For those who are not aware Jame's
case has been used a model and inspiration
for a case NY by Harold Rosenberger.
On April 3 , 2003 Mr. Rosenberger
contacted James as follows re: a citation.
I will pull up the citation and publish
it so others may learn from James
I am indeed that James Nollet. I hadn't
realized that this particular case
had made it into the Federal Supplements.
I am Forwarding your message to
1) the lead attorney on that case;
& 2) another person with reason
to learn about the Citation.
Without being more specific, I'm not
sure what assistance you require,
but I will Attach 2 files of mine
in an e-note which I'll flash to you
in a moment.
----- Original Message -----
From: Harold L. Rosenberger
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:05
Subject: civil complaint under 42
USC section 1983.
Is this James Nollet of CIVIL ACTION
NO.: 99-11861-EFH, 83 F. Supp. 2d
If so, I'm looking for someone (non-lawyer)
with experience with filing a civil
complaint under 42 USC section 1983.
Harold L. Rosenberger
Mr. Rosenberger one year later filed
May 3rd, 2004
Federal Lawsuit Asserts That New York
State's Income Based Child Support
Statutes Are Unconstitutional
The Federal Right to Privacy found
in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution
is the reason that New York State's
Income based child support laws are
unconstitutional, according to a lawsuit
filed on April 29th, 2004 in Federal
District Court in Albany, New York.
Harold L. Rosenberger, of Highland,
New York filed the lawsuit.
Mr. Rosenberger's suit asserts that
the Right to Privacy guarantees parents
- married, single or divorced - the
right to determine how much they spend
for the benefit of their minor children.
The State of New York does not require
that married parents living in an
intact household with their minor
children spend a certain percentage
of their income on their children
and thus, according to the lawsuit,
the State cannot hold divorced parents
to a different standard.
The lawsuit claims the State cannot
substitute its judgment for the parents,
but can only intrude into the Privacy
protected Zone of Parenting to prevent
harm to a child. Currently, when a
parent divorces the State automatically
takes a percentage of the non-custodial
parent's income and mandates the parent
pay that amount or face contempt proceedings
and imprisonment for noncompliance.
The State is improperly invading the
parent's right to care for and to
make decisions relating to his or
her child as guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment and United States Supreme
According to Rosenberger, in determining
if the amount spent by the parent
is proper, the State must limit its
mandate to assure that the parent
is preventing harm to the child. Furthermore,
the State can only do that after it
determines there is harm to the child
by the spending level of the parent.
Rosenberger says, "Just think
about it. If you are married, the
State does not look at your income
and automatically tell you to spend
a percentage on your child, does it?
The State will only step in if you
are not spending enough on your child
and harm occurs because of it. How
can the State treat the same parent
and the same child differently just
because the parent is no longer married?
The challenge to the income based
child support statute follow the same
legal principle recently noted in
the Massachusetts Supreme Court same
sex marriage ruling and the U.S. Supreme
court ruling overturning same sex
intimacy statutes in Texas.
Mr. Rosenberger is the founder of
the Family Court Reform Party (FCRP),
whose mission is to bring about much
needed reform to the New York Family
Court system. His federal complaint
can be viewed online at www.cflap.org/dl/challenge.pdf.
Harold L. Rosenberger
114 Vista Drive
Highland, New York 12528
Reduce things to their common
1. Child Support is the shifting of
income from one parent to another
parent to act on behalf of a child.
a. this is an illegal
conservatorship because there is no
accounting of the funds.
b. even if it was a legal
conservatorship then it must mean
you are so incompetent that you have
to surrender 40% of your income because
you cannot manage them yourselves.
c. you are forced to
have someone else manage your assets
because you are unfit to do so.
If you are a fit, loving, competent,
and willing parent, then the state
has no grounds to act as parens patriae.
By allowing them to do so it would
be the same as you being a mentally
Why more people are not standing their
ground and fighting blows my mind.
This may be radical, but only if you
have been infected with amnesia of
the self-evident rights and liberties
of man. Anything that is not self-evident
truth is held onto with force, and
only power of the truth can defeat
force. Power is dwindling in America
with every diminishment of rights.
Clever lawyers are making billions
of money by selling out their clients
interests for profits. This is a by-product
of monopolostic legal practices. The
lawyers subscribe to the public policy
of the masses instead the legal and
logic policies of the now dwindling
statesmen. In fact, there is a big
difference between statesmen and legislators.
Statesmen rule through power (self-evident
truth) while legislators are ruling
through force. (diminishing the self-evident
truths in the hearts of men.)
If you believe what I say. Spread
it as the truth. The Truth is power
and fights force. With each person
that is willing to stand their ground
the actual force that is diminishing
your rights and liberties becomes
weaker. Encourage people to stop being
wrapped up with their day to day lives
and start educating people on the
self-evident truths of man and their
god given inalienable rights.
Standing your ground against allowing
the system to profit from diminishing
the role of one parent to the benefit
of the other and the gain of the state
both being with none of the burden
is fight. Equal rights of both parents
are inherent and self-evident. You
may recall something like... "all
men are created equal," yet people
are succumbing to the force of coercion
from officials that are bullying you
Spread truth to the legislators. Let
them know that you know Judges are
being paid for a predetermined outcome.
Put them on the chopping block and
stop playing defense. People once
had to declare their rights to tyrannical
rulers. Its time to do it again.
Protesting "as much as one dares"
is a problem because people are individually
complying with the system. The system
derives its force from compliance.
Your very reply is exemplary of forgetting
that the 10th Amendment is that all
other powers are reserved to the people.
The INDIVIDUALS make up the government.
When an adequate number of INDIVIDUALS
state they are fed up they change
No one is successful because people
just lay down and take it and then
comply. They give the system force
at the expense of the individual's
power. The individual power that we
hold is self-evident because we are
all equal, but only so far as we are
willing to individually fight for
As long as their is en masse are in
compliance on the individual level
the system will continue just dealing
with the few that have the balls to
stand up. Representative rule now
is based on public opinion, social
policy, and the laziness of the affected.
I am not speaking just about child
support, I am talking about the fighting
for actual equality to manage one's
own affairs and households and not
turning over and giving someone else
the power to manage it all for you
despite your willingness and competence
at doing it all yourself.
So the reason that people aren't winning
the argument is because people don't
push the envelope far enough. As long
as the system thinks they can compel
you they will exercise their force
to do so, unless you show that you
are fighting from the heart with self-evident
truth. Exert power against their force
by learning how to pose the self-evident
truth to them. If we are all equal
why am I not being treated equal.
People that hold self-evident truth
in their heart, don't have to wait
for someone else to succeed because
they already know the truth.
I agree with you but the sacrifices
will vary depending on each individual's
knowledge and what he is willing to
risk for himself and or for the cause.
all people are not willing to give up
everything for equality, then you have
already lost. If Shay's Rebellion jad
tjos philosophy the original debtor's
prison would have never been outlawed.
As long as people comply with unjustness,
they will continue to receive more unjustness.
Fighting for the cause through
ones personal case can and often
will lead to retribution but it
certainly will not gain any favors
with the judge.
you display a fear of "retribution"
you will ultimately receive it to place
you in compliance. Gandhi was one man
that brought Britain to his knees and
never struck once in anger. He use power
of principle that was self-evident to
defeat force that was built with coercion.
The ones we see who go all
out fighting are almost exclusively
those who have already lost everything
and who usually, unfortunately, have
nothing but nothing to lose.
we all have nothing too lose if we don't
have equality and our ultimate liberties.
Again self-evident truth, if freedom was
worth fighting for then, why is it no
longer worth fighting for? More illegal
immigrants march than people that "say"
they want equal rights.
The main fight needs to be
done on a legislative and lobbying
basis for sure, in addition to many
of the other forms of fighting suggested.
and legislators ultimate discretion
and it produces the teeter-totter effect.
It is worthless because it is contingent
on whoever lobbies during a particular
session. Infinite fighting year after
Remove discretion from the courts
where two fit, competent, and willing
parents are present. Our Constitution
already has equality built into it.
REMOVE legislation that granted statutory
rights over your freedoms and liberties,
don't add more that can be twisted and
construed to strip you of the right
to raise your children. Wake Up America,
before you legislate your way right
Keep civil matters between the litigants.
If someone harms the other's rights
resolve it as a civil rights complaint.
Stop screwing around with family courts
that should not have parens patriae
over competent individuals. There is
no equality in equitable determinations,
only a winner and a loser that the state
I have no legal
citations that say Child support
is not a debt. In fact I've
seen cites you referring to
it as a debt.
However, I'm familiar with tax
law and readings related to them.
Child support is certainly a non-dischargeable
in bankruptcy - and must always
be paid in full -even at a later
I've even seen the term 'non-debt'
applied to it - but not in a legal
citation - though I can't remember
where at this time. It was quite a
long dissertation, but can't remember.
It is never treated like a debt,
either. Although it is never expressly
shown, in a contempt, judge's will
punish you -even give you community
service work - or send you to jail
if you don't pay child support ordered
by not making enough money to pay
it! Of course, even if you
can't pay it, judges do send you
to jail, and say you can. -in violation
of Civil Contempt law.
Also, a debt is something that
results from a contract. Child support,
does not come from a contract.
It is just imposed on you by
the Judge and therefore is a Judgment
against you. Even if you signed
an agreement on child support, the
judge MUST ratify it, which makes
it effectively a judgment.
This is worse than Taxes - which
are dischargeable after 3 year.
Child support has evolved into
'whole different animal' with
unrelenting claws in these last
50 years as Feminist jurisprudence
has come to dominate society -as
the tyranny it is. Such judgments
are not part of a free society and
about other illegal, void and
unconstitutional orders that judges
issue all the time under the guise
interest of children" (which
is not even relevant often). This
is stuff that judges do out of
their own ignorance and ego. They
want to see themselves as the
knight riding the white horse
to save the poor women. All us
men do - we are genetically programmed
to protect women. Unfortunately
this does not work in reverse
and women seem to be genetically
programmed to screw us when we
separate (out of fear and revenge
1. Orders for husband to pay
for wife's life insurance - Unjust
enrichment? (see below)
2. Orders for husband to pay
college costs - This is unconstitutional
becuase a married father or wife
can not be forced to pay college
costs. Anytime divorced parents
are treated differently than married
parents this is unconstitutional
under the 14th amendment of equal
rights protection. The creation
of a "class of people"
that can be discriminated against
is blatantly illegal no matter
what any judge says or thinks.
3. Orders to pay for housing
and other extraordinary expenses
(normally based on "status
quo") during temporary orders.
4. Basically anything beyond
mandated child support (already
has lots of alimony embedded in
it) and alimony (which should
be an obsolete concept today)
is generally not legally justifiable.
deal is... issues of individual
choice remain issues of individual
choice after divorce. Like forcing
one to pay for an adult's higher
education. Forcing one to pay
insurance that they have no choice
on who the beneficiary is.
The state cannot act as parens
patriae unless they
find you incompetent to make the
By allowing them to take control
of independent issues that you
controlled prior to divorce/separation
it is the same as being incompetent.
Therefore the state would have
to argue that only incompetent
people separate. This is a clearly
erroneous conclusion that is made
true only by people agreeing to
stupid orders. Implied authority
over time becomes actual authority.
The rule is, don't give up authority.
Fight it - Appeal It, or better
yet let it be a void order (you
don't have to fight) due to denial
of due process) Ask for a hearing
on this matter to offer testimony,
evidence and call witnesses -
if this is denied then the order
1. The retention of a benefit conferred
by another, without offering compensation,
in circumstances where compensation
is reasonably expected. 2. A benefit
obtained from another, not intended
as a gift and not legally justifiable,
for which the beneficiary must make
restitution or recompense. 3. The
area of law dealing with unjustifiable
benefits of this kind. (Blacks
Law Dictionary; 7th Ed. p. 1536)
If the man is forced to pay for his
own life insurance and name the ex-wife
as the sole beneficiary... That is
first of all unenforceable unless
waived by contract. Secondly if it
is not waived by contract it is against
the most basic legal maxim... he who
receives the benefit shall suffer