Dominican Divorce Decree 1997

---

There is a reason how and why Strobel gained custody of Connor in 1979, which is slightly relevant. Gail had custody following the their divorce, and Connor was living with her in Salem MA.   

Gail became the victim of a sexual assault by a co-worker at the Boston Phoenix Newspaper, and asked Strobel for favor to take care of Connor for, awhile, while she recovered.  

This was an opportunity for Strobel to capitalize on to assert custodial rights.  Gail threatened litigation for custody of her beloved son.   In the following paragraph from a letter   Strobel sets up Rosier with the premise... then Strobel goes on to propose the quid pro quo, however the inferred premise in the above paragraph-- was NOT to hire attorneys as he 

 "didn't see anyone winning in a custody battle"

• "If I accurately heard and read your comments about child support, you feel it is not equitable that I get to deduct Connor while you get no tax relief even though you are paying child support. I would like to propose the following - that we keep the current custody arrangement and that you no longer are obliged to pay child support.  First and foremost we do not disrupt Connor's routine and development While we would both love to be able to spend more time with him, his needs need to come before ours. As for the child support, this more than solves the tax issue you raised.

That is the quid pro quo that Strobel is seeking-- permanent and sole custody-- in exchange for the indemnification of the responsibility of any future child support, It goes on as an afterthought with the presumption of Gail's acquiescence to his inference of the investment for Connor's education-- without his actually proposing such an investment with any specifics:

• "It also gives you total discretion to the use of the funds you had been paying in child support, whether it's to invest for Connor or to meet another need depending on the situation."

This foregoing statement is the "sweetener" addendum that downplays or entices Rosier to give up permanent custody of the raising of her beloved son, and certainly does not constitute a quantification, or any fixed amount. Rosier's contribution to an educational savings investment or fund... is only suggested or inferred in his first paragraph:  "... if they were invested for his education instead."

'

The word "if" is not an absolute, it is a word contingent upon another action.

Neither M/M Forrest, nor the Court have ever seen, or considered this agreement-- and relied Strobel's deceptive assertions nine years later that the agreement was a waived child support in exchange for a voluntary  amount to be invested into a discretionary investment of a non-specific return. 

M/M Forest, in his 3-12-2009 (NOD) decision ordering Rosier to 

1. liquidate a investment of indeterminable value  just several months after the economic collapse an
2. ordering her to sell a property of which she has no control over whatsoever, and
3.  (c) ordering to sell a property that unbeknownst to anyone (except Strobel) had already been sold a year earlier by the Trustee-- with the funds sitting in an attorney-controlled escrow account-- were all impossible to legally comply with

"3. It occurred to me that I never gave you a copy of the document I drafted outlining the modified child support agreement we agreed to last year (March, 1997). It simply stated that rather than paying child support to the custodial parent the non-custodial parent shall instead save the money for Connor's education (college and similar).  As I cannot locate that paper we could use this note as the written version of the agreement".

This  is Strobel's admission that he did not prepare a written agreement , so none ever existed . Also his "tweaking" the language as a  "clarification", was contrary to the initial offer to which Gail agreed, and changed the premise of the arrangement.  Once he got Gail's  

acquiescence to withdraw her opposition to the  threatened custody  litigation, he tried to slip this in.   

Gail did  NOT agree to this revision:  his original proposal was designed solely to derail Gail's threatened legal challenge to Strobel's custody of Connor: