As always, I shall address each of your statements and point out, as
plainly as possible, why/how it is wrong.
On 01/11/2015 12:54 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Ricky / Richard / Morgan / Parick / Patricia / Susan / whatever your
> chosen alias is today,
I don't get your intended implication here. How is my first name,
whether assumed or legal, relevant to anything in my previous message
and, in particular, whether I am on schedule with my plan against you?
An insult is much more effective when the intended recipient is able to
infer the reference. Please clarify.
> Are you bored or something?
Bored: no. Or something: vague and ambiguous. Please be more specific.
> Your stalker-like obsession with me is truly impressive. The amount
> of time and energy spent thinking of me is flattering, but honestly a
> little pathetic.
If there is any sincerity in your statements then you have grossly
misinterpreted my intentions. I was pretty direct when I told Detective
Tuchfarber that my intention was to do everything in my power and
capabilities to make your life as miserable as possible, and, if
possible, to the point that you ultimately commit suicide. That would be
my ultimate desire. But before you reach that point it is imperative
that you experience as much misery, disappointment, and suffering as
possible first. At this point in your life you have very little to lose
so there is not much incentive for me to actively publish your
information. I shall wait, patiently, until you rise up a bit, THEN
proceed with the billboard campaign around Phoenix; I'll wait until you
actually have some financial significance, THEN publish your complete
credit and financial history - including your social security number and
birth certificate (not illegal as long as it's done outside the US).
I don't see how you could interpret such intentions as being misguided
> For someone who so strongly espouses logic and intelligence, I would
> think that you could have grasped that I am not interested in you.
> Especially since I have directly told you that I am not interested in
Whether or not you are interested in me is not relevant to my objectives.
> I realize that I am really amazing, but please expend some of that
> energy towards finding a man / woman / inanimate object that is
> capable of coping with your delusional nature, and providing some
> small measure of happiness.
I see no evidence to suggest there is any merit to your implication that
I am delusional. If you know of any then please cite them. Otherwise
you're just talking gibberish again.
> Everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness. Though that is a
> founding principal of America, so I understand it being foreign to a
> Canadian citizen like yourself.
Almost every country in the world includes in their respective
constitutions and/or bill of rights the right to the pursuit of
happiness. I wish I could say it is because you are an ignorant
American that you do not realize that, but that fact that you were born
on US soil has nothing to do with the fact that you are clearly ignorant.
You again bring up the question of citizenship. Why? You are the only
one pretending to still cling to that claim. When I show up at border
crossings with my US birth certificate and BC photo ID US customs and
ICE don't even give me a second thought.
But, I'll play along, for the sake of argument: Let's assume your claim
that I am a Canadian citizen is true. So? What's your point? Are you
trying to suggest that a person born on US soil is inherently superior
to someone who wasn't? By that logic then Lauchner and Michael Capuano
are automatically superior to me. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and Richard
Ramirez are superior to every single person ever born in Canada? That's
some pretty sketchy reasoning. And let's pretend for a moment that I AM
a Canadian citizen: that hasn't, and still doesn't prevent me from
living in the US. I own a business in the US. So, again, what are you
trying to imply?
> Your obsessive pursuit of my attention seems to only pale in
> comparison to your capacity for delusional transference, and cruelty
> towards G*****.
Again, you're making claims about my psychological state without citing
a single case of me ever exhibiting delusional behavior. At least when
I call you delusional I refer your to a specific thing you did which
supports my claim.
> It is unfortunate that you chose to rob G***** of his right and
> opportunity to choose for himself which parent to live with.
Come again? I was the one initially requested G***** be interviewed by
the court so he can tell the court where he wants to live. You then
attempted to circumvent that by having me deported. I then ordered my
attorney to request the court put the interview back on calendar. Then,
when G***** was given the chance, he clearly, explicitly, and very
unequivocally told the court he wants to return to me...to live with me.
See that? That is a case of you exhibiting delusional behavior. You're
accusing ME of doing exactly what you have, and continue to do. THAT's
> You relinquished all rights a mere 2 months from his 14th birthday
> where he would have been able to declare his choice in front of
> everyone in open court.
I relinquished my rights so that I can remove the court from the
equation. So that I can proceed with my plans respecting you. It's
hard to do that when I have to maintain appearances for the court.
You are unsurprisingly misinformed about the significance of G*****
turning 14. There is no statutory age, in either California or Arizona,
at which the court is required to grant the child the living arrangement
the child desires. It is completely at the discretion of the court.
"Generally" after the age of 14 the court will "listen" to what the
child wants - but that's the extent of the law on the matter.
I also point out, waiving one's rights does not mean refusing one's
responsibilities. Though you seem to think they are one and the same.
I did not refuse to allow G***** to return to live with me - I created
a situation where he can see, firsthand, what you would be like in the
absense of the court compelling you to act. And so far you've played
right into it.
> It doesn't surprise me given your repeated underestimation of his
> intelligence and potential; simply seeing him as a pawn and tool to
> use in your obsessive quest to win me back. ("destroy me" ... Whatever
> you want to call it.)
As I have explained to him: sometimes, to get the desired outcome, we
have to go through a period of challenges. That is what he is going
through right now. I believe the exact idiom I used was "Sometimes, to
make an omlette you have to break a few eggs".
I explained what that meant and how it applied to the current
situation. He acknowledged understanding.
> I love G***** regardless of what decision he should ultimately make.
If that is the case then why do you insist on not allowing him to make
that decision? He already has: he said he wants to come and live with
me. He has expressed that if he never heard from you again he's fine
It's already been more than 2 years...what do you believe is going to
happen? Do you think one day he's going to wake up and realize that he
was wrong all this time and suddenly love you unconditionally? Again, I
say, THAT is delusional! Dude, the fact that since the July hearing,
since you've gotten full custody and authority over him he has steadily
withdrawn from you and that other kid of yours should tell you
something. Before that he could hold on to the hope that at the next
hearing the court would order you to return him. That hope is gone. I
really don't know what you are hoping for, but your relationship with
G***** has reached it's peak and the only place it's going from here is
down. There's less than two years until he can legally move out and I'm
willing to bet that within 24 hours of turning 16 you'll never hear from
As for "love": unless you can provide a clear definition of what the
word means then you should refrain from using it.
> I know he is capable of so much, and will support him down whatever
> path he should ultimately choose in whatever capacity I am able. I may
> be hard on G***** sometimes, but being a real parent means looking
> out for the physical, mental, and emotional well being of your child
> even when it isn't easy or popular.
You are completely oblivious to anything going on with G*****. I just
spoke to him on the phone - you still haven't even noticed the anomoly
in his eye. You live in the same house with him and he's been back for
8 days and you haven't noticed. You also didn't notice it before he
came up here. How can you not notice a bright discoloration in his
eye? Do you not speak with him? Do you not look him in the eye when
you do (assuming you do speak with him)?
You add him to your insurance but you don't bother taking him to the
doctor or the dentist (you only do it when you think I'm going to bring
it up in court). Dental cleaning and checkups are supposed to be every
6 months, not every 12. He wasn't in the habit of using deodarant - I
had to point out to him one day that he smelled of BO. He still often
"forgets" to brush his teeth. He doesn't know how to get from your
place to the Target, which is only a few blocks away. When given the
choice of doing the research to figure out how to get to the outdoor
shooting range, or not go, he chose not to do the research. Is that the
result of your "real parenting"?
> I can only hope that one day you decide to strive to be a better
> person, and better parent.
I strive, on a daily basis, to improve myself. I strive to be objective
and fair, and to be reasonable and rational. I consider myself to be
fair and decent. The people I come in contact with, exclusive of you,
of course, also consider me such.
You're still making the same unfounded arguments that you've been making
since 2011. You're the one that has to use underhanded tactics and
false claims to get what you want. I'm referring to you resorting to
calling ICE in order to gain custody by default. See, when G*****'s
with me he's with me because he *wants* to be. I've never once had to
force him or tell him he has to visit because the court ordered it.
You, on the other hand, have done exactly that. You claim to want
what's best for G*****, yet you teach him nothing. You think hugs and
kisses will make everything okay (again, that's delusional).
It is my opinion that if anyone needs to work on being a better person
it is you.
> If not for yourself, for G*****'s sake.
Both I, and G*****, are happy with who I am, with how I behave, with my
values and beliefs. If I identify a character or personality flaw in
myself then I will commit to improving it.
You act the same now as you did in 2000. You still try to use people's
guilt and pitty to manipulate them. You tell people half truths and
versions of events which are heavily skewed in your favor, to gain their
support. That's deceptive. That's completely contrary to how I try to
live and how I try to guide G*****. You can deny that you do that
until you're blue in the face but I've got over 400 emails from you
and/or about you where you've done that countless times.
You rush into relationships with losers like Lauchner and Capuano, you
move in with them, you hastily have children with them. You expose your
children to people like Lauchner and tell them he's a good, wonderful
person. You allow him to take on a paternal role in their lives. You
defend his behavior and get angry when people state facts about him.
Yet you want to pretend you're a good, honorable person? And that you
give a shit about your children?
> He is the one being hurt by your actions, scheming, and manipulation.
G***** is not being hurt at all by what I am doing. He knew before I
started executing the plan exactly what the plan was/is. I always
confer with him beforehand so that he's not taken by surprise. If he
told me he was uneasy with anything I would not proceed with that
course. I told him in May I would be waiving all of my parental rights
in July. I told him why. If he had concerns about me wouldn't he bring
them to you? You're his primary custodial parent, aren't you? When
he's with me we talk about you. Are you saying that he has such a lack
of respect for you that he can't even speak openly with you about me?
If that's that case then it really sucks to be you.
He once asked me if I would shoot you. I told him that murder is
illegal and immoral and can result in spending the rest of one's life in
prison. And that the rest of my life in prison is not a risk I'm
willing to take. But otherwise, no, I would have no qualms about it;
that that is how much I despise you for the things you've done and
continue to do. He did not flinch; he didn't look anything other than
indifferent; as best I could tell, he didn't care. The topic never came
up again. That was during his visit last summer. To be clear, I told
Tuchfarber the same thing. There is nothing illegal or threatening
about /wanting/ to harm someone - as long as you don't act on it. I am
reasonable and rational enough to know the difference, and to refrain
from engaging in such activity.
And let me be absolutely clear on this point: I would never deliberately
cause you physical harm, other than in self defense or defense of
another. Though that is nothing special toward you - I have that rule
for *ALL* people. Also, I emphasize that G***** brought up the
question and I only responded to it truthfully.
> ~ Desiree (Not meant as a term of endearment, please do not mistakenly
> take it that way.)
I don't understand your meaning.
> On Sunday, January 11, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
> Allow me to also point out: Having previously waived, in court,
> *all* of my parental rights, you now have the full legal right and
> authority to:
> - refuse to allow G***** to visit me;
> - take away the phone and every other thing I have provided him,
> including the debit and credit cards (although you do not have the
> legal right to withhold them - you must return them to me);
> - cut off all contact and communication between G***** and me.
> Doing so would definitely prevent me from being able to have any
> influence on his perceptions, values, beliefs, et cetera and,
> thereby prevent me from being able to have any influence on your
> home environment and the relationship between you and him.
> However, doing so would also make him hate you that much more and
> ensure that he leaves your home at the first opportunity and never
> has anything to do with you for the rest of your life.
> So, you see, again, we've created a situation where you have two
> mutually exclusive options but neither of them do ends favorably
> for you. That is strategy, and the benefit of long term planning,
> and the benefit of foresight. Remember also, that all of this was
> initiated by, and is the result of your own actions. I am where I
> am because of your direct and explicit actions; G***** now has
> Canadian citizenship and cannot be deported from Canada and
> receives all of the benefits and protections of being a Canadian
> citizen the moment his foot touches Canadian soil - all because of
> your actions calling ICE. And you can say that I've been
> manipulating G***** but that's exactly what you have done
> countless times with almost everybody you've ever met (that's why
> people always take your side when they hear your side of the story
> but then abandon you when they discover the full story).
> I'd also like to point out that, as always, I've been very careful
> to make sure everything I do is within the law.
> I've discussed all of this with G***** and I've explained to him
> what my plan is with respect to you. I've told him if he's
> uncomfortable with any of it then I won't proceed. He is fully
> aware that he is being used as a pawn in my plan to ruin your life
> and he seems to be okay with it.
> All the best,
> On 2015-01-11 9:04 AM, Patrick wrote:
>> Good morning, Desiree.
>> I'd like to inquire how things have been going with all the
>> wonderful stuff that you are able to teach and expose G***** to
>> which I, according to you, could not do. In particular, how has
>> that emphasis on "family" been working out? Have you been able
>> to instill in him the importance of "family" and how good it is
>> to have "family"? Would you say he's "bonded" with your family?
>> And knowing your family - is it your belief that that has
>> improved him in some way? These are loaded and/or sarcastic
>> questions. I already know the answers to them (otherwise I
>> woudln't be asking), and I wouldn't expect you to answer them,
>> not honestly anyway - given your aversion to reality and honesty.
>> From what's been reported to me and from my own observations, so
>> far all you've taught G***** is poor table manners and how to
>> mimic the people around you rather than having your own opinion.
>> An important skill, I suppose, if you live in an environment
>> where people get angry with you for being different. Say, for
>> example, your home.
>> Are you still trying to convince yourself that you have the
>> perfect little family? Are you beginning to realize, yet, that
>> G*****'s presence there is slowly eroding the happy, fair tale
>> home that you're trying to hold on to?
>> I know that by saying this you will react to spite me - it's what
>> you people do. Am I saying it deliberately, for that purpose?
>> Is it that I know that you're getting fed up with how he's
>> ruining your fair tale and you've been having thoughts of sending
>> him away before he starts to taint Sage as well - and by stating
>> these truths to you I will provoke you to hang in there a little
>> longer, so you can show me how wrong I am? Probably. The longer
>> G***** is there, with his "bad attitude", his indifference
>> toward you and Sage and your family, and his subtle demeanor of
>> disgust and condescencion toward you and Sage and your mother,
>> and your trashy ways, the more it will instill into Sage's
>> subconscious that he is inferior and inadequate. The more it
>> will slowly eat away at your perfect family.
>> Sucks! Now, on the one hand, you are pulled by your upbringing
>> and years of conditioning, to react in the only way you know:
>> with anger and spite, to want to keep G***** there because you
>> believe that will adversely affect me; while on the other hand,
>> you know I'm right and that I've been manipulating the situation
>> for two years, and that as long as G***** is in your home you
>> will never be happy because you will never have your fairy tale.
>> So, you'll show this email to your mother and ask her what you
>> should do. She's going to say I'm just trying to get under your
>> skin and the best thing is to not respond at all. She'll say
>> that if you don't respond then I'll think you're unaffected and
>> that will piss me off. She'll say this because she's just like
>> you - after all, where did you learn your behavior from, right?
>> And just like you she has the same emotional, irrational beliefs
>> that a child inherently and unconditionally loves his mother.
>> But!!! I am relying on your mother providing you such advice.
>> And on you pretending you don't care and that you're unaffected.
>> I require you to insist on keeping G***** with you longer - the
>> longer he's with you the more of an effect he'll have on Sage and
>> the more subconscious hostility will seep into your home.
>> In the end you'll take your mother's advice and not respond to
>> this, you'll convince yourself (with your mother's help) that
>> everything is fine in your home and that I'm the one trying to
>> cause problems for you. Or am I saying that because I believe
>> you'll do the opposite of what I state you'll do - just to spite me?
>> Let me ask you this in closing: Has the amount of "love" in your
>> home increased or decreased over the past year? It's rhetorical
>> - I know the answer.