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: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@gmail.com>
To: Patrick <patrick@desireecapuano.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 15 2014 4:08:29 pm
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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>