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: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@gmail.com>
To: Patrick <patrick@desireecapuano.com>
Date: Wed, May 06 2015 4:31:47 pm
You're right, I didn't call every single airline to check their age
limitations for you.  Did you need me to do all of the research for you?
Do you need me to hold your hand through this whole process??

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  wrote:

>  Desiree:
>
> Sure, and if he can be at PHX by 4:30am then there's a 6:37am flight on
> Air Canada for $395, with a 2:15 layover in San Fran, for a total travel
> time of 6:50; or there's a couple of 6:11am Air Canadas for $463 with 2
> stops for a travel time of 10:17 and 11:47, respectively; or a 1:43 with
> one layover in Denver for $559, travel time: 7:26.
>
> Do you do everything half-assed?  Can you just go away and shut up?  I
> don't believe that there is ANY way that your involvement in something
> would ever make it better so why don't you just go to your room and smoke
> some weed or something?
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On 05/06/2015 04:15 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> 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 <
>>>> desiree.capuano@gmail.com> 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;
>>>>>
>>>>>  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.  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
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>