Petition from G. Stephen Holmes oppressed Manxman To
:
Adam Wood, Lt Governor (and Queen's representative) at Isle of Man
cc
:
David Doyle, DG; Lord Bishop Robert; AAG John Quinn; Chris Grayling.
Also copied to :
The Private Secretary of Her Majesty the Queen, Lord of Man
Date
:
16th December 2013
Subject
:
Why have you ignored my complaints, Adam?
I wrote to you recently with further evidence of malfeasance (and maladministration) by officers of the Crown. You have done nothing about my complaints and I am not satisfied with my treatment by you. I am continuing to write to you because AK Williamson abused the rights of my children; and if he abused the rights of two Manx children (and abused my civil rights) then the question must be asked “How many children did he abuse in the Isle of Man?” Children's matters were listed by the Family Division as Div matters, where “Div” is short for Divorce, and a divorce has taken place under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 since 2003/04, the Court Office (the High Court Office) has evidently misgoverned every children's matter; in fact the High Court of injustice in the Isle of Man (the domain of Her Majesty's First Deemster [“D1”] and Clerk of the Rolls [and Deputy Governor, and President of the High Court]) continues to misgovern matters under the CYPA 2001 well into the second decade of the 21st century. On 19th November 2013 the Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice sent me a letter headed “Re: H (children)” and in September 2013 I copied (downloaded) the judgment from Sir James Munby (President of the Family Division of the High Court) in the matter of Re: J (A Child); but the cretins in the High Court in the Isle of Man still list children's matters in the domain of the Deputy Governor as Kramer v Kramer! It is Dickensian – in fact it is older than Dickensian. The letter I received about 27 th May 2004 was headed Div 2004/144 Holmes v Holmes but the matter was Re: K and B Holmes (children). History of children's law As far as I can establish, there were only 6 sets of Statutes in the Isle of Man in the 15 th and most of the 16th centuries – Customary Laws from 1417, 1419, 1422 (2 of), 1429 and 1430. Deemsters were expected to know these statutes. In the Customary Laws (Act) of 1577 (the first Act of the 16 th century) the term “custody of a child” was used; and historically that right, the right of custody of a child conferred by a court on an adult parent or guardian, was linked with the concept of “access” [being a right conferred by a court on an adult]. The two sections of the 1577 Customary Law (which was the seventh Statute of the Isle of Man) containing the term “custody” [as in “this adult has custody of this child”] remained unaltered until 1953. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 was based on two Acts of Parliament – the Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 and Guardianship of Infants Act 1925; indeed section 8 of the 1953 Act is headed “Guardianship in case of divorce or judicial separation: 1886/6”. It reads – In any case where a decree for judicial separation, or a decree nisi for divorce, shall be pronounced, the court pronouncing such decree may thereby declare the parent by reason of whose misconduct such decree is made to be a person unfit to have the custody of the children (if any) of the marriage; and, in such case, the parent so declared to be unfit shall not, upon the death of the other parent, be entitled to custody or guardianship of such children, except with the consent of the court. Also section 4 is headed “Court may make orders as to custody : 1886/5” and includes the phrase – “regarding the custody of such infant and the right of access thereto of either parent”. Notice that the 1953 Act would be repealed came with the passing of the Family Law Act 1991 on 19th March 1991, and the promulgation at Tynwald (St. Johns) on 5 th July 1991. The 1991 Family Law Act was based almost exclusively on the Children Act 1989 [passed 16/11/1989] which was enacted on 14/10/1991 in England & Wales. Two wonderful things happened in England on that date – on 14/10/1991: the words “custody” and “access” fell into the dustbin of history, and England at last had Human Rights Convention compliant law for children. Shortly after, Parliament in Westminster accepted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as being binding in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [This happened on 16/01/1992].
-1-
The Act of Tynwald was fully enacted on 1 st April 1992; and on 1 st October 1992 the section of the High Court Act 1991 that created a new Division in the High Court called the Family Division was enacted – the Family Division of the High Court of “justice” of the Isle of Man came into being to deal with Divorces and children's matters; and like in England and Wales, the two were NOT related – the concept of the “illegitimate child” disappeared from Statute. We have had “children's law” in the Isle of Man since 1991; and there has been children's law in England & Wales since November 1989 when the Children Act was passed by Parliament in Westminster. The Isle of Man also had Convention compliant law for “Minors” [Section 9 of the FLA 1991 is headed Orders with respect to minors], but nobody “told” the judiciary. In any event, Deemster Jack Corrin was president of the High Court in 1992/3 and Henry Callow was second Deemster. When Mr Callow retired, T.W. Cain took over as Second Deemster (sitting mainly in the Court of General Gaol Delivery) and Mr Kerruish became Attorney General. Note that Tynwald adopted the UNCRC in September 1994. This fact seems to have gone unnoticed by any Deemster or Attorney General in the Island; and by all Advocates. In 1995, AK Williamson (who had been Deputy High Bailiff for almost eight years) was promoted to High Bailiff (where he sat in the “criminal law” court of Summary Jurisdiction); and in 1997 when Mr Corrin retired, Mr Kerruish became Second Deemster and T.W. Cain was promoted to First Deemster: I think Geoffrey Tattersall became Judge of Appeal, as well. I don't know when T.M. Moyle became Deputy High Bailiff, but he was promoted to High Bailiff on the worst day in judicial history in the Isle of Man, the day AK “46” Williamson became Deputy Deemster (on 1 st September 2002). When Mr Cain retired on 30 th January 2003, and after Mr Doyle was appointed 2 nd Deemster in March 2003, we had four criminal court “judges” – Mr Moyle in the CSJ, Mr Doyle in the CGGD, Williamson in the Family Division of the High Court (a civil division, but he had just four/five months experience in civil law) and Mr Kerruish as President of the High Court; but he had been in the CGGD since 1997; he had two months in the Civil Divisions when Doyle was appointed. Williamson never understood civil law. In England, the 1925 and 1886 Guardianship on Infants Acts were replaced by the 1971 Guardianship of Minors Act; hence use of the word “Minors” in the 1991 Family Law Act (of Tynwald). But the 1971 GOM Act was repealed by the Children Act 1989 (on 14/10/1991). .
I LIKE CIVIL LAW – I am not interested in criminal law – but Williamson knew only criminal law. And on 1st April 2011 Andrew Corlett stated that Williamson bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division. The CSJ is often called the High Bailiff's Court – and the officers in the General Registry treated (and continue to treat) the Family Division (or what was the Family Division) as the Deemster's court – from 01/09/2002 to 6th January 2008 the Family Division was known as Williamson's Court! On 2nd April 2004 Mrs Yvonne Holmes wrote to the “Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division, General Registry, I.O.M. Courts of Justice, Douglas;” although her experience was in the County Court in England, where “orders” issued by this court of inferior record are footed – The court office at Lancaster County Court, 2nd Floor, Mitre House, Church Street, Lancaster, LAI 1UZ is open from 10:00am until 4:00pm from Mondays to Fridays. Tel 01524 61182 Please address all communications to the Court Manager quoting the reference number at the top right hand corner of this form.
“Please address all communications to the Court Manager”. By writing directly to the Clerk to the Deemster, Mrs Holmes was being permitted to compromise the independence of this vile man, Williamson. Mrs Holmes must have been told by a public official in the public office of the courts building to “put her request in writing” and address such to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division.” By putting “Family Division, General Registry” Mrs Holmes assumed that a Civil Division of the High Court was a sub-section of the General Registry: and the culture in the GR was to allow the Assistant Chief Registrar or the Chief Registrar to become a judicial officer. If legal advice was sought by a clerk or civil servant in the High Court Office, he or she would usually “ask Williamson!” (because the Family Division was assumed to be his court). This matter is very “historical” Adam; but that does not excuse the wrong-doing. Putting Williamson as Deputy Deemster was like making a Methodist lay-preacher Pope! Interviews were held for the newly created position of Deputy Deemster in the summer of 2002, (when Mr Macfadyean was Governor and T.W. Cain was First Deemster) and the very worst applicant was appointed – a chimpanzee from the wild-life park would have been a better appointment.
-2-
Shortly after I moved to England at the beginning of October 2013 (because I am fed-up of the tyranny of the judicature in the Isle of Man) I bought a (2012) stamp-book from “the Diamond Jubilee”. The quote from 1952 (a year before Tynwald enacted the Guardianship of Infants Act) is –
I shall always work … to advance the happiness and prosperity of my peoples. Queen Elizabeth II 8 February 1952 I walked into a court-room in the Isle of Man on Thursday 1 st July 2004 and AK Williamson lied to me – he alleged that there was the appearance of “a – an order from Lancaster [County Court] that is registered here [in the Isle of Man High Court] in any event” when, in fact, nothing had been registered – the documents could not be referred to as “orders” because they had no effect in the Isle of Man. Since when can a High Court be bound by a Sheriff's Court or County Court? The matter was listed as “Div 2004/144 Holmes v Holmes” when it was in fact an application under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 for an order to be made regarding Manx children (who were habitually resident and domiciled in the Isle of Man) – and section 1 of the 2001 Act begins “When a court determines any question with regard to the [future] upbringing of a child, the welfare of that child shall be the court's paramount consideration.” Williamson did not hold the welfare of the Manx children as paramount – if he had done so he would have checked the statute containing the requirements for a proper (legal) registration of a “custody order” from an 'appropriate court' in England & Wales, and found that the documents (that looked like orders) had not in fact been so registered. His opening statement in court was a lie because he was ignorant of civil law statutes – and staff in the High Court Office (family division section) were ignorant of how to list a children's matter. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for malfeasance. I have just finished reading Everybody Matters by Mary Robinson, and I noted the following quote at the heading of a chapter. It is by Martin L. King Jr. in The Measure of a Man – “An individual has not really started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individual concerns and move on to the broader concerns of all humanity.” It is the concern of all people in the Isle of Man that when a parent asks a court to determine any question with regard to the future of his or her children, that the Crown Officer appointed by “HM” the Queen actually knows how to do the job he (or she) has been asked to do! Surely the officer of the Crown is deemed to be acting to advance the happiness and prosperity of citizens – abusing the rights of Manx children is guaranteed to cause misery, distress, and needless anxiety. Williamson caused such misery, distress and needless anxiety. And to make “no fair criticism” of Williamson (as his colleagues Tattersall and Kerruish did on 26/10/2007) whilst understandably biased (partial to the wicked), was unacceptable. The judges feared a “flood of appeals” – if Williamson messed up Re: Katie and Ben Holmes (children) in 2004, how many other cases did this charlatan foul-up? In fact, because he had no experience in civil law, it is highly probable that he fouled-up every children's matter he “governed” between being made an Acting Deemster in about 2000 and his retirement on 5th January 2008. Child-rights abuse is child abuse. Because nobody appears to actually read the Children Act 1989, the CYPA 2001, the UNCRC or the Eu.CHR, children are being denied basic rights on a daily basis by judges and magistrates and, in the Isle of Man, by the Deemsters. So I wrote to you, Mr Wood, about two weeks ago; and I copied in the Lord Bishop. The Court listed Mrs Holmes as “respondent” in an “appeal process” instead of listing the Chief Registrar or even AK Williamson himself) and you have done nothing at all: as usual; as I expected. Turning a blind eye is worse than negligence. Please pass my disappointment on to the Lord of Man (the Queen) that this citizen (one of the Manx people) -3-
thinks that appointing Doyle as HM D1 and Wood as HM Governor at IOM is not advancing the happiness and prosperity of Manx children – it is ensuring that citizens are litigated into poverty, and denied basic rights. I would have thought that it was the duty of HM Governor to advance the happiness and prosperity of the Manx people: I would have thought that it was the duty of the Attorney General, D1, D2 (and especially the Deputy Deemster) to advance the happiness and prosperity of Manx people, including children. I did nothing wrong in the Isle of Man : the Assistant Chief Registrar and the Deputy Deemster did wrong (on 28th May and 1st July 2004 respectively); then on 5 th November 2004 the Deputy Deemster issued a false document – a “declarity order” that had no basis in law. These wrongs were so bad that on 26 th September 2008 Carol Dowd signed a sworn statement of truth – an affidavit – which was based on “a pack of lies”. She committed perjury in support of the court office misgovernment since 28th May 2004. This whole matter is a classic “fruit of the poisoned tree” matter. The tree was poisoned in the Isle of Man on 28th May 2004 when it was purported that two documents from England, a foreign jurisdiction, were “registered” in the Isle of Man High Court; but these documents were not registered. That is not working to advance the happiness and prosperity of Manx people; it is working to abuse the rights of Manx children; which is a disgrace – a Crown authorised disgrace. Have you noticed something, Adam? No swearing; nothing inappropriate – just fact based comments. David Doyle wrote in 1994 about the rules of natural justice – the minimum standards of fairness under the common law. I have identified THREE rules; David only quoted two in 1994 (although the third was in a list of extra rules) : nemo judex in sua causa; ostendo testimonium; audi alteram partem; No-one shall judge in own cause, produce the evidence, and hear the other side. Taking precedence (or prevailing) over common law rules are the rules of Equity and the Statutes of the Isle of Man; the statutes being the supreme law of the Island, going back to 1417 (1 section) and 1422 (6 sections of the 1422 Act of Tynwald). People like Stephen Cregeen – the highest officer of the High Court; and Chief Registrar – have always been permitted to “judge in own cause”; as confirmed in a letter from the General Registry (Chief Registrar) to me (just over) two years ago. Cregeen is directed by D1. This letter (of 11/08/11) contained –
“In relation to orders which are made in courts in England there are provisions which allow for the reciprocal enforcement of such orders. In the case of the Lancaster Court Orders in 2004 as the procedure was not followed the orders were registered erroneously, which was confirmed by the Staff of Government in their judgment which has been previously acknowledged. ”
The “procedure was not followed”: but the so-called orders were not “registered erroneously”; they were NOT registered; Mr Cregeen (advised, supervised and directed by the First Deemster [s. 28 High Court Act 1991]) judged in his own cause – that the mantra created by his predecessor (“the orders were registered by this office erroneously”) was deemed a judgment; but even Corkhill had clarified his mantra with “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987.” If something is not in accordance with the requirements of an Act of Tynwald then it is unlawful or outlawry. There is nothing in the Oaths that “you guys” swear that says “I will promote outlawry and I will supervise and direct others to ensure that outlawry is ignored”. That is what has happened since 28/05/2004 – outlawry has prevailed. From the moment he was given the Family Division to play with, Williamson should have been kept away from the affairs of Manx children – instead he was permitted to abuse the rights of every child who had the misfortune to be named in any documents issued by the Family Division : then on 3 rd September 2007 David Doyle judged in own cause and abused rights for the next five years. When I alerted Captain Haddock of the maladministration (in March 2006), nothing happened; and since your arrival in the Island in April 2011, nothing positive has happened; in fact I have had one letter from your secretary insinuating that I should “go away and forget” that Williamson abused me and my children in 2004. I have not gone away. I asked you to help “your excellency” and you have sided with the wicked – you have chosen to accept that David Doyle acted honourably; but Doyle cherry picked ONE phrase from the entirety of the biased judgement of the “Staff of Government Division” of 26 th October 2007. Instead of picking out the highlighted sections, (below), Doyle picked out the “no fair criticism” remark. Excellency my ass! Your mediocrity more like.
-4-
Part of this is so biased, it is like saying “no fair criticism can be made of Adolf Hitler for him accepting what he believed to be correct”. I am not joking, Adam; I call AK Williamson “Adolf Kalashnikov” and I know that he abused the trust of all parties in the Family Division during his time as Deputy child-rights abusing Deemster, and that he attempted to destroy the Holmes family through his neglect and ignorance and hubris. He was completely ignorant of civil statute and of Conventions. What are you going to do, Adam Wood? Officers of the Crown have abused the rights of Manx children; and other officers have turned a blind eye to such child abuse. “They” are all in on it – Doyle, Corlett, Roberts, Melton and even the Judge of Appeal Geoff Tattersall. John Needham turned a blind eye to the malfeasance and maladministration; and Michael Moyle told me that he was sure Williamson knows what he is doing! Tim King was an imbecile in the High Court (in October 2006); and Linda Sullivan was as biased as possible; she actually stated that “access” and “contact” are exactly the same thing. That is like saying “buggery” is the same as “burglary”. The Crown may be sued – especially if officers of the Crown knowingly abuse the rights of children of her Majesty's peoples. Better that you settle this matter in a reasonable manner; by “sensible negotiation,” but neither of these two concepts are known to you – being sensible or negotiating! The Isle of Man is currently no different from the Island that existed between September 1662 and mid-1664 when William Christian was unlawfully killed and the two Deemsters (Norris and Cannell) were imprisoned in London. William Christian's property was unlawfully seized by the Lord of Man; just the same as what happened to me in 2005. You will find this Petition on issuu.com : at gsholmes/docs on the world-wide-web. The document is titled Follow-Up_to_Lt-Governor (.pdf); and I have put the malfeasance and maladministration of Her Majesty's Officers in this Island in the public domain because Melton and Tattersall did so in April 2013. Yours &c,
Stephen Holmes B.Sc.
-5-