Dear Mr. Garmel,

Thank you for keeping me in mind and forwarding the article
regarding Meyer v. CUNA. I find legal decisions very interesting.
The progress of my case through the courts is becoming curioser
and curioser. I can't remember when I last briefed you, but I
hope it's not presumptuous of me to mention the URL of the index
to my litigation 
http://home.earthlink.net/~jochenmeyer/litigation/litig_index.html
where Papers 17, 17, 19, 20 document what's presently going on.
The next "Status Review" hearing is set for April 5, 2012. It will
be conducted by Judge Macdonald whose ruling against me was partially
set aside on appeal. I may be repeating myself when I report that
this hearing which was originally set for June 16, 2011, was postponed
by Judge Macdonald after I explained to him that the issue was not one
of plumbing but of adjudication, that the Inspector was in fact a
"plumbing judge" who had tampered with a witness whose testimony he
did not like by threatening the witness if he testified; that if an
inspection by such a "plumbing judge" was deemed an inspection of
integrity, as required by the Appeals Court, then His Honor and myself
would have to repair to the dictionary to find a new definition for
the term integrity.  The hearing was then postponed, to be conducted
6 months later by another judge whose name I don't know, but whose
instructions I have summarized in Paper 19. This judge refused to
rule and interpreted the statement in the record "the Court will
retain jurisdiction" to mean that Judge Macdonald had a personal
proprietary claim to the case, and sent it back to Judge Macdonald
who is now scheduled to hear it on April 5, 2012.  Paper 20 is my
most recent filing.  Because of the complexity of the issues, and
because I am a lousy public speaker, I submit my arguments in writing,
thereby assuring that they get into the record.

At the hearing, I shall ask the Court for permission to avail
myself of discovery to show that the Town of Nantucket fabricates
judicial evidence as a matter of municipal policy. My theory is
that the Constitutional separation of powers precludes the
Judiciary from imposing direct sanctions on the executive or
legislative branch, and that the Court's only instrumentality
for upholding the rule of law which would be fatally compromised
by the systematic fabrication of evidence, is to award (substantial,
punitive) damages to parties injured by such blatantly unlawful
conduct. I wonder what sort of response I will get.

I apologize to you, as always, for importuning you with my ideas.
Best wishes for a pleasant summer.

Sincerely,
Ernst Meyer