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: Patrick <>
To: Desiree Capuano <>
Date: Tue, May 05 2015 1:38:53 pm
You're the one going "round and round".  I HAVE reviewed the previous 
emails, which is why I require clarification - first you stated one set 
of requirements, then you stated a different set of requirements.

You are grossly mistaken about the meaning and legal definition of 
"including but not limited to".  You might want to review, for example, 
some current case law on the matter.  Specifically, the "but not limited 
to" means the previously stated list of requirements is NOT exhaustive 
and MAY include additional, not explicitly stated, requirements.  Stop 
pretending to be smarter than you are!

If what you wish to express is that you require specific information 
then you should have phrased it as, for example:
"I will require x, y, z.  Additional information may be provided, at 
your discretion, but is not required by me."
Based on your most recent email THAT is what you meant to say.  But that 
is 100% contrary to what you ACTUALLY said.

Since, literally, what you have said in your email dated 2015-05-04 is 
that G***** is permitted to travel "between" the dates of "May 24th and 
July 12th", with no additional exclusions or qualifications, I am going 
to obtain G***** a flight from Phoenix to Vancouver for a date which 
will be reasonable and cost effective.  I don't care if that is 
conducive with your work schedule because there is no requirement that 
you MUST personally transport him to the airport or be present at the 
time of his departure.

In the event you are actually interested in better educating yourself 
(since, clearly UoP hasn't done much for you in that respect), here are 
a couple links regarding "including but not limited to":


On 05/05/2015 12:59 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Ricky,
> I really don't have the time or patience for this.  You seem to want 
> to go round and round on questions that have already been answered.  
> You asked for a confirmation of dates and I gave it to you. If you 
> require additional calrification, read the previous emails in the 
> thread.  "Including but not limited to" means that I will accept any 
> additional information you have to provide, but I require the stated 
> pieces of information at a minimum.  Understanding the use of this 
> term is covered under basic reading comprehension.  The only other 
> email correspondence that needs to be provided is the travel 
> itinerary.  There is no need for any further discussion of the matter 
> and as such I will not be responding to anything else.
> Good Day
> On Monday, May 4, 2015, Patrick  > wrote:
>     Desiree:
>     What additional information will you "need"?  Your response states
>     "...including [sic] but not limited to...", which means that you
>     are reserving the right to add to the stated list.
>     Also, your most recent message (below) conflicts with the previous
>     message, in that you are now stating G***** may travel "between"
>     the dates of May 24th and July 12th, whereas you previously stated
>     he may depart Phoenix only on May 23, 24, 30 or 31.  So that I am
>     clear: are you now saying he may depart Phoenix on other dates, as
>     well?
>     Patrick
>     On 05/04/2015 09:07 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>     Yes, G***** may travel for the purposes of visitation between
>>     the dates of May 24th and July 12th, 2015.  I will need the
>>     travel plans (itinerary) all flights G***** will be occupying,
>>     including but not limited to; the airline, day, time, flight
>>     number, confirmation number, and destination.  This includes his
>>     flight from California to Vancouver.
>>     On Monday, May 4, 2015, Patrick >     > wrote:
>>         Desiree:
>>         Please provide a definitive response clearly stating whether
>>         or not you are going to allow G***** to visit between the
>>         dates of May 24, 2015 and July 12, 2015.  You're silence
>>         requires the other party (me) to make assumptions, and
>>         assumptions are not admissible in court.
>>         Patrick
>>         On 04/26/2015 04:24 PM, Patrick wrote:
>>>         Desiree:
>>>         What the fuck is wrong with your head?  Do you do this silly
>>>         shit just to be annoying is your whole life experience based
>>>         on trailer parks and TV? Come back to reality for a second,
>>>         will ya?
>>>         What the fuck do you mean by "itinerary"?!?!? That is such a
>>>         fucking vague term.  Be specific, you fucking idiot!  You're
>>>         wasting my time with all this stupid back and forth.  You
>>>         pretend like you give a shit about G*****'s safety,
>>>         demanding I provide an "itinerary" and that I keep on me
>>>         documents to establish I'm someone I'm not - and the other
>>>         364 days out of the year you don't put an ounce of interest
>>>         into what's going on with him.  Stop being such a fucking tool!
>>>         Just shut the fuck up and be a normal person or just fucking
>>>         go away.  I don't need your stupid shit and I have better
>>>         things to do than try to jump through your hoops for your
>>>         amusement. You're just a fucking twit.  There is no
>>>         documentation identifying me as Richard and you know
>>>         it.  That deportation document is meaningless since the
>>>         government has admitted that I'm not that person.  What the
>>>         FUCK is wrong with you?
>>>         And don't go telling G***** that the reason he can't come
>>>         to visit is because I didn't meet your "reasonable
>>>         requirements".  Your requirements are moronic and impossible
>>>         to meet because they keep changing.
>>>         I'm done with you.  Let him visit or don't, it's your
>>>         problem.  He and I both know that you have 100% of the
>>>         authority to allow him to visit and that it is entirely on
>>>         you - not me.  He turns 16 in less than a year and a half
>>>         and I'm pretty sure when that day arrives he's going to say
>>>         "Fuck you!" and that will be the last you hear of him.
>>>         Good day,
>>>         Patrick
>>>         On 04/26/2015 04:02 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>>>         Ricky,
>>>>         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 time.
>>>>         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).
>>>>         ~Desiree
>>>>         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