Filed by Conrad · Case 26-102221-PP
09 Supplement To Motion To Terminate Twitter Evidence 2026-04-26
Canonical record: rockenhaus.net. Disputed domains are indexed at /disputed-domains/ (not authoritative).
Loading document…
Filing text (searchable excerpt)
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
ADRIENNE MARJORIE ROCKENHAUS,
Petitioner,
v.
CONRAD ALAN ROCKENHAUS,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-102221-PP
Hon. Yvonna C. Abraham
Hearing: April 29, 2026 at 11:30 AM (Zoom)
SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO TERMINATE PERSONAL
PROTECTION ORDER
(Adding Documentary Evidence to Section VIII of the Omnibus Motion in Limine; Filed in Support of Hearing
on April 29, 2026)
I. INTRODUCTION
Respondent CONRAD ALAN ROCKENHAUS, appearing pro se, respectfully submits this Supplement to his
Motion to Terminate Personal Protection Order, filed March 12, 2026, for the limited purpose of placing
before the Court documentary evidence, recently captured and preserved, that materially strengthens
Section VIII of the Omnibus Motion in Limine (fear testimony contradicted by Petitioner's
contemporaneous public conduct).
This Supplement does not raise new arguments. It supplies an exhibit (Exhibit F-9) and the attendant
evidentiary recitation in support of an argument already pleaded.
II. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENT
The PPO Petition recites that Petitioner has been in fear of Respondent throughout the period preceding her
February 20, 2026 filing. Section VIII of Respondent's Omnibus Motion in Limine previously identified
the February 14, 2026 "Happy Valentine's Day, Conrad" public post and the "Justice for Conrad" advocacy
thread as documentary evidence directly contradicting that recitation.
This Supplement provides documentary depth to that argument. Specifically:
1. Twenty thousand public posts captured from Petitioner's verified X (formerly Twitter) account
@adezero show that Petitioner posted to a public audience at an average rate of 45 posts per day
across the 169 days of the alleged-fear period, a posting volume incompatible with experiential
withdrawal driven by fear of Respondent.
2. A November 25, 2024 post from Petitioner's verified account, approximately three months before the
PPO petition, publicly identifies Respondent as "the best thing that could ever happen to me" and "a
woman respecter."
3. Across the entire 20,000-post corpus, Petitioner did not once publicly mention the PPO petition or
publicly characterize Respondent as the perpetrator of any sexual assault. The petition's sworn sexual-
assault allegation has no contemporaneous public-record antecedent.
4. A February 14, 2026 sequence of posts, six days before the PPO filing, contains Petitioner's
contemporaneous admission that she "refused to pick him up" at federal release and was deliberately
leaving Respondent in conditions where "if he seizes on the street or dies, their immunity is destroyed."
5. A Solana blockchain transaction record establishes that approximately $128,000 in cumulative USD
value moved through a memecoin publicly created under Respondent's name during the alleged-fear
period, with approximately $63,000 flowing to a deployer wallet publicly designated as routing fees to
Petitioner.
The corpus and blockchain record are documented at Exhibit F-9, transmitted herewith.
III. THE OPERATIVE LEGAL STANDARD
Under MCL 600.2950(4)(b) and (c) and the predicate findings required for issuance and continuation of a
PPO under Michigan's Domestic Relationship PPO statute, the Court must find that the petitioner is
reasonably likely to suffer the type of harm the statute is designed to prevent absent the order, and that the
conduct alleged constitutes stalking, harassment, or otherwise prohibited contact within the statutory
definitions.
The Petitioner's burden, on a motion to continue an ex parte PPO over respondent objection, is to make this
showing by a preponderance of the evidence. Pickering v. Pickering, 253 Mich App 694 (2002).
Where the petitioner's contemporaneous, public, voluntary conduct is materially inconsistent with the fear
na
Excerpt of 16459 characters. Download the full PDF for complete text.
About this filing
09 Supplement To Motion To Terminate Twitter Evidence 2026-04-26: 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
09_Supplement_to_Motion_to_Terminate_Twitter_Evidence_2026-04-26.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