Dear Mr. Garmel,

Thank you very much for your willingness to spend more time
on the telephone discussing some of the legal issues in which
I am embroiled.

I am mindful that you have diverse obligations, and I hesitate
to interrupt with a telephone call whatever work you happen to
have before you. I myself on the other hand am virtually unemployed.
I see not more than 4 or 5 patients a week, I'm usually home working
on my computer, and always ready for a break. I respectfully
suggest, therefore, that when you are in the mood and have time,
you telephone me (617-484-8109) without regard to the hour of
the day. In the very unlikely event that I happened to be seeing
a patient, I would tell you, and you would not be offended. 
I anticipate with pleasure hearing from you.

In order not to talk nonsense, I try to prepare myself in a more
or less formal way for any conversation or discussion.
This evening, there are two issues that are on my mind.

1) My argument is that words, specifically the words "does any work
in plumbing and gas fitting" of 142 MGL 1, are properly interpreted
by context. I have persuaded myself that this is in fact a cogent
and powerful argument, relevant not only to the instant case, but
to adjudication in general, and especially adjudication of claims arising
from a 220 year old Constitution. My argument: that the code is
ancient, but the context is contemporary; that while the words of
the code are fixed, the context which alone gives them meaning
is modern. I shall argue that 142 MGL 1, 3, 13, etc. were in fact
reinterpreted and modified when the Board of State Examiners
of Plumbers and Pipefitters was incorporated into the Division of
Professional Licensure, and this Division in turn became part of
the Office of Consumer Affairs; I shall argue that these administrative
reorganizations are in fact revisions of the statute, in that they
modify the context in which the statute is interpreted. They modify
the context in which the Board of State Examiners etc functions,
and alter the meaning of the terms under which said Board was
established. The Board is now invested with the same authority
and the same obligations of its sibling Boards. Does such an
argument make sense to you?

2) My second uncertainty concerns the likely default of the Nantucket
Building Department. They have until April 3, 2009 to file an Answer.
The lawyers which represent Nantucket defaulted also in the previous
action in which I was involved, I don't know why.  Since it requires
much more paperwork to recover from a default than to file a timely
Answer to a Complaint, the effect of the default if it is contested,
is to increase the legal work and presumably the legal fees received
by the Town's attorneys. I won't make that my business. My concern:
what role must I play in the resolution of the default issue in order
to protect my interests. The relevant regulation is MCPR Rule 55.

Mass. Civil Procedure Rule 55
	
RULE 55. DEFAULT (Effective March 1, 2008).

(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief
is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules
and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise,
the clerk shall enter his default.

(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:

      (1) By the Clerk. When the plaintiff's claim against a defendant
is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain,
the clerk upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due
and affidavit that the defendant is not an infant or incompetent person,
shall enter judgment for that amount and costs against the defendant,
if he has been defaulted for failure to appear.

      (2) By the Court. In all other cases the party entitled to a judgment
by default shall apply to the court therefor; but no judgment by default
shall be entered against an infant or incompetent person unless represented
in the action by a general guardian, conservator, or other such representative
who has appeared therein. If the party against whom judgment by default
is sought has appeared in the action, he (or, if appearing by representative,
his representative) shall be served with written notice of the application
for judgment at least 7 days prior to the hearing on such application.
If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect,
it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages
or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an
investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings
or order such references as it deems necessary and proper and shall accord
a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required by statute.
==================================

My questions:
A) What is the effect of a judgment on a party which as in this 
case is represented by counsel, who has been properly served with
Summons and Complaint but has failed to file an answer
to the Complaint? Is such a party bound by that judgment?

B) Is there any disadvantage to my filing, on April 4, 2009 a notice
which will make "appear by affidavit or otherwise" the fact that the
defendant the Nantucket Building Department has failed to plead or
otherwise defend the case?

C) Assuming then that the Nantucket Building Department's attorneys
make a motion to have the default set aside, and a second motion
to be permitted to file their Answer "nunc pro tunc", should I oppose
such motions, on the reasoning that these same attorneys maintained
for 18 months a groundless defense which they attempted to support
the fabrication of certain evidence and the concealment of other
evidence behind a screen of a forged transcription?
Or should I not oppose such motions, on the consideration that
i) if I prevailed against the Board of State Examiners a default judgment
would be redundant, and 
ii) if the Board of State Examiners prevailed against me, a default
judgment against the Nantucket Building Department would be ineffective
and would be superseded, and
iii) that my offer to demonstrate criminal behavior by the Town of
Nantucket and its attorneys would be unnecessarily inflammatory
and would prejudice the Court against me.

A lot to talk about. When and if you have time, please telephone me.
617-484-8109. I very much enjoy talking with you.

Thanks for everything.

Sincerely,
Ernst Meyer