Mail

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Desiree Capuano & James Pendleton
250 E. Placita Lago Del Mago
Sahuarita, AZ     85629
Tel: 520-288-8200
desiree.capuano@gmail.com
japendletonjr@gmail.com
Back to Mailbox Back to mailbox
Newer Message Newer message
Older Message Older message
Re: G*****'s birthday presents
From: Patrick <patrick@desireecapuano.com>
To: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 09 2014 8:50:52 am
The specific examples I cited are not "beliefs" - using your own prior 
reasoning, your claims to the court became factually false the moment 
the court decided they were so.  The reasoning to which I refer, is that 
you have stated that because I was found guilty of perjury and false 
claim of US citizenship by a court then they are irrefutable and not 
open to further consideration.  If we apply that same reasoning here 
(I'm nothing, if not consistent), then upon the court deciding that your 
claims were false, they became so.  Also, you have admitted, in court, 
that your claims were unfounded.  It's in the transcripts (which you, 
and the rest of the world can easily purchase).

You have also admitted that you purchased the game for G***** AFTER 
finding out that Liz's parents had gotten it for him.  Do you actually 
read the emails you send?

Patrick

On 2014-09-09 8:16 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Richard,
>
> 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 dictionary.reference.com
>     .
>
>     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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>