Lieber Herr Nielsen,

Beim Überlesen meines jüngsten Briefes an Sie, entdecke ich einen Fehler
den ich berichtigen möchte. Der letzte Satz jenes Briefes ist verstümmelt.
Er sollte lauten: "Eine solche Beglaubigung jedoch müssen die herzlichen Grüße, die wir Drei Ihnen und Ihrer Frau übersenden entbehren."

If I compose the next several paragraphs of this letter in English, I do so
because next Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 2 p.m., I'm scheduled to 
appear to argue my appeal to Suffolk Superior Court from the Final Decision 
and Order of the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gasfitters, in my 
lawsuit, Meyer v Nantucket Building Department et al. As I've previously
confessed, I always write about the topic which preoccupies me at the moment,
"was mir auf den Nägeln brennt,". Given my tragic domestic obligations,
my presumptuous pseudo-scientific preoccupations, my literary excursions and
the frailty of an 85 year old memory, I have no choice but at this time
to focus my mind on the arguments next Wednesday, and to do so in English, 
the language which must then be on the tip of my tongue.

"Your Honor," I shall begin, "the very narrow issue in this Appeal is
whether or not the defendants, the Board and the Building Department
have complied with the order of the Appeals Court in 2013-P-1536.

 JUDGMENT AFTER RESCRIPT (PURSUANT TO MASS R A P 28) 
The judgment is REVERSED. A new judgment shall enter that 
directs the board to conduct a hearing to determine whether 
the order that the plumbing must be completely removed is 
justified by the specific violations that are noted in the 
inspection report and substantiated by photos. The judgment 
shall direct the board to require both parties to provide 
competent evidence to the board concerning the effect of 
the deficiencies and whether they support an order to 
completely remove the plumbing. The judgment shall direct 
the board to make specific findings about why the entire 
system needs to be removed or, if that is not necessary, 
what needs to be fixed by a plumber entered on docket 
pursuant to Mass R Civ P 58(b) and notice sent to parties 
pursuant to Mass R Civ P 77(d)

The Board was ordered to make a decision on the basis of competent
evidence presented by both parties at the Hearing. The Appeals Court
ruling does not permit the Board to ignore competent evidence presented
at the Hearing and to base its decision on a set of falsehoods 
and fabrications improvised ad hoc, falsehoods and fabrications
which were not presented at the Hearing, which were not subject 
to rebuttal, and which were published by the Board 5 1/2 months 
after the Hearing.

In its Final Decision and Order, the Board explicitly recognizes
its obligation to base that decision on "the specific violations 
that are noted in the inspection report and substantiated by photos."
The Board purports to meet its obligation to find "specific violations 
that are noted in the inspection report" by citing poor workmanship 
as failure to "conform to generally accepted good practice." 
However, "poor workmanship" and failure to "conform to generally 
accepted good practice are not specific violations and support
neither the order that the plumbing be entirely removed, nor any
other order repuiring specific repairs, and for these reasons
alone this Court should find the plumbing in issue complies
with the plumbing code.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that further considerations were
required, it is pertinent that Appeals Court authorized the Board
to act only on competent evidence; and evidence not presented at 
the Hearing, testimony not subject to cross-examination and 
rebuttal is not competent evidence. The provision of Chapter 30A
that authorizes the Board to rely on its specialized knowledge
and expertise, does not authorize the Board to set aside the rules
of procedure, does not authorize the Board to rely on and to
promulgate falsehoods in the pursuit of the economic advantage 
of its clientele. The assertions of the Board that pitch can
be determined from uncalibrated photographs, its references to
non-existent full S Traps, its inability even to identify the
location of various images, its misinterpretation of lens distortion,
are reflections of spectral evidence, of unsubstantiated imagination
and fantasy such as has not been received as evidence in Massachusetts 
courts since the Salem Witch Trials. This evidence is faulty, both in 
form and in substance to a degree that compels the conclusion that the 
lawyers who offered it are either ignorant of the law or contemptuous 
of the Court or both, and that the plumbers who provided them with 
their testimony are indifferent to the imperatives of truth.

An dieser Stelle obgleich ich mit meiner Gerichtsrede noch nicht
zu Ende bin, fliehe ich in die deutsche Sprache, denn, Lieber Herr 
Nielsen, es ist zum kotzen. Entschuldigen Sie die unumgängliche
Grobheit der Worte welche der Grobheit des Lebens entspricht,
einer Grobheit mit der sich abzufinden mich als die eigentliche 
Aufgabe meines Daseins anmutet. Im Juni letzten Jahres verglich
ich in einem Brief an Sie meine gerichtlichen Anstrengungen mit
Grimms Märchen von einem der Auszog das Gruseln zu lernen. Auf
diesem Ausflug, bei dem ich vieles gelernt habe, bin ich noch
heute unterwegs.

Herzliche Grüße an Sie und Ihre Frau von uns Dreien.

Jochen Meyer