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 12:00:31 pm

That's nice... ... ... ...

On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Patrick  wrote:

>  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
>> 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