|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/justiceatwhatprice.c/archives/2006/09/ |
Upload File : |
<!--#include virtual="/includes/archive.shtml"-->
<div id="main">
<h3 class="title"><a name="#top"></a>The Most Despicable People I Have Ever
Come To Know: Part 2 of 2 Part Series</h3>
<h4 class="titlesmall"> </h4>
<h4 class="titlesmall">UPDATE: September 20, 2006<br>
</h4>
<div id="print" style="border: 1px dashed #BBBBBB; padding: 0 0 0 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<p><a href="#" onclick="window.print();return false;"><img src="/images/print.gif" width="19" height="17" border="0" align="bottom">
Print this page»</a></p>
</div>
<p>I will begin by thanking each of you who have emailed me with comments
and observations about those referenced in Part 1 of this 2 Part Series.
I shall hold them until the appropriate moment; at which time I shall present
them for all to see and read. Several of you have asked for my definition
of <strong>“despicable”</strong>; and I should have stated this
in the Update of September 10, 2006.</p>
<p>I consider someone to be “despicable” if they are <strong>“cowardly”</strong>;
<strong>“unable and unwilling to face and confront the truth”</strong>;
<strong>“unwilling to admit when they are proven wrong”</strong>,
and <strong>“attempt to cover up their actions at the expense of others”</strong>.
I do not take the term “despicable” lightly, nor do I now use
the term “despicable” lightly. The aforementioned 12 individuals
referenced in the September 10, 2006 update have justly earned this designation;
as have the 12 individuals listed below.</p>
<p>As I begin to present the names of the remaining 12 individuals that have
so dishonorably made my list of the <strong>“Most Despicable People
I Have Ever Encountered”</strong> and the reasons for their designation
as such, I must state that there are several who I have not officially been
introduced to and others that have taken “cheap shots” behind
my back; and in the time it has taken me to turn around, they were no where
to be found. Yet in all cases, they left their calling card and or their
name on their actions.</p>
<div class="insert">
<ul>
<li><strong>Scott S. Sinrich, Esq.</strong> – A partner in the Law
Firm of Phillips, Silver, Tallman, Aframe, and Sinrich, P.C. and counsel
to Nordgren Memorial Chapel in Worcester. Mr. Sinrich initiated the
paperwork to terminate my employment from Nordgren Memorial Chapel without
notice, so that I would not be able to refute accusations by John Bresnahan,
investigator for the State Board as well as erroneous statements soon
to be made to the State Board by Atty. Sinrich and Kurt and Katherine
Mangsen. If this wasn’t enough, Atty. Sinrich penned correspondence
to the State Board and prosecution attorney, Pasqua M. Scibelli, stating
emphatically that I had created an insurance agency – namely “Westland
Insurance Agency”, and that Westland Services Corporation aids
in the financing of the disposition of human remains through pre-need
insurance policies – all known then to be blatant lies when Atty.
Sinrich wrote to Ms. Scibelli on March 2, 2005. (I shall soon present
in a subsequent update the actual correspondence for all to see and
read – and present this document in court proceedings). If this
wasn’t enough, Atty. Sinrich (along with Mrs. Mangsen) communicated
with the Funeral Monitor (a funeral industry publication – news
letter) both on the phone and in actual correspondence providing information
and a distortion of the facts – printed by the Funeral Monitor
without verification of its accuracy. Much more on Atty. Sinrich in
a future update. As you can well imagine, Atty. Sinrich ranks <strong><em>“over
the top”</em></strong> of the list of the Most Despicable People
I Have Ever Encountered and is comfortably entrenched with Mrs. Mangsen,
Mr. Bresnahan, and yes, Mr. Kazlauskas – all embracing one another.<br>
</li>
<li> <strong>George Weber, Esq.</strong> - Director, Division of Professional
Licensure. I have not met Mr. Weber, but have spoken to him on two (2)
occasions. I forwarded a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) also
known as a Public Records Request to Mr. Weber on April 12, 2006. The
law states that upon receipt of the request, the recipient has 10 days
in which to respond either with the information, a denial for a specific
and acceptable purpose, or an explanation of when the information will
be available. Not only did Mr. Weber and his staff ignore the mandated
timeframes, when I confronted Mr. Weber with this fact, he knew nothing
of the request. Mr. Weber then delegated the action to his assistant
(Mr. Borstel) and his chief counsel, (Ms. Mullally), and an inaccurate
(conflicting and incomplete data) response was signed by Mr. Borstel
and forwarded to me. I again spoke with Mr. Weber, and he once again
delegated the issue to Mr. Borstel & Ms. Mullally. To this day,
no response, even though the Secretary of State’s Office for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has ordered the Division of Professional
Licensure to respond. “Mr. Weber, you, your staff, and the Division
of Professional Licensure ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW!” Mr. Weber has
earned a prominent place on the list, and I would suggest it is past
the time for an independent entity to take a good long hard and thorough
look at how the Division of Professional Licensure is being run under
the supposed leadership of Mr. Weber.<br>
</li>
<li> <strong>Mr. Charles “Chuck” Borstel</strong> –
Assistant to the Director, Division of Professional Licensure. Mr. Borstel
signed a response to me, that if he read it before he signed it; he
would have clearly seen the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the
response – but NO! Mr. Borstel just signed what was prepared for
his signature regarding Public Records statements that were intentionally
misleading and deficient in content. Mr. Borstel has not responded to
the request for accurate and complete information with the initial request
dating back to April 12, 2006. Mr. Borstel has not responded to an order
issued by the Secretary of State Public Records Officer to contact me
with a cost estimate within 10 days and to produce the documents. Mr.
Borstel along with Mr. Weber represent a degree of either ignorance
or arrogance (or both) that have no place in government today. “Mr.
Borstel, accountability goes with the job and the territory” –
just in case no one informed you of this prior to you becoming a State
Employee.<br>
</li>
<li> <strong>Kathe Mullally, Esq.</strong> – Chief Counsel, Division
of Professional Licensure. Ms. Mullally signed a letter to me in December
2005 as a result of correspondence that wound up with Governor Romney.
In the correspondence Atty. Mullally made a statement that was 100%
incorrect. I confronted her in person during a break in the Administrative
Hearing in January 2006 and indicated her response to me was inaccurate.
Atty. Mullally stated, “I signed the correspondence that was prepared
for my signature. I have no way of knowing if it is accurate or not”.
Atty. Mullally at a later date indicated to me in a telephone conversation
that she is responsible for all FOIA requests addressed to the Division
of Professional Licensure, and that she was unaware I had made such
a request and that it was delinquent. Atty. Mullally has certainly known
it for several months now, has been directed by her supervisor, Mr.
Weber, to take care of it; and she, along with Mr. Borstel, have chosen
to disregard not only the law, but the order of the Public Records Administrator,
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. “Yes, Atty. Mullally,
you, too, hold a prominent position on the list of the “Most Despicable
People I Have Ever Come to Know”.<br>
</li>
<li> <strong>Christopher Carroll, Esq.</strong> – Counsel to the
State Board in December 2003. Atty. Carroll, after listening to Mr.
Kazlauskas, (Mr. Kazlauskas being Chairperson of the State Board at
the time) defame me in my absence by addressing me to the full State
Board, its employees, and the public in attendance as a “carpetbagger”
and a “snake” and knowing that Mr. Kazlauskas was a funeral
director in Worcester and that Mr. Kazlauskas knew me and the Mangsen’s,
strongly suggested Mr. Kazlauskas recuse himself from the proceedings.
This request (strong suggestion) was made after Mr. Kazlauskas attempted
to have Ms. Scully delete his comments once he realized the proceedings
were being recorded. Mr. Kazlauskas did recuse himself from my participation
in the proceedings and immediately upon my departure reassumed the Chairmanship
for the Mangsen’s and their Attorneys participation in the proceedings–
<strong><em>“truly a conflict of interest.”</em></strong>
Did Atty. Carroll indicate to Mr. Kazlauskas that he needed to continue
to recuse himself? NO! Did Atty. Carroll voice an objection to Mr. Kazlauskas’s
remarks? NO! Was Atty. Carroll aware of not only the jeopardy of the
situation, but ethically and morally – justice could not be served
by Mr. Kazlauskas reassuming the Chairmanship of the meeting? Apparently
NOT! “Mr. Carroll, I don’t know where you came from or how
you became counsel to the State Board, but not only did you miss this
one – your actions or lack thereof along with Mr. Bresnahan’s
abdominal so-called investigation cost the taxpayers of the Commonwealth
in excess of $1M for what is clearly a “witch hunt” of proportions
not seen in many many years. Accountability, Atty. Carroll, Accountability!”<br>
</li>
<li> <strong>Helen Peveri</strong> – Executive Director, Division
of Professional Licensure. (I cannot wait to meet this woman at some
point). Ms. Peveri filed a hand written complaint against me (Em-06-005),
dated July 27, 2005 violating the DPL’s own rules and regulations
by handwriting the complaint - even though the application for complaint
(the Division of Professional Licensure form) clearly states the form
should be completed by either printing or typing the complaint. That
said, the issue in Ms. Peveri’s complaint was previously stated
as one of the issues stated in the Order to Show Cause and was to be
reviewed by Ms. Colleton and the Administrative Hearings procedure.
Ms. Peveri’s actions are considered either harassment or a lack
of faith in the capacity of the Administrative Hearings Counsel, Ms.
Colleton, or both. Suffice it to say, Ms. Peveri, whose position as
Executive Director is one of great importance at the Division has exercised
extremely poor judgment in her actions, and as such certainly belongs
on this list.<br>
</li>
<li> <strong>Kim Scully</strong> – Assistant Director, State Board.
Ms. Scully, like Ms. Peveri, believes she is exempt from preparing complaints
by completing the form by either printing or typing the complaint. As
Assistant Director one would think she would not scribble in her own
handwriting a complaint that was forwarded to me for response –
a complaint neither I nor my attorneys at the time could decipher. We
therefore returned it for clarification, after which a new complaint
(EM-06-015) was completed. The content of the complaint was also included
and under review by Ms. Colleton and the Administrative Hearing Procedures.
Not only had I been before the State Board regarding this issue on four
(4) separate occasions in the past with a determination each time that
there was no conflict of interest, now Ms. Scully, on behalf of the
State Board, filed a complaint that not only is redundant but harassment
to say the very least. Ms. Scully has either caught the terminal disease
that perpetuates the State Board and Division of Professional Licensure
or is truly incompetent. One or both is applicable to her and her actions.
Soon we will have the answer. “Yes, Ms. Scully, you belong on
the list, and hopefully soon the appropriate authorities will take the
long hard look at the processes and actions of the State Board since
December 9, 2003.<br>
</li>
<li> <strong>James Read, Esq.</strong> – My initial reaction when
I saw the correspondence Atty. Read was to appear in support of the
prosecution’s efforts was that just maybe Atty. Read was entering
the picture to instill a sense of fairness and justice in the proceedings
– which, until now, was desperately lacking. I operate and always
have with “both hands on top of the table”, and I opened
up to Atty. Read and Atty. Alexander upon the sudden withdrawal of my
legal counsels in the middle of the prosecution’s participation
of the Administrative Hearing. At this point there were discussions
concerning what it would take to settle the issues before the State
Board. It became abundantly clear to Atty. Read that I had been set
up from the start and that there was a conspiracy to get me. If he had
any doubts before hand, he didn’t after our meeting in a conference
room at 239 Causeway Street in Boston. In a subsequent discussion with
Atty. Read (and Atty. Alexander) after the sudden cancellation of the
scheduled Administrative Hearing on June 27, 2006 (due to an emergency
to Mr. Mazur Chairperson, State Board), I relayed certain facts and
witnesses I was to present that would dispel the validity of all the
issues and clearly demonstrate the presence of the conspiracy and corruption
I had alleged from the outset. Atty. Read stated, “Mr. Haddad,
my role is to see to it that your license to practice as a funeral director
is suspended and that you never practice as a funeral director in Massachusetts
again.” (I have a witness to the conversation). At that moment,
naïve as I obviously was, I realized for the first time NO ONE
at the State Board or the Division of Professional Licensure cared about
the facts or the truth; but their only focus was (and is) to get me
at any cost. At that moment, the “gloves came off”, and
I pledged to expose those “Ugly Americans” for whom they
are and what they have become as they attempt to cover up the corruption,
conspiracy, and incompetence surrounding the State Board and Division
of Professional Licensure. Initially, I believed Atty. Read had the
wisdom and foresight to resolve the issues before us. I consider myself
a pretty fair judge of character, but I missed the boat with Atty. Read<br>
</li>
<li> <strong>Leslie D. Alexander, Esq.</strong> – a prosecution
attorney for the Division of Professional Licensure. Atty. Alexander
was admitted to the Bar on December 19, 2003 (10 days after the infamous
December 9, 2003 Meeting of the State Board, wherein Mr. Kazlauskas
assaulted my character and integrity (in my absence). Atty. Alexander
is a nice young lady, and was thrust into her role in this matter as
other prosecution attorneys moved on. Atty. Alexander is aware of Mr.
Kazlauskas’s statements and actions along with those of Mrs. Mangsen
and Mr. Bresnahan; and that they prejudiced any chance there was of
fairness and justice to prevail in this matter, without admitting the
failures of the system she was to use in her prosecution of me. If only
I could show you the looks on Atty. Alexander’s face as the testimony
from me and the witnesses that have been subpoenaed 4-5 times in the
proceedings was presented. You could see in her eyes and almost hear
her say, “What are we doing here and why am I here?” Atty.
Read, soon after his initial appearance, assumed the lead role as prosecutor
from Atty. Alexander. “Atty. Alexander, by default, makes my list
of the Most Despicable People I have Come to Know.” But, where
in most cases I see no hope for many on this list, I DO see hope for
Atty. Alexander. (Atty. Alexander, I wish you well).<br>
</li>
<li> <strong>Jerry DeChristofaro, Phillip Smith, & Linda M. Grasso</strong>
– all three(3) individuals that served in the capacity as supervisors
of John Bresnahan during the investigation of complaints EM-04-124,126,184
filed by Mrs. Mangsen. Had any of the three (3) done their due diligence
prior to signing off on Mr. Bresnahan’s so-called investigation,
they would have known Mr. Bresnahan did not perform an “official”
investigation, but took the word of Mrs. Katherine Mangsen and the contaminated
so-called evidence she gave to him along with misguided, misinterpreted,
and un-documented statements by those that had (have) lots to gain if
I no longer can practice as a funeral director. Mr. DeCristofaro, Mr.
Smith, and Ms. Grasso failed the system they swore to uphold, and as
such became co-conspirators in a conspiracy that has wasted well over
$1M of taxpayer money. “I very much look forward to meeting each
of you in the very near future.”<br>
</li>
<li><strong>Daniel J. Fischer, Esq.</strong> – Vice President &
General Counsel, Columbian Financial Group, Binghamton, NY. Atty. Fischer
ranks amongst my greatest disappointments in this process. Whereas one
would not necessarily be as surprised at corruption and conspiracies
in government (in this case the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State
Board and Division of Professional Licensure), Columbian Financial Group
(Columbian Life Insurance Company) is a different case entirely. Atty.
Fischer (and Mr. Andel, Customer Support) and I had conversations only
after more than a year of hassles with Mrs. Mangsen and their attorneys
– and only after I initiated the conversations. As a result of
our initial conversation, I forwarded Atty. Fischer a chronology of
events with dates, times, conversations, and supporting documentation
dating back to the Spring of 1999. He was impressed with the detail
of the chronology and indicated, although he personally could not verify
its accuracy since he was not associated with Columbian in 1999, he
certainly did not question its accuracy. Atty. Fischer admitted he was
shocked at the Summary Decision and the degree and lack of focus of
the investigation. “Someone must really want to get you badly,
to pursue the issue to this extent” were Atty. Fischer’s
words to me. I indicated I would require a representative(s) from Columbian
to testify at the Administrative Hearing. Atty. Fischer indicated he
would most likely send Mr. Andel. As time went on and Atty. Fischer
realized Columbian was not mandated to come to Boston subpoenaed for
an Administrative Hearing, he informed me and the Administrative Hearings
Counsel that he would make a representative available but only in Binghamton,
NY. At a later date, based upon the representatives from Columbian I
wished to depose in Binghamton, Atty. Fischer withdrew his offer and
willingness to have anyone from Columbian Life Insurance Company testify;
unless served with a duly authorized subpoena issued in New York. Atty.
Fischer knows full well I am being singled out by the State Board in
Massachusetts for a process that was initiated and consummated by the
Regional Sales Director of Columbian Life Insurance Company in 1999
– the same person that soon thereafter became Vice President of
Pre-Need for Columbian nationwide. “Atty. Fischer, putting your
tail between your legs and running away doesn’t help anyone. Cutting
and running sends the wrong message to me and everyone concerned. Your
actions – unprofessional, unethical, and immoral – are a
true disappointment to me and a discredit to Columbian Financial Group.
I would have suspected a great deal more from you and Columbian.”
Without a doubt, you have earned a prominent place on the list, but
it isn’t too late to set the record straight. “I’m
waiting!” <br>
</li>
<li><strong>Peter Klamkin</strong> – Former Regional Sales Director
and Former Vice President Pre-need for Columbian Life Insurance Company.
I was introduced to Mr. Klamkin in the Spring 1999. After checking him
out personally by contacting several funeral directors that had dealings
with him and after checking into the integrity of Columbian Life Insurance
Company and after consulting with and receiving approval from Kurt Mangsen
and John Carrigan (Principals at Nordgren Memorial Chapel in Worcester),
I engaged the services of Mr. Klamkin and Columbian Life for families
wishing to convert their pre-need funding arrangements from trust to
insurance in order to no longer receive 1099 tax forms. Mr. Klamkin
set up the process. He provided me with a Columbian draft copy of a
letter to be forwarded to families having expressed interest in no longer
receiving 1099 tax forms. He completed the process and completed the
applications and forms after the families had consented to the transfer
and the funds were received from Bank North. Just as Mr. Mercadante,
Mr. Athy, and even Mr. Bresnahan stated Mr. Klamkin was then and still
is a friend; I, too, came to consider Mr. Klamkin a friend and did for
many years. I considered him honorable. I considered him a man of good
character. I considered him a man of his word. I do not believe he would
intentionally do anything wrong, and I do not believe it to this day.
Mr. Klamkin is on the list, because he has chosen not to respond to
telephone calls, emails, and subpoenas. There may be a good reason for
this; but until I am convinced he is not intentionally avoiding me and/or
he is not willing to attest to what transpired in 1999 – a process
that he alone created and that has worked extremely well for all the
families that wished to convert their prefunded funeral monies from
trust to insurance, Mr. Klamkin is the 24th member on this list.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>To the aforementioned list above, it is your turn to balance your actions
and statements vs. your life and the remainder of time you have on this
earth. Some have indicated these questions to be a “wake up call”.
What do you think?</p>
<p align="center"><strong>- “Growing Older is Mandatory / Growing Up
is Optional!”</strong><br>
Where do you stand?????????<br>
<strong>- “The Only People that Fear Death, Are Those With Regrets!”</strong><br>
Where do you stand????????? <br>
<strong>- “We Make a Living by What We Get, We Make a Life by What
We Give!”</strong><br>
Where do you stand?????????</p>
<p><strong>In summary</strong>, Only the Truth “clear and simple”
can set you free –<br>
otherwise you are a captive forever!</p>
<p>As promised, I shall present on this web site www.justiceatwhatprice.com
unedited comments, clarifications, or statements received from any of the
24 individuals (actually 26 when you factor in Mr. Bresnahan’s 3 supervisors)
that choose to respond to the updates of September 10th and September 20th.</p>
<p><strong>NEXT UPDATE – October 2, 2006<br>
Subject – “The Administrative Hearings Process”! <br>
“Has it been fair, impartial, unbiased, and <br>
without prejudice?” </strong></p>
<p><a href="#top">Return To The Top of The Page »</a></p>
</div>
<!--#include virtual="/includes/footr.shtml"-->