Your Honor:

The plumbing inspection to which the Appeals Court order
refers has in fact two parts. There is a rough inspection
and there is a final inspection. What is presently in issue 
is only the rough inspection. The final inspection cannot
take place until months after the rough plumbing inspection.
I therefore ask that what ever the outcome of the litigation
over the rough inspection, this case not be closed until not
only the rough but the final plumbing inspection also has
been absolved.

The record requires correction. The court has been mistakenly
advised that the plumbing permit applied for by Mr Gordon on 2/10/2011
was denied on 3/1/2011 because of an incomplete listing of fixtures,
but was finally issued on 3/2/2011 after the insufficiency was corrected
and an additional fee was paid. That is not the case:
The true story is as follows: The application made and paid for
by Mr. Gordon on 2/10/2011 was accepted, was sequestered, and was
not acted upon. Mr. Gordon was not informed. When he inquired
on 3/1/2011, Mr. Gordon was told that the application had been 
denied for incompleteness, that an additional fee was required.
Mr. Gordon then wrote a check to defray the claimed additional fee,
but that check was not accepted, and the permit was finally issued
on March 2, 2011 on the same terms and with the same fee with which 
it had been denied on March 1, 2011.

The 3 Red Barn Road plumbing was inspected by Mr. Ciarmataro and two
other gentlemen on March 14, 2011, in the presence of Mr. Gordon and myself.
During the inspection, Mr. Ciarmataro peristently vilified me as an 
ignorant, incompetent and dishonest person who had misled the Court
concerning his familiarity with the plumbing code. Mr. Ciarmataro 
failed to specify the defects, if any, on the basis of which he declined
to approve the installation for which Mr. Gordon was now responsible.
He prohibited Mr. Gordon from working on the installation, pending a
report to the Court. I have not been served with a copy of any such
report and no such report has been docketed. I infer that Mr. Ciarmataro
had no factual basis for denying approval of my installation, and that
he and I are in fact in agreement that the installation is in substantial
compliance with the plumbing code.