Which documents do you believe are falsified? Which statements I made
are slanderous? How do you conclude that I am making up rules as I go?
There was at least a two year gap between when I first disclosed, in
court, that my birth name was Patrick and when I actually started
going by Patrick again. That doesn't seem very ad hoc to me.
And how do you conclude that I'm the one that has dragged anything out?
As I remember it, I had to hound you just to get clearly stated, written
approval from you for G***** to visit. Then YOU were the one that
changed the terms less than one week before his travel date. I simply
stated I cannot meet your new requirements because you were asking for
something that didn't exist.
And what baseless accusations are you referring to? I always provide
specific references and examples to support my accusations - perhaps
that's why my emails are so long.
You're so ridiculous that all these things you keep accusing me of are
exactly the things that YOU have just done. I really believe you need
to seek psychiatric help - not psychological, you need medication to fix
what's wrong with you. At least if it's a chemical imbalance in your
brain then it means you're not really a bad person - but if it's not an
imbalance then I guess you really are just a bad person.
On 12/18/2014 04:20 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 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:
> 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
> 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.