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: Telephone call
From: Patrick <>
To: Desiree Capuano <>
Date: Thu, Dec 18 2014 4:22:16 pm

I was being sarcastic.  I don't need your permission to put the audio of 
the phone call, or anything else, including your likeness, on the web 
site - First Amendment.  The Constitution of the country you seem to 
think is so great, and all that.

I'll read the rest of your email when I get home.


On 2014-12-18 4:20 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Patrick,
> You do NOT have my permission to post "that" or any other phone call 
> to any other site, storage, or other location. Further, you do not 
> have my permission to record me, use my voice, photo, or likeness in 
> any way.
> As for the rest of your diatribe... Stating a name does not make it 
> reality.  I know you believe that stating something with enough 
> conviction, and repetition backed by falsified documents changes 
> reality, but that is not the case.  I regularly call you all sorts of 
> names. For example, when I called you Asshole, does that constitute a 
> name change?  Will your next Alias / Stolen identity be Asshole 
> Smith?  Will you expect that since I have now called you Asshole in 
> writing that it is a form of formal acknowledgement?  Just curious... 
> I know you like to make these rules up as you go, so any response I 
> will consider to be factual "at this point in time."
> As for the visitation, you have met my stated criteria.  As such, per 
> prior agreement, G***** will be visiting his father Richard. 
>  (We discussed this already, remember?) Had you not dragged this out 
> with theatrics, slander, and baseless accusations, it would never have 
> been an issue.  Please just get to the point next time.
> ~ Doris Day (aka Desiree)
> On Wednesday, December 17, 2014, Patrick  > wrote:
>     Desiree:
>     You don't mind if I post that telephone call on the web site, do you?
>     Anyway, listen, I was hoping to not mention that Kim Baker thing
>     until we went to court - I like to surprise you at the last minute
>     - you're so amusing the way you always lose control and freak out.
>     As I was saying when you hung up (a very white trash response to
>     losing a debate, by the way), if you don't allow G***** to
>     proceed with the visitation as previously agreed you are actually
>     helping my cause.  I know that the best way to hurt you,
>     permanently, is emotionally, not through your reputation,
>     finances, or career (remember I told you many months ago that that
>     other stuff I was doing was just to distract you?).  And what
>     could be more effective than for your child to utterly despise you
>     because of your own actions?  By telling G***** he could visit
>     for the entire break, then completely revoking that for no
>     reasonable cause you have completely obliterated the last shred of
>     respect and tolerance he had for you.  And there's the other
>     aspect: the court!  You see, the court has never seen you try to
>     interfere with visitation before because there's always been an
>     order compelling you.  Now, I can show the court that you
>     absolutely agreed, in writing, to the visit, then after I payed
>     for the plane tickets you refused for what the court will consider
>     a very unacceptable reason. You see: YOU DON'T THINK THINGS
>     THROUGH!  You're a fool, Desiree.  That's why you are where you are.
>     On May 27, 2014 you sent me an email, wherein you called me
>     Patrick.  Therefore, as of that time you clearly knew my name was
>     Patrick.
>     Your's truly,
>     Patrick
>     P.S. Please try to understand, I have no emotional interest in any
>     of this - I don't believe in emotions, remember?  I'm sure you
>     could tell by my tone on the telephone that it is very unlikely
>     you could do anything to upset me.