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 4:46:13 pm
Funny but "stupid fucking cunt" looks nothing like a travel
itinerary...maybe you're confused again.  Do you need me to copy and paste
an example for you??

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  wrote:

>  Sorry, I meant to say "stupid fucking cunt".
>
>
> On 05/06/2015 04:38 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> Sure...as soon as you send me a travel itinerary.
>
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  > wrote:
>
>>  Desiree:
>>
>> Can you stop being a stupid fucking for even just a minute?
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>> On 05/06/2015 04:31 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>
>> 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 <
>>>>>>>> patrick@desireecapuano.com> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>