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 4:34:14 pm
Would you like me to forward you the email thread where I purchased a
ticket and it interferes with your work schedule so you denied it?  Or the
one where I told you flights were cheaper on a different day and you
responded that you didn't care about my financial troubles and it wasn't
your fault that I was a white-trash person incapable of budgeting my money
- and again denied it?  Oh - but you probably have them up on your website,
so you can just go there and read it.

On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Desiree Capuano  wrote:

> 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
>
>