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 travel plans
From: Patrick <>
To: Desiree Capuano <>
Date: Mon, Dec 15 2014 3:39:06 pm
I'm sorry, I don't get your reference.  Please clarify your meaning.

On 2014-12-15 3:36 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Patrick,
> Merry Christmas!
> ~Desiree
> On Monday, December 15, 2014, Patrick  > wrote:
>     Desiree:
>     This is only an issue because you're making it so.  You have the
>     legal authority to allow G***** to spend his visit with any
>     person you wish.  There is no requirement, other than that which
>     you are imposing, that he can only be in the care of a person
>     named "Richard".
>     As for the death of the original Richard, that was in 1993. 
>     I wouldn't call that sudden or untimely.  Also, as I stated
>     previously, that is only "to the best of my knowledge".  I do not
>     know for a fact that he died.  Maybe he just moved to France.
>     I'm not going to play these stupid, childish power trip games with
>     you.  All you're doing is reinforcing, in G*****'s mind, that he
>     cannot believe or trust you.  I've already discussed the situation
>     with him and he fully understands the game you're playing.  He has
>     told me, in absolute terms, that he is fed up with you and with
>     being there and he wants to come back with me.  I wanted him to
>     stay with you long enough for him to fully realize and understand
>     how terrible of a person you really are so that he never has
>     second thoughts about it (why do you think I waived my rights at
>     the last hearing).  He has now reached that point.  He's been with
>     you two years and he has less respect for you then he ever did. 
>     Are you really that clueless that you cannot even tell when
>     someone has grown to despise you?
>     If he doesn't get off the plane on Saturday then we'll be in court
>     next week.  I don't believe there is anything further to say in
>     the matter.
>     Patrick
>     On 2014-12-15 3:08 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>     Patrick,
>>     Would that be a government issued photo ID under the name of
>>     Richard?  If not, then that would not resolve anything,
>>     would it?
>>     The reason it has become an issue now is that it has only
>>     recently come to my attention that you do not possess any form of
>>     ID or other documentation linking you to Richard.  Further,
>>     the sudden and untimely "death" of Richard has reinforced
>>     these concerns.
>>     You state that there is legal documentation in BC tying G*****
>>     with Patrick.  Could you please scan and email me said
>>     documentation to allay my outstanding concerns?
>>     ~Desiree
>>     On Monday, December 15, 2014, Patrick
>>     >     > wrote:
>>         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