Gabriel summer visitation 2015
Richard,
Gabriel has stated that for his summer vacation, he would like to visit with you in Canada from May 24th to July 12th. May you please confirm that you will pick Gabriel up from the airport on May 24th, and return him to the airport on July 12th? During this time he is to remain in the care of his father Richard Steve Riess in Canada, and is not permitted to be flown to other sites such as California without my notification and express written consent. To that end, Gabriel has also expressed a desire to travel to California during this time, for which I will need a full itinerary including flight and contact information. Please provide this information as soon as possible so that there is no delay in his summer visitation.
Any deviation from the above stated shall be deemed kidnapping and a violation of the terms of reasonable visitation.
I hereby confirm that I will pick Gabriel up from the airport on May 24th and return him to the airport on July 12th.
Desiree:
May you confirm whether May 24, 2015 is the only date you will permit Gabriel to travel from Phoenix, AZ to Vancouver, BC? I would like him to travel on May 27, 2015. Will he be permitted to do so?
Richard,
May 27th, 2015 will not work. Gabriel may travel on 05/23/15 or 05/24/15. If not either of those days, the next permissible time is the following weekend. Those dates being 05/30/15 or 05/31/15. You will need to find a weekend that works for Gabriel to travel out. Keep in mind that his return date to Arizona is still to be July 12th, 2015 regardless of the date he leaves to visit. That means the further you push out the date, the less time you two get together.
Desiree:
What is the reasoning for only allowing Gabriel to travel on the weekends? He has no other commitments that would preclude travel during the week.
Gabriel: You see - I told you she would start playing these games. She's going to say that she has to work and can't take you to the airport, which is retarded because there is no reason she has to transport you to the airport. You can just hop in a cab and be there on your own in a few minutes. She'll respond that she doesn't want you taking a cab on your own, that you're too young. Yet she'll let you get on a plane and travel 1500 miles by yourself? How is that logical? Then, she's going to say I'm the one being difficult; she'll say "Why can't he (Fox) just meet you on the 24th or the 30th. Because the cost of a plane ticket, right now, for the 24th is about $1300 whereas on the 27th it's $150. I think that's a perfectly reasonable justification. In short, Gabriel, I don't believe for one second that she has any intention of following through with this.
P.S. Desiree: Please make up your mind about my name. Either call me Richard or call me Patrick, but calling me Patrick when sending me legal documents, and calling me Richard informally is kind of stupid.
Desiree:
May Gabriel be permitted to fly from Phoenix, AZ to Los Angeles, CA on May 24, 2015, then to Vancouver, BC on May 28, 2015? If not, then please provide your reasoning as to why not.
Ricky Steve Riess (so you aren't confused),
That is acceptable per my previous correspondence. As a side note, I am not required to justify my decisions to you for any reason at any point. I have told you the terms. You may comply or not. That is your decision. Your failure to comply in this instance only hurts Gabriel. As does your continuing to include Gabriel on correspondence where you make unfounded inflammatory, and defamatory lies despite both he and I requesting that you do not do so.
Again, cease and desist in your childish tantrums and obsessive stalking behavior. There is no reason(or desire) for us to interact directly other than where it concerns Gabriel's travel. On that note, I await Gabriel's full itinerary per previous stipulation. That means his travel to California as well as Vancouver.
Desiree:
I'm unclear - your "previous correspondence" stated that Gabriel traveling to California was contingent on your express notice and consent. But you now seem to be saying that it is pre-authorized by you and that you just require a "full itinerary including flight and contact information". May you please try to be a little more clear and consistent in your communication?
I will speak with the relevant parties in Los Angeles and get back to you with confirmations.
Responses to your statements:
-
You are correct that you are not required, not legally anyway, to justify your decisions to me. However, your refusal to provide a rationale for your decisions is evidence that such decisions are arbitrary and NOT based on rationale or on what is in Gabriel's best interests. And child rearing (or leading, in general) arbitrarily, as opposed to by rational consideration and democratic processes is fascist and dictatorial. I have been, and I believe I have now, proven that that is your approach to raising children (if not your approach to life, in general).
In the past, when I have attempted to implement a rule, I have always allowed Gabriel the opportunity to question it's rationale and, on more than one occasion he has pointed out that there was no logical basis for it. In such cases I have conceded that he was correct and the rule was either abandoned or modified appropriately. THAT is my approach to raising children - and to life in general. That is why I am a better person than you and why Gabriel will always respect me, while he fears you. Personally, I'd rather have someone's earned respect than to have their fear. But that's just me.
-
I am not "failing to comply", as you put it. I am proposing alternatives to what you have mandated, in order to make more cost effective travel arrangements. Alternatives which would not affect you in any way whatsoever because you are not the one traveling. You are proving that you are completely unwilling to have ANY flexibility in this matter - even though it does not affect you in any way at all. Is there ANY reason you can provide why Gabriel should not be permitted to travel on May 28, 2015 rather than on May 24, 2015? You're adamant refusal to provide such indicates there is not.
As for me being the one hurting Gabriel, I don't see how you come to that conclusion. You're the one being completely inflexible on his travel dates and only allowing him to travel on the dates that the flights cost over $500. How exactly am I the one hurting him?
I include Gabriel in correspondence because I believe in being transparent and honest with him. You're approach is to say one thing to me (or to the court), then to provide Gabriel your fairy tale perception of the situation - wherein you usually portray yourself as the noble, honorable, victim. But the way you portray things to Gabriel only works if I'm never able to rebut your stories - if I never hear about what you've told him. Do you honestly believe that Gabriel and I keep secrets from each other?
Either list, specifically, what "inflammatory and defamatory lies" you're referring to, or stop making such vague generalizations. You see how I am specific when make claims about you? That's why everyone believes me, and ignores you.
-
What childish tantrums? How am I being childish? And what behavior qualifies as a tantrum?
-
The purpose of this communication was directly and exclusively related to Gabriel's visitation. You are the one that started being belligerent. Why do you keep doing that? What is wrong with you?
I have confirmed, with Liz, that she would pick up Gabriel from LAX on May 24, 2015 and she would bring him to LAX on May 27, 2015 or May 28, 2015 to travel to Vancouver, BC. During the time Gabriel would be in Los Angeles, he would be staying at Liz's residence.
Is that acceptable to you? And, if so, do you agree to permit Gabriel to travel from Phoenix, AZ to Los Angeles, CA on May 24, 2015, then from Los Angeles, CA to Vancouver, BC on May 28, 2015?
Ricky,
That sounds like an acceptable start to me. However, as already discussed, I will require a full itinerary for Gabriel's summer trip. Upon my receipt of said itinerary, I will review it in full and provide approval at such time.
Also, please remember to keep a copy of your deportation paperwork handy as you claim that is the only legal document in your possession identifying you as Richard Riess (Gabriel's father).
Desiree:
What the fuck is wrong with your head? Do you do this silly shit just to be annoying is your whole life experience based on trailer parks and TV? Come back to reality for a second, will ya?
What the fuck do you mean by "itinerary"?!?!? That is such a fucking vague term. Be specific, you fucking idiot! You're wasting my time with all this stupid back and forth. You pretend like you give a shit about Gabriel's safety, demanding I provide an "itinerary" and that I keep on me documents to establish I'm someone I'm not - and the other 364 days out of the year you don't put an ounce of interest into what's going on with him. Stop being such a fucking tool!
Just shut the fuck up and be a normal person or just fucking go away. I don't need your stupid shit and I have better things to do than try to jump through your hoops for your amusement. You're just a fucking twit. There is no documentation identifying me as Richard Riess and you know it. That deportation document is meaningless since the government has admitted that I'm not that person. What the FUCK is wrong with you?
And don't go telling Gabriel that the reason he can't come to visit is because I didn't meet your "reasonable requirements". Your requirements are moronic and impossible to meet because they keep changing.
I'm done with you. Let him visit or don't, it's your problem. He and I both know that you have 100% of the authority to allow him to visit and that it is entirely on you - not me. He turns 16 in less than a year and a half and I'm pretty sure when that day arrives he's going to say "Fuck you!" and that will be the last you hear of him.
Fox
Desiree:
Please provide a definitive response clearly stating whether or not you are going to allow Gabriel to visit between the dates of May 24, 2015 and July 12, 2015. You're silence requires the other party (me) to make assumptions, and assumptions are not admissible in court.
Yes, Gabriel may travel for the purposes of visitation between the dates of May 24th and July 12th, 2015. I will need the travel plans (itinerary) all flights Gabriel will be occupying, including but not limited to; the airline, day, time, flight number, confirmation number, and destination. This includes his flight from California to Vancouver.
Desiree:
What additional information will you "need"? Your response states "...including but not limited to...", which means that you are reserving the right to add to the stated list.
Also, your most recent message (above) conflicts with the previous message, in that you are now stating Gabriel may travel "between" the dates of May 24th and July 12th, whereas you previously stated he may depart Phoenix only on May 23, 24, 30 or 31. So that I am clear: are you now saying he may depart Phoenix on other dates, as well?
Ricky,
I really don't have the time or patience for this. You seem to want to go round and round on questions that have already been answered. You asked for a confirmation of dates and I gave it to you. If you require additional calrification, read the previous emails in the thread. "Including but not limited to" means that I will accept any additional information you have to provide, but I require the stated pieces of information at a minimum. Understanding the use of this term is covered under basic reading comprehension. The only other email correspondence that needs to be provided is the travel itinerary. There is no need for any further discussion of the matter and as such I will not be responding to anything else.
You're the one going "round and round". I HAVE reviewed the previous emails, which is why I require clarification - first you stated one set of requirements, then you stated a different set of requirements.
You are grossly mistaken about the meaning and legal definition of "including but not limited to". You might want to review, for example, some current case law on the matter. Specifically, the "but not limited to" means the previously stated list of requirements is NOT exhaustive and MAY include additional, not explicitly stated, requirements. Stop pretending to be smarter than you are!
If what you wish to express is that you require specific information then you should have phrased it as, for example: "I will require x, y, z. Additional information may be provided, at your discretion, but is not required by me." Based on your most recent email THAT is what you meant to say. But that is 100% contrary to what you ACTUALLY said.
Since, literally, what you have said in your email dated 2015-05-04 is that Gabriel is permitted to travel "between" the dates of "May 24th and July 12th", with no additional exclusions or qualifications, I am going to obtain Gabriel a flight from Phoenix to Vancouver for a date which will be reasonable and cost effective. I don't care if that is conducive with your work schedule because there is no requirement that you MUST personally transport him to the airport or be present at the time of his departure.
In the event you are actually interested in better educating yourself
(since, clearly UoP hasn't done much for you in that respect), here are
a couple links regarding "including but not limited to":
http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-limitation/
http://www.weagree.com/book/96-The+issue+of+%E2%80%98include%E2%80%99+and+%E2%80%98without+limitation%E2%80%99.html
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/including-vs-including-without-limit-48967/
http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/aclr-online/overplaying-their-hand-overly-broad-interpretive-canons-applied-including-not-limited-clauses/
Fox
Ricky,
This is just unnecessarily complicated. Even for you. Let me make this VERY simple so that you can follow.
1. As stated on the email 05/04/2015 which you cited, Gariel's permissible time period for visitation with you is between May 24th, 2015 and July 12th, 2015. This means that the EARLIEST he may leave Arizona is May 24th, and the LATEST that Gabriel may be returned to my custody is July 12th, 2015.
2. As stated previously as well, Gabriel is to depart Arizona on a weekend, and be returned on a weekend within the above stated time period of visitation. NOT a week day. Gabriel and I have both looked up the prices for tickets, and there is not a significant price difference between equivalent weekend and week day flights as you (falsely) stated previously. This is not a significant financial hardship.
3. You and I have already discussed a situation where by you have an option for Gabriel to fly to LA to visit with Liz on a weekend, then fly to visit you in Canada during a week day.
4. The above visitation as previously stated ALSO is contingent upon a full travel itinerary including all flight and travel plans. You've done this before, so it shouldn't be difficult or a surprise.
Recap:
- Travel between 05/24/2015-07/12/2015.
- Travel FROM Arizona on Weekends within the above listed dates ( 05/24/2015-07/12/2015) only.
- Travel TO Arizona on Weekends within the above listed dates (05/24/2015-07/12/2015) only.
- Visitation with Liz is permissible, and up front visitation which has also been discussed is also permissible as long as I am apprised of Gabriel's location and the plans.
- The above plans as previously stated are contingent upon you providing me a full travel itinerary including all flight details and arrangements for Gabriel while on travel.
Desiree:
How am I the one making it complicated when you're the one changing your demands? Please see my further comments below.
Ricky,
This is just unnecessarily complicated. Even for you. Let me make this VERY simple so that you can follow.
1. As stated on the email 05/04/2015 which you cited, Gariel's permissible time period for visitation with you is between May 24th, 2015 and July 12th, 2015. This means that the EARLIEST he may leave Arizona is May 24th, and the LATEST that Gabriel may be returned to my custody is July 12th, 2015.
2. As stated previously as well, Gabriel is to depart Arizona on a weekend, and be returned on a weekend within the above stated time period of visitation. NOT a week day. Gabriel and I have both looked up the prices for tickets, and there is not a significant price difference between equivalent weekend and week day flights as you (falsely) stated previously. This is not a significant financial hardship.
In your email dated 2015-05-04 you stated, and I'm quoting, "Gabriel may travel for the purposes of visitation between the dates of May 24th and July 12th, 2015" (emphasis added). You stated, in your own words, in writing, that Gabriel may travel between the two stated dates and you did not further qualify it.
You still have not provided a reason as to WHY you will not permit Gabriel to travel on a weekday. Contrary to your grossly misinformed belief, you ARE required to provide a reason under these circumstances. You need to find yourself a better legal advisor.
You are full of shit about the cost of the flights. A flight on May 27, 28 is $150 - $180; on May 24 it's $1300, on May 30, 31 it $550 and up. How is that not a significant difference? If you're going to make such claims then provide proof. Where did you find such ticket prices?
3. You and I have already discussed a situation where by you have an option for Gabriel to fly to LA to visit with Liz on a weekend, then fly to visit you in Canada during a week day.
You have imposed unreasonable requirements on allowing Gabriel to fly to LA. You insist that you require a complete itinerary but then you refuse to clarify exactly what information you are demanding. That is the same stupid single mother bullshit my mother did when I was a kid and I'm not going to waste my time on it.
4. The above visitation as previously stated ALSO is contingent upon a full travel itinerary including all flight and travel plans. You've done this before, so it shouldn't be difficult or a surprise.
Go look up the word "itinerary", you fucking moron! What fucking language do you speak? Is it some made up version of English? Is it because your American that you're such an idiot? Let me help you (from dictionary.reference.com):
itinerary
noun, plural itineraries. 1. a detailed plan for a journey, especially a list of places to visit; plan of travel.
2. a line of travel; route.
3. an account of a journey; record of travel.
4. a book describing a route or routes of travel with information helpful to travelers; guidebook for travelers.
So what the fuck are you asking for? Just the flight information? Do you want to know exactly where he is going to be each day? Be more fucking specific you fucking idiot!
Fuck you, and fuck your stupid, white trash, single mother bullshit games. I'm going to get him a ticket for the 27th or 28th and if you don't allow him to leave then I get to show the court that not once, but twice now you've refused to allow him to visit during his extended school breaks.
Good day, I'm not reading any further because your stupidity hurts my head.
- Travel between 05/24/2015-07/12/2015.
- Travel FROM Arizona on Weekends within the above listed dates (05/24/2015-07/12/2015) only.
- Travel TO Arizona on Weekends within the above listed dates (05/24/2015-07/12/2015) only.
- Visitation with Liz is permissible, and up front visitation which has also been discussed is also permissible as long as I am apprised of Gabriel's location and the plans.
- The above plans as previously stated are contingent upon you providing me a full travel itinerary including all flight details and arrangements for Gabriel while on travel.
I would appreciate it if you would keep your emotions in check as we attempt to discuss and resolve this.
Did I ever once say I needed to know where Gabriel was going to be every single minute of every single day? No, I haven't. I told you specifically what information I needed, which was regarding the plane/flight information ONLY but you wanted to argue about the meaning of "including but not limited to".
You never once asked me to work with you on the date of his departure, you demanded it and only AFTER I said 'No' did you bring up that it was about the cost.
With all your threats to "destroy me", the emails you've sent to my work, and that horrendous website still up and being hosted from your home computer - what makes you think that I should do ANYTHING to help you out? Tell me exactly why I am responsible for taking time off of work to accommodate you? Where exactly does it say that I am required to in the court decree? Please show me.
See - you still don't get it. If you had come to me and said "hey, flights are cheaper on Wednesday and I would really appreciate it if you would work with me on Gabriel's travel" I would have done it. Even after everything you have done (especially beginning in March). The fight here is one sided, always has been.
Now to wrap this up, I do NOT need (from you or Liz);
1. a detailed plan for a journey, especially a list of places to visit; plan of travel.
2. a line of travel; route.
3. an account of a journey; record of travel.
4. a book describing a route or routes of travel with information helpful to travelers; guidebook for travelers.
What I need is the same thing you have sent me for every other visitation Gabriel has had to see you - the confirmation from the airline that includes the flight information (generally referred to as a "travel itinerary" - I can copy and paste a picture of one of you still need it for reference).
I just did a search on Google and found the following;
http://www.kayak.com/flights/PHX-YVR/2015-05-24
I gave you the travel dates on April 20th. You could have purchase a ticket at any point in the last 2 weeks. Instead you want to quibble over dictionary definitions and cite case law and now there are no reasonable flights left that are non-stop. So I guess I have no choice but to allow a layover, unless you want to explain to Liz that you were incorrect in your interpretation of what I said. Regardless of where he's traveling to, send me the flight confirmation. Or don't and we can most certainly take this back to court and you can plead your case.
In case you have trouble navigating the link, I took the liberty of taking screenshots for you (there are 11 pages of flights to choose from);
[image: Inline image 1]
Desiree:
That's wonderful. You have never indicated that you would allow a flight which has connectors and based on your demonstrated refusal to allow your children any independence, one must assume that you would not be amenable to such flights. I have, repeatedly, asked you whether such travel arrangements would be permissible and you have refused to respond.
Are you saying that you're okay with a 15 hour flight, including a 10 hour layover in a distant city? You may notice, the lowest priced direct flight is $965US, which is about $1200CDN. You realize I would be paying in Canadian dollars, right?
Why do you insist on blaming your fuck-ups and shortcomings on me?
Once again - I don't see a travel itinerary. Do you want to keep talking or do you want to see your son? Are you seriously suggesting you would book Gabriel on a 15 hour flight?
Desiree:
Last night I sent you an email requesting what you will permit with respect to layover duration, et cetera. Why, when I request clarification of anything from you, do you always refuse to provide it? You refuse to be clear - even when the other party explicitly requests clarification - and then later you try to accuse the other party of "misinterpreting" what you meant. Maybe if you used the English language correctly clarification would not be necessary.
I would assume with all that free time on your hands you would be able to secure Gabriel a plane ticket, yet I don't have a travel itinerary.
Desiree:
Do you realize that many airlines now do not let a person under 15 travel alone? Do you realize how that limits the number of flights available to choose from? Do you ever look into things before you speak?
I am calling airlines right now. If I am able to secure a ticket I will let you know.
Air Canada allows it at 12 - I already called them.
Desiree:
Sure, and if he can be at PHX by 4:30am then there's a 6:37am flight on Air Canada for $395, with a 2:15 layover in San Fran, for a total travel time of 6:50; or there's a couple of 6:11am Air Canadas for $463 with 2 stops for a travel time of 10:17 and 11:47, respectively; or a 1:43 with one layover in Denver for $559, travel time: 7:26.
Do you do everything half-assed? Can you just go away and shut up? I don't believe that there is ANY way that your involvement in something would ever make it better so why don't you just go to your room and smoke some weed or something?
You're right, I didn't call every single airline to check their age limitations for you. Did you need me to do all of the research for you? Do you need me to hold your hand through this whole process??
Desiree:
Can you stop being a stupid fucking [cunt] for even just a minute?
Sure...as soon as you send me a travel itinerary.
Sorry, I meant to say "stupid fucking cunt".
Funny but "stupid fucking cunt" looks nothing like a travel itinerary...maybe you're confused again. Do you need me to copy and paste an example for you??
Desiree:
At least my insults to you are based in reality. Surely, you're not trying to suggest that you're intellectually superior to me. I believe our many debates via email show that not to be true.
Thank you for the itineraries. When can I expect one for his return trip?
I cannot possibly answer that question. I suspect what you mean to ask is not actually what you asked.
If I do not have a travel itinerary for Gabriel's return flight to Phoenix on July 12th, 2015 then he will not board a plan to travel anywhere. Are you still unclear as to my meaning?
Desiree:
Why is it so hard for you to say what you mean? Your question was asking me when you would be capable of expecting something. How can I possibly know when you will be capable of expecting something? And even if you did use "may" instead of "can" then your question would still have been asking me to tell you when you would be permitted to expect something. Learn to speak English you fucking moron!
If what you want to know is when I intend to provide you the flight information for Gabriel's return flight then why don't you ask that? How can you get angry about illegal aliens coming to America and refusing to learn the language (which is English, by the way), when you yourself can't even speak it properly?
I have not purchased Gabriel's return ticket yet and I'm not going to until it gets closer to the travel time. I don't give a shit if you try to use that as a basis to refuse to let Gabriel travel pursuant to the two tickets I already provided. You know damn well the court is not going to accept that.
Desiree:
I'd like to point out that that was NOT one of your stated requirements. I told Gabriel that this is what you would do: you'll make up a bunch of requirements then, if I meet those requirements, you'll add more requirements, and if I meet those you'll just keep adding more. Same shit my mother used to do to my father.
Well, it ain't gonna happen. I met your requirements and I'm just dying for you to fuck up enough that the court will consider your behavior egregious. So far you've:
- refused to allow Gabriel to visit during one extended school break;
- taken away his phone, cutting off all communication between him and I for an extended duration of time, without providing me any notice;
- taken away his debit card so I cannot provide him financial support;
- refused to provide him even the minimal level of medical care that the California legislature mandates;
- continued to keep drugs in the home.
So, go ahead, refuse to let him visit over the summer. Give me a reason that the court will consider justifiable to take away not only your custody but also visitation. And keep giving Gabriel reasons to resent you. Regardless of what the court does, the important thing is that Gabriel grows to hate you and you are doing an excellent job of pushing him in that direction.
So, what I hear is that you will send me the details of his return itinerary before he travels on the 24th of May?
Desiree:
I cannot imagine why you would hear that because I never said that.
I will tell you this, unequivocally: Since you did not require I provide the return flight information in order to allow Gabriel to travel from Phoenix to Los Angeles on May 24, 2015, then from Los Angeles to Vancouver on May 28, 2015, and you only brought that up AFTER I purchased the tickets, then NO! I absolutely will not purchase his return ticket until I know he is actually going to be present in Vancouver.
I have no history of backing out of commitments, or saying completely false stuff to get what I want. You do! You are the one that cannot be trusted, not me.
Now, our dealings here are done. I have fulfilled the requirements you stated in writing. You are now attempting to change those requirements by adding new requirements. It is not going to happen! I don't believe there is anything further for us to discuss between now and when Gabriel arrives here on May 28, 2015.
I have posted all of our emails from today onto your wonderful website so there is a public record of all of your words.
Fox
Are you planning on returning Gabriel?
Desiree:
Either your English skills are horrendous or you really do think of your offspring as possessions?
I am planning to accompany Gabriel to the Vancouver International Airport on or before July 12, 2015, and being present with him until he passes through the security checkpoint. I cannot force him to do anything past that point. I also have no intention of, as you say, "returning him".
Gabriel is a human being, not a possession. Neither you, nor I have the power to force him to do something against his will. All I can, and will, do is make every reasonable effort to ensure he is at the airport in time to board his return flight.
Why would you even ask such a stupid question? I mean, if I was intending to do something like abscond with Gabriel do you think I would admit it beforehand? And if that was my intention, why would I bother going through all this stupid shit with you? Why wouldn't I just go to Phoenix and pick him up? What? Do you think it's impossible for me to walk right into the US? Do you think they scrutinize me every time I cross the border? My god, there is no end to your stupidity, is there?
And besides, what do you really care? You only have, at most, another 16 months until you have absolutely no legal authority over him, anyway. Yeah, that's right, the day he turns 16 and his foot touches the ground in the Province of Ontario he is a legal adult and cannot be forced to return to his parents - because he now has Canadian citizenship - because of YOUR actions. I don't even need to be in Canada myself.
Please provide me with your hotel information. I will make sure I am available for the "pick up" schedule.
Desiree:
As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify.
So no comment on the turning 16 thing? Didn't think so. You didn't realize that when you set this course of action in motion, did you? You didn't even stop to consider what the consequences of your actions would be, did you?
You had no idea that the legal age to be independent of your parents, in Ontario, was 16. And that by Gabriel receiving Canadian citizenship that it meant that on his 16th birthday he could walk out your door and never, ever have to see or speak to you ever again, huh? And the best part is that if, before he turns 18, he steps outside of Ontario THEN at that moment you have the legal authority to have him brought back to you by force. But as long as he's in Ontario there's not a damn thing you, or any US law enforcement agency, or any US court can do about it.
Now, if he was a US citizen and NOT also a Canadian citizen, THEN the Canadian authorities would have to send him back to the US. But as long as he has Canadian citizenship (which he now has for the rest of his life (thanks to you for setting things in motion), and he's over the age of 16, he can live on his own, have his own apartment, get his own firearms license, his own driver's license. And he won't need anyone's permission to do so.
And, by the time he turns 16, next year, what he will remember is things like you refusing to allow him to visit and refusing to provide a decent reason why. You taking away his property (like video game consoles) because you say "it's not fair to Sage". You taking him, by force, from Liz and forcing him to live in Arizona. You refusing to let him have things he, as a child with parents with a combined income over $200,000, should have. You refusing to take him to the doctor for regular check ups. You refusing to have the anomaly in in his eye checked. You calling ICE on his father and having him deported for no justifiable reason, other than to get custody of him by default. You never bothering to teach him things about life.
I was really hoping to surprise you with this on September 28, 2016, but I guess the cat's out of the bag now.
Do you ever get tired of being the perpetual loser? You ever think to yourself "what's the point"? Ever seem to you that maybe life is just to fucking hard and there's no point because we're all gonna die in the end anyway? If not, well, that's too bad - the world is going to be a better place when you are no longer in it.
Good evening,
Desiree
April 26th
...I will require a full itinerary for Gabriel's summer trip.
May 4th
I will need the travel plans (itinerary) all flights Gabriel will be
occupying
May 5th
The above visitation as previously stated ALSO is contingent upon a
full travel
itinerary including all flight and travel plans.
The term 'full' means (from dictionary.reference.com):
adjective, fuller, fullest.
1. completely filled; containing all that can be held; filled to utmost
capacity
2. complete; entire; maximum:
3. of the maximum size, amount, extent, volume, etc.
The term 'all' means (from dictionary.reference.com):
adjective
1.the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration):
2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars,
taken collectively):
3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree):
4. every:
5. any; any whatever:
6. nothing but; only:
7. dominated by or as if by the conspicuous possession or use of a
particular feature:
So you see - I did require ALL travel itineraries. However, if you are having money issues, I understand. If you do not have the funds available to secure a return flight from Vancouver to Phoenix on July 12th prior to his departure, then tell me the exact date to which you will provide Gabriel's return flight itinerary. That date will serve as the deadline for this action item.
Desiree:
Now that we agree on the definitions of "full" and "itinerary", then does that mean that you acknowledge that a "full itinerary" would include a detailed account, including times of arrival and departure of each location (not just the airports) the traveller will be during the trip? That is, after all, a "full itinerary". That is what I was trying to explain to you previously when you were refusing to clarify what you meant by "full itinerary". You eventually stated that you just required the flight information. You are now completely contradicting what you said previously, and agreeing to what I was saying - which you had previously accused me of playing word games over.
Flip-flop? You just argue whatever point serves your purpose at any moment, huh? Even when it completely contradicts the points you made yesterday?
Anyway, I'm not playing along. I've provided you Gabriel's flight information from PHX to LAX, and from LAX to YVR. That is all you're getting. Even that is more than the court would require and it meets the definition of "reasonable".
Now, I don't have time for your nonsense today. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is done.You believe the court will accept half of a vacation travel plan as "reasonable"?
Let me try this again. You have provided the details of Gabriel's travel to Canada. You have yet to provide the details of him travel from Canada to Phoenix. While I am uncomfortable with him departing without a return ticket purchased, I will allow it if you provide the date to which you will purchase his return ticket and provide me with the details of said flight.
Are you refusing to
A. Purchase a return flight for Gabriel prior to his departure or
B. Provide me with a date that I can expect to receive the flight
information for his return?
Please be very clear in your response.
Desiree:
Get this through your fucking head: Fuck you! I will not bow down to your ridiculous requirements. I have provided you Gabriel's flight information and that is all I am going to do. If you had a history of being reasonable and civilized then I might be more accommodating, but you don't! Your history is filled with backstabbing, lying, forcing people to do what you want, throwing fits when you don't get your way, and doing things that harm innocent bystanders just to get what you want.
You cannot claim to be concerned about Gabriel's well being or safety when he's been with you for over 2 years and you've not fulfilled any of your parental obligations to him. You have no concern for his well being and safety UNTIL it comes to his visitation with me. You allowed Kristopher to take him along while he was high out of his fucking mind on meth, committing crimes, yet you pretend to be concerned about his safety with me? Get a fucking clue you stupid bitch! You keep drugs in the home and you fill his head with your racist, anti-immigrant bullshit, but you say I'm cause for concern?
As I've said, this discussion is done! I dare you to not let Gabriel catch his flights on May 24th and May 28th. When Gabriel was in my custody did I EVER attempt to interfere with your visits? NO, I did not!
Get it through your thick fucking skull that parental visitation is NOT for the parent's benefit!!! How fucking narcissistic are you that you cannot see that? Do you really think that you're hurting me by doing this? I WANT you to refuse to allow Gabriel to visit so that he despises you that much more. Do you think he believes the bullshit excuses that you tell him to justify your actions? He, and everyone, sees through your shit. Do you think he bought your crap about "just doing your patriotic duty" by calling ICE? Or your lame excuse that you keep calling me Ricky because that's the name on our court cases?
The only thing that is agitating me about what you do is that I don't want Gabriel to have the same shitting childhood that I had, but you're going out of your way to make sure he does. All the shit you do is the same shit that my mother did. And the end result for her is that I despised her and had nothing to do with her after I left home. The same thing you're doing to Gabriel.
Now fuck off and go bother someone else.
Actually, you interfered with almost EVERY visitation I had with Gabriel; from pulling stupid things like refusing to put him on the plane, calling the airlines and changing the plane tickets yourself, filing for a restraining order the day prior to visitation, to sending him for a week with nothing but the clothes on his back and a box of Jewish crackers. You and he decided that he would not participate in any event over Christmas break (including eating dinner) because he was 'Jewish' and it was against his religion. You sure as hell never permitted me to have him for a visitation without return plans solidified. I believe I have been extremely accommodating to you, given the hardship you caused me while you had partial custody. Where's your argument again?
Would you like me to forward you the email thread where I purchased a ticket and it interferes with your work schedule so you denied it? Or the one where I told you flights were cheaper on a different day and you responded that you didn't care about my financial troubles and it wasn't your fault that I was a white-trash person incapable of budgeting my money - and again denied it? Oh - but you probably have them up on your website, so you can just go there and read it.
Now - when will I have Gabriel's return flight information?
When I purchase it. Probably some time in June.
You are completely disturbed and isolated in your understanding of events...but I'm used to. I understand that you feel you have no fault or guilt for anything that has transpired.
That said, if you plan on waiting until June to get his plane ticket, I expect that you will NOT whine and complain about how much it will cost to get him a direct flight from Vancouver to Phoenix and that the flight will be on either Saturday or Sunday and not on a weekday. I just did the search and the flights are currently $312 (US)
Desiree:
Noted.
Claims which do not include a logical or rational basis (such as the one provided [above], that I am "disturbed and isolated") are meaningless. Please provide the basis for such a claim.
...in your understanding...(did you not read that part?)
Which events? And how am I disturbed and isolated in my understanding of them? And what exactly does "in your understanding of" mean?
You seem to be completely incapable of expressing your thoughts articulately. You use so many vague terms, and incorrect words. I know that you have a reasonable vocabulary, so it's not that you don't understand the words individually. But you seem to have difficulty combining those words into meaningful sentences to coherently state the thoughts that are in your mind. Years of THC consumption, I guess.
See Richard, it doesn't matter what I say or how I say it. You are bound and determined to argue everything I say and you adamantly refuse to even attempt to understand what I'm talking about. So tell me why I should try and defend myself against a person like that. It's a futile effort and I have better things to do. You knit-pick like a little old lady (Oh my god - are you going to say that I'm not racist against little old ladies???)
It is not my fault that you are consistently and perpetually wrong. Also, most of the time your arguments make no sense.
Little old ladies are not a race - therefore, you cannot be "racist" against them. You can be prejudiced against them. Racism is a specific form of prejudice, based on race. You see: you are incapable of expressing your thoughts coherently.
Fox
and you are incapable of having a conversation without a dictionary, encyclopedia, and case law book for reference.
Yes. I like to be correct and make coherent points. I'm not a fan of speaking gibberish and saying things that make me look like a fool.
I stand by everything I said. I've addressed these points in the email I sent you moments ago. You ARE white trash; it's NOT my fault that you can't manage your money; I DON'T care about your problems. What's your point?
And again, I did not deny or refuse the visitation. I only refused to go out of my way to accommodate your failure to properly plan ahead. I am not asking you to go out of your way - in fact, I'm not asking you for ANYTHING.
You were requiring me to rearrange my schedule to accommodate you and you didn't even provide sufficient notice. Moreover, the two visitations prior to that one, you didn't even execute.
So, again, you ARE a bad person, and your problems are your own fault. Stop expecting others to clean up after you.
Desiree:
I am sorry, but you are incorrect. See my rebuttals, inline.
I presume you are referring to the flight you purchased for June 22, 2012, of which you notified me on June 12, 2012. Here is why your current argument does not apply and why it is frivolous:
-
You were required to provide at least 2 weeks notice of travel arrangements if such arrangements required any action on my part. In this case you were requiring me to take Gabriel to the airport. You did not provide at least 2 weeks notice therefore I was not obligated to re-arrange my schedule. We have already covered this but you seem to have forgotten.
In the current case I provided much more than 2 weeks notice, although it is not necessary because I am not requiring you to have to do anything.
-
You did not check with me ahead of time to determine whether I would be available at that time to take Gabriel to the airport. I was not obligated to coordinate my schedule for your convenience, other than exactly on the date stated in the court order. The flight you scheduled was on a different date.
In the current case, I explicitly consulted you on the dates before proceeding with executing the purchase of the tickets.
-
I was not obligated to transport Gabriel to the airport in order to convenience you. I was only obligated to make Gabriel available for you to take custody of him. I did not interfere with that and I did make him available. You were the one that refused to come and pick him up or make alternate arrangements - like arranging for a car to take him to the airport.
In the current case I am not asking or requiring you to make any modification to your schedule: I have offered to arrange for Gabriel's transportation to the airport. YOU are the one refusing to let him go on his own and insisting on taking him personally. So it is YOUR problem, not mine.
-
The week of the flight you purchased was the first week of a job I had just started. You were requiring me to take an entire day off of that new job, to do something you were completely capable of doing yourself. At the time of the flight you purchased I did not have a vehicle and was dependent on the use of Liz's vehicle and/or public transit. Liz had to be at work at the time of the flight, and the travel time to the airport on public transit was more than 3 hours from home. My job was in Burbank, which was 2.5 hours from home. You booked the flight for 1pm. There was no way to get Gabriel to the airport by 12pm without having to take the entire day off from work.
In the current case, I am not requiring ANYTHING of you, regardless of which dates Gabriel travels on.
-
You were perfectly able to come to LA and pick Gabriel up as you had done many times previous. Had you done so I would not have refused to allow you to take him.
In the current case, I am not able to go to Phoenix and pick Gabriel up (according to you) because I've been deported (as a result of your actions) and am not allowed to re-enter the US (according to you). Therefore, YOU created a situation whereby the ONLY way that Gabriel can visit with me is to fly. So, this is all a problem that has been created by YOU, not me.
So, you see, there is no comparison between the time you're referring to and this time.
Absolutely! Because I had just found out about yours and Kris's drug use, and Kris's arrest with Gabriel present. To me that seems an entirely reasonable basis for being concerned about an 11 year old's safety. Do you not? What am I saying? Of course you don't. I mean, that IS your lifestyle. It is the life you have chosen.
Again, absolutely! I was just doing back to you exactly what you had done previously. When you took Gabriel to Arizona in August 2011 you proceeded to dispose of some of his clothes, then when you finally returned him in November you returned him with out any clothes. You made him leave the clothes you had gotten him in Arizona. Why is it okay for you to do but not for me?
Yes, and? We don't celebrate Christmas. What's your point? You were completely absent from his life from the age of 18 months through 11 years, then you show up and try to force your way of life on him? What the fuck is wrong with you?
I never once required you to provide return flight information. It has always been my hope that you WOULD abscond so that I could take that to the court and have you removed for good.
What is wrong with your memory?
What hardship, exactly? Do you mean my not wanting Gabriel to be around people that are trying to convince him that marijuana is great and one day he'll grow to love it? Do you mean the hardship I caused by forcing Kris to take him and Sage to Walmart to pass counterfeit notes? Or the hardship I caused by forcing you to keep drugs in the open (in your unlocked night table)? Jesus fucking Christ woman! You're sick the way you try to blame everything on everyone else. Did I make you do any of that stuff? Are you not the one that withheld all that information, then denied it when I asked you about it, then got mad and fought with me when I showed you that I had proof?
You're a fucking work of art.
I believe I just presented it.
Desiree:
Of course. The court, historically, has always taken the approach that if there is no history to suggest a given type of behavior then there is no reason to believe such behavior will occur in the future. When you have expressed your completely unfounded claims that you believed I might "disappear" with Gabriel, the court admonished you that IF I were to do that then I'd be in a lot of trouble.
So yes, I know the court would not permit you to refuse visitation based on a completely unfounded claim that you believe I might be intending to withhold Gabriel from you. The court even refused to consider the possibility that YOU might be intending to do something inappropriate - even after I provided concrete proof that you HAD been engaging in inappropriate behavior.
P.S. I'm still waiting for you to admit that my argument about your use of the terms "full itinerary" and "including but not limited to" was, in fact, correct and you are now doing exactly as I suspected, and stated, you were going to do. You see, I know you just too well.
Desiree:
I shall address your points, individual, inline, so as not to miss any.
I would appreciate it if you would keep your emotions in check as we attempt to discuss and resolve this.
I see no evidence to suggest that my behavior is based, to any extent, on emotions. Unless you are able to provide some scientifically acceptable evidence of the existence of emotions then your statement is based on a false premise. Please try to refrain from using words you don't understand.
A simple minded person cannot, generally, distinguish between the cause and the effect and, as a result, will readily accept a purely coincidental effect as being proof of an otherwise completely unrelated cause. Case in point: A person's belief in emotions is not proof that the emotion is actually real. You seem to be unable to make such a distinction.
There has never been any evidence that what people call "emotions" are anything more than conditioned responses which the simple minded person never thinks to put more thought into.
Did I ever once say I needed to know where Gabriel was going to be every single minute of every single day? No, I haven't. I told you specifically what information I needed, which was regarding the plane/flight information ONLY but you wanted to argue about the meaning of "including but not limited to".
In your email dated 2015-04-20 you stated:
"...for which I will need a full itinerary including flight and contact information..."
The term "full" means (from dictionary.reference.com):
1. completely filled; containing all that can be held; filled to utmost capacity
2. complete; entire; maximum
3. of the maximum size, amount, extent, volume, etc.
The term "itinerary" means (from dictionary.reference.com):
1. a detailed plan for a journey, especially a list of places to visit; plan of travel.
2. a line of travel; route.
3. an account of a journey; record of travel.
4. a book describing a route or routes of travel with information helpful to travelers; guidebook for travelers.
When you combine those two terms, as you did, the result is a complete, to the maximum extent, detailed plan of travel, especially a list of places which will be visited. Those are your words, not mine. Do not get mad at me for simply speaking my native language correctly. I might point out that you, supposedly, speak the same language, however you very clearly do not have a significant command of it.
In that same email you stated "Any deviation from the above stated shall be deemed kidnapping and a violation of the terms of reasonable visitation". Such statement must be intended to reinforce the seriousness you wish to convey - making the term "full itinerary" that much more significant. And, by the way, it would not actually rise to the level of "kidnapping". It is not legally possible for a biological parent to "kidnap" his own offspring - regardless of any custody orders which are in effect. Read up on the matter before speaking, please.
In your email dated 2015-04-26, you stated:
"...I await Gabriel's full itinerary per previous stipulation. That means his travel to California as well as Vancouver..."
Yet you still refused to state what exactly you meant by "full itinerary". If all you meant was the flight information, as you are now claiming, then why did you not simply use the term "flight information" rather than the more vague and ambiguous "full itinerary"? Moreover, when I requested you clarify your meaning with respect to "full itinerary" you refused to respond.
On 2015-04-26 I sent you an email providing the proposed travel information for Gabriel to depart Phoenix on May 24, 2015, to Los Angeles; I stated he would be staying with LMunoz, at her residence (you have the address already); then flying from Los Angeles to Vancouver on May 28, 2015. You responded saying:
"That sounds like an acceptable start to me. However, as already discussed, I will require a full itinerary for Gabriel's summer trip. Upon my receipt of said itinerary, I will review it in full and provide approval at such time."
So, I provided you an "itinerary" according to the vague definition of
the term, yet you still refused to:
a) clarify what you meant by "full itinerary"; and
b) refused to provide consent based on the information I provided.
You seemed to be saying that you expected me to purchase the flight tickets before you would commit to granting consent. That is not an acceptable option and I can guarantee the court is going to agree with me on that.
On 2015-05-04 you stated:
"I will need the travel plans (itinerary) all flights Gabriel will be occupying, including but not limited to..."
I have already, recently provided you the legally accepted definition of the term "...including but not limited to...", so there is no need to reiterate it here. So, any demands which you have submitted, which include that phrase, essentially and literally means that you are requiring me to provide the specific things you list AND anything else you might think of later. That is also NOT acceptable. That allows you to add any requirements at any time.
I think I've provided enough examples of you making overly vague and undefined demands. When dealing with you, one cannot make assumptions about what arrangements you will actually honor or what your intended meaning of any given statement might be. There are enough emails from you on your web site that show that you frequently say one thing when meaning something entirely different. Therefore, absolute clarity is mandatory in any dealings with you.
There is no "working with you/me" required. You are NOT required to transport Gabriel, personally, to the airport, so there is no reasonable requirement that his flight be at a time which is convenient for you.
I often do not bring up specific points initially, when dealing with you, because I would prefer for you to do as I anticipate then I catch you and point out how you're wrong AFTER you'd done something wrong or inappropriate. Moreover, my reasoning for wanting a weekday flight has no relevance in this matter. What's relevant is that Gabriel's flight date and time has no bearing on you or your schedule because I am willing and have offered to take care of all of the transportation logistics. The one time that I refused to accommodate your similar request is not comparable because in that case I WOULD have had to take him to the airport in the middle of a work day and had literally just started a new job.
I do not expect or want you to do anything to help me. We are discussing Gabriel's travel and visitation plans - not mine. But statements like the one you just made make it so obvious that you really do believe everything is about you. Parental visitation is supposed to be for the benefit of the child - not the parent. That is why I would NEVER force Gabriel to visit with me (unlike you, who have done exactly that). The reason I want Gabriel to visit with me is because I have a duty, as his father, to teach him things that I know you are not teaching him.
As for the website, I'm not really concerned with your opinion of it. I'm concerned with whether or not people are actually going to it. Some day I'll get around to adding the updated content, but I don't have a lot of time to put into it right now.
If you would like to refuse to allow Gabriel to visit because of the conflicts and animosity between you and I then that would certainly move me much closer to one of my goals.
Are you fucking thick? Really!?!? How many times do you need to be told that you don't need to personally transport Gabriel to the airport? Do you just completely ignore or refuse to hear things that aren't completely in line with your thinking?
Why do you think that you need to hold your childrens' hands at every moment? Do you not want them to grow up?
Do you not understand what the term "reasonable" means? "Arbitrary" is not "reasonable". In fact, it is contrary to it. Do you even understand how the common law system works? Do you know the difference between "statutory law" and "common law"? It is not my responsibility to educate you on the laws of your own country. Go read a book, for Christ's sake.
Really? Do you have ANY history of working with me on ANYTHING? Can you point to ONE time you did so? It seems to me the ONLY times you have been in any way amenable is when you knew the court was going to go completely against you. What comes to MY mind are the times you agreed to something, then completely backed out when you thought you didn't NEED to follow through on it.
So, no! I would never approach you amicably and request you "work with me" on something. If nothing else, experience with you has taught us that you will stab the person in the back the first chance you get.
What exactly have I done? I put up a website that contains only factual information about you. I disseminated specific factual information about you to some of your associates. I insisted on paying for Gabriel's medical care so that he wouldn't have to go without due to your selfishness and irresponsibility. I provided Gabriel with a credit card to cover support related expenses so he wouldn't have to live like a pauper (yet you insist on not allowing him to live comfortably in your home because you don't want poor Sage to feel bad). What exactly have I done?
What fight? Gabriel wants to visit with me because when he's with me he learns things and we have a good time. You're refusing to allow that by imposing unnecessary and arbitrary regulations. There is no fight. There is just me trying to look out for Gabriel's interests.
Now to wrap this up, I do NOT need (from you or Liz);
1. a detailed plan for a journey, especially a list of places to visit; plan of travel.
2. a line of travel; route.
3. an account of a journey; record of travel.
4. a book describing a route or routes of travel with information helpful to travelers; guidebook for travelers.
What I need is the same thing you have sent me for every other visitation Gabriel has had to see you - the confirmation from the airline that includes the flight information (generally referred to as a "travel itinerary" - I can copy and paste a picture of one of you still need it for reference).
And what is your reason for not simply saying that in the first place? Why all of a sudden, this time, did you start saying "full itinerary" and refusing to clarify. You accuse me of being belligerent yet you're the one acting provocatively.
I just did a search on Google and found the following;
http://www.kayak.com/flights/PHX-YVR/2015-05-24
I gave you the travel dates on April 20th. You could have purchase a ticket at any point in the last 2 weeks. Instead you want to quibble over dictionary definitions and cite case law and now there are no reasonable flights left that are non-stop.
What the fuck is your problem? Now you're trying to say I'm the one that caused unnecessary delay? Let's recap:
- On 2015-04-25 and 2015-04-26 there were numerous emails, wherein you deliberately used vague wording, knowing I would not be able to commit until I've received clarification.
- In each of those emails you sent to me you deliberately attempt to provoke me by insisting on calling me Ricky. You were obviously trying to initiate a dispute, or, in the least, attempt to be belittling.
- After some back and forth, you were vaguely semi-commital, but refused to grant authorization until you were provided with confirmation that the tickets were purchased.
- At that point I told you I wasn't going to play any longer and you could go fuck yourself.
- Then I head nothing back from you.
- I followed up with you on 2015-05-04. I initiated the communication, not you!! So, how the fuck am I the one that caused any delays, huh?
So you admit that your statements and wording were deliberately vague - such that they required interpretation. The whole purpose (at least on my end) of all of this stupid back-and-forth is to obtain clarification so that there IS no room for interpretation (or misinterpretation).
Now, you see I did here? I got you to admit, in writing, with your own words, that you were being ambiguous. And given your refusal to provide clarification when requested, it shows that you were doing so deliberately. THAT is why I often withhold information initially - because it makes it much easier to trap you with your own words. Well, that and you're generally something of an idiot.
I don't get your meaning here. Are you saying that if I don't allow Gabriel to visit with me you're going to complain to the court? Please clarify.
Let me also, clarify my position on what you call me: The fact that I accept your email which is addressed to my email account (fox@desireecapuano.org), but contains the greeting addressed to Ricky Steve Riess, is in no way an acknowledgment that my name is Ricky Steve Riess (or any variation thereof).
I understand that you are just playing your usual, obtuse games and you intend for it to be an insult. Though, I fail to see how or why I should be insulted. I remember my father did the same thing about my mother - he refused to call her by her maiden name after they had divorced, because he said she had never actually changed her name back. It made him feel so smug to do that. If only he realized that to everyone else it just made him look like an ass.
The only thing that concerns me with respect to you and my name is that I don't want my REAL name (Patrick Fox) to be on any of our legal matters because that creates a publicly accessible (via the Internet) association between you and I; and I don't want the decent (non-trashy) people I know now to ever find out I was married to a white trash, pothead, with tattoos and multiple children from multiple men, who attended and actually graduated from the University of Phoenix (and even worse, who is actually proud of graduating from the University of Phoenix). But, as long as you continue to insist that my name is Ricky Riess then I guess I don't need to worry about that.
Fox