April 25, 2011

Dear Cyndy,

Thank you for your letter. Two days ago, Friday, Klemens, Laura and Leah returned from Albuquerque, where Klemens had paid a VIP visit to the local medical school and hospital which are closely affiliated with his Dialysis Clinics, Inc. After his professional obligations were discharged, the three of them went hiking at 8000 ft.  in the northern New Mexico mountains. They came home via St. Louis just before the tornado touched down at the airport. Yesterday they were off to New Haven where Nathaniel performed as first trumpet in Mahler's 5th symphony. Nathaniel's spirit is notably mercurial, oscillating from ecstasy to despair at minimal provocation. I wish I could disclaim to him some of the emotional ballast which I have inherited.

My own vacillations concern the prognosis for next Thursday's hearing. Last Wednesday, when Mr. Pucci's secretary telephoned about the postponement, I thought it was a lawyer's trick, and I intended to appear at the hearing notwithstanding the ostensible delay.  However, the new schedule's appearance on the Internet calendar for the case persuaded me that such an exhibition of distrust was unnecessary. Still I worried that Mr. Pucci might appear and explain to Judge Tompkins that Mr. Ciarmataro had found me ignorant and incompetent to such a degree that none of my plumbing work could be relied upon as being code compliant and that therefore for the sake of public safety, all of it had to be torn out. The plumbing code, in fact, implicitly gives just such discretion to the Inspector.  Moreover, the informality of an unwritten, undocumented condemnation would be quite consistent with the absurdity of the Attorney General's claim that the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers was merely a nominal party to the action. Everytime I think of it, the circumstance that the Appeals Court accepted this absurdity, I shudder because I understand they will accept whatever fits their purposes.

Last evening however, I took another look at footnote #13 of the appeals Court opinion:

FN13. The inspection of Meyer's work must be one of integrity and fairness.  A report of any deficiencies must have the substantiation of specific and detailed findings and reasoning. Any decision resting upon the inspection will remain subject to review by the Superior Court and appellate courts under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act, G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(a )-(g ).

from which I conclude that a merely oral, undocumented condemnation of my character and my work, even if accepted by Judge Tompkins, would not pass Appeals Court muster.  I wonder if Justice Vuono, who wrote that opinion, was aware of the extraordinary requirement she was imposing on the Inspector whose tyrannical decisions are _never_ substantiated with detailed findings and reasoning.

Now I'm about to drive Margaret to visit her lonely sister Janet who lives in Sharon MA less than fifty miles away. We'll have Easter Dinner, then while Margaret and Janet chat, I can play with my new laptop computer and continue writing Chapter 45. The fog in which it has been shrouded may be lifting.

Stay well and give my best to Ned.

Jochen

* * * * * *