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:
> 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.
> On 04/26/2015 04:24 PM, Patrick wrote:
> 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,
> On 04/26/2015 04:02 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> 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).
> On Sunday, April 26, 2015, Patrick <_e>> 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?
>> On 04/26/2015 11:35 AM, Patrick wrote:
>> 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
>> 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?
>> 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:
>>> 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.
>>> On 04/26/2015 09:17 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>> 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
>>>> 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?
>>>> On 04/20/2015 10:32 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>>> G***** has stated that for his summer vacation, he would like to
>>>> visit with you in Canada from May 24th to July 12th. May you please
>>>> confirm that you will pick G***** up from the airport on May 24th, and
>>>> return him to the airport on July 12th? During this time he is to remain
>>>> in the care of his father Richard Steve Riess in Canada, and is not
>>>> permitted to be flown to other sites such as California without my
>>>> notification and express written consent. To that end, G***** has also
>>>> expressed a desire to travel to California during this time, for which I
>>>> will need a full itinerary including flight and contact information.
>>>> Please provide this information as soon as possible so that there is no
>>>> delay in his summer visitation.
>>>> Any deviation from the above stated shall be deemed kidnapping and a
>>>> violation of the terms of reasonable visitation.