<!--#include virtual="/includes/archive.shtml"-->
  <div id="main"> 
    <h3 class="title"><a name="#top"></a>The Pitfall of False Assumptions!</h3>
    <h4 class="titlesmall">UPDATE: October 25, 2006</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&#187;</a></p>
    </div>
    <p>(Dedicated specifically to John Bresnahan, his supervisors, State Board 
      Members, State Board employees and State Board Legal Counsels with special 
      notice to Katherine Mangsen and Kevin Mercadante)</p>
    <p> In less than four (4) weeks &#8211; (November 19th), we will celebrate 
      the three (3) year anniversary of the day funeral service in Massachusetts 
      saw its darkest day &#8211; the day funeral service and those commissioned 
      to uphold the public trust in the Commonwealth bought into a conspiracy 
      and compromised a process &#8211; actions that may well end the careers 
      of several of these government functionaries.</p>
    <p>Since the last update on October 2, 2006 I have taken the time to read, 
      document, and categorize every word of the official testimony from the Administrative 
      Hearings of January 18, 2006, January 19, 2006, March 31, 2006, May 2, 2006, 
      June 14, 2006, July 12, 2006, and August 9, 2006 &#8211; seven (7) full 
      days of testimony that encompass approximately 1600 pages of documents. 
      This was accomplished in order to prepare what is termed a &#8220;Post Hearing 
      Briefing&#8221; which is my assessment of the facts in complaints filed 
      against me by Katherine Mangsen (Mrs. Mangsen being the wife of Kurt Mangsen, 
      president and CEO of Nordgren Memorial Chapel in Worcester since his dad&#8217;s 
      passing in 1996). </p>
    <p><strong>For the record </strong>and I am still &#8220;blown away&#8221; 
      every time I read Kurt Mangsen&#8217;s testimony of March 31, 2006. Kurt 
      Mangsen had not read nor had he seen any of the complaints filed against 
      me on behalf of Nordgren Memorial Chapel by his wife prior to the complaints 
      being filed with the State Board. He had not read nor had he seen the complaints 
      filed against me by his wife, Katherine, more than two (2) years later. 
      And as the complaints were presented to him by me prior to questioning on 
      March 31, 2006, Mr. Mangsen was totally unfamiliar with their content up 
      to that very moment. One need ONLY ask, &#8220;Mr. Bresnahan, didn&#8217;t 
      your investigation training and experience in funeral service suggest &#8211; 
      just maybe &#8211; a red flag was wavering before your very eyes or were 
      you just so blinded by the prejudiced, biased, vicious, and defaming remarks 
      of the Chairperson of the State Board (John Kazlauskas) on December 9, 2003 
      that you and the State Board feasted on the bait that was laid out before 
      you by those with a personal agenda and vendetta as their modus operandi?&#8221;</p>
    <p>Also since the last update, I have received documents that I requested 
      under the Public Records laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (not 
      being legally trained, I sometimes refer to this process as a Freedom of 
      Information Act (FOIA) request) from Atty. Kathe Mullally, legal counsel 
      to the Board and Division of Professional Licensure. The documents requested 
      were the basis of a recent decision made by the Board that Westland Services 
      Corporation&#8217;s personalized landscaping business is directly related 
      to the disposition of Human Remains &#8211; which is a total over reach 
      and an unprecedented stretch of imagination by a prejudiced and biased Board 
      abusing its administrative powers to achieved its desired agenda at the 
      expense of the facts and the truth.</p>
    <p>The documents provided to me by Atty. Mullally ONLY after I contacted the 
      Secretary of State&#8217;s Office of Public Records compliance, created 
      more questions than answers; which then led me to Attorney James R. Anliot, 
      former Board attorney for many years and Board attorney until December 19, 
      2003. Atty. Anliot is no longer employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
      and is now an associate with Affiliated Monitors, Inc. at 21 Custom House 
      Street, Boston, MA. </p>
    <p>I contacted Atty. Anliot as his name was referenced in an investigative 
      report by Mr. Bresnahan dating back to the 1st quarter of 2006 along with 
      correspondence that was provided to me by Atty. Mullally. After speaking 
      briefly with Atty. Anloit on the phone, he agreed to meet with me, and we 
      scheduled a meeting at his office in Boston for 2:00PM on Tuesday, October 
      10, 2006; at which time I was to bring documents for his review and we were 
      to discuss issues surrounding the document and a recent decision of the 
      Board.</p>
    <p>Tuesday morning, October 10, 2006 came and as I was preparing to depart 
      for Boston for other meetings in addition to meeting with Atty. Anloit, 
      I received a phone call from Atty. Anliot indicating he was unable to meet 
      with me due to other commitments; but was willing to speak with me on the 
      phone. I requested another date and time of his choosing to meet at any 
      location between 6:00AM and 11:00PM any day of the week, but apparently 
      his schedule would not permit time for us to meet. </p>
    <p>We proceeded to speak on the phone for almost 45 minutes and surprising 
      to me, the conversation spanned a much wider area of concern than I expected 
      we would cover. The full content of our discussion will be presented only 
      after I have provided Atty. Anliot with the complete dialogue to critique 
      as I ended up with almost 4 full pages of text from our discussion.</p>
    <p>Also as a result of information provided to me by Atty. Mullally, I contacted 
      Mr. William McDonald, past Chairperson of the State Board back in the mid 
      1990&#8217;s at his funeral home in Wakefield, MA. Mr. McDonald was extremely 
      defensive and down right rude, to say the least, and his abusive comments 
      ended abruptly without comment from me as Mr. McDonald just hung up on me. 
      I was not surprised nor was I shocked as I had just a few days earlier reviewed 
      correspondence regarding a meeting I was requested to attend in the mid 
      1990&#8217;s and wherein Mr. McDonald displayed the same type of behavior 
      as Chairman of the State Board. (I provided Mr. McDonald with an accurate 
      depiction of our conversation, for his comments if he wished prior to it 
      being presented on this web site. To date I have not received correspondence 
      from Mr. McDonald, and I shall withhold the content of our brief conversation 
      and his specific comments for a subsequent update).</p>
    <p>I also contacted Frank Murphy, Murphy Funeral Home in Salem, and also a 
      past member of the State Board in the mid 1990&#8217;s. Mr. Murphy was very 
      professional, very courteous, and a gentleman; quite refreshing after only 
      moments earlier having spoken with Mr. McDonald. Mr. Murphy had no recollection 
      of being interviewed by Mr. Bresnahan in February 2006 and had no objection 
      to meeting with me; but wished to speak with the Board and to potentially 
      have legal counsel for the Board present during the meeting. I was in total 
      agreement with Mr. Murphy&#8217;s request, and it was left that Mr. Murphy 
      would contact me in a day or two. I had not heard from Mr. Murphy a week 
      later, and have followed up with two (2) phone calls and left messages with 
      a gentleman named Tom, who was to have Mr. Murphy get back to me. I am awaiting 
      a call back from Mr. Murphy.</p>
    <p>Yes, I have been busy since the last update, but there is more &#8211; 
      much more. I was finally wrapping up the &#8220;Post Hearing Briefing&#8221; 
      (an enormous effort, I assure you) and arranging for the Briefing to be 
      velo-bound as I did with the responses to the complaints I filed with the 
      State Board. As an addendum, I also provided each member of the State Board 
      and Mr. Bresnahan with velo-bound copies in early 2004. When I realized 
      it would be best if I hand delivered the Briefing to Atty. Colleton, I emailed 
      Atty. Colleton, Administrative Hearings Counsel, indicating I would be delivering 
      the Post Hearing Briefing between 1:00 and 3:00PM on Wednesday, October 
      18, 2006 &#8211; the day agreed to by all parties to the process. I asked 
      for the location, floor and room number whereby I could deliver the briefing. 
      Additionally, I had requested copies of the audio tapes of the seven (7) 
      days of hearings and wished to verify that I was bringing payment for the 
      tapes and wished to secure the complete and full set of audio tapes at that 
      time. Atty. Colleton indicated the location and to whom I should speak with 
      to secure the audio tapes.</p>
    <p>I arrived at the 4th floor at 239 Causeway Street at 1:10PM on Wednesday, 
      October 18, 2006 accompanied by my wife, Carolyn, and proceeded to the Office 
      of prosecutions, where we were greeted by Leslie Alexander, prosecution 
      counsel. Atty. Alexander immediately escorted us to the Office of Atty. 
      Colleton. What happened next was <strong>&#8220;beyond belief&#8221; </strong>&#8211; 
      even taking into consideration the process that had been followed during 
      the past 35 months. </p>
    <p>Atty. Colleton appeared shocked to see us and indicated I should leave 
      the Post Hearing Briefing on Maria&#8217;s desk just down the hall a few 
      feet away. I indicated I wished to have a receipt signed and dated that 
      the Post Hearing Briefing was delivered and received by someone. Atty. Colleton 
      stated in no uncertain terms, &#8220;I&#8217;m not taking the time to make 
      up a receipt and we don&#8217;t generally give them out anyway&#8221;. I 
      responded, &#8220;I have the receipt already prepared. All someone needs 
      to do is print their name and sign and date the receipt&#8221;. Obviously 
      upset, Atty. Colleton did take a date stamp, stamped the receipt, signed 
      it and said, &#8220;here take it, but what are the other copies for?&#8221; 
      I indicated one copy was for her to have for her records and the third copy 
      was there in the event a mistake was made on one of the other two. Atty. 
      Colleton&#8217;s response was, &#8220;I do not need a copy for our records.&#8221;</p>
    <p>I, then, asked about the copies of audio tapes Ms. Colleton had made during 
      the 7 days of Administrative Hearings; and which she had arranged for their 
      reproduction &#8211; at a cost to me of $172.00 as I handed Atty. Colleton 
      my personal check for this amount. Atty. Colleton took the check and indicated 
      the audio tapes were in the large envelope. I indicated I wished to have 
      a receipt for the audio tapes and presented Atty. Colleton with a prepared 
      receipt for the audio tapes. At this point, Atty. Colleton completely lost 
      it. Her response was, &#8220;I&#8217;m not giving you a receipt for the 
      tapes. I don&#8217;t have to&#8221; as she quoted some state regulation, 
      which was unfamiliar to me. When Atty. Colleton took a brief moment to review 
      the wording in the receipt for the audio tapes, she grew even more angry. 
      &#8220;I am unable to verify if the audio tapes are a full and complete 
      set of the proceedings of the hearings, and I&#8217;m not going to sit down 
      and listen to all of them&#8221;. I responded, &#8220;I will be pleased 
      to wait for Maria (I do not recall her last name) to return from lunch. 
      I&#8217;m sure she can verify the fact that the audio tapes are a full and 
      complete set from the 7 days of hearings&#8221;. Atty. Colleton&#8217;s 
      response, &#8220;I&#8217;m not going to let her speak with you.&#8221;</p>
    <p>I then suggested to Atty. Colleton that we take a moment, open the envelope, 
      and at least together review the labeling of the tapes to see that all days 
      were appropriately labeled and at the same time we would be reasonably assured 
      the completeness of the package of tapes. Atty. Colleton refused, denied 
      my request to use a conference room to inventory the tapes, indicated she 
      had a conference to attend, and escorted Mrs. Haddad and me out of her office 
      area and into the hallway. I indicated I was not leaving until I inventoried 
      the audio tapes, to which Atty. Colleton stated, &#8220;if any are missing, 
      send in a letter&#8221;; and she walked off.</p>
    <p>Carolyn and I proceeded back to the Office of Prosecutions, was given a 
      conference room, and we proceeded to inventory the audio tapes while we 
      waited for Attorneys Read and Alexander. Both attorneys (Read &amp; Alexander) 
      entered the conference room as we had the audio tapes stacked up by specific 
      dates &#8211; and both attorneys (Read &amp; Alexander) observed that ONLY 
      six (6) days of audio tapes were present for a total of 18 tapes. Audio 
      tapes for Thursday, January 19, 2006 were missing.</p>
    <p>Carolyn and I returned to the office where Maria sat in hopes that she 
      would have by now returned from lunch. We were greeted by Atty. Robert Horacek, 
      legal counsel, Division of Professional Licensure, who went out of his way 
      to listen, understand, and attempt to resolve the issue. Atty. Horacek initially 
      asked that we wait in the Library until Maria returned, but soon asked if 
      we would wait in the hallway, which we certainly were agreeable to. Within 
      10-15 minutes, Atty. Horacek returned with Maria to the hallway; at which 
      time he and Maria laid out the tapes from the envelope given to me by Atty. 
      Colleton and arranged them by dates. They then left and returned with what 
      appeared to be the original tapes and compared them to those provided to 
      me by Atty. Colleton.</p>
    <p>Atty. Horacek indicated that indeed the audio tapes for January 19, 2006 
      were either not part of the package or may have been mis-labeled; but regardless 
      he would see to it that the issue was reviewed and corrected in a short 
      period of time and that there would be no need for me to make another trip 
      into Boston to secure the missing tapes if in fact tapes were indeed missing. 
      Carolyn and I departed at 2:35 PM (an hour and 25 minutes after we arrived, 
      for what we had expected to be a 10 minute procedure). (Atty. Horacek is 
      by far the most professional civil servant I have met and dealt with at 
      the State level in the past 35 months). </p>
    <p>The topic of this update is <strong><em>&#8220;The Pitfalls of False Assumptions&#8221;</em></strong>, 
      which is as basic as <strong>&#8220;Life in the 21st Century &#8211; 101&#8221;</strong>. 
      What I have presented thus far is a &#8220;pattern of activity&#8221; based 
      upon preconceived false assumptions on behalf of Mrs. Mangsen, Atty. Sinrich, 
      (Nordgren&#8217;s legal counsel), Mr. Bresnahan, Mr. Kazlauskas, Mr. Mercadante, 
      the State Board in 2003 and today, Attorneys Read and Alexander, functionaries 
      of state government, and Madam Hearings Counsel, (Atty. Colleton). </p>
    <p>Let me say it a different way.</p>
    <p>The way children see the world, the way they communicate, and what they 
      feel confident about and worry about is different from how adults see the 
      world, communicate, etc. The same is true for you and me and for the seniors 
      and their families we deal with on a daily basis as we assist them as they 
      transition a loved one to the next life. Thinking that we &#8220;know&#8221; 
      what is important to seniors and to those we deal with each and every day 
      as a result of our own experiences is a flawed process. It is based solely 
      on &#8220;False Assumptions&#8221; and is the pitfall that each of the aforementioned 
      individuals in their respective roles have succumbed to.</p>
    <p>Life doesn&#8217;t work this way. Beneficially working to obtain the truth 
      means acquiring the facts not what one wants to be factual. In order to 
      reach this high plateau (I shall call &#8220;Truth and Justice&#8221;) one 
      must command a deeper knowledge and broader understanding of the essence 
      of the truth, the motivation of those involved in the process of gathering 
      facts to support truth, and the ultimate resolution that will stand the 
      scrutiny of the supreme Being we shall all soon answer to. Just like working 
      with children requires its own set of skills and abilities, so too does 
      arriving at the truth require a special set of skills and abilities as well 
      as the innate desire to be sure of ones actions and statements before drawing 
      conclusions.</p>
    <p>Until we face our mortality for the first time and as we get older we face 
      our mortality every day, you may not rationally be aware of the importance 
      of the truth in everything we do. The stakes have never been higher for 
      funeral service, if only because we have so many more seniors these days 
      and will have even more in the future. We need to listen to them; after 
      which we need to act on their behalf and according to their wishes. More 
      than ever, we need to be true to them now and in the future &#8211; do you 
      see the value of getting to &#8220;The Truth?&#8221;</p>
    <p>The false assumptions made by the aforementioned named parties about families 
      that were advised and counseled by me &#8211; assumptions and conclusions 
      found only to be false and distorted when the families received &#8220;ugly&#8221; 
      subpoenas and were forced to travel to Boston to relive the loss of loved 
      one, because false and malicious statements were made to and by the State 
      Board without the facts and no effort was made to validate the veracity 
      of the false statements, is a tragedy that cannot be rectified in their 
      lifetimes. We all must realize no matter what your field or motivation, 
      you take the risk by not knowing as much as you can about the facts and 
      about seniors you&#8217;re dealing with, and given their age, making mistakes 
      as has been the case in these proceedings can have a much greater and more 
      serious consequences than working with younger people who have more years 
      to recover from uninformed and misguided decisions and conclusions that 
      relate to our actions.</p>
    <p>To best summarize what I have attempted to present to you in this update 
      is &#8211;</p>
    <p><strong>&#8220;It isn&#8217;t what you know that gets you into trouble. 
      <br>
      It&#8217;s what you think you know that isn&#8217;t true that causes the 
      most trouble!&#8221;</strong></p>
    <p> I shall conclude by saying &#8211; </p>
    <p><strong><em>&#8220;No Pleasure is comparable to standing upon the advantaged-ground 
      of Truth!&#8221;<br>
      </em></strong></p>
    <hr size="1" noshade>
    <p><strong>Next Update &#8211; November 6, 2006<br>
      </strong><strong>Subject &#8211; &#8220;Living a Lie&#8221;</strong></p>
    <p><em>(Each subsequent Update will identify an individual and present the 
      facts supported by the truth to establish that the subject individual is 
      now and will continue to &#8220;Live a Lie&#8221; for the rest of their 
      life, or until they come clean by becoming clean. I ask that you do not 
      judge anyone harshly or irresponsibly, but based solely on the accumulation 
      of all facts as presented in this matter).</em><strong><br>
      </strong> </p>
    <p><a href="#top">Return To The Top of The Page &#187;</a></p></div>
<!--#include virtual="/includes/footr.shtml"-->