Lieber Helmut, Um Dich, wie Du batest, auf dem Laufenden zu halten, fuege ich folgenden Auszug aus Korrespondenz mit meiner Kusine Marion Namenwirth bei. Es ist aber wirklich nicht noetig dass Du mich ernst nimmst oder meine umfangreiche Schreiberei liest. Am wenigsten, meinen Versuch der Uebersetzung des Unfugs ins Dichterische. http://home.earthlink.net/~jochenmeyer/freunde/f044.html Ich erwaehne ihn lediglich der Vollstaendigkeit halber. Du hast beruflich so uebermaessig viel zu lesen, dass Du Dich mit meinem Kram nicht belasten und belaestigen lassen solltest. Bleib gesund und freu Dich auf den Fruehling. Dein Jochen ============================================================== You asked about the names of various participants in my play. The dramatis personae of the comedy are Mr. William Ciarmataro, plumbing inspector, Mr. Bernie Bartlett, building inspector, Mr. George X. Pucci, attorney for the Town of Nantucket, Mr. Christopher Michael Gordon, childhood cancer survivor, and plumber to the appellant, and the appellant himself, childhood Nazi survivor, professional persona non grata and lifelong troublemaker for the authorities. No, I haven't heard from Mr. Gordon. He is, understandably, a most reluctant plumber in this performance, in the first place, because there's no plumbing that by honest standards requires to be done, and most importantly because Mr. Gordon has wagered his plumbing business for a measely thousand dollars, and may already have lost it. Consider that the determined Mr. Ciarmataro is demonstrating his power, defying the Massachusetts Court of Appeals by withholding from Mr. Gordon the plumbing permit for 3 Red Barn Road because the property owner is persona non grata. Mr. Ciamartaro has emphatically and angrily voiced his displeasure with Mr. Gordon for his association with the persona non grata and especially for Gordon's impudence in applying for a permit as a prelude to an inspection that would demonstrate the adequacy of the plumbing which Mr. Ciarmataro deems inferior and believes should be condemned uninspected. Consider how Mr. Ciarmataro is likely to deal with Mr. Gordon's next application for a plumbing permit for even the most innocuous customer's installation, - when there's no Massachusetts Appeals Court to reverse the verdicts of the Suffolk Superior Court and of the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters. And no good lawyer available to file the appeal, and no money for the appeal even if a good lawyer could be found. Why did Mr. Gordon break ranks with his 26 fellow Nantucket plumbers and fail to participate in the boycott of the persona non grata, thereby quite possibly forfeiting his business? In each of my three conversations with Mr. Gordon he has emphasized that he is a childhood cancer survivor who having spent his life in fear of recurrence has learned to be not afraid. That's the secret: as Mr. Gordon has been afraid all these years of the recurrence of cancer so he is now afraid of Mr. Ciarmataro's power to destroy C. M. Gordon Plumbing and Heating. His reaction to fear is a denial that has resulted not only in a show of courage as the essential emblem of survival, but also in a realistic and healthy lack of perseverance in pursuing Mr. Ciarmataro for a plumbing permit. It seems unlikely but not impossible that there will be new developments prior to the March 3, hearing. Meanwhile, I've collected my correspondence with Mr. Pucci in an Internet file. The attached "Appellant's Notice of Internet Exhibits" should speak for itself. I haven't filed it yet, - plan to do so on February 18. _ _ Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court _ Suffolk, ss. C.A. No. SUCV2008--5664-E _ _ _____________________________________ _ | _ | _ Ernst J. Meyer, | _ appellant | _ v. | _ Nantucket Building Department | _ and | _ Board of State Examiners of Plumbers | _ and Gas Fitters, | _ respondents | _ _____________________________________| _ _ _ _ Appellant's Notice of Internet Exhibits _ ======================================= _ _ _ The appellant respectfully gives notice that for _ the convenience of the Court, he is placing into a pass- _ word protected Internet computer file, documentation of _ negotiations between the defendant the Nantucket _ Building Department and himself. Unless otherwise ordered _ by the Court, the appellant will update these exhibits _ as negotiations proceed. _ _ To access these exhibits, one types the password: _ _ http://home.earthlink.net/~ernstmeyer/SUCV2008-05664/201102xx_ejm-gp _ _ into the browser's address bar. Alternatively, if obtained _ by e-mail from ernstmeyer@earthlink.net, the password may _ be pasted into the address bar electronically. _ _ If the Court exercises its discretion to seal this _ Notice, these Internet Exhibits, being password protected, _ will be concealed from public view. _ _ _ _ February 18, 2011 Ernst J. Meyer _ pro se _ 174 School Street _ Belmont, Massachusetts 02478 _ 617-484-8109 _ ernstmeyer@earthlink.net _ _ ==================== Dear Marion, Thank you 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 National Rifle Association. 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 to compel Mr. Gordon to make additional efforts to secure the permit on the grounds of having paid him a thousand dollars. 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.