Rod Parker and Snow, Christensen & Martineau Caught in a Lie

At the Utah Supreme Court hearing in February, one of the issues was the disqualification of Rod Parker of Snow, Christensen & Martineau.  Snow, Christensen & Martineau hired the biggest of the big guns  —  former Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, Michael Zimmerman.

Unfortunately, the former  Chief Justice was deceived by Parker and his firm, which led to Zimmerman makeing misrepresentations to the his colleagues on the Utah Supreme Court.  After being called to the carpet by the Arizona AG and the UEP lawyers, Zimmerman  had to explain to the Utah Supreme Court that they had been misled because Zimmerman had relied on the lies that his clients told him.  How embarrassing for the former Chief Justice.   This was not one of his proudest moments.

I made the following representation to the court:

Snow, Christensen and Martineau represented Willie Jessop when he sued the trust2005. So somebody should have known that Snow, Christensen and Martineau was behaving adverse to the fiduciary at that point in time .(Electronic recording of argument at 42:33-42:48).

I made this representation in response to Mr. Richards’ statement after briefly consulting with my client in the courtroom.

. . .

I make the following clarifications .

Rather than Willie Jessop suing the Special Fiduciary in 2005 , it appears that the Special Fiduciary sued a number ofentities owned or controlled by Mr. Jessop in 2005 in a case fashioned Wisan v. Aspen Management Investments, LLC, et aI., Dist. Ct. No. 050909669. Therefore, I withdraw the representation that “Willie Jessop sued the trust in 2005.” The lawsuit was not initiated by Mr. Jessop, but rather by Mr. Wisan. Mr. Jessop was not named personally in the lawsuit.

I wonder if he regrets having agreed to represent Snow, Christensen & Martineau?      Here’s the letter:

Sleazy, underhanded tactics appear to be par for the course for attorneys at Snow, Christensen & Martineau, and not just Rod Parker.   Below is a dictation that’s part of the records of the court in which Rod Parker has a little ex parte with his buddy and former law partner, who just happens to be the judge presiding over the UEP litigation.   Note that he gives Rod Parker instructions on how to win the case that this judge presides over. [Clarification:  the judge in this exerpt is not Lindberg, it was the judge prior to Lindberg who originally got the case and I believe was disqualified or recused himself because of the conflict with his former law partners]

It was during this call that the Bishop informed me that he got word that the judge denied the Attorney-General’s motion to change the trustees. The judges explanation was that Mark Shurtleff and other suggested trustees aren’t even parties to this action and had no standing. So the Lord has given us just a little more time to stand in place and get the temple built at R17. This is a judge that was formerly a lawyer in the Martineau firm, our lawyer firm. This judge offered to Rod Parker, when they met at lunch the other day, as a report from Uncle Sam, that he, Rod Parker, should just file some papers in behalf of the residents in Short Creek against this Mark Shurtleff request to change trustees. He said that in private to our lawyer Rod Parker, our former lawyer.



Seems there was another dictation recently filed that claimed Warren’s attorneys advised him to backdate the deed on the Harker Farm so that the UEP couldnt take it.   I don’t think that one named Rod Parker or Snow, Christensen & Martineau, although there is that inference to be made.   Rod

Parker and Warren sure seem to be two peas in a pod.

Advertisements

~ by FLDS TEXAS on May 4, 2010.

22 Responses to “Rod Parker and Snow, Christensen & Martineau Caught in a Lie”

  1. Just cannot nor will not keep their hands clean.

  2. Rod, his firm and the FLDS seem to need to do a lot of explaining.

  3. When will the latest Utah Supreme court case be ruled on and can you give us a refresher on the gist of the case?

  4. Seems Utah thinks its a country of its own and can make up rules as they go along

  5. oops – anonymous was me HHG

  6. What happens now?

  7. Whoops, I wonder who will get charged with professional misconduct over this…

  8. Is it true that Merril Jessop has been served? I can’t find the story anywhere.

    Also, has Dr. Lloyd Barlow been fined? Can’t find that story either.

    Thank you.

  9. The last news I heard about Merril Jessop was that they COULDN’T serve him, because he had holed up at the FLDS compound in Eldorado TX.

  10. Merril has bern served. After the judge’s comments from the last hearing about Merril’s shenanigans, Willie called Sheriff Doran and offered to produce Merril for service. Judge issued another order to appear and show cause, and this time Merril showed up for the Sheriff to serve him.

    The hearing is May 20.

    Apparently, Judge Walther was concerned about the availability of all the criminal defendants based on Merril’s evasive maneuvers so she ordered ALL of the defendants to appear for a pre-trial on May 13 to address their bond conditions. Oops.

  11. Thanks so much. I’ve started a blog, but it’s not ‘live’ yet. It’s purpose is to help ‘shine the light’ on religious child abuse by being sort of a directory to books, films, and sites.

    The Bible says that men love darkness because their deeds are evil.

    I’ve seen how child abuse runs rampant in secrecy. It seems to me the best way to combat it is to keep the harsh light of public scrutiny on it at all times.

    anon9:25

  12. Utardia

    Its like a box of chocolates, you never know if you will get one with nuts.

  13. I’m thinking May 13th might be circus day in the 51st courtroom.

  14. Shall we all meet?

  15. i’m not going to be there on the 13th, i’m waiting for the 20th to see merril squirm.

  16. Yes, Anon 9:25 am, Dr Barlow was found guilty by his colleagues of ethical violations and failure to keep adequate records. He must pay a 3000 dollar fine, and he must complete continuing medical education courses. He must also take an examination and pass by the third attempt within one year’s time.

  17. Thank you, catwhisperer.

  18. Is it true that Merril Jessop has been served? I can’t find the story anywhere.

    Also, has Dr. Lloyd Barlow been fined? Can’t find that story either.
    Thank you.
    Anonymous said this on May 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM

    Both stories can be found at myeldorado.net

  19. Whoops,
    You forgot to put the complete paragraph….

    This judge offered to Rod Parker,
    when they met at lunch the other day, as a report
    from Uncle Sam, that he, Rod Parker, should just
    file some papers in behalf of the residents in Short Creek against this Mark Shurtleff request to
    change trustees. He said that in private to our
    lawyer Rod Parker, our former lawyer. I told the
    Bishop, “You tell Sam Barlow, ‘Do not give any
    answer.’ or he is not with us.

    ‘Do not tell the lawyers to go ahead with such a thing. If Rod Parker does that it is on his own responsibility. I answer them nothing as the Lord declared.”

  20. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

    This is off-topic, but seems to be the thread where everyone is currently posting.

    The HOPE Organization has been contacted with a request for information on Muslim women in polygamous relationships.

    HOPE only works with people from Mormon Fundamentalism, so we have no info on Muslim women to provide.

    I have read (catwhisperer ? or Betty ?) cite a lot of statistics on Muslim women.

    The request is particularly for info on the Canadian Muslims, but any background info would be very much appreciated.

    If you have some data to share or know someone willing to communicate with this person who is requesting the information, please email HOPE at the_hope_org at yahoo dot com and we’ll put them in touch with each other.

    Thanks!

  21. A lawyer may take on a difficult client (such as the FLDS) not because of the money, or because they believe in the client or the client’s cause, but rather because they think the case has some legal merit. Perhaps Zimmerman may see some principal at-stake? He still has to deal with a difficult set of clients though. I assume though that he’s being paid well for his trouble.

    My father-in-law would occasionally take on such cases–cases that other lawyers refuse–just because the case had legal merit.

  22. I thought my old friend Michael Zimmerman was too smart to be played by a lying, sycophantic scoundrel like Rod Parker and malicious money-grubbing minions at Snow Christensen and Martineau…I guess not.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: