WPC9N =X2t]OXg>d} 31 QNLvhfjICZS1_˘ v^v=,^R7׌ 6"n _QsJn Dɺ>kt,CVLf;<*?F!^w\7z8iR)nh!)HYԖ? Җ`±3wd&PԯNu:i!&vG^f[k h}jцT-.qSeL `1z{wu3}Zȓ0é)n{GxBUphwB4( [r«<8:#<7|>OE(oF SMjSׇs|< Ј\e ^ p 4|   m N 1 72I 0c{ 72 0w 0U 0 0 0 0 0n 0K 0% 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0] 0( 0 0 0@u 0 0 0Z 0( 0 0 0 0B! 00! 0</" 0k" 0>)# 0vg# 0`# 0`=$ 0`$ 0`$ 0`]% 08% 0% 02&E& 0& 0:' 0Y1( 0_( 1( 0 p) 0jz* 0+ B*h- D/- D+- 0- D/p/ 0/ 06m0 00 0:1 0^1 0<C2 1e2U62U >3U*X33 B3334==BnDgEBF 0NIdI 0 ^J 0 DKbKKSK 1MM:MU@MMU, NHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(I Z(Times New Roman 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)51s vs0B011S23|x U(EGOW_gowAutoList26(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  B(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKR<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    0VEGMSY_ekqAutoList241.I.1.1.1.1.1.1.4go2Keyboard KR<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KR<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7G(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X7&  d dF)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X7F)2dxd0KS.SampleKR<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKR<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial    d e  b$USUS.,B XX      6    _ClintonBusCo.,etal.v.AndersonCountyBd.ofEduc.,AndersonCountyDocketNo.E8362.  b$USUS.,B XX      7    _Theaffidavitstatedthefollowing:  8   ` B  BI.Ihadnopersonalknowledgeoftherespondent,EdwardA.Slavin,Jr.,Esquireorhis t counsel,DavidA.Stuart,Esquire,untilIreceivedtheorderappointingmetohearthiscasesignedby 8 ChiefJusticeFrankF.Drowota,III,thatwasenteredonthe19thdayofJuly,2002.L   8   ` II.Myfather,A.B.Ladd,wasatonetimepurchasingagentforAndersonCounty,Tennessee  andretiredover25yearsago.IhavelivedandpracticedlaworpresidedasChancellorinSullivan  CountysinceDecember1963.IhadneverheardofthecaseClintonBusCompany,etal,vs.Anderson H  CountyBoardofEducation,AndersonCountyChanceryCourtDocketNo.E8352priortoMr.Stuarts  \ lettertomedatedDecember16,2002.IhavenomemoryofmyfatherA.B.Laddevermentioning   thecasenorthefactthathetestifiedinthecase,northenatureofhistestimony,northefactthathe    wascrossexaminedbyMr.Stuart.Insummary,priortoreceivingtheletterofDecember16th,Ihad X   noknowledgewhatsoeverofanythingmentionedaboutthecaseinMr.Stuartsletter. l    8   ` III.Myfather,A.B.Laddisnow89yearsofageandduetoaseriesofstrokesanddementia,  0  [he]cannoteventellmewhatyearheretired,letalonerecallanycaseinwhichhemayhavetestified.    8   ` Thus,Ihavenotbeenabletodeterminefromhimwhetherheevertoldmeaboutthecase.h    8   ` IV.Ihavenoknowledgeofeverseeingorhearingofalocalweeklytabloidentitledthe ,|   AppalachianObservereditedbyMr.SlavinuntiltheletterofDecember16,2002.#B  B# e   b$USUS.,B XX      4    _Asnotedin_Sneed_Ԁv.BoardofProfessionalResponsibility,37S.W.3d886,890n.14(Tenn.2000), Tennessee  SupremeCourtRule9,Section1.3,doesnotexplicitlyprovidefordenovoreviewupontherecordofthetrialcourt,with t apresumptionofcorrectnessunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceiscontrarytothefindings.Accordingto_Sneed_, 8 thisstandardisinferredfromthefollowingsources:Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);Murphyv.Bd.of_Profl_ԀResponsibility,924 L S.W.2d643,647(Tenn.1996);_Gillock_Ԁv.Bd.of_Profl_ԀResponsibilityofSupremeCourt,656S.W.2d365,367(Tenn.  1983);and_Scruggs_Ԁv._Bracy_,619S.W.2d101,103(Tenn.1981).Essentially,wearereviewingtherecordofthe  HearingCommitteeinthatnotestimonywasadducedinthetrialcourt.  b$USUS.,B XX      1    _TheAdministrativeReviewBoardoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofLaborhastheauthorityoftheSecretary  ofLaborandotherdecidingofficialstoissuefinalagencydecisionsunderabroadrangeoffederallaborlaws. b$USUS.,B XX      5    _Thishearingwas,apparently,theappealofrightfromthejudgmentofthehearingcommittee. b$USUS.,B XX      8    _Asstated,thismotionwasfiledafterLaddhadheardtheappeal.  b$USUS.,B XX      9    _WenotethatourCourtheldinRamseyv.BoardofProfessionalResponsibility,771S.W.2d116,122(Tenn.  1989)B  Bthatanattorneywhomadeoutofcourtstatementstothemediaregardingjudicialproceedingswasnotsubject t todiscipline,andthestatementswereprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.#B  B#ԀThatcase,however,isdistinguishable.Inthe 8 caseundersubmission,thestatementsatissueweremadeduringincourtjudicialproceedings.(O$ b$USUS.,B XX      2    _Ashrewishwoman.WebstersIINewCollegeDictionary506(2001).  (Y(2$ !USUS.,  WXX      0  (#$  0  - -  b$USUS.,B XX      3    _TheproceedingsinthiscasearegovernedbytheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitypreviouslysetforthin  Rule8oftheTennesseeSupremeCourtRules(2002).TheCodewasreplacedonMarch1,2003,bytheRulesof t ProfessionalConduct.0eEGMSY_ekqAutoList25I.A.I.I.I.I.I.I.  0#Xd# d (9 Z(Times New Roman $Shruti !USUS.,  _XXXXMXXUOaWOZOh@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#XXM\#Ԉ &   [-XXFebruary11,2004Session#XX[-k# L MXX_   `     h      p #XXM#  [-XXBOARDOFPROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITYOFTHESUPREME 4  COURTOFTENNESSEE #XX[-#MXXԀ #XXM<#[-XXv. #XX[-##XXXX=#MXXMMԀ #XXM#[-XXEDWARDA._SLAVIN_,JR. #XX[-Q#MXX#MM #MM H  #XXM#   @@AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty Z  x@ No.1548613RichardE.Ladd,Chancellor,bydesignation F  @*AV=) ` dE< ` A߈  Z      No.M200300845SCR3BP !FiledAugust27,2004  U   AV=) ` dE<` A 1 #XXXX #   WehavethiscaseondirectappealpursuanttoTennesseeSupremeCourtRule9,section1.3,from  anorderoftheChanceryCourtsuspendingEdwardA._Slavin_,Jr.,Esq.,fromthepracticeoflawfor  threeyears._Slavin_Ԁappeals,raisingthefollowingissues:(1)whetherChancellorRichardE.Ladd  erredinrefusingtorecusehimself;(2)whether_Slavin_sincourtspeechisprotectedbytheFirst  Amendment;and(3)whetherthesanctionsimposedbytheChancellorareexcessive. x Uponcarefulreviewoftherecordandapplicableauthority,weconcludethatChancellorLadddid P notabusehisdiscretioninrefusingtorecusehimselfandthatthespeechatissuedoesnotfallwithin < theprotectiveambitoftheFirstAmendment.Afterathoroughexaminationofthesanctions,we (x imposeatwoyearsuspension._Slavin_Ԁmay,however,applyforreinstatementpursuanttoTennessee d SupremeCourtRule9,section19.3,attheexpirationofoneyearfromdateofthisopinion. P  XXXX  @@DDTenn.Sup.Ct.R.9 #XXXX #iXXXX 1.3#XXXiXs #;XXXXԀ#XXXX #XXXXJudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedMXXԀ#XXMP#asModified (   #XXX #XXX_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_,III, "$! C.J.,andE.RileyAndersonandJaniceM.Holder,#XXX#JJ.,joined.WilliamM.Barker,J.,not #" participating.XXXMXԀ $# #MM#MMd#XXM#EdwardA._Slavin_,Jr.,St.Augustine,Florida,dandDavidA.Stuart,Clinton,Tennessee,forthe &H"% appellant,EdwardA._Slavin_,Jr. '4#& LauraL._Chastain_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,BoardofProfessionalResponsibility. ) %(   l-(, h h8XXdd8d h     Opinion  I.FactsandProceduralHistory      #XXXX#EdwardA._Slavin_,Jr.,Esq.,( _Slavin_)XXXXԀwaslicensedtopracticelawinTennesseein1987, ` andhehasrepresentedmany whistleblowerclientsbeforefederalagencies.#XXXX#XXXXThreejudicial L  officerslodgedcomplaintsagainst_Slavin_ԀwiththeBoardofProfessionalResponsibility( _BPR_). 8  Thecomplaints,assummarized,areasfollows:DaleWorkman( Workman),Chancellorforthe $ t SixthJudicialDistrict,allegedthat_Slavin_Ԁfiledamotionforanewtrialandforrecusal.Inthese  ` pleadings,Workmanstatedthat_Slavin_Ԁaccusedhimofrushinghisconsiderationofthecaseonaday  L  whenheappearedtobepreoccupied,takingatwohourlunchforpersonalbusiness,unfairly  8  restrictingtheamountoftimeforcrossexaminationofthedefendantswitness,refusingtoallow $  arebuttalwitnesstobecalled,takinganinadequateamountoftimeforarushedreadingofportions   oftherecord,mockingandtrivializingthemedicaltreatmentprovidedtotheplaintiff,showingbias   andprejudicebymakingpejorativeremarksabout pressreleases,andbeingrude.Accordingto   Workman,_Slavin_ԀstatedthatWorkman isapparentlyachainsmoker,whos[sic]smokefilled   chambersMrs.CampbellandthepartiescounselwereobligedtoentercausingMrs.Campbell p restrictedbreathingincourt.AccordingtoWorkman,_Slavin_Ԁalsostatedthat [_t]he_Ԁtrialcourts \ lifestylechoiceandpersonalopinionsshouldnotbepermittedtodenyMs.Campbellafairtrial. H #XXXX#XXXX  Additionally,CurtisL.Collier( Collier),JudgeoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt(Eastern  p District,Tennessee),complainedtothe_BPR_Ԁabout_Slavin_sconductandspeechduringthetrialof  \ LockheedMartinEnergySystems,Inc.v._Slavin_,d190_F.R.D._Ԁ449(E.D.Tenn.1999)d.Accordingto H Collier,LockheedMartinEnergySystems( Lockheed)broughtsuitagainst_Slavin_Ԁtocompelhim 4 tocomplywithaDepartmentofLaborordertorepayattorneysfeesandexpenses.Inthatcase,   _Slavin_Ԁfiledaseventeenpageresponse repletewithunnecessary,baseless,irrelevant,andfrivolous   claims,defenses,andlegalcontentions.Lockheedscounsel,WilsonHorde,Esq.,( Horde)filed  apetitionforsanctionspursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure11.InresponsetotheRule11  petition,_Slavin_Ԁrepeatedthesubstanceofwhathehadincludedinhispreviousanswerand added  moreirrelevantallegations.Asanattachmenttotheresponse,_Slavin_Ԁincludedaninepage l  declarationfromDistrictAttorneyGeneralJamesRamseyexecutedonApril27,1994,inwhich X  Ramseystatedthathebelievedthathis(Ramseys)lawlicensehadbeensuspendedbytheTennessee D! SupremeCourtbecauseofactionstakenbyHorde.Collierviewedthisassertionasafurtherattack 0"  onHordeandLockheed. #l!   CollierincludedinhiscomplaintthatonthedateofthescheduledRule11hearinginthe $D # Lockheedcase,_Slavin_Ԁrequestedacontinuance.Then,onthedateoftherescheduledhearing,_Slavin_ %0!$ failedtoappear._Slavin_sattorneyofferednotenableexplanationfor_Slavin_sabsence.Thecourt &"% foundthat [_i]t_Ԁwasfacedwithnotjustanattorneywhohasfiledbaseless,frivolousand '#& unprofessionalpleadingsandresponsestomotions,butanattorneywhohasdonesorepeatedly, (#' flagrantly,andinamannerwhichreflectsacallousdisregardfortheproperandefficientfunctioning )$( oftheCourtandalsoreflectsasenseofdisrespectfortheauthorityofajudicialsystemandthe |*%) obligationsofthelegalcommunity.Also,thecourtordered_Slavin_Ԁtoprovideadditional h+&* information!anorderwithwhich_Slavin_Ԁdidnotcomply.Thecourtstated, Thus,itappearseven  inthefaceofveryserioussanctionsandadirectorderfromtheCourt,Mr._Slavin_Ԁcontinuesto  demonstratealackofrespectfortheCourtanditsauthority.    ThecomplaintofJohnM._Vittone_Ԁ( _Vittone_),AdministrativeLawJudgefortheUnited ` StatesDepartmentofLabor,allegedthat_Slavin_Ԁhadbeenunprofessionalinappearancesbeforethe L  courtandhadusedthepeerreviewprocesstoharassthejudges.Hestatedthatseveraljudgeshad 8  invokedtheirauthoritytopermanentlyprevent_Slavin_Ԁfromrepresentingclientsincasesinwhich $ t theypreside._Vittone_Ԁcitedinstancesinwhich_Slavin_ԀassertedthattheAdministrativeReviewBoard  ` ( ARB)\ c#  1      ׀decisioninamatter rankswiththe_Dred_ԀScottdecisionamongtheinjusticesinAmerican  L  Historyandisa disgracetothehumanrace.Healsostatedthat_Slavin_Ԁleft_voicemail_Ԁmessages  8  callingopposingcounsela redneck_peckerwood_anddescribingcounselcollectivelyas Nazis.#XXXX#XXXXԀ $  _Vittone_Ԁclaimedthat_Slavin_sactivitieswentbeyondcriticismofthejudiciaryandwere transparent   attemptstousethelegalprocesstoharassand/orpunishjudgeswhoissuedadverserulings.#XXXX0#XXXX       Theabovecomplaintsprovidedthebasisforapetitionfiledbythe_BPR_Ԁagainst_Slavin_Ԁon   August4,2000.#XXXX1#XXXXOnMay22,2001,the_BPR_Ԁfileda SupplementalPetitionforDisciplinebased p onthecomplaintofRudolfL.Jansen( Jansen),anAdministrativeLawJudgefortheUnitedStates \ DepartmentofLabor.#XXXX2#XXXXAccordingtothecomplaint,Jansenissuedarecommendeddecisionandorder H grantingsummaryjudgmentinamatterinwhich_Slavin_Ԁhadrepresentedtwopersons.OnMarch16, 4 1999,_Slavin_ԀappealedtotheARB,andhispleadingcontainedcommentswhichJansenfoundtobe  p offensive.#XXXX4#XXXXԀThosecommentsincluded:referringtoJansenas [_p]etty_,barbarousandcruel;  \  RecommendedDecisionisastenchinthenostrilsoftheNation; Showscompletecontemptfor H FirstAmendmentValues; Jansen...isnobetterthanRespondents!heisaretaliator;and 4  Disgraceshisjudicialoffice.Initsdecision,theARBnotedthat_Slavin_Ԁ hasagainengagedin   personalandvitriolicattacksonaDepartmentofLaborAdministrativeLawJudge.#XXXX5#XXXXԀ_Slavin_Ԁthen   requestedthattheInspectorGeneralinvestigateJansensconductinthecase.#XXXX8#XXXX    OnAugust30,2001,the_BPR_Ԁfileda SecondSupplementalPetitionforDiscipline.This  petitionwasbasedoncomplaintsmadebyfourclients_Slavin_Ԁhadrepresentedinasuitagainsttheir l employer,theU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.Theclientsallegedthat_Slavin_Ԁhadbeenunpreparedand X  hadhinderedtheircasesbyfailingtoprovideeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Inaddition,they D! allegedthat_Slavin_Ԁhadbeenantagonistictowardthejudgeintheircasetotheextentthatthejudge 0"  hadbarredhimfromappearingincasesbeforeher.Moreover,theychargedthat_Slavin_Ԁfiledan #l! appealforoneclienteventhoughhehadbeeninstructednotto,hadgivenfalseinformationtoa $X" judgeaboutaclientshealth,hadfailedtoreturndocumentsasrequested,andhadrefusedtofollow $D # theclientsdirectionsregardingsettlement. %0!$   ThesecondsupplementalpetitionincludedalsothecomplaintofDebraThompson,Esq., '#& ( Thompson),whostatedthat_Slavin_Ԁhadmadedisparagingcommentsabouther.Sheallegedthat (#' _Slavinhadcalledhera harridana c#  2      ׀inthepresenceofherclientandthecourtreporter.Thompson#XXXXy9#  alsoallegedthatSlavinhadcalledher condescending,hierarchical,uncivil,unkind,and  uncooperative.    AhearingpursuanttoTennesseeSupremeCourtRule9,section8,wasconductedon ` February12,2002.TheHearingCommitteesustainedthecomplaintofCollierallegingthatSlavin L  hadfailedtofollowordersofthecourtasviolationsofTennesseeSupremeCourtRule8, 8  DisciplinaryRulee c#  3      ׀( DR)1102(A)(1),DR1102(A)(5),DR7102(A)(8),DR7106(A),andDR $ t 7106(C)(6)(2002).RegardingDR7106(C)(6),theHearingCommitteefoundthatSlavin, by  ` ignoringtheOrdersofJudgeCollierengagedinundignifiedanddiscourteousconductwhichis  L  degradingtoatribunal.  8    TheHearingCommitteealsosustainedallegationsthatSlavinhadmadefalsestatements   regardingaclientsillness,hadmadefalsestatementsduringadepositionwithregardtoaclients   identityasaninvestigator,andhadfailedtocommunicatewithclientsandreturntheirrecords.   Consequently,SlavinwasfoundtohaveviolatedDR1102(A)(1),DR1102(A)(4),DR1   102(A)(5),DR7101(A)(2),andDR7102(A)(8).TheHearingCommittee,however,dismissedthe p chargeunderDR7106(C)(6)becauseSlavinsexpressionswereprotectedbytherighttofree \ speech. H   TheHearingCommitteedismissedthecomplaintsofVittone,Workman,andJansenintheir  p entireties.RegardingthedismissalofthechargesunderDR7106(C)(6),theHearingCommittee  \ foundthatwhileSlavinsactionswere undignifiedanddiscourteous,theBoarddidnotcarryits H burdenofprovingfalsestatements,andthus,SlavinsexpressionswereprotectedbytheFirst 4 Amendment.Ramseyv.Bd.ofProflResponsibility,771S.W.2d116(Tenn.1989).     TheHearingCommitteealsodismissedThompsonscomplaintinitsentirety.Regardingthe  allegedviolationofDR7106(C)(6),theHearingCommitteefoundthatSlavinsexpressionswere  protectedbytheFirstAmendment.    TheHearingCommitteefoundasamitigatingfactorthatSlavindidnothavearecordofprior X  disciplinaryaction.ItfoundasanaggravatingfactorthathisviolationsoftheDisciplinaryRules D! weremultiple.TheHearingCommitteeconcluded: Forviolationsoftheprovisionsaddressed 0"  above,theHearing[Committee]findsthatRespondentshouldbegivenapubliccensure. #l!   OnMay31,2002,theBPRfileda PetitionforWritofCertiorariintheChanceryCourtfor $D # KnoxCountypursuanttoTennesseeSupremeCourtRule9,section1.3.TheChiefJusticeofthis %0!$ CourtassignedRichardE.Ladd,Chancellor,SecondJudicialDistrict,tohearthecaseasrequired  byTennesseeSupremeCourtRule9,section1.5.AhearingwasconductedonDecember10,2002;  Slavindidnotattendthehearingbutwasrepresentedbycounsel.Afterabriefcolloquybetween  LaddandSlavinsattorney,DavidStuart,Esq.,( Stuart),theremainderofthehearingwas t consumedbydiscussionandtheintroductionofexhibits.Notestimonywasadducedduringthis ` hearing. L    Followingthehearing,Laddissuedamemorandumopinion.ItappearsthatalthoughLadd $ t agreedwiththeHearingCommitteesfindingsoffacts,hedisagreedwiththeHearingCommittees  ` legalconclusionsdrawnfromthosefacts.Hestated, IfindthattheactsofMr.Slavinarenot  L  protectedbytheFirstAmendmentinthiscase.  8    LadddisagreedwiththeHearingCommitteealsowithregardtothecomplaintofJansen,   finding byaclearpreponderanceoftheevidence,infactuncontestedevidence,aviolationof   DisciplinaryRules.LaddstatedthatinthecaseunderlyingJansenscomplaint,theopposingside   filedamotionforsummarydecision.Slavinfilednothinginresponseinthatcase,andJansen     grantedasummarydecision.AccordingtoLadd,Slavinthenfiled a27pagedocumententitled: p ComplainantsPetitionforReview,MotionforSummaryReversal,MotionforOralArgument,with \ MotiontoFile45PageOpeningBrief;InvestigativeRequest,DisqualificationAppealbyTodayto H theAdministrativeReviewBoard,withcopiestomanyothers,includingtheInspectorGeneral,the 4 SecretaryofLabor,theHonorableJohnM.Vittone,ChiefAdministrativeLawJudge.TheARB  p concludedthatthecasewasfrivolous.  \   LaddreferredtotheARBsFinalDecisionandOrderinwhichtheARB lists18examples 4 ofpersonalinsultswhichMr.SlavinusedagainstJudgeJanseninhismotion.Laddstated,    Withoutevenconsideringwhethertheserepresentationsaretruthfulornot,thesocalledmotion   andbrief...tothisCourt,isaclearviolationofDR1102(A)(5),engaginginconductthatis  prejudicialtotheadministrationofjustice,andDR7106(C)(6),engaginginundignifiedor  discourteousconductwhichisdegradingtoatribunal.Thus,Laddconcludedthat theactsofMr.  SlavinarenotprotectedbytheFirstAmendmentinthiscase. l   RegardingVittonescomplaint,ChancellorLaddstatedthefollowing: D! 8   ` JudgeVittonetestifiedthatfourorfiveAdministrativeLawJudgeshad #l! barredMr.Slavinfromappearingbeforethemduetohisconductinvariouscases. $X" JudgeVittonestatedthatMr.SlavininfourtofiveinstanceshasrequestedaPeer $D # ReviewforJudgemisconduct,similartotheTennesseeCourtofJudiciary.%0!$   8   ` JudgeVittoneadvisedMr.Slavintwicethattheconduct!thathisconductwas '#& impermissibleinusingthePeerReviewproceduretotrytogetareversalona (#' questionoflaw,anappealableissue.ThisiscorroboratedbyMr.Slavinsexpert )$( witnessandgoodfriend,RetiredJudgeNahumLitt,whotestifiedthathehadtold |*%) Mr.SlavinthathewasimproperlyusingthePeerReviewprocessonappealable h+&* matters.   8   ` AndyetbeingadvisedbytheChiefJudgeandhisgoodfriendwhowasa  retiredChiefJudge,hecontinuedtodoso.IfindthatMr.Slavin,byusingthePeer t Reviewprocessinthemannerinwhichhedid,wassystematicallyharassingand ` attemptingtointimidatejudgesbyhisaction.Andinfacthewassuccessfulinthat L  fourorfivejudgesbarredhimfromappearingbeforethem,which,apparently, 8  AdministrativeLawJudgeshavethepowertodo,whichresultedingettingridof $ t thosejudgesonhearinganyofhis,Mr.Slavins,cases. `   8   ` TheCourtfindsthattheactsofMr.SlavinviolateDisciplinaryRule1  8  102(A)5,engaginginconductthatisprejudicialtotheadministrationofjustice. $      LaddfoundbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethattheHearingCommitteeerredin   dismissingWorkmanscomplaint.HestatedthatSlavinsconductwithregardtoWorkmanviolated   DR7106(C)(6),engaginginundignifiedanddiscourteousconductwhichisdegradingtoatribunal,   andisnotprotectedfreespeech.HenotedthatSlavinsCorrectedMotionforaNewTrialinthat p case prettywellspeaksforitselfontheCourtsfinding. \   RegardingThompsonscomplaint,LaddfoundthatSlavinviolatedDR7102(A)(1)because 4  hisactionswouldservemerelytoharassanotherpersonorafellowlawyer.Heagreedwiththe  p hearingpanelsfindingsregardingSlavinsclients.HefoundthatSlavinsmostseriousviolation  \ wasthatofDR7101(A)(4)(c)whichprovidesthatlawyersshallnotprejudiceordamagetheclient H duringthecourseoftheprofessionalrelationship.HealsoreferredtoDR1102(A)(5)which 4 providesthatalawyershallnotengageinconductthatisprejudicialtotheadministrationofjustice.   Hestatedthat by[Slavins]actions,heisstealingfromtheclient.Laddnotedthetestimonyof   JudgeNahumLitt( Litt)who describedhowMr.Slavintakescaseswithmajorelementsmissing.  HereferredtoadditionaltestimonybyLittinwhichhestated, ThePeerReviewwastocover  mattersnotappealable;however,inhisopinion,mostofwhatMr.SlavinfiledinPeerReviewwere  appealableissues. l   LaddorderedthatSlavinbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforthreeyearsandthatbefore D! heappliestotheSupremeCourtforreadmittance,hemust submitsomekindofprooftothe 0"  SupremeCourtofaknowledgeofhowtoproperlyrepresentaclientandsubordinatehisown #l! feelingsinthepracticeofhislaw.HestatedthatSlavinsactions couldbegroundsfor $X" disbarment,buthefound aglimmerofhopeinSlavinbecauseheisindustriousandhasagood $D # mind.However,hequestionedSlavinsjudgment.  %0!$ @II.StandardofReview  '#&  B(V03  XXXX   SlavinisbeforethisCourtasamatterofrightpursuanttoTennesseeSupremeCourtRule )$( 9,section1.3,whichprovidesthefollowing: |*%)  h+&* 8  Eitherpartydissatisfiedwiththedecreeofthecircuitorchancerycourtmay  prosecuteanappealdirecttotheSupremeCourtwherethecauseshallbeheardupon  thetranscriptoftherecordfromthecircuitorchancerycourt,whichshallincludethe  evidencebeforethehearingcommittee. #XXXXk#XXXXt   dInaddition, ourreviewofthiscauseisdenovoontherecordofthetrialcourt,andtothefindings L  ofthetrialcourtthereisattachedapresumptionofcorrectnessunlesstheevidencepreponderates 8  againstthosefindings.Sneedv.Bd.ofProflResponsibility,37S.W.3d886,890(Tenn.2000).[ c#  4      ׀ $ t d  III.Analysis  L  p  Inthisappeal,Slavincontendsthefollowing:(1)thatLadderredbyrefusingtorecuse $  himself;(2)thatSlavinsincourtstatementswereprotectedbyfreespeech;and(3)thatLadderred   byincreasingthesanctionimposedbytheHearingCommittee.     @%A.Recusal       Concerningtherecusalissue,whetherrecusaliswarrantedislefttothediscretionofthetrial \ judge,andsuchdecisionwillnotbereversedabsentaclearabuseofdiscretiononthefaceofthe H record.Davisv.LibertyMut.Ins.Co.,38S.W.3d560,564(Tenn.2001).Therecordinthiscase 4 containsanexchangewhichoccurredatthebeginningofthehearingheldonDecember10,2002,  p ahearingatwhichSlavinwasnotpresent.] c#  5      ׀Theexchange,betweenLaddandSlavinsattorney,#XXXXsn#XXXXԀwas  \ asfollows: H 8   ` THECOURT:AndyouareMr.Stuart?    8   ` MR.STUART:Yes,YourHonor,DavidStuartfromtheAndersonCounty   Bar.   8   ` THECOURT:Allright.BornandraisedinAndersonCounty,Mr.Stuart  ...Iwas.   8   ` MR.STUART:Oh,youwere.Really?Oh,okay.l   8   ` THECOURT:BorninOliverSprings,grewupinNorris.X    8   ` MR.STUART:Isthatright?Well,itisverynicetomeetyou.D!   8   ` THECOURT:MyfatherwasPurchasingAgentforaperiodoftime.0"    8   ` MR.STUART:Oh,really?#l!   8   ` THECOURT:InAndersonCounty.   8   ` MR.STUART:Imethim.IwasCountyAttorneyforalongtime,andhe  testified!HehadjustleftPurchasingAgentwhenIbecameCountyAttorney,andhe  testified.Ithoughtyoulookedfamiliar.Thatmustbethereasonwhy.#XXXXu#XXXXt     OnDecember16,2002,sixdaysafterthehearing,StuartsentLaddaletterstatingthatSlavin L  intendedtofileamotionforLaddsrecusal.ThelettersuggestedthatLaddmayhaveresidualbias 8  becauseofStuartseffortstoimpeachLaddsfatherinacasetriedin1983.X c#  6      #XXXXz#XXXXԀThesuggestionisbased $ t onStuartsstatementthatSlavinhadsupplieddocumentstoStuarttobeusedinanefforttoimpeach  ` Laddsfather,awitnessinthecase.Additionally,StuartsuggestsinhisletterthatLadds  L  impartialitymayreasonablybequestioned.  8    OnDecember30,2002,LaddfiledanaffidavitYT c#  7      ׀inwhichhedeniedanypersonalknowledge   ofSlavinorofStuart.Additionally,hestatedthathehadneverheardoftheClintonBusCo.case.   Hesaid, Insummary,priortoreceivingtheletterofDecember16th,Ihadnoknowledgewhatsoever   ofanythingmentionedaboutthecaseinMr.Stuartsletter.#XXXX|#XXXXMoreover,Laddexplainedthathis   fatherwaseightynineyearsoldandduetoaseriesofstrokesanddementiacouldnotrecallanycase p inwhichhemayhavetestified.Finally,hestatedthatpriortoreadingtheletterofDecember16, \ 2002,#XXXXc#XXXXԀhehadnoknowledgeofeverhavingseenorheardofalocalweeklytabloidentitledthe H  AppalachianObservereditedbySlavin. 4   OnJanuary3,2003,SlavinfiledamotionrequestingthatLaddrecusehimselfinthiscase.^  c#  8      ׀  \ Healsofiledamotionforanewtrial.OnFebruary28,2003,Laddenteredanorderdenyingthe H motionforanewtrialandthemotionforrecusal. 4 Ї  Onappeal,SlavincontendsthatLadderredinrefusingtorecusehimself.Inresponse,the  BPRcontendsthatSlavinsfailuretoseekrecusalinatimelymannerhasforeclosedthisissue.  Indeed,theBPRsuggeststhatSlavinhasattemptedtomanipulatetherecusalissuetogainprocedural  advantage. t   Partiesmaylosetherighttoquestionajudgesimpartialityiftheyattempttomanipulate L  theimpartialityissuetogainproceduraladvantage.Davisv.Tenn.DeptofEmploymentSec.,23 8  S.W.3d304,313(Tenn.Ct.App.1999). [T]hefailuretoseekrecusalinatimelymannerresults $ t inawaiverofapartysrighttoquestionajudgesimpartiality.Id.#XXXXځ#XXXXԀEventhoughthereisevidence  ` tosupportafindingthattherecusalissuewaswaivedforfailuretoraiseitinatimelymanner,we  L  neverthelessprefertoaddresstheissue.  8  #XXXXć#XXXX  Therighttoafairtrialbeforeanimpartialtribunalisafundamentalconstitutionalright.   Statev.Austin,87S.W.3d447,470(Tenn.2002).Moreover,   8  ArticleVI,11oftheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesthat noJudgeofthe   SupremeorInferiorCourtsshallpresideonthetrialofanycauseintheeventof p whichhemaybeinterested.Thepurposeofthisconstitutionalprovisionistoguard \ againsttheprejudgmentoftherightsoflitigantsandtoavoidsituationsinwhichthe H litigantsmighthavecausetoconcludethatthecourthadreachedaprejudged 4 conclusionbecauseofinterest,partialityorfavor.Chumbleyv.People'sBank&  p TrustCo.,165Tenn.655,659,57S.W.2d787,788.(1933). \   Statev.Benson,973S.W.2d202,205(Tenn.1998). 4   Tennesseehasalsorecognizedthat thepreservationofthepublicsconfidenceinjudicial   neutralityrequiresnotonlythatthejudgebeimpartialinfact,butalsothatthejudgebeperceived  tobeimpartial.Kinardv.Kinard,986S.W.2d220,228(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Thus,recusalis  alsoappropriate whenapersonofordinaryprudenceinthejudgesposition,knowingallofthefacts  knowntothejudge,wouldfindareasonablebasisforquestioningthejudgesimpartiality.Davis l v.LibertyMut.Ins.Co.,38S.W.3dat56465(quotingAlleyv.State,882S.W.2d810,820(Tenn. X  Crim.App.1994)). Hence,thetestisultimatelyanobjectiveonesincetheappearanceofbiasis D! asinjurioustotheintegrityofthejudicialsystemasactualbias.Id.Wenote,however,thatthe 0"  merefactthatajudgehasruledadverselytoapartyorwitnessinapriorproceedingisnotgrounds #l! forrecusal.Id. $X"   Laddhasincludedintherecordanaffidavitoutliningthebasisforhisrefusaltorecuse %0!$ himself.Itisentirelyadequateand,wethink,dispositiveoftheissue.Accordingly,thisissueis &"% withoutmerit.#XXXX#XXXX '#&    ` @!B.FirstAmendment )$(   SlavinnextcontendsthattheBPR,DepartmentofLabor,andDepartmentofEnergyhave h+&* soughtsanctionsagainsthimforspeechprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.TheHearingCommittee  foundthattheincourtstatementscomplainedof,while undignifiedanddiscourteous,were  protectedspeechunderFirstAmendmentprinciples.Thetrialcourt,however,reachedtheopposite  conclusion,rulingthatSlavinsstatementswerenotprotectedbytheFirstAmendment. t   Specifically,LaddconcludedthatSlavinsspeechwithregardtoWorkmanviolatedDR7 L  106(C)(6)bySlavinshavingengagedinundignifiedanddiscourteousconductdegradingtoa 8  tribunal.Heconcluded,astoSlavinsspeechtowardJansen#XXXX#XXXX,thatSlavinhadviolatedDR1 $ t 102(A)(5)andDR7106(C)(6).dWithregardtoVittone,LaddconcludedthatSlavinhad  ` manipulatedthePeerReviewprocessto systematicallyharass[]andattempt[]tointimidatejudges  L  andbysodoing,hadviolatedDR1102(A)(5).Finally,LaddfoundthatSlavinsconducttoward  8  ThompsonconstitutedaviolationofDR7102(A)(1)byhishavingengagedinconduct whenitis $  obviousthatsuchactionwouldservemerelytoharassormaliciouslyinjureanother.#XXXX #XXXXd     ThefreespeechclauseoftheFirstAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionisapplicable   tothestatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendmentandprovidesthat Congressshallmakenolaw.   ..abridgingthefreedomofspeech.ArticleI,section19,oftheTennesseeConstitutionsimilarly p providesthat [t]hefreecommunicationofthoughtsandopinions,isoneoftheinvaluablerightsof \ man,andeverycitizenmayfreelyspeak,write,andprintonanysubject,beingresponsibleforthe H abuseofthatliberty. 4   I#XXXX#XXXXnthecontextofjudicialproceedings,_ c#  9      ׀anattorneysFirstAmendmentrightsarenotwithout  \ limits.#XXXX#XXXXAlthoughlitigantsandlawyersdonotchecktheirFirstAmendmentrightsatthecourthouse H door,thoserightsareoftensubordinatedtootherinterestsinherentinthejudicialsetting.See 4 Gentilev.StateBarofNev.,501U.S.1030,1071(1991);UnitedStatesDist.Courtv.Sandlin,12   F.3d861,866(9thCir.1993);Kosterv.ChaseManhattanBank,93F.R.D.471,476(S.D.N.Y.   1982);#XXXXǝ#XXXXԀStatev.Carruthers,35S.W.3d516,56061(Tenn.2000).#XXXX#XXXXԀThus,whilewefindthatlegitimate  criticismofjudicialofficersistolerable, anattorneymustfollowtheRulesofProfessionalConduct  whensodoing.Shortesv.Hill,860So.2d1,3(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003).#XXXX#XXXXAlawyerisnotfreeto   seekrefugewithinhisownFirstAmendmentrightoffreespeechtofillacourtroomwithalitany l ofspeculativeaccusationsandinsults.#XXXXա#XXXXԀUnitedStatesv.Cooper,872F.2d1,3(1stCir.1989).#XXXX#XXXX X    TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtstated: 0"  8  Itisunquestionablethatinthecourtroomitself,duringajudicialproceeding, $X" whateverrightto freespeechanattorneyhasisextremelycircumscribed.An $D # attorneymaynot,byspeechorotherconduct,resistarulingofthetrialcourtbeyond %0!$ thepointnecessarytopreserveaclaimforappeal.#XXXXv#XXXX&"%   Gentile,501U.S.at1071.      TheFirstAmendmentdoesnotprecludesanctioningalawyerforintemperatespeechduring  acourtroomproceeding.Jacobsonv.Garaas(InreGaraas),652N.W.2d918,925(N.D.2002) t (emphasisadded).CommentingonGentileinadisciplinaryproceeding,theSupremeCourtof ` Missouriconcluded: L  8  Anattorney'sfreespeechrightsdonotauthorizeunnecessaryresistancetoanadverse $ t ruling....Onceajudgerules,azealousadvocatecomplies,thenchallengesthe  ` rulingonappeal;theadvocatehasnofree-speechrighttorearguetheissue,resistthe  L  ruling,orinsultthejudge. 8    InreCoe,903S.W.2d916,917(Mo.1995).     InKentuckyBarAssociationv.Waller,929S.W.2d181,183(Ky.1996),theSupremeCourt   ofKentuckyobservedthatthestatementsneednotbefalsetopursuedisciplinaryaction:   8  Respondentappearstobelievethattruthorsomeconceptakintotruth,suchas \ accuracyorcorrectness,isadefensetothechargeagainsthim.Inthisrespecthehas H totallymissedthepoint.Therecanneverbeajustificationforalawyertousesuch 4 scurrilouslanguagewithrespecttoajudgeinpleadingsorinopencourt.Thereason  p isnotthatthejudgeisofsuchdelicatesensibilitiesastobeunabletowithstandthe  \ comment,butratherthatsuchlanguagepromotesdisrespectforthelawandforthe H judicialsystem.OfficersofthecourtareobligatedtoupholdthedignityoftheCourt 4 ofJusticeand,ataminimum,thisrequiresthemtorefrainfromconductofthetype   atissuehere.#XXXX#XXXX      Thus,anattorneysspeechmaybesanctionedifitishighlylikelytoobstructorprejudicethe  administrationofjustice. Thesenarrowrestrictionsarejustifiedbytheintegralrolethatattorneys  playinthejudicialsystem,whichrequiresthemtorefrainfromspeechorconductthatmayobstruct l thefairadministrationofjustice.OfficeofDisciplinaryCounselv.Gardner,793N.E.2d425,428 X  29(Ohio2003)#XXXX #XXXX.#XXXX{#XXXX D!   Accordingly,weconcludethatSlavinsincourtremarkswerenotprotectedbytheFirst #l! Amendment.Bythisholdingweintendtolimitanattorneyscriticismsofthejudicialsystemand $X" itsofficerstothosecriticismswhichareconsistentineverywaywiththesweepandthespiritofthe $D # RulesofProfessionalConduct.SeeFla.Barv.Ray,797So.2d556,560(Fla.2001).#XXXX#XXXX %0!$ @$C.Sanctions '#&   Forhisfinalissue,SlavincontendsthatLadderredbyimposingathreeyearsuspensionfrom )$( theprivilegetopracticelaw.HavingconcludedthattheviolationsfoundbyLaddwereproper,we |*%) considersanctionsimposedinsimilarcases.InFarmerv.BoardofProfessionalResponsibility,660 h+&* S.W.2d490,49193(Tenn.1983),thisCourtfoundthattheattorneyshouldbedisciplinedforusing   scurrilousandimproperlanguageinbriefswhichhehimselffiled.Inthatcase,weconcludedthat  theattorney deliberatelychosetouselanguageandtacticswhichcannotbetoleratedinthelegal  professionandaffirmedtheHearingCommitteesdecisiontosuspendtheattorneyforsixtydays. t Id.at493. `   AlthoughthisCourtconcludedthattheattorneywasnotsubjecttosanctionsforhisoutof 8  courtstatementstothemediai#XXXX#XXXXnRamseyv.BoardofProfessionalResponsibility,771S.W.2d116, $ t 12223(Tenn.1989),wedidconcludethattheattorneyactedinamannerprejudicialtothe  ` administrationofjustice.Inthatcase,theattorneyfailedtoabidebycourtorders,failedtorespond  L  toquestionsfromthecourtwhileappearingbeforethecourt,andslammedcourtroomdoorsduring  8  hearings.Id.at123.Thus,weimposedasanctionof180days,withallbut45dayssuspended.Id. $    InGalbreathv.BoardofProfessionalResponsibility,121S.W.3d660(Tenn.2003)#XXXX#XXXX,weheld   thatathirtydaysuspensionwaswarrantedforanattorneysmisconductthatincludedattemptsto   subvertthelegalprocess.Inthatcase,theattorney,dissatisfiedwithajudgesrulings,begana   calculatedcampaignthroughthreatsandintimidationtoforcethejudgesrecusal.Id.at666. p   Additionally,wenotesimilarcasesinotherjurisdictions.InKentuckyBarAssociationv. H Waller,929S.W.2d181,183(Ky.1996),theSupremeCourtofKentuckyorderedasixmonth 4 suspensionforanattorneyscommentsmadeinawrittenmemorandumsubmittedtoatrialcourt.  p TheSupremeCourtofKentuckydescribedthememorandumasfollows:  \ 8  AftertheappointmentofJudgeHarris,Wallerfiledamotiontosetasidetheearlier 4 temporaryinjunction.OnJune21,1994,Wallerfiledamemorandumstyledas    LegalAuthoritiesSupportingtheMotiontoDismisswhichcontainedthefollowing   introductorylanguage:Comesdefendant,bycounsel,andrespectfullymovesthe  HonorableCourt,muchbetterthanthatlyingincompetentass-holeitreplacedifyou  graduatedfromtheeighthgrade....   Id.at181.#XXXX#XXXX X    TheSupremeCourtofOhio,inOfficeofDisciplinaryCounselv.Gardner,793N.E.2d425, 0"  433(Ohio2003),imposedasixmonthsuspensiononanattorneyforcommentsmadeinawritten #l! motion.TheCourtdescribedthemotionasfollows: $X" 8  Inamotionseekingreconsiderationor,inthealternative,certificationofthecaseas %0!$ aconflicttothiscourt,respondentaccusedthepanelthatdecidedhisclientsappeal &"% ofbeingdishonestandignoringwell-establishedlaw.Hedeclaredthatthepanelhad '#& issuedanopinionso resultdriventhat anyfair-mindedjudgewouldhavebeen (#'  ashamedtoattachhis/hernametoit.Hethenaddedthatthepaneldidnotgive a )$( damnabouthowwrong,disingenuous,andbiaseditsopinionis.|*%)    h+&* Id.at427.Inupholdingthesixmonthsuspension,theSupremeCourtofOhiostated:  8  Anattorneysspeechmaybesanctionedifitishighlylikelytoobstructorprejudice  theadministrationofjustice....Thesenarrowrestrictionsarejustifiedbythe t integralrolethatattorneysplayinthejudicialsystem,whichrequiresthemtorefrain ` fromspeechorconductthatmayobstructthefairadministrationofjustice.#XXXX#XXXX @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @ L    Id.at429. $ t   Aswecontinueourdenovoconsiderationofthesanctionsimposed,wenoteadramatic  L  increaseinthepunishmentimposedbythetrialcourtbeyondthatimposedbytheHearing  8  Committee.Wethinkthisdifferenceiseasilyexplainedbythefactthatthetrialcourtreinstated $  severalviolationsthathadbeendismissedbytheHearingCommittee.#XXXX#XXXX     dAlthoughwearemuchimpressedwithSlavinsintellectandlegalskill,wdhatdoesnot   impressusishisapparentdefianceinrefusingtorespectthelineseparating,inthejudicialcontext,   tolerablecriticismfromunacceptablespeech.Hehastrampleduponthatline,andindeedbyso p doinghaspropelledhimselfintothequagmireofunacceptablespeech.d#XXXX#d \ SXXXX XAccordingly,weherebysuspendSlavinfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodoftwoyears 4 fromdateofthisopinion.#XXXSX#SXXXXԀSlavinmaypetitionforreinstatementunderSupremeCourtRule9,  p section19.3,attheexpirationofoneyearfromdateofthisopinion. ItisfurtherorderedthatSlavin  \ shallcomplyinallrespectswithTennesseeSupremeCourtRule9,andspecificallywithsection18 H regardingtheobligationsandresponsibilitiesofsuspendedattorneys.Costsofthisreviewaretaxed 4 totheappellant,EdwardA.Slavin,Jr.,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.#XXXSX#kXtXXX       d  l  X B.` hp x (#XB#XXXkXt#SXXXX___________________________________    E.` hp x (#X(#EADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE    #XXXSX#