2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 coughlin's supple to oppos to mtn dismiss cr11-2064-2682479...

Upload: dothemacareno

Post on 14-Apr-2018

222 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    1/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    Document Code: 2645

    Zach Coughlin, Esq.

    Nevada Bar No: 4!"#422 E. th $t. %2

    &eno, N' (5#2

    )ele: !!5*""(*(##(+a: 4*66!*!4-2

    ZachCoughlinhotmail.com

    /ttorne0 1or /ellant

    3N )E $ECND 7D3C3/8 D3$)&3C) C7&) + )E $)/)E + NE'/D/

    3N /ND +& )E C7N)9 + /$E

    Z/C C7;83N). N: #-

    SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS

    C?E$ N, /ellant Zach Coughlin, @0 and through his attorne0, Zachar0 BarAer

    Coughlin, Esq , and o11ers his$7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$. )he undersigned as

    instructed @0 the $econd udicial District Court to su@mit a cddvd 1or 1iling as an ehi@it to a 1iling

    in this manner.

    ?cCrar0 v. ?cCrar0, !64 >.2d 522, #(( #22 Ala. Nov -#, #((= N. 62,(#4=

    Fudgment is deemed rendered onl0 hen its G52! terms are announced to the arties @0 the Fudge,

    and a Fudgment in a@sentia is not HrenderedI until notice o1 its entr0 is mailed to the arties.

    ?cCullough v. $a1ea0 $tores, 3nc., Al., 626 >.2d #""2 #(#=< &ules o1 /ellate >rocedure, #2

    .$.#(#, Ch. #5, /. 2, &ule #.##@=. $ee: >eralta v. eights ?edical Center, 3nc., 4(5 7.$. (-,

    - 1

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

    F I L E DElectronically

    02-01-2012:04:46:41 PMJoey Orduna Hastings

    Clerk of the Court

    Transaction # 2736761

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    2/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    #-( $.Ct. (6, 8.Ed.2d !5 #((=. e also note that a1ter the trial courtJs ruling the intervenors

    attemted to o@tain etraordinar0 relie1 1rom this Court to rohi@it the court 1rom roceeding

    1urther, and e denied relie1. )here undersigned @elieves, under enalt0 o1 erFur0, that >am

    &o@erts as not even in the courtroom hen udge ard @rought the undersigned @acA in chains

    to correct that hich he has @een KremissK in not doing earlier ie, maAing rulings related to the $ta0

    o1 the Contemt unishment, and the deadline to 1ile a notice o1 aeal, or even in1orming the

    underisgned o1 his right to 1ile an aeal and the requirments=. udge oard did sa0 some stu11

    a@out ho he Kis sure 0ou Ano thisK or that a@out the rocedural technicalities that udge oard

    encounters ever0da0 in his Fo@, 0et the undersigned reall0 does not Ano such things. #- da0s to 1ile

    a notice o1 aealL didnJt Ano that. N&C> 6a= and e= donJt al0 to such mattersL 3ts straight

    da0sL &endition, not notice o1 entr0L DidnJt Ano none o1 that. )hats hat the $ith /mendment

    is 1or. +urther that rule sucAs. 9ou get more rotection in a civil matter to aeal a lasuit over a

    @o o1 idgets. E are talAing a@out m0 la license here, udge oard maAes the trial a

    l0nching. But liAe 2 million 3rish eole @eten #(4( and #(5- ho starved to death hile

    surrounded @0 a sea o1 1ish, udge oard maAes liAe the English and tries to arrest one 1or 1ishing.

    )he rule shoudl @e changed. But, at the least the &?C shoudl have to 1ollo it, and the0 didnJt.

    +urther, &o@erts ma0 have violated rosecutorial conduct rules related to su@orning erFur0,

    roounding or disclosing eculator0 evidence, etc. ,and argua@l0 she should @e required to ut

    such into evidence or re1rain 1rom o11ering that hich contradicts such evidence in her ossession or

    that hich she should @e required to 1ind uon a reasona@l0 diligent inquir0. &o@erts aarentl0

    didnJt discover and 1ootage 1rom this @ehemoth retailer ith cameras ever0here in the store

    relevant to an0 o1 the accused acts. Noe, its all he said she said here, ecet the interrogation room

    videos, hich sho the " itness &o@erts o11ered lied. 3n the 1olloing cases it as held that an

    - 2

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    3/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    attorne0Js contemtuous conduct cannot @e ecused or Fusti1ied @0 the 1act that the attorne0 @elieved

    his conduct to @e necessar0 to the roer and thorough reresentation o1 his client, and that an

    attorne0 ma0 summaril0 @e held to @e in contemt notithstanding such good*1aith @elie1. )he court

    held that a trial attorne0Js @elie1 that certain action is necessar0 to rotect the record 1or aellate

    revie, and to reresent his clientJs interests, does not ecuse his deli@erate de1iance o1 the trial

    FudgeJs orders in >enns0lvania v 3nternational 7nion o1 erating Engineers #!!, C/" >a= 552

    +2d 4(, cert den 4"4 7$ (22, 54 8 Ed 2d !, ( $ Ct 6!, here the court a11irmed to summar0

    orders o1 criminal contemt entered against a de1ense attorne0. )he contemt holdings had @een

    @ased on the attorne0Js insistence uon stating the reasons 1or his o@Fections to certain holdings @0

    the trial court, and his re1usal to coml0 ith the courtJs direction ertaining to the cross*

    eamination o1 a itness. 3n essence, said the court, the attorne0 asserted that he as 1ree to violate

    a direct order o1 a trial Fudge i1 he @elieved that the rotection o1 his clientJs interests on aeal

    required such action. )he court recogniMed an attorne0Js right to @e conscientious, 1earless, and

    Mealous in reresenting his clientJs interests, @ut held that a direct order o1 the trial Fudge 1ies the

    limits o1 roer advocac0< the vigor ermissi@le in reresenting a clientJs interest does not include

    the 1louting o1 a FudgeJs rulings. )he necessit0 o1 reserving the record 1or aeal, said the court, is

    not a talisman hich a@solves a la0er 1rom his usual o@ligation to coml0 ith a trial FudgeJs direct

    orders. )he attorne0 also argued that his disregard o1 the FudgeJs order as necessar0 to ersuade the

    Fudge to retract his restriction on the attorne0Js method o1 cross*eamination. /n aeal, it as said,

    ould rovide an inadequate means o1 challenging the restriction since the itness as said to have

    @een cornered, and since the attorne0 had achieved a momentum hich ro@a@l0 never could @e

    resumed at a ne trial a1ter an aeal. )he court held, hoever, that the attorne0 could not

    ermissi@l0 de10 the FudgeJs order in the interests o1 seiMing an allegedl0 irrecovera@le oortunit0.

    - 3

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    4/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    /n attorne0Js good*1aith @elie1 in the necessit0 o1 his actions, in order roerl0 to reresent his

    client, as held not to Fusti10 contumacious @ehavior in 7nited $tates v 11utt #56, DC Dist Col=

    #45 + $u ###, mod on other grounds #-# / DC !, 24! +2d ((, cert den "55 7$ (56, 2 8 Ed

    2d 64, !( $ Ct (5, here, on remand, the court held that the trial court roerl0 had summaril0 held

    an attorne0 to @e in contemt @ased uon insulting and o11ensive remarAs made to the court. )he

    attorne0 asserted that hat he said as true, and that he said it in order to maAe a record 1or aeal,

    and in order to coml0 ith the advice given him @0 counsel ith hom he had consulted.

    oever, the court held that advice o1 counsel is not a de1ense to a charge o1 contemt, stating that

    neither such advice, nor ignorance, nor Meal 1or his client, could alter the contumacious character o1

    the attorne0Js conduct. )he courts in the 1olloing cases, hile not holding that good*1aith vigorous

    advocac0 ma0 reclude the summar0 unishment o1 an attorne0 1or contemt, recogniMed that an

    attorne0 must @e given @road latitude in his reresentation o1 his client, and that this 1actor must @e

    taAen into account in determining hether conduct o1 an attorne0 amounts to contemt hich is

    summaril0 unisha@le @0 the court. 3n 7nited $tates v $chi11er #65, C/6 )enn= "5# +2d #, cert

    den "(4 7$ #--", #6 8 Ed 2d #-#!, (6 $ Ct ##4, reh den "(5 7$ (-, #! 8 Ed 2d #2#, (! $ Ct #2,

    the court, in uholding the trial courtJs summar0 unishment o1 an attorne0 1or contemt under &ule

    42a= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure, said that in contemt cases against la0ers the

    evidence must @e care1ull0 scrutiniMed in order that there @e no undue inter1erence ith their right

    roerl0 to reresent their clients< nevertheless, it as held that the unishment imosed as

    arranted in vie o1 the deli@erate, continuous, and reeated contumacious acts o1 the attorne0,

    etending throughout the trial, hich ere said to have @een holl0 unarranted. )he court in &e

    Dellinger #!2, C/! 3ll= 46# +2d "(, on remand ND 3ll= "5! + $u 4 and on remand ND 3ll=

    "!- + $u #"-4, a11d C/! 3ll= 5-2 +2d (#", cert den 42- 7$ -, 4" 8 Ed 2d 6!#, 5 $ Ct #425,

    - 4

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    5/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    stated that attorne0s must @e given great latitude in the area o1 vigorous advocac0, and that an

    attorne0 ma0 ith imunit0 taAe 1ull advantage o1 the range o1 conduct that our adversar0 s0stem

    allos. Nevertheless, said the court, the 1act that an attorne0 is reresenting his client in good 1aith

    does not immuniMe all conduct undertaAen in that cause, although the court reversed the trial courtJs

    summar0 imosition o1 unishment uon to de1ense attorne0s 1or contemt, and remanded the

    numerous seci1ications o1 contemt 1or a hearing @e1ore a di11erent Fudge, on the ground that the

    trial Fudge as required to disquali10 himsel1 1rom hearing the contemt roceedings @ecause he had

    @een the reciient o1 numerous and unrecedented attacAs and insults @0 the attorne0s charged

    during the course o1 the trial. here the trial Fudge is ar@itrar0 or a11ords counsel inadequate

    oortunit0 to ar*gue his osition, counsel must @e given su@stantial leea0 in ressing his

    contention, said the court, 1or in this manner the court ma0 recogniMe its mistaAe and revent error

    1rom in1ecting the record. /ellate courts, the court said, must insure that trial Fudges are not le1t

    1ree to maniulate the @alance @eteen vigorous reresentation and o@structions o1 Fustice so as to

    chill e11ective advocac0 hen deciding la0er contemts. 3t as said that here the conduct

    comlained o1 in a summar0 contemt roceeding is that o1 an attorne0 engaged in the

    reresentation o1 a litigant, the search 1or the essential elements o1 the crime o1 contemt must @e

    made ith 1ull areciation o1 the role o1 trial counsel and his dut0 o1 Mealous reresentation o1 his

    clientJs interests in 7nited $tates e rel. &o@son v liver #!2, C/! 3ll= 4!- +2d #-. +urthermore,

    said the court, in close cases here the line @eteen vigorous advocac0 and actual o@struction de1ies

    strict delineation, dou@ts should @e resolved in 1avor o1 vigorous advocac0. )he attorne0 reresented

    one o1 a num@er o1 de1endants in a criminal rosecution in hich the de1endants ere charged ith

    mutilating dra1t records. 3n cross*eamining a code1endant, the attorne0 re1erred to a hotograh o1

    a halla0, aarentl0 through hich the de1endants had assed to reach the o11ice in hich the

    - 5

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    6/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    records ere contained, and asAed him i1 he could maAe out a little sign stating Ka@andon 0e all hoe

    ho enter here.K 3n vie o1 the etreme li@eralit0 a11orded trial counsel in their reresentation o1

    clients, and resolving an0 dou@ts in 1avor o1 vigorous advocac0, the court concluded that such

    conduct did not rise to the level o1 mis@ehavior necessar0 to suort

    a contemt citation. Commenting that the attorne0Js question as related to the de1endantsJ

    ro11ered theor0 o1 de1ense and touched on the insane KrecetionsK and KdelusionsK hich the

    de1endants claimed to have held rior to maAing the raid on the dra1t @oard 1iles, the court reversed

    the trial courtJs holding o1 contemt. But in the 1olloing case, it as held that here an attorne0 in

    good 1aith @elieves that his dut0 o1 advocac0 requires his conduct, a summar0 contemt conviction

    @ased uon such conduct cannot ithstand challenge, at least here the attorne0 @elieved that the

    court did not understand his osition. )hus, it as held in &e Dellinger #!", ND 3ll= "!- + $u

    #"-4, a11d C/! 3ll= 5-2 +2d (#", cert den 42- 7$ -, 4" 8 Ed 2d 6!#, 5 $ Ct #425, that an

    attorne0 could not roerl0 @e summaril0 unished 1or contemt in the resence o1 the trial court

    here the attorne0 sincerel0 @elieved that his acts ere necessar0 @ecause the trial court did not

    understand the argument hich the attorne0 as asserting. )he trial court had sustained a

    government o@Fection to testimon0 @0 a itness concerning a certain seech given @0 a erson ho

    as not a itness at the trial. /1ter the courtJs ruling, the attorne0 continued to argue that the seech

    as relevant, desite reeated directions 1rom the Fudge to discontinue that argument, in that such

    testimon0 allegedl0 ould have demonstrated the nonviolent intent o1 the de1endants, ho ere

    charged ith violation o1 the +ederal /nti*&iot /ct. )he court, in hearing the contemt question

    uon remand 1rom an aeal""O o1 the trial courtJs action in that regard, held that the attorne0 as

    not guilt0 o1 the seci1ication, ointing out that the attorne0 sincerel0 @elieved that the Fudge had not

    given him a reasona@le oortunit0 to @e heard and that the Fudge did not 1ull0 understand his

    - 6

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    7/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    osition. udge oard la0ed 1oot@all at 7N&, and, erhas, liAe ther undersignedJs 1ather, ho

    la0ed tail@acA 1or )ulane in the $EC on scholarshi 1rom Da0ton hio third 1astest hite @o0 in

    hio circa #6"=, udge oardJs aroach here Khits the / ga a little too hardK. )he undersigned

    is no stranger to getting 1ouled @0 the 1ine cometitors ug igh $chool roduces, liAe Charles,

    Claude, DuAe, /rmon, )re0, $hondor, )0e, and )omm0, though: &eno igh BasAet@all Cliings

    #(!*2--(ish: htt:cid22e2e@[email protected].>u@lic

    htt:.n1hs.orgrecord@ooA&ecords.asLCategor03dP#-!" 3mertinence, attacAs uon

    cometenc0 or imartialit0, or the liAeQConduct held not to arrant summar0 unishment 7nder

    the articular circumstances o1 each o1 the 1olloing cases, it as held that remarAs @0 an attorne0,

    considered @0 the trial court to @e an attacA uon its conduct o1 the trial and there1ore to @e

    contemtuous, did not arrant that courtJs summar0 unishment o1 the attorne0. 3n >armelee

    )rans. Co. v eeshin #6#, C/! 3ll= 22 +2d (-6, a case arising out o1 a trial courtJs summar0

    unishment o1 an attorne0 1or contemt, and aarentl0 governed @0 &ule 42a= o1 the +ederal &ules

    o1 Criminal >rocedure,4"O the court held that the record did not suort the trial courtJs action, even

    though the trial court had regarded certain conduct o1 the attorne0 to @e imertinent and

    disresect1ul. 3n one o1 the seci1ications o1 contemt, the trial court cited the 1act that, uon that

    courtJs sustaining o1 o@Fections to certain questions ut @0 the attorne0 to a itness, the attorne0 had

    remarAed Kthat is craM0,K @ut the court, noting that the remarA as not intended to @e heard @0 either

    the trial court or Fur0, and that the record 1ailed to sho that the trial Fudge tooA an0 notice o1 the

    remarA at the time, held that contumacious conduct had not @een roved under the seci1ication. )he

    court also held that the attorne0Js remarA that the trial court had Ka sardonic sense o1 humor,K in

    commenting uon certain actions taAen @0 that court, did not constitute contemt 1or hich the trial

    court had the authorit0 to imose summar0 unishment.44O /nd see 7nited $tates e rel. &o@son v

    - 7

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    8/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    liver #!2, C/! 3ll= 4!- +2d #-, here the court stated that an attorne0Js remarAs ma0 have

    suggested disresect 1or the trial courtJs rulings, @ut nevertheless reversed the trial courtJs summar0

    imosition o1 unishment uon the attorne0 1or contemt, under &ule 42a= o1 the +ederal &ules o1

    Criminal >rocedure, on the ground that such remarAs did not cause an actual disrution o1 the trial

    roceedings. 3n amton v anrahan #!, C/! 3ll= 6-- +2d 6--, revd, in art on other grounds

    446 7$ !54, 64 8 Ed 2d 6!-, #-- $ Ct #(!, reh den 44( 7$ #", 65 8 Ed 2d ##!6, #-# $ Ct ""

    and reh den 44( 7$ #", 65 8 Ed 2d ##!!, #-# $ Ct "" and on remand ND 3ll= 4 + $u 64- and

    on remand ND 3ll= 522 + $u #4-, the court reversed the trial courtJs summar0 holding that an

    attorne0 as in contemt on the ground that the attorne0Js conduct did not o@struct Fustice, @ut the

    court also ointed out that the attorne0Js remarA, uon hich the contemt holding as @ased, as

    misinterreted @0 the trial Fudge as @eing intended to re1lect imroerl0 uon him, here in 1act the

    remarA as made @0 the attorne0 in an attemt to clari10 a revious statement.45O /n attorne0Js

    mere statement that the trial courtJs sustaining o1 an o@Fection to a question o1 the attorne0 recluded

    the attorne0 1rom cross*eamining the itness as held in >helan v ;uam #6(, C/ ;uam= "4

    +2d 2", not to arrant the summar0 imosition o1 unishment uon the attorne0 1or criminal

    contemt, under &ule 42a= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure 7.$.C./., +&Cr> &ule

    42a==. )he court ointed out that the attorne0 had asAed 1or an ecetion to the courtJs ruling,

    hereuon the court voluntaril0 tooA it uon itsel1 to tell the attorne0 h0 the court had sustained

    the o@Fection. )he attorne0 then de1ended the roerness o1 his question. 3n reversing the trial courtJs

    holding o1 contemt, the court ointed out that there as nothing in the language used @0 the

    attorne0 hich could @e construed as hostile or de1iant, or in an0 manner o@structing the rocedure

    o1 the trial. 3mroer questioning Cumulative $ulementO 3n the 1olloing cases, it as held that

    an attorne0Js ersistent imroer questioning o1 itnesses constitutes ground 1or the imosition o1

    - 8

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    9/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    summar0 unishment 1or contemt @0 a 1ederal trial court. /n attorne0Js ersistence in cross*

    eamining itnesses ith regard to irrelevant matters, a1ter o@Fections had @een sustained ith

    resect to such questioning, as held in allinan v 7nited $tates #5-, C/ Cal= #(2 +2d ((-, cert

    den "4# 7$ 52, 5 8 Ed #"!5, !# $ Ct #-#-, reh den "42 7$ 56, 6 8 Ed !#-, !2 $ Ct 62" and

    reh den "4" 7$ "#, 6 8 Ed #"4#, !2 $ Ct !56, to Fusti10 the trial courtJs imosition o1 summar0

    unishment 1or contemt under &ule 42a= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure. )he

    questioning uon hich the trial courtJs contemt holding as @ased related to a rior deortation

    roceeding against the de1endant, hich in no a0 as related to the resent rosecution, to alleged

    iretaing o1 the de1endantJs telehones in order to o@tain evidence in such rior deortation

    roceeding, and to the ractices o1 a rosecution itness ith regard to his duties as an attorne0 1or

    the Bureau o1 3mmigration and NaturaliMation. Noting that the attorne0Js roer course o1 action, i1

    the trial court erroneousl0 had held that the matters inquired into ere irrelevant, as to aeal

    those holdings rather than to continue to attemt to introduce irrelevant evidence, the court uheld

    the unishment imosed @0 the trial court. /n attorne0Js imroer questioning o1 itnesses,

    including the use o1 questions hich o@viousl0 ere intended to @esmirch those itnesses, as held

    to Fusti10 a summar0 holding o1 criminal contemt, under &ule 42a= o1 the +ederal &ules o1

    Criminal >rocedure, in 11utt v 7nited $tates #5"= " / DC #4(, 2-( +2d (42, revd on other

    grounds "4( 7$ ##, 8 Ed ##, !5 $ Ct ##, here the court a11irmed such a holding @0 the trial

    court, although reducing the unishment imosed. 3t as noted that on several occasions the

    attorne0 had asAed the itnesses questions that ere highl0 reFudicial to those itnesses and 1or

    hich there as no 1oundation. +or eamle, he had asAed the victim o1 an a@ortion, charged

    against the de1endant, KhenK she as arrested in the case, hereas in 1act she never had @een

    arrested. 3t as held that such conduct suorted the trial courtJs summar0 1inding o1 contemt.

    - 9

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    10/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    C7?78/)3'E $7>>8E?EN) Cases: /ttorne0Js conduct in continuing to cross*eamine olice

    o11icer a1ter Fudge had ruled that olice log as not admissi@le as not contemt here attorne0

    claimed that he as tr0ing to imeach itnessesJ memor0, not la0 1oundation 1or admission o1 log,

    so that his conduct could not @e said to @e ill1ul. 7nited $tates v ;iovanelli #-, C/2 N9= (!

    +2d #22!. 3n criminal rosecution, trial court roerl0 meted out Fudgments o1 criminal contemt to

    de1ense counsel 1or misconduct in cross*eamining itnesses here trial Fudge on several occasions

    arned counsel that he ould not allo them to ursue lines o1 questioning that he later held to @e

    contemtuous, on one occasion he alloed them to elain at length h0 the0 thought questioning

    as roer, and here Fudge made 1ull and convincing elanation o1 actions in ritten orders

    issued shortl0 a1ter adFuging counsel in contemt. 7nited $tates v 8oer0 #(4, C/! 3ll= !"" +2d

    44#, cert den 7$= (" 8 Ed 2d 264, #-5 $ Ct "2!. &esort to summar0 disosition o1 criminal

    contemt roceeding under &ule 42a=, +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure, is ermissi@le onl0

    hen eress requirements o1 rule are met and hen there is comelling reason 1or immediate

    remed0 or hen time is o1 essence. )hus, attorne0Js conviction 1or criminal contemt

    in ursuing line o1 questioning 1or@idden @0 court ould @e reversed, since record shoed that

    there as no comelling need 1or immediate remed0 rovided @0 &ule 42a=, +ederal &ules o1

    Criminal >rocedure, and that trial court, @0 its on actions, did not consider time to @e o1 essencerocedure. 7.$. v. ?oschiano, 65 +.2d 2"6, #2 +ed. &. Evid. $erv. #24

    !th Cir. #(2=. $ee 7nited $tates v )urner #(!, C/## /la= (#2 +2d #552, R #4. )he undersigned

    Kcontinuing lines o1 inquir0K as not sanctiona@le. 8egitimate rationale eists and or as o11ered

    1or all inquir0 ursued. +urther, udge oard admitted in the last art o1 the audio record that he

    had at the time o1 maAing his $ummar0 Contemt 1inding announcement= @e mistaAen in @elieveing

    - 10

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    11/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    that the Novem@er #4, 2-## original trial date did not go o11 due to the undersignedJs 1ault, hich

    as not the case. the undersigned shoed u 1or that trial, its as some@od0 else 1ault that it did not

    go o11. )ardiness or 1ailure to aearQConduct held not to arrant summar0 unishment

    Cumulative $ulementO )he courts in the 1olloing cases have held that an attorne0Js a@sence or

    tardiness did not Fusti10 the trial courtJs summar0 unishment o1 the attorne0 1or contemt. /n

    attorne0Js 1ailure to aear at a Fudicial hearing as held not to arrant the summar0 imosition o1

    unishment 1or contemt, under &ule 42a= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure, in essu v

    ClarA #!", C/" >a= 4- +2d #-6(. )he attorne0 had @egun a trial in a state court 2 da0s rior to

    the date scheduled 1or the 1ederal court trial at hich he 1ailed to aear. )he state court trial

    continued through the da0 o1 the scheduled @eginning o1 the 1ederal court trial. )he attorne0 stated

    that he had continued to conduct the state court trial @elieving that he as o@ligated to do so, and

    that he had @rought the matter to the attention o1 the state court Fudge and as instructed @0 that

    Fudge to remain at the state court trial. )he 1ederal courtJs 1inding o1 contemt as reversed, it @eing

    held that the attorne0Js conduct did not taAe lace in the resence o1 the court, as required 1or

    summar0 unishment under &ule 42 a=, and that there had @een no need 1or immediate enal

    vindication o1 the dignit0 o1 the court.5-O /nd see &e ?onroe #!6, C/5 )e= 5"2 +2d 424,

    here it as held that an out*o1*state attorne0Js 1ailure to aear at trial did not amount to contemt

    under the circumstances. 3t is not clear hether the case 1alls ithin the scoe o1 this annotation

    since, although the trial court recited as authorit0 &ule 42a= o1 the +ederal &ules o1 Criminal

    >rocedure, that court stated that it as not going to charge the attorne0 ith criminal contemt @ut

    onl0 civil contemt, hereas &ule 42a= alies onl0 to summar0 criminal contemt roceedings.

    Nevertheless, the aellate court stated that, as a matter o1 la, there as no contemt, the court

    ointing out that the attorne0 as una@le to aear @e1ore the trial court @ecause o1 his articiation

    - 11

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    12/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    in a murder trial in another state hich had @egun several months reviousl0. +urther, the attorne0Js

    1ailure to 1ile a motion 1or continuance at least #- da0s @e1ore the trial date, as required @0 local

    rules, as in art caused @0 a dela0 in the mails and a dela0 in his a@ilit0 to o@tain relacement local

    counsel a1ter his local counsel had ithdran 1rom the case. is motion 1or continuance had in 1act

    arrived at the trial court # eeA @e1ore the trial date. Noting that it as not esta@lished that the

    attorne0 had actual Anoledge o1 the #-*da0 rule, or that local counsel had advised him o1 it, the

    court concluded that the attorne0Js conduct as at most negligent, stating that such conduct did not

    contain the elements o1 intentional or ill1ul action or 1lagrant disregard o1 the courtJs rules or orders

    necessar0 1or contemt. )ardiness or 1ailure to aear at a court hearing as held not to Fusti10 the

    imosition o1 summar0 unishment uon attorne0s 1or contemt, under &ule 42a= o1 the +ederal

    &ules o1 Criminal >rocedure, at least here such 1ailure or tardiness is unintentional, in 7nited

    $tates v Delahant0 #!", C/6 0= 4(( +2d "6. ne attorne0 as aroimatel0 #- minutes late

    1or a retrial con1erence @ecause o1 his un1amiliarit0 ith the cit0, tra11ic congestion, and di11icult0

    in 1inding a arAing sace. / second attorne0, ho as cocounsel ith the 1irst attorne0,

    intentionall0 did not aear, @ecause he had other matters to attend to in a di11erent cit0, @ut he had

    requested the 1irst attorne0 to reresent @oth o1 them at the hearing. 3n reversing the summar0

    unishment imosed @0 the trial court, the court held that the conduct comlained o1, the a@sence o1

    the attorne0s 1rom the courtroom, did not occur ithin the actual resence o1 the court as required

    under &ule 42a=, and that the essential element o1 criminal intent as a@sent. 5#O /nd see &e /llis

    #!6, C/ Cal= 5"# +2d #"#, cert den 42 7$ --, 5- 8 Ed 2d #(5, ! $ Ct 26!, sura R ##,

    here the court, in holding that an attorne0Js tardiness is not summaril0 unisha@le @0 a court, under

    &ule 42a= o1 the +ederal &ules Criminal >rocedure, since it is not conduct committed in the actual

    resence o1 the court, commented that tardiness alone is not contemt, since the reasons 1or such

    - 12

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    13/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    tardiness are imortant in determining the eistence o1 the requisite rong1ul intent on the art o1

    the attorne0. )he notice o1 aeal does and should al0 to the $ummar0 Contemt &der as ell,

    that order as ridiculous and shame1ul."" /8& "rd 44(, /eala@ilit0 o1 Contemt /dFudication or

    Conviction. &ight to counsel )he need 1or aointed counsel in a civil contemt roceeding 1or

    nona0ment o1 child suort turns on an initial determination o1 indigenc0, 1or unless a art0 is trul0

    indigent, the $tate need not rovide reresentation< i1 an indigent art0 1aces the threat o1 ossi@le

    incarceration 1or the nona0ment o1 child suort, the court should then seeA to @alance the rivate

    li@ert0 interest at staAe, the governmentJs interest, and the risA o1 an erroneous 1inding, taAing into

    account the comleit0 o1 the legal and 1actual issues and the art0Js a@ilit0 to e11ectivel0

    communicate on his on @ehal1. &odrigueM v. Eighth udicial Dist. Court e rel. Count0 o1 ClarA,

    2--4, #-2 >."d 4#, #2- Nev. !(, certiorari denied #25 $.Ct. 2-5, 545 7.$. ###6, #62 8.Ed.2d 2(.

    Child $uort 4# 3n determining hether an indigent art0 in a contemt roceeding @ased on

    nona0ment o1 child suort has a due rocess right to aointment o1 counsel, a1ter @alancing each

    o1 the due rocess elements against the other, the0 as a hole are measured against the resumtion

    that a right to aointed counsel arises onl0 hen the indigent art0 ma0 lose his ersonal 1reedom.

    &odrigueM v. Eighth udicial Dist. Court e rel. Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--4, #-2 >."d 4#, #2- Nev. !(,

    certiorari denied #25 $.Ct. 2-5, 545 7.$. ###6, #62 8.Ed.2d 2(. Constitutional 8a 444 N. &. $.

    22.-#-, N' $) 22.-#- /Bout #- minutes into the K)rialK udge oard +ound the undersigned in

    contemt, hereuon the sith amendment righ to counsel as invoAed, hich udge oard curtl0

    dismissed. the $ummar0 Contemt &der is void, avaingst u@lic olic0, revented a 1air trial,

    demonstrated evident imartialit, and severl0 curtailed the undersigned 1aith in the court and @elie1

    that an0 evidence he o11ered or testimon0 ould @e given 1air treatment, @ut rather, the undersigned

    as givne the message that he ould @e clu@@ed ith an0thing he said, as such, testimon0 and

    - 13

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    14/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    evidence that hich as not @eing ithheld illegall0 @0 &ichard 3ll, Esq. ursuant to an unla1ul

    rent distraint= as not given a legitimate oorutnit0 to @e admitted or o11ered.+or uroses o1

    statute governing summar0 contemt roceedings 1or direct contemt committed in FudgeJs

    resence, hich requires court to Henter an order,I hile a trial courtJs oral contemt order is

    immediatel0 en1orcea@le, a ritten order including the statuteJs required elements must @e romtl0

    entered. ouston v. Eighth udicial Dist. Court e rel. Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--6, #"5 >."d #26, #22

    Nev. 544. Contemt 52 6. **** $u11icienc0 /roriate remed0 1or attorne0 ho had @een 1ound in

    direct contemt o1 court in divorce roceeding in hich he reresented i1e, here contemt order

    had @een 1ound to @e insu11icient @0 $ureme Court, in that it did not contain a su11icient statement

    concerning hat conduct as held to @e contemtuous, as to ermit trial court to enter amended

    order, given that $ureme CourtJs oinion addressed issue o1 1irst imression and announced

    standard 1or contents o1 ritten contemt order. ouston v. Eighth udicial Dist. Court e rel.

    Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--6, #"5 >."d #26, #22 Nev. 544. Contemt 66(= / ritten summar0 contemt

    order, issued ursuant to statute governing summar0 contemt roceedings 1or direct contemt

    committed in FudgeJs resence, must set 1orth seci1ic 1acts concerning the conduct 1ound to @e

    contemtuous. ouston v. Eighth udicial Dist. Court e rel. Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--6, #"5 >."d #26,

    #22 Nev. 544. Contemt 52 ritten summar0 contemt order 1inding attorne0 1or i1e in divorce

    roceeding in direct contemt o1 court 1ailed to indicate hat articular comments @0 attorne0 ere

    held to @e contemtuous, and, thus, order as insu11icient, under statute governing summar0

    contemt roceedings 1or direct contemt committed in FudgeJs resence. ouston v. Eighth udicial

    Dist. Court e rel. Count0 o1 ClarA, 2--6, #"5 >."d #26, #22 Nev. 544 udge oardJs $ummar0

    Contemt &der is laugha@l0 conclusor0 and generic. 3t must @e set aside on that an other @asis.

    +urther, the record on aeal demonstrates that the Contemt &der does

    - 14

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    15/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    not seem to have @een served, their is no >roo1 o1 $ervice as 1ar as 3 can tell so 1ar....to either the

    undersigned or the Cit0 /ttorne0. /$ such, a Notice o1 Entr0 is required and the District Court ma0

    not even have Furisdiction 0et on this / KleadingK is not a KmotionK, @ut... &78E #5. /?ENDED

    /ND $7>>8E?EN)/8 >8E/D3N;$ )et a= /mendments. / art0 ma0 amend the art0Ss

    leading once as a matter o1 course at an0 time @e1ore a resonsive leading is served or, i1 the

    leading is one to hich no resonsive leading is ermitted and the action has not @een laced

    uon the trial calendar, the art0 ma0 so amend it at an0 time ithin 2- da0s a1ter it is served.

    therise a art0 ma0 amend the art0Ss leading onl0 @0 leave o1 court or @0 ritten consent o1

    the adverse art0< and leave shall @e 1reel0 given hen Fustice so requires. / art0 shall lead in

    resonse to an amended leading ithin the time remaining 1or resonse to the original leading or

    ithin #- da0s a1ter service o1 the amended leading, hichever eriod ma0 @e the longer, unless

    the court otherise orders. /s amended< e11ective anuar0 #, 2--5.O @= /mendments to Con1orm to

    the Evidence. hen issues not raised @0 the leadings are tried @0 eress or imlied consent o1 the

    arties, the0 shall @e treated in all resects as i1 the0 had @een raised in the leadings. $uch

    amendment o1 the leadings as ma0 @e necessar0 to cause them to con1orm to the evidence and to

    raise these issues ma0 @e made uon motion o1 an0 art0 at an0 time, even a1ter Fudgment< @ut

    1ailure so to amend does not a11ect the result o1 the trial o1 these issues. 31 evidence is o@Fected to at

    the trial on the ground that it is not ithin the issues made @0 the leadings, the court ma0 allo the

    leadings to @e amended and shall do so 1reel0 hen the resentation o1 the merits o1 the action ill

    @e su@served there@0 and the o@Fecting art0 1ails to satis10 the court that the admission o1 such

    evidence ould reFudice the art0 in maintaining the art0Ss action or de1ense uon the merits. )he

    court ma0 grant a continuance to ena@le the o@Fecting art0 to meet such evidence. /s amended>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    16/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    asserted in the amended leading arose out o1 the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set 1orth or

    attemted to @e set 1orth in the original leading, the amendment relates @acA to the date o1 the

    original leading. d= $ulemental >leadings. 7on motion o1 a art0 the court ma0, uon

    reasona@le notice and uon such terms as are Fust, ermit the art0 to serve a sulemental leading

    setting 1orth transactions or occurrences or events hich have haened since the date o1 the

    leading sought to @e sulemented. >ermission ma0 @e granted even though the original leading is

    de1ective in its statement o1 a claim 1or relie1 or de1ense. 31 the court deems it advisa@le that the

    adverse art0 lead to the sulemental leading, it shall so order, seci10ing the time there1or.

    Nevada N&C> 6-@="= allos a art0 to move 1or relie1 1rom a Fudgment hich is void, and hile

    motions made under N&C> 6-@= are generall0 required to K@e made ithin a reasona@le timeK and

    to @e adFudicated according to the district courtJs discretion, this is not true in the case o1 a void

    Fudgment. Necessaril0 a motion under this art o1 the rule di11ers marAedl0 1rom motions under the

    other clauses o1 &ule 6-@=. )here is no question o1 discretion on the art o1 the court hen a motion

    is made under this ortion o1 the &uleO. Nor is there an0 requirement, as there usuall0 is hen

    de1ault Fudgments are attacAed under &ule 6-@=, that the moving art0 sho that he has a

    meritorious de1ense. Either a Fudgment is void or it is valid. Determining hich it is ma0 ell

    resent a di11icult question, @ut hen that question is resolved, the court must act accordingl0. B0

    the same toAen, there is no time limit on an attacA on a Fudgment as void. . . . EOven the requirement

    that the motion @e made ithin a Kreasona@le time,K hich seems literall0 to al0 . . . cannot @e

    en1orced ith regard to this class o1 motion. 7nderstanda@l0, the arties ere not attuned to our

    recent aco@s decision during oral argument. /ccordingl0, it as determined at that time to allo

    the arties to sulement their @rie1s in order to determine ith certaint0 hether, in 1act, no de1ault

    had @een entered against ;arcia rior to the entr0 o1 the de1ault Fudgment. ;arciaJs sulemental

    - 16

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    17/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    material sulied additional evidence that no de1ault as ever entered, including an a11idavit @0

    ClarA Count0 Court ClerA 8oretta Boman attesting that no such 1iling eists in the case 1ile.

    &esondents also acAnoledged that no de1ault as ever entered @ut argue in their sulemental

    @rie1 that aco@s should not @e alied retroactivel0, noting that the de1ault Fudgment at issue herein

    as entered rior to our aco@s decision. )his argument is ithout merit. )he court in aco@s

    determined, consistent ith la 1rom other Furisdictions, that the de1ault Fudgment entered in aco@s

    as void. e accordingl0 ordered the district court to grant relie1 1rom the void Fudgment, desite

    the 1act that the ruling in aco@s as, o1 course, receded @0 entr0 o1 the de1ault Fudgment against

    aco@s. 31 this case, rather than aco@s, ere @e1ore us as a case o1 1irst imression, e ould have

    reached the same conclusion. / void Fudgment is void 1or all uroses and ma0 not @e given li1e

    under a theor0 @ased uon lacA o1 legal recedent. ;arcia v. 3deal $ul0 Co., ##- Nev. 4", (!4

    >.2d !52 Nev. 5##4=. )he de1ective service rendered the district courtJs ersonal Furisdiction

    over ;assett invalid and the Fudgment against her void. +or a Fudgment to @e void, there must @e a

    de1ect in the courtJs authorit0 to enter Fudgment through either lacA o1 ersonal Furisdiction or

    Furisdiction over su@Fect matter in the suit. >uhal v. >uhal, 66 >.2d ## 3daho #("=. 3n >rice v.

    Dunn, #-6 Nev. #--, !(! >.2d !(5 #-=. e no hold that the 1iling o1 a motion to set aside a

    void Fudgment reviousl0 entered against the movant shall not constitute a general aearance. $ee,

    e.g., Do@son v. Do@son, #-( Nev. "46, "4, ("- >.2d #""6, #""( #2=. Nonetheless, since the

    order as void, a Fudgment @ased thereon ould liAeise @e void.. Nelson v. $ierra Constr. Cor.,

    !! Nev. ""4, "64 >.2d 4-2. 7nder N&C> 6-@= a motion to set aside a void Fudgment is not

    restricted to the si monthsJ eriod seci1ied in the rule. N&C> 54a= rovides that the ord

    KFudgmentK as used in these rules includes an0 order 1rom hich an aeal lies. )here1ore there is no

    merit to aellantsJ contention that the motion to vacate the Fudgment as not timel0 made. +oster v.

    - 17

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    18/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    8eis, !( Nev. ""-, "!2 >.2d 6! Nev. 6##62=. / void Fudgment is su@Fect to collateral attacAC/, />C/ as a de1endant 1iled a cross*claim against de1endant ?artineM, @ut it as void

    @ecause not served on ?artineM. n +e@ruar0 2(, #6(, entr0 o1 Fudgment as made on />C/Js

    cross*claim against ?artineM. +our 0ears later, ?artineMJ heirs moved to set aside the />C/

    Fudgment under &ule 6-@= and in Decem@er, #!2, the #6( Fudgment as set aside @ecause it as

    void. No time limit alies here a void Fudgment is entered. /l@uquerque >rod. Credit /ssJn v.

    ?artineM, # N.?. "#!, 5!" >.2d 6!2 #!(=. $ince the #!" Fudgment as void, the #!6 district

    - 18

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    19/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    court as required to set it aside ursuant to N.?.&. Civ.>. 6-@=4= R 2#*#*#6-=@=4=O, N.?.$./.

    #5" &el. 'ol.#!-=. )here is no discretion on the art o1 a district court to set aside a void

    Fudgment. $uch a Fudgment ma0 @e attacAed at an0 time in a direct or collateral action. ChaveM v.

    Count0 o1 'alencia, (6 N.?. 2-5, 52# >.2d ##54 #!4=. /t this oint e call attention also to

    language 1ound in the oinion in ?oore v. >acAer, #!4 N.C. 665, 4 $.E. 44, 45-, noticed @0 us

    and quoted ith aroval in the Eal0 case. 3t as there said: K/ void Fudgment is ithout li1e or

    1orce, and the court ill quash it on motion, or e mero motu. 3ndeed, hen it aears to @e void, it

    ma0 and ill @e ignored ever0here, and treated as a mere nullit0.K /ll the aellees rel0 uon this

    general rule in anser to aellantsJ challenge that the0 never tooA an aeal 1rom the order and

    Fudgment setting

    aside the une, #"! de1ault Fudgment and decree. )he court @eing ithout Furisdiction to set aside

    its earlier Fudgment and decree, quieting title, aellees might ignore it as a void order or Fudgment,

    the0 sa0, and 1or this reason ere not required to taAe an aeal there1rom, and ma0 question the

    Furisdiction o1 the court and the validit0 o1 the order or Fudgment at an0 time. Board o1 Count0

    Commissioners o1 Uua0 Count0 v. asson, "! N.?. 5-", 24 >.2d #-(< +ullen v. +ullen, 2# N.?.

    2#2, #5" >. 24< Baca v. >erea, 25 N.?. 442, #(4 >. 4(2< De Baca v. ilco, ## N.?. "46, 6( >.

    22. 3n the case o1 7Fohn Co. v. Board o1 Commissioners o1 $ocorro Count0 $tehenson,

    3ntervener= 25 N.?. 526, #(5 >. 2!, 2(-, e held a Fudgment against a garnishee void here

    service o1 the rit o1 garnishment as made @0 a erson other than the sheri11, here e said: K)he

    roceeding is holl0 statutor0, and comliance ith the statute is essential to con1er uon the court

    Furisdiction o1 the res.K /nd held that the court as vested ith oer to set aside and vacate such

    void Fudgment at an0 time. / void Fudgment is one that has merel0 sem@lance, ithout some

    essential element or elements, as here the court urorting to render it has not Furisdiction. /n

    - 19

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    20/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    irregular Fudgment is one entered contrar0 to the course o1 the court, contrar0 to the method o1

    rocedure and ractice under it alloed @0 la in some material resect, as i1 the court gave

    Fudgment ithout the intervention o1 a Fur0 in a case here the art0 comlaining as entitled to a

    Fur0 trial, and did not aive his right to the same. 'ass v. Building /ssociation, # N. C. 55< ?cee

    v. /ngel, - N. C. 6-. /n erroneous Fudgment is one rendered contrar0 to la. )he latter cannot @e

    attacAed collaterall0 at all, @ut it must remain and have e11ect until @0 aeal to a court o1 errors it

    shall @e reversed or modi1ied. /n irregular Fudgment ma0 originall0 and generall0 @e set aside @0 a

    motion 1or the urose in the action. )his is so @ecause in such case a Fudgment as entered

    contrar0 to the course o1 the court @0 inadvertence, mistaAe, or the liAe. / void Fudgment is ithout

    li1e or 1orce, and the court ill quash it on motion, or e mero motu. 3ndeed, hen it aears to @e

    void it ma0 and ill @e ignored ever0here, and treated as a mere nullit0.K ?oore v. >acAer, #!4 N.

    C. 665, 4 $. E. 44, at age 45-. )Ohe alica@le ground 1or relie1O ould @e &ule 6-B=4=, void

    Fudgment, under hich the 1ailure to move to vacate ithin one 0ear a1ter the entr0 o1 Fudgment

    ould not @e controlling. Classen v. Classen, ## N.?. 5(2, (" >.2d 4!(, "4 N.?. $t. B. Bull. 24

    N.?./. -22!#5=. )he aellants contend that the court lost Furisdiction over the action thirt0

    da0s a1ter the Fudgment as vacated. )he0 argue that the aellees never aealed the order hich

    vacated the Fudgment, consequentl0, thirt0 da0s later the court as divested o1 authorit0 to entertain

    an0 motion concerning these arties and the same cause o1 action, and that 1or these reasons the

    motion to amend the cross*claim as imroerl0 granted. )his oint is not ell*taAen. )he ertinent

    ortions o1 &ule 6-@= state: n motion and uon such terms as are Fust, the court ma0 relieve a

    art0 or his legal reresentative 1rom a 1inal Fudgment, order, or roceeding 1or the 1olloing

    reasons:... 4= the Fudgment is void.... /n order granting a motion 1or relie1 under 6-@= must @e

    tested @0 the usual rinciles o1 1inalit0< and hen so tested ill occasionall0 @e 1inal, although

    - 20

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    21/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    ro@a@l0 in most cases it ill not @e. )hus here the court, in addition to determining that there is a

    valid ground 1or relie1 under 6-@=, at the same time maAes a re*determination o1 the merits, its order

    is 1inal since it leaves nothing more to @e adFudged.... $ince ?artineM never received notice o1 the

    cross*claim, the stiulated Fudgment as void as to him. )here1ore, it as comletel0 roer 1or his

    heirs to move to set aside that void Fudgment under &ule 6-@=4=. hen the original Fudgment as

    vacated as to ?artineM, the status o1 the case as as though no Fudgment had @een entered as to him.

    uenschel v. Ne ?eico Broadcasting Cor., (4 N.?. #-, 5-- >.2d #4 #!2=< Benall0 v.

    >igman, !( N.?. #(, 42 >.2d 64( #6!=< /rias v. $ringer, 42 N.?. "5-, !( >.2d #5" #"(=.

    &ule 6-@= o1 the &ules o1 Civil >rocedure a@olishes the common la rit o1 coram no@is @ut

    authoriMes relie1 1rom a K1inal Fudgment, order, or roceedingK on si seci1ied grounds. ;round 2=

    involves nel0 discovered evidence< ground 4= involves a void Fudgment< and ground 6= involves

    Kan0 other reason Fusti10ing relie1K. /lthough &ule 6-@= is a civil rule, $tate v. &omero, sura, held

    that here a risoner had served his sentence and had @een released, this civil rule could @e utiliMed

    to seeA relie1 1rom a criminal Fudgment claimed to @e void. )his result as @ased on an intent to

    retain all su@stantive rights rotected @0 the old rit o1 coram no@is. $ee $tate v. &a@urn, sura.2d #6 Ct. /. #6=, cert. denied, "5 7.$. 6!, ( $. Ct.

    2##5, 2" 8. Ed. 2d !54 #6=. Continuing Furisdiction over 1inal Fudgment. )he Fudgment entered

    on /ril 25 as a 1inal Fudgment. )he Cit0 argues that BrooAs could o@tain relie1 1rom the rit

    issued on ?a0 # onl0 under $C&/ #(6, "*!-4B= &el. >am. #-=, hich limits relie1 to #=

    mistaAe, inadvertence, surrise or ecusa@le neglect< 2= 1raud, misreresentation or other

    misconduct< "= a void Fudgment< or 4= satis1action, release or discharge o1 the Fudgment or the

    reversal or vacation o1 a rior Fudgment uon hich it is @ased. oever, N?$/ #!(, $ection "4*

    (/* 6E= &el. >am. #-=, states that K/ll Fudgments rendered in civil actions in the metroolitan

    - 21

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    22/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    court shall @e su@Fect to the same rovisions o1 la as those rendered in district court.K 7nder

    N?$/ #!(, $ection "*#*# &el. >am. ##=, 1inal Fudgments and decrees entered @0 the district

    courts remain under the control o1 such courts 1or thirt0 da0s a1ter entr0 thereo1. )here1ore, the

    metroolitan court retained control o1 its Fudgment and had the right to set it aside a1ter granting a

    rehearing on the matter. $ee, e.g., Nichols v. Nichols, ( N.?. "22, "26, 64( >.2d !(-, !(4 #(2=

    district court is authoriMed under $ection "*#*# to change, modi10, correct or vacate a Fudgment on

    its on motion= citing DesFardin v. /l@uquerque NatJl BanA, " N.?. (, 56 >.2d (5( #!==.

    )he 1act that the void Fudgment has @een a11irmed on revie in an aellate court or an order or

    Fudgment reneing or reviving it entered adds nothing to its validit0. $uch a Fudgment has @een

    characteriMed as a dead lim@ uon the Fudicial tree, hich ma0 @e choed o11 at an0 time, caa@le

    o1 @earing no 1ruit to lainti11 @ut constituting a constant menace to de1endant.K /88$ v.

    E&7>C3N ?3N. C. 6 >.2d #-2# Novem@er ", #"#. udge oards udgment and $ummar0

    Contemt &der are @oth void 1or all the reasons listed a@ove in vie o1 all the leadings and

    aers and attachments on 1ile in this matter, eseciall0 hen one adds in all the 1iling and materials

    that should @e in the &ecord on /eal, @ut strangel0 are not. correcting clerical errors in Fudgments

    Nevada /lamo 3rr. Co. v. 7.$., (# Nev. "-, 4-4 >.2d 5 #65= Q $u Channel #" o1 8as 'egas,

    3nc. v. Ettlinger, 4 Nev. 5!(, 5(" >.2d #-(5 #!(= Q $u +inle0 v. +inle0, 65 Nev. ##", #(

    >.2d ""4 #4(= Q $u ;ottals v. &encher, 6- Nev. "5, ( >.2d 4(#, #26 /.8.&. #262 #4-= Q

    $u 3veson v. $econd udicial Dist. Court, 66 Nev. #45, 2-6 >.2d !55 #4= Q $u irAatricA

    v. )emme, ( Nev. 52", 654 >.2d #-## #(2= Q $u oester v. /dministrator o1 Estate o1

    oester, #-# Nev. 6(, 6" >.2d 56 #(5= Q $u ?cissicA v. ?cissicA, " Nev. #", 56-

    >.2d #"66 #!!= Q $u aco 8um@er T &ealt0 Co. v. >his, !5 Nev. "#2, "4- >.2d 5 #5=

    Q $u $ilva v. $econd udicial Dist. Court in and 1or ashoe Count0, 5! Nev. 46(, 66 >.2d 422

    - 22

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    23/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    #"!= Q 33, 3V, V33, V333, V', V'3i, V3V $mith v. Eerson, !2 Nev. 66, 24 >.2d "62 #56= Q

    $u

    CONCLUSION

    &egardless, the KudgmentK or KrderK here as not aroriatel0 served on the undersigned

    on Novem@er "-th, 2-##. +urther, the undersigned made man0, man0 calls and ritten attemts

    and tris to the &?C to o@tain a co0 o1 the Contemt rder, the ;uilt0 udgment, and the audio

    recording o1 the )rial and all ere either not granted, not rovided, or rovided in such a dela0ed

    manner as to create an undul0 reFudicial situation adversel0 e11ecting the undersigneds rights

    su11icient to imermissi@l0 comromise 1undamentals notions o1 1airness and due rocess.

    +urther, the rder is KrenderedK hen udge oard sa0s it is KrenderedK, and udge oard

    clearl0 indicated, on the record, as demonstrated in the audio record, hich ill @e availa@le to the

    District Court ultimatel0, the #- da0 deadline 1or 1iling a Notice o1 /eal ould not @egin running

    until a1ter the " da0 $ummar0 Contemt rderJs three da0 Fail sentence concluded. Damn, this

    stu11 is comlicated. $ure it nice to see the government goign hard as a mother to rotect lil olJ

    al*?art hom is rumored to @e the su@Fect o1 a documentar0 a@out ho the0 have a intricate

    s0stem o1 easling out o1 their K&eturn >olic0K and retaliating against those ho call them on it.

    AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030

    /lso, this document does not contain an0 social securit0 num@er or other inaroriate material

    ursuant to N&$ 2"B.-"-.

    Dated this +e@ruar0 #, 2-#2

    s Zach CoughlinWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

    Zach Coughlin, Esq.

    >ro $e /ttorne0 /ellant

    - 23

    $7>>8E?EN) ) ?)3N ) D3$?3$$

  • 7/29/2019 2 1 12 0204 60838 22176 2064 Coughlin's Supple to Oppos to Mtn Dismiss CR11-2064-2682479 (Supplemental ...)

    24/24

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    PROOF OF SERVICE

    3, Zach Coughlin, declare:

    n 1e@ruar0 #, 2-#2, 3, ?r. Zach Coughlin served the 1oregoing document @0 1aing anddelivering and serving uon registered e1ilers and deositing a true and correct co0 in the 7$ ?ai

    addressed to:

    >/? &BE&)$, E$U

    N /D83C, E$UReno City Attorney's Office - Criminal Division

    P.O. Box 1900 Reno , N !9"0"

    P#one N$m%er& "(()*0"0

    +ax n$m%er& "(()*)*0

    /ttorne0 1or &esondent, Cit0 o1 &eno

    *****************************

    Zach Coughlin

    /;EN) + />>E88/N)

    24