Dear Mr. Esposito,

Maybe I should put my thoughts about your draft letter
in writing after all.

1. My primary concern is that I am charging Mr. Ciamataro with
"witness tampering", i.e. putting pressure on (potential) witnesses
to change their testimony. That's why I feel it would be improper
for me to submit to the Court an opinion from you which you have
expressed as a result of my persuasion.

2. Mr. Ciarmataro has been determined to destroy my plumbing for
33 months. He has refused the request of Justice Kafker of the
Appeals Court to inspect my plumbing; he refused for 6 weeks to 
issue a plumbing permit to Mr. Gordon; he then said he would have
the inspection done by the State or by the assistant inspector;
and when he was forced (by the Town Attorney) to do the inspection
he used the occasion to  vilify me as an ignorant, incompetent and
dishonest person. Then he wrote the scurrilous report that you
have in your files.  Mr. Ciarmataro will not be persuaded by your
arguments. He will focus on your statement that you are not a 
licensed plumber and that you are not qualified to intepret and
apply the plumbing code. (I disagree with that statement: As
a licensed civil engineer you ARE qualified and authorized to
interpret the plumbing code.) Quite possibly Mr. Ciarmataro
would demand that you come back to the Island and inspect the
plumbing with him. If you did so he would most likely do to you
what he did to me: vilify and scold you as incompetent and ignorant.
You would not succeed in changing his mind.  That's not an exercise
for which I want to pay $680.00 - $610 to you and $70 for the ferry.
On the other hand, if you refused, the Court would chalk up your
failure to appear against me and my case, as showing "failure to
cooperate."

3. What I had asked of you, and where I did not make myself clear,
was to write a letter to ME, criticising not my plumbing but 
Mr. Ciarmataro's report in those respects in which it is:
a) incorrect with respect to the facts, b) incorrect with respect
to the code, and c) inconsistent with to Footnote 13 of the Appeals
Court opinion.  I outlined my prespectives in the rebuttal and in
the draft letter which I sent to you some time ago.

4. With respect to the facts, I remain in respectful disagreement
with you concerning the functional consequence of the sweep of
the tees. The liquid flow through the tees is entirely horizontal.
and is unaffected by the sweep, whatever its direction might be.
The sweep would affect only vertical flow. The vertical flow is
entirely gaseous, and the direction of the gaseous flow is 
indeterminate. Therefore a "correct" orientation of the tees
cannot be determined. - And even if it could, - the effect of
the sweep on low velocity gas flow would be negligible.

5. With respect to the facts, I believe it can truthfully be said
that there are NO galvanized steel fitting "ON THE HOUSE-SIDE"
of the main shut-off valves.

6. With respect to the facts, I believe it can truthfully be said
that the vertical plumbing is almost entirely "plumb".

7. With respect to the facts, I believe it can truthfully be said
that the horizontal plumbing is, with one functionally insignificant
exception, properly pitched