Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 23 13 Submission of Petition For Cert or Mandamus Re Merliss 1708 03628 61383 Receipt Pending EFlex

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    3 views2 pages
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE 60975 Notice of Appeal of 8/26/13 Order in CR12-2025 NOTICE OF NON-SERVICE OF COURT’S ORDER OF 4/23/14 Coughlin submits this on his own behalf to apprise this Honorable Court of the fact that he was never served with and or never received a copy of its Order of 4/23/14 referenced in the attachment to an email of 7/9/14 from the State Bar’s Laura Peters, which also attached an Order of 6/30/14 in this same case which Coughlin also was never served with and never received. Coughlin submitted a filing electronically in 60975 (of 6/18/12) and such was filed, however, Coughlin still is unable to view such case in his eFlex account, and a review of the attached printout of the Notifications page in Coughlin’s Eflex account demonstrates that he was not electronically served either of the above orders. Coughlin has made several telephone calls and emails to the SBN since April 18, 2014 and received absolutely nothing in the way of a response other than the filing by the OBC’s Machado of 6/3/14 in 62337. It is unclear if the OBC’s King is still assigned to this case as the letter emailed to Coughlin today is from the OBC’s Pattee. Respondent (the undersigned) would have addressed both this Court’s Order of 4/23/14 and of 6/30/14 by now had he ever been served it or aware of it in any way. It is relevant to note that the bulk of the thrust behind NNDB Chairman Susich’s SCR 117 Petition in 60975 has been put to rest by Respondent’s filing in 62337, and Respondent seeks to incorporate such herein again here now. One, RMC Judge Nash Holmes vacated both of the orders attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 to such SCR 117 Petition herein by way of her attached 4/9/14 Order of Dismissal (which begat this Court’s 5/16/14 Order in 62337 in response to Coughlin’s attaching such Orders of Dismissal to his 4/22/14 filing in 62337) of such case (which Coughlin was never permitted to appeal nor even challenge by Writ of Mandate to whatever extent Pengilly’s proviso applies to a pro se attorney defendant found in contempt, which is/was, apparently, the fate of Coughlins’ attempts to appeal or challenge by writ of mandate RMC Judge Howard’s Order For Summary Punishment of Contempt attached as Exhibit 1 to the SCR 117 Petition (please see debate over Judge Elliott’s 3/15/12 Order in the appeal/petition for writ challenging both the candy bar/cough medication petty larceny conviction (see 60838 as well) in SBN’s filings of 6/3/14 in 62337 and Coughlin’s response thereto). Further, it is interesting to note that, while the SBN’s 8/23/12 SCR 105 Complaint at issue in 62337 included amongst its vague charges both of the filings by Coughlin attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 in the SCR 117 Petition in 60975 of 5/30/12, come time for the disciplinary hearing, the SBN completely abandoned any attempt to paint such as misconduct of any sort (not even within the faux SCR 117 style RPC 1.1 “competence” approach the SBN constantly took during such SCR 105, 102/111(8) formal disciplinary hearing (versus the plural “proceedings”…to reference the distinction between the process set forth in an SCR 111(8) referral and those inherent to SCR 105 Complaints and or SCR 102 Petitions being filed). Clearly, the SBN abandoned any attempt to paint those two filings by Coughlin as misconduct considering what they really revealed was that Coughlin brought to light the fact that the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office currently burglarizes tenants instead of following the dictate of NRS 40.253 requiring a tenant be given 24 hours from “receipt” of a summary removal order prior to the Sheriff effecting a summary lockout. The fact that it is the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office (which employs the same NNDB member DDA Bruch Hahn that sat on Coughlin’s April 2012 Screening Panel) which defends the Washoe County Sheriff’s vi

    Original Title

    10 23 13 Submission of Petition for Cert or Mandamus Re Merliss 1708 03628 61383 Receipt Pending EFlex

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE 60975 Notice of Appeal of 8/26/13 Order in CR12-2025 NOTICE OF NON-SERVICE OF COURT’S ORDER OF 4/23/14 Coughlin submits this on his own behalf to apprise this Honorable Court of the fact that he was never served with and or never received a copy of its Order of 4/23/14 referenced in the attachment to an email of 7/9/14 from the State Bar’s Laura Peters, which also attached an Order of 6/30/14 in this same case which Coughlin also was never served with and never received. Coughlin submitted a filing electronically in 60975 (of 6/18/12) and such was filed, however, Coughlin still is unable to view such case in his eFlex account, and a review of the attached printout of the Notifications page in Coughlin’s Eflex account demonstrates that he was not electronically served either of the above orders. Coughlin has made several telephone calls and emails to the SBN since April 18, 2014 and received absolutely nothing in the way of a response other than the filing by the OBC’s Machado of 6/3/14 in 62337. It is unclear if the OBC’s King is still assigned to this case as the letter emailed to Coughlin today is from the OBC’s Pattee. Respondent (the undersigned) would have addressed both this Court’s Order of 4/23/14 and of 6/30/14 by now had he ever been served it or aware of it in any way. It is relevant to note that the bulk of the thrust behind NNDB Chairman Susich’s SCR 117 Petition in 60975 has been put to rest by Respondent’s filing in 62337, and Respondent seeks to incorporate such herein again here now. One, RMC Judge Nash Holmes vacated both of the orders attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 to such SCR 117 Petition herein by way of her attached 4/9/14 Order of Dismissal (which begat this Court’s 5/16/14 Order in 62337 in response to Coughlin’s attaching such Orders of Dismissal to his 4/22/14 filing in 62337) of such case (which Coughlin was never permitted to appeal nor even challenge by Writ of Mandate to whatever extent Pengilly’s proviso applies to a pro se attorney defendant found in contempt, which is/was, apparently, the fate of Coughlins’ attempts to appeal or challenge by writ of mandate RMC Judge Howard’s Order For Summary Punishment of Contempt attached as Exhibit 1 to the SCR 117 Petition (please see debate over Judge Elliott’s 3/15/12 Order in the appeal/petition for writ challenging both the candy bar/cough medication petty larceny conviction (see 60838 as well) in SBN’s filings of 6/3/14 in 62337 and Coughlin’s response thereto). Further, it is interesting to note that, while the SBN’s 8/23/12 SCR 105 Complaint at issue in 62337 included amongst its vague charges both of the filings by Coughlin attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 in the SCR 117 Petition in 60975 of 5/30/12, come time for the disciplinary hearing, the SBN completely abandoned any attempt to paint such as misconduct of any sort (not even within the faux SCR 117 style RPC 1.1 “competence” approach the SBN constantly took during such SCR 105, 102/111(8) formal disciplinary hearing (versus the plural “proceedings”…to reference the distinction between the process set forth in an SCR 111(8) referral and those inherent to SCR 105 Complaints and or SCR 102 Petitions being filed). Clearly, the SBN abandoned any attempt to paint those two filings by Coughlin as misconduct considering what they really revealed was that Coughlin brought to light the fact that the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office currently burglarizes tenants instead of following the dictate of NRS 40.253 requiring a tenant be given 24 hours from “receipt” of a summary removal order prior to the Sheriff effecting a summary lockout. The fact that it is the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office (which employs the same NNDB member DDA Bruch Hahn that sat on Coughlin’s April 2012 Screening Panel) which defends the Washoe County Sheriff’s vi

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    10 23 13 Submission of Petition For Cert or Mandamus Re Merliss 1708 03628 61383 Receipt Pending EFlex

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE 60975 Notice of Appeal of 8/26/13 Order in CR12-2025 NOTICE OF NON-SERVICE OF COURT’S ORDER OF 4/23/14 Coughlin submits this on his own behalf to apprise this Honorable Court of the fact that he was never served with and or never received a copy of its Order of 4/23/14 referenced in the attachment to an email of 7/9/14 from the State Bar’s Laura Peters, which also attached an Order of 6/30/14 in this same case which Coughlin also was never served with and never received. Coughlin submitted a filing electronically in 60975 (of 6/18/12) and such was filed, however, Coughlin still is unable to view such case in his eFlex account, and a review of the attached printout of the Notifications page in Coughlin’s Eflex account demonstrates that he was not electronically served either of the above orders. Coughlin has made several telephone calls and emails to the SBN since April 18, 2014 and received absolutely nothing in the way of a response other than the filing by the OBC’s Machado of 6/3/14 in 62337. It is unclear if the OBC’s King is still assigned to this case as the letter emailed to Coughlin today is from the OBC’s Pattee. Respondent (the undersigned) would have addressed both this Court’s Order of 4/23/14 and of 6/30/14 by now had he ever been served it or aware of it in any way. It is relevant to note that the bulk of the thrust behind NNDB Chairman Susich’s SCR 117 Petition in 60975 has been put to rest by Respondent’s filing in 62337, and Respondent seeks to incorporate such herein again here now. One, RMC Judge Nash Holmes vacated both of the orders attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 to such SCR 117 Petition herein by way of her attached 4/9/14 Order of Dismissal (which begat this Court’s 5/16/14 Order in 62337 in response to Coughlin’s attaching such Orders of Dismissal to his 4/22/14 filing in 62337) of such case (which Coughlin was never permitted to appeal nor even challenge by Writ of Mandate to whatever extent Pengilly’s proviso applies to a pro se attorney defendant found in contempt, which is/was, apparently, the fate of Coughlins’ attempts to appeal or challenge by writ of mandate RMC Judge Howard’s Order For Summary Punishment of Contempt attached as Exhibit 1 to the SCR 117 Petition (please see debate over Judge Elliott’s 3/15/12 Order in the appeal/petition for writ challenging both the candy bar/cough medication petty larceny conviction (see 60838 as well) in SBN’s filings of 6/3/14 in 62337 and Coughlin’s response thereto). Further, it is interesting to note that, while the SBN’s 8/23/12 SCR 105 Complaint at issue in 62337 included amongst its vague charges both of the filings by Coughlin attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 in the SCR 117 Petition in 60975 of 5/30/12, come time for the disciplinary hearing, the SBN completely abandoned any attempt to paint such as misconduct of any sort (not even within the faux SCR 117 style RPC 1.1 “competence” approach the SBN constantly took during such SCR 105, 102/111(8) formal disciplinary hearing (versus the plural “proceedings”…to reference the distinction between the process set forth in an SCR 111(8) referral and those inherent to SCR 105 Complaints and or SCR 102 Petitions being filed). Clearly, the SBN abandoned any attempt to paint those two filings by Coughlin as misconduct considering what they really revealed was that Coughlin brought to light the fact that the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office currently burglarizes tenants instead of following the dictate of NRS 40.253 requiring a tenant be given 24 hours from “receipt” of a summary removal order prior to the Sheriff effecting a summary lockout. The fact that it is the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office (which employs the same NNDB member DDA Bruch Hahn that sat on Coughlin’s April 2012 Screening Panel) which defends the Washoe County Sheriff’s vi

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    10/23/13 eFlex

    https://efile.nvsupremecourt.us/worklist?pageAction=DocStatusReport#309959 1/2
    View Filings Between:
    10/23/2013 AND
    Clear Dates
    Refresh
    Filing Status
    Filing Status

    The status for each filing can be viewed for 60 days from the date of submission. After 60
    days, the filing status information will be deleted; however, all filed documents will remain
    accessible from your My Cases listing.
    Zachary Barker Coughlin Filings
    Report Criteria:
    Filing Status Between 10/23/2013 and Today
    Delete
    Filing ID Docket Number Date Submitted Document Category Status
    309959 Oct 23 2013 12:05 a.m. Petition/Writ Receipt Pending
    Petition/Writ Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis to file this Petition for Writ of Cert or Mandamus
    Document Part 10 17 11 page 6 of Coughlin's filing reveals jurisdictional bar to use of 40.253 against
    commercial tenant under 40.254
    Document Part 10 19 11 Lanldord's attorney Baker's NRS 40.254(2) Declaration unlawful detainer affidavit
    Document Part 10 13 11 Eviction Decision and Order
    Document Part 10 13 11 Eviction Decision and Order actual not the transcript
    Document Part 10 19 11 Coughlin's Notice of Appeal
    Document Part 10 19 11 0204 03628 1708 Notice of Appeal filed in RJC 1708
    Document Part 12 30 11 Amended Emergency Motion for Stay per NRS 40.385 of summary eviction order
    Document Part 1 11 12 2JDC Judge Flanagan Order failing to rule on NRS 40.385 Mtn for Stay
    Document Part 1 5 12 Reply to Opposition to Mtn for Stay per NRS 40.385
    Document Part 1 14 12 Hill's emailed grievance to SBN
    Document Part 2 6 12 Coughlin's Opening Brief
    Document Part 2 24 12 landlord's Answering Brief
    Document Part 1 14 12 Opposition to any Attorney's Fees
    Document Part 3 30 12 Order denying appeal
    Document Part 4 7 12 Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Appeal of Summary Eviction Order
    Document Part 4 19 12 Motion for Attorney's Fees
    Document Part 6 9 12 Supplemental Opposition to Mtn for Atty Fees
    Document Part 6 25 12 Order granting $42K in attorney's fees for just the appeal of a summary eviction order,
    but not a sanction per 8 28 12 Order
    Document Part 7 10 13 Request to Submit
    Document Part 11 7 11 transcript in justice court
    Document Part 7 25 13 Order by 2JDC Judge Stiglich
    Document Part 10 27 11 FOFCOLOrder for Summary Eviction by justice court Judge Sferrazza
    Document Part 8 30 12 SBN King's email attaching 8 28 12 Order by 2JDC Flanagan indicating his 6 25 12
    Order not a sanction
    Document Part 8 28 12 Order by 2JDC Judge Flanagan indicating 6 25 12 Order in CV11-03628 not a
    sanction
    Document Part 6 10 13 Coughlin filing
    Document Part 5 20 13 Emergency Amended Notice of Appeal
    Number of Filings: 1
    user: Zachary Barker Coughlin
    Home eFile Cases My Profile Help Log Out
    10/23/13 eFlex
    https://efile.nvsupremecourt.us/worklist?pageAction=DocStatusReport#309959 2/2
    Number of Filings: 1
    Terms of Use | EFiling Rules | FAQ's | Contact Us | About | Online User Manual
    2001-7 Tybera Development Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

    You might also like