• Under New Hampshire law, a civil order that is impossible to comply with is generally considered void or unenforceable. This principle aligns with the legal concept of impossibility of performance or void for impossibility. 

• Basic principles of justice and due process:  Courts cannot reasonably expect individuals to comply with orders that  are, in fact, impossible to fulfill. Forcing compliance with an  impossible order would be unjust and potentially violate due process  rights.

• Lack of enforceability: If an order is impossible to comply with, the court cannot effectively  enforce it.  Attempts to hold a party in contempt for failing to do  something physically or legally impossible would be futile and  potentially lead to further injustice.

• RSA.  Rule 4.11. (a)  Contempt proceedings for failure to comply with a payment order may  be initiated by the plaintiff by Motion for Contempt for Non-Compliance  with Payment Order and will result in the issuance of an order of  notice to the defendant to appear before the court to show cause why the  defendant should not be held in contempt of court. The court may  require the plaintiff to file a Statement of Damages/Taxation of Costs  prior to the issuance of orders of notice or prior to a hearing on the  motion. 
• (e)  If the defendant fails to appear at the hearing and proof of service has been provided by the plaintiff, the court may proceed, and orders may be made in the defendant's absence or an order for arrest may be issued.

DISCUSSION

FRAUD & LACK OF SUBJECT JURISDICTION FUNDAMENTALS

THE COURT PRESUMED IT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A CIVIL ORDER ALTHOUGH BEING EXCLUDED FROM CHILD SUPPORT BY  RSA 461-A:14, V (Supp.2008)  

•  Perhaps Judge Forrest had felt he had some latitude in making an order relating to college tuition, that wasn't deprived of jurisdiction... an order simply to take an action that  in a stipulation made by Gail in her Statement of finances that an investment was set aside for Connor's education, but perhaps the judge saw leeway... a "work-around"... an order for Gail to take an action--- not an award of a sum specific. He did this in a vacuum in acquiencence to Strobel's whining and proclaiming it to be child support, a face he refuted in the hearing... advising Strobel to seek legal counsel in Arizona.

This order was predicated on Strobel's false recalling of the tit-for-tat quid pro quo of the college education fund in lieu of any child support, and the judge specifically asked him if their document was any where in the court records, in which he  provided an evasive and deceptive answer. 

Courts are well aware that investments in virtually anything are subject to the vagaries of the markets, and especially in March 2008 in the midst of the the subprime mortgage crisis and a subsequent bank run with the news of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, Countywide Mortgage a year earlier in March 2008.

The courts are acutely aware of of investments being erratic and  volatile...real estate less so than stocks, so whatever valuation might have "gustimated" by Gail on the day of her filling out the required  perfunctory statement of finances , it was NOT a mount that was cast in stone, nor a sum certain.  It was legally irrelevant in the context that there was no child sought by either party as acknowledged by the judge.  

However this is the point of origin of Strobel's defrauding the court which that both Strobel, and later with hthe complicity of Shanelaris--both seized upon, and together created a fraudulent scheme to conflate that number to somehow amount to fantastical amount $202,500, an amount that was asserted after Connor Strobel's after of Majority.  Each separate instance of their intentionally misstating and conflating his "liquidation order" to "being child support "Judge Forrest's order, is a deceptive scheme under:

• RSA 641:1 Perjury: Intentionally making a false statement under oath or affirmation in an official proceeding.

• RSA 641:2 False Swearing:  making inconsistent statements under oath or  affirmation, where one of them is false and known to be false by the  person making it.

• RSA 641:3 Unsworn Falsification:  making a written or oral false statement that is unsworn,  intending that it be relied upon by a public servant in an official  matter.

• RSA 641:6 Falsifying Physical Evidence: This section deals with making, presenting, or using anything known to  be false with the purpose of deceiving a public servant in an official  proceeding or investigation .This is the ostensible order that was surreptitiously replaced into the 12-22-09 court docket for the judges signature and issuance, and ultimately introduced into the 3-11-10 hearing file by Catherine Shanelaris.   It was more likely substituted by Shanelaris than Strobel, because she possessed enough recognition influence, and authoritative bluster  amongst the court staff as the former DCSS Enforcement  division chief attorney, to have unfettered access to alter court records. This has to do with her"hired-gun" mission to increase or enforce the DDCSS's enforcement of child-support collections to stave off the economic crisis occurring at that very moment, as evidenced by the USHSS-OCSE's communications relating to the importance of this collection action against Rosier in Arizona vis-a-vis the Federal IV-D funding program. 

• RSA 641:7 Tampering With Public Records or Information: This section addresses purposely and unlawfully destroying, concealing,  removing, or impairing the verity or availability of public records or  information.