Dear Anne,

I'm sorry Dan is worse again, for him and for you.

As for the argument, by way of introduction, the presiding judge,
Justice Sullivan announced to all litigants that the court had read
their briefs, and would they please go straight to the point in 
their arguments.

I took her up on this and said that I would go straight to the point
and argue that the appeals court had in its two orders required
that SPECIFIC violations be cited in order that a plumber which know
specifically what to repair so that the installation would NOT have
to be destroyed, I argued that in this context POOR WORKMANSHIP was
not sufficiently specific to inform the plumber what he must do,
and did not meet the Courts specificity requirement. That the original 
inspection report did not contain specifics because it was fiction,
a propaganda stunt to justify destruction of the installation.

This Appeals Court was flirting with the notion that perhaps they
should validate the Board's 5 mos. post hearing findings on the photos.
I won on that score by pointing out that both parties had been ordered to 
provide competent evidence as to why the specific deficiencies noted did or
did not require installation destruction, and what the practical
consequences of non-repair would be. I pointed out to the Court:
How in the world can I present evidence about specific deficiencies
at a hearing, when these deficiencies are not identified until five
months after the hearing. That logic persuaded.

Good night, and my best wishes and hopes for Dan.

Jochen