New Hampshire Private Investigation

Recognition: the deck was stacked against Gail

In 2016, realizing that the deck was stacked by the machinations of Catherine Shanelaris to destroy Gail, and manipulate the system in which she was embedded, and part of.

Shanelaris enjoyed virtual carte blanche within the system, and any chance of Gail prevailing was nil would have been like stepping into a ring with Mike Tyson. She had trhe system rigged, and was able to persuade, manipulate or coerce a sitting judge to disregard Gail's Constitutional rights, to disregard

The exhaustion of legal resources and defense funds

Competent legal representation?

Gail (and her husband Reed) were Arizona residents. Gail was being set-up by a fraudulent conspiracy between Strobel, and Catherine Shanelaris.

Lawyers are prudent and circumspect with making an accusation of fraud, and moreso because have very little experience in criminal law, and their professional exposure. Whether their specialty is family law, or some other discipline, they're unlikely to to allege the perversion and manipulation of the law or breech or professional ethics, by another member of the bar.

When do court filings and sworn statements actually cross the line and get investigated as a criminal matter?

Here's a guiding question: if issued orders orders or a court are determined to both facially and chronogically barred by the child's reaching of the age of majority,

to lack subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, which are are therefore void ab initio, require the same legal recourse to nullify them, or are they to be treated as a legitimate order unless reversed by a court order?
If those same orders knowingly acquired by the party with the knowledge of limitations or defects acquired are attempt to rely on an earlier order

Does knowingly accepting and trying to spend a facially recognizable counterfeit $100 bill require the U.S. Secret Service to make a declaration that the banknote is counterfeit to have it be so?

Does a facially void, fraudulent and duplicitously acquired by as a fraudulent court order, requiring a deception or a deception scheme perpetrated on the court, which involves the violations of:

misstating the language an court order to tailor it's nefarious purpose to characterize and conflate it as a valid child support order, where the court possessed no statutory jurisdiction to do so, by the statutory prohibition and RSA 461-A:14, V :

Furthermore, through conflicting and documents, and revealing testimony it can be established that :

Strobel intentionally mischaracterized the nature of his 1997 written proposal to Rosier of of the guarantee of immunity for any future child support, in return for Gail's disavowing and renunciation of her anticipated custody litigation. Strobel's suggestion was then made to her that alternatively, with the money saved on lawyers, that money could be invested for their son's college education expenses, and he added language "at your discretion", and then
Strobel failed to to enter a petition for child support... ever.
Gail, a resident

require require a the enforcement agency to refer the matter investigate the circumstances and alleged violation(s); or is it a victim's responsibility to expose and investigate the malfeasance inflicted on them?

Whiile

Strobel's Motion of Contempt & Show Cause - July 5, 2009

The inception of Strobel's Deceptive scheme and perjured

In the below 3-17-09 order to ot i liquidate the investment and report the proceeds amount, neither qualify that as child support arrearages, n to "immediately take all necessary steps to liquidate the real estate asset which is being held for the benefit of Connor's college educational expenses and to ensure that the funds will be available for this purpose. Further, Ms. Rosier was ordered "to provide a complete accounting of the liquidated funds to Mr. Strobel and place the funds an account accessible by Mr. Strobel to use for college expenses".

This is an accurate recounting and restatement of the court's NOD

The court, perhaps unaware of the recent decision only a month and a half earlier by the NH Sup Ct in RE: Goulart enforcing RSA 461-A:14, V --that deprived of subject matter jurisdiction therefore invalidating this order .

In the Strobel's July 5, 2009 filing entitled

"PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING",

this is the keystone of fraud perpetrated upon the court.

This following statement is false, deceptive, and made under sworn oath by Strobel whereby he intentionally changes the exact verbiage of the court:

"The Court made this order as it determined that the amount owed to Mr. Strobel was for past due child support arrearages;"

rhIn the below 3-17-09 order to ot i liquidate the investment and report the proceeds amount, neither qualify that as child support arrearages, n liquidate the investment and report the proceeds amount, neither qualify that as child support arrearages, n and report the proceeds amount, neither qualify that as child support arrearages, n report the proceeds amount, neither qualify that as child support arrearages, n liquidate the investment and report the proceeds amount, neither qualify that as child support arrearages, n

641:2 False Swearing. –
A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if:
I. He makes a false statement under oath or affirmation or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made and he does not believe the statement to be true if:
(a) The falsification occurs in an official proceeding, as defined in RSA 641:1, II, or is made with a purpose to mislead a public servant in performing his official function; or

STROBEL'S DECEPTIVE SCHEME

Strobel's self-serving belief that he was owed child support arrearages, which has no basis in fact, and simply doesn't state in the 3-17-2009 NOD, that the unltr vires order is one to be construed as child support... that is a conflation of Strobel's wishful thinking, and his unconcern for any consequences for providing false information in a sworn statement.

However , like all propaganda, if repeated often enough, and amplified by high powered political figure--Catherine Shanelaris's (as a co-conspirator in the deception), restating the false statement, was soon accepted as the truth, by all the New Hampshire Courts, the USHSS OSCE Rachael Frietas even as cited by the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In the Strobel's July 5, 2009 filing entitled

"PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING",

his request is the basis of the fraudulent scheme:

"Make a specific order adjudicating a specific dollar amount of $105,000 plus additional past due child support for Ms. Rosier to pay by no later than October 9,2009 so that Mr. Strobel may enforce the order in Arizona by way of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, RSA 546-B, if necessary;"

and is the same fraudulent request that Shanelaris manipulated and deceived an unsuspecting Judge John Berry into signing, in a ultra vires unrecorded encounter in the judges personal chambers , where there is sufficient evidence of Shanelaris/Strobels tampering with public records , to warrant an investigation by law enforcement authorities.

641:6 Falsifying Physical Evidence. –
A person commits a class B felony if, believing that an official proceeding, as defined in RSA 641:1, II, or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he:
I. Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any thing with a purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation; or
II. Makes, presents or uses any thing which he knows to be false with a purpose to deceive a public servant who is or may be engaged in such proceeding or investigation.

Download PDF

Transcript to hear & consider Strobel's Motion March 9, 2009

The Rosetta Stone Hearing

Gail had been arrested by the Scottsdale Police on 03/06/2009, and obviously was isolated in Maricopa County Jail at the time of, and therefore and unable to participate in this scheduled hearing.

The Court has some serious reservations about it's jurisdiction over Gail to consider child support as a belated issue never before requested, or made an issue. Gail, an Arizona resident who brought the action in New Hampshire, submitted to the jurisdiction of the court within the context of seeking enforcement of visitation rights, not to litigate a nine year old private agreement regarding the issues of savings for college expenses of a minor child, which is a civil case.

Download PDF

Revelations within the above transcript

Page 11 24-25

THE COURT: And as you said earlier, no court has ever issued an order with regard to child support, and the agreement that you had with her, you understand to be the agreement, was something that was just between the two of you?

THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And is it in writing somewhere?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. I believe I filed it -- I will check, but if I did not, I can provide it to the Court certainly.

THE COURT: But you have it?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm not sure what I'm going to do with this. It's a little bit complicated and I want to review everything. I'm not unsympathetic to what you're asking for, but I just -- you know, I'm feeling that I might be somewhat constrained by what I'm able to do under the law, but I'm going to review it all carefully before I issue a decision,16 and you'll receive that in the mail. And whatever that is, we'll provide you with some guidance on whether or not, and if so, how you might proceed if you need to proceed somewhere else.

New Hampshire Injustice