Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 11 12 0204 62337 26800 26405 00696 RMC Donna Ballard Affidavit To The SBN

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    42 views1 page
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/167252413/3-14-12-Nvb-05104-Keller-Beesley-Shortened-Motion-for-Extension-of-Time-to-File-Bankr-d-nev-114021412266 http://www.scribd.com/doc/167261761/9-10-13-NVD-13CV446-484-IFP-Motion-Proposed-Complaint-NVD-Action-Re-Summary-Eviction-Lockout-Burglaries-by-RPD-WCSO-Hill-Northwind-Et-Al-56-Pages 52639 62337 ng12-0204 ng12-0435 ng12-0434 11 tr 26800 judge dorothy nash holmes 05104 cadle keller bruce t. beesley 11 cr 22176 rev2011-001708 cv11-03628 rev2012-000374 wcso richard g. hill, esq. judge kenneth howard reno municipal court http://courts.mi.gov/education/mji/Publications/Documents/Contempt-Of-Court.pdf The Michigan Supreme Court defined “immediate view and presence” as follows: “‘[I]mmediate view and presence’ are words of limitation, and exclude the idea of constructive presence. The immediate view and presence does not extend beyond the range of vision of the judge, and the term applies only to such contempts as are committed in the face of the court. Of such contempts, he may take cognizance of his own knowledge, and may proceed to punish summarily such contempts, basing his action entirely upon his own knowledge. All other alleged contempts depend solely upon evidence, and are inferences from fact, and the foundation for the proceedings to punish therefor must be laid by affidavit.” In re Wood, 82 Mich 75, 82 (1890). To punish contempt summarily, all necessary facts must be within the personal knowledge of the judge. In re Scott, 342 Mich 614, 619 (1955), citing Wood, supra. A judge does not have 3. On September 9, 2011, Coughlin shoplifted a candy bar and cough drops from a Wal-Mart store with an approximate value of fourteen dollars ($14.00). On November 30, 2011, Municipal Court Judge Kenneth R. Howard found Coughlin guilty of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Coughlin appealed the judgment of conviction. On March 15, 2012, the Honorable District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott affirmed the judgment of conviction on appeal. See Hearing Exhibit 1 at 0002, p. 5, lines 11-15; (State Bar of Nevada vs. Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Case No: NG12-0204, NG12-0435, NG12-0434, Complaint at P2 (filed August 23, 2012). (NOTE: Coughlin's 12/13/11 Notice of Appeal appealed both the 11/30/11 “Judgment of Conviction” and the 11/30/11 Order Punishing Contempt in the Immediate View and Presence of the Court and read: “I went to the filing office at the RMC a couple times recently, including today, and sent in another written request seeking an audio tape of the Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176i IC 110627 RSIC but was told by a Clerk that I would need to pay for the entire Trial to be transcribed, and only then would I be allowed to read it, and that I would not be allowed to access the audio of the hearing? Is this correct? I need to have the audio of the Trial to finish my Rule 59, 60, and Motion for Reconsideration Motions....I will pay for the audio. I have received many audio cd/dvd's from both Reno Justice Court and Washoe District Court, and it was announced in court that the trial was being audio recorded, as such, I hope you will afford me a copy. Today, I called the RMC and spoke with Veronica, who sounded very angry with me and dismissive. I was summarily sentenced to 3 days in jail at the end of the trial in this matter, even where I had been denied my Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, after a Contempt committed in the court's presence finding was announced, in addition to a guilty verdict in the underlying action. Veronica informed me that she was at the trial and that the RMC had failed to mail me or otherwise serve me with a copy of the written Order, either for the guilty conviction in the underlying case or the contempt order. I was forced into handcuffs so quickly ater Judge Howard concluded issuing his oral ruling that I was not even able to save my notes on my computer, it was literally apparently that exigent a situation to handcuff me....Then a few Mars

    Original Title

    4 11 12 0204 62337 26800 26405 00696 RMC Donna Ballard Affidavit to the SBN

    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
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/167252413/3-14-12-Nvb-05104-Keller-Beesley-Shortened-Motion-for-Extension-of-Time-to-File-Bankr-d-nev-114021412266 http://www.scribd.com/doc/167261761/9-10-13-NVD-13CV446-484-IFP-Motion-Proposed-Complaint-NVD-Action-Re-Summary-Eviction-Lockout-Burglaries-by-RPD-WCSO-Hill-Northwind-Et-Al-56-Pages 52639 62337 ng12-0204 ng12-0435 ng12-0434 11 tr 26800 judge dorothy nash holmes 05104 cadle keller bruce t. beesley 11 cr 22176 rev2011-001708 cv11-03628 rev2012-000374 wcso richard g. hill, esq. judge kenneth howard reno municipal court http://courts.mi.gov/education/mji/Publications/Documents/Contempt-Of-Court.pdf The Michigan Supreme Court defined “immediate view and presence” as follows: “‘[I]mmediate view and presence’ are words of limitation, and exclude the idea of constructive presence. The immediate view and presence does not extend beyond the range of vision of the judge, and the term applies only to such contempts as are committed in the face of the court. Of such contempts, he may take cognizance of his own knowledge, and may proceed to punish summarily such contempts, basing his action entirely upon his own knowledge. All other alleged contempts depend solely upon evidence, and are inferences from fact, and the foundation for the proceedings to punish therefor must be laid by affidavit.” In re Wood, 82 Mich 75, 82 (1890). To punish contempt summarily, all necessary facts must be within the personal knowledge of the judge. In re Scott, 342 Mich 614, 619 (1955), citing Wood, supra. A judge does not have 3. On September 9, 2011, Coughlin shoplifted a candy bar and cough drops from a Wal-Mart store with an approximate value of fourteen dollars ($14.00). On November 30, 2011, Municipal Court Judge Kenneth R. Howard found Coughlin guilty of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Coughlin appealed the judgment of conviction. On March 15, 2012, the Honorable District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott affirmed the judgment of conviction on appeal. See Hearing Exhibit 1 at 0002, p. 5, lines 11-15; (State Bar of Nevada vs. Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Case No: NG12-0204, NG12-0435, NG12-0434, Complaint at P2 (filed August 23, 2012). (NOTE: Coughlin's 12/13/11 Notice of Appeal appealed both the 11/30/11 “Judgment of Conviction” and the 11/30/11 Order Punishing Contempt in the Immediate View and Presence of the Court and read: “I went to the filing office at the RMC a couple times recently, including today, and sent in another written request seeking an audio tape of the Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176i IC 110627 RSIC but was told by a Clerk that I would need to pay for the entire Trial to be transcribed, and only then would I be allowed to read it, and that I would not be allowed to access the audio of the hearing? Is this correct? I need to have the audio of the Trial to finish my Rule 59, 60, and Motion for Reconsideration Motions....I will pay for the audio. I have received many audio cd/dvd's from both Reno Justice Court and Washoe District Court, and it was announced in court that the trial was being audio recorded, as such, I hope you will afford me a copy. Today, I called the RMC and spoke with Veronica, who sounded very angry with me and dismissive. I was summarily sentenced to 3 days in jail at the end of the trial in this matter, even where I had been denied my Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, after a Contempt committed in the court's presence finding was announced, in addition to a guilty verdict in the underlying action. Veronica informed me that she was at the trial and that the RMC had failed to mail me or otherwise serve me with a copy of the written Order, either for the guilty conviction in the underlying case or the contempt order. I was forced into handcuffs so quickly ater Judge Howard concluded issuing his oral ruling that I was not even able to save my notes on my computer, it was literally apparently that exigent a situation to handcuff me....Then a few Mars

    Copyright:

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

    4 11 12 0204 62337 26800 26405 00696 RMC Donna Ballard Affidavit To The SBN

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/167252413/3-14-12-Nvb-05104-Keller-Beesley-Shortened-Motion-for-Extension-of-Time-to-File-Bankr-d-nev-114021412266 http://www.scribd.com/doc/167261761/9-10-13-NVD-13CV446-484-IFP-Motion-Proposed-Complaint-NVD-Action-Re-Summary-Eviction-Lockout-Burglaries-by-RPD-WCSO-Hill-Northwind-Et-Al-56-Pages 52639 62337 ng12-0204 ng12-0435 ng12-0434 11 tr 26800 judge dorothy nash holmes 05104 cadle keller bruce t. beesley 11 cr 22176 rev2011-001708 cv11-03628 rev2012-000374 wcso richard g. hill, esq. judge kenneth howard reno municipal court http://courts.mi.gov/education/mji/Publications/Documents/Contempt-Of-Court.pdf The Michigan Supreme Court defined “immediate view and presence” as follows: “‘[I]mmediate view and presence’ are words of limitation, and exclude the idea of constructive presence. The immediate view and presence does not extend beyond the range of vision of the judge, and the term applies only to such contempts as are committed in the face of the court. Of such contempts, he may take cognizance of his own knowledge, and may proceed to punish summarily such contempts, basing his action entirely upon his own knowledge. All other alleged contempts depend solely upon evidence, and are inferences from fact, and the foundation for the proceedings to punish therefor must be laid by affidavit.” In re Wood, 82 Mich 75, 82 (1890). To punish contempt summarily, all necessary facts must be within the personal knowledge of the judge. In re Scott, 342 Mich 614, 619 (1955), citing Wood, supra. A judge does not have 3. On September 9, 2011, Coughlin shoplifted a candy bar and cough drops from a Wal-Mart store with an approximate value of fourteen dollars ($14.00). On November 30, 2011, Municipal Court Judge Kenneth R. Howard found Coughlin guilty of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Coughlin appealed the judgment of conviction. On March 15, 2012, the Honorable District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott affirmed the judgment of conviction on appeal. See Hearing Exhibit 1 at 0002, p. 5, lines 11-15; (State Bar of Nevada vs. Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Case No: NG12-0204, NG12-0435, NG12-0434, Complaint at P2 (filed August 23, 2012). (NOTE: Coughlin's 12/13/11 Notice of Appeal appealed both the 11/30/11 “Judgment of Conviction” and the 11/30/11 Order Punishing Contempt in the Immediate View and Presence of the Court and read: “I went to the filing office at the RMC a couple times recently, including today, and sent in another written request seeking an audio tape of the Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176i IC 110627 RSIC but was told by a Clerk that I would need to pay for the entire Trial to be transcribed, and only then would I be allowed to read it, and that I would not be allowed to access the audio of the hearing? Is this correct? I need to have the audio of the Trial to finish my Rule 59, 60, and Motion for Reconsideration Motions....I will pay for the audio. I have received many audio cd/dvd's from both Reno Justice Court and Washoe District Court, and it was announced in court that the trial was being audio recorded, as such, I hope you will afford me a copy. Today, I called the RMC and spoke with Veronica, who sounded very angry with me and dismissive. I was summarily sentenced to 3 days in jail at the end of the trial in this matter, even where I had been denied my Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, after a Contempt committed in the court's presence finding was announced, in addition to a guilty verdict in the underlying action. Veronica informed me that she was at the trial and that the RMC had failed to mail me or otherwise serve me with a copy of the written Order, either for the guilty conviction in the underlying case or the contempt order. I was forced into handcuffs so quickly ater Judge Howard concluded issuing his oral ruling that I was not even able to save my notes on my computer, it was literally apparently that exigent a situation to handcuff me....Then a few Mars

    Copyright:

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

    HON. JAY D.

    DILWORTH
    Depament I
    HON. WILLIAM L. GARDNER
    Depaent 2
    HON. DOROTHY NASH HOLMES
    Depaent 3
    HON. KENNETH R. HOWARD
    Depaent 4
    To: Nevada State Bar
    Re: Zach Coughlin
    RENO MUNICIPAL COURT
    '

    ."
    1
    t
    k
    " I
    |
    Af d
    CASSANDRA JACKON
    Court Administrator
    JUSIN ROPER
    Chief Marshal- Department
    of Alterative Sentencing
    I, Donna Ballard, Senior Court Specialist, of Rno Munil @, a court of law organized, incorporated
    or existing under the laws of the Cit o
    f
    R
    n
    o,
    and with its principal business located at: 1 South Sierra Stre 81.
    Being duly sworn, do depose and say:
    On 3/22/12 I heard Vanessa Garcia state that Coughlin was coming and he was in his pajamas. She
    made a comment about them looking like Christmas paamas. looked up but was unable to see hm.
    am unsure of the time at this point.
    When Mr. Coughlin was called to Daniel Casillas' wndow #, Daniel d:dhis best to help Mr. Coughlin
    for quite some time and then Daniel came to my desk andasked me to assist Mr. Coughlin. I began
    speaking with Mr. Coughlin and noticed that he had on slightly shiny, polyester looking, white long sleeve
    tee shirt that to me looked like the same fabric as an athletic jersey. seem to recall a logo on the right
    side. I could clearly see that he had a burgundy dress shirt and a lighter color tie under the white tee shirt.
    During my conversation with Mr. Coughlin he was rde 8ndrepeated the same questions several times.
    A he has asked in the past, "If Judge Howard told you to jump of a bridge would you?" The conversation
    continued with Mr. Coughlin asking for records to which answered that he could mout a records
    request. Mr. Coughlin stated that he would depose me and would be found negligent.
    Mr. Coughlin kept insisting on copies of documents. Iadvised him to add them to the records request
    he was mling out. He argues each time about being treated the same as anyone else that comes to the
    court and asked why he can't email a request. Aer had advised him several times that he could not
    email or fax due to Judge Howard's order, Ifnally said that he was diferent because habused it and
    sent 176 pages.
    This tpe of conversation went on until I could no longer help him and felt we had done everthing we
    could at this point. walked back to my desk and hcatdh\masking Daniel what the docket said. could
    see that he was wrting down what Daniel told him and at this point Icontacted bWm amH!h
    securit ofce and told him we have had enough of Mr. Coughlin and he nccdto cavc. Marshal
    Torp",' arrived >ith another marsho! and 1 : ,.
    4-\\-\
    State of Nevada
    County of Washoe
    SS
    6 86
    Subscribed and Womto bcorcme this d8yof-

    U I ?.
    d . f I
    1012
    JO

    You might also like