Please have a dictionary on hand and double check the meanings of the
words you are using before you respond. There are no threats (a threat
requires a statement of intention to cause harm in order to coerce the
other party to do or not do something). There is no libel (libel is the
defamation of another through written words, knowingly using false
statements...if something is true then it's not libel, no matter how
defamatory it may be).
Another DNA test will prove, without doubt that I am G*****'s
biological father. The court has already established I am his father
(through the numerous appearances we have both made). You have already
conceded I am his father. Therefore, there is no question I am his
father, regardless of what name is on my ID or his birth certificate.
If you'd like we can have his birth certificate updated to reflect this.
Nevertheless, I AM the person that you have known since January 2000, as
Richard. G***** knows me as Patrick, however. Do you really
suspect I am some other physical entity just pretending to G*****'s
father so that you will send him here to a total stranger? Are you
really that obtuse?
On 2014-12-15 12:25 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> There is no need for dramatics, threats, or liable. My request and
> requirement for visitation are and have always been quite simple.
> There is no formal documented association between G***** and a
> Patrick with regard to paternity.
> From your previous e-mail you state that I have only known you as
> Richard. That seems to be a loose affirmation of my previous
> requirement. May you please confirm that you are in fact the person
> G***** and I know as Richard?
> Thank You
> On Monday, December 15, 2014, Patrick > wrote:
> I might also point out that you stated, not only Richard,
> but also "his father". There is no uncertainty that I am
> G*****'s biological father. Therefore, again, your argument
> about naming is not really significant, is it?
> On 2014-12-15 6:37 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>> You will recall that In my consent, I expressly stated that
>> G***** is to be in the sole custody of his father Richard
>> and that any other personage would be considered kidnapping and
>> not allowed. Those were the terms. You acknowledged receipt as
>> well, but please read below to refresh your memory:
>> "During this period of time he is to remain in the sole care of
>> his father Richard, an no one else."
>> Richard's untimely demise would seem to make adherence to this
>> clause this impossible.
>> Having G***** convey the message was wishful thinking on my
>> behalf that it would be received and met with understanding
>> rather than the venom and immediate rejection that I am
>> frequently faced with. It was not meant as a form of
>> manipulation, coercion, or whatever "message passing" that you
>> may infer/interpret the intent to have been.
>> All that being said, can we please just be adults here and have
>> some normal issues? You are correct in stating that the only one
>> hurt by this behavior is G*****.
>> You can be whoever you want to be the rest of the time... James
>> Dean, Marry Poppins, or even the Queen of England. I really
>> don't care. It doesn't matter. Further, It doesn't matter if I
>> believe whatever you are taking to be your present identity is
>> Where G***** is involved you need to suck it up and be Richard.
>> Wether that be a made up or previously assumed identity.
>> Richard is who is on all pertinent information pertaining
>> to G*****. Work with me here.
>> May you please confirm that during his time in Canada, G*****
>> will be and remain in the sole custody of Richard?
>> Thank You.
>> On Sunday, December 14, 2014, Patrick
>> > <_e>> wrote:
>> G***** mentioned earlier that you had told him to tell me
>> that unless I can provide proof that I legally changed my
>> name from Richard to Patrick then you would not
>> allow him to visit me during his winter break.
>> I remind you that the court expressly forbids using the child
>> (G*****, in this case) to pass messages between the parents
>> (us, in this case). I have informed G***** of such and will
>> not accept any messages from him on your behalf.
>> I further remind you you did clearly agree to the travel
>> arrangements previously committed to by me with respect to
>> G*****'s winter break; moreover, you may recall me insisting
>> on receiving a clearly written authorization for G*****'s
>> visitation plans for exactly this type of reason.
>> With respect to your request for proof that I legally changed
>> my name from Richard to Patrick, I cannot provide
>> such proof because such name change never occurred. The name
>> on my birth certificate is Patrick and the US and
>> Canadian governments will only issue ID in the name that is
>> on one's birth certificate. I'm sorry that you are only now
>> accepting the reality that you married and had a child with
>> someone who you clearly knew so little about (kinda tells you
>> something about yourself, though, huh)? I guess I'm just
>> that good...and you're not.
>> You may also remember, in December 2011, I declared under
>> oath, in open court, before you and the Judge, that my birth
>> name was Patrick. That was 3 years ago. But all of a
>> sudden now it's become an issue for you? So, is it an issue
>> because you finally realize that I've been telling the truth
>> the past 3 years and you look like an idiot and you're trying
>> to save face? Has there been anything that you accused me of
>> that actually turned out to be right?
>> As for G*****'s visit: the only person who will be adversely
>> affected by you not allowing him to visit according to the
>> terms you already agreed to in writing, would be him (I am
>> devoid of emotion so I would only be affected financially but
>> I'm not going to lose any sleep over the few hundred dollars
>> for the plane ticket).