Check

RequestforReconsideration1 x

Running head: RECONSIDERATION LETTER 1

RECONSIDERATION LETTER 5

Reconsideration Letter

Student’s Name

Institution

Reconsideration letter

Student’s name

Address

Date

The hearing officer name

Address

Re: a reconsideration of the erred ruling

Dear Madam:

Pursuant to model state administrative procedure act (MSAPA) section 416(a) and to your honor’s instruction on July 24, 2019, I submit this letter, in stead of a formal motion, requesting reargument and the Court’s reconsideration of a motion that I filed on this Court. My motion is a subject of memorandum Opinion (D.I. 507) filed on August 23, 2020, explaining the prior entry of the Court that quashed my deposition that I noticed in this case. I find the reargument necessary as it addresses the fact that contradict the conclusion of the Court that I evicted the Plaintiff from the marital residence at 145 Jeep Street, Florida, PA 24300, and in support of the erred Petition, I, therefore, aver the following:

The ruling and the reason that the Court gave was that it is true that I had evicted the Plaintiff from the marital residence, and I had tried to cause harm and injure the Plaintiff while making efforts to harass the Plaintiff’s family.

1. The evidence to support the finding of abuse was insufficient in that:

a) The Plaintiff did not testify to the Court to any actual case of threats of physical injury or bodily harm;

b) The Plaintiff did not testify to any physical touching or physical abuse whatsoever;

c) The Plaintiff failed to testify that he feared that the Defendant would do any harm to him, only that he was afraid that the Defendant would harass his family or he would fall down the nearby river;

d) The Plaintiff never testified of any case of actual violence or threatened or physical abuse, only that the Defendant said essential things to him, and he would go to the shopping center to do some shopping for the family.

2. The Court, as a law matter, erred and abused its discretion, as it failed to credit any of the testimony of the Defendant and credited all of the testimony from the Plaintiff. The light fact remains that the testimony from the Plaintiff was utterly and sketchy, having no detail.

3. The Court credited all the testimony of the Plaintiff, therefore abusing its discretion and still entered an abuse finding as the Plaintiff testified that the Defendant had not made threats on abuse or physical harm; that he only “watched him pass through the shopping center” in the past at some unidentifiable time.

4. As a matter of law, the Court erred since, even if all the testimony of the Plaintiff was to be taken as real and thus be possibly seen in the light, there still no case and evidence of threatened abuse or abuse case.

5. The Court erred as it failed to give the Defendant some consent to perform a cross-exam to the Plaintiff considering his state of mind and his incited for the Petition filing when the Court did not permit the Defendant to request the Plaintiff if he really “ pushed Daniel towards the river breaking his cap.

6. As a matter of law, the Court made a mistake even if all the testimony from the Plaintiff was to be considered as real and viewed in the possible position. There still lacks evidence of any attempt to harm and cause bodily injuries to the Plaintiff, proof of the Defendant trying to place the Plaintiff in a reasonable imminent body injury fear, and evidence of false imprisonment infliction. Also, the evidence of understanding the engagement in a conduct course or commission of acts being repeated under some scenarios and circumstances that would otherwise place the Plaintiff in moderate bodily injuries fear.

7. The Court, in its ruling of the Petition, erred and abused its discretion for failing to identify a minimum of two dates acceptable in nature, for the Defendant to obtain his belonging from his residence, Jeep Street. Moreover, the Plaintiff had decided to refuse to excuse the Defendant to regain back his belongings.

8. As a matter of law, the Court made a mistake by granting the Defendant a visitation of the Plaintiff family that was highly supervised by the Court within the Plaintiff’s sole discretion. Also, there lacked evidence of alleged harassment of the family of the Defendant, no evidence and testimony to the supervision need, no supervision request, and in the real sense, the family is not listed as the protected people on that Order.

9. As a law matter, the Court made a mistake by failing to hold a hearing that is eventual relative to the family’s best interest before and Order was entered and later granting physical custody of the family to the Plaintiff.

10. Wherefore, Defendant, STUDENT NAME, respectfully send a request to the Honorable Court to reconsider its ruling and Order of July 24, 2019 and enter this Order in its necessary place.

Submitted Respectfully,

SIGNATURE

Student’s name
Address