Yesterday, in your email timestamped 5:58pm, you stated:
"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?"
That seems pretty clear to me that you are saying if I do not provide
G*****'s return flight information then you will not allow him to
travel and, hence you will not allow him to visit.
Now you seem to be saying that no matter what I do you will not "say
'no'", by which I assume you mean about allowing him to visit. So, what
you're saying today completely contradicts what you said yesterday.
Once again, you have defeated yourself!
I don't believe I said you had any concern for my or G*****'s opinion
of you. I don't believe you care about anyone's opinion of you because
you're far to self absorbed for that. And G***** and I believe in
things like accountability, which is completely contrary to your view of
On 05/07/2015 04:27 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Oh you little man. I don't fear you or G***** opinion of me. I am
> also not preventing visitation. Try as you might to get me to say
> 'no' I will not do it.
> On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
> By the way, I know you don't deal well with reality, so I don't
> expect you to respond sincerely to these most recent messages.
> On 05/07/2015 01:07 PM, Patrick wrote:
> I also know that you don't want to let G***** visit with me
> because you know that when he visits we bond more and that
> puts more distance "emotionally" between you and him; yet you
> don't want to explicitly refuse to let him visit because you
> know that he will resent you for it.
> So, you're trying to create a situation whereby you can say it
> was because of me that he couldn't visit. But I've explained
> to him that my mother used to do the same stuff when I was a
> kid. That my father eventually stopped coming to visit and I
> learned later in life that it was because of the games my
> mother would play - the same stuff you're doing right now.
> As always, your scheme won't work. The only way it could
> would be if you completely cut off communication between
> G***** and I and made it so he could only hear your version
> of events. But there's no way you can do that without grossly
> upsetting the court and G*****. And your versions of events
> always rely on the listener's pity and sense of guilt.
> Eventually, people get tired of hearing about how someone is
> always such a victim because in reality most of the problems
> in our lives are the result of our own actions and the only
> people that don't realize that are the ones that are always
> trying to blame others for their problems - people like you.