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*****'s adventure with the RCMP
From: Patrick <>
To: Desiree Capuano <>
Date: Sun, Jul 12 2015 4:19:59 pm

According to the attached letter, which I received from Children and Family 
Development (the equivalent of Child Protective Services), which is dated 
the same day you contacted the "authorities" falsely claiming that you had 
no knowledge of the whereabouts of your son, you claimed...exactly that! 

Therefore, your claim to the "authorities" was not only frivolous, but 
plainly false.  In the course of taking your report they had asked you 
whether you had made any attempt to contact your allegedly "missing" child - 
to which you would have responded that you have been unable to contact him.  
That would have been a lie.  You made no such attempt.

Therefore, you are, once again, wrong!  How is it that you can be wrong so 
much of the time?  How is it even possible?

And why do you lie about things that are so easy for me to verify?  Don't 
you know, by now, that I'm going to rub it in your face?  Then post it on 
the internet?

What's wrong with you?


P.S. Both the RCMP and the Child and Family Development worker referred to 
me as "Patrick Fox", which means you must have told them that is my name.  
Which means you acknowledge that is my name and you only refer to me as 
Richard Riess in your correspondence with me because you believe it will 
annoy me.  Isn't that kind of stupid and petty?  I mean, why don't you 
focus on things of actual substance - is it that you can't actually find 
any fault in me?

On 06/30/2015 08:46 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
Richard, When you said, "Or would that have been to complicated for you to think of?" I believe you meant to use the word, "too." You really should use a dictionary. That sort of poor grammar common amongst the lowest echelon of society makes it difficult to take you seriously. Not that anyone does anyway. As you well know, G*****'s phone does not receive calls while in Canada. Again, nice try. I chose to only pursue a wellness check this time, and as such no "frivolous claim" exists. To the contrary, I actually had a very nice chat with the RCMP, and they indicated they would be keeping an eye on you. I thanked them for checking in on G***** for me. Have a "nice" day. ~Desiree On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Patrick wrote:
Desiree: Like I said: the "authorities" ain't gonna do shit for ya! The office called me after she spoke with G***** and she told me that they were just responding to a call about potential child endangerment, but after reviewing your claims, then stopping by the apartment and speaking with G*****, they didn't consider it credible. They've entered a record of you submitting a frivolous claim - so the next time you call they'll see that and take you with a grain of salt. Has anything EVER gone right for you? Tell me, if you're so concerned about G*****'s safety and well being then why haven't you just called him? Or would that have been to complicated for you to think of? Patrick