Argument
========

1. I am Ernst Meyer appellant pro se.

2. I installed plumbing without a permit.

3. I was served with an order by William Ciarmataro, plumbing inspector
to cease desist and abate.

4. I was notified that Mr. Ciarmataro, who had not inspected
the plumbing, required it to be destroyed.

5. The fine for violation of the law 142 MGL 16 is $100.
The value of the property to be destroyed is  perhaps $20000.

6. I appealed to the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters
and lost.

7. I appealed to the Suffolk Superior Court and lost. Now I am here.

8. 30A MGL which governs the review of agency proceedings,
requires notice of hearing, notice of issues, testimony
under oath, opportunity to subpoena witnesses, stenographic
or electronic recording of evidence.
None of the requirements were met.

9. To try to conceal evidence of its failure to comply with 30A MGL,
the Board fabricated evidence, alleging testimony that was not given
in my presence and testimony that I did not give.

10. The attorney general, representing the Board conceded the case.
She conceded the case:
a) by failing to oppose my motion for judgment on the pleadings,
b) by failing to oppose my motion to strike the opposition of Nantucket.
c) by claiming the Board to be a nominal party only, thus
disclaiming the Board's interest in the issues.

11. The attorney general's concession was correct, because 
a) The Decision of Order of the Board is procedurally invalid.
It is irregular to a degree
that its affirmation would violate due process of law.
b) The Agency Decision is in error on the merits, in that
i) it ignores the conjunction work in plumbing and work
in gas fitting by which a journeyman plumber is defined,
ii) it ignores the meaning of "work" as referring to
remunerative employment.
iii) it ignores the presumption of legality of a widespread
practice that has been tolerated by the attorney general
for decades.

12. The Town of Nantucket failed to intervene and is not a party to 
this action. 30A MGL requires that on appeal from an agency ruling,
a) service of process be made on all parties before the agency
b) all parties before the agency have the right to intervene,
c) none of the parties before the agency are to be joined in
the action.
Nantucket was not joined in the action by 30A MGL, and did not
execise its right to intervene.  Therefore, Nantucket may not
be deemed a party to the proceedings for review.

13. The Court below failed to notice its own records when
a) it validated an agency order based on faulty proceedings,
b) it imputed to the Board an interest in the case
which it had conceded,
c) it acted upon a motion by the Town of Nantucket
whwn Nantucket was not a party to the action.

14.  In the past five years the Town of Nantucket has made repeated
malicious attempts to interfere with my construction. Its malice
is documented in the record of Civil Action 05-16. Before this
court there is a motion, as yet unadjudicated, that the records of
CA 05-16 be included with the record of this appeal.

15. That motion is not a motion for adjudication of 05-16, which
was dismissed without prejudice for mootness. The motion requests
the inclusion of 05-16, in order that the malice of the Town of
Nantucket become apparent from the pleadings, a purpose for which
adjudication is not required.

16. It is evident from the record of the 05-16 case that:
a) Nantucket and its attorneys maintained for almost a year
an action on the basis of evidence which they knew or could
easily have determined to have been fabricated.
b) Nantucket and its attorneys are concealing the evidence of
the malice with which it defamed and abused my wife and myself.
They refuse to provide me to the present day, with a true
copy of a DVD video recording of the Board of Selectemen's
meeting of April 27, 2005, which DVD recording was an official
record because:
i) it was incorporated by reference into their answer to 05-16,
ii) it was used by the Town to compile its official Minutes of
its Board of Selectmen's meeting. 
When attempting to purchase the DVD recording, I was sold a forgery
from which essential evidence of the malice had been deleted.

17. The attorneys for Nantucket should not be allowed to deny
before this tribunal that the Town's destruction of my plumbing
is an expression of malice, while continuing to conceal the most
dramatic and persuasive evidence of that malice.