So no retort, huh? Not surprising. You make up bullshit to try to save
face, I provide proof to the contrary, you scamper away with your tail
between your legs. Same as always, I guess.
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
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:
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.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Patrick wrote:
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?