I'm still waiting for you to tell me which document(s) you believe are
falsified. The PAL? The birth certificate? Hey, maybe it's the
temporary travel document issued by the Canadian Consulate for the
purpose of removal from the US - the thing that you accepted as a basis
to allow G***** to come on this visit.
Funny thing about THAT document: I told the Canadian Consulate, while I
was in ICE custody, that I make no claim of being that person and I
openly declared I'm NOT that person; I admitted to them that I applied
for, and obtained the previous passport in that name using false
information (again, statute of limitations had expired so I didn't
care). And they said they believed I am the person named on the
passport because the US government has already proven I am, so they
issued the travel document for the purpose of deportation. But the US
government's "proof" that I'm that person consisted of the prosecutor
showing the passport to the jury and saying "that's his picture and his
signature" and me (and my attorney) saying nothing...no argument in
response. I didn't say I was or wan't. So, it was purely by
implication that the US government "proved" I was that person. Once
again, we see the power of letting people assume things...and choosing
to remain silent rather than correcting them. What a wonderful legal
system we have:).
On 12/18/2014 04:59 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> The First Amendment doesn't protect Canadians... But nice try "smart"
> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Patrick > wrote:
> 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 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
>> > <_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.