Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Desiree Capuano & James Pendleton
250 E. Placita Lago Del Mago
Sahuarita, AZ     85629
Tel: 520-288-8200
Back to Mailbox Back to mailbox
Newer Message Newer message
Older Message Older message
Re: G*****'s birthday presents
From: Desiree Capuano <>
To: Patrick <>
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 3:51:11 pm

When you relay partial facts in an effort to make a weak point look
stronger, it is simply sophistry and nothing more.  Facts like Liz
attempting to hide G***** from me(his mother), and prevent all
communication with him.  However, this discussion is completely irrelevant
and unessecary as it has absolutely nothing to do with the question at
hand.  Birthdays and presents.

Let's get back on topic and stop digressing.  I've repeatedly told you what
is required for my consent.  It is pretty simple, really.  There are two
options here;

1. Tell me what it is that you would like permission for.
2. Proceed at risk without consent.

I can only assume from these series of exchanges and your flamboyant
response that you already know the item in question's answer will be no.

On Monday, September 8, 2014, Patrick  wrote:

>  Desiree:
> Then I shall provide another, more extreme example:  When I first
> contacted you in 2011 you pretended to be civil and only interested in
> what's best for G***** and what G***** wants.  You said that you would
> never force him to have a relationship with you and you were willing to
> wait as long as it would take for him to be comfortable with you.  You said
> that you absolutely would not pressure him or uproot him from the "only
> family he has ever known".  Then, a few months later you said, in a letter
> to me, that bringing G***** to Phoenix to live with you was your intention
> all along.  You then took him, completely against his will, by force, to
> Arizona and tried to get custody of him.  Shall I provide more examples of
> your long history of duplicity and betrayal of peoples' trust or are we in
> agreement, now, that you have proven you are not trustworthy?
> There are no personal attacks on my part.  I am only relying on your own
> historic behavior and actions.  Stating a fact is not a personal attack -
> especially when the other party continues to act in that way.
> I have spoken with G***** about the topic of love (and emotions, in
> general).  I have provided him the texts which clearly show that emotions
> are not real.  I have never told G***** I love him and he has never said
> it to me either.  If you wish to continue believing in such ridiculous
> fairy tales, which have been clearly proven to not exist then do so, but
> don't expect G***** and I to share in such misguided beliefs.  When
> G***** tells you he loves you (as I'm sure he does tell you), it is only
> out of habit or a sense of reciprocity...or fear of your retaliation.  He
> cannot possibly love you if he doesn't believe in love.  So, your statement
> is incorrect.
> Patrick
> P.S. I don't know why you insist on still calling me Richard.  There is no
> documentation in existence, anywhere, which says it is my legal name.
> On 2014-09-08 7:55 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Richard,
>  You have provided a singular example, which is invalid.  The game in
> question came bundled with the 360.  Any perceived harm or malice was
> unintentional, and exists purely through perception.  Further, a singular
> example does not prove anything.
>  There is no need to resort to personal attacks or slander here.  Both of
> us are not only adults, but parents.  Parents who have something very
> important in common; love and caring for G***** and his well being.
>  You have asked me for my permission.  I have told you the terms for that
> requested permission, and it is straight forward and simple.  Tell me what
> you intend to get him so that I can make an informed decision on the the
> matter.  Otherwise you are just willingly taking that risk of rejection.
>  Let's try to work together here, Richard.
> On Sunday, September 7, 2014, Patrick  > wrote:
>>  I thought I was pretty clear in my previous email.  You have a proven
>> history of acting in bad faith and betraying people's trust.  I even
>> provided a specific example of a recent time you did so in a situation very
>> similar to the one currently before us.
>> My reluctance to inform you in advance, of the items I have gotten
>> G***** for his birthday is based on your recent, past behavior of using
>> that information to get him those things before the other party is able to
>> physically give them to him - thereby, diminishing the elation he
>> experiences upon receiving the item from the other party.  I would like to
>> be able to share in that brief moment of happiness he may encounter in what
>> has become his overall dreary and miserable life.
>> Patrick
>> On 09/07/2014 10:12 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>> What is the point of requesting a blanket acceptance if you are unwilling
>> to disclose the information ahead of time?  This seems to be a pointless
>> waste of time for everyone involved.  Permission will be given on a case by
>> case basis.
>> On Saturday, September 6, 2014, Patrick 
>> wrote:
>>>  But you have a history of intefering with other people's gifts to
>>> G***** when they tell you what they intend to get him (e.g. when Liz told
>>> you her parents were getting him Gears of War for his birthday, you went it
>>> got it for him and gave it to him before the one from Liz's parents
>>> arrived).
>>> Why would it matter what I'd be getting him?  What is the criteria you
>>> will use to decide whether he can bring them home?  Will it be based on the
>>> cost and/or value?  Whether or not Sage is capable of getting similar
>>> things as well?
>>> Patrick
>>> On 09/06/2014 08:45 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>> You will need to specify, in writing, the exact gift(s) you plan
>>> on getting for G***** before I will specify whether it not I will
>>> allow them.
>>> On Friday, September 5, 2014, Patrick 
>>> wrote:
>>>>  Desiree:
>>>>  May you please confirm, in writing, whether you will permit G*****
>>>> to have, at your home, the birthday presents I will get him?
>>>>  If I do not receive a response on this matter I will assume you will
>>>> permit him such.
>>>>  Patrick