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: G***** summer visitation 2015
From: Patrick <patrick@desireecapuano.com>
To: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2015 2:30:25 pm
I have confirmed, with Liz, that she would pick up G***** from LAX on 
May 24, 2015 and she would bring him to LAX on May 27, 2015 or May 28, 
2015 to travel to Vancouver, BC.  During the time G***** would be in 
Los Angeles, he would be staying at Liz's residence.

Is that acceptable to you?  And, if so, do you agree to permit G***** 
to travel from Phoenix, AZ to Los Angeles, CA on May 24, 2015, then from 
Los Angeles, CA to Vancouver, BC on May 28, 2015?

Patrick



On 04/26/2015 11:35 AM, Patrick wrote:
> Desiree:
>
> I'm unclear - your "previous correspondence" stated that G***** 
> traveling to California was contingent on your express notice and 
> consent.  But you now seem to be saying that it is pre-authorized by 
> you and that you just require "full itinerary including flight and 
> contact information".  May you please try to be a little more clear 
> and consistent in your communication?
>
> I will speak with the relevant parties in Los Angeles and get back to 
> you with confirmations.
>
>
> Responses to your statements:
> 1. You are correct that you are not required, not legally anyway, to 
> justify your decisions to me.  However, your refusal to provide a 
> rationale for your decisions is evidence that such decisions are 
> arbitrary and NOT based on rationale or on what is in G*****'s best 
> interests.  And child rearing (or leading, in general) arbitrarily, as 
> opposed to by rational consideration and democratic processes is 
> fascist and dictatorial.  I have been, and I believe I have now, 
> proven that that is your approach to raising children (if not your 
> approach to life, in general).
>
> In the past, when I have attempted to implement a rule, I have always 
> allowed G***** the opportunity to question it's rationale and, on 
> more than one occasion he has pointed out that there was no logical 
> basis for it.  In such cases I have conceded that he was correct and 
> the rule was either abandoned or modified appropriately.  THAT is my 
> approach to raising children - and to life in general.  That is why I 
> am a better person than you and why G***** will always respect me, 
> while he fears you. Personally, I'd rather have someone's earned 
> respect than to have their fear.  But that's just me.
>
> 2. I am not "failing to comply", as you put it.  I am proposing 
> alternatives to what you have mandated, in order to make more cost 
> effective travel arrangements.  Alternatives which would not affect 
> you in any way whatsoever because you are not the one traveling.  You 
> are proving that you are completely unwilling to have ANY flexibility 
> in this matter - even though it does not affect you in any way at 
> all.  Is there ANY reason you can provide why G***** should not be 
> permitted to travel on May 28, 2015 rather than on May 24, 2015?  
> You're adamant refusal to provide such indicates there is not.
>
> As for me being the one hurting G*****, I don't see how you come to 
> that conclusion.  You're the one being completely inflexible on his 
> travel dates and only allowing him to travel on the dates that the 
> flights cost over $500.  How exactly am I the one hurting him?
>
> I include G***** in correspondence because I believe in being 
> transparent and honest with him.  You're approach is to say one thing 
> to me (or to the court), then to provide G***** your fairy tale 
> perception of the situation - wherein you usually portray yourself as 
> the noble, honorable, victim.  But the way you portray things to 
> G***** only works if I'm never able to rebut your stories - if I 
> never hear about what you've told him.  Do you honestly believe that 
> G***** and I keep secrets from each other?
>
> Either list, specifically, what "inflammatory and defamatory lies" 
> you're referring to, or stop making such vague generalizations. You 
> see how I am specific when make claims about you?  That's why everyone 
> believes me, and ignores you.
>
> 3. What childish tantrums?  How am I being childish?  And what 
> behavior qualifies as a tantrum?
>
> 4. The purpose of this communication was directly and exclusively 
> related to G*****'s visitation.  You are the one that started being 
> belligerent.  Why do you keep doing that?  What is wrong with you?
>
> 5.
>
>
> On 04/26/2015 11:02 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>> Ricky Steve (so you aren't confused),
>>
>> That is acceptable per my previous correspondence.  As a side note, I 
>> am not required to justify my decisions to you for any reason at any 
>> point.  I have told you the terms.  You may comply or not.  That is 
>> your decision.  Your failure to comply in this instance only hurts 
>> G*****.  As does your continuing to include G***** on 
>> correspondence where you make unfounded inflammatory, and defamatory 
>> lies despite both he and I requesting that you do not do so.
>>
>> Again, cease and desist in your childish tantrums and obsessive 
>> stalking behavior.  There is no reason(or desire) for us to interact 
>>  directly other than where it concerns G*****'s travel.  On that 
>> note, I await G*****'s full itinerary per previous stipulation. That 
>> means his travel to California as well as Vancouver.
>>
>> - Desiree
>>
>> On Sunday, April 26, 2015, Patrick > > wrote:
>>
>>     Desiree:
>>
>>     May G***** be permitted to fly from Phoenix, AZ to Los Angeles,
>>     CA on May 24, 2015, then to Vancouver, BC on May 28, 2015?  If
>>     not, then please provide your reasoning as to why not.
>>
>>     Patrick
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 04/26/2015 09:17 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>>     Richard,
>>>
>>>     May 27th, 2015 will not work.  G***** may travel on 05/23/15 or
>>>     05/24/15.  If not either of those days, the next permissible
>>>     time is the following weekend. Those dates being 05/30/15 or
>>>     05/31/15.  You will need to find a weekend that works for
>>>     G***** to travel out. Keep in mind that his return date to
>>>     Arizona is still to be July 12th, 2015 regardless of the date he
>>>     leaves to visit.  That means the further you push out the date,
>>>     the less time you two get together.
>>>
>>>     On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Patrick
>>>     >>     > wrote:
>>>
>>>         Desiree:
>>>
>>>         May you confirm whether May 24, 2015 is the only date you
>>>         will permit G***** to travel from Phoenix, AZ to Vancouver,
>>>         BC?  I would like him to travel on May 27, 2015.  Will he be
>>>         permitted to do so?
>>>
>>>         Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 04/20/2015 10:32 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Richard,
>>>>
>>>>         G***** has stated that for his summer vacation, he would
>>>>         like to visit with you in Canada from May 24th to July
>>>>         12th.  May you please confirm that you will pick G***** up
>>>>         from the airport on May 24th, and return him to the airport
>>>>         on July 12th?  During this time he is to remain in the care
>>>>         of his father Richard Steve Riess in Canada, and is not
>>>>         permitted to be flown to other sites such as California
>>>>         without my notification and express written consent.  To
>>>>         that end, G***** has also expressed a desire to travel to
>>>>         California during this time, for which I will need a full
>>>>         itinerary including flight and contact information.  Please
>>>>         provide this information as soon as possible so that there
>>>>         is no delay in his summer visitation.
>>>>
>>>>         Any deviation from the above stated shall be deemed
>>>>         kidnapping and a violation of the terms of reasonable
>>>>         visitation.
>>>>
>>>>         Desiree
>>>>
>>>
>>
>