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: Thu, May 07 2015 4:26:22 pm
Actually, you interfered with almost EVERY visitation I had with G*****;
from pulling stupid things like refusing to put him on the plane, calling
the airlines and changing the plane tickets yourself, filing for a
restraining order the day prior to visitation, to sending him for a week
with nothing but the clothes on his back and a box of Jewish crackers.  You
and he decided that he would not participate in any event over Christmas
break (including eating dinner) because he was 'Jewish' and it was against
his religion.  You sure as hell never permitted me to have him for a
visitation without return plans solidified.  I believe I have been
extremely accommodating to you, given the hardship you caused me while you
had partial custody.   Where's your argument again?

On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Patrick  wrote:

>  Desiree:
>
> Get this through your fucking head: Fuck you!  I will not bow down to your
> ridiculous requirements.  I have provided you G*****'s flight information
> and that is all I am going to do.  If you had a history of being reasonable
> and civilized then I might be more accommodating, but you don't!  Your
> history is filled with backstabbing, lying, forcing people to do what you
> want, throwing fits when you don't get your way, and doing things that harm
> innocent bystanders just to get what you want.
>
> You cannot claim to be concerned about G*****'s well being or safety when
> he's been with you for over 2 years and you've not fulfilled any of your
> parental obligations to him.  You have no concern for his well being and
> safety UNTIL it comes to his visitation with me.  You allowed Kristopher to
> take him along while he was high out of his fucking mind on meth,
> committing crimes, yet you pretend to be concerned about his safety with
> me?  Get a fucking clue you stupid bitch!  You keep drugs in the home and
> you fill his head with your racist, anti-immigrant bullshit, but you say
> I'm cause for concern?
>
> As I've said, this discussion is done!  I dare you to not let G*****
> catch his flights on May 24th and May 28th.  When G***** was in my custody
> did I EVER attempt to interfere with your visits?  NO, I did not!
>
> Get it through your thick fucking skull that parental visitation is NOT
> for the parent's benefit!!!  How fucking narcissistic are you that you
> cannot see that?  Do you really think that you're hurting me by doing
> this?  I WANT you to refuse to allow G***** to visit so that he despises
> you that much more.  Do you think he believes the bullshit excuses that you
> tell him to justify your actions?  He, and everyone, sees through your
> shit.  Do you think he bought your crap about "just doing your patriotic
> duty" by calling ICE?  Or your lame excuse that you keep calling me Ricky
> because that's the name on our court cases?
>
> The only thing that is agitating me about what you do is that I don't want
> G***** to have the same shitting childhood that I had, but you're going
> out of your way to make sure he does.  All the shit you do is the same shit
> that my mother did.  And the end result for her is that I despised her and
> had nothing to do with her after I left home.  The same thing you're doing
> to G*****.
>
> Now fuck off and go bother someone else.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On 05/07/2015 11:01 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> Let me try this again.  You have provided the details of G*****'s travel
> to Canada.  You have yet to provide the details of him travel from Canada
> to Phoenix.  While I am uncomfortable with him departing without a return
> ticket purchased, I will allow it if you provide the date to which you will
> purchase his return ticket and provide me with the details of said flight.
>
>
>  Are you refusing to
> A. Purchase a return flight for G***** prior to his departure or
> B. Provide me with a date that I can expect to receive the flight
> information for his return?
>
>  Please be very clear in your response.
>
> On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Desiree Capuano 
> wrote:
>
> You believe the court will accept half of a vacation travel plan as
> "reasonable"?
>
> On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Patrick  wrote:
>
>  Desiree:
>
> Now that we agree on the definitions of "full" and "itinerary", then does
> that mean that you acknowledge that a "full itinerary"  would include a
> detailed account, including times of arrival and departure of each location
> (not just the airports) the traveller will be during the trip?  That is,
> after all, a "full itinerary".  That is what I was trying to explain to you
> previously when you were refusing to clarify what you meant by "full
> itinerary".  You eventually stated that you just required the flight
> information.  You are now completely contradicting what you said
> previously, and agreeing to what I was saying - which you had previously
> accused me of playing word games over.
>
> Flip-flop?  You just argue whatever point serves your purpose at any
> moment, huh?  Even when it completely contradicts the points you made
> yesterday?
>
> Anyway, I'm not playing along.  I've provided you G*****'s flight
> information from PHX to LAX, and from LAX to YVR.  That is all you're
> getting.  Even that is more than the court would require and it meets the
> definition of "reasonable".
>
> Now, I don't have time for your nonsense today.  As far as I'm concerned,
> this discussion is done.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On 05/07/2015 09:34 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
>  April 26th
> ...I will require a *full *itinerary for G*****'s summer trip.
>
>  May 4th
>  I will need the travel plans (itinerary) *all *flights G***** will be
> occupying
>
>  May 5th
> The above visitation as previously stated ALSO is contingent upon a *full
> *travel itinerary including all flight and travel plans.
>
>  The term '*full*' means (from dictionary.reference.com):
>
>  adjective, fuller, fullest.
> 1. completely filled; containing all that can be held; filled to utmost
> capacity
> 2. complete; entire; maximum:
> 3. of the maximum size, amount, extent, volume, etc.
>
>  The term '*all*' means (from dictionary.reference.com):
>  adjective
> 1.the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration):
> 2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars,
> taken collectively):
> 3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree):
> 4. every:
> 5. any; any whatever:
> 6. nothing but; only:
> 7. dominated by or as if by the conspicuous possession or use of a
> particular feature:
>
>  So you see - I did require ALL travel itineraries.  However, if you are
> having money issues,  I understand.  If you do not have the funds available
> to secure a return flight from Vancouver to Phoenix on July 12th prior to
> his departure, then tell me the exact date to which you will provide
> G*****'s return flight itinerary.  That date will serve as the deadline
> for this action item.
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Patrick 
> wrote:
>
>  So no comment on the turning 16 thing?  Didn't think so.  You didn't
> realize that when you set this course of action in motion, did you?  You
> didn't even stop to consider what the consequences of your actions would
> be, did you?
>
> You had no idea that the legal age to be independent of your parents, in
> Ontario, was 16.  And that by G***** receiving Canadian citizenship that
> it meant that on his 16th birthday he could walk out your door and never,
> ever have to see or speak to you ever again, huh?  And the best part is
> that if, before he turns 18, he steps outside of Ontario THEN at that
> moment you have the legal authority to have him brought back to you by
> force.  But as long as he's in Ontario there's not a damn thing you, or any
> US law enforcement agency, or any US court can do about it.
>
> Now, if he was a US citizen and NOT also a Canadian citizen, THEN the
> Canadian authorities would have to send him back to the US.  But as long as
> he has Canadian citizenship (which he now has for the rest of his life
> (thanks to you for setting things in motion), and he's over the age of 16,
> he can live on his own, have his own apartment, get his own firearms
> license, his own driver's license.  And he won't need anyone's permission
> to do so.
>
> And, by the time he turns 16, next year, what he will remember is things
> like you refusing to allow him to visit and refusing to provide a decent
> reason why.  You taking away his property (like video game consoles)
> because you say "it's not fair to Sage".  You taking him, by force, from
> Liz and forcing him to live in Arizona.  You refusing to let him have
> things he, as a child with parents with a combined income over $200,000,
> should have.  You refusing to take him to the doctor for regular check
> ups.  You refusing to have the anomaly in in his eye checked.  You calling
> ICE on his father and having him deported for no justifiable reason, other
> than to get custody of him by default.  You never bothering to teach him
> things about life.
>
> I was really hoping to surprise you with this on September 28, 2016, but I
> guess the cat's out of the bag now.
>
> Do you ever get tired of being the perpetual loser?  You ever think to
> yourself "what's the point"?  Ever seem to you that maybe life is just to
> fucking hard and there's no point because we're all gonna die in the end
> anyway?  If not, well, that's too bad - the world is going to be a better
> place when you are no longer in it.
>
> Good evening,
> Desiree
>
>
>
> On 05/06/2015 07:34 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> Please provide me with your hotel information.  I will make sure I am
> available for the "pick up" schedule.
>
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  wrote:
>
>  Desiree:
>
> Either your English skills are horrendous or you really do think of your
> offspring as possessions?
>
> I am planning to accompany G***** to the Vancouver International Airport
> on or before July 12, 2015, and being present with him until he passes
> through the security checkpoint.  I cannot force him to do anything past
> that point.  I also have no intention of, as you say, "returning him".
>
> G***** is a human being, not a possession.  Neither you, nor I have the
> power to force him to do something against his will.  All I can, and will,
> do is make every reasonable effort to ensure he is at the airport in time
> to board his return flight.
>
> Why would you even ask such a stupid question?  I mean, if I was intending
> to do something like abscond with G***** do you think I would admit it
> beforehand?  And if that was my intention, why would I bother going through
> all this stupid shit with you?  Why wouldn't I just go to Phoenix and pick
> him up?  What?  Do you think it's impossible for me to walk right into the
> US?  Do you think they scrutinize me every time I cross the border?  My
> god, there is no end to your stupidity, is there?
>
> And besides, what do you really care?  You only have, at most, another 16
> months until you have absolutely no legal authority over him, anyway.
> Yeah, that's right, the day he turns 16 and his foot touches the ground in
> the Province of Ontario he is a legal adult and cannot be forced to return
> to his parents - because he now has Canadian citizenship - because of
> *YOUR* actions.  I don't even need to be in Canada myself.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On 05/06/2015 06:46 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> Are you planning on returning G*****?
>
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  wrote:
>
>  Desiree:
>
> I cannot imagine why you would hear that because I never said that.
>
> I will tell you this, unequivocally: Since you did not require I provide
> the return flight information in order to allow G***** to travel from
> Phoenix to Los Angeles on May 24, 2015, then from Los Angeles to Vancouver
> on May 28, 2015, and you only brought that up AFTER I purchased the
> tickets, then NO!  I absolutely will not purchase his return ticket until I
> know he is actually going to be present in Vancouver.
>
> I have no history of backing out of commitments, or saying completely
> false stuff to get what I want.  You do!  You are the one that cannot be
> trusted, not me.
>
> Now, our dealings here are done.  I have fulfilled the requirements you
> stated in writing.  You are now attempting to change those requirements by
> adding new requirements.  It is not going to happen!  I don't believe there
> is anything further for us to discuss between now and when G***** arrives
> here on May 28, 2015.
>
> I have posted all of our emails from today onto your wonderful website so
> there is a public record of all of your words.
>
> Good day,
> Patrick
>
>
> On 05/06/2015 06:35 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> So, what I hear is that you will send me the details of his return
> itinerary before he travels on the 24th of May?
>
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  wrote:
>
>  Desiree:
>
> I'd like to point out that that was NOT one of your stated requirements.
> I told G***** that this is what you would do: you'll make up a bunch of
> requirements then, if I meet those requirements, you'll add more
> requirements, and if I meet those you'll just keep adding more.  Same shit
> my mother used to do to my father.
>
> Well, it ain't gonna happen.  I met your requirements and I'm just dying
> for you to fuck up enough that the court will consider your behavior
> egregious.  So far you've:
> - refused to allow G***** to visit during one extended school break;
> - taken away his phone, cutting off all communication between him and I
> for an extended duration of time, without providing me any notice;
> - taken away his debit card so I cannot provide him financial support;
> - refused to provide him even the minimal level of medical care that the
> California legislature mandates;
> - continued to keep drugs in the home.
>
> So, go ahead, refuse to let him visit over the summer.  Give me a reason
> that the court will consider justifiable to take away not only your custody
> but also visitation.  And keep giving G***** reasons to resent you.
> Regardless of what the court does, the important thing is that G*****
> grows to hate you and you are doing an excellent job of pushing him in that
> direction.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On 05/06/2015 05:58 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> If I do not have a travel itinerary for G*****'s return flight to Phoenix
> on July 12th, 2015 then he will not board a plan to travel anywhere.  Are
> you still unclear as to my meaning?
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Patrick 
> wrote:
>
>  I cannot possibly answer that question.  I suspect what you mean to ask
> is not actually what you asked.
>
>
> On 05/06/2015 05:44 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> Thank you for the itineraries.  When can I expect one for his return trip?
>
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Patrick  wrote:
>
>  Desiree:
>
> At least my insults to you are based in reality.  Surely, you're not
> trying to suggest that you're intellectually superior to me.  I believe our
> many debates via email show that not to be true.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> On 05/06/2015 04:46 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>
> 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,
>
>