I got in trouble building a house on Nantucket. I couldn't find a plumber who would work with me, so I installed the plumbing myself. When Mr. Ciarmataro found out, he issued a cease desist and abate order and instructed the plumbers whom I proposed to hire that he required them to destroy the plumbing I had installed before replacing it. Although I'd hoped to avoid legal confrontation that was too much and I appealed. I lost before the Board, I lost before the Superior Court. That's why I'm here. There are substantive issues and there are procedural issues to be discussed. The substantive issues derive from 142 MGL 1,3,13 and 16. These sections of G.L. 142 should either be found to permit do-it-yourself plumbing, or they should be found unconstitutional for vagueness, for failure to provide an ascertainable standard of conduct. Section 3 lists the classes of persons required to be licensed. Section 1 defines the classes listed in Section 3. The parties agree that persons properly designated as journeymen plumbers require licensure. The parties disagree on the definition of journeyman plumber in Section 1. Section 1 defines a journey man plumber as a person who himself does any work in plumbing and gas fitting. .PP The first point of disagreement is whether or not the words "and gas fitting" are essential to the definition of journeyman plumber. That the General Court deemed them essential is evidenced by the circumstance that the General Court in 1977 amended this definition to add these words and if the General Court saw fit to add these words in 1977 by what right does Nantucket purporting to rely on just this text subtract them in 2010. I am not a journeyman plumber because I don't do gas fitting. The second reason I'm not a journeyman plumber is because my plumbing is not work. I work as a licensed physician. The term work refers to professional activity offered to the public. .PP In interpreting the definition of journeyman plumber one must look at the context. .PP The term work in Section 1 derives meaning only from the context. That context is in the first place the Statute itself. Section 3 is a catalogue of persons of whom licensure is required; they are exclusively commercial, parties who offer their services to the public. .PP In the second place the Board has been placed in the category of an agency for consumer protection. Division of Professional Licensure Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation (OCABR) .PP In the third place there is the public interpretation explicit in the more than 300 commercial establishments .PP Finally, in the fourth place, there is the context of the conduct of the attorney general. who has never made any gesture to enforce the claims of the Board. The argument that the Board is authorized to protect the public health is disingenuous, it's a technical absurdity, no headache lethargy nausea, no symptom of illness has ever been attributed to a do-it-yourself plumbing project. .PP The AG's action or rather the AG's lack of action must speak for itself. It is what the AG has done and more specifically has failed to do not only in the course of this litigation but more specifically in the past 50 years that must be deemed to represent the position of the Commonwealth. The AG's last minute effort to equivocate and to claim that in not defending the Board she defended the Board should be recognized by this Court for what it is. .PP The second substantive issue concerns the penalty assessed by Nantucket for my do-it-yourself plumbing. The penalty prescribed by law in G.L. 142 Sec 16 is $100 There is no statutory basis for Nantucket's order that the plumbing be destroyed. That order sight unseen to destroy plumbing is a malicious abuse of administrative discretion. It was issued by the Town of Nantucket in furtherance of its systematic malicious persecution of me to hinder me in the construction of my house. .PP Because the malice of the Town of Nantucket is documented in the record of NACV 05-16, I have filed a motion that that record be included with the documentation of the present appeal. In the 2005 case, the Town of Nantucket and its attorneys maintained for almost a year a defence relied on fabricated evidence and have persisted in concealing from the appellant for almost 5 years to the present day a true copy of the video recording that shows the malice with which the appellant and his wife were abused at a Nantucket Board of Selectmens hearing on April 27, 2005, a video recording of which the appellant was sold nothing more than a forgery. .ce ====================== .PP The procedural issues concern the implementation of G.L. 30A which provides for a hearing before the administrative agency and subsequent review of the agency decision. .nf The procedural defects of the agency hearing -------------------------------------------- include failure to give adequate notice of the hearing, failure to give notice of the issues of the hearing failure to record testimony at the hearing, failure to examine witnesses under oath, failure to provide opportunity to call and to cross-examine witnesses, failure to issue or to offer to issue subpoenas fabrication of evidence on the part of the Board and the certification to the Superior Court of a false and fraudulent record of the hearing. The procedural defects of the Superior Court judicial review ------------------------------------------------------------ .PP The Superior Court erred when it received and adjudicated a motion from the Nantucket Building Department, because that Department was not a party to the action .PP G.L. c 30A, Section 14(2) states: All parties to the proceeding before the agency shall have the right to intervene in the proceeding for review. The court may in its discretion permit other interested parties to intervene. .PP The statute does not make provision for the joinder of other parties, certainly not for retroactive joinder. .nf ------------------------------------------------------------ .PP The Superior Court stated that the Board had concurred in the opposition of the motion for summary judgment. The Board's concurrence in the Opposition to the Motion had to be Documented in the record. If that concurrence had not been communicated to the court the Courts finding was incorrect. But if that concurrence had been communicated in any manner except in the record, it was also incorrect. Likewise the Boards opposition to the motion to strike. .PP The Superior Court erred when it imputed to the AG a motion which the AG had not made and in which the AG had not joined, particularly where the AG had conceded the case. If the AG was an active party, it conceded the case by filing no answer. If the AG's defended itself with the claim that it was a nominal party, it disclaimed all interest in the case and the defense of nominal party is tantamount to a concession. .nf ------------------------------------------------------------ .PP Where Nantucket has not intervened in the action and is not a party to the action, Nantucket's attorneys should not be permitted to make an argument denying malice on the part of Nantucket while at the same time continuing to conceal the documentary evidence of the Town's malice That evidence is a true copy of the April 27, 2005 video-recording of which the appellant has been sold only a forgery. .nf ------------------------------------------------------------ .PP If the Court finds that G.L. 142 should be interpreted to prohibit Do-It-Yourself plumbing, the appellant should nonetheless be permitted to finish his installation because he has been denied the due process of law to which he is entitled. Selective prosecution should not be permitted. .nf ============================================================ Rebuttal of Nantuckets Arguments: .sp 1. I don't claim a Constitutional right to do it yourself plumbing; I do claim a right to due process of law. .br 2. I make no claim for unregulated plumbing. The Board may at its discretion issue permits for such plumbing. It may not prohibit do-it-yourself plumbing and it must inspect such plumbing to the same standards. .br 3. I do not claim GL 142 is unconstitutional. I claim that the Board's interpretation of G.L. 142 is invalid. .br 4. The argument that do-it-yourself plumbing may be prohibited as a hazard to health is disingenuous. .br 5. The cases cited by Nantucket are inapposite where such cases assert the unconstitutionality of a statute. .br 6. The cases cited by Nantucket are inapposite where such cases confirm the prerogative of the court to defer to the agency on technical questions within the purview of the agency. The adjudication of legal issuess, e.g. whether the agency exceeded its authority remains within the purview of the Court. whether the agency's interpretation of the law is correct. =============================== I ask the Court to be specific about the scope of discovery that it permits. The Official Website of the Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation (OCABR) Division of Professional Licensure The Division of Professional Licensure is an agency within the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation with 31 boards of registration regulating nearly 50 trades and professions. We are responsible for licensing and regulating the activities of over 330,000 individuals, corporations and partnerships. To protect the public health, safety and welfare by licensing qualified individuals who provide services to consumers and by fair and consistent enforcement of the statutes and regulations of the boards of registration. ============= ultra vires