! ..

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

1

'

\:

'i.

~'

,i
I'

"

1'

.. .
,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYVLANIA.

.
.

I,,,

GORDON ROY PARKER,

- , '..

Plaintiff

. ll
l

'

,I

v.

'

:
:
:
:
:

Defendant
..

:
:

'

i
;

' '

.,

'

'

\
'l

'

JACQUELINE FAYE GOLDHAGEN,

J,

I
I

:'

'

''

Case No: 15-cv-3304-TON

l':

.
.
.

I\

'

.'
i

'

..

i
I

I
I

':
i

'
I

'

i. ,'

ORDER

'~

jj

'

'

'

'.!,-',
..

.' '; .
~

.f

,l

AN,D NOW, this _ _ day of July, 2015, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion To
l'

1'

!. '

J.

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

1:!

i'

''

!'
:

.j

\.

.,

''

.;
!,
'

'"i'-!

I
I

i I

.'i ) . ' ~ '

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

>J

,I
'

"

I
'l

,..

. ,.1
:

" .,

'

'.

1,

.,
i

'

'
':, 1,>::
_;'
,.

I
'I
I
i ,'

I
.I

:!
i
i,

:1

.,

I'
l

,,
i

:
'I

i.

.. '
'I

i:

\~ .

']

'

'!

"1

:.,'J

Defense counsei"is hereby disqualified.

('

I"

',

1 :; ~

.1

!"

..
...

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

r

.. [, :..

I.;,

,;

IN THEUNITED STATES COURT

. FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYVLANIA

: i .

'

! ;

':

. GORDON ROY PARKER,

Plaintiff

'.

":. ! .

...

I,,'

'.' !

v ..

'I
iI

.
Case No: 15-cv-3304-TON

JACQUELINE FAYE GOLI)HAGEN,

' ! '

. i "~ '

Defendant
.

...
.

'

;.

'

. I

.
'

'

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL

'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!
I

support, he avers the following.

1: :'

'

~ '

affirmative-action to Plaitniff s disabled worker-class.

..

"

i
i

'

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

.!

t
I
I

ii

:'
1.

'

iI

'

'

j.
_;.
1 '::
~

i'

i:.
~

. 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

i'

3.
I

'.

'
'.

1.

2.
: .. ; 1

'.
i.

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.

'
,(:,

,.

..

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

'.

I
i

ambitious business deal." (*3)

. i

1. ',

'.; '
1..

iI

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

!. :
~ ' . j

I I

\ "",'

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

'. !

i'

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

'

l '

Rehabilitation Act if spoken elsewhere.

.

5.

'

[ i

Additionally, defense counsel has aded in a highly threatening manner towards:.

.':'

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

"!

'i

6.

l ['
,' "

'I

i
. :

Defendant's, who has high-paying jobs for which Plaintiff is qualified.

I

7.

1',,)

'

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.

\ ~

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 :

j'

.
I

'
!

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
i

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

!.

. ' l

'
:

!
,,

:'
:

'

create a conflict of interest.

"

.j

.1

9.

! . ~

The resolution is simple: Pfai~tiffhas no conflict with lawyers who are not

I
I

federal contractors, or qualified subcontractors.

'

I
I

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

' '
I

I
:

'

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

: I

federal contractor.

',l

'

'

j'.

:~

J,

. i
~ I

,!

i
. i'

'1

''

t.:

'I

. ..

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

i!

I
.

MEMORANDUM
. "j

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

~ ' i

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
,'
I

I.

Gordon Roy Parker, Pro Se

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

I
'

.. '

1
I

.':i:

'

'

"!

"

I
I

..

!
\

II.

l
l

i
!

i !

'

:!
"

'

'

:!

t'