Dear Marion,

Thank you very, very much for your letter, for the seriousness
with which you consider the issues with which I am presently engaged.
Let me try to address your comments in detail.

_     "Regarding the advisability of filing your communications
_      with Atty. Pucci with the Court, I think it's risky. 
_      In legal proceedings, as in other professional settings,
_      there tend to be rigid expectations about conformity to
_      "the way things are done", even though these customary
_      practices may be empty or counterproductive. 
_      If you contravene them, you risk being viewed as having
_      just tumbled off the turnip truck."

I very much agree. But tumbling off the turnip truck is a neat stunt
and may be very effective, if I'm trying to draw the Court's attention
to the circumstance that the truck is filled with turnips and that
Mr. Ciarmataro tumbled off long before it came to be my turn.
 
_      As the attorney for EJM, I presume your interest for legal
_      purposes (your human and personal relationships and actions
_      may be much more complex) is expected to focus solely on
_      Meyer's well-being and advantage.  In your discussion preceding
_      your proposal for a consent decree, you wander all over the map,
_      explaining why you are concerned about Ciarmataro's mental health,
_      about Gordon's sense of safety, about the future financial
_      viability of Gordon's plumbing company, etc. This probably
_      sounds rather weird to a member of the legal establishment. 
_      So I fear that submitting this document to the judge might
_      make her wonder about you.
 
I'm prompting the Court, whose duty it is to take into account the
effect of her decisions on the society as a whole. As for myself, if
I knew that my efforts would lead to a shoot-out in the "Department
of Building Code Enforcement" as they like to hear themselves called,
or at the time of inspection, in the basement of 3 Red Barn Road,
I would abandon these efforts. Mr. Gordon was not ambiguous when he
told me about Mr. Ciarmataro's unpredictably violent temper. He called
him a "wild Italian", and his suggestion that Mr. Pucci be summoned to
the inspection to dampen his client's volatility, speaks for itself.
It seems obvious to me that the sort of legal-bureaucratic pressure
which the Appeals Court is inviting, is occasionally responsible for
tragic violence, for example, by postal employees, shootings which
make the headlines and give the editorialists occasion to rail against
the NRA.

I suspect (but don't know) that the immediate consequence of my letters
to Mr. Pucci has been to restrain him from trying to coerce the inspection.
He is Nantucket's newly appointed attorney, - the relationship is only
2 weeks old - and when he writes that the matter is simple, he means it's
so complicated that he doesn't know what to do. As of today it seems that
he will take my advice and let the Court take responsibility for any coercion.
The Court also doesn't know what to do. That's why the judge told the
parties to get together to work out a consent decree.

_      Is the situation now that Pucci believed that Ciarmataro
_      would go ahead with the inspection and, since he didn't
_      (apparently), Pucci expects the Court to order Ciarmataro
_      to grant the permit and do the inspection?  In that case,
_      what would be the "Consent Decree"?  Would it be Pucci who
_      "consents" on behalf of Ciarmataro?

The consent would be by Mr. Pucci on behalf of the Town of Nantucket.
Interesting to consider: the other defendant, the Board of State
Examiners of Plumbers and Gasfitters is playing possum, - or ostrich.
This Board has with the Town of Nantucket co-responsibility for Mr.
Ciarmataro's conduct. It is pretending, with the connivance of the
Appeals Court, to be a "nominal party" only; i.e. it's pretending
to be asleep.

Mr. Pucci came on the job with the premises: a) that he and his firm
would reduce the Town's exorbitant legal expenses (the highest in the
Commonwealth), and b) that these legal expenses were the fault of
Mr. DeRensis and Ms. Saillant, the previous lawyers. Confronted with
my motion
http://home.earthlink.net/~jochenmeyer/litigation/motion110112.txt
and memorandum of January 12, 2011
http://home.earthlink.net/~jochenmeyer/litigation/memorandum110112.txt
which motion and memorandum Ms. Saillant withheld from Mr. Pucci
(out of spite) and which I handed to him before the February 3, hearing,
Mr. Pucci concluded that the permit should be issued, and the inspection
performed. When an initial telephone call on Feb. 4, by Mr. Pucci to Mr.
Ciarmataro was unsatisfactory, Mr. Pucci telephoned Mr. Ciarmataro's
superior, Mr. Bernie Bartlett. That was the telephone conversation about
which Mr. Pucci wrote me 
_     I had a good and productive conversation with the Building
_     Inspector today. 
But Mr. Pucci didn't yet know his clients.  On Nantucket such assurances
as given by Mr. Bartlett that a permit would be issued, mean nothing. No
permit was in fact issued, and no inspection scheduled.

So what is the frustrated Mr. Pucci to do? My proposed consent decree
if adopted should benefit all participants: a "win-win" solution in
modern lingo. It would benefit the Town by removing the risk of my
claims for damages, and by eliminating the legal expenses entailed
with seven potential lawsuits about the seven remaining inspections;
it would benefit the Building Department employees by supplementing
their wages, it would benefit me by getting the Town off my back.

If the Town agreed, I doubt that the Court would object. In any event
possible modifications to meet the objections of the Court or of the
Town are easy enough to consider. I believe the titratability of dollar
payments to be especially useful. And, by the way, if it's approved by
the Town and by the Court, it can't be bribery.

_      I gather from your proposed Consent Decree that you need
_      a whole bunch of permits and certifications from the Nantucket
_      authorities that you anticipate will be withheld, beyond
_      those relating to plumbing. ( i.e. wiring, framing, Historic
_      District, etc.)  Is that true?

Yes.

_      I presume the Court would be reluctant to grant a whole
_      armload of exceptions, but you can try.

In a consent decree, the Court would not grant exceptions, it
would merely approve what the parties have agreed on. Certification
by responsible parties stating that they have complied with the law
is ubiquitous. For example, to have my medical license renewed,
I must certify such matters as that I have reported cases of
child abuse. When I file my income tax return, I must certify
"that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules
and statements", whenever I file a document in the Clerk's
office, I must include a "Certification of Service," etc.
It's not likely that the Court would order such certification
in consequence of a Motion, especially over the objections of the
other parties, - but not impossible.
 
_      What do you have in mind with item #7? 
_      It sounds as though you're offering a bribe. 
_      I'm sure you don't want it to sound that way,
_      regardless of your intent.  Is your idea that
_      the various officials should not feel deprived
_      of their licensing and inspection fees, should
_      the court order that inspections be circumvented? 
_      If that's the idea, you should specify it.

I am asking the Building Department officials to agree to forego
the exercise of power, which is their most valuable perquisite,
and which like any concession may properly be secured by financial
compensation. As I mentioned, the approval of the Town and of the
Court makes legal what might otherwise be prosecuted as bribery.
 
_      So here's how the situation looks to me.  Pucci wants to keep his
_      own task simple and just ask the court to order the granting of
_      the plumbing permit followed by the inspection.  You know that
_      Ciarmataro has refused over many weeks to do so, has demonstrated
_      animus, and you have been held up for years already with these
_      shenanigans, so you want the consent decree to circumvent the
_      involvement of Ciarmataro. 

Mr. Pucci is in a bind. He can't "ethically" ask the Court for an
order to compel his client to an act which the client refuses to
perform. Pucci, is, after all, not the appellant's lawyer. What Mr.
Pucci should try to do is to persuade the Court that the failure
of the Town to issue a permit was Mr. Gordon's fault, because he
failed to make a proper application, or, in a more sophisticated vein,
that it was the appellant's fault because the appellant was not 
acting in good faith when he failed, on the grounds of having paid
him a thousand dollars, to compel Mr. Gordon to make additional
efforts to secure the permit. What these efforts might have been
and how they would have affected the Inspector's future cooperation
with Mr. Gordon - I leave to your speculation.
 
_      Shouldn't you and Pucci be negotiating to bridge this gap
_      between your positions?  A possible bridge would be to set
_      a time limit for Ciarmataro to act.  If the inspection is
_      not completed within two weeks of the date of the consent
_      decree, say, then the Court would issue the certifications
_      you ask for.

Mr. Pucci hasn't yet faced the fact that he has a serious problem
with his client. He says it's a simple matter, which I make difficult.
Maybe he contemplates a strategy that you and I haven't thought of.
Maybe there's a surprise in store for me. For the time being I assume
that Mr. Pucci is being guided by the maxim, when you don't know
what to do, don't do anything.

Thanks again for your interest and your sympathy.

Jochen