Allow me to also point out that, of course, I had considered that I
could potentially raise the issue of Pendleton publicly disclosing that
he has Top Secret clearance which, in itself would likely result in him
losing such clearance (if, in fact, he did actually have it which, I
suspect by the fact that he publicly advertised it, he does not).
However, since I have no issue with Pendleton, since he has not harmed
me in any way, he is purely collateral to this matter. And, it would be
against my morals to cause harm to a person, collaterally, in order to
adversely affect you. That is, of course, one of the fundamental
differences between you and I: you would not think twice about harming
an innocent bystander in order to reach your target (case in point: Liz).
Though, I suppose I could rationalize it by saying I was just doing my
duty as a patriotic citizen, right? But no, I would not stoop to such
In case you're curious, this particular moral belief comes from the
Torah. A person should not punish the innocent for the sake of the
guilty. But being an uninformed, ignorant, atheist I wouldn't expect
you to actually know anything about the thing (religions) you believe
are so stupid.
On 07/18/2015 10:23 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
Have you stopped to consider that if what you have were the real
address, and not just an intentional misdirection, that you would
be endangering G*****'s safety and privacy with your amateur
website? Publishing an address your son would potentially
be residing at?! Good job. Classy... real classy.
On Saturday, July 18, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
Isn't it amusing that your reason for refusing to provide me the
address where G***** will be residing while in your case was that
I continue to put your so-called "personal information" on a
public website...but, the one piece of "personal information" I
had never put on a public website was your address...but, now,
even though you'd refused to provide the address, I've put your
current address on your public website. Ah, the irony.
On 07/07/2015 06:28 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
As long as Patrick continues to put my personal information
on a public website, it will not be provided. Richard does
not have visitation within the United States as he has been
forcibly deported so having a physical address serves no
purpose. A mailing address has been provided for the purpose of
communication which is all I am required to provide. If G*****
is not returned, Richard will be in direct violation of the
court order governing G***** and immediate action will be
taken. I expect to see my son on the 12th of July, 2015.
On Tuesday, July 7, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
So I told G***** about your refusal to provide the address
where he will be residing upon his return and that if you do
not provide the address I have the legal right to refuse to
allow him to return - because a parent, regardless of custody
orders, cannot legally be compelled to knowingly put their
child in harms way, and given your well documented history of
refusing to cooperate, and taking up with drug users,
criminals, and violent people you hardly know...well.
Do you think he was upset about that? No. Not at all.
according to Google maps that address is a US Post Office.
You are legally required to provide me the address where
G***** will be physically residing. A post office box does
not meet that requirement.
If you fail or refuse to provide me the address where G*****
will be physically residing, prior to his time of departure
on July 12 I will have the legal grounds to refuse to allow
him to return because, as far as I know, you're homeless and
unable to provide his shelter. Particularly since you also
refuse to provide any information about whether you even have