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: Contact Information
From: Patrick <patrick@desireecapuano.com>
To: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 19 2015 10:56:09 am

Now that I think about it, this situation does raise a few disturbing 
questions, actually.

A security clearance is based on a person's "character" as well as their 
actual arrests and/or convictions.  A person who "cohabits" with a 
clearance holder or applicant is also subject to a background check - 
usually just as stringently as the clearance holder himself.  I would 
think, if you were cohabiting with someone who has, or was applying for, 
a clearance then the relevant agency would also check your background.  
They would find your 2000 conviction for a drug related offense; your 
subsequent court ordered confinement to a psychiatric facility; your 
more recent arrest for a drug related offense; and your voluntary 
admission to having a drug problem.  Those factors would automatically 
result in a denial of clearance.

You may be thinking that your recent marijuana offense is not relevant 
because the charges were dismissed.  But that's not how it works in the 
case of security clearances.  You see, they look at the person's 
"character".  And by accepting prop 200 you implicitly admitted to 
having a drug problem - that's exactly what prop 200 is!  There's also 
the issue that you were, and actually still are, married to a supposed 
foreign national.  A foreign national whom you insist is a felon and was 
deported.  And the issue that you were married to Michael at the same 
time you were married to me (constituting bigamy on your part - a 
felony).  And the issue that you recently cohabited (for some 2 years) 
with Lauchner - a multiple felon and dangerous drug user who is again 
serving a prison sentence for crimes committed while you lived with 
him.  And the issue that you had dangerous drugs (meth) in your home 
when the police searched it.

I just don't see how it's possible that Pendleton could possibly 
maintain a security clearance while also cohabiting with you.  I mean, 
wouldn't a responsible, patriotic citizen feel a sense of obligation to 
report such a situation to the proper authorities? How can a person with 
such poor judgment that he would be seriously committed enough to a 
woman that he would have her move into his house with her two children, 
be trusted with a security clearance - a top secret clearance, at that.

Interesting.

Patrick



On 07/19/2015 10:05 AM, Patrick wrote:
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 levels. 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. Patrick On 07/18/2015 10:23 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
Richard, 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. - Desiree On Saturday, July 18, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
Desiree: 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. Cheers, Patrick 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 Riess 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. Desiree 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. Cheers, Patrick Patrick wrote:
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 any income. Patrick