Why no Casey Baker, Esq., Allison Ormaas, Esq.,

WCSO Deputy Machen, or RMC Marshal Harley,

WCPD Biray Dogan, DDA Zach Young

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)Sent: Thu 11/01/12 5:39 PMTo: patrickk@nvbar.org (patrickk@nvbar.org); fflaherty@dlpfd.com

(fflaherty@dlpfd.com); davidc@nvbar.org (davidc@nvbar.org);complaints@nvbar.org (complaints@nvbar.org); tsusich@nvdetr.org(tsusich@nvdetr.org); je@eloreno.com (je@eloreno.com);cvellis@bhfs.com (cvellis@bhfs.com); skent@skentlaw.com(skent@skentlaw.com); mike@tahoelawyer.com(mike@tahoelawyer.com); nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net(nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net)

Dear Mr. King,

I am writing to formally complaint about your, once again, reneging on anoffer you have made to allow me access to certain materials.

Please explain your repeated misrepresentations to me regarding the "access"you will allow me to the materials I am entitled to view, and those you havemade offers in writing to me to allow me to view and or review.

I think you might find that the attached video of Sargent Lopez pretty muchvitiates the criminal trespass conviction (and that conviction, and all of JudgeNash Holmes orders are void in light of there violation of NRS 178.405 vis avis NRS 5.010 and the admission in Judge Nash Holmes March 14th, 2012letter to the SBN, and beyond that In re Oliver and the fact that Judge NashHolmes admits on the record to be basing her Order's upon conduct notcommitted in her "immediate presence" (an allegation of having a RMCMarshals look "Peeping Tom" style through a bathroom stall doesn't cut it)...Interesting that you have chosen to subpoena your former Attorney General'scoworke Dan Wong rather than City Attorney Ormaas (given her presence at

the 2/27/12 11 TR26800 Trial from which the "summary criminal contempt"order stems, and the allegations of her and that RMC Marshal Harley (whomviolated the "courthouse sanctuary" doctrine in one of the worst waysimaginable with his barging in on a plea bargain session to "personally serve"a Notice of Order to Show Cause on behalf of Richard G. Hill (and the 11 tr26800 case involved traffic citations immediately after RPD Tarter toldCoughlin to leave Hill's office, albeit without his wallet, keys, client's files,or state issued identification....) then to have the same WCSO Deputy Machen who lied about personally serving the lockout orderon Coughlin (in the eviction involving Hill) again lie in his 3 7 2012Affidavit attesting to have served the notice of the 3 23 12 ORder to ShowCause hearing (the one RMC Marshal Harley served for him, then got alljumpy and whispering in Ormaas's, and, apparently while Coughlin was in therestroom, made allegations to Judge Nash Holmes (and afterwards incident tothe SITA) seeking to cover up his misconduct and that of Ormaas. Claiborneis not going to allow you to feign ignorance, Mr. King, nor is the proof ofreceipt of all my emails and writings and media. Have fun reviewing it all.

Regardless, its not "summary contempt" if all essential elements of theallegation, under any iteration of NRS 22 are not alleged to have occurred inthe "immediate presence" of the Judge...where, as here, that is not the case,those RMC Marshal are going to have to sign their names to affidavits likethe big boys they strut around acting like they are, behaving in a menacing andintimidating manner that is wholly inconsistent with traditional notions of thetype of comportment required of officers of the court.

Again, today, you have reverted to your old tricks. I want everything, not justthat which you or Clerk/Investigator Peters deem "related' to the SCR 105"Complaint" (which has three case numbers on it ng12-0204, ng12-0434, andng12-0435). Both you and Peters get real evasive when it comes times toanswer for who submitted or filed the ng12-0435 grievance consisting of athree year old Order by Family Court Judge Linda Garnder, yet which bares afile stamp of March 15th, 2012 by the SBN...then there is Judge LindaGardner's brother, RMC Judge William Gardner refusing to recuse himselffrom the criminal trespass case, resulting in a conviction. I would think theattached videos pretty much demonstrate perjury by Richard G. Hillconsidering the various Declarations and Application for a TPO, bargrievances, police reports, and Motions for Orders to Show Cause he filed or

signed on to....Mr. King, is this what the SBN needs right now? A SCR 105Complaint by you coyly including this January 12th, 2012 "jaywalking"arrest, yet refusing to utter Hill's name in connection with it?

Some selected past correspondences with Mr. King detailing his reneging onoffers:

Mr. King, one of of our recent discusson you promised to send me something inwriting informing me as to who exactly was on the screening panel. You havefailed to uphold that promise as well. Further, you and Clerk/Investigator Petershave remained evasive and contradictory respecting who filed NG12-0435,when, and under what circumstances it came to be a grievance. I think you willfind that a review of the hearings you finally provided in 11 CR 26405 (April10th and May 8th, 2012) will yield some really intersting statements on therecord by Keith Loomis, Esq. (your Minden associate) and Judge WilliamGardner of the RMC (brother to Family Court Judge Linda Garnder, whose 2009sanctions order was file stamped by the SBN on March 15th, 2012 and is nowcalled NG12-0435, though neither you nor Peters will say anything all thatsensible about the genesis of that grievance, etc. Judge Gardner makes somepretty curious statements respecting the competency analysis, the decision toplow ahead with a Trial Setting on March 7th, 2012 for April 10th, 2012(interesting considering Coughlin filed the Notice of Appeal of the final,appealable "summary criminal contempt" conviction on that same date, March7th, 2012 that now forms part of the asis for Judge Nash Holmes ng12-0434"decompensating" grievance, incident to her March 14th, 2012 letter to theSBN....you might want to have Judge Gardner's statements on the record from4/10/12 and 5/8/12 and Loomis's transcribed, as your possession of the audiothereof arguably puts a Claiborne-esque duty upon you to inquire as to the candorand veracity of some of those statements, especially vis a vis the "meetings"Gardners being the RMC's "Administrative Judge", etc., etc. Further, you haverefused to allow me access to a number of materials that neither you nor Petersdeem "part of the complaint" (the SCR SBN v Coughlin complaint...though to theextent one or more of ng12-0204, ng12-0434, 0435 mention the RMC, arguably, Iam entitled to anything at all related to me, whether submitted by the WCSO,RMC, City of Reno, City of Reno Marshals, etc.

There are grievances against Dogan, Loomis, Young, Ormaas, Roberts, Hazlett, etc., etc., and given theSBN's and NNDB's known predilection against bifurcating hearings, why not have those individuals showup on November 14th, 2011 in the name of adminitrative economy? I am to financially strapped toarrange for all of their appearances, but I believe my requesting a waiver herein, or that the SBN orNNDB so arrange for these barristers to appear, combined with the duties attendant to Mr. King being aprosecutor (Brady Rule RPC 3.8, simple duty of fairness to opposing counsel, etc., etc.) might dictate thatthey so be obliged to appear. Certainly Dogan and Young could shed some light on the communicationsto the RMC and Judge Nash Holmes that made her holding the Trial on 2/27/12, hours after Dogan andYoung successfully obtained an Order for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin in RCR2012-065630, appearto be plainly violative of NRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010 (as was Young's filing an Opposition later that day,baring a file stamp time over 90 minutes after that found on the Order for Competency Evaluation. Asfor WCSO Machen, why, he is practically indispensable here. You got him and Baker doing theNovember 1, 2011 eviction lockout, you got him with the phony Affidavit of Service he failed thereto on11/7/11, you got Machen having RMC Marshal Harley serving the Notice of Order to Show Cause Hearingon Couglin on 2/27/12 while Coughlin and Ormaas haggled over the fines for the Richard Hill trafficcitation trial before Judge Nash Holmes (I would think getting the audio of the other cases on JudgeHolmes' docket at 1:00 pm on 2/27/12 will reveal what I heard her administrative assistantsay...something along the lines of "I am going to start the record now so I don't forget to later...followedby a substantial period of no one being able to find Judge Nash Holmes, comments directed to how oddthat was, etc., etc.) all occurring at the exact same time that Dogan and Young were holding theirclandestine status conference on 2/27/12 at 1:30 pm...which didn't stop Judge Nash Holmes fromcontinuing on to hold the 11 TR 26800 traffic citation trial, at which she suspended the proceedings at 4pm or so, and had Coughlin cuffed and taken straight to a 5 day jail stay (and despite her protestations ofconcern for Coughlin's client's welfare, she gave the idea of a stay extremely short shrift, indeed). Funny how that Order immediatly follow Coughlin saying "RPD Sargent Tarter lied when...." BOOM. STOP. Summary criminal contempt conviction....5 day jail stay. Judge Nash Holmes even kept the $100Coughlin's Mother paid to get him out a day early, despite the jail not releasing Coughlin. Wow, indeed.

Patrick King (PatrickK@nvbar.org) Add to contacts 3/27/12 To:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com From: Patrick King (PatrickK@nvbar.org)Thissender is in your safe list. Sent: Tue 3/27/12 9:24 AM To:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) March 27, 2012 DearMr. Coughlin, Perhaps you are not fully aware of your behavior. At our briefmeeting yesterday I perceived you as very hostile and even threatening. Underthose circumstances I felt it better to terminate the meeting. If it was not yourintent to appear hostile or to attempt to intimidate me then you might considerhow I perceived your conduct. I had intended to try to listen to you and determinehow my office could best help you address the grievances that I have received.You said you did not have time and simply wanted to argue about your receipt ofe-mail or mail. I did not say that I did not care if you received the information Isent to you, I said I did not care how your received it, so long as you received it. Ido care that you receive the information that I send to you. As I attempted toexplain, I will be meeting with a panel to have them make a determination aboutthe grievances that have been made against you by Mr. Hill and the Judge from

Department 3 that you read at my office. I have asked for a written response tothose grievances. In response I received many e-mails with attachments. I willsoon be sharing the grievances with a disciplinary panel and will advise them ofyour responses to date. I will keep you advised of the panel’s determination.Sincerely, Patrick King Actions Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)3/26/12 To: patrickk@nvbar.org, glennm@nvbar.org, davidc@nvbar.org DearMr. King, This correspondence is sent to confirm that I visited the Double RBlvd. offices of the State Bar of Nevada today and attempted to be providedaccess the the various "other different judges" grievances that I, prior to lastFriday, was completely unaware of. I have sent you several writtencorrespondences detailing the tampering and other problems with my USPS mailincident to the two domestic abuser attacks I have been subject to sinceapproximately 1/1/12, and ask that you copy my on all correspondences ordocument production via email and fax. Today, you showed me a two page letterfrom Judge Nash Holmes. Did you interpret it to be a "grievance"? How is thatdesignation arrived at? You refused to identify the names of any other judges fromwhom you have received any other similar such materials and further refused toallow me to view and such items. I asked for a copy of the large box ofdocuments, and other FOIA request materials and you refused. Further, you toldme you didn't care I received anything you sent me and stated that I did not have aright to review such complaint letters, grievances, or other materials, prior tobeing questioned by you and before any such meeting. I informed you that I amconsidering different attorneys to represent me right now, and indicated I needthese materials to prepare for any future meeting with you. My records incidatethat your letter of 3/16/12 is inaccurate to the extent it indicates that I was copiedon that letter via email on that date. Please let me know if you received any sortof "return to sender" letter for that mailing. Sincerely, Zach Coughlin, Esq., POBOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402;ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Nevada Bar No: 9473 © 2012 Microsoft TermsPrivacy Developers English (United States)

From: Patrick King (PatrickK@nvbar.org) This sender is in your safe list. Sent:Mon 4/02/12 3:57 PM To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com Dear Mr. Coughlin, I haveopened 3 disciplinary files against you. They are identified by number below:NG12-0204 Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. Bar No. 9473 (2005) Mr. Hill NG12-0435 Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. Bar No. 9473 (2005) Judge Holmes NG12-0434Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. Bar No. 9473 (2005) Judge Gardner You have

received the grievance from Mr. Hill and also the grievance from Judge Holmes.The Grievance from Judge Gardner relates to her “Order After Trial” in the caseof Ashwin Joshi v Barti Joshi, Case Number DV08-01168, wherein shedescribes your conduct at pages 12 and 13. I have received certified copies of thecontempt orders, a certified copy of the conviction at Wal-Mart, and an incidentreport from Marshals Thompson and Coppa regarding your conduct on March 22,2012. I also have the recordings of the court proceedings at issue. At this time, Ido not expect to be providing you with any additional information. If you haveadditional information that you want me to be made aware of in response to thegrievances identified above please feel free to mail them to me. Sincerely,Patrick King, Assistant Bar Counsel

\

From: Patrick King (PatrickK@nvbar.org) This sender is in your safe list.

Sent: Thu 4/19/12 2:28 PM

To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)

April 19, 2012

Zach Coughlin

Dear Mr. Coughlin,

A screening panel of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel met on Tuesday April 10, 2011 toaddress the grievances filed against you. The panel directed me to proceed to a formal disciplinaryhearing. As such, I will be preparing a formal Complaint.

I understand from the e-mail below, that you do not believe you should have been found guiltyof the theft at Wal-Mart and that you should not have been found in contempt of Court. However, it

must concern you that you were found in contempt of Court by more than one Judge in two differenttrials. You wanted to know how I learned of or obtained a copy of Judge Gardner’s Order after trial thatwas filed in 2009. It was sent to me by the clerk of the court at my request, pursuant to myinvestigation.

It would help me and perhaps yourself, if you would respond and explain why you wereconvicted of theft and why you were held in contempt of Court. You may be well served to explain whatremedial measures you are taking to make sure you do not repeat the conduct complained about. Icannot give you legal advice. However I can suggest you cooperate with Bar counsel’s investigation andthat you respond specifically to the allegations contained in Judge Holmes and Richard Hill’s grievanceletters to the office of Bar Counsel.

Patrick King

Zach has 8 files to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them, click the links below.

SAM_0190_mpeg4 rpd hill sifre jaywalking 11 cr 26405 11 tr 26800 rmc.mp4

SAM_0189_mpeg4 rpd hill sifre jaywalking 11 cr 26405 11 tr 26800 rmc.mp4

011412 RJC RCR2012-065630 RCR2011-063341 RCR2012-067980 Reno Police Department Sargent Paul

Sifre arrests Reno Attorney for misuse of 911 second arr.3gp

zach's arrest 009 26405 1708 26800 03628.flv

zach's arrest 011 26405 1708 26800 03628.flv

zach's arrest 010 26405 1708 26800 03628.flv

10 4 12 ORDER STRIKING document filed in error on 10 2 12 and returning document 26800 0204 0434

nash 00696 26405.pdf

10 29 12 notice of errata and SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 26405 1708 26800 0650630.pdf

Download all

From: PatrickK@nvbar.orgTo: zachcoughlin@hotmail.comCC: DavidC@nvbar.orgSubject: RecordsDate: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:04:21 +0000

Good Morning Mr. Coughlin,

Your disciplinary file is being sent to the printer to be copied. I am having the documents batestamped and the printing company will mail them to you.

Formal proceeding are taking place at the state bar office so you will not be permitted in thebuilding.