8 23 13 Transcript of Status Conference 2025 0614 0552 0376 Aug23civil2013two

7/27/2019 8 23 13 Transcript of Status Conference 2025 0614 0552 0376 Aug23civil2013two

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/8-23-13-transcript-of-status-conference-2025-0614-0552-0376-aug23civil2013two 1/42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

4185

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

HONORABLE LIDIA S. STIGLICH

THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case Nos. CR12-2025 & CR13-0614

ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Department No. 8

Defendant.

-------------------------/

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGSStatus hearing

August 23, 2013

APPEARANCES:

For the State: Zachary YoungDeputy District Attorney1 South Sierra StreetReno, Nevada

For the Defendant: Pro per

Reported by: Isolde Zihn, CCR #87



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2

RENO, NEVADA, FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2013, 2:00 P.M.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

MR. COUGHLIN: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Have a seat.

We're here on two separate matters today.

I'd like to start with Coughlin versus State, case

number CR12-2025.

Mr. Young is present, on behalf of the State.

MR. YOUNG: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

Mr. Coughlin is representing himself here --

MR. COUGHLIN: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: -- as I understand it.

I had an opportunity to review the case -- review the

docket, rather. This is an appeal from a conviction in Reno

Justice Court. We've kind of referred to it here as an

iPhone case.

I had an opportunity to review the judge's orders

that were previously issued and the motions. And here's what

I see is still out there.

MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. COUGHLIN: May I just quickly interject, please?

THE COURT: Sure.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

3

MR. COUGHLIN: I don't mean to belabor the point.

Maybe I can just make this a continuing request.

But may I record the proceedings?

THE COURT: You may not.

MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. And with all due respect, I'll

just indicate -- not indicating one way or another whether

I'm recording, unless you really want me to -- but under

RPC -- I think it's 3.5, an open refusal, to the extent that

I don't know that permission is even required. I know

Supreme Court Rule 229 speaks to requesting permission, but I

believe that applies to reporters.

I don't know that parties are -- I just don't know.

And, obviously, this has become a very salient issue in my

life, because one of the bases for continuing to disbar me

right now is Dorothy Nash Holmes has alleged that I lied to

her with respect to whether or not I was recording. And then

my -- I was arrested and summarily incarcerated. Then a day

later my property was retrieved from the jail by the

Municipal Court marshals. Not in a Diaz search incident to

arrest, but subsequent to that, but --

THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, let me stop you for a

moment.

I understand your concerns. The woman who is sitting

in front of me is the court-certified court reporter. She is



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

4

present to record these proceedings.

If it is necessary that you need a transcript of this

proceeding, you can make that request of the Court, and do so

at public expense. But she gets paid to do this. And if

everybody is just recording the proceedings, she's out of a

job. So that's one thing.

So she's the only authorized person in here right now

to record those proceedings. And her transcript is the one

that is the official transcript of proceeding. So any other

recording or whatever is not the official transcript.

So if there's concern to you about access of what is

said at this proceeding, I can alleviate that. So I

understand that you've requested to record it. And I'm going

to deny that request. If you determine, at the end of this

proceeding, that you'd like a transcript of this at public

expense, please remind me, make that request, and I'll look

at it as well.

MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, it's the word "request"

that I'm a bit hung up on.

I've become well-versed in the battle between what is

referred to as ER -- electronic recording -- and the role of

a certified court reporter is, whom I have great respect for.

In fact, in my disciplinary hearing, having the audio was not

sufficient. And, in fact, a certified court reporter very



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

5

much still had a job there, because those were not admitted

into evidence, despite the fact that I obtained -- sometimes

at my own expense, or at my mother's, through subterfuge,

upon my being denied such by the Municipal Court.

You said "request." If you deny my request, then --

and I don't even necessarily need a certified version. If I

just had the rough drafts or something, it would help me.

But to the extent that it's just some request, I would make

that request now.

THE COURT: Then your request is granted.

MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.

THE COURT: So let's move forward.

MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Having gone through the case,

I've had a couple -- what I note as the pending motions.

One pending motion is a motion to strike RJC record

on appeal and transcripts, and motion to compel RJC to

release sealed portions of transcripts filed on May 6th.

That's one pending motion.

I would note that, earlier in this case -- and

perhaps this is the one you were referring to the other day,

Mr. Young -- earlier in this case, Judge Elliott granted a

motion by Mr. Coughlin to request preparation of transcripts

at public expense. See, that's an order that Judge Elliott



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

6

made.

Was that complied with? Do we know if the

transcripts were ever prepared, or what needs to happen on

that? I'm sorry. I don't have --

MR. YOUNG: No, that's fine. Personally, I don't

even know which transcripts he was referring to. We have

multiple cases, multiple hearings in each case. So,

candidly, I don't know.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COUGHLIN: I can speak to that.

THE COURT: Well, what I see here in the papers, I

see -- he made the order on January 9th, 2013. And that, in

your motion to strike, et al., you indicated that you wanted

transcripts from -- particularly, you listed May 7th, 2012;

July 16th, 2012; 8/27, 2012; 8/29, 2012; 9/5, 2012; 11/19,

2012 and 11/20, 2012. Those are the ones that you listed.

And then, subsequent to that, there is an order by

Judge Elliott granting transcripts at public expense. So I'm

not certain if -- it came after those -- if he was referring

to those or not.

Are those the hearings on this matter? Are those the

dates, Mr. Coughlin, you're requesting a transcript of?

MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I was requesting every

hearing in this matter.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

7

I believe the ones you just indicated did not

reference a hearing of 11/8 and 11/13.

THE COURT: But I want to tell you, those are from

your motion, asking for transcripts from RJC hearings in this

case, and you say particularly these dates.

MR. COUGHLIN: Well, it's somewhat mute at this

point, because there have been a great deal of transcripts

prepared. If I can just quickly give sort of an outline of

what's going on here.

THE COURT: Please.

MR. COUGHLIN: Judge Elliott did grant that motion.

I mean, his order, that's a profound order. That's an

expensive order. That's a message -- if you ask me -- to a

lot of people.

Okay. After initially having my first case with

Judge Elliott, being one -- the second Washoe Legal Services

lawsuit, where I also sued CAAW, which runs the TPO office

for the Second Judicial District Court -- the same CAAW that

Judge Elliott sat as the president of their executive board

on -- unbeknownst to me -- throughout that litigation, which

is CV11-01955, which went on to appeal, 60317 -- he never

indicated to me he was on CAAW's board, didn't recuse

himself, dismissed my case for insufficient service of

process. Then he sanctioned me, alleging he got to the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

8

merits of my Complaint, despite the fact that it was

dismissed without getting to the merits. It wasn't a 12 (b)

(6). It was a 12 (b), (3) or (4) that he granted.

That being said, on his final day in office, Judge

Elliott -- okay. That was a different order, on 3/8. But

that January 9th order, he did enter that.

To narrow it down and to stay focused, what you asked

me to address is the transcripts.

Regardless of what I asked to be prepared, regardless

of what he said should be prepared, what has been prepared is

a couple versions of that. One, the RJC -- speaking of ER

and the role of CRCs, in the RJC, it's my understanding, that

some of their own employees prepare quasi-transcripts.

And I've gotten very adept in the certification

thereon. They're by people with a first name; and sometimes

a last initial, sometimes not. "Transcript prepared by

Kathy."

It's like if you call T-Mobile, and you ask who you

were speaking with, the rep would say, "Well, this is Jan."

"Can I know which call center you're in?" "No, you can't."

Okay.

But these are people who work for courts that issue

convictions that take away law licenses. Or do worse. I

understand some perspective here. I understand there's some



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

9

perspective here to be had in my case. And mine isn't life

or death.

THE COURT: Well, I think my question is: What

transcripts are you missing?

MR. COUGHLIN: They've been prepared.

THE COURT: They have been prepared.

MR. COUGHLIN: Well, at this point, the RJC has

prepared ones for, I believe, the 5/7 date, the 7/16 date

9/5, 11/19, 11/20. Whereas Sunshine Litigation has gone

and -- at this point, just one being filed yesterday -- in

fact, has prepared certified court reporter official

transcripts for 5/7, I believe, 7/16, 9/5/12, 10/22/12,

11/8/12, 11/13/12, and now, most recently, 11/19/12, with

only one day, I believe -- maybe more -- but at least the

last day of trial, 11/20/12, I believe they're finishing

right now.

THE COURT: What about 8/27 and 8/29?

MR. COUGHLIN: I was remiss. Those were prepared

both, I believe, by RJC and by Sunshine.

Now, Judge Pearson, Chief Judge Pearson at RJC,

indicated to me during one of my probation hearings incident

to this case, for which he's not releasing the audio even to

me -- which relates to another case, CR13-0552, which I

believe Mr. Young could be here on today, if that's a



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

10

mandamus petition that Judge Sattler struck -- and it relates

to one of the other cases --

THE COURT: He's not on that matter today.

MR. COUGHLIN: We are on CR13-0614 today?

THE COURT: Yeah. But right now we're on CR12-2025.

MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.

THE COURT: That's the one we're talking about.

MR. COUGHLIN: They kind of bled together a little

bit. But that's where the state of the transcripts are, at

this point.

THE COURT: Okay. So it sounds like -- with the

exception of one, it sounds like it's still being prepared;

you received the transcripts. All right.

Now, you had mentioned in this motion that there was

a sealed portion of a transcript filed on May 6th. What is

that?

MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, Your Honor. I believe there's

several dates here. And these go into -- I think it's

Stankowicz and Marsden issues that relate to competency

issues.

MR. YOUNG: Can I get the citation for the Marsden

case?

MR. COUGHLIN: There are filings on file with -- I

think it's Marsden, or Marsten.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

11

THE COURT: Marsden: M-a-r-s-d-e-n.

MR. YOUNG: Is that a California case?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COUGHLIN: They interplay between ineffective

assistance of counsel, one seeking to be their own counsel,

competency orders, in which orders those are addressed. And

I believe Miss -- I don't want any of these sealed anymore,

particularly given the fact that what medications I take has

been made exceedingly public, given Judge Elliott's --

THE COURT: So you're asking --

MR. COUGHLIN: Not so much Elliott's, but Dogan's

saying it on the record.

THE COURT: So are you asking that the sealed

portions of the transcript that relate to your Marsden motion

or hearing, which is -- which the reason that's sealed is

because that relates to your relationship with your

counsel -- that be opened; understanding, then, that that

would be available equally to the prosecution?

And I wasn't at that motion, so I don't know what was

discussed. And, also, if there's a sealed portion that

relates to competency, if that's -- if that is unsealed,

then, again, that would be made available equally to

Mr. Young.

Is it your request that -- I don't have that



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

12

document --

MR. COUGHLIN: I don't want anything sealed, at all,

in any of my cases.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COUGHLIN: I want no sealing.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COUGHLIN: Just quickly, because I believe it's

related to that. Subsequently, in this very case that's

being appealed, I'm subject to a probation.

Now, I had moved for a stay of probation in this

appeal, which was stricken from the records for some reason

that I still don't understand -- something to do with WDCR

10, which is a civil rule. So that was a 3/8/13 Judge

Elliott struck my motions, which I would move, if I haven't

already, for those to be reinstated.

But to get back to the transcripts, RJC is

steadfastly refusing to release to me a key transcript in

this case that is from 2/5/13. That relates to: I was

arrested three times in 12 days in February.

THE COURT: But here's the thing: And whether or not

that proceeding, Mr. Coughlin, that 2/5/13 motion, has

anything to do with some other matter, you're appealing a

conviction that occurred on November 20th, 2012. So this

case number -- I'm not saying that 2/5/13 may not connect to



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

13

some other matter that you have. But it's not on this case.

MR. COUGHLIN: Oh, I believe it has cellular

importance to this case.

THE COURT: To your appeal?

MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.

THE COURT: Or to the merits? What?

MR. COUGHLIN: To both.

THE COURT: How?

MR. COUGHLIN: Absolutely. What's going on with

respect to that: one, that audio that I'm requesting is in

the very case that's being appealed here.

THE COURT: Which case?

MR. COUGHLIN: Well, this is CR25. That's the appeal

of RCR 11-63341.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COUGHLIN: So it's the same case that's on

appeal. True, the chronology is that I'm requesting a

hearing from 2/5/13 and the convictions from 11/20/12, but I

believe that there's still -- it still bears great

significance to what is going on, this --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. COUGHLIN: -- obstruction by the RJC.

THE COURT: It bears no significance to what is going

on in your appeal of this conviction that occurred on



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

14

November 20th, 2012. Because this Court is limited in what

it can review in front of an appeal. I don't understand how

the 2/5 hearing has any bearing --

MR. COUGHLIN: Irregularities in proceeding has

significance in the law, I believe. Not to say that it did,

but if I was walking down the street yesterday, and Judge

Pearson pistol-whipped me across the face, that would kind of

tend to cast a pall over previous rulings, I would think, by

him, even though they're subsequent to the one on appeal.

I'm not saying -- he didn't do that. But there's

been some significant irregularities that occurred in that

very case that I think absolutely have significance to this

case and are relevant.

THE COURT: You'd be asking me to take evidence on

your appeal. I'm not going to take evidence on your appeal.

I am going to review the record on appeal and have your legal

arguments about why it should be, you know, overturned or

not.

But with respect to the 2/5, I'm not saying it may

not have some relevance in another proceeding that you have.

I know you have multiple proceedings. But in this one, I'm

not going to order that transcript.

Sounds like the other ones have all been done.

MR. COUGHLIN: Not at public expense. But I'm just



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

15

saying the release of the audio to me, simply.

THE COURT: Well, here's the thing: You can always

go get an audio --

MR. COUGHLIN: No, I can't.

THE COURT: -- of a hearing and pay for it.

MR. COUGHLIN: No, I can't. Not that one. Judge

Pearson -- Judge Pearson and Judge Clifton are buckling down

on this, because it relates to extra-judicial, impermissible

communications on 2/5/13, wherein they violated the stay

under NRS 178.405, in conjunction with Mr. Young, who

candidly, at least, did mention the statute says "shall."

But Judge Clifton proceeded anyway.

If you give me 20 seconds to set this up. I was

arrested on 2/1. I bailed out. I had a trial on 2/5, before

Judge Pearson. Thirty minutes before that, I had a hearing

on the arrest for probation violation before Judge -- I mean,

before Judge Clifton. Judge Pearson hearing 30 minutes

before that. I got my order for competency stayed. I went.

It was delivered in writing to Judge Clifton, requiring

suspension of the trial.

THE COURT: Suspension of what trial?

MR. COUGHLIN: The one on appeal in 0614.

THE COURT: But I'm not on 0614.

MR. COUGHLIN: I know. But you're on 2025 --



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

16

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. COUGHLIN: -- and that's the hearing where the

competency order issued was in the case that became 2025,

63341, before Judge Pearson.

And so I went to the hearing -- after getting the

competency order from Judge Pearson, I went to the trial

before Judge Clifton. And Zach Young objected to the stay,

and he was able to get Judge Pearson to come back on the

bench. Then I sua sponte essentially interrogated Judge

Pearson --

MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this.

MR. COUGHLIN: -- "What was said to you in chambers?"

And he wouldn't answer me.

THE COURT: All right, gentlemen. One moment.

Here's the thing: On the motion -- on that motion,

it appears that the transcript -- the order of Judge Elliott

granting transcripts at public expense was granted; that the

appropriate transcripts, pursuant to his order, were provided

or are in the process of being prepared. It sounds like one

maybe is not all the way complete.

The Court is going to decline to provide any further

transcripts after the date of conviction, which is November

20th, 2012 --

MR. COUGHLIN: But, Your Honor --



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

17

THE COURT: -- at this time.

Yes.

MR. COUGHLIN: With respect to what that order says

specifically, it's a short order, but it -- for my purposes,

it's very important to know exactly what it says.

It says, "Any necessary pleading, process or paper

involved," I think, in the issuance. I don't necessarily --

THE COURT: Well, I've made a determination at this

time that this is not one of those papers -- one of those

items. Therefore, at this time, I'm denying that request.

I am going to grant your other request in that motion

for a 60-day extension to file your opening brief. That's

from today's date.

Therefore, the emergency ex-parte motion for

extension of time to file opening brief that was filed on May

10th, that request is now moot. However -- and your request

to exceed pay limitations is denied.

You have a petition for extraordinary writ or motion

for extension of time, filed on July 31st, 2013. Request

extension of time to file opening brief. That's moot.

It requests a waiver of E-flex filing fees. I'm

going to grant that motion.

It has a request regarding publication of transcripts

at public expense. That is moot, in light of the Court's



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

18

rulings so far.

MR. COUGHLIN: Just to be clear, Your Honor, that was

requested -- some of these -- Your Honor, some of these

petitions for writ are getting -- from my point of view --

summarily ruled on as mute or -- but these are seeking a lot

of different things, and what they're -- and I think a lot of

these things are not unripe, they're not mute. I was

requesting transcripts in other matters.

Further, that's a 7/31 petition for writ. That was

subsequent to the 7/22/13 petition for writ, which this Court

has continued to not file.

I don't have a copy of -- the Court said it would

give me a copy of that when it was left that day, the one

that had the disk on it.

THE COURT: You asked me to make a copy of it. I

did. The original is back there somewhere.

MR. COUGHLIN: I'll be afforded a copy of that?

THE COURT: You can have it back, yes.

MR. COUGHLIN: And the Court is retaining a copy of

the disk, as well?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: The motion and petition/writ requiring

second JD and/or E-flex's viability to E-file and access all



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

19

of his cases is granted in part and denied in part.

It's granted to the extent that you're granted

E-filing privileges in this case.

It's denied as to all of your cases. So only in the

cases in which the Court makes a specific order and we file

the paperwork and do have access.

MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COUGHLIN: -- can we address that --

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. COUGHLIN: -- to the extent that Mr. Young is

here, on any cases in which the District Attorney's office

criminal matters is a party, wherein I'm a party. That would

include CR13-0552, CR12-2025, CR13-0614 and CR13-1332.

THE COURT: At this time, I'm just going to handle

them case by case.

So today, in CR12-2025, I'm going to grant the

E-filing, and basically waive the fees for E-filing. I'll

give you the order that you need to effectuate that. We'll

take it up in our cases as it arises.

MR. COUGHLIN: I appreciate that, Your Honor.

The last note I'll make on that is that Judge

Elliott's order essentially requiring thousands and thousands

of dollars or transcript was entered on 1/9/13. It's now



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

20

been over eight months that this Court has denied me

electronic access -- even in that very case -- to those

materials, which I believe his order required. I believe my

reading of that order required for myself to be afforded

E-flex access. And it's been a great prejudice to me -- in

this matter particularly -- that I have not been able to file

and/or access materials there.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Coughlin.

Then there's an emergency motion for issuance of a

writ; or, in the alternative, order to show cause, that was

filed on July 31st, 2013. And, again, these are kind of my

shorthand to kind of see what the issues are. It's a request

for order requiring Julie Wise to obey SCR 110 and WDCR 18.

I'm not sure what you're asking the Court to do.

Miss Wise, in the filing office, has an obligation to

follow the rules. I don't have any indication that they're

not. So I just don't know that this is ripe for me to deal

with. If you can bring me a specific instance in this case

in which there's problem, we'll deal with it.

MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. But so in -- I'm not getting

real specific rulings here on what is being denied. I'm just

getting everything wholesale is being denied.

THE COURT: Actually, no. I granted your 60-day

extension of time to file an opening brief.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

21

MR. COUGHLIN: That's true.

THE COURT: Even though Judge Elliott had previously

granted you a 60-day extension of time to file a brief, and

you failed to file a brief within that 60 days. Nonetheless,

I have granted you an extension from today of 60 days date --

of 60 days from today's date.

MR. COUGHLIN: I'm speaking more to the petitions for

writ, rather than the motions -- which I do appreciate what

you've granted so far, Your Honor. I don't mean to --

THE COURT: One petition for writ was for extension

of time. I've granted that. And/or E-flex. I've granted

that. Publication of transcripts, that's previously been

granted. Another writ for access to E-flex, I've granted

that.

And now we're talking an emergency motion for

issuance of a writ. That in the absence of some specific --

you're asking me to do something. Now you're asking me to do

this -- direct court employees to follow the law. I expect

court employees to follow the law. If you are directing me

to a specific instance in this case that I -- which I have

jurisdiction over, where some misfeasance, malfeasance, or

otherwise has been committed by the filing office, then that

would be something that I can do something about. But that's

not what I have here. In essence, I'm saying that it's kind



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

22

of vague, kind of a vague request: Ask Julie to do what

she's supposed to do. And I can tell you, with respect to

Miss Wise, I have done that.

MR. COUGHLIN: Absolutely. Okay. If I may have

leave to --

THE COURT: Please.

MR. COUGHLIN: -- to get this Court something much

more organized, much more specific, shorter. Some of the

exigencies of being arrested 20 times since August, '11 have

resulted in kind of kitchen sink petitions for writ, which I

can understand.

But to the extent -- what I'm afraid of is having --

if I now file a very tailored, specific writ, having somebody

say, "You already moved for that, so you can't," I'd seek

leave of court to get the Court something with respect to

these writs that's more appropriately formed, and specific

and tailored, and not have -- a motion once made cannot be

made, any type of application be made thereto.

THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, you are representing

yourself. I'm giving you E-flex access. You have the

ability to file whatever motions you think are appropriate.

And I'd urge you, however, as you've indicated, that you will

make every effort to try to make them concise, less kitchen

sink. I think it's clear we're trying give you the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

opportunity on all of these cases, if you can get organized.

You don't need to do a kitchen sink. Be specific as to each

case about what the issue in that case is, so we can deal

with it, as soon as we have the right lawyer on the other

side to deal with it. If there's a problem on something

particular in one case, we can handle it. That's what I'm

here for.

There's no caps on what you can and can't file. You

can have any access that any litigant has to this proceeding.

I've ruled on these motions. They don't preclude you

from filing other motions.

Does that make sense?

MR. COUGHLIN: I understand, Your Honor. But, just

briefly, from my perspective, district attorney Young files a

Complaint in this matter. That's on appeal, CR12-2025. He

alleges receiving stolen property. He doesn't allege from

who. He doesn't allege how the defendant would know that the

property he allegedly received from somebody else -- I'm

talking about Shep v. State and Staub -- so he submits --

we're talking about my kitchen sink approach, allegedly.

Well, his Complaint had a very kitchen sink approach. Even

at the end of the trial he still didn't understand Staub and

Shep v. State, in the fact that it's receiving -- a thief

can't receive the fruit of his own larceny.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

24

So where he -- where they're alleging I stole an item

from the owner directly, it's settled law in Nevada -- Staub

v. State, Shep -- that a thief cannot receive the fruit of

his own larceny. I was convicted there.

But I just wish to make that point: that I believe

it kind of goes both ways, where he's throwing out the

kitchen sink. As overly long as mine are, his are overly

short, and unsupported by the facts.

THE COURT: When you file your opening appellate

brief, I'm sure you are going to raise all the issues that

will need to be raised; then Mr. Young will have an

opportunity to address them; and I can have more informed

conversations with both parties.

MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The motion to proceed in forma pauperis

was previously granted by Judge Elliott, so that is moot.

The final motion that I see -- again, this is a

status hearing -- is a motion for order to show cause holding

Mr. Young in contempt for suborning perjury.

MR. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. If I can, just

quickly.


MR. COUGHLIN: I don't mean to interrupt. But we've

had several -- the Court has issued several of these motions



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

to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The problem, from

my perspective, is when I -- when I'm interacting with the

filing office, there is a default stance that the filing

office takes that such an order only means your filing fee is

waived, period.

Now, I've recently delved deeply in the body of case

law as to what indigent criminal defendants and criminal

appellants are able to get at public expense.

For instance, I would request co-counsel here to

assist me. I've been denied that co-counsel, it seems, in

every instance.

THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, I can appoint you counsel

at any time. But I cannot appoint you co-counsel.

MR. COUGHLIN: Is there some mandatory authority that

says that; or is it --

THE COURT: Let me correct that. I'm not going to

appoint you co-counsel. I will appoint you counsel, if you

desire counsel. Otherwise, you're representing yourself,

which you have a right to do.

MR. COUGHLIN: And I just submit that under Welby and

Leighton this Court has discretion to so appoint me

co-counsel. In the interest of judicial economy, I believe

that might be well-indicated to do so here. Particularly

where you have someone like me -- granted, a suspended



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

attorney in Nevada -- but someone who has no criminal law

background whatsoever.

THE COURT: If you have no criminal law background,

it might behoove you to have experienced criminal counsel

being your lawyer, don't you think?

MR. COUGHLIN: There's a certain domestic violence

aspect to how these courts have approached this co-counsel

argument. It's all or nothing. It's very powering control.

It's no way; no way. You can't have co-counsel and benefit

from that. It's either this guy, Jim Leslie, runs the ship

completely, to the point where he can malevolently attempt to

purposefully establish some exception to 171.136 in his

cross-examination of Goble; or you get to go on your own,

alone, with absolutely no assistance from anybody. I don't

understand that approach.

Welby and Leighton certainly provide this Court with

discretion to allow for such. It's not a case where I

automatically have a malpractice suit, if things don't go my

way, against co-counsel. That's far from the case. In fact,

it seems more the case that the same immunity accorded to the

judiciary and the prosecution is now commonly accorded to the

public defenders.

I just don't understand the blanket refusal to allow

me co-counsel in all the settings in which I've requested it.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

27

MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, may I?

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Coughlin.

MR. YOUNG: If I can respond to that aspect of it.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. YOUNG: There is case law -- and I know you made

your ruling -- but there is case law which says that a

defendant is not entitled to a hybrid representation.

And if I could just read one quote from the Wheby --

W-h-e-b-y -- that's 95 Nevada 567. It's a 1979 case.

Overruled on other grounds, but good on this point.

It says that, "The Nevada Supreme Court has" --

quote -- "previously determined that, although a criminal

defendant may have both the right of self-representation and

a right to assistance of counsel, this does not mean that a

defendant is entitled to have his case presented in court

both by himself and by counsel acting at the same time, or,

alternatively, at the defendant's pleasure."

We have addressed this matter extensively at the

Justice Court level. I just want to raise the same

objection. You've already ruled on it. But let the State's

objection know that we would oppose any sort of co-counsel.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Young.

Okay. So, in this case, we're left with the motion

for order to show cause regarding attorney Young in contempt



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

28

for suborning perjury, filed August 14th, 2013.

And with all due respect, Mr. Coughlin, the motion,

at least from my perspective -- I'm kind of the reader that

matters on it -- was unintelligible. I'm not able to discern

what your allegations are, what you're asking.

At this time, I'm going to strike that motion under

NRCP 12 (f), without prejudice. You can refile it, if you

can clarify and give me something that I can understand. So

to the extent that those are -- some of those are my

deficiencies, I apologize. But they are reality. I can't

understand what it is you're asking or what you're alleging.

Okay.

So with respect to CR12-2025, that's the order of the

Court.

MR. YOUNG: Your Honor?


MR. YOUNG: Again, I understand the Court has made

its ruling with respect to this last motion. If I could just

briefly --

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. YOUNG: -- put on the record the State's

position.

I also received the motion that you just referenced,

asking to hold myself in contempt for suborning perjury.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

29

My review of what is attached to the -- in the title

that you have read is essentially all that's listed on the

front page. What is attached by Mr. Coughlin is a 72-page

motion, which he had previously -- it appears -- either

printed or filed in Reno Municipal Court -- which I, myself,

and my office have absolutely no dealings with.

And so the State's concern, Your Honor, is that

Mr. Coughlin files this with a pretty heavy accusation of

suborning perjury. It's obviously something that myself and

my office doesn't take lightly. With absolutely zero support

for. I flipped through. I didn't even see my name listed in

here once. I have never had any dealings with Municipal

Court. I deal with Justice Court of Reno and Washoe County

District Court. So I want the record just complete here.

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. YOUNG: That while you've already struck this, I

certainly oppose and object to it. I, frankly, was going to

ask the Court to consider sanctions against Mr. Coughlin for

such a belligerent accusation, with zero supporting

documentation. But since you've already struck it, I'll

leave it at that.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

All right. With respect to case number CR13-0614,

there's a petition for extraordinary writ or motion for



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

30

extension of time that's filed on July 31st, 2013. I think

it also comes under the category of one of the omnibus-type

motions, Mr. Coughlin, that you have filed in other cases.

The difference about this one as it relates to this

case number is, I cannot ascertain what this relates to. I

don't have any idea, just based upon my read of it, what case

you're appealing from. It's entitled, "Coughlin versus

State." But I'm unclear what particular case you're

appealing from.

There is an 858-page document that you filed,

entitled, "Justice Court criminal appeal proceedings." I

believe it's what initiated the case. But that document

itself has proceedings from a number of different Reno

Justice Court cases.

So it's my -- it was my intention to strike this

pleading and close this case. That's my intent.

MR. COUGHLIN: On the appeal?

THE COURT: I don't even know what you're appealing,

Mr. Coughlin. I can't understand what this case is.

MR. COUGHLIN: Well, it shouldn't be up to me -- I

mean, this Court shouldn't be only able to tell what is being

appealed from what I indicated. I would think that's the

function of the Justice Court transmitting a record on

appeal.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

31

You're saying CR13-0614?

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. COUGHLIN: My appeal of SCR 111, a serious

offense conviction that could per se result in a disbarment.

THE COURT: I'm listening. We're paper-free. So if

I haven't printed a paper, I have to go get a thing. So

please continue to talk. I can do both at the same time.

MR. COUGHLIN: That's an appeal of a conviction from

4/2/13, for resisting a public officer, which, I believe,

under Staub authority, is considered a serious offense. SCR

111 is the rule that says attorneys convicted of crimes have

to report it. And then bar counsel, if it's a serious -- has

to file a petition. If it contains certain elements of the

crime, it's considered a serious offense resulting in, I

believe, a mandatory suspension, and then referral for

disciplinary proceedings.

So this case is one where I strongly believe

publication of transcript at public expense is indicated.

Where the State is seeking -- the State -- the State

originally -- I accepted a plea agreement here.

MR. YOUNG: I object to that.

MR. COUGHLIN: Then the State specifically pled the

charge down to take advantage of SCR 111, (6) where they

originally charged misusing 911.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

32

This case, absolutely, from my point of view, must

be -- the transcript at public expense must be prepared. And

I'd ask that this, over any other case or request on my part,

be granted.

And that, further, in this case -- now, this goes

back to that 2/5/13 date, where there was some interplay

between Judge Clifton and Judge Pearson, in these two cases

that we're addressing today, or the appeals thereof, with

respect to extra-judicial, impermissible communications

between the two, resulting in further violation of the

competency order stay.

But it's my -- I can't understand how this case would

be closed.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. COUGHLIN: The briefs haven't even been filed.

THE COURT: There's nothing filed here that is -- I

can't tell what that is. No, that's not a filing issue. The

issue is: I can't tell what it is; I can't tell what it

relates to.

MR. COUGHLIN: What case are we referring to?

THE COURT: I don't see a notice of appeal. I have

no idea -- now, look. I've gone through every one of these.

MR. COUGHLIN: I don't know what case number we are

talking about.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

33

THE COURT: We are talking about CR13-0614. And

here's the entire document. It's listed -- one document is

dead. I can't pull it up. Do you know which one I'm

referring to?

MR. COUGHLIN: I believe --

THE COURT: 0614.

MR. COUGHLIN: I believe it's the appeal of RCR

12-65630, a conviction -- the docket should -- the first

filing in the docket should be something -- the Justice Court

appeal from RJC, somewhere around 4/10, 4/6, I'd imagine.

THE COURT: Do you have a copy of it?

MR. COUGHLIN: Of the docket?

THE COURT: Of the Justice Court appeal.

MR. COUGHLIN: No. That's been a huge issue, is --

THE COURT: Well, let --

MR. COUGHLIN: -- being an E-filer, he gets a digital

copy.

THE COURT: Let me back up. Do you have a copy of

your notice of appeal? How did you initiate this case?

MR. COUGHLIN: I filed a notice of appeal within 10

days.

THE COURT: I don't see a notice of appeal in the

docket. Okay. So that's -- with respect to there being a

case number, I see that there's an appeal from Justice Court,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

34

criminal appeal proceedings. There's an inmate request form.

An inmate request form. There's a notice to stay -- motion

to stay briefing schedule, motion for publication, CR13-0614.

MR. COUGHLIN: This is the misuse of 911 case that

was turned into obstructing and resisting public officer

before Judge Clifton.

One day in this trial, I cross-examined four

different police officers, who had arrested me. The RJC

refused to release that audio for months. They are still

refusing to release both portions of the trial on 2/5/13,

which relate intimately to the judicial conduct on CR13-0552.

I believe a lot of these kitchen sink -- so-called -- filings

by me highlight strongly Canon 2, Rule 2005 issues,

requiring, some might say, reporting to appropriate authority

or taking appropriate action, where this Court has been made

aware of misconduct by other members of the judiciary.

THE COURT: Mr. Young, do you know anything about

this case?

MR. YOUNG: I don't recall having those appeals in my

file. I'm not saying there wasn't one. But I don't recall

seeing one.

The majority of the documents that I received from

Mr. Coughlin are similar to what you're looking at on your

screen, that are borderline unreadable and unintelligible.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

35

So most of the documents I get that are typically

lengthy documents, I throw into one of my two boxes, and

don't have an opportunity to respond to them.

Likewise, I don't, one, understand what they're

saying; and, two, can't even read part of them.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I don't believe -- to

compare this to the other case, if you're looking for an

entry in the docket that says "Notice of appeal," you won't

find that in any appeal from Justice Court proceeding, I

don't believe. What you'll find is "Appeal from Justice

Court proceedings" will be the first entry. That will

typically be what I would refer to as an ROA. The start of

it would be a document that's essentially an index, which

would say "Appeal receipt," unless the document is included

therein.

Now, in both of these cases there's huge problems

with the record on appeal, highlighting clerk misconduct.

It's just patent from the review thereof. But I'm submitting

my own records on appeal.

But to the extent this Court seems to be taking issue

with whether or not there's a notice of appeal, one, I don't

know why a case would be opened if there wasn't -- this

case -- if there wasn't a notice of appeal.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

36

Two, there absolutely was one filed by me. Now,

whether or not they faithfully kept records of it and

transmitted might be another issue. But I've been not

afforded access to this.

This is really upsetting to me, the fact that this

Court, I'm -- I'm a suspended attorney appealing SCR 1/11/6

convictions. This Court has for months -- I'm not -- I'm not

referring to Department 8 specifically anymore. In general.

But I'm not -- it just seems like, no question, I

should be accorded electronic access to these files. You

know, as an E-file -- and this is some of the issues with --

E-filers, district attorney Young being an E-filer throughout

this, he had a digital copy of that ROA in this case, which

is long. It's like 600 pages.

Now, Michelle Purdy, in the filing office, they tell

everyone: Criminal defendants get one copy for free of any

filing in any of their cases.

I go up there, and I want my one copy of the first

filing in this case, which is hundreds of pages, and she

says, "No." Subsequently, she says, "I'm not giving you a

free copy of anything." Even despite, in 2025, Judge

Elliott's order essentially requiring such.

THE COURT: Not in this case.

MR. COUGHLIN: Yeah. But the office's policy is,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

37

criminal defendants get one free copy of anything in any of

their cases.

THE COURT: But you filed this. You filed an

858-page Justice Court criminal appeal proceeding. Did you

keep a copy of what you filed?

MR. COUGHLIN: I don't believe I filed that.

THE COURT: You filed it.

MR. COUGHLIN: What date are you referring to?

THE COURT: I'm referring to CR13-0614. I don't have

anything from the Reno Justice Court on this case.

MR. COUGHLIN: The filing of what date?

THE COURT: April 16th, 2013.

MR. COUGHLIN: Well, the conviction was for 4/2.

They might have reduced it to writing on 4/3. Therefore,

under 189.010, the notice of appeal would have needed to be

submitted, I believe, on about the 12th or 13th.

I believe that filing you're referring to is from the

RJC. That's from the RJC.

THE COURT: I'll tell you what.

MR. COUGHLIN: That's the ROA.

THE COURT: I'll tell you what I will do with this

case. With respect to CR13-0614, I have a binder docket up

here. It's not the actual docket. And, one, the initial

document here -- at least in my binder -- is corrupted. And



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

38

that's the one entitled, "Appeal from Justice Court, Justice

Court criminal appeal proceedings."

Because I can't paw through it right now to find it,

I'm not going to take action on this case today. I'm going

to take another look at it. And then I'll issue a status

order when I'm ready to talk about it. Okay.

MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.

THE COURT: So I think those are the only two matters

we have today; is that correct, Mr. Young?

MR. YOUNG: That's my understanding.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Coughlin.

MR. COUGHLIN: Well, Your Honor, just to get an idea

of what cases Mr. Young is listed as attorney of record on,

wherein I'm a party, I believe we addressed one of them on

Monday.

THE COURT: We did.

MR. COUGHLIN: What's that?

THE COURT: We did.

MR. COUGHLIN: We did. 0376, which originally was

the case number given to a case where I was charged with a

gross misdemeanor. Public defender Dogan moved for

competency under the rules transmitted up to District Court,

and that's how it got the case number originally in February

of 2012.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

39

Now, why the Justice Court or this Court chose to

take a contempt order that was issued a whole year later and

put it -- the appeal thereof into this case, I'm not quite

sure. I don't know why it wouldn't have gone more

appropriately in 0614, be given its own new case number.

So there's three where Mr. Young is listed as

attorney of record. I don't know who for the State -- I

believe it might be Terrence McCarthy, for the County,

State -- might be Terrence McCarthy, who is listed in

CR13-0552. But that's Coughlin v. State again.

MR. YOUNG: I can -- it came from a misdemeanor

Justice Court level. It would -- I wish it was Mr. McCarthy,

but it's not. So Mr. McCarthy, to my knowledge, has no

dealings with any of Mr. Coughlin's cases. I'm not aware of

what CR13-0552 is, off the top of my head.

MR. COUGHLIN: That was the petition for writ of

mandamus, filed the day of the 4/2 trial, where I got a note

from my psychiatrist saying, "Stop this trial, please.

Second Judicial, please enforce the law, require these

Justice Court judges to obey 178.405, and cease violating the

mandatory stays, with competency orders, until resolved by a

medical professional." And that was stricken.

THE COURT: That matter is not on today. We have the

two matters that were on today. We've got rulings on those



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

40

matters. We have a briefing schedule. So I'd encourage you

to focus on that.

I know you have a few briefing schedules from the

past few days. So let's move them forward.

Is there anything further on these two matters?

MR. COUGHLIN: Can I just clarify? 0614, I have been

given E-flex access on that?

THE COURT: No.

MR. COUGHLIN: That's really troubling to me, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. COUGHLIN: I don't understand why that wouldn't

be the case. But it seems as though you're essentially

wanting to take a longer look at that.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COUGHLIN: All right.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Counsel, is there anything further?

MR. YOUNG: Not from the State, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Young.

Mr. Coughlin?

MR. COUGHLIN: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

41

THE COURT: Everybody have a good weekend.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

STATE OF NEVADA )

COUNTY OF WASHOE )

I, ISOLDE ZIHN, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the

Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and

for the County of Washoe, do hereby certify:

That I was present in Department 8 of the

above-entitled court on Friday, August 23, 2013 at the hour

of 2:00 p.m. of said day, and took verbatim stenotype notes

of the proceedings had upon the matter of THE STATE OF

NEVADA, Plaintiff, versus ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Defendant, Case

Nos. CR12-2025 & CR13-0614, and thereafter reduced to writing

by means of computer-assisted transcription as herein

appears;

That the foregoing transcript, consisting of pages 1

through 42, all inclusive, contains a full, true and complete

transcript of my said stenotype notes, and is a full, true

and correct record of the proceedings had at said time and

place.

Dated at Reno, Nevada, this 2nd day of October, 2013.

/s/ Isolde Zihn _Isolde Zihn, CCR #87

8 23 13 Transcript of Status Conference 2025 0614 0552 0376 Aug23civil2013two

Documents

Transcript of 8 23 13 Transcript of Status Conference 2025 0614 0552 0376 Aug23civil2013two