Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • 2 3 12 CR11-2064 221176 To RCA Roberts Courtesy Copy of Audio of Trail Exhibit 1 To Supplement To Opposition To Motion To Dismiss

    Caricato da

    NevadaGadfly
    9 visualizzazioni1 pagina
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/225386547/2-23-12-RCA-Roberts-Answering-Brief-CR11-2064-22176-60838 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case ADDENDUM TO PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCR 111(10) COMES NOW, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN by and through his attorney, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby supplements his recent Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). FACTS: Coughlin was arrested on 9/9/11 and charged with the petit larceny of "a candy bar and cough drops" from a Walmart store. Coughlin applied for court appointed counsel, filing a sworn declaration of his indigency in a timely manner on 10/26/11 which attested to Coughlin then having a yearly income of $11,000, which easily met the presumptive indigency threshold of less than 200% the federal poverty guideline for a household of one. Further, Coughlin's "Application for Court Appointed Counsel" made clear that he had just been ordered summarily evicted the day prior to filing such application on October 26th, 2011. RMC Judge Kenneth Howard, the presiding judge in the matter, violated ADKT 411 in himself ruling on such application in his Order of 10/27/11 denying Coughlin court appointed counsel, as well as denying Coughlin a continuance or new trial date. Coughlin timely filed a Motion for New Trial which Judge Howard refused to adjudicate, indicating that Coughlin had not provided a basis for such. Coughlin timely filed a Notice of Appeal and ordered the transcript prepared by contacting the very transcriber the RMC insisted Coughlin must use. Coughlin attempted to make payment to such transcriber and she refused to accept such, and further refused to prepare the transcript. Coughlin apprised the RMC of all of this. District Court Judge Elliott entered on 1/5/12 an Order which made law of the case the fact that the “record on appeal” had already been filed, making any purported subsequent affirming of the ruling here based upon Coughlin’s alleged failure to (see 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC at page 911-913) “meet his burden in providing an adequate appellate record,” sufficient to required that “this Court must affirm the ruling of the Reno Municipal Court” clearly erroneously and patently misleading to boot: “ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE The record on appeal in the above-entitled matter having been filed with the Clerk of this Court on December 23, 2011; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant file and serve on Respondent an Opening Brief within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Opening Brief shall contain a statement of the errors committed in Reno Municipal Court, with accompanying authorities, and shall not exceed five pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file and serve on Appellant an Answering Brief, which shall not exceed five pages, within twenty (20) days after the filing date of Appellant's Opening Brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's failure to file an Opening Brief within the time limitation hereinabove stated shall be deemed an admission that the appeal was not well founded and shall constitute adequate grounds for dismissal of the appeal. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that upon the briefs having been filed, the matter should be submitted by Appellant pursuant to WDCR 12(4). This Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument. DATED this S day of January, 2012. /s/ Judge Steven P. Elliott" Coughlin pointed out that, due to Judge Howard’s announcing the last part of his decision at the close of trial on 11/30/11 out of the presence of one of the parties (the City Attorney), “Additionally, a Notice of Entry of Order here from the RMC is likely required given the Order was complete outside the presence of one of the parties (made in absentia), and therefore rendition of Order is like

    Titolo originale

    2 3 12 CR11-2064 221176 to RCA Roberts Courtesy Copy of Audio of Trail Exhibit 1 to Supplement to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/225386547/2-23-12-RCA-Roberts-Answering-Brief-CR11-2064-22176-60838 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case ADDENDUM TO PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCR 111(10) COMES NOW, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN by and through his attorney, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby supplements his recent Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). FACTS: Coughlin was arrested on 9/9/11 and charged with the petit larceny of "a candy bar and cough drops" from a Walmart store. Coughlin applied for court appointed counsel, filing a sworn declaration of his indigency in a timely manner on 10/26/11 which attested to Coughlin then having a yearly income of $11,000, which easily met the presumptive indigency threshold of less than 200% the federal poverty guideline for a household of one. Further, Coughlin's "Application for Court Appointed Counsel" made clear that he had just been ordered summarily evicted the day prior to filing such application on October 26th, 2011. RMC Judge Kenneth Howard, the presiding judge in the matter, violated ADKT 411 in himself ruling on such application in his Order of 10/27/11 denying Coughlin court appointed counsel, as well as denying Coughlin a continuance or new trial date. Coughlin timely filed a Motion for New Trial which Judge Howard refused to adjudicate, indicating that Coughlin had not provided a basis for such. Coughlin timely filed a Notice of Appeal and ordered the transcript prepared by contacting the very transcriber the RMC insisted Coughlin must use. Coughlin attempted to make payment to such transcriber and she refused to accept such, and further refused to prepare the transcript. Coughlin apprised the RMC of all of this. District Court Judge Elliott entered on 1/5/12 an Order which made law of the case the fact that the “record on appeal” had already been filed, making any purported subsequent affirming of the ruling here based upon Coughlin’s alleged failure to (see 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC at page 911-913) “meet his burden in providing an adequate appellate record,” sufficient to required that “this Court must affirm the ruling of the Reno Municipal Court” clearly erroneously and patently misleading to boot: “ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE The record on appeal in the above-entitled matter having been filed with the Clerk of this Court on December 23, 2011; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant file and serve on Respondent an Opening Brief within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Opening Brief shall contain a statement of the errors committed in Reno Municipal Court, with accompanying authorities, and shall not exceed five pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file and serve on Appellant an Answering Brief, which shall not exceed five pages, within twenty (20) days after the filing date of Appellant's Opening Brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's failure to file an Opening Brief within the time limitation hereinabove stated shall be deemed an admission that the appeal was not well founded and shall constitute adequate grounds for dismissal of the appeal. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that upon the briefs having been filed, the matter should be submitted by Appellant pursuant to WDCR 12(4). This Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument. DATED this S day of January, 2012. /s/ Judge Steven P. Elliott" Coughlin pointed out that, due to Judge Howard’s announcing the last part of his decision at the close of trial on 11/30/11 out of the presence of one of the parties (the City Attorney), “Additionally, a Notice of Entry of Order here from the RMC is likely required given the Order was complete outside the presence of one of the parties (made in absentia), and therefore rendition of Order is like

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    9 visualizzazioni1 pagina

    2 3 12 CR11-2064 221176 To RCA Roberts Courtesy Copy of Audio of Trail Exhibit 1 To Supplement To Opposition To Motion To Dismiss

    Caricato da

    NevadaGadfly
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/225386547/2-23-12-RCA-Roberts-Answering-Brief-CR11-2064-22176-60838 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case ADDENDUM TO PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCR 111(10) COMES NOW, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN by and through his attorney, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby supplements his recent Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). FACTS: Coughlin was arrested on 9/9/11 and charged with the petit larceny of "a candy bar and cough drops" from a Walmart store. Coughlin applied for court appointed counsel, filing a sworn declaration of his indigency in a timely manner on 10/26/11 which attested to Coughlin then having a yearly income of $11,000, which easily met the presumptive indigency threshold of less than 200% the federal poverty guideline for a household of one. Further, Coughlin's "Application for Court Appointed Counsel" made clear that he had just been ordered summarily evicted the day prior to filing such application on October 26th, 2011. RMC Judge Kenneth Howard, the presiding judge in the matter, violated ADKT 411 in himself ruling on such application in his Order of 10/27/11 denying Coughlin court appointed counsel, as well as denying Coughlin a continuance or new trial date. Coughlin timely filed a Motion for New Trial which Judge Howard refused to adjudicate, indicating that Coughlin had not provided a basis for such. Coughlin timely filed a Notice of Appeal and ordered the transcript prepared by contacting the very transcriber the RMC insisted Coughlin must use. Coughlin attempted to make payment to such transcriber and she refused to accept such, and further refused to prepare the transcript. Coughlin apprised the RMC of all of this. District Court Judge Elliott entered on 1/5/12 an Order which made law of the case the fact that the “record on appeal” had already been filed, making any purported subsequent affirming of the ruling here based upon Coughlin’s alleged failure to (see 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC at page 911-913) “meet his burden in providing an adequate appellate record,” sufficient to required that “this Court must affirm the ruling of the Reno Municipal Court” clearly erroneously and patently misleading to boot: “ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE The record on appeal in the above-entitled matter having been filed with the Clerk of this Court on December 23, 2011; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant file and serve on Respondent an Opening Brief within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Opening Brief shall contain a statement of the errors committed in Reno Municipal Court, with accompanying authorities, and shall not exceed five pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file and serve on Appellant an Answering Brief, which shall not exceed five pages, within twenty (20) days after the filing date of Appellant's Opening Brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's failure to file an Opening Brief within the time limitation hereinabove stated shall be deemed an admission that the appeal was not well founded and shall constitute adequate grounds for dismissal of the appeal. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that upon the briefs having been filed, the matter should be submitted by Appellant pursuant to WDCR 12(4). This Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument. DATED this S day of January, 2012. /s/ Judge Steven P. Elliott" Coughlin pointed out that, due to Judge Howard’s announcing the last part of his decision at the close of trial on 11/30/11 out of the presence of one of the parties (the City Attorney), “Additionally, a Notice of Entry of Order here from the RMC is likely required given the Order was complete outside the presence of one of the parties (made in absentia), and therefore rendition of Order is like

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 1

    5/20/2014 Gmail - courtesy copy of audio of trail exhibit 1 to Supplement to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=9ab12a5d52&view=pt&q=robertsp%40reno.gov&qs=true&search=query&msg=13542d1ff7cec9c4&siml=13542d1ff7c 1/1
    NevadaGadfly . <renoattorney@gmail.com>
    courtesy copy of audio of trail exhibit 1 to Supplement to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
    Inquire Within <renoattorney@gmail.com> Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:45 AM
    To: robertsp@reno.gov
    Dear Pamela,
    I got a new email address, here is that courtesy copy you requested. Incidentally, there were three City of Reno
    employees (two attorneys) attending a hearing I had today in RMC, not like appearing before the court, just
    chillin' in the gallery. Were they working, or just spectating while getting paid? Mr. Hazlett-Stevens lied to me
    when he said your office had not received anything from the RSIC in the days following the September 9th, 2011
    arrest. Mr. Hazlett-Stevens was there today, as he was at the November 30th, 2011 Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176,
    even after Judge Howard order everybody to leave the courtroom (not just prospective witnesses). Does Mr.
    Hazlett-Stevens have some sort of special privilege to remain in the courtroom in such situations? Of course,
    this is the same Christopher Hazlett-Stephens who lied to me when he informed me, in response to one of my
    numerous attempts to gather a police report and pc sheet incident to the September 9th, 2011 Wal-Mart arrest in
    this case on appeal, when he told me the Reno City Attorney's office had not received anything from the RSIC in
    the days following the September 9, 2011 arrest, and further that the Reno City Attorney's office would not receive
    anything until one month following the arrest, shortly after the October 10, 2011 arraignment. Of course, you
    provided me information proving that this wasn't true. Actually, you also provided me information proving that all
    the witnesses you offered lied, under penalty of perjury on the stand. I believe you have a duty to report that.
    You know, it is my understanding that the Reno City Attorney's Office will be defending the City of Reno, RPD
    Officers Duralde and Rosa, etc., etc. in the police misconduct lawsuit that Reno City Attorney's were made
    aware of several months ago. As such, it would seem your office has a conflict, no?
    Sincerely,
    Zach Coughlin
    Please note my new address:
    1422 E. 9th St. #2
    Reno, NV 89512
    tel:775 338 8118
    fax 949 667 6402
    5 attachments
    [MCFTRB]_20111130-1411_01ccaf6a0494da40.mp3
    4383K
    [MCFTRB]_20111130-1535_01ccaf75b2a405b0.mp3
    11416K
    [MCFTRB]_20111130-1851_01ccaf9108c022b0.mp3
    5K
    [MCFTRB]_20111130-1859_01ccaf9230703dd0.mp3
    4975K
    [MCFTRB]_20111130-2033_01ccaf9f451ed090.mp3
    215K

    Potrebbero piacerti anche