April 28, 2011 8:30p.m.

At about four o'clock this afternoon I returned from the hearing.
I had slept very lightly the night before. The day was strenuous.
Now I'm tired to an extent that I don't know whether I can compose
an adequate chronicle of the days' events.

The surprise of the hearing was a new judge. The previous one,
the lady whom I erroneously called Tompkins - her correct name is
Hopkins had been replaced by Judge Macdonald, the gentleman whose
ruling against me two years ago precipitated my appeal to the 
higher court. Although I did not recognize him, he identified
himself by acknowledging that he had been over-ruled, and tried
to save face by murmuring "I wondered how they would decide this
case."

I opened my presentataion by saying, "Your Honor,  The inspection
was held on March 14. I would forfeit my credibility if I volunteered
a description of the Hearing. You wouldn't believe me. I will answer
any questions you might have." But Judge Macdonald didn't want to know
anything. He hadn't read the Appeals Court opinion, proposed to dismiss
the case, send it back to Nantucket, have them make a new ruling that
the plumbing should be destroyed, then have me appeal that ruling to
the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers, to the Superior Court, to
the Appeals Court,.... a process that would take several years.

Then I read to Judge Macdonald Footnote 13.
"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 )."
Where is that? he asked. Footnote 13, I replied.

He changed his mind. He allowed Nantucket until June 10, to file the FN13
report. Thereupon I will have six days to plan my strategy and on June 16,
there will be another status hearing at which the Court will rule on my
proposals. Obviously, until I see the report, I won't know what I'm up
against. When I spoke with Mr. Gordon tonight, he seemed to be getting
cold feet about testifying for me; all the other plumbers on Nantucket
are boycotting my project. Importing someone from the mainland to render

an unbiased opinion might be awkward and expensive. I will have my work
cut out for me.

April 29, 2011, 9:00 a.m.

I neglected yesterday to report that at the end of the hearingf, I addressed
the Court. "Your Honor," I said, "You are not a plumber, you don't know much
about plumbing. You are a jurist, and you know everything about adjudication.
Mr. Ciarmataro is both a plumber and a jurist. Mr. Ciarmataro is a Plumbing
Judge. He adjudicates plumbing. Before Mr. Ciarmataro had never seen my
plumbing, he instructed Mr. Gordon, my plumber, that my plumbing was terrible,
and that he should have nothing to do with it. I have reason to believe that
Mr. Ciarmataro made similar statements to two or more other plumbers whom I
had asked for help. Mr. Ciamataro in his capacity as a quasi judicial officer
has tampered with witnesses in a case before him and before this court.
Your Honor, if Mr. Ciarmataro, after tampering with witnesses, is permitted
to adjudicate this controversy then we will need to invent a new definition
for the word "integrity." Judge Macdonald got the point. "We'll need some
sort of affidavit," he said.

Considering yesterday's program, I slept well, and to my surprise, this morning
I feel euphoric rather than dispirted. My occasional distress ensues not from
the prospect of defeat, of having to pay to have the plumbing ripped out and
replaced. Rather from the uncerainty of the decisions of the Nantucket
officials and of the judges. When I walked into the courtroom at 2 p.m.
yesterday, I had no way of anticipating whether Nantucket had given in, -
it had not, whether the Court would uphold the Appeals Court Ruling, it did
not, whether the Court has even read the Appeals Court decision, - it had
not. In order to be effective, I must proceed on the assumption of a
favorable outcome; yet I must be prepared  and deal effectively with
adverse turns of events. Yesterday, for example, the judge was ready to
dismiss the case. My introducing him to FN13 averted a very unfavorable
turn. His order for the production of the Report is potentially of much
advantage. It opens the door to depositions about the details of the 
inspection,

The judge's bias against me was quite apparent, if not made explicit.
He never asked me to sit down, - I stood all the time. His questions
were addressed mostly to Mr. Pucci, a matter of no ultimate consequence
since it was the considerations raised my me which determined the 
course of the hearing. Sooner or later the case will go back to the
Appeals Court. Although the feelings that judges entertain about
each other are never made explicit, surely these feelings must exist
and influence the judges' behavior toward each other and toward the
litigants who have unsuccessfully or successfully appealed their
decisions. 

It's been forty years since I last obtained depositions. The rules
have changed. I must acquaint myself with them. For that purpose,
I'll download the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure from
the Internet, and when I've done that, start packing to go to
Konnarock.