Dear Cyndy,

Until I looked it up in Wikipedia, I didn't know - or had forgotten that the Sorcerer's Apprentice is an English/American adaptation of Goethe's Ballad "Der Zauberlehrling." As I reread it in the original, I find remarkable and impressive Goethe's virtuosity with the language.  However, the moral of the tale, (unlicensed apprentice without sorcery permit mustn't dabble in sorcery) contravenes my do-it-yourself propensities.

There's also the analogy of my e-mail communications to you as torrents of water, driven by spirits or, if you will, by demons. The magic word to turn it all off, however, should be no secret. It's right there under the tips of your fingers, clearly imprinted on the computer input keys in front of you.  It spells d-e-l-e-t-e.

My mind keeps on churning out legal arguments. If the official plumbing inspection report is ever written, then, absent the most improbable literary inspiration, that report, whatever  its content, will be construable as evidence not of Nantucket's determination to uphold the plumbing code, but of Nantucket's determination to stop my plumbing, or more generally, to prevent my construction of my house.  This purpose, to prevent my completing the house moreover, is powerfully corroborated by Mr. Ciarmataro's support of a plumbers' boycott of my project, and his directive to Mr. Gordon: "You stay out of this."

I will make the argument that subsequent to the Dec. 6, 2010 ruling of the Appeals Court, Nantucket demonstrated its contempt for that same plumbing code which it had successfully persuaded the Court to uphold. Subsequent to the Court decision, Nantucket supported, and perhaps even instigated the plumbers' boycott, making it impossible for me to hire a plumber, making it impossible for me to comply with the Appeals Court's order. Nantucket's subsequently refusing to comply with a law which it had urged the Court to uphold is evidence that Nantucket appeared before the Superior Court and before the Appeals Court with fraudulent intent. In other words, Nantucket secured the Superior Court judgment and the Appeals Court's affirmation of that judgment by fraud; and a judgment obtained by fraud ought not be allowed to stand. If I succeed in getting the judgment against me overturned, then I can finish the plumbing myself. Mr. Gordon may keep the $1461 which I paid him. Obviously that's a pipe dream.

Plumbing permits are required not only for installations but for virtually all plumbing repairs. The issuance of a permit is a ministerial function not discretionary with the inspector. Mr. Ciarmataro's refusal from January 6 to February 19, to issue a plumbing permit to Mr. Gordon demonstrates to Mr. Gordon and to all other Nantucket plumbers that on Nantucket, plumbing permits are issued at the discretion and pleasure of the Inspector; that in order to maintain a plumbing business on Nantucket one must remain in the good graces of the Inspector. Even more oppressive: the plumber's dependence on the Inspector's favor to obtain approval of plumbing installed is virtually unconditional and is for practical purposes immune from appellate control.

Mr. Ciarmataro has made it clear that to remain in his good graces, a plumber may not assist me, and may not contradict Mr. Ciarmataro's condemnation of my plumbing. Under the circumstances it is impossible not only for me to complete my house; it is also impossible to obtain from any plumber on Nantucket, trustworthy testimony concerning any issue in which Mr. Ciarmataro has an interest.

That's enough for now. But I haven't finished. Maybe more tomorrow.  I hope you and Ned and the rest of the family are having a felicitous holiday.

Jochen

* * * * * *