SC&M Artists

This is the UEP opposition to Rod Parker’s petition for extraordinary relief in the Utah Supreme Court.   Recall that in November of 2008, Judge Lindberg disqualified Parker and his firm, Snow, Christenson and Martineau (SC&M) from representing parties against the Trust in litigation.  Why?  Because Parker has spent years representing the Trust, and a lawyer is not permitted to represent a client against a former client in related  litigation.   Parker took it to the Supreme Court along with a request for restraining order attempting to halt the sale of Berry Knoll.  For some bizarre reason, the Utah Supreme Court stayed the disqualification order — bizarre because it’s now been stayed an entire year and Parker has been able to continue to represent various parties against his former client, despite the impermissible conflict of interest.

The restraining order was  ultimately dismissed because it was moot, but the Supreme Court instructed Parker to sever his request to overturn the disqualification order and file it properly or it would be dismissed.   Apparently Parker got it right this time, and now the UEP is responding.

Honestly, this seems like a no-brainer.    Based on this response from the UEP and the passages they quote form Parker’s motion — it appears Parker has done a very shoddy job, but perhaps it doesn’t even matter because he’s already gotten a years’ mileage out of the delay, and if he’s disqualified, he’ll still be working behind the scenes while some other firm appears in Court acting at Parker’s direction or with his assistance.    That’s my opinion anyway.  Anyway, Parker’s arguments are misleading and sloppy.   He cites cases for propositions that have nothing to do with the cases he cites.   It looks as though he is not even trying, or maybe he’s got Willie writing his pleadings now.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why the Supreme Court would have stayed enforcement of the order disqualifying Parker and allowed him to continue his representation to the very obvious disadvantage of his former client, the UEP Trust.

Whatever happens, it appears the UEP is hunkering down and fighting back hard.   I like that.  A lot.


~ by FLDS TEXAS on December 23, 2009.

5 Responses to “SC&M Artists”

  1. i thought it was a no brainer too, but if Parker can’t bill for his services, how is he supposed to pad his retirement fund?

  2. There are some weird things going on in Utah. It’s so odd that the Supreme Court would stay a trial court’s order disqualifiying an attorney with an obvious and directly adverse conflict. I dont get it.

    There’s also a proceeding in federal court that should also be a no-brainer on various arguments, but Judge Benson seems determined to make himself a hero and vindicate the early Mormons and their way of life. He set the status conference on his own without the parties even requesting it, and despite the fact that there is a stand down in the UEP litigation. He’s anxious to dissect the constitutional issues — only problem is, Warren very deliberately decided to abandon the UEP and ANSWER THEM NOTHING.

    Rambling ….

  3. i agree. didn’t warren let everything go into default as far as suits filed against him and the UEP? how will judge benson overcome that obstacle?

  4. Utah – proves once again its a fairy tale unto itself.

    One would think the Supreme court of utah reads newspapers.

    Texas is doing what utah is afraid to do.

    Enforce the law, and protect children.

  5. As Boots says, “God bless Texas.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: