Mail

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Desiree Capuano & James Pendleton
250 E. Placita Lago Del Mago
Sahuarita, AZ     85629
Tel: 520-288-8200
desiree.capuano@gmail.com
japendletonjr@gmail.com
Back to Mailbox Back to mailbox
Newer Message Newer message
Older Message Older message
Re: Your loving home and parental teaching and guidance
From: Patrick <patrick@desireecapuano.com>
To: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2015 11:18:57 pm
Desiree:

See, there you go again, making unfounded claims against me.  Not only 
unfounded, but contrary to the actual physical evidence.  What basis do 
you have to claim that my ID is fake or that it was supported by 
falsified documents?  Obviously you've made no attempt to verify the 
authenticity of any of them.  You can verify the PAL with a quick call 
to the RCMP; you can verify the birth certificate with a call to Florida 
Vital Statistics.  Hell, you can even call ICE and inquire about the 
status of my case.  Why don't you call ICE and inform them that my name 
is actually Patrick?  Oh, you already told them that before January 
2013 - they asked me about it during the interrogation.  Do you question 
the validity of the PAL? Every time I buy a handgun or any ammo I have 
to provide the PAL and the store has to verify it with the RCMP.  If I 
have firearms in Canada, without a PAL, that's like 15 years in prison 
or some crazy shit.  If you really believe the crap that you say then 
why don't you report me to the RCMP?  If the PAL is fake then I'll go to 
prison.  If it was obtained with false information then it'll be taken 
away and I'll probably still go to prison.

But you're not going to do that because you know you're full of it. You 
know my ID was obtained legitimately.  And you know my true legal, and 
birth name is indeed Patrick.  If you really believed it was not 
then you would have tried to have me arrested for whatever nonsense 
you're claiming.  And don't say you "wouldn't do that to G*****" - of 
course you would - you already have. Moreover, if my ID and my PAL was 
fraudulently obtained then that means that I am perpetually in the 
commission of numerous felonies...and you knowingly allowed G***** to 
be in my care not only while committing those felonies, but while 
illegally transporting, handling and operating firearms (illegal if what 
you say is true).

Don't you see how incredibly stupid you keep making yourself look? I 
wish I could include all the recipients of these messages as CC rather 
than BCC so you can see how many people regularly get a good laugh at 
the obtuse things you claim (but they've asked not to be disclosed).

As for calling me Sally: if that makes you happy then go for it.  I 
suppose the intention is to suggest I am a woman or womanly.  Is that 
supposed to hurt my feelings?  How 'bout if you call me Vickie, 
instead?  I kind of like Vickie better than Sally.

Again, you accuse me of "regularly" spouting lies.  I recall challenging 
you on that numerous times and you failing to be able to actually 
present any cases of me lying.  Has that changed?  Can you actually 
recall a specific instance of me lying?  Are you going to say I lied in 
court when I said my name is Patrick?  So, I provide physical proof 
that that IS my legal name and you say that the documents are forged?  
Get real!

As for "subjective opinions": all opinions are subjective - that's kind 
of what makes them opinions.  Otherwise, they'd be facts.  And you were 
actually able to graduate with a bachelors degree?  Oh, right, from the 
University of Phoenix...not from a REAL university. I'm sorry.

So, government issued photo ID is not acceptable as proof of identity to 
you?  Well, it's good enough for the RCMP, and it's good enough for US 
Border Patrol, ICE, and the TSA.  So, I guess you're shit outta luck there.

I don't get lonely.  I don't use drugs or get high.

Why do you tell me to grow up?  In what way am I acting immaturely? It 
seems, on my end, I'm just having a calm, rational discussion. It seems 
to me that you're the one getting worked up and flinging irrelevant, 
unfounded allegations like a child.

Why do you end your email with a declaration that there is no affection 
intended?  Do you think I might not be aware of that?  Do you think I 
have anything but disgust for you and people like you (trashy, ghetto 
recipients)?  It almost seems more like you're trying to convince 
yourself of the things you say, than anybody else.

Let me tell you a story about something that happened on G*****'s 
latest visit.  I noticed, since he's been with you he's picked up some 
trashy habits.  Lately, when he's eating, he's been picking his teeth 
with his fingernail - a truly revolting white trash mannerism.  
Normally, I try to break him of trashy habits right away, but I didn't 
want to seem nagging so I kept silent.  Then, a few days later, we were 
watch Family Guy and Lois was doing that during dinner, and Stewie said 
to Brian how disgusting she was, picking her teeth with her finger right 
there are the table. Talking down to her for being all trashy.  G***** 
immediately broke that habit.  A couple days later I asked him if it was 
because of what Stewie said - you smiled and said yeah.  You see, it's 
not just me manipulating G***** against you - it's also Seth Macfarlane 
and Stewie and everyone else that hates white trash people.  You're just 
so gross.

Let me point out something obvious to you: you are in what is called, in 
legal terms, the "superior position" because G***** is in your custody 
and you have complete authority over all matters pertaining to him.  The 
fact that you still get so worked up over what I say or what's going on 
in my life, and that you still feel the need to make claims like my ID 
is all fake, and calling me girl's names, is a pretty darn strong 
indication that either A) you've got serious mental problems, or B) 
you're the one that won't let go.  Remember when we last spoke on the 
phone?  Who was the one that was yelling and throwing accusations?  
Who's the one that hang up?  Not me.  I was calm and indifferent.  
Because I don't really care about you.  I enjoy this email 
correspondence because it creates a written record for me to publish.  
One day Sage will be able to go on the Internet and read them.  Every 
time you apply for a job or meet a guy that you like, I'll be there to 
make sure they're fully informed of who you really are.  That is why I 
engage you in these delightful conversations.

Patrick

P.S. When making your ridiculous claims about me you should remember 
that what other people are thinking is "Yeah, but you married the guy 
and had a kid with him.  What does that say about you?"  You're really 
not too bright, are you?


On 01/11/2015 10:08 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> I'm still not sure what your current fake ID supported by falsified 
> documents happens to be, so I will address you as Sally.
>
> 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),
>
> Desiree
>
> 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 me...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
>>>
>>
>