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: G***** summer visitation 2015
From: Desiree Capuano <>
To: Patrick <>
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2015 4:02:37 pm

That sounds like an acceptable start to me.  However, as already discussed,
I will require a full itinerary for G*****'s summer trip.  Upon my receipt
of said itinerary, I will review it in full and provide approval at such

Also, please remember to keep a copy of your deportation paperwork handy as
you claim that is the only legal document in your possession identifying
you as Richard (G*****'s father).


On Sunday, April 26, 2015, Patrick  wrote:

>  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