Filed by Conrad · Case 26-102221-PP
Exhibit 07 Wooten Nonservice
Canonical record: rockenhaus.net. Disputed domains are indexed at /disputed-domains/ (not authoritative).
Loading document…
Filing text (searchable excerpt)
STATE OF MICHIGAN
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, WAYNE COUNTY
ADRIENNE MARJORIE ROCKENHAUS, Petitioner,
v.
CONRAD ALAN ROCKENHAUS, Respondent.
Case No. 26-102221-PP
Hon. PPO Docket Judge
Hearing: April 29, 2026 at 11:30 AM (Zoom)
EXHIBIT 7
Motion for Alternate Service with Process Server Narrative, March
26, 2026
Description:
Motion for Alternate Service (Form JC 46) executed by Respondent in pro per on March 26, 2026 in the
above-captioned matter, Wayne County 3rd Judicial Circuit. The motion incorporates a
contemporaneous narrative of the attempted personal service of Respondent's Motion to Terminate the
PPO on Petitioner at her residence, 26695 Ross Drive, Redford Township, Michigan, on March 26,
2026. Per the narrative in paragraph 3: a private process server hired by Respondent went to 26695
Ross Drive on March 26, 2026 while Petitioner was at home with her car in the driveway, at the same
house she presently leases and at which the underlying PPO had been served on Respondent less
than three weeks earlier. When the process server attempted to serve Petitioner, the resident
answered the door and claimed that the petitioner, Adrienne Rockenhaus, was unknown at that
location.
Relevance:
This document independently establishes that Petitioner has actively obstructed Respondent's lawful
service of pleadings on her, the same conduct that necessitated the Order Regarding Alternate Service
(Exhibit 6). The misrepresentation documented is striking on its face: a person at Petitioner's own
leased residence, with Petitioner's vehicle in the driveway, represented to a process server that
Petitioner was unknown at that location. Petitioner's own PPO petition identifies that same address as
her residence, the underlying PPO was served on Respondent at that same address less than three
weeks before this attempt, and Petitioner remains within the active lease term for the residence (Exhibit
5). The misrepresentation is both directly probative of evasion of service and consistent with the
broader pattern of Petitioner's misrepresentations regarding occupancy of 26695 Ross Drive, including
the demonstrably false statement Petitioner made to Redford Township Police on March 2, 2026 that
Respondent had never lived at the address (Exhibit 8). The pattern, in which Petitioner first obstructs
lawful personal service of Respondent's pleadings on her and then characterizes the court-authorized
alternate service ultimately effected through a designated agent (Ann Helgren) as misconduct, is itself
probative of bad-faith use of the Personal Protection Order as a litigation instrument.
Submitted by Conrad Alan Rockenhaus, Respondent (pro se)
In Support of Respondent's Motion to Terminate Personal Protection Order
About this filing
Exhibit 07 Wooten Nonservice: 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
Exhibit_07_Wooten_NonService.pdf- 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