Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
Father Shows Child Support By a Percentage of
Income is Unconstitutional

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 success.

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 PM
Subject: civil complaint under 42 USC section 1983.

Is this James Nollet of CIVIL ACTION NO.: 99-11861-EFH, 83 F. Supp. 2d 204??

If so, I'm looking for someone (non-lawyer) with experience with filing a civil complaint under 42 USC section 1983.

Thank You

Harold L. Rosenberger
Mr. Rosenberger one year later filed this suit:

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 Court rulings.

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? It can't."

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 denominator.

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 disabled individual.

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.

Lary Holland




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 into compliance.

Spread truth to the legislators. Let them know that you know Judges are being paid for a predetermined outcome. http://www.removethesepeople.org. 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 the government.

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 it.

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.
**If 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.
**When 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.
**Again, 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.
**Give judges 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 year. 
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 into hell.
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 profits from.

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 date. 

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 justice.

What about other illegal, void and unconstitutional orders that judges issue all the time under the guise of authority
and "best 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 etc.)

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.

The 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 decision yourself. 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 is void.

Unjust Enrichment 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 the burden.