Dear Cyndy,

Even though both my hips nagged me,
and said they really didn't want to go, 
I did make it into Government Center, and after all the trips
I've made there, was struck with the dullness of my mind
not previously to have recognized the monumental irony:
that the old Scollay Square, Boston's renowned red light district
of the early twentieth century, has morphed into Government Center:
the venial sins of the flesh have given way to the unforgivable
corruption of the mind. I am writing, of course, about the
law, the latter-day harlot of Scollay Square:

"Of law there can be no less acknowledged
than that her seat is the bosom of God,
her voice the harmony of the world;
all things do her homage,
the very least as feeling her care;
and the greatest as not exempted from her power;
both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever,
though each in different sort and manner,
yet all with uniform consent admiring her
as the mother of their peace and joy.

Richard Hooker 1553-1600

I guess the name Hooker says it all.  I say, shame on God for
cavorting with the law and letting her sit on his lap.
Such goings-on in the Oval Office! I say that God should 
be impeached. But I won't say that to the Supreme Judicial
Court.

What I will tell the Supreme Judicial Court in my application
for direct appellate review, occurred to me this morning as
I was waking from the nights sleep. I must write it down
before I forget:

That my appeal is worthy of the consideration of the SJC,
because my appeal addresses an anomaly that is corrosive
of public respect for the law: the discrepancy between the
prevalence of Do-It-Yourself plumbing which invests it with
a presumption of legality and the prohibition of Do-It-Yourself
plumbing by the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gasfitters,
which the Attorney General refuses to defend in court and
which the Attorney General declines to enforce in the 302
and more hardware and home improvement stores that enable
Do-It-Yourself-Plumbing.  Such contradiction makes mockery
of the law and deserves the SJC's attention.

That my appeal is worthy of the consideration of the SJC,
because my appeal addresses a fundamental issue of legal
literary interpretation of an ancient statute which has
survived into a changed world. This of course is the recurring
question, how should the U.S. Constitution of 1789 be 
construed 210 years later, when the society has so drastically
changed. I shall point out to the SJC that _all_ language
derives meaning from the context in which it is used,
that every student of language understand that the meaning
is in flux, and that the attempt to assign to a word a fixed
meaning is a futile exercise in antiquarianism. The correct
interpretation of the law of 1894 is implicit in the practice
that is prevalent in 2009. Hence the propriety of the Attorney
General's refusal to accede to the interpretation of the Board.
(An antiquarian interpretation would lead to the same conclusion,
inasmuch as in 1894 technical obstacles precluded Do-It-Yourself
plumbing. It did not then exist.)

That my appeal is worthy of the consideration of the SJC,
because my appeal addresses a fundamental issue of jurisprudence,
i.e. the court's obligation to take judicial notice of its own
records. In our judicial tradition, the court has virtually
unlimited discretion in its interpretation of experience;
that interpretation then becomes "common" law. In order to
serve its function as law, the judgment must become incarnate
in language. The judgment requires to be articulated in words,
sentences and paragraphs. Aside from possible logical or substantive
error in the Court's determination in the instant case, to the effect
that Nantucket should be accorded the status of a party even though
Nantucket was not an Intervenor, and that the Attorney General should 
be deemed to join in an action which the Attorney General
had declined to make in her own behalf or in that of her client,
over these possible logical or substantive errors, there looms
of perhaps greater importance the Court's procedural error in
failing to give reasons or other explanations for these crucial
decisions. It is this failure which creates the presumption
that the Court did not take notice of its records and permits
the spectre of injustice to intrude.

This Court has written eloquently about events that

"would be harmful to the administration of justice,
would lower confidence in the integrity of the courts
and in their determination and ability thoroughly to
uproot evil practices when once discovered, would discourage
efforts at improvement, and would be wholly incompatible
with the public interest."

That my appeal is worthy of the consideration of the SJC,
because my appeal addresses a fundamental issues of constitutionality
made more poignant by the burdens which the Administrative
Procedure Act (G.L.c.30A) places on both the agencies that are
governed by it and their clients. It is true that many if not
most of the controversies that concern administrative agencies
appear to be matters well within the agency's area of expertise.

At his juncture, my brain went on strike an said to me: stop, stop.
So I'll give it a rest, take a shower, then drive to the grocery store
to pick up the items that were misplaced at the checkout counter yesterday,
and afterwards come back to the computer to retrieve the Nantucket
and Konnarock images for the day. Perhaps by then my brain will
be more cooperative, but I won't importune you with its output.

Meanwhile the usual admonitions: stay well, don't fall, and give
my best to Ned.

Jochen