Your “excellency,” [I have put the word in inverted commas because I think you are mediocre] This is the letter “from thee to me” received in December 2016:
“I judge that further correspondence between us would not help you” is a judgment in own cause, is not fair (contrary to Statute of E+W and of “gov.im”) and permits your deputy and his second to do as they please without being accountable for their actions. It says “I am a person of authority I can judge in my own cause: I am better than you, Mr. Holmes.” Well I am not better than you; neither am I any worse; but you are not “better than me” and your judgement may not be in your own cause. Appendix page 1
The following is from the so-called “judgment” 2DS 2007/9 handed down and signed on 26/10/2007 (I have added the words Family Division because they were on the hand-written letter from Mrs Holmes (which was disclosed in May 2007) – 9.
On 2nd April 2004 Mrs Yvonne Holmes wrote to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson [Family Division] enclosing copies of the two orders, namely the residence and contact order, and the order granting leave to permanently remove the children to the Isle of Man, made by a District Judge and asked that such orders be registered at the Isle of Man Court.
10.
On or about 28th May 2004 notice of registration of such orders by the Isle of Man High Court [‘the High Court’] was sent to the Respondent. It does not seem that the Appellant was so informed. [I was NOT so informed – paperwork shows this].
11.
By application dated 18th May 2004 the Father applied to the Isle of Man High Court for a residence order in respect of both children.
12.
At a hearing of such application on 1st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Appellant that the English orders made on 24th February 2004 had been registered and dismissed his application.
A County Court in England binds “no court at all.” Only a High Court in E+W or NI can talk to the High Court in the Isle of Man or each other (or a Court of Sessions in Scotland) – so it was impossible for the so-called orders of Lancaster County Court to be registered in the Isle of Man. On receipt of the so-called orders (uncertified photocopies) from Mrs Holmes (on or after 2nd April 2004) the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson should have clarified the legal obligations and complained furiously (or asked HM Attorney-General at Isle of Man to complain furiously) to the Department for Constitutional Affairs asking why a County Court judge was acting as if the Children Act 1989 extended to the Isle of Man and why a “section 8 contact order” alleged that an Adult father should have section 8 contact (ultra vires) and why such dealings would only take place in a jurisdiction (the Isle of Man) not bound by the Children Act 1989 – the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is the reforming law in the Isle of Man (AN ACT to reform the law relating to children; to re-enact Parts 1 and 2 of the Family Law Act 1991; &c.; and for connected purposes). Although you have “judged” that you cannot help ME, you can help everyone else applying to the High (kangaroo) Court of (In)justice of the Isle of Man for answers to questions regarding the future upbringing of children in Devil’s Island (the Isle of Man) by ordering The Two to execute the laws of this Isle justly; list children matters as non-adversarial inquiries (perhaps with a “pro-bono” advocate to represent THE CHILD) and NOT to continue the ancient habit of just “making up the law as they go” which was the reason for promulgation 600 years ago. Seriously, your “excellency,” John Stanley (Lord of Man from 1414 onwards) realised that “bowel law” [law held in the bowels of the Dumpsters] was a euphemism for “making up the law” so he forced promulgation (which is why the Statutes are promulgated to this day), but many Manx folk fear that this habit continues – certainly making no fair criticism of a colleague who has issued a false instrument, ordered its circulation, and not checked its legality, is not a “fair or legitimate” action. Below is a modified photograph of the “fine poster.” Note the words “hear … your Will.” I request that your will be a public investigation into the malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance of Deemsters and officials in the Judiciary, the General Registry, the Probation Office, the Chambers of HM Attorney-General, and the actions of all Advocates who are “officers of the High Court” and licensed to lie for their adult clients in children matters. My view is that civil justice has failed in the Isle of Man and therefore government is not good – E+W must intervene in the interests of justice – and this is not just a request by Petition but much of the evidence as well to support the purpose of the Petition (to Let Right be Done in children matters) as well. Appendix page 2
The Deemsters still Govern the Isle of Man – the High Court Act 1991 allowed the Deemsters to remove the Chancery Division, remove the Family Division (and to remove the Common Law Division [the Manx equivalent of the Queen’s Bench Division]) and create the “Deemsters’s Law Division” now known as the “Civil Division” where only “common law” is used, and in this case, in the Isle of Man, common law is “rules that enter the small brain of the Deemster at the time” – certainly nothing that is contained in Statute. The Isle of Man is not even a true common law jurisdiction for offences that are “contrary to common law” in England & Wales are actually contrary to Statute in the Isle of Man. As Louis Blom-Cooper confirms in his 2017 book, emphasis is now on “fairness” which he quotes as being equivalent to the old “rules of Appendix page 3
natural justice.” With the 1422 bias and misgovernment statute, the Isle of Man has had a statutory requirement for fairness for 595 years – and a statutory rule for you to take an Enquest and NOT make a judgment on it like you did in December 2016 – you are NOT a judge, and nemo judex in causa sua – no-one can judge in own cause. I informed you that both the Human Rights Act 2001 and the Human Rights Act 1998 apply to the Crown: you are an officer of the Crown so you are not permitted to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right – such as the right to a fair hearing. That is now statutory law, although it has always been “the common law position.” On 18th May 2004, in the Isle of Man, I asked the High Court (Family Division, now deceased, and only created in October 1992 – died aged 17) a question regarding the upbringing of my Manx children and asked the court to consider making a Part II section 11 order with respect to those children. The Deemster lied and dismissed my Application made of a Form C1 dated 18th May. Since 28th May 2004, nothing that has happened with regard to me or to my two (now adults) children HAS BEEN FAIR because people in the Isle of Man “make up their own rules” contrary to LAW. That habit has extended to you; it is ingrained in D1 and D2 (D3 has avoided malfeasance or misfeasance but has exhibited nonfeasance [“I am a criminal court judge so it is not my problem”– but a Deemster is First and foremost a High Court judge – placed in any court at the will of “D1”]) and was the MO of the Solicitor General before he was appointed! Both Doyle and Wannenburgh have confirmed their belief that a children matter is “matrimonial” and Deemster Sullivan claimed that the old legal right of “access to a child” was “exactly the same thing” as a child having “contact” with a person even if the no order principle had been followed. In fact, “custody of a child,” “access to a child” and “care and control” orders DO NOT EXIST in law in the British Isles and “residence” (if a court or judge can be persuaded to make such an order) and “contact” are orders about the CHILD not about the adult parent or guardian – the clue being in the names of the Acts concerned – the Children Act 1989 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001; as opposed to the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 (E+W) and the dreadfully out-of-date Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 of Tynwald. Both the 1989 and 2001 Acts have in their long title “to reform the law relating to children” and the concepts contained in these Acts are fundamentally different to the concepts contained in the old (in Isle of Man “custody” stems from 1577) Acts of the parliaments. Always, though, (at least since 1886 in E+W) the welfare of the child should have been the paramount consideration of the judge or court concerned; not the appearance of a – an order from an inferior court that may or may not have been registered – “I am a Deemster so I cannot be bothered finding out and I will NOT put any Act of Tynwald on any order in case I have just made up the law.” The Isle of Man is a joke jurisdiction – and Deemsters have abused the rights of children since 1st April 1992 when the Family Law Act 1991 (a part-replication of the Children Act 1989) was fully enacted for the High Court has always had judges who pitted parent against parent in adversarial disputes where the CHILDREN ALWAYS LOSE and will continue to lose if nothing is done. Tynwald has implemented good law, but the courts continue to issue ordure from the bowels of the Deemsters and the legal “profession” (there is no program of CPD and no certificates of professional competence in IOM so my view is that incompetence is rife in the Manx “honky-tonk” bar) just swallow it without question.
Forgive them, Lord of Man, for they know not what they do! Every time I encountered (and still encounter) a person who works in the “Courts of Justice” building in Douglas, or anyone who is “governed” in what they do by some Appendix page 4
aspect of “law in the Isle of Man” I want to “appeal” against something, or usually everything, he, she or they say or write. And this anger at Public Authority began in England on 29th October 2003 (a Wednesday) when judge Gordon Nuttall said IN COURT that “the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom.” He went on to act on the assumption that English Law could bind Manx children. He heard “applications” on 5 th November 2003 (so this matter began 14 years ago) and “expedited a hearing” as required by Section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989 (upon which was based section 1(2) of the Family Law Act 1991 and upon which is based section 1(5) of the “CYPA 2001.”) But should a citizen need to appeal against something that is SO WRONG for the Isle of Man is not part of England & Wales (“E+W”) nor is it part of Great Britain, nor is it part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? It is a “Crown of England” Dependency, not an HMG dependent territory. Some laws of parts of the UK apply, but those that do were published around August 2003 in the Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man (fifth edition). The Children Act 1989 is NOT in this table – neither were the Guardianship of Infants Acts 1886 or 1925, nor the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 nor the Guardianship Act 1973. There are signs around the Public Counter in the courts building that tell members of the public that officers are not permitted to give legal advice. On 2nd April 2004, Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) entered the courts building public office and asked about “registration.” She was told to apply in writing – which she did, but she addressed her purported letter of application to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division – it was time-stamped before 15:00 on that date. The Family Division of the High Court should have rejected the letter and written to her (as the High Court Office did to me in February 2007) in the following form:
Dear Sir Registration of Court Order … I am in receipt of your undated letter regarding the registration of an order issued under the Children Act 1989 from Lancaster County Court dated 3rd February 2004. •
Your application should be made through Lancaster County Court;
•
The papers should be sent direct to the Isle of Man General Registry, Courts Division, from Lancaster County Court and must include copies of the applications and supporting documents in relation to the order;
•
The order will need to be certified by Lancaster County Court and must have the wording “I certify that this is a true copy of the original order of this Court” on it AND be signed by an appropriate person (either the Judge or a Registrar).
I trust this is of assistance. In the meantime, I return the … [document] to you. Yours faithfully
Voirrey Moore Civil Summary Team Can you count the number of bullet points on this letter (of 27 th February 2007 from the High Court Office)? – There are three. How many legal requirements do you think were followed on 28 th May 2004? – None. And there are more than three requirements because the applying court must be the High Court (in Manchester, London, Cardiff, Birmingham or Leeds) and the “custody Appendix page 5
order” to be registered must actually be a “custody order” (or access or care & control order). The so-called content of the orders (they were ultra vires and so could not in fact be registered in the Isle of Man High Court) is listed in J1183.htm but it is more complete to see the actual document, for it contains an important chronology –
The Case file number was KN03PO0016 meaning the proceeding began in Kendal in 2003 and was a Private Law matter (not public). The Act and section being used is listed as are the names of the children, but the place of birth, and domicile of origin, was not listed (it was and is Isle of Man) – Katarina and Benedict are Manx, Manx, Manx (back three generations). Paragraph 1 is administrative – before the judge/court dismissed my Applications (for I did not wish to proceed with them) I asked to withdraw any outstanding applications made before 24th February 2004. Paragraph 2 is the “section 8(1) Residence order” and is about the children. Paragraph 3 makes paragraph 2 immediately spent because a section 8(1) residence order is NOT and never can be a section 11(1)(a) [Isle of Man] residence order. And chronologically, we need to read the “separate Order attached” which grants leave (as opposed to permission for the Manx children to be removed from the whole of the United Kingdom (that is to include Northern Ireland and Scotland) to the Isle of Man permanently. So all courts in the Isle of Man now have jurisdiction and under Isle of Man “family law” (in this case the Child Custody Act 1987) a thorough due-process must take place before the “residence order” could become registered – and I say that the 1987 Act cannot allow for a residence order to be registered. Keep in mind the fact that the 1989 Act does not extend to the Isle of Man for it is not in the Chronological Table. Section 8 orders and their Manx equivalent are with regard to children and not adults. If a specific issue is (for example) leave to remove the child from the jurisdiction of E+W, then that CANNOT be a specific issue in the Isle of Man! The residence order could have been achieved in Lancaster by the no order principle, and in 2001 Justice Munby (who is now President of the Family Division of the High Court in London) confirmed that leave to remove could be achieved by the no order Appendix page 6
principle. Because the C44B Leave to remove child from UK order was made under sections 13(1) and 33(7) of the Children Act 1989, the Child Custody Act 1987 does not allow for the registration of such order under section 20(1)(c). Now look at paragraph 4: the subject is “the father” an adult not a child. This is not even immediately spent (as paragraph 2 is) because it is ultra vires from the word “father.” Provided such … takes place in the Isle of Man makes such even more ultra vires – the judge may as well have ordered that “the father do be an orang-utan provided he is in the Isle of Man. AND the orders (neither of them) were not registered. This is a section of a page on the government web-site judgments.im – J841 FSC and BRUNSWICK / 13 March 2009 / CHANCERY DIVISION J917 KAUPTHING SINGER AND FRIEDLANDER, petition of / 19 February 2009 / CHANCERY DIVISION J910 KAUPTHING SINGER AND FRIEDLANDER, petition of / 29 January 2009 / CHANCERY DIVISION J913 ASHTON & STANLEY and BAYLEY (deceased) / 28 January 2009 / CHANCERY DIVISION J906 HOLMES, petition of / 20 January 2009 / CHANCERY DIVISION J902 NEWBERY, petition of (part 1 of judgment) / 13 January 2009 / CHANCERY DIVISION J835 NEWBERY, petition of (part 2 of judgment) / 13 January 2009 / CHANCERY DIVISION
J906.htm (fully downloadable) is CHP 2008/84 Paragraph 3 – This judgment concerns an application dated 29 th September 2008 which has been brought by the General Registry … to strike out the Petition on the grounds that it:- (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action; &c. Conclusion [34] The result therefore is that the application to strike out the Petition of Doleance dated 16th June 2008 is adjourned to enable the Petitioner to make an application within fourteen days for leave to amend his Petition in the manner outlined above. I will hear that application as soon as possible. Deputy Deemster Corlett I was unable to amend my Petition in the manner outlined by Deemster Corlett because I could not find competent legal representation. The hearing was on 13 th January 2009, and in 2008 Deemster Linda Sullivan had both helped and hindered my claims for restitution. The General Registry did not make the Application to strike out my Petition (of 16th June 2008); such application was made by the AttorneyGeneral of the Isle of Man, and Oliver Helfrich represented the General Registry – there was no-one in court from the General Registry and staff from the government department have not read anything from the High Court that concerns this matter! Corlett – [22] Acting Deemster Sullivan states at page 772 that certain allegations made by Mr. Holmes were entirely correct, namely that the registration processes were erroneous and unlawful and therefore that the Orders made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5th November 2004 were revoked in October 2007, this being a result of the Staff of Government Division appeal proceedings of October 2007. Corlett put the word “erroneous” in his judgment but entirely failed to understand what the result of an unlawful civil action is. The registration processes were unlawful and therefore no registrations took place such that the totality of court file FD/UK/COR 04/02 is ultra vires nonsense. The simple way of looking at the socalled order of 5th November 2004 is that it was a forgery or false document, and by January 2009, there should have been circulating in the General Registry the result of the SOGD findings that the “orders” from Lancaster HAD NOT BEEN SO registered. On 28th May 2004 nothing was registered and so on 1 st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson lied from the Bench; but he did have power under section 1(5) of the Appendix page 7
CYPA 2001 to dismiss the Application of 18th May 2004 and make no order at all. I have a recording of the meeting on 1 st July 2004; and the following interaction took place. SH: I thought that an order from the UK had no validity in the Isle of Man. AKW: It does if it is registered. SH: Can I appeal against that order being registered? AKW: I think again you’d have to go back to judge Forrester. The (non) registration took place in the Isle of Man without being disclosed to both parents (so I had no knowledge of the existence of the Child Custody Act 1987) and Williamson alleged that I would have to return to England where judges thought the Isle of Man to be within their jurisdiction (both “powers” and physical area). By using “I think,” Williamson was showing that he was unsure of his legal obligations but knowledge of Statute is irrelevant if a Deemster is speaking or writing. Here is another example of Deemster stupidity from Acting Deemster King in front of Walter Wannenburgh who is now Solicitor General (another advocate who thinks that a children matter is “matrimonial”). This is again from J906.htm [15] On 25th October 2006, Acting Deemster King gave an ex tempore judgment which made clear firstly that Mr. Holmes was unable to be present at the hearing … [16] The application before Acting Deemster King was similar to that made in this case, namely one to strike out the proceedings. At page 806 of the bundle there is a useful summary by Acting Deemster King of the claim which was then being made by Mr. Holmes. He says this:- [enhancement by Petitioner] “In essence, stripping out the detail, what this default action so called amounts to, is a claim by the Plaintiff for the cost to him of investigating and researching what he regards as a defect in the orders made on this Island in the matrimonial proceedings. His case appears to be that in the matrimonial proceedings, the Manx court wrongly and illegally gave effect to an English court order. That may or may not be right and I make no comment on that, what I do say is that it appears to me that this so called default action is not an action known to law. Because what this man is seeking to do, this Plaintiff, instead of going down the obvious route if he challenges the orders in the matrimonial court by way of appeal, has embarked on a wholly collateral attack on those concerned in the administration of justice on this Island and particularly, those who are concerned in the administration of the process of the matrimonial proceedings. This is not a cause of action which from my reading of any authorities is known to law on the Island. It is quite straightforward, and was quite straightforward, for this Plaintiff to pursue his grievances in relation to the matrimonial proceedings in the way in which the law of the Island allows, namely through the appellant process.”
[17] Acting Deemster King continued as follows at page 807:“In so far as his purported amendments to his default, so called default action, introduces a cause of action which may be found in the law books, namely malfeasance of public duty, there is nothing on the face of his pleading which begins to get such cause of action off the ground. There has to be shown dishonesty, there has to be shown a recklessness as to the lawfulness of what is going on.”
Below is the header of the FORM C1 that I completed and presented to the public office on 18th May 2004 –
In the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man Family Division .
Appendix page 8
Anyone could establish that the types of Part 2 orders available under section 9 of the Family Law Act 1991 were the same as those under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, namely Residence/Contact/Specific Issue/Prohibited Steps.
And note the date I signed this C1 form –
Checking the FORMS on the courts.im web-site an application for a divorce, nullity or separation (a matrimonial matter) is made on FORM 2. King – “in the matrimonial proceedings, the Manx court wrongly and illegally gave effect to an English court order. … Because what this man is seeking to do, this Plaintiff, instead of going down the obvious route if he challenges the orders in the matrimonial court by way of appeal, has embarked on a wholly collateral attack on those concerned in the administration of justice on this Island and particularly, those who are concerned in the administration of the process of the matrimonial proceedings.”
There NEVER were any matrimonial proceedings in the (Isle of Man) High Court.
King again: “There has to be shown dishonesty, there has to be shown a recklessness as to the lawfulness of what is going on.” A lie is “dishonesty” and Williamson did indeed act dishonestly and showed a recklessness as to the lawfulness of what he did. Appendix page 9
I established in 2007 that the Chief Registrar in 2004 was Angela Humphrey LL.B. and LL.B. is a bachelor of law degree – it is some kind of legal qualification. By August / September 2004 the “players” in this game (given reference DIV 2004/144 on the above form) were Williamson, his Clerk Mrs Brogan, Chief Registrar Humphreys LL.B., Assistant Chief Registrar Jayne Williams (now Mrs Farquhar), Yvonne Holmes, me (the applicant) and the children. Note that Williamson referred to the papers he had shuffled on his bench (many of which had not been disclosed to me, a legal requirement in any court process) as “evidence” in his so-called Order of 1st July 2004 (which was not issued until 12 th July 2004), “UPON consideration of the said Application and of the evidence of each Party …,” but the evidence provided “by Mrs Holmes” was sent to her by the High Court Office on or immediately after 28 th May 2004 and assured her that the two documents from Lancaster County Court had been “Registered” in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT under the Child Custody Act 1987 when they had not been so registered, and as little as three minutes with the Child Custody Act 1987 (reading it) would tell someone of average intelligence that no registration could take place given the hand-written letter and photocopies and no other documents and the letter being addressed, in effect, to Williamson. The hearing on 1st July 2004 WAS NOT FAIR, contrary to LAW because the Deputy Deemster committed perjury from the Bench – he was acting under Oath – the Deemster’s oath. That “order” was not a false instrument because he had the jurisdiction (power) to make “no order at all” – his reasons for dismissing the Application were flawed but not unlawful – his lie was what was unlawful. Williamson lied again on 5th November 2004. He did not introduce the “case to be heard” but (in front of “Counsel”) he began with “Now I’ve got Mrs Holmes!” [not “Isle of Man High Court: Family Division.”] The court immediately became kangaroo. Williamson then alleged that he had “heard from Mr Holmes” but I had written a note to the Chief Registrar (“Dear Sir,” for I did not know that the CR was famale) and not to Williamson or his clerk. The “scheduling” of the kangaroo court hearing was a verbal instruction “Deemster will see you at two” delivered at 11:00 a.m. on the morning of 5th November. I spent an hour frantically trying to find competent representation because I felt that Williamson was going to act erroneously – I never thought that he would lie and release a forgery but that is what he did after 14:10 – I have a “For the Record” recording of the kangaroo court meeting – here is the section created by Kevin O’Riordan at Simcocks with the word “Yes” added because Williamson enthused “yes” when O’Riordan mentioned Mr C and Mrs G. Later, much later, in May 2007, O’Riordan e-mailed me with the fact that Mrs C and Mr G (I don’t know nor care which was which) was in the “principal divorce registry.” I asked O’Riordan where this was, and he answered “The High Court” – so a High Court “order” may have been capable of registration – a county court “order” was not.
D
Now, I’ve got Mrs Holmes?
MrsH Yes AKW Yes. And Mr Holmes – you appear – do you Mr O’Riordan? KOR Yes, whether I’m going to remain on the record is another thing but I’m certainly appearing this afternoon. AKW Right, thank you. Right well it was from Mrs Holmes that first I heard today and then subsequently I’ve heard from Mr Holmes and I will do what I can to assist. Mr Holmes seems to take issue with orders made in the Lancaster County Court (which have been registered one back in May, and a more recent variation of that registered here yesterday), where do we go from there? Appendix page 10
Those orders are binding. KOR Your Honour, I don’t know what has led to this afternoon’s hearing procedurally. I have spoken to Mr Holmes on the telephone on a number of occasions months back when he was asking for general advice I tried to give him some general pointers. I then had him arrive at my office a few minutes ago so I had the benefit of about 5 minutes of instructions before coming up here this afternoon. From what I know of the case – I have no paperwork – I think this is very akin to the situation we have had in another case Mrs C and Mr G AKW Yes The lies or uncertainties are underlined: the orders were not binding because they had been made by a County Court not by a High Court and a County Court CANNOT bind a High Court; and the orders had not in fact been registered. When O’Riordan said “I think this is very akin to” he was not sure of his facts and may as well have said “I think that Mr Holmes is an orang-utan.” There was no procedure that led to the “hearing” so O’Riordan should have asked for an adjournment to investigate the matter or so that a competent advocate could have checked the legality of the meeting. There was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did on 5th November 2004 – Williamson forged a document that looked like an order from the Family Division and Ordered that it be circulated to the Police and to a head teacher in the Department of Education and so the policy that Stephen Holmes have indirect dealings with his own Manx children became the policy of the Isle of Man Government and was accepted by EVERYONE in public authority in the Isle of Man for the next three years. But even when the document was “revoked” the consequences of the policy (“indirect dealings” was interpreted [by the Constabulary] as “some kind of injunction empowering arrest” and so I was first arrested on suspicion of breaching the peace in February 2005) continued and caused extreme emotional distress. This is the text of a letter sent to Mannin Chambers by Peter Corkhill, CR, on 25 th July 2007 –
The documents referred to above do not exist. The application to register the orders in the Isle of Man was made directly by Yvonne Holmes. From an inspection of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic] it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously, i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987. However, Deputy Deemster Williamson made the order of 5th November 2004, effectively endorsing the provisions of the Orders from the Court in Lancaster. Upon an examination of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic] in 2006, it was noted that documents submitted by Yvonne Holmes were not certified copies and therefore certified copies of the two Orders were sought by this office from the Lancaster County Court. It was a LEGAL requirement for the documents (referred to above) to exist. Corkhill here mentions the Child Custody Act 1987 (an Act of Tynwald) and confirmed that “this office” had acted unlawfully. “This Office” and the officers of the High Court within this office are directed and supervised by Deemsters or a Deemster, so a Deemster directed this office to “register documents” although Mrs Holmes (and not the issuing appropriate court) made the application. Certification was essential – and Corkhill confirmed that this office had sought certified copies from Lancaster County Court in [February] 2006, nearly two years after a non-registration. In January/February 2006 the General Registry had enough information to, on its own initiative, set-aside the so-called “Registration Documents” and therefore have the order of Williamson of 5th November 2004 voided and expunged; but retrospective Appendix page 11
certification of documents were sought, and that certification was in fact unlawful because it was not by a judge or registrar (as required by Law) – see below. The Chief Registrar's view was that “ Deputy Deemster Williamson made the order of 5 th November 2004, effectively endorsing the provisions of the Orders from the Court in Lancaster ” but the Orders from the Court in Lancaster had not been registered in accordance with the requirements of the Act that allowed for registrations. Even in March 2009, Peter Corkhill continued this denial of wrongdoing (although it was Deemster Williamson and Deemster Doyle and Deemsters King and Sullivan [and even Deemster Kerruish] who had done wrong by NOT executing Statute justly, just making up their own bowel law).
As the matters of which you had complained concerned the Courts Division, I asked Mrs. Dowd as Director of Courts to conduct the required investigation. As you know, Mrs. Dowd wrote to you on 9 February 2006 explaining the error and apologizing to you (copy enclosed). [copy below] Subsequently in 2007, after you had appealed to the Court as I had advised in January 2006, it came to light that Mrs. Dowd's investigation in January/February 2006 had not revealed the full extent of the error made regarding the registration of the Court Orders from England. At the request of the Amicas Curiae, I examined the position and reported thereon to Mannin Chambers by letter dated 25 July 2007 (copy enclosed). I understand that subsequently your appeal was successful. [not enclosed] In January 2006 your complaint was properly investigated, errors were found and you were issued with an apology. Appropriate action was taken to rectify the position. In July 2007 a further investigation was undertaken which revealed an incompleteness about the January 2006 investigation. A full report was submitted to the Amicas Curiae, the relevant procedure notes were revised to reflect the correct procedure for registering Court Orders from other jurisdictions and appropriate action was taken with the staff involved to avoid future errors. I am satisfied that the January 2006 investigation of your complaint revealed an error and you were issued with an apology. Whilst the July 2007 investigation revealed the fuller extent of the error made, it was nevertheless the same error for which you had already received an apology. An apology was never a sufficient remedy to the years of wrongdoing by everyone in the court building – even the SOGD judges purportedly revoked a false instrument – a £9-pound note does not need a revocation; it could be, for completeness, declared void from the outset, but criticism should be made of the person who circulated the £9-pound note or the “fork/spoon order” without checking what the statute actually says. Corkhill used the words properly investigated, but he did not investigate anything – he “inspected the file!” Kerruish and Tattersall – 40. It is thus self evident that, pursuant to sections 7 and 12, for the orders made by the Lancaster County Court to be registered by the High Court it was required that the English Court should send the High Court a certified copy of the orders made together with a copy of the Respondent’s application and any accompanying documents. 44. Such a conclusion is supported by a letter of the Chief Registrar to Mr Beckett dated 25 th July 2007 in which he concedes that it would appear that the two orders were registered in the High Court erroneously and not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987.
Note that “together with” is emboldened, but in March 2009 Corkhill STILL did not understand that there were other requirements for a successful registration and it has to be said that the SOGD was negligent in ignoring sections 20 and 21 of the 1987 Act, and especially Schedule 1 where the definintion of “appropriate court” can be found. Dumpsters can “make up the law” but they cannot use initiative when reading statute! Negligence can also be known as nonfeasance – doing nothing. I KNEW by 14th November 2004 that the so-called order of the “Family Division” was Appendix page 12
“nonsense” but no-one believed me. By December 2005, Mr Beckett had assisted me in telling me that the orders from England must be considered “spent” in the Isle of Man but the view of everyone in authority (except Messrs Beckett and Stanley) was the the Deputy Deemster's order of 5 th November 2004 was lawful and would have to be set-aside on appeal, IF I COULD FIND GROUNDS FOR APPEAL. I did not appeal against the 16 th November 2005 “order” because the totality of events in 2005 had been based on the assumption that the FD/UK/COR/04/02 “order” of 5 th November 2004 was good and proper when it had no basis in law, as confirmed by SOGD. Deemster Corlett took the poisoned fruit in 2009 MLR 112 [J906.htm] in paragraph 22 for he too used the word “revoked.” … and therefore that the Orders [sic] made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5 th November 2004 were revoked in October 2007, this being a result of the Staff of Government Division appeal proceedings of October 2007. The SOGD proceeding was a “review in the Staff of Government Division” and that review concentrated (only) on the Child Custody Act 1987 and the requirements for a single registration. These were not met, and therefore there was no legitimate basis upon which Williamson could have made the totality of the so-called order of 5 th November 2004 – and paragraph 4 of the document issued on 16 th November 2005 also had no legitimate basis. Yes, the proceeding in the SOGD purportedly “revoked, quashed or set-aside” the so-called order of 5 th November 2004, but that so-called order HAD NO BASIS IN LAW so the totality of events BEFORE that kangaroo court meeting (and it WAS kangaroo because the only document circulated in the public domain from 12th November 2004 onwards was a false instrument with no basis in the laws of this Isle) were of no value and there was in fact nothing in law to revoke. The Deputy Deemster, the Second Deemster (in 2007 Doyle), in fact ANY Deemster could have declared void the so-called order of 5th November 2004 because it was void from the outset – it had no basis in law. And the welfare of Katie and Ben Holmes was of no concern to the charlatan civil court judge Williamson – a purported registration of an ultra vires document from an inferior court in another jurisdiction was paramount to Williamson. On 5 th November 2004 he said IN COURT (albeit kangaroo) – “I can do whatever I think is necessary for the immediate protection of the children,” to which O’Riordan alleged “yes, that’s true; that’s true.” Including unlawfully issuing an “order,” sending it to the police where it will be used as an injunction and ensuring that the Manx children had no family life with their father for the duration of their childhood? – I don’t think so, Adolf Williamson. In the famous O.J.Simpson trial in California, an Attorney likened one of the police officers to Hitler. Adolf Hitler CHANGED THE LAW to allow the state of Germany to “remove” those in opposition to their policies. The death penalty was “lawful” – it was “what governments wanted,” but no Government wants a senior (high court) judge who “makes up his own rules” and abuses the rights of children and fathers – no government would want a High Court judge to issue a document that had no basis in law for the Government of the Isle of Man has outlawed Partiality and misgovernment (in 1422) and began recording this need for good government and fair treatment in 1417 – and in 1419, 1422 (twice) 1429 and 1430. For 595 years this has been “our law” (1422 section 45) – Forasmuch as before this Time, by Misrule and Willfullness of the Lieutennant and Receiver, the Law of Mann hath been misgoverned to them that they hated too rigorous, and to them that they did like over favourable, soe that oft Times, through this Misgovernment, the People have been wronged, and Profitt taken to the Lord, otherwise than the Law would. And whereas Profitt should be taken not done as the Law would for Favour. Wherefore be it ordained from henceforth, that the Officers be true principally to the Lord and the Laws of the Land, to be governed duely and truely betwixt the Lord and his Commons, and betwixt Appendix page 13
Party and Party, without Rigour, Fraud, or Colour. And that the Deemsters may give their Judgment at their Perills, saving ever the Lord's Prerogatives, and to be ruled by Advice of the Councel and the Deemsters. so that oft-times, through misgovernment, the People have been wronged. Corlett “getting it wrong” again [J906.htm] [19] It is of course the case that the Staff of Government Division had at that time yet to deal with the issue of the erroneous registration of the Lancaster County Court Orders and Mr. Holmes told me during the course of the hearing that so far as he was concerned he did not become aware of the full background to the unlawful registration of the Court Orders until March 2007. This does not particularly surprise me. Anyone seeking to research the law and procedure relating to the registration in the Isle of Man of "custody orders", as they are termed, made in the U.K. would immediately find themselves hampered by the fact that the relevant subordinate legislation setting out the detailed procedure for proper registration to take place (i.e. the Rules of the High Court of Justice (Child Custody) 1991 – GC 232/91) is, as with much subordinate legislation made in the Isle of Man, virtually impossible to obtain.
March 2007 was when I received the letter from Mrs Voirrey Moore of the Civil Summary Team telling me three of the criteria for “good government” of registrations. There was no mention of the Child Custody Act 1987. I had Counsel (useless, I may as well have had a chimpanzee accompany me to Williamson’s kangaroo court on 5th November 2004) so I did not remember the words spoken in that hearing but in the O’Riordan transcript we find (this is what AKW said) – “I don’t expect every primary school headmaster or indeed every constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is.” It is reasonable to expect the Deemster to review the Child Custody Act to see whether a County Court order can be registered in the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man or establish if there are any stautory requirements other than a hand-written letter. I received the recording of the 5 th November 2004 meeting in August 2006, almost two years later, but for years I could not bring myself to listen to it (after the first time) – the wrongfulness of it was extremely emotionally distressing. But note that the SOGD NEVER mentioned Government Circular 232/1991 – and when I asked about “subordinate legislation” (at the Tynwald Library) rather than being impossible to obtain, it took staff less than a minute to give me the reference Corlett gave! [I did not prompt the staff member – I wanted to show (again) that Deemsters “just make up the rules” and talk nonsense]. There being no Act of Tynwald on the so-called order or 5 th November 2004, I was surprised when, on 13th April 2007 in a directions hearing, Deemster Kerruish stated that such order was made under the Child Custody Act 1987 – for I had no idea that a proceeding – a registration of a custody order – had been in progress in the Isle of Man under that Act of Tynwald – the documents were not disclosed to me until May 2007! [not March 2007]. And note that Corkhill, in 2007, stated that he had inspected file DIV 2004/144 [he used 114] – a Court File reference, given to me on or about 27th May 2004 and established in the High Court Family Division on 25 th May 2004 following my 18th May 2004 application. In June 2011, I asked to view file DIV 2004/144 [something I requested in early 2010 – I was in no hurry] and I found NONE of the documents I was seeking – namely the eight so-called registration documents. Those documents still exist in the High Court Office – I maintain that they should have been expunged in November 2007 following the SOGD judgment but the SOGD listed MRS HOLMES as the respondent to my application to have the 5 th November 2004 “order” set-aside – not the General Registry which was the government department (with a small “d”) that purportedly carried out the registration. At the header of the so-called Child Custody Act 1987 Order of 5 th November 2004 – let me refresh you for it is on page 7 of the Petition recorded in the Appendix page 14
records of Tynwald Day 5th July 2017:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN FAMILY DIVISION Between: YVONNE HOLMES Applicant and GORDON STEPHEN HOLMES Respondent and IN THE MATTER of Katarina May Holmes (born the 19th May 1996) and Peter Elliott Benedict Holmes (born the 28th August 1999) and IN THE MATTER of the Orders of the Lancaster County Court of the 24th day of February 2004 end the 27th day of October 2004 and registered under section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987 in this Court on the 28th day of May 2004 and the 4th day of November 2004 respectively At a Court at Douglas (in chambers) on the 5th day of November 2004 we clearly see that Mrs Holmes was the Applicant for the registration processes but BY LAW she could not be Applicant – the Appropriate Court that made the orders must be the Applicant. I was respondent to NOTHING that I even knew about and consequently Mrs Holmes had nothing to respond to in the “appeal proceedings” – even in the dehumanised copy on judgments.im/content/J1183.htm the term Mrs H appears only briefly. The Deputy Deemster should have been the respondent to the “appeal” for he had turned “DIV 2004/144” into AK Williamson versus Stephen Holmes with himself as judge in his own cause. Corlett recorded what Sullivan said in May 2008 – “Acting Deemster Sullivan … she refers to a claim against Deputy Deemster Williamson being debarred on the grounds of his absolute immunity from personal civil liability arising out of the performance of his judicial acts. At page 782, Acting Deemster Sullivan refers to the other claim having been brought under the Human Rights Act 2001 and she ruled that this had no prospect of success on the grounds of it being time-barred and the acts giving rise to any claim having arisen before the Human Rights Act came into force in any event.” The Deputy Deemster was not performing a “judicial function” but “making up the law” or committing perjury as PROVED by the SOGD in their irrelevant “background.” If the orders from Lancaster County Court WERE NOT registered (and they were not registered) then what those orders say or said is of no consequence. The Deputy Deemster lied about an event (he did not know the difference between a registration and a non-registration, nor did he know how to govern a children matter [as Re The Children]) and on 5th November 2004 released a document that had no basis in law in its totality which is not acting in a judicial function but is acting in a criminal manner contrary to Section 3 of the Forgery Act 1952. In neither of the “hearings” in 2004 did he introduce the Court (“in the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man, Family Division”) nor did he clearly state what the case was – he never once mentioned the Child Custody Act 1987 on 1st July 2004 and documents were unlawfully not disclosed. But the law does not apply to the judiciary in the Isle of Man, (only when their competence is being criticised), for no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for his belief that orders from an inferior court have been properly registered in the Isle of Man High Court, although one of them says “the children may be removed to the Isle of Man,” and the another says “to the Isle of Man permanently.” The Human Rights Act 2001 might not have been in force in 2004, but the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, AN ACT to reform the law relating to children, had been Appendix page 15
in force since 1st February 2003, 5 months after Williamson was made Deputy Deemster and given the Family Division to turn into his personal criminal/civil law court where he regularly sent civil court orders to the police in his function as High Bailiff in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction (criminal law, mainly) where he had sat in adversarial disputes since 6th January 1988. He still thought he was in a court of summary “justice” – he even referred to SUMMARY BUSINESS in the High Court! When is a court order not a court order? – When it is ultra vires. DIV 2004/144 had a life, and death – it died on 1st July 2004 with Application (i.e. case) dismissed. On the front of file DIV 2004/144 in the Court building are the words SEE ALSO FD/UK/COR/04/02 – another court file. I had to make a separate appointment to look at this “other file” and it turns out that there was further correspondence between Lancaster County Court and the High Court Office in August 2007 which was not disclosed to me so I was NEVER a respondent to the events with regard to the Child Custody Act 1987 – and (as is proven from the transcript) I asked Williamson “can I appeal against the orders being registered” – “I think you should go back to England.” I assert (or allege) that Williamson misgoverned every children matter he dealt with in the Family Division and every children matter should be investigated and if necessary reopened and governed correctly in accordance with the Laws of this Isle and not in accordance with bowel law and court ordure. My concern now is with future misgovernment of matters relating to children in the “Family Business” section of the High Court, presided over (mainly) by Second Deemster Andrew TK Corlett. When a recording of a hearing is sent to an “applicant,” the CD issued by the court office will contain the following files: • • • • • •
A folder containing the requested audio recording; An html document which specifies the times of important points within the recording; Player 542 setup (the software to enable you to listen to the recording); “The Record Player” crib sheet PDF (a pictorial quick reference guide); “The Record Player” instructions PDF (Set up instructions); A disclaimer.
At the foot of the “html” document is For The Record with the trademark sign and The Record Player plays For The Record recordings. Here is the html file from the 5th November 2004 kangaroo court meeting –
Description DEPUTY DEEMSTER WILLIAMSON - FAMILY DIVISION Date 05/11/2004 Time
Location Douglas Court 5
Speaker
Note
13:51:36
TESTINGS
14:11:52
FD/UK/COR/04/02
Holmes v Holmes - In Person & K O'Riordan
14:21:21
DDW
Adjourns for a few minutes
14:37:27
DDW
Recommences
14:37:43
K O'Riordan
Addresses DDW
14:41:47
Mrs Holmes
Addresses DDW
14:42:09
DDW
Gives declarity orders Appendix page 16
Produced by FTR Log Notes™ www.ftrgold.com Note that the word is “declaratory” not declarity and there was only one order. Now here is an extract from the html file I was provided with for the DAY 1 st July 2004
Description DEPUTY DEEMSTER WILLIAMSON - SUMMARY BUSINESS & FAMILY LAW Date 01/07/2004 Time
Location Douglas Court 7
Speaker
Note
08:44:38
TESTINGS
08:58:27
9.05 am
Summary Business
09:02:07
0392988
Blackhorse Offshore v Wayne McKee - Mr Herbert for Pl - McKee In Person
09:06:19
0400112
Blackhorse Offshore v Peter W Jones - Mr Herbert for Pl - Jones In Person
09:19:39
0301709
Marown TV Ltd v Mr A M J Ver-Elst
09:22:50
0200597
Tower Credit Ltd v K Broadhead
09:38:54
0101349
Dandara Properties Ltd v Sharon Lunt
09:50:18
09.55 am
Summary Business
09:56:52
SJ 2004/050
Petn of Kingswood Honda
10:31:36
SJ 2003/066
Marown TV v D Skillicorn
10:33:09
0400543
Ian M Abrahams v Mary Todd
10:38:39
11.25am
FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTIONS COURT
11:25:47
Div 2000/199
Robley v Robley - A Thomas & P Pringle
11:35:59
Div 2004/054
Cass v Cass - J Quinn & A Hannan
11:54:21
Div 2004/144
Holmes v Holmes - Both In Person
12:11:34
Div 2003/180
Watling v Watling - S Watson & J Thornley
12:48:24
Div 2003/212
Moore v Moore - P Butterworth & P Pringle (no notice given)
12:56:34
Div 2002/168
Fox-Hulme v Fox-Hulme In person & No appearance of res
13:01:35
DDW
Mrs Fox-Hulme sworn in - evidence in chief
13:07:19
Div 1999/259
Brown v Brown - A Hannan & J Quinn
13:49:17
2PM
SUMMARY BUSINESS
15:02:20 15:02:37
FAMILY DIVISION Div.2004/180
15:03:53 15:16:04
Faragher v Carter Ex Parte - E McPherson Mr Faragher sworn in - Evidence in chief
Div 2004/181
15:17:08
Hughes v Carter Ex Parte - E McPherson Mr Hughes sworn in - Evidence in chief
15:37:44
Div.2003/302B
McAleer v McAleer Ex Parte - D Jones & R Lindley
15:38:11
D Jones
submissions re: application Appendix page 17
15:40:41
Mr Lindley
submissions
16:13:10
D Jones/Mr Linley
Discovery
16:31:40
DDW
Hull v Hull - K O'Riordan v D Jones
16:32:19
D Jones
Re: letter application of 28th June, 2004
16:33:16
K O'Riordan
contact
16:37:19
Mr East
re:report
16:40:03
Mrs Jones
submissions Produced by FTR Log Notes™ www.ftrgold.com
ALL the cases in the Family Division had the prefix DIV which has always been construed as the word “divorce” when since 1 st April 1992 (with the enactment of the Family Law Act 1991 [based on the Children Act 1989]) a divorce, nullity of separation (order) has been unrelated to a matter relating to children – one type became under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act (2001, then 2003) and the other type under the Family Law Act 1991 then the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 (“CYPA 2001”). Since the restructuring of the High Court in 2009, Form C1 (an application for an order with respect to a child) has been headed (and this is downloaded on 28 th June 2017, dated 09/2012) –
The reference number of the case Re: Children will be FAM 20xx/yyy and the applciation for an order WITH RESPECT TO THE CHILD will be listed as (e.g.) Holmes versus Holmes instead of Re: Children. If a married person applies for a divorce, nullity or separation under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003, the Form 2 is headed –
Appendix page 18
– the date on the footer is 06/2009. Note (again) the case will be listed as FAM 20xx/yyy Kelly versus Kelly. Given that the Second Deemster (Doyle on 3rd September 2007) described an application for an order relating to Katarina Holmes (only) made by Mrs Yvonne Holmes on 3 rd September 2007 as “Divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144” which was NOT a divorce proceeding, and that Deputy Deemster Williamson did not know the difference between a registered order and an order that had not been registered or that the Children Act 1989 DOES NOT BIND THE ISLE OF MAN, then the chances of a children case with reference FAM 2015/987 being governed correctly are negligible to small. This is what Deemster Corlett alleged in a matter on 1st July 2016 (J1769.htm) – In essence, it is the duty of this court to promote the welfare of the child “throughout his childhood”. The hypothetical reasonable parent is treated as seeing that the child’s welfare is the decisive issue. A decision to refuse xxx should only be held to be unreasonable if no reasonable parent would have refused xxx. There is a hierarchy to LAW in the Isle of Man, as outlined by David Doyle in Government and Law in the Isle of Man in 1994: Statute of Tynwald (or in a minority of cases, Statutes of Parliament [in Westminster] that DO extend to the Isle of Man) → Rules of Equity [see section 32 of the High Court Act 1991] → precedent – but not English common law for the Isle of Man does not have matters that are “contrary to common law.” Section 1 of the CYPA 2001 begins almost exactly the same as section 1 of the Chidlren Act 1989: “Where a court determines any question with regard to the upbringing of a child [or income] the welfare of that child shall be the court ’s paramount consideration.” The “court” is the Deemster is the court is the Deemster – the Act does not require the court to promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood; a reasonable parent would not put the child at risk, but Katie and Ben Holmes needed protection from Adolf Kalashnikov Williamson (a weapon of destruction) because he put “registrations” ABOVE the welfare of children and he delayed matters BY A YEAR in 2005 – before making exactly the same court ordure as he made on 5th November 2004, but in case DIV 2004/144 (which ended on 1 st July 2004) with MRS Holmes as the Applicant – on 1st July 2004 –
Appendix page 19
It is therefore essential to show section 1 of the CYPA 2001 – 1. Welfare of the child P1989/41/1 & 11, 1991/3/1 & 11 (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 welfare of that child 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. (3) Subject to subsections (1) and (2), a court in any proceedings referred to in subsection (2) shall seek, so far as practicable, to promote the upbringing of children by their families; and for this purpose “family”, in relation to a child, includes any individual who has parental responsibility for him and any person with whom he has been living. (4) When determining whether or not to make, vary or revoke an order under section 11, a care order or a supervision order, and if so, in what manner, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case including, in particular — &c – see the 2001 Act (5) Where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under this Part or Part 2, 4 or 5 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. Note that section 1(4) mentions the revocation or variation of an order. Section 11 is as follows: 11. Orders with respect to children P1989/41/8, 1991/3/9 (1) The orders which the court may make with respect to a child under this section are as follows — (a) a “residence order”, that is, an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom the child is to live; (b) a "contact order", that is, an order requiring the person with whom the child lives or is to live, to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order; (c) an order that, in meeting parental responsibility for the child, no step which could be taken by a parent in meeting his parental responsibility for the child, and which is of a kind specified in the order, shall be taken by any person without the consent of the court; (d) 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 Appendix page 20
responsibility for the child; (e) an order varying or revoking a previous order under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d). A section 11(1)(b) contact order cannot begin “the father do have xxx contact with the child” because that is NOT an order with respect to the Child under AN ACT to reform the law relating to children; to re-enact Parts I and II of the Family Law Act 1991; to provide for social services for children in danger and in need; to provide for the regulation of children's homes, fostering, child minding and day care; to make new provision for human fertilisation, embryology and surrogacy; and for connected purposes. The FORM C1 is based on an England & Wales Form C1 [as the 2001 Act is based on P1981/41 – the Children Act 1989] and the E+W Form C1 DOES NOT begin with “Between” but it begins with “The name(s) of the child(ren).” Since 1422, and before, misgovernment and bias have been prohibited for the rules of natural justice are Roman in origin – they demand fairness and good due process – and the rules of natural justice have always applied in court hearings. “You appear to have” is NOT a fair or competent introduction to a hearing – scheduling a children matter as exactly the same type of hearing as a divorce is to misgovern the matter and is also incompetent. There are no legally qualified MHKs in the Isle of Man and neither the Solicitor General nor the Attorney-General are interested in investigating misgovernment in the High Court (Civil Division – Family Business) nor in the actions of Doyle, Corlett, Roberts and even Tattersall &c. Dumpsters can do whatever they want and get away with it. Tattersall JA stated in court on 24 th September 2007 [in 2DS 2007/9] “but the judge made an order” referring to the so-called orders THAT WERE NOT registered on 28 th May 2004 nor on any other day, and that was when I realised that a judge can “order” anything [e.g. the father do be called an orang-utan in the Isle of Man] and every legal “professional” in, or associated with, the Isle of Man (because of incompetence) will “advise” that an appeal must be made against such an ultra vires document. In 2010 I asked at the Isle of Man Law Society offices “Is there a program of “CPD” in the legal profession in the Isle of Man?” – “No, there is not,” came the answer. There is no competence in the judiciary in the Isle of Man – there is no real expertise in the law relating to children in the Island – the only person (seemingly) capable of reading Acts of Tynwald now lives in Greater Manchester – that is me, Stephen Holmes. The statement that the welfare of the child should have been paramount TO THE COURT / Judge has been in statute in E+W since 1886 and in the Isle of Man since 1953 but no Deemster has shown that he (or she, recently) has even considered that the Family Law Act 1991 was about minors and the CYPA 2001 is about children and young people; it is NOT bowel law of the Deemsters. In his 2004 book The Strange Laws of Old England author Nigel Cawthorne included a section on the Isle of Man. He wrote – “Legally the Isle of Man is not part of the English realm – it belonged to the Norwegian
Crown until 1266, when it was sold to Scotland; then in 1341, the English Crown seized it and [later] granted it as a fiefdom to Sir John Stanley, whose heirs held the island until 1736 when the Dukes of Atholl took over. But the British Parliament purchased its sovereignty in 1765 and bought the rest of the Atholl family’s prerogatives on the island in 1828. “Until 1417, the Manx laws were said to be ‘locked up in the bowels of the Deemsters’ – two judges who each had jurisdiction in the north and south of the island. Sir John Stanley suspected that the Deemsters were just making the laws up as they went along and ordered a promulgation, forcing them to proclaim them, but it did no good. The ‘bowel laws’ continued for another two centuries until 1636 when the Deemsters were Appendix page 21
finally forced to ‘set down in writing, and certify what these … laws are’. Despite this, as judges, the Deemsters were seen to be impartial as they were bound by a curious oath, which said: ‘I do swear that I will execute the laws of the isle justly betwixt party and party as indifferently as the herring’s backbone doth lie in the midst of the fish.’”
This was an English author stating that Deemsters just “made up the law,” and it is self-evident that they still do! Again, from the Transcript prepared by O’Riordan in 2011 from the actual recording of The Williamson Show on 5th November 2004, and note that NOTHING had in fact been registered so the content of any so-called orders from Lancaster County Court (in England) was of no relevance or consequence in the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man – AKW There is a positive order for indirect contact but the entitlement to direct contact is revoked. KOR
Yes
AKW Now as we both understand the law – both the Manx law and the English law, Mr Holmes, if dissatisfied with that has to go to a court of appeal in London basically – or vary it in Lancaster. KOR
Yes but either way he seems to me to be stuck with the jurisdiction in England.
AKW Yes he’s bound by it. KOR
So whether he has tried to exercise direct contact and that’s what’s brought Mrs Holmes to you I know not.
AKW Well it is because looking at his letter to me of 5th November today, I have just been to see my children at Rushen Primary school and they’ve told me that a Judge has said I could not see them. KOR
Right.
AKW So yes that’s what’s brought Mrs Holmes here and I would be prepared to make a prohibitive steps order to enforce the existing order if that became necessary. KOR
Mr Holmes leads me to believe he’s possibly got a letter from the Attorney General and may have forwarded that to your Honour, I’m not sure…
AKW No he’s referred to having spoken with the Attorney and to the Police and to an MHK none of which is of value to me if it’s inconsistent with my understanding of the law. KOR
Right thank you for that.
AKW Yes – so as I say I would be prepared to make a prohibitive steps order and I may be prepared to give declaratory orders to the effect that the English orders are binding and enforceable here and that I have no power to vary them and that Mr Holmes is entitled to the contest which the Judge in England has said he may have. I mean I can’t do any more than that, I can’t make the law up any more than Mr Holmes can as you know. KOR
Of course.
I had not written to Williamson, my letter was to the Chief Registrar – the CR had ensured that Williamson was given my letter but I never wanted to see the evil judge again after the debacle on 1 st July 2004 when he lied to me. It is self-evident that the “understanding of the law” of Williamson and O’Riordan was not an understanding but a “view” of what may have been the case at some time in the past, but was certainly not the case after 1st April 1992 or 1st February 2003 (when the CYPA 2001 was enacted). Note Williamson’s use of the word “prohibitive” when the word is Appendix page 22
“prohibited” and Williamson stated his intention of prohibiting ME, an Adult, from actually being in the same STREET as my Manx children. At some time in 2005, in Court, Williamson (who was presiding over case DIV 2004/144 from March of that year onwards, although THAT case ended on 1 st July 2004 and could not actually be continued – a new case file should have opened, and Williamson had lied and misgoverned on 1st July 2004 and 5th November 2004 [and no documents were registered] so he was not capable of acting professionally and properly at any time in 2005 – he had encouraged abuse of the rights of the children contrary to section 1 of the CYPA 2001) mentioned the term “unfit parent” which sent me (eventually) to the Tynwald library and the 1886 Guardianship of Infants Act (and its 1953 Manx replication). The concept of an “unfit parent” was removed from Statute in 1991 in E+W and in 1992 in the Isle of Man, but had not been used for “decades.” It was a Dickensian concept – to declare a parent “unfit to have custody of a child,” although as early as 1883 [24 ChD 317 at 337-338] Bowen LJ said that natural law “points out that the father knows far better as a rule what is good for his children than a court of justice can.” [Children: The Modern Law by Andrew Bainford third edition 2004]. I certainly knew what was better for Katie and Ben Holmes than Williamson’s kangaroo court of injustice and corruption – now known as the Civil Division – Family Business section of the Isle of Man High Court and ruled by Williamson’s successor, who admitted to “learning a great deal from the Charlatan Williamson,” Deemster Andrew TK Corlett. There has been a long-running case in the High Court (it began in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction) with regard to Jonathan Fletcher. Mr and Mrs Fletcher had twin boys in 2009 but in early 2010 the mother (a young woman born in the state of Georgia) left the house where she, Jonathan and the boys had been living and left the children with Social Services. An Application was made for a Care Order and the four month old boys were well cared for while the mother became more stable and prepared for a life of being a “single parent” with two young boys. An Advocate from Social Services (THE advocate in what was then the DSC) applied for a Care Order under Parts 3 and 4 of the CYPA 2001, and the dates are ALL recorded and “public law” for the State picked-up the cost of Applications and the services of a Guardian ad litem. Mr Fletcher was interviewed to establish whether he was a “suitable parent” because the DSC were considering putting the children “in Care” – happily, the mother became the full-time carer late in 2010. CASE NO: C13/C11/10/04 CHILDREN’S NOS: C13/C11/10/04/01 & 02 IN A JUVENILE COURT SITTING AT DOUGLAS ON 28TH MARCH 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 2001 IN RESPECT OF THE CHILDREN GEORGE Fletcher & ANDREW Fletcher (DoB 15.11.2009) BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL CARE Applicant AND (1) MRS Lia Fletcher (2) MR Jonathan Fletcher Respondents .
Appendix page 23
JUSTICES’ DECISION AND REASONS .
1.
By an application issued on 18th March 2010, the Department of Social Care (“the Applicant”) applied for a care order pursuant to section 31 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 (“the 2001 Act”) in respect of the children George Fletcher and Andrew Fletcher (both dob 2009). The children’s mother is Mrs Fletcher. She has attended this hearing and is represented by H.F. Smith (Ms). The children’s father is Mr Fletcher. He has not attended this hearing and is not represented. Crapper (Ms) appears on behalf of the Applicant. Buttertub (Ms) appears on behalf of the children, the de facto Guardian ad Litem “Terry” Douglas [Ms] (“the Guardian”).
2.
We were satisfied that Mr Fletcher was aware of the date and time of the hearing. Buttertub told us that she had spoken to him recently and reminded him that he should be in court, and had told him that the hearing was at 9.00 am (even though it was in fact listed for hearing at 10.00 am). We were also told that he had indicated to others that he would not be attending, but we did not place a great deal of weight on this. Having waited until 10.45 am we decided that it was in the interests of the children that the hearing should proceed even though Mr Fletcher was absent.
3.
The position of the parties can be summarised as follows. At the hearing, the Applicant was not pursuing the application for a care order and proposed that the court should make a Residence Order for the children to live with Mrs F, with a Contact Order for the children to have contact with Mr Fletcher on two occasions per year, this contact being supervised. This proposal was supported by Mrs Fletcher and by the Guardian. Mr F’s position was not clear to the court.
4. Since we were not being asked to make a Care Order or a Supervision Order, we did not need to consider whether the threshold conditions for making such an order were satisfied. Nevertheless, the application having been made, we had to consider whether we were prepared to allow the Applicant to withdraw the application, bearing in mind that the welfare of the children is the paramount consideration in these proceedings. 5. Before the hearing we read the evidence provided to us in the Bundle of Documents. The makers of those documents were called to give evidence before us, and confirmed the contents of their statements and that their statements were true. The substance of their statements was not challenged in court. AT THE HEARING the Applicant stated that it was not pursuing the CARE Order application AT THE END OF THE HEARING and ASKED (i.e. applied) for a Residence Order and an access order. Yes, the word “contact” was used but a contact order is an order that requires the person with who the child lives to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order so that the child(ren) can have a “family life” with the other parent. Section 12(4) of the CYPA 2001 states that: (4) No application may be made by the Department for a residence order or a contact order. The evidence given to the Court on 28 th March 2011 was ALL in support of the Care Order Application (made in “public law”) and after all that evidence was heard, the Department ASKED for a residence order and a contact order – but the contact was applied to the father and was inhuman. No-one could claim that “two occasions per year” gives the father a “family life,” and such denies him “parental responsibility” – just like Mr Holmes with the “indirect dealings declaratory order” (which had no basis in law), the Court of Summary Jurisdiction (“Juvenile Court”) purported to, with no evidence relevant to the unlawful “ask,” removed the status of “PR” from the father and enforced that removal with court orders (court ordure) and police involvement. In 2011 Acting Deemster Williamson (back from retirement) became involved in this “matter” which was a FAM 2011 matter between H.F. Smith and Jonathan Fletcher – the mother almost never attended court nor expressed any wish for the children to visit their father. Jonathan suffered extreme emotional stress and has a permanent disability brought on by the actions of people in authority in the Isle of Man – the same people who have caused me to compile this Appendix – the Courts Administration, the Judiciary and the Probation Service (yes, this part of the criminal Appendix page 24
justice system where sits the “Family Court Welfare Office” which “does what it says on the tin” and is an Office that upholds the welfare of the “family court” and ignores statute and human rights and especially (ignores) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child). Who, in the Isle of Man, ever quotes the “UNCRC”? – Stephen Holmes did, but he “left the Island and now resides in England” although any period in the land of my domicile of origin is temporary residence in the Isle of Man as was 4 th to 7th July 2017. On one occasion I said to a public servant (in the offices of the Chief Secretary) “No-one seems to take account of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child” and was dismissed with “It’s not a law it’s a Convention.” Before the European Convention on Human Rights was enshrined in law (in E+W, Scotland, NI or the Isle of Man) the Convention has persuasive authority and there were two cases against the Isle of Man brought in the European Court of Human Rights under the Convention. The view in the Isle of Man was “we have no human rights Act here, and so don’t have to follow the Convention!” In fact the UNCRC has been law since 1994. It seems to me that the High Court is absolutely corrupt – civil justice has failed – and has not recovered from the failures of the first decade of the 21 st century when Williamson ruled the Family Division – note that his hearings were “Summary Business” which was not a real division of the High Court! As he NEVER introduced his hearings with “In the High Court of Justice” or even “Family Division” he turned the court AND its administration into a kangaroo court and office of maladministration. All his colleagues followed his lead – even those brought in from England “made up the law as they went along.” I was supposed to say “Oh yes, I consider that Order unlawful but I must abide by it and not ask any questions.” I DID ask questions – for 28 months I asked “What is this due process of registration?” and even when I heard the 5 th Nov. kangaroo court recording in September 2006 I did not realise that the Child Custody Act allowed for the registration of “custody orders” because to me the word “custody” could not encapsulate residence, contact, specific issue and prohibited steps. And what could I do in 2005? – Nothing because Williamson was presiding over a kangaroo court from March to 16 th November – and I was so sickened (as in a disorder) by the actions of Williamson, the Court Welfare Officer Ingram and the police that I decided not to attend the kangaroo court meeting on that date in case I assulted Williamson (or worse). I could have “killed the bastard” but would not have got away with acting contrary to statute. On one hand, in January 2009, Andrew Corlett “judged” – “Anyone seeking to research the law and procedure relating to the registration in the Isle of Man of "custody orders", as they are termed, made in the U.K. would immediately find themselves hampered by the fact that the relevant subordinate legislation setting out the detailed procedure for proper registration to take place is, …, virtually impossible to obtain;” but also he questioned my delays – “It appears to me that Mr. Holmes will have significant difficulties in proving causation and quantum and he will have to overcome significant hurdles in explaining, for example, why he did not appeal more promptly against …Williamson’s Orders made in November 2004 and November 2005.” Deputy Deemster lied on 1st July 2004 because there had been no registrations on 28 th May 2004, and he (and Kevin O’Riordan) lied again on 5 th November 2004 – the hearing was 100% kangaroo! All Williamson did on 16 th November 2005 was to regurgitate the same excrement or court ordure that he excreted (unlawfully) one year earlier. And the other parts of his 16 th November 2005 were pure rights abuse – “do not bother the court for another two years although it is the Court that has made a SNAFU.” In my 1980 Oxford dictionary SNAFU is an acronym for Situation Normal: All Fouled Up but later dictionaries add another word for “fouled.” Looking forward, “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster Appendix page 25
could have made the order which he did,” but without an answer to my questions about whether “registration of a County Court order in the Isle of Man is a valid process” (it wasn’t) I asked the chief court administrator, Peter Corkhill Chief Registrar how had the registration come about. Corkhill (who may not give legal advice and should have been directed and supervised by Deemster Kerruish, met with me on 27 th January 2006, appropriately Holocaust Memorial Day, and began his cover-up. He asked another officer of the court to investigate and Ms Carol Dowd admitted in writing that maladministration had taken place – here is the letter this cheat wrote to me on 9th February 2006. .
General Registry Oik-Recortyssee Carol Dowd Director of Courts Services
Mr S Holmes 127 Ballabrooie Drive Douglas Isle of Man IM1 4HH
General Registry Isle of Man Courts of Justice, Deemsters Walk, Bucks Road Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 3AR Telephone: 01624 685481 Fax: 01624 686165 E-mail: carol.dowd@registry.gov.im
Our ref:
sh070206/sd
Your ref: 9th February 2006
Date:
Dear Mr Holmes Formal Complaint – Holmes v Holmes FD/UK/COR/02 and DIV 2004/144 Following your meeting with the Chief Registrar on 27th January 2006, I reply to your allegation that there had been maladministration in the Isle of Man when accepting the UK orders at front of house. Mrs Holmes submitted two court orders from the Lancaster County Court with this court on 2nd April 2004 for registration. The two orders submitted were true copies of the orders made. However, the courts administration did not follow the rules laid down ensuring that the copy orders submitted were certified copies. I enclose herewith of the orders submitted by Mrs Holmes on 2nd April 2004 and the certified copies of these orders, and I apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused. Yours sincerely,
Carol Dowd Director of Court Services C.c. R P Corkhill, Chief Registrar There are only three paragraphs in this excrement and all of malfeasance. “Maladministration when accepting UK orders of House is a theatre – there is a title for the public office: it Given that the LAW requires the application to be made in Appendix page 26
them contain evidence of at front of house.” Front is called the public office. writing by the court that
made the UK orders by alleging that “UK orders” could be accepted at front of house Dowd admitted that “we are prepared to act unlawfully.” “the courts administration did not follow the rules laid down ensuring that the copy orders submitted were certified copies” It was a legal requirement for photocopies to be certified by a Judge or Registrar BEFORE registration, not 21 months later. “I enclose herewith of the orders” – the word “copies” is missing. Dowd was concerned that the photocopies she obtained in February 2006 were exactly the same as those submitted by Mrs Holmes on 2nd April 2004 (22 months earlier – and addressed to Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson – why didn’t he notice that the photocopies were not certified) except they had a “stamp and signature on them.” This is the covering note which was given to me on 14 th December 2011 it was received by the C of J on 7th February 2006.
“Original Sealed Orders as discussed” And note that the word “REGISTRAR” has been crossed out and replaced with “Officer of the Court authorised by the Judge to swear affidavits.”
Vicky P-Jones [Pendlebury-Jones] (who emigrated in 2011 for Australia) was NOT a Judge or Registrar as required by “the rules laid down.” I immediately noted that there were ONLY two so-called orders – both were dated 24th February 2004 – the two so-called orders of 27 th October 2004 had not been “discussed” by the cheat Carol Dowd. Even when a “Director” in the General Registry attempted to retrospectively remedy the wrongdoing of 2004 (on two dates, 28 th May and 4th November) she obtained worthless documents and no supporting documentation – but one of the so-called Appendix page 27
orders was a “Leave to remove a Child from the United Kingdom order” which ended with the word “permanently” and therefore relinquished Section 1 powers over the Manx children. On 25th July 2007 Peter Corkhill wrote: “A comparison of the February 2004 documents shows that the copies submitted by Yvonne Holmes were true copies but not certified copies. For some reason we do not have certified copies of the October 2004 documents.” The certification was not proper and as no-one else in the Isle of Man seems to know is that if something in law is not proper then it is not lawful. Corkhill again: “i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987” or unlawfully. Improper certification would not have righted the wrong. I knew in February 2006 that Dowd had failed to obtain copies of the so-called orders of 27 th October 2004 but I also knew that if I had further communicated with the trio of idiots in the General Snafu Registry (Corkhill, Dowd and one Paul W. Coppell) then Dowd would have obtained certified copies of those so-called orders as well, and claimed that right had been done, so I stopped communicating with these imbeciles. I have already shown the header of the letter from Corkhill to Mannin Chambers (and the reference DIV 2004/114) but note again that this letter was NOT addressed to me and I was shown a copy of it by Mr Beckett the amicus curiae in September 2007 [I did not see the bundle until the date of the hearing]. On 16th June 2011 Paul W. Coppell wrote a “report” to Stephen Cregeen, the latest Chief Registrar (another imbecile) in which he alleged that Corkhill had written to me! I informed Coppell and Cregeen that orders from Lancaster County Court HAD NOT BEEN so registered because that sentence is in J1183.htm [2DS 2007/9]. I refuse to use the terms “erroneously registered” or “not properly registered” because the socalled orders WERE NOT registered. Coppell – Having reviewed the very many items of correspondence etc in relation to this issue, I have determined that it is not appropriate or necessary to carry out a further fully comprehensive investigation. The reason for this is simply as a result of the fact that, as indicated in the complaint, the matter had previously been investigated by the then Chief Registrar, Mr P R Corkhill in 2007, following which Mr Corkhill sent a letter to Mr Holmes in which it was stated that “it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously”. In that sense, it is clear therefore that the issue has already been investigated. Whilst there would appear to be a question as to what impact if any this “error” may have had, given that the only issue with the documents registered was that of certification, it is clear that as the court had determined the issue, any challenge to the validity of such must be made via the legal process. “following which Mr Corkhill sent a letter to Mr Holmes;” the letter was NOT sent to me – it was sent to Mannin Chambers reference HFH – a woman now a Deemster called Hazel F. Smith who has been culpable in the abuse of Jonathan Fletcher and his twin children. Coppell conveniently ignored the explanation “not in accordance with the requirements of” an Act of Tynwald and repeated the excuse “the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously.” Coppell, Dowd, Corkhill, Cregeen, Williamson, Doyle, Corlett and even Tattersall still think that the socalled orders from England were “registered but not quite properly” when the totality of my difficulties with THE CROWN in the Isle of Man is because on 28 th May 2004 it was only purported that registrations of two County Court documents had taken place when nothing had happened but Williamson was inextricably linked with the wrongdoing and Williamson had been in the courts buildings “forever” [since January Appendix page 28
1988] so he “knew what he was doing.” Williamson had no clue what he was doing in the Family Division as shown by his opening “Now I’ve got Mrs Holmes” and the fact that he ORDERED a plain copy of his ordure to be sent to the Police which involved the criminal justice system in a civil matter. I may have difficulty showing causation – but if someone in the Crown could see the Deemsters for what they are, charlatans, and interpret a so-called order correctly – i.e. “Keep Stephen Holmes away from his children until further notice – oh and now for another two years” they might realise the effect this had on me – in October 2005 it was confirmed that my “disorder” was chronic and had been ongoing since November 2004 when Williamson forged the document purportedly being a criminal court injunction. My disorder eased with the letter from Mrs Voirrey Moore on 1 st March 2007 – AFTER reading that letter I KNEW that there was insufficient time for the three criteria to have been accorded with by 4 th November 2004, but I could not be sure that between Mrs Holmes applying on 2nd April 2004 to the so-called registration of 28 th May 2004, a period of eight weeks, there had been some interaction with the Lancaster County Court and some documentation had been obtained. I remembered receiving the ordure of 27th Oct. 2004 on 3rd of November (a Wednesday) and Mrs Holmes must have taken the non-binding documents to the public office (front of house!!) on Thursday 4th for they were “registered here yesterday” according to the charlatan Williamson although they had not been so registered! There are THREE bullet points on the Voirrey Moore letter –
•
Your application should be made through Lancaster County Court;
•
The papers should be sent direct to the Isle of Man General Registry, Courts Division, from Lancaster County Court and must include copies of the applications and supporting documents in relation to the order;
•
The order will need to be certified by Lancaster County Court and must have the wording “I certify that this is a true copy of the original order of this Court” on it AND be signed by an appropriate person (either the Judge or a Registrar).
In actual fact, the Application should be made through the HIGH COURT of E+W. Looking back, it was obvious that none of these THREE criteria were followed on 28 th May 2004, but even in June 2011 Coppell alleged “given that the only issue with the documents registered was that of certification:” Coppell was incapable of counting three bullet points! I “review” the history of law, and in 2006 I encountered Justice Felix Frankfurter in the Supreme Court of the United States – he “joined the court” in 1953 in time for Brown versus the Board of Education. “People” used to think that the Lady Derby Dowry (dower) case was in 1523, but the 1522-1920 Manx Law Reports (published in 2004) confirms that the first two cases were 1522 and 1598. Government and Law in the Isle of Man wasn’t quite right in 1994: in 1522 it was confirmed that the Isle of Man is no part of England and that English law does not apply in the Island; then in 1598 the Queen’s Council stated that if an Act “has a special name” it can be extended to the Isle of Man – this name is now known as a permissive extent clause. With the allegation that “section 8 contact” could take place in the Isle of Man, judge Forrester in England overturned 482 years of legal precedent; then the team of Humphrey, Williamson, Brogan and Williams poisoned the tree in the Isle of Man by acting contrary to law (on 28 th May 2004). The term “fruit of the poisonous tree” was used first by Frankfurter in 1947 and can be used when “evidence” is derived from unlawfully “obtained” evidence. Williamson on 1st July 2004 referred to the evidence of the parties – that evidence being four undisclosed documents that purportedly recorded something that did not happen. Appendix page 29
ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987 Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom GENERAL REGISTRY FILE REFERENCE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT 1. APPLICANTS NAME: 2. APPLICANTS ADDRESS: 3. APPLICANTS INTEREST UNDER THE ORDERS 4. CHILD'S NAME: 5. CHILD'S SUSPECTED WHEREABOUTS: 6. CHILD'S DATE OF BIRTH: 7. DATE THE CHILD ATTAINS 16 YEAR OF AGE 8. TERMS OF ORDERS:
FD/UK/COR/04/02 KN03P0016 YVONNE HOLMES Cambrai, Droghadfayle Road, Port Erin Mother KATARINA MAY HOLMES with Mother, Cambrai, Droghadfayle 19th May 1996 19th May 20013 Yvonne Holmes to remove the child from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently
9. DATE OF ORDERS: 24th February 2004 10. COURT WHICH MADE THE ORDERS: Lancaster County Court 11. DATE: i) Application filed: 2nd April 2004 ii) Order(s) registered 28th May 2004 iii) Notice of registration sent to Court which made the 28th May 2004 Order(s) iv) Notice of registration sent to Applicant 28th May 2004 J. Williams ASSISTANT CHIEF REGISTRAR There is no “respondent” to the section 7 Child Custody Act 1987 registration and the tree was poisoned (by Williamson) on this date – 28th May 2004. On 2nd April 2004 Mrs Holmes wrote to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson and on about 24th February 2007 I wrote to the Court Manager at the High Court Office. I received the reply from Mrs Voirrey Moore (dated 27 th Feb. 2007) and similar documents submitted by Mrs Holmes were purportedly registered on 28 th May 2004 without certification or any supporting documentation. The difference in three years – I did not write to the charlatan Williamson because I knew by that time that he would further abuse the rights of my chidlren or even put the children at further risk. Little did I know that on 5th September 2007, Doyle would do just that – put the life of Katarina at risk because HE didn’t know the difference between a children matter and a divorce – he “looked at the file” and poisoned his own tree as well as taking fruit of the tree poisoned by Williamson and his kangaroo court on 28 th May 2004 and 5th November 2004. On 14th December 2011 Doyle stated his opinion that “fruit of the poisoned tree” was use of “colourful words” – I am sure Felix Frankfurter would have disagreed as would Dr. Kerri Mellifont who wrote a book in 2009 entitled “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” (with an Introduction by the former Chief Justice of Queensland). Idiot: (Doyle). I made yet another application to the Kangaroo Court of Injustice in June 2011 and the application was directed on by Andrew TK Corlett on 6 th July 2011 – he had Jayne Hughes sat next to him observing his misfeasance and snafus. I asked if he would “open a new file” instead of listing the Application in relation to ONE child as “Div Appendix page 30
2004/144 Yvonne Holmes versus Stephen Holmes! He referred to my new fresh application for the Kangaroo Court to answer a question and perhaps make an order (or revoke a previously made “order”) as “the respondent’s Application” because he still thought (in 2011) that I was the respondent to the original application to register so-called orders from Lancaster in 2004! Corlett considered my request for about five seconds before denying it – the imbecile entered the fray on the side of AK Williamson and would have further abused my rights and the rights of Ben Holmes had I continued with proceedings in the High and Kangaroo Court of Injustice and Corruption. There was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did on 5th November 2004 and he dealt with a lot of family matters – questions relating to the upbringing of Manx children – in exactly the same way by listing the children matter as Kramer versus Kramer then neglecting to list which Act of Tynwald he was purportedly using – he was in fact making up his own bowel law as oft times before now. This is what Louis Blom-Cooper had to say about delaying dealing with matters, as the High Court has done from March 2005 onwards (after DDW issued a forgery in November 2004) – “If there is one maxim of the law that merits the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, it is the distinct principle that emerged from the two Bloody Sunday Inquiries and the Hillsborough inquest hearings from April 2014 to April 2016, that ‘’justice delayed is justice denied’. Are the families of the 13 victims who were unlawfully killed by a company of paratroopers on the streets of Northern Ireland on 30 January 1972, and the families of the 96 victims at the semi-final of the FA Cup in Sheffield between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, able to say that they have ultimately achieved justice? What they suffered, of course, was to undergo the protracted pain of grief, unrelieved by the timely verdict of unlawful killings. Grief may never vanish, but it can be officially acknowledged whenever the death is caused by the State. Does one call that justice? If so, it has certainly been long delayed for the victims and their families .”
Whilst I am not likening myself to a family member of a Hillsborough victim, I did not start the catalogue of wrongs in the General Registry and kangaroo court – Williamson did by accepting the hand-written letter of Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) after it was accepted at “front of theatre” on 2nd April 2004. It took me 3½ years for the High Court to admit that the documents from England had not been so registered and that was only admitted because I would not give up as everyone (including the Governor Paul Haddock and Attorney-General Corlett) told me to do. And I did seek legal advice but it was not given – I learned from non lawyers about the wrongdoing of Williamson and Williams, and Voirrey Moore gave me the reason to appeal to the same (High) Court that had screwed-up many times between 2 nd April 2004 and late October 2006. After the same High Court expressed its view that “no fair criticism” can be made of a child abuser (a child-rights-abuser, but rights abuse against an innocent child who does not know he is being abused IS abuse) I lost trust in the High Court and now call it Doyle’s kangaroo court where court ordure rules supreme. Blom-Cooper again, on Hillsborough 1989. The terms of reference for the report in August 1989 of the public inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor (later to become Lord Chief Justice) ‘into the events at Sheffield Wednesday [football stadium] on 15 April 1989, and to make recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sporting events’ were a model in concise and precise language. They did not seek an answer to the overriding question, why did the disaster happen. Time was short before the start of the next season of football competition, such that the main cause for the discoverable events had been overcrowding on the terraces and the fatality of 96 victims among the Liverpool fans. Significantly, however, the Inquiry declared that the disaster was caused by the failure
Appendix page 31
of police control; it added, gratuitously, that ‘little or no blame’ was attached to the Liverpool fans; therein lay the seeds of dissension and 27 years of public action to refute the charge of blameworthiness. [yes, 27 years to the result of the inquest]. The Home Secretary, in a memorandum to the Prime Minister in August 1989, observed that the most severe criticism was directed at the South Yorkshire Police: ‘the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control’. The actions of individual senior officers, especially Chief Superintendent Duckenfield, the officer in charge of the crowd at the football match, are criticised. Douglas Hurd, in his note to the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, added that the Chief Constable, Peter Wright, would have to resign. His proposal was for the government to welcome the report, since the broad thrust of its theme was the devastating criticism of the police. Alternatively, it was suggested that the Home Secretary would publish the report and, without holding a press conference himself, simply issue a statement with the terms of the report. The Prime Minister, in a handwritten note, opted for the bald statement. She added: ‘What do we mean by “welcoming the broad thrust of the report”?’, supplying the rhetorical answer, ‘the broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police; is that for us to welcome? Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations.’ Thus the public concern to know why the disaster that happened at the football ground was silenced for 27 years, after which the truth about the Hillsborough disaster was spelt out. The 96 Liverpool fans were unlawfully killed.
Now wouldn’t it have been better for everyone in the Isle of Man for the Staff of Government Division judges to confirm that Williamson had acted unlawfully and issued a false instrument which affected the lives of children, their father AND their mother (for she lied to the children for three years telling them there was a court order that prevented their father from even seeing them in a public place. Later she dropped the public place, but still called the police and let them decide whether I could watch my son playing football)? Criticism of Williamson was essential to prevent others thinking that they can just “make it up as they go along” and accept what is written in a court file by people who (for example, Paul Coppell) cannot read an address (Mannin Chambers) correctly. All people in “law” in the Isle of Man think it is OK to list a children matter as FAM 2011/312 and a divorce or nullity matter as FAM 2011/312 – and both as Holmes versus Holmes (although you never know who is the Respondent and who is the Applicant, or in the case of FD/UK/COR/04/02 there is no respondent so the matter became Williamson v Holmes [Mr. S]). If one prestigious advocate complained to D1 (e.g. an Advocate with some skills learned in England in the implementation of the Children Act 1989 not a dunce like Doyle who had spent the majority of his time [March 2003 to 3 rd September 2007] in the upper criminal law court) then D1 and D2 would have no choice but to execute the statutes of this Isle justly and correctly; and they won’t believe me because I do not have a degree in law. But I can read; and Corlett (who on 1 st July 2016 interpreted “the welfare of the child shall be the court’s paramount consideration” as “it is the duty of the court to promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood”) clearly cannot read and comprehend – he would fail a primary school comprehension exam and he is the Second Dumpster in the Isle of Man. Loving versus (the Commonwealth of) Virginia I read about civil cases – I am fascinated by some Supreme Court judgments in the USA, and one that I only recently (May 2017) encountered is Loving versus Virginia. In a Nazi manner, Richard and Mildred Loving were prosecuted by a local County judge in Virginia for getting married and upsetting the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth! I have a book with many documents from the case by Patricia Powell (copyright 2017) and there was a 2016 film titled simply Loving. The Nazis assassinated people for being Jewish, in case I need to remind you. I was arrested if I was in the same building as my children because Williamson showed recklessness with regard to law and procedure (and fairness). King backed him; Wannenburgh backed him; he backed himself for a year; Doyle backed him and Kerruish and Tattersall made “no fair criticism” of the child-rights-abusing bastard. I was first arrested in February 2005, and I have never recovered from the humiliation of being Appendix page 32
arrested for being the father of Manx children. Sometimes, I wish I had never heard of the Isle of Man; just like Dreyfus probably wished he had never heard of Devil’s Island. Critical analysis A crucial part of higher education is the methodology of critical analysis – “nit-picking.” The full judgement of Kerruish and Tattersall DOES NOT stand up to any type of analysis – it begins with uncertainty.
3. The issues raised by this appeal are two-fold : firstly, whether orders made by the Lancaster County Court in 2004 have been properly registered in the High Court of the Isle of Man pursuant to the Child Custody Act 1987 and, secondly, if such orders were not properly registered, to what extent orders subsequently made by the High Court should be revoked. On 25th July 2007 the Chief Registrar admitted that the registration had not been in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 so there was no registration – in paragraph 3 the SOGD judges alleged that “properly” was part of the issue raised by my appeal – but I already knew that no registration took place on 4 th November 2004. I only “appealed” against ONE so-called order and that was the one of 5th November 2004 which I KNEW was 100% invalid. I did not appeal anything else. In paragraph 4. we find “any attempt by the Appellant to challenge the existence or validity of such orders must be made in England and not in this separate jurisdiction.” But one of the so-called orders claimed that it could extend to the Isle of Man which it could not do after releasing the children “to the Isle of Man permanently.” In paragraph 53 the judges wrote “It should be noted that nothing we have said in this judgment would prevent the orders made by the Lancaster County Court … from being recognised and enforced in the Island if, but only if, they were registered in the High Court in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987.” Orders from a County Court CANNOT be registered in the High Court under the 1987 Act. The judges continued: “Equally, absent any judicial determination to the contrary in the United Kingdom, such orders remain in force in that jurisdiction.” The United Kingdom is NOT and never has been a jurisdiction – it is a mix of three distinct jurisdictions, Scotland, England & Wales and Northern Ireland; and the County Court that made “such orders” was in England – not Scotland. In fact such order could not extend to Scotland because within the UK the Family Law Act 1986 allows communication between the Court of Sessions in Scotland and the High Court in England (+ Wales). I am staggered that both Deemster Kerruish and the Englishman Geoffrey Tattersall suggested that the United Kingdom is a jurisdiction. Conclusion People quote Dickens (wrongly, as it happens) by saying “The law is an ass.” The actual quote (I read Oliver Twist with the sole intention of establishing the full context of the misquote) is “then the law is a ass – a idiot.” Something like anti-miscegenation is an ass! Between 1967 and 2000, sixteen states of the USA had anti-mixed race laws: Alabama did not repeal its law until the year 2000. Those laws were “asses.” In England, it required an Act of Parliament to get a divorce until 1857 – in the Isle of Man until 1936! That is only 81 years ago. There are possibly people still alive who's parents were divorced by Act of Tynwald! That was “an ass.” The Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is NOT an ass of a law (a statute) it is good statute: the Children Act 1989 is good statute. The High Court Act 1991 was good statute but for one subsection – 2(5): Rules of court may amend subsection (1)(a) to create or abolish divisions within the Civil Division. The full title of the High Court Act 1991 states that the Act is an Act to repeal and replace with amendments enactments relating to the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court and the administration of justice therein; to Appendix page 33
establish a new division of the High Court to be called the Family Division ; &c. The Act is titled with to establish a new division of the High Court but the High Court has no Family Division and in the Civil Division everything is decided by “bowel law” and NOT by Acts of Tynwald. So in the High Court of “justice,” it is not “the law” that is the idiot but those who judge. Williamson was the person responsible for making the the High Court into a 21st century kangaroo court and this transformation is nothing to do with incompetence in Tynwald – it is everything to do with rife incompetence in the judiciary – in Her Majesty’s dumpsters – my contempt for these charlatans now prevents me from calling them by their ancient ordure title. This is how the 1991 Act begins – PART I - THE HIGH COURT 1 The High Court
[V p222/5]
The High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man (in this Act referred to as ‘the High Court’) shall, in addition to its inherent jurisdiction, have the jurisdiction conferred on it by or under this Act or any other statutory provision. “V p225/5” is the 1883 Judicature Act – in 1883 this civil court may have been a court of “justice” but in 2017 it is a kangaroo court because “statutory provision” includes “bowel law” which is very close to “the ass.” O.K. That’s about it – that includes just about everything I wanted to tell you, your “excellency.” I challenge David Doyle to prove that Williamson did introduce any case correctly (and he must pay the £33 for each recording) or that he didn’t refer to the matter as “divorce proceedings” – I challenge D1 to show me which Act of Tynwald he was using on 3rd September 2007 or why the so-called order of Williamson of 5 th November 2004 went to the police and challenge him to prove that the police did not use that document as some kind of injunction empowering arrest. I challenge the First and Second Dumpsters to show me a children case where the overriding rights of the children have been upheld and the children continue, with a competent court order in place, to have a family life with both parents. I used to be proud of “being Manx” – now I hate the place and call it Devil’s Island; Je suis Dreyfus et j’accuse – actually it was Emile Zola who wrote J’accuse. I will end with the four words that seem impossible in the Family courts – Let Right Be Done (SOIT DROIT FAIT). That is the motto; but the dumpsters use Quocunque Jeceris Snafu – whichever way you throw me I will foul-up! And I say this respectfully, politely and with decorum! Actually, I cannot be decorous: Williamson was a liar and a forger (in 2004) and everyone else has blindly accepted what he said – that the appearance of a registered order (which was not registered) was “good enough for the Isle of Man.” This Petition and Appendix asks “to what extent the totality of events following the non-registrations should be declared void and expunged from record” and the fact is that EVERYTHING that followed the non-registrations of 28 th May 2004 was tainted by the poison or was fruit of the poisoned tree and is completely unsafe. Even the “appeal” was misgoverned – in 2003 (by 12 th August 2003) Mrs Holmes, and Katie and Ben were already habitually resident in the Isle of Man – the children started school at Rushen Primary School on about 3rd September 2003. The Lancaster County Court DID NOT have jurisdiction over Katie and Ben after 8th August 2003 so everything that happened in England was ultra vires; but the judges NEVER asked about where the children were living! The skeleton argument of the Amicus Curiae told them but they ignored the truth and were concerned about allowing Williamson to retire without a blemish on his name as a “good judge.” Williamson was the worst Deemster EVER to disgrace the office of dumpster but was quick to pick up keeping the law in his bowels and excrementalising Court Ordure. If this matter were not so tragic, it would be a wonderful farce.
Appendix page 34
I do not read the Examiner, Courier or Manx Independent, but I do check IOM-Today occasionally (a web-site). Five days before Tynwald Day I noted –
Scathing report is released five years on: Review by UK barrister found Attorney General chambers to be in crisis. Friday, 30 June 2017 By Adrian Darbyshire in “Law” Almost five years after it was first produced, a damning report into the operation of the Attorney General’s chambers has finally been made public. The independent review of the structure and processes of the AG’s chambers by respected UK barrister Stephen Wooler was never made public when it was issued in 2012 – and even Tynwald members were only circulated an executive summary. Now that executive summary has finally been released following a Freedom of Information request . Mr Darbyshire wrote:-
In his highly critical report, Mr Wooler found there have been no effective arrangements in place to manage the AG’s Chambers for a number of years. Its structure, management arrangements, responsibilities and the way it discharged them had all developed in a piecemeal way, he concluded. Relationships with the judiciary and the police were poor, indeed those with the judiciary in the Court of General Gaol Delivery had reduced to an ‘unacceptably low level’, characterised by a ‘poorly disguised’ absence of mutual respect which needed to be addressed as ‘matter of urgency’. As a result this was affecting confidence in the system as a whole and the reputation of the AG’s chambers. The chambers had taken over responsibility for prosecuting summary cases in 2009 but the transition had been poorly handled. The crisis point came in 2011, found Mr Wooler, with lack of management and management skills, staff shortages and prosecution cases insufficiently prepared. Senior staff were left ill-equipped to deal with the hiatus resulting from the unplanned lengthy absence of the newly appointed Attorney General, Mr Harding. The relationship between the Attorney General and the judiciary in the High Court is not even “poor” – it is non-existent – as Williamson said (see page 22 above):
KOR
Mr Holmes leads me to believe he’s possibly got a letter from the Attorney General and may have forwarded that to your Honour, I’m not sure…
AKW No he’s referred to having spoken with the Attorney and to the Police and to an MHK none of which is of value to me if it’s inconsistent with my understanding of the law. Williamson issued a document on 5 th November 2004 that had no basis in law (and that is a fact) but in his kangaroo court meeting he criticised the “Attorney” and the Police (and an MHK) who had CORRECTLY stated that “orders” from a County Court in England had NO VALUE in the Isle of Man. Maybe they could have had value if they had been registered, but these so-called “orders” were not registered showing that Williamson’s “understanding of the law” was also non-existent. An independent report by someone like Mr Wooler, but not Mr Wooler – his experise was criminal law – would show that the former Family Division has no effective rules in place for the management of cases relating to children. The phrase “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did” see paragraph 47 in www.judgments.im/content/J1183.htm – could have applied to hundreds of so-called orders made by the charlatan Williamson in the Family Division of the kangaroo Court between 1st September 2002 and 6th January 2008, and given that ATK Corlett admitted to “learning a great deal” from Williamson (and his attitude in FAM 2010/312 and “DIV 2004/144” on 6 th July 2011 (the year the chambers of HM Attorney-General was in disarray) it is probable that Corlett has also released “orders” which had no basis in law – in the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. There is some dispute between ATK Corlett and me, the Petitioner for an “Enquest”, and Appendix page 35
that is because IN COURT he referred to me as an unpleasant gentleman. He is entitled to his opinion, but I looked up (in my Oxford Concise) the word “gentleman” and found the definintion “Man of chivalrous manners and good breeding” and chivalrous means honourable courteous and impartial. “Unpleasant gentleman” is an oxymoron – it is my opinion that Deemster Corlett is an idiot, and it is my right to express my opinion (and my reasons – that he would not open a new file for a new question relating to children, but if he was unsure of his legal obligations he should have taken legal advice) – but Corlett stated his opinion as a fact “he is an … unpleasant gentleman” so that even in attempting to insult me he could not act in a competent manner. It follows the divine right of Deemsters (and the Judge of Appeal) to make no fair criticism of a colleague who has, through ignorance of what the Statute actually says, destroyed a family by sending out a document that had no basis in law the moment it was issued but was considered to be “a commandment on a rock.” The General Registry has been in crisis since the time of Angela Humphreys LL.B., and any independent investigation into the administration of the High Court would find a kangaroo court administered by people of such low knowledge that they need remdial education. Let me state again: neither Williamson nor Doyle knew or know the difference between something that has been registered and something that has not been registered; and Williamson, Doyle, Wannenburgh and Corlett confuse a Family matter : divorce with a Family matter : children and treat them exactly the same as adversarial disputes to be won by “the person with breasts,” usually but in any adversarial situation there is always a loser and when the dispute involves children, the children ALWAYS LOSE in the Isle of Man because of maladministration. FINALLY: my Oxford Concise (dictionary) does not include the word “misfeasance” but has the equivalent to wrong-doing: malfeasance – literally “bad-making” or “bad-doing.” A legal dictionary has malfeasance – see misfeasance and misfeasance is wrong-doing or “making up the law as you go.” Nonfeasance is in both dictionaries. Deemsters Corlett, Doyle, King and Sullivan attempted to ridicule my use of the word malfeasance – but the French words are “mal” and “faisant” – these charlatans will use any “trick” available to them to deny wrong-doing on the part of any Advocate of Deemster when a simple admission that “I do not know my legal obligations” could save years of frustration and distress. And it is self-evident that they do not know their legal obligations. No doubt, because of hubris of people in the entity that is “the crown in the Isle of Man” this Petition will go the way of previous petitions to the Court of Tynwald and to the kangaroo court of injustice and corruption of the Isle of Man – it will be ignored or rejected – BUT IT IS NOW IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
G. Stephen Holmes – angry Manxman, seasoned Petitioner and unpleasant gentleman Petitioner’s note: there may be some spelling mistakes or omissions of quotes or brackets in this Appendix (and even in the Petition) but, like all other humans, I do make mistakes. Section 28(3) of the High Court Act 1991, as published, has “Officers of the High Court shall discharge their duties under the direction and supervision or the First Deemster” – the word “or” is in the published Acts of Tynwald and not the word “of.” [Enhancement added]. It is unbelievable that such a mistake has been in the published Act since 1991 but it has! So it may be unbelievable that Deemsters tell a officers of the high court what to do and then deny culpability for that direction – but that is what has happened in this long-running matter. The impossible is possible in the Isle of Man kangaroo court under the presidency of David C. Doyle; the second worst dumpster ever, in my opinion which I am permitted to hold.
Appendix page 36
CUSTOMARY LAWS ACT 1417 Passed: Circa 1417
AT 1 of 1417 AN ACT [concerning Coroner’s Arrest.] Short title & S. 11 given and confirmed by Pre-Revestment Written Laws (Ascertainment) Act 1978 Sch. 11 Coroner’s Arrest Also it is our Law, that no Coron. arrest any Man for Debt owinge, unless he have a special Warrant from the Lord or his Lieutenant; but in Points of Fellony, or delivering of Servants, or for Surety of the Peace, with many other Points that belong unto his Office, he ought to do these by vertue of his Office without Warrant.
CUSTOMARY LAWS ACT 1422 Passed: 1422
AT 1 of 1422 AN ACT [concerning customary law.] Short title given by Pre-Revestment Written Laws (Ascertainment) Act 1978 Sch. Ss 5, 13, 45, 49, 50 and 51 confirmed by Pre-Revestment Written Laws (Ascertainment) Act 1978 Sch. 5 Royal Fish Alsoe if any Porpus, Sturgeon, or Whale, be taken within the Heads of Man, they be the Lord’s by his Prerogatives. 13 Lieutenant may take Enquest Alsoe we give for Law, that our Lord or his Lieutennant may take any Enquest at his own Will and Pleasure.
45 Partiality and misgovernment prohibited Forasmuch as before this Time, by Misrule and Willfullness of the Lieutennant and Receiver, the Law of Mann hath been misgoverned to them that they hated too rigorous, and to them that they did like over favourable, soe that oft Times, through this Misgovernment, the People have been wronged, and Profitt taken to the Lord, otherwise than the Law would. And whereas Profitt should be taken not done as the Law would for Favour. Wherefore be it ordained from henceforth, that the Officers be true principally to the Lord and the Laws of the Land, to be governed duely and truely betwixt the Lord and his Commons, and betwixt Party and Party, without Rigour, Fraud, or Colour. And that the Deemsters may give their Judgment at their Perills, saving ever the Lord’s Prerogatives, and to be ruled by Advice of the Councel and the Deemsters. Appendix page 37
49 Coroners And for as much as the Officers of the Mylenis Leads and Corroners be sett by the Lieutennant and [not] given by the Clearke of the Rolls, that he might give them out by Times in Straites to the Moares, but holden still unto the Yeare’s End. Therefore be it ordained that at the next Court after Midsomer the Coroners be made, and their Names entered into the Rolls of the Court, with the Sume that he taketh for to serve. 50 Coroners to hold office one year only Alsoe Milnes at the same Time, and Leades at the setting Time. And for as much as Coroners against the Law stand in Office for two or three Yeares together, and take Enquests of their own Affinity, and be lovers to indite where he ought evill Will for Malice. And also where that Enquest hath indited certain Persons, then the Coroner will defend them that be indited, and acquitt them that are soe indited, and indite them that were acquitted. And also where no Presept or Charge is use to send Arreast upon the People and sett Fine upon them, which put them to great Value, to the Hinderance and Distruction of the Comonalty; wherefore be it ordained, nor that he take noe Enquest but twice in the Yeare, by Commandment of the Lieutennant in open Court, by Enquest sworne before the Deemster, and there to be recorded, that he arreast noe Man without a Warrent, sealed recoverable, but for Treason and Fellony, or that the Peace be broken, and so governed as the Law of the Land will, in his Presence, or else required at the Suite of the Partie, and the Surities, at the next Court after be required.4 51 Gifts to Officers forbidden Be it ordained also, that noe Officer take any Guifts of any Tennant, nor of any Person, upon Pain of forfeiting their Fee; and also that noe Officer nor Feedman be in Fee with noe Barron, upon Pain of the Forfeiture.
Appendix page 38