Please tell me which facts in my previous emails were "partial". The
point was to provide a concrete, irrefutable basis for my belief that
you are likely to use the information you are requesting in order to
either get G***** the same gifts before I could give them to him, or to
inform him of them beforehand to ruin the surprise and diminish the
impact. I believe the two specific examples I've cited accomplish
Please explain when Liz attempted to hide G***** from you (his
biological mother). If you are referring to the brief one month period
after you threw your tantrum because I refused to let you take him to
San Diego with your dangerous, criminal, meth using fiancé - then you
are quite misguided. At that time you had no legal claim to custody
because you had been completely absent from his life for more than 9
years. You were only able to get an emergency temporary custody order
in Arizona based on your false statements that A) I was in prison and
would be deported; and B) I had hid him from you for those 9 years.
Both claims have been repeatedly proven to be false and the court
promptly ordered you to return him to me. Why do I feel like we've
covered this ground already...Oh, yeah, we have! Something does not
become reality just because you keep repeating it, you know?
This discussion is entirely relevant. I can only imagine one other
reason for which you would want to know and be able to approve, ahead of
time, what I would be giving G*****: because you don't want him having
things that Sage can't, or doesn't, have. You have already stated in
your previous emails that that is your objective. You do not want there
to be a discrepency between the children. But, as I, and the court, and
every other reasonable person have pointed out, it is neither fair nor
acceptable to make G***** go without and live beneath the means of his
parents just to satisfy your other child, who was clearly a mistake on
your's and Michael's parts.
I am unclear how any of my responses have been "flamboyant". You do
have access to a dictionary, don't you? If not, there is a free one at
On 09/08/2014 03:51 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> 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:
> 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.
> 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:
>> 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
>> > <_e>> 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
>> 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
>>> 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?
>>> 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
>>>> 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.