2 13 12 0204 62337 26405 Stamped Digital Notice Appeal Motion Vacate Order Withdrawal for Puentes,...

7/29/2019 2 13 12 0204 62337 26405 Stamped Digital Notice Appeal Motion Vacate Order Withdrawal for Puentes, Motion R

1/35

123456789

1011

, t ' , . . . . ' IV'Document Code: cLZach Coughlin,Esq.Nevada Bar No: 94731422 E. 9th St., #2 LEtel: 715 229 6737 fax: 949 6677402Reno, NV 89512Co-counsel for Defendant Coughlin

eno M u n i c l l ~ , * ~ I I f t VB y - - - - - C > L - ; L LIN THE JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWNSHIP Deputy C

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA

STATE OF NEVADA;Plaintiff, ) Case No: CR 26405

VS.12 ) Dept No: Judge Gardner13 ZACHARY COUGHLIN;14151617

1819202122232425262728

DefendMt.

Notice of ARPeal. Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside CRCP 59. JCRCP 60. Motion forReconsideration: Motion for Recusal: Motion For Publication Of Transcript at Public Expense.Petition for In Fonna PauReris Status

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

FACTSBobby Puentes threw me under the bus, rather thM reveal the fact that he had a conflict. He whinedabout how the case was hard rather than do some lawyering. The man doesn't know how to bum a cd. He attempted to shift the job of burning a cd for discovery onto me, yet he is the one taking homethe money to do the job. Jill Drake talked in court about how Puentes is beloved by all throughoutthe RJC, especially the prosecutors for the Reno City Attorney, as he is just a teddy bear to

- 1 -Notice of AppeaL Motion to vacate and or Set Aside. JCRCP 59. JCRCP 60. Motion for

Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Publication Of Transcript at Public Expense.Petition for In FOnnR Pauperis Status


2/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

!, !(!;...Being a tedd> =ear is &ine,

- guess, =ut not e'actl> the &irst thing - loo &or in de&ense counsel. oral o& the stor>, donAt thro?

client under the =us instead o& disclosing imour con&lict checs should have

revealed o& the attorne> client relationshi (, !(!, /o?ever, a de&ense

motion to continue ?as &iled on 0anuar> 3,!(!, not oer ma> ?ithdra? &rom re


3/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

=eing evicted and ?rong&ull> arrested

due to Dic /illAs alleged =ri=er> o& the )5D and the )5DAs ?rong&ull arrest o& me, etc., and Dic

/illAs a


4/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

'c( "i&e for Ser+in Affida+its*hen a motion &or ne? trial is =ased u shall =e &iled ?ith the motion

he os either => the court &or good cause sho?n or => the ?ritten

sti s

a&ter service o& ?ritten notice o& entr> o& the udgment.

he 2rder allo?ing 5uentes ?ithdr?as &its under @ -rregularit> in the , master, or

adverse , or an> order o& the court, or master, or a=use o& discretion => ?hich either ?as in&ormation to the court, i& not misleading it as to his rationale &or

?ithdra?ing. 5lus 0udge ardnerAs 2rder, res contains @Error in la? occurring at the trial and o=ected to => the

maing the motion. 2n a motion &or a ne? trial in an action tried ?ithout a ur>, the court ma> o, amend &indings o& &act and conclusions o& la? or mae ne? &indings and

conclusions, and direct the entr> o& a ne? udgment.@ he la? sim does not allo? &or such an unsu


5/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a


6/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEC6)6-2N 2 Z6C/ C21-N -N "1552) 2 /E 2)E2-N D2C1EN

. his Declaration is made , i& necessar>, as to these matters. - declare under

o& that the &oregoing is true and correct.

E'ecuted on e=ruar> 3th, !(!

FsF Zach Coughlin

Zach Coughlin

56-N-

- 6 -

Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion for

Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Pulication !f "ranscript at Pulic #$pense,

Petition for %n For&a Pauperis Status


7/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5)22 2 "E)*-CE

-, Zach Coughlin, declare:

2n e=ruar> 3th, !(!, -, r. Zach Coughlin served the &oregoing Notice o& 6 o& e=ruar>

B:

Zach Coughlin

De&endant

- 7 -



mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


8/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-nde' to E'hi=its

. E'hi=it : ?ent>si' !%; client corres


9/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EH/-B-

EH/-B-

- 9 -





10/35

continuance and my files

continuance and my files

From: Zach Coughlin ([email protected])

Sent: Fri 12/09/11 1:11 AM

To: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Puentes,

I would like for you to subpoena both Officers present at the arrest of November 13, 2011 to testify at the trial. I would like for you to subpoena (bysubpoena duces tecum, I suppose) all recordings, dispatch reports, written documentation, reports in any way connected to, or other materials, whether

admissible or not, in any way connected to the arrest of November 13, 2011 or the charges against which I am defending in conjunction with your

representation. I wish for you to email me these materials to the extent possible, and where that is not possible, please mail them to me at my addressof record at www.nvbar.org, and found below at the end of this letter. Email is better for me than fax, as it is free whereas I have to pay for faxes by thepage, whether local or not. I prefer email too over having to take time out of what is an extremely busy and trying schedule of mine currently.RPD Officer Carter made a statement at the scene of the arrest that Mr. Richard Hill paid him a lot of money and therefore he does what Mr. Hill says to

do and arrest who Mr. Hill says to arrest. This has been reported to several RPD Officers, including Sargent Tarter, who responded by retaliating againstme with several traffic citations and made incorrect assertions about whether one would be turning into oncoming one way traffic to get to Mr. Hills

652 Forest St. address from the intersection of Forest and St. Laurence in justifying his retalitatory citation (for which he apparently called in another

officer to write out, curiously). I DO NOT WANT YOU TO DISCUSS MY CASE WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OF MY PRESENCE, INCLUDING VERBALAND OR WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. THIS INCLUDES ANY COMMUNICATIONS, VERBAL OR WRITTEN WITH THE RENO MUNICIPALCOURT AND ANYONE IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT OR RENO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS

LEW TAITEL.

Please email or fax me a complete copy of my file, including all pleadings, correspondences, and any other documentation or media at all connected with my case.Please further disclose any conflicts of interest you might have in representing me. I did not agree to a continuance, and I believe it is my right as a client to controlthe means and objectives of the litigation and or defense, and that, to me, does not include waiving my right to contest any motion for a continuance or making thingsnice and easy for Richard G. Hill, Esq. Further, I would like to know who agreed to the continuance and why it is Mr. Taitel is no longer attorney of record (nothingagainst you, please believe that).

Further, if Mr. Taitel is no longer attorney of record in this matter, please explain why, in detail , in writing. If he has withdrawn, and if you did so based on someconflict of interest, how is it that that conflict of interest did not preclude him from apparently agreeing to a continuance or failing to file an opposition or alerting meto the situation at all? Please note my new address and contact information below. Additionally, please indicate , in writing, the extent to which you have anestablished procedure to check for conflicts prior to taking on cases and prior to obtaining confidential client files and information. Please indicate in writing anydeviation from such a procedure or failing of your office 's practices to prevent such prejudice to my case in your taking on my representation. Please copy me on anyand all correspondences and or documentation or discovery in any way related to this matter.

Sincerely,/S/ ZACH COUGHLIN, SIGNED ELECTRONICALLY

Zach Coughlin817 N. Virginia St. #2

Reno, NV 89501tel: 775 338 8118fax: 949 667 7402


Sent: Fri 12/09/11 3:53 AM


1 attachment

12 8 11 fax to Puentes.pdf (63.6 KB)

Mr. Puentes, please find attached my signed written request for you to file certain motions. I want to

review the final drafts prior to your filing them and have tried hard to do most of the work for you.Further, you might find the following documentary that someone posted on youtube.com helpful inunderstanding this case:http://www.youtube.com/user/25teddyjames?feature=watch

Zach Coughlin, Esq.

817 N. Virginia St. #2

Reno, NV 89501

Tel: please only communicate in writing

Page 1 of 26Hotmail Print Message

2/2/2012http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=cc595d46-b764-4d56-...


11/35

Fax: 949 667 7402

Dear Mr. Puentes,

I would also like for you to subpoena Dr. Matt Merliss, the owner of the property who was present at the scene of arrest. Further, I would like for you todepose both RPD Officers (Carter and the female Officer). I would like a copy of the probable cause sheet and all witness statements and Officer's

Supplemental Declarations as soon as possible, please, in addition to all the other materials I set forth in my previous written correspondence to you.

I would like a Motion in Limine to be filed to exclude anything discovered upon the RPD illegal search of the property, including any videos by Richard

Hill or anyone else that the Reno City Attorney seeks to have admitted. I want a Motion to Dismiss filed seeking to dismiss this case based upon a

number of arguments, including the fact that any underlying Summary Eviction Order was void for lack of jurisdiction (please see my recent filing,

attached, in Reno Justice Court case rev2011-001708, in that this was noticed as a No Cause Eviction against a commercial lessee. As such, any

Summary Eviction Order is void for lack of jurisdiction given the express prohibition in both NRS 40.253 and the Nevada Supreme Court's explanation in

the Landlord Tenant Handbook found on the Supreme Court's website and elsewhere where it is made explicitly clear that landlord's may not use

Summary Eviction Proceedings to evict commercial lessees or tenants where non payment of rent is not alleged or where the Notice of Eviction or

Unlawful detainer is a No Cause notice, as was the case in Rev2011-001708. As such, no trespassing could have occurred.

Beyond that, I am requesting you file a Motion to Dismiss based upon the fact that any lockout occurring on November 1, 2011 necessarily occurred

too early and prior to any lawful notice or service of any Summary Eviction Order only signed on October 27th

, 2011, especially where no personalservice of such an ordered was alleged or shown. I detailed this in the email pasted below.

Further, a Motion to Dismiss I request you file due to Casey Baker's November 11, 2011 letter to me wherein he sends me a bill for the full rental value

of the property where the commercial lease was located for the entire month of November 2011, a period after the alleged illegal lockout. As such, no

trespass could have occurred because such a bill for rent is tantamount to rescinding any void eviction order or otherwise indicative of an invitation,

entrapment, or assent to the addressee of such a letter or bill being able to go onto the property, allegedly. In his letter mailed to Coughlin of

November 10, 2011, Casey Baker, Esq wrote In addition to the sums identified by Dr. Merliss in his affidavit, your debt now also includes fees for

storage of your personal possessions left at the property, which accrue daily at the fair rental value of the property. Your debt further includes actual

costs for inventorying and moving your possessions from the property. See NRS 118A.460. Those sums will be provided to you once they have been

fixed. Enclosed you will also find a notice of entry of the court's order awarding costs and attorney's fees against you. The court's award of cost in the

amount of $421.75, and attorney's fees in the amount of $1,500.00, has now been reduced to judgment. You are responsible for those sums. Further, as

you know, in his Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements filed on October 27,2011, Dr. Merliss actually sought $607.24 in costs and $17,938.75 in

attorney's fees against you. We believe you are responsible for those amounts, plus any and all fees and costs that have accrued, and continue to

accrue, since Letter to Zachary Coughlin Re: Verification of Debt November 10, 2011 Page 20f2 that date, in the matters currently pending before the

courts as an item of damages. Dr. Merliss win seek recovery of those sums, and an future fees and costs incurred, through the appropriate channels...

As such, Baker and Hill sent Coughlin a bill for the full rent of the property. $900 a month was the rent for the property under the commercial lease.

Baker and Hill wrote telling Coughlin they were continuing to charge him that even after the alleged illegal lockout of November 1, 2011. Further, Baker

and Hill flagrantly wrote to Coughlin in the same letter that the impermissible $1,500 in attorney's fees ordered by Judge Sferrazza was not enough for

them, and that they fully intended to continue to pursue recovery of the nearly $20,000 in attorney's fees they sought in their Memorandum of Fees and

Costs of October 27th

, 2011, despite the res judicata effect of Judge Sferrazza's November 9, 2011 Order granting them $1,500 in attorney's fees, and

despite the fact that NRS 69.030 only allows for prevailing party attorney's fees in civil actions, while JCRCP 3 specifically provides that there are three

types of matters in Nevada's Justice Court, and expressly separates landlord tenant matters from civil actions, and, as such, the prevailing party

attorney's provisions of NRS 69.030 do not apply and there exists no other basis for an attorney's fees award under any of the arguments Baker or Hill

put forth. There conduct is tantamount to extortion while leveraging their law licenses and degrees.

Further, I would like for you to seek a continuance of the trial in this matter as this case is going to require extensive discovery, settlement negotiations,and other complex legal work and there is not enough time for that as the schedule is currently set. I am attaching a collection of written materials the

landlord/property owner at 121 River Rock St 89501 (where the trespass arrest occurred sent me), including some letters that inform me they were

charging me the full rent of the property for the entire month of November 2011 (the illegal lockout allegedly occurred on November 1, 2011, though

there has been no proof of service or "receipt" pursuant to NRS 40, and given that the lockout was apparently signed by Judge Sferrazza on October

27th, 2011, that day does not count for service of the Order, the Reno Justice Court is closed on Fridays, non judicial weekend days don't count for the 3

days for service under NRCP 4-6, etc. As such, the earliest service by mail could have been affected for the Order for Summary Eviction would have been

November 2, 2011. It is alleged the lockout occurred prior to that time, and further, no emails were received from Richard Hill's email address,

[email protected] at any point between August 17th, 2011 and November 18th, 2011, period. Whether any emails from Hills

[email protected] address were "bounced back" to him or whether that address was added to my "blocked sender" list is a matter for Mr. Hill to

sludge his way through, but I can attest under penalty of perjury that I did not receive any emails from that [email protected] email address

between that time period. I can further attest that I made calls and written correspondences to both Hill's [email protected] email and hisassociate Casey Baker, Esq.'s email, electroencephalographic addresses that went unresponded to with regard to my numerous requests to be allowed




12/35

These included, but were not limited to, the following:

From: [email protected]

Sent: Wed 11/09/11 12:43 PM

To: Casey Baker ([email protected])

Don't ignore my calls about my possessions. You potentially conducted an illegal lockout of a law office an inspection outside my presence. The lease

requires my presence. It also makes your guy responsible for the electric bill, read it carefully. Show your proof of any "receipt" of any lockout order 24

hours prior to your actions. My possessions better be safe and afforded all legal protections and I want updates one whatf is being done with them andan opportunity to clean or otherwise put the premises in the condition I intended to leave it in prior to the illegal lockout. I want my possessions that

are in the house and all privacy rights respected. There is a motion for stay in district court right now.

Re: Verification of Your Debt? 11/10/11To Casey Baker


(Sent: Thu 11/10/11 12:24 PM

To: Casey Baker ([email protected])

You guys are way over the days for providing verification under the FDCPA. Can you say treble damages? I habe not received a single email such as

those you refer to from richard hill. I dont consent to service of anything via email from your shop. I know you want everything to be at warp speed, but

you have to serve me through the mail or some non electronic means. Make sure rich isnt getting "unnsuccessful email transmission" messages....i can

certainly prove i have not received any such emails from Dick. I want my stuff its important client materials etc. You guys have not returned my

messages about that, its wrong to try to charge me rent when you are ducking me.

From: [email protected] Sent: Fri 11/11/11 12:49 AM To: Casey Baker ([email protected]); [email protected]

([email protected]) Hi Guys, I have been having some technical difficulties, some emails appear blank or black, kind of like your client described in

response to some of my emails. Hey, ever heard of a litigation hold notice? That is what this is ,please retain and failure messages you recieve in your

own email which might prove that an email you sent me just didn't quite make it. You know just producing a copy of some email you sent me (even

though i have repeatedly told you i dont consent to service electronically in any form and am not a registered efiler like you two legal eagles) is not

going to be good enough when i break out the old litigation hold notice and anything elese that might tend to show any emails you sent could not

have made it to me....why such a rush, Boys? You are doing your patented and typical bang up milking job on thos headstrong rich client of yours...smell

the flowers a little. For instance, you don't want to do an illegal lockout and illegal inspection, particularly where the lease calls for my presence at any

inspection and then if you did not make sure the "receipt" requirement was met for any lockout order then went ahead and violated someone's




13/35

constitutional rights to boot. Plus you are way late on the FDCPA stuff, and the prevailing party atty fee statute is for cicil actons, which jcrcp 3 separates

ustice court matters into 3 types, and the civil actions mentioned in seller's prevailing party fee statute is mentioned as different from landord tenant

cases and small claims cases..So where is your good faith basis for moving for atty fees, much less for $20k worth of them. Why did you cite the

controlled substances manufacture statute to support your atty fee motion? I pulled every eviction y'all ever done... RJC has been like swinging the bat

in the on deck circle with 5 donuts on the bat for me, gentlemen. For you, its been the polar opposite. But we gettin' called up to the show! You never

know when you are on tape or film guys. And my bat speed is lookin' tremendous. I have tried again and again to get some response from you guys

about accesing my important files and keeping my very valuable possesions safe but have yet to here back feom you, in the event you have done a

lockout. Mr. Baker said he did some filmmaking or something when he broke in to any attorneys office, it was hard to hear through all the cooing.

Anyways, I aren't that smart, but dontcha have to like store my possessions after movin' them somewhere safe, the make a reasonably diligent attempt

to rent the place out to mitigate and damages or lost rent, plus provide me my deposit within like 10 days or something? I know mighty Casey likes to

give me lil research projects, but I am busy fleshing out some motion work right now, so maybe you get on that and let me know when and where I can

get my things and valuable client files, hopefully you two points of light haven't done nuthhin' to 'em. Now, I dont want to come between you and

Casey...I know he is probably getting a little tired of you keeping most of the profit while he gets dirty doing the gutters, but you guys have a nice lil

batman robin thing going and it would be a shame to see it end, so let's just try and make this work."

From the alleged date of the illegal lockout of November 1, 2011 until Casey Baker's November 10, 2011 written bill to me for full rent for the month of

November 2011 (ie, after the alleged illegal lockout and therefore extinguishing the eviction and creating a new lease or rescinding the eviction order

and, perhaps making extortionate threats to apply an unlawful rent distraint in contravention of NRS 40.460, and NRS 40. 520, etc.) I received two

written correspondences of any sort from anyone connected with the landlord Matt Merliss (a neurosurgeon graduate of Beverly Hills HS) and the law

office of Richard G. Hill, Esq. (including Hill and Baker, etc.). These two written correspondences from Casey Baker are attached and pasted below:

subject: Verification of Your Debt

11/10/11

Casey BakerTo [email protected]: Casey Baker ([email protected])

Sent: Thu 11/10/11 11:13 AM


1 attachment

LT Coughlin (verif of debt)(11-10-11).pdf (146.0 KB)

Mr. Coughlin:Attached please find my letter to you dated November 10, 2011.Sincerely,Casey D. Baker, Esq.Richard G. Hill, Chartered652 Forest StreetReno, Nevada 89509Phone: (775) 348-0888Fax: (775) 348-0858

Email: [email protected]: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT; ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGEThis e-mail may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use, or disclose

this communication to anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete theemail message from your system. Thank you.Circular 230 Notice.To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (includingany attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code

or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. RE: request for 30 days additional to stay in possession disability

11/04/11

Casey BakerTo [email protected]: Casey Baker ([email protected])

Sent: Fri 11/04/11 12:36 PM





14/35

Mr. Coughlin:

We have never been served with any paper entitled Motion to Continue in Possession. If you have proof to the contrary, please provide it. With respect to your request for another 30 days, please identify the legal and factual basis for your request, including any specific statute you are

purporting to invoke.Casey Baker

Below for your convenience is a copy of the email I recently sent you as my, Zach Coughlin's, counsel of record, Mr. Puentes:

Zach Coughlin, Esq.From: [email protected]: [email protected]: continuance and my filesDate: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 01:11:35 -0800

Dear Mr. Puentes,

I would like for you to subpoena both Officers present at the arrest of November 13, 2011 to testify at the trial. I would like for you to subpoena (by

subpoena duces tecum, I suppose) all recordings, dispatch reports, written documentation, reports in any way connected to, or other materials, whether

admissible or not, in any way connected to the arrest of November 13, 2011 or the charges against which I am defending in conjunction with your

representation. I wish for you to email me these materials to the extent possible, and where that is not possible, please mail them to me at my address

of record at www.nvbar.org, and found below at the end of this letter. Email is better for me than fax, as it is free whereas I have to pay for faxes by the

page, whether local or not. I prefer email too over having to take time out of what is an extremely busy and trying schedule of mine currently.

RPD Officer Carter made a statement at the scene of the arrest that Mr. Richard Hill paid him a lot of money and therefore he does what Mr. Hill says to

do and arrest who Mr. Hill says to arrest. This has been reported to several RPD Officers, including Sargent Tarter, who responded by retaliating against

me with several traffic citations and made incorrect assertions about whether one would be turning into oncoming one way traffic to get to Mr. Hills

652 Forest St. address from the intersection of Forest and St. Laurence in justifying his retalitatory citation (for which he apparently called in another

officer to write out, curiously). I DO NOT WANT YOU TO DISCUSS MY CASE WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OF MY PRESENCE, INCLUDING VERBAL AND OR

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. THIS INCLUDES ANY COMMUNICATIONS, VERBAL OR WRITTEN WITH THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT AND ANYONE IN

ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT OR RENO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS LEW TAITEL.

Please email or fax me a complete copy of my file, including all pleadings, correspondences, and any other documentation or media at all connected

with my case. Please further disclose any conflicts of interest you might have in representing me. I did not agree to a continuance, and I believe it is my

right as a client to control the means and objectives of the litigation and or defense, and that, to me, does not include waiving my right to contest any

motion for a continuance or making things nice and easy for Richard G. Hill, Esq. Further, I would like to know who agreed to the continuance and why

it is Mr. Taitel is no longer attorney of record (nothing against you, please believe that).

Further, if Mr. Taitel is no longer attorney of record in this matter, please explain why, in detail, in writing. If he has withdrawn, and if you did so based

on some conflict of interest, how is it that that conflict of interest did not preclude him from apparently agreeing to a continuance or failing to file an

opposition or alerting me to the situation at all? Please note my new address and contact information below. Additionally, please indicate, in writing,the extent to which you have an established procedure to check for conflicts prior to taking on cases and prior to obtaining confidential client files and

information. Please indicate in writing any deviation from such a procedure or failing of your office's practices to prevent such prejudice to my case inyour taking on my representation. Please copy me on any and all correspondences and or documentation or discovery in any way related to this matter.

Sincerely,

/S/ ZACH COUGHLIN, SIGNED ELECTRONICALLYZach Coughlin817 N. Virginia St. #2Reno, NV 89501tel: 775 338 8118fax: 949 667 7402




15/35

faxed signed letter attached

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:35 AMTo: [email protected]

2 attachments

12 14 11 faxed letter to Puentes 11 CR 26405 2I.pdf (55.0 KB) , Coughlin IFP and Financial Inquiry Application RMC 11222011 11 CR 26405

2I.pdf (381.9 KB)

Mr. Puentes,Please find my faxed signed letter attached. Also, if I am supposed to file an updated Financial StatusApplication, please find that attached.

December 13th, 2011Dear Mr. Puentes,

Hello, I received a package from you in the mail today. It did not contain a letter from you or any

indication of whether you will subpoena Dr. Merliss to attend the January Trial date, which is fast

approaching, whether you will depose him or Richard Hill, etc. Please respond in writing regard the

various written requests and questions I posed to you in my recent written correspondences, including,

but not limited to, whether you will comply with my requests to file a Motion in Limine, Motion to

Dismiss, Depose Dr. Merliss and Richard Hill, file a Motion to Set Aside the Continuance, for which I

was never appropriately provided a chance to contest, or served the Original Motion for Continuance.

I want to be copied, in writing, on every single thing related in any way to this case. RMC Rules

require the attorney, such as you and Lew Taitel to file a Notice of Appearance and to file a Motion to

Withdraw. Please provide a copy of the docket in this case. I do not see where Mr. Taitel ever filed a

Motion to Withdraw or where an Order Granting such a withdrawal was granted. It is my

understanding, though, that an Order Granting a Motion to Dismiss was likely entered. I want for you

to file a Motion To Set Aside that Order if it was based on Richard Hill citing some lame reason, like he

was going to be Porsche shopping in Florida or otherwise on vacation for some extended stretch or that

Richard Hill was the only person able to testify about whatever it is Richard Hill may want to testify

about. Dr. Merliss can take time out of raking in millions of dollars being a Beverly Hills HS graduate

neurosurgeon. I want him subpoenaed and deposed for the upcoming trial. I want a subpoena duces

tecum served on Richard Hill for any evidence related to this case, including any videos. Further, I

want you to make an inquiry and take appropriate action to discern whether I was appropriately served

any Notice Setting Hearing documents in this case, ascertaining exactly who (including which Marshal)may have served me anything, the manner and place in which is was served, whose signature is there,

etc., whether the signature bears a date that is PRIOR in time to the Print Date on the Notice Setting

Hearing, etc.

Further, I want you to subpoena or obtain a copy of (and provide one to me) of the video of the

November 14th, 2011 arraignment, the entire video, start to finish (not just my appearance), I will pay

any charge if I have to, but I believe an IFP was granted that would cover such a charge in this matter.

I do not believe it would be accurate for the Reno Municipal Court to state or write, with respect to my

and the November 14, 2011 arraignment, that DEFENDANT APPEARED, WAS EXPLAINED

HIS/HER RIGHTS BY THE JUDGE AND INDICATED THAT HE/SHE UNDERSTOOD THEM

COMPLETELY... If the RMC has made that assertion in writing I want you to file something in

writing contesting that assertion. I do not believe I have been told that there is any possibility that I will

be required to pay you or the RMC any fees in connection with your representation. If that is not the

case, please explain in writing.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq

Zach Coughlin, Esq.


Reno, NV 89501

tel: 775 229-6737

fax: 949 667 7402

[email protected]




16/35

client controls means and objectives of litigation under Rules of Professional

Conduct

Nevada Bar No: 9473

** Notice**This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may containconfidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on thecontents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential , int ended only f or t he named recipient(s) and may contain inf ormation t hat i spr iv i l eged, at tor ney work product or exempt fr om disclosure under appl icable law. If you are not t he intended recipient(s) , you are noti f ied that any

disclosure, copying, distr ibuti on or any action taken or omitt ed to be ta ken in rel iance on the contents of t his informat ion is prohibi t ed and may be

unlawful . If you receive this message in error , or ar e not t he named recipient(s) , please noti f y t he sender, delete t his e-mai l f rom your computer, anddestr oy any copies in any for m immediately. Receipt by anyone other than t he named recipient(s) is not a wai ver of any at tor ney-cl ient, work product, or

other appl icable pr iv i l ege.


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:52 AM


Dear Mr. Puentes,

Please let me know when we can discuss my case, the trial is very soon. I received a mailing from you, but it did not have a signed letter

from you stating what was in the package. Please email me or fax me any document production in the future and redact my personallyidentifiable information from all documentions coming in or out of your office.

In the mailing I received from you was:

1. WCSO Mugshot Profile booking no: 1119876, one page

2. Criminal Complaint 11-22185, one page, signed by Richard Hill, not filestamped

3. ARrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause rpd 1101921 C r650225 , Declarant RPD Officer Carter, no Magistrate signature(please find out why), one page

4. RPD, 3 pages 11-22185 Adminstrative Information, etc. (please subpoena and depose both RPD Officer's Lopez and Carter, asking themwhether they verbally identified themselves prior to, according to Hill, kicking the door down, and further questions them concerning theaccuracy of Hill's written statement and whether Officer Carter said to the accused that Richard Hill pays him, Officer Carter, a lot ofmoney and therefore Carter arrests who Hills says to arrest and does what Hill says to do. Further, please depose both officers, askingwhether the accused requested they take any action or ask Hill any questions and whether the Officers did so. Please subpoena the RPD forany recordings, calls, documentation relating to this matter, or RPD Sargent Tarter's alleged retaliation against me and the traffic citationshe called in another RPD officer to write against me on or around November 15th, 2011. Please file a counterclaim alleged 42 USC 1983violations againt the City of Reno and the RPD, in addition to other appropriate counterclaims. Please depose Hill to verify his writtenaccount that he actually walked into the Basement, that Merliss himself kicked the door down, whether the RPD Officers verballyidentified themselves prior to the door being kicked down, whether the accused hesitated at all upon the RPD identifying themselves, etc....

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.


Reno, NV 89501

tel: 775 229-6737

fax: 949 667 7402

[email protected]

Nevada Bar No: 9473

** Notice**This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain




17/35

CORRECTION FW: client controls means and objectives of litigation under Rulesof Professional Conduct

confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on thecontents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential , int ended only f or t he named recipient(s) and may contain inf ormation t hat i spr iv i l eged, at tor ney work product or exempt fr om disclosure under appl icable law. If you are not t he intended recipient(s) , you are noti f ied that any


unlawful . If you receive this message in error , or ar e not t he named recipient(s) , please noti f y t he sender, delete t his e-mai l f rom your computer, and

destr oy any copies in any for m immediately. Receipt by anyone other than t he named recipient(s) is not a wai ver of any at tor ney-cl ient, work product, or



Sent: Wed 12/14/11 1:19 AM


Dear Mr. Puentes,

Please amend the list below to include the following:5. RPD Statement by Richard Hill 11-22185

Further, please note I mistakenly noted in paragraph 4 below, that Hill was attributed as making awritten stament about entering the basement. Please, instead, ask the same questions of Officer Carter,as to whether he "entered the doorway of the basement and found..." and what exactly he means by "Hewas hesitant to come out and eventually did so". IE, what exactly does "eventually" mean? Like, onesecond, ten minutes? What? Whether Officer Carter ever actually stepped foot in the basement, orwhether by writing that he "entered the doorway" Officer Carter is actually stating that he peeked hishead in or otherwise peered in. Please inquire as to whether the RPD refused to kick the door down orwhether someone else did, etc. PLEASE ASK OFFICER CARTER WHETHER HIS WRITTENSTATMENT IS ENTIRELY ACCURATE WHERE IT ATTRIBUTES A QUOTE TO THEACCUSED THAT CARTER IS OR WAS "ON RICHARD HILL'S PAYROLL..." and further whatexactly was allegedly said about "working a deal". Please ask Carter and Lopez whether the accusedasked why they didn't just issue a citation and whether one would be arrested for getting their mail after

an eviction and why exactly an incarceration was necessary compared to a citation. Please furtherinquire as to whether these Officers refused to make any arrests or investigation requested by theaccused and whether Carter indicated that he would never arrest anyone based on anything said by the

person he is arresting at the time such accusations, or counter accusations, are made. Please furthersend Merliss and Hill subpoena duces tecum/interrogatories/request for production/ and request foradmission seeking specific, written indication and evidence supporting all contentions in any of thematerials upon which this arrest or this case is based, including, but not limited to Hill's writtenstatement that "We have observed evidence that he was coming and going."

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin



Subject: client controls means and objectives of litigation under Rules of Professional Conduct

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:52:25 -0800

Dear Mr. Puentes,

Please let me know when we can discuss my case, the trial is very soon. I received a mailing from you, but it did not have a signed letterfrom you stating what was in the package. Please email me or fax me any document production in the future and redact my personallyidentifiable information from all documentions coming in or out of your office.

In the mailing I received from you was:




18/35

THIS COULD WIN THE CASE IN 11 CR 26405 2I

1. WCSO Mugshot Profile booking no: 1119876, one page

2. Criminal Complaint 11-22185, one page, signed by Richard Hill, not filestamped

3. ARrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause rpd 1101921 C r650225 , Declarant RPD Officer Carter, no Magistrate signature(please find out why), one page

4. RPD, 3 pages 11-22185 Adminstrative Information, etc. (please subpoena and depose both RPD Officer's Lopez and Carter, asking themwhether they verbally identified themselves prior to, according to Hill, kicking the door down, and further questions them concerning the

accuracy of Hill's written statement and whether Officer Carter said to the accused that Richard Hill pays him, Officer Carter, a lot ofmoney and therefore Carter arrests who Hills says to arrest and does what Hill says to do. Further, please depose both officers, askingwhether the accused requested they take any action or ask Hill any questions and whether the Officers did so. Please subpoena the RPD forany recordings, calls, documentation relating to this matter, or RPD Sargent Tarter's alleged retaliation against me and the traffic citationshe called in another RPD officer to write against me on or around November 15th, 2011. Please file a counterclaim alleged 42 USC 1983violations againt the City of Reno and the RPD, in addition to other appropriate counterclaims. Please depose Hill to verify his writtenaccount that he actually walked into the Basement, that Merliss himself kicked the door down, whether the RPD Officers verballyidentified themselves prior to the door being kicked down, whether the accused hesitated at all upon the RPD identifying themselves, etc....

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.

817 N. Virginia St. #2Reno, NV 89501

tel: 775 229-6737

fax: 949 667 7402

[email protected]

Nevada Bar No: 9473

** Notice**This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may containconfidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on thecontents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential , int ended only f or t he named recipient(s) and may contain inf ormation t hat i spr iv i l eged, at tor ney work product or exempt fr om disclosure under appl icable law. If you are not t he intended recipient(s) , you are noti f ied that any






Sent: Wed 12/14/11 5:02 AM


5 attachments

11 1 2011 Affidavit of Service, Notice of Entry of Order, and Order for Summary Eviction Rev2011-001708.pdf (7.8 MB) , Affidavit of Service

Sheriff's Machen 4 30 pm 11 1 2011.pdf (555.1 KB) , 12 14 11 fax to Puentes ISSUES THAT CAN WIN THE CASE.pdf (144.2 KB) , 11 21 11Declaration of Richard Hill attach to his M for OSC (11-21-11) Compare to Police Reports and deposition of RPD's Carter and Lopez and

Merliss.pdf (791.4 KB) , 11 21 2011 REV2011-00178 RICHARD HILL'S M for OSC (11-21-11).pdf (711.7 KB)

Zach Coughlin, Esq.


Reno, NV 89501

Tel: please only communicate in writing

Fax: 949 667 7402




19/35

Licensed in Nevada, NV Bar No: 9473

December 14th, 2011

Dear Mr. Puentes,

Mr. Puentes,

Please find attached the Affidavit of Service, filed November 7th, 2011 in the eviction case in RJC (REV2011-0017808) from which thetrespass case you are Attorney of Record for (RMC 11 CR 26405 2I) stems. TURNS OUT, THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FILED BYTHE WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF'S AUTHORIZED AGENT, JOHN MACHEN ADMITS, IN WRITING, THAT THE EVICTIONORDER AND LOCKOUT WERE SERVED AND CONDUCTED PRIOR TO THE TIME AND DATE CALLED FOR BY THEEVICTION ORDER (WHICH WAS NOT EVEN PUT INTO THE MAIL WITH A PROOF OF SERVICE UNTIL NOVEMBER 1,2011...AND NRCP 4-6 APPLY TO STATUTORY UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS, THEREFORE, THE RJC IS CLOSEDFRIDAYS AND OTHER NON JUDICIAL DAYS DO NOT COUNT, NOR DOES THE DAY THE ORDER IS SIGNED COUNT).PLEASE ALSO FIND ATTACHED RICHARD HILL, ESQ'S DECLARATION ATTACHED TO A MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE HEFILED IN REV2011-001708, WHICH I BELIEVE MAY PROVIDE FERTILE GROUND FOR IMPEACHING THE WRITTENSTATEMENTS AND FUTURE TESTIMONY OF RPD OFFICER'S CARTER, LOPEZ, LANDLORD MERLISS, HILL HIMSELF,ETC. PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS THIS VERBALLY OR IN WRITING WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN MYSELF ABSENT MYEXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT PRIOR TO DOING SO.

I prefer to discuss this with you prior to your taking any action in relation to this illegal lockout or insufficient service of process or earlylockout or however it is described. The Sheriff's server, Machen, might try to argue that he served the Eviction Order at 4:30 pm, thenwaited around until after 5 pm (as required by the Eviction Order) to perform the actual lockout. I think it would be best to get Machenadmitting, by tricking him into admitting, if necessary, that he performed the lockout within minutes of serving the Eviction Order.

Further, the law in our State does not seem exceptionally clear with regard to the service and process requirements and timelines, andmanner of calculating time with respect to the "receipt" of Lockout Orders. The Affidavit of Service by Machen states that he "personallyserved the described documents upon" my, Zach Coughlin...However, I can attest by Affidavit that I was not "personally served" to theextent that "personally served" means or implies that I was there, that Machen saw me or identified me, or any of the other indicators ofsomething, such as a Complaint, being "personally served" such as I understand the phrase to me. NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii). Further, asBaker and Hill have so often pointed out, I cannot, according to them, receive any attorney's fee award for appearing as pro se attorney, assuch, NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii), should apply to me only as a party, and not as a party's attorney, and, therefore, according to NRCP 5,Service: "(2) Service under this rule is made by: (A) Delivering a copy to the attorney or the party by: (i) handing it to the attorney or to theparty; (ii) leaving it a t the attorneys or partys office with a clerk or other person in charge, or if there is no one in charge, leaving it in aconspicuous place in the office; or (iii) if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the persons dwelling

house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion residing there..." So, either it was my office, in whichcase a No Cause Eviction Notice makes impermissible a Summary Eviction Proceeding under NRS 40.253, and therefore, the Order ofSummary Eviction is void for lack of jurisdiction, or, the Affidavit of Service was on my home, and was not "handed" to me, or"personally served" (despite the Affidavit attesting to having "personally served" me), nor was the Order of Summary Eviction served inaccordance with NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(iii), which requires: "if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at thepersons dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion residing there .."

Further, I believe posting an Order on one's residence door, particularly in the context of serving a No Cause Notice of Eviction orUnlawful Detainer, is only valid if the document being served is also placed in the mail and 3 non judicial days are accorded for service tobe complete. See NRCP 6(e). I do not believe they can prove that at all , not even close. NRCP applies to Summary Eviction Actions,according to the following:"NRS 40.380 Provisions governing appeals. Either party may, within 10 days, appeal from the judgment rendered. But an appeal by thedefendant shall not stay the execution of the judgment, unless, within the 10 days, the defendant shall execute and file with the court orjustice the defendants undertaking to the plaintiff, with two or more sureties, in an amount to be fixed by the court or justice, but whichshall not be less than twice the amount of the judgment and costs, to the effect that, if the judgment appealed from be affirmed or theappeal be dismissed, the appellant will pay the judgment and the cost of appeal, the value of the use and occupation of the property, anddamages justly accruing to the plaintiff during the pendency of the appeal. Upon taking the appeal and filing the undertaking, all furtherproceedings in the case shall be stayed.

Actually, a lot of people seemed confused regarding the 24 hours lockout thing. The only appearance in either NRS 118A or NRS 40, in the provisions

applicable to Summary Eviction Proceedings of anything related to 24 hours is in NRS 40.253(5), which only speaks to a situation where the Tenant

does not file a Tenant's Answer or Tenant's Affidavit, which is clearly inapplicable here, as the Tenant did file such a Opposition to the No Cause Eviction

Notice: 5. Upon noncompliance with the notice:

(a) The landlord or the landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court of the township in which the dwelling,

apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in which the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or

commercial premises are located, whichever has jurisdiction over the matter. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or

constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order.The affidavit must state or contain...

So, absent some statutory provision allowing the Order of Summary Eviction to result in a lockout by the Washoe County Sheriff's Office prior to the 3

days for mailing where personal service of the Order of Summary Eviction was not effectuated, despite what WCSO employee may have incorrectly (or

falsely) asserted in the WCSO's John Machem's Affidavit of Service from, file stamped November 7, 2011 (especially where it is timestamped 4:30 pm,




20/35

November 1, 2011, especially where the Order of Summary Eviction explicitly reads that no such lockout shall occur prior to 5:00 pm on November 1,

2011). See,NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii), NRCP 6(e).

Interestingly, Richard Hill knows his case is toast under NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii), NRCP 6(e), in addition to NRCP 11. That is why inRichard Hill's November 21, 2011 Motion for Order To Show Cause, on page 2, Hills resorts to literally grasping at straws, imagining thatwhat the Washoe County Sheriff's Office customarily does is somehow automatically codified into mandatory precedent black letter law.To wit, Richard Hill wrote in his Motion For Order To Show Cause that: FACTS SHOWING CONTEMPT OF COURT6. EXHIBIT1 was served on Coughlin on November " 2011 by the Washoe County Sheriffs Department, by posting same on the front door of theproperty in the manner customary for evictions in Washoe County. The locks to the premises were changed at that time, thereby ejecting

and dispossessing Coughlin of possession of the Property. Further, therein Richard Hill admits that the lockout occurred at 4:30 pm, asindicated in writing in the WCSO's Machem's Affidavit of Service, contra to the mandate of Judge Sferrazza's Order of Summary Evictionrequiring any lockout to occur after 5:00 pm, November 1, 2011.

NRS 40.385 Stay of execution upon appeal; duty of tenant who retains possession of premises to pay rent during stay. Upon anappeal from an order entered pursuant to NRS 40.253:

1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a stay of execution may be obtained by filing with the trial court a bond inthe amount of $250 to cover the expected costs on appeal. In an action concerning a lease of commercial property or any otherproperty for which the monthly rent exceeds $1,000, the court may, upon its own motion or that of a party, and upon a showing ofgood cause, order an additional bond to be posted to cover the expected costs on appeal. A surety upon the bond submits to theurisdiction of the appellate court and irrevocably appoints the clerk of that court as the suretys agent upon whom papers

affecting the suretys liability upon the bond may be served. Liability of a surety may be enforced, or the bond may be released, onmotion in the appellate court without independent action.

2. A tenant who retains possession of the premises that are the subject of the appeal during the pendency of the appeal shall pay to thelandlord rent in the amount provided in the underlying contract between the tenant and the landlord as it becomes due. If the tenant fails topay such rent, the landlord may initiate new proceedings for a summary evict ion by serving the tenant with a new notice pursuant to NRS40.253.

NRS 40.390 Appellate court not to dismiss or quash proceedings for want of form. In all cases of appeal under NRS 40.220to 40.420,inclusive, the appellate court shall not dismiss or quash the proceedings for want of form, provided the proceedings have been conductedsubstantially according to the provisions of NRS 40.220to 40.420, inclusive; and amendments to the complaint, answer or summons, inmatters of form only, may be allowed by the court at any time before final judgment upon such terms as may be just; and all matters ofexcuse, justification or avoidance of the allegations in the complaint may be given in evidence under the answer.

NRS 40.400 Rules of practice. The provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and Nevada Rules of AppellateProcedure relative to civil actions, appeals and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NRS 40.220to40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections.So, considering that NRS 40.400 requires that NRCP apply to Summary Eviction Proceedings under NRS 40.253, then service, process,and time calculations of such must comport with the dictates of NRCP 5-6: " RULE 5. SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS ANDOTHER PAPERS

(a) Service: When Required. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every order required by its terms to be served, everypleading subsequent to the original complaint unless the court otherwise orders because of numerous defendants, every paper relat ing todiscovery required to be served upon a party unless the court otherwise orders, every written motion other than one which may be heard exparte, and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, designation of record on appeal, and similar paper shall be servedupon each of the parties. No service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except that pleadings asserting new oradditional claims for relief against them shall be served upon them in the manner provided for service of summons in Rule 4.

(b) Same: How Made.(1) Whenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney, the service

shall be made upon the a ttorney unless the court orders that service be made upon the party.(2) Service under this rule is made by:

(A) Delivering a copy to the attorney or the party by: (i) handing it to the attorney or to the party;(ii) leaving it at the attorneys or partys office with a clerk or other person in charge, or if there is no one in charge,

leaving it in a conspicuous place in the office; or(iii) if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the persons dwelling house or usual place

of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion residing there.(B) Mailing a copy to the attorney or the party at his or her last known address. Service by mail is complete on mailing;

provided, however, a motion, answer or other document constituting the initial appearance of a party must also, if served by mail,be filed within the time allowed for service; and provided further, that after such initial appearance, service by mail be made onlyby mailing from a point within the State of Nevada.

(C) If the attorney or the party has no known address, leaving a copy with the clerk of the court. (D) Delivering a copy by electronic means if the attorney or the party served has consented to service by electronic

means. Service by electronic means is complete on transmission provided, however, a motion, answer or other documentconstituting the initial appearance of a party must also, if served by electronic means, be filed within the time allowed for service.The served attorneys or partys consent to service by electronic means shall be expressly stated and filed in writing with the clerkof the court and served on the other parties to the action. The written consent shall identify:

(i) the persons upon whom service must be made;(ii) the appropriate address or location for such service, such as the electronic-mail address or facsimile number; (iii) the format to be used for attachments; and(iv) any other limits on the scope or duration of the consent.

An attorneys or partys consent shall remain effective until expressly revoked or until the representation of a party changesthrough entry, withdrawal, or substitution of counsel.An attorney or party who has consented to service by electronic means shall,within 10 days after any change of electronic-mail address or facsimile number, serve and file notice of the new electronic-mail address orfacsimile number.




21/35

service did not reach the person to be served. (4) Proof of service may be made by certificate of an attorney or of the attorneys employee, or by written admission, or by

affidavit, or other proof satisfactory to the court. Failure to make proof of service shall not affect the validity of service...RULE 6. TIME

(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, byorder of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to runshall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a nonjudicial day, inwhich event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a nonjudicial day, or, when the act to bedone is the filing of a paper in court, a day on which weather or other conditions have made the office of the clerk of the district courtinaccessible, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period oftime prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and nonjudicial days shall be excluded in thecomputation except for those proceedings filed under Titles 12 or 13 of the Nevada Revised Statutes...

(e) Additional Time After Service by Mail or Electronic Means. Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some actor take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper, other than process, upon the partyand the notice or paper is served upon the party by mail or by electronic means, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period.

Subdivision (a) is revised to extend the exclusion of intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and nonjudicial days to the computation of timeperiods less than 11 days consistent with the 1985 amendments to the federal rule. Additionally, the inaccessibility of the courtprovision found in subdivision (a) of the federal rule is added to Rule 6(a). Subdivision (a) is further amended, by adding languagereferring to proceedings filed under Titles 12 or 13 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, to avoid any changes to current procedures inprobate, guardianship and trust proceedings... .

Subdivision (e) is amended to provide an additional 3 days to act in response to a paper that is served by electronic means undernew paragraph (2)(D) added to Rule 5(b)."NRS 40.253 Unlawful detainer: Supplemental remedy of summary eviction and exclusion of tenant for default in payment of rent.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 10, in addition to the remedy provided in NRS 40.2512and 40.290to 40.420, inclusive,when the tenant of any dwelling, apartment, mobile home, recreational vehicle or commercial premises with periodic rent reservedby the month or any shorter period is in default in payment of the rent, the landlord or the landlords agent, unless otherwise agreed inwriting, may serve or have served a notice in writing, requiring in the alternative the payment of the rent or the surrender of the premises... 4. If the tenant files such an affidavit at or before the time stated in the notice, the landlord or the landlords agent, after receipt of afile-stamped copy of the affidavit which was filed, shall not provide for the nonadmittance of the tenant to the premises by locking orotherwise.

5. Upon noncompliance with the notice:(a) The landlord or the landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court of the township in which

the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in which the dwelling,apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever has jurisdiction over the matter. The court may thereupon issue anorder directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order..

6. Upon the filing by the tenant of the affidavit permitted in subsection 3, regardless of the information contained in the affidavit, andthe filing by the landlord of the affidavit permitted by subsection 5, the justice court or the district court shall hold a hearing, after serviceof notice of the hearing upon the parties, to determine the truthfulness and sufficiency of any affidavit or notice provided for in this section.If the court determines that there is no legal defense as to the alleged unlawful detainer and the tenant is guilty of an unlawfuldetainer, the court may issue a summary order for removal of the tenant or an order providing for the nonadmittance of thetenant. If the court determines that there is a legal defense as to the alleged unlawful detainer, the court shall refuse to grant eitherparty any relief, and, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, shall require that any further proceedings be conducted

pursuant to NRS 40.290to 40.420, inclusive. The issuance of a summary order for removal of the tenant does not preclude an actionby the tenant for any damages or other relief to which the tenant may be entitled....

7. The tenant may, upon payment of the appropriate fees relating to the filing and service of a motion, file a motion with the court, on aform provided by the clerk of the court, to dispute the amount of the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant to NRS 118.207or118A.460for the inventory, moving and storage of personal property left on the premises. The motion must be filed within 20 days after thesummary order for removal of the tenant or the abandonment of the premises by the tenant, or within 20 days after:

(a) The tenant has vacated or been removed from the premises; and(b) A copy of those charges has been requested by or provided to the tenant,

whichever is later.8. Upon the filing of a motion pursuant to subsection 7, the court shall schedule a hearing on the motion. The hearing must be

held within 10 days after the filing of the motion. The court shall affix the date of the hearing to the motion and order a copyserved upon the landlord by the sheriff, constable or other process server. At the hearing, the court may:

(a) Determine the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant to NRS 118.207or 118A.460and any accumulating daily costs; and(b) Order the release of the tenants property upon the payment of the charges determined to be due or if no charges are determined to

be due. Landlord Merliss filed only a No Cause Notice of Eviction in REV2011-001708 on Commercial Tenant Zach Coughlin, Esq.'s law office.

As such, a Summary Eviction Proceeding is impermissible given the requirement of NRS 40.253 that the Notice alleged non-payment ofrent to allow the landlord to proceed under the Summary Eviction Proceeding section, NRS 40.253. Further, Judge Sferrazza wasprecluded from ruling on anything other than possession of the premises pursuant to NRS 40.253(6), Anvui, and Glazier. Further, thetenancy did not terminate under the Lease Agreement, it ws renewed.

NRS 40.254 Unlawful detainer: Supplemental remedy of summary evict ion and exclusion of tenant from certain types of property.Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, in addition to the remedy provided in NRS 40.251and in NRS 40.290to 40.420, inclusive,

when the tenant of a dwelling unit which is subject to the provisions of chapter 118Aof NRS, part of a low-rent housing program operatedby a public housing author ity, a mobile home or a recreational vehicle is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the landlord is entitled to thesummary procedures provided in NRS 40.253except that:

1. Written notice to surrender the premises must:...(e) A statement that the claim for relief was authorized by law.As such, the too early lockout brings into play the following:

NRS 118A.390 Unlawful removal or exclusion of tenant or willful interruption of essential services; procedure for expedited relief.1. If the landlord unlawfully removes the tenant from the premises or excludes the tenant by blocking or attempting to block thetenants entr u on the remises or willfull interru ts or causes or ermits the interru tion of an essential service re uired b




22/35

the rental agreement or this chapter, the tenant may recover immediate possession pursuant to subsection 4, proceed under NRS118A.380 or terminate the rental agreement and, in addition to any other remedy, recover the tenants actual damages, receive anamount not greater than $1,000 to be fixed by the court, or both.2. In determining the amount, if any, to be awarded under subsection 1, the court shall consider:(a) Whether the landlord acted in good faith;(b) The course of conduct between the landlord and the tenant; and(c) The degree of harm to the tenant caused by the landlords conduct.3. If the rental agreement is terminated pursuant to subsection 1, the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security recoverable underthis chapter.4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, the tenant may recover immediate possession of the premises from the landlord by filing averified complaint for expedited relief for the unlawful removal or exclusion of the tenant from the premises or the willful interruption ofessential services.5. A verified complaint for expedited relief:(a) Must be filed with the court within 5 judicial days after the date of the unlawful act by the landlord, and the verified complaint must bedismissed if it is not timely filed. If the verified complaint for expedited relief is dismissed pursuant to this paragraph, the tenant retains theright to pursue all other available remedies against the landlord. (b) May not be filed with the court if an action for summary eviction or unlawful detainer is already pending between the landlord andtenant, but the tenant may seek similar relief before the judge presiding over the pending action.6. The court shall conduct a hearing on the verified complaint for expedited relief within 3 judicial days after the filing of the verifiedcomplaint for expedited relief. Before or at the scheduled hearing, the tenant must provide proof that the landlord has been properly servedwith a copy of the verified complaint for expedited relief. Upon the hearing, if it is determined that the landlord has violated any of theprovisions of subsection 1, the cour t may:(a) Order the landlord to restore to the tenant the premises or essential services, or both;(b) Award damages pursuant to subsection 1; and(c) Enjoin the landlord from violating the provisions of subsection 1 and, if the circumstances so warrant, hold the landlord in contempt ofcourt.7. The payment of all costs and official fees must be deferred for any tenant who files a verified complaint for expedited relief. After anyhearing and not later than final disposition of the filing or order, the court shall assess the costs and fees against the party that does notprevail, except that the court may reduce them or waive them, as justice may require.

NRS 118A.090 Exclude defined. Exclude means to evict or to prohibit entry by locking doors or by otherwise blocking or attempting to block entry,

or to make a dwelling unit uninhabitable by interrupting or causing the interruption of electric, gas, water or other essential services.

ALL PAPERS AND PLEADINGS AND CORRESPONDENCS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE RENO JUSTICE COURT AND OR ITS EMPLOYEES IS HEREBY

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THIS FILING.

NRS 118A.190: Notice: Definition; service.

1. A person has notice of a fact if:

(a) The person has actual knowledge of it;

(b) The person has received a notice or notification of it; or

(c) From all the facts and circumstances the person reasonably should know that it exists.

2. Written notices to the tenant prescribed by this chapter shall be served in the manner provided by NRS 40.280 .

3. Written notices to the landlord prescribed by this chapter may be delivered or mailed to the place of business of the landlord designated in the rentalagreement or to any place held out by the landlord as the place for the receipt of rental payments from the tenant and are effective from the date of

delivery or mailing.

NRS 40.280Service of notices to quit; proof required before issuance of order to remove.

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 40.253, the notices required by NRS 40.251 to 40.260, inclusive, may be served:

(a) By delivering a copy to the tenant personally, in the presence of a witness;

(b) If the tenant is absent from the tenants place of residence or from the tenants usual place of business, by leaving a copy with a person of suitable

age and discretion at either place and mailing a copy to the tenant at the tenants place of residence or place of business; or

(c) If the place of residence or business cannot be ascertained, or a person of suitable age or discretion cannot be found there, by posting a copy in a

conspicuous place on the leased property, delivering a copy to a person there residing, if the person can be found, and mailing a copy to the tenant at

the place where the leased property is situated.

I did not receive any of the emails allegedly sent to my from Richard Hill's email address, [email protected] August 18th, 2011 to

November 17th, 2011, and certainly none from [email protected] during the period between the illegal lockout at 4:30 pm November 1, 2011 and

the trespass arrest of November 13th, 2011 which allegedly spoke to my being provided access to the property for the purpose of my removing my

belongings, despite my numerous calls and written requests, which outlined the exigencies inherent to my being precluded access to my client files

incident to an unlawful and improperly notice and too early occurring lockout by the WCSO. I and my business have been damaged greatly by these

acts. Further, I had repeatedly sent both Baker and Hill notice, in writing, that I did not consent to service or notice of anything via electronic means.Further NRS 118A.190 does not speak to notice of a legal finding, but rather to notice of a fact. As such, I was not appropriately served notice of the

Order of Summary Eviction, and an illegal lockout occurred, as such no criminal trespass charge can stand.

NRS 118A.260 Disclosure of names and addresses of managers and owners; emergency telephone number; service of process.

1. The landlord, or any person authorized to enter into a rental agreement on his or her behalf, shall disclose to the tenant in writing at or before the

commencement of the tenancy:

(a) The name and address of:

(1) The persons authorized to manage the premises;

(2) A person within this State authorized to act for and on behalf of the landlord for the purpose of service of process and receiving notices and

demands; and

(3) The principal or corporate owner.

(b) A telephone number at which a responsible person who resides in the county or within 60 miles of where the premises are located may be called in

case of emergency.




23/35

FW: THIS COULD WIN THE CASE IN 11 CR 26405 2I

manager of the premises.

3. A party who enters into a rental agreement on behalf of the landlord and fails to comply with this section is an agent of the landlord for purposes of:

(a) Service of process and receiving notices and demands; and

(b) Performing the obligations of the landlord under law and under the rental agreement.

4. In any action against a landlord which involves his or her rental property, service of process upon the manager of the property or a person described

in paragraph (a) of subsection 1 shall be deemed to be service upon the landlord. The obligations of the landlord devolve upon the persons authorized

to enter into a rental agreement on his or her behalf.

5. This section does not limit or remove the liability of an undisclosed landlord.

NRS 40.310 Issue of fact to be tried by jury if proper demand made. Whenever an issue of fact is presented by the pleadings, it shall be tried by a jury, if

proper demand is made pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure or the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure

Actually, a lot of people seemed confused regarding the 24 hours lockout thing. The only appearance in either NRS 118A or NRS 40, in the provisions

applicable to Summary Eviction Proceedings of anything related to 24 hours is in NRS 40.253(5), which only speaks to a situation where the Tenant

does not file a Tenant's Answer or Tenant's Affidavit, which is clearly inapplicable here, as the Tenant did file such a Opposition to the No Cause Eviction

Notice: 5. Upon noncompliance with the notice:

(a) The landlord or the landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court of the township in which the dwelling,

apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in which the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or

commercial premises are located, whichever has jurisdiction over the matter. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or

constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order.The affidavit must state or contain...

So, absent some statutory provision allowing the Order of Summary Eviction to result in a lockout by the Washoe County Sheriff's Office prior to the 3

days for mailing where personal service of the Order of Summary Eviction was not effectuated, despite what WCSO employee may have incorrectly (or

falsely) asserted in the WCSO's John Machem's Affidavit of Service from, file stamped November 7, 2011 (especially where it is timestamped 4:30 pm,

November 1, 2011, especially where the Order of Summary Eviction explicitly reads that no such lockout shall occur prior to 5:00 pm on November 1,

2011). See,NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii), NRCP 6(e).Interestingly, Richard Hill knows his case is toast under NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii), NRCP 6(e), in addition to NRCP 11. That is why inRichard Hill's November 21, 2011 Motion for Order To Show Cause, on page 2, Hills resorts to literally grasping at straws, imagining thatwhat the Washoe County Sheriff's Office customarily does is somehow automatically codified into mandatory precedent black letter law.To wit, Richard Hill wrote in his Motion For Order To Show Cause that: FACTS SHOWING CONTEMPT OF COURT6. EXHIBIT1 was served on Coughlin on November " 2011 by the Washoe County Sheriffs Department, by posting same on the front door of theproperty in the manner customary for evictions in Washoe County. The locks to the premises were changed at that time, thereby e jectingand dispossessing Coughlin of possession of the Property. Further, therein Richard Hill admits that the lockout occurred at 4:30 pm, asindicated in writing in the WCSO's Machem's Affidavit of Service, contra to the mandate of Judge Sferrazza's Order of Summary Evictionrequiring any lockout to occur after 5:00 pm, November 1, 2011.Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.


Reno, NV 89501

tel: 775 229-6737

fax: 949 667 7402

[email protected] Bar No: 9473

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.

** Notice**This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may containconfidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on thecontents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential , int ended only f or t he named recipient(s) and may contain inf ormation t hat i spr iv i l eged, at tor ney work product or exempt fr om disclosure under appl icable law. If you are not t he intended recipient(s) , you are noti f ied that any








24/35


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 5:39 AM


5 attachments

11 1 2011 Affidavit of Service, Notice of Entry of Order, and Order for Summary Eviction Rev2011-001708.pdf (7.8 MB) , Affidavit of Service

Sheriff's Machen 4 30 pm 11 1 2011.pdf (555.1 KB) , 12 14 11 fax to Puentes ISSUES THAT CAN WIN THE CASE.pdf (144.2 KB) , 11 21 11

Declaration of Richard Hill attach to his M for OSC (11-21-11) Compare to Police Reports and deposition of RPD's Carter and Lopez and

Merliss.pdf (791.4 KB) , 11 21 2011 REV2011-00178 RICHARD HILL'S M for OSC (11-21-11).pdf (711.7 KB)

Hi Mr. Puentes,

What is inconsistent in the discovery you provided me and Hill's Motion to Show Cause? I aminterested to see what you come up with and who you would want to ask what questions. I went to theUniversity of Washington too, for awhile at least, year round from 9/95 to 12/96.

Hill's Declaration in his 11 21, 2011 Motion to Show Cause indicates that:"DECLARATION OF RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.

RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ., being first duly sworn, deposes and under penaltyof perjury avers:1. I am a resident of the City of Reno, County of Washoe, State of Nevada,and over 18 years of age. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, exceptthose

matters stated on information and belief, and as to those items I believe them to be true.This declaration is made in support of plaintiffs Motion for Contempt Citation, andrepresents my testimony if called on to present same in court.2. I am an attorney duly licensed as such by the State of Nevada to practice

before all courts of this State and maintain my office at 652 Forest Street, Reno, Nevada.I am also licensed to practice before the United States District Court for the District of

Nevada, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.III3. My office represents the plaintiff, Dr. Matthew Merliss, in this matter.4. On October 27, 2011, this court signed a summary eviction order, and on

November 1, 2011, the Washoe County

2 13 12 0204 62337 26405 Stamped Digital Notice Appeal Motion Vacate Order Withdrawal for Puentes,...

Documents

Transcript of 2 13 12 0204 62337 26405 Stamped Digital Notice Appeal Motion Vacate Order Withdrawal for Puentes,...