re: Meyer v. Nantucket Building Dept. et al. SUCV2008-05664 E George X. Pucci, Esq. 101 Arch Street Boston MA 02110 Dear Mr. Pucci, The U.S. Postal Service Internet Track and Confirm facility does not show that a Memorandum in the above-captioned case which I served on you by Certified Mail was ever delivered. The specifics are as follows: Label number: 7011 0470 0000 3258 6824 Acceptance: March 01, 2012, 12:33 p.m. Belmont, MA 02478 Dispatched: March 01, 2012, 6:13 p.m. Belmont, MA 02478 Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility: March 02, 2012, 5:03 a.m. Boston, MA 02205 Expected delivery by March 2, 2012 For your convenience I attach below a text file of this Memorandum. If in addition you wish a pdf file with a hand written signature and/or a second executed copy by mail, please so advise me. Sincerely yours, Ernst J. Meyer ====================================================== Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court Suffolk, ss. C.A. No. SUCV2008-05664-E _____________________________________ _ | _ | Ernst J. Meyer, | _ appellant | _ v. | Nantucket Building Department | _ and | Board of State Examiners of Plumbers | _ and Gas Fitters, | _ respondents | _____________________________________| _ Appellant's Memorandum _ preliminary to the Status Review Conference _ scheduled for April 5, 2012 _ Concerning Issues Requiring Adjudication _ ============================================ _ Footnote 13 of the Appeals Court decision states: _ "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 reason- _ ing. 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, ยง 14(7(a-g)" _ The appellant respectfully lists the follow- ing issues, not to the exclusion of others, which he deems in the context of Footnote 13 of the Appeals Court decision, to require adjudication in this case: _ -2- _ 1) Whether the Report of the Plumbing Inspec- tion signed by William Ciarmataro, dated June 9, 2011, and filed on June 10, 2011 as paper 22, fails to comply with Footnote 13, of the Appeals Court Decision, because of the absence of integrity and fairness, and because of the absence of substantiation of specific and detailed find- ings and reasoning for alleged deficiencies. _ 2) Whether: a) the Inspector's failure to substantiate alleged deficiencies with detailed findings and reasoning, as required by the Appeals Court Decision, together with b) the opinions expressed by the appellant's licensed plumber, Mr. Christopher Gordon to the Inspector, to the Appellant, and to the Engineer, that the appellant's plumbing installation was in essential compliance with 248 CMR, and c) the report of the Registered Professional Engi- neer, Anthony A. Esposito, filed on Nov 14, 2011 as paper 24, should be interpreted jointly as confirming by a preponderance of evidence the Appellant's con- tention that his plumbing is in substantial com- pliance with 248 CMR. _ 3) Whether the conduct of the Inspector prior to and during the inspection a) in refusing to accept from Mr Gordon the appli- cation for a permit to which Mr Gordon was enti- tled, and _ -3- b) in refusing on frivolous grounds to issue a permit, and c) in refusing for 60 days to perform the inspections mandated by the Appeals Court, and d) in prohibiting the appellant's plumber, Mr. Christopher Gordon from fulfilling his obligation to the appellant by prohibiting Mr. Gordon from expressing at the time of inspection his, Christo- pher Gordon's expert opinion that the appellant's plumbing was in compliance with 248 CMR, and e) in threatening Mr. Gordon if he expressed such an opinion, and f) in verbally abusing at the time of the inspec- tion not only the appellant's plumbing but also his person, is evidence of prejudice on the part of the Inspector such as mandates an unrebuttable pre- sumption of lack of fairness and integrity of the inspection. _ 4) Whether the Inspection Report filed on June 10, constitutes false and fraudulent fabrica- tion of evidence. _ 5) Whether with respect to a prior case between the parties, NACV-2005-16 the record of which has been filed with the Appeals Court in this action, a) the fabrication of evidence by the Town of Nan- tucket and b) the vote of the Nantucket Board of Selectmen on April 27, 2005 not to search Town Records for evi- dence to controvert the alleged fabrication, and _ -4- c) the falsification of Town records to conceal b) above, and d) the failure of the Town to comply with the directive of the Superior Court to provide the Appellant in lieu of the forged copy that was sold to him with a true copy of the video-recording of the Board of Selectmen's meeting of April 27, 2005. are relevant and admissible as evidence in this case to support the appellant's claim that records on file in this case show the defendant the Town of Nantucket to be a repeat offender guilty of the fabrication of evidence in two judicial proceed- ings against him. _ 6) Whether in requiring an inspection of fairness and integrity, with substantiation of deficiencies with detailed findings and reasoning, the Appeals Court created the presumption that the appellant's plumbing was in fact code compliant, and placed on the Inspector the burden of proof to the contrary. _ 7) Whether this Court sustains its determina- tion reached at the Status Review Hearing on December 13, 2011, when the appellant understood the Court to state that it could not accept expert opinion offered by the Registered Professional Engineer, Mr. Anthony A. Esposito and filed as Paper No. 24, _ -5- a) because the expert opinion had been rendered not by a plumber but by a Massachusetts Registered Professional Engineer, and that a Massachusetts Registered Professional Engineer was not qualified to render an expert opinion on the validity of the defendant's Plumbing Inspection Report and Condem- nation Order or of the compliance of the appel- lant's plumbing installation with 248 CMR. b) because Mr. Esposito had not affirmed his expert opinions by oath, and c) because rather than in an opinion letter, those expert opinions had been rendered as responses to a set of closely reasoned questions. _ 8. Whether the explicit or implicit refusal of all but one plumber listed in the Nantucket Directory to do business with the appellant and the failure of the Inspector to intervene in that refusal constituting a boycott of the appellant, is an actionable violation of the Appeals Court decision. _ 9. Whether it is permissible for the appel- lant to obtain discovery on any or all of the foregoing issues. _ 10. Whether if the appellant has been injured by repeated and continuing unlawful actions of the Town of Nantucket from 2004 to the present, he should be made whole by payments of monetary dam- ages and what those payments should be. March 1, 2012 Ernst J. Meyer, 174 School Street pro se Belmont MA 02478 617-484-8109 ernstmeyer@earthlink.net _ -6- _ Certificate of Service I, Ernst J. Meyer, appellant pro se, certify that I have served the foregoing Appellant's Memorandum preliminary to the Status Review Conference scheduled for April 5, 2012 Concerning Issues Requiring Adjudication, by mailing copies thereof postage prepaid, to the defendants' attorneys, David Hadas and George X. Pucci. Ernst J. Meyer _ pro se March 1, 2012