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: Wed, May 06 2015 4:09:06 pm
I would assume with all that free time on your hands you would be able to
secure G***** a plane ticket, yet I don't have a travel itinerary.

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  wrote:

>  Desiree:
> Last night I sent you an email requesting what you will permit with
> respect to layover duration, et cetera.  Why, when I request clarification
> of anything from you, do you always refuse to provide it?  You refuse to be
> clear - even when the other party explicitly requests clarification - and
> then later you try to accuse the other party of "misinterpreting" what you
> meant.  Maybe if you used the English language correctly clarification
> would not be necessary.
> Patrick
> On 05/06/2015 02:23 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Once again - I don't see a travel itinerary.  Do you want to keep talking
> or do you want to see your son?  Are you seriously suggesting you would
> book G***** on a 15 hour flight?
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  > wrote:
>>  Desiree:
>> That's wonderful.  You have never indicated that you would allow a flight
>> which has connectors and based on your demonstrated refusal to allow your
>> children any independence, one must assume that you would not be amenable
>> to such flights.  I have, repeatedly, asked you whether such travel
>> arrangements would be permissible and you have refused to respond.
>> Are you saying that you're okay with a 15 hour flight, including a 10
>> hour layover in a distant city?  You may notice, the lowest priced direct
>> flight is $965US, which is about $1200CDN.  You realize I would be paying
>> in Canadian dollars, right?
>> Why do you insist on blaming your fuck-ups and shortcomings on me?
>> Patrick
>> On 05/06/2015 02:10 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>> In case you have trouble navigating the link, I took the liberty of
>> taking screenshots for you (there are 11 pages of flights to choose from);
>>  [image: Inline image 1]
>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Desiree Capuano <
>>> wrote:
>>> I would appreciate it if you would keep your emotions in check as we
>>> attempt to discuss and resolve this.
>>>  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".
>>>  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.
>>>   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?
>>> Tell me exactly why I am responsible for taking time off of work to
>>> accommodate you? Where exactly does it say that I am required to in the
>>> court decree?  Please show me.
>>>  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.  Even after
>>> everything you have done (especially beginning in March).  The fight here
>>> is one sided, always has been.
>>>  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).
>>>   I just did a search on Google and found the following;
>>>  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.  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.  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.
>>>  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
>>>> 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":
>>>>> 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