May 28, 2011

Dear Cyndy,

Thank you for your letter, and for your interest in my legal shenanigans. You asked about the vacuum release valve. Its absence was first brought to my attention on December 15, 2010. My friend Helmut Frielinghaus who was then visiting us, asked that I show him Nantucket. Only a week had elpased since the Appeals Court decision; I had made perhaps 40 futile telephone calls to prospective plumbers. It was a bright clear winter morning. Margaret, Helmut and I were sitting in the immaculately clean waiting room in the Steamship Authority Terminal in Hyannis, waiting for the 9:15 a.m. boat. Since I had my cell phone, I took the opportunity to make a few more calls, again answered only by machines, with one startling exception: a human being answered when I dialed "Liffey Plumbing," He was jovial, said he would be at the house at 1:00 p.m.  He came as promised, a blond, heavy-set man; if he told me his name, I didn't understand or have forgotten. I found out later that the plumber's license number on his white van had been issued to one Maurice Daniels, and I assume it was he who looked at my plumbing. He commented on the absence of the vacuum release valve on the cold water supply of the tank. But that's not the only defect he found. He said he could tell by looking at the PVC joints that they had not been glued properly; he could tell by looking at the copper tubing that it had been overheated when it was installed. Therefore there was no choice: everything had to be pulled out.  I thought my life had lapsed into some sort of comedy, but I kept a straight face.  I supposed Mr. Daniels had been coached by Mr. Ciarmataro. I don't really know.  If Judge Macdonald gives me permission, I'll find out when I take Mr. Daniels' deposition.

I played the game and rose to the occasion. I was, as my father-in-law would have said, hellishly pleasant.  I thanked Mr. Daniels for his frankness and honesty, and said to him the straight story such as he told, was exactly what I needed to hear. How much would he charge for the required work? He became uncomfortable.  "I don't think you're going to pay me." he said, (He was right.) He changed the subject, started to talk volubly about exorbitamt college expenses, that he had sent his son home to Ireland, where college education is paid by the government, but not for his son who needed first to meet a residency requirement of some two years. I thanked Mr. Daniels, told him I would help a little bit with his son's education by paying him for his inspection and advice. He promised to send me an "estimate" in the mail; I wrote out my Belmont address for him, but he never gave me an estimate and he never sent me a bill.

Mr. Pucci, I think, is going to make Kimberly Saillant look like a brilliant lawyer. After the hearing, he muttered to me he guessed he'd have to meet Mr. Ciarmataro some day. His initial e-mail of May 27, 2011, suggests that since the last hearing on April 28, he's done nothing.  expecting me to arrive at his office some morning begging for mercy. When he realized that time was running out, he tried to intimidate me by saying agreement must be reached withing 24 hours. When that didn't happen, Mr.  Pucci says he'll file a report by the middle or end of next week. I suspect Mr. Ciarmataro won't even begin until Tuesday, I doubt he knows how to write, and there is a chance that Mr. Pucci won't have anything to file by the June 10th deadline. Having given Mr. Pucci from December 6 to June 10, that's 185 days, to file his report, Judge Macdonald now gives me 5 days to prepare my reply.  I believe, subconsciously, the judge has already decided to ignore anything that I might say. He really doesn't like me, and the fact that he's wrong, and has been overruled by the appeals court, doesn't make it any easier for him.

Obviously, thinking through and writing about these facets of my legal experience is essential preparation for the June 10th hearing. I hope you find my account entertaining, if not, please forget it quickly. Although I expect to be describing my experiences in some detail, I doubt that I should try to publish them. I consider the intellectual and moral corruption of all branches of our government as natural, as unavoidable and as inescapable no less than the various diseases which afflict the human body and the human mind. I try to cope with the disorders of the body politic in an intelligent and compassionate manner comparable to the way I try (or tried) to practice medicine. To what degree, if any, I have succeded - or will succeed - is another matter.

I hope that you and Ned are having a satisfactory weekend.  Stay well.

Jochen

* * * * * *