Filed by Conrad · Case 26-102221-PP
05 Show Cause Response 2026-04-16
Canonical record: rockenhaus.net. Disputed domains are indexed at /disputed-domains/ (not authoritative).
Loading document…
Filing text (searchable excerpt)
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND RENEWED MOTION TO DENY FALSE
PPO VIOLATION CLAIMS
Source PDF: PPO_Show_Cause_Response_Signed.pdf
Pages: 24
Case: 26-102221-PP, Wayne County Third Circuit Court (PPO docket)
Author: Conrad Alan Rockenhaus, Respondent (pro se)
Text extracted from embedded OCR layer of source PDF.
PAGE 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WAYNE COUNTY
ADRIENNE MARJORIE ROCKENHAUS, Case No.: 26-102221-PP
Petitioner, Hon.: Yvonna C. Abraham
v.
CONRAD ALAN ROCKENHAUS,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
RENEWED MOTION TO DENY FALSE PPO VIOLATION CLAIMS,
FOR DISMISSAL OF SHOW CAUSE, AND FOR SANCTIONS
NOW COMES Respondent, Conrad Alan Rockenhaus, appearing pro se, and respectfully submits
this Response to the Order to Show Cause entered March 9, 2026, and renews his Motion to Deny
False PPO Violation Claims. Respondent moves this Court to dismiss the show cause proceeding
in its entirety for the following reasons: (1) the Personal Protection Order was never properly
served on Respondent as required by MCR 3.706 and MCL 600.2950(18); (2) Respondent's
presence at 26695 Ross Drive on March 2, 2026 did not constitute a knowing violation of the PPO
because he had no proper notice of its existence or terms; (3) the alleged proxy harassment
violations of March 29-30, 2026 were perpetrated by anonymous third-party internet actors, not
Respondent, as Petitioner's own public social media posts establish; and (4) Petitioner has engaged
in a pattern of bad faith conduct designed to manufacture grounds for Respondent's arrest. In
support thereof, Respondent states:
I. THRESHOLD ISSUE: THE PPO WAS NEVER PROPERLY SERVED ON
RESPONDENT
PAGE 2
1. A contempt finding for violation of a PPO requires as a threshold matter that the PPO was
properly served on the respondent. MCR 3.706(D) and MCL 600.2950(18) require that a
personal protection order be served on the respondent either: (a) personally by a third party
handing the respondent a physical copy; (b) by a process server or court officer; or (c) by
restricted delivery certified mail with the respondent's signature on the return receipt. None
of these methods were used.
2. On March 2, 2026, the day of Respondent's release from federal custody, Respondent
arrived at 26695 Ross Drive, Redford Township, Michigan, a property on which he was a
named tenant under a valid lease. Respondent had no prior knowledge that a PPO had been
filed. Neither Petitioner nor any process server personally handed Respondent a physical
copy of the PPO at any point.
3. The Redford Township Police Department responded to the scene on March 2, 2026.
According to Redford Township Police Department Report CR No. 260003379, the
responding officer read the conditions of the PPO to Respondent from Petitioner's cell
phone screen. Respondent was then given photographs of the PPO taken with a neighbor's
cell phone so he could, in the officer's words, 'appeal the PPO.' No physical copy of the PPO
was served on Respondent. The officer completed a proof of service at the station despite
the fact that Respondent never received an actual physical copy of the order. The Redford
Township Police Department report further confirms that Respondent was not in violation
of the PPO by being present at 26695 Ross Drive, a property on which he was a named
tenant under a valid lease. The Redford Township Police Department Report CR No.
260003379 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Reading an order aloud from a cell phone screen
and providing cell phone photographs of the order are not recognized methods of PPO
service under MCR 3.706 or MCL 600.2950(18). The officer's own completion of a proof
of service at the station under these circumstances does not cure the defective service.
4. Prior to March 2,
Excerpt of 22150 characters. Download the full PDF for complete text.
About this filing
05 Show Cause Response 2026-04-16: filing by Conrad Alan Rockenhaus in Rockenhaus v. Rockenhaus (Personal Protection Order (PPO)), Michigan Case No. 26-102221-PP, Wayne County Circuit Court. PDF and searchable text at rockenhaus.net (canonical court record). Disputed third-party domains: /disputed-domains/.
- File name
05_Show_Cause_Response_2026-04-16.pdf- Filed date
- Case number
- 26-102221-PP
- Category
- Filed by Conrad
- Disputed domains
- View disputed domains (asserted controlled by Adrienne Rockenhaus; not authoritative).
- Related context
- FAQ, Joe Prich evidence, Rob Hein
- Canonical record
- rockenhaus.net