in Clifton's scheme to stick Coughlin with Lindsay again (where Lindsay was so instrumental in the RJC's fraudulent "musicial case numbers" approach to denying Coughlin any redress or review of its fraudulent 12/20/12 Administrative Order 2012-01, which Judge Pearson rebranded as a criminal case on 3/6/13 (assigning case number RCR2012-071437, in a display of a former prosecutor turned judge losing his judicial immunity where reverting to the prosecutorial role he formerly occupied as part of the execut

    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 2

    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














    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
    DISTRICT OF NEVADA


    In Re:

    ROBERT KELLER

    Debtor.



    THE CADLE COMPANY,

    Plaintiff,
    v.

    ROBERT KELLER,

    Defendant.



    Case No.: BK 10-52639-gwz
    Chapter 7

    Adversary Proceeding
    No. 10-05104-gwz

    ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
    DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS
    MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


    Hearing Date: April 24, 2013
    Hearing Time: 11:00 AM




    THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on Defendants Motion for Summary
    Judgment upon argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore:
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Entered on Docket
    September 27, 2013
    Case 10-05104-gwz Doc 94 Entered 09/27/13 15:32:45 Page 1 of 2

    2
    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

    IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants
    Motion to dismiss Plaintiff The Cadle Companys third claim for relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
    523(a)(10) is hereby granted. Defendants Motion is denied as to Plaintiffs other claims for relief.
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to participate in a judicial settlement
    conference to be scheduled at the Courts convenience.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Submitted By:
    s/ Michael P. ORourke
    Michael P. ORourke
    ORourke Law Group, PC
    2340 130
    th
    Avenue NE, Ste. D-150
    Bellevue, WA 98005
    (425) 869-4040

    In accordance with LR 9021, counsel submitting this document certifies as follows:
    ___ The court has waived the requirement set forth in LR 9021(b)(1).
    ___ No party appeared at the hearing or filed an objection to the motion.
    _X_ I have delivered a copy of this proposed order to all counsel who appeared at the hearing,
    and each has approved or disapproved the order, or failed to respond, as indicated below:
    Patricia Hadfield, Esq: Approved
    ___ I certify that this is a case under chapter 7 or 13, that I have served a copy of this order
    with the motion pursuant to LR 9014(g), and that no party has objected to the form or content of the
    order.
    ###

    Case 10-05104-gwz Doc 94 Entered 09/27/13 15:32:45 Page 2 of 2

    You might also like