So the petition of my parents’, for visitation with my son was withdrawn, and I would say that it’s clearly from the representations that I made during the proceeding; here’s what happened:
I had received a copy of the proposed witness list from my son’s mother’s attorney, and from this I decided that it was time for me to start drafting my pre-trial documents as well. So I put together a witness and exhibit list, along with a request for judicial notice of my eviction case. Judicial notice, is when you ask a court to take notice of something that’s already on a legal record; like an exhibit. I wanted the court to take notice of a proceeding in which the petitioners were the same party as in this matter, and this is how it was relevant.
Filed Witness & Exhibit List and Request for Judaical Notice
In my eviction case, which was between myself and my parents, I sought the findings that I had the right to a six-month notice to quit before I could be removed from my home while simultaneously, myself living with my parents wasn’t burdensome to them.
The reason for myself asking for judicial notice of my eviction case, before the trial had even begun, was so that I could have consideration from the court for the eviction case before the trial began, without having to stand there in the beginning of the trial explaining the eviction case to the court in finite detail. Asking for judicial notice was a way of asking the court to bring my eviction case into this visitation case for consideration, in a very neat and concise way (we never got to a point where the court responded to the request).
It was very important to me that the eviction case was recognized from the beginning, because if it wasn’t, or wasn’t considered significant, it meant in my mind that the court was going to put my son in contact with my parents, and I wasn’t going to stand there and watch the court put my son around these people whom I thought (and still do think), are individuals who would be harmful for him to have in his life. If it started to look as though the court was going to do this, I was going to rest my defense and leave (or send notice to the court that I wasn’t intending to show). These were my consideration before trial.
Luckily, about three hours after my parents’ attorney had received my request for judicial notice, they had send a letter to the court asking to withdraw their petition. They also sent it via email.
The reason they gave for this, is that they didn’t like the witnesses that my son’s mother’s attorney had put on her witness list, and this didn’t really make sense to me, because the way that witnesses work, is you mitigate them and their testimony. You don’t give up because of the testimony that a prospective witness might give, or that they might be called as a witness; you make your case in spite of it, with consideration that what you’re seeking in the proceedings will overshadow their testimony, because of the fact that what you’re seeking is appropriate.
It’s my overwhelming belief that they asked to withdraw their petition to avoid the risk of it being dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice would mean that they can’t file another petition seeking the same thing without prior permission form the court (or something similar). A dismissal with prejudice was considered a possible outcome because, who would want a child to be around people, who feel the need to throw their own children out on the street, without giving them a reasonable time for them to prepare?
After I received my copy of this request from the petitioner’s to withdraw their petition, without prejudice, I immediately attempted to procure what I was seeking from the proceeding, which was a dismissal with prejudice. I didn’t want to receive another petition from my parents about seeking visitation with my son, and then have to revisit this matter again at another time whenever they decided to file again.
The following day, I filed and served a proposed Order to Show Cause, which if ordered by the court, Mr and Mrs Rotondo would have to show why the matter should not be dismissed with prejudice, or it would be so dismissed.
Paragraph #1 (the only paragraph) on page 2 explains my reasoning for how it was that I believed that a dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. Subsequently, my order to show cause was denied, based on the petitioner’s right to make their case. There’s really no way that I can disagree with this, because people have the right to a proceeding, even if it puts a nasty taste in the mouth of a (any) Respondent(s). There’s a procedure for a petition to be recognized as completely unfounded, and that procedure cannot be disregarded (word from the wise).
Previous to the courts ruling denying my Order to Show Cause, the court ordered the petition dismissed, due to withdraw of petition.
I’m thoroughly relieved that the case has been closed. It’s a significant weight off my shoulders.
Oh one more thing, it’s supposed to say “deem” not “seem” at the near end of my order to show cause. So much for myself being offered that partnership in the firm…
Look, I haven’t read through all your documents (you really need to provide concise, plain language summaries if you want people to follow your case) but nevertheless my advice to you is this: don’t go to court seeking justice or vindication.
If you step back and remove all the emotions surrounding this case (which are undoubtedly real and intense) there is no way you can possibly justify the amount of effort you have put into this. If this really is about getting your son back then the quickest way to do that would be to get a job (any job) and start making the payments the court ordered you to make. That’s how you can play a role in your son’s life right now. A judge ruling in your favour at some later date won’t give you back the time you’ve already lost with him and if you keep pursuing this you’ll only lose more time that could be better spent watching your son grow and teaching him about the world.
I understand that you think the judge’s ruling is unfair and maybe it is. But life isn’t fair and neither are the courts. You need to figure out the most expedient way to get what you want. And the most expedient way to get your son back is to get a job, not petition the Supreme Court yet again or launch some new proceedings against your ex-partner or your parents. If you keep doing that then you aren’t looking to get your son back ASAP; you’re looking for the court to rule that “Michael Rotondo was right”.
Be a man and knuckle under. The courts don’t care if you never see your son again but you definitely should.
I think it’s worthwhile for myself to do what I can to resolve my tyrannical government, so that my son doesn’t have to go through anything like this from this or any point in the future forward, because I love him. If the only thing that I do for my son from now until my death is set fourth that, disregarding the law, isn’t acceptable, then there isn’t anything better that I can be doing for him than that. The sidelines are on other websites Charlie, you can join the winning team or go find them. Thanks for your comment.
The other poster was less than polite, well, I will be polite, because I know what you are going through. The courts are not fair. It’s a class issue, they went to law school. Law school costs 20 grand a semester for tuition, and if you flunk out, they keep your money. The law professors grade on a curve and MUST flunk two or three people from each class. Meaning: Most law school graduates are people who are wealthy. They look down on the rest of society and most new lawyers graduate wanting to change the world, just to realize that expensive houses and cars are really what everybody is after. After seeing so many defendants with nothing they don’t care and start getting terse. You won’t win Mr. Rotondo, even though you are right. Your parents shouldn’t have kicked you out. There are a lack of jobs in this area and and even sorer lack of living wage jobs. Why should these rich court people tell you what to do? Its crap. Why should they ask YOU for money, to sell YOUR things, when they are already taxing to death the people who work and then pay it out in social services? I’m serious on this matter. If we all team up, unanimously plead NOT GUILTY to everything, and do what you do, which is documenting every motion and petition, the courts will be overwhelmed and will cease to function. They operate on fear, and ignorance is their fuel. When courts sense they are losing, they do what the judge in my case is doing. Adjourn. Adjourn. They all get paid when they step in the courtroom, but they don’t get paid for paperwork (except the lawyers.)
Hunter, if there were no attorneys, it anyone, that cared if the courts followed the law of not, then the government wouldn’t have any power and, things would really bad on America… It’s necessary that I win, otherwise the courts produce no order.
Government is merely a way for a small group of people to control a much larger group of people using force and violence. Prisons, sheriffs, judges, and courts are all spear carriers, vehicles on which to directly assert this violence on the masses and carry out the orders of the ruling regime. Since this state doesn’t allow guns, they need twice as many cops, courts, and prisons to do what they won’t have us do: Police ourselves. Its a house of cards that will eventually collapse. You are saying what the government is doing is unlawful. Yet you seem to be pro-government. Which is it? The government said that you may not have your childhood possesions that you must sell them…they say you may not have food, they say you may not have a place to live, they put you on TV and I saw you personally, that interviewer (NOT Alex Jones, a CNN person,) was basically ridiculing you. How, after all this, can you be pro-government?
I’m not pro-government. The government is supposed to serve a purpose that benefits society, and not to be the source of that society’s problems. So to answer your question, I don’t believe that a government which is “of the people, by the people, for the people”, can really be considered a “government” in the sense that you’re using the word; so my position on government is, that government needs to be “of the people, by the people, for the people”, which is how it’s written to be in American law…
Then, the government is a benefit to society; or at least this is my belief at this time.
Any government that doesn’t follow the laws isn’t a government, it’s an oligarchy. I don’t think that anyone is going to willingly support an oligarchy; all things being equal.