16th September 2013
s_h_iom@yahoo.com c/o 127, IM1 4HH
Judge Rawkins; Judge Sir James Munby, Lancaster County Court/ High Court Dear Sirs, Failures in the Lancaster County Court and a Claim I was delighted to read articles in Newspapers on 5 th September 2013 about criticism of “privacy” in civil hearings.
Judge calls for more transparency in family courts The most senior family judge in England and Wales has demanded more transparency in the courts after rejecting social workers’ attempts to silence a father whose baby was taken into care against his will. Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said the public had a right to know “what is being done in their name” and called for the courts to adapt to the internet era. Giving his ruling on a county council’s legal bid to ban the father publishing highly critical material about its social services department, the judge said the “glare of publicity” was essential to avoid miscarriages of justice. It comes after widespread concern about secrecy in the family courts - which usually hold hearings in private - and a separate court, known as the Court of Protection, which deals with life-or-death decisions about patient treatment. Sir James said: “There is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system. There are a number of aspects to this. One is the right of the public to know, the need for the public to be confronted with what is being done in its name. Nowhere is this more necessary than in relation to care and adoption cases. Such cases, by definition, involve interference, intrusion, by the state, by local authorities and by the court, into family life. In this context the arguments in favour of publicity - in favour of openness, public scrutiny and public accountability - are particularly compelling.” He added: “We must have the humility to recognise - and to acknowledge - that public debate, and the jealous vigilance of an informed media, have an important role to play in exposing past miscarriages of justice and in preventing possible future miscarriages of justice. “The remedy, even if it is probably doomed to only partial success, is … more transparency. Putting it bluntly, letting the glare of publicity into the family courts.” Sir James ruled on a case involving Staffordshire County Council and a baby, who can only be identified as ‘J’, who was born earlier this year. The court heard the infant was made the subject of an emergency protection order on the day of its birth and taken into care. The father posted material about social workers on the internet, some of which was abusive, and announced the child’s birth on Facebook, the social networking site. He also posted footage on Facebook and YouTube of social workers taking the child into care under an emergency protection order - and the child was named, said the judge. Sir James said the council applied for an order which would prevent the publication of the child’s name, address and image. The judge made an order banning the naming of the child, but refused to ban the publication of images. The judge said his decision was intended to protect the child from identification while allowing a “public debate” to take place about the “operation of the care system”. In his ruling, Sir James said that even “unjustified” criticism did not provide a reason for the courts to silence someone’s views. “The fear of such criticism, however justified that fear may be, and however unjustified the criticism, is, however, not of itself a justification for prior restraint by injunction … even if the criticism is expressed in vigorous, trenchant or outspoken terms,” he said. The judge said the way the internet allowed easy access to information that was sometimes sensitive in nature posed “enormous challenges”. “The law must develop and adapt, as it always has done down the years in response to other revolutionary technologies,” he said. “We must not simply throw up our hands in despair and moan that the internet is uncontrollable. Nor can we simply abandon basic legal principles.” In July, Sir James published guidelines setting out how thousands more court judgments in care and adoption cases should be made public. Source: Daily Telegraph
I was horrified recently to note that judges Robert M. Forrester and D.S. Gee are presiding over matters in the “family courts” in Lancaster because of what Gee alleged in August 2006. Vicky P-
Jones sent me a letter with the following – 31st August 2006 Dear Mr Holmes Re:
KN03P00016 Katarina May Holmes and P.E.B. Holmes, Private Law
I write with reference to you Appellant's Notice lodges at the Court office on 23rd August 2006. Your appeal request has been referred to Judge Gee [D.S.] who comments as follows: “I am not prepared to allow Mr Holmes to waste the Courts time further. These proposed appeals are years out of time and need leave. I refuse leave and also strike out the proposed appeals as disclosing no arguable case. The jurisdiction point was taken and resolved against him, without appeal until now. The Court clearly had jurisdiction not least because there were competent divorce proceedings here in which he acknowledged that he was habitually resident in the U.K. Any domicile in the Isle of Man is not relevant. Habitual residence founded jurisdiction. I am not prepared to enter into any correspondence with Mr Holmes.”
Three things occur to me:1. When was the “jurisdiction point” taken and “resolved” against me? 2. Were the divorce proceedings in Kendal competent, or even valid? 3. What happened to “fairness”? [nemo judex in causa sua, D.S. Gee] Note that Gee referenced the Private Law case KN03P00016 which was about Katarina and Benedict Holmes – nothing in fact to do with divorce proceedings. If Kendal Court Office had checked Brussels II in 2003 they may have found that they did not have jurisdiction to deal with the Divorce Petition of March 2003. Since 1991 there has been no link between a divorce and a children's matter under the Children Act 1989 (an Act of Parliament that neither Forrester nor D.S. Gee understand]. I do not need to publicise THIS MATTER in the public domain – two idiots from the Isle of Man have done this for me : on web-site judgments.im you can find J1356 (dated 2 nd April 2013). [in folder /contents/J1356.html] Paragraph 4 alleges:- On 2003 when the Appellant and Mrs Yvonne Holmes, his now former wife [`Mrs Holmes`] were residing in England, both parties made applications to the Kendal County Court relating to their two children. Ultimately on 24February 2004 District Judge Forrester sitting at the Lancaster County Court made orders that children should reside with Mrs Holmes, that Mrs Holmes should have permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man and that the Appellant should have reasonable contact with the children provided that such contact took place in the Isle of Man.
Paragraph 7 includes – Although the parties were both now resident in the Isle of Man, on 27 October 2004 District Judge Nuttall sitting at the Lancaster County Court ordered that the Appellant do have indirect contact [by telephone calls, letters and emails] with the children …
The “Appellant” is me, an Adult, and Nuttall actually wrote “the Father do have indirect contact with the children” – clearly an order about an Adult; not a child. In addition, on 27 October 2004, Nuttall also made what he called an Ancillary Relief Order. Ignoring White v White [2000], Nuttall allocated 100% of the “marital assets” held in England to Mrs Yvonne Holmes, and 0% to the Manx father of the Manx children. But Forrester had “ordered” that children should reside with Mrs Holmes, that Mrs Holmes should have permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man and that the Appellant should have reasonable contact with the children provided that such contact took place in the Isle of Man. In addition, [as paragraph 5 of J1356 confirms], “On 2 April 2004 Mrs Holmes wrote to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson [Family Division] enclosing copies of
the residence [and contact] order and the order granting leave to permanently remove the children to the Isle of Man.” Whenever the “jurisdiction point” was taken and found against me does not matter; for on 24 th February 2004, Forrester produced a document that looked like this – In the Lancaster County Court
Case Number: KN03P00016
Order
Residence and Contact Order section 8 Children Act 1989 .
The full name(s) of the children
Boy or Girl
Date(s) of Birth
Katarina May Holmes Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes
Girl Boy
19th May 1996 28th August 1999 .
The Court Orders that
1. the father has permission to withdraw the applications for residence and prohibited steps orders 2. Katarina May Holmes and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes shall reside with their mother, Yvonne Holmes 3. Yvonne Holmes has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man (please see separate order attached) 4. the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man 5. the Court Orders that the Children and Family Reporter do file a report on the question of contact. The Report to be filed by 4:00 pm on 20th April 2004. The requirement as to a report on residence is discharged. 6. both parties [what parties?] &c. 7. the Case is to be listed before Forrester &c. on 8th June, &c.
Paragraph 4 is without doubt the most ludicrous statement in the history of the Children Act 1989. The so-called separate order stated the The Court grants leave to Yvonne Holmes to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently; and yet the Application (of 27th October 2003, by Mrs Holmes) was for “Leave to remove the children from the jurisdiction”. This was treated as a section 8 Children Act 1989 “specific issue” – see section 8 of the CA 1989. By 24February 2004 Forrester had changed the “application” from “leave to remove children from the jurisdiction” [s. 8 CA 1989] into “leave to remove children from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland TO THE ISLE OF MAN, under section 13(1) and 33(7) of the 1989 Act, sections that do not allow for the making of orders; the application was for a section 8 specific issue order, the specific issue being “leave to remove children from the jurisdiction of England & Wales” – no mention of Scotland or Northern Ireland! I am completely fed-up with these charlatans in “family courts” [called, laughingly, judges] because they have no clue what they are doing! Who has contact? THE CHILD. What is the Father? AN ADULT. The CA 1989 is an Act to REFORM the law relating to children – it is not an Act to change the word access to the word contact! It is not an Act to help abuse the rights of children and then hide behind “private law” to cover-up the abuses. I am a scientist and mathematician. It is my DUTY to uncover the truth – and the truth in this
matter is that JUDGES HAVE ABUSED MANX CHILDREN; rights abuse – contrary to the UNCRC; contrary to the Convention [the Eu. Convention on Human Rights – enshrined in law since October 2000] and the actions have been unlawfully contrary to the Children Act 1989. How can anybody have a fair hearing in a County Court if the judges make orders with respect to ADULTS under the Children Act 1989? What is a parent to do when a judge abuses his (or her) children? It is the hope of people like Gee and Forrester that I will “shut up and go away” BUT I WILL NOT. See the Case of Martin Archer-Shee versus The King in 1909/1910. The Lords of the Admiralty, (in the domain of the King), acted without law and without due process – not unlike the actions of Nuttall and Forrester in the period 27 th October 2003 to 24th February 2004; and then like Nuttall and Law until the end of October 2004. When Gee entered the fray in August 2006, he lied about “the jurisdiction point” and was confused that a children's matter is NOT related to a divorce; one is under the Matrimonial Causes Act and the other under the Children Act 1989. Many parents are not married or are already divorced; the CA 1989 allows any person (within reason) to as the Court to determine a question with regard to the future upbringing of a child, and the welfare of that child shall be the paramount consideration of THE COURT – that is the law; abusing the rights of the child is not an option under the CA 1989; but “father have indirect dealings with his own Manx children” is not upholding the welfare of the children – it is encouraging their abuse. I am claiming compensatory damages – pecuniary damages from those in public authority in Lancaster courts premises; Nuttall and Forrester; Law and Gee, Sainsbury (and now Mrs Helen Hynes) for causing extreme emotional distress by releasing false instruments relating to Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes. In 2006 Ms Helen Green was awarded £800,000 because she was bullied at work. I was bullied in life by the Police in Lancaster (acting on a civil court order!) and by authorities in the Department for Child Abuse (including Gee) until the end of August 2006; my children were abused. Article 8 of the Convention is “Everyone has the right to respect for his privacy and family life, his home and correspondence”. That is everyone except Stephen Holmes because he is a Manxman involved in a dispute with Nuttall and Forrester because these morons assumed the Isle of Man to be part of the United Kingdom; they assumed that the CA 1989 could extend beyond England & Wales; and they assumed that rights abuses against children was OK. Saved as a pdf and loaded on issuu.com/gsholmes/docs as Letter_2_Rawkins-n-Munby Best regards,
G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc.