I,,,

- , ' ..

. ll

,I J,

! .f

', (' \.

.; !, I ' I

'!

, I

i I

.,

J ;

I' i: I 1

'.

' \: ~'

i' !

I .I

l l

i ,, I

'

.,

''

! ..

1 'i.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYVLANIA.

.

.

GORDON ROY PARKER, . . :

: Plaintiff :

l :

' :

v. : . .

JACQUELINE FAYE GOLDHAGEN, : Case No: 15-cv-3304-TON :

Defendant . . . : . :

.

.

.. : ' I

ORDER

AN,D NOW, this __ day of July, 2015, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion To

Disquailfy Defense Counsel, It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted.

Defense counsei"is hereby disqualified.

J

I , i I' i

1'

'

'l

:

l' : l

. '

i i I

' I

i. ,' ' ~

' ' .j

I I

~

I , i

I I

" , .

. ..

' '

~ ..

'

: i

i '

'

: '

.

I

!

' :

i

i !

' jj I

,

I

'

I I i : ;

' '

.,

: ~ \

\ :

'

; I\

' i I I i

I

I I '.!,-', !

. . ' . ' ' . .

' ; ~

l' 1' \

! . ' l 1 : ; ~ J. I"

I

,l

l 1:! "1 1 \ :.,'J I

'] /

( ' \ ~ .

!' .. :

'"i '-!

i I . ' ~ ' I, , ,i'!J.;:.

.'i )

'' , ' '

'

"

>J I

'l

, ..

. ,.1 i . "

: .,

' I 1,

i ' \

:! i

i, j :1

I ., i

: 'I

.. '

' ':, 1,>::

_;' !" ,. 'I I

'I I

i ,'

.1

.. ...

Case 2:15-cv-03304-TON Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 4

r ,

I.;, . ,;

':

'. \ I,,'

'.' !

. !

1: :' ' ,(:,

. ' : .. ; 1 i'

~ ' .

i:. I ~ , j.

.. _;. 1 '::

~ .. ' .

IN THEUNITED STATES COURT . FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYVLANIA

. GORDON ROY PARKER,

Plaintiff

v ..

JACQUELINE FA YE GOLI)HAGEN,

Defendant

.

..

.

.

..

Case No: 15-cv-3304-TON

. .

. ' . ' ' . .

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL

: i .

'i . !

Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker ("Plaintiff''), in the above-styled action, moves this Comt tq

disqualify defense counsel due to the existence or appearance of a fatal conflict of interest. In!

support, he avers the following. ,. '.

. i . 1. Plaintiff is on SSDI, and currently has lawsuits pending linder the Rehabilitati~n

Act of 1973; and soon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. . Defense counself is .a part11-er in a center-city lawfirm which is a .federal .

~ontr~ctor, covered by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ~- u'nder which it is required. to apply affirmative-action to Plaitniff s disabled worker-class.

'

i' I

'

i

3. Defense has gone well beyond the scope of its role in representating its client,

declaring most recently that Plaintiff was "physically and mentally unfit to enter into an

ambitious business deal." (*3)

. i

.. [, : ..

' .

! ; I

. ~ ; .

' . I

"

' [

I f '.

I ' '. I .

I

i i i f : i

.

.! :'

1. '

i i I

1. ',

1..

":. ! .

t I I

i i !

i I i i

'I i

. I

! ' ! ' . i " ~ '

: ''

i

' I '

'.; ' i I

Case 2:15-cv-03304-TON Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 4

i \

l [' ,' "

I 1

1',,) 1

1 ! .

. ' l :'

: ;

.j

.1 ! . ~

',l

' .

'

i . '

'1 '' t.:

!. : ~ ' . j . I I \ "",'

; , .

. 4. . Unless defense counsel was comitting fraud upon the court, it an:d its fi~ holds . ! .

'. !

. .

the belief expressed in the pleading, one which would give rise to a lawsuit under the i'

~ ' . l '

Rehabilitation Act if spoken elsewhere. . '

5. Additionally, defense counsel has aded in a highly threatening manner towards:. [ i J : I

Plaintiff, threatening him in one phone call .with "taking [his] shoes and computer,"

6. As a member of the ticket to work program, Plaintiff is fervently seeking

employment which will lift him off the dole. He would begin working_tomorrow at any firm l~ke : i Defendant's, who has high-paying jobs for which Plaintiff is qualified.

I . . . ' I

7. Defense counsel is well aware of Plaintiffs employment situation, and is usin& '

its position ill this litigation to attempt to bar Plaintiff from ever applying to work for his firm.:

8. Plaintiff will be seeking relief via the EEOC for Defendant's remarks in its

pleadings, under the belief that a) similar remarks have been made elsewhere; and b) the

underlying animus which yielded the pleading remains long after the litigation. This too shaU:

create a conflict of interest.

9. The resolution is simple: Pfai~tiffhas no conflict with lawyers who are not federal contractors, or qualified subcontractors.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

An Order disqualifying defense counsel and replacing him with an attorney who is not a :

federal contractor.

I .

I

2

' I I .

. '

!

i '

! :

; ;

I I

' I

:

; I I

I ' '

I I :

'

j'. : ~

J, I

I

i

.':'

I . "! I

' i j' \ ~

'I

. :

,,

'

"

! I i

: I 'I

. i 1 ~ I

,!

Case 2:15-cv-03304-TON Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 3 of 4

. "j

' ,

I

I j

' ..

1 I :

.':i:

l j

I I I i

I " I I I I. !

I :!

" I

. . .

MEMORANDUM

None necessary. This is decided on.a case-by-case basis, with the underlying law well-

known to all parties concerned. The appearance of a conflict is the same as an actual conflict,.

and the conflict/appearance in this case is self-evident.

This the 2nd day of July, 2015

Gordon Roy Parker, Pro Se 4247 Locust Street, #119 : Philadelphia, PA 19104 . (267) 298-1257 SnodgrassPublish@aol.cdm PLAINTIFF

i I ! .

~ ' i

I

' I

I.

I

' I

i I !

j !

' I I

1 i

i \ '

"! i

I I

! ..

\

l l i I ! i !

' I I

' ;

'

: !

t'

Case 2:15-cv-03304-TON Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 4 of 4