KVOA Tucson and Matthew Schwartz Are Full of Shit

Schwartz declares that I said "I'll only stop when I regain custody of our 15 year old son". That statement, by Schwartz, is entirely false! I never once stated that our child's custody has anything to do with the website or that me regaining custody would have any influence in shutting down the website.

Schwartz is trying to create the impression that I am using the website to try to get custody of our son back, and that I'm using our son as a pawn in some vindictive game against Desiree. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In reality, my primary motivation for creating the website has been because of how Desiree has been using lies about me to manipulate the courts, law enforcement, and people in general, to get custody of our son from my and to get me arrested and deported from the US. One of my goals, with the website, is to diminish Desiree's ability to use lies and to exploit people's pity and compassion to manipulate them. I have been very open and candid about this.

Schwartz' statement is nothing short of defamation, because he knew it to be false prior to the segment airing, and he made it for the express purpose of portraying me in a negative light. It adversely affects my reputation because it leads people to believe I would use my child as a pawn against Desiree.

Schwartz reports everything on the website is "written and posted by [me] as though it's Desiree writing", in order to create the impression in the viewer's mind that I am deliberately attempting to deceive the website's visitors into thinking that the site content is actually written by Desiree, about herself. Schwartz fails to point out that every page of the website includes the following notice:

Any comments or narratives published on this website, which are written in the first person, from the perspective of Desiree Capuano are not, in fact, written by Desiree Capuano.

Even this very page! Look at the footer of the page and you will see that exact declaration.

Not to mention, as fucked up in the head as Desiree is, a person would have to be a complete retard to believe that she is actually writing this kind of shit about herself. I mean, certainly she would never publish documentary proof that she was a stripper You See? I Really Was a Stripper…and Prostitute, or that she tried to kill her unborn baby five months into her pregnancy The Time I Tried to Force a Miscarriage at 5 Months, Causing My Son to be Born 3 Months Premature and Blind.

So, yes, it is true Desiree Capuano is not the person writing or posting the content on the website, but I am by no means trying to convince anybody that it is - in fact, I am openly stating that it is not written by Desiree Capuano.

But even still, what is important here? Whether or not the content is true and correct, or who the author of the content is?

Schwartz is trying to distract the viewer from the real issues by throwing irrelevant details at them. What's more relevant to the viewer: That a woman that lives in their neighborhood, the mother of a child their child goes to school with, is a drug addict, a white supremacist, and a child abuser; or that the person informing them of this bad neighbor is writing under a pseudomyn?

Schwartz tries to imply my allegations that Desiree's a drug addict, child abuser, narcissist, white supremacist, and an all around bad person are false, defamatory allegations. Immediately after the text from the website is displayed across the screen it cuts to a shot of Desiree emotionally declaring that none of that is true.

Well, let's consider the evidence:

• In 2011, Desiree was arrested for possession of marijuana. She accepted prop 200 in order to not be convicted of that charge. Prop 200 requires an admission of guilt and an admission of having a "drug problem". Although the "drug problem" admission requirement is not an explicitly stated requirement, the whole purpose of prop 200 is "to help, rather than punish" people who have a drug problem. She completed the TASC requirement of the prop 200 program, all the while continuing to use marijuana - which, of course, you're not allowed to do while you're in TASC. Here's her own admission that while doing TASC she never stopped getting high (email dated 2012-11-19). After that, she continued to use marijuana and meth. In November 2011, she obtained a medical marijuana card based on false claims of having fibromyalgia (medical marijuana card). When she did this very KVOA interview she was high as fuck. You tell me: Is she a drug addict?
• In 2011, after having been absent from our son's life for nine years, since he was a year old, Desiree went to Los Angeles and visited our son twice over two weekends. Then, two months later she showed up, unannounced, and took him by force to Arizona. He was traumatized. He didn't know her from a whole in the ground. She brutally, and abruptly ripped him from the home and family he'd been with all his life and forced him to live amongst a bunch of strangers he knew nothing about. She then got a temporary emergency custody order, based on false allegations that I had been hiding him from her for the past nine years and was now threatening to take him back and hide him again. She then tried to get an order of protection against me prohibiting me from having any contact, even by telephone, with our son. If abducting a child who has no knowledge of you, and taking that child to another state without informing the child or the parent who had been raising that child for the past nine years, and not allowing the child to speak with the parent that had raised him, is not child abuse, I really don't know what is.
• As for being a white supremacist, well, there's just no secret about that. Everyone who knows Desiree knows she is - she's quite open about her dislike for Mexicans, and "all those other Spanish speaking people". But, you want proof? Okay, here she is trying to insult me by telling me I'm no better than a "dirty Mexican" email dated 2012-10-05. And here she is talking about how much she hates sitting in the courtroom, at the Compton Courthouse, surrounded by "those people" (blacks and Hispanics) email dated 2013-02-17. There is further evidence of her racism in the article "Of Racism, White Supremacy, Nazis, and Those Damn 'Dirty Mexicans'". Not to mention, her two most recent fiancés, James Pendleton and Kristopher Lauchner, have also been well known white supremacists and racists.
• A narcissist? Pick any few emails that she's written to me over the years, from the long collection on the website and you will quickly notice everything is always about her, or how it relates to her.
• The "all around bad person" allegation is, admittedly, subjective. You can formulate your own opinion on that.

And while we're on the topic of claims made about Desiree on the website and her insistence that "none of that is true", and "it's all lies", let's consider some of the other irrefutable proof that has been posted here of things that she insists are "all lies" and "not true":

• The site alleges Desiree was a stripper. She passionately denies that allegation. But here's the Pinellas County Sheriff's report from the time she was arrested at the strip club, for being a stripper Pinellas County Sheriff's report.
• The site alleges that Desiree has physically abused her children and she subjects them to domestic violence in the home. She vehemently denies anything like that ever happened. Here's a recent post, including the police report and police photographs of a domestic violence incident which occurred when her son, Sage, was present and he called 911 while hiding in his bedroom out of fear Exposing My Kids to Domestic Violence, And Loving It!.
• The site alleges that Desiree tried to sell our son when he was 4 months old. She definitely denies that ever happened. Here's an email, where she acknowledges it happened and that she was the one that called the adoption agencies to find out if she could get money for giving up their child for adoption email dated 2012-10-05.
• The site alleges Desiree called ICE and filed a false report against me, to get me arrested and deported, so that she could get custody of our son. She has been denying any involvement in that for years. Here's a recent post, including an audio recording of her and me, in the family court, where she openly admits she did exactly that - she called ICE specifically to get me deported from the US I Finally Admit I Had Fox Deported – And it Was Recorded!.
• The site alleges Desiree tried to force a miscarriage of our unborn son, five months into the pregnancy - or as her own attorney describes it: tried to murder her unborn child. She absolutely, firmly denies that happened. And here are two recent posts on that incident, which clearly point out she could easily disprove the allegation with the medical records from the hospital visit (if the allegation were not true, that is), yet rather than making that one simple phone call to get those records, she simply insists it never happened and she hired a lawyer to file a completely unrelated motion in a completely unrelated matter The Time I Tried to Force a Miscarriage at 5 Months, Causing My Son to be Born 3 Months Premature and Blind; Desiree's Response to the Time She Tried to Give Herself an Abortion 5 Months into Her Pregnancy, Causing Her Son to be 3 Months Premature and Blind.

Well, I think you get the point. The site is full of horrible things about Desiree, supported by unquestionable evidence; but on the other hand, she says none of it is true, so therefore, it is not! Right?

Schwartz is trying to get the viewer's pity for Desiree. He shows my allegations on the website, but doesn't show, or even mention, that all of the allegations are supported by police reports, her own sworn court testimony, audio recordings of her actually saying the things that she denies she's said. Schwartz knows most of the viewers aren't going to bother coming to the website - they will make up their minds based solely on what he presents to them.

Notice, also, the ominous music playing while Schwartz recites the allegations from the website, then stops when it cuts to Desiree? That's a little over-dramatic, really, but it certainly works to set the mood for those simple minded viewers.

Schwartz states Desiree found out about the website from a colleague, at work. In other interviews, and in court testimony Desiree has already said she first found out about the website in March 2014. In this televised interview, she claims she was "mortified" because she had to "go back into work, and [she] had to hold [her] head up, and [she] had to work with all of those people that had seen it". The pain and anguish in her voice and on her face are clear, right? You can sense the horror she had gone through, can't you?

Now, let's have a look at an email Desiree sent me in May 2014, two months after learning about the website email dated 2014-05-27:

Honestly, I've never felt more important to anyone before - I mean, you must spend every waking moment consumed with me. I'm not sure how you have time to think about anything other than me...if you even do. I am flattered.

So, you can reply to this, or send out more emails as me, or put up more stuff on my shrine of a website or hell, create an app about me...because all of it just proves how much you are still infatuated and totally in love with me.

Thank you so much for the ego boost - looking forward to more!!

As you can see, when the camera is not on her, or when she's not in court, trying to get an order of protection, her story is quite a bit different. In fact, prior to moving in with James Pendleton, last summer, she never once expressed any desire to have the website taken down. And even since then, James is the one that's been spearheading all the efforts to do something about this site - not her. Most people don't realize this, but it was actually James that contacted the news media, not Desiree.

So, why do you suppose Schwartz and KVOA didn't mention things like those emails where Desiree told me she didn't care about my "amateurish little website"? The emails were all already publicly posted on the website before Schwartz interviewed her. Did KVOA do any "investigation" at all? Or was it that he just didn't want the viewers to see anything other than the version of the story he was trying to invent?

This part is just rife with errors and inaccuracies. Schwartz boldly states I "did two years in prison for perjury". Not even the slightest bit of truth to that. I was convicted of perjury, but shortly thereafter I was transferred back to ICE custody. I never went to prison. For those that don't realize, there is a huge difference between "prison", which is where you go when you're being punished for having committed a crime; and "administrative detention", which is where you go when DHS doesn't want to release you but has no real legal basis for continuing to detain you. Administrative detention is not the result of having committed a crime.

Schwartz plainly states that I lied in federal court about being a US citizen. He states it as fact. But the reality is, the only fact is that I was convicted of lying about being a US citizen - there has never been any irrefutable proof presented, nor have I admitted or stated, that my statement that I am a US citizen was actually false. Being convicted of something is not the same as actually have done what you were convicted of. This statement, by Schwartz, is plainly defamatory.

Schwartz also seriously downplays the fact that the perjury conviction occurred in 2008, and the alleged perjury itself occurred in 2007 - nine years ago - with no other record of misconduct before or since that time.

What is also significant, though not mentioned at all by Schwartz, is that during ICE's attempts to prove I was an alien, they obtained fingerprints and a mugshot from Canada, for the person they were alleging I am - but those fingerprints and mugshot didn't match me. Not surprisingly, the US Attorney's Office didn't mention the mugshot or fingerprints at my trial.

Further, after I was actually deported from the US, it was determined that I am not actually Richard Riess, after all birth certificate; driver's license. But, given all the time and effort the US government put into trying to prove I was, and into deporting me; and given the Canadian government's peculiar willingness to accept a person for deportation based solely on the US government's claim that they "had already determined [he] was a Canadian citizen", it is unlikely either government is going to make me return to the US, since that would mean having to admit and acknowledge all that "unusual" conduct on their parts.

Schwartz also grossly misleads the viewer into thinking that Desiree gained custody of our son as a result of me being in prison for the perjury conviction and subsequently being deported as a result of that conviction. That is entirely incorrect! Although I was ordered removed by the Immigration Court in 2009, I was released from ICE custody in August 2011 - I was not deported at that time. A few weeks before I was released, Desiree went to Los Angeles and abducted our son, by force. She brought him to Arizona and tried to get custody, but after three months the California court ordered her to immediately return our son to my care.

It wasn't until January 2013, after Desiree called ICE and filed a false report about me being a fugitive, and claiming I was an illegal alien who had been deported and came back to the US illegally, that ICE again arrested me, detained me for six weeks, then deported me to Canada - and that's when Desiree got custody of our son! Not because I was convicted of perjury or was in prison, but solely because she filed a false report against me with the express intention of getting me arrested and deported. And her sole reason for doing so was to get custody of our son because the family court had already made it clear they believed it was in our son's best interest to remain with me - not with Desiree.

As for the "no visitation" for me - there's no order prohibiting visitation between me and our son. Any refusal to allow visitation is 100% Desiree's doing.

Another interesting point about this clip, is that KVOA actually altered the photo of me. I has never had groomed facial hair as in that photo. Once, while I was in ICE custody, I grew a beard, but I grew it full - I never groomed it. Why would KVOA deliberately doctor the photo of me? Because the facial hair makes the person appear more menacing. But why would a news agency, who is supposed to be unbiased, and only report the truth, deliberately try to make a person appear more menacing than they actually are? Unless, of course, they were deliberately trying to convince the viewer to believe something they knew was not true.

There has been a lot of talk about how Desiree should sue me for defamation, for all the horrible stuff I say about her on the website. The only problem with that is that defamation requires that the statements in question actually be false. And, unfortunately, all of the statements on the website, about Desiree, are actually true.

However, here we have Desiree plainly making a false allegation against me! A statement which was published on the Internet and broadcast on televised news. In reality, I never wrote or sent the letter she clearly stated he did! Desiree has never been able to produce that letter and no one has come forth claiming they have received it. It simply never happened.

Desiree also claims, in this clip, that she was "laid off" from that job. She doesn't claim that the termination of her employment was in any way related to that supposed letter, nor does she claim the termination of her employment had anything to do with the website, or anything I have done. However, Schwartz wants the viewer to connect the termination of her employment with the letter she claims I sent to the Board of Directors of Apollo Group (her employer). The connection between the two is never actually stated, however the implication is clearly planted. Schwartz knows the typical viewer is going to make that inference.

Schwartz fails to present any of the reasons Desiree was actually "laid off". According to her co-workers at Apollo, and the human resources department, she was "let go" because of repeatedly being under the influence of drugs while at work, using drugs on company premises during work hours, being unreliable, frequently missing work, being unable to get along with co-workers, and general low work quality.

Schwartz attempts to present me as being violent and psychologically unstable. He falsely states I "emailed their son saying he would have no qualms shooting Desiree if that were legal". The statement is false because the email was addressed to Desiree, not our son. Also, in that email, I was referring to a conversation I had with our son, where our son asked me if he would shoot Desiree. So, our son was already familiar with the discussion and statement in question. In fact, our son was the one that brought it up.

Schwartz very deliberately ignores the context that surrounded that statement in the email, and presents the viewer with only a sentence fragment. In it's entirety, the relevant part of the email is as follows:

He [our son] 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...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...Also, I emphasize that [their son] brought up the question and I only responded to it truthfully.

email dated 2015-01-11

Schwartz claims the statement he presented in his story "speaks volumes about [my] mindset", yet he only shows you a small fraction of a single sentence. Schwartz does not want the viewer to see that I very, very clearly stated "I would never deliberately cause you physical harm...".

Again, why would an unbiased reporter, whose purported purpose is to inform the public of the facts, deliberately withhold such crucial information?

Schwartz also downplays the significance of the "impossible condition" upon which the statement is premised. That is, shooting someone is illegal (unless in self defense) - so really, what I was saying is that unless Desiree attacked me, I would not shoot her.

But, a story about a person telling their ex-wife he would only shoot them if it was in self-defense doesn't make for very sensational news - doesn't get very good ratings, to sell those precious advertising slots.

Honestly, this is just total gibberish. Attorney Peter Limperis (who is also Desiree's attorney now, by the way), claims:

...technology is ahead of the law because if the target of online attacks gets the site taken down the attacker can just go to another web hosting company or host themselves.

It's complete gibberish because the Internet is merely the medium used to disseminate the information, statements, content, or whatever. This is as opposed to print media, or broadcast media, or word of mouth, or any other medium. "Technology" has absolutely nothing to do with it. If a person (e.g. Desiree) were able to get a court order compelling a web hosting provider to take down a website, then of course, the other person (e.g. me) could just move it to another hosting provider. Likewise, if the medium I had chosen was to run a recurring full page ad in a local newspaper, and Desiree got a court order to stop running that ad, then I could just go to another local newspaper, or switch to a different medium. These claims that "technology is ahead of the law" and that "the law needs to catch up to the technology" are just, fucking, moronic!

The kind of order that would be required to stop something like this would be one compelling me to stop saying or publishing anything about Desiree - not one compelling the hosting provider to take down the site. But such an order would never happen and would be unconstitutional - it would violate the First Amendment, Free Speech Clause. Also, it would not be enforceable outside the US - and neither I nor the website are in the US. And even if a Canadian court ordered me to stop publishing anything about Desiree, it would only be enforceable within Canada - I could simply get in a boat, go a few minutes out, into international waters, and post from there. But that's all irrelevant, because no court in North American can force a person to stop telling the truth about another person!

This is just total, fucking nonsense! Which raises the question: Why would Desiree hire an attorney who would talk such stupidity on television? She likes to stick with her own, I suppose.

Why would Schwartz bother to include such complete drivel in the story? I realize most viewers don't know shit about the law, and they're going to believe what Limperis says, but really? Likely, the perceived value of these statements is that people will see that Limperis is a lawyer so he must know what he's talking about, right? And if a lawyer says it's so then it must be so. We must certainly need law reforms.

Ah, what some lawyers will say just to get on television.

More utter nonsense! A US court, under certain, specific circumstances may, sometimes have the authority to assert jurisdiction over a person in another state, if that person has significant connections to that state. But a US court absolutely can never "assert jurisdiction" over a foreign national, who is not present within the US, regarding that foreign national's conduct performed outside the US!

Since the US government has supposedly "already determine [I] am a Canadian citizen", that means I am a foreign national and not a subject of the US. Under the doctrine of res judicata, as long as those perjury and false claim of US citizenship convictions remain, no court in the US may enter a finding which would necessarily contradict the "factual basis" of those convictions - one of which would be that I am not a US citizen. Therefore, I absolutely cannot be forced to return to the US, and no US court can "assert jurisdiction" over me as long as I am not physically present within the US.

Moreover, if we look more closely at what Limperis actually said, we find it really amounts to nothing at all. Consider:

I think if you look at the facts in this case, particularly given he specifically states that he's trying to get in touch with her employers and her neighbors, I think there's a very good argument that a court here would be likely to assert jurisdiction over him.

He doesn't actually state that an Arizona court would assert jurisdiction - only that he thinks there would be a very good argument that a court would be likely to. That is, easily, one of the most non-committal statements I have ever encountered.

Also, Limperis speaks of the "facts in this case". But what he is referring to as "facts" are really only what Desiree has told him. He has not verified any of it. He has not heard my version of the story. He has not reviewed the various police reports. What he is basing his statement on is not facts, by any means.

Again, Schwartz knows that most viewers don't know the first thing about the law, so when a lawyer says the law is so, they blindly accept it as being correct.

But what value is really added by having an incompetent attorney, who will say anything to get on TV, falsely claim that there might be a possibility that maybe a court in Arizona might try to pretend to assert jurisdiction over somebody that it has no jurisdiction over, if the statements on the website were actually false? The typical viewer will interpret Limperis' statement as "In this particular case an Arizona court would take this case, if only Desiree were able to hire an attorney". But so what! I mean, that's a completely false perception that Schwartz is feeding the viewer.

Schwartz points out that Limperis specializes in libel and defamation. Desiree's been claiming the website is defamatory. She's been passionately insisting that everything about her on the site is all lies. So it would be an obvious inference, from my earlier statement that Limperis is also her attorney, that he's representing her in a defamation suit against me, right? But it is not so! In fact, Desiree and her fiancé, James Pendleton, only hired Limperis to handle their response to my appeals of their restraining orders. When they first approached Limperis, long after he did this interview, it was about filing a defamation suit against me. They had spoken with many other attorneys before that, but those attorneys all told them they don't have a case because it's not defamation if the statements are true. They figured, since Limperis stated on television, that they have a case, that they'd check with him. He also told them they don't have a case. They reminded him he stated on TV that they do. In typical lawyer fashion, Limperis evaded responding to that. Limperis also told them they don't have a case for the appeal of the restraining orders either, but he'd write their briefs for them - that might, at least, slow down the appeal and keep the orders in place a little longer.

Curious that a lawyer would go on TV saying they have a case, but then when they ask him to represent them in that case, he tells them they don't have a case. Lawyers are so full of shit - almost as much as reporters.

Desiree says "I don't understand why there's no laws that would dictate that this is just not right. People shouldn't have to live like this". By this point in the segment, after seeing all the other horrible stuff I have done to her, and all the other terrible things I have done, most viewers must surely empathize with Desiree's plight. What a monster that I am, right?

But you might have noticed, there was not one mention, anywhere in the segment, of any of the evil things Desiree has done. The only points Schwartz recited from the website were allegations - no references to any of the supporting documents, the recordings, the court testimony. No references to her own prior statements; her emails. Does Schwartz not realize that the entire website, and all of that supporting evidence, is publicly available for all of his viewers to go see for themselves? Does he care that the entire segment could so easily be proven false? Apparently not. Apparently, Schwartz and KVOA think so little of their viewers that they believe by the time the viewers would have gotten to the website, they would have completely forgotten the segment. Clearly, Schwartz and KVOA believe their viewers are brain dead sheep, incapable of forming their own opinions and will blindly accept whatever Schwartz and KVOA tell them to.

But, to address the points Desiree makes in this clip:

• The reason I am "allowed to keep doing this" is because nothing that I've done is illegal, and because both Canada and the US respect a person's right to speak their mind and to speak the truth, no matter how offensive another person might find it.
• The reason there are no laws that would dictate that this is just not right is because if you start imposing laws restricting people's freedom to speak their mind and to speak the truth about other people then the bad people, like Desiree, will be able to keep doing bad things to other people because those other people will be afraid to speak up - for fear of being punished for telling the truth about how those bad people harmed them. If a bad person does not want their despicable conduct being published on the Internet, being shouted out from the rooftops so that all the other people know to stay away from them, then perhaps they shouldn't keep doing despicable things to innocent people!
• If people, like Desiree, do not want to "have to live like this", then they shouldn't do the kinds of things that are documented on the website. If Desiree had not done all the horrendous things which are so extensively documented on the website then I would have nothing to publish, the website would be empty. If you take away all of the content which documents all of the terrible things Desiree has done, you're left with a few photographs - not much of a website.

But, again, Schwartz very conspicuously left out any mention of any of the deplorable things Desiree has done and tried to create the impression I created a whole website of lies for no reason than to get back at her because of the child custody disputes. But, the fact that you are on this page, right now, means you'll probably also have a look at some of the other posts, and some of the police reports, and maybe even the Background: How We Got Where We Are page, which provides the entire, chronological history of Desiree and me and sheds some light on why I hate her so much.

Schwartz wraps up the segment, by mentioning that Desiree has an order of protection against me, but that doesn't stop "[my] Internet attacks". He fails to mention that the order of protection has no significance outside the US. It is completely unenforceable because I am in Canada. So, why did Desiree get an order of protection in Arizona? Why didn't she get it in British Columbia, where I live? Because she's an idiot? Because the BC court would never have issued an order of protection given the circumstances in this case?

Schwartz also doesn't mention that even if I were in the US, the order of protection only prohibits me from contacting Desiree - it says nothing about publishing information or statements about her on the website. In fact, an order prohibiting me from speaking about Desiree, or publishing anything about her on the website would be, essentially, impossible to obtain because it would be in direct violation of the my right to free speech. It will never happen.

Schwartz also claims Desiree wants to file a law suit against me, but he says she can't afford an attorney. That is true - Desiree does want to file a law suit against me. The problem is, I haven't actually committed an offense for which she can seek redress. As I mentioned above, everything on this website is true. I have been very careful to make sure not to publish any false information, and I've been very careful in my wording. Sure, Desiree can file a suit - anybody can - but she wouldn't prevail. It's hard to prove defamation when the statements are accompanied with proof of their truth.

But again, Schwartz makes no mention of such critical facts.