Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 27 13 CV13-000920 Judge Stiglich Recuses Herself From Stiglich V Mirch Due To Close Personal Relationship With Defendant

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    3 views1 page
    Dear Asst. Clerk of Court Wise and Filing Office Manager Purdy, A copy of WDCR 18 has been provided to each and every filing office counter clerk. WDCR 18 reads: " Rule 18.  Papers which do not comply with rules.  Except in criminal cases and writs arising from criminal cases, filing office personnel shall refuse to file any document or pleading which is not properly signed by all persons, or which does not comply with these rules, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court Rules, or applicable statutes." So, Ms. Purdy may verbally (put it in writing, please) freestyle that "an appeal of a criminal case is not a case"...Well, in that "case", NRS 189.030(1) and WDCR 18 require that your court refuse for filing those items filed by the RJC and RMC that fail to include the transcript required by NRS 189.030(1). Your court's vested interest in avoiding the expense of a trial de novo (which is required where alleged courts of record under NRS 5.010, NRS 5.073, and Reno Municipal Code Sec. 2.16.080, and NRS 1.020) "shall" transmit the written transcript (in light of NRS 189.030(3)'s reference to the district court's option to also request the audio transcript fromt these inferior tribunals). NRS 189.030 Transmission of transcript, other papers, sound recording and copy of docket to district court. 1. The justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit to the clerk of the district court the transcript of the case, all other papers relating to the case and a certified copy of the docket. So, of course, your court is required to, pursuant to WDCR 18 and the "applicable statute" that is NRS 189.030(1), "reject for filing" items such as the 12/23/11 (in CR11-2064) 452 page filing by the RMC of an "Appeal from Municipal's Court" which lacks any transcript whatsoever. Of course, the 2JDC's Judge Steven Elliott's 3/15/12 Order Affirming Ruling of the RMC is a fraudulent miscarriage of justice where it premises such order's denying Coughlin's appeal upon an alleged failure by Coughlin to do that which NRS 189.030(1) required RMC Judge Kenneth Howard to do, ie, transmit the transcript within 10 (such still has not been transmitted by the RMC) days to the district court. Judge Elliott's invocation in such order of Thomas v. State and NRAP 28 and 32 is, of course, completely fraudulent, a judicial Catch-22. Similarly, the 4/16/13 filing by the RJC in CR13-0614 lacks and transcript whatsoever, and to this day the RJC has failed to comply with NRS 189.030(1) in failing to ever transmit any such transcript. The RMC and RJC want their cake, and they want to eat it too. However, at some point NRS 1.360 and NRS 1.370, NCJC Canon 2, Rule 2.15, WDCR 18, and NRS 189.030(1), and Knox v. District Court must operate to send out a clarion call to the city and county governmental officials purporting to tell the judges of these courts what their "budgets" are. Similarly, NRS 189.030(1) has been violated in CR13-0614 (no transcript in the 858 page "Appeal from Justice's Court" filing of 4/16/13 or in any filings thereafter) and in CR12-2025 (no transcript filed within 10 days of Coughlin's 12/30/12 Notice of Appeal, and the RJC only had transcripts filed therein in repsonse to district court Judge Elliott's 1/9/13 Order for Preparation of Transcript at Public Expense, and even then, some of the transcripts the RJC filed were done by its own employees, whom failed to affixed the required oath, in addition to failing to sign or print their last names to the deficient "certifications" offered therein). Additionally, no transcript has been filed in CR13-0011 by the RMC. Of course, the RMC has refused to comply with NRS 189.030(1), as well, in RMC 11 TR 26800 where Judge Nash Holmes simply continues to strike Coughlin's filing Notices of Appeal (filed 3/7/12 and 10/2/12). Now, today, another Notice of Appeal is filed in yet another vindictive prosecution by the WCDA's Office in RCR2013-072675,

    Original Title

    9 27 13 CV13-000920 Judge Stiglich Recuses Herself From Stiglich v Mirch Due to Close Personal Relationship With Defendant

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Dear Asst. Clerk of Court Wise and Filing Office Manager Purdy, A copy of WDCR 18 has been provided to each and every filing office counter clerk. WDCR 18 reads: " Rule 18.  Papers which do not comply with rules.  Except in criminal cases and writs arising from criminal cases, filing office personnel shall refuse to file any document or pleading which is not properly signed by all persons, or which does not comply with these rules, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court Rules, or applicable statutes." So, Ms. Purdy may verbally (put it in writing, please) freestyle that "an appeal of a criminal case is not a case"...Well, in that "case", NRS 189.030(1) and WDCR 18 require that your court refuse for filing those items filed by the RJC and RMC that fail to include the transcript required by NRS 189.030(1). Your court's vested interest in avoiding the expense of a trial de novo (which is required where alleged courts of record under NRS 5.010, NRS 5.073, and Reno Municipal Code Sec. 2.16.080, and NRS 1.020) "shall" transmit the written transcript (in light of NRS 189.030(3)'s reference to the district court's option to also request the audio transcript fromt these inferior tribunals). NRS 189.030 Transmission of transcript, other papers, sound recording and copy of docket to district court. 1. The justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit to the clerk of the district court the transcript of the case, all other papers relating to the case and a certified copy of the docket. So, of course, your court is required to, pursuant to WDCR 18 and the "applicable statute" that is NRS 189.030(1), "reject for filing" items such as the 12/23/11 (in CR11-2064) 452 page filing by the RMC of an "Appeal from Municipal's Court" which lacks any transcript whatsoever. Of course, the 2JDC's Judge Steven Elliott's 3/15/12 Order Affirming Ruling of the RMC is a fraudulent miscarriage of justice where it premises such order's denying Coughlin's appeal upon an alleged failure by Coughlin to do that which NRS 189.030(1) required RMC Judge Kenneth Howard to do, ie, transmit the transcript within 10 (such still has not been transmitted by the RMC) days to the district court. Judge Elliott's invocation in such order of Thomas v. State and NRAP 28 and 32 is, of course, completely fraudulent, a judicial Catch-22. Similarly, the 4/16/13 filing by the RJC in CR13-0614 lacks and transcript whatsoever, and to this day the RJC has failed to comply with NRS 189.030(1) in failing to ever transmit any such transcript. The RMC and RJC want their cake, and they want to eat it too. However, at some point NRS 1.360 and NRS 1.370, NCJC Canon 2, Rule 2.15, WDCR 18, and NRS 189.030(1), and Knox v. District Court must operate to send out a clarion call to the city and county governmental officials purporting to tell the judges of these courts what their "budgets" are. Similarly, NRS 189.030(1) has been violated in CR13-0614 (no transcript in the 858 page "Appeal from Justice's Court" filing of 4/16/13 or in any filings thereafter) and in CR12-2025 (no transcript filed within 10 days of Coughlin's 12/30/12 Notice of Appeal, and the RJC only had transcripts filed therein in repsonse to district court Judge Elliott's 1/9/13 Order for Preparation of Transcript at Public Expense, and even then, some of the transcripts the RJC filed were done by its own employees, whom failed to affixed the required oath, in addition to failing to sign or print their last names to the deficient "certifications" offered therein). Additionally, no transcript has been filed in CR13-0011 by the RMC. Of course, the RMC has refused to comply with NRS 189.030(1), as well, in RMC 11 TR 26800 where Judge Nash Holmes simply continues to strike Coughlin's filing Notices of Appeal (filed 3/7/12 and 10/2/12). Now, today, another Notice of Appeal is filed in yet another vindictive prosecution by the WCDA's Office in RCR2013-072675,

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views1 page

    9 27 13 CV13-000920 Judge Stiglich Recuses Herself From Stiglich V Mirch Due To Close Personal Relationship With Defendant

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    Dear Asst. Clerk of Court Wise and Filing Office Manager Purdy, A copy of WDCR 18 has been provided to each and every filing office counter clerk. WDCR 18 reads: " Rule 18.  Papers which do not comply with rules.  Except in criminal cases and writs arising from criminal cases, filing office personnel shall refuse to file any document or pleading which is not properly signed by all persons, or which does not comply with these rules, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court Rules, or applicable statutes." So, Ms. Purdy may verbally (put it in writing, please) freestyle that "an appeal of a criminal case is not a case"...Well, in that "case", NRS 189.030(1) and WDCR 18 require that your court refuse for filing those items filed by the RJC and RMC that fail to include the transcript required by NRS 189.030(1). Your court's vested interest in avoiding the expense of a trial de novo (which is required where alleged courts of record under NRS 5.010, NRS 5.073, and Reno Municipal Code Sec. 2.16.080, and NRS 1.020) "shall" transmit the written transcript (in light of NRS 189.030(3)'s reference to the district court's option to also request the audio transcript fromt these inferior tribunals). NRS 189.030 Transmission of transcript, other papers, sound recording and copy of docket to district court. 1. The justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit to the clerk of the district court the transcript of the case, all other papers relating to the case and a certified copy of the docket. So, of course, your court is required to, pursuant to WDCR 18 and the "applicable statute" that is NRS 189.030(1), "reject for filing" items such as the 12/23/11 (in CR11-2064) 452 page filing by the RMC of an "Appeal from Municipal's Court" which lacks any transcript whatsoever. Of course, the 2JDC's Judge Steven Elliott's 3/15/12 Order Affirming Ruling of the RMC is a fraudulent miscarriage of justice where it premises such order's denying Coughlin's appeal upon an alleged failure by Coughlin to do that which NRS 189.030(1) required RMC Judge Kenneth Howard to do, ie, transmit the transcript within 10 (such still has not been transmitted by the RMC) days to the district court. Judge Elliott's invocation in such order of Thomas v. State and NRAP 28 and 32 is, of course, completely fraudulent, a judicial Catch-22. Similarly, the 4/16/13 filing by the RJC in CR13-0614 lacks and transcript whatsoever, and to this day the RJC has failed to comply with NRS 189.030(1) in failing to ever transmit any such transcript. The RMC and RJC want their cake, and they want to eat it too. However, at some point NRS 1.360 and NRS 1.370, NCJC Canon 2, Rule 2.15, WDCR 18, and NRS 189.030(1), and Knox v. District Court must operate to send out a clarion call to the city and county governmental officials purporting to tell the judges of these courts what their "budgets" are. Similarly, NRS 189.030(1) has been violated in CR13-0614 (no transcript in the 858 page "Appeal from Justice's Court" filing of 4/16/13 or in any filings thereafter) and in CR12-2025 (no transcript filed within 10 days of Coughlin's 12/30/12 Notice of Appeal, and the RJC only had transcripts filed therein in repsonse to district court Judge Elliott's 1/9/13 Order for Preparation of Transcript at Public Expense, and even then, some of the transcripts the RJC filed were done by its own employees, whom failed to affixed the required oath, in addition to failing to sign or print their last names to the deficient "certifications" offered therein). Additionally, no transcript has been filed in CR13-0011 by the RMC. Of course, the RMC has refused to comply with NRS 189.030(1), as well, in RMC 11 TR 26800 where Judge Nash Holmes simply continues to strike Coughlin's filing Notices of Appeal (filed 3/7/12 and 10/2/12). Now, today, another Notice of Appeal is filed in yet another vindictive prosecution by the WCDA's Office in RCR2013-072675,

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    1

    2
    3
    4
    5
    F I LED
    Electronically
    09-27 -2013: 11: 14:39 AM
    Joey Orduna Hastings
    Clerk of the Court
    Transaction # 4027611
    6 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    KEVIN J. MIRCH,
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    RHONDA CLIFTON, RYAN
    MCDONALD, NEVADA ATTORNEY
    GENERAL'S OFFICE, BRIAN
    KUNZI, et aL,
    Defendants.
    ____________________ ~ ~ I .
    Case No.:
    Dept. No.:
    ORDER OF RECUSAL
    CV13-00902
    8
    Due to a close personal relationship with one of the defendants in the above-
    captioned case, and to avoid any appearance of impropriety as outlined in the
    Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, this court hereby disqualifies itself from this
    matter and refers the case to the Washoe County Clerk's Office for random
    reassignment to another department of the Second Judicial District Court, other
    than Department One (1), Department Four (4), Department Nine (9), Department
    Ten (10) or Department Eight (8).
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    ~
    DATED this ~ ~ - day of September, 2013. /
    1

    You might also like