An Unexpected Twist in My Marriage to Patrick

1095 views | 9 comments

Patrick and I were married in August, 2000.  We separated in October, 2001.  Patrick filed for divorce in December 2001.  Soon thereafter, I disappeared from his life and the divorce became a low priority.  Nothing further happened with it and it just sat in limbo before the Los Angeles Superior Court.

I married Michael Richard Capuano sometime around May or June of 2002…while still being married to Patrick.

I divorced Michael Capuano in 2010…while still being married to Patrick.

I filed for divorce from Patrick, in Phoenix, AZ in 2011, while the California divorce Patrick filed in 2001 was still pending.  My Arizona filing was eventually dismissed.

The original divorce Patrick filed in 2001 was dismissed in September 2011, for failure to prosecute.  If any matter is not brought to trial within 5 years, it shall be dismissed for failure to prosecute.  It’s a California thing.

I never bothered to refile for divorce at that time.  Neither did Patrick.  Honestly, he didn’t care because he has no intention of ever marrying again.

On November 28, 2012, Patrick filed for divorce in California again.  The court subsequently claimed it didn’t have a copy of the Petition for Dissolution and refused to proceed with setting a trial date.  Regardless of whether or not the court was able to find the original petition in the case file, we have a conformed copy showing that it was most definitely filed with the court on November 28, 2012 .

On August 29, 2014, I filed a Petition for Annulment in Arizona – while the California divorce Patrick filed in 2012 was still pending.  In May 2015, the Arizona court granted my annulment by default because Patrick didn’t bother responding or appearing for the Resolution Management Conference.  Why should he, the Arizona court didn’t have jurisdiction since there was already a dissolution proceeding in California, which I knew about.

So, as far as I’m concerned, our marriage was annulled last year – which means our marriage was never valid – which means we were never legally married at all.

But wait, there is a small snag in my twisted perception of reality!  A party to a marriage cannot commence a second dissolution proceeding when there is already a pending dissolution proceeding before another court.  In other words, the Arizona court which granted my annulment didn’t have jurisdiction to grant an annulment because there was already a dissolution proceeding before the California court.  In other words, the annulment is void and meaningless.  Or, to put it another way: Patrick and I are still legally married, as of this moment!

Contrary to my misguided belief that a family court judge can arbitrarily “dismiss” a pending petition simply by claiming the petition was not filed (or to be more technically correct, simply because the judge can’t find the petition in the case file), a pending petition can only be dismissed on some legitimate legal grounds – and not being able to find the original petition in the case file is not “legitimate legal grounds”.

It must really suck to be me, and have things always not work out the way you want them to.  But, maybe, if I’d stop refusing to follow the rules of the courts this kind of shit wouldn’t keep happening to me.

It must really suck even more to be James Pendleton, and to find out that the dirty skank you’re engaged to is not only still married to that asshole husband, but that every single person James knows has been to this website and read about how much of a complete and utter fool he’s being made into by that same filthy ho and her not-yet-ex-husband.

 

9 Responses to An Unexpected Twist in My Marriage to Patrick

  1. April says:

    This is fabulous! It’s a documentary on revenge of a scale I’ve never seen before! Read a lot of your site and I got to say props man!

  2. doug king says:

    My thoughts exactly.

  3. Joe says:

    “This site was created and is maintained by the immediate family and/or close personal friends of Desiree Capuano, with significant input and contributions from the community. ”

    Huh??

    Isn’t this site put up by her ex-husband alone. Input from those who post comments maybe but ” significant input and contributions from the community”???

    • Patrick Fox says:

      Mine and Desiree’s marriage has not been properly terminated, so I am still her “immediate family” (by virtue of being her husband). I am in contact with a number of people who worked with Desiree at Apollo Group, who are still in contact with her and regularly update me on her status (hence, contributions from the community), as well as others who are still in regular contact with her.

  4. FHM says:

    Patrick

    You seem like an intelligent guy, pretty confident in your legal position and also respect the law. If someone simply convinced you that your website makes you liable to a crime or a law suit, would you take it down?

    • Patrick Fox says:

      First, thank you for the compliments.

      If there was any aspect or specific content on the website which was in violation of any laws within the relevant jurisdictions then I would modify the offending content and/or aspects, to bring them into compliance with such laws. The issue of jurisdiction is very important, though, because I am located in Canada, but the website is currently hosted in Iceland, with replicas hosted in two other countries (in case the site in Iceland becomes “unavailable”). Therefore, a Canadian court would have the authority to compel me to stop updating the site *if* it was determined the existence of the site was violating some Canadian law. A Canadian court would *not* have the authority to compel the hosting provider to take down the site, though – only an Icelandic court could do that. And, in the very unlikely event an Icelandic court did issue such an order it would just be a matter of updating the DNS entries to point to one of the replicas.

      With respect to “convincing” me that the existence of the website is violating any law, whether criminal or civil, within an appropriate jurisdiction – I don’t believe there is any convincing required, it’s either violating a law or it’s not. And, at this point, it’s been well established that there is no law in either Canada, the US, or Iceland which is being violated. If the laws change then I will adapt that site accordingly (or just move it to a different jurisdiction).

    • Patrick Fox says:

      Also, on a side note: The site was originally hosted by Godaddy, at their data center in Pheonix, AZ. At one point, Desiree filed a complaint with them about the site. Rather than deal with her filing frivolous complaints I decided it would be more cost effective to just host the site on one of my own servers. So, contrary to what Desiree has been telling people, Godaddy never actually took the site down or told me to take it down – I simply moved it to my own server before Godaddy even mediated the complaint.

  5. FHM says:

    Interesting stuff! I dont know much about computers so that all sounds technical. I read an article once talking about cyberbulling in Nova Scotia and how that young girl named Reedah Parsons killed herself.

    Surely that isn’t your ultimate goal here? What if your ex has mental health problems cause of this?

    • Patrick Fox says:

      I’ve heard of the story you mentioned, but I’m not familiar with the details.

      I do not believe Desiree would ever commit suicide. She is far too narcissistic and sociopathic. She will, instead, milk the current media attention to get as much sympathy from people as possible. Desiree has had mental problems since long before I knew her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter the missing number to confirm you're real. *