Close Print

LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE rev2011-001708 cv11-03628,

60331 61383, SBN v. Coughlin CASE NUMBER NG12-0204,
NG-0435, NG 0434
From: Zach Coughlin ([email protected])
Sent: Wed 10/17/12 5:00 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
8 attachments
DistCtOrder_REDACTED cr12-1018 longoni transcript defective.pdf (141.4 KB) , CR12-1262-
3059269 transcript from criminal trespass trial testimony of richard hill and his associate
before RMC J udge William Gardner.pdf (3.5 MB) , zach's arrest 010.flv (19.4 MB) , EXHIBIT
TO AB226.pdf (50.7 KB) , MINUTES OF THE MEETING COMMITTEE ON J UDICIARY AB226 3
31 11.pdf (13.7 KB) , AB226 PAGES 40-47 OF COMMITTE ON THE J UDICIARY HEARING 3 31
11 MERLISS NCS RPD WEAVER.pdf (44.9 KB) , 11 21 11 ocr tagged 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 (759.6 KB) , Baker's November 21st, 2011 Opposition in
rev2011-001708 rjc.pdf (223.0 KB)
Dear Bar Counsel, Investigator Peters,
note: please forward this written correspondence on to Bar Counsel King and
Investigator, Clerk of Court Peters in light of their apparent indications that they now
seek to sully the SBN's image by attempting to add Coughlin to their blocked sender
list or otherwise prevent any further duty accruing on their part to actually investigate
Coughlin's claims, in some manner that at least a colorable argument can be made that
the SBN treats Coughlin's and others allegation with anywhere near the urgency it
treats those of J udge Nash Holmes or Richard G. Hill, Esq. (in contrast to the whole
"attack dog for the rich and powerful" image the SBN has built up....
It is ironic, that Hill and Baker's own writing in their November 20th, 2011
Opposition to Coughlin's November 16th, 2011 Motion to Contest Personal Property
lien may now be used against them, in light of the staleness, voidness, and invalidity
of the October 25th, 2011 and October 27th, 2011 Eviction Decision and Order and
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Summary Eviction in RJ C
Rev2011-001708. See Williams v Nagel, 643 N.E. 2d 816 and Wolf-Lillie, 504 F.
Supp 1. Baker wrote on Hill's behalf:
"Here, Coughlin filed his first motion pursuant to NRS 118A-460 on November
16,2011. That motion was timely. However, when the court attempted to set the
hearing, Coughlin refused to cooperate or communicate with the court to get the
hearing on calendar, despite repeated requests from Merliss' counsel that he do so. As
a sole and direct result of Mr. Coughlin's refusal to cooperate with the court to set his
own hearing, that hearing never happened. The 10 days in which to hold the hearing
under NRS 40.253(8) have now expired. Mr. Coughlin's motion is stale, and the relief
he seeks is now time-barred. Because he abandoned that motion, it was, effectively,
denied."
Please indicate in writing what you have done to investigate Richard G. Hill's
allegations, as set forth in his J anuary 14th, 2012 grievance against me, in writing,
including, but not limited to Hill's allegations vis a vis the criminal trespass arrest of
me in on November 13th, 2011, leading to a custodial arrest, and three traffic citations
by RPD Sargent Tarter following my release on November 15th, 2011 when I
ventured to Hill's office to retrieve my state issued driver's license, wallet (credits
card, money), and my client's files and my own files and hard drives and other
materials. This is a formal, written grievance against Richard Hill and Casey Baker,
in compliance with my RPC 8.3 obligations respecting their failure to turn over my
hard drives, driver's license, client's files and my own files, their impermissibly
influencing the RJ C to fail to give me a hearing on my November 16th, 2011 filing of
a Motion to Contest Personal Property lien within the 10 days required by NRS
40.253(7)-(8) (hearing only took place after Richard's six week vacation, on
December 20th, 2011, in accord with Richard's written indication to me that he would
be able to get the RJ C to wait that long on his account..., an impermissible suggestion
by Richard that he could improperly influence a tribunal, as was Richard threats that
he would have me given the J ordan v. State "vexatious litigant" treatment if I kept up
my opposition to his nefarious aims.
"Subject: RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:40:39 -0800
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Mr. Coughlin
Our records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served by Deputy
Machen by posting a copy of the Order to the residence. The residence was unoccupied at the time.
Liz Stuchell, Supervisor
WCSO Civil Section"
Additionally, this is a grievance against Hill and Baker concerning their lying under oath at the
J une 18th, 2011 criminal trespass from my former law office trial in RMC 11 CR 26405. Please review
the Claiborne decision for support for the contention that neither Bar Counsel King, SBN Investigator
Peters, or the SBN will find availing any argument that no investigation was required on their part
respecting those allegations (particularly during the 5 months period between Hill's J anuary 14th,
2012 written, but unsigned, grievance to Pat King and the conviction on J une 18th, 2012...certainly,
the SBN has taken an interest in my pending criminal matters...). In Claiborne, the SBN was taken to
task for making such a suggestion that no duty to investigate on their part was present, where the
Court ruled it clearly was...
Please review the sworn Declaration by Hill attached to his November 20th, 2011 Opposition to
Coughlin's Motion to Contest Pesonal Property Lien and that Opposition itself, especially the bit in
Hill's Declaration where he fails to allege the RPD identified themselves as law enforcement or issued
an "lawful order" for Coughlin to "emerge from the" "basement" (which never had an outside lock to
begin with) prior to landlord Merliss kicking the door down (and isn't is interesting that the RPD did
not feel it had authority to kick a door down...suggesting they also felt they did not have authority to
issue a "lawful order" or warning, pursuant to RMC 8.10.010 to Coughlin to leave the premises. I am
complaining of an unlawful trespass and invasion by Hill, Baker, and Merliss, especially where in the
other videos provided to Reno City Attorney Chris Hazlett-Stevens (and this is a formal grievance
against Hazlett-Steven's as well, especially considering the extent to which he put on perjured
testimony, failed to hold Hill to a subpoena, in violation of Coughlin's right to a speedy trial (during
the same 6 week vacation by Hill that resulted in the RJ C failing to give Coughlin a timely Hearing on
his November 16th, 2011 filing of a Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien in the eviction matter
from Coughlin's former home law office in the RJ C, REV2011-001708...a Motion for Continuance was
filed by city attorneys Hazlett, which Coughlin's then RMC appointed defense Counsel Lew Taitel failed
to timely inform Coughlin of and agree to (despite Coughlin, at that time, having filed a lawsuit
against Nevada Court Services, on October 19th, 2011 in CV-03051, CV11-03051 ZACH COUGHLI N VS.
MATT MERLISS ET AL (D1). 19-OCT-2011.
Further, any writings or filings by Bar Counsel King and or Chairman Susich that suggest or indicate
Coughlin committed a "breaking and entering" of his former law office, or that the "locks were broken"
is totally unsupported and reckless and contradicted explicitly by the videos Hill himself filmed and his
statements therein. Please correct any such filings and alert the Court to your transgressions.
Baker lied and violated NRCP 11 in his NOvember 21st, 2011 Opposition where he alleged the
RPD identified themselves as law enforcement and issued a lawful order for Coughlin to emerge from
the "basemet" or leave the proprty:
"Even though he had a week to do so, Coughlin did not remove his personal
belongings from the property prior to the lockout. In fact, he did not even remove himself
from the property. Unbeknownst to Merliss or his counsel, Coughlin continued to J ive in
the basement of the property until he was discovered squatting there on November 13. 2011
- nearly two weeks after he was legally locked out. Coughlin had barricaded himself, his
dog, and some of his presumably more cherished possessions in the basement. When
Coughlin refused to emerge from the basement after being ordered to do so by the
police,
Merliss was forced to kick down the door to gain access to his own property. Coughlin
was
arrested and charged with trespassing. Due to Coughlin's criminal activities, the security
ofthe house was compromised. As a result, Merliss was forced to incur costs in the amount
of $1,060.00 to secure the property in order to protect it and Coughlin's belongings. A true
and correct copy of the bill from the contractor is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2."
Bakers NRCP 11 violation in his filing of November 20th, 2011 in RJ C Rev2011-001708 occurs at
pages 1-3, where he attempts to mislead the tribunal in suggesting that Coughin failed to cooperate
in setting a Hearing on the Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien, even where Coughlin responded
to Hill's then email informing him of such a hearing, by Coughlin emailing Hill "Rich, you are aware the
files can be on hard drive's, right?" in response to HIll's email of a Hearing (Coughlin subsequently
revoked (and had made express previously written indication that no such acceptance of such
electronic service or notice would be availing respecting communications with Coughlin, and HIll was
added to Coughlin's "blocked sender list" on Coughlin's Hotmail account, as such, Coughlin did not
receive Hill's emails from October any implicit authority Hill may assert to provide Coughlin notice via
electronic means, and therein is vitiated any of Hill's testimony at the trespass trial that the "warning"
against trespass was relayed in Hill's various attempts at emailing Coughlin during the first few weeks
of November, including the period where Baker was on vacation and somethings appear to have
slipped through the cracks at the Hill law firm respecting notifying Coughlin in an accepted means of
service). Coughlin did not receive any emails from Hill's [email protected] address between Hill's
email of August 16th, 2011 and November 18th, 2011, this Coughlin swears pursuant to NRS 53.045
under penalty of perjury:
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: River rock
Rich, you are aware that "files" can include things on hard drives, right?
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: River rock
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:53:03 -0800
>
> Mr coughlin -this confirms a voicemail left for you
> I now have your drivers license & what I think are your client files.
> Don't know, didn't look that closely - your privacy & all.
>
> Will release them to you at the hearing tomorrow.
> Please confirm that the hearing is on calendar
>
> Rgh"
Coughlin appeared at the RJ C for the Hearing he was noticed on for November 22nd,
2011 pursuant to the November 16th, 2011 filing by Coughlin of the Motion to Contest Personal
Property lien in RJ C REV2011-001708. Hill failed to appeared. Further, Hill continued to lie about his
"offering to provide Coughlin" his client files, including those files on Coughlin's hard drives. Further,
at least one of Coughlin's hard drives, upon their finally being returned to Coughlin on December
22nd, 2011 (with one of the expensive laptop screens completely cracked...) indicated a video card
driver was loaded to the hard drive, including one on December 6th, 2011, during the period from
Coughlin's arrest of November 13th, 2011 to Hill's and Baker's finally returning Coughlin's client's files
and hard drives to him on December 22nd, 2011 (unless you count the instance where Hill playfully
set down a bag of trash and indicated to Coughlin "here is your client's files" at the time when Hill
finally returned Coughlin's state issued driver's license one full week after Coughlin had demanded it,
on November 22nd, 2011, something that Hill lied to the courts and the police about his willingness to
do so up to that time absent a coercive demand that Coughlin sign away his rights, including those to
his damage deposit. Further Hill violated Nevada law in placing demands upon Coughlin that Coughlin
remove his property in the exact manner and order that HIll demanded (Hill required Coughlin to
appear with certain vehicles and a "crew" of movers, and insisted Coughlin must remove all the
property on the former home law office's exterior prior to Coughlin being allowed to "cherry pick" the
items within that were of the most value, requirements for which there exists no support in Nevada
law for Hill to make, including within NRS 118A.460, all to the detriment of Coughlin's client's concerns
and the reputation of the Bar in Nevada and beyond. The RJ C never needed Coughlin's permission
previously to set Hearings, including the one on November 7th, 2011 that Coughlin was served an
impromptu notice of while he was at the filing office on November 3rd, 2011, nor did the RJ C need
Coughlin's permission to to set the October 13th, 2011 summary eviction proceeding date, the
October 25th, 2011 "Trial", or the December 20th, 2011 Hearing date.
Further reckless and lacking in foundation mentions of "breaking into" the former law office and
"broken locks" despite the fact that no factual support exists for such an allegation, there were no
"broken locks" ever mentioned by anyone (and if Hill is willing to make up finding a "bag of weed and
crack pipe" along with describing what Hill's own videos show to be vitamins as a "large quantity of
pills", then you know Richard G. Hill, Esq. would have been all over any "broken locks" at the former
home law office, yet, there simply were none, not that that would stop Pat King or J . Thomas Susich
from cobbling together such an allegation in the SCR 117 Petition in 60975) along with something
about Coughlin being subject to a custodial arrest for "jaywalking" by the Reno Police Department
while Coughlin was filming Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s contractor's crew loading up a dump truck with
items of personal property then located in Coughlin's former home law office (the arrest occurred
shortly after Coughlin discovered that Hill's contractor, Phil Stewart, had used Coughlin's own
distinctive plywood to "secure" or "board up the property" in December 2011, for which the landlord
was ultimately awarded costs, $1,060 of which were based upon Stewart's invoice for "securing the
property", which included the cost of plywood, and "fixing a leak in the basement" despite NRS
118A.460 only allowing costs for "moving, storing, and inventorying" a tenant's personal property),
which Coughlin was unable to remove during the scant 13 hours he was afforded to do so by the
Reno J ustice Court's Order following a Hearing on Coughlin's November 16th, 2011 Motion to Contest
Personal Property Lien (the Hearing was not set or conducted with the "10 days" required by NRS
40.253(7)-(8) because Richard G. Hill, Esq. needed to go on a six-week vacation shortly after
Coughlin's November 16th, 2011 filing (in a matter now on appeal in SCR 60331 and 61838, wherein,
somehow, a commercial tenant, Coughlin (whom was both running a law practice and Coughlin
Memory Foam, a foam mattress business from his home, which was previously utilized for commercial
purposes by a drug and alcohol rehabilitation counseling business and is zone for mixed use purposes)
was summarily evicted based upon a No Cause Eviction Notice only (ie, the non-payment of rent was
neither noticed, pled, nor argued by the landlord) despite the clear dictate against the use of
summary eviction proceedings against commercial tenants not based upon the non-payment of rent
(Bench Book stuff) set forth in NRS 40.253. The December 21st, 2011 Order "Resolving" Coughlin's
Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien actually required Coughlin to pay the exact same amount of
rent for 17 days (November 1 to November 17th, 2011), $480 (ie, pro-rated from the $900 per month
rental agreement) as Coughlin would have under a "fair rental value", for the "full use and occupancy
of the premises" despite the fact that Hill somehow signed a Criminal Complaint for Trespass Against
Coughlin, on November 13th, 2011 despite any Summary Eviction Order not being served in
accordance with NRS 40.400 (and therefore NRCP 5 and 6(e) vis a vis the "within 24 hours" of
"receipt" of the lockout order, and, therefore, any such lockout that had occured being rendered a
nullity or pursuant to a void Order) and where the Washoe County Sheriff's Office Civil Process
Service Supervisor Liz Stuchell has admitted in writing that the Affidavit of Service filed November 7th,
2011 by Deputy Machen, attesting to having "personally served" the Summary Eviction Order on
November 1st, 2011, was, in fact, purportedly merely posted to the door of Coughlin's former law
office while Coughlin was not home, at which point a Soldal v. Cook County violating illegal lockout
occurred. In a February 7th, 2012 written correspondence to Coughlin, Stuchell wrote: "Mr. Coughlin,
Our records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served by Deputy Machen
by posting a copy of the Order to the residence. The residence was unoccupied at the time. Liz
Stuchell, Supervisor WCSO Civil Section". The text of NRS 40.253 speaks to service of Lockout Orders:
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... is inapplicable to this situation, where an
Order Granting Summary Eviction was signed by October 27th, 2011 (though not mailed to Coughlin
until after the November 1, 2011 lockout had allegedly already occured). That language is only found
in situations inapplicable to the one incident that in the summary eviction from Coughlin's former
home law office. NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2), and NRS 40.253(5)(a) are the only sections of NRS 40 where
this within 24 hours language occurs, and those situations only apply where, in: 40.253(3)(b)(2):
3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: ...(b) Advise the tenant: . (2) That if the
court determines that the tenant is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the court may issue a summary
order for removal of the tenant or an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant, directing
the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order
and, 40.253(5)(a): 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 remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order. The way these summary
eviction proceedings are being carried out in Reno J ustice Court presently shocks the conscience and
violates Nevada law. There is not basis for effectuating a lockout the way WCSO's Deputy Machem did
in this case. The requirements attendant to serving Summary Eviction Orders and conducting lockouts
are found in NRS 40.253 in two sections containing the within 24 hours of receipt language are
inapplicable, as those situations do not invoke the present circumstances, where the Tenant did file an
Affidavit and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen. To require Nevada's tenants to get
up and get out within 24 hours of receipt of the order (what does that even mean? The use of
terms like rendition, rendered, notice of entry, pronounced, is absent here, and this receipt of
the order language is something rarely found elsewhere in Nevada law-see attached DMV statutory
citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a Complaint within 90 days of
receipt of a Right To Sue Letter, a situation which follows NRCP 5(b), and NRCP 6(e) in imputing
receipt of such a letter, when actual receipt is not shown, by applying a constructive notice standard
that relies upon the days for mailing extension of time for items served in the mailing, etc.). In
Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 553 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2009), the record did not
reflect when the plaintiff received his right-to-sue letter. The letter was issued on November 24, 2006.
The court calculated that the 90-day period commenced on November 30, 2006, based on three days
for mailing after excluding Saturdays and Sundays. In order to bring a claim under either Title VII or
the ADA, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies and sue within 90 days of receipt of a right
to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). See Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S.
147, 148 n.1, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (granting plaintiff an additional three days for
mailing pursuant to Rule 6).... Further, as seen in the Anvui case, there is some argument respecting not
effecting a lockout for at least 5 days where a lease has not expired by its terms, as Coughlin's arguably had not.
However, in his J anuary 20th, 2012 Second Motion for Order to Show Cause, Richard G. Hill, Esq. did
not get all bogged down in legal research and stuff, instead he just pointed out: "FACTS SHOWING
CONTEMPT OF COURT 6. EXHIBIT 1 (the Summary Eviction Lockout Order) was served on Coughlin
on November 1, 2011 by the Washoe County Sheriffs Department in its customary manner, by posting
same on the front door of the property 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." Hill went on to lie again in that J anuary 20th, 2012 Motion when he
equated his offer to let Coughlin get some of the personalty Coughlin was unable to remove, due
largely to Hill failing to remove the chain link padlock from the backyard gate that Hill had only just
installed in time for the 13 hours Coughlin had to remove his property in exchange for Coughlin
waiving his rights to the $700 damage deposit Coughlin provided upon moving in, where Hill spins it:
"12. On Friday, December 23, 2011, Coughlin had a crew of helpers, and made progress.
Nonetheless, Coughlin failed to remove all of his belongings from the Property. Coughlin failed to
remove his things despite having been given additional time to do so after the time set by the Reno
J ustice Court in its order of December 21, 2011 (EXHIBIT 2) had expired." Apparently, to Hill, at least
one has " failed to remove all of his belongings from the Property. Coughlin failed to remove his
things despite having been given additional time to do so" where Hill threatens to have one arrested
for criminal trespass or larceny (of their own stuff, arguably) if one is on the property one minute past
5 p.m., unless one waives any right to their damage deposit (which neither Hill nor the Landlord eve
did return, nor did they comply with the requirement that they provide an itemized statement
indicating an application thereof justifying such a failure to return such deposit within 30 days....and
Hill does not want to get into whether his conduct is violative of the FDCPA or whether he is licensed
a as debt collector). In that Motion, Hill continued on: "13. On December 30, 2011, Coughlin moved
this Court for a temporary restraining order to prevent Merliss from disposing of the items he
(Coughlin) had abandoned on the Property. Coughlin's motion was fully briefed, and the Court entered
its order denying the motion on J anuary 11, 2012. A true and correct copy of this Court's J anuary
11,2012 order is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 3. 14. On Thursday, J anuary 12, 2012, in accordance
with EXHIBIT 2 and EXHIBIT 3, a licensed contractor hired by Merliss began cleaning up the Property
and disposing of the abandoned items still remaining there. 15. Early that afternoon, while the
contractor was hauling the first of several loads of abandoned property to the transfer station (dump)
for disposal, Coughlin stopped the contractor in traffic and attempted to prevent him from carrying
out his task. 16. Specifically, Coughlin stood in front of the contractor's vehicle in an effort to prevent
him from proceeding to the transfer station. Coughlin threatened to sue the contractor. Coughlin
climbed up on the contractor's vehicle. Coughlin then called the police and falsely told them that the
contractor had stolen his possessions, and that the contractor had tried to run him over. Coughlin's
acts were specifically calculated to prevent the contractor from disposing of the abandoned property,
and to frustrate and interfere with Merliss' compliance with this Court's J anuary 11, 2012 order. 17.
When Mr. Hill of the undersigned's office was notified of the foregoing, he went to the transfer station
and presented EXHIBIT 2 and EXHIBIT 3 to the police. The contractor was then allowed to proceed.
18. However, before the contractor could return to the River Rock Property, Coughlin was there. He
had his video camera and was walking up and down the street screaming and yelling at the police,
the contractor, and Mr. Hill, once Mr. Hill arrived. At the instruction of the police, Mr. Hill then
obtained a temporary protective order ("TPO") against Coughlin from the Reno J ustice Court. Coughlin
ended up being arrested and taken to jail that day as a result of his antics at the transfer station and the Property."
The thing is, and Coughlin would sure like to get the 911 tapes (or, more likely, with Hill, any
recordings that may exist of Hill calling somebody in particular he may have had in mind with the
RPD) of calls by Coughlin (and if Wal-Mart can call 911 over a candy bar, or a skater board over an
iPhone he seems to have set down on the concrete ground in downtown Reno, then skaterboarded off
some 100 yards away for sufficiently long period of time to seem to have been pretty much the only
person not to have heard somebody who picked it up threaten to throw it is in the river if it went
unclaimed can call 911 (and make up a bunch of lies on the spot for the purpose of manipulating the
police into assuages the skateboarders own negligence vis a vis the iPhone) is it unreasonable for
Coughlin to call 911 upon happening, totally by chance, to cross paths with Hill's contractor while
driving, catching site of a huge dump truck full of Coughlin's personal property headed towards the
town dump? Hill admits the Order denying Coughlin's Motion for a TPO (and hey, family heirlooms are
pretty fungible, right? Who needs a TPO for that? And its not like the landlord could just accept rent
in the meantime, or that the property still remains unrented to this day, some 11 months after the
lockout, and apparently, some $60,000 worth of attorney's fees paid to Hill for a two bedroom home
that appraises at around $90,000 currently, if that. And Hill's fantastic legal work ("wrong site surgery"
and all) was surely worth the risk of a wrongful eviction lawsuit (and check out those potential
damages under Winchell v. Schiff, 124 Nev. 938, 193 P.3d 946 (2008), not that the loss of a patent
attorney's career could amount to all that much). Regardless, its not all that colorable for Hill to allege
Coughlin was violating some Order entered on J anuary 11th, 2012 by Coughlin's conduct of J anuary
12th, 2012 when NRCP 6(e) provides that 3 days for mailing is to be accorded to account for the
service of filings, even filings electronically served on registered efilers like Coughlin. Its similar to Hill
wanting a criminal trespass arrest where NRCP 6(e)'s three days for mailing where no personal service
was accomplished (by way of NRS 40.400) and Hill's et al did not even comply with the constructive
service requirements of mailing the summary eviction lockout order prior to Hill's breaking into
Coughlin's former home law office on November 1st, 2011, with the help of the WCSO, in violation of
Soldal v. Cook County where Coughlin was not accorded the "24 hours" cushion after Coughlin's
"receipt" of the lockout order mentioned in this Court's own packets on the service of Lockout Orders,
which Hill himself attached as a subsequent exhibit recently...It gets funnier. The civil division of the
J ustice Court and the Sheriff's Office think that whole "within 24 hours" language in NRS 40.253
means "within 24 hours" of the Sheriff's "receipt" of the Order from the J ustice Court...While other's
think it is "within 24 hours" of the tenant's receipt of the Order from the Sheriff...and this Court's
official forms and instructions seem to imply that "at least 24 hours" from "receipt" of the lockout
Order must be accorded to a tenant. Who knows? But, it is not clear, as Hill suggests, that the "usual
custom and practice of the Washoe County Sheriff's Office" is black letter law upon which Bar
grievances, custodial criminal trespass arrests, multiple Motion for Order To Show Cause, tens of
thousands of dollars in attorney's fees sanctions against a pro se appellant, etc. are warranted.
Somehow the District Court found a way to sanction Coughlin with $40,050 worth of attorney's fee in
that appeal of the summary eviction without holding a single hearing, well, other than the Hearing on
Hills Order to Show Cause, which was denied when Coughlin destroyed Hill's contractor Phil Stewart
on cross-examination. (Really, Phil? Really? You could fell "a depression" in your 2 ton loaded to
capacity dump truck upon Coughlin allegedly "climbing up on it", though you indicated you had
already "alighted from the vehicle", but, wait, you could see Coughlin's head above the tailgate walls
in your rear view mirror (which doesn't seem to be there on any the many videos of the events of
that day. And even if such a mirror where present on Stewart's truck, that doesn't really explain how all the
personalty stacked up so high in the truck bed (replete with specialized add-on high stack retaining walls) wouldn't obscure
any purported view of Coughlin's head high above the area above the specialize hydraulic dump truck's tailgate, confirming
Stewart's mere suspicion that Coughlin climbed on his truck. Coughlin swears under oath he did not climb on Stewart's truck.
Hill needed a little "fact" to spice up his Motion to Show Cause just enough, and "Coughlin climbed up on the truck" was "just
the ticket", and Stewart did not mind going along for the ride, so long as... And none of the many videos from that day
actually show any of the Yosemite Sam cartoon villian type behavior Hill attributes to Coughlin in his wonderfully imaginative
Motion for Order to Show Cause and or Application for Order of Protection concerning the events involved in the jaywalking
custodial arrest Hill had Coughlin subjected to on J anuary 12th, 2012.
Much like Hill's contractor, Phil Stewart, flat out lying in an affidavit when he swore Coughlin "climbed
up on" his truck, Hill similarly lied in an affidavit about Coughlin, apparently while "engraged" making
"physical contact" with Hill. On Page 2 of Hill's Affidavit attach to his Motion for Order to Show Cause,
J anuary 20th, 2012, Hills attests: "5. On Friday, December 23, 2011, we unlocked the house at 9:00
a.m. as ordered. We overlooked the chain on the back gate. There was nobody at the house when we
were there. At approximately noon, my staff informed me that an enraged Mr. Coughlin had called the
office screaming that he could not get in the back yard. When I finished the meeting I was in, I
immediately went over and unlocked the back gate. Coughlin had a small crew. He charged at me and
made physical contact. He was enraged. We left. When we returned at 5:00 p.m., Mr. Coughlin was
screaming and yelling obscenities. He drove off in a small U -Haul. His crew remained. We walked the
property with them. The inside .ground floor was mostly cleared of all but a big TV. The basement
had been cleared somewhat, but there was still a lot of "junk. " We could not access the attic. We went outside.
I told Coughlin's crew they could remove anything and everything outside, if they would only try to rehang the gate that Mr.
Coughlin had taken off the hinges before we could get over to unlock it. I told them I would lock the gates in the morning.
That is really interesting. Compare the above to the following excerpt from page 3 of Hills J anuary
3rd, 2012 Opposition in CV11-03628, the appeal of the summary eviction Order: "12. While at the
property to remove the padlock, Coughlin, on more than one occasion, screamed profanities at
Merliss' counsel, and, at one point, charged Mr. Hill and attempted to physically intimidate him. At
least the audio of this incident was captured on tape. 13. Nevertheless, at 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
December 23,2011, counsel granted Coughlin and his agents additional, unfettered, and unlimited
access to the outside of the property to remove any remaining items." Whereas in his J anuary 20th,
2012 sworn Declaration Hill goes so far as to indicate Coughlin "made physical contact" (which is a
damn lie anyways), in Hill's then associate Casey Baker, Esq.'s NRCP 11 signed J anuary 3rd, 2012
Opposition, HIll's associate Baker will only go so far as to say that Coughlin, "at one point, charged
Mr. Hill and attempted to physically intimidate him." Baker was standing directly next to Hill during the
interacation wherin Hill swore, under penalty of perjury, that Couglhin "made physical contact" with
Hill). Sounds like Casey Baker, Esq. was not quite willing to "spice up" the story line as Hill himself
was. Casey probably did not have enough reason to sign on to the lies about Coughlin "climbing on"
the contractor's truck. In Hill's Application for a Protection Order against Coughlin Hill slips up and
claims that Coughlin was "climbing on the contractor's truck, picking through the contents" back at
Couglin's former home law after the interaction at the "transfer station" (town dump), whereas Hill's
contractor indicated in his Affidavit that the alleged "climbing" on his truck occurred at the "transfer
station". However, both Hill and his contractor, Phil Stewart indicate that the Reno Police Department
"requested" that Hill filed a Protection Order Application against Coughlin. If that is true, its improper.
The RPD can provide individuals information about seeking one, but when the RPD goes a step
further and starts urging individuals to file protection order applications, or, as has recently been the
case with RPD Officer Alan Weaver and Sargent Oliver Miller, whom, upon information and belief,
urged Northwind's apartment maintenance man Milan Krebs to sign a fraudulent criminal complaint
against Coughlin for "disturbing the peace" on J uly 3rd, 2011, and again urged Superior Mini Storage's
Matt Grant to sign a similar baseless "disturbing the peace" criminal Complaint against Coughlin on
approximately September 21st, 2012 then there is more than a little indication that the RPD is out of
control and attempting to incite members of the public to sign fraudulent criminal complaints based
upon a retaliatory animus by the RPD towards Coughlin. Officer Weaver and Sargent Dye showed up
to an unnoticed J uly 5th, 2012 bail hearing for Coughlin, presided over by J udge Linda Gardner's
brother RMC J udge William Gardner (whom received Coughlin's timely Notice of Appeal of the criminal
trespass conviction, under NRS 189.010, yet failed to forward it on to the District Court, which
somewhat recently dismissed Coughlin's appeal in that matter, wherein Sargent Dye and Officer
Weaver testified under oath, with City Attorney J ill Drake singing backup, the the effectd that, despite
bail only being valid based upon one reason in Nevada (to secure the defendant's attendance at trial)
the "public health and safety" dictated increasing the cash required to bail out Couglin TENFOLD, from
a bondable $1,415 to a CASH ONLY $3,000. Consequently, upon J udge Gardner so impermissibly
raising Coughlin's bail, alleging a "public health and safety" rationale for so doing, Couglin was forced
to spend 18 days in jail, wherein the opportunity to timely contest the $40,050 attorney fees award to
Richard Hill incident to the summary eviction appeal ran, all while Coughlin was denied any
opportunity to access justice or file documents from jail, and where Coughlin sustained signficant
damages, financial and otherwise, and where the jail refused to transport Coughlin to a hearing on a
landlord tenant matter wherein he was a named party. The extent to which local law enforcement is
willing to play "kick the can" with an attorney, particularly where Bar Counsel Pat King is so willing to
join the chorus, is troubling, and indicates the judiciary need issue a clarion call out to announce the
extent to which such misconduct can not, and will not, be tolerated. Such a retaliatory animus
towards Coughlin by the RPD is likely due to his September 7th, 2011 Complaint with respect to a
wrongful, retaliatory, and fraudulent arrest by RPD Officer Nicholas Duralde, which was accompanied
by extortionate threats by RPD Officer Ron Rosa that if Coughlin didn't cooperate they would "call the
Nevada Bar and let them know how you cooperated with our investigation. How's that runnin' for ya?"
While Duralde testified that he did not hear or recall Rosa's coercive threats to Coughlin just prior to
the arrest, the fact that Duralde echoed those threats by saying "Now, I can arrest you for larceny.
Now, I can do a search incident to arrest. How's that?" tends to undermine Duralde's contention that
"he doesn't recall" hearing anything like what Officer Rosa was capture on tape saying to Coughlin
just prior to the arrest. Upon making a Fourth Amendment violating arrest completely lacking in
probable cause, and smugly "joking" to Coughlin about the "benefits" associated with charging
Coughlin with a "felony", (at the time of the August 20th, 2011 arrest, the felony larceny amount limit
was $250 and above) compared to a misdemeanor (under some half baked "grand larceny" of an
allegedly lost or mislaid or abandoned three year old iPhone 3G that the alleged victim testified was
only then worth "about $80-100" on eBay or Craigslist), ie, search incident to custodial arrest possible
where probable cause lacking to arrest, or even reasonable suspicion missing to do a pat down,
where alleged crime occured outside officer's presence, after 7 p.m., and no citizens arrest
immediately effectuated, particularly where Coughlin himself made a 911 call prior to Officer's arriving
and where video from minutes prior to officer arriving reveal Coughlin suggesting the 8-12 hostile late
teens to early twenties skater boarders relax, stay peaceful, refrain from assaulting and battering Couglin, and wait for the
police arrive so a lawful, peaceful resolution could be attained (with Coughlin even cautioning the youths about a then recent
tragic death occurring not far from that location).
Further Hill just flat out lies in his J anuary 3rd, 2012 Opposition to Amended Motion for Emergency
Restraining Order. Well, he did tell the truth when he wrote, on page 3: "11. On Friday, December
23,2011, counsel for Merliss neglected to remove the padlock to the back gate of the property." That
is true, he did do that, and it did prevent Coughlin from removing all his property during the scant 13
hours Coughlin had to move it. But, when Hill swears, on page 3, that: "Coughlin's access to the
house itself was never hindered.:" he is just "sippin' drank" or something, as, obviously failing to
remove a lock on a gate gonna tend to have that effect, now...and when Hill swears: " 13.
Nevertheless, at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 23,2011, counsel granted Coughlin and his agents
additional, unfettered, and unlimited access to the outside of the property to remove any remaining
items. The only condition placed on that access was that Coughlin's helpers agreed to replace the
gate on its hinges as best they could. Coughlin and his agents failed to remove the remainder of
Coughin's property from the yard that night, and failed to put the gate back on the hinges." Coughlin
was never made aware of any such "offer" by Hill, and, even if he had been, hey, it's the "outside of
the property", Rich, people generally put their valuables inside, you know?
Then the HIll prevarication and obfuscation express kicks into overdrive, when, in his J anuary
3rd, 2012 Opposition he continues on: "C. Coughlin is Not Entitled to A Stay Coughlin claims to have
deposited $250 with the justice's court pursuant to NRS 40.385, although he has not provided any
proof in support of his claim. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT 10 is a true and correct copy of the justice's
court's docket as of December 19, 2011. That docket shows that Coughlin paid a filing fee for his
appeal on December 12, 2011, in the amount of $216.00." Well, actually, J udge Sferrazza waived the
J ustice Court's $24.00 filing fee, and the $216.00 represents the District Court's filing fee, and its not
really clear whether that date is when the check was cashed by the District Court, or whether the
J ustice Court held on to the check for quit4e awhile before shipping it along with the ROA to the
District Court, etc., etc. Hill continues: "It is entirely unclear from the following entries of that docket
whether or when Coughlin ever paid an additional $250.00 under NRS 40.385." That might,
technically be true, Rich, to the extent that you wrote it on J anuary 3rd, 2012, and are sneakily
indicating that you are looking at an old docket from the J ustice Court from December 19th, 2012,
even though Coughlin made a big deal to you and the J ustice Court, in writing, that he was
depositing the $250.00 supersedeas bond mentioned in NRS 40.385, on December 22nd, 2011, a fact
which Hill himself mentions in his own filings...So, kind of a lack of candor to the tribunal there to
make all this argument based upon some old docket and the extent to which it fails to reveal or
"make clear" matters to which Hill had ready written notice of via his own e-Flex account and service
of filings upon him connected thereto, in addition to Coughlin's faxes, emails, and there might have
even been a service of a Notice of Posting Supersedeas Bond (need to check on that more), etc. in
connection with the depositing on December 22nd 2012, the $250 required for a stay during appeal of
a summary eviction in NRS 40.385. And, actually, Hill slipped up a bit there, in light of the following:
And, actually, Hill, in his J anuary 20th, 2012 filing, admitted that Coughlin sent him that December
22nd, 2011 email notifying him of the posting of the $250 supersedeas bond seeking a stay, when he
admits, on page 3: "11. Pursuant to EXHIBIT 2, Coughlin was provided access to the Property on
Thursday, December 22, 2011. That day, Coughlin sent an email to the undersigned and J udge
Sferrazza, in which he essentially announced that he was entitled to a stay, and to return to and
continue in possession of the Property. J udge Sferrazza quickly responded by email, and reminded Mr. Coughlin
that the stay had been denied." Found in Exhibit 1 is the December 22nd email to Hill's Office that alerts them to the posting
of $250 , specified as a "supersedeas bond", with a citation to NRS 40.385:
Hill's J anuary 3rd, 2012 Opposition continues, on page 8: "Even if Coughlin eventually paid some
amount toward an appeal bond, it was not in time to stay the eviction during this appeal. To do that,
a proper motion must be made and granted, and the bond posted, prior to the lockout. The lockout
here occurred on November 1, 2011. By the time Coughlin managed to find that statute and pay any
money to the court, he had been locked out of the property for six weeks. As such, any request for a
stay was, and is, moot. At this point, Coughlin does not have any rights in either the real or
personal". Oddly, Anvui saw a stay granted after a lockout was conducted, and Hill (RPC 3.1
"meritorious contention" issues) cites to no legal authority for his contention that "to stay the eviction
during this appeal...a proper motion must be made and granted, and the bond posed, prior to the
lockout." Citation? None.
Despite Hill's strange approach of not actually indicating that his office did not get an
December 22nd, 2011 email notifying them of the posting of $250 for a supersedeas bond seeking a
stay under NRS 118A.385 (but rather, Hill focuses on what one cannot glean from looking at a dated
docket...), Hill's Office was made aware of such matters, in writing, in the following December 22nd
email to Hill's Offiee: "...Further, this is all moot at this point as I have filed a Supersedeas Bond of
$250, and according to NRS 40.385, I automatically get a stay of eviction and am entitled to return to
the property and continue in possession. The statute sets the Supersedeas Bond (which yields a stay)
at $250 if rent is under $1000, unless the Court wishes to rule that I am a commercial tenant.
However, if the court does rule that I am a commercial tenant, the No Cause Eviction Notice in this
case, under NRS 40.253 makes a Summary Eviction Proceeding impermissible, as Summary Eviction
Proceedings are not allowed against commercial tenants where only a No Cause Eviction Notice is
filed. Its one or the other, but Mr. Hill and Baker cannot have it both ways. Further, the Courts Order
of December 21, 2011 is just that, and Order, its not an agreement, its not a settlement, etc, etc. and
the audio record clearly reflects that. NRS 40.385 Stay of execution upon appeal; duty of tenant who
retains possession of premises to pay rent during stay. Upon an appeal 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 in the amount of $250 to cover the expected costs on
appeal. In an action concerning a lease of commercial property or any other property for which the
monthly rent exceeds $1,000, the court may, upon its own motion or that of a party, and upon a
showing of good cause, order an additional bond to be posted to cover the expected costs on appeal.
A surety upon the bond submits to the jurisdiction of the appellate court and irrevocably appoints the
clerk of that court as the surety's agent upon whom papers affecting the surety's liability upon the
bond may be served. Liability of a surety may be enforced, or the bond may be released, on motion 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 the landlord rent in
the amount provided in the underlying contract between the tenant and the landlord as it becomes
due. If the tenant fails to pay such rent, the landlord may initiate new proceedings for a summary
eviction by serving the tenant with a new notice pursuant to NRS 40.253. Sincerely, Zach Coughlin,
Esq.". Oh, and Hill and Stewart admit to this in a video. Richard Hill's contractor, for some strange
reason, removed a ladder Coughlin owns from the property, preventing Coughlin's access to the attic
upon his being allowed that scant 13 hours to remove his property (and the attic had been renovated
to allow for storage of a considerable amount of property. If Coughlin was Hill he would have called
the RPD to report the "larceny" of his ladder by Hill, in a RICO thing with his contractor. But Hill
escaped prosecution that time, over they whole ladder deal. It never was made clear why the
contractor removed the ladder from the property, other than, perhaps, like the applying of a lock to
the backyard gate, make it even more unlikely that Coughlin would be able to remove all he needed
to, especially given the limited funds for moving vehicles and hired help, in the scant 13 hours allowed
under the December 21st, 2012 Order.
Also, this is a complaint against Hill and his contractor for petty larceny of the ladder
from Coughlin's former law office, admitted to on tape on December 22nd, 2011 by Hill
(though the issue of whether they intended to "permanently deprive" Coughlin of the use
and enjoyment thereof may be grounds for debate, Hill should get to spend the next 12
months defending himself as Coughlin has from the onslaught of SBN, WCDA, and City of
Reno prosecutor investigation...otherwise...gee, doesn't it kinda being to mind Coughlin's
question to RPD Officer Chris Carter, J r. while Coughlin was in cuffs during the custodial
arrest of November 13th, 2011 when Coughlin asked Officer Carter: "are you on Richard
Hill's payroll too?". Coughlin has faithfully reported on exactly what Officer Carter's response was,
however ill-advised a sarcastic response he may claim it to have been. Hill has failed to faithfully
report on just what he meant where he filed documents attesting to have found "a crack pipe and a
bag of weed", a "vial of some sort", and "a large quantity of pills" and "drugs" in Coughlin's former
home law office.
Respecting Coughlin's written communications to HIll's office concerning Coughlin's express refusal to
accept electronic notice or service of anything from HIll's Office, includes the following:
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 4:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Merliss v. Coughlin

Casey, couldn't open them, and even if I could, I don't consent to service by email of pleadings, nor by fax. I have told you
that many times. I will file a Motion for Sanctions if you do not cease attempting to circumvent the procedural protections
accorded tenants. The only matter for which I consent to having you or your office contact me by email, is to tell me if and
when I can get my exigent client/law practice materials/state issued identification, etc. I refuse to accept service of
pleadings and motions you wish to sling through the courts at warp speed while withholding my mail and wallet. Come on!
Your better than this!
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE rev2011-001708 cv11-03628, 60331 61383
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:03:34 -0700
Mr. King,
This writing memorializes, in part, our conversation about your failure to investigate,
in any real way, the criminal trespass allegations, in violation of the Claiborne
decision. Upon my asking you pointed questions, you hurriedly filed a SCR 111
Petition in an attempt to excuse your failure to ask any of the pointed questions I have
previously put forth to you regarding that criminal trespass matter, further you
admitted to being unaware (allegedly) of the familial relation between J udge William
Gardner and J udge Linda Gardner (despite that being quite clear in my recent filings to
you).
You might want to look at AB226 and the Committee on the J udiciary notes from March 31, 2011.
This correspondence reminds you of and further places you on notice of that the fact
that you have been placed on a LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE. THE VIDEO
FILMED BY RICHARD HILL OF THE RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT'S CHRIS
CARTER AND SARGENT LOPEZ IN THE TIME PRIOR TO THE LANDLORD,
MERLISS ALLEGEDLY KICKING DOWN THE DOOR, IS OF MATERIALLY
RELEVANCE TO SEVERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS AND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS. RICHARD LIED IN COURT, UNDER OATH WHEN HE
TESTIFIED THAT THE RPD ANNOUNCED THEMSELVES AS LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND ORDERED COUGHLIN TO COME OUT OF THE
BASEMENT PRIOR TO THE DOOR BEING KICKED IN. RICHARD SENDS
THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA LETTERS ON
FURTHER, OFFICER CARTER'S POLICE REPORT IS DEMONSTRATED TO BE
FULL OF LIES BY THE VERY VIDEOS THAT HILL PROPOUNDED TO THE
CITY OF RENO PROSECUTORS, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO
WHETHER COUGHLIN REFUSED TO LEAVE AFTER BEING WARNED OR
TOLD TO DO SO AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH CARTER WAS UNABLE TO
ISSUE A CITATION OR RELY ON A SIMPLE WARNING IN LIGHT THEREOF.
COUGHLIN ACTUALLY ASKS CARTER IN THE VIDEO HILL FILMED WHY
HE DOESN'T J UST ISSUE SUCH A WARNING OR CITATION. Then, Carter
goes on to attempt to offer his views on "service", however rudimentary they may be.
being careful to note to Coughlin "you're not the victim here." To the extent that Hill
and Merliss trespass into Coughlin's former law office on this date, with the help of
the RPD, Soldal v Cook County has been violated, and Carter and Lopez have violated
Wheeler v Coss.
Any Eviction Order signed by J udge Sferrazza was stale in light of the failure to have
the lockout order served upon Coughlin and a lockout performed "within 24 hours" of
the Sheriff's receipt of the Order of both Oct 25th, 2011 (the simple one page Order
signed by J udge Sferrazza and notated in his own handwriting) and or the October
27th, 2011 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Summary Eviction)
both of which were received by the WCSO well over 24 hours from when the
lockout's were conducted, and therefore, both such Orders were stale, and therefore,
Richard G. Hill, Esq. committed trespass upon Coughlin's former home law office,
threw away a great deal of Coughlin's personalty (some of it very sentimental), and
both Hill and Baker have lied repeatedly in court filings in indicating that Coughlin
was served the Summary Eviction Order on November 1st, 2011 were they also admit
that Coughlin was not at his former home law office at the time WCSO Deputy
Machen posted it on the door thereof and effectuated a lockout (and Machen lied
under oath in his November 7th, 2011 filed Affidavit of Service attesting to have
"personally served" Coughlin the Summary Eviction Order on November 1st, 2011
(WCSO Civil Division Supervisor admitted as much to Coughlin in writing:
NRS 40.253:
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:
(1) The date the tenancy commenced.
(2) The amount of periodic rent reserved.
(3) The amounts of any cleaning, security or rent deposits paid in advance, in excess of the
first months rent, by the tenant.
(4) The date the rental payments became delinquent.
(5) The length of time the tenant has remained in possession without paying rent.
(6) The amount of rent claimed due and delinquent.
(7) A statement that the written notice was served on the tenant in accordance with NRS
40.280.
(8) A copy of the written notice served on the tenant.
(9) A copy of the signed written rental agreement, if any.
(b) Except when the tenant has timely filed the affidavit described in subsection 3 and a file-
stamped copy of it has been received by the landlord or the landlords agent, and except when the
landlord is prohibited pursuant to NRS 118A.480, the landlord or the landlords agent may, in a
peaceable manner, provide for the nonadmittance of the tenant to the premises by locking or
otherwise.
Further where is my damage deposit (either $500, or, arguably $700 given the extent
to which the Standard Rental Agreement afforded me the choice with respect to how
cleaning was to be done and the extent to which Hill and Baker have failed to comply
with
Mr. Baker, you have committed professional misconduct (and Hill filed a grievance
against me in a letter to the SBN dated J anuary 14th, 2012 purporting to be sent on
your behalf in "fulfilling your RPC 3.8 obligation"...simpy put, Mr. Baker, in your
Opposition to MOtion to constest Personal Property Lien in Rev2011-001708, on page
5, you lie where you write "when Coughlin refused to emerge from the basement after
being ordered to do so by the police, Merliss was forced to kick down the door to gain
access to his own property". You know that that is not true. The Reno Police
Department did not identify themselves as law enforcement or otherwise issue an
lawful Orders directing Coughlin to "emerge from the basement". You have
demonstrated a lack of candor to the tribunal in that regard in conspiracy with Richard
Hill. In a videotaped interview, RPD Sargent Lopez admits that neither she nor
Officer Carter, nor anyone else that day, identified themselves in any way to Coughlin
in the "basement" or otherwise issued him any sort of "warning to leave" or "order to
emerge" of any sort, whatsoever. Mr. Baker, you were not even there. Yet, you
viewed the video taken by Richard Hill of the moments in question where the RPD
were at the basement door prior to Dr. Merliss kicking it down, including those
moments where Dr. Merliss is seen in one video whispering to Richard Hill. If there
really was all this identifying themselves as law enforcement and issuing Coughlin an
order to emerge which went unheeded, then why the whispering? Why did Richard
fail to include the he took of the moments where the RPD were at the "basement" door
an failed to identify themselves or issue any lawful Orders? How would Coughlin
know that any voices that may have been audible did not simply belong to more of the
goons Hill and Baker routinely hire from Nevada Court Services to trespass behind
Coughlin's former home law office's backyard gate, visiting in pairs, threes times a
day, one ringing the door bell repeatedly for 30 minutes at a time, while the other (R.
Wray, J oel Durden, and other licensed process servers) trespasses behind a a latched
backyard gate and bangs on windows and peers through closed blinds while issuing
threats intended to indicate they are being made by someone with color of law behind
their words, while dressed up in an outfit specifically intended to confuse the public
into thinking these process servers are Sheriff's Deputies?
Regardless, the real fly in the ointment is the fact that RPD Sargent Lopez admitted
that neither she, nor Carter, nor anyone else identified themselves as law enforcement
and or issued Coughlin an order to emerge from the "basement". Indeed, in Hill's
Declaration in REv2011-001708, filed a scant 7 days after the arrest, Hill certainly
fails to mention any such alleged moment where the RPD identify themselves as law
enforcement and issue Coughlin an order to emerge prior to Merliss kicking the door
in. Hill writes letters to the SBN accusing Coughlin of having a "crack pipe and bag
of weed" and "large quantity of pills" (the videos Hill took that day reveal those "pills"
are vitamins, something Hill fails to clarify with the SBN, and Hill never has provided
any sort of indication of what the "crack pipe and bag of weed" looked like exactly,
nor has he responded to requests for photographs thereof, or made indication why he
did not call the police, given the fact that he has involved law enforcement at every
other possible turn.
Hill and Baker have continued to fail to deliver Coughlin's security deposit, and in
doing so, where they failed to provide the requisite correspondence within 30 days of
any such eviction, have violated Nevada law:
NRS 118A.242 Security: Limitation on amount or value; surety bond in lieu of security; duties and liability of landlord; damages;
disputing itemized accounting of security; prohibited provisions.
1. The landlord may not demand or receive security or a surety bond, or a combination thereof, including the last months rent, whose
total amount or value exceeds 3 months periodic rent.
2. In lieu of paying all or part of the security required by the landlord, a tenant may, if the landlord consents, purchase a surety bond to
secure the tenants obligation to the landlord under the rental agreement to:
(a) Remedy any default of the tenant in the payment of rent.
(b) Repair damages to the premises other than normal wear and tear.
(c) Clean the dwelling unit.
3. The landlord:
(a) Is not required to accept a surety bond purchased by the tenant in lieu of paying all or part of the security; and
(b) May not require a tenant to purchase a security bond in lieu of paying all or part of the security.
4. Upon termination of the tenancy by either party for any reason, the landlord may claim of the security or surety bond, or a
combination thereof, only such amounts as are reasonably necessary to remedy any default of the tenant in the payment of rent, to repair
damages to the premises caused by the tenant other than normal wear and to pay the reasonable costs of cleaning the premises. The landlord
shall provide the tenant with an itemized written accounting of the disposition of the security or surety bond, or a combination thereof, and
return any remaining portion of the security to the tenant no later than 30 days after the termination of the tenancy by handing it to the
tenant personally at the place where the rent is paid, or by mailing it to the tenant at the tenants present address or, if that address is
unknown, at the tenants last known address.
5. If a tenant disputes an item contained in an itemized written accounting received from a landlord pursuant to subsection 4, the tenant
may send a written response disputing the item to the surety. If the tenant sends the written response within 30 days after receiving the
itemized written accounting, the surety shall not report the claim of the landlord to a credit reporting agency unless the surety obtains a
judgment against the tenant.
6. If the landlord fails or refuses to return the remainder of a security deposit within 30 days after the end of a tenancy, the landlord is
liable to the tenant for damages:
(a) In an amount equal to the entire deposit; and
(b) For a sum to be fixed by the court of not more than the amount of the entire deposit.
7. In determining the sum, if any, to be awarded under paragraph (b) of subsection 6, 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.
NRS 118A.360 Failure of landlord to comply with rental agreement or maintain dwelling unit in habitable condition where cost of
compliance less than specified amount.
1. If the landlord fails to comply with the rental agreement or his or her obligation to maintain the dwelling unit in a habitable condition
as required by this chapter, and the reasonable cost of compliance or repair is less than $100 or an amount equal to one months periodic
rent, whichever amount is greater, the tenant may recover damages for the breach or notify the landlord of the tenants intention to correct
the condition at the landlords expense. If the landlord fails to use his or her best efforts to comply within 14 days after being notified by the
tenant in writing or more promptly if conditions require in case of emergency, the tenant may cause the work to be done in a workmanlike
manner and after submitting to the landlord an itemized statement, the tenant may deduct from his or her rent the actual and reasonable cost
or the fair or reasonable value of the work, not exceeding the amount specified in this subsection.
2. The landlord may specify in the rental agreement or otherwise that work done under this section and NRS 118A.380must be
performed by a named person or firm or class of persons or firms qualified to do the work and the tenant must comply with the
specifications. If the person qualified to do the work is unavailable or unable to perform the repairs the tenant shall use another qualified
person who performs repairs.
3. A tenant may not repair at the landlords expense if the condition was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or omission of the
tenant, a member of the tenants household or other person on the premises with his or her consent.
4. The landlords liability under this section is limited to $100 or an amount equal to one months periodic rent, whichever amount is
greater, within any 12-month period.
5. A tenant may not proceed under this section unless the tenant has given notice to the landlord that the dwelling is not in a habitable
condition as required by this chapter.
NRS 118A.355 Failure of landlord to maintain dwelling unit in habitable condition.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, if a landlord fails to maintain a dwelling unit in a habitable condition as
required by this chapter, the tenant shall deliver a written notice to the landlord specifying each failure by the landlord to
maintain the dwelling unit in a habitable condition and requesting that the landlord remedy the failures. If a failure is
remediable and the landlord adequately remedies the failure or uses his or her best efforts to remedy the failure within 14
days after receipt of the notice, the tenant may not proceed under this section. If the landlord fails to remedy a material
failure to maintain the dwelling unit in a habitable condition or to make a reasonable effort to do so within the prescribed
time, the tenant may:
(a) Terminate the rental agreement immediately.
(b) Recover actual damages.
(c) Apply to the court for such relief as the court deems proper under the circumstances.
(d) Withhold any rent that becomes due without incurring late fees, charges for notice or any other charge or fee
authorized by this chapter or the rental agreement until the landlord has remedied, or has attempted in good faith to remedy,
the failure.
2. The tenant may not proceed under this section:
(a) For a condition caused by the tenants own deliberate or negligent act or omission or that of a member of his or her
household or other person on the premises with his or her consent; or
(b) If the landlords inability to adequately remedy the failure or use his or her best efforts to remedy the failure within 14
days is due to the tenants refusal to allow lawful access to the dwelling unit as required by the rental agreement or this
chapter.
3. If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security recoverable by the tenant
under this chapter.
4. A tenant may not proceed under this section unless the tenant has given notice as required by subsection 1, except
that the tenant may, without giving that notice:
(a) Recover damages under paragraph (b) of subsection 1 if the landlord:
(1) Admits to the court that the landlord had knowledge of the condition constituting the failure to maintain the
dwelling in a habitable condition; or
(2) Has received written notice of that condition from a governmental agency authorized to inspect for violations of
building, housing or health codes.
(b) Withhold rent under paragraph (d) of subsection 1 if the landlord:
(1) Has received written notice of the condition constituting the failure to maintain the dwelling in a habitable
condition from a governmental agency authorized to inspect for violations of building, housing or health codes; and
(2) Fails to remedy or attempt in good faith to remedy the failure within the time prescribed in the written notice of
that condition from the governmental agency.
5. J ustice courts shall establish by local rule a mechanism by which tenants may deposit rent withheld
under paragraph (d) of subsection 1 into an escrow account maintained or approved by the court. A tenant
does not have a defense to an eviction under paragraph (d) of subsection 1 unless the tenant has deposited
the withheld rent into an escrow account pursuant to this subsection.
Mr's. Baker and HIll, would you not say it more accurate to characterize the situation in rev2011-001708 as one fitting under the NRS
118A.355 heading, particulary where the RJ C, at the time of that summary eviction "Trial" had, according to J udge Sferrazza, no "local
rule" or "mechanism by which tenants may deposit rent withheld under paragraph..." and therfore acknowledging the brilliance in
Coughlin's J CRLV Rule 44 corollary in the RJ C argument? Certainly, under the NRS 118A.355 analysis, after one strips away the agreed
to $350 for weeds maintenance (which kind of amounts to a waiver of term in the Standard Rental Agreement that J udge Sferrazza
interprets to require such "care" of the "lawn and surrounding grounds" (which, to the Court, apparently, included "weeds"), doesn't it?),
and the agreed upon credit for fixing the stairs, well, then, and other amounts fit quite nicely into the "fix and deduct" approach set forth in
NRS 118A.360. But, regardless, you proceeded under a No Cause Eviction basis, but against a commercial tenant, a fact you are stuck
with, as the Tenant's Answer, numerous phone calls to Baker, and many, many instances throughout the filings in that matter make clear
thta this was Coughlin's home law office, a commercial lease which the Standard Rental Agreement specifically allows for. And take a look
at that 2008 Winchell v Schiff seafood business goes under because of wrongful eviction case wherein damages accounting for the loss of
one's entire business (and what is a patent attorney's business worth, do you think, Dr. Merliss?) are allowable under Nevada law. Please
remit $450,000 to me within 7 days of this email being sent to you in satisfaction of this dispute against you, Dr. Merliss. Richard and
Casey, I will deal with you later, but your liability is on par with Dr. Merliss's, no doubt, and that is before the FDCPA stuff and the fact
that your office is not licensed as a bill collector.
Further,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel and Fax 949 667 7402
[email protected]