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: Tue, May 05 2015 8:55:33 pm

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.

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.

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.


·         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 

>  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 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.
>>>>>> Desiree