[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Tuesday, June 18, 12:40:04Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123[4]567 ]
Subject: I was able to get copies of these letters and feel inclined to show the girls what took place. The length of the letters are long and I will only type so much when I have time. I work full time and cannot spend tons of time on the computer.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 09/22/05 1:18:36pm

Roberta Pethers
----Davison Rd.
Lapeer, MI 48446

October 18th, 2003

To whom it may concern:

This letter is intended to inform your organization of several serious problems that are taking place within the Miss Michigan USA pageant and it's assigned state director, Protctor Productions LLC, Melissa Pitchford. The issues that I am bringing to your attention, supercede the position of "complaint" but have progressed to the point of forcing my daughter and myself to retain an attorney, and legally pursue Proctor Productions LLC, Melissas Pitchford, to the furthest extent of the law.

Attached you will find excerpts from letters sent by attorney, Mr. David Prem, who is currently representing Proctor Productions. To simplify the basis of my letter, I have identified each attached excerpt with a corresponding alphabet character, so you may easily follow along and digest the situation. I apologize in advance for the length of this letter. I realize your time is valuable, as is mine.

I would like to begin relaying the situation to you, starting with the first piece of paper labeled with "A" at the top of it.

. Article "A" is the third page of a demand letter sent
to my daughters pageant consultant and sponsor, Mrs.
Lorri Reese, by Mr. David L. Prem, Melissa Pitchford's
representing attorney, on August 19, 2003. (I'll be
happy to provide an entire copy if desired.)
. There a several issues concerning this initial demand
1. My daughter, Danelle Gay, retained a widely
known and respected pageant consultant in
Michigan, Lorri Reese. She began using her
services in April of 2003. Mrs. Reese is held
in regard by many and comes highly recommended
by several USA state titleholders, for her
support and advice when preparing for pageant
competitions. She has consulted in Michigan
for the past twelve years or so, eight of them
focusing on the USA competitions. During those
eight years, she has had four young women win
the Miss Michigan USA title, with several others
being first or second runner-up. That is
phenomenal, considering she only sponsors two
young women per year. My daughter has been a
finalist in the past at the Miss Michigan USA
pageant, and we felt Mrs. Reese's expertise and
advice would possibly help better her placement.
It is a statistical fact, that each year, Mrs.
Reese places young women in the top five with
her services, consistently.
2. In light of this and a few other things, Melissa
Pitchford, had her attorney deliver a letter
of "interference" and demanded that Mrs. Reese
cease her consulting immediately. Furthermore
she was not to act as a sponsor or "coach" to
any young women competing in the Miss Michigan
USA pageant. To further stress the situation,
Melissa Pitchford requested that her attorney
demand that Mrs. Reese be "banned" from the
state pageants and preliminaries as a spectator.
(Absolutely outlandish in my opinion. The state
pageant is supposed to be a public event).
Again, this first demand letter was dated
August 19, 2003.
3. The information deadline, sponsorship fees,
etc., for the 2004 Miss Michigan USA pageant
were due by August 15, 2003. At which point
Mrs. Reese and her husband were submitted as
sponsors of my daughter Danelle Gay. Given the
August 19th date of the initial demand letter
from Mr. Prem, Melissa Pitchford has to realize
an immediate conflict with my daughter, and
delegate Danelle Gay, since Mrs. Reese was
indeed her sponsor. Yet we received no commun-
ication from the state office that Mrs. Reese
was not an acceptable sponsor. Nor was a list
distributed to the delegates as a whole, as to
which sponsors were acceptable and which were

. Article "B" is the first page of a second letter of
correspondence sent to Mrs. Reese, again by Melissa
Pitchfords attorney. This letter was dated September
22, 2003. As I have highlighted in bold, this letter
indicates in the second sentence, that Melissa Pitch
ford was aware that Mrs. Reese was sponsoring and
coaching a delegate (my daughter).

. I have highlighted in red, under statement two of the
letter, again where Mr. Prem reiterates that Mrs.
Reese is not to act as a coach (which is completely
violating her legal rights in my opinion) and not
not to act as a sponsor of any delegates. At this
point the Miss Michigan USA pageant finals are five
days away (September 27th production date) and yet
we still have not been notivied by Melissa Pitchford.
. Given the demands made my Melissa Pitchford, this
has ignited legal retaliation by Mrs. Reese. What
choice did she have? In between the two letters of
demand and correspondence I am aware that some
phone calls took place between representing
attorneys. Mr. Prem even stated a refund would be
in order to any delegate that was sponsored by Mrs.
Reese. Yet, at no time, was myself of my daughter
contacted by Melissa Pitchford.

The Miss Michigan USA 2004 pageant came and went. Big
suprise, my daughter did not make the top 15 semi-finals. Perhaps, she genuinely did not make it. In her pageant career, we are very accustom to "you win some, you lose some." Who am I to say? But let me make something else very clear, this letter is not in any way shape or form about "sour grapes" because she didn't make the semi-finals. However, given the facts to all of the above information, and if you would surely watch the video, there
would be no question in your own mind. She's truly a well-
rounded and beautiful woman. Michigan is not nearly that competitive. She has won other pageant, prelims etc. Lets not say she's "inexperienced" and just chalk it up to the interview as her downfall. Since that is a logical mechanism of defense by a director, since the interviews are closed to the public. Or are they?

This question leads to my next point. Why did the state director, Melissa Pitchford, sit in on the delgate interviews this year at the Miss Michigan USA pageant? Let's go a step further, why did she jus choose to sit in on specific delegate interviews. Particularly, my daughter's interview. Is this common practice by the state directors as a whole? IS this a guideline Miss Universe requires? Not only did she monitor her interviews, she actually sat at a table with another woman, who was not judging, (later to learn with her sister-in-law, Kim Pitchford) and talked openly about my daughters interview suit. They talked about how beautiful my daughter was and even directed the comment directly to her. While, we both appreciate the compliment, that was not the time or place to be making comments to delegates, much less by the state director. Actions such as this, could easily be viewed as favoritism or as intimidation by a delgate, pending the demeanor of the young woman. In my daughters case, the state directors intent, which made her feel uneasy. Furthermore, it put my daughter in a position which made her feel defenseless. Objections could not be made to the state director with the panel of judges present in the interview room. Nor did feel she could communicate at that time to the state director without the possibility of further damaging her chances for a successful outcome at the pageant. These action truly reflect poor judgment and lack of professionalism by the state director.

. Article "C" ............

to be continued on the next post

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-12
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.