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: Tue, May 05 2015 9:26:37 pm
Desiree:

How am I the one making it complicated when you're the one changing your 
demands?  Please see my further comments below.


On 05/05/2015 08:55 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> Ricky,
>
> This is just unnecessarily complicated.  Even for you.  Let me make 
> this VERY simple so that you can follow.
>
> 1.As stated on the email 05/04/2015 which you cited, Gariel's 
> permissible time period for visitation with you is between May 24th, 
> 2015 and July 12th, 2015.  This means that the EARLIEST he may leave 
> Arizona is May 24th, and the LATEST that G***** may be returned to my 
> custody is July 12th, 2015.
>
> 2.As stated previously as well, G***** is to depart Arizona on a 
> weekend, and be returned on a weekend within the above stated time 
> period of visitation.  NOT a week day.  G***** and I have both looked 
> up the prices for tickets, and there is not a significant price 
> difference between equivalent weekend and week day flights as you 
> (falsely) stated previously.  This is not a significant financial 
> hardship.
>
In your email dated 2015-05-04 you stated, and I'm quoting, "G***** 
*may travel* for the purposes of visitation *between the dates of* May 
24th and July 12th, 2015" (emphasis added).  You stated, in your own 
words, in writing, that G***** may travel between the two stated dates 
and you did not further qualify it.

You still have not provided a reason as to WHY you will not permit 
G***** to travel on a weekday.  Contrary to your grossly misinformed 
belief, you ARE required to provide a reason under these circumstances.  
You need to find yourself a better legal advisor.

You are full of shit about the cost of the flights.  A flight on May 27, 
28 is $150 - $180; on May 24 it's $1300, on May 30, 31 it $550 and up.  
How is that not a significant difference?  If you're going to make such 
claims then provide proof.  Where did you find such ticket prices?
>
> 3.You and I have already discussed a situation where by you have an 
> option for G***** to fly to LA to visit with Liz on a weekend, then 
> fly to visit you in Canada during a week day.
>
You have imposed unreasonable requirements on allowing G***** to fly to 
LA.  You insist that you require a complete itinerary but then you 
refuse to clarify exactly what information you are demanding.  That is 
the same stupid single mother bullshit my mother did when I was a kid 
and I'm not going to waste my time on it.
>
> 4.The above visitation as previously stated ALSO is contingent upon a 
> full travel itinerary including all flight and travel plans.  You've 
> done this before, so it shouldn't be difficult or a surprise.
>
Go look up the word "itinerary", you fucking moron!  What fucking 
language do you speak?  Is it some made up version of English?  Is it 
because your American that you're such an idiot?  Let me help you (from 
dictionary.reference.com):

    itinerary
    noun, plural itineraries.
    1. a detailed plan for a journey, especially a list of places to
    visit; plan of travel.
    2. a line of travel; route.
    3. an account of a journey; record of travel.
    4. a book describing a route or routes of travel with information
    helpful to travelers; guidebook for travelers.

So what the fuck are you asking for?  Just the flight information? Do 
you want to know exactly where he is going to be each day?  Be more 
fucking specific you fucking idiot!

Fuck you, and fuck your stupid, white trash, single mother bullshit 
games.  I'm going to get him a ticket for the 27th or 28th and if you 
don't allow him to leave then I get to show the court that not once, but 
twice now you've refused to allow him to visit during his extended 
school breaks.

Good day, I'm not reading any further because your stupidity hurts my head.

Patrick
>
> *_Recap_*:
>
> ·Travel between 05/24/2015-07/12/2015.
>
> ·Travel FROM Arizona on Weekends  within the above listed dates 
> (05/24/2015-07/12/2015) only.
>
> ·Travel TO Arizona on Weekends within the above listed dates 
> (05/24/2015-07/12/2015) only.
>
> ·Visitation with Liz is permissible, and up front visitation which has 
> also been discussed is also permissible as long as I am apprised of 
> G*****'s location and the plans.
>
> ·The above plans as previously stated are contingent upon you 
> providing me a full travel itinerary including all flight details and 
> arrangements for G***** while on travel.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Patrick  > wrote:
>
>     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":
>     http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-limitation/
>     http://www.weagree.com/book/96-The+issue+of+%E2%80%98include%E2%80%99+and+%E2%8
0%98without+limitation%E2%80%99.html
>     http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/including-vs-including-without-limit-48967/
>     http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/aclr-online/overplaying-their-hand-
overly-broad-interpretive-canons-applied-including-not-limited-clauses/
>
>     Patrick
>
>
>
>     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 Riess
>>>>             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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>