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: Wed, May 06 2015 3:41:51 pm
Desiree:

I shall address your points, individual, inline, so as not to miss any.


On 05/06/2015 01:56 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
I would appreciate it if you would keep your emotions in check as we attempt to discuss and resolve this.
I see no evidence to suggest that my behavior is based, to any extent, on emotions. Unless you are able to provide some scientifically acceptable evidence of the existence of emotions then your statement is based on a false premise. Please try to refrain from using words you don't understand. A simple minded person cannot, generally, distinguish between the cause and the effect and, as a result, will readily accept a purely coincidental effect as being proof of an otherwise completely unrelated cause. Case in point: A person's *belief* in emotions is not proof that the emotion is actually real. You seem to be unable to make such a distinction. There has never been any evidence that what people call "emotions" are anything more than conditioned responses which the simple minded person never thinks to put more thought into.
Did I ever once say I needed to know where G***** was going to be every single minute of every single day? No, I haven't. I told you specifically what information I needed, which was regarding the plane/flight information ONLY but you wanted to argue about the meaning of "including but not limited to".
In your email dated 2015-04-20 you stated: "...for which I will need a full itinerary including flight and contact information..." The term "full" means (from dictionary.reference.com): 1. completely filled; containing all that can be held; filled to utmost capacity 2. complete; entire; maximum 3. of the maximum size, amount, extent, volume, etc. The term "itinerary" means (from dictionary.reference.com): 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. When you combine those two terms, as you did, the result is a complete, to the maximum extent, detailed plan of travel, especially a list of places which will be visited. Those are your words, not mine. Do not get mad at me for simply speaking my native language correctly. I might point out that you, supposedly, speak the same language, however you very clearly do not have a significant command of it. In that same email you stated "Any deviation from the above stated shall be deemed kidnapping and a violation of the terms of reasonable visitation". Such statement must be intended to reinforce the seriousness you wish to convey - making the term "full itinerary" that much more significant. And, by the way, it would not actually rise to the level of "kidnapping". It is not legally possible for a biological parent to "kidnap" his own offspring - regardless of any custody orders which are in effect. Read up on the matter before speaking, please. In your email dated 2015-04-26, you stated: "...I await G*****'s full itinerary per previous stipulation. That means his travel to California as well as Vancouver..." Yet you still refused to state what exactly you meant by "full itinerary". If all you meant was the flight information, as you are now claiming, then why did you not simply use the term "flight information" rather than the more vague and ambiguous "full itinerary"? Moreover, when I requested you clarify your meaning with respect to "full itinerary" you refused to respond. On 2015-04-26 I sent you an email providing the proposed travel information for G***** to depart Phoenix on May 24, 2015, to Los Angeles; I stated he would be staying with Liz, at her residence (you have the address already); then flying from Los Angeles to Vancouver on May 28, 2015. You responded saying: "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." So, I provided you an "itinerary" according to the vague definition of the term, yet you still refused to: a) clarify what you meant by "full itinerary"; and b) refused to provide consent based on the information I provided. You seemed to be saying that you expected me to purchase the flight tickets before you would commit to granting consent. That is not an acceptable option and I can guarantee the court is going to agree with me on that. On 2015-05-04 you stated: "I will need the travel plans (itinerary) all flights G***** will be occupying, including but not limited to..." I have already, recently provided you the legally accepted definition of the term "...including but not limited to...", so there is no need to reiterate it here. So, any demands which you have submitted, which include that phrase, essentially and literally means that you are requiring me to provide the specific things you list AND anything else you might think of later. That is also NOT acceptable. That allows you to add any requirements at any time. I think I've provided enough examples of you making overly vague and undefined demands. When dealing with you, one cannot make assumptions about what arrangements you will actually honor or what your intended meaning of any given statement might be. There are enough emails from you on your web site that show that you frequently say one thing when meaning something entirely different. Therefore, absolute clarity is mandatory in any dealings with you.
You never once asked me to work with you on the date of his departure, you demanded it and only AFTER I said 'No' did you bring up that it was about the cost.
There is no "working with you/me" required. You are NOT required to transport G*****, personally, to the airport, so there is no reasonable requirement that his flight be at a time which is convenient for you. I often do not bring up specific points initially, when dealing with you, because I would prefer for you to do as I anticipate then I catch you and point out how you're wrong AFTER you'd done something wrong or inappropriate. Moreover, my reasoning for wanting a weekday flight has no relevance in this matter. What's relevant is that G*****'s flight date and time has no bearing on you or your schedule because I am willing and have offered to take care of all of the transportation logistics. The one time that I refused to accommodate your similar request is not comparable because in that case I WOULD have had to take him to the airport in the middle of a work day and had literally just started a new job.
With all your threats to "destroy me", the emails you've sent to my work, and that horrendous website still up and being hosted from your home computer - what makes you think that I should do ANYTHING to help you out?
I do not expect or want you to do anything to help *me*. We are discussing G*****'s travel and visitation plans - not mine. But statements like the one you just made make it so obvious that you really do believe everything is about you. Parental visitation is supposed to be for the benefit of the child - not the parent. That is why I would *NEVER* force G***** to visit with me (unlike you, who have done exactly that). The reason I want G***** to visit with me is because I have a duty, as his father, to teach him things that I know you are not teaching him. As for the website, I'm not really concerned with your opinion of it. I'm concerned with whether or not people are actually going to it. Some day I'll get around to adding the updated content, but I don't have a lot of time to put into it right now. If you would like to refuse to allow G***** to visit because of the conflicts and animosity between you and I then that would certainly move me much closer to one of my goals.
Tell me exactly why I am responsible for taking time off of work to accommodate you?
Are you fucking thick? Really!?!? How many times do you need to be told that you don't need to personally transport G***** to the airport? Do you just completely ignore or refuse to hear things that aren't completely in line with your thinking? Why do you think that you need to hold your childrens' hands at every moment? Do you not want them to grow up?
Where exactly does it say that I am required to in the court decree? Please show me.
Do you not understand what the term "reasonable" means? "Arbitrary" is not "reasonable". In fact, it is contrary to it. Do you even understand how the common law system works? Do you know the difference between "statutory law" and "common law"? It is not my responsibility to educate you on the laws of your own country. Go read a book, for Christ's sake.
See - you still don't get it. If you had come to me and said "hey, flights are cheaper on Wednesday and I would really appreciate it if you would work with me on G*****'s travel" I would have done it.
Really? Do you have ANY history of working with me on ANYTHING? Can you point to ONE time you did so? It seems to me the ONLY times you have been in any way amenable is when you knew the court was going to go completely against you. What comes to MY mind are the times you agreed to something, then completely backed out when you thought you didn't NEED to follow through on it. So, no! I would never approach you amicably and request you "work with me" on something. If nothing else, experience with you has taught us that you will stab the person in the back the first chance you get.
Even after everything you have done (especially beginning in March). The fight here is one sided, always has been.
What exactly have I done? I put up a website that contains only factual information about you. I disseminated specific factual information about you to some of your associates. I insisted on paying for G*****'s medical care so that he wouldn't have to go without due to your selfishness and irresponsibility. I provided G***** with a credit card to cover support related expenses so he wouldn't have to live like a pauper (yet you insist on not allowing him to live comfortably in your home because you don't want poor Sage to feel bad). What exactly have I done? What fight? G***** wants to visit with me because when he's with me he learns things and we have a good time. You're refusing to allow that by imposing unnecessary and arbitrary regulations. There is no fight. There is just me trying to look out for G*****'s interests.
Now to wrap this up, I do NOT need (from you or Liz); /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./ What I need is the same thing you have sent me for every other visitation G***** has had to see you - the confirmation from the airline that includes the flight information (generally referred to as a "travel itinerary" - I can copy and paste a picture of one of you still need it for reference).
And what is your reason for not simply saying that in the first place? Why all of a sudden, this time, did you start saying "full itinerary" and refusing to clarify. You accuse me of being belligerent yet you're the one acting provocatively.
I just did a search on Google and found the following; http://www.kayak.com/flights/PHX-YVR/2015-05-24 I gave you the travel dates on April 20th. You could have purchase a ticket at any point in the last 2 weeks. Instead you want to quibble over dictionary definitions and cite case law and now there are no reasonable flights left that are non-stop.
What the fuck is your problem? Now you're trying to say *I'm* the one that caused unnecessary delay? Let's recap: - On 2015-04-25 and 2015-04-26 there were numerous emails, wherein you deliberately used vague wording, knowing I would not be able to commit until I've received clarification. - In each of those emails you sent to me you deliberately attempt to provoke me by insisting on calling me Ricky. You were obviously trying to initiate a dispute, or, in the least, attempt to be belittling. - After some back and forth, you were vaguely semi-commital, but refused to grant authorization until you were provided with confirmation that the tickets were purchased. - At that point I told you I wasn't going to play any longer and you could go fuck yourself. - Then I head nothing back from you. - I followed up with you on 2015-05-04. *I* initiated the communication, not you!! So, how the fuck am I the one that caused any delays, huh?
So I guess I have no choice but to allow a layover, unless you want to explain to Liz that you were incorrect in your interpretation of what I said.
So you admit that your statements and wording were deliberately vague - such that they required interpretation. The whole purpose (at least on my end) of all of this stupid back-and-forth is to obtain clarification so that there *IS* no room for interpretation (or misinterpretation). Now, you see I did here? I got you to admit, in writing, with your own words, that you were being ambiguous. And given your refusal to provide clarification when requested, it shows that you were doing so deliberately. *THAT* is why I often withhold information initially - because it makes it much easier to trap you with your own words. Well, that and you're generally something of an idiot.
Regardless of where he's traveling to, send me the flight confirmation. Or don't and we can most certainly take this back to court and you can plead your case.
I don't get your meaning here. Are you saying that if I don't allow G***** to visit with me you're going to complain to the court? Please clarify.
Cheerio On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
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%80%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 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