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 5:17:55 pm
The US Constitution applies to, and protects, all "people" regardless of 
citizenship.  And yes, I am a "smart" guy.  Thank you for noticing.

Moreover, since the web site and domain are now hosted outside the US 
nothing I put on there would be subject to US laws or restrictions.


On 2014-12-18 4:59 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> The First Amendment doesn't protect Canadians... But nice try "smart" 
> guy.
> Cheers
> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Patrick  > wrote:
>     Desiree:
>     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.
>     Cheers,
>     Patrick
>     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.