1

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

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin
NV Bar No: 9473 (temporarily suspended, see 62337, 60838)
1 471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 9496677402
zachCoughlin@hotn}ail
.
m

Pro Perlr

j
c
IN THE SECO J D C
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; STATE OF NEVADA

P4/- />>{(


4

t
|
.

DEPT

^ . A r I' O -

,
Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief and Exceed
Page Limitations
.
Coughlin fles this on his own behalf Due to the fact that the transcript ordered to
be prepared by this Court's 1/9/13 Order is not yet prepared, through no fault of

Coughlin's. Coughlin requests that the deadline for the fling of his Opening Brief be
extended out 60 day from the current deadline, or 30 days from the receipt by Couglhin of
.
the transcript upon it being prepared by Sunshine Litigation Services, and where svch
preparation shall included all of the following, for which Sunshine Litigation Services
shall be compensated for so preparing, at public expense, and where the RJC will need to
provide to Coughlin directly all JA VS recordings of any hearing or trial date in RCR2011-
-
1/24-
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
!66334$ >hich it has yet to pro:ide directly to Coughlin, including any sealed portions o;
such matters, including the ;ollo>ing *rial dates:
)A7A$ (including the sealed portion thereo;#, 7A$6A$, "A9A$ (including the sealed
portion thereo;#, 9A)A$ (including the sealed portion thereo;#, $$A$9A$, and $$A!A$&
+urther, the entirety o; the "A7A$ 1earing >herein Coughlin :oluntarily accepted the
plea ?argain o;;ered ?y the 'tate should ?e transcri?ed and the sealed portions thereo;
pro:ided to Coughlin&
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Coughlin here?y respect;ully seeCs (a;ter maCing ?est e;;orts to timely o?tain a
stipulation to such ;rom opposing counsel# an e,tension o; time ;or ;iling my opening
?rie; in C($<!) and ;or %;le, access or some other digital copy o; the materials on ;ile
in C($<!) and C($3<!6$) (the (4C, much liCe the (2/ o; $A6A$ in C($<!),
;ailed to pro:ide me a copy o; the 4A$6A$ (2/ in C($3<!6$)#& *he transcripts are not
done yet& +urther, 0 am not an e;iler in the 43C, 33/ 7oung is, as such, an un;air
ad:antage has ?een a;;orded him >here he has recei:ed electronic notices regarding ;iling
in C($<!), and 0 ha:e not, especially >ith respect to the spate o; recent ;ilings ?y the
(4C, including the 'upplementals o; 4A$6A$3 and the 4A6A$3 D*ranscriptsD (0 do not
?elie:e it is appropriate to seeC to ?urden me, my ;amily, and my career >ith a 'C(
$$$(6# con:iction, a real one, i; the County or (4C cannot manage to comply >ith the
$A9A$3 2rder ;or .reparation o; *ranscripts at .u?lic %,pense and actually produce
legitimate, certi;ied ?y a CC(, transcripts, >ith actual certi;ications s>orn to therein&
*he sealed transcripts that the (4C re;uses to release are integral to a num?er o;
appeala?le issues in this matter:
2rder o; hearing during insanity motions
8hen an attorney maCes a motion ;or determination as to >hether or not a criminal
de;endant is insane, a =arsden =otion must ?e heard ?e;ore the insanity hearing, Cno>n
as a section $36" hearing& .eople :& 'tanCe>itE held that although criminal proceedings
must ?e halted during a hearing ;or competency, a =arsden =otion is not a criminal
proceeding and must ?e heard ;irst& D1earing a =arsden motion during a competency
hearing does not reinstate criminal proceedings against the de;endant&DF$!G +rom .eople :&
'tanCe>itE&DF$$G <
D(8#hile the trial court may not proceed >ith the case against the de;endant ?e;ore it
determines his competence in a section $36" hearing, it may and indeed must promptly
consider a motion ;or su?stitution o; counsel >hen the right to e;;ecti:e assistance H>ould
?e su?stantially impaired@ i; his reBuest >ere ignored&
/ court re;using a =arsden =otion prior to a $36" hearing is a Iudicial error according to
.eople :& 'olorEano,
- A4 -
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
*he $A9A$3 2(3%( J(/N*0NJ 0N +2(=/ ./5.%(0' ?y 4udge %lliott in
C($<!), Coughlin su?mits, does include %;le, accessA;ee >ai:er, at least to that
criminal prosecution, and, as such, should e,tend to all other criminal matters >herein
Coughlin is an /ppellant or party ?e;ore 3epartment $!& Coughlin here?y seeC an 2rder
maCing that more clear to the %;le, sta;; and /ssistant ClerC o; Corut 8ise& +urther,
Coughlin reBuests some compensation at pu?lic e,pense ;or sel; representing, and or some
assignment o; co<counsel (not Bruce 6indsay#, ?ut Coughlin chooses to remain, at the
e,pense o; no such assignement o; co<counsel, his primary representati:e& *he $A9A$3
2rder, ;urther, allo>ed ;or Coughlin to utiliEe a court reporter o; his choosing, and he
con;irmed such >ith =rs& 1o>den o; 3epartment $!, and so directed 'unshine 6itigation
to undertaCe the preparation o; such transcripts, >hich it has ?een doing and remains
doing, ?ut the progress thereo; has ?een slo>ed ?y the (4C re;using to release the sealed
portions o; such transcripts, >hich is particularly pro?lematic since the sealed portions
in:ol:ing matters a?solutely essential to the appeal o; this case (ine;;ecti:e assistance o;
counsel, =ardsen =otion, competency issues, :iolations o; N(' $7"&4!) stay, 'tanCe>itE
considerations, etc&#& /dditionally, the (4C, despite an 0+. ?eing long on ;ile in the matter
in $$<!6334$, is no> re;using to release to Couglin the A4A$3 and A)A$3 hearing in $$<
!6334$, >here are o; essentail importance :is a :is appeala?le issues in ?oth C($<!)
and C($3<!6$4, ?ased upon some contention that the 0+. does not e,tend to such hearings
(there is an 0+. in ?oth the appeal and the trial court matter in $$<!6334$, and the (4C
ClerC@s ha:e taCen to typing out such re;usals to pro:ided such, lea:ing them unsigned and
unattri?uted#&
Coughlin here?y demonstrates that his motion ;or lea:e to ;ile an o:ersiEed ?rie;
demonstrate that the comple,ity o; the issues on appeal Iusti;y the reBuest& 'tate :& 8est,
$76 /riE& 43, "6 .&d $9 ($993# (o:erruled on other grounds ?y, 'tate :& (odrigueE,
$9 /riE& )", 96$ .&d $!!6 ($99"## (death penalty case#& ) +ed& (& 'er:& 3d )74 (9th
Cir& !!#& +leming :& County o; Kane, 'tate o; 0ll&, ")) +&d 496, $ +ed& (& 'er:& 3d
364 (7th Cir& $9""#&
*he issues in the instant appeal are Buite comple,, and e:en the incomplete Buasi<
transcript (uncerti;ied, etc# recently ;iled ?y the Iustice court is 6!! pages, and that ;ails to
inlcude Cey sealed protions o; the transcript a?solutely necessary to the =ardsen,
'tanCe>itE, and N(' $7"&4!) competency issues and ine;;ecti:e assistance o; counsel
analysis at issue here&
=atters at issue in those A4A$3 (a D>arrant arraignmentD ;or a >arrantless arrest
>here the docCet re:eals no acti:ely issued >arrant connected to such arrest or
araingmentD#, and the 2rder ;or Competency %:aluation and impermissi?le %, .arte
(econsideration =otion 1earing 'etting and accompanying :iolations o; the mandatory
stay under N(' $7"&4!) attendant thereto o; A)A$3 in ?oth $<!6)63! and $$<!6334$&
5pon consideration o; 3e;endant@s 3ecem?er $9, !$ /pplication to .roceed 0n
+orma .auperis, this Court ?elie:es that 3e;endant does not ha:e su;;icient income,
property or resources >ith >hich to commence and maintain the action& .ursuant to
Ne:ada 'upreme Court@s 2rder /3K* No&41, a person >ill ?e deemed indigent >ho is
una?le, >ithout su?stantial hardship to himsel; or his dependents, to o?tain competent
- 3A4 -
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
Buali;ied legal counsel on his o>n& *he Court ;inds that pursuant to N(' $7$&$"",
de;endant has insu;;icient assets andAor 0ncome to proceed a?sent a grant o; ;orma
pauperis status& /ccordingly, this =otion is granted& N28, *1%(% +2(%, 0* 0'
1%(%B7 2(3%(%3 that pursuant to N(' $7$&$"" de;endant is granted lea:e to proceed
in ;orma pauperis& 0* 0' +5(*1%( 2(3%(%3 that the Court allo> de;endant to ?ring
such action >ithout costs and ;ile or issue any necessary >rit, process, pleading or paper
>ithout
charge, >ith the e,ception o; Iury ;ees& 0* 0' +5(*1%( 2(3%(%3 that the 'heri;; or
any other appropriate o;;icer >ithin the state maCe personal ser:ice o; any necessary >rit,
process, pleading or paper >ithout charge ;or de;endant& 0* 0' +0N/667 2(3%(%3 that
the preparation o; the transcript ?e pro:ided at the pu?lic@s e,pense& 3/*%3 this 6 day o;
4anuary !$3&
0@ll trade the Buasi<transcripts ;or a Buasi<con:iction, dealL 2r, >e could ;ind a
>ay to get the deal 0 accepted on "A7A$ in court that disposed o; all three prosecutions
($$<!6334$, $<!6)63!, $<!679"!#& 0 realiEe 33/ 7oung gre> annoyed >ith >hat he
interpreted to ?e a lacC o; gratitude ;or >hat >as, admittedly, a :ery reasona?le plea deal&
0 apologiEe ;or that& =y only mitigating ;actor to assert relates to some o; the ;riction
?et>een my pu?lic de;ender and mysel;, >hich >as compounded ?y some issues >ith an
(4C Baili;;, >hom has ?een going through some tri?ulations o; his o>n since 'eptem?er
!$$, including a +V *.2, ?anCruptcy, and di:orce >ith children&&&D0@ll put my ?oot up
your assD he said to me on $!A"A$ >hile 0 >as seated ne,t to 8C.3 6eslie&&&he has on
numerous occasions re;used to accept my ;ilings ;or incredi?ly du?ious reasons
(presenting si, minutes prior to ) pm, 0 do not ?elie:e, entitles a Baili;; to unilaterally alter
the terms o; the $A!A$ D/dministrati:e 2rder !$<!$&&&see >hat some might :ie> as
an encroachment upon your e,ecuti:e ;unction ?y the Iudiciary in (C(!$3<
!7$437#&&&especially on dates >here N(' $7)&)$) or $"9&!$! deadlines are ;alling&
+urther, 0 don@t ?elie:e it is appropriate ;or such Baili;; to ?e e,orting me, sarcastically, to
DtaCe your medicationD, or to sho:e his ;orearm in my midsection in the 3/' cu?icle in
some attempted to more authoritati:ely :iolate the courthouse sanctuary ruleAimmunity
a;;orded to litigants and attorney@s ;rom ser:ice >hile attending court, >here attempting to
ser:e a 'BN *.2 that is inordinately suspect, especially >hen :ie>ed in conIunction >ith
33/ 8atts<Vial@s $$A$3A$ ;a, regarding the su?poenas that the 43C 4udges and
Custodians o; (ecords ;ailed to respond to incident to 33/ 8atts<Vial@s instructions&
*his is especially true >here 'C( $$! is controlling, not N(C. 4) (and regardless,
Coughlin is and >as DauthoriEed to practiceD in the disciplinary hearing setting, and >as
and is Dan attorneyD#, and >here 'C( $$!(3#<(4# maCe clear that Iurisdiction to rule on
=otions to Muash such su?poenas resides only >ith the NN3B Chairman, not the .anel
Chair (see 33/ 8atts<Vial@s reliance upon such a :oid ;or lacC o; Iurisdiction $$A7A$
2rder ?y .anel Chair %che:erria that did not e:en mention the 43C su?poenas&
+urther, it is not entirely clear >hy 33/ 8atts<Vial >as apparently the attorney
assigned to respond to the su?poenas o; $!A3$A$ on the 43C 4udges and Custodian o;
(ecords, ?ut, apparently, not ;or the $!A3!A$ su?poenas on (4C Court /dminstrator
'te:e *uttle and Chie; Ci:il ClerC Karen 'tancil, and the (4C Custodian o; (ecords&
- 4A4 -
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
.erhaps the (4C ;ailed to in;orm the e,ecuti:e ?ranch o; such mattersL 2r, perhaps, the
Iudicial ?ranch has autonomy to handle such matters as it sees ;it&
/dditionally, the e,tremely close temporal connection ?et>een Couglhin@s A$A$3
email to the 8C3/@s 2;;ice and the N(' $7$&$36 :iolating >arrantless arrest a;ter 7 pm
in Coughlin@s o>n home ?y the 3epartment o; /lternati:e 'entencing, is trou?ling&
Coughlin appealed the 3A$$A$3 2rder in (C(!$3<!7$437, and (C($$<!6334$
(+urther, the A$A$3 arrest >as not, contrary to a su?seBuent assertion, ?ased upon some
;ailure to get a mental health e:aluation done, and there >as no acti:e >arrant incident to
any such allegation at the time o; the A$A$3 arrest#&
8hether the Ddistur?ancesD in the (4C Criminal 3i:ision +iling 2;;ice o;;ered as a
?asis ;or depri:ing Coughlin, >ith no notice or opportunity to ?e heard, o; his li?erty right
to access the ;iling o;;ice >as connected to some allegations in:ol:ing the same (4C
Baili;; re;erenced a?o:e purporting to ser:e Coughlin the a 2rder or *.2, is unclear, as
the (4C ;ailed to comply >ith N(' &!3!(#@s reBuirement that any such conduct not
occurring in the Dimmediate :ie> and presence o; the courtD ?e set out in an a;;ida:it&
+urther, some glo?al resolution >ould certainly resol:e some o; the issues related
to the alternate court appointed la>yer, Bruce 6indsay@s representations to Coughlin that
all three criminal prosecutions (the pro?ation :iolation in $$<!6334$, the appeal in C($<
!), and (C($<!679"!, and (C($<!6)63!# as >ell as >hiche:er case num?er the
D/dministrati:e 2rder !$<!$D and accompanying A)A$3 2rder to 'ho> Cause therein
had ?een met >ith an agreement ?y the 8C3/@s 2;;ice to glo?ally resol:e all such in a
manner >herein Coughlin >ould ha:e no 'C( $$$(6# con:ictions in the (4C& /s it stands
no>, Coughlin >as sold a certain ?ill o; goods >hich has not materialiEed, particularly
>ith respect to the t>o 'C( $$$(6# con:ictions (o; $$A!A$ in (C($$<!6334$, no> on
appeal in C($<!), and on, apparently, o; 4A3A$3 in (C($<!6)63! (Couglhin has not
?een ser:ed any such D4udgment o; Con:ictionD listed on the docCet therein#, no> on
appeal in C($3<!6$4#&
+urther, >ith respect to the N(C. 7&!")AN(C. $$ implication in the *.2A%.2
o?tained in D8ashoe County : Zachary CoughlinD, (C.!$<!!!)99, there are a num?er
o; Iurisdictional prereBuisites that >ere not su;;icient to support such an application& 2ne,
6eslie is the one >hom signed the :eri;ication on page " o; the mandatory ;orm& 'uch is
not allo>a?le under N(' 33&7! >here 6eslie, necessarily, is one o; those the orders seeC
to protect& 0t must ?e one@s employer, >hich means (to >hate:er e,tent the 8C.3 is an
Dindependent contractor, not>ithstanding# 8ashoe County >ould ?e reBuired to ;ile such
application, >hich means the 8C3/@s 2;;ice >as reBuired to ;ile such& 0ts
understanda?le, gi:en the con;lict analysis sure to ensue, >hy 8C3/ 33/ 8atts<Vial
chose not to sign the :eri;ication or ;ile the pleading as an attorney representing a client&
1o>e:er, >here such *.2 application in )99 seeCs an order o; protection as to
(the caption listing D8ashoe CountyD, rather than the 8C.3, not>ithstanding# an entity
(>hich is not actually permissi?le under N(' 33&)!&&&# the DemployerD o; said entity is
- )A4 -
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
not as listed in the application, D8ashoe County .u?lic 3e;ender@s 2;;iceD, ?ut rather, the
8C.3@s 2;;ice@s DemployerD is D8ashoe CountyD&
/dditionally, the ;ailure o; 8C.3 6eslie to accurately ans>er the Buestions o;
.age 4 o; 6 in that $A$"A$ *.2 /pplication are trou?ling, particularly >here 6eslie and
the 8C.3 >here a?solutely a>are (made so in >riting, as >as the 8C3/@s 2;;ice# o;
(ichard J& 1ill, %sB&@s *.2 against Coughlin on $A$A$ in (C.$<!!!!$" (such
?ecoming an issue in the Dmisuse o; 9$$ ser:icesD trial in (C($<!6)63!#, and the =ilan
Kre?s *.2 against Coughlin (the (.3 certainly >as ?usy sho:ing *.2 applications
against Coughlin in a :ariety o; ;aces these past couple years# (C.!$<!!!"7 (such
;ailure ?y 6eslie to procure and pro:ide to Coughlin the 4/V' recording o; the hearing o;
"A)A$ therein ?ecoming a real point o; contention&&&>hich is all the more connected to the
8C3/@s 2;;ice, 8C'2@s, (4C, and 8C.3 gi:en the >rong;ul e:iction in (4C$<
!!$!4", and concomitant arrest on the same date as the locCout order >as ?eing
>rong;ully e;;ected, in :iolation o; 'oldal, on 6A"A$ in (C($<!679"!#&
+urther, ?oth 6eslie and the 8C3/@s 2;;icer >ere made a>are, in >riting, o; the
*.2 Couglin ;iled against an (4C Baili;; in !$, and that Couglin mo:ed ;or one in
Court against 8C.3 6eslie himsel; on 9A)A$&
+urther, 6eslie@s ans>er to the ;irst Buestion on page 6 o that $A$"A$ application is
pro?lematic, especially considering the caption in that case (C.$<)99&&&its as i; the
8C.3 and 8C3/@s 2;;ice and D8ashoe CountyD Ceep picCing and choosing >hich
entity is the DemployerD :ersus the party seeCing protection, and
*hat Buestion reads: D1a:e there ?een any other court actions or any other relationship
?et>een the employer and the /d:erse .artyLD 6eslie@s ans>er is completely misleading
and unaccepta?le >here the DemployerD (see the caption listing D8ashoe CountyD rather
than D8ashoe County .u?lic 3e;enderD# is D8ashoe CountyD, >hich has, ?een in:ol:ed in
a :erirty o; other Dcourt actionsD in:ol:ing the D/d:erse .artyD, >ell ?eyond 6eslie@s
misleading indication o;: D/ttorney<cleint see %,h& $D& 'uch a misleading ans>er is
particularly :iolati:e o; (.C 3&$, 3&3, and 3&4 >here the D(elie; (eBuestD >as so
completely onerous and o:er<reaching >here these DpartiesD necessarily still had Buite a
?it o; ?usiness le;t ?et>een each other (including a multitude o; disco:ery issues and other
matters addressing the apparent contempt incident to the 43C, 8C.3@s 2;;ice, 8C'2,
(4C, and 8C3/@s 2;;ice ;ailure to comply >ith Coughlin@s Dla>;ully issuedD su?poenas
in NJ$<!!4, etc&, not to mention the ;act that 8C.3@s 6eslie idea o; turning o:er a
Dclient@s ;ileD is >oe;ully inadeBuate, etc&D
8C.3 6eslie@s D3eclarationD on page 6 o; 6 o; that $A$"A$ *.2 /pplication is ;urther
demonstrati:e o; his o>n pro;essional misconduct >here he purports to ?e Dthe employerD
o; D8ashoe CountyD or the DauthoriEed agentD, especially >here N(' 33&7! prohi?its the
person seeCing the 8orCplace 1arassment order o; protection ;rom ;iling ;or such on his
o>n ?ehal;& /dd to this the ;act that the Iurisdictional prereBuisite o; a security ?ond >as
not posted (the docCet is prima ;acie e:idence o; ;act, there >as no >ai:er thereo;, such is
statutorily (per the /2C# at a minimum N$!! (and the A"A$3 arrest ?y (.3 3etecti:e
- 6A4 -
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
7tru?ide and su?seBuent negligent in incorrect o:ercharging o; a N(' !!&)9$ D'talCingD
*.2 ()99 is a di;;erent ?reed, the D8orCplace 1arassmentD :ariety, >ith a :iolation
thereo; in:ol:ing a DmisdemeanorD under N(' $93, as clearly indicated in ?old on page $
o; such $A$"A$ 2rder, maCing the ;act that 7tru?id@s >i;e, 4ody, and another 7tru?ide
>orC ;or %C2==A9$$ 3ispatch particularly trou?ling considering the ?ene;it inuring to
the 'tate@s prosecution in (C($<!6)63! (the misuse o; 9$$ case# upon Coughlin ?eing
arrested on A"A$3 (the (.3 came out to Coughlin@s home o;;ice, and trespassed into the
?acC yard >ith their guns dro>n, pointing such as Coughlin@s head ;rom ;our ;eet a>ay
prior to issuing e:en a single command or >arning# >here the trial in !6)63! >as set to
continue, and perhaps conclude on A)A$3 (>ait, that >as made more disorienting ?y the
suspicious A$A$3 3/' summary >arrantless pro?ation :iolation arrest incident to the
du?ious allegation that the (4C Baili;;@s >aiting Iust long enough, on $A3A$3 ?e;ore
DescortingD Coughlin to the 3/' checC<in, ;or 3/' to close its doors, despite such posted
hours ending at 3 pm and Coughlin presenting to security at :)4 pm (made all the more
pro?lematic ?y the ;act that the $A!A$ /dministrati:e 2rder !$<!$ ?y 4udge
';erraEEa does not apply to areas, such as the 3/' checC in cu?icle (there are a separate
department 4udge .earson ultimately concluded# not under the De,clusi:e controlD o; the
(4C#&&&especially >here 8C'2 'argent Jreg 1errera has sent >ritten correspondence to
Cmmeyer->ashoecounty&us and others (including the 2lympiC 'ecurity courthouse
detail# that ha:e order the 2lympiC 'ecurity personnel to announce to Couglin an DorderD
that he must >ait ;or an DescortD e:en >here :enturing to areas not under the De,culsi:e
controlD o; either the (=C or (4C, and as such, not >ithin the pur:ie> o; either o; the
D/dministrati:e 2rdersD entered in those courts >ith respect to Coughlin&
*hen there is >itness (.3 NicC 3uralde@s >i;e, 4essica 3uralde also ?eing an %C2==
dispatcher&&&%C2== 3ispatcher 4odi 7tru?ide@s hus?and (.3 3etecti:e 7tur?ide
ordering Coughlin@s arrest on A"A$3 on the e:en o; the A$A$3 trial date in (C(!$<
!6)63!&&&Coughlin@s ?eing taCen o;; his medication ?y Iail sta;; incident to the A$A$3 to
A)A$3 incarceration resulting ;rom the e,tremely du?ious and N(' $7$&$36 :iolating
3/' >arrantless pro?ation :iolation arrest a;ter 7 pm o; A$A$3 (around $ hours a;ter
Coughlin@s email to the 8C3/@s 2;;ice#, and again ?et>een A"A$3 and A9A$3&&&then
Coughlin ?eing sentenced summarily to ) days incarceration on A$3A$3 ?y ;ormer
8C3/@s 2;;ice prosecutor no> (4C 4udge Cli;ton in $<!6)63! ;or ?eing thirty minutes
late to court (oddly, 6indsay ?eing t>enty minutes late to court on 3A$$A$3 did not result in
his incarceration in $$<!6334$, $3<!7$437#, >here the (4Carranged to ha:e, >ho else,
Bruce 6indsay purport to pro:ide Coughlin some representation at the summary criminal
contempt hearing on A$3A$3 ;or >hich Coughlin >as pro:ided no notice o;, no
consultation >ith 6indsay ?e;ore hand, etc& etc&&#&
+urther, the *.2 /pplication in )99 ;ails to Dincorporate ?y re;erenceD the D'ummaryD
(>hich is unsigned, and argua?ly not e:en attri?uted# in D%,hi?it $D (especially >here
+orm 4<Continuation .age is reBuired to ?e utiliEed and >here the %,hi?it 6eslie did
attach ;ails to contain any o; the reBuired language therein speci;ically asserting that such
matters attested therein are Dto ?e incorporated ?y re;erenceD into the 6 page D+orm B<3
/pplication ;or *emporary 2rder ;or .rotection /gainst harassment in the 8orCplaceD in
(4C (C.$<)99&
- 7A4 -
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
6astly, it is not appropriate ;or the (4C@s Cathy 8ood to ?e transcri?ing the 4/V'
recordings, much less DsigningD them DCathy 8&D& 0ts a transcript in a court o; la>, not a
*<=o?ile representati:e notation on one@s cell phone accounts records&

8C'2 'argent 1errera sent, in an email o; 4A$)A$3 at $:3" .= a message >hich included
the ;ollo>ing:
*2: Cmmeyer->ashoecounty&us,>mullen->ashoecounty&us,
Ialgeo->ashoecounty&us, Cseely->ashoecounty&us
D=r& Coughlin needs to ?e stopped at screening at ?oth ?uildings and escorted to his
destination due to his current ?eha:ior& Court control needs to ?e noti;ied so they can
attempt to monitor his presence and maCe noti;ications& 8e >ill continue the practice o;
noti;ying the (eno 4ustice Court Baili;;@s, the (eno =unicipal Court =arshals, 3/
0n:estigators, and 3epartment o; /lternati:e 'entencing so that they &&&&D&
'argent 1errera ordered the 2lympiC 'ecurity court house security detail to carry out the
a?o:e directi:es, and so communicate such to Coughlin&
0 respect;ully reBuest that this Cour consider >hether there ha:e ?een some
unCno>n ;actors at play in some o; the less than smooth sailing seen at times, and >hether
there might ?e some opportunity to amica?ly resol:e these matters&
/dditionally, 3epartment $! should not ha:e ?een assigned this case ?y >ay o; an
incorrect assignement o; C($$<!64, gi:en that 6C(:
- "A4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(uleO&OOCase assignment&OO%ach criminal action shall ?e randomly assigned to a
department o; the court and shall remain in such department until ;inal disposition o; the
action, unless:
(a#Othe action is ?rought against a de;endant >ho is the su?Iect o; another pending or
prior action in this court, in >hich case the action shall ?e assigned to the department o;
the most recent other action9 or
(?#Oas other>ise ordered ?y the chie; Iudge consistent >ith a plan o; court>ide case
management
Comment:OO*o the e,tent possi?le, cases in:ol:ing a de;endant >ho is the su?Iect o;
another case in this district shall ?e assigned to the department o; the other case&
2ther>ise, cases shall ?e randomly assigned&
CV$$<!3$6 >as a prior acting Pin this courtQ, meaning 3epartement 4 >as Pthe most
recentQ, and gi:en not contrary order >as e:er made ?y the chie; Iudge (com?ined >ith
the con;lict inherent to 4udge %lliott sitting on C//8@s %,ecuti:e Board and presiding
o:er CV$$<!$9))&
6C( (uleO$!&OOContinuances&
(a#O*he timing o; proceedings as directed ?y the court at the initial appearance shall
not ?e enlarged e,cept upon a sho>ing o; good cause&
(?#O'tipulations or reBuests ;or the continuance o; any proceeding shall ?e in >riting,
signed ?y counsel and the de;endant, and su?mitted to the court as soon as practica?le ?ut
in no e:ent later than 4:!! p&m& on the Iudicial day immediately preceding the e:ent& *he
- 9A4 -
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
court may >ai:e the signature o; the de;endant pro:ided counsel certi;ies he or she has
o?tained the consent o; the de;endant to the continuance&
Comment:OOContinuances o; any criminal proceeding are not ;a:ored, ?ut, i; reBuested,
shall ?e presented to the court under the terms o; this rule
/ =arsden motion is the only means ?y >hich a criminal de;endant can ;ire a court<
appointed attorney or communicate directly >ith a Iudge in a Cali;ornia state court&F$G 0t is
?ased on a de;endant@s claim that the attorney is pro:iding ine;;ecti:e assistance or has a
con;lict >ith the de;endant& *he name comes ;rom the case .eople :& =arsden& /
de;endant is reBuired to Cno> to maCe a challenge o; ine;;ecti:e assistance o; counsel, and
maCe one, or the claim o; ine;;ecti:e assistance o; counsel or the issue cannot ?e raised on
appeal& *here is no reBuirement to noti;y a de;endant o; such a reBuirement& / criminal
de;endant cannot simply ;ire a court<appointed attorney& *he trial Iudge has discretion
>hether or not to appoint ne> counsel on reBuest o; the de;endant& / =arsden motion is a
uniBue means ?y >hich a criminal de;endant can communicate >ith the court& 'ince a
criminal de;endant is represented ?y counsel, he or she cannot other>ise communicate
>ith the court e,cept through his or her counsel& 'ince that counsel@s competency or a?ility
to >orC >ith the de;endant is ?eing challenged, the attorney cannot at the same time
de;end against and represent the de;endant@s claims o; incompetency or con;lict& 'o the
Cali;ornia courts allo> a de;endant represented ?y court<appointed counsel to directly
communicate >ith the trial Iudge in the conte,t o; a =arsden motion, and only in such a
conte,t& / =arsden motion is a ;ormal reBuest made ?y a criminal de;endant to the court&
*he court hears arguments on the motion ;rom the de;endant and the attorney, >ithout the
presence o; the prosecutor& *he ?asis ;or maCing the motion may ?e inadeBuate or
- $!A4 -
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
incompetent assistance o; counsel, legal malpractice, or ?ecause there is a con;lict ?et>een
attorney and client that su?stantially inter;eres >ith the attorney representing the client&
*he de;endant must esta?lish either that the representation has ?een inadeBuate, or that a
con;lict maCes it liCely that it >ill ?e inadeBuate&FGF3G 0n the case o; a denial o; the
motion, the standard o; re:ie> is a?use o; discretion& Contents FhideG $ %ssential
%lements $&$ Con;lict ?et>een client and attorney $& 0nadeBuacy o; representation
=arsden case 3 /ssociated cases 3&$ (ight to Counsel 3& 0ncompetent assistance o;
counsel 3&3 Con;lict >ith attorney 4 .rocedure o; hearing =arsden =otion 4&$ .resence o;
prosecutor 4& 1o> a criminal de;endant can ;ile a =arsden =otion 4&3 2rder o; hearing
during insanity motions 4&4 .resentation o; e:idence 4&4&$ 8itnesses 4&4& 3ocument
su?poenas 4&) .aper trail ) (e;erences FeditG%ssential %lements FeditGCon;lict ?et>een
client and attorney *he language o; the =arsden decision contains the su;;icient criterion
that attorney and de;endant are Dem?roiled in such an irreconcila?le con;lict that
ine;;ecti:e representation@ is liCely to result&DF4G FeditG0nadeBuacy o; representation
FeditG=arsden case 0n $96", 3e;endant =ichael 4ohn =arsden >as charged and con:icted
o; crimes in Cali;ornia& =arsden appealed the con:iction& *he only stated ?asis o; the
appeal >as that he >as denied his constitutional right to counsel ?ecause o; his counsel
>as ine;;ecti:e& /t trial, =arsden complained that his attorney >as not adeBuately
representing him ?e;ore his trial& =arsden asCed the court to appoint another attorney& *he
Iudge re;used to listen to the speci;ic e,amples =arsden tried to tell the Iudge& =arsden
>as con:icted& =arsden appealed& *he appeals court ;ound that the Iudge must consider
speci;ic e,amples o; inadeBuate representation ?e;ore deciding >hether or not to appoint a
ne> attorney ;or a criminal de;endant& =arsden reBuested that his attorney ?e remo:ed
- $$A4 -
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
?e;ore his trial& =arsden told the trial Iudge that he >as recei:ing inadeBuate
representation ;rom the attorney& =arsden o;;ered to gi:e the court speci;ic e,amples& *he
court >ould not let =arsden gi:e the speci;ic e,amples& *he court denied the motion to
ha:e =arsdenRs attorney remo:ed& 0n his appeal, =arsden contended that this denial
>ithout gi:ing him an opportunity to list speci;ic e,amples o; inadeBuate representation
depri:ed him o; a ;air trial& 0n its opinion, the appellate court cited the case o; Jideon :&
8ainright as esta?lishing that criminal de;endants >ho cannot a;;ord counsel are entitled
under the constitution to ha:e the court appoint an attorney to ?e paid ;or ?y the
go:ernment&F)G 0t held that this did not gi:e a de;endant the right to hire and ;ire attorneys
?eyond this appointment, and le;t it >ith the trial court to esta?lish >hether or not there is
adeBuate assistance& 0n other >ords, the court has discretion as to >hether to remo:e an
attorney, not the de;endant& 1o>e:er, the appellate court ;ound that in =arsdenRs case, the
trial court could not ha:e properly e,ercised its discretion >ithout allo>ing =arsden to
speci;y instances o; inadeBuate representation& *he court ;ound that critical in;ormation
a?out the adeBuacy o; representation may not ?e in the court records ?ecause o; that
inadeBuacy, so a de;endant must ha:e a right to speci;y them, and they must ?e inBuired
into ?y the court& FeditG/ssociated cases =arsden =otion appeals ha:e cited associated
cases rele:ant to application o; the =arsden decision& FeditG(ight to Counsel 0n Jideon :&
8ainright, it >as determined that a criminal de;endant >ho cannot a;;ord an attorney is
entitled to ha:e a court appoint an attorney, and the go:ernment must pay ;or the attorney&
Jedeon >as one o; the ?ases ;or the =arsden decision& FeditG0ncompetent assistance o;
counsel FeditGCon;lict >ith attorney 0n 'chell :& 8iteC, 0t >as ;ound that ;orcing a
criminal de;endant to go to trial >ith an irreconcila?le con;lict >ith his or her attorney
- $A4 -
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
>ould depri:e them o; the e;;ecti:e assistance o; counsel&F6GF7G %:en >hen counsel is
;ound to ?e competent, it has ?een ;ound that a con;lict ?et>een counsel and de;endant
that cannot ?e resol:ed >ould create a situation >here the de;endant is ?eing denied the
right to counsel& 0n 3aniels V& 8ood;ord, it >as ;ound that >hen a court re;uses to appoint
ne> counsel a;ter a de;endant has completely lost trust in their attorney, that de;endant is
there?y e;;ecti:ely there?y constructi:ely denied any counsel >hatsoe:er, D%:en i; trial
counsel is competent, a serious ?reaCdo>n in communications can result in an inadeBuate
de;ense&D F"GF9G FeditG.rocedure o; hearing =arsden =otion FeditG.resence o; prosecutor
/ prosecutor may not ?e present during a court hearing on a =arsden =otion& FeditG1o> a
criminal de;endant can ;ile a =arsden =otion Because a criminal de;endant ;iling a
=arsden =otion is represented ?y counsel, he or she cannot directly communicate >ith
the court& FeditG2rder o; hearing during insanity motions 8hen an attorney maCes a
motion ;or determination as to >hether or not a criminal de;endant is insane, a =arsden
=otion must ?e heard ?e;ore the insanity hearing, Cno>n as a section $36" hearing&
.eople :& 'tanCe>itE held that although criminal proceedings must ?e halted during a
hearing ;or competency, a =arsden =otion is not a criminal proceeding and must ?e heard
;irst& D1earing a =arsden motion during a competency hearing does not reinstate criminal
proceedings against the de;endant&DF$!G +rom .eople :& 'tanCe>itE&DF$$G < D(8#hile the
trial court may not proceed >ith the case against the de;endant ?e;ore it determines his
competence in a section $36" hearing, it may and indeed must promptly consider a motion
;or su?stitution o; counsel >hen the right to e;;ecti:e assistance H>ould ?e su?stantially
impaired@ i; his reBuest >ere ignored& / court re;using a =arsden =otion prior to a $36"
hearing is a Iudicial error according to .eople :& 'olorEano, ho>e:er, a su?seBuent appeal
- $3A4 -
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
court decision in People v. Govea did not consider such error to be prejudicial, and did not
reverse a conviction, fnding that "there was no prejudicial Marsden error" .[12]
[edit]Presentation of evidence A defendant may present evidence in support of his or her
Marsden Motion. [edit]Witnesses [edit]Document subpoenas [edit]Paper trail Defendants
making Marsden Motions are often advised by advocates to create a clear paper trail. This
is because the court often gives more credibility to attoreys than to criminal defendants,
and a successful Marsden Motion automatically triggers[ citation needed] a state Bar
investigtion. Aram James, a former public defender and watchdog of abuses by the public
defender, who teaches defendants and their families how to fle a Marsden Motion,
emphasises creation of a paper trail as essential to the success of the motion prior to trial,
or to basing an appeal on the denial of the motion. [edit]References / "... a Marsden
motion, which is the official way to fire an attorey. Although a judge can deny the
motion, and chances are he would, this would in effect, allow Karim to address the court
and get Loftus' alleged comment on record.", Tales From A Trial, Raj Jayadev, San Jose
Metro, 1-16-08 / People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 1044, 1085 / People v. Mayfield
(1997) 14 Ca1.4th 668, 795 / People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Ca1.3d at p. 123. / Gideon v.
Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 83 S.Ct. 792,93 A.L.R.2d 733/ People
of the State of California Vs. Brandon Arae Taylor, Case No. S0625.62, No. California
Superior Court #SCD1113815, Appelant's Reply Brier
'
':s secondary source on Schell v.
Witek and and Brown v. Craven, p.7 / Schell v. Witek (9th Cir. 2000) 218 F.3d 1017,
1025, quoting Brown v. Craven (9th Cir. 1970) 424 F.2d 1166, 1170. / People of the State
of California Vs. Brandon Arnae Taylor, Case No. S0625.62, No. Califoria Superior