APPEALS COURT
Dear Mr. Garmel, - not sent

As I may - or may not - have told you, after the May 12th hearing,
I planned to go south tos spend about 6 weeks at my parents' home
in Virginia, not only for a change of scene, but also for the
maintenance that a 57 year old house requires which has been
essentially unoccupied since my mother died in January 1990.

Inasmuch as the rules of civil procedure provide that where an
agency of the Commonwealth is a party, a notice of appeal must
be filed within 60 days of the judgment, I postponed filing my
Notice of Appeal until June 1. I expect to return to Belmont
on July 1, to begin assembling the Record Appendix and to start
drafting the Memorandum. Meanwhile I'm reviewing the issues I
should address:

To what extent the statute may authorize the state agency
to interpret to rewrite, to rescind the statute. If the
discretion of the agency is unlimted, then the law is done
away with, and we live as it were in an unconstitutional state.

To what extent may the outcome be governed by procedure?

1. The memorandum before the lower court identifies as the
underlying and overarching issue of this case the authority
of the Board of State examiners to criminalize do-it-yourself
plumbing. In addition now, the proceedings before the lower
court have brought into focus two further issues:
The logic and the experience that find their compromise in the law.
Thge law serves to reconcile what is with what ought to be.
The law should serve to confirm what is, and the law mandates
what ought to be. In the words of Mr. Justice Holmes the extent
to which law is determined by logic and the extent to which it
is determined by experience.

2. The substantive arguments that I made before the lower court
seem to me to be cogent and reasonably complete. I expect to have
little to add to them.

3. I will address each of the Nantucket objections, even though
the Court did not explicitly sustain them: 
a) lack of jurisdiction on account of the alleged prematurity
of my complaint, and
b) improper "enlargment of the record" by filing exhibits in support
of my requests for judicial notice.

4. I will address each of the Nantucket defenses, such as they are.

5. I will address the rationale by which the lower court ruled 
against me.

6. I will again challenge the regularity of the "hearing" before the
Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters on the grounds:
a) that the 6 days' notice of the hearing which included a two day
weekend and 3 days' (nominal) mailing delay was inadequate because 
it provided me with only one day to prepare my case.
b) that I was not provided prior to the hearing, as required by law,
with a statement of the issues.
c) that the Board's Administrative Record gives two contradictory
accounts of the hearing, one of which must be false.
d) that no record was kept
e) that I had no chance to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

7. I will challenge the lower courts ruling 
a) because it was indifferent to the facts
b) because it was based on an irregular administrative record
c) because not having intervened Nantucket was not a party to the action
d) because the AG did not oppose my motion
e) because the AG did not oppose my motion to strike
f) because the AG did not "join" in the "cross-motion".