• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Judge sides with parents trying to evict their unemployed millenial 30-year-old son from their family home after he refused to pay rent or do chores

In 2015, he was fired from his job at Best Buy, which he’s currently suing for discrimination.

Not sicking up for the guy ... but if he had a court order that said he ad visitation with his son a Saturdays ... then he should have won that.

But if he was asking for them to accommodate him for visits that might happen if he wins in court ... NOPE.
 
lithiumgirl said:
In 2015, he was fired from his job at Best Buy, which he’s currently suing for discrimination.

Not sicking up for the guy ... but if he had a court order that said he ad visitation with his son a Saturdays ... then he should have won that.

But if he was asking for them to accommodate him for visits that might happen if he wins in court ... NOPE.
Click to expand...
He was probably fired for being a lousy worker.
He uses the custody of his child as an excuse for everything. Yet he refused to pay child support. He has no credibility.
 
lithiumgirl said:
.... he had a court order that said he ad visitation with his son a Saturdays ... then he should have won that.
Click to expand...
The loser's problems is the loser's, not Best Buy's. If he couldn't work on the weekend's, like he was hired to do, then the loser shouldn't have taken the position.
 
Craygor said:
The loser's problems is the loser's, not Best Buy's. If he couldn't work on the weekend's, like he was hired to do, then the loser shouldn't have taken the position.
Click to expand...

I think he considered it a gender bias ... he was looking for Saturdays off to fulfil his family obligations and they said no ... His issue was that a female co worker was given Saturdays for the same or a similar reason.

I'm not sicking up for the guy ... but I can see his point. If I had a court order for Saturday's with my kid ... I'd kind of insist that my employer accommodate it. But who's to say he ad a court order ... he might have been talking ...Future court order.
 
You guys don't get it. He can't work because he will make money and have to pay for court himself. The only way he can get his son back is to stay poor enough to get financial support for the custody case. :sarcasm::fish::YOW:

Of course where his "reasoning" goes wrong is that no judge is going to give custody to a dead beat who has no job and hasn't paid child support EVER. Sorry loser. You should've worn a condom.
 
Plus, you just know this guy is too narcisistic to really love his son. It's all excuses not to grow up.

Pisses me the fuck off :rage:
 
And he was battling with his own parents to keep them from seeing his son. So yeah, he's just an asshole who wants things his way no matter what or who he has to trample all over to get it, while not lifting one finger to help himself. Everybody has to give it to him because he wants it.
 
notchback said:
1527874047954.jpg




If that car has all of his belongings in it, why did he say he needed boxes?
Click to expand...

This is going to sound rather petty, however, I can't help but notice things like this.

I grew up in upstate New York. About 45 minutes east of Syracuse actually. I can say that the cops there love to pull people over. And I hope this asshat got pulled over right after leaving. That car he's driving is clearly registered in NY. You can tell by the registration sticker and inspection sticker on the windshield. That being said, you have to have both front and back licence plates on a vehicle in NY. The front license plate is clearly not visible.

I know, I know. Stupid thing to notice. It was literally the first thing I saw.
 
lithiumgirl said:
I think he considered it a gender bias ... he was looking for Saturdays off to fulfil his family obligations and they said no ... His issue was that a female co worker was given Saturdays for the same or a similar reason.

I'm not sicking up for the guy ... but I can see his point. If I had a court order for Saturday's with my kid ... I'd kind of insist that my employer accommodate it. But who's to say he ad a court order ... he might have been talking ...Future court order.
Click to expand...
cubby said:
And he was battling with his own parents to keep them from seeing his son. So yeah, he's just an asshole who wants things his way no matter what or who he has to trample all over to get it, while not lifting one finger to help himself. Everybody has to give it to him because he wants it.
Click to expand...
@lithiumgirl
Yes, future court order, or imaginary court order. Maybe Best Buy asked him to prove it. I can imagine the weeks of whining back and forth before he was fired. The female co-worker could probably prove her case while he could not. Anyway, that's why he claims he was fired. I'm sure Best Buy has a different story to tell.

The guy is mentally ill. He rarely has any logical or valid points. Rather, they are completely logical and valid to him, but while the rest of the world is just shaking their heads in frustration and disbelief or laughter, he claims everyone is against his completely logical and valid points. We are the crazy ones. He is the isle of sanity surrounded by unfairness and cruelty. And I bet all those toys he bought for his son have never really been played with. Instead of child support he blew money on junk. He plays at getting custody of his son and controlling the mother, but he has done very little real fatherly duties.
My opinion is based on personal experience with a schizophrenic loser who I had to evict from the property.
 
Last edited:
I know this is old news, but the crazy guy is still madly racing his motor in neutral.
:woot:
https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2018..._takes_custody_fight_to_us_supreme_court.html
September 2018
Syracuse, NY -- Somewhere, some clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. is dealing with Michael Rotondo.
Rotondo, 31, who made international fame for being evicted from his parents' house in Camillus, has filed three separate petitions to the country's highest court in the past year, according to Supreme Court records.

They all surround Rotondo's insistence that he can't afford to pay child support to his 8-year-old son.

His last petition will be circulated to the country's nine most powerful judges later this month, according to the court calendar.

And it will undoubtedly be dismissed, like the ones before it.

In fact, of the 10,000 or so petitions each year filed across the country in U.S. Supreme Court, less than 100 actually get heard by the judges.

[...]
Click to expand...
 
There should be a limit on how many petitions can be filed on the same issue. Why would he need to file ore than one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top