Thank you for your letter. I am awed by its candor and its affection,
for the children and for me. I need no other reward. Money is nothing.
I approve of everything. Rebekah's getting the brakes repaired was
probably the prudent decision, albeit not my style. Since I had been
told that Rebekah had come by car and I didn't see the car in the driveway
I surmised, it turns out correctly, that there had been an "accident"
about which I wasn't being told.  I have no complaints. As for her
"not trusting my judgment," that's the price of competence, eminently
characteristic of my family's relationship to me, except for Mommy and
yourself.

I remember vividly how in 1941, after my parents had bought that glamorous
Crosley console, the shell of which still graces the living room, my
father told me that with this valuable new instrument, as distinct from
the other radio which I had repaired, he would not permit me to tinker
but would take it to Bristol for any repairs ... That never happened.
It was the beginning of 48 years in which I made sure that my parents
were never without a functioning record player. From the days when as
a GFS eighth grader, I scoured downtown Philadelphia for a copy of the
original Koussevitzky - BSO - Harvard-Radcliffe Choral Society recording
of the St. Matthew Passion until they became demented, I plyed my parents
with classical records and Mosel Wein from Boston  If my father ever thanked
me, he did it only reluctantly.  The Koussevitzky recording along with all
the surviving German records, my parents gave, without ever offering
them to me, to Jack Hall.  So far my mother is concerned, the image in
my memory is trudging up the cellar stairs after having completed a
repair on the oil burner, only to be greeted with the sceptical demand
"Why don't you let me call Mr. Hagy to help you."  Since the repair had
already been completed, there was never occasion for complying with
her imperative. Nowadays, when I see an electrician's or a plumber's
truck pull up in front of your house, some of the affection with
which I cherished my mother, goes out to Laura.  As for Margrit,
you probably remember that she was inveterately looking for tradesmen
to consult about Konnarock repairs. My conclusion: each of us has a
different capacity for love and with it, a need, desperate to non-existent,
to exercise that capacity. That love will be reciprocated is usually
an illusion; rarely a miracle.

As you probably surmise, my only regret about not being in Belmont
is to forgo an opportunity to ferry you to the airport. But I will
be there - im Geiste - and will be thinking of you on your flights
overhead. In a day or two, I'll probably have more thoughts about
the topics of this letter.

Meanwhile the big news of the day is in my head. Considering the
Appeals Court's footnote:

"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 )."

in the context of Shakespeare's jurisprudence:

PORTIA. Tarry a little; there is something else.
This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood:
The words expressly are 'a pound of flesh.'
Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh;
But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed
One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
Are, by the laws of Venice, confiscate
Unto the state of Venice.

I've decided that unless the Appeals Court backs down, which in light
of the blatancy with which Nantucket is trying to frustrate its ruling
seems unlikely, "the substantiation of specific and detailed findings
and reasoning," will be required not only for the six or eight or ten
purportedly unforgivable defects described and catalogued by the inspectors,
but "the substantiation of specific and detailed findings and reasoning,"
is required for the purported deficiency of _every_ fitting and pipe that
Nantucket wants to destroy. Moreover, the demand of Nantucket that the
plumbing be destroyed without the evidence required by the Appeals Court
can be construed as a malicious deprivation of civil rights under color
of law, for which damages may be sought pursuant to 42 USC 1983.
Maybe it's all a pipe dream, but I've told Mommy that I didn't expect
to have any pressing legal work immediately after the June 16 hearing
and that she and I might be free to return to Konnarock unless we chose
to go to Nantucket to complete the wiring.