The First Amendment doesn't protect Canadians... But nice try "smart" guy.
On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Patrick
> 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:
> 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
> 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 <_e>> wrote:
>> 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,
>> 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.