XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX On 12-24-2010 Chris Gordon left name in my voice mailbox as being interested in helping me. On 12-27-2010 Chris Gordon 508-367-0947 telephoned me about noon. He agreed to meet me at 3 Red Barn Road on Wednesday Jan 5 at 12 noon. =========================== On December 15, visit with Margaret and Helmut, Mr. Liffey (Maurice Daniels?) of Liffey Plumbing came at 12:30, and inspected my plumbing. I asked for and he said he would e-mail me an estimate, but I have received nothing from him. On December 23, 2010, trip with Margaret. At 12:30, Mr Dennis Parks, who said he was on good terms with the Inspector; I wrote down for Mr. Parks my name, address and telephone number. But as of Jan 2, 2011, I have received no response from him. Mr. Dave Kinney, who had made an appointment for 2:30 p.m. that day did not appear. Mr. Bruce Hermansdorfer (508-228-3677) categorically refused consider the job. Mr. Chris Gordon (508-228-9812) telephoned and made an appointment to come to 3 Red Barn Road on Jan. 5, 2011 at noon. Mr. Dave Kinney returned my telephone call of Dec. 23, 2:30 p.m. and made an appointment to come to 3 Red Barn Road on Jan. 5, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Jan 5, 2011 in SSA Waiting Room Dave Kinney didn't come. Just as I began to consider how to proceed in the absence of a Nantucket Plumber willing to help me, at about 2:45 p.m. Chris Gordon drove up in an unmarked white van. Mr. Gordon didn't introduce himself. All the while I was under the impression that I was dealing with Mr. Kinney who had agreed to come at 1:30. Only at the end, when I asked how I should make out the check, and he replied C.M. Gordon Plumbing and Heating, did I know with whim I was dealing. Mr. Gordon is a tall heavy set man, closer to 60 than to 50 years of age. Soft spoken and taciturn. I found myself asking him to repeat virtually everything that he said. Mr. Gordon spent perhaps half an hour or more inspecting the plumbing, saying very little. He asked whether the plumbing had been pressure tested, then went to his truck and retrieved an electrically driven compressor and injected air into the supply plumbing. He was satisfied that this part of the installation was adequate. He mentioned that my plumbing had significant political consequences on the Island; although he was not explicit, I understood from him that the Inspector might approve my installation without requiring any changes at all, and he offered to obtain a plumbing permit. `I gave him the key to the house and a check for $1000, suggesting that he return any amount he considered inappropriate. Perhaps I will hear from him in a few days. =========================== Then, unexpectedly, at 2:30, the turning point, the peripateia, a white unmarked van pulled up to the house and from it there emerged a tall, broad-shouldered man perhaps in his late fifties. He wore knee protectors as if he'd just come from a job at which he needed to kneel. He did not introduce himself, - I assumed him to be David Kinney. He started carefully and methodically to inspect the plumbing, taciturn, without comment or explanation, on the first floor, on the second floor, in the basement. He opened the bulkhead, went to his truck to retrieve an air compressor, with which he injected air into to the supply pipes, the pressure and the hot water tanks. "It seems to be tight he said." "The code is a vague thing, but I think this should pass. I'd like to help you. I'll get the inspector out here to have a look and hear what he says." "Let me give you a key," I said. "To whom shall I make out the check." "G.M. Gordon Plumbing and Heating," was his reply. At last I knew with whom I was dealing. I didn't ask "how much?" I gave him a substantial check which he pocketed without acknowledgement or thank you. "If it turns out to have been too much, you can give me back the difference; if it's not enough, tell me how much more you need." He didn't commit himself, but seemed satisfied. Apparently comfortable with my style, Chris Gordon started to talk. I also like to do everything myself also, he said; and the professionals are sometimes not as good as the amateurs. We have horses, he said, they chew on grass and their teeth become rough and need to be ground down. To do that you got to put your arm in their mouth, - and then suddenly the mouth seems very large and the teeth awfully sharp. So the veterinarians do a lot of maneuvering to get the horse to calm down. They give 'em tranquilizers. But the fellow that does mine, he's no veterinarian, but he's done it for 25 years, he takes a leather strap, ties it in a loop, slips it into the horses' mouth and holds the other end of the loop to the ground with his foot. Has the teeth ground in no time; never gets into trouble; and the vets hearing about this have fits. I told Mr Gordon that I know all about putting my arm in the horse's mouth. I do it all the time. I haven't been bitten, at least not yet. What Mr. Gordon will do besides cashing my check, remains to be seen. One of his most telling comments was that the litigation with me had caused political problems on the Island. What these problems are, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the building department has come under pressure for the legal fees they incurred in the unsuccessful attempt to have my plumbing destroyed, and it is possible that the plumbing inspector is almost as eager to get the plumbing inspected as am I. We'll find out what happens. =========================== The future work on Nantucket is, at this juncture, uncertain. I'm waiting for Mr. Gordon's response, and especially for the result of the inspection which he agreed to arrange. There's no alternative for me but "to proceed as way opens." .ce 20110111.00 .PP In this afternnon's mail, a notice from the Clerk of Suffolk Superior Court, requiring my presence at a Status Review Hearings for C.A. SUCV2008-05664-E at 2:00 p.m. on February 3, 2011, in Court Room 916, 3 Pemberton Square, Boston. .PP Upon receiving this notice, inasmuch as I had heard nothing from my plumber Mr. C.M. Gordon, I telephoned the Nantucket Building Department to inquire whether a plumbing permit had in fact been issued. I was told it had not. .PP I then telephoned Mr. Gordon at his cellphone number. He answered immediately. He told me that he had gone to the Building Department to apply for a plumbing permit "the next day", (January 6, 2011). Mr. Gordon recited over the telephone that he had told the Inspector (Mr. Ciamataro) the he, Mr. Gordon had inspected the plumbing, that he had found it in compliance with the Plumbing Code to a degree that was greater than customary on Nantucket, that he had pressure tested to supply plumbing to 100 lbs./sq in. and found it to be tight, and that he, Mr. Gordon believed that the rough plumbing of the installation at 3 Red Barn Road should be approved. In response Mr. Ciarmatoro upraided Mr. Gordon, apparently to a degree that Mr. Gordon considered his plumbing licence to be in jeopardy, in as much as Mr. Gordon confided to me: "I'm 67 years old. What difference if they take my license." Mr. Ciarmataro refused to issue a plumbing permit, refused to inspect the plumbing, and stated that he would leave the inspection of the plumbing to the State. Mr. Ciarmataro told Mr. Gordon that "he would get back to him", but as of 3:30 p.m. on January 11, had not done so. Mr. Gordon asked for my e-mail address, so that he could communicate with me by e-mail. =====================xxxxxxxxxxxxx Your Honor, I am profoundly appreciative of the efforts of the Appeals Court which spent 9 1/2 months in the preparation of a 15 page opinion. The Appeals Court found the prohibition of Do-It-Yourself plumbing of the Massachusetts Plumbing Code to pass the test of constitutionality, but it determined that the Massachusetts Plumbing Code did not permit the destruction of plumbing which, aside from having been installed by an unlicensed person without a permit, was otherwise code compliant. As the appellant in this case I immediately set out to comply with the Appeals Court order by attempting to hire a licensed plumber to obtain a plumbing permit, to correct any code violations that he might find, and to obtain from the Nantucket inspector, the required inspection required by law. I made more than 55 telephone calls to 27 different plumbing establishments until finally I found only one plumber willing to carry out the mandate of the Appeals Court. Telephone calls to 22 telephone numbers were not returned. One plumber, Mr. Dave Kinney, twice promised to come and failed twice to appear. One plumber, Mr. Bruce Hermansdorfer without having inspected the installation categorically refused the work. Two plumbers, Mr. Maurice Daniels and Mr. Dennis Parks who had each inspected the installation and had promised to furnish estimates, subsequently refused the work. On January 5, 2011, one plumber, Mr. Chris M. Gordon, made a careful inspection of the installation, including pressure testing. Mr. Gordon offered to obtain a plumbing permit and to arrange with the plumbing inspector for the inspection required by law. I accepted his offer, gave him a key to the premises, and a check for $1000 to defray the cost of the plumbing permit either $520 or $650 and to reimburse him for his work. There was between us an explicit understanding that he would reimburse me if my check proved excessive and that I would pay additional sums as warranted by the necessary work. On January 11, I telephoned the Nantucket Building Department and was told that no plumbing permit had been issued. I then telephoned Mr. Gordon who told me that he had gone to the Building Department on January 6, had applied for a plumbing permit, that his application had been denied, that he, Mr. Gordon had informed the Inspector that he, Mr. Gordon had inspected the installation and that in his judgment it was in compliance with the Massachusetts Plumbing Code. The Inspector told Gordon that he, the Inspector would not inspect the installation. The inspector also scolded and upbraided Gordon for his involvement with my project. Mr. Gordon expressed to me his concern that his plumbing license might be in jeopardy because of his proposing to assist me in carrying out the directives of the Appeals Court. ================ The Appeals Court's set aside Chapter 30A of the General Laws and decided this case in Equity rather than in Law. It identified and pronounced an equitable rather than a legal solution. It abandoned law in favor of equity. ================ The remedy in the instant situation should likewise be a remedy in equity rather than in law, if only because a legal remedy is impractical. A legal remedy is impractical because, while an individual is susceptible to legal sanctions, a governmental entity such as the Town of Nantucket, is not. It would be unjust to focus on Mr. Ciarmataro. He is carrying out the intentions and purposes of the building department, and perhaps the specific directives of his superiors. He is not a loose cannon on his own. The government of Nantucket cannot be changed by court order. ================ Any plumber working on Nantucket is responsible to Mr. Ciarmataro and is subject to censure by him, and is potentially the object of a complaint which might indeed lead to censure or to the loss of his license. ================ Nantucket is an island of anarchy. On March 27, 2006, Justice Connon in the Barnstable status hearing said, obiter dictu, some people on Nantucket ought to be spanked. 75 percent of cases are illegal or the result of rudeness. ================ The present issue should also be adjudicated in equity rather than law. A legal remedy won't work for lack of a reliable legal framework. There's no relying on the Board of State Examiners, no relying on the AG. The Plumbing Code is in its application on Nantucket, a Potemkin village. =====================xxxxxxxxxxxxx It was time to go to the courthouse. No wait for the subway or the green line. I arrived two hours early and sat down on a very hard and uncomfortable bench. I read only one page in the Odyssey. Then I dozed intermittently. The courtroom was kept locked until precisely 2 p.m. As I walked in, a smallish slender, very well dressed youthful middle aged man addressed me and introduced himself as George Puzzi, Nantucket's new lawyer. I suppose out of spite, Kimberly hadn't given him my motion or memorandum. He had only a hazy notion of what the case was about. To help him get started, I gave him copies of the documents I had recently filed. There was no time for conversation. A court officer intoned "All rise", as the judge walked in. I'm not much of a ladies' man, but I found her to be a very attractive woman. Too polite, too intelligent and with too much good sense and good taste, to find it necessary to assert her liberation status. There was not much business. Ours was the third and last case. She excused herself for asking, contrary to protocol, since I was the appellant, first to hear from Mr. Pucci, The fact that she did not want to hear from me at all, far from offending, pleased me. I surmised, perhaps incorrectly, that my motion had made its point; she recognized its validity, but wanted to avoid the hard decision by pressing for compromise. With Mr. Pucci she was very stern when he explained that the Nantucket authorities did not want my case to become a precendent. "Precedents have no significance in my court. Tell that to the Nantucket authorities." The judge - I don't yet know her name - wanted a compromise by next week. Mr. Pucci asked for 30 days, and she agreed. Another hearing is scheduled for March 3, at 2 p.m. After I came home I telephoned Mr Gordon to apprise him of the latest turn of events. He was obviously pleased to hear from me. He was less taciturn than before. The purpose of my call, I explained, was to put him on notice that Mr. Puzzi thought he could teach manners to his client, Mr. Ciarmataro, and force him to issue the plumbing permit and to inspect the plumbing. I told him of my concern that Mr. Ciarmataro might punish him if he continued supported my plumbing and did not concur with Mr. Ciarmataro's criticism. I urged Mr. Gordon to look out for his own interests and to abandon me, if he deemed it best for himself. It turned out, luckily for me, that he considered my interests his interests. He was not afraid of Mr. Ciarmataro, he said, considered himself a much better plumber than the inspector. He confided to me that he had visited the house before we arrived, looked through the windows and seen that the studs were bare. He also said that he had spoken twice with Mr. Ciarmataro, once before the inspection and then the following day when he had asked for the plumbing permit and been denied. Mr. Ciamartaro was chagrined that contrary to his expectations, my plumbing was substantial and code compliant and did not need to be razed. Mr. Gordon stated even more forcefully than in our earlier conversation, that he believed the plumbing to be more code compliant than customary on Nantucket and should be approved. He most emphatically said that any attempt to pressure him to find fault with the plumbing would only make him more insistent on its quality. I had the impression that my rebellion against the bureaucracy is a template according to which he is prepared to express his own frustrations, and that he is finally finding release for years if not decades of harrassment by officialdom. I was much heartened, he's the plumber I need. ====================================== The Nantucket comedy is evolving in dizzying directions. Mr. George Pucci, their new lawyer, was eager to get to business right away. On Friday he e-mailed me to the effect that he had "a good conversation" with the Building Inspector Bernie Bartlett, yielding ideas that he wished to discuss with me in a telephone conference we scheduled for Monday morning. I've been there before. Forty years ago, when I was suing the Mass Eye and Ear Infirmary, their lawyers wanted to bamboozle me with exchanges "off the record." I wouldn't. Nothing is off the record was the mantra with which I avoided all manner of traps. With the same purpose, I sent to Mr. Pucci a letter to which I've had no reply, but it was a terse, tense and somewhat annoyed Mr. Pucci who telephoned at 10:30 a.m. this morning. No bamboozling, nothing but a very brief message: Tell Mr. Gordon to pick up the plumbing permit and to schedule an inspection. It's o.k. for you to be there. I telephoned Mr. Gordon immediately. At first he thought it would be better if I didn't come. He's out to get me, I said, and if I'm there you won't be in the middle. Maybe, Mr. Gordon said, you should have the Nantucket lawyer there. The Inspector is a wild Italian. Liable to fly off in all directions. At this point the courageous Mr. Gordon seemed a bit fearful. How soon can you come? As soon as tomorrow, I said, anytime. Telephone me when you have the appointment. That was in late morning. I haven't heard from Mr. Gordon again. Probably he'll call in a day or two. But it's also possible that the Inspector will continue procrastinating. Time will tell. =====================xxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear Mr. Pucci, I haven't heard anything from Mr. Gordon about the inspection to be scheduled, but this morning I awoke with some anxiety about a potential tragedy in the making. Mr. Gordon told me that Mr. Ciarmataro has an irascible, unpredictable and potentially violent temperament. I had the impression that Mr. Gordon who characterizes himself as "a childhood cancer survivor" not afraid of death was indeed somewhat afraid of Mr. Ciarmataro. Mr. Gordon said to me "maybe you should have the Nantucket lawyer present at the inspection." I interpret him as asking for your protection from your client. In addition Mr. Ciarmataro is under personal pressure because the Town proposes to reduce his employment to half-time. He is undoubtedly under some criticism for the legal expenses that his condemnation of my plumbing sight unseen has caused the Town. I have reason to believe that Mr. Ciarmataro has a history of consistently approving plumbing which is in violation of the State Plumbing Code. I have reason to believe that Mr. Ciarmataro has attempted to persuade plumber(s) who consulted him about my plumbing of its essential deficiency. Mr. Ciarmataro refused the request of Justice Kafker at the Appeals Court hearing to inspect the plumbing. He has refused, for 60 days, to comply with the Appeals Court Order. If he is forced now to inspect the plumbing, especially in my presence, it is unavoidable that he will do so under great emotional pressure. Perhaps Mr. Gordon has reason to be afraid. Mr. Gordon has unequivocally committed himself to the Code compliance of the plumbing. Mr. Ciarmataro has provided incontrovertible evidence of his prejudice to the contrary. Mr. Gordon's future business requires continuing approval from the Town of Nantucket. It is disingenuous to suggest that under these pressure cooker circumstances, Mr. Ciarmataro is in a position to make the inspection of integrity and fairness which the Court required. Whatever its outcome, this contemplated coerced inspection is an empty legal formality. Neither you nor I want to feel responsible for human tragedy. I would like to spare Mr. Ciarmataro the anguish and the humiliation of being coerced to act against his will. Let us remand this very difficult and perhaps fateful action to the Court. That being said, the immediate decision is yours. I, for my part, have instructed Mr. Gordon to purchase the plumbing permit and to schedule the inspection, and if an inspection takes place, I will be there. Sincerely, Ernst J. Meyer =====================xxxxxxxxxxxxx The weather-vane behavior of Nantucket's lawyers, although emblematic of their weakness, takes its toll on me, requiring almost non-stop retooling of my intellectual arsenal. No sooner have I elaborated a given legal strategy, that the wind changes direction and a new set of paradigms is in order. All well and good, if I can pull it off, but it's energy consuming and makes me tired. Yesterday morning, up at 3:45 for a 4:30 breakfast with Klemens preliminary to taking him to the airport. Back in bed by 6 a.m. to sleep until 8:30. Then final mental preparations for the 10:30 telephone conference with Mr. Pucci, unexpectedly pressing for prompt inspections as if a bubble of Nantucket's legal strategy had burst. Next the necessary telephone call to Mr. Gordon, who becomes more confiding each time we speak. He has on several occasions referred to the fact of his being a "childhood cancer survivor", unafraid of death, for years having had to accept the fact that each month might be the last. I've come to the interpretation that perhaps he intuitively recognizes my struggles with the Nantucket authorities as the antics of a "childhood Nazi survivor", although I've never apprised him of that fact. (You may remember that my friend Helmut Frielinghaus has given me permission to stigmatize them as "Mini-Nazis.") ================================ Dear Mr. Pucci, If I understood correctly, at the hearing of February 3, 2011 in SUCV-2008-05664 E, the Court requested the parties to try to agree and to present at the hearing on March 3, 2011 a draft consent decree for the Court's approval. This memorandum is my contribution to the groundwork for such an agreement. I acknowledge that the Town of Nantucket defends itself with the assertion that it has sought in good faith to implement the statutes and regulations of the Commonwealth. The appellant, on the other hand, asserts that in violation of 42 USC 1983, the Town of Nantucket has for 6 1/2 years by unlawful threats of destroying his property and by other unlawful actions including forgery and fabrication of evidence and the maintenance of a frivolous lawsuit, injured the appellant by depriving him of his civil rights. My primary interest is the well-being of all individuals involved, primarily Mr. Ciarmataro the Plumbing Inspector whose legal, professional and personal position I consider precarious. For reasons outlined in my e-mail to you of February 8, I ask that Mr. Ciarmataro NOT be coerced to issue a plumbing permit against his will and that he NOT be coerced to perform a plumbing inspection against his will. Secondly, I am concerned for the future of the plumbing business on Nantucket of Mr. Gordon. In distinction to 26 colleagues who refused, Mr. Gordon was sufficently courageous, rash or imprudent to offer to obtain a plumbing permit and to contradict the Inspector's prejudiced assertion that my plumbing was non-compliant with the Plumbing Code and required to be replaced. Each of Mr. Gordon's future plumbing installations on Nantucket will require to be submitted to Mr. Ciarmataro of whose vindictiveness and bias this record is the most dramatic illustration imaginable, whose lack of objectivity and detachment precludes inspections of fairness and integrity, not only of my plumbing installations but of Mr. Gordon's as well. I ask that I NOT be put in the position where I have no alternative but to exploit Mr. Gordon's unique emotional disposition to persuade him to a course of action which I as well as all 26 of his colleagues consider imprudent and which must reasonably be expected gravely to prejudice Mr. Gordon's plumbing business on Nantucket, if not indeed to make that business impossible. My own interest is the swift and economical completion of my construction. When I began this project, I was 74 years old. Six and a half years have since elapsed, at least three and a half of them awaiting judicial decisions. Meanwhile I have experienced that decline in physical and mental strength which is inevitable between ages 74 and 80 1/2 and which will certainly continue unpredictably gradual or precipitous in the forseeable future. At my age, the only rational course is to make all financially affordable compromises to complete the construction as quickly as possible. I suggest the following Consent Decree: 1. The plumbing inspector rescinds the Order to Cease Desist and Abate illegal plumbing. 2. The Town of Nantucket certifies compliance of rough plumbing, rough wiring, and framing with the applicable Codes. 3. The Town of Nantucket certifies compliance with the requirements of the Historic District Commission with respect: a) to the structure as built, and, but not appearing on the plans, b) a front entrance platform and c) rain-roofs over the three doorways. 4. The Town of Nantucket issues a temporary certificate of occupancy of indefinite duration, which temporary certificate shall remain in full force and effect until, if ever, it is replaced with a permanent certificate of occupancy. 5. Subsequent to the date of the consent decree, the Town of Nantucket agrees to accept, in lieu of inspections, Certificates of Compliance issued by the appellant with respect to all Massachusetts Regulations for which otherwise inspection would be required, including, but not to the exclusion of others, insulation, final plumbing, final wiring, and final building inspection. 6. The appellant waives all damage claims under State and Federal law. 7. The appellant pays to the Town of Nantucket the sum of ??? thousand dollars to be distributed as bonuses to the Plumbing Inspector and to other employees of the Building Department. If all this is not a non-starter, please let me hear from you. Sincerely, Ernst Meyer =====================xxxxxxxxxxxxx .ce 20110210.00 .PP Before the judge whose name I don't know, I have an unopposed motion in effect to set aside the appeals court judgment. Nominally the Court rules only on the evidence in front of it. The court that fails to allow an unopposed motion, is, by definition, biased. .PP Consider Mr. Gordon's predicament. The Inspector has been telling him as forcefully as possible, that he, the Inspector will withhold plumbing permits at his discretion. If he can deny Mr. Gordon the plumbing permit for 3 Red Barn Road with impunity and without reason and contrary to the decree of the Appeals Court, he can deny Mr. Gordon any and all other plumbing permits for which Mr. Gordon applies in the future; and the malice and unlawfulness of the Inspectors prior behavior shows that he will. =====================xxxxxxxxxxxxx On the Nantucket front, there's another exchange with Mr. Pucci http://home.earthlink.net/~jochenmeyer/litigation/20110209_ejm-gp I was toying with the idea of filing and docketing a notice of the URL, thinking that details of my negotiations with Mr. Pucci would be helpful to the Court; however, I decided the judge might find me too pushy, and both Mr. Ciarmataro and Mr. Gordon might consider themselves defamed by my candor. Therefore, I've decided, at least for the time being, to leave this exchange inccessible with it's URL unindexed. Mr. Pucci says that the issues are simple, - that's what the Court wants to hear. From my perspective they're so tangled and complex that the Court won't take the time to unravel them. I've heard nothing more from Mr. Gordon. So far as I know, the plumbing permit hasn't been issued and no inspection has been performed. Three weeks from today there will be another hearing. My motion and memorandum http://home.earthlink.net/~jochenmeyer/litigation/motion110112.txt http://home.earthlink.net/~jochenmeyer/litigation/memorandum110112.txt have been filed and are unopposed. If the Court were truly impartial and unprejudiced, the motion would be allowed as a matter of course, since in theory the duty of the Court is to weigh the motion and the opposition without taking sides. But that idealization is, of course, a pipe dream. ===================================== Thank you for your letter. 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 trouble maker 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 contested plumbing. 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. =============================