Now that I think about it, this situation does raise a few disturbing
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.
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
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 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.
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 any income.