<!--#include virtual="/includes/archive.shtml"-->
 <div id="main"> 
    <h3 class="title">"Conversations in San Diego and Los Angeles / Part 2."</h3>
    <h4 class="titlesmall">UPDATE: February 17, 2009 </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>Before proceeding with discussions concerning what transpired at the "recorded"
Meeting of the Massachusetts Funeral Board held on December 9, 2003 along with
actual documented statements of the State Board Chairman Kazlauskas, Inspector
Bresnahan, and others in attendance, I have been asked by several of you to
explain the Biblical statement in the February 1, 2009 Update - "The Presence of GOD in their lives now gone,
salvation denied, "walking dead" remain!"</p>

<p>As it has
been explained to me, it is <u>not</u> enough to believe in Christ, to believe
He gave up His Life for our sins, and as such we are assured eternity in God's
Heavenly Kingdom. To believe is one thing, but without Christ in our hearts,
and supported by our statements, actions, thoughts, and prayers; salvation is
denied and what remains is only "the walking dead".</p>

<p>As you
will see as I present only that which is the so-called complete "public record"
- the same public record upon which the Administrative Hearings Counsel for the
Division of Professional Licensure (Ms. Anne Colleton) was to render her
decision to the Massachusetts Funeral Board, that there are many (all of which
will be acknowledged) persons who clearly are "walking dead in Christ". Each
has been referenced in the past in the October 8, 2007 update reflective of
their eventual destination as they pass from this life. The depiction at the
front wall of the Sistine Chapel and the vision of those herein referenced is
so vivid in my mind that I pray for each daily that they see the evilness of
their ways and repent before it is too late.</p>



<p><strong>Part 2. Conversation continues...</strong></p>

<p><em>"Mr. Haddad, after witnessing
State Board Chairman Kazlauskas huddled in a corner of the reception area at
the Division of Professional Licensure on December 9, 2003 with the Mangsen's,
their attorney (Sinrich), and Ronald Johnson; and Chairman Kazlauskas quickly
leaving the area, what did you do?" </em><strong><u>My Response</u></strong> "I was
shocked to say the least. I immediately realized there was something
under-handed going on, and quite frankly, 'I smelled a rat'."</p>



<p><em>"What happened next?"</em> <strong><u>My Response </u></strong>"I waited in the same reception as the
Mangsen's, their attorney, and Johnson reading materials for the presentation I
was to have made in NYC, and re-scheduled in order to be present at the Funeral
Board Meeting, until I was called into the meeting at approximately 2:00 PM."</p>



<p><em>"What happened when you were
eventually invited into the State Funeral Board meeting?" </em><strong><u>My Response </u></strong>"Before anything was said, I asked the presiding
Chairperson (Kathy Cartmell-Siricco) if the meeting (proceeding) was being
recorded? Ms. Cartmell-Siricco's response was - 'Yes, it is!' I stated I would
like to receive a copy of the recording. Ms. Cartmell-Siricco stated, 'Yes, you
can have a copy', at which time a gentleman from behind one of the tables
approached me and gave me his business card."</p>



<p><em>"Were you aware of or informed of
any discussions concerning you, the Mangsen's, or the inspection that took
place on November 19, 2003, or the issues you were called to respond to that
were discussed at the meeting prior to you being invited into the meeting?"</em> <strong><u>My Response</u></strong> "No!"</p>



<p><em>"Most of us have listened to the
audio recording of what transpired prior to you being invited into the Funeral
Board Meeting on December 9, 2003, but for those of us who haven't heard the
tape, do you have a copy of the transcript of what transpired prior to your
appearance before the Funeral Board?"</em> <strong><u>My Response</u></strong>
"Yes!"</p>



<p><em>"Would you kindly tell us what
happened and feel free to read from the transcript to the group as necessary?" </em><strong><u>My Response</u></strong> "Yes, certainly!"</p>





<p>A. Prior
to my being invited into the meeting, the investigator (Bresnahan) briefly
described what he observed during the inspection. Within moments he was
interrupted by Chairman Kazlauskas whose statements in the presence of all
State Board members, legal counsel for the State Board, the executive director
(Peveri), the assistant executive director (Scully), a consumer advocate and
the public are as follows - (documented in Administrative Record and available
in audio recording which many of you have heard in Chairman Kazlauskas's own
voice) -</p>



<p><strong><em><u>Chariman Kazlauskas speaking</u></em><em> - "If I may, I've spoken to John
(Bresnahan - inspector) and I've spoken to Chris Carroll (Board Counsel) about
this. Nordgren is not a competitive client. They're at the other end of the
city, and I would give them the option, that if they want, to have me step out.
But Haddad is certainly not a competitor because he's not even (inaudible),
he's not - he has a ticket, but he's not (inaudible) right now.</em></strong></p>



<p><strong><em>I think I have enough institutional knowledge of all this
that I think we'd be putting the importance of protecting someone's right ahead
of prudent examination of all of this. Is that a fair way to say it? And Chris
(Carroll - State Board Attorney) has suggested there is no need of my recusing
myself. I might (inaudible) be a witness in fact if necessary, if you decide to
go to trial or hearing.</em></strong></p>



<p><strong><em>If you look at this letter, in defense of Kurt and
Katherine Mangsen, prior to their buying the business, Nordgren, Kerrigan,
&amp; Mangsen was made up the Nordgren family, Jack Kerrigan and Steve and
Harry and Kurt Mangsen. Harry died, and whatever happened between the rest of
them there was a reason the Kerrigans pulled away. I don't proclaim to know the
details and I don't want to know the details. But the fact of the matter is
they found this letter dated 1999. It wasn't under their tutelage. It was under
Jack and Harry's. They brought this guy in and they were paying him
commissions, and they'll tell you that, if you ask them point blank, they were
paying commissions. But this letter, if you read it carefully, this has really
gone "right up my nose" and it has done it badly."</em></strong></p>



<p>Chairperson Kazlauskas proceeds to read a Nordgren
Memorial Chapel corporate letter from a pre-need funeral file not previously
(or ever) reviewed by Inspector Breshanan. Half way through reading the letter,
Chairman Kazlauskas states in his own words, <strong><em>"The Nordgren's knew nothing
about this. Their weakness is they didn't - they trusted but didn't verify. We
all can plead guilty to a little of that." </em>Chairman Kazlauskas read
further and then stated, "<em>That's not factual either. Insurance pays a
little less. This was really done to garnish commissions".</em></strong></p>



<p>B. Chairman
Kazlauskas continues (in his own words) - referencing me, </strong><em>"He's a carpetbagger (in
reference to my ethnic background as an Arab American). He offered me - I'll
put it out there. He came to me before he went to Nordgren's and he offered me
the following - If I come to you I will bring you my business. What do you
mean, Phil, your business? You don't have a business. I have a following
(alleging my statements), and if you give me 90% of the casket mark up, you'll
get 10% plus the cost of the product and your overhead, and you can keep the
vault sale".</em></strong>Chairman
Kazlauskas continues, <strong><em>"And I said, absolutely not. I want no part
of you. That's an illegal arrangement".</em></strong> </p>


<p><strong><em>"And that's
what these guys said. So that these people, Nordgren, will stand up to the fact
that's that was happening in the past. I think you've got a clear case of
sending this thing to prosecution".</em></strong></p>



<p>C.Finally,
legal counsel for the State Board (Carroll) interrupted, <strong><em>"First off, it's not even a
complaint yet, correct?"</em></strong>
Chairman Kazlauskas responded, <strong><em>"Well it has to be docketed, yeah."</em></strong>
Legal Counsel (Carroll) responds, <strong><em>"Docketed, and they have to respond. They
have to get a response."</em></strong> </p>



<p>D.Chairman Kazlauskas responds, <strong><em>"Okay.
All right. He's (referencing me) is going to threaten to sue everybody. He's
already -<u>He's a snake.</u> Excuse me, are we on the record?" </em></strong>Ms. Cartmell-Siricco (Board member and
Secretary to the Board at the time) responded, </strong><em>"Yes!"</em></strong></p>



<p>E.
Chairman
Kazlauskas stated, <strong><em>"I didn't say that. Can you delete that part Kim?</em></strong>"(referencing
Kim Scully, Assistant Executive Director for the State Board). At this point
there was <u>much laughter.</u></p>



<p>F.
On
the advice of legal counsel, Chairman Kazlauskas recused himself prior to my
being invited into the meeting saying, <strong><em>"Okay! At the advice of Counsel. Okay! But
I'm willing to step forward and stand up to this. You can ask me as an expert
witness."</em></strong></p>



<p>G.No
sooner had I been dismissed from the meeting and left the premises, Chairman
Kazlauskas immediately reassumed the Chairmanship of the meeting inviting the
principals of Nordgren Memorial Chapel (as referenced above) into the Funeral
Board Meeting. The Chairman's personal attacks on me continued as he made
reference to the relationship between insurance companies and the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. Chairman Kazlauskas stated, <strong><em>"Their agreement with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts is that one of the things is that their
relationship is with the establishment (the funeral home - Nordgren Memorial
Chapel), not with these carpetbaggers". </em></strong>- The <u>second and repeated Ethnic Slur</u> directed at me by Chairman
Kazlauskas within the hour.</p>



<p><em>"Mr. Haddad, and is it correct
that you did not know anything about this discussion or get a copy of the audio
tape of the meeting, at which time this conversation occurred, for well over a
year (December 2004)?" </em><strong><u>My Response</u> "Yes, that is correct!"</strong></p>



<p><em>"I would think Chairman
Kazlauskas's remarks were not only prejudicial, but violated his responsibility
to be fair, impartial, and to have recused himself to prevent any appearance of
bias or conflict of interest. Am I not correct?"</em> <strong><u>My Response </u>"Yes, I will explain".</strong></p>



<p><strong>STATE BOARD CHAIRMAN (KAZLAUSKAS)</strong>
- whose role as
Chairman is to direct and guide the State Board in it deliberations and proceedings
is governed by the same principles of bias, prejudice, or interest as applied
to public officers or officials exercising judicial power or quais-judicial
administrative power. MAPRAC, 311, [FN5]</p>



<p>A.
Chairman
Kazlauskas's aforementioned actions and statements to include malicious <strong><u>"Ethnic Slurs"</u></strong> on more than one
instance and even after attempting to delete his initial statements from the
record made the ethnic slur an additional time - this time in the presence of
the Mangsen's, their attorney, and Mr. Johnson, fatally infected the process
and future proceedings with his bias, prejudice, and defaming statements - all
intentionally made to unduly influence all Board and staff members as well as
future proceedings in this matter
- statements made in all instances when I was not present to defend myself.</p>



<p>B.
So
grave and pernicious were Chairman Kazlauskas's statements of bias, prejudiced,
and slander and so serious and harmful to the process rendered that a fair and
impartial hearing of the facts and the rendering of a fair and just decision
was impossible and constitutes grounds for invalidation of the entire
proceedings. MAPRAC [FN1.] Where appropriate grounds for invalidation exist,
the failure of Chairman Kazlauskas to disqualify or recuse himself from the entire
proceedings (and not just my appearance before the Funeral Board) even in the
absence of actual bias,prejudice,
or interest affecting the proceedings, renders the entire process a legal
nullity.MAPRAC, 312 [FN6.]</p>

<p>C.<strong><u>Article 29 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights declares</u></strong>, - "A party to administrative agency adjudication is entitled as a matter of state constitutional right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. MAPRAC 313, [FN5.]. Articles 1, 10, and 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights have been construed by the Supreme Judicial Court as encompassing "substantially the same" rights as those guaranteed by the "due process" clause of the United states Constitution. The United States Supreme Court developments in the area of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment make clear that the federal right to a fair and impartial administrative agency tribunal and hearing at the state administrative level does in fact exist.</p> 

<p>D.Chairman Kaklauskas blasphemous bias and prejudice remarks were a clear statement of prejudgment of administrative facts by the Chairman of a State Administrative
Agency Board. He alleges I approached him in 1994 with a business proposition during which time he was a member of the State Board. He purported he stated to me the proposal was illegal. Yet now, 9 years later (December 9, 2003), Chairman Kazlauskas determines it is advantageous to raise the issue (an occurrence that never happened) which now totally and completely infected any chance of a fair and impartial administrative agency process for me - not to mention the economic advantage Chairman Kazlauskas would have in attracting families that had previously been served by me.</p>

<p>E. Chairman Kazlauskas even went so far as to encourage the Mangsen's to file complaints against me and stated,<strong><em> "I would suggest you do the same thing"</em></strong>
in reference to the fact the State Board as a result of the chairman's statements voted to initiate a complaint against me with the Division of Insurance - a complaint that was never filed by the Board. An administrative official engaged in adjudicating the rights and interests or parties must maintain and observe the essentials of sound judicial conduct. MAPRAC, 315 [FN8.]. He must strive to maintain an open and unbiased mind throughout the proceedings. He must conduct himself with impartiality. He must establish and maintain decorum in the conduct of the adjudication. He must observe "the same high standards as have been set for judges."MAPRAC, 315, [FN9.].</p> 

<p>F. Chairman Kazlauskas stood to gain economic benefit from any action to deprive me of my economic livelihood by the suspension or sanctions against my license to
practice as a funeral director. MAPRAC, 316.</p>

<p>G.In Withrow v. Larkin, the Court stressed that not only is a biased decision maker constitutionally unacceptable, but "our system of law has always endeavored to
prevent even the probability of unfairness". MAPRAC, 320 [FN11.].</p>

<p>H.Where invalidating bias, prejudice, or interest, the administrative adjudicator should properly be disqualified or recused from the conduct of the adjudication. MAPRAC, 321, [FN1.] Failure to disqualify or recuse in such circumstances renders the entire proceedings null and void. [FN2.]. Chairman Kazlauskas, finally on advice of counsel, recused himself from my participation at the meeting on December 9, 2003, but immediately thereafter reclaimed the chairmanship and attacked me once again with an "Ethnic Slur"- this time in the presence of principals from Nordgren Memorial Chapel in addition to all Board members, Board staff, and the public.</p>

<p><em>"Mr. Haddad, I cannot see how this matter could proceed, let alone for you to get a fair and impartial hearing. The process was infected from its inception!"</em><u><strong>My Response </strong></u>"You're certainly correct, but there is a great deal more! Allow me to share with you statements made during the Funeral Board Meeting on
December 9, 2003 by Inspector Bresnahan (Division of Professional Licensure), the Mangsen's, and their attorney (Scott S. Sinrich)."</p>

<p><strong>To be presented in the next update.</strong></p>

<p>I will conclude this update with a few observations. </p>
<ul><strong>
<li><em>We need to listen to God! We cannot see him, so listening is doubly important!</em></li>

<li><em>The voice of Satan is valued by the weak of spirit &amp; the weak of mind!</em></li>

<li><em>How has the sin of those referenced herein and throughout the updates impacted their relationship with God?</em></li></strong>
</ul>
<p>As we ponder these important points, I again ask that you pray (not for me, although I welcome your prayers); but for those who have succumbed to evil as their path
in this earthly life.</p>

<p>Philip G.Haddad, Jr.</p>

</div>
<!--#include virtual="/includes/footr.shtml"-->