20161013.00ack
The presumption of regularity of the court is unrebuttable. What about the
regularity of the Board which is permitted to rely on its specialized
knowledge and expertise to interpret the evidence before it.

How can such evidence be reviewed on appeal? Must it be presumed that the
Superior Court or Appeals Court shares such specialized knowledge and
expertise? If not can such knowledge and expertise be rebutted? When, where
and by whom? If not, the Board becomes an oracle beyond challenge which
conclsively definen the judicial process. The ruling of the Superior Court
absconds with that process. Confirmation by the Appeals Court of the 
Superior Court's ruling would precipitate the night in which Hamlet saw
his father's ghost.

At this late stage, it doesn't matter what the Appeals Court says.
If it endorses the Superior Court it dissolves the law. But
if it repudiates the Superior Court, it also declares the law to
have been dissolved. The Appeals Court cannot restore the law, if only
because there is no way for the average litigant, or for any litigant
without unusual resources, to do what I have done. The law is what is
decided, what is done by the local police department, by the plumbing 
board; on a slightly higher level, the law is what is done by the Superior 
Court. And of course, ultimately, by the Appeals Court. But that ultimately
is so remote as to be only marginally significant, if at all. Perhaps 
stated more accurately: the law is the uncertainty in which the litigant
stumbles and is ultimately lost.

In the pending appeal there are four points, all semantic:
1) whether specific means its opposite, nonspecific.
To be pointed out: 
a) that the requirement that the deficiency noted on a
photo must be specific and must correlate with a specific deficiency
cited in the inspection report makes possible compliance with the
plumbing code without destruction.
b) that the requirement that the deficiency noted on a
photo must be specific and must correlate with a specific deficiency
cited in the inspection report obviates projection of subjective intent.
If specific means non-specific language then anomia, lawlessness prevails
because language is meaningless, and law is conduct pursuant to language.
If the term specific has meaning then the Board's conclusion is an admission
that there is no case.

2) Whether G.L. 30A means what is says, when it guarantees the right of
testimony, cross-examination and rebuttal. The Superior Court's finding
that Meyer was not prejudiced by the repudiation of GL 30A, because
additional evidence would have been cumulative, means that the Court's
decision was not based on evidence but was merely a confirmation of the
Boards findings.

3) Whether the Court is required to take judicial notice of scientific facts,
such as
a) that perspective precludes the determination on a photograp of pitch;
b) that there is no evidence of a full S-trap on any of the photos.

4) Whether the Court is required to take judicial notice of a controlling
Supreme Court decision.

Under what circumstances propaganda satisfies the criteria of judicial truth?
How to rehabilitate the separation of powers under Part I, Art XXX of the
Constitution.

The true function of the Court is to endorse a faulty legal system by
offering symbolic corrections.

The wisdom of the Appeals Court decision which in essence subjected
the Inspection Report and Condemnation Order to judicial testing.
To my mind the Courts decision in this case will determine not so
much what the law is, but whether there is any law at all.

Reports of Court decisions are classical propaganda.
Definition of Propaganda:
Propaganda
Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, 
workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, 
systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, 
and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent 
of the propagandist."[6] 
More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: 
"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion 
that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of 
specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes 
through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not
be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization 
employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and 
distribution of such forms of persuasion."[7] (Wikipedia)