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 travel plans
From: Patrick <patrick@desireecapuano.com>
To: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 15 2014 2:36:49 pm
Desiree:

One thing I can do, that would resolve any silly problems you're making 
up to be difficult is to simply send you a copy of my government issued 
photo ID.  But that would just be too easy and you'd have not way to 
back out of that, would you?


Patrick

On 2014-12-15 2:21 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> I can tell that reading comprehension is not your strong suit based on 
> your previous response.  Please try to focus here, as it involves 
> G*****.
>
> Do you have identification (legal or otherwise) that you are able to 
> present, stating that you are Richard should you be challaged 
> while G***** is in your custody?  This is very important because if 
> anything should happen, G***** is not authorized to be in the care of 
> custody of anyone other than Richard, regardless of what you may 
> call yourself.
>
> There is a very real possibily of negative ramifications should this 
> not be the case.  I would prefer to spare both G***** and you from that.
>
> I am trying to be proactive and look out for everyone's best interest 
> here.  Please try to be cooperative, I know it is difficult.
>
> ~ Desiree
>
> On Monday, December 15, 2014, Patrick  > wrote:
>
>     Desiree:
>
>     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?
>
>     Patrick
>
>
>     On 2014-12-15 12:25 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>     Patrick,
>>
>>     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
>>
>>     ~Desiree
>>
>>     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?
>>
>>         Patrick
>>
>>         On 2014-12-15 6:37 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>>         Patrick,
>>>
>>>         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 factual.
>>>
>>>         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.
>>>
>>>         ~Desiree
>>>
>>>         On Sunday, December 14, 2014, Patrick
>>>          wrote:
>>>
>>>             Desiree:
>>>
>>>             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).
>>>
>>>
>>>             Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>
>