Dear Cyndy,

Here's the front-line report on the plumbing board hearing for which you
asked me. Mr. Gordon had arrived yesterday at twelve. Laura had prepared
an impressive lunch, which was served by Nathaniel, The afternoon, believe
it or not, was spent in animated conversation, details of which my 84 year 
old memory can't recall. Mr. Gordon went to bed early, and I returned to my
legal ruminations, reviewing for clarity and incisiveness the questions I 
would ask. This morning at 7 a.m. Mr. Gordon and I traipsed down to the 
Concord Avenue bus stop, left at 7:10 a.m. for Harvard Square and arrived 
about an hour later at 1000 Washington Street in what I beliueve to be the 
Roxbuty Section of Boston, the large office building where the Hearing was 
to take place.

The same hearing room as two years ago. The Board chairman Mr. Paul Kennedy
had grown somewhat more rotund and correspondingly more irascible. His
rulings were peremptory and rude. Specifically he ruled that I might not 
interrogate Mr. Gordon about each of 35 photos. I responded that I would 
ask Mr. Gordon about each of the photos, in order that he, the chairman, 
Mr. Kennedy, might have the opportunity to make a record of 35 separate 
prohibitions. At that, Mr. Kennedy relented and I proceeded rapidly to ask 
Mr. Gordon two yes or no questions about each photo: Does this photo show 
a plumbing deficiency justifying destruction of the installation?  Does 
this photo show a plumbing deficiency that impairs the functioning of the 
system? Mr. Gordon answered "NO" to all questions, giving him (or me) a 
perfect score of 100%. Mr. Kennedy was not happy. He disparaged Mr Gordon 
as an incompetent master plumber for giving such answers. As for Mr. Esposito,
Mr. Kennedy refused to let him testify at all, because to his way of thinking
an engineer knows nothing about plumbing. Then having prohibited me from
calling Mr. Esposito to testify, Mr. Kennedy proceeded to ask such questions
of Mr. Esposito which might weaken my case. All this may be a blessing
in disguise, because Mr. Esposito (as distinct from Mr. Gordon) is awed
by bureaucratic power. Kennedy's exclusion of Esposito is probably (far) 
more valuable to my argument than Espositos hedging could ever have been.
 
Next it was Mr Pucci's turn. He derogated hearsay evidence without giving 
any indication as to what evidence suffered from such deficiency. (As a 
matter of fact the enabling statute G.L.30A specifically authorizes the 
Board to entertain hearsay evidence if it sees fit. He did not have Mr. 
Butler testify at all. He called Edmund Ramos, who has now temporarily 
replaced Mr. Ciarmataro. Ramos started to speak in generalities, until 
Pucci imitated me by asking Ramos about specific deficiencies on each 
of the 35 photos. I had anticipated this strategy which puts me in an 
awkward position, because the more insistent my critical cross-examination, 
the more fanciful Mr. Ramos' inventions, which not being a plumber I would 
have been unable to neutralize and which would have given the Board 
apparent legitimacy in its persecution of my plumbing. What I did instead, 
was to try to call Mr Gordon back to the stand to resolve the discrepancies
between his testimony and that of his colleague Ramos. Kennedy however, 
would not permit Gordon to testify a second time to rebut Ramos. I thought 
I had sufficiently demonstrated Kennedy's bias and prejudice, and called
it quits. As distinct from previous sessions where the Board's decision
was announced at the end of the Hearing, Mr. Kilb advised me that I would
be notified of the Board's decision by mail.

What's next? A few nights of good sleep I hope. Two patients on Friday.
A decision whether to have the roof repaired, the trees impinging on
the house trimmed, or to procrastinate. Just maybe a three or four weeks'
stay in Virginia, when it will be time to come back to start the next 
round of appeals.

Please give my greetings to Ned.
Jochen