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: Your loving home and parental teaching and guidance
From: Desiree Capuano <>
To: Patrick <>
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2015 11:08:22 pm
I'm still not sure what your current fake ID supported by falsified
documents happens to be, so I will address you as Sally.


I would genuinely address your response if it had any merit, or purpose
other than to allow you to lash out like the impotent child that you
constantly prove yourself to be.

However, considering you regularly spout outright lies and subjective
opinions as fact with no true supporting evidence or basis in reality,
(likely when you are drunk and/or high and lonely) I will simply show your
thoughts the amount of consideration they deserve.

Grow up, and have a nice night Sally.

Regards (of some sort) (but again, not affection... Don't misunderstand),


On Sunday, January 11, 2015, Patrick  wrote:

>  As always, I shall address each of your statements and point out, as
> plainly as possible, why/how it is wrong.
> On 01/11/2015 12:54 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Ricky / Richard / Morgan / Parick / Patricia / Susan / whatever your
> chosen alias is today,
> I don't get your intended implication here.  How is my first name, whether
> assumed or legal, relevant to anything in my previous message and, in
> particular, whether I am on schedule with my plan against you?  An insult
> is much more effective when the intended recipient is able to infer the
> reference.  Please clarify.
>  Are you bored or something?
> Bored: no.  Or something: vague and ambiguous.  Please be more specific.
> Your stalker-like obsession with me is truly impressive.  The amount of
> time and energy spent thinking of me is flattering, but honestly a little
> pathetic.
> If there is any sincerity in your statements then you have grossly
> misinterpreted my intentions.  I was pretty direct when I told Detective
> Tuchfarber that my intention was to do everything in my power and
> capabilities to make your life as miserable as possible, and, if possible,
> to the point that you ultimately commit suicide.  That would be my ultimate
> desire.  But before you reach that point it is imperative that you
> experience as much misery, disappointment, and suffering as possible
> first.  At this point in your life you have very little to lose so there is
> not much incentive for me to actively publish your information.  I shall
> wait, patiently, until you rise up a bit, THEN proceed with the billboard
> campaign around Phoenix; I'll wait until you actually have some financial
> significance, THEN publish your complete credit and financial history -
> including your social security number and birth certificate (not illegal as
> long as it's done outside the US).
> I don't see how you could interpret such intentions as being misguided
> affection.
> For someone who so strongly espouses logic and intelligence, I would think
> that you could have grasped that I am not interested in you. Especially
> since I have directly told you that I am not interested in you.
> Whether or not you are interested in me is not relevant to my objectives.
> I realize that I am really amazing, but please expend some of that energy
> towards finding a man / woman / inanimate object that is capable of coping
> with your delusional nature, and providing some small measure of
> happiness.
> I see no evidence to suggest there is any merit to your implication that I
> am delusional.  If you know of any then please cite them.  Otherwise you're
> just talking gibberish again.
> Everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  Though that is a
> founding principal of America, so I understand it being foreign to a
> Canadian citizen like yourself.
> Almost every country in the world includes in their respective
> constitutions and/or bill of rights the right to the pursuit of happiness.
> I wish I could say it is because you are an ignorant American that you do
> not realize that, but that fact that you were born on US soil has nothing
> to do with the fact that you are clearly ignorant.
> You again bring up the question of citizenship.  Why?  You are the only
> one pretending to still cling to that claim.  When I show up at border
> crossings with my US birth certificate and BC photo ID US customs and ICE
> don't even give me a second thought.
> But, I'll play along, for the sake of argument: Let's assume your claim
> that I am a Canadian citizen is true.  So?  What's your point?  Are you
> trying to suggest that a person born on US soil is inherently superior to
> someone who wasn't?  By that logic then Lauchner and Michael Capuano are
> automatically superior to me.  Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and Richard 
> Ramirez are superior to every single person ever born in Canada?  That's
> some pretty sketchy reasoning.  And let's pretend for a moment that I AM a
> Canadian citizen: that hasn't, and still doesn't prevent me from living in
> the US.  I own a business in the US.  So, again, what are you trying to
> imply?
>  Your obsessive pursuit of my attention seems to only pale in comparison
> to your capacity for delusional transference, and cruelty towards G*****.
> Again, you're making claims about my psychological state without citing a
> single case of me ever exhibiting delusional behavior.  At least when I
> call you delusional I refer your to a specific thing you did which supports
> my claim.
>  It is unfortunate that you chose to rob G***** of his right and
> opportunity to choose for himself which parent to live with.
> Come again?  I was the one initially requested G***** be interviewed by
> the court so he can tell the court where he wants to live.  You then
> attempted to circumvent that by having me deported.  I then ordered my
> attorney to request the court put the interview back on calendar.  Then,
> when G***** was given the chance, he clearly, explicitly, and very
> unequivocally told the court he wants to return to live with me.
> See that?  That is a case of you exhibiting delusional behavior.  You're
> accusing ME of doing exactly what you have, and continue to do.  THAT's
> delusional.
> You relinquished all rights a mere 2 months from his 14th birthday where
> he would have been able to declare his choice in front of everyone in open
> court.
> I relinquished my rights so that I can remove the court from the
> equation.  So that I can proceed with my plans respecting you.  It's hard
> to do that when I have to maintain appearances for the court.
> You are unsurprisingly misinformed about the significance of G*****
> turning 14.  There is no statutory age, in either California or Arizona, at
> which the court is required to grant the child the living arrangement the
> child desires.  It is completely at the discretion of the court.
> "Generally" after the age of 14 the court will "listen" to what the child
> wants - but that's the extent of the law on the matter.
> I also point out, waiving one's rights does not mean refusing one's
> responsibilities.  Though you seem to think they are one and the same.  I
> did not refuse to allow G***** to return to live with me - I created a
> situation where he can see, firsthand, what you would be like in the
> absense of the court compelling you to act.  And so far you've played right
> into it.
> It doesn't surprise me given your repeated underestimation of his
> intelligence and potential; simply seeing him as a pawn and tool to use in
> your obsessive quest to win me back. ("destroy me" ... Whatever you want to
> call it.)
> As I have explained to him: sometimes, to get the desired outcome, we have
> to go through a period of challenges.  That is what he is going through
> right now.  I believe the exact idiom I used was "Sometimes, to make an
> omlette you have to break a few eggs".
> I explained what that meant and how it applied to the current situation.
> He acknowledged understanding.
>  I love G***** regardless of what decision he should ultimately make.
> If that is the case then why do you insist on not allowing him to make
> that decision?  He already has: he said he wants to come and live with me.
> He has expressed that if he never heard from you again he's fine with that.
> It's already been more than 2 years...what do you believe is going to
> happen?  Do you think one day he's going to wake up and realize that he was
> wrong all this time and suddenly love you unconditionally?  Again, I say,
> THAT is delusional!  Dude, the fact that since the July hearing, since
> you've gotten full custody and authority over him he has steadily withdrawn
> from you and that other kid of yours should tell you something.  Before
> that he could hold on to the hope that at the next hearing the court would
> order you to return him.  That hope is gone.  I really don't know what you
> are hoping for, but your relationship with G***** has reached it's peak
> and the only place it's going from here is down.  There's less than two
> years until he can legally move out and I'm willing to bet that within 24
> hours of turning 16 you'll never hear from him again.
> As for "love": unless you can provide a clear definition of what the word
> means then you should refrain from using it.
> I know he is capable of so much, and will support him down whatever path
> he should ultimately choose in whatever capacity I am able.  I may be
> hard on G***** sometimes, but being a real parent means looking out for
> the physical, mental, and emotional well being of your child even when it
> isn't easy or popular.
> You are completely oblivious to anything going on with G*****.  I just
> spoke to him on the phone - you still haven't even noticed the anomoly in
> his eye.  You live in the same house with him and he's been back for 8 days
> and you haven't noticed.  You also didn't notice it before he came up
> here.  How can you not notice a bright discoloration in his eye?  Do you
> not speak with him?  Do you not look him in the eye when you do (assuming
> you do speak with him)?
> You add him to your insurance but you don't bother taking him to the
> doctor or the dentist (you only do it when you think I'm going to bring it
> up in court).  Dental cleaning and checkups are supposed to be every 6
> months, not every 12.  He wasn't in the habit of using deodarant - I had to
> point out to him one day that he smelled of BO.  He still often "forgets"
> to brush his teeth.  He doesn't know how to get from your place to the
> Target, which is only a few blocks away.  When given the choice of doing
> the research to figure out how to get to the outdoor shooting range, or not
> go, he chose not to do the research.  Is that the result of your "real
> parenting"?
>  I can only hope that one day you decide to strive to be a better person,
> and better parent.
> I strive, on a daily basis, to improve myself.  I strive to be objective
> and fair, and to be reasonable and rational.  I consider myself to be fair
> and decent.  The people I come in contact with, exclusive of you, of
> course, also consider me such.
> You're still making the same unfounded arguments that you've been making
> since 2011.  You're the one that has to use underhanded tactics and false
> claims to get what you want.  I'm referring to you resorting to calling ICE
> in order to gain custody by default.  See, when G*****'s with me he's with
> me because he *wants* to be.  I've never once had to force him or tell
> him he has to visit because the court ordered it.  You, on the other hand,
> have done exactly that.  You claim to want what's best for G*****, yet you
> teach him nothing.  You think hugs and kisses will make everything okay
> (again, that's delusional).
> It is my opinion that if anyone needs to work on being a better person it
> is you.
> If not for yourself, for G*****'s sake.
> Both I, and G*****, are happy with who I am, with how I behave, with my
> values and beliefs.  If I identify a character or personality flaw in
> myself then I will commit to improving it.
> You act the same now as you did in 2000.  You still try to use people's
> guilt and pitty to manipulate them.  You tell people half truths and
> versions of events which are heavily skewed in your favor, to gain their
> support.  That's deceptive.  That's completely contrary to how I try to
> live and how I try to guide G*****.  You can deny that you do that until
> you're blue in the face but I've got over 400 emails from you and/or about
> you where you've done that countless times.
> You rush into relationships with losers like Lauchner and Capuano, you
> move in with them, you hastily have children with them.  You expose your
> children to people like Lauchner and tell them he's a good, wonderful
> person.  You allow him to take on a paternal role in their lives.  You
> defend his behavior and get angry when people state facts about him.  Yet
> you want to pretend you're a good, honorable person?  And that you give a
> shit about your children?
> He is the one being hurt by your actions, scheming, and manipulation.
> G***** is not being hurt at all by what I am doing.  He knew before I
> started executing the plan exactly what the plan was/is.  I always confer
> with him beforehand so that he's not taken by surprise.  If he told me he
> was uneasy with anything I would not proceed with that course.  I told him
> in May I would be waiving all of my parental rights in July.  I told him
> why.  If he had concerns about me wouldn't he bring them to you?  You're
> his primary custodial parent, aren't you?  When he's with me we talk about
> you.  Are you saying that he has such a lack of respect for you that he
> can't even speak openly with you about me?  If that's that case then it
> really sucks to be you.
> He once asked me if I would shoot you.  I told him that murder is illegal
> and immoral and can result in spending the rest of one's life in prison.
> And that the rest of my life in prison is not a risk I'm willing to take.
> But otherwise, no, I would have no qualms about it; that that is how much I
> despise you for the things you've done and continue to do.  He did not
> flinch; he didn't look anything other than indifferent; as best I could
> tell, he didn't care.  The topic never came up again.  That was during his
> visit last summer.  To be clear, I told Tuchfarber the same thing.  There
> is nothing illegal or threatening about *wanting* to harm someone - as
> long as you don't act on it.  I am reasonable and rational enough to know
> the difference, and to refrain from engaging in such activity.
> And let me be absolutely clear on this point: I would never deliberately
> cause you physical harm, other than in self defense or defense of another.
> Though that is nothing special toward you - I have that rule for *ALL*
> people.  Also, I emphasize that G***** brought up the question and I only
> responded to it truthfully.
>  ~ Desiree (Not meant as a term of endearment, please do not mistakenly
> take it that way.)
> I don't understand your meaning.
> On Sunday, January 11, 2015, Patrick  > wrote:
>>  Desiree:
>> Allow me to also point out: Having previously waived, in court, *all* of
>> my parental rights, you now have the full legal right and authority to:
>> - refuse to allow G***** to visit me;
>> - take away the phone and every other thing I have provided him,
>> including the debit and credit cards (although you do not have the legal
>> right to withhold them - you must return them to me);
>> - cut off all contact and communication between G***** and me.
>> Doing so would definitely prevent me from being able to have any
>> influence on his perceptions, values, beliefs, et cetera and, thereby
>> prevent me from being able to have any influence on your home environment
>> and the relationship between you and him.  However, doing so would also
>> make him hate you that much more and ensure that he leaves your home at the
>> first opportunity and never has anything to do with you for the rest of
>> your life.
>> So, you see, again, we've created a situation where you have two mutually
>> exclusive options but neither of them do ends favorably for you.  That is
>> strategy, and the benefit of long term planning, and the benefit of
>> foresight.  Remember also, that all of this was initiated by, and is the
>> result of your own actions.  I am where I am because of your direct and
>> explicit actions; G***** now has Canadian citizenship and cannot be
>> deported from Canada and receives all of the benefits and protections of
>> being a Canadian citizen the moment his foot touches Canadian soil - all
>> because of your actions calling ICE.  And you can say that I've been
>> manipulating G***** but that's exactly what you have done countless times
>> with almost everybody you've ever met (that's why people always take your
>> side when they hear your side of the story but then abandon you when they
>> discover the full story).
>> I'd also like to point out that, as always, I've been very careful to
>> make sure everything I do is within the law.
>> I've discussed all of this with G***** and I've explained to him what my
>> plan is with respect to you.  I've told him if he's uncomfortable with any
>> of it then I won't proceed.  He is fully aware that he is being used as a
>> pawn in my plan to ruin your life and he seems to be okay with it.
>> All the best,
>> Patrick
>> On 2015-01-11 9:04 AM, Patrick wrote:
>> Good morning, Desiree.
>> I'd like to inquire how things have been going with all the wonderful
>> stuff that you are able to teach and expose G***** to which I, according
>> to you, could not do.  In particular, how has that emphasis on "family"
>> been working out?  Have you been able to instill in him the importance of
>> "family" and how good it is to have "family"?  Would you say he's "bonded"
>> with your family?  And knowing your family - is it your belief that that
>> has improved him in some way?  These are loaded and/or sarcastic
>> questions.  I already know the answers to them (otherwise I woudln't be
>> asking), and I wouldn't expect you to answer them, not honestly anyway -
>> given your aversion to reality and honesty.
>> From what's been reported to me and from my own observations, so far all
>> you've taught G***** is poor table manners and how to mimic the people
>> around you rather than having your own opinion.  An important skill, I
>> suppose, if you live in an environment where people get angry with you for
>> being different.  Say, for example, your home.
>> Are you still trying to convince yourself that you have the perfect
>> little family?  Are you beginning to realize, yet, that G*****'s presence
>> there is slowly eroding the happy, fair tale home that you're trying to
>> hold on to?
>> I know that by saying this you will react to spite me - it's what you
>> people do.  Am I saying it deliberately, for that purpose?  Is it that I
>> know that you're getting fed up with how he's ruining your fair tale and
>> you've been having thoughts of sending him away before he starts to taint
>> Sage as well - and by stating these truths to you I will provoke you to
>> hang in there a little longer, so you can show me how wrong I am?
>> Probably.  The longer G***** is there, with his "bad attitude", his
>> indifference toward you and Sage and your family, and his subtle demeanor
>> of disgust and condescencion toward you and Sage and your mother, and your
>> trashy ways, the more it will instill into Sage's subconscious that he is
>> inferior and inadequate.  The more it will slowly eat away at your perfect
>> family.
>> Sucks!  Now, on the one hand, you are pulled by your upbringing and years
>> of conditioning, to react in the only way you know: with anger and spite,
>> to want to keep G***** there because you believe that will adversely
>> affect me; while on the other hand, you know I'm right and that I've been
>> manipulating the situation for two years, and that as long as G***** is in
>> your home you will never be happy because you will never have your fairy
>> tale.
>> So, you'll show this email to your mother and ask her what you should
>> do.  She's going to say I'm just trying to get under your skin and the best
>> thing is to not respond at all.  She'll say that if you don't respond then
>> I'll think you're unaffected and that will piss me off.  She'll say this
>> because she's just like you - after all, where did you learn your behavior
>> from, right?  And just like you she has the same emotional, irrational
>> beliefs that a child inherently and unconditionally loves his mother.
>> But!!!  I am relying on your mother providing you such advice.  And on
>> you pretending you don't care and that you're unaffected.  I require you to
>> insist on keeping G***** with you longer - the longer he's with you the
>> more of an effect he'll have on Sage and the more subconscious hostility
>> will seep into your home.
>> In the end you'll take your mother's advice and not respond to this,
>> you'll convince yourself (with your mother's help) that everything is fine
>> in your home and that I'm the one trying to cause problems for you.  Or am
>> I saying that because I believe you'll do the opposite of what I state
>> you'll do - just to spite me?
>> Let me ask you this in closing: Has the amount of "love" in your home
>> increased or decreased over the past year?  It's rhetorical - I know the
>> answer.
>> Patrick