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: Tue, Sep 09 2014 8:16:19 am

Unfortunately beliefs are inherently refutable due to their subjective and
individual nature.

Thank you for finally providing the list that was requested in the first
e-mail I sent to you.  I will reply to that e-mail separately.

On Monday, September 8, 2014, Patrick  wrote:

>  Desiree:
> 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 exactly that.
> 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
> Patrick
> On 09/08/2014 03:51 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Richard,
>  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