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: Fri, Jan 16 2015 8:56:22 am

You are absolutely right, and I could not agree with you more.  The key and
initial point here is absolutely about mistrust and lies of a personal
nature.  Which I will again point out... You either lied to me about your
name initially, or are lieing about it now.  It really makes no difference
which, as deceit is deceit.

That is what the whole point has been all along, actually.  I'm glad you
have finally caught up with the conversation.  It sure seems to take you a
while sometimes, but I guess with anyone who is as disjointed from reality
as you are, some considerations need to be made.

Thank you for finally coming to terms.  It feels good to be correct,
doesn't it?


On Friday, January 16, 2015, Patrick  wrote:

> Desiree:
> I would also point out that what's relevant is lies between you and I.
> Lies that either of us have told to third parties (e.g. the immigration
> court) have no bearing on the level of trust between you and I.
> This is why I have to state the seemingly obvious with you so often.
> Sometimes you're just not very smart.
> Patrick
> Desiree Capuano  > wrote:
> Denise,
> Thanks for playing.  You are and were wrong, and are trying to back-pedal
> your way out it now.  I'd have thought you were used to being wrong by no,
> but with what a sore loser you are being.  Your "not lying" in open court
> must surely be why you were jailed for purgery.  Yup... Makes total sense.
> Nice that you subconsciously feel so guilty about your lies that you
> continue to respond.  That and your stalker like obsessive devotion to me.
> Let me just saw, "ewww!"  Please try to listen to me when I say that I am
> not and never will be interested in you.  Ever.
> I know you love talking to me, but unless you have some actual business
> pertaining to G*****, You should really go do something productive more
> productive.  Perhaps something other than attempting to reinvent History
> and reality yet again.
> ~Desiree
> On Wednesday, January 14, 2015, Patrick  > wrote:
>>  Desiree:
>> I have a few minutes, so I'll point out another way you're wrong about
>> the alleged lies you've attempted to cite:
>> In 2007, when I stated in the Immigration Court, that my name was Richard,
>> it was, in fact, Richard under the California common law.  All
>> of my ID, issued by the State of California and the State of Arizona had
>> the name Richard on it and I had been using the name Richard 
>> exclusively for the prior 11 years.  It was not until I came to Canada and
>> the Canadian government refused to allow me continue to use the name
>> Richard unless I formally changed it from Patrick and the US
>> government and the State of California also then began refusing to allow me
>> to continue using Richard, that I decided it would be easier to just
>> go back to using Patrick.  So, you see, I didn't lie about my name in
>> the Immigration Court.
>> If the day ever arrives that you are right about something that we're
>> disputing, it will be a special day, indeed.
>> Good day,
>> Patrick
>> On 01/14/2015 08:14 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>> Gary,
>>  I am glad that you have learned how Google and copy paste work.  That
>> is precious, and I would pat your head like the good boy that you are if
>> you were here.  A for effort!  However, you have once again failed to
>> read.  F for comprehension.  The alias is tied to the root of the issue,
>> which is legal status.  Given that you were actually put in prison by
>> someone whose job it is to interpret and enforce laws, you were in
>> non-compliance.  Not only were you wrong as you are right now, but you were
>> punished for it.  Were you the catcher?
>>  Further, the request you made of me was to provide a specific example
>> and evidence that you have been dishonest with me.  State and other laws
>> are non-applicable and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  Have you
>> openly lied?  The answer is plainly yes.
>>  Your delusions and failure to comprehend complex thoughts aside, there
>> is actually something relevant for us to discuss.  G***** would like to
>> attend a 2-day school camp.  The cost for this is $110 dollars.  If he does
>> not attend, he will be made to sit in a class and perform whatever tasks
>> are given to those who could not attend.  Would you prefer the money go on
>> his debit card or credit card?  In the absence of a valid response, I will
>> infer consent for the debit card.
>>  Please don't feel embarrassed for too long as there is good news!  You
>> are not American.  Phwhew!  That must be a huge relief to you.  I'll
>> forgoe the simple diagram for now, but if you are still as confused as you
>> seem to be, I'll go ahead and provide it.
>> You have most definitely achieved your goal with this thread if it's
>> purpose was to amuse me and instill a sense of pitty for you and all
>> those I have shared this with. (The kind of pitty generally shown to angry
>> kittens.)
>>  All sniping aside, you really should get out in the world and do
>> something that makes you happy.  Make a friend, get laid... Whatever you
>> need to do to relieve that stress and right your head again.  That may be
>> the first step to you being a better person.  Or a person at all as you
>> have not provided me evidence that you are not some form of subhuman.  Like
>> a mole person.
>>  ~ Desiree
>> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015, Patrick 
>> wrote:
>>>  Desiree:
>>> Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1621, states as follows:
>>> Whoever—
>>> (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or
>>> person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath
>>> to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify
>>> truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or
>>> certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath
>>> states or subscribes any *material matter* which he does not believe to
>>> be true; or
>>> (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under
>>> penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United
>>> States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does
>>> not believe to be true;
>>> is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided
>>> by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
>>> or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription
>>> is made within or without the United States.
>>> Do you see the use of the term "material matter" there in paragraph
>>> (1)?  Do you know what "material matter" means?  It means a matter which is
>>> relevant to the issue at hand.  The issue at hand was whether or not I was
>>> a US citizen.  The name I provided to the court was NOT material to the
>>> question of my citizenship and so, did not rise to the level of being
>>> perjury.  With respect to my statement to that immigration court that I
>>> was, at the time the statement was made, a US citizen - that was clearly
>>> NOT perjurous as is proven by the fact that the US government has since
>>> provided me my US birth certificate and the 14th Amendment to the US
>>> Constitution guarantees that any person born within the United States shall
>>> be a citizen of the United States.  SLAM, BITCH!
>>> As for me telling you, that my name was Richard:
>>> Section 1279.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure states:
>>> (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e), nothing in
>>> this title shall be construed to abrogate the common law right of any
>>> person to change his or her name.
>>> Which means that in California any person may change their name legally
>>> under "common law" - in other words, by adopting a new name.  Which is what
>>> I did in 1993 - 1996.  At that time there was no requirement that
>>> government issued ID bear only the name stated on the person's birth
>>> certificate.  Therefore, when we were together, and prior to the Patriot
>>> Act, my legal name (under California law) was Richard.  And therefore
>>> I did not lie to you at that time.  Again, I saw: Fucking SLAM!
>>> Section 326 of the Patriot Act improses, amongst many other things,
>>> regulations on financial institutions with respect to identity
>>> documentation required by their customers.  The regulations require that
>>> only the "legal name" as defined by federal law (not state law) may be used
>>> and that only specific forms of identification may be used to establish the
>>> identity of the account holder.  From the Patriot Act came the REAL ID act
>>> of 2005, which imposed even stricter requirements on the issuance of
>>> identification documents by the states.  Upon accepting the REAL ID act
>>> California could no longer issue ID with any name other than that which is
>>> on the person's birth certificate.  This effectively makes California's
>>> section 1279.5 irrelevant if a person wants to have any kind of government
>>> issued photo ID.  So, again, you are completely fucking wrong.
>>> As for me now saying my legal name is Patrick: Since neither the US
>>> government nor the Canadian government accepts common law name changes any
>>> more then they will only allow me to use the name as it is stated on my
>>> birth certificate - unless I go through the formal, court based legal name
>>> change - which I have no interest in bothering with.  And so, yet again, I
>>> did not lie and your a fucking idiot!
>>> And your stupid comments about crayons and diagrams just make you look
>>> that much more moronic.  It's people like you that make me embarrassed to
>>> be American.  When people go on about "stupid Americans" they must be
>>> referring to you.
>>> I'm not going to bother with the rest of your message because you just
>>> insist on proving what a misinformed and ignorant imbecile you are.  Why
>>> don't you do a little research before you provide such stupid, misguided
>>> responses.
>>> Anyway, I have flight to catch in the morning so you're on your own for
>>> the rest of the week.  I've accomplished what I've set out to with this
>>> thread so I don't think there's anything further to say.
>>> Patrick
>>> On 01/13/2015 03:50 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>> José,
>>>  I know this is difficult for you, but please try to focus and pay
>>> attention here.  Think really hard... Make that squinty face you make when
>>> that hamster is doing his best to move the wheel inside your head.  You
>>> asked for an example of when you had been dishonest with me.  The patriot
>>> act has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the conversation.  Further, is not
>>> true and does not apply.
>>>  I suppose that sort of logic is why you were thrown in prison by a
>>> federal judge for perjury.  Perjury happens to be a noun.  Perjury is
>>> defined as, "the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after
>>> having taken an oath of affirmation."  Translation: lying. That is another
>>> example.  I've now provided you with two examples that you requested.  You
>>> are welcome.
>>>  Please don't make me break out the crayon diagram as it only serves to
>>> further degrade you.
>>>  You know what people from the projects and people in trailer parks
>>> have in common?  They are both... How did you put it?  From the lower
>>> echelon of society.  Though the ones who grow up there just never seem to
>>> get out of the shadow.
>>>  As a disclaimer to keep you from being confused now and in the future:
>>>  When I do not respond to you in part or in whole it means that you are so
>>> wrong and delusional that it isn't even worth my time to respond.  You'll
>>> just pull something delusional (likely something you yourself are guilty of
>>> or feeling guilty about) from some orifice and present it as if it were a
>>> truth.
>>>  Allow me to apply some Richard logic to this conversation.  Do you
>>> know why you are spending this inordinate amount of time responding to me?
>>> Because Cuthulu is masterminding a conspiracy against you to force you to
>>> initiate pointless conversations with someone you obviously hold a high
>>> level of contempt (and unrequited love) for. aliens.  See?  I
>>> even tied in your persecution complex.  Again.  You are welcome.
>>>  ~Desiree
>>> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015, Patrick 
>>> wrote:
>>>>  Desiree:
>>>> I've already explained this to you (and the court) numerous times, but
>>>> you either have a very short memory or very small comprehension, so I'll
>>>> explain it again.  Before the passing of the PATRIOT act it was legally
>>>> acceptable for a person to change their name by assuming a new name and
>>>> becoming commonly, or generally, known by that name.  Having utility bills,
>>>> pay stubs, et cetera in that new name was sufficient, over time, for that
>>>> name to become one's "legal name".  So, prior to the passing of the PATRIOT
>>>> act, Richard was my legal name as the term was defined at that time.
>>>> After the passing of the PATRIOT act the various levels of government no
>>>> longer accepted that as a recognized method changing one's name and, as
>>>> such, my legal name reverted to my birth name.
>>>> Therefore, there was no lie and you are, as always, incorrect.
>>>> You are also incorrect about me growing up in a trailer park.  I grew
>>>> up in government housing - the projects, not a trailer park.
>>>> Patrick
>>>> On 2015-01-13 10:33 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>>> Raymond,
>>>>  Again, your capacity for transference and random accusations is truly
>>>> impressive.  Go ahead and take that as a compliment if you like.  (But not
>>>> something I'm attracted by, so let me be clear.)
>>>>  Citing evidence with you is pointless, but let's go with some low
>>>> hanging fruit.  It is pretty simple, but I'll go slow so that you can
>>>> follow.  Please try to pay attention.  If you truly are Patrick, you
>>>> lied about your identity to me, presented a false name on legal documents.
>>>> Including G*****'s Birth Certificate.  If Patrick is your fake
>>>> identity, then you are "being dishonest" right now.  That was some pretty
>>>> simple logic backed by examples.  Let me know if you need me to diagram in
>>>> Crayon for you.
>>>>  As you have repeatedly failed to provide evidence that you are not a
>>>> member of a subhuman species previously thought to be mythical such as a
>>>> Morlock, I do not feel that I am required to respond or read your tantrum
>>>> further.
>>>>  What is it like being so wrong and self-assured all the time?  Does
>>>> it feel blissful?  Does it remind you of home?  You know... The trailer
>>>> park that you grew up in?
>>>>  ~ Desiree
>>>> On Monday, January 12, 2015, Patrick 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>  Desiree:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>> 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,