Some time ago, a judge in Kendal, England issued a document that looked like a “court order” – in fact the document says – “The Court orders that :-”
C21 Blank Order
This document tells a story; but in order to tell the story, it needs analysis; a full analysis of the words will reveal the story. The parents of the children (Katarina May and Peter Benedict Holmes) [“Katie” and “Ben”] (and the dates of birth of the children are correct) had BOTH made Applications to the Kendal County Court with regard to the children, and the Court was (under section 1(1)(a) of the CA 1989) holding a preliminary hearing to consider the questions raised in those applications – to consider making section 8(1) orders in response to those questions. [The children were NOT born in the jurisdiction of England & Wales – in fact the children are not English nor Scottish nor Welsh – they are Manx. Both children were born in Douglas, Isle of Man to Manx parents, and the birth certificates of the four members of the Holmes family have Isle of Man Government at the head]. Mr Stephen Holmes, the father, had asked a question and made a tentative application for a residence order; Mrs Yvonne Holmes, the mother, had asked a question and made a tentative application for a specific issue order, the specific issue being leave to remove the Manx children from the jurisdiction (of England & Wales). [Both applications had been made on or around 27/10/2003]. The Court had regard to the future welfare of the children and judge Nuttall considered time to be essential and so tried to schedule a hearing (a listing) in three weeks; the actual date was 19 days in the future – and “statements”
had to be made to the County Court (submitted to the Office) just three days before the next hearing. Nuttall was considering section 1(2) of the CA 1989 that to delay would be detrimental to the welfare of the children; he had also dispensed with the CAFCASS officer, who was NOT required to attend the 24/11 hearing. The default order IN BOTH CASES should have been “NO ORDER AT ALL”. Section 1(5) of the 1989 Children Act makes that absolutely clear; and Justice James Munby had set a precedent in Re X & Y (Children) that for leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction of the court a “non order” was indeed the default. [2001] 2 FLR 118 FD. The nominated judge on 24/11/2003 was the “dingbat” Mr Robert M. Forrester. I have no idea what the letter “M” is for, but I suspect it is Moron. Forrester DELAYED his decision by 90 days – to 23rd February 2004 – and by doing so caused irreparable damage to the children – AND TO THEIR FATHER. Forrester, on 24/11/2003, set in motion a sequence of events that destroyed a family IN THE ISLE OF MAN. The Isle of Man Government should complain furiously to the Department for INJUSTICE and CORRUPTION in London that Forrester caused the long term abuse of Manx children in the Isle of Man because he could not comprehend that the Isle of Man is a separate legal jurisdiction to England & Wales. Even Forrester was nowhere near as stupid as the CRETIN who had been made “Deputy Dingbat” in the Isle of Man High Court, AK47 Williamson. In the summer of 2002, the Governor described Williamson as “an excellent appointment” (Williamson began his 68 months of destruction on 1 st September 2002) but a trained chimpanzee would have been a better Deemster – an untrained baboon would have been better! Let us look at the Morons Nuttall and Forrester, and the LAW that they were supposed to be following. The Act of Parliament known (cited) as the Children Act 1989 is actually AN ACT to reform the law relating to children; and by “reform” (meaning change) it actually meant “create” because before 1989 there was no children law – there was law about the guardians of children and concepts known as “custody” and “access” which were “rights” conferred on adults by court order. Here are sections 1(1), (2), (5), 8(1) and (2) of the Children Act 1989.
Children Act 1989 1989 CHAPTER 41 An Act to reform the law relating to children; to provide for local authority services for children in need and others; to amend the law with respect to children’s homes, community homes, voluntary homes and voluntary organisations; to make provision with respect to fostering, child minding and day care for young children and adoption; and for connected purposes. [16th November 1989] PART I INTRODUCTORY 1.
Welfare of the child. (1) When a court determines any question with respect to— (a) the upbringing of a child; or (b) the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it,
the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration. (2) In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. (5) Where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under this Act with respect to a child, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all. PART II ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO CHILDREN IN FAMILY PROCEEDINGS 8.
Residence, contact and other orders with respect to children. (1) In this Act — “a contact order” means an order requiring the person with whom a child lives, or is to
live, to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order;
“a prohibited steps order” means an order that no step which could be taken by a parent in meeting his parental responsibility for a child, and which is of a kind specified in the order, shall be taken by any person without the consent of the court;
“a residence order” means an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom a child is to live; and
“a specific issue order” means an order giving directions for the purpose of determining a specific question which has arisen, or which may arise, in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child.
(2) In this Act “a section 8 order” means any of the orders mentioned in subsection (1) and any order varying or discharging such an order. 108
Short title, commencement extent etc.
(1) This Act may be cited as the Children Act 1989. At the so-called “court hearing” on 24/11/2004, the so-called order issued by the Moron Forrester began as follows –
In the Kendal County Court Case Number : KN03P00016
C21 Blank Order
The delay was 90 days – over Christmas and New Year – but “the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child”. Any delay – like a delay of a week – or ten days – but 13 weeks was unacceptable – was unlawful.
The only conclusion that can be made regarding the actions of judge Robert Moron Forrester is that he prejudiced the welfare of the Manx children on 24/11/2003, the child-rights abusing bastard. This is a County Court judge who was (and still is) regularly given children matters to deal with – and he abused children as early as 2003; so it is impossible to say how many children he has abused over the last eleven years. This is a man in a position of authority and should follow the law that states – the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration. NOT SO, for Robert Moron Forrester (and in the Isle of Man, not so for AK47 Williamson – another child-rights abusing bastard). On 5th November 2004, Williamson issued an “order” that had “no legitimate basis” – but was still deemed to be holding the welfare of the children as the court’s paramount consideration by his colleagues. Only by his colleagues – no fair minded and informed observer would EVER conclude that Williamson was upholding the welfare of children – he was only interested in his status and MONEY. And Forrester was from exactly the same school of judicial corruption. Although the LAW states that the court shall be concerned with the welfare of children, in my experience, no “children matter” has EVER had the welfare of the child as the court’s paramount consideration. The County Courts and the Family Division of the High Court do not care about the welfare of children – not at all. But what do I know: I am a mathematician with no legal qualification? Oh wait a moment, lawyers assisted the Nazi Party to make mass murder legal! Nothing the Nazis did was against German law – the law had been changed by people with legal qualifications, not mathematicians, and not for the general good. Lawyers NEVER act to the benefit of anyone other than his or her client: so when an Advocate states what is best for (say) the Mother, he or she is not acting as a “lawful” officer of the court by considering the welfare of the CHILD as paramount – advocates actually encourage the court to abuse the rights of children. So in England & Wales, and in the Isle of Man, the courts are actually abusing children – especially in the Isle of Man where all children matters are listed as an adversarial hearing setting parent against parent, and not as Re: The Child. I include the following pictures –
Both pictures digitally enhanced
On the M62 near Manchester [on a 12 mile section from junction 15 to junction 21] there are four “posters” – two in each direction – different pictures of children on each one. Take care within the roadworks. I have created my own version of the posters above for AK47 –
It is difficult enough to find any part of the Children Act 1989 that extends to Scotland, and Scotland IS part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the Isle of Man IS NOT. Robert Moron Forrester purported to “order” that, under the Children Act 1989, the FATHER should have “reasonable [section 8] contact” with the Manx children provided such took place IN THE ISLE OF MAN, and no-one questioned the abilities of this Moron! Because he was a judge it was assumed that what he had done was lawful and right – when he had in fact ABUSED the rights of Katie and Ben Holmes, shown in the above photograph.