Answer to a letter

ADVOCATES DISCLIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

Reply by Stephen Holmes to Letter of Kevin O'Riordan of 14th May 2012

-1-

Dear Sirs, Unfortunately, due to the length of time this dispute has been on-going, and the mass of correspondence from Kevin to me, (and the nature of his errors on 5th November 2004 and since), this reply is rather lengthy.

I begin with the letter from Kevin; ADVOCATES DISCLIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Complaints by Stephen Holmes against Kevin O'Riordan dated 28 February 2012 and 13 April 2012 Answer of Kevin Edward O'Riordan 1. The first of these complaints appears to be made by letter of 28 February 2012 addressed to Mr Paul Coppell, and it is not immediately clear that this is intended to be a complaint to the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal. However, I respond to it as if it is such a complaint, and the short response is that I have never at any point been permitted to judge whether or not any complaint by Mr Holmes against me is/was without foundation. I say this because the isle of Man Law Society is unable to consider a complaint from a member of the public against an advocate: it simply offers a conciliation (mediation) service under such circumstances, and Mr Holmes availed himself of this process through the Law Society CEO, Jane O'Rourke.

2. The Law Society's conciliation process is voluntary from the point of view of both parties: that is to say that it cannot take place without both parties consenting to participate. Despite the fact that Mr Holmes wanted to go over old ground concerning which there had been considerable correspondence and even a previous (summarily dismissed) complaint to this Tribunal, I was prepared to try to come to some sort of accommodation with Mr Holmes. This proved impossible, and the process was therefore abandoned.

3. The second complaint is contained in an email of 13 April 2012 addressed to the clerk to the Tribunal.

This appears to be an allegation that I was negligent or otherwise failed to provide Mr Holmes with a good legal service when representing him briefly and at short notice back in 2004. I do not accept that the service which I provided fell short of what could reasonably have been expected of me, but in any event I see nothing in the allegation which amounts to an allegation of professional misconduct such as would normally be within the remit of this Tribunal. There is also the fact that I believe this to be the same subject matter as a complaint previously dismissed by this Tribunal.

4. The incident giving rise to Mr Holmes's complaint goes back to the end of 2004, which would normally make it statute-barred in any context other than a relatively serious criminal charge. I submit that this alone would be a good ground for the Tribunal to dismiss the second complaint without further consideration.

5. If either of these complaints is to be permitted to proceed further, I ask that first of all Mr Holmes be asked to specify clearly those allegations against me which he believes amounted to professional misconduct or otherwise be within the normal remit of this Tribunal.

Dated this 14th day of May 2012 (signed) Kevin O'Riordan Simcocks, Ridgeway Street Douglas IM99 1PY

-2-

As members of the ADT (and others) are by now aware, I have tried to resolve any issues with Kevin THREE times, but each time the process has stalled because he is unwilling to meet with me to discuss the problems caused by his actions on 5th November 2004. An example of this is above – at the end of paragraph 2, Kevin says: “This proved impossible, and the process was therefore abandoned;” and in paragraph 1 he stated that “I have never at any point been permitted to judge whether or not any complaint by Mr. Holmes against me is/was without foundation.”

It was Kevin who abandoned the “process” – it was Kevin who made it “impossible” to continue with a process – he was obstructive and has judged that he had done nothing wrong in 2004 (at all times afterwards); after he provided me with the “transcript” on 8 th April 2011, he decided that Williamson “set out very clearly” why the matter was brought to court at short notice, but he ignored the fact that the documents were NOT registered, that a County Court CANNOT bind the High Court in the Isle of Man, that I wrote to the Chief Registrar and NOT to Williamson and the matter had no relationship whatsoever with the case of Mrs C and Mr D. Kevin said nothing to stop the Deputy Deemster abusing the rights of Manx children, and that abuse continued for three years.

Although Deemster Corlett admitted to learning a “great deal” from his predecessor Williamson (in a speech on 1st April 2011), Deemster Corlett has NEVER sent an order from the Civil Court to the Police – Williamson was notorious for sending orders from the Family Court (a civil division) to the Police because he had spent 15¾ years sending orders to the criminal justice system. I would have expected an advocate with experience in children's matters to employ fearless advocacy and shout down the Deputy Deemster when he mentioned a constable consulting the Child Custody Act. Part of the transcript is below. Kevin stayed quiet and allowed Williamson to abuse my children's rights.

To begin, I include some of the correspondence between Kevin and me in April and May 2011; it was the last e-mail that made me determined to make a fresh complaint about Kevin; the “precedent” was at the High Court in London – the case for Katie and Ben Holmes (Private Law KN03P0016) was a short case in Lancaster County Court that ENDED on 24th February 2004 but “appeared to” continue beyond that date. As Kevin points out, I have previously complained to the ADT (when it was part of the Chief Secretary's remit), but since that time, new evidence has emerged (Paul Coppell wrote to me in June 2011; and Paul Morris, acting on behalf of the evil Williamson, gave me a COPY OF FILE FD/UK/COR/04/02 HOLMES on 14th December 2011; &c.). In addition, I did not realize that if an advocate makes a mistake with regard to a “technical point of law,” the Law Society withdraw from any conciliation process; so my only option is to proceed to the ADT (or perhaps a negligence claim in Court).

Kevin to Stephen Monday, 4 April 2011, 16:11 Dear Stephen Thank you for your e-mail of 1st April. I was actually waiting for the full transcript of the hearing before making any additional comment, and I ask that you please lend me (or let me have a copy of) the CD so that I can remind myself precisely what was said, and in particular what the Deemster said about the reason why the hearing had been called.

From memory, I think that the Deemster indicated that both you and your former wife had contacted the Court to ask for an urgent hearing about the children. I believe that he indicated that he had set the hearing at very short notice and without significant paperwork in response to these requests. I have to rely on my memory of this as I released your file to another Advocate upon your instructions.

You say “I knew Williamson was going to destroy my family life.” What previous experience did you have of appearing before Deemster Williamson that led you to fear/expect this?

Regards

-3-

Kevin O'Riordan Director For and on behalf of Simcocks Advocates Limited Obviously, I replied to Kevin, telling him that I remembered how vile a person Williamson was on 1st July 2004 (and a recording of the hearing confirms that he lied several times in that hearing), but he ignored the “evidence” and returned to his conviction that saying without paperwork “this case is very akin to that case” is competent and acceptable.

Kevin to Stephen Friday, 8 April 2011, 16:55 Dear Stephen Thank you for your emails of 5 and 6 April 2011 and for the FTR files. I have now had those fully transcribed and I attach a copy of the transcript. As you will see, Deputy Deemster Williamson sets out very clearly why the matter was brought before the Court at short notice. As far as I can see, he is only to be faulted in that at the time he believed the Lancaster County Court Orders to have been properly registered in the Isle of Man High Court which subsequently turned out not to be so because of a technical error (which had been uncovered by the time you ended up in the Staff of Government Division upon appeal).

My recollection is that in a nutshell the technical error arose because Mrs Holmes had sent the Orders to the Isle of Man Court herself for registration rather than arranging for the Lancaster County Court to do this. However, there was no doubt that the Lancaster County Court Orders did exist and that they were capable of registration in the Isle of Man High Court to render them enforceable (although not variable) here.

On 5 November 2004, the Court was therefore proceeding on a false premise, namely that the Lancaster County Court Orders had been properly registered here. Registration is usually an administrative process, meaning that neither the parties to a case nor their advocates would normally be given any detail of the process, and even the Deemster might not have been involved, so that he would not necessarily be aware of any deficiency. However, regardless of registration, the Court here was still bound by the provisions of the Child Custody Act 1987: I think that you have suggested in a previous email that this Act is no longer in force, but perusal of the current Manx Statutes demonstrates that it is still part of the law of the Island.

It is clear from what was said at the hearing that Deputy Deemster Williamson made no decision about your right to see your children. He simply confirmed that (as I was also advising you) you needed to go back to either the Lancaster County Court or the Appeal Court in England to do anything about changing the then existing Orders concerning your contact with the children.

In the light of this, I cannot see that you have a valid grievance against myself or indeed Deputy Deemster Williamson about what took place on 5 November 2004. If you do have any sort of legitimate grievance about Court processes at that time in connection with your relationship with the children, it seems to me that that has to be with the Judge or other relevant parties in England.

Regards.

Kevin O’Riordan From Jane O'Rourke to Kevin O'Riordan and Stephen Holmes 11th April 2011 Dear Stephen and Kevin I have read the email exchange in this matter and would make the following comment: 1. The matter in dispute is now clearly a point of law or an interpretation of the law. That is a -4-

matter which lies outside the scope of the conciliation process and I cannot see that future exchanges will resolve this. Stephen I think the time has come for you to determine some other way in which to pursue your grievance.

2. It is clear from the tone of your email Stephen that you are very frustrated but I do not think it fair or reasonable for Kevin to be subjected to such language of personal abuse, even if he is prepared to take the repeated barrage of criticism in such personal terms I certainly have no wish to assist in the communication of such hostility.

Unless I am advised to the contrary, such advice to include suggestions of positive resolution steps which might be taken, I propose to close this file as it seems to me that this conciliation has not proved effective in any way but merely provides you Stephen with an opportunity to repeatedly raise the same criticism and receive responses which do not meet your needs.

Regards Jane Kevin to Stephen 11th April 2011 Dear Stephen Thank you for your email of 9 April. I am afraid that I have to agree with Jane, and I cannot see any useful purpose in us continuing with this correspondence.

I think it is a mistake for you to spend too much time and energy dealing with the question of whether the Lancaster County Court Orders were/are capable of registration here, as that is a side issue. The fundamental point is whether the provisions of the Child Custody Act 1987 restricted the jurisdiction of Deputy Deemster Williamson to make Orders about your children, and I believe that there can be no doubt that it did. This means that he and I were both correct in telling you that you needed to make further application to the English Courts to try to resolve your position.

I also think it worth pointing out that your emotional outbursts appear to be a significant contribution toward the problems which you have faced in dealing with the Courts both in England and the Isle of Man, the Courts in both jurisdictions wanting to try to protect your children from some of your extremes of emotional expression. I am sure that you will tell me I am wrong, but that is the reality!

Regards.

Kevin O’Riordan Jane O'Rourke to Stephen Holmes CC:koriordan@simcocks.com Tuesday, 19 April 2011, 12:43 Dear Stephen Thank you for your email.

The conciliation process of the Law Society exists for very limited purposes - namely the voluntary conciliation of a dispute between a person and an advocate. Once it becomes clear that the matter to be resolved is an issue of law;negligence; professional misconduct etc then the process has no role to play as there are other places where resolution of such disputes must be heard. I think that you know this and that you also know that this is the reason for the proposed closure of this file.

I accept that it is not the outcome you aspired to and that it in no way assists you in restoring your relationship with your children. I regret that your frustrations remain outstanding and sincerely -5-

hope that you find an alternative way to address these matters.

Regards Jane O'Rourke CEO IOM Law Society Kevin to Stephen Friday 6th May 2011 16:14 Dear Stephen, I acknowledge receipt of your emails of 18th April 2011 and 5th May 2011. However, I am not going to comment on them in any detail as for the most part they are going over old ground.

The one point upon which I think I should comment is that of the conflict in jurisdiction between the English and Isle of Man Courts. You say that you went back to the English Court and that they refused to listen to you: of course, I have no way of knowing what application you made and how you presented it, so that I do not know whether you made the English Court aware of the point which I had raised about the need for an additional Order from the English Court specifically suspending its own jurisdiction to deal with future applications concerning the children. I still believe that such an Order is needed so that you can then have an unambiguous situation allowing future applications to be brought before the Isle of Man Court.

In the other case which was mentioned at the hearing on 5 th November 2004, the local County Court in England which had been dealing with the case felt unable to address the point but recognised that it was important and therefore transferred the case to the Principal Divorce Registry in London. A Barrister in London was then instructed to deal with the case, and after fairly extensive research he agreed with the point which I had raised and eventually succeeded in persuading a High Court Judge in London to make the necessary additional Order. It was clear that whilst this may not necessarily have been the very first time the point had arisen, it was certainly not a familiar issue to the English Courts.

I am telling you all of this in the hope that you will recognise the technical legal difficulties of your case and perhaps even try to address them constructively.

Obviously, now that the Law Society mediation process is at an end, there is no longer any purpose in continuing in communication with you. Please therefore note that I am unlikely to respond to any further communications from you, and I will certainly not be replying to any which are simply abusive rants.

Regards Kevin O’Riordan

For and on behalf of Simcocks Advocates Limited ————— Stephen Holmes to Lynne Sayle at Simcocks on 9th May 2011 at 10:09.

Dear Lynne, Thank you for your e-mail.

I believe that you are merely "going over old ground."

Since Mr O'Riordan provided the transcript of the meeting on 5th November 2004, it can be proved that Deputy Deemster Williamson said "Those orders are binding." Those orders were not binding.

Deputy Deemster Williamson said "orders were registered." The orders were not registered.

In the first statement, Deputy Deemster Williamson lied to himself and to his own court. No registration took place on 4th November 2004.

-6-

Throughout 2005 and 2006 I inquired of many people "how could this registration take place?"

Eventually, Voirrey Moore at the High Court Office replied to a written request to register a Children Act 1989 "order" from England in the High Court in the Isle of Man, telling me that the Court in England that made the order in the first place must make the application to the High Court in the Isle of Man. I reasoned (correctly) that as an unlawful order was made by the Lancaster Court on 27th October 2004, and as it had been written (on 5th November 2004) that it had been registered on 4th November 2004, FIVE working days was insufficient time for the "due-process of registration" to have taken place, therefore the "order" was not registered, therefore the declaration made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5th November 2004 was defective on 5th November 2004 and should have been immediately set-aside. It was duly set aside because "there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the [declaration] order which he did." _________ The one point upon which I think I should comment is that of the conflict in jurisdiction between the English and Isle of Man Courts. You say that you went back to the English Court and that they refused to listen to you: of course, I have no way of knowing what application you made and how you presented it, so that I do not know whether you made the English Court aware of the point which I had raised about the need for an additional Order from the English Court specifically suspending its own jurisdiction to deal with future applications concerning the children. I still believe that such an Order is needed so that you can then have an unambiguous situation allowing future applications to be brought before the Isle of Man Court. _______ Kevin blindly led Deputy Deemster “up the garden path� of conflicted jurisdictions without any evidence. In a children's matter, habitual residence founds jurisdiction, and my children were resident (and domiciled) in the Isle of Man from 18 th August 2003 onwards.

Since 2001 we have had, in the Isle of Man , the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 which is AN ACT to reform the law in relation to children; to re-enact Parts I and II of the Family Law Act 1991; &c. The Children Act 1989 is also AN ACT to reform the law in relation to children; &c.

I KNOW that the Children Act 1989 does not extend to the Isle of Man, and the only part of the Family Law Act 1986 left in force in the United Kingdom is section 3 that states habitual residence (of the child) founds jurisdiction. Why does Scotland have the Children ( Scotland ) Act 1994?

I am telling you all of this in the hope that you will recognize the technical legal difficulties of your case and perhaps even try to address them constructively.

If there were so many technical legal difficulties in "my case" - (IT WAS NOT MY CASE - the High Court listed me as the Respondent) why was I not informed by my counsel of the technical legal difficulties; why did Deputy Deemster Williamson state that an order had been registered yesterday, when a simple glance at the Child Custody Act (and Williamsom did mention that he couldn't expect every constable to go rushing to the child custody Act to find the cause of a registered order - but I expect the judge to at least read the child custody act to establish whether or not a children act 1989 order can be registered on the strength of a hand-written letter by a Manx mother), would have told both AW and KOR that the documents were not registered.

The High Court issued an erroneous false document stating that an order for "leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom" had been registered in the Isle of Man High Court under the Child Custody Act 1987 as if it was a custody order - that is, an order made under Part I section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986.

As you state that you are unlikely to reply to me, I am telling you that you are wrong - that the evidence ON THE DAY in the High Court proves that my view of the situation was right- that -7-

Deputy Deemster Williamson did a) NOT HAVE jurisdiction to make any order, either under the CYPA 2001 or a declaration under Sections 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987, and b) lied to me and Mrs Holmes and Kevin when he said "Those orders are binding."

The rule of the fruit of the poisoned tree applies.

There was NO registration of a Section 8 Children Act 1989 order on 28th May 2004. Deputy Deemster Williamson ordered that MY application of 18th May 2004 BE AND IS HEREBY DISMISSED on 1st July 2004 - case DIV 2004 / 144 ENDED, Lynne (or is there something technical about an order to dismiss an application that I don't understand because I am NOT legally qualified?)

The fact is, Lynne, that the Court in England relinquished jurisdiction (that it did not actually have) over Manx children Ben and Katie Holmes on 24th February 2004 when Judge Forrester wrote "The Court grants leave to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently." The Court in England DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS DOING when it wrote (under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 - an Act of Parliament that does not extend to the Isle of Man) "The father do have reasonable contact with the chidlren provided such contact takes place in the ISle of Man." A section 8 Children Act 1989 contact order is an order that requires the parent with whom a child lives to allow the child to visit or stay with the other parent - FATHER have "reasonable contact" with the children IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION NOT BOUND BY THE CA 1989 is not a "contact order" but an access order using the word contact - access used to apply to parents, contact is about the child - the clue is in the name of the Act - the Children Act 1989 or the Children and Young Persons Act 2001.

The matter you referred to was transferred the case to the Principal Divorce Registry in London.

That is a DIVORCE. A divorce is a legal "dispute" between adults. The Children Act 1989 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 are legislation about children and the Welfare of the CHILD shall be the Court's paramount consideration. A judge can make NO ORDER under Section 8 of the CA 1989 or Section 11 of the CYPA 2001 and Williamson made no order under Section 11 of the CYPA 2001 on 1st July 2004. The "orders" from Lancaster could not bind the Isle of Man, could not be registered in the Isle of Man HAD NOT been registered in the Isle of Man - Williamson COULD NOT VARY THEM (that much we are agreed on) so NOTHING was actually legally declared on 5th November 2004 and the entirety of Kevin's presentation to the Court (and your email to me) is ordure, written trying to justify your endorsement of a situation where an ignorant, incompetent decision maker issued a document that authorized the abuse of Human Rights (including contraventions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child). It is still my belief that Kevin could and should have asked for an adjournment on 5th November 2004 while the technical difficulties that he saw were removed - THIS WAS A MEETING ABOUT CHILDREN - it was NOT a dispute between Mrs Holmes and me - a children's matter is about children - since 1991 DIVORCE and a children's matter are unrelated, despite what your English barrister might have thought he discovered in the principle divorce registry.

Williamson was wrong in July 2004, and again in November 2004. Kevin destroyed any faith I had in the legal systems in the Isle of Man, and your e-mail has done nothing to restore any faith - you have now put yourself in dispute with me, because you are biased in favour of your colleague.

I expect nothing more; the tyrant will always find a pretext for tyranny (Aesops 1st Fable).

Stephen Kevin O'Riordan to Stephen Holmes (cc: Lynne Sayle) Monday 9th May 2011 10:21 [12 minutes later] Dear Stephen, One point arises from your email. The other case transferred to the Principal Registry was -8-

not a divorce: it was a contact dispute, as is/was your case.

Regards, Kevin.

Kevin O’Riordan Director Stephen to Kevin at 10:37 [16 minutes later] Dear Kevin, I wasn't aware on 4th or 5th November 2004 that I was in a "contact dispute".

I had made an application on 18th May 2004, but Deputy Deemster Williamson ordered that my application for an order about my children (a children's matter is NOT a dispute) be dismissed.

As you are well aware, Deputy Deemster Williamson unlawfully scheduled the meeting on 5th November 2004 because he THOUGHT documents from England had been registered in the High Court in the Isle of Man when they had NOT SO been registered.

If the previous dispute which YOU mentioned (and you did not discuss it with me before hand) was a Children's Matter, why was it handled by a barrister in the principle divorce registry and not the Family Division of the High Court in London, in front of Dame Joyanne Bracewell who had so brilliantly dealt with Mr V versus Mrs V in May 2004?

When are you going to address the real issue, Kevin; that Williamson LIED to you - those "orders" were not binding. Williamson could no more understand Schroedinger's Wave Equation than the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. He and you were acting as if it was 1988 or 1989, but we were in a room in the Court in November 2004. What about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? What about the Human Rights Convention?

THERE WAS NO CASE in the Isle of Man on 5th November 2004 - Williamson "made one up," and caused a dispute that has now extended to The General Registry, the Crown, the Isle of Man Law Society, &c versus Stephen Holmes.

When it was only The Registry and the Police and the Department of Education versus Stephen Holmes, I was right and everybody else was wrong - how else did I manage to get Williamson's ordure set-aside? The Police now agree - Williamson served them with a false document - so there was NO "contact dispute" - there was no dispute.

I don't care what the other case was - it was NOT very akin to "my case" because in my case there was no application in front of any court any-where - the Court in England washed its hands of Ben and Katie Holmes on 24th February 2004 - the statement made on 27th October 2004 was ultra vires because (if you look at it) it has Children's names at the top, but it purports to be about me!

"The father" Stephen I await your next e-mail! This is fun; and you will never understand "my reality" if you continue on your present path. I understand your "reality" :-) [a “smiley” face, indicating happiness] Monday, 9 May 2011, 12:20 Dear Stephen, There is nothing for me to address: it is your case and it is entirely up to you what (if anything) you choose to do about it. Also, while Deemster Williamson was mistaken in believing on 5th November 2004 that the Lancaster Order(s) had been properly registered in IOM, that does not

-9-

automatically make him a liar and in any event his Order that day was of transitory significance.

The Principal (Divorce) Registry is/was the office/courthouse for the Family Division of the High Court in London : you therefore seek to make a distinction where none exists.

Parties can of course be in dispute about children, and indeed they will rarely go to Court about children without being in dispute!

As a matter of fact, I can follow your arguments, but I am also aware that you will unshakeably continue to cling to your own point of view as being “reality” regardless. That is why it is useless for me to continue in communication with you.

Regards, Kevin Kevin O’Riordan Director For and on behalf of Simcocks Advocates Limited I wrote to Kevin on 25th May 2011 and received no reply; he has made it impossible to continue with this dialogue and has always “judged in his own cause.”

The Incident On 5th November 2004, at SHORT NOTICE, I asked Kevin O'Riordan to accompany me to a hastily scheduled court hearing. I had written to the CHIEF REGISTRAR that morning, and a clerk told me “Deemster will see you at two!” In 2011 the Attorney General confirmed that there is no written record of how the hearing on 5th November 2004 was scheduled.

On Wednesday 14th December 2011, advocate Paul Morris provided me a file headed COPY OF FILE FD/UK/COR/04/02 HOLMES. That file is available on the world-wide-web; at issuu.com/ gsholmes/docs/ FD-UK-COR-04-02.

That file was created as a result of a letter sent by Mrs Yvonne Holmes to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division, General Registry on 2nd April 2004. I urge the clerk to the Tribunal to either collect that file from Mr Coppell, or download my copy from the world-wideweb. The only document in that file with MY name on it is the letter addressed to the Chief Registrar complaining that the Isle of Man is now part of the United Kingdom (or of England).

My previous experience of the Isle of Man Court of “justice” (Family Division) was on Thursday 1st July 2004 where Williamson wrote “IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be and is hereby dismissed;” that was MY application given reference number DIV 2004/144 of 18th May 2004. The form C1 the Court Office gave me in April 2004 was headed FAMILY LAW ACT 1991, leading me to believe that the Statute being considered on 1st July 2004 was the Act that had been re-enacted on 11th July 2001 with the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. Kevin is NOT responsible for that complacency in the Court Administration Office, and section 9 FLA 1991 orders were identical to section 11 CYPA 2001 orders (about children); nevertheless it does not bode well if the Court Office supplies a member of the public with a form that is three years out-of-date. And to show that I KNOW what I am talking about, here is the “complex legal framework.”

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 2001 Signed in Tynwald & Received Royal Assent: 10th July 2001 Announced to Tynwald & Passed: 11th July 2001

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 - 10 -

regulation of children's homes, fostering, child minding and day care; to make new provision for human fertilization, embryology and surrogacy; and for connected purposes.

PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS General principle 1.

Welfare of the child

(1) When a court determines any question with respect to — (a) the upbringing of a child, or (b) the administration of a child's property or the application of any income arising from it, the 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 — (a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child (considered in the light of his age and understanding) and of his parents, any other individual who has parental responsibility for him and any other person whose wishes and feelings the court considers to be relevant; (b) his physical, emotional and (where relevant) educational needs; (c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; (d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; (e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering; (f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs.

(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.

PART 2 ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO CHILDREN 11.

Orders with respect to children

(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 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 responsibility for the child; - 11 -

(e) an order varying or revoking a previous order under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).

(2) The court may make any order under this section on the application of a person who is entitled to apply for the order, or has obtained the leave of the court to do so.

(3) The court may make any order under this section in any family proceedings in which a question arises with respect to the welfare of a child — (a) on the application of a person who is entitled to apply for the order, or has obtained the leave of the court to do so; or (b) if the court considers that the order should be made even though no such application has been made.

The Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is a piece of Isle of Man STATUTE, and can only be understood by actually READING AND studying the Act. In England and Wales, a section 8(1) contact order is an order that requires the parent with whom the child lives to allow the child to visit and stay with the other parent, and the provisions of section 1(5) apply, although the wording is slightly different. [(5) Where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under this Act with respect to a child, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.]

IT MUST BE NOTED that the Children Act 1989 does not extend to Scotland OR to the Isle of Man and that a section 8(1) contact order from the CA 1989 is NOT the same as a section 11(1)(b) contact order in the Isle of Man; similarly an Isle of Man CYPA 2001 section 11(1)(d) specific question order [(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 responsibility for the child;] is NOT the same as a section 8(1) “specific issue order” [means an order giving directions for the purpose of determining a specific question which has arisen, or which may arise, in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child].

We have specific question orders, England & Wales have specific issue orders; ours are section 11 Orders with respect to children; theirs are section 8 Residence, contact and other orders with respect to children.

I was vaguely aware of Williamson's allegation that orders had been “registered” on 1 st July 2004, but I had no written notification of the unlawful process that purportedly happened on 28th May 2004 – it was not until November 2004 that I knew of a date that a so-called registration had happened, and the paperwork supports that information was not disclosed to me. I KNEW that the Court in Lancaster, England had purportedly made a section 8 CA 1989 “contact order” on 27th October 2004, but the Court in Lancaster had relinquished jurisdiction over the Manx children on 24th February 2004 (to the Isle of Man permanently), so the “contact” order could have no validity in the Isle of Man – the Isle of Man is ultra vires to the County Court in England.

When the clerk said “Deemster will see you at two,” I knew that Williamson was going to mess things up – I knew after a 20 minute argument with him on 1 st July 2004 that he was a hopeless judge with no knowledge of the European Convention on Human Rights (THE Convention) or the Convention on the Rights of the Child; what I didn't know was how ignorant he was.

The only advocate I knew of was Kevin O'Riordan; I asked him to accompany me to the Court at two; we arrived ten minutes late. I hoped that he would stop Williamson screwing-up.

Kevin had given me some advice on the telephone – he said that if the Isle of Man has a suitable Act of Tynwald then the equivalent Act of Parliament has no validity in the Isle of Man. Even from the old C1 form I KNEW that the Court in the Island could make “residence, contact, specific question or prohibited steps orders” which are the same WORDS as in England – except for specific issue – so I KNEW we had Convention compliant law about Children.

Imagine my consternation and frustration when my counsel was on the side of the lying, cheating - 12 -

ignorant Deputy Deemster. Kevin made NOT ONE COMMENT about the abusive (against children) nature of Williamson's statements; Williamson was encouraged to abuse the rights of children by an incompetent, negligent, complacent and ignorant advocate.

We will look at the first two-minutes of the hearing then I will “pick out” other examples of the “blind leading the blind.” And note that I did not have a proper copy of this transcript until Friday 8th April 2011 – supplied by Kevin. [therefore, how could I make a proper complaint about Kevin without this information in 2008, and why was the transcript not requested by the ADT in 2008?]

AKW 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? 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 NOTE – there was no “In the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man: Family Division. This is the application of Yvonne Holmes to register an order from the County Court in England;” there was “Now I've got Mrs Holmes.” That is not proper due process!

Williamson said “subsequently I've heard from Mr Holmes.” I WROTE TO THE CHIEF REGISTRAR; I did NOT write to Williamson. How can a member of the public communicate with a judge in the Isle of Man HIGH Court? That was a lie – a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.

Note that the County Court in England CANNOT bind the High Court in England, so the County Court in England cannot bind the High Court in the Isle of Man – our High Court is a High Court.

Next Williamson referred (without mentioning statute) to a “registration” of orders from a County Court in England, orders made under an Act of Parliament (the Children Act 1989) that does NOT extend to the Isle of Man – see the Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man). The “orders” were NOT registered under section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987; indeed, the provisions of sections 12, 20 and Sch 1, p1 could not be followed. I still take issue with a County Court “order” that stated “father have contact with the child,” because that is a Family Law Act 1986 “access order” using the word contact – contact is the RIGHT OF THE CHILD, it is not an order with respect to the guardian of a child.

Then Williamson misled the Isle of Man for the next eight years – “Those orders are binding.”

Those orders were not registered so were NOT binding – any other comments on 5 th November 2004 are irrelevant – the order made on 5th November 2004 was eventually set-aside in its entirety because there was no lawful basis upon which it could have been made. But I digress.

Kevin: “I don’t know what has led to this afternoon’s hearing procedurally.”

I then had him arrive at my office a few minutes ago so I had the benefit of about 5 minutes - 13 -

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 Was “due process” followed? Kevin didn't know or care or check.

Kevin admitted to having five minutes of “instructions” but I gave him NO instruction to lay down and let Williamson screw the rights of my children – I was concerned that Williamson was going to abuse the rights of my Manx children because he indicated that was his preferred option on 1st July 2004. Five minutes was insufficient time for a competent advocate to assist his client. In my opinion, Kevin should have asked for a short adjournment while the procedure was established, and asked for paperwork. I did NOT know what the case was about – I had no idea of the statutory framework involved until 2007! But Kevin was aware of another case – Mrs C and Mr G. Williamson enthused “Yes” – that enthusiasm is not shown on the transcript.

KOR there may even have been an Order for removal from the jurisdiction, and if there hasn’t been there probably should be – D

There has been

KOR But one way and another I think you’re in a situation you can enforce but you cannot vary or otherwise interfere unless D

Well I can do anything that I think is necessary for the immediate protection of the children

KOR Yes that’s true, that’s true.

Since 1991, there has been no possibility of reciprocity of contact or other orders about children between jurisdiction. On 24th February 2004, judge Forrester recorded that he granted retrospective leave to remove Manx children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently. Now the Court in England could have claimed some power or vires over Ben and Katie Holmes while they were considering the application under section 8 of the CA 1989 for “leave to remove Manx children from the jurisdiction of the 'home courts',” but once that leave had been granted on 24 th February 2004 (and they used the word permanently), the County Court in England had no power to make any section 8 orders about Katie and Ben Holmes, and the judges DID NOT make orders about the children – they were both written THE FATHER do have contact with the children (in another jurisdiction not bound by the CA 1989).

And the “I can do anything that I think is necessary” comment by Williamson was not challenged

by Kevin. My children needed protecting from Williamson, but Kevin said “yes, that's true.”

Williamson HAD TO ACT within the powers given to him by the CYPA 2001, but he was acting (unlawfully) under the CCA 1987, an Act of Tynwald that amended the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 and makes NO MENTION (in section 20) of the Children Act 1989. It was passed on 15 th December 1987 – three weeks before Williamson began as a magistrate in the lower criminal court.

Williamson had to give me a fair hearing (and give my children a fair hearing); he had to follow the CYPA 2001 and uphold Convention rights. Note also that the Family Division of the High Court was encapsulated in “civil divisions”.

KOR Well what I suppose what I’m more curious about is what has led Mrs Holmes to come to you today. My understanding is there’s a probably a defined contact order or maybe it’s a reasonable contact order but with some note on the file, but Mr Holmes is under the impression he has contact every third week at the contact at the children’s center but that that’s all he’s got.

D

No.

KOR Right in that case it would probably be very helpful if I let you tell me what you’ve got there.

There was no registration so all this is irrelevant – if Kevin had asked to see the paperwork, he - 14 -

could have stopped the tyrant from destroying my family on 5 th November 2004 – he did nothing.

D There is a positive order for indirect contact but the entitlement of the entitlement to direct contact is revoked.

KOR Yes D 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.

D

Yes he’s bound by it. [NO I WAS NOT]

KOR So whether he has tried to exercise direct contact and that’s what’s brought Mrs Holmes to you I know not.

D 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.

THAT LETTER WAS NOT TO Williamson – it was to the Chief Registrar; and it is filed in a file that I did not know existed.

KOR May I take brief instructions because it seems to me he might be prepared to undertake to comply with the terms of the English order now that – if he now accepts the situation which wasn’t what he thought the law was until just now?

D

Has he told you that he came before me a few months back?

KOR Yes he has – he told me he’d made an application I think for residence...

D For shared residence and I declined it on the basis that the proceedings were ongoing in Lancaster.

KOR Yes I don’t know the finer detail of that but he did tell me he’d made that application.

D Well if this matter can be solved by – and I’m not trying to offend anybody – but if it can be resolved by common sense then I’m happy to resolve it by common sense – if I have to make declaratory orders and prohibitive steps orders then I shall do so.

Williamson used the term prohibitive steps EIGHT TIMES; it is a prohibited steps order and it is about the CHILD – it is not to prohibited a father having a family life with his children, but that is what Williamson and Kevin worked towards on 5th November 2004. And then came the final abuse.

KOR Well your Honour Mr Holmes’s position is this – as he sees it it is only today and really only as a result of the advice I gave shortly before coming into court and what Your Honour has said that he recognises that he should be recognising the English court orders. He had the mental attitude previously that it was wrong for the English courts to be trying to make orders in relation to persons in the Isle of Man and indeed his discussions I think with some English Solicitors and indeed his experiences sometimes in some English courts have led him to the conclusion that a lot of the time the professionals involved possibly including the Judges didn’t necessarily realise at the time that the Isle of Man was a separate jurisdiction. I don’t find that surprising...

D

I think there are some English Judges who feel that way but we know better don’t we?

KOR Exactly we’ve gradually learned better so all I’m leading to is one can have sympathy with him for finding that to be the case and for having the confusion. He is quite prepared now to undertake to this Court that he will comply with the English court order so far as the children are concerned – he recognises that he has to do that, that Your Honour’s hands are tied and that he has to explore various options from here forward in terms of legal proceedings which would inevitably have to start with an application back in the court in England assuming there was no consensus - 15 -

between himself and Mrs Holmes – it’s not been all bad news in that as I understand it the children were with him for about 4 weeks in the summer by consent of Mrs Holmes D

Yes indeed he had an order for reasonable contact at that stage.

KOR Indeed but equally the two of them were able to work something out.

D

Yes and that’s good.

KOR And therefore I’ve stressed to him that the fact that an English court has apparently slammed the door in his face somewhat at the moment I would regard as a temporary set back rather than a permanent set back.

D

Yes indeed.

KOR It’s a recognition the court is saying get a grip on your own emotions before you start to see your children because otherwise the children are going to be involved in an emotional whirlwind that it’s not appropriate for them to be involved in and he seems to be taking all that on board and I hope possibly with my advice, possibly with advice from someone in England things may move forward more productively but certainly he offers that undertaking today and I hope that on that basis you may feel it unnecessary to make at least some of the sort of orders you were thinking of making, subject obviously to what Mrs Holmes may have to say. I haven’t had a chance to discuss matters with her, I’ve simply been advising Mr Holmes and making sure that he’s fully on board with the situation as now prevails. [There is nothing of any legal validity in this paragraph] D I for myself – and I am going to come to Mrs Holmes in a moment – for myself I would accept the undertakings in place of prohibitive steps order – I would still give Mrs Holmes her declaratory orders because the headmaster at the school is in an invidious position – I would want to give her a declaratory order and leave to give a copy of it to the headmaster of the school so that he knew where he stood, and possibly even, judging from Mr Holmes letters leave to lodge copies of that order with the police because the police seem to think that they can’t enforce the UK order either.

KOR Yes it is a…

D

So I think that I would lodge copies with them as well.

KOR Yes it clearly makes sense for everybody to know what the position is and indeed now the orders have been registered here they effectively...

D

They are binding

KOR The mere registration it seems to me in itself covers that base to some extent in that if the police and the school know that the orders are registered here and that that gives them the effect of Manx court orders in a way that’s all they need to know even without declaratory relief on top.

D It possibly is but again I sympathise 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. So that’s the way I would be prepared to accept the undertaking myself rather than prohibitive steps.

KOR I’m obliged.

D Thank you. Mrs Holmes what views do you have on this if I give you orders that you can serve on the headmaster and lodge with the police and accept Mr Holmes undertakings that he will abide by the orders now that he understands them? Will that solve your problems do you think?

MrsH It will Sir D Good well I’m pleased about that and it may be that there are ways forward from here now that everybody is on the same hymn sheet as it were. Alright I hope something’s been achieved.

Thank you.

- 16 -

KOR Thank you Your Honour.

I don’t expect … every constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is THERE IT IS – the mention of the Child Custody Act (1987) – the decision maker did not expect others to go rushing to a 1987 Act, but the “team” of Williamson, First Deemster Kerruish, Deemster's Clerk Brogan, Chief Registrar Humphrey and Assistant Chief Registrar Jayne Williams had issued documents on 28th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 that purported to record something that simply COULD NOT and DID NOT happen.

Williamson released an order that mentions no Act of Tynwald, but used the word “registered” and had TWO reference numbers: DIV 2004/144 (the application that Williamson dismissed four months earlier – that file should have been closed) and FD/UK/COR/04/02. On of the paragraphs was IN THE MATTER OF the Orders of the Lancaster County Court of 24th February 2004 and 27th October 2004 and registered in this Court on 28th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 respectively. Williamson then wrote – 'IT IS DECLARED 1. that the said orders of the Lancaster County Court registered in this Court are of full effect and enforceable within the jurisdiction of this Court that is to my within the Isle of Man and that this Court is empowered to vary such Orders.

2. that the [Appellant] have indirect contact with the said children as authorized by clause 2 of the said Order of the 27th day of October 2004 of the Lancaster County Court.' then he ORDERED that this (declaratory order) from the CIVIL COURT be sent to the Isle of Man Police. The declaration is clearly headed HIGH COURT (civil law) Family Division.

Williamson finished with criminal law on 31st August 2002, but he sent a civil court declaration (one which had no legitimate basis) to the Police. Kevin made no comment when Williamson said that he didn't expect a member of the criminal justice system to check on the Child Custody Act! I expected the advocate representing me to protect my children by taking time to review the Statute.

In an email above Kevin related that it was “only” the fact that Mrs Holmes made the application to register; but the crucial criterion is (was) that the “appropriate court” (see sections 12 and 21 of the CCA 1987) is the HIGH COURT of Justice in England.

[My recollection is that in a nutshell the technical error arose because Mrs Holmes had sent the Orders to the Isle of Man Court herself for registration rather than arranging for the Lancaster County Court to do this. However, there was no doubt that the Lancaster County Court Orders did exist and that they were capable of registration in the Isle of Man High Court to render them enforceable (although not variable) here].

This type of sophistry makes me sick – I feel physically distressed when I read nonsense like the above paragraph (sent to me on 8th April 2011). “However, there was no doubt that the Lancaster County Court Orders did exist and that they were capable of registration in the Isle of Man High Court.” NO NO NO NO! That statement could not be more wrong.

As confirmed by a member of the Civil Summary Team on 27th February 2007 (the FIRST TIME that I had seen these rules), there appear to be (from section 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987) THREE criteria for a successfully registration of a custody order in the High Court in the Isle of Man, one of which is the “technical error” of “who made the application.” IT MUST be the court that made the custody order, ALL supporting documentation must accompany the custody order, and the order must be properly certified by a judge or registrar. In addition, if you care to review the Child Custody Act 1987, sections 20, 21 and paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, it will be noted that the custody order MUST BE A custody order or access order and the appropriate court must be (for - 17 -

England & Wales) Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of England. Therefore there is no doubt that the ultra vires documents from England did exist, but they were NOT capable of being registered in the High Court in the Isle of Man. Advocate Paul Beckett advised me in December 2005 that those “orders” in England had become “immediately spent” because the children to whom they purportedly referred were domiciled in the Isle of Man; actually – habitual residence founds jurisdiction in children's matters, and the children had been habitually resident in the Isle of Man (supposedly under the protection of the High Court and the CYPA 2001) since August (about 18th) 2003; they started school on 2nd September 2003 and the Court in Lancaster had no business involving itself in their lives.

The Attorney General (an officer of the Crown) issued the fifth edition of the Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man at the end of July 2003 and missing from this Chronological Table are the Human Rights Act 1998, the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Children Act 1989.

Although he was using an obsolete Act of Tynwald (from 1987) the hearing on 5th November 2004 was about Manx children and Williamson issued a declaration that had NO BASIS IN LAW, and he ordered that his unlawful declaration be sent to the Police thereby abusing the rights of the children.

At some stage Kevin wrote that he was an officer of the Court.

When a court determines any question with respect to — (a) the upbringing of a child the welfare of that child shall be the court's paramount consideration.

The status of the decision maker is not the paramount consideration of the Court. The welfare of a child can only be upheld if the decision maker acts within the requirements of the Convention on Human Rights (which has been binding since the end of 1953); “father have indirect availability to his own children as authorised by a moron in England who has released children from the jurisdiction of his court to the Isle of Man permanently and then tried to reclaim it,” is not holding the welfare of Manx children as paramount – it is using an old Manx law to oppress without remedy in this jurisdiction. Williamson and Kevin conspired to abuse the rights of children on 05/11.

Williamson released the obscene declaration on about 8th November 2004, and I analysed it by 14th November 2004 and realized that it abuses my rights and the rights of my children and is contrary to the CYPA 2001 (that I knew existed by early 2005 – but Kevin didn't tell me that either).

I have repeatedly given Kevin an opportunity to discuss this matter with me – in 2008, and 2010 and 2011, and each time he “judges” that he has done nothing wrong. He sees nothing wrong with telling a judge that “this is very akin to the situation we have had in another case” without checking the paperwork.

More than SIX years after he blindly said “this is like that,” Kevin wrote (on 6 th May 2011) – In the other case which was mentioned at the hearing on 5th November 2004, the local County Court in England which had been dealing with the case felt unable to address the point but recognised that it was important and therefore transferred the case to the Principal Divorce Registry in London.

Kevin mentioned the case, not Williamson. Kevin was representing ME, (and hopefully supporting my children) and he did not discuss this case in the five minutes before the case. Kevin specifically mentioned that the case was transferred to the Principal Divorce Registry in London. (eventually succeeded in persuading a High Court Judge in London to make the necessary additional Order).

Perhaps I was a bit strong, but I wrote back to Lynne Sayle and Kevin – The matter you referred to was transferred the case to the Principal Divorce Registry in London.

That is a DIVORCE. A divorce is a legal "dispute" between adults. The Children Act 1989 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 are legislation about children and the Welfare of the CHILD shall be the Court's paramount consideration. A judge can make NO ORDER under - 18 -

Section 8 of the CA 1989 or Section 11 of the CYPA 2001 and Williamson made no order under Section 11 of the CYPA 2001 on 1st July 2004. The "orders" from Lancaster could not bind the Isle of Man, could not be registered in the Isle of Man, HAD NOT been registered in the Isle of Man – Williamson COULD NOT VARY THEM (that much we are agreed on) so NOTHING was actually legally declared on 5th November 2004 and the entirety of Kevin's presentation to the Court (and your e-mail to me) is ordure, written trying to justify your endorsement of a situation where an ignorant, incompetent decision maker issued a document that authorized the abuse of Human Rights (including contraventions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child).

Finally, on 9th May 2011, Kevin wrote – The Principal (Divorce) Registry is/was the office/courthouse for the Family Division of the High Court in London: you therefore seek to make a distinction where none exists.

If an advocate means “Family Division of the High Court,” he should say “Family Division of the High Court;” he said “Principle Divorce Registry;” I was correcting Kevin.

But there is the problem - “THAT case” (Mrs A and Mr B), was in the HIGH COURT in London – the appropriate court in that case was “Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of England” and therefore any “orders” may have had a chance of being binding in the Isle of Man, but (and I quote from the judgment of the High Court on 26th October 2007); “It should be noted that nothing we have said in this judgment would prevent the orders made by the Lancaster County Court on 24th February 2004 and 27th October 2007 from being registered and enforced in the Island if, but only if, they were registered in the High Court in accordance with the requirement of the Child Custody Act 1987.”

An advocate should go through the following “technical process” – Court made application?

[ _ ] Yes

[ X ] No

All supporting documentation?

[ _ ] Yes

[ X ] No

Properly certified copies?

[ _ ] Yes

[ X ] No

High Court made order?

[ _ ] Yes

[ X ] No

Section 1 FLA 1986 custody (or access) order?

[ _ ] Yes

[ X ] No

Is order compliant with European Convention?

[ _ ] Yes

[ X ] No

I must point out that I was not in dispute with Mrs Holmes in 2004 – the County Court in England “messed-up” on 24th February 2004 by “reclaiming” jurisdiction over children that it had released from the physical jurisdiction of the Home courts. In England & Wales, habitual residence of a child founds the jurisdiction of the court over that child. Ben and Katie were in England BEFORE applications were made, but in the Isle of Man from 18 th August 2003 onwards. They may have claimed some residual jurisdiction until 24 th February 2004, but then – from 2DS 2007/9 On 24th February 2004 District Judge Forrester sitting in the Lancaster County Court ordered [inter alia] that: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

The Appellant have permission to withdraw his application for residence and prohibited steps.

Katarina and Benedict should reside with the Respondent.

Respondent have permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man The Appellant do have reasonable contact with the children provided that such contact took place in the Isle of Man. The Children and Family Reporter do file a report on the question of contact.

- 19 -

On the same day, District Judge Forester made a further order in which he granted leave to the Respondent to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently.

In an insane action, this “order” was “registered” in the Isle of Man HIGH Court on 28th May 2004 and disclosure did not take place. In fact, “the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided that such contact takes place in the Isle of Man;” must be the most unlawful statement in the history of the Children Act 1989! The children may be removed to the Isle of Man permanently (so they are beyond the powers of the CA 1989), and then the FATHER (an adult) can have “reasonable access” to them in that other jurisdiction to which the CA 1989 does not extend. An advocate with a few days experience might have noted the stupidity of the “order” by Forrester, but Kevin spotted nothing.

On 27th October 2004 District Judge Nuttall sitting in the Lancaster County Court ordered that the Appellant do have indirect contact with the children, such contact to be exercised by way of telephone calls, letters and e-mails (one of each per week).

Everyone has the right to respect for his privacy and family life, his home and correspondence; everyone includes children. “Father have indirect availability to his children” does not uphold the rights of the children or their father – in fact it abuses rights; Kevin did nothing to prevent Williamson encouraging the Police and the Department of Education from abusing the rights of children; that is culpable negligence in my opinion.

CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987 Royal assent: 4 December 1987 Passed: 15 December 1987 AN ACT to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of courts in the Island to make orders with regard to the custody of children; to make provision for the recognition and enforcement of custody orders as between the Island and the United Kingdom; &c; and for connected purposes.

Enforcement of custody orders made in United Kingdom 6

Recognition of custody orders made in UK

(1) Where a custody order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom is in force with respect to a child who has not reached the age of 16, then, subject to subsection (2), the order shall be recognized and have the same effect in the Island as if it had been made by the High Court and as if that court had had jurisdiction to make it.

(2) Where a custody order includes provision as to the means by which rights conferred by the order are to be enforced, subsection (1) shall not apply to that provision.

(3) A court in the Island shall not enforce an order which is recognized in accordance with subsection (1) unless it has been registered in the High Court under section 7 and proceedings for enforcement are taken in accordance with section 9.

7

Registration of custody order in High Court

(1) Where the Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom and sent to him under a provision corresponding to section 12 and having effect in that part, he shall forthwith cause the order, together with particulars of any variation, to be registered in the High Court in the prescribed manner.

(2) An order shall not be registered under this section in respect of a child who has attained the age of 16, and the registration of an order in respect of a child who has not attained the age of 16 shall cease to have effect on the attainment by the child of that age.

- 20 -

9

Enforcement

(1) Where a custody order has been registered under section 7, the High Court shall have the same powers for the purpose of enforcing the order as it would have if it had itself made the order and had jurisdiction to make it; and proceedings for or with respect to enforcement may be taken accordingly.

(2) Where an application has been made to the High Court for the enforcement of an order registered under section 7, the Court may, at any time before the application is determined, give such interim directions as it thinks fit for the purpose of securing the welfare of the child concerned or of preventing changes in the circumstances relevant to the determination of the application.

(3) The reference in subsection (1) to a custody order does not include a reference to any provision of the order as to the means by which the rights conferred by the order are to be enforced.

12

Registration of Manx custody order in UK

(1) Any person on whom any rights are conferred by a custody order made by a court in the Island may apply to that court for the order to be registered in any part of the United Kingdom under a provision corresponding to section 7 and having effect in that part.

(2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made in the prescribed manner, contain the prescribed information an be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed.

(3) On receiving an application under this section the court which made the custody order shall, unless it appears to the court that the order is no longer in force, cause the following documents to be sent to the appropriate court in the part of the United Kingdom specified in the application, namely – (a)

a certified copy of the order, and

(b) and

where the order has been varied, prescribed particulars of any variation which is in force,

(c)

a copy of the application and of any accompanying documents.

(4) Where a court in the Island revokes or varies an order which is registered in any part of the United Kingdom under a provision corresponding to section 7, the court shall cause notice of that variation or revocation to be given in the prescribed manner to the court in which it is registered.

20

Meaning of 'custody order'

(1) In this Part 'custody order' means, subject to the following provisions of this section – (c) an order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom which is a Part I order as defined in section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament).

21

Interpretation

(1) In this part – 'appropriate court', in relation to any part of the United Kingdom shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1; 'certified copy' in relation to the order of a court shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 2 of Schedule 1; 'child', except in section 15, means a person who has not attained the age of 18; - 21 -

'custody order' has the meaning given by section 20; 'part of the United Kingdom' means Scotland or England & Wales or Northern Ireland.

Schedule 1 Meaning of Certain Expressions in Part I 'Appropriate court' 1. In Part I 'the appropriate court' means (a) in relation to England & Wales, Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England; (b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session; (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland.

Certified copy of a court order 2. (1) In Part I 'certified copy' (a) in relation to the order of a court in the Island, means a copy certified by the proper officer of the court to be a true copy of the order or of the official record of the order; (b) in relation to the order of a court in the United Kingdom, has the meaning given by section 42(1) of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament).

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) 'the proper officer' means (a) in relation to the High Court, the Chief Registrar; (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction, the clerk of the court.

Family Law Act 1986 42 General interpretation of Part I. [E+W+S+N.I.] (1) In this Part— "certified copy”, in relation to an order of any court, means a copy certified by the prescribed officer of the court to be a true copy of the order or of the official record of the order; [“parental responsibilities” and “parental rights” have the meanings respectively given by sections 1(3) and 2(4) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;] "part of the United Kingdom” means England & Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; "prescribed” means prescribed by rules of court or Act of Sederunt.

On 11th April 2011, Jane O'Rourke wrote – The matter in dispute is now clearly a point of law or an interpretation of the law. That is a matter which lies outside the scope of the conciliation process and I cannot see that future exchanges will resolve this. Stephen I think the time has come for you to determine some other way in which to pursue your grievance. [I have – I have complained to the ADT] So the brief timetable of events in 2011 was – 1. I complained to the Law Society to use their conciliation process.

2. I supplied Kevin with the FTR recordings sent to me by the Court Office in later 2006; Kevin had the hearing transcribed.

3. There had been a hearing on 24th September 2007 and a judgment on 26th October 2007 at which it was recorded – The effect of non registration 46.

We consider first the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5 th November 2004.

- 22 -

47.

In our judgement in the absence of proper registration of the orders made in the Lancaster County Court on 24th February 2004 and 27th October 2004 it necessarily follows that the totality of the order by Deputy Deemster Williamson 5th November 2004 cannot stand and must be quashed. Paragraph 1 of such or expressly recorded that the Lancaster County Court orders had been registered when they had not been so registered, and paragraph 2 of such order was based upon the incorrect premise that there had been proper registration. Although no criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for him accepting what he believed to be correct, namely that the orders had been properly registered, given that there was in fact no proper registration there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did. Whilst we recognize that Deputy Deemster could have exercised the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man court make an order to like effect, he did not exercise such jurisdiction.

So when the Deputy Deemster announced at the start of the hearing that orders from a COUNTY court in England had been registered (one back in May and a more recent order registered here yesterday), he was assuming that the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 had been met when, in fact, NONE of the requirements of that Act had been met; point 44 – Such a conclusion is supported by a letter of the Chief Registrar to Mr Beckett dated 25th 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. (Not in accordance with the requirements of an Act of Tynwald is a lengthy way of saying “unlawfully”). Point 47 above – given that there was in fact no proper registration there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.

I knew that by about 14th November 2004! Kevin still disputes it; “Registration is usually an administrative process, meaning that neither the parties to a case nor their advocates would normally be given any detail of the process, and even the Deemster might not have been involved, so that he would not necessarily be aware of any deficiency.” The fact that a section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact order” cannot be registered under section 7 of the CCA 1987 has never entered Kevin's consciousness!

A final reason why I waited until 2012 to make another complaint about the “service” I received on 5th November 2004 came on 14th December 2011 – I was provided with file FD/UK/COR/04/02 by advocate Paul Morris and Mr Morris was representing the vile Andrew Williamson in a hearing in the Chancery section of the civil court. (Judgment on courts.im CHA 2011/83). In this judgment, David Doyle stated “Moreover doleance claims do not lie against orders made by the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man,” and this followed a short discussion between Paul Morris and Deemster David Doyle in which the First Deemster confirmed that the Isle of Man High Court IS a HIGH COURT – it is equivalent to the High Court in England & Wales or a Court of Session in Scotland.

An court order from a Sheriff's Court or a County Court cannot bind a Court of Session or the High Court. After Mr Doyle made this comment, I remembered that Kevin had written about the “Principle Divorce Registry” and then corrected himself – the High Court in London. And that explains where Kevin is totally mistaken; the other case WAS a case in the High Court; the case about Katie and Ben was a County Court matter and that matter ended with the words “to the Isle of Man permanently” on 24th February 2004.

In my “appeal” in 2007, Mr Kerruish wrote: “On 19th March 2007 the Appellant applied to have the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5th November 2004 set aside. Such was in effect an appeal and was treated as such. Because such an appeal was made more than 28 months after the making of the order, the Appellant required the leave of this court to pursue such an appeal.”

The investigation into “bloody Sunday” took 38 years; the Goodman Family waited TEN years before they saw ANY money from the killer O.J. Simpson.

- 23 -

I walked into a court on 1st July 2004 having asked the High Court of “justice” to consider a question with regard to the upbringing of my Manx children who were in the Isle of Man permanently with the leave of a judge in England. Williamson dismissed my application (given reference DIV 2004/144) and as far as I was concerned he made NO section 11 CYPA 2001 orders (and since the orders from Lancaster were NOT registered, there existed in the Isle of Man no orders with respect to Katie and Ben Holmes).

I complained about what I saw as an unlawful process on 5th November 2004, I was asked to attend court in THREE HOURS time, and I was terrified (justifiably as it developed) that Williamson was going to make an “access order” about me under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953; an order denying ME my right to a family life and denying my children their right to a family life with me, their “legitimate” Manx father. I asked Kevin to represent me because all that happened on 1 st July 2004 was that I argued with the ignorant, rights-abusing “sloth” Williamson.

For £600, Kevin backed Williamson to the hilt – never questioned anything the former criminal court magistrate said, and even encouraged him to abuse me AND to contravene section 11 of the CYPA 2001 and therefore abuse the rights of children.

Williamson issued the false document on the following page, and this became the “policy document” for the Crown and the Government in the Isle of Man for the next 155 weeks, although it actually had “no legitimate basis,” and was a false instrument.

I had to slowly uncover the unlawfulness of the false document – for 14 months I asked anybody “What is this due process called a registration? – on 27 th January 2006 I had a meeting with the Chief Registrar, and nobody confirmed to me that it was purported to have been a “section 7 CCA 1987 registration.” Advocates and Deemsters use the words “residence,” “contact” “registration,” without reference to statute, but any idiot can see that, for example, “contact” should be an order about the CHIlD; the Child has CONTACT with the person named in the order. If a court declines to make a section 11(1)(b) CYPA 2001 order (or in England & Wales a section 8(1) CA 1989 contact order), the CHILD has the RIGHT to contact with “the other parent.” Quite simply, the parent with whom a child lives (or is to live) has a LEGAL and moral and social obligation to allow the child to have contact (and therefore a family life) with the other parent. Because Williamson alleged some absurd process under an Act of Tynwald from December 1987 (almost 17 years earlier) [an Act that has never been checked by Tynwald for compliance with the Convention], the Police, the Department of Education, all advocates and judges believed that there was an order that encouraged Yvonne Holmes to PREVENT Manx children Ben and Katie even seeing their own father, Stephen Holmes, B.Sc., Mathematician, art-historian, family man and now bitter, angry dissident.

I lost sleep for YEARS because of what happened on 5 th November 2004 – I could not believe that a Court of “justice” could produce a document that so obviously abused the RIGHTS of CHILDREN. I cannot believe that EIGHT YEARS LATER, I am still trying to convince people in authority that a dreadful, evil wrong was done on 5th November 2004, and the culprits have so far got away with ensuring that Manx children have had no family life with their father since.

- 24 -

As soon as the Police saw this document (from their old “High Bailiff”) it was used as “some kind of injunction empowering arrest.” In July 2010 Chief Constable Gary Roberts admitted that it was a “false instrument.”

- 25 -

With the assistance of MY legal council, an insane judge issued a document on 5 th November 2004 – one which ensured that I was arrested if I was in the vicinity of my Manx children. I was arrested six or seven times in 2005 and 2006 because of the existence of the false instrument issued above.

But this “declaratory order” was set-aside in its totality on 26th October 2007 because there was no legal basis (in the Isle of Man) on which it could have been made. Its production was unjustified and unjustifiable – just like the action of the Army in 'Derry in 1971.

Kevin wrote – I do not accept that the service which I provided fell short of what could reasonably have been expected of me, but in any event I see nothing in the allegation which amounts to an allegation of professional misconduct such as would normally be within the remit of this Tribunal. There is also the fact that I believe this to be the same subject matter as a complaint previously dismissed by this Tribunal.

In 2008 there was no transcript of the 5th November 2004 hearing, so I had no proof of what Kevin did (or did not) say. It was only in 2011 that the FINAL matter of the 'appropriate court' was revealed; and I understood why Kevin was adamant that the “other case” set a precedent – but it did not. “However, regardless of registration, the Court here was still bound by the provisions of the Child Custody Act 1987.” THAT IS NOT THE CASE, because on 26th October 2007 the whole of the court order was set-aside in its entirety. The CCA 1987 CANNOT take precedence over the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. As happened in this matter, an unlawful “order” from Lancaster said “Abuse the Rights of Children in the Isle of Man – ensure that they NEVER see their father, even though they are in the Isle of Man permanently,” was unlawfully registered and became the policy document for the NEXT EIGHT YEARS! Although it was set-aside on 26th October 2007, most advocates CANNOT accept that a CA 1989 s. 8(1) Contact order CANNOT become a CYPA 2001 s. 11(1)(b) Contact order. Just like an order under the Human Rights Act 1998 cannot bind the Isle of Man, so an order under the CA 1989 cannot bind the Isle of Man. Kevin could have / should have asked for an adjournment to check statute and procedure, but he didn't. I have details of a case in London where a stipendiary magistrate spent the best part of two days checking whether a charge was valid. In November 2004, in twenty minutes, Kevin and Williamson lied to one-another, discussed a process that had not happened and a case that was irrelevant, and Williamson permitted himself to issue a false instrument (a forgery – now the statute of limitations has expired). But because Kevin lied to me in 2011 (Principle Divorce Registry IS the Family Division of the High Court) and because he does not understand the first thing about the Act to REFORM the law relating to children, I think that he should be disciplined for being complacent, and negligent (to CHILDREN) and incompetent and ignorant of Conventions and Statute in 2004, and now, and at all dates in-between.

Alternatively, I am willing to meet with Kevin and discuss how he can improve his service (and pay back the £600 that my mother stupidly paid the negligent rights-abusing advocate, plus further amounts).

I will alert you to another Statute – clause 45 of the Customary Laws Act 1422; 45 Partiality and misgovernment prohibited

For-as-much as before this Time, by Misrule and Wilfulness of the Lieutenant and Receiver, the Law of Mann has been misgoverned to them that they hated too rigorous, and to them that they did like over favourable, so that oft-times, through this misgovernment, the People have been wronged, and profit taken to the Lord, otherwise than the Law would. And whereas profit should be taken not, but 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 duly and truly 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 Perils, saving ever the Lord's Prerogatives, and to be ruled by Advice of the Council and the Deemsters.

By law, actions must be in accordance with the requirements of Acts of Tynwald. There was no - 26 -

registration on 28th May 2004, there was no registration on 4th November 2004, the “order” of Williamson on 5th November 2004 was unlawful and he was encouraged to act in an unlawful manner by my counsel on that date – although the First Deemster is responsible for the administration of actions within the Court Office, Kevin could have done something to prevent three years of child-rights abuses by the Police, and other public officials; but he did nothing of any use – AKW: it may be that there are ways forward from here now that everybody is on the same hymn sheet as it were. Alright I hope something’s been achieved. Thank you.

KOR Thank you Your Honour.

Yes, something was achieved – children had their family lives destroyed in less than 20 minutes by an arrogant, ignorant, evil moron of a judge and a hopeless sloth of an advocate.

If Kevin had “played ball,” in 2008 he could have sued the Courts Administration for culpable negligence in 2008 and probably got millions out of the Isle of Man Government, but he decided that I was “the author of my own misfortune.” I did not say “burglary is very akin to buggery!”

Buggery is a good analogy – it was a criminal offence until 1992 in the Isle of Man but was decriminalized in England & Wales in 1967. In 1990 courts in England & Wales AND in the Isle of Man could make custody and access orders until mid 1991 – then those “legal terms” ceased to exist – on 14th October 1991 in England & Wales and on 19th March 1991 in the Isle of Man. The Child Custody Act 1987 should have been repealed in 2001; but it still exists and is now even more pointless than it was in 1996/97 or even 1992. That is not an issue for this Tribunal; the issue is – Kevin gave himself insufficient time to prepare and made no effort to obtain “paperwork” and Kevin relied on a case that had no relevance to the unlawful actions that preceded the hearing on 5 th November 2004; five minutes with the statute THAT HE KNEW ABOUT could have prevented three years of state condoned child abuse – he is culpable for that child-rights abuse, but not as much as the evil Williamson!

I will returned this as quickly as possible to give you time to digest the vast amount of information in this document; I am sure that when you have, you will believe that Kevin O'Riordan was worse than useless on 5th November 2004 and I may as well have asked an orang-utan or a chimpanzee to represent me.

An attempt to summarize this immense snafu – On Monday, 9 May 2011, (at 12:20) Kevin wrote “while Deemster Williamson was mistaken in believing on 5th November 2004 that the Lancaster Order(s) had been properly registered in IOM, that does not automatically make him a liar and in any event his Order that day was of transitory significance.”

His “order” appeared to be in force for THREE YEARS – for 1085 days (155 weeks) – OK ten days short of three years – and the effect of his order was to have me arrested on criminal charges for breaking the terms of a declaration that had no basis in the law of the Isle of Man. Three years is hardly “transitory.”

Williamson DID LIE in court – he said “those orders are binding” when those orders WERE NOT binding. He swore an Oath to execute the laws of this Isle justly and then released a document on 5th November 2004 that had no basis in the law of this Isle.

Kevin's attitude is contemptible – and his attitude in court was contemptible. In the ONE-DAY hearing on 24th September 2007 (issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/2DS-2007-9_judgment) the judges spent about an hour discussing the Statutory Framework, and then (because the Amicus did not alert them to sections 20 and 21) they missed some of the crucial criteria.

This is how a court hearing should be conducted – - 27 -

The Statutory framework 34.

The statutory provisions relating to the recognition and enforcement in the Island of custody orders made in the United Kingdom are contained in the Child Custody Act 1987. We set out below the material parts of such Act as are relevant to the facts of this case.

35.

Section 6(1) provides that where a custody order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom is in force with respect to a child who has not attained the age of 16, save where such order provides for the means by which such rights conferred by the order are to be enforced, the order shall be recognized and have the same effect in the Island as if it had been made by the High Court and as if that Court had had jurisdiction to make it

36.

Section 6(3) provides that a court in the Island shall not enforce an order which is recognised in accordance with subsection (1) unless it has been registered in the High Court under section 7 and proceedings for enforcement are taken in accordance with section 9.

37.

Section 7(1) provides that where the Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom and sent to him under a provision corresponding to section 12 and having effect in that part, he shall forthwith cause the order, together with particulars of any variation, to be registered in the High Court in the prescribed manner.

38.

Section 9(1) provides that where a custody order has been registered under section 7, the High Court shall have the same powers for the purpose of enforcing the order as it would have if it had itself made the order and had jurisdiction to nuke it; and proceedings for or with respect lo enforcement may be taken accordingly.

39.

Section 12 relates to the registration in the United Kingdom of a custody order made by any court in the Island. It provides that:

[1]

an application for registration shall be made in the prescribed manner, contain the prescribed information and be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed [section 12(2)].

[2] on receiving an application the court which made the custody order shall cause the following documents to be sent to the appropriate court in United Kingdom namely [a] a certified copy of the order, [b] where the order has been varied, prescribed particulars of any variation which is in force, [c] a copy of the application and of any accompanying documents [section 12(3)] 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 Lancaster County Court should send the High Court a certified copy of orders made together with a copy of the Respondents application and accompanying documents.

Were the requirements for registration met?

41.

We turn to consider whether the requirement for registration were met in this case.

42.

It is clear that the application to register the orders made by the Lancaster County Court on 24th February 2004 was made by the Respondent herself writing to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, enclosing copies of the orders and asking that the same be registered.

Although such copies were accurate copies of the orders made, they were not certified copies.

43.

It appears that the orders were registered albeit that the requirements that are clearly set out in sections 7 and 12 were not met. The Respondent herself can't be criticized for such error because she was genuinely, and understandably, ignorant of the precise requirements for registration. In any events she had believed that the General Registry had itself obtained - 28 -

certified copies of the orders from the Lancaster County Court, which does not seem to have happened.

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.

45.

As to the order made by the Lancaster County Court on 27th October 2004 which was purportedly registered in the High Court on 4th November 2004, it is unknown how such orders came to be registered. The Respondent conceded, it view realistically, that such order could not have been registered.

And this is how the hearing developed on 5th November 2004 – DDW 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? 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… It was another 15 minutes before Williamson mentioned the Child Custody Act, and he LAUGHED when he said “or indeed every constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is.”

In 2010, I asked an officer of the Isle of Man Law Society “Is there a program of Continuous Professional Development amongst advocates in the Isle of Man?” “No there isn't!” came the reply; and I knew that the answer would be negative. In a judgment delivered on 19th January 2011, district judge Andrew Rutherford in Bristol wrote that the English Common Law, developed and interpreted by the judges over the centuries, has been largely superseded. Statute should take precedence over a common law rule.

The Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is modern STATUTE – it begins stating that the LAW with respect to children is REFORMED, and it states that the welfare of the Children should be the paramount consideration of the Court – and that includes COUNSEL! “ I have no paperwork – I think this is very akin to the situation we have had in another case Mrs C and Mr G,” is not considering the welfare of Manx children – it is “court ordure.”

The principles of natural justice are simple – there are two, three or four BASIC fundamental principles: 1.

Everyone is equal under the law (right “up” to the Queen, and especially judges).

2.

Evidence must be produced; I have copies of hundreds of documents; Kevin has opinion.

3.

Hear the other side

4.

No-one can judge in (his or her) own cause.

“I have no paperwork – I think this” relies on no basic evidence, more an “opinion”. And when Williamson informed Kevin that there was an order to remove the children to the Isle of Man permanently, any idiot should have realized that the children were habitually resident in the Isle of Man and therefore “beyond the powers of” the Courts in the Czech republic, or Georgia or Scotland - 29 -

or England & Wales. But I had asked Kevin O'Riordan to represent me, and I got the worst service imaginable – I had a complete moron for counsel and a cretin for a judge.

I think that about answers the “questions” asked by Kevin on 14 th May 2012 – I have a valid complaint about the competence of Kevin – the conciliation process has failed (because Kevin refuses to “negotiate” – he always judges in his own cause) – and the information available to the Tribunal in 2008 was incomplete. There was recent correspondence between Kevin and me (see above) and there is so much nonsense in that correspondence that Kevin needs disciplinary action against him; he mentioned the Principle divorce registry then said it was the High Court Family Division and whined that I made a distinction when there was none.

In summary, there is a VAST distinction between CONTACT (under section 11 of the CYPA 2001) and CUSTODY (under section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953); as much as the difference between burglary and buggery. But Kevin and Williamson agreed on 5th November 2004 that they were the same thing and the Isle of Man was bound by the Children Act 1989 and my children were abused and abused and abused as a result.

If Kevin “gets away with this” then we have outlawry in the Isle of Man and we may as well go to live in Somalia.

Finally; this may surprise you; I love the law. The CYPA 2001 is a fabulous piece of legislation; the Human Rights Acts (1998 in the UK and 2001 in the Island) are great statutes; Magna Carta Libertatum, the Bill of Rights 1688; the 1700 Act of Settlement; even the Customary Laws Acts of 1417, 1422, 1577 – all great laws.

But from 1st September 2002 to 6th January 2008, we had a moron who never read them.

Williamson swore an Oath “to execute the laws of this Isle justly,” but said “Orders from Lancaster (which have been registered here)”. And my counsel, blindly followed this unlawful lead “I have no paperwork – I think this is very akin to the situation in &c.” Apart from “Royal Fish,” most statute is good and workable (even the CCA 1987 was workable during 1988 to 14th October 1991 and beyond), but when an Advocate acts like Kevin acted on 5th November 2004, we have tyranny and outlawry in our Courts, and this type of action will continue until somebody like Kevin is “made an example of” and disciplined for “making it up as he went along.”

I love the law; I hate ignorance – I hate willful ignorance, and that is what Kevin has in bucketloads. If I can learn the CYPA 2001, and the HRA 2001 and the CCA 1987 and the CRC 1989, then I am sure that our advocates can learn these good statutes and in future guide the Deemsters down the correct road and encourage the respect for the rights of our most vulnerable members of society; our children.

Yours &c, (original signed by Stephen Holmes) G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc. Address on file – Peel City 30th May 2012

- 30 -