12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- 3 -
NOTICE from 11 tr 26800 ordered transmitted to the 2JDC. That case has caused everybody else plenty of headaches and problems, and the RMC and Judge Nash Holmes ought be made share the burden…As to all the Administrative Orders and pre-trial orders that alter all the deadlines applicable to every other defendant (equal protection violation): Lower courts may also have rulemaking authority[FN5]
but may not encroach upon the authority granted to the state's highest court
.[FN6] Thus, the state's highest court's exclusive constitutional authority to enact rules that govern procedural matters in all state courts cannot be supplemented, annulled, or superseded by an inferior court. [FN5] In re Nuotila's Estate, 360 Mich. 256, 103 N.W.2D 638, 82 A.L.R.2D 923 (1960). [FN6] United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Goodman, 826 So. 2D 914 (Fla. 2002).Coughlin has a substantive right to defend himself against all these convenient 1983 collateral bar desiringprosecutions. Its ridiculous to be attempting to characterize Coughlin as a “vexatious litigant”…vexatious litigants sue people for money (fine there is some habeas reform, etc., etc., but the Rule 2.15 letters to the SBN (Judge Nash Holmes) and her 3/12/12 Order purporting Coughlin to have violated RPC 3.1 “meritorious claims” for asserting basic witness bias arguments and or cross-examination (and the same question can be asked for many, many different purposes, so Coughlin repeating one, despite Howardand Nash’s views, does not mean he is disobeying their directives), not defend themselves against ridiculous prosecutions and brain dead arrests:The court also may not promulgate rules in order to diminish constitutional rights,[FN10] de-feat the right of litigants to access to the court,[FN11] or hinder parties from exercising their rights in court.[FN12]A trial court is without authority to adopt local rules or procedures that conflict with statutes or with rules of court adopted by the Judicial Council, or that are inconsistent with the Con-stitution or case law. Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 1337, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483, 163.[FN9] Sackett v. Santilli, 146 Wash. 2D 498, 47 P.3D 948 (2002). [FN10] City of Auburn v. Brooke, 119 Wash. 2D 623, 836 P.2D 212 (1992). [FN11]
Knox v. Eighth Judicial Dist Court of State, In and For County of Clark, 108 Nev. 354, 830 P.2D 1342 (1992).
[FN12] Hochberg v. Davis, 171 A.D.2D 192, 575 N.Y.S.2D 311 (1st Dep't 1991).http://www.leagle.com/decision/1992742119Wn2d623_1701http://www.leagle.com/decision/1991363171AD2d192_1326
Case 3:13-cv-00446-RCJ-WGC Document 9-1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 204
Case 3:13-cv-00539 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 204