15th June 2012
Apt. 5, 2 Marina House Peel City
The First Deemster Isle of Man Courts of Justice Dear Sir, Another claim by Petition (of Right) Background Under the heading Administration in the High Court Act 1991 is found – 28
Office and officers of the High Court (1) The General Registry shall be the office of records for the High Court. (2) The Chief Registrar, Deemsters' clerks and such other clerks in the General Registry as the First Deemster may nominate in writing shall be officers of the High Court. (3) Officers of the High Court shall discharge their duties under the direction and supervision of the First Deemster or, in the case of a Deemster's clerk, the Deemster to whom he may be attached.
In section 58 (Interpretation) we find “'Chief Registrar' shall include the Assistant Chief Registrar and a Deputy Assistant Chief Registrar;” On 28th May 2004 four distinct documents were produced that were headed thus –
and were footed –
There was no legal basis for the recording of a “registration” of a 'Custody Order' made in the UK on 28 th May 2004; the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 WERE NOT MET. This has been admitted by two judges in the High Court (on 26th October 2007), by the Chief Registrar IN WRITING on 25th July 2007 and by the Deputy Deemster (Andrew Corlett) in Court on 13th January 2009. Andrew Corlett said “but it was an unlawful process,” and he emphasised the word was. He was referring to the process BEFORE 5th November 2004, and that process included two unlawful events; one on 28 th May and one on 4th November 2004. There was culpable negligence by an officer of the High Court on 28 th May 2004; an event was purported to have taken place but that event was unlawful. You can easily obtain a recording and a transcript of the hearing on the morning of 13th January 2009 where Andrew Corlett presided; and you will note that Mr Helfrich stated that I alleged an unlawful process – it is NOT an allegation, for the unlawfulness has been admitted by a Chief Registrar and confirmed by the First Deemster and the Judge of Appeal. In the judgment made on 26th October 2007, no fair criticism was made of the Deputy Deemster for an
assumption that “registrations” had been proper, but the documents had not been so registered so there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made what purported to be a “court order” on 5th November 2004. There was no criticism made of the Deputy Deemster for an erroneous assumption, then it is therefore clear that it must be asked “who is responsible for the issue of four false documents on 28th May 2004?” On 8th April 2011 I was given the following “advice” by an advocate (Kevin O'Riordan). 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.
You quoted the “no fair criticism” comment of the judges from 26 th October 2007 TWICE in a judgment on 14th December 2011, so we are left with either nobody responsible or the Assistant Chief Registrar (Miss J. Williams) was singularly responsible for acting outside the law of Tynwald. But according to the High Court Act 1991, the Assistant Chief Registrar is, like the Chief Registrar, an “officer of the High Court,” and as such, she discharged her duties under the direction and supervision of the First Deemster. I don't think for one moment that the First Deemster was aware of the “letter of application” of 2nd April 2004, (and that letter was addressed to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division), but we have to accept that the Deputy Deemster “could not possibly have known about the unlawful 'registration' of 28th May 2004,” so we nust conclude that the First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls (and Deputy Governor) was culpably negligent on 28th May 2004. Logic If a Police Constable acts negligently and (for example) arrests a citizen without cause, or that citizen is falsely imprisoned without reason, the citizen may claim from the Chief Constable for “wrongful arrest,” “false imprisonment” and / or negligence. Settlements are usually made “out of court.” The matter on 28th May 2004 was “res ipsa loquitor negligence” (the thing speaks for itself – it has been admitted that the action on 28th May 2004 was unlawful), and that negligence had appalling consequences for Manx children. As a result of the unlawful documents issued on 28 th May 2004, the Deputy Deemster issued a false document on 5th November 2004 and that false document was sent to the Police, resulting in the abuse of the rights of children. I was arrested several times and falsely imprisoned. Charges were made up because a false (civil court) document had been sent to the Police. The unlawful action of 28 th May 2004 “sucked in” several officers of the Crown and two Acting Deemsters, one of whom judged that the “children's matter” was a matrimonial dispute, and the other stated that ‘access’ and “contact” are “the same thing.” Both Tim King and Linda Sullivan made basic mistakes in their judgments, because they were unfamiliar with the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, as you were on 3 rd September 2007; case DIV (is that short for Divorce?) 2004/144 (the case that Williamson dismissed on 1 st July 2004). You were biased on that day because Mrs Holmes lied to you in Court when she said that there was a residence order (implied in the Isle of Man) and a contact order, but those orders HAD NOT BEEN registered so were NOT binding in the Isle of Man. (I have a recording of that hearing also). My Claim I am claiming pecuniary DAMAGES from the you, therefore from the Crown in the Isle of Man. Ultimately, on 28th May 2004, the First Deemster was responsible for the production of four false documents – documents that purported to record an event (a registration) but the officer of the Court failed to follow ANY of the five requirements 'listed' in the Child Custody Act 1987; so the action was unlawful. On 24th September 2007 (and in judgment of 26th October 2007), the judges were led through the Statutory framework by the amicus curiae. I refer you to Schedule 1, Paragraph 1 of the 1987 (Child Custody) Act, but it is a fact that the so-called “custody orders” were made by a County Court and the civil court in the Isle of Man is called the High Court. (In England, the County Court or Magistrates courts CANNOT bind the High Court of Justice of England, so the County Court in England CANNOT bind the High Court in the Isle of Man). I refer you to paragraph 31 of the Rules of the High Court (Family Proceedings) 2009 and sections 21 and 20 of the Child Custody Act 1987. Section 20 is headed “Meaning of 'custody order'”
and section 20(1)(c) mentions section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament). The Family Law Act 1986 is in the Chronological Table; the Children Act 1989 is NOT in the Chronological Table. I refer you to your Oath “to execute the laws of this Isle justly,” and to section 45 of the Customary Laws Act 1422 (Partiality and misgovernment prohibited). You should carefully note the wording of this Statute; “oft times through this misgovernment, the People have been wronged,” Although that paragraph refers to profit, it ends “otherwise than the Law would.” On 28th May 2004 a “process” took place otherwise than the Law would, and because of that unlawful process I was wronged and my children were wronged for a minimum of 155 weeks while the unlawful “policy document” made by Williamson (who cannot be criticised for making it) was in circulation. On 28th May 2004, the Assistant Chief Registrar was directed and supervised by the First Deemster, and on 14th December 2011 the First Deemster judged that “fruit of the poisoned tree” was colourful language and that indeed “no fair criticism” could be made of the Deputy Deemster for releasing a document that had no basis in Law because the requirements of section 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987 had not been followed. The High Court circulated an unlawful “policy document” that encouraged a Manx mother (and government officers including the Police) to prevent Manx children even seeing their Manx father (and I was arrested several times), and that exceedingly distressing situation lasted for (ten days short of) THREE YEARS. It all started with unlawful negligence by the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT on 28th May 2004, under the direction and supervision of a “culpably negligent” First Deemster. The principle is called the rule of the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree. Once one unlawful decision is taken, ALL following decisions that use the first wrong decision as their basis are “the fruit of the poisoned tree,” and are of no legal value. The tree was poisoned on 28th May 2004, but so far no judge or officer of the Crown or Government Officer (in the General Registry) has done anything to try to resolve the problems caused on that day. There have been a dozen “cover-ups” but no attempts to resolve the matter. In 1994 Parallel Books published Government and Law in the Isle of Man, with two chapters by you. You listed 22 “rules” of natural justice in the section on the legal system (page 483) and you noted some of these in the Code of Conduct for Members of the Judiciary released in August 2011, and yet when you have been sitting on the Bench in any matter that I have been involved in, (as an applicant or a “respondent” – even though I was an Applicant on 18th May 2004 [not 25th]), you have not heard my side but have judged in a manner that a “fair minded and informed person” would consider to be biased or partial to your own view. That partiality is prohibited by Law. On 12th July 1910 in the KBD in London, advocate Sir Edward Carson said that “it is the grossest case of oppression without remedy that I have ever heard of in the 33 years that I have been at the Bar.” Edward Carson had never encountered “The Deemsters;” especially the Deputy Deemster, about whom “no fair criticism” can be made, or the First Deemster who directed and supervised an unlawful action in the Isle of Man High Court on 28th May 2004. I am more than willing to negotiate a settlement with the First Deemster, but you have “shut the door,” so I must now claim from the Lieutenant Governor, as the Queen's representative on the Island. The first stage in the resolution of any dispute is to open a dialogue. I am willing to open a dialogue with the negligent party, but the negligent party has so far been unwilling to speak to me. Let Right Be Done,
G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc. This letter is on the web-site 'issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/' as First_Deemster_20120615 The People should not be wronged by diverse evil judges: see the Bill of Rights 1688 on legislation.gov.uk (Note that this Act is also in the Chronological Table)