New Hampshire Injustice

The campaign to rectify a systemic Constitutional injustice in New Hampshire

As evidenced by recent political events , renegade states and legislatures are attempting to use the auspices of the Federal government to further their corrupt objectives, proving that states can be systemically corrupt, or have corrupt and unethical humans in positions of power who are disposed to abusing their influence and authority.

The purpose of this website, is to expose corrupt individual who made it her personal crusade to slander, disparage and destroy my wife, Gail Rosier, and those who enabled or sanctioned such deceptive, unethical, and deceptive misconduct-- without concern for being discovered exposed.

In the current political climate there the daily challenges and attacks on our Constitution to the rule of law, and the question needs to be posed... "do gross violations of Constitutional rights matter, or only if they conveniently are exposed as issues in the media. My wife of ten years, Gail, had her Constitutional rights discarded by New Hampshire courts in 2009 by fraud perpetrated by her ex-husband Jeffrey Strobel, and when Strobel through his dogged determination to extract vengence and retribution on his ex-wife Gail

The NH DCSS and court system has exhibited apathy and indifference to Gail's numerous appeals and pleas for a fraud investigation-- as there is irregular and apparent fraud. There was sufficient discernible irregularities, to warrant a referral the the NH Attorney General for investigation of fraud perpetrated Jeffrey Strobel under

RSA 641:1 Perjury
RSA 641:2 False Swearing:
RSA 641:3 Unsworn Falsification:
RSA 641:6 Falsifying Physical Evidence:
RSA 641:7 Tampering With Public Records or Information:

This website will document each and every instance of such forgoing violations by Jeffrey Strobel, with the assistance and the complicity of Catherine Shanelaris, a highly regarded and respected family law attorney, former Section chief attorney of the NH DCSS Enforcement division, and a self-promoting, self -aggrandizing practitioner, who is able to monopolize and manipulate judges with her own bellicose gambits and brazen disregard for professional ethics and procedure, and for Gail's Constitutional rights."

This will expose her real nature by her unethical actions, and her accomplished manipulation of the system .

The agenda of the State of New Hampshire was unconcerned with protecting Rosier's Constitutional rights, and the real agenda was the state's IV-D funding by the Federal Government, and somewhere between November and December 2009 they proffered the services of Catherine Shanelaris to Jeffrey Strobel to assist him in the collection of spurious and falsified "back child support" where none actually existed.

She entered into the conspiracy with Strobel, at a chronological time where the child had already reached the age of majority several months earlier, so this professional challenge to Shanelaris to create a retroactive fraudulent scheme, is revealed by activities and court transcripts.

Can Arizona Decline Enforcement of the defective and ultra vires NH Order?

Arizona may decline registration or enforcement when the contesting party proves one of the statutory defenses in UIFSA § 607(a). Two of those directly fit the facts:

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction – § 607(a)(1) allows refusal if “the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party.” Case law applies this to subject matter jurisdiction as well; if New Hampshire entered a first-ever child support order after the child reached majority (Oct. 10, 2009), it lacked statutory authority to issue it. A void order is not entitled to enforcement under UIFSA or FFCCSOA (28 U.S.C. § 1738B(c), which limits full faith and credit to orders “made consistently with this section”).
Fraud in Procurement – § 607(a)(2) permits refusal if “the order was obtained by fraud.” Evidence that the father and counsel misrepresented facts, altered prior no-support terms, and misled the court into signing an order outside its jurisdiction satisfies this defense. Fraud upon the court is recognized as defeating UIFSA enforcement. See Section "Strobel's Fraud and Deceit"

Why Arizona can decline enforcement:

UIFSA § 3152(3) (mirroring § 606(c) in other codifications) says a tribunal “shall recognize and enforce, but may not modify, a registered support order if the issuing tribunal had jurisdiction.” Lack of jurisdiction voids this duty.
FFCCSOA only protects valid orders with jurisdiction; a post-majority first-time support order fails that requirement.
If proven, these defenses compel Arizona to deny confirmation of registration.

Next step: Arizona’s AG or the IV-D agency could also refer the matter to U.S. HHS–OCSE under 42 U.S.C. § 654(20) to investigate irregularities, since federal funding conditions require UIFSA-compliant procedures and prohibit enforcing void orders.

If you want, I can draft the jurisdictional and fraud-based objection in UIFSA form for Arizona’s tribunal, framed so it also supports a parallel OCSE referral.

Can Arizona Decline Enforcement of the defective and ultra vires NH Order?

The Hopkington Massachusetts real estate rental property partnership with her husband Peter, in which she only owned a, and did not control the investment. The investment was informal, and with her husband's real estate deal-- providing the funds from the profit she made from the sale of her yoga studio. She trusted her husband explicitly to manage the investment for her, but neither of them had anticipated his dying, and leaving a tangled web of defective trusts. ted his dying, and leaving a tangled web of defective trusts. Ts real estate deal-- providing the funds from the profit she made from the sale of her yoga studio. She trusted her husband explicitly to manage the investment for her, but neither of them had anticipated his dying, and leaving a tangled web of defective trusts. Hopkington Massachusetts real estate rental property partnership with her husband Peter, in which she only owned a fraction , and did not control the investment. The investment was informal, and with her husband's real estate deal-- providing the funds from the profit she made from the sale of her yoga studio. She trusted her husband explicitly to manage the investment for her, but neither of them had anticipated his dying, and leaving a tangled web of defective trusts.

No matter how badly Strobel wanted to convert the investment Gail had made for Connor's college education from the voluntary and discretionary investment. The asset the mother identified as an investment in her financial statement, was an investment made into aof th Hopkington Massachusetts real estate rental property partnership with her husband Peter, in which she only owned a fraction , and did not control the investment. The investment was informal, and with her husband's real estate deal-- providing the funds from the profit she made from the sale of her yoga studio. She trusted her husband explicitly to manage the investment for her, but neither of them had anticipated his dying, and leaving a tangled web of defective trusts.

The Cornerstone Findings

Arizona may decline registration or enforcement when the contesting party proves one of the statutory defenses in UIFSA § 607(a). Two of those directly fit your facts:

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction – § 607(a)(1) allows refusal if “the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party.” Case law applies this to subject matter jurisdiction as well; if New Hampshire entered a first-ever child support order after the child reached majority (Oct. 10, 2009), it lacked statutory authority to issue it. A void order is not entitled to enforcement under UIFSA or FFCCSOA (28 U.S.C. § 1738B(c), which limits full faith and credit to orders “made consistently with this section”).
Fraud in Procurement – § 607(a)(2) permits refusal if “the order was obtained by fraud.” Evidence that the father and counsel misrepresented facts, altered prior no-support terms, and misled the court into signing an order outside its jurisdiction satisfies this defense. Fraud upon the court is recognized as defeating UIFSA enforcement.

Why Arizona can decline enforcement:

UIFSA § 3152(3) (mirroring § 606(c) in other codifications) says a tribunal “shall recognize and enforce, but may not modify, a registered support order if the issuing tribunal had jurisdiction.” Lack of jurisdiction voids this duty.
FFCCSOA only protects valid orders with jurisdiction; a post-majority first-time support order fails that requirement.
If proven, these defenses compel Arizona to deny confirmation of registration.

If you want, I can draft the jurisdictional and fraud-based objection in UIFSA form for Arizona’s tribunal, framed so it also supports a parallel OCSE referral.

Download PDF