Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
1 13 12 Email to Hill Copying Hill on Supplemental Filed in Carpentier Case to Avoid Any Ex Parte Allegations

1 13 12 Email to Hill Copying Hill on Supplemental Filed in Carpentier Case to Avoid Any Ex Parte Allegations

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by NevadaGadfly
Extremely suspect is the Panel and Bar's steering well clear of the 8/21/12 Order by Judge Flanagan in CV08-01709 that Coughlin references in his own DoWSoE, or 10/31/12 Designation of Witnesses, Summary of Evidence, where, at page 2 thereof such reads: “"17. Kevin Kelly, strip club ownin' Character and Fitness Committee Chairman is expected to testify regarding the imperissible matters related to Peter Christiansen's "representation" of Coughlin between 2002-2005. 18. Mike Rowe, ditto what Kelly will to . Dear D10 Judge Elliot, Judge Flanagan, and the Second Judicial District Court Clerk of Court Joey Orduna Hasitings, WDC Custodian of Records, Associate Clerk of Court Julie Wise: Included in the relevant materials and information sought is the legal basis for incarcerating in Cr12- 0376 (despite DDA Young violating NRS 178.405’S mandatory stay, in his moving for a “Motion for Revocation of Bail” (despite WDCR 19 requiring a hearing be set, Coughlin never got one in cr11- 2064, nor in cr12-1262 (both Judge Elliot appeals involving pro se Coughlin, nor did Coughlin get a hearing in cv11-03628, well, there was two hearings on Hill’s fraudulent Motion for Order to Show cause, but that it not what wdcr 19 is invoking)Coughlin between april 19th, 2012 to April 26, 2012 (during which time the $40,050 attorneys fees motion resulting in an Order awarding it in CV11- 03628 was filed) for appealing a summary eviction as a pro se tenant ,apparently deemed residential tenant with rnet of less than $1K a month) also, despite Chief Civil Clerk kconstantly rejecting Coughlin’s filign under wdcr 10, Coughlin was actually sanctioned yet another $5K by his former coworker , Judge Flanagan (whom declined to recuse himself form the order to show cause hearings despite, arguably, Coughlin requeting as much, in violation of nrs 22.030(3)… But RCS/QLS in the Carpentier v Aames case (that Richard hill copied Coughlin’s January 13th, 2012 filing on in cv08-01709 in hills 1/24/12 grievance to bar counsel against Coughlin…which Coughlin was subject to custodial arrest for jaywalking by rpd and hill on 1/12/12, and another arrest for “misuse of 911” on 1/14/12, (- 2/6 - coughlin's DESIGNATION OF WITNESSES AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE) Seemingly connected to filing in carpentier matter of 1/13/12… violated WDCR 18 and 38 Rule  .Caption for all pleadings and other legal documents. Every document submitted   1. For filing in the family division shall bear the following caption: “IN THE FAMILY DIVISION OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE” Where there filings said “county of clark”…Coughlin was the one attorney who pointed that out….He is sanctioned $5K? And the WDC continues to reject Coughlin’s filings under WDCR 18 and 10 at a remarkable rate? Further, caplow 302 p.2D 755 made unnecessary the seemingly fraudulent 3/8/12 affidavit of service by wcso machen, by way of rmc marshal harley (judge nash holmes 3/12/12 comments in court seem to indicate “summary criminal contempt” finding premised upon “peeping Tom” style peering through restroom stall walls by RMC Marshal Harley (or some other Marshal, like Scott Coppa, involved in the impermissible “search incident to arrest” by RMC a a full day after attorney’s pro se criminal defenant’s smartphone and micro sd card booked into wCdc property on 2/27/12…violates state v diaz…anyways, no “summary contempt” finding based upon allegations of “dissessemblign” smartphone in restroom stall, where no RMC Marshal, Harley or Coppa or otherwise, signed an affidavit detailing facts supporting contempt. In re oliver requires such contempt be, in every element, in the “immediate view and presence of the court” sixth amendment right violated, nrs 189.010-050 Violated, etc., Etc.And m ost of this ng12-0435 involves judge nash holmes denying Coughlin right to appeal final appealable summary criminal contempt finding from 2/27/12., In re oliver,
Extremely suspect is the Panel and Bar's steering well clear of the 8/21/12 Order by Judge Flanagan in CV08-01709 that Coughlin references in his own DoWSoE, or 10/31/12 Designation of Witnesses, Summary of Evidence, where, at page 2 thereof such reads: “"17. Kevin Kelly, strip club ownin' Character and Fitness Committee Chairman is expected to testify regarding the imperissible matters related to Peter Christiansen's "representation" of Coughlin between 2002-2005. 18. Mike Rowe, ditto what Kelly will to . Dear D10 Judge Elliot, Judge Flanagan, and the Second Judicial District Court Clerk of Court Joey Orduna Hasitings, WDC Custodian of Records, Associate Clerk of Court Julie Wise: Included in the relevant materials and information sought is the legal basis for incarcerating in Cr12- 0376 (despite DDA Young violating NRS 178.405’S mandatory stay, in his moving for a “Motion for Revocation of Bail” (despite WDCR 19 requiring a hearing be set, Coughlin never got one in cr11- 2064, nor in cr12-1262 (both Judge Elliot appeals involving pro se Coughlin, nor did Coughlin get a hearing in cv11-03628, well, there was two hearings on Hill’s fraudulent Motion for Order to Show cause, but that it not what wdcr 19 is invoking)Coughlin between april 19th, 2012 to April 26, 2012 (during which time the $40,050 attorneys fees motion resulting in an Order awarding it in CV11- 03628 was filed) for appealing a summary eviction as a pro se tenant ,apparently deemed residential tenant with rnet of less than $1K a month) also, despite Chief Civil Clerk kconstantly rejecting Coughlin’s filign under wdcr 10, Coughlin was actually sanctioned yet another $5K by his former coworker , Judge Flanagan (whom declined to recuse himself form the order to show cause hearings despite, arguably, Coughlin requeting as much, in violation of nrs 22.030(3)… But RCS/QLS in the Carpentier v Aames case (that Richard hill copied Coughlin’s January 13th, 2012 filing on in cv08-01709 in hills 1/24/12 grievance to bar counsel against Coughlin…which Coughlin was subject to custodial arrest for jaywalking by rpd and hill on 1/12/12, and another arrest for “misuse of 911” on 1/14/12, (- 2/6 - coughlin's DESIGNATION OF WITNESSES AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE) Seemingly connected to filing in carpentier matter of 1/13/12… violated WDCR 18 and 38 Rule  .Caption for all pleadings and other legal documents. Every document submitted   1. For filing in the family division shall bear the following caption: “IN THE FAMILY DIVISION OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE” Where there filings said “county of clark”…Coughlin was the one attorney who pointed that out….He is sanctioned $5K? And the WDC continues to reject Coughlin’s filings under WDCR 18 and 10 at a remarkable rate? Further, caplow 302 p.2D 755 made unnecessary the seemingly fraudulent 3/8/12 affidavit of service by wcso machen, by way of rmc marshal harley (judge nash holmes 3/12/12 comments in court seem to indicate “summary criminal contempt” finding premised upon “peeping Tom” style peering through restroom stall walls by RMC Marshal Harley (or some other Marshal, like Scott Coppa, involved in the impermissible “search incident to arrest” by RMC a a full day after attorney’s pro se criminal defenant’s smartphone and micro sd card booked into wCdc property on 2/27/12…violates state v diaz…anyways, no “summary contempt” finding based upon allegations of “dissessemblign” smartphone in restroom stall, where no RMC Marshal, Harley or Coppa or otherwise, signed an affidavit detailing facts supporting contempt. In re oliver requires such contempt be, in every element, in the “immediate view and presence of the court” sixth amendment right violated, nrs 189.010-050 Violated, etc., Etc.And m ost of this ng12-0435 involves judge nash holmes denying Coughlin right to appeal final appealable summary criminal contempt finding from 2/27/12., In re oliver,

More info:

Published by: NevadaGadfly on Sep 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/16/2014

pdf

text

original

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->