OPW – Mar 1 – The International Marriage Brokers
Bill, otherwise known as House
Bill 596, has recently caused quite a stir with
a few Maryland locals, and perhaps not a big enough stir with the
individuals who could potentially suffer the regulations of the bill.
According to Stacey Goodman, a Senior Policy Analyst working with
Senator Alex Mooney, the intent of the Bill is to "restrict or
even prevent communication between American men and foreign women for
the purposes of dating and/or marriage". Michael Parrotte, one
of the few locals attempting to fight the bill, claims to have spent
close to $5,000 out of his own pocket just to stall the approval of
the Bill. Parrotte, who is in the business of sports apparel, appears
to be leading the charge on preventing a bill that strongly applies
to the online dating and social networking industries. Based on legal advisement, Parrotte believes that Maryland is only the
beginning with House
Bill 596. If special interest groups win in
Maryland, it could trigger a chain reaction in other states. – Nick Fletcher, Courtland Brooks
I’m immensely curious why this guy Michael Parrotte, who seems to have no ties to this bill is so passionate about this. What’s his motivation? It’s a rather obscure bill that affects the industry, but not a guy who sells sports equipment. There’s more of a story here.
I’m immensely curious why this guy Michael Parrotte, who seems to have no ties to this bill is so passionate about this. What’s his motivation? It’s a rather obscure bill that affects the industry, but not a guy who sells sports equipment. There’s more of a story here.
Hi Glenn,
It is really very simple. It is just a matter of principle, upbringing, and my own life experience.
The Bill is a “solution is search a problem” at what we have is the local State government essentially transferring the constitutional rights of Maryland based US citizens to foreign nationals who are not on US soil and there is no legal basis for this.
And all of this is being done while the State and country are in the midst of a huge economic crisis. The whole thing is a perfect example of why so many voters are disgusted and outraged with both major political parties.
Last night I went to a meeting of the local Republican Party, and today I was with Tea Party people at a seminar on the US Constitution.
No secrets, no hidden agenda I am very open and transparent. Call me, mail me, add me on LinkedIn or friend request me on Facebook !
Sure would be nice to have some support from others!!!
Michael
301-305-5050
michael@agvsport.com
michaelparrotte@yahoo.com
Hi Glenn,
It is really very simple. It is just a matter of principle, upbringing, and my own life experience.
The Bill is a “solution is search a problem” at what we have is the local State government essentially transferring the constitutional rights of Maryland based US citizens to foreign nationals who are not on US soil and there is no legal basis for this.
And all of this is being done while the State and country are in the midst of a huge economic crisis. The whole thing is a perfect example of why so many voters are disgusted and outraged with both major political parties.
Last night I went to a meeting of the local Republican Party, and today I was with Tea Party people at a seminar on the US Constitution.
No secrets, no hidden agenda I am very open and transparent. Call me, mail me, add me on LinkedIn or friend request me on Facebook !
Sure would be nice to have some support from others!!!
Michael
301-305-5050
michael@agvsport.com
michaelparrotte@yahoo.com
I’d love to know why all of your websites that object to the bill seem to object to the text in the first reading, when virtually all of the items you object to in that reading have been altered or removed, thus invalidating your objections. The third reading that passed both the House and Senate is directed only at international matchmaking services that arrange in-person meetings. This wording was voted on before any page/post of yours is dated, as far as I have seen; the third reading of both bills was voted on in February, 2010, and your webpages all seem to have shown up in March. Your webpages even state “as first introduced” or some similar wording, implying that you know the actual wording does not contain the things to which you object – otherwise, why would you specify that?
I’m just wondering why you seem to care so much that you’ll post misinformation and try to deceive people into voting against this bill. I do agree that the bill seems unnecessary, given that there’s a similar Federal law. However, the reasons you’re providing for objecting to it are misleading at best, and for the most part, factually inaccurate.
There has to be a reason that a sporting apparel & equipment merchant would care so deeply about this, and I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the “outrage” you express on your various webpages. What’s your motivation? You deal in international trade, are you involved with a business that would be affected by this law? Are you looking to start one?
If you have no secrets and no hidden agenda, answer me here, on a public forum. Why are your objections all specifically to outdated versions of the bills, and specifically to things that have mostly been removed from the final versions of the bills? And why do you care so much about this particular issue, when there are plenty of other things for a Tea Partier to get outraged over, that the average citizen could much more easily relate to?
I’d love to know why all of your websites that object to the bill seem to object to the text in the first reading, when virtually all of the items you object to in that reading have been altered or removed, thus invalidating your objections. The third reading that passed both the House and Senate is directed only at international matchmaking services that arrange in-person meetings. This wording was voted on before any page/post of yours is dated, as far as I have seen; the third reading of both bills was voted on in February, 2010, and your webpages all seem to have shown up in March. Your webpages even state “as first introduced” or some similar wording, implying that you know the actual wording does not contain the things to which you object – otherwise, why would you specify that?
I’m just wondering why you seem to care so much that you’ll post misinformation and try to deceive people into voting against this bill. I do agree that the bill seems unnecessary, given that there’s a similar Federal law. However, the reasons you’re providing for objecting to it are misleading at best, and for the most part, factually inaccurate.
There has to be a reason that a sporting apparel & equipment merchant would care so deeply about this, and I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the “outrage” you express on your various webpages. What’s your motivation? You deal in international trade, are you involved with a business that would be affected by this law? Are you looking to start one?
If you have no secrets and no hidden agenda, answer me here, on a public forum. Why are your objections all specifically to outdated versions of the bills, and specifically to things that have mostly been removed from the final versions of the bills? And why do you care so much about this particular issue, when there are plenty of other things for a Tea Partier to get outraged over, that the average citizen could much more easily relate to?
Hello “B” – Only saw your reply this evening. Strange you should request a reply on a public forum when you make this request anonymously! So who are you and why the secrecy and paranoia?
I would be more than happy to answer ALL your questions.
1. I modified the web site as quickly as I could receive “official” updates from various Senators or Delegates in Annapolis. It was very difficult to get timely updates from most of them.
2. The web site correctly states “as first proposed” because I was hearing unofficially that amendments would be made but no one could produce them. Basically a deal like “you need to pass this bill so you can see what is in it”
3. The web page was as accurate as the information I received from the mostly unaccountable State legislators.
4. The reason I “care” so much about the issue is because I care about the Constitution, due process, equal protection, and the first amendment. The same reasons why every American should care.
5. Any amendments made were the result of my efforts and other private citizens in Maryland who efforts alerted companies and gave them a little time to get their lobbyist in place. It is not like these politicians decided to make all these amendments in the middle of their sessions.
6. All the reasons I have listed are 100% accurate and the fact remains that the sponsors of this bill would have had all Maryland Residents fingerprinted before using the services of any of these international online dating companies. That is how the law was written-exactly as it passed the first votes. Only the huge flood of emails and telephone calls from constituents changed that fact.
7. I was in Annapolis for both the House and Senate hearing. I was there when Senator Middleton held the bill over because of the hundreds of telephone calls, letters, and emails they had all received.
8. I have stated many times before I have not business internet in any business which could be remotely related to an “International Marriage Broker”. I am not a looking for a foreign wife through one of these services either.
9. Your derogatory reference to the Tea Party is irrelevant. I am not a member of any political party formally or otherwise. However if I was involved in the Tea Party movement that would not make my case any weaker. Similarly it makes no sense to reference what the “average citizen” could relate to. I did not seek to communicate with the “average” citizen. Those are the people the elected these fools into office that created this legislation in the first place!
Next time you change someone to answer you on a public forum you might have more credibility if you sated your actual name and maybe your affiliation.
Michael Parrotte
AGV Sports Group
P.O. Box 378
Buckeystown, Maryland, 21717
800-777-7006 TOLL FREE
301-663-4550 TELEPHONE
301-663-8950 FAX
http://www.agvsport.com
michael@agvsport.com
michaelparrotte@yahoo.com
http://www.parrotte.net
http://www.facebook.com/parrotte
Hello “B” – Only saw your reply this evening. Strange you should request a reply on a public forum when you make this request anonymously! So who are you and why the secrecy and paranoia?
I would be more than happy to answer ALL your questions.
1. I modified the web site as quickly as I could receive “official” updates from various Senators or Delegates in Annapolis. It was very difficult to get timely updates from most of them.
2. The web site correctly states “as first proposed” because I was hearing unofficially that amendments would be made but no one could produce them. Basically a deal like “you need to pass this bill so you can see what is in it”
3. The web page was as accurate as the information I received from the mostly unaccountable State legislators.
4. The reason I “care” so much about the issue is because I care about the Constitution, due process, equal protection, and the first amendment. The same reasons why every American should care.
5. Any amendments made were the result of my efforts and other private citizens in Maryland who efforts alerted companies and gave them a little time to get their lobbyist in place. It is not like these politicians decided to make all these amendments in the middle of their sessions.
6. All the reasons I have listed are 100% accurate and the fact remains that the sponsors of this bill would have had all Maryland Residents fingerprinted before using the services of any of these international online dating companies. That is how the law was written-exactly as it passed the first votes. Only the huge flood of emails and telephone calls from constituents changed that fact.
7. I was in Annapolis for both the House and Senate hearing. I was there when Senator Middleton held the bill over because of the hundreds of telephone calls, letters, and emails they had all received.
8. I have stated many times before I have not business internet in any business which could be remotely related to an “International Marriage Broker”. I am not a looking for a foreign wife through one of these services either.
9. Your derogatory reference to the Tea Party is irrelevant. I am not a member of any political party formally or otherwise. However if I was involved in the Tea Party movement that would not make my case any weaker. Similarly it makes no sense to reference what the “average citizen” could relate to. I did not seek to communicate with the “average” citizen. Those are the people the elected these fools into office that created this legislation in the first place!
Next time you change someone to answer you on a public forum you might have more credibility if you sated your actual name and maybe your affiliation.
Michael Parrotte
AGV Sports Group
P.O. Box 378
Buckeystown, Maryland, 21717
800-777-7006 TOLL FREE
301-663-4550 TELEPHONE
301-663-8950 FAX
http://www.agvsport.com
michael@agvsport.com
michaelparrotte@yahoo.com
http://www.parrotte.net
http://www.facebook.com/parrotte
LAW OFFICE OF
W. MICHAEL JACOBS
March 25, 2010
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL OPPOSE HB 65 and SB 129
Senator Catherine E. Pugh
Maryland State Senate
State House
Annapolis, MD 21401
Re: Senate Bill 129
House Bill 65
Dear Senator:
I am writing as a concerned citizen in opposition to the above related Bills currently under consideration, which would impose a new Maryland regulatory scheme on international marriage brokers. I am a member of the Maryland Bar, but I do not now represent any business or individual with any direct stake in this matter. Rather, my concern is with the grave federal constitutional implications of the proposed Bills under both a First Amendment freedom-of-association, a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection, and a Commerce-Clause analysis. I trust you will find, after reviewing all the evidence that has been presented to you during the hearings and debates that have been held on these Bills, that neither of the proposed Bills is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, and they cannot survive strict scrutiny due to their discrimination on the basis of national origin as well as their infringement of the fundamental rights to communicate, travel, associate, and marry, and the right of privacy. Likewise, these Bills cannot survive an equal-protection or a Commerce-Clause analysis due to their imposition of differing standards on various similarly situated marriage-broker entities in Maryland.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to the various states and provides, in pertinent part, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A corporation or other business entity capable of suing or being sued is clearly a “person” for purposes of equal protection analysis. As it has been interpreted over the years, this constitutional right means that, when a classification based on (among others) national origin is made by a statute, and/or when fundamental rights are involved, the State must show that the statute is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” governmental interest, and also that there is no “less restrictive alternative” to accomplish the same goal. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Among those fundamental rights which invoke strict scrutiny analysis of a state statute that impinges upon them are those outlined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; in pertinent part, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” (The First Amendment is applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause).
Interestingly, Loving, as here, was a case involving the fundamental rights of free association and marriage. The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia’s anti-racial-miscegenation laws as a violation of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection. “Strict scrutiny” had of course been applied to classifications based on national origin much earlier than that, in the World War Two Japanese internment-camp cases, Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943) and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
Even apart from its involvement with national-origin discrimination and interference with the fundamental rights to communicate, travel, and freely associate with others, and the right of privacy including marriage, the proposed Bills, if enacted, would fail equal protection analysis simply because they do not treat all international marriage brokers the same. Instead, the Bills categorize them according to whether they are “traditional, religiously-based” or not, and according to whether they ever charge differential fees based on gender or country of origin. To pass muster Constitutionally, all similarly-situated marriage brokers must be treated the same. It is an equal protection violation, as well as possibly a First Amendment Establishment of Religion violation, to carve out exceptions for faith-based institutions that exempt them from the general requirements of the statute that all other, similar but secular, institutions must meet. (In light of the recent concern over sexual abuse among clergy, one cannot imagine that faith-based organizations are any less in need of government oversight to prevent possible abuse than are secular ones – if indeed any such compelling need has even been shown to exist) Any statute that carves out a special exception to a generally-applicable secular requirement for faith-based institutions is Constitutional suspect on Establishment Clause grounds. The First Amendment provides, in pertinent part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This Amendment has been applied to the State legislatures as well, via the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
In addition to the constitutionally-prohibited Establishment Clause violation inherent in treating traditional faith-based marriage brokers differently, it is also a constitutional equal-protection violation to discriminate against similarly-situated marriage brokers on the basis of whether they are for-profit or nonprofit, whether they charge a fee based on gender or national origin, or, as a practical matter of disparate impact, by carving out an exception that is specifically tailored to apply only to very large and popular “brokerages” based for all practical purposes on their size and market weight.
Finally, a commerce clause analysis would find these Bills unconstitutional if passed into law, as well. The U. S. Constitution provides, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, that the United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The term “commerce” has been given a very broad meaning, especially since the mid-20th Century, and refers to all kinds of travel, communication, and movement of people as well as sale of goods and services.
Congress has already acted to fill this field by enacting the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (Subtitle D of United States Public Law 109-162) (known as “IMBRA”) and, although a trial-level federal court upheld IMBRA against Constitutional challenge (European Connections & Tours, Inc. v. Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Atty. Gen., N.D.Ga., 1:06-cv-00425-CC, decided March 23, 2007), this ruling does not predict the outcome of a similar challenge to the Maryland law for several reasons. Firstly, the Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection analysis discussed above applies only to state laws, not federal ones. Secondly, because the plaintiff who sued in the European Connections case was a business, and businesses have a lower level of free speech protection than do individuals such as the U.S. based clients of such businesses, a much different result would obtain if an individual plaintiff were to sue for this burden on his exercise of his free speech rights. Even the judge himself in the European Connections case said so, and suggested that since no single man had sued, he could rule this way. Thirdly, of course, it should be pointed out that the European Connections case was not appealed and thus the decision has no precedental effect anywhere.
To the extent any real need does exist for additional regulation of international marriage brokers – a controversial matter, to say the least – there is no reason why the existing federal IMBRA law could not be amended to better meet those needs in a manner consistent across the 50 states and numerous other U. S. districts and territories. Maryland has failed to show a “compelling government interest” that would be better served by enactment of either of these Bills into law, even if amended to address some of the concerns raised above. And, it is equally clear that there is a less restrictive alternative, that being, reliance on IMBRA and existing federal immigration law, and amending those laws as may be needed, if any such need even exists. . The prospect of a person wanting to enter the marriage broker business having to deal with 51 or more separate regulatory schemes, before that person could even begin to operate as a nationally-accessible, Internet-based marriage broker, is a daunting one, and is exactly the type of burden on interstate and international commerce that the Constitution intends to prohibit, especially as they are, in effect, thinly disguised restrictions on immigration, a matter which is clearly an exclusively federal concern.
For all the above reasons, I urge you to consider the grave constitutional issues raised by both Senate Bill 129 and House Bill 65 this session. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to contact me by telephone, mail, or email if you should have any questions.
Very truly yours,
W. Michael Jacobs
cc: Senator Joan Carter Conway
Senator Jennie M. Forehand
Senator Nancy Jacobs
Senator Verna L. Jones
Senator Delores G. Kelley
Senator Nancy J. King
Senator Rona E. Kramer
LAW OFFICE OF
W. MICHAEL JACOBS
March 25, 2010
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL OPPOSE HB 65 and SB 129
Senator Catherine E. Pugh
Maryland State Senate
State House
Annapolis, MD 21401
Re: Senate Bill 129
House Bill 65
Dear Senator:
I am writing as a concerned citizen in opposition to the above related Bills currently under consideration, which would impose a new Maryland regulatory scheme on international marriage brokers. I am a member of the Maryland Bar, but I do not now represent any business or individual with any direct stake in this matter. Rather, my concern is with the grave federal constitutional implications of the proposed Bills under both a First Amendment freedom-of-association, a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection, and a Commerce-Clause analysis. I trust you will find, after reviewing all the evidence that has been presented to you during the hearings and debates that have been held on these Bills, that neither of the proposed Bills is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, and they cannot survive strict scrutiny due to their discrimination on the basis of national origin as well as their infringement of the fundamental rights to communicate, travel, associate, and marry, and the right of privacy. Likewise, these Bills cannot survive an equal-protection or a Commerce-Clause analysis due to their imposition of differing standards on various similarly situated marriage-broker entities in Maryland.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to the various states and provides, in pertinent part, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A corporation or other business entity capable of suing or being sued is clearly a “person” for purposes of equal protection analysis. As it has been interpreted over the years, this constitutional right means that, when a classification based on (among others) national origin is made by a statute, and/or when fundamental rights are involved, the State must show that the statute is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” governmental interest, and also that there is no “less restrictive alternative” to accomplish the same goal. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Among those fundamental rights which invoke strict scrutiny analysis of a state statute that impinges upon them are those outlined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; in pertinent part, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” (The First Amendment is applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause).
Interestingly, Loving, as here, was a case involving the fundamental rights of free association and marriage. The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia’s anti-racial-miscegenation laws as a violation of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection. “Strict scrutiny” had of course been applied to classifications based on national origin much earlier than that, in the World War Two Japanese internment-camp cases, Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943) and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
Even apart from its involvement with national-origin discrimination and interference with the fundamental rights to communicate, travel, and freely associate with others, and the right of privacy including marriage, the proposed Bills, if enacted, would fail equal protection analysis simply because they do not treat all international marriage brokers the same. Instead, the Bills categorize them according to whether they are “traditional, religiously-based” or not, and according to whether they ever charge differential fees based on gender or country of origin. To pass muster Constitutionally, all similarly-situated marriage brokers must be treated the same. It is an equal protection violation, as well as possibly a First Amendment Establishment of Religion violation, to carve out exceptions for faith-based institutions that exempt them from the general requirements of the statute that all other, similar but secular, institutions must meet. (In light of the recent concern over sexual abuse among clergy, one cannot imagine that faith-based organizations are any less in need of government oversight to prevent possible abuse than are secular ones – if indeed any such compelling need has even been shown to exist) Any statute that carves out a special exception to a generally-applicable secular requirement for faith-based institutions is Constitutional suspect on Establishment Clause grounds. The First Amendment provides, in pertinent part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This Amendment has been applied to the State legislatures as well, via the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
In addition to the constitutionally-prohibited Establishment Clause violation inherent in treating traditional faith-based marriage brokers differently, it is also a constitutional equal-protection violation to discriminate against similarly-situated marriage brokers on the basis of whether they are for-profit or nonprofit, whether they charge a fee based on gender or national origin, or, as a practical matter of disparate impact, by carving out an exception that is specifically tailored to apply only to very large and popular “brokerages” based for all practical purposes on their size and market weight.
Finally, a commerce clause analysis would find these Bills unconstitutional if passed into law, as well. The U. S. Constitution provides, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, that the United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The term “commerce” has been given a very broad meaning, especially since the mid-20th Century, and refers to all kinds of travel, communication, and movement of people as well as sale of goods and services.
Congress has already acted to fill this field by enacting the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (Subtitle D of United States Public Law 109-162) (known as “IMBRA”) and, although a trial-level federal court upheld IMBRA against Constitutional challenge (European Connections & Tours, Inc. v. Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Atty. Gen., N.D.Ga., 1:06-cv-00425-CC, decided March 23, 2007), this ruling does not predict the outcome of a similar challenge to the Maryland law for several reasons. Firstly, the Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection analysis discussed above applies only to state laws, not federal ones. Secondly, because the plaintiff who sued in the European Connections case was a business, and businesses have a lower level of free speech protection than do individuals such as the U.S. based clients of such businesses, a much different result would obtain if an individual plaintiff were to sue for this burden on his exercise of his free speech rights. Even the judge himself in the European Connections case said so, and suggested that since no single man had sued, he could rule this way. Thirdly, of course, it should be pointed out that the European Connections case was not appealed and thus the decision has no precedental effect anywhere.
To the extent any real need does exist for additional regulation of international marriage brokers – a controversial matter, to say the least – there is no reason why the existing federal IMBRA law could not be amended to better meet those needs in a manner consistent across the 50 states and numerous other U. S. districts and territories. Maryland has failed to show a “compelling government interest” that would be better served by enactment of either of these Bills into law, even if amended to address some of the concerns raised above. And, it is equally clear that there is a less restrictive alternative, that being, reliance on IMBRA and existing federal immigration law, and amending those laws as may be needed, if any such need even exists. . The prospect of a person wanting to enter the marriage broker business having to deal with 51 or more separate regulatory schemes, before that person could even begin to operate as a nationally-accessible, Internet-based marriage broker, is a daunting one, and is exactly the type of burden on interstate and international commerce that the Constitution intends to prohibit, especially as they are, in effect, thinly disguised restrictions on immigration, a matter which is clearly an exclusively federal concern.
For all the above reasons, I urge you to consider the grave constitutional issues raised by both Senate Bill 129 and House Bill 65 this session. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to contact me by telephone, mail, or email if you should have any questions.
Very truly yours,
W. Michael Jacobs
cc: Senator Joan Carter Conway
Senator Jennie M. Forehand
Senator Nancy Jacobs
Senator Verna L. Jones
Senator Delores G. Kelley
Senator Nancy J. King
Senator Rona E. Kramer
Parrotte, take notice he never mentions he owns a foreign bride site in response to questions by the other two persons who question his intentions. Pay close attention to “why he cares so much” about this law going into effect. Again, he never mentions the real reason….that he has a dating site! If he had nothing to hide, why not mention it!
Parrotte, take notice he never mentions he owns a foreign bride site in response to questions by the other two persons who question his intentions. Pay close attention to “why he cares so much” about this law going into effect. Again, he never mentions the real reason….that he has a dating site! If he had nothing to hide, why not mention it!