Contact Information

Your words mean nothing because you lie incessantly. I require proof and I have every legal right to require it because its a matter of child safety. As for your claim of kidnapping - you're wrong. A biological parent cannot kidnap their own offspring, under US laws.

And, I have no intention of violating any laws. I will present my case to the Family Court here in BC and they will decide if, given the current circumstances, it would be potentially harmful for Gabriel to return to a parent with an admitted drug problem, history of violence and emotional instability, who cannot and refuses to provide any evidence that she even has a place to live, and has essentially abandoned her child by moving while he was up here and refused to provide forwarding contact information or ever contacting him even once.

I will do nothing illegal.

I have the same rights that any stranger on the street has - and if such stranger observes that a child is being taken into a situation which such stranger reasonably believes will put that child in a potentially harmful situation then such stranger may, and should intervene, for the sake of the safety of the child. That is all I am doing. Between now and Friday I will be presenting the facts and the evidence to the BC Family Court and they will decide whether there is a reasonable belief that returning him to you, under these circumstances, would put him in harm. They will then contact the California court to determine how to proceed.

I have given you 2 and a half years to prove you are fit to be a parent and you've squandered it. You've neglected Gabriel's medical, dental, and vision care (although it would cost you nothing) - you sent him on this visit with an infection on his ear and neck; you were aware of the infection and your response was to put neosporin on it; he's been on antibiotics for it for the past 4 weeks. Can you honestly say you've done even 1 parental thing over the past 2 1/2 years? Providing the basic necessities of life doesn't count.

Tell me something: even though I keep Gabriel informed about everything that's going on (including this latest development), has he called you to say he wants to go back or that he misses you? I'm at work all day, he has the apartment to himself all that time. He has complete access to the landline. Doesn't that tell you something? That's how much he "loves" and respects you. That's how much he's bonded with you. Face it - you've failed as a parent. You're a terrible, terrible, bad person and mother.

Hello, Desiree.

I'd like to comment on your statement about living in a "wonderful gated neighborhood". The fact that it's "gated" means nothing. The Scottsdale Housing Projects in Carson, CA is "gated" - it even has security guards at the "gated" entrance. Just because the neighborhood is "gated" doesn't mean it's "wonderful". In fact, if a neighborhood really IS "wonderful" then it wouldn't need gates, now would it? There are no gates in Beverly Hills, or Westwood, or the nice parts of Scottsdale, AZ. The fact that your "wonderful neighborhood" has gates really just means there are "undesirables" outside those gates, and you want to keep them out, doesn't it? So, doesn't it really just mean that some fool tried to build a "decent" housing development in an otherwise seedy or questionable neighborhood? Is there really no end to your foolishness? Do you think there is a chance you might ever say something intelligent?

• http://revcom.us/a/180/LACounty-en.html
• http://unitedgangs.com/2013/12/10/scottsdale-piru/
• https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scottsdale-Housing-Projects/199769050059770

Yes, of course I had considered that. But the address is, in fact, the address you are physically at - in fact, you are there right at this moment.

I have considered whether publishing the address of an openly racist, anti-Latino, who happens to be physically present at the same house which my son is also physically present at and, after careful consideration, have concluded if such an event as angry Mexicans showing up to express their discontent with you and your white supremest beliefs were to occur, the focus of their attention would be you - not Gabriel. The Latino people are, generally, honorable and would not harm an innocent child if they had issues with the child's misguided mother. So, no, I don't believe Gabriel would be put in any danger by publishing your address.

The point of the website is not to be aesthetically appealing. It is to make known, publicly, the facts and the realities about you...the type of person you REALLY are. It has been up for over a year and a half and you have not indicated that anything on it is inaccurate. And, if the information is true then you have no legal or ethical grievance. If you do not want your true ugliness published on the Internet then perhaps you should be a better person - less ugly.

"Classy"? I am thinking you don't know what the word means. I don't see how it would apply in this context. Perhaps the word you meant to use was "dignified". But even then, I don't see anything undignified about what I've done.

Good evening. Go scream at your children, then cry yourself to sleep like you usually do.

I also considered the legal implications if something were to happen, like for example, a pissed off Mexican showed up at your house and attempt to cause you "harass" you in retaliation for your racists views. Some might say I was criminally negligent by publishing your address along with your racist comments. They might try to argue that had I not done so then you would not have been harmed. However, both your racist views and related comments, and your current address are all points of fact - the publishing of facts simply cannot be considered negligent - criminal or otherwise. I'm pretty sure not a court in America would hold me responsible for anything that might occur to you as a result of you openly expressing racist, anti-Latino sentiments, while living in an area with a very high Mexican population.

Another thing you can't prevent me from publishing is your social security number. There is no law in Canada which prohibits a person from publishing the non-Canadian identifying information of another person who is not in Canada; and even if it were illegal under US law - I'm not in the US and therefore, not subject to US law.

I would like to point out that by refusing to keep me informed of the precise location (meaning the address), where you are holding Gabriel, YOU are effectively absconding with Gabriel - exactly the thing you falsely claimed I did for those 9 years that you were out of his life.

Of course, it's moot at this point because I've already proven that I DO know where you live and where you are keeping Gabriel. However, IF as you poorly attempted to suggest, the address I have, in Sahuarita is not the address you are holding Gabriel at, and that you have deliberately taken steps to cause me to believe he is residing at that address when, in fact, you are holding him at a different location - as you suggest in your email, then that shows a deliberate attempt to "hide" his whereabouts from me. And THAT would constitute absconding which would be legal grounds for you to immediately lose all custody. Do you really know absolutely nothing about family law?

So, do you wish to revise your position?

P.S. I am using the term "holding" intentionally because you are, in fact, "holding" Gabriel against his will. He has already expressed that he does not want to live with you. The only reason he IS with you is because of a court order. Given the legal authority to make his own determination, you know that he would be on the next plane out of there. Therefore, you are "holding" him, just as a prisoner is held.

Allow me to also point out that, of course, I had considered that I could potentially raise the issue of Pendleton publicly disclosing that he has Top Secret clearance which, in itself would likely result in him losing such clearance (if, in fact, he did actually have it which, I suspect by the fact that he publicly advertised it, he does not). However, since I have no issue with Pendleton, since he has not harmed me in any way, he is purely collateral to this matter. And, it would be against my morals to cause harm to a person, collaterally, in order to adversely affect you. That is, of course, one of the fundamental differences between you and I: you would not think twice about harming an innocent bystander in order to reach your target (case in point: Liz).

Though, I suppose I could rationalize it by saying I was just doing my duty as a patriotic citizen, right? But no, I would not stoop to such levels.

In case you're curious, this particular moral belief comes from the Torah. A person should not punish the innocent for the sake of the guilty. But being an uninformed, ignorant, atheist I wouldn't expect you to actually know anything about the thing (religions) you believe are so stupid.