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: Patrick <>
To: Desiree Capuano <>
Date: Mon, Jan 12 2015 8:41:47 pm

You still have not provided any explanation or cited any references to 
specific actions on my part, or provided any supporting evidence for any 
of your claims that I am, or have ever, been dishonest with you.  Until 
you are able to do so you should stop making such claims because you 
sound like a child in a school yard shouting "I know you are but what am I".

If you did not inform ICE of my birth name and that I was born in 
Florida then that means they must have already had that information in 
my file - which means they knew, officially, during the time they were 
holding me in custody.  Prior to that point I had never mentioned 
Florida or the name Patrick to them.  You understand if I choose not 
to believe you, right?

To which rabbi do you refer?  I do not currently have a rabbi with which 
I confer.  I shall presume you are not actually referring to ANY rabbi 
and are just making stuff up again.

No, I don't cackle.  I don't believe I have ever cackled.  Cackling is 
unbecoming.  I use the terms "destroy" and "ruin" because they are both 
vague and innocuous; they convey the intending meaning without the 
possibility of being interpreted as being a threat of physical harm.  If 
you know of a more appropriate term feel free to let me know and I shall 
consider using it instead.

Now, let's shift the discussion to you.  The reason you have responded 
to all of the messages I have sent over the past day or so, and that you 
have done so expeditiously, is because you know, though you will not 
openly admit, that the things I have said are true.  In particular:
- you've failed to make G***** love and/or respect you;
- you know G***** still wants to return to living with me and that the 
moment he does return, he will have no interest in maintaining any 
further relationship with you;
- you know G***** has not acclimated to your environment and your way 
of life and that he never will;
- you know G***** looks down on you and Sage as being white trash that 
is below him;
- you know that these are all things I told you would happen, long 
before you took G***** to Phoenix, and you insisted I was wrong.

The reason you feel compelled to respond to my statements is because it 
angers you that I'm right and I've been right all along and your pride 
is hurt because you know that I know that you're wrong.  If you had any 
amount of confidence that G***** was happy with you and that he had 
even the smallest amount of affection for you then you would be 
indifferent to what I'm saying.

And now, let's talk about this fixation you have with citizenship. Why 
do you keep trying to make it an issue?  Whether I'm a US citizen as I 
say, or a Canadian citizen as you say - do you think that makes any 
difference to me?  Or to where I am or where I live? Why do you think 
that I would have any personal interest at all in having US 
citizenship?  If I'm really not a US citizen I could have gotten US 
citizenship when we were together.  Why wouldn't I have? Either I have 
no interest in being a US citizen or I already am a US citizen.  Either 
way, it's clearly not something that has importance to me, so I don't 
understand why you keep trying to use that as a way to try to insult 
me.  Moreover, you're talking about citizenship by virtue of location of 
birth - that's such an incredibly arbitrary factor.  It would take such 
a small minded person to think that the geographic location of a 
person's birth would have any bearing on who they are.  But then, YOU do 
think that way, don't you?  I can only figure that you keep trying to 
make citizenship an issue because you have nothing else that you can try 
to "hurt" me with. That's pretty sad for you.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that I decided I wanted to 
move back to LA and that I was a Canadian citizen.  Do you think that 
not being a US citizen would stop me?  Do you not think that if I wanted 
to be living in the US right now I would be?  I mean, even if all of 
your claims about me were true, do you think DHS has the resources to 
constantly be looking for non-violent, non-dangerous, white, english 
speaking illegals that may or may not be in the country?  Come on, 
Desiree, you can't be that stupid.

Anyway, you can continue to make strange comments about citizenship if 
it makes you feel better.  I'm just curious why you keep trying to 
insult me by claiming something that is so plainly irrelevant. It would 
be like me trying to insult you by saying you're not really blonde.


P.S. You're attempts to insult me with this name thing fall into the 
same category as the citizenship thing - I don't much care whether you 
believe my legal name is Patrick or Richard.  It just doesn't 
really have any relevance to anything in my life (what you believe, I 
mean).  Feel free to continue calling me arbitrary names if that helps 
you sleep at night.

On 01/12/2015 07:30 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Perry(I assume that is a possible next Alias for you),
> Good morning, sunshine! (Again, not a term of endearment.)
> I would read the entire novel below, but when the first paragraph 
> immediately begins with "fun facts" that diverge from reality, I know 
> that it isn't worth my time.  I never mentioned your false Alias, let 
> alone stated it as a factual name to ICE.  If you had a conversation 
> about that during your interrogation for breaking the law and being 
> here illegally, then that has nothing to do with me.
> I wonder (and so does your Rabbi, by the way) if all of your angsty 
> hatred even really relates to me at all.  Facts and reality seem to be 
> relative with you, and it is quite troublesome.
> I also wonder... Do you fold your hands and cackle malevolently when 
> you talk about "destroying" me?It seems a bit over the top; much like 
> all of these sad and pathetic emails you keep sending me.
> Also, hello to the folks reading at home via BCC.  Hopefully you all 
> find Ricky/Perry's tantrums as amusing and pathetic as I do. :)
> ~Desiree
> On Monday, January 12, 2015, Patrick  > wrote:
>     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
>>         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