Friday, 12th August 2016 Dear David C. Doyle, [“Dave”]
s_Holmes_i_t@hotmail.com Wigan WN1
In the matter of the Bill of Rights 1688 and in the matter of [inter alia] the Human Rights Act 2001 and in the matter of your allegations of December 2011 You alleged, in your judgement (J1149.htm) in 2011 that my statement “the tree was poisoned” containted “colourful words”. You idiot. Just as you are entitled to write – “ Unfortunately the Claimant's obsession continues and it has now become irrational; ” so I am entitled to write and publish that “First Deemster and president of the High Court, Dave, is an idiot who [in 2007] descibed a children matter as divorce proceedings.” Before that hearing (I believe – I may be wrong) I purchased a book entitled Fruit of the Poisonous Tree by Dr Kerri Mellifont from Queensland Instrutute of Technology. This book has a foreword by a man you are not capable of understanding, Hon JA Jerrard QC, Former Justice of the Queensland Court of Appeal. But I will reproduce part of the foreword in a futile attempt to educate you. This is a good book. Lawyers and non-lawyers alike will find it a pleasure to read. It takes its title from an expression used in courts in the United States of America to describe what Dr Mellifont instead calls “derivative” evidence. She defines that term to mean evidence derived from primary evidence; and primary evidence, in this book, in turn means evidence directly obtained by means of illegal or improper conduct of law enforcement officials. For example, a murder weapon found as a result of an improperly obtained confession. Dr Mellifont observes in this book that much has been written, both in Australia and internationally, about the general topic of exclusion by a judge of illegally or improperly obtained evidence in a … trial. She notes that little has been written about derivative evidence, and how it should be approached. She declared in her introduction that in this book she sought to equip practitioners with a sufficient understanding of the core exclusionary power/rules in Australia, including the theoretical framework on which they are based, and an understanding of how courts may approach derivative evidence. She wrote that she hoped to better equip law practitioners to make assessments as to whether or not to seek exclusion of the primary and/or the derivative evidence, and to better equip respondent advocates. In my opinion, her book admirably succeeds in all those goals. It will prove of particular assistance to any judge who reads it, both at trial and at appellate level. This is because of the care and precision with which she analyses and identifies those exclusionary powers and rules, and their underlying principles described by the judges, in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and in Australia, when those judges were ruling on whether illegally or improperly obtained evidence should be excluded. She identifies four separate underlying principles, variously espoused in all the higher courts of those countries. These are a “reliability” principle, that evidence should be admitted or excluded solely on the grounds of reliability; a “deterrence” principle, to discipline law enforcement officers who obtain evidence by improper means by excluding that evidence, to discourage future impropriety; a “rights protection” principle, based on the idea that courts should uphold the rights of the accused in the criminal justice system; and a “judicial integrity” principle, that illegally or improperly procured evidence should be excluded if its admission would undermine the integrity and legitimacy of the administration of justice.
Through your negligence; your incompetence and your bias, the integrity and legitimacy of the administration of justice in the Isle of Man has gone “out the window”. You are not alone in being responsible for the loss of confidence in the judicial system in the Isle of Man; your Second is hopeless, and your predecessors were negligent in keeping up-to-date with the Human Rights Compliant statutes being introduced by Tynwald – none more incompetent than AK Williamson. You “quoted” some of the “background” to what you saw as “matters” in J1149.htm but assumed that what had been written and what was stored in the Office of Records of the High Court (the General Registry) was good when it was all false derivative evidence for no registration actually took place on 28th May 2004, despite the production of FOUR documents that purportedly recorded such. If a document says “Stephen Holmes shall be an orang-utan provided he is in the Isle of Man” and such document is NOT registered in the Isle of Man High Court, what does it actually “mean”? What does it say in law? I will help you, Dave – it says nothing of legal status – it is null and void. But if there is a mantra in the High Court Office and amongst the judges that “the orders were registered erroneously,” those public officials and judges are too stupid to comprehend that a socalled order from Lancaster County Court that has “words on it” is void in the Isle of Man and so those “words” are of no legal value – they should not be repeated. There was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the “order” which he purportedly made on 5 th November 2004 so that too was void and said NOTHING of legal value. When you blustered from the Bench on 29th November 2007 you stated that there was a “residence order” and so I interrupted your bluster; you admonished me from the Bench. But your integrity and legitimacy had been compromised – and you even stated that an order had been made in “divorce
proceedings” when no Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 case had ever been heard in the Isle of Man with regard to me and/or Yvonne Holmes. I just want to show you what an imbecile Peter Corkhill was. He alleged that Carol Dowd had “investigated” an allegation of maladministration in February 2006 (more than TEN YEARS AGO) and found that the “rules laid down had not been followed!” Corkhill later used the verbose phrase “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987”. Surely, Dave, if an action is not in accordance with the requirements of an Act of Tynwald it is unlawful and any documents issued as a result of the unlawful action have no legal status and should be treated as void by the court, not as a license to issue an “Order” about an Adult parent [such as “keep away from your own children, Mr Holmes”] Mrs Dowd obtained what she called “certified copies” of documents from Lancaster County Court [and who told you that a County Court can bind a High Court, Dave?] but when I examined these in 2007, I noted that certification was by Vicky P-Jones and not by “a Judge or a Registrar” as required by the “rules laid down”. I will show you – I noted that Dowd had been negligent because it appeared that the “orders” of 27/10/2004 had been ignored. If I had told her about them, she would have obtained “certified copies” of those as well, but she did not do so. The letter from Mrs Voirrey Moore sent on 27th February 2007 included the phrase “… and must have the wording “I certify that this is a true copy of the original order of this Court” on it
Officer of the Court, – see the word REGISTRAR AND be signed by an appropriate person (either the Judge or a Registrar).”
What I don’t understand, Dave, is that the requirement to be signed by a Judge or a Registrar is in Schedule 1 of the Child Custody Act 1987, and a reader is referred to Schedule 1 by “Interpretation” and yet 'Appropriate Court' is the first definition in Interpretation (section 21). And in May 2004 you “signed” the Rules of the Family “Division” and included in that – “ in relation to England and Wales, the secretary of the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales”. You have deliberately failed to notice that the so-called orders from Lancaster County Court were not issued by the High Court in England and only High Court can talk to High Court. But you do not have a “High Court attitude” – you are a County Court judge in a jurisdiction where there is no county court – in fact you are not even that good! You are the epitome of ordure. After Dowd issue her letter of 9th February 2006, I continued to fight the malfeasance in the High Court Office – at that time I did not know that Mrs Holmes had written to “The Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division” and did not know that the Clerk is directed and supervised by the Deemster to whom he is attached, so that letter went directly to Williamson's desk in a “back office”. For a year nothing happened, except that Tim King thought I was complaining about the administration of “matrimonial proceedings” which I have never been involved in in the Isle of Man! And he is now a High Court judge in England – God help them! God help Jersey and Guernsey because you are on the Appeal panel. No-one from the General Registry / High Court Office would explain to me what was the due process of “regsistration” and disclosure of the eight documents had not taken place; I had no idea what a “registration document” looked like. I wrote to the High Court Office on some date in late February 2007 and asked to register a document footed C21 Blank Order. Mrs Voirrey Moore replied telling me three “rules laid down”. 1. Your application should be made through Lancaster County Court;
2. The papers should be sent direct to the Isle of Man General Registry, Courts Division, from Lancaster County Court and must include copies of the applications and supporting documents in relation to the order; 3. The order will need to be certified by Lancaster County Court and must have the wording “I certify that this is a true copy of the original order of this Court” on it AND be signed by an appropriate person (either the Judge or a Registrar). It was immediately clear to me that none of these rules had been complied with on 4 th November 2004, and so the “declaratory order” issued by the evil Williamson of 5 th November 2004 was defective – in fact null and void. Now what happened after I wrote a letter on 19 th March 2007 was that I supplied Mannin Chambers with all the papers I had, including this letter. HFH, (now Hazel F. Smith), wrote to the High Court Office on 17 th July 2007 asking for the documents mentioned in 1, 2, and 3. We act as Amicus Curiae to the Court in respect of an appeal by Stephen Holmes regarding registration of the above Orders. We understand that the Orders were registered respectively on the 28 May 2004 and 4 November 2004. We would be obliged if you could let us have copies of the following: 1. The letters from the Lancaster County Court enclosing copies of the applications, supporting documents and the Order. 2. Copies of the certified Orders from Lancaster County Court signed by the Judge or Registrar. We would be obliged for copies of these items as soon as possible since we have to advise the Court of the position by the end of this month … And now we have the “legendary” reply by R. Peter Corkhill – Thank you for your letter of 17th July 2007 asking for copies of the following: 1. The letters from the Lancaster County Court enclosing copies of the applications, supporting documentation and the Order. 2. Copies of the certified Orders from Lancaster County Court signed by the Judge or Registrar. The documents referred to above do not exist. The application to register the orders in the Isle of Man was made directly by Yvonne Holmes. From an inspection of the file DIV 2004/114 it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously, i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987. The only interpretation of this document is that the High Court Office, part of the General Registry, acted UNLAWFULLY, and the Chief Registrar, Carol Dowd, Paul Coppell, then YOU, the Staff of Government Division, Stephen Robertson, Sharon Roberts and (almost) everyone-else in authority in the Isle of Man accepted that the “documents” had in fact been registered when the truth is that nothing was registered in the Isle of Man High Court – the tree was poisoned on 28th May 2004 and everything that has followed up to a decision in England in July 2016 is fruit of the poisoned tree; but you are an idiot so you cannot see the maladministration and malfeasance and outlawry. Corkhill continued the ordure – However, Deputy Deemster Williamson made the order of 5th November 2004, effectively endorsing the provisions of the Orders from the Court in Lancaster. Upon an examination of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic] in 2006, it was noted that documents submitted by Yvonne Holmes were not certified copies and therefore certified copies of the two Orders were sought by this office from the Lancaster County Court. A comparison of the February 2004 documents shows that the copies submitted by Yvonne Holmes were true copies but not certified copies. For some reason we do not have certified copies of the October 2004 documents. I enclose for your information copies of the relevant documents held in the General Registry
files, if you wish to discuss this with me, do please contact me. I wished to discuss the malfeasance and maladministration with Corkhill throughout 2006 but he refused because Dowd sought certified copies from the Lancaster COUNTY Court to cover-up the wrong-doing of 2004. (May and November). If the initial action required certification and no documents were certified, then retrospective certification does not fix the problem! Not in a real jurisdiction, anyway! But the Isle of Man has a kangaroo civil court Corkhill actually says “we acted unlawfully; gave the results of our unlawful actions to Williamson, who issued an order comfirming the outlawry, so the outlawry must have been correct.” For some reason we do not have certified copies of the October 2004 documents – because Dowd was utterly incompetent in February 2006. And in a sworn statement of “truth” in 2008, Dowd alleged that registrations had in fact taken place when it is CLEAR in Paragraph 47 of J1183 “when they had not been so registered”. I am a mathematician, Dave, and I find “beauty” in logic and equations and things done well. In my mind, I am appalled by sophistry and malfeasance because it is unjust and illogical. The totality of events with regard to me, which you stated were divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144 on 3rd September 2007 (and so poisoned your own tree), are ugly and ordure and unjust and downright unlawful – but one of your cronies was inextricably involved in the malfeasance and you could not have a situation where a lay-man was right and a Deemster acted outside the law. But that is what Williamson did – he issued a declaration that had no basis in law – and you turned a blind eye to his abusive actions – and contined them in 2007 and 2008 – then you judged in your own cause in December 2011 – you biased idiot, Dave. I have complained about you and Andy Tandy Corlett to the Governor because it is your conduct that is questionable – you do not make “decisions” in court – you state “views”. See paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Ordure in J1149.htm – 10. At paragraph 47 of the judgment of the Staff of Government Division the court stated that “... no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for … accepting what he believed to be correct, namely that the orders had been properly registered …” 11. It can be seen therefore that the Staff of Government Division were of the clear view that "no fair criticism" could be made of Deputy Deemster Williamson for accepting that the orders had been properly registered. There are TWO cruicial statements in paragraph 47 “when they had not been so registered” and “there was no legitimate basis” – the “view” is what a fair minded and informed observer would find biased – and the fact that there was no registration shows misgovernment when those two acts (partiality and misgovernment) have been prohibited by law since 1422 and by your ridiculous oath. I would hate to see the Herring on which you base your oath – it must have been irradiated and mutated to be all ass with no backbone. The misfortune of your position, Dave, is that you are unaccountable to anyone except the Governor; and no doubt you were involved in the appointment and swearing-in of Dicky. “Dave ‘I have investigated myself and found I did nothing wrong’ Charlatan Doyle” – President of the Kangaroo Court of Injustice of Devil’s Isle of Manure. Williamson screwed my family: you screwed my family to the extent that Mrs Holmes could not protect Katie and Ben from YOU or from Williamson (or from herself) – few people in the Isle of Man would say that a trained chimpanzee would have made a better Deemster in the civil court than Williamson but, unless this matter is resolved TO MY satisfaction (because I have been right all along, and you have never done anything right; not since your divorce proceedings allegation) I shall continue to “dis” the Isle of Man and its public authorities in the hope that I can cost Devil’s Isle of Manure its status as a “safe” jurisdiction. In my view it is not safe because people like D1 and D2 are idiots – and can lose everything because Deemsters misgovern. It is you, Dave, who had an irrational view in 2007 – you thought that a Form C1 had resulted in divorce proceedings – you really are an idiot. I stopped being obsessed with showing Williamson was wrong when I received the letter from Voirrey Moore on about 1 st March 2007 because I KNEW from that moment on that I had been right and Williamson, Corkhill and King had been wrong. You can't accuse someone of being obsessed with something that has ENDED! When you pointed one finger at me, Dave, there were three fingers pointing back at you.