<!--#include virtual="/includes/archive.shtml"-->
 <div id="main"> 
    <h3 class="title"><a name="top"></a>Update - November 7, 2005</h3>
    <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><em>&#8220;The Results of our investigation are in and being compiled and 
      will soon be made public on this web site,&#8221; and potentially other 
      sources as well.</em></p>
    <p><strong><em>&#8220;Alteration and intentional Distortion of Facts and blatant 
      Lies made to and by State Officials may soon lead to charges of Perjury!&#8221; 
      More soon!</em></strong></p>
    <p>Suffice it to say, the information gathered is compelling, indicative of 
      the colossal conspiracy we have alluded to in past updates, and truly a 
      concern for the <strong>&#8220;crisis of confidence&#8221;</strong> that 
      will permeate State Government as a result of the documentation we shall 
      present. Unfortunately, it can only reflect negatively on the funeral industry 
      already under siege and continually plagued by negative issues.</p>
    <p>In the meantime, there are two (2) very important dates to be remembered 
      as the second (2nd) anniversary of each is about to occur.</p>
    <p>The first date is <strong>November 19, 2003</strong> &#8211; the day Mr. 
      Bresnahan, investigator for the State Board of Registration, conducted an 
      unannounced inspection at Nordgren Memorial Chapel. What transpired on this 
      date is a matter of record, and I have agreed, through counsel, not to reference 
      the matter further for the next five (5) weeks. </p>
    <p>The second date is <strong>December 9, 2003</strong> &#8211; the day I 
      appeared at a meeting of the State Board of Registration of Funeral Directors 
      &amp; Embalmers in Boston.</p>
    <p>It has been almost two (2) years since I was <em><strong>kidnapped, hijacked, 
      and held hostage</strong></em> by individuals in State Government appointed 
      positions that have compromised a system that was created to protect the 
      integrity of funeral service and the consumer. Let&#8217;s take a moment 
      to explore the role of the State Board of Registration of Funeral Director&#8217;s 
      &amp; Embalmers, and then, time permitting, we shall review statements and 
      comments made by the late Mr. John J. Kazlauskas, former Chairperson of 
      the State Board, and its investigator, Mr. John Bresnahan; statements that 
      have not been made public up to this point, yet statements that clearly 
      demonstrate the depth of the corruption within the State Board and Commonwealth 
      of Massachusetts.</p>
    <p>The State Board of Registration of Funeral Directors was created for the 
      sole purpose of assuring protections for the consumer and to police Funeral 
      Service providers as individuals as well as the industry itself in the Commonwealth 
      of Massachusetts. The State Board creates the rules and regulations for 
      the industry, and monitors complaints that come to its attention from consumers, 
      members of the profession, and other sources. The State Board is compelled 
      to act fairly, impartially, without bias, and in a just and professional 
      manner in the fulfillment of its responsibilities to the public and the 
      profession. A complaint filed with the Division of Professional Licensure 
      must have a description of the incident as the basis for the complaint. 
      Only after an initial review for reasonableness of the complaint and completeness 
      per directions on the application for complaint is the complaint submitted 
      for additional information to the party against whom the complaint is filed.</p>
    <p>In recent times, not always the case, although Ms. Judith McCarthy, consumer 
      advocate for the State Board believes to the contrary, I am now told a complaint 
      will not be accepted anonymously, and the complaint must have the source 
      of the complaint listed on the complaint application. </p>
    <p>Prior to November 19, 2003 and until recently I had never filed a complaint 
      with the State Board or Division of Professional Licensure. On four (4) 
      separate occasions commencing in January 2004, I requested a confirmation 
      of this fact from the State Board. As of this date, (November 7, 2005), 
      I have yet to hear back from the State Board. Unusual? Not from my experience!!</p>
    <p>Prior to November 19, 2003 and to this date, the only complaints filed 
      against me have been from misguided, jealous, and vindictive funeral directors 
      and/or funeral home owners in Central Massachusetts. One such complaint 
      was issued anonymously, and each time the complaints were dismissed as baseless. 
      <strong><em>&#8220;Not one complaint has ever been filed by a family I have 
      served or for whom I have made pre-arrangements.&#8221;</em></strong></p>
    <p>Commencing on September 6, 2005, I initiated the first in a series of complaints 
      to the Division of Professional Licensure &#8211; complaints that have been 
      assigned to Mr. Bresnahan, investigator for the State Board, to investigate. 
      At first I thought it peculiar that Mr. Bresnahan would be assigned to investigate 
      complaints that he was directly involved in and to which we are prepared 
      to prove his statements and actions were biased, prejudiced, unprofessional, 
      and compromised and under minded any possibility of a fair and just investigation. 
      <strong><em>&#8220;Then, I woke up!&#8221;</em></strong> </p>
    <p>On September 20, 2005 I forwarded the following correspondence to Christopher 
      Carroll, Counsel, Division of Professional Licensure after voicing my concerns 
      to Ms. Kristen Garfield, administrative assistant, at the Division.</p>
     
    <div class="insert"> 
      <p>September 20, 2005</p>
      <p>Christopher Carroll, Esq.<br>
        Commonwealth of Massachusetts<br>
        Division of Professional Licensure<br>
        Office of Investigations<br>
        239 Causeway Street, 5th Floor<br>
        Boston, MA 02114</p>
      <p>Dear Atty. Carroll:</p>
      <p><strong>Re: EM-06-008</strong></p>
      <p>Per my conversation this date with Kristen Garfield, Administrative Assistant 
        in your offices, I wish to appeal the decision to assign complaint # EM-06-008 
        to John Bresnahan, Investigator. Were you to read the complaint, you will 
        note Mr. Bresnahan&#8217;s direct involvement in the complaint, and his 
        active participation in an investigation into this matter would be a direct 
        conflict of interest &#8211; not to mention further corrupting the process 
        that has been taken place to date.</p>
      <p>Your personal attention to this matter is appreciated.</p>
      <p>Respectfully,</p>
      <p></p>
      <p>Philip G. Haddad, Jr.<br>
        9 Kenwood Avenue<br>
        Worcester, Massachusetts 01605-1321</p>
      <p>c.c. Governor Romney<br>
        Lt. Governor Healey<br>
        Attorney General Reilly<br>
        Mr. Sullivan, OIG</p>
    </div>
    <p><br>
      Seven weeks have passed and no response from Atty. Carroll!<br>
      Typical? &#8220;You be the judge!&#8221;</p>
    <p>On September 29, 2005, I requested an <strong><em>&#8220;Advisory Opinion&#8221;</em></strong> 
      from the State Board. I&#8217;m told the State Board encourages requesting 
      advisory opinions prior to having to deal with possible problems or complaints 
      (refer to Update &#8211; October 7, 2005 for the advisory opinion request), 
      and as of this date (November 7, 2005) no response. Typical? &#8220;You 
      be the judge!&#8221;</p>
    <p>On October 20, 2005, the State Board itself issued a complaint against 
      me, (wait till you see and read about this one in the next update). Not 
      only was the complaint a disaster as prepared, but it was not in compliance 
      with the Division of Professional Licensure&#8217;s own &#8220;application 
      for complaint.&#8221; On November 14, 2005 I shall present the complaint, 
      my initial response thereto, the subsequent submission by Mr. Bresnahan 
      to me, and my official response to the complaint. Then we will discuss the 
      parameters for a <strong><em>&#8220;complaint of harassment&#8221;</em></strong> 
      by a State Board apparently and clearly out of control. </p>
    <p>In a <strong>&#8220;special update&#8221;</strong> scheduled for Saturday, 
      November 19, 2005 (the anniversary date referenced above) I shall present 
      a chronology of the correspondence that was forwarded to Governor Romney, 
      Lt. Governor Healey, Atty. General Reilly, and Gregory Sullivan, Office 
      of the Inspector General regarding these issues and their responses, if 
      any, thereto. I&#8217;m not sure you will be shocked by what you will learn, 
      but I know as a taxpayer and resident of the Commonwealth, you will be &#8220;outraged!&#8221; 
      More soon.</p>
    <p>Philip G. Haddad, Jr.<br>
    </p>
    <p> <a href="#top">Return To The Top of The Page &#187; </a></p>
</div>
<!--#include virtual="/includes/footr.shtml"-->