Column: It was the Tennessee court, and not Slavin, that overstepped bounds

It was the Tennessee court, and not Slavin, that overstepped bounds



NAHUM LITT
New Smyrna Beach
Publication Date: 12/10/06


The statements in a letter (Nov. 26) about "findings" of the Supreme Court of Tennessee about the disbarment of Ed Slavin, a St. Augustine resident, must be taken with more than a grain of salt. Readers can form their own conclusions about fairness and justice in a case involving free speech rights of whistle blowers.

First, this case was heard by a three-person tribunal appointed to sort out the charges and evaluate the evidence presented, particularly taking into account whether the testimony of the witnesses could be believed. One of the principle determinations of such a trial tribunal is the demeanor of the witnesses and it seldom that such a determination is challenged or overturned. That tribunal unanimously found that almost all of the evidence submitted, and particularly that of the current chief administrative law judge at the Department of Labor, was not credible. It similarly found that other complaints were not substantiated. It then determined that while Mr. Slavin was certainly outspoken, he was not guilty of most of the allegations. It recommended a slap on the wrist, a private reprimand for one minor violation.

The case then took an unusual turn in that it was appealed. Few such cases are ever appealed. And, lo and behold, the Tennessee Supreme court hand-picked as chancellor to "review" the matter, solely by chance we assume, turned out to be the son of a man who had been attacked and unmasked 20 years earlier by Mr. Slavin as taking gratuities as the purchasing agent for Anderson County, Tenn. (Oak Ridge). Mr. Slavin was represented in his own case by the same attorney who had been the county attorney who cross-examined this "impartial" Chancellor's father. Nothing wrong with "me" hearing the case he found and he then recommended suspending Mr. Slavin for three years ñ overturning the fact finding tribunal's findings of fact and making determinations that had been found wrong and factually inaccurate. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that this "impartial" chancellor committed no error, was correct in not recusing himself, and adopted his findings of fact as their own despite the fact that they were an appellate body and the facts before them were only those found by the fact-finding tribunal. That court then magnanimously reduced the suspension to two years. Remember, the Tennessee court's fact-finding body had thrown out all the "evidence." Then the Tennessee Supreme court disbarred Mr. Slavin without a trial, in absentia.

Now what were Mr. Slavin's alleged "failings?" He complained the Department of Labor has failed to enforce almost all of the labor protective positions it is charged to enforce, has spent years deciding workers' cases that were supposed to have final decisions within 90 days, and had so-called "review boards" deliberately sit on cases for over five years.

Mr. Slavin complained on behalf of his clients that they were entitled to decisions that could be appealed to courts, and that the delays were deliberate and unconscionable. There is ample evidence to support both charges, including that many of the delays were ordered by political appointees.

As far as being banned by the chief administrative law judge at the Department of Labor, all that required was referral to one of his other administrative law judges for a decision (no trial). I am sure you can draw your own conclusions as to the fairness of the process. Mr. Slavin was one of the few advocates of whistle blowers who did not demand large retainers in advance and took cases that only St. Jude would entertain.

Mr. Slavin can be both outspoken and annoying. He is opinionated and is not loved by everyone, but he has a right to his views, and free speech is more than sufficiently important to nurture and protect even when it difficult to like the person availing himself of the privilege.

What Tennessee and the Department of Labor did was get rid of a qualified advocate who was outspoken about the failings of the system and those who administered that system. It was they who have eroded the public confidence in the judicial system.

St. Augustine officials should listen respectfully and answer his questions about environmental crimes and other subjects.



Nahum Litt is a retired chief administrative law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor (retired)


Click here to return to story:
http://staugustine.com/stories/121006/opinions_4257505.shtml

© The St. Augustine Record