|
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/2007/02/ |
Upload File : |
<!--#include virtual="/includes/archive.shtml"-->
<div id="main">
<h3 class="title"><a name="#top"></a>The Chronology of “Institutional
Corruption” – Unfortunately, a reality in Massachusetts!<br>
<br>
Part 2. “Absolute Power” is abusive, and if unchecked and unbalanced,
can and, in this case did lead to “gross corruption” <br>
</h3>
<h4 class="titlesmall"><br>
UPDATE: February 19, 2007</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>Before proceeding with the “Chronology of Institutional Corruption
– unfortunately, a reality in Massachusetts”, I wish to present
the <strong>“Principle of Intention”</strong> for your information,
for your thought process, and for your internal assessment of “Why
are you on this earth”! At the conclusion of the presentation in this
Update, I will refer back to the Principle of Intention and ask you as well
as those referenced repeatedly on this web site – Justice At What
Price – “What was your intention? Why are you on this earth?
And what is your intention today?”</p>
<p>The<strong> “Principle of Intention” </strong>determines who
you are, why you’re here on earth, your commitment to spiritual growth,
and a true assessment of “external power” vs. “authentic
power”. Are you with me so far? I suggest to you and ask that you
give the following statement some very serious thought as you continue to
read the content in this update. </p>
<p> <strong>“Your intentions are creating your reality” –
who you are!!!!!!!!!!!!</strong></p>
<p>When last I communicated with you I presented but a sampling of the conspiracy,
the corruption, the incompetence, and yes, cover-up that has permeated the
Administrative Process and <strong>“witch hunt” </strong>that
has plagued the proceedings in this case for more than 3 years. With the
true facts, and not the baseless accusations and allegations made by Mr.
Kazlauskas, Mrs. Mangsen, and Mr. Mercadante, now before the State Governance
Board; can the prosecution’s case, the flawed investigation, the absence
of “checks and balances” by supervisors, and the blatant disregard
for my responses from the outset stand the test of public scrutiny as well
as that afforded me in the judicial process? Again, I say to you, <strong>“Assess
all the facts before making judgments, and you will have ‘all’
the facts”! </strong></p>
<p>As stated earlier, after more than 17 months had passed since the Order
to Show Cause was issued to me on June 29, 2004, all the while deprived
of my ability to practice as a funeral director, the Administrative Hearing
Counsel finally set the date of January 18, 2006 for the commencement of
the Hearings process. The prosecution, realizing Atty. Alexander was inexperienced
in these matters, added a seasoned professional, Atty. James Read, to the
prosecution team. Mr. Read notified my attorney at the time, Daniel Flynn,
to subpoena defense witnesses; since our request to delay the proceedings
till mid March, due to the inconvenience and hardship of having elderly
witnesses, and several in poor health, find their way into Boston in the
heart of the winter months. As you would expect, <strong>“Request
denied by the Administrative Hearings Counsel, Ms. Colleton.</strong></p>
<p>We, then, requested that the Administrative Hearings be held in Worcester,
since the overwhelming majority of prosecution witnesses were from Central
Massachusetts and “all” witnesses for the defense were from
Central Massachusetts. Anticipating a denial as was the case with every
other request made of Ms. Colleton; I contacted the State Representative
and the State Senator representing my district, and requested their intervention
– not for me, but for the witnesses to be called. Both the State Representative
and State Senator were advised by counsel that they could express their
concern, but could not directly become involved in the process. No surprise
- the Administrative Hearing was to be in Boston, begin on January 18, 2006,
and I was told any problems with anyone getting to the hearings were their
problem, and therefore, mine.</p>
<p>As directed, we subpoenaed the witnesses for my defense on January 10,
2006 – just nine days before they were directed to appear. Rev. Dr.
Paul Kennedy, a witness subpoenaed and a close friend of Monsignor Haddad
and a scheduled participant in Monsignor Haddad’s planned ecumenical
funeral, contacted me and indicated he was in poor health, close to being
bedridden, and that he would be unable to appear and would have his doctor
provide me with the necessary paperwork to vacate the subpoena. I indicated
that would not be necessary, and that I would withdraw his name from the
list of witnesses for my defense.</p>
<p>At the same time, I received a phone call from the family of Helen Harry,
an elderly woman who was traumatized to the point of becoming sick as a
result of the subpoena and being confronted with coming to Boston in the
middle of the winter. Her fear made her ill, and she was advised to seek
a waiver from her doctor. I willingly withdrew Mrs. Harry’s name from
the list of defense witnesses to be called to testify.</p>
<p><strong>Now the “Kicker”, if you will.</strong></p>
<p>After rushing to issue subpoenas at the last minute when every effort to
either delay the hearing and/or have the Administrative Hearing in Worcester,
two days before the hearing was to commence, Atty. Read, lead prosecutor
for the Division of Professional Licensure, notified my attorney and indicated
there was NO chance that the prosecution would be through with their portion
of the proceedings during the dates indicated in January and that we should
notify all the witnesses for the defense who had just days earlier received
and been traumatized by the subpoenas, that they would not be called to
testify on January 18-19, 2006 and that it would be my responsibility to
notify them at a future date to come to Boston to testify in this matter.
</p>
<p>Two witnesses had requested a vacation day from work in order to appear
at the hearing. Another had arranged for care for his wife, recuperating
from surgery, so that he could be present to testify. Another had made arrangements
for public transportation from another state in order to be present to testify.
Others had arranged car pooling in order to get to Boston. And yet, two
days before the scheduled Administrative Hearings were to commence, we are
notified by the prosecution there would not be time to call these witnesses.
I need not elaborate on the effort it took to notify all the witnesses and
the pain and trauma they experienced as they now attempted to reverse the
arrangements they had made in order to be present. (Many have suggested
the actions by the Prosecution were harassment, to say the least. I dismissed
this theory to each of them, although as you will see as I continue –
the witnesses were right in their assessment.) <strong>It was harassment!!!!</strong></p>
<p>After two days of Hearings, my attorneys (Michael Angelini and Daniel Flynn),
indicated they wished to withdraw from the case. Although a bit disappointed
at first, I felt no one knew the facts as I did. No one knew the truth,
as I did. And no one could express themselves with the passion and commitment
I have had for every family I have ever served or will serve in the future.
I agreed to the withdrawal without objection; and decided to represent myself
<strong>“prose” </strong>– a term I was unfamiliar with
until now.</p>
<p>The Administrative Hearings reconvened in March which allowed me time to
research legal processes and become familiar with what to expect and how
to respond from the position of being my own attorney. The one and only
commitment I made to myself before commencing on this journey, was that
I would present and represent only the truth regardless of what was said
or done during the process, and that I “would not” object to
the entrance of any evidence or testimony of any witness – be it for
the prosecution against me or for my defense. An example of this was my
issuing a subpoena to Mr. Kevin Mercadante as a “hostile witness”
for my defense; since the investigator and prosecution had based so much
of their case on Mr. Mercadante’s testimony and yet intentionally
failed to call him as a prosecution witness. <strong><u>Why do you suspect?????</u></strong></p>
<p>The prosecution called Mr. Tracy Mitchell, a Massachusetts funeral director,
as their so-called “expert witness”. I knew Mr. Mitchell from
his participation at a meeting of the International Order of the Golden
Rule, although Mr. Mitchell, while testifying under oath, did not remember
us meeting; but did remember attending the OGR Meeting. I found this a bit
interesting, since Mr. Mitchell and I spoke for several minutes concerning
“respectful remembrance” and how important it was for families.
</p>
<p>Who was I to question Mr. Mitchell’s qualifications to come forward
as an expert witness, and as stated above, I was not going to object to
any person, question, or evidence to be entered into the proceedings. After
listening to Mr. Mitchell expound upon his qualifications to be an expert
witness, I couldn’t help but say to myself, “I personally know
approximately 600+ funeral directors throughout the country and with the
exception of just 2 of them; anyone of the remaining 598 funeral directors
had qualifications, experience, professional acumen, and skills comparable
or more pronounced than Mr. Mitchell. That said, I had no objection to Mr.
Mitchell’s testimony. Representing myself, I only wish I was savory
enough to have subpoenaed anyone of the 598 funeral directors referenced
above who could well have addressed issues regarding professional practices
within the industry as well if not more detailed and professionally than
Mr. Mitchell; Mr. Mitchell being asked numerous questions by the prosecution
concerning the funding of pre-need funeral arrangements through insurance
products – of which, by his own testimony, Mr. Mitchell had <u>NO</u>
experience.</p>
<p>As I cross-examined Mr. Mitchell, I questioned much of his testimony and
how he could state his position without experience. Not surprising to anyone
present, including me; I was informed by the Administrative Hearings Counsel
that I could not proceed in this vein of questioning, since I had agreed
to Mr. Mitchell’s experience and accepted him as an expert witness.
<strong> <em>What did I know?</em></strong></p>
<p>I won’t get into Mr. Mangsen’s and Mr. Bresnahan’s testimony
in detail at this time, but shall leave that for a future update.</p>
<p>Finally on June 12, 2006, for the 1st time other than in responses I provided
as a result of the Order to Show Cause issued to me on June 29, 2004 (two
years prior), I now was given an opportunity to present the real facts and
dispel the fabricated and fictional accusations and allegations that were
originally presented to the State Governance Board and championed as legitimate
and worthy of prosecution by a corrupted state government functionary. Add
to this the failure of three (3) supervisors of Mr. Bresnahan during a 5
month period to verify the veracity of the facts, and you have a system
compromised by inept (and yes, incompetent) state supervisory functionaries
that soon would realize their mistakes, and yet allow the process to continue
without interruption while they personally attempted to hide from their
“faux pas”. <em>Did this investigator and his three (3) supervisors
think I was just going to go away? Did they think that if they stalled the
process long enough that my ability to defend myself with the enormous amount
of resources (money and time) that I was expending in defense of my 37 years
as a funeral director and my impeccable name and reputation would be so
compromised that I would “pack it in”? Apparently many people
underestimated the value of ones name and reputation; in this case, mine
(Philip G. Haddad, Jr.).</em></p>
<p>The Prosecution was visibly shocked to find that I called myself as the
first witness for my defense. The look on Atty. Read’s face and statement,
“You’re going to testify?” was worth the price of admission
to the Administrative hearings. On June 12, 2006 the entire day was devoted
to my testimony. As I entered the Administrative Hearing, I asked permission
to affix charts to the wall in reference to testimony I was about to give.
What was presented and referred to on these charts was a detailed chronology
of events leading up to the Administrative Hearings. (Don’t forget
for a moment, that Nordgren Memorial Chapel in the persons of Katherine
and Kurt Mangsen had locked me out of the funeral home on November 19, 2003,
and that I had NO access to any of the records that had been tampered with
by someone who had access to them as well as any materials or correspondence
for my defense). Although the prosecution was uncomfortable during this
day long “eulogy” as their case disintegrated before their eyes,
the chronology clearly demonstrated honorable intentions and efforts on
my behalf in my association at Nordgren’s and the Mangsen’s
dishonorable pattern of activity once they gained control of the Nordgren
Memorial Chapel.</p>
<p>At the conclusion of day one of my testimony, it was decided that I would
be able to wrap up my testimony in a few hours, be cross-examined by the
prosecution and have defense witnesses called to testify. This process required
issuing new subpoenas once again to those we wished to testify for the defense;
a copy of which was forwarded to the Prosecution Attorneys and the Administrative
Hearings Counsel.</p>
<p>Tuesday, June 27, 2006 arrived. A room for the hearing was so designated.
The Court Reporter was set up and ready to go (at my expense, I might add)
for the 10:00AM commencement of the hearing. I had traveled to Boston with
all documentation in hand for the conclusion of my testimony and relevant
questions to be asked of defense witnesses. Defense witnesses that had now
been subpoenaed another time were on their way into Boston, and then “a
sudden delay”. Mr. Mazur, current Chairperson for the State Board
was nowhere to be found. 10:00AM soon became 10:30AM and no Mr. Mazur. The
Prosecution Attorneys inquired and found out that Mr. Mazur had an emergency
and was not going to be present. We were further informed that no other
member of the Board was available, and the Hearing would have to be postponed.</p>
<p>Concerned for Mr. Mazur, I asked if the emergency had happened in or around
Boston, as Mr. Mazur surely would have been traveling for at least an hour
or two coming from the western part of the state for an emergency to have
occurred. No clarification or explanation was forthcoming. All of a sudden,
I realized defense witnesses were in transit from Central Massachusetts
and how was I to contact them now that were on the road. I requested that
the Administrative Hearing continue as planned, since the court reporter
was present, every word would be documented, the Prosecution was present,
and the witnesses were on their way. <strong><u>“Request denied by
Ms. Colleton!”</u></strong> Are you surprised?</p>
<p>I, then immediately stood up, turned on my cell phone as I began to rush
out of the hearing to attempt to contact two (2) clergy already on the road
and several other defense witnesses to tell them the hearing had been abruptly
cancelled - it now being 10:40AM. The Hearings Counsel indicated we needed
to set another date, to which I answered “I must first attempt to
contact the witnesses” and I walked out. </p>
<p>I called Maureen, Office Manager at St. George Orthodox Cathedral in Worcester,
requested that she attempt to contact Fr, Michael Abdelahad and asked that
she notify other witnesses (I gave her names and addresses) and to get back
to me with whom she was able to contact. I returned to the Hearing Room
to find Ms. Colleton clearly upset and irritated that I had left the room
to attempt to contact the witnesses already on the road to Boston. </p>
<p>After agreeing to the date of July 12, 2006 for the next day of hearings.
I indicated that I suspected several of the witnesses would be arriving
at the building; because they were in transit, and was there a mechanism
whereby we could put up some type of signage (or note) indicating the Hearing
was postponed? The answer was <strong><u>“No signage!”</u></strong>
I then asked, “then what do I do?” The answer, <strong>“Mr.
Haddad, they’re your witnesses – that’s your problem.”</strong>
The Administrative Hearings Officer and the Prosecution Attorneys immediately
got up, walked out of the room with their documents; leaving me, the court
reporter, and 2-3 observers shocked beyond belief with what had just occurred.
I turned to one observer and said, <strong><u>“Is this America or
Iraq?”</u></strong> </p>
<p>As has been presented in previous updates, I subpoenaed Kevin Mercadante
to appear on June 27, 2006. Mr. Mercadante’s attorney contacted me
and Ms. Colleton, Administrative Hearings Counsel, requesting a modification
to the subpoena as Mr. Mercadante had vacation plans, and also indicated
Mr. Mercadante did not feel any testimony he would provide was relevant
to the case. I immediately responded to Mr. Mercadante’s counsel and
copy furnished the Administrative Hearings Counsel and Prosecution of my
decision that I would be pleased to modify the subpoena to another date
in order for Mr. Mercadante to testify.</p>
<p>I was shocked beyond belief to find that the Administrative Hearings Counsel
“vacated” the subpoena (which meant Mr. Mercadante did not have
to testify as a result of the subpoena), and made this decision on her own
accord. <u><strong>(Are you surprised? I was until I finally realized why
Ms. Colleton did this - several weeks later!)</strong></u> When I queried
Ms. Colleton why she would do this, for Mr. Mercadante was an accepted and
approved “hostile” witness for the defense, she was obviously
shocked, closely reviewed the subpoena for a few moments and said, “It
is not an acceptable subpoena anyway, since it is not notarized”.
True the subpoena was not notarized (I was unaware follow up subpoenas had
to be notarized a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time as was the case in this matter);
but why did Ms. Colleton not notify me of this omission when she received
copies of the subpoenas weeks earlier as required by regulations –
still bothers me to this day.</p>
<p>Witnesses for my defense testified on July 12, 2006 and again on August
9, 2006 and included two (2) clergy, three (3) funeral directors, two (2)
families that had been directly referenced in the complaints filed by Mrs.
Mangsen and supposedly investigated by Bresnahan, Nordgren Memorial Chapel’s
former secretary, and other families that had either been indirectly referenced
in complaints or had pre-need funeral arrangements at Nordgren Memorial
Chapel – arrangements that had been made with me as the funeral director.</p>
<p>The testimony of the defense witnesses (all “hostile” witnesses,
which means they appeared as a result of subpoenas and not of their own
volition), not only clearly compromised all issues raised in the complaints;
but the witnesses in most cases (including funeral directors who were unaware
of what I had been through for 2 _ years) now for the 1st time came face-to-face
with the<strong> “charade”</strong> the State Board and Division
of Professional Licensure became involved in as a result of a shocking corrupt
Chairperson and a corrupt (and completely incompetent) investigator. </p>
<p>At this point, (if not long before) a fair, impartial, unbiased, and ethically
and morally driven Administrative Hearings Counsel would have judiciously
stated – “there is insufficient ‘factual evidence’
to continue on with this case” and she would have dismissed / terminated
the proceedings. But if the Administrative Hearings Counsel did this, how
would she, the Division of Professional Licensure, its Director, and its
investigator justify spending $2M (latest estimate) on this “witch
hunt”; when in fact my responses to Mrs. Mangsen’s three (3)
complaints (if fairly reviewed and verified), would have shown the content
of the complaints to be known false statements and were ONLY a personal
attack on my character in an attempt to justify terminating me – action
Mrs. Mangsen and Nordgren Memorial Chapel had been planning for some time.</p>
<p>Now, let’s return to the<strong> “Principle of Intention”.</strong></p>
<p>It was clearly Mrs. Mangsen and Nordgren Memorial Chapel’s <strong>“Intention”</strong>
to terminate me, and as stated by their attorney, Mr. Sinrich, “You
need to be careful in terminating an employee and to do so with caution”.
Mr. Mangsen (although we all know it was the designed plan of Katherine
Mangsen) terminated me without notice within hours of the “supposed”
unannounced inspection by Bresnahan.</p>
<p>It was clearly Mr. Kazlauskas’s <strong>“Intention”</strong>
to discredit me in any way and manner possible, and he did so in a vicious
attack on me personally and professionally before the State Board, its employees,
attorneys, and the public in attendance. At that time, Kazlauskas stated
with authority and personal knowledge, only that which he could have obtained
from the Mangsen’s and Ronald Johnson, and prejudiced and biased an
Administrative Process from its inception.</p>
<p>It was clearly Mr. Bresnahan’s<strong> “Intention”</strong>
to accept that which Mrs. Mangsen had presented as factual, and any investigation
on his behalf was to validate each and every aspect of her complaints regardless
of his findings. Bresnahan determined and stated publicly calling me <strong><em>“a
scavenger”</em></strong> before the State Board even before he had
ever met me, or any complaints were filed. <strong>(It’s apparent
Bresnahan was going to be fair, just, unbiased, and non-prejudiced in his
investigation! <em>OH YEAH!</em>)</strong></p>
<p>It was clearly Mr. Read’s <strong>“Intention”</strong>
to prosecute me with every ounce of energy he had, and it was his “Intent”
to see that I never practiced as a funeral director again in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts regardless of the facts. Read had the audacity to say this
to my face in front of an observer when the Administrative Hearing was abruptly
cancelled on June 27, 2006.</p>
<p>It is clearly Ms. Colleton’s <strong>“Intention”</strong>
to “force fit” wrongful facts, false facts, and intentionally
distorted facts into current regulations (some regulations that were not
even regulations back in November and December 2003 / not to mention the
summer of 1999) in order to justify conclusions drawn without benefit or
consideration of the “real facts”. </p>
<p>I shall have a great deal more to present along with supportive facts to
substantiate what is the <strong>“Intention”</strong> of the
aforementioned individuals in subsequent updates.</p>
<p>I suggest to you, the readers of this Update, that the <strong>“Intentions”</strong>
of the Mangsen’s (to include Ronald Johnson and Kevin Mercadante,
as well); the <strong>“Intentions”</strong> of Mr. Kazlauskas;
the <strong>“Intentions”</strong> of Mr. Bresnahan; the <strong>“Intentions”</strong>
of Atty. Read (to include to a lesser extent, Atty. Alexander); and the
<strong>“Intentions”</strong> of Ms. Colleton “dishonor”
not only themselves, but the system of government they have sworn to uphold
and protect. Each of the aforementioned has violated their personal honor,
and I truly pity each of you for what you have become. Your <strong>“Intentions”</strong>
have become <strong>“your reality” </strong>– a reality
that will follow each of you to the grave. As you rapidly approach the point
of No Return – “Your Mortality” – know that I will
pray for each of your souls, but I fear you may find solace ONLY in eternity
with Mr. Kazlauskas.</p>
<p><strong>Next Update – March 5, 2007</strong></p>
<p>Subject:<em> “Citizen’s Free Speech & the Free Press make
Government perform more Effectively, Efficiently, and Responsive to its
Citizens…It is a core guarantee in our Constitution & for sustaining
a Democracy by its People!”</em></p>
<p><strong>“A Continuing Update on the Administrative Process”</strong></p>
<p><a href="#top">Return To The Top of The Page »</a></p></div>
<!--#include virtual="/includes/footr.shtml"-->