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 4:36:56 pm
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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>