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 4:15:51 pm
Air Canada allows it at 12 - I already called them.

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  wrote:

>  Desiree:
> Do you realize that many airlines now do not let a person under 15 travel
> alone?  Do you realize how that limits the number of flights available to
> choose from?  Do you ever look into things before you speak?
> I am calling airlines right now.  If I am able to secure a ticket I will
> let you know.
> Patrick
> On 05/06/2015 04:09 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> 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,