Mr. Ciarmataro vilified and mocked me,
and continued to challenge me with questions,
even when it should have been obvious to him
that I was not prepared to submit to an examination.
On being asked a plumbing question by Mr. Ciarmataro,
I referred Mr. Ciarmataro to Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Ciarmataro never addressed Mr. Gordon in my hearing.
Other importunate challenges I deflected by sayingI don't know.
This ostensible ignorance seemed to satisfy
Mr. Ciarmataro's need for dominance.
Mr. Ciamataro's vilification of me is prima facie evidence of his prejudice.
What went on is related to an inspection
as a lynching is related to a trial.
Mr. Ciarmataro impugned my integrity, by saying I had wrongfully
represented to the Court that I "knew the Code",
he impugned my intelligence and my competence.
The inspection is a quasi-judicial function.
Mr. Ciarmataro's expression of contempt for me during the inspection
taints the inspection in the same way in which a judge's expression
of contempt for the accused during the trial would taint the trial.
The inspector is a judge of the adequacy of the plumbing.
There is to an inspection a presumption of compliance as there is
a presumption of innocence to a trial.
The inspector was in error when he challenged me.
He should have challenged Mr. Gordon.
He should have engaged Mr. Gordon in dialogue and discussion.
Mr. Gordon was like a lawyer and had an obligation
to defend the installation as if it were his own.
Mr. Gordon did not defend my installation at the inspection.
Mr. Gordon had an opportunity to make any correction
prior to calling for an inspection.
Mr. Gordon did not defend my installation,
because he had been (implicitly) threatened,
because he had reason to anticipate that he would be punished
for any support of me.
Mr Gordon was my plumber, - in name only -, nominally.
He was not actually "my plumber" who had adopted my work as his own.
=========================
the sanitary tee has the effect of improving drainage,
but then was proscribed for drainage,
so that the sanitary tee is like a vestigial organ,
a vestigial structure.
Sanitary Tee: (according to wikipedia)
A sanitary tee is a tee with a curved center section
designed to minimize the possibility of siphon action
that could draw water out of a trap.
The center connection is generally connected
to the pipe which leads to a trap (the trap arm).
an anomaly.
Consider a 1.5" P-trap with a straight 0 degree discharge
connected at 10 feet to an ell. This is not an S-trap
Consider a 1.5" P-trap with a straight 0 degree discharge
connected at .01 feet to an ell. This is S-trap
Now move the ell out in a straight line. At what distance
does the ell no longer create an S-trap.
Consider a 1.5" P-trap connected to a discharge
at distance d with angle alpha. What is the relation between
d and alpha that will assure the assembly not to be an S-trap.

========================
The defendant's outright refusal on Jan 6, 2011
to grant a permit to Christopher M. Gordon,
the plumber hired by the plaintiff was the badge of fraud.
That fraud was committed on April 24, 2009,
at the time of the filing of the opposition to the
plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings,
on September 28, 2009 with the filing of the defendant's
oppositions before the Appeals Court to the plaintiff's brief.
when Nantucket asked the Court to sustain laws and regulations
with which it had no intention of complying
and with which it has not complied to this day
The fraudulence of these filings is not purged
by the issuance of a permit on March 1, 2011
and is confirmed by the defendant's failure to make an
inspection of fairness and integrity.
========================