6 26 13 0204 3913 3914 opposition to motion in limine final.pdf

8/14/2019 6 26 13 0204 3913 3914 Opposition to Motion in Limine final.pdf

1/52


2/52

1

/he /;$ $rder prohiAited the Defendant or an agent of the Defendant from contacting(versus prohiAiting Coughlin from harassing' the *tate Bar of Nevadas Northern $ffice only(going so far as to prevent Coughlin from even mailing in the US mail harassing materials to theSBN, and, perhaps, any materials), reading:

/ * 0+/8+ $+D+D that you, the


3/52

1

Coughlins N+* ")#3% otion to Disualify the +C as not responded to Ay the +Cithin . Eudicial days, Ay affidavit, as reuired Ay the procedures set forth therein) +ather thanproceed to filing a ;etition for ?rit of andamus, Certiorari, or ;rohiAition, it ould ma5e the mostsense to dismiss Aoth of these matters immediately, as the interests of Eudicial economy and Eusticeoverall calls for doing so) $n that note, the "!"!"3


4/52

1

providing a copy of the cover page, Aut in this one instance ith respect to the .!"3!"3 filing in one orAoth of these matters, Coughlin is unaAle to find a complete copy of that appro1imately "3 pagefiling, hether in hard copy or digital format, and reuest the +C provide him ith one (hichCoughlin ould thereafter immediately provide a copy of to Chief Deputy ?ong')


5/52

1

technically served' discovery to Coughlin, herein the "#!#!"# ;roof of *ervice Ay the +Cs Bailiff


6/52

1

harassing content of any 5ind or hether they are merely filings in the N@"# matter in the *tate Barof Nevadas Cler5 of Courts records that Coughlin ould necessarily need to file to say, move for ane trial or otherise challenged the "#!"4!"# 0$0C$6 (via, say, a N+C; .#, .9, or % otion,hich, incidentally, the former to ould Ae reuired to Ae filed ithin ten Eudicial days from theentering of the "#!"4!"# 0$0C$6 )))meaning the due date for such post20$0C$6 motions ould Ae

the very day Coughlin is alleged to have delivered to the *BNs Cler5 of Court and the *BN motionsof Eust that very sort')

Defendant has filed herein various otions to Juash!Dismiss!Bifurcate, etc) these toprosecutions, to hich the +C< has failed to oppose, and accordingly, under DC+ "3(3' and ;ol5 v)*tate, such failure to oppose should result in a dismissal of these to prosecutions) n such filingsherein Coughlin has alleged issues and errors, including Aut not limited to, those regarding the *tateBar of Nevadas /emporary!1tended $rder for ;rotection


7/52

1

manner of service)) /he courthouse sanctuary rule and the rule providing litigants!defendants andtheir attorneys immunity from service of process in the courthouse spea5s to the reuirements ofN+C; 4(g' (none of that information is contained in Bailiff nglishs ;roof of *ervie, ie, here hepurported to so service Coughlin (in the +eno ustice Court', hat time, in hat manner, etc)')Coughlin has at all times herein any +C Bailiff has attempted to or purported to service him

process or any other legal document hile Coughlin as in the +eno ustice Court and hileCoughlin as in the ?ashoe County ail, has asserted and therefore never aived, his rights toimmunity from not only service of process, Aut also from arrest) 0urther, the +C!+C< itself hasviolated the courthouse sanctuary!immunity rule in these to prosecutions, as defendant in a criminalcase ill not lose immunity from service of civil process Ay pleading to the indictment and Aeingreuired to give Aail) Coughlin as never served the summons in 39"3 or 39"4, and Coughlinsshoing up to the 4!"7!"3 arraignement in those matters and prior thereto further preserving hisrights in his filing of that date ith a time stamp prior to the start time of the arraignment furtherpreserved Coughlins rights in that respect) /he +C has failed to provide Coughlin any return ofservice in response to Coughlins various reuests for such as to the *ummons and Complaint in Aoth39"3 and 39"4 and Coughlin reiterates his reuests for such again here no) Greiger v) Greiger, 7

isc) #d .9., 7" N)>)*)#d 44& (*up "947', order affd, #7# )*)#d 4%3 ("st Dept"947'):)


8/52

1

*chmitt, #&. )*) ###, .# *) Ct) 3"7, 7 6) d) 7#% ("93#'= ;age Co) v) acDonald, #" )*) 44,43 *) Ct) 4", 7 6) d) 737 ("9#3'= *teart v) +amsay, #4# )*) "#&, 37 *) Ct) 44, " 6) d) "9#("9"'=


9/52

1

the courts of a state to attend the trial of litigation commenced Ay them against citiIens of that stateare not e1empt from service of a summons in an action Ay defendants for relief connected ith thesuAEect of the litigation commenced Ay them, here a full and complete adEustment of the rights ofthe parties cannot Ae had in the first action, and here full relief ould Ae denied the citiIens of thatstate in courts of the state of the plaintiffs residence)L0N4M L0N"M *teart v) +amsay, #4# )*) "#&,

37 *) Ct) 44, " 6) d) "9# ("9"'= arloe v) Baird, 3%" 0)#d "9 (th Cir) "9#'= 6yf2


10/52

1

attorney is not suspended in any manner hatsoever)


11/52

1

in all its unattriAuted hearsay and vagueness, see5 protection for (NNDB ;anel Chair cheverriasstaff, non2sensically, seems to Ae the party for hom the *BN is see5ing protection, for hich,clearly, its lac5s standing to apply for one on Aehalf of cheverria, his staff, or anyone ith theNNDB', Aeyond that the *BNs /;$ application fails to comply ith the statutory reuirement that itspecifically name hich employees it see5s to protect and hy, or provide an factual specifics as to

hy such an application is Eustified') 0urther, the *BNs /;$


12/52

1

*ee N+* 33)#7%(9' (pon # days notice to an employer ho oAtained a temporary order forprotection against harassment in the or5place ithout notice or on such shorter notice to theemployer as the court may prescriAe) the person ho allegedly committed the harassment may appearand move the dissolution or modification of the temporary order for protection against harassment inthe or5place)' 8oever, rememAer, the /;$ in uestion purported to prohiAit Coughlin from

contacting the *BN Ay any means hatsoever, including Ay simply mailingsomething to the SBN)-oid for vagueness and unconsituttionalyy void regardless, the +C


13/52

1

preclusion did not violate appellants due process rights #ecause a statute ao!ed appeant todirecty chaenge the order'=

*tate v) *mall, ".% N)8) 4.7, &43


14/52

1

not served in accordance ith those rules and ho did not aive service of citation or appearvoluntar2ily)L0N4M /he Eudgment is void Aecause the trial court is ithout Eurisdiction and is suAEectto direct or collateral attac5)L0N.M 0or e1ample, in Eurisdictions hich prohiAit an interested personfrom ma5ing personal service on a party, personal service Ay a party renders any Eudgment or orderarising from the proceeding void, despite the defendants actual notice)L0NM 8oever, a claim of

insufficiency of process, unsupported Ay facts and documentation, is not enough to upset a Eudgment)L0N7M < suAstantial defect in notice renders an original notice fatally defective, and any EudgmentAased on it is void)L0N&M $n the other hand, a mere irregularity has no such effect on the originalnotice, and a Eudgment Aased on it is not void Aut may Ae voidaAle)L0N9M /he fact that a court acts inviolation of a statute does not mean that the resulting Eudgment is void)L0N"%M ?here a statuteauthoriIes a court to do a particular thing, and the poer of the court to act is suAEect to certainlimitations named, then a Eudgment of the court rendered contrary to the limitations named is not voidfor ant of Eurisdiction or suAEect to collateral attac5 Aut is voidaAle only)L0N""M 8oever, hereEurisdiction is statutory and the legislature reuires the court to e1ercise its Eurisdiction in a certainmanner, an act of the court Aeyond these limits is in e1cess of its Eurisdiction, and here the courtacts in e1cess of its authority, its Eudgment is void and may Ae attac5ed henever and herever it is

asserted)L0N"#M C6


15/52


16/52

1

the Eudgment is alloed to Aecome final, unless the lac5 of Eurisdiction is so gross that the Eudgmentis deemed void)L0N.M < reaffirmation agreement unaccompanied Ay a court order is not a finalEudgment on the merits and cannot Ae given preclusive effect)L0NM L0N"M n re /aylor, &&4 0)#d 47&(9th Cir) "9&9'= acoAs v) DuEmovic, 7.# 0) *upp) "." (D) Colo) "99%', Eudgment affd, 94% 0)#d"39# ("%th Cir) "99"') L0N#M ensen v) *chartI, 9% N)?)#d 7" (N)D) "9.&') L0N3M @eorgia v)

*outh Carolina, 497 )*) 37, ""% *) Ct) #9%3, """ 6) d) #d 3%9, .& )*)6)?) 494, 7% )*)6)?)3%39, "99% ?6 &4%# ("99%') L0N4M K ."3) L0N.M Disher v) nformation +esources, nc), &73 0)#d"3 (7th Cir) "9&9') L0NM +ein v) ;rovidian 0inancial Corp), #7% 0)3d &9. (9th Cir) #%%"')


17/52

1

the court lac5ed Eurisdiction or if the courts action amounted to a plain usurpation of poerconstituting a violation of due process) 8oult v) 8oult, .7 0)3d ", 4" 0ed) +) vid) *erv) 7&3, 3# 0ed)+) *erv) 3d #&" ("st Cir) "99.') L0N.M ones v) @iles, 74" 0)#d #4. (9th Cir) "9&4'= Boie v)


18/52

1

@N+


19/52

1

0reedom 0orge Corp) v) ersey 0orging ?or5s, nc), .49 0) *upp) 99 ()D) ;a) "9'= n re arriageof NosAisch, . Cal)


20/52

1

over the suAEect matter of the proceeding, and here the court has Eurisdiction over the class of caseinvolved, the Eudgment is not void on the ground that the right involved in the suit did not emAracethe relief granted) atter of state of c6aughlin, 7.4 ;)#d 79 (tah Ct)


21/52

1

;)3d .%# (#%%3' (applying California la'= *eitI v) *eitI, "%7 *)?)3d 47& (o) Ct)


22/52

1

application for that purpose, as a general rule it is not suAEect to collateral impeachment as long as itstands unreversed and in force)L0N9M ?hen revieing a collateral attac5 on a Eudgment, the courtpresumes the validity of the Eudgment under attac5)L0N"%M L0N"M Chicot County Drainage Dist) v)Ba1ter *tate Ban5, 3%& )*) 37", % *) Ct) 3"7, &4 6) d) 3#9 ("94%'= *onya C) By and /hrough$livas v)


23/52

1

U) +60 0+$ D@N/* C) Collateral


24/52

1

the voidaAle sentence) *tate v) *imp5ins, ""7 $hio *t) 3d 4#%, #%%&2$hio2""97, &&4 N))#d .&(#%%&', cert) denied, #%%& ?6 3&&94&% ()*) #%%&') < Eudgment is void only hen it is apparent thatthe court rendering Eudgment had no Eurisdiction of the parties or property, no Eurisdiction of thesuAEect matter, no Eurisdiction to enter the particular Eudgment, or no capacity to act) Broning v);rosto5, ". *)?)3d 33 (/e1) #%%.') $nly a void Eudgment may Ae collaterally attac5ed) Broning

v) ;rosto5, ". *)?)3d 33 (/e1) #%%.') 0or a Eudgment to Ae suAEect to collateral attac5, it must Aevoid) n re $cegueda, 3%4 *)?)3d .7 (/e1)


25/52

1


26/52

1

arrant a collateral attac5 Aased on fraud)L0N&M ) #%"%')


27/52

1

nc), 433 *o) #d "34. (0la) Dist) Ct)


28/52

1

()D) o) "9'= @ail v) ?estern Convenience *tores, 434 N)?)#d (oa "9&9'= *tate e1 rel)+itthaler v) Gno1, #"7 NeA) 7, 3." N)?)#d 77, "& d) 6a +ep) 434 ("9&4'= Daniels v)ontgomery ut) ns) Co), 3#% N)C) 9, 3% *))#d 77# ("9&7') L0N4M selin v) 6a Coste, "47 0)#d79" (C)C)


29/52

1

49., 49 /he general rule is that the aAsence of Eurisdiction of a court to render a particular Eudgmentconstitutes sufficient cause for a collateral attac5 upon the Eudgment)L0N"M /he collateral attac5 mayAe made Ay a party hose rights or interests are adversely affected Ay the EudgmentL0N#M henever itis sought to Ae enforced)L0N3M ?hile in most Eurisdictions a collateral attac5 may Ae availaAlehether the alleged lac5 of Eurisdiction is in regard to the suAEect mat2terL0N4M or over the parties,

L0N.M in some instances a Eudgment may not Ae attac5ed, in a collateral proceeding, for a lac5 ofsuAEect2matter Eurisdiction,L0NM and in particular, a party that has had an opportunity to litigate theuestion of suAEect2matter Eurisdiction may Ae Aarred from reopening that uestion in a collateralattac5 upon an adverse Eudgment)L0N7M 8oever, general presumptions in favor of the Eurisdiction ofa court to render a particular Eudgment, and of the presence of Eurisdictional facts, are applicaAle inattempts to impeach a Eudgment collaterally)L0N&M /hus, hen the Eurisdiction of a court is called intouestion in a collateral proceeding, the Eurisdiction presumptively, and in the aAsence of fraud orcollusion, is conclusively estaAlished Ay an allegation of the Eurisdictional facts contained in averified pleading)L0N9M ) City Civ) Ct) "979'= oore v) Connecticut @eneral6ife ns) Co), 7" *)D) ."#, # N)?)#d 9" ("947')


30/52

1

39


31/52

1

K 7%) ffect of status of record as to Eurisdiction ?ests Gey NumAer Digest ?ests GeyNumAer Digest, udgment 5497("' to 497(3' n general, a Eudgment is suAEect to collateral attac5 forlac5 of Eurisdiction if the Eurisdictional defect is apparent on the face of the record)L0N"M f theEurisdictional defect does not appear on the face of the Eudgment roll or record, the Eudgment isconsidered valid and therefore immune from collateral attac5)L0N#M nder this rule, the validity of a

Eudgment hen collaterally attac5ed must Ae tried Ay an inspection of the record alone,L0N3M and noother or further evidence on the suAEect is admissiAle,L0N4M even though such evidence might Aesufficient to impeach the Eudgment in a direct proceeding against it)L0N.M ?here the record is silent,it ill Ae presumed that Eurisdictional facts ere duly proved)L0NM < collateral attac5 upon aEudgment on the ground of the aAsence of Eurisdiction is precluded Ay statements in the record inregard to Eurisdiction or in regard to the presence of particular Eurisdictional facts)L0N7M /herecitations of the Eudgment control the rest of the record, and e1trinsic evidence cannot Ae used toestaAlish a lac5 of Eurisdiction)L0N&M /hus, a recital in the record as to the presence of Eurisdictionalfacts may not Ae impeached or contradicted in a collateral proceeding Ay evidence outside the record)L0N9M n determining hether a lac5 of Eurisdiction is apparent from the record, so as to arrantcollateral attac5 on the Eudgment, the court loo5s to the hole record, hich includes the pleadings,

the return on the process, the verdict of the Eury, and the Eudgment or decree of the court)L0N"%M ngeneral, a recital in a Eudgment of the presence of a Eurisdictional fact may Ae impeached in acollateral proceeding Ay a positive contrary shoing of the remainder of the record upon hich theEudgment is Aased)L0N""M /his is particularly true here the recital in the Eudgment e1pressly refersto the record evidence upon hich it is Aased)L0N"#M /he recital is regarded, in collateralproceedings, as conclusive, hoever, unless the contradiction Ay other parts of the record is direct,e1plicit, and irreconcilaAle)L0N"3M C6


32/52

1

/eynor v) 8eiAle, 74 ?ash) ###, "33 ;) " ("9"3') L0N"3M /on of ;oint ;leasant v) @reenlee 8arden, 3 ?) -a) #%7, % *)) %" ("9%7')

K 7") ffect of status of record as to notice or process ?ests Gey NumAer Digest ?estsGey NumAer Digest, udgment 549.(#', 497(#', 497(3' ?hile a Eurisdictional challenge in acollateral proceeding may Ae Aased on inadeuate service,L0N"M the failure of the record of a court of

general Eurisdiction to recite a service of summons alone does not suAEect the Eudgment to collateralattac5)L0N#M ?here the record of a Eudgment is silent ith respect to the shoing of service or noticeon the parties, it may not Ae collaterally attac5ed Ay evidence outside the Eudgment record)L0N3M8oever, the rule that a Eudgment may Ae suAEect to collateral attac5 Aecause of its rendition againstone ho as never legally served ith process of the court may Ae applied here the aAsence, ordefect, of notice or of service of process appears upon the record)L0N4M /he recital of due service ofprocess, in the Eudgment, may Ae impeached in a collateral proceeding Ay a positive contrary shoingof the remainder of the record upon hich the Eudgment is Aased)L0N.M ?here the remainder of therecord positively shos a void service of process, the recital in the Eudgment does not give rise in acollateral proceeding to a presumption of another service)L0NM 8oever, there is authority for thevie that upon collateral attac5 a recital in a Eudgment of due service of process upon a defendant

imports aAsolute verity and may not Ae contradicted Ay other portions of the record shoing a failureto comply ith the reuirements of la as to service of process)L0N7M < recital in a Eudgment of dueprocess ordinarily may Ae impeached or contradicted upon collateral attac5 Ay an officers returnappearing in the record, particularly here the recital in the Eudgment refers to and identifies theprocess or the return upon hich the recital is Aased)L0N&M L0N"M Nore1 ;etroleum 6td) v)


33/52

1

n re $verstreet, &." *)?)#d 4.& (Gy) "993') L0N4M -oigt v) *avell, 7% 0)3d "..# (9th Cir) "99.')L0N.M 6eis v) *tate e1 rel) vans, 3&7 *o) #d 79. ()*)#d 4"(3d Dept #%%&' (censure') L0N4M KK .& to %) L0N.M 8arms v) Bierman, 3" ll)


34/52

1

L0N"M *tate e1 rel) DeAlasio v) ac5son, ##7 ?) -a) #%, 7%7 *))#d 33 (#%""') L0N#M$Connor v) 0irst Court of


35/52

1

*))#d "&3 ("9&4' (falsifying puAlic records as violation of oath of puAlic officer'= Bron v) *tate,&4 N))#d .#9 (nd) Ct)


36/52

1

*)?)#d "%.4 ("943'= n re @uardianship of adisia5, 4 $hio *t) 3d "7, .93 N))#d "379 ("99#')


37/52

1

Corporation, "%4 0)#d "%7, "##


38/52

1

that had no Eurisdiction over the matter that had Aeen presented to Eudge through an unusual ande1traordinary procedure, and hen e12husAands counsel ould not Ae Aullied into going along ithEudges attempts to circumvent procedures and the la, Eudge e1cluded counsel and dealt directly ithe12husAand, threatening him ith the loss of custody of his other child unless he accepted Eudgesagreed order) )*)C)) #%%') udge does not lose Eudicial immunity Aecause anaction is erroneous, malicious, in e1cess of authority, or disregardful of elementary principles ofprocedural due process, as long as the Eudge had Eurisdiction over the suAEect matter Aefore him= aEudge ill loose the cloa5 of immunity only hen he conducts proceedings over hich he lac5s anysemAlance of suAEect matter Eurisdiction) *tiggle v) /amAurini, 47 0) *upp) #d "&3 (D)+)) #%%')

ore and more there is a uestion as to hether the +Cs "#!#%!"#


39/52

1

-) 6iaAilities


40/52


41/52

1

disualification of Eudges are meant to Ae self enforcing)L0N3M ;ractice @uide: Ne statutorydisualification provisions ill not Ae applied retroactively)L0N4M /he purpose of a Eudicial recusalstatute reuiring a Eudge to disualify himself or herself hen the Eudges impartiality mightreasonaAly Ae uestioned is to promote puAlic confidence in the integrity of the Eudicial process)L0N.M 8oever, a disualification statute is not intended as an instrument to secure delays or

postponement of trialL0NM and should not Ae employed to produce inconvenience and aAsurdity)L0N7M L0N"M ndustrial ndemnity Co) v) *uperior Court, #"4 Cal)


42/52

1

Gaye, 9. N)>)#d .., 7#" N)>)*)#d .&&, 744 N))#d "#3 (#%%%'= n re Disualification of Corts, 47$hio *t) 3d %", .4 N))#d 9#& ("9&&') L0NM atter of +onin, "39


43/52

1

action and might Ae compelled to testify aAout it at a later proceeding)L0N3M n other cases, the Eudgehas Aeen held not to Ae disualified here the material evidence ithin the Eudges 5noledge couldAe oAtained from other itnessesL 0N4M or from the record of a prior related proceeding over hichthe Eudge presided)L0N.M L0N"M +ush v) ?allace, #3


44/52

1

representative capacity, or relationship of Eudge to one ho is a party in an official or representativecapacity, as disualification, "%


45/52

1

court to estaAlish an appearance of impropriety that reuires disualification= an oAEectivelyreasonaAle Aelief that the proceedings ere unfair is sufficient) DeNi5e v) Cupo, "9 N)) .%#, 9.&


46/52

1

disualification in a proceeding here the Eudges impartiality might reasonaAly Ae uestioned and toavoid even the appearance of impropriety) Const) ;t) ",


47/52

1

affd, ..7 *o) #d "3"" (


48/52

1

preEudice)L 0N"M


49/52

1

renders the Eudge disualified, despite the fact that the Eudge as not at all involved in the actualprosecution)L0N"M 8oever, other courts have reached the conclusion that a Eudge is not disualifiedif he or she did not appear personally or participate in the action,L0N#M freuently reasoning thatdisualification on such grounds ould hamper the smooth operation of Eudicial administration Aycausing too many disualifications on technical grounds)L0N3M < Eudge ho as a former prosecutor

is not disualified from hearing a criminal case if the crime occurredL0N4M or the information asfiledL0N.M after the Eudge as appointed) $ne ho has personally prosecuted or Aeen activelyengaged in any ay in the prosecution and conviction of one accused of a crime is disualified fromsitting as Eudge in a matter 4


50/52

1

prosecuted the defendant in the prior felony cases,L0N4M though there is authority that Eudges aredisualified from sitting or acting in criminal cases on the ground that they previously prosecuted thedefendants in unrelated criminal proceedings that are Aeing adduced to prove the defendants status ashaAitual criminals or to enhance sentencing)L0N.M L0N"M )*) v) Bauer, "9 0)3d 4%9 (&th Cir) "994'=rAy v) *tate, 4#9 *o) #d ""79 (


51/52

1

herself only from consideration of a particular issue in a case and may consider other issues severaAlefrom that reuiring recusal)L 0N""M *ua sponte recusal is unnecessary if the parties consent to theEudge hearing the case)L0N"#M t is as much the duty of a trial Eudge not to self recuse hen there areinsufficient grounds to do so as it is to self recuse hen there are grounds to do so)L0N"3MC6


52/52

1

8urther, -9C *aiiff Engish's purported :P-OO8 O8 SE-;ICE +PON (uirements in that it fais to that that Engish is :o)er /?

years of age= and fais to indicate that he is a 'non%paty= @homsoe)er may thin" that #e an

utra technica approach might re)ie! 9udge Eiott's and (dam's !or" in disposing of CoughA

in's a!suits against @ashoe Lega Ser)ices in C;//%4/?1B, and against @ashoe Lega SerA

)ices, C((@, and T@S in C;//%4/177, referencing .arin's citation to :actua ser)ice does notecuse the faiure to technicay compy !ith ser)ice rues= approach (t east Coughin !as

not ha)ing court staff, Marshas, and *aiiff's 6a##ing there forearms into @LS's Ecano's a#A

domen and thrusting this or that document attempted ser)ed into his face, inside the courtA

house, !hie he !as at the courthouse to attend court, in a matter su#stantiay connected to the

su#6ect matter from !hich the document purported to #e then ser)ed stemmed

/he ;$ in %7 is void for Ging and the *BNs failure to meet a variety of Eurisdictional preXreuisites, including the failure to file an ;$

6 26 13 0204 3913 3914 opposition to motion in limine final.pdf

Documents