Immigration reform from a different perspective

Pictures of Ceasar Chavez, Mexican, Argentinian flags?

Continuing to monitor the pulse of the people regarding legal immigration into this nation and through various special interest groups we’ve been lead to several websites who are advocacy groups for those who seek to gain either amnesty, or a different path to citizenship than just about any other group of folks we can think of during at least four waves of immigration to the USA covering approximately 300 years.

It is interesting to go through the offering memoranda of these groups such as mission statements, goals, and objectives that are written by those who are seeking reform. Below is a written statement from one such group, Democracia USA which is Spanish for ‘Democracy in the USA.’ This is the parent company of Democracia-Ahora! which translated means, ‘Democracy Now!’ (This statement is from Democracia-Ahora! website.)

Our Issues:
[We support: Comprehensive immigration reform that respects and reflects our values and history as a nation of immigrants.] The key components to any effective, realistic, long-lasting immigration reform bill must include a path to earned legalization, a temporary worker program, and a family reunification program.] Any legislation missing these core components will lead to another generation of disastrous immigration failures.

Let’s start from the very first line shall we? “We support Comprehensive Immigration reform that respects and reflects our values.” In our humble opinion we believe that there are better ways to communicate this sentiment. This is one of the primary issues that upset so many American citizens. Every different emigrant group in this country gets their recognition – almost affectionately – and has earned the respect of everyone.

Secondly we are informed that the key components to any effective, long-lasting reform must include: earned legalization, a temporary worker program, and a family reunification program.

We’d like to add the difference of what is being stated and with all due respects, what the American citizen wants. Of the first part we would not have to even address “earned legalization” insofar as if the paths taken to achieve residence in the United States were done legally this indeed would be an unarguable point. Therefore, you are not asking for anything ‘earned’ but rather you receive commuted, pardons, and probationary aspects to your criminality, right?

Furthermore, we love the notion of a ‘temporary worker program’ as long as it is adhered too. Remember one cannot come in as a guest and then slip into the shadows; therefore, we suggest that in your stated wants you may want to add a probationary period to the temporary worker program as well as accountability.

We are totally in favor of family reunification programs. However, why on earth should we? If the family was broken up so one could come to the U.S. and work illegally (breaking the law) why then should this be something on the agenda? Further, we would love to ask that you be far more specific in your requests.

Here is just a small hypothetical. Suppose an individual, who lives in Scotland, either came to America illegally – or –overstayed their Visa’s permission and hence became illegal. Now then our Scottish mate goes to the local pub after the day’s end and gets plastered – and without a thought – starts driving home and Kaboom! Gets into an auto accident killing four teenagers on their way to the prom?

Unfortunately for the mothers and fathers of the teens but ol’ Mr. Macintosh didn’t have auto insurance, or even a license to drive. Are we supposed to pay for his family’s reunification? For what their visitation for him in prison?

Just one more thing on family reunification – what if this family was same-sexed homosexuals – trying to get their loved ones across the border?

And what is up with the threats? There can be no doubt about this whatsoever – ” will lead to another generation of disastrous immigration failures” – this kind of language is threatening, lacks anything that you would contribute, moreover, it’s a ‘if you don’t comply’ statement.

Immigration reform is at hand…(again)

Justice, Truth, Fair?

Well inasmuch as one of the primary goals here is Immigration Reform, and as such we try and keep the public informed on what assures to be a huge fight over the attempt to achieve a Comprehensive Reform Bill.

We have been watching most organizations that would benefit from immigration reform in this country. Just a monitoring if you will about American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also known as TARP or the big-bail job. Recently we have come across an organization called Democracia Ahora which is a subsidiary of Democracia USA.org.

Here is a statement from CEO and President of Democracia Ahora, Jorge Mursuli, issued recently. Please be advised that we have place some sentences in brackets for clarity and for points of contention.

[“This is a faulty measure that will only lead to the increased racial profiling of the hundreds of thousands of hard-working Latinos living in Arizona.] This is a major mistake. [It doesn’t solve our immigration problem; it simply creates more problems.] The answer to fixing our broken immigration system isn’t targeting individuals; the answer is humane, comprehensive reform. I thank the members of the House and Senate that rejected this [hateful and impractical legislation,] and urge all Arizonans to press for comprehensive reform. As citizens, although we do not have the power to cast a vote in this matter, [we will remember who stood up for reform and who stood against it when we head to the voting booth in 2010. ” ]

As we attempt to address this short paragraph we ask that if you’d like, go ahead and reread it for atheistic purposes. Seriously, what does the writer or organization believe about “racial profiling.”? This is a primary example of the politically correct language that subjugates the truth. If you admit that there is a ‘generation’s worth of illegals’ living in the USA, then just say it.

In this statement there is an odd use of the word “our.” This is very confusing insofar as is “our” represent only citizens of the USA? Or does it mean all inclusive Hispanics and Latinos albeit legal or not legally here? We are also wondering what is so ‘hateful” about this legislation.

In your last statement, “…we will remember who stood against when we head to the voting booth in 2010″ is this some kind of weak attempt at a veiled threat?

Ladies and gentlemen this is ‘politics as usual’ in the United States. I’m sure that many folks voted for President Obama on his notions of change, progress, and transparency. When rubber hits the road we are slowing finding out that the president is and has been linked to ACORN, and many of his ‘appointees’ are being implicated in banking scandals, failure to pay income taxes, and doing some improprieties that simply isn’t fooling anyone.

For further reading — a must — see here!

We’ll miss you Michael

Michael, the King

As at the time of this writing, there probably is not a person on the planet that is unaware of Michael Jackson’s untimely death. To be sure there are those who will not rest until every bit of dirt, drugs, and rumors are exposed with which so many people love – gossip – enough for several periodicals to maintain a thriving business and employ virtually thousands of people.

Yet, as for us here at American Age, we would rather dwell on the impact of first The Jackson Five, and then the earth shattering Michael Jackson of Billy Jean and Thriller fame. Yes, that Michael who garnered more than 13 Grammy awards, the one in the same person who sold over 57 million records of one title – Thriller.

How many can tell the story of the rivalry between The Jackson Five and a little known group also of brothers who went by the name The Osmond Brothers? These were the true start of the ‘boy-bands’ at a critical time in music listening history.

How on earth are two ten-year-old boys supposed to know about what they were singing about? They didn’t; however, Michael put every fiber of his being into his music and he was a driven man.

Think it over – history that is – where a genre of music had been very roughly concocted in earlier times of Elvis Presley, The Letterman, Dick Dale and the Dell Tones, Chuck Berry, James Brown and then…the British Invasion!!

Out of nowhere there were The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Eric Burton with the Animals, The Kinks, Jerry and the Pacemakers, who evolved into Cream, Yes, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Linda Ronstadt, and the Eagles.

However, at a time when music and the world needed it most – R&B, Soul, Beal Street, and the enigma of Motown that’s when The Jackson Five filled a void that Whitney Houston, Diana Ross, or even the best-of-the-best, The Temptations, Commodores, and The Isley Brothers couldn’t.

During some tumultuous times for an age, a race, and a nation, Michael Jackson was just warming up! At his first solo release Michael Jackson wooed women and men alike with his words filled with love and soul. Our staff here at American Age chooses to look at the entertainer, musician, moon walking, white-glove-wearing with sequined spats on his shoes, Michael.

Michael Jackson was bigger than big – he was HUGE – at a time when he wasn’t. He “dated” Brooke Shields of Calvin fame, married the dethroned King’s daughter, Lisa Marie Presley, and he recorded with Paul McCartney. Rest now Michael. You made and changed history; you helped many of us see that, We are the World.  Oh yeah….just one last thing: can anyone think of a more peaceful way to die? 

Steve Jones at USA Today has written a beautiful tribute to Michael Jackson; read it here.

For Ed McMahon

Always smiling, always professional

This is normally the kind of article one would find in the Arts & Entertainment section of American Age. However, with all due respect Ed McMahon was a front page kind of person. Ed McMahon was the personification of America; or at least, what America used to be. We will miss him dearly.

Beloved U.S. TV personality Ed McMahon has died at the age of 86.

The former Tonight Show sidekick passed away in the early hours of Tuesday morning at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles.

The veteran star had been battling ill health for some time. He was diagnosed with systemic bone cancer and spent time in hospital in February suffering from pneumonia.

McMahon began his career as a fighter pilot during World War II, serving in Korea throughout the 1950s.

He went on to work with legendary star Johnny Carson on daytime game show Who Do You Trust? and in 1962 the pair landed the job of hosting The Tonight Show.

Ed McMahon the chuckling man sitting on the couch next to Johnny Carson was the best pitch-man and laugher at the worst jokes imaginable. In fact, many fans of the Tonight Show tuned in just to see the skits and banter by Ed McMahon. Now forever Johnny, Ed, and all of Johnny’s ex-wives will be together once again – united – at The Tonight Show….heaven.

Barbara Boxer: Call Me ‘Senator’

Lest we forget she called Condi Rice 'ma'am!

The unmitigated gall of some people! Is there anything worse than a person who has perceived power but actually thinks that that power is legitimate? The only explanation we can possibly think of is that these people must feel so inadequate that they need to belittle someone in order for themselves to feel better.

This is precisely the point as we see it with ‘Senator’ Barbara Boxer (D-CA) who, with her vile mouth spewing acid-like hate toward Brigadier General Michael Walsh. No doubt Senator Boxer is not happy with her Chairpersonship whilst other more lofty and media centered committee’s are grabbing all the press.

 

“Could you say ’senator’ instead of ‘ma’am? ‘It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title. I’d appreciate it.”

…Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to Brigadier General Michael Walsh during Senate hearing Tuesday, when the general repeatedly said, “Yes, ma’am,” and “No, ma’am,” when answering Boxer’s questions at hearing she chaired on New Orleans’ levee system.

We kid you not…everyone we’ve spoken to or heard from has had nothing but harsh words for Barbara Boxer. I understand that this could be hard to understand unless one actually saw the exchange. It was in the manner that Boxer [looking like the 'bitch' in the Alien films] void of any respect, decorum, or professionalism so rudely stated her request to B. Gen. Walsh.

Perhaps unbeknownst to Boxer, achieving the rank of ‘General’ in the military services is no easy feat; moreover, the politically correct language for him to be addressing her is ma’am. So in the event you are frustrated by your committee, annoyed at the failure of the bureaucracy and red tape the Congress – of which you are a member — has created enough obstacles to the improvements on the levee systems in New Orleans, Louisiana.

That situation in and of itself does not give you the right to launch on General Walsh, caprice?

Now for the lighter side of politics…what is up with these democrats who call themselves ‘moderates’? As we’ve written before anything done in a hurry has about a 90% failure rate. At the speed that this joke of a “American Reinvestment and Recovery Act” a.k.a. stimulus package, TARP, and ‘let’s save the world…before we’ve even written the Bill, hell, let’s just put that baby in the hands of those bonus mongering chief executives!’

Here are a couple of awesome reads: A must read: and of course here: Hat tip to Patricia Murphy

Hat-tip

 

Slow down…what’s the hurry?

Ahh...they'll believe anything

Beware! STOP! Listen and beware! Please allow us to draw attention to those wonderful ‘wigs’ on the Hill, Capitol Hill that is, who seem to want to get their Bills and amendments through faster than what amounts to humanly possible.

And just as sure as anything the first political news I heard this week — bright, early on Monday morning — was some lady (a democrat practically screaming!) who was espousing that come hell or high water Obama’s healthcare plan needed approval NOW! Call your representative; senator, get on the phone to God and get this healthcare plan approved!

Just a short case in point for us all to remember: Not long ago – after the election – ‘We the people,’ were told in order for us not to lose everything we owned, we needed to stimulate the economy, okay but not…yesterday! Did you notice how often we heard ‘this must be done now!’

We don’t want to be the bearers of shocking news by any means…but more than 80% of Americans surveyed lately still have no clue where their stimulus money went. I’ll admit it…I’m one of them.

One can opt to think of it this way – first we got hammered in the markets by everyone from Merrill Lynch to J.P. Morgan, with Bank of America to Mr. Madoff and lest we never forget those ‘hedge funds.’ Then as those ‘wigs’ on the Hill were saying, “Hurry up, hurry, hurry, hurry up we need to stimulate the economy – puff! There goes another ton of our money yet no one seems to know where it is.

So here comes the morals – slow down the the “Celebrity Wannabe” in the White House; slow down all the democrat cronies who actually believe they’re doing something constructive – just to do it. In a recent Fox News Poll roughly 80% or more Americans did not approve of having “managed healthcare” without a plan and process of implementing it. Sounds like Gitmo, eh?

Any questions? Then ask House Speaker, Nan Pelosi D-CA, why she won’t approve any investigation of her with her big mouth and the C.I.A. What’s worse than that….while you’re asking Nan Pelosi what’s up with that, ask her please to explain why republicans aren’t even being heard on the floor. Thank you, just an American.

Don’t ask, don’t tell…and Supreme Court

Dan Choi (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Did you know…that it is against the law whilst one is serving in the military to date, court, or fraternize with a person who is a member of the officer corps? Oh yes! If a person went into say, the U.S. Army as an enlisted person for them to have a relationship with a superior officer is a crime and can warrant dismissal from military service.

So now what? Do we have those in the military who are either dating, in a relationship with, or married to an officer start acting the way homosexuals are acting regarding ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy?

People come to terms: This ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ intercession is a way for you to serve in the military – of which there are laws against – and still be a homosexual. All you’ve got to do is keep your mouth shut! So many gays have stated: “Why do or should I keep my mouth shut?”

Because it’s the law! We believe that there is a huge disconnect between what people want –they call these ‘civil rights’ – and what discrimination, manner of laws, and deviant behavior is all about. The deviant behavior is the result of a person not getting what it is that they want; therefore, they act out. Remember, we are stating that people have wants that somehow are being incorporated into civil rights. Go figure.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to review Pentagon policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

 The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He was the only member of an earlier group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional. Anyone, please! What is Constitutional about being a homosexual?

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

We find that this situation with James Pietrangelo II typical of those who have wants regardless of what rights they already have. Furthermore, we are still of the opinion that each and every person who brings their “sexual orientation” to the forefront after raising their right hand under oath is somehow and in someway morally or ethically challenged.

* Hat tip to Lara Jakes at the A.P. She wrote a splendid article, here.

On the ‘left’: shortsighted or longsighted?

Slick Willy

Long sighted and short sighted seems to be the view from the far left. Every time a member of this elite cast gains political office – we will not speak for anyone but us – but the idea of they being unhappy, distraught, or wanting some kind of immediate costly change is enough to frighten the daylights out of us!

All kidding aside – no joking about it – Let’s stroll a bit and look at some of the past ‘left-winged’ leadership. Are you okay with that?

I don’t want to go too far back inasmuch as most people don’t retain, or don’t want to retain the history of the past. So then…let’s have a look at President William ‘Slick Willy’ Clinton. Here is a person that didn’t inhale, dodged the draft, as a Rhodes Scholar in England literally protested and bad-mouthed America beyond recognition.

Just stop for a minute and reflect on what is known: a person with fidelity issues, ethics, or being truthful gets elected to not only to a governor for the state of Arkansas, but amidst more affairs and lies pipes his way into the White House. Actually my reference to “Slick Willy” is true: a book entitled, Slick Willy: Why America Cannot Trust Bill Clinton by Floyd Brown. The interesting part behind this book is that it was released before Clinton was elected president.

With all of the blame the democrats (especially Mr. Obama) are putting on George W. Bush, it seemingly suggests that they forgotten all of the past. But we haven’t! And neither are these folks who were kind enough to write about Floyd Brown’s book:

 ”… Extensive research into who Bill Clinton really is, and the results are stunning. Mr. Brown reveals to a nation caught up in impeachment that we knew all along, ever since he entered the 1992 election, that Slick Willie is dangerous for America. Floyd has fully documented, emotionally written accounts of Draft dodging, drug dealing, Jenifer Flowers, and more. And this is where all the scandal began. Brown tells of his life-threatening experiences he went through to research and publish the book, and goes through in-depth analysis on how Clinton is a criminal, a liar, and how he had been that way long before 1992.”

 

“… Clinton Administration has manipulated the Federal government with one of the world’s largest market research firms, Information Resources Management, as part of the Federal government. They have public corporations with false information about the officers listed with the SEC, High level Federal employees using false alias names to protect them from the crimes that they are committing in the Federal Government. The Clinton Administration and the Federal government completely control the court systems in America.”

 

“… If you have read this book then there are no surprises when crisis after crisis rocks the Clinton presidency. The authors go back to the very beginning of Clinton’s political life to map out a pattern of public un-service which has led to bimbo eruptions, campaign money-laundering, and “deals” with foreign governments on behalf of one man: Bill Clinton.” (Please also see: What was Sandy Berger looking for AND How many of you actually knew? We’ll bet you didn’t know located here at American Age.)

 

So after reading about Sandy Berger being caught at the National Archives with “eyes only” documents and Clinton’s chaos with Loral Technologies and it’s leadership we have two questions for the finger pointers: (1) Why is Senator Hillary Clinton the head of the State Department? And (2) doesn’t all of this seem like a ‘do-over’ to you? Seriously one’s got to believe that Mr. Obama was ushered into the White House out of naivety.

Oh no, no….we haven’t forgotten or left out Jimmy Carter…

How about you give me 5 minutes..?

Justice, Truth, Fair?

As I have stated this case in New Mexico has been tearing my flesh like a Phoenix, rising from it’s ashes and using it’s smoldering hot long talons to fillet me. I’m not exactly sure what it is within the case itself that bothers me more — the unsubstantiated claim made by the Plaintiff — or if it is the skulduggery that is going on behind the scenes that simply gets my goat. (That is all too obvious!)

Picking up where we left off yesterday as promised, on November 29, 2006, Ms. Willock’s partner, Ms. Collinsworth, officially known then as Ms. Pascottini, sought to verify Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony by making a similar email inquiry about packages and rates to photograph a wedding, without any mention of same-sex ceremony, union, or orientation.. Ms. Collinsworth sent the following email to Elane Photography:

Hi Elaine,
I really like your photographs. I was wondering if you would be willing to travel to Ruidoso for my wedding? Can you send me a list of your packages and rates?
Thanks!!

Maybe it’s me, although I don’t think so. Where is the verification of Elaine Huguenin’s refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony? As far as we can see there is not a request, nor is there any verification whatsoever of an alleged ‘refusal’ bias or discrimination verification.

If you will — what is similar about the requests (1) Willock’s and (2) Collinsworth’s? Both request for pricing information and whether or not Elaine would be willing to travel to either Ruidoso or Taos, New Mexico.

On November 29, 2006, Ms. Elaine Huguenin responded affirmatively by email to Ms. Collinsworth’s inquiry and, at the same time, forwarded Ms. Collinsworth information about thecompany’s photography pricing (base package, $1,450; deluxe package, $1,850; and royal package, $2,250), as well as information about the company’s procedure for online proofing credits. The text of Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s response to Ms. Collinsworth’s inquiry was as follows:

Hello Misty,

Thanks so much for contacting us. I would definately [sic] be willing to travel to Ruidoso for your wedding. I have attached some information that should be helpful as far as prices and packages. There is also another attachment concerning “print credits” – it explains what online proofing is, because it’s something that is a bit newer and not everyone may know what it is yet. Hopefully these items will help you sort some things out. Also, I would love to meet up with you sometime, if you are interested, to show you more of my recent book, along with an example of the “coffee table book” that included in all of our packages. My place of choice is Satellite…

Good luck with your planning, and I hope to talk with you soon! -Elaine

Please correct me if I am wrong here; however, the email written by Ms. Collinsworth a.k.a. Ms. Pascottini to Elane Photography is a request for pricing information and whether or not Elaine could travel to Ruidoso, NM for Ms. Pascottini’s wedding. (See ‘Hi Elaine’ above.)

On December 19, 2006, having not heard again from Ms. Collinsworth (then known as Misty Pascottini), Ms. Elaine Huguenin sent the following email to Ms. Collinsworth:

Hello Misty,
I just wanted to check and see if you had any questions about the prices or packages that I could help answer. I hope that planning is going well for you. Have a great day!
-Elaine

After receiving Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s response to her inquiry on November 28,2006 and learning of Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s different response to a similar inquiry by Ms. Collinsworth, without the mention of same-sex, Ms. Willock remained fearful and anxious about seeking other photographers to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony.

We feel that this portion of the record clearly demonstrates collusion, fraud, as well as an attempt to entrap Elaine Huguenin. We ask: how were the responses different? The plaintiff, Willock, schemes and plans with a friend to intentionally defraud Huguenin. We further believe that Huguenin was being set-up insofar as the original requests were not that similar; furthermore, we maintain our position that it was ‘Willock’ who brought the issue of same-gender weddings up in the first place.

Other than “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone…” is there a place in either the EEO, or the Civil Rights Acts, or otherwise that stipulates that an independent contractor or business somehow either in writing, posting, or electronic recording obligated to tell potential customers their religious beliefs, furthermore, their sexual ‘orientation’?

The answer quite simply is NO! In doing so that would be clearly discriminatory. In fact in New Mexico,  sexual orientation is defined as being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Tomorrow we will examine — in detail — the ‘Tribunal’s’ decision and what, if anything, it was based on.

 

Give me 10 minutes and I’ll show you corruption…

Even until today — to this end — I couldn’t fathom what about the Willock v. Huguenin case before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission was tearing at me with the talons of demons. Quick brush up: This little exerpt is from the Associated Press:

A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled. Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2006, contending that Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin told her she photographed only traditional marriages. Huguenin and her husband, Jon, own Elane Photography.
 

This account looks all neat and tidy — all of the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed; however, this is not nearly the true account of what really happened.

We will be pulling our ‘over preponderence’ of the evidence that the NMHRC made an improper decision. Furthermore, we believe that we can prove with the same evidence, that this act was brought intentionally for the pain and suffering of the Defendant(s), Elaine and Jon Huguenin.

For the Record: As a matter of material fact, Elaine Huguenin (Elane’s Photography) never refused to do anything. The court record clearly shows that Ms. Vanessa Willock, by email, on September 21, 2006 contacted Elane’s Photography requesting pricing information: Here is from the court transcript:

Ms. Willock’s Inquiry: We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM. This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we’d like to receive pricing information. Thanks

What immediately stuck out to me and to everyone whose seen it since, is in the wording, “If you are open to helping us…” and of course there is no signature. What if Mrs. Huguenin stated she wasn’t open? It is critical to look at the date of the request! (September 21, 2006)

September 21, 2006 Elaine Huguenin responded in a clearly professional manner, on time, gentle and specificing the work of Elane’s Photography:

Hello Vanessa, As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios. -Elaine-

We have no problem with that response at all. It is courteous, informative, and above all, meets every specification pursuant to New Mexico law. 

On November 28, 2006, a full sixty-two days after receiving this response Ms. Vanessa Willock again, by email sought more clarification. This is Ms. Willock’s follow-on question:

    Hi Elaine,

…I’m a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?….Vanessa

In our humble opinion this is precisely where the collisional entrapment begins vis-a-vie Elaine Huguenin inasmuch as she did not say that. More importantly is the fact that if she had stated it, she would have been breaking the law and discriminating against Ms.Willock.

This unfortunate saga gets way, way better: Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s Follow-on Response:  Same day – November 28, 2006

Hello Vanessa,
…. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!
….Elaine

Clearly the original declaration was made by Ms. Willock and not Elaine Huguenin. Clearly Elaine Huguenin is doing nothing more than affirming what Ms. Willock had stated.

Sorry folks but at this time we started smelling rats on deck! A manipulation of a couple of words, and of course the suggestion, “…are you saying…” coupled with a overly long period of time for contacting the photographer (this is important in the ruling!) helped us be quite uneasy.

And just one more little nugget to get you back here tomorrow for further skulduggery!

On November 29, 2006, Ms. Willock’s partner, Ms. Collinsworth, officially known as Ms. Pascottini, sought to verify Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony by making a similar email inquiry about packages and rates to photograph a wedding, without any mention of same-sex. Ms. Collinsworth sent the following email to Elane Photography:

Sorry folks too long as it is…tomorrow we’ll see how the scheming continues.