June 2, 2011 Dear Cyndy, Thank you for your letter. There's no occasion at all for apologies. On the contrary, your criticism is very helpful in creating essential perspectives on what I have been doing. I need to make at least one important correction: I wrote that lawsuits have a binary outcome. One side wins, the other loses. That is true in theory, but not in practice. In two of my lawsuits, the one against the Infirmary and Nantucket No. 1, the issues: the abuse of poor patients by the teaching hospital and the systemic corruption of town government, were too "hot" to be adjudicated by the court. In both suits the court gave me what I had asked for, - release from the objectionable medical duties and the Certificate of Appropriateness respectively, but in both suits the Court declined to enter a judgment because it could not afford to state "the truth". Arguably I "lost" both cases, because no judgment was entered in my favor. Arguably I "won" both cases because I got what I wanted. Such inability of the courts to face "the truth" is very much relevant to the present litigation in which the Appeals Court ignored the Constitutional mandate of "due process of law" by upholding a decision that was based on a) fabricated evidence, b) a false certificate by the Attorney General, c) the concession of the Plumbing Board, and d) the trial court's invention of non-existent procedural facts. If such irregularities were not universally ignored, the courts couldn't function. A complaint which delves too deep is conventionally dismissed on the pretext of "failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted." That's not an alibi. It's truth in the most profound sense, "meta-judicial" truth. It is in the nature of the courts as human institutions, that justice escapes them. The risk in my litgation is not that the court "rules against me", but that on some pretext or other, it dismisses the case because I've presented it with an insoluble problem. Lawsuits are not always - perhaps never - "won" or "lost". Frequently the outcome is compromise, each side making concessions to obtain at least some advantages. Even when there's a judgment in favor of one party or the other, the "win or lose" paradigm is quite superficial. Many lawsuits - especially in domestic relations - end in "Pyrrhic Victories," - even the prevaling litigant must pay the lawyer - and for the intelligent, sensitive litigant who finds real, (existential) meaning in all experience, there is value even in legal "defeat". Such considerations are especially apposite to my Nantucket litigation which I interpret as a spiritual odyssey in search of my childhood home, in the pursuit of which as I wrote on May 29, "I greet every government clerk, every inspector, every judge as a Nazi in ACLU disguise." Turning now to the "real world", I take this opportunity to outline my plans for the June 16th hearing, exactly two weeks and four hours from now. Consider this letter to you as a trial run for an oral examination. One prepares for such an ordeal by imagining that one is addressing a live human being. It's more pleasant by far to converse with you than with Judge Macdonald. At the July 16th hearing, my primary request to the Court will be for permission to file a written summary of issues which I ask to be adjudicated, including any Nantucket inspection report. My written response to Nantucket's "Report on the Inspection of March 14" would raise the following issues: 1. Whether the observations cited in the report are factually true and their descriptions unbiased. 2. Whether, if true and unbiased, the observations cited in the report identify violations of the plumbing code; if so, which sections, which subsections are violated. 3. Whether identified violations of the plumbing code warrant the destruction of the entire installation as Nantucket demands. Almost certainly not. Violations of the plumbing code must be individually identified, and if individually identified, they can be individually repaired or replaced. The destruction that Nantucket demands is a form of punishment, to which Nantucket has no right. The penalty for violating the plumbing code is a $50 fine, and Nantucket's using legal proceedings to try to extort in excess punishment to which it is not entitled is actionable abuse of legal process. 4. Whether an inspection is one of "integrity and fairness" where a) arbitarily without reason and without legal basis i) The Inspector refused for 45 days to issue a plumbing permit to Mr. Gordon ii) The Inspector, prior to inspecting the installation, advised Mr. Gordon that the installation was defective to a degree requiring it to be destroyed. iii) The Inspector attempted to intimidate Mr. Gordon from applying for a plumbing permit and from agreeing to do the plumbing additionally required to complete the installation. b) Before having inspected the installation, the Inspector told all plumbers who consulted him about the installation, that it was so defective as to require to be destroyed. c) The licensed plumber responsible for the installation was excluded from the inspection, - You keep out of this! - is what Mr. Ciarmataro told Mr. Gordon d) during the inspection the Inspector expressed his prejudice and hostility by verbally abusing me. 5. Whether the Appeals Court mandate that plumbing at 3 Red Barn Road be performed by a licensed plumber makes relevant to these proceedings the issues of whether the Nantucket Building Department a) instigated, b) supported, c) tolerated, and/or d) permitted a licensed plumbers' boycott of the plumbing job at 3 Red Barn Road. 6. Whether the denial by the Town of Nantucket that it is persecuting the appellant, and it's claim that it demands the destruction of his plumbing in order to protect the public health, makes relevant to these proceedings the conduct of the Town of Nantucket in a previous action between the parties about the construction at 3 Red Barn Road, including a) the maintenance of litigation for 9 months on the basis of fabricated evidence. b) the publication of falsified minutes of a Board of Selectmen's meeting. c) the refusal to replace with a true copy, a forged DVD recording which served as the primary record of that Board of Selectmen's meeting. ================== What do you think? Once again, isn't that more than enough for now? Jochen * * * * * *