20160930.03

If the findings of the Board are fictitious and false as I believe
them to be, then with respect to this installation, the well of
truth has been incurably poisoned, because the Board and the Town
have persuaded the Superior Court of their truth and has persuaded
the Superior Court to endorse them.

The Town of Nantucket's flouted the order of the Appeals Court
for an Inspection by refusing for 50 days to issue a plumbing
permit. This refusal demonstrates that as a practical matter
the Inspector has unfettered discretion to issue or not to issue
a license, and to deprive any plumber under his jurisdiction of
the plumbers livelihood. That is why no plumber will do anything
that might displease the Inspector.

This refusal is a threat to the livelihood and the license
of the plumber to whom the permit is denied. All new plumbing and
virtually all plumbing repairs require a permit. The plumber whose
permit is delayed will lose the customer if he fails to make the
required repair even without a permit; and if he makes the repair
without a permit in an effort to keep his customer, he loses his
license.

The requirement that a specific deficiency on a photo be correlated
with a citation of that deficiency in the Inspection Report had
the effect of preventing projecting into the pictures what is not
there. Seeing is by its nature subjective and will be influenced
by what a person expects to see.

================

The Appeals Court is confronted with a tricky, awkward problem.
Both Nantucket and the Board assert as true, facts which I believe
to be false. The Appeals Court must now rely on a strained 
presumption of the regularity of the conduct of official business.
It is constitutionally disabled from correcting or punishing
or in any way interfering with the executive. The executive is
dependent for the Court on its legitimacy. The Court can impair
the function of the executive by invalidating executive actions
by reinterpreting nor nullifying laws.

With its Order of 2015, the Appeals Court when it defined the
procedure by which the code compliance of my plumbing should
be determined, also shifted the burden of proof from myself as the
appellant to the Town of Nantucket and/or the Board. The Town
refused even to attempt to shoulder that burden. Absent that proof,
my plumbing should be deemed code compliant.
proof concerning the Inspectors Decision 
As for my plumbing, the Appeals Court has placed the burden of
proof on Nantucket, on the Board or both.