Using common law to not pay child support

**Richard** · 31st-December-2011

I've recently come across a guy called Peter Nolan - who has extensive videos on you tube where he applies his understanding of common law.

He is a well know person in IT circles who was taken to the cleaners by his wife. His lives in Germany and declares he does not pay child support and that he has helped other men in this regards as in common law jurdicitions, child support is a voluntary payment.

I wonder what peoples opinions are on using common law in such areas as common law systems seem to offer the individual a lot of room of manouver.

Maybe its time to think about getting aband of guy together under a slogan "No contact, no alimony"???

**RobYork** · 31st-December-2011

Please supply a YouTube link.

**Celtic Druid** · 31st-December-2011

In the UK, an obligation to pay child support under an act of parliament (the colour of law) begins when parent/s register their childs birth and it essentially becomes an employee of the state, to which they are then unknowingly contracted to (pay taxes, abide by statute law and a multitude of state impositions). When registering anything, such as marriage, you allow the state to become an overbearing third-party influence.

Paying taxes is also a voluntary payment, particularly when you realize no UK law compells you to do so. There are, however, options beyond those many men who refused to register their childs birth (mostly because they weren't privy to all the information, and that which they were signing upon was actually a 'legal' contract). This requires some research and not believing what family lawyers have to say on the matter, as they have a vested interest in keeping you in the dark.

Richard, it's good to see you're still exploring the freeman/common law avenue, and even though it's not going to provide a silver bullet, it's certainly going to add some serious punching power to many fathers and men's concerns.

**Richard** · 2nd-January-2012

Celtic, when I come across this common law stuff I read it - it holds many answers. I think that we are obliged to ensure the upkeep of a child, but not as Max has said to pay if the woman keeps the child a hostage.

I contacted Peter Nolan - here is the link and his way of dealing with the situation:

How to Lawfully Bill for a Legal Court Order - Documents on Law and Constitutions - Crimes Against Fathers - Australia

Gentlemen.With respect to ‘court orders’ you are being lied to with deceptive language. You are led to believe that ‘order’ means ‘instruction’ like a man in the army is required to follow ‘orders’. Why is he required to follow orders? Because he SIGNED A CONTRACT when he joined the army and he took an oath.But a ‘court order’ is not an instruction like in the army. It is an ‘order’ like you buy a big mac meal in McDonalds.What must you do after you ORDER your big mac meal and before you EAT IT? You must PAY FOR IT.So. Whenever you are given a court ‘ORDER’ it is an irrevocable order for services. It is the JUDGES/MAGISTRATES problem to find out the COST of the order before he/she orders it. Just like it is YOUR problem to find out the price of the big mac before you order it. If you don’t have the money you should not place the order.So when you are given a ‘court order’ you have a lawful right to issue a lawful BILL for the order. Until that BILL is paid? You have no obligation to fulfil the order.Here is proof this works. This is an ‘order’ for EUR6,000 per month. At the time of the BILL the ‘arrears’ was EUR150,000. So I issued a BILL for EUR1.5M and said I would be more than happy to pay the EUR150,000 just as soon as my BILL for EUR1.5M was paid.I have not heard from these people since October 2009.