3/17/13 Outlook Print Message

https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=f801db04-e41e-423a-be56-eceaac4af9c3,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 1/6
not trying to violate epo, good faith assertion that
acceptable or
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 1/24/13 1:50 AM
To:
je@eloreno.com (je@eloreno.com);
tsusich@nvdetr.org (tsusich@nvdetr.org); schornsby@nvdetr.org
(schornsby@nvdetr.org); mcole@nvdetr.org (mcole@nvdetr.org)
that epo as to my abilities to communicate for legitimate purpose such as
these, very limited, narrow, tailore, respectfully submitted.
Rule3.4.Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel.A lawyer shall not:
(a)Unlawfully obstruct another partys access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or
other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;
(b)Falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is
prohibited by law;
(c)Knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion
that no valid obligation exists;
this would be a very limited "open refusal" situation argument I am making as to any applicable restrictiosn upon sending
you anythign by any means other than the mail (which would seem to mean I can't even have a third party messenger
service deliver something.
Mr. King, you definitely represented to me on 10/15/12 at 3:4
Bar Counsel Patrick King, during a 10/15/11 conversation with Coughlin
at 4:21 pm during that conversation, King indicates that Hill had told him
that there was an Order of Eviction, Coughlin was evicted from the house,
landlrod Dr. Merliss came to visit the house, that there was some sort of a
door to a basement or something and he became suspicious that somebody
was... in the home so he called the cops, the cops showed up, they
refused...they suspect that you were in the house, you were ordered to
3/17/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=f801db04-e41e-423a-be56-eceaac4af9c3,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 2/6
come out...or whoever was in their was ordered to come out, the cops
refused to break the door down because they don't want to be liable for the
damages, so Dr. Merliss kicks the door down, and they find you in the
basement along with the dog, That's as much of the story as I've=
Coughlin: Okay now back up, you said before the door was kicked
down......Is it your understanding that the police identified themselves as
law enforcement?
King: I don't know what they say, I mean, usually they do because they don't
want to get shot. But, what would it matter in your case?
Coughlin: Did you ask anybody
King: No.
Coughlin: Why not?
King: Because. What would it matter in terms of a criminal trespass
conviction?
Coughlin: One, well one, an element of trespass is failure to leave after
being warned to do so.
King: I think that came from the being evicted part. Once you are evicted,
and you are escorted or told not to go on the property, then if you do, then
you are trespassing.
Coughlin: Once an eviction Order is served?
King: That's my undertanding.
Coughlin: Well, was it served?
King: I don't know.
Coughlin: Don't you have a duty to find out or investigate as Bar Counsel?...
(much less actually read the two different eviction orders and assess whether
any language therein amounts to an order not to be present ever at the
property (grandma can't get her mail for the week it takes the USPS to
process a change of address?)
As for Coughlin's contention that he was informed that, despite being an
attorney whose law license in Nevada is and was temporarily supended,
Couglin had or was given the ability to issue subpoenas and subpoena duces
tecums to compel testiony and production of documents without having
said subpoenas and duces tecums issued by the Clerk of Court or baring
any seal or embossing from the SBN Court. Here King also admits to
already knowing who the Panel Chair is or will be on 10/15/12 and indicates
his express intent to have numerous ex parte contacts on substantive
material issues with the Panel Chair including King's fraudulent attempt
(which were successful) to coerce Clerk of Court Peters out of abiding by her
3/17/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=f801db04-e41e-423a-be56-eceaac4af9c3,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 3/6
express declarations to Coughlin on 9/11/12 allowing him to fax filing and
indiating
"Coughlin: Do you guys have a docket I can see for the case?
King: You're and interesting
Upon Couglin askign King (who brazenly admits to repeated ex parte
contacts with the Panel and Chair) for an expression fo the rules as applied
to a pro se supended attorney respondent with respect to whether a
subpoena/s. Duces tecum need be issued by the Clerk of Court or bare a
seal or some embossed, or raised seal...King relayed this expression of the
rules as applicable to Coughlin's disciplinary hearing to Coughlin on October
15
th
, 2012 at 3:50 pm via the following dialogue:
King: Hello?
C: Hi, Mr. King, it's Zach Coughlin calling you back...
King: Okay, good. I checked with David Clark and he said Yes, you may
issue subpoenas, for this purpose, your're...your're a...a Respondent can do
it as well.
Coughlin: Okay, and so subpoena duces tecums as well, I assume?
King: Correct.
...
Coughlin: Okay, and you didn't realize that Judge William Gardner and Judge
Linda Gardner are brother and sister?
King: No.
Coughlin: Okay, and you realize Judge William Gardner is the one who
presided over the trespass conviction case?
King: I do now...if I looked at the Order I probably would have, yes...
During this conversation King also promised to and agree to provide the
names of the members of the Screening Panel that was held for this matter:
Coughlin: Can you telll me who was on that Screeing Panel? Do I have a right
to know that?
King: Yeah, absolutely.
Coughlin: You don't remember who was on that or have any recollection of
who it was?
King: No, not even one of them...it was people I don't know.
In that same conversation King confused a video of the RPD suggesting you
move on incident to the 1/12/12 custodial arrest for jaywalking with
Coughlin's contention that he was never warned to leave sufficient to
3/17/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=f801db04-e41e-423a-be56-eceaac4af9c3,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 4/6
support a criminal trespass arrest and prosecution on 11/13/12 (or at any
other time prior thereto given neither of the Eviction Orders are tantamount
to a trespass warning, nor was Coughlin personally served any such Orders,
nor had constructive notice been provide, and regardless, those Orders were
stale and void on a nubmer of basis, including the lockout not being done
within 24 hours of receipt of either Order by the WCSO, the RJC being
divested of jurisdiction by Coughlin filing a Notice of Appeal on 10/18/11 in
the trial court matter, and NRS 40.253(6) precluding Judge Sferrazza for
having a jurisdictional basis for either of his Orders following the 10/25/11
Trial (the 10/13/11 Order following the 10/13/11 summary eviction
proceeding specifrically, in writing, noticed the 10/25/11 court date as a
TRIAL, the holding of which was contingent upon Coughlin makign a rent
escrow deposit barred by Nevada law anyways...and further, uner JCRCP 109,
and Aikin, Coughlin was entitled to 20 days from service of a Complaint to
respond, much less be forced to appear and litigate a plenary Trial for
unlawful detainer, and regardless, any such Trial holdign would mean
Couglin should not be precluded form asserting counter and cross claims.
Judge Sferrazza basically picked teh least advanteageous aspects of a
summary possessory proceeding and plenary unlawful detainer Trials and
whipped them into one nasty concoction thoroughly destroying most of
Coughlin's existence...then topped it off by violating every last right Coughlin
had in the matter stemmign from the initial arrest of 8/20/11 related to the
iPhone. This pastiche of onerousness, culling the most virulent aspects of a
diverse cross section of laws was echoed by Judge Nash Holmes 2/27/12 and
3/12/12 Orders in 26800, where summary/plenary/civil/crminal/disciplinary
quasi-criminal quasi-civil laws were all cooked up
Rule110.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 documents as required by subpoena, or requested to
3/17/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=f801db04-e41e-423a-be56-eceaac4af9c3,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 5/6
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. (THAT MEANS SUSICH, NOT THE PANEL CHAIR)
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 chairs 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.
[Added; effective February 15, 1979; amended effective March 1, 2007.]
oh, and there is definitely a part to the conversation with Laura Peters of 9/11/12 where Couglin
expessly, specifically makes clear to her that he is not indicating one way or the other whether he
received the Complaint (that that actual receipt of the Complaint mattered much in 60302 when it
came to Elcano and Washoe Legal Services...parties are entitled to demand strict and actual
compliance with service rules vis a vis complaints.
will you please stipulate to the 5 day extension at least, and more preferably the 30 day extension?
may I finally be provided somethign in writing from each the SBN, SBN Clerk of Court, Panel Chair
and Chair of the NNDB representing the actual state of the law in this Disciplinary District under
SCR 105(5), please? i don't think it is acceptable to go throwin in page 216 in the ROA, nor is it
acceptable only mail Appeallant two of the three volumes.. How is it permissible to just place an
RJC TPO into the ROA in teh disciplinary matter? How is it okay to suddenly decide to put a
10/9/12 Affidavit of Laura Peters in the file where reodering the Alphabetical index according to
chronology reveals that Affidavit (which lacks a caption, and a proof of service, etc., etc)...there is
no division between the NNDBPANELSBNCLERKOFCOURTOBC....May I please have a file stamped
copy of the cover page and of the cd/dvds attached to the motion for new trial and the
supplment/amended mtn for new trial, etc.?
Is it that NNDB/panel/ and obc's psoition that motions for new trial are impermissible? does the
sbn /clerk of court have the authority to unilaterally not filethem in? (scr
Sincerely,
3/17/13 Outlook Print Message
https://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=f801db04-e41e-423a-be56-eceaac4af9c3,m&isSafe=false&FolderID=66666666-6666-6666-6666-6 6/6
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
7402 ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Zach has a file to share with you on SkyDrive. To view it, click the link below.
1 23 14 motion upon stipluation or good caus extension 62337.pdf