|
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/2007/06/ |
Upload File : |
<!--#include virtual="/includes/archive.shtml"-->
<div id="main">
<h3 class="title">Conspiracy & Corruption Infectious Within<br>
Division of Professional Licensure</h3>
<h3 class="title">“It’s Time to Investigate” – Governor
Patrick</h3>
<h4 class="titlesmall">UPDATE: June 24, 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>
<div id="special">
<h1>Special Notice</h1>
<p>Update scheduled for July 2, 2007 has been <u>postponed until Friday,
July 6, 2007</u> due to recent developments that will be presented and
/ or alluded to on July 6th.<br>
<br>
Have a great 4th of July.<br>
Philip G. Haddad, Jr.</p>
</div>
<p><em>“Is it at the direction of George K. Weber, Director of the Division
of Professional Licensure or is it the personal action of D.P.L.’s
Chief Counsel, Kathe F. Mullally, to withhold Public Records visually inspected
and requested by me during an “insitu” inspection on April 24,
2007 – more than 8 weeks ago?”</em></p>
<p><strong>Part 1. </strong><br>
I shall present the chronology and pertinent correspondence leading up to
my request for an “insitu” inspection of “all” Public
Records as well as correspondence attempting to secure copies of Public
Records visually inspected on April 24, 2007. You will get just a small
flavor of the cooperation (or should I say <em><strong>“total lack
of cooperation”</strong></em>) from a State governmental body –
the Division of Professional Licensure - and its Chief Counsel, Kathe F.
Mullally. </p>
<p>The State Board of Funeral Director’s and Embalmers made a decision
as a result of baseless and unsubstantiated complaints filed by Mrs. Katherine
Mangsen, on behalf of Nordgren Memorial Chapel in Worcester. You should
note that at No Time since the filing of the complaints by Mrs. Mangsen
have I had the opportunity to review or even see funeral arrangements I
had made with families prior to my sudden and unexpected departure –
all records housed at Nordgren Memorial Chapel, under the control of Nordgren
Memorial Chapel, and pilfered by Mrs. Mangsen and Nordgren’s secretary,
Gail Wiles, without any independent entity (person) present.</p>
<p>Seven (7) days of testimony by families who were referenced in the complaints
by Mrs. Mangsen and whose testimony totally contradicted the content of
the complaints and clearly demonstrated that Mr. Bresnahan, investigator
for the Division of Professional Licensure, failed dismally in his so-called
investigation to verify the veracity of the complaints prior to presenting
his findings of fact to the biased and prejudiced members of the State Board.</p>
<p>Now comes Chief Counsel Mullally, who attested to Governor Romney in correspondence
prepared for her signature – correspondence that was inaccurate and
not questioned by Chief Counsel Mullally before she signed it, that I had
not made application for a new license, since as a result of Mrs. Mangsen’s
actions and those of her husband, Kurt Mangsen; that although I remained
an owner of Nordgren Memorial Chapel, I no longer owned at least 10% of
the Funeral Homes stock. </p>
<p>When I confronted Chief Counsel Mullally at the conclusion of the morning
session of the second day of hearing in January 2006 and stated I had made
application for the new license, had enclosed the required funds, and that
Ms. Patrice Buchanan, administrative assistant for the Division of Professional
Licensure had received the application and stated to me “my application
was being processed”, Chief Counsel Mullally stated to me in the presence
of a witness that she signed what was placed in front of her and had no
reason at that time to question its content.</p>
<p>I requested of Administrative Hearings Counsel, Anne Colleton, to allow
me to subpoena Ms. Buchanan to testify to this fact; but like every other
request made of Administrative Hearings Counsel Colleton, my request was
denied. Neither Chief Counsel Mullally nor Administrative Hearings Counsel
Colleton wanted to hear or know the truth – their positions were taken
and hardened in concrete before the Administrative Hearings were completed.
The Administrative Hearings being a formality ONLY.</p>
<p>Post Hearing Briefing. Response to the Tentative Decision of the Board
(actually “tentative decision of Administrative Hearings Counsel Colleton”).
Nothing more than a charade! Decision rendered and yet to this very day,
I have yet to be called before the Board as a result of the complaints being
filed against me by Mrs. Mangsen.</p>
<p>With the decision now rendered, as is my right; I requested an “insitu”
inspection of “all” Public Records in this case – since
once the decision was made all records including executive sessions, all
correspondence including actual documents as well as email correspondences,
and all electronic correspondence Must become a matter of the Public Record.
The following Public Records Request went to all present members of the
State Board, all members of the State Board as of December 9, 2003 (except
Mr. Kazlauskas who is no longer with us), and staff members of the State
Board and Division of Professional Licensure by certified mail.</p>
<div class="insert">
<p>It is required that you have the <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html" target="_blank">Adobe
Reader</a> installed on your computer to view the following attached document.</p>
<p> <strong> - </strong>March 26, 2007 Letter to Ms. Anne Colleton <a href="/documents/MAR262007.pdf">[Download]</a></p>
</div>
<p>A series of correspondences were exchanged between me and the Division
of Professional Licensure in an attempt to establish a date and time for
the “insitu” inspection of the Public Records – “as
they were - where they were”. Each piece of correspondence from the
Division of Professional Licensure was dated, posted anywhere from 3 to
as many as 6 days after the date on the correspondence, and then forwarded
to me. Would you believe, I received correspondence in the mail on Thursday
evening, April 12, 2007 (correspondence dated Friday, April 6, 2007 and
mailed on Tuesday April 10, 2007) stating the Division of Professional Licensure
would have the records available for inspection on Friday, April 13, 2007
– providing me with 17 hours advanced notice? I’m sure you believe
what I just stated. In the event you question this, I have the documents
and post marks to substantiate the aforementioned facts.</p>
<p>On April 24, 2007 I conducted an “insitu” visual inspection
of the Public Records which were in four (4) boxes in “No Order”
in a conference room in the offices of the Division of Professional Licensure.
The records were not identified or was it possible to identify if the records
were those of the State Board Administrative Staff; State Board Members
(past or present); the investigator, DPL; the Prosecuting Counsels; or the
Administrative Hearings Counsel. After visually inspecting the Public Records
presented by Ms. Cheryl Yebba, Records Administrator for the entire Division
of Professional Licensure (a designation I was informed by Chief Counsel
Mullally that had not been made officially in writing) on April 24, 2007,
I personally presented Chief Counsel Mullally with an itemized list of the
Public Records I wished to have produced wrapped neatly with an elastic
around them. Chief Counsel Mullally, refused to allow me to copy the records
at that time. Chief Counsel Mullally further refused to allow any clerk
or person at the Division of Professional Licensure to copy the records
requested while we waited. (I say <strong>“We”</strong>, because
as a result of my experiences to date with the State Board and the Division
of Professional Licensure, one would be foolish not to have a witness present
at all times when dealing with personnel in these departments and agencies).</p>
<p>Chief Counsel Mullally DID stated that by the end of the week (it now being
Tuesday, April 24, 2007) I would have a cost invoice for the production
of the 164 pages listed, itemized, and neatly wrapped for a clerk (person)
to copy.</p>
<p>Weeks past and NO word from Chief Counsel Mullally! I contacted Cheryl
Yebba by phone, (as you recall, Ms. Yebba is the Records Administrator for
the Division of Professional Licensure) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007. Ms. Yebba
appeared surprise I had not received the requested records, and indicated
she would make a few phone calls and call me back shortly. I asked Ms. Yebba
to respond in writing (either by email or U.S. Mail) as I wanted her response
for the record. </p>
<p>Ms. Yebba did respond as requested via email on Tuesday, May 15, 2007.
(The content of Ms. Yebba’s email is stated in the following letter
from me to Chief Counsel Mullally dated May 21, 2007.</p>
<div class="insert">
<p>It is required that you have the <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html" target="_blank">Adobe
Reader</a> installed on your computer to view the following attached document.</p>
<p> - May 21, 2007 Letter to Kathe F. Mullallay, Esq. <a href="/documents/MAY212007.pdf">[Download]</a></p>
</div>
<p>There are several additional correspondences I shall share with you in
the next update - <strong>PART 2.</strong>- scheduled for Monday, July 2,
2007. Suffice it to say, it is now Thursday, June 21, 2007 – more
than 8 weeks since I conducted the “insitu” inspection and Chief
Counsel Mullally and the Division of Professional Licensure’s Director
Weber have NOT seen their way clear to adhere to the Public Record’s
Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and forward to me copies of the
Public Records requested on April 24, 2007.</p>
<p>I shall withhold the <strong><em>“Special Announcement” </em></strong>I
had intended to make in this Update until I receive a response from correspondence
I forwarded to the Massachusetts Funeral Director’s Association and
its president, Anne Roan.</p>
<p>To the Massachusetts State Board of Registration of Funeral Directors and
Embalmers and to the Division of Professional Licensure and its well compensated
government functionaries (see June 12, 2007 Update for more information),
I conclude this Update with these words of wisdom:</p>
<p align="center"><em>“Facts Do Not Cease To Exist Because They Are
Ignored, or<br>
</em><em>Because Board Chairman, Kazlauskas is No Longer with
Us!”</em></p>
<p><strong>Next Update – July 2, 2007 <br>
Part 2.</strong></p>
<p><em>“Is it at the direction of George K. Weber, Director of the Division
of Professional Licensure or is it the personal action of D.P.L.’s
Chief Counsel, Kathe F. Mullally, to withhold Public Records visually inspected
and requested by me during an “insitu” inspection on April 24,
2007 – more than 8 weeks ago?”</em></p>
<p><a href="#top">Return To The Top of The Page »</a></p></div>
<!--#include virtual="/includes/footr.shtml"-->