I, Stephen Holmes, state that I have been denied fundamental rights by the Isle of Man Govenrnment as a result of failures in Engand & Wales and in the Isle of Man. There has been a ‘type of’ defamation by the entity that is the Isle of Man High Court. Following a series of lies and unlawful actions (false instruments issued; natural justice failed; Human Rights violations since 1st November 2006; perjury on the Benches) Deemster Corlett stated in court that “[I am] an abusive and unpleasant gentleman” and in 2009 MLR 112 [J906.htm] he criticised my “conduct” although he admitted that much of this was before the SOGD made “no fair criticism” of a child-rights abuser. THE EVIDENCE shows that Deputy Deemster AK Williamson was a liar and a charlatan in the High Court – he thought that “his opinion was the law” and all Deemsters sided with him. Williamson abused the rights of children through negligence. I have not had a family life since August 2004. Justice failed in the E+W County Court and in the High Court (briefly) – and then justice failed totally in the Isle of Man High Court, laughingly called the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man, but practically a kangaroo court of injustice and incompetence, manned by “high court” Deemsters who are ignorant of statute and resort to an ancient remembered law called “bowel law” or “breast law” which they (yes, all the Deemsters) claim allows them to do whatever they think they can do and call it lawful! Deemster David Doyle is now president of the High Court – and is also Deputy Governor (the Lt. Governor being the Queen’s representative in the Isle of Man) and he is a charlatan. The reason I have written this account in August 2017 is that on 3 rd September 2007, ten years ago, David Doyle entered the High Court as a decision maker in a “family” matter – on 3rd September 2007 Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) submitted TWO applications for “an order to be made” under section 11(1) [either (c) or (d)] of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. Doyle had spent the majority of his time as “Second Deemster” [D2] in the Court of General Gaol Delivery (“CGGD”), the Manx equivalent of the Crown Court – an upper criminal law court. At that time (and until 2009) the Family Division of the High Court was one of the “civil divisions” of the High Court of “justice” specialising in three of four types of applications – Divorce, nullity or separation; private (law) children matters, public (law) children matters, adoption, financial disputes between parents or guardians. In April 2011, Second Deemster Andrew Corlett (immediately after he had been appointed – on 31st March 2011 Corlett was “deputy” Deemster) said that AK Williamson bore almost single-handed “all the work of the Family Division” and had done so since he was appointed Deputy Deemster on 1st September 2002 when the Family Law Act 1991 was still “in force.” It develops that Doyle had been a “deputy High Bailiff” [in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction – (“CSJ”)] before becominig “D2” and Williamson had been Deputy High Bailiff then High Bailiff from 6th January 1988 to 31st August 2002 – the CSJ being a lower criminal law court. The “expertise” of both Williamson and Doyle was in criminal law and not civil law, and yet Williamson dealt with “DIV” cases in the Family Division [and a children case or a divorce case was given the court-file prefix “DIV” from the 1990s] – and on 3rd September 2007 Doyle was dealing with a “DIV” case which was a matter relating to children. Doyle, in fact, did not know what he was doing and relied on an assumption that Williamson DID know what he had been doing in the High Court for the previous FIVE years (and more – whilst High Bailiff, Williamson had been given “family matters” to deal with) when ONE recording of a Williamson “hearing” (and transcripts of two meetings are included) shows that Williamson had made the Family Division (and the Common Law Division) a kangaroo court of injustice and corruption. Williamson LIED from the Bench – committing perjury – and therefore he abused the rights of Manx children every time he considered a question relating to their future upbringing. Therefore, I am informing Government advocate Keiron Murray of the following – see issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/Liars_and_Liars NOW IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. DO AS YOU WILL.
IN THE MATTER of the former children Katie and Ben Holmes (now young adults) and IN THE MATTER of judges in the Isle of Man High Court (the deemsters or “Deemsters”) 1. There was a “hearing” in the IOMHC in front of Deemster Doyle on 14 th December 2011, and a judgment was published on-line (judgments.im) shortly afterwards; case number was CHP 2008/83 and judgment number is J1149 – J1149.htm 2. At pararaph 10 of this “nonsense” [www.judgments.im/content/J1149.htm] is a reference to paragraph 47 of a previous judgment issued on 26 th October 2007. Judgment in case 2DS 2007 stroke 9 is J1183.htm but the First Deemster (“D1”) Doyle authorised the publication of this previous judgment without dates and names – although the matter was already “in the public domain.” 3. Paragraph 47 [www.judgments.im/content/J1183.htm] contains two crucial phrases regarding events in 2004 – those events were called “registrations” and a registration is a (in this matter) due process under section 7 of an Act of Tynwald called the Child Custody Act 1987 – “Registration of custody order in High Court.” The two crucial phrases are “when they had not been registered” and “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did” (on 5th Nov. 2004). 4. The so-called “order” of 5th Nov. 2004 was distributed to “Departments” in the Isle of Man Government (“IOMG”), [the General Registry, the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Education (to name three)] and part of its contents became “policy” in the Isle of Man. The policy appeared to be “respondent Manx father shall have indirect dealings with his own Manx children” but there was no record of to what the father was responding. 5. In J1183.htm (D1 Kerruish and Tattersall JA) we find the following in paragraph 47 – … the totality of the order by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date] cannot stand and must be quashed. Paragraph 1 of such order expressly recorded that the [English] Court orders had been registered, when they had not been so registered, and paragraph 2 of such order was founded upon the incorrect premise that there had been proper registration. Although no fair 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 recognise that the Deputy Deemster could have exercised the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man courts to make an order to like effect, he did not exercise such jurisdiction. And we also find – 9. On 2 April 2004 Mrs Holmes wrote to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson enclosing copies of the two orders, namely the residency order, and the order granting leave to permanently remove the children to the Isle of Man, made by a District Judge and asked that such orders be registered at the Isle of Man Court. nd
10. On or about 28th May 2004 notice of registration of such orders by the Isle of Man High Court [‘the High Court’] was sent to the Mrs Holmes. It does not seem that the Appellant was so informed. 11. By application dated 18th May 2004 the Appellant applied to the Isle of Man High Court for a residence order in respect of both children. 12. At a hearing of such application on 1 st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Appellant that the English orders made on 24 th February 2004 had been registered and dismissed his application. 13. The Appellant did not appeal against such dismissal of his application.
6. We find in J1149.htm (by Deemster Doyle) – 4. On the 25th [sic] May 2004 the Claimant applied to the High Court in the Isle of Man
for a residence order in respect of both his children. At a hearing of such application on the 1st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Claimant that the English Orders made on the 24th February 2004 had been registered and dismissed his application. The Claimant did not appeal against such dismissal of his application. There was no appeal by either party against the English order made on the 24 th February 2004. 7. TWICE – on 26th October 2007 and 14th December 2011 – High Court judges (Deemsters) confirmed that I, the Appellant/Claimant, had been told that so-called “orders” from Lancaster County Court had been registered in the Isle of Man High Court when they had not been so registered, so the statement “this order was registered” was untrue – Deputy Deemster Williamson lied from the Bench on 1 st July 2004 when he “told me” that “a – an order from Lancaster” had been registered. 8. The so-called registration (which was NOT a registration) in fact had nothing to do with the “Order” of Williamson of 1st July 2004 for his order contained no mention of a “registration” and no documents to prove that any registration had taken place were disclosed – I was not a “respondent” to the so-called due-process of registration under section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987. 9. I am reminded of a case in the High Court in London – David Irving versus Penguin Books & Deborah Lipstadt, filed in the High Court in London (by Irving) in September 1996, and heard 2000/01/11 to 2000/03/15 with judgment handed down 2000 April 11. This was a “proper” high court case, where the plaintiff was, in fact, a liar who misrepresented evidence to promote his opinions and the defendants, (effectively Miss Lipstadt), had to prove that her criticisms of Irving were true. 10.
I do not have to prove that Williamson lied from the Bench on 1 st July 2004 (and again on 5th November 2004) because the SOGD – Staff of Government division judges [Kerruish and Tattersall] – confirmed that Williamson lied, and this lie was repeated by Doyle in December 2011.
11.
Doyle mentioned (in J1149.htm) the “no fair criticism” view, but failed to mention that the so-called “orders” from Lancaster County Court had NOT been registered in the Isle of Man High Court; and also failed to mention that there was no legitimacy to the so-called order of 5th Nov. 2004. This “blind acceptence” of a previous opinion was the modus operandi of David Irving and is the modus operandi of the “Statute Deniers” in the Isle of Man.
12.
In 2007, the opinion (expressed without evidence) of TWO judges, D1 and JA, was that “… the Deputy Deemster could have exercised the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man courts to make an order to like effect, he did not exercise such jurisdiction.”
13.
It was the claim of Williamson on 1st July 2004 that the County Court in Lancaster, England retained jurisdiction over the Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes although on 24th February 2004 “a – an order from Lancaster” recorded that an English County Court had granted leave to Yvonne Holmes (a Manx person) to remove Manx children from the whole of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) to the the Isle of Man permanently. In fact, on 1st July 2004, Williamson argued with me about who had powers over Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes AFTER 24th February 2004 – I maintain (correctly) that it was the High Court of Justice in the Isle of Man, and Williamson alleged that an inferior (a county) court retained jurisdiction over the Manx children ELEVEN months after those Manx children returned permanently to the Isle of Man, and FOUR months after the county court (judge) in England had relinquished jurisdiction over Manx children.
14.
Note also that on 24th February 2004 the same County Court judge had purported to “order” that a Manx father could enjoy “reasonable” dealings (alleged to be Section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact”) with his Manx children could take place in the jurisdiction (the Isle of Man) to which the Manx children had been released permanently and in which jurisdiction the Manx children had resided habitually since 18 th August 2003 permanently. The Manx children, Katie and Ben Holmes, had been permanently and
habitually resident in the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man courts since 7 th or 8th August 2003, or even 20th July 2003, so the Deputy Deemster had “jurisdiction” to make ANY order with respect to Katie and Ben but, although no registration had taken place on 28th May 2004 or any time, he dismissed an Application by the “applicant father” of 18 th May 2004 on 1st July 2004 and made “no order at all” under section 11(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001; an option under section 1(5) of the said 2001 Act. 15.
The no order principle is well known in the jurisdiction of England & Wales.
16.
On 24th February 2004 District Judge Robert M. Forrester purported to “Order” that [4] the father do have reasonable contact with his own Manx children provided such took place in the Isle of Man. In “simple English” there is no difference between a “section 8 order” which says “children have reasonable contact with their father” and “no order at all:” “reasonable contact” can be achieved (in the Children Act 1989) by the no order principle.
17.
Deputy Deemster Williamson had “done an Irving” in the period 2 nd April 2004 and 1 July 2004 and inferred “the law.” At the beginning of the Irving – Lipstadt hearing (on Day 3) is the following (from www.hdot.org) – st
Page 41 1 A. [Mr Irving]: This is — 2 Q. [Mr Rampton]: Should be not liquidated? 3 A. [Mr Irving]: — I do not mean this offensively, but this is the common sense interpretation of the evidence lying before us, rather the perverse interpretation. We will always has versions or two interpretations, one is the obvious one, which is — and the other is the perverse one. The obvious one is if Himmler goes to Hitler’s headquarters and is handed a phone at some time on his way out and he then has to make phone call to Heydrich saying, “stop killing the Berlin Jews”, then there is some close connection between that and the fact he has seen Hitler that day. 14 Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is a possible interpretation. We in this court, and I do not know about the court of history, we in this court when we say “evidence” we mean “evidence” not “inference”. 17 A. [Mr Irving]: The issues that are being pleaded are mistranslation, or distortion, deliberately mistranslation, distortion, manipulation and I do not think that the particular avenue we are going down leads in the — 21 Q. [Mr Rampton]: I will put it bluntly to you and then I will leave it, you can deny it, because you will deny it, I am sure; (a) you deliberately mistranslated it, you inflated from one train load into Jews generally, that is number one; and (b) you inserted an order from Hitler for which there was no evidence? P-42 1 A. [Mr Irving]: — I will take those two allegations seriatim; that I inflated it deliberately, there is not a shred of evidence for that. The evidence is quite clear, that as soon as Dr General Flemming brought to me the evidence there was one train load of Jews which was in trouble that day, I immediately and in subsequent editions of the book revised it to the narrow interpretation of the word “transport” rather than the wider interpretation. 9 Q. [Mr Rampton]: And you are sticking with the Hitler order answer? 10 A. [Mr Irving]: As being the reasonable rather than perverse analysis of the documents at that time before us. I emphasise of course it has now been very amply confirmed by the intercepts I read out in my bundle this morning.
We in this court, and I do not know about the court of history, we in this court when we say “evidence” we mean “evidence” not “inference”.
18.
The document released by the High Court (DD Williamson) on 12 th July 2004 referred to the kangaroo court meeting of 1st July 2004 and referred to “evidence.”
19.
UPON Consideration of the said Application and of the evidence of each Party and the representations of the Parties who both appeared in Person IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be and is hereby dismissed I must now include a Transcript of the “discussion” of 1st July 2004 prepared by me – .
Transcript of a “hearing” presided over by A. K. Williamson on 1st July 2004 at 11:54 for about 17 minutes. Douglas Court 7. AKW – A.K. Williamson; YH – Yvonne Holmes (Mrs); GSH, Stephen Holmes. Transcribed from For The Record™ recording supplied by the “High Court Office” in August 2006. Timings (according to FTR 11:54:21 – 12:11:35) AKW [11:54:26] Right, just let me come up to speed on this. (silence for 90 seconds. Sounds of papers being shuffled on “the Bench”) AKW [11:56:06] Right what am I being asked to do good people you appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event, is that right? YH That’s right. GSH I was unaware that that order had been registered here in the Isle of Man … AKW Oh! I see. GSH but you have told me it is now. You have a copy of the orders issued by Lancaster? AKW [11:56:44] I have a copy of the order from Lancaster dated the 24th of February GSH Right – Item 4 of that states that the father do have reasonable contact with the children [humhum] provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man. AKW Yes. GSH I presently have accommodation available in Lancaster and I would like to take my children to England when I have contact with them and rather than applying for a court order in the UK to bring children to England I think it would be far more sensible to have a shared residence order in the Isle of Man so that I can take my children to England not to live, just on holidays; have contact with them. As I have said in my application; “I’m quite happy with the arrangement that the children stay with their mother, but it em can I approach you with a copy of my wife’s proposals for er contact? Have a copy of that. AKW Just a moment. AKW [11:58:27] Your home address is Lancaster is it? GSH I have two residences – can I AKW I’ve got 127 Ballabrooie Drive and 9 The Piazza, Lancaster. GSH Yes sir. I have two addresses [Those two?] Yes – you can see – that’s a copy of my Will – Item 2 says my domicile is Manx; I have an Isle of Man driving licence; according to the Treasury I am resident in the Isle of Man. AKW [11:58:58] Now. Are there issues between you or are you agreed about things or not? YH No, there are issues. AKW There are issues YH There’s still a contact order outstanding.
GSH YH AKW YH AKW YH AKW GSH YH AKW
GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH YH AKW YH GSH AKW YH AKW GSH AKW GSH YH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH YH GSH AKW
The contact order was made on the 24th of … No, the contact order was outstanding to be heard next Thursday the 8th June There’s something pending in Lancaster on 8th June 8th of July 8th of July, yes, But it’s been postponed. [11:59:33] Yes there was a matter before judge Forrester on the 8th June That has been postponed until the 8th July and this has been further postponed until the 23rd August sir. No, not as far as I am aware. Well, if this is before the courts in England at present One I wouldn’t interfere with it anyway any more than they would interfere with a matter that was before me, [12:00:00] and Two if that order has been registered here and my belief is I haven’t power to vary it anyway, any more than the English courts would have power to vary my orders. I don’t wish to vary an order I wish to ask for a new order. I asked for a residence order Well that would be by variation of this, wouldn’t it? Not as far as I am aware, sir. Well it would. Because clause 2 of the order says they will reside with their mother. If I am to make an order for shared residence that would vary that order, wouldn’t it? Mm. I didn’t think you could : I didn’t think a UK order had any validity in the Isle of Man. It does if it is registered here, (if it’s registered?) Mmm. [12:00:44] Can I appeal against it being registered? (whispered) It has been registered for some time. I think again you’d have to go back to judge Forrester. This matter is still before judge Forrester in England It is. IT is not I have asked for it to be thrown out – to be struck out of the Court in England But it hasn’t been yet, has it? No, it hasn’t. Well if it hasn’t been then he may or may not strike it out in due course. I’d be very surprised if he did, but he might. That’s a matter you’ll put before him when he comes back with that, is it? No, I want a residence application here in the Isle of Man, sir. [12:01:23] Well I am not going to hear one while there are proceedings pending in England. But if I can only see my children in the Isle of Man “father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man” how can I go back to England for a court case in England? I have to go. I don’t see a problem. Well there is an expense involved Well you have told me you have got two addresses already one of which is in Lancaster. Well there is an expense involved in coming to the Isle of Man to see my children. That is something you will address to the court when he hears the matter further, isn’t it? So you are not prepared to hear a residence application? At this stage while there are proceedings pending in England, No. I don’t think that any proceedings are pending in England they have made a contact order – 24th of February is a residence and contact order. As far as I know the court hearing for 10 th July is for ancillary relief. No, it’s about the children as well. It’s for ancillary relief! – I asked the court only yesterday in England and they said it’s an ancillary relief hearing it is not a children’s hearing a court order has been made with regard to the children. Look at that order that you’ve given me – look at clause 5 of that, Mr Holmes – it makes it clear that the matter isn’t finished. That the court orders that a report be filed by 20th April 2004. Six the court orders that both parties file and serve further statements. The statements must be limited to arrangements for contact. The case be liste for the 8th of June well you’ve told me that has been adjourned to the somethingth of July.
YH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH
AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH
AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH
Yes. [12:03:36] I mean … This matter is pending before the judge in Lancaster. I am not happy about that sir. But it is, isn’t it? What are you not happy about – there is a matter pending. Have you any idea how I feel sir, I have had my children taken away from me. I’m sure, yes. I fully understand I deal with a lot of these cases. In August of last year – if you look at the bottom of the order it rubs salt into my wounds – it says that the children may not be removed from the United Kingdom without the written consent of all persons with parental responsibility or the leave of the court. Yes and then it says that it may be a criminal offence under the Child Abduction Act 1984 to remove children without leave of the court. My wife took my children out of the United Kingdom without my written permission and without the leave of the court on 7th August 2003 and the court did not issue a specific issue order until November 2003. She abducted my children, sir. You’ll have to take that up with the courts in England. They wont listen to me because they think they have jurisdiction over the Isle of Man, sir. Well they haven’t. [12:05:06] But they have jurisdiction over those children. I haven’t. But they live in your jurisdiction, Sir. Now they do. And they have lived in your jurisdiction since the 7th of August. – Since they were abducted by their mother. [12:05:20] But the court in England still retain jurisdiction over them and it is to that court that the applications appear to have gone back. So if the court in England has finished with the case Which it hasn’t. when it has, can I apply in the Isle of Man for a residence order That will depend on the terms of the order that is made in England and its registration here. Right, and what period of time – because my children are growing up all the time. I can’t possibly start advising on these matters because I might have to decide them. Right So obviously I can’t start advising I can apply for a residence order It may be possible. It depends on the terms of the order that is granted in Lancaster, but I should make your fullest representations at that court – I mean the judge will do his best to come up with an order that meets everybody’s requirements. I have no confidence in the judge in England, sir, because he believes that the Isle of Man is part of his jurisdiction. He doesn’t. He does. [12:06:26] He wouldn’t have needed to make this order [taps on bench where piece of paper is] if he believed that. It was recorded – I was in court and the judge said that as far as he was concerned the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom. Well, he was wrong about that. He was wrong – he did later admit he had made that mistake – The court service is part of the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Department of Constitutional Affairs guidelines say that courts and agencies are asked not to state or imply that the Islands, are not part of the United Kingdom, or Great Britain, or England, or act on that assumption and I think judge Forrester is clearly acting on the assumption that he has jurisdiction over the Isle of Man. He hasn’t jurisdiction over the Isle of Man; he has jurisdiction over the children. Over the children? So when the case in England has completed … You mean I might never be allowed to apply for residence in the Isle of Man? It all depends: I mean we are all bound by the Law. Me included. Judges in England don’t seem to be bound by the law. The most certainly are. They most certainly are. What was the reason that the judge said I couldn’t see my children in England?
YH GSH YH GSH GSH AKW YH GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH GSH YH GSH AKW GSH
AKW GSH AKW GSH AKW GSH YH GSH AKW GSH
Pending medical reports. No, he said I was too bombastic Pending medical reports from a doctor because our daughter was admitted to hospital whilst in your care. Our daughter was admitted to hospital whilst in your care. Right, so that’s it sir. [12:08:04] At this stage I’m saying that the application should be refused on the basis that the proceedings are pending in Lancaster – it’s a county court is it? Yes It’s a court of injustice as far as I am concerned sir. What, Lancaster County Court? Lancaster County Court of Injustice as far as I am concerned sir. Well I will only call it Lancaster County Court Right. One of my real problems is that I am not allowed to apply under the Hague Convention to have my children brought back to England & Wales. But if you live in the Isle of Man why do you need to live in England & Wales? (silence) [12:08:49] Have you been represented in front of the Lancaster County Court? I have been unable to get legal advice because the solicitors I have seen, when they have heard the terms [sic] Isle of Man, have declined to give legal advice because I might sue them because they could give incorrect legal advice – They believe that once the children live in the Isle of Man the Isle of Man courts should have jurisdiction over the children. That’s what English solicitors tell me – I have taken legal advice ’till it’s coming out of my ears. Well you must attend before the judge yourself and make the representations yourself. I have tried and the judges won’t listen – judge Forrester would not listen to me. I am not an easy person to get on with but I have had my children taken from me Yes. My life is extremely hard because of this. I understand And my wife isn’t making my life any easier. She is proposing that I can only see my children in the Isle of Man No the court has proposed that. No, you have proposed that – you have proposed that Well I think What age are the children, remind me? Eight and coming up for five. Hearing “fizzles out”
YH AKW
[12:11:14] Thank you for your time Thank you.
AKW W. AKW
[12:11:29] Hello Mr Watson. Hello Sir Right … Mrs Thornley?
***
.
20.
21. 22.
When I found that the Isle of Man Civil Court was (is) called the High Court of “justice” of the Isle of Man, I questioned the alleged jurisdiction of a “county court order” in the Isle of Man. Williamson: “Right what am I being asked to do good people you appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event.” To misquote Mr Rampton – “evidence” is “evidence” not “appearance!” Williamson really had based the totality of ensuing events on the appearance of a “registration” when the evidence shows that nothing had been registered. No “date of registration” was given – and the evidence shows that it was not until November 2004 that I became aware that the “back in May” was 28 th May 2004 – Mrs Holmes said “It
has been registered for some time.” She “applied” (unlawfully as it happened) on 2 nd April 2004 for “orders” from a County Court in England to be “registered” in the Isle of Man High Court and it was purported that a “section 7 registration (of a Custody Order)” took place on 28th May 2004, eight weeks later. The SOGD judges stated that it did not seem that I received notification of the “registrations” (TWO of) of 28 th May 2004, and the evidence sent to me in 2007 has no mention of my name – I was NOT notified. 23.
Note that I asked Williamson if I could appeal against that “order being registered” and he alleged something (when someone begins an answer with “I think” it means they are uncertain of the correct answer.
24.
On 17th July 2007, Ref. HH/Francis Killey of Mannin Chambers wrote to the High Court Office in the following manner –
HH/FK/07-066 17 July 2007 High Court Office Isle of Man Courts of Justice Deemsters Walk DOUGLAS IM1 3AR Dear Sirs Registration of Court Orders – Lancaster County Court 24 February 2004 and 27 October 2004 under references DIV 2004/144 and FD/UK/COR/04/02 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 document 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 we are anxious to ensure that the Staff of Government Division has all the relevant facts. Note: “an appeal by Stephen Holmes regarding registration of the above orders”. 25.
I already knew that the so-called order of 27 th October 2004 had NOT been registered on 4th November 2004 because there was insufficient time for the requirements for a successful registration to have been accorded to.
26.
By January 2007 I had recordings of both hearings purportedly in the Family Division of the High Court (but in fact in the AK Williamson kangaroo court) on 1st July 2004 and 5th November 2004 and it is easy to note that Williamson NEVER stated that he was in the Family Division of the High Court – his introduction on 1 st July 2004 was “Right let me come up to speed on this” followed by 90 seconds of silence while he shuffled papers (many of which had not been disclosed to me) then he lied to “us” – but he showed uncertainty by using the word “appearance.”
27.
Note the discussions about jurisdiction – and the allegation by the SOGD that Williamson could have made similar “orders” but didn't; Williamson refused jurisdiction and wrote “IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be and is hereby dismissed”.
28.
On 5th November 2004, I was represented by a man who is now a part-time Deemster – KOR – Kevin O’Riordan, who was another “David Irving” in the court-room.
29.
In 2011, (on 8th April 2011 at five-to-five), KOR wrote the following (e-mail) –
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. 30.
KOR uses the word “properly” but this word has no place in law! Were the orders registered? – NO. Were the orders properly registered? – No, they were not registered. There is no such process as an “erroneous registration” or an improper registration; the EVIDENCE shows that the registrations were “purported” but did not in fact happen. First Deemster Kerruish and Judge (JA) Tattersall used the words proper and properly in paragraph 47, but clarified it with the heading The effect of non registration and the phrase “when they had not been so registered.” The criticism or non-criticism of their colleague Williamson has no relevence here (although the confirmation that no legal (due) process took place confirms that right at the beginning of TWO hearings Williamson lied) – the evidence shows that Williamson lied; and that is the issue.
31.
KOR supplied a Transcript of the kangaroo court meeting on 5 th Nov. 2004 and there are FOUR untruths at the beginning of this fiasco –
Transcript of a “hearing” presided over by A.K. Williamson on 5 th November 2004 at 14:10 for about 15 minutes. Douglas Court 5. AKW – AK Williamson; YH – Yvonne Holmes; KOR – Kevin Edward O’Riordan [Transcribed from For The Record™ recording supplied by the “High Court Office”] Clerk [13:51:51] Testing; Testing Courtroom Williamson. Fifth of November. (sneeze)
number
5
before
Deputy
Deemster
AKW [14:11:47] (crashing of door) Thank you. [14:11:58] Now, I’ve got Mrs Holmes? YH
Yes
AKW Yes. [14:12:09] And Mr Holmes – you appear – do you Mr O’Riordan? KOR
Ah, Yes, whether I’m going to remain on the record is another thing but I’m certainly appearing this afternoon.
AKW Right, thank you. [14:12:28] Right well t’was from Mrs Holmes that first I heard today and then subsequently I’ve heard from Mr Holmes erm 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 32.
Subsequently I've heard from Mr Holmes was a lie – I never contacted AKW on 5 th November 2004; I wrote a letter of complaint to the Chief Registrar of the General Registry, mentioning the Family (Law) Act 1991.
33.
“Which have been registered” when they had not been so registered.
34.
Those so-called orders WERE NOT BINDING: not, not, not because the Isle of Man High Court is a high court and a County Court (or Sheading court) is not a high Court.
35.
Note the use of “I think” by KOR – I think this is very akin to the PanAm 103 flight inquiry. I think Mr Holmes is a bit like David Irving!
36.
“I have no paperwork” and “I don’t know what has led to this afternoon’s hearing procedurally” show that KOR was “out of his depth” in the kangaroo court meeting – he should have ensured that due-process had been followed to schedule a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court.
37.
Very soon after Williamson alleged that he could do whatever he liked in the court-room, lawful or not.
KOR
… one way and another I think you’re in a situation you can enforce but you cannot vary or otherwise interfere, unless …
AKW [14:14:13] 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. You can also if the English Court saw fit to grant a stay in relation to contact and residence you could be empowered, that much I’ve established in the other case in any event …
38.
“I can do anything I think (is) necessary”
39.
“Yes that’s true, that’s true.”
40.
There was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did, but the “order” which he did make contained the following –
IT IS DECLARED [point 1 omitted because it is irrelevant – it was unlawful] 2. that the Respondent have indirect contact with the said children as is authorised by Clause 2 of the said Order of the 27th day of October 2004 of the Lancaster County Court AND IT IS ORDERED
3. 4.
that the Applicant do serve a plain copy of this Order upon the head teacher of Rushen Primary School that a plain copy of this Order be lodged at Police Headquarters Douglas and Port Erin Police Station
41. Why did he send a civil court order to the Police? – because he had been High Bailiff (a criminal court “magistrate”) for 15½ years and had always sent
his orders to the criminal justice system – the police or probation service. 42. Clearly, Isle of Man policy was that the respondent to “something” [me, Stephen Holmes] could only enjoy “indirect dealings” with my own Manx children as “authorised” by a document from an inferior court (in another jurisdiction) that had not been, nor could be, registered in the Isle of Man in the first place, although there had been a purported registration. 43. Does a High Court judge have a duty of care about children? – Yes – section 1(1)(a) of Acts of respective parliaments has been that the welfare of children or minors should have been the paramount consideration of the “court” since 14/10/1991 in England & Wales and since 1st April 1992 in the Isle of Man. By “court” is meant “judge” or “deemster” or judicial officer; but Williamson thought that a “registered” so-called “order contact order” [purportedly made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, an Act of Parliament in Westminster for England & Wales only] could prevail over his duty of care to Manx children. The so-called “contact order” was about the Manx father, me, and read [The Court orders that] [4] “the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man” or “the children may be abused in the Isle of Man.” Immediately preceding that, it was recorded that Mrs Holmes could remove the children from the jurisdictions of England & Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland to the Isle of Man, permanently, so the E+W County Courts (or High Court) or the Supreme Court no longer had powers over Katie and Ben Holmes by “order.” 44. In an “insane” act, it was recorded that this so-called “Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom order” [C44B] was registered as a “custody order” in the Isle of Man. .
ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987 Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom General Registry File Reference
FD/UK/COR/04/02
Lancaster County Court File Reference
KN03P00016
ASSISTANT CHIEF REGISTRAR .
45. Two of these documents were produced on 28 th May 2004 and sent to Mrs Yvonne Holmes only – but note that under section 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987 Mrs Holmes could not apply for this so-called order to be registered – the High Court should have made the application to the General Registry. 46. How does “leave to remove child from UK” equate to “custody”? – It does not, but the Irving factor has been invoked. Lies had become truth! 47. Here is the real problem in the Isle of Man – no-one questions authority, or if they do, the authority will not allow the criticism to be successful! Public authority figures are “immune” from public criticism because they are all “the Queen’s men (or women).” On 24 th September 2007, in a “proper” court – the Staff of Government Division review of events called “registrations” that took place in 2004, Geoffrey F. Tattersall QC shouted at me from the Bench – “But the judge made an order.” 48. On 1st July 2004, we see that AK Williamson wrote “IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be and is hereby dismissed” and the same SOGD actually judged in a court of appeal that the Appellant (me) did not appeal against such dismissal – and David Doyle repeated this court ordure (nonsense) on 14 th December 2011! (The Claimant did not appeal against such dismissal of his application). I have already shown that AK Williamson made “no order at all” under Parts 1,2,3,4, or 5 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 – it could be that he was deemed to have invoked the no order principle. 49.
So did AK Williamson in fact make “an order” on 1 st July 2004? – Not a
Family Law Act 1991 or CYPA 2001 “order” but an administrative order which in E+W is called a “C21 Blank Order.” It must be noted that Williamson had lied from the Bench with his allegation of the appearance of a registered order. 50. Although it seemed that judge Forrester in Lancaster County Court had made TWO orders on 24th February 2004, those orders were not valid in the Isle of Man. They were not valid in the Isle of Man from 25 th Feb. to 1st April 2004, and they were also not valid in the Isle of Man until 28 th May 2004. But the registration was purported and, according to the Chief Registrar in his reply to “Mannin Chambers” on 25th July 2007, not in accordance with the requirements of an Act of Tynwald called the Child Custody Act 1987. The so-called orders from Lancaster County Court were not valid in the Isle of Man on 28th May 2004 either, so had no effect in the Isle of Man on 1 st July 2004 when Williamson alleged the appearance of a registration – when Williamson “did a David Irving.” 51. Deemsters Kerruish and Doyle (and Tattersall JA) wrote about an “appeal in England” – in fact Williamson and KOR discussed such on 5 th Nov. 2004 – let’s look at that. AKW [14:15:34] By an order of 24 th February this year Mrs Holmes has a residence order in respect of the children – by that order she also has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man.
By that order, clause 4, Mr Holmes had reasonable
contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man. KOR
Right
AKW [14:16:00] By an order made last week – same Court – Lancaster County – 27 th October apparently Mr Holmes had brought some applications before that Court for specific issue order prohibitive steps and residence orders and each of those applications was dismissed. Clause 2 the father shall have indirect contact with the children to be exercised by way of telephone calls, letters and e-mails, one of each per week. Paragraph 3: paragraph 4 of the order of 24 th February which provided for direct contact is revoked. The father is entitled to make further application for direct contact but will be required to satisfy the court that the children are not at risk of emotional harm from him. So at present there is no order for direct contact – quite the contrary there is a prohibition on it. KOR
[14:17:01] Eeee. Did it go as far as a prohibition or did it just revoke to the earlier order?
AKW Well he’s revoked the order for reasonable contact. KOR
Yes it seems to me that possibly leaves a void
AKW There is a positive order for indirect contact but the entitlement to direct contact is
revoked. KOR
Yes.
AKW 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 – KOR
or indeed
AKW or vary it in Lancaster. KOR
Yes but either way he seems to me to be stuck with the jurisdiction in England.
AKW Yes he’s bound by it. KOR
So whether he has tried to exercise direct contact and that’s what’s brought Mrs Holmes to you I know not.
AKW Well it is because looking at his letter to me of 5 th 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. KOR
Right
AKW So yes that’s what’s brought Mrs Holmes here and I would be prepared to make a prohibitive steps order to enforce the existing order if that became necessary. KOR
Mr Holmes leads me to believe he’s possibly got a letter from the Attorney General and may have forwarded that to your Honour, I’m not sure…
AKW No he’s referred to having spoken with the Attorney and to the Police and to an MHK none of which is of value to me if it’s inconsistent with my understanding of the law. KOR
Right thank you for that.
AKW Yes – so as I say I would be prepared to make a prohibitive steps order and I may be prepared to give declaratory orders to the effect that the English orders are binding and enforceable here and that I have no power to vary them and that Mr Holmes is entitled to the contest which the Judge in England has said he may have. I mean I can’t do any more than that, I can’t make the law up any more than Mr Holmes can as you know. KOR
Of course.
AKW Yes. Is there anything I’ve said you disagree with Mrs Holmes? MrsH No not at all. AKW It’s been accurate so far has it – [14:19:07] and you would seek reinforcement of
the English order? MrsH I would Sir because the school are saying that they need something in writing in order to prove to Mr Holmes that he cannot take the children from school or indeed see them at school. AKW [14:19:26] Well I’ll listen to either Mrs Holmes or Mr O’Riordan further if either of them wishes me to hear further but I am prepared to make declaratory orders in the terms that I’ve described confirming the enforceability of the English order, confirming that I haven’t the power to vary it, confirming that Mr Holmes is entitled to the contact which the Judge in Lancaster said he could have. I would make a prohibitive steps order saying that the children weren’t to be removed from the care and control of Mrs Holmes or indeed from any third party or educational establishment to whom she entrusts their care and control without her written consent. KOR
Or indeed order of the English Court.
AKW Yes I guess KOR
I’m just looking at procedurally I wouldn’t want to have a situation where your Honour made an order today that somehow meant that if Mr Holmes got a variation in England he did then have to come back here again.
AKW He’d probably then register the variation just as the variation here has been registered. KOR
I suppose he could. 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?
AKW Has he told you that he came before me a few months back? KOR
No he has … Yes he has – he told me he’d made an application I think for residence…
AKW [14:20:56] 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.
AKW 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. KOR
Of course, OK.
AKW [14:21:17] I’ll rise for a few moments while you take instructions and perhaps if the ladies will telephone me when they want me back. KOR
I’m obliged your Honour.
AKW Thank you. [14:21:25] (Adjournment)
52. The above conversation between the ignorant AK Williamson, who blindly accepted that a County Court “order” could bind the High Court in the Isle of Man “if it is registered”, and the incompetent Kevin O’Riordan (“I’ve had five minutes of instruction”) was based on an assumption that “registrations” had taken place when the content of the so-called orders from England should have raised objections from BOTH OF THEM because the welfare of the children [and the RIGHTS of the children] was being ignored. 53. I have only recently “noticed” the following – both the SOGD and Doyle alleged that Williamson telling me that the order (singular – you appear to have “an order”) had been registered justified dismissal of the Application of 18 th May 2004 [a date which was later changed by Doyle to 25 th May 2004] when Williamson stated on 5th November 2004 “I declined it on the basis that the proceedings were ongoing in Lancaster ”. That is confirmed by reading the transcript of the 1st July kangaroo court meeting where Williamson said [at 12:01:23] Well I am not going to hear one while there are proceedings pending in England.
54.
But proceedings COULD NOT be ongoing in Lancaster –
AKW [14:15:34] By an order of 24 th February this year Mrs Holmes has a residence order in respect of the children – by that order she also has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man. 55. The judge in England could NOT, by law, Order that a Manx father have reasonable dealings with his Manx children IN THE ISLE OF MAN – it is self evident to anyone that such a statement is ultra vires or beyond the powers of the Children Act 1989. In addition, it had become normal in E+W (certainly in the High) Courts to invoke the no-order priciple (section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989, and section 1(5) of the CYPA 2001) where possible. 56. Actually, by 24th February 2004, I had withdrawn my Application for a residence order under section 1(1)(a) of the CA 1989 [for a section 8 order] so the only application in front of Forrester was for leave to remove the Manx children from the jurisdiction of E+W – they had already been habitually resident in the Isle of Man since 18 th August 2003 at the latest! In Re X and Y (Leave to remove from the jurisdiction) 18 th December 2000 E+W HC Justice Munby set a precedent by granting leave by the no-order principle, but the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT registered the following “order” of Lancaster County Court –
although the Child Custody Act 1987 has no provision for registering a section 13 or section 33 order, and with the word “permanently” proceedings about Katarina and Benedict Holmes ENDED. 57. The Children Act 1989 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 both begin with a statement that the law relating to children is reformed or changed. Before 1991/92, “access” and “custody” orders granted rights to adults but since 1991/2 “contact” and “residence” are rights of the child, if the court can be persuaded to make an order in the first place. It is the child that has “contact” with the person named in the order – the Manx father is an adult so the contact order recited above was an “access order using the word contact” and therefore ultra vires. 58. Therefore, “clause 4” was ultra vires in more than one way (!) and not registered in any event. To return to the “instruction” of Tattersall (“but the judge made an order”): No, Geoffrey, the judge appeared to make an order but clause 2 (the “residence order”) became immediately spent on reading the Leave to remove order, and clause 4 was ultra vires and therefore void from the outset
and not registered in the Isle of Man High Court and therefore had no “effect” in the Isle of Man – Forrester may as well have alleged that “the father do be an orang-utan provided he is in the Isle of Man” or [the Court orders that] “200,000 people were killed in the Dresden bombing.” 59. What is striking about the last 12 years is that Williamson, Doyle, Kerruish, Tattersall and now Corlett and Roberts are taken seriously. Williamson LIED FROM THE BENCH – he “alleged” a registration – he did not even say “These Orders from Lancaster have been registered under section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987” – he said “appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here” but “no fair criticism” was made of him. The judge in England could have ordered “Mr Holmes do be an orang-utan” and I would STILL be in the Wildlife Park because of “respect” for Williamson. 60. David Doyle wrote respectfully about “Acting” Deemster Tim King – [Doyle] “The learned Deemster (who now sits as a High Court judge in England and Wales) stated that there was nothing on the face of the pleadings which ‘begins to get such cause [sic] of action [malfeasance of public duty/misfeasance in public office] off the ground’. Mr. Holmes this morning said that "retrospectively I absolutely agree with him" [Acting Deemster King].” 61. I agree with King because in 2006 I did not know what I was doing – I had been denied any family life with my Manx children because AK Williamson FORGED a court order on 5th November 2004; but I lacked the knowledge to counter his forgery. On 1st March 2007 I was given the means to make inroads into the misfeasance or malfeasance (wrong-doing) of Williamson and public officials in the High Court Office, and of the Deemsters. 62. I may have had no chance of getting such course of action off the ground, but King made a BIG mistake on 25 th October 2006 – he alleged that proceedings had been matrimonial. Acting Deemster King's judgment of the 25th October 2006 63. [7]. On the 25th October 2006 Acting Deemster King struck out proceedings brought by the Claimant in the Isle of Man in respect of allegations that the High Court in the Isle of Man had wrongly and illegally given effect to English court orders. Deemster King commented that instead of going down the obvious route of challenging the orders by way of appeal the Claimant ‘has embarked on a wholly collateral attack on those concerned in the administration of justice on this Island and particularly those who are concerned in the administration of the process of the matrimonial proceedings. This is not a cause of action which from my reading of any authorities is known to law on the Island’. 64. Clearly, Deemster King (and Deemster Doyle) “did an Irving” – neither he nor Doyle knew that there is a difference from a proceeding under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 [a divorce, nullity or separation] and a proceeding under the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. 65.
The welfare of the Child shall be the court’s paramount consideration when
determining a QUESTION with regard to the upbringing of a child. AKW Has he told you that he came before me a few months back? KOR No he has … Yes he has – he told me he’d made an application I think for residence… AKW [14:20:56] 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. AKW 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. 66. There was only an “appearance” that proceedings were ongoing in England – but Williamson put a higher regard on alleged proceedings in another jurisdiction (after leave to remove the children TO THE ISLE OF MAN had been granted) than on the welfare of the children while resolving this matter – but which “matter” he was resolving was never made clear. 67. The matter of registration could have been resolved by READING THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987 – section 7 is headed Registration of custody order in High Court – section 6 is headed Recognition of custody order made in the United Kingdom. Note that Six (of eight) documents issued by the High Court Office are headed “Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom” which is a mixture of sections 6 and 7 of the CCA 1987. But section 7 refers to section 12 – I will quote the SOGD on 26/10/2007 in paragraph 40 – It is thus self evident that, pursuant to sections 7 and 12, for the orders made by the [English] Court to be registered by the High Court it was required that the [English] Court should send the High Court a certified copy of the orders made together with a copy of the Mrs Holmes’s application and any accompanying documents. 68. It is further self-evident that the correct court is called the ‘appropriate court’ and the appropriate court to bind the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man is a High Court in E+W or in NI (or a court of session in Scotland) and not a County Court. 69. I will repeat that common sense – It is thus self evident that, pursuant to sections 7 and 12, (of the Child Custody Act 1987) for a “custody order” made by an English High Court to be registered by the High Court it was required … 70. THREE months earlier, Peter Corkhill had replied to Mannin Chambers stating that actions had been unlawful. But in January 2006, after failing to persuade Williamson to uphold the welfare of children for TEN MONTHS, Peter Corkhill instigated (on my complaint) an “investigation into maladministration.” 71.
Mrs Dowd stated in writing (on 9 th February 2006) that the rules laid down
had not been followed, but “did an Irving” and claimed that it did not matter because “certified copies” of so-called orders from a County Court in England had been obtained and compared with the photocopies. Certification must be by a Judge or a Registrar, and certification on the two photocopies obtained by Mrs Dowd was by a court manager and not a Judge or a Registrar. It seems that registrars only operate in the High Court – another clue to the ‘type of court’ required by law. Retrospective certification is not certification, even if the certified copies of the orders are identical to the origanal so-called orders. 72. It is now time to provide my trascript of the kangaroo court meeting on 3 rd September 2007 in which David Doyle alleged that the 2004 proceedings were for a “divorce” because the “prefix” on the court-file reference is “Div”. Transcript of a “hearing” presided over by David C. Doyle on 3 rd September 2007 at 16:54 for about 16 minutes. Douglas Court 2. DCD – Deemster David C. Doyle; YH – Yvonne Holmes (Mrs). [Transcribed from For The Record™ recording supplied by the “High Court Office”] Clerk [16:37:56] Testing, testing: Court Room 2, Family Division, before Deputy; before Deemster Doyle on the third of September 2007. [ends at 16:38:11] DCD
[16:54:02] (In the High) Court of Justice of the Isle of Man: Family Division, and in the matter of the Application of Yvonne Holmes. Is it Yvonne Holmes?
YH
It is, Yes.
DCD
Good afternoon Mrs Holmes, [Good Afternoon Sir] My … I, I, I’m Deemster Doyle. I’ll be presiding over this hearing this afternoon. Can I indicate to you that I've had an opportunity of reading the the two applications that you have filed: an application for an order in effect requiring the return of er Katarina May Holmes to the Isle of Man, and also an application for leave to commence proceedings. So I,ve read those two applications. [Yes sir, thank you]. Are you acting in person this afternoon?
YH
[16:54:55] Yes sir, I did try to get an advocate but it was too short notice.
DCD
Right, OK I think what would be useful in those circumstances is if you could either take the oath or affirm and just confirm that the contents of your applications are true just for the court record so that we have that evidence before the court.
Clerk Take the new testament in your right hand and read from the card. YH
[16:55:26] I swear by almighty god that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
DCD
Thank you very much. Could you, I'm sorry, could you just for a couple of moments. Could you give your full name and address for the court record?
YH
My full name is Yvonne Holmes [yes] and my address is 24 Creggan Lea, Portsaint-Mary, Isle of Man.
DCD
Thank you very much. There's some water there if you wish to have a drink then have a drink and take your time. And it’s correct that you’ve filed two applications one entitled “application for an order” and one entitled “application for leave to commence proceedings” and you’ve signed those applications and you’ve dated them with today’s date: third of September 2007 and are the contents of your applications true?
YH
Yes sir
DCD
Yes, thank you very much; if you’d like to take a seat where you were before.
DCD
I’ve also, Mrs Holmes, had an opportunity of looking at the, the court em file and there is obviously a considerable history to these proceedings, but, is the present position that there is a residence order that the children reside with you, their mother and that there father has indirect contact; is that the present position under the court order?
YH
That is correct sir. [16:57:03]
DCD
(Ten second pause …) Subject to anything else you have to say, I’m minded to
grant an order [15:57:15] requiring the child to be returned to the Isle of Man and also adjourning the application for a further directions so that notice of the application can be given to Mr Holmes and a copy of the order can be served on him. I will deliver a short judgment in respect of the matter in a moment, but is there anything else that you want to add to your application? YH
No sir, I've put down all the points in there.
DCD
Thank you. If you bare with me now I'll deliver a judgment which will be on the court record and I'll indicate the terms of the order that I’m granting in respect of the application.
DCD
[16:58:12] Yvonne Holmes, Mrs Holmes, applies for an order requiring Gordon
Stephen Holmes, Mr Holmes, to bring er Katreena May Holmes, date of birth 19th May 1996, the child, back to the Island immediately; the application is dated the third of September 2007 and is signed by Mrs Holmes, and it is accompanied by an application for leave to commence proceedings. Mrs Holmes has on oath this afternoon before this court confirmed that the contents of her applications are er true. DCD
Mrs Holmes says that the child is due to commence her high school education on the Island this Thursday the sixth of September 2007. Mrs Holmes says that Mr Holmes has taken the child off the Island without her knowledge or permission, and has informed the school that he will not be bringing her back to the Island to start school on the sixth of September 2007.
DCD
Mrs Holmes also applies for leave to commence proceedings. I anticipate that that application was made in light of paragraph 3 of the order of the sixteenth of
November 2005 of Deputy Deemster Williamson. Paragraph 3 of that order on the face of it does not apply to Mrs Holmes if it did apply I would have had little hesitation in granting leave. I can perhaps understand the caution in Mrs Holmes in making such an application and I do not criticise her for er that, but a formal order granting leave to commence proceedings is not strictly necessary. By letter dated the third of September 2007 Mrs Holmes filed with the court a copy of an e-mail from Steve Holmes of the 1st September 2007 at 15:52 and a letter of the 31st August 2007 from Mr Holmes and I note the contents of those communications. DCD
[17:00:41] This matter has a considerable history, and I have had a brief
opportunity of considering the court file; and it appears that by order made on the 16th of November 2005 in divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144 that his honour the deputy Deemster Williamson, for the avoidance of doubt, ordered that the order for indirect contact between Mr Holmes and the children, the child born 19th May 1996 and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes born 28 th of August 1996 [sic], and I quote, made in the Lancaster County Court on the 27th of October 2004 and registered in this court on the 4th of November 2004 remains the effective order for contact between Mr Holmes and the said children; unquote. DCD
The Deputy Deemster also made an order that no further application for an order under Part 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 in respect of the said children or either of them may be made by Mr Holmes without the leave of the court within two years of the date of the order of the 16 th of November 2005. The Deputy Deemster in his “reasons for decisions� stated at paragraph 6 that there was no suggestion that Mr Holmes would deliberately harm his children. The Deputy Deemster added, and I quote, there is considerable concern that his inconsistency, unpredictability, erratic behaviour, causes, and will cause, emotional harm to them. Unquote.
DCD
At paragraph 7 the Deputy Deemster says it is for Mr Holmes to change and the Deputy Deemster adds and I quote, It is for the applicant to show through his future behaviour and future court approved psychological assessment, and welfare report, that he has control of his emotions that he presents no risk to the children emotionally. Until such time, it is in the interests of the children's welfare that they have a period in which to settle, free from the uncertainty of repeated applications and interviews. It goes without saying that it is their ‌ that it is in their interest, that their primary carer, their mother, should be free from stress and harassment. Unquote.
DCD
By Application lodged on 20th August 2007, Mr Holmes applied for either, quote CYPA 2001 Section 11(1) Contact order requiring Yvonne Holmes to allow Benedict to visit his sister and his father or a non order allowing Stephen Holmes, Katarina Holmes and Yvonne to arrange matters: better still a CYPA 2001
residence order both parents with both children. Unquote. It was stated “no court order is in force.� DCD
It was further stated, quote, Katarina Holmes was turned out of 24 Creggan Lea by her mother on 15th August 2007. On 17th August I received an application form from IOM DHSS Child Benefit sent at the instigation of Yvonne Holmes. Unquote.
DCD
That Appication was set down for 2pm in Court 2 on Wednesday 12 th of September 2007 for directions.
DCD
The order of the 27th October 2004 made by District Judge Nuttall in the Lancaster County Court. Paragraph 2 stated, and I quote, the father do have indirect contact with the children, Katarina May Holmes date of birth 19 th May 1996 and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes date of birth 28 th August 1999, such contact being excercised by way of telephone calls, letters and e-mails, one of each per week. Unquote.
DCD
[17:04:22] Paragraph 3 stated that the father was entitled to make further
application for direct contact but will be required to satisfy the court that the children are not at risk of emotional harm from him. DCD
Mrs Holmes confirms to the court this afternoon that the present position under the court orders is that er that the children are to reside with her, their mother, and their father has indirect contact.
DCD
[17:04:52] I note also the order of his honour the Deputy Deemster of the fifth of
November 2004 referring to the orders of the Lancaster County Court of 24 th February 2004: 27th October 2004 stated to be registered in this court on 28 th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 respectively. DCD
[17:05:10] On the fifth of November 2004 the Deputy Deemster declared that the
said orders of the Lancaster County Court as registered were of full effect and enforceable in the Isle of Man. DCD
As I say, this matter plainly has a long history which I am not fully aware of but I've had a brief opportunity of perusing the court file. Moreover in view of the urgency of the situation with the child due to start at school this Thursday, there has not been sufficient time for Mrs Holmes to notify Mr Holmes of this afternoon's hearing and I have not had the benefit of submissions from Mr Holmes. The situation is far from ideal but in the urgent circumstances that now confront this court I am endeavouring to adopt the safest course of action in the best interests of the child and noting that the welfare of the child is the court's paramount consideration. I also note the previous court orders [which have no legitimate basis].
DCD
I have reached the conclusion that I should seek to preserve the status quo and order that the child should be returned to the Island. The status quo in so far as
the court orders are concerned appears to be that the children are to live with their mother on the Isle of Man and the father is to have indirect contact. DCD
The evidence before the court is that the father has without the leave of the court or written permission of the mother taken the child out of the jurisdiction.
DCD
The evidence before the court is that the child was due to commence her secondary education on the Isle of Man on Thursday. The child must be returned to this jurisdiction.
DCD
[17:06:48] The formal order I make is as follows –
3. Gordon Stephen Holmes do return Katarina May Holmes to the Isle of Man forthwith.
4. The matter is adjourned for further directions at 2 pm on the 12 th of September 2007 or as soon thereafter as the parties can be heard. 5. The Applicant do forthwith serve Gordon Stephen Holmes with a copy of the application and this order. DCD
That is the formal order I make.
DCD
Mrs Holmes, the Clerk will draft the court order and that should be made available very shortly if you’d like to stay in the court precincts or speak to the clerk after I’ve risen the clerk will indicate where that order can be handed over.
The order will be drafted as a matter of urgency and handed over to you. It is then for you to arrange for that order to be served forthwith upon Gordon Stephen Holmes. It is not for me to advise you how you do that, but you may want to seek legal advice, and you may want to arrange for a copy to be sent certainly to his address on the Isle of Man but also a copy to be served personally upon him wherever he is at the moment. DCD
[17:08:15] Are there any other matters arising at this stage.
(Neither the comment by Mrs Holmes, nor the reply by Doyle are relevant – save for the fact that Doyle referred to a hearing IN THE HIGH COURT). DCD
Clerk, (here is) the draft order if you want to process that as soon as possible.
DCD
[17:10:15] This court is now adjourned. Thank you very much.
73.
Doyle introduced into the kangaroo court (on 3 rd September 2007) the “Reasons
for Decision” letter of Williamson dated 30 th November 2005 (also dated 16th November, but it was the 30th before Williamson signed this court ordure) –
DIV 2004/144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN FAMILY DIVISION Between: STEPHEN HOLMES and YVONNE HOLMES
Applicant Respondent
IN THE MATTER of the Applicant's Application of the 20th April 2005 for Shared Residence/ Defined Contact Orders in respect of KATRINA MAY HOLMES (born 19th May 1996) and PETER ELLIOT BENEDICT HOLMES (born 28th August 1999) IN THE MATTER of the Applicant's Application of the 3rd October 2005 for a Residence Order in respect of the said children and for a Prohibited Steps Order At a Court (in Chambers) at Douglas on the 16th November 2005 REASONS FOR DECISIONS The Applicant did not appear to pursue his applications. He had notified the court that he would not appear and that he withdrew his applications. The Respondent did not oppose the withdrawal and the applications were duly marked withdrawn. No further reason for such a decision is necessary. The Respondent was legally aided and an Order was made for Legal aid assessment of her costs. No further reason is necessary here. It was declared that the Order of 27th October 2004 of the Lancaster County Court registered here on the 4th November 2004 for indirect contact between the applicant and the said children remains operative and effective. The Respondent has not sought to vary it and the Applicant has withdrawn his own applications. (i) An order was made under section 21 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 that the Applicant may not make further application for any order under part 2 of that act in respect of either or both of the said children within two years without the leave of the court. (ii) The order may be superfluous for in withdrawing his applications the Applicant expressed the hope never to have anything further to do with the family court in the Isle of Man. I acceded to the Respondents request, nevertheless, to make the order. (iii) I had before me the Court Welfare Officers Report and the officer, Mrs Ingram, was present. Mrs Ingram in court supported the making of the Order, agreeing that the children need a period in which to settle, free from applications, free from interviews with Welfare Officers and other professionals. (iv) I had too the report of Dr. Helen Nightingale, Chartered Clinical Psychologist. Dr. Nightingale did not address (and had not been asked to address) the question of a moratorium on future applications, but the areas of concern described in her report support the desirability of such a moratorium until the applicant has addressed his behavioural problems. (v) The matter has a considerable history over the past two years. I am privy to such of that history as has been in this court and some, but by no means all, of the applications before the court in Lancaster. The respondent’s Advocate advised that in two years there had been thirteen applications in the English court and five here. I have no reason to question her arithmetic. I have been referred to a letter by the applicant threatening that until he gets his way he will disrupt the lives of all concerned in the matter, including the children. I have on divers occasions been referred to other correspondence from the applicant to all and sundry including the children; correspondence in part of totally inappropriate content. (vi) There is no suggestion that the Applicant would deliberately harm his children. There is considerable concern that his inconsistency, unpredictability, erratic behaviour causes and will cause emotional harm to them. (vii) There have been attempts, limited and inadequate because of the Applicants inability to cooperate to reintroduce direct albeit supervised contact. Mrs Ingram believes that the children have lost trust in the Applicant. It is for him to change. It is for the Applicant to show through his future behaviour and future court approved psychological assessment that he has control of his emotions so that he presents no risk to the children emotionally. Until such time it is in the interests of the children's welfare that they have a period in which to settle, free from the uncertainty of repeated applications and interviews. It goes without saying that their primary carer, their mother, should be free from stress and harassment.
74.
The Deputy Deemster, who had lied on 1 st July 2004, who had lied and issued a
false instrument on 5th November 2004, stated that “It is for him to change.” “It is for the Applicant to show through his future behaviour and future court approved psychological assessment that he has control of his emotions so that he presents no risk to the children emotionally.”
75. And did the staff of Government Division make any criticism of Williamson for this court ordure? – No: it did not. 76. On 5th November 2004, Williamson implemented Isle of Man Police controlled government policy – Stephen Holmes is to be kept away from his own children – the only dealings that he can have with his own children is by “letter, telephone or e-mail.” By February 2005 I was living in Douglas and my children were in Port-saint-Mary (or Port Erin) and Police were arresting me if I went anywhere near Katie and Ben because AK Williamson had dedared “Respondent have indirect contact with the said children” although there was no legitimacy to the totality of such ordure. 77. In effect, Williamson declared “Abuse the rights of these Manx children until Mr Holmes can show “the court” that he will not cause them emotional harm although I am causing them immense emotional harm by preventing them having any family life with their Manx father.” 78. King endorsed this policy on 25th October 2006; Doyle endorsed this policy on 3rd September 2007 and the SOGD made “no criticism” of Adolf “Ingram” Kalashnikov Williamson after it had mistakenly included nonsense in its judgment and confirmed that Williamson must have lied on 1 st July 2004. 79. The “nonsense” is in the “real” paragraph 6 of the judgment handed down and signed on 26th October 2007 and it “set the scene” for the first part of the judgment –
80. The “published” [J1183.htm] judgment misses out the year 2003, because by 2012 (when J1183.htm was published on-line) David Doyle KNEW that Applicant and Respondent (and we still do not know WHY the General Registry was not the respondent to the “appeal” because it was the Assistant Chief Registrar who purportedly registered the “orders from Lancaster” not Mrs Holmes!) were not “resident in England” – from 8 th / 9th August 2003 Mrs Holmes AND THE CHILDREN were resident in the Isle of Man. 81. Mrs Holmes did indeed apply for leave to remove the Manx children from the jurisdiction of England & Wales although they were already habitually and permanently resident IN THE ISLE OF MAN. “It seems that such applications were transferred to be heard at the Lancaster County Court” shows that SOGD judges were uncertain of FACTS – there was an “order” [a C21 Blank Order] that transferred the matter to Lancaster from Kendal and the Court was aware of that order because the Amicus Curiae included it in his skeleton argument. By getting that FACT wrong, Tattersall and Kerruish set the scene for erring in their judgment – if the so-called orders of the Lancaster Court were not registered then their content is not relevant background but ultra vires (and void) words spoken by a County Court judge whose opinion has no validity in the Isle of Man. Causing harm to the children 82. There was a hearing in the Kendal County Court on 5 th November 2003 with respect to Katie and Ben Holmes and another one on 24 th November 2003. It is in the second hearing that Katie and Ben were first harmed by Judge Forrester because he DELAYED matters by three months – 90 days. 83. There is evidence to show that a half-day hearing was scheduled for 24 th November 2003 to conclude the children matter in England. It seemed likely that the judge would grant leave for the children to be removed from England & Wales (on 24th Nov. 2003) because the children had been resident in the Isle of Man for almost 4 months at that stage and were “settled”. It would have been difficult to argue that their welfare was best served by removing them back to England to reside with their Manx father in England when their Manx mother was living with another Manx-man in the Isle of Man. Nevertheless a hearing had been scheduled by DUE-PROCESS. 84. Section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989, and section 1(2) of the Family Law Act 1991 and section 1(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 [that is what is called THE LAW or in this case Statute] state that to delay proceedings should be assumed to prejudice the welfare of children and should be prevented. 85. I had not met District Judge Robert Forrester before 24 th November 2003 – but my first impression of him was as with Williamson – he was a “David Irving” character who would not accept any other opinion but his own. On another C21 Blank Order, he delayed decision to make a section 8(1) order (either a residence order or a specific issue order, the specific issue being removal of the children from the jurisdiction) for three months thereby causing emotional
distress for everyone – for the children, for me and for Mrs Holmes. 86. This was not appropriate behaviour for a district (county court) judge – in fact the judge (Robert M. Forrester) acted unlawfully by delaying a decision for 90 days. There follows part of the C21 Blank order of 24/11/2003 –
…
87.
Following is the C21 Blank Order of 5th November 2003 –
88. There was a conflict between judge Nuttall and judge Moron Forrester – Nuttall scheduled a hearing to END THE MATTER (KN03P00016) within a short time – he scheduled 21 days, but found only a suitable time on day 19.
89. Above is the first part of the C21 Blank Order of 24/11/2003 – the children and their mother had already been habitually and permanently resident in the Isle of Man for 90 days (at least). Forrester had no jurisdiction to make such
order. 90. The first section 8 order made was made at least SIX MONTHS after the Holmes family had returned to the Isle of Man and it was either invalid (null and void) or became immediately spent. 91. There was no Application for a section 8 “residence order” because the only application for a residence order was withdrawn (by me) on about 3 rd February 2004.
92. Clause 2 became immediately spent upon reading clause three (incidently) and the separate order attached (which is shown above after paragraph 56). 93. On reading the last phrase in clause 4, “provided such takes place in the Isle of Man” one immediately asks (it is self-evident to ask) “does the Children Act 1989 extend to the Isle of Man” and the answer is “No, it does not.” Can a section 8 contact order become a section 11(1)(b) Children and Young Persons Act 2001 order? – No: it cannot for if it could become a section 11(1)(b) order then it could be varied or revoked under section 11(1)(e). 94. Upon reading the above court ordure, neither Williamson, nor Kerruish, nor Tattersall, nor Doyle, nor AG John Corlett, nor Kevin O’Riordan, nor Governor Haddacks, nor Governor Wood, nor Governor Gozney can see anything wrong with paragraph 4, but Williamson alleged the above had been registered when it had not been registered and Doyle decided that the matter in the Isle of Man was “divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144” which was not true. 95. One is left wondering how stupid does a human being have to be to become a judge in the Isle of Man? – or when is a judge ever unbiased? There was no legitimacy to the so-called order of 5 th November 2004, so on 3rd
September 2007 when David Doyle “looked at the court file” he was looking at “the fruit of a poisoned tree” or the venom that poisoned the tree in the first place. From 28th May 2004 nothing in the court office or in the High Court could be trusted because 1. Forrester had abused the children by delaying matters on 24/11/2003 and 2. Forrester had relinquished jurisdiction over Katie and Ben Holmes on 24/02/2004 and issued a spent and an ultra vires “order” that had not been registered in the Isle of Man, but purportedly registered. 96.
On 31st July 2003 the Isle of Man Govenrnment (an entity?) published a Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament extending to the Isle of Man. The Children Act 1989 is not in this Chronological Table, and neither is its predecessor the Guardianship of Infants Act 1971.
97.
Before 1991, it may have been possible to “register” custody orders or access orders or care and control orders (made under the GOMA 1971 in E+W or the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 in the Isle of Man) but on 14/10/1991 in E+W and 01/04/1992 in the Isle of Man, the terms ‘custody,’ ‘access’ and ‘care and control’ ceased to exist; replaced by residence, contact and other types of orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (and section 9 of the Family Law Act 1991 in the IOM).
98.
Whereas it was a parent or guardian who had “custody of a child” or “access to the child” or “care and control of the child,” the “new” statutes made orders with respect to the child. A child resides with a parent or guardian; a child has contact with “the person named in the order” or (as above) a specific issue can be something like removing the CHILD from the jurisdiction. All of these can be achieved by the ‘no-order principle’.
99.
Judge Forrester purportedly made an order about the father! – he made an access order but used the word ‘contact’ because he had never been fully informed about the nature of “contact” – and he assumed that section 8 contact (not section 11 contact) could take place in the Isle of Man.
100.
Mrs Holmes wrote a personal letter to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson on
2nd April 2004 and the Clerk to a Deemster is directed and supervised by the Deemster to whom he (she) is attached – so Williamson would have directed his supervisor and any other officers of the High Court (such as the Assistant Chief Registrar) what to do with the so-called orders from Lancaster County Court – so it was Williamson that authorised the “registration(s)” on 28th May 2004. It was the policy of the High Court to list a children matter as an adversarial dispute between “Kelly and Kelly” rather than as Re: the Child.
By listing and considering “Applicant versus Respondent” put Manx
children and risk – and Manx children are still at risk from Deemsters because the habit of listing a childen matter as “Between Stephen Holmes and Yvonne Holmes” continues to this day. Children ALWAYS lose when this happens. 101.
The so-called order of the 27 th October 2004 of judge Nuttall (who had previously
acted on the assumption that the Isle of Man is part of E+W), was not registered on 4 th November 2004, but caused Williamson to authorise child abuses for the foreseeable (and the unforeseeable) future.
102.
Mrs Holmes thought (wrongly) and was encouraged to think that the phrase
“Respondent have indirect contact with the said children” was policy in the Isle of Man with the meaning “keep Stephen Holmes (a Manx father) away from his Manx children.” In September 2005 she shouted to members of the public “there’s a court order: he’s not allowed to be here” when there was no court order for there was no legitimacy to the so-called order of 5th November 2004 and so there was nothing to prevent me being in a public place seeing my children, or indeed for Katie and Ben to visit or stay with me in the Isle of Man.
Because, from 8 th November 2004 to mid-August 2007 I had no
family life with my own children (because Williamson had issued a declaration on 05/11/2004) I told everyone in public authority that Williamson was a child-rights abusing bastard, and I was right! This child-rights abusing bastard alleged that “It is for him to change” on 30th November 2005, although by that time the list of people encouraging Mrs Holmes to prevent Katie and Ben even seeing me was growing by the week.
Just as big a child-rights abusing bastard as Williamson was the vile Gordon
Nuttall in Lancaster – this shit “ordered” in England, on 27 th October 2004 {[14]. 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] .
103.
27th October 2004 is EIGHT MONTHS after Forrester granted leave to Yvonne
Holmes to remove the children from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Isle of Man permanently – and yet he was acting as if this “new” section 8 Order Contact Order could bind the Isle of Man. 104.
[16]. We repeat what we have already said, that this court has no jurisdiction to
make any determination as to the validity or effect of such orders made in the [English] Court and that any challenge to the validity or effect of such orders must be made in England. It is sufficient for this court to say that such orders were capable of being registered in the Isle of Man courts. Such orders were NOT capable of being registered in the Isle of Man High Court because they were made in a county court and a county court is not an “appropriate court” to communicate with the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man. 105.
42. It is clear that the application to register the orders made by the [English]
Court on [date] was made by the Mrs Holmes herself writing to the [General Registry] 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. (so they could not be registered). 106.
43. It appears that the orders were registered albeit that the requirements which
are clearly set out in sections 7 and 12 were not met. Mrs Holmes herself cannot be criticised for such error because she was genuinely, and understandably, ignorant of the precise requirements for registration. In any event, she had believed that the General Registry had itself obtained certified copies of the orders from the [English] Court, which does not seem to have happened. “seem?” IT DID NOT HAPPEN! 107.
45. As to the order made by the Lancaster County Court on 27 th October 2004,
which was purportedly registered in the High Court on 4 th November 2004, it is unknown how such order came to be registered. Mrs Holmes conceded, in our view realistically, that such order could not have been properly registered.
But the
realistic view is that the order had NOT been registered – “not properly registered” adds Irving-like confusion to the sentence – they were almost registered. 108.
40. It is thus self evident that, pursuant to sections 7 and 12, for the orders made by the
appropriate England & Wales Court to be registered by the Isle of Man High Court it was required that the appropriate Court should send the High Court a certified copy of the orders made together with a copy of the Mrs Holmes’s application and any accompanying documents.
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 High Vourt shall cause the following documents to be sent to the appropriate court in the 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, and [c] a copy of the application and of any accompanying documents [section 12(3)]. 109.
Yet again, a C44B Leave to remove child from UK order is not a “custody
order.” Although many people construe a “section 8 order” as a “custody order” such an inference is just an assumption which actually has no basis in “constitutional law.” A section 8 “specific issue order” is NOT the same as a section 11(1)(c) specific issue order and a section 11(1)(d) prohibited steps order is not the same as a section 8 prohibited steps order. A “registration” is therefore a “cop-out” – a judge in England has Ordered “children reside with their mother” and we in the Isle of Man cannot be bothered considering what is best for the welfare of those children in the Isle of Man because we would rather “Make up the law” than do right. 110.
It is self-evident that by assuming county court orders can bind the Isle of Man
High Court Deputy Deemster Williamson was embarking on a THIRTEEN YEAR program of child abuse – abuses that have harmed Katarina Holmes and Ben Holmes. Mrs Holmes has lied to Katie and Ben every day since 27 th October 2004, because she thought that an English county court could bind the Isle of Man! Who told her that? – the vile bastard Williamson. He swore the Deemster’s oath to execute the laws (such as statutes like the CYPA 2001) of this Isle justly, but there was no legal basis to the totality of the ordure of 5th November 2004, and Kevin O’Riordan encouraged the bastard to abuse the children – he was MY counsel! A baboon could have done just as badly. In fact a trained chimpanzee would have made a better Deputy Deemster. 111.
“Mrs Ingram believes that the children have lost trust in the Applicant.”
Ingram believed that the order of 5
th
Mrs
November 2004 had some validity in the Isle of
Man when there was no legitmate basis upon which the evil bastard Williamson could have made such an order! Williamson believed that the orders were registered when they were not registered. The “policy” contravened the UNCRC. 112.
So I go back to the words of Richard Rampton (QC) on 13 th January 2000 – ‘We in
this court, and I do not know about the court of history, we in this court when we say “evidence” we mean “evidence” not “inference”.’ 113.
Evidence must have substance – the “substance” shows that there was no
registration on 28th May 2004 and so the vile bastard Williamson lied on 1 st July 2004 IN COURT and therefore lied in every subsequent “hearing”. 114.
26. In the written reasons for his decision Deputy Deemster Williamson explained
why he had felt it appropriate to prevent the Appellant making further applications to the court without leave for a period of 2 years. We will not repeat them here but the order was made in the context of there having been 13 applications in the English Court and 5 applications in the Manx court and threats by the Appellant to disrupt the lives of all concerned. Although Deputy Deemster Williamson expressly noted that there was no suggestion that the Appellant would deliberately harm his children, he expressed ‘considerable concern that his inconsistency, unpredictability, erratic behaviour causes and will cause emotional harm to them.’ He agreed with the Court Welfare Officer that ‘the children needed a period in which to settle, free from applications, free from interviews with Welfare Officers and other professionals.’ 115.
Professionals!?
Williamson called Welfare officers “professionals” and yet it was
these professionals who “sided” with Williamson – who was a liar like David Irving lied in his books – he inferred rather than reasoned. 116.
Unlike Williamson’s “concern,” D1 Doyle has provided considerable evidence that
neither he, nor Williamson, nor Tattersall, nor Kerruish nor ANY OTHER Deemster actually had a clue what to do when one of their own was an ignorant child-rights abuser from the Bench. “COVER UP!” Make no criticism of him and hope that the father will go away. Doyle: Arrest the son-of-a-bitch in Birmingham! 117.
This opinion of Williamson was defamatory.
“Inconsistency!” From 10 th November
2004 I said “This declaration is bollocks” but NO-ONE believed me. And there was no legitimacy to the so-called order that was sent to the Police in Douglas and Port Erin. I have always been consistent in my criticism of the child-rights abusing Williamson – in 2005 I wrote to him and informed him that to call him stupid was “an insult to stupid people.” Keeping children away from their father is not going to cause those children any emotional harm at all, is it? “ordered” on 5
th
– YES OF COURSE IT IS – that is what Williamson
November 2004 and repeated 12 months later – abuse these Manx
children because a County Court judge acted as if the Isle of Man is within his powers! 118.
One translation of “The Disease” in the Book of Tao is “those who know nothing
but think they know everything have the disease – they are the source of evil in society.”
I agree with that translation – Doyle, Corlett, Williamson, Roberts, Coppell,
Tattersall all have “the disease” – in this case it is called bowel law or making up the rules. Bastards! 119.
I wanted to physically harm AK Williamson in 2005 – I did not attend his kangaroo
court meeting on 16th November 2005 because I feared I would defend my children and “stab the bastard” – goodness knows he deserved it – he should NEVER have been made a High Court judge – he should have been sent to the Horses Home of Rest in
February 2003 before he caused so much damage and “screwed-up” hundreds of Manx families. 120.
To commemorate TEN YEARS OF SNAFUS (in this case, many a FUBAR – Fouled Up
Beyond All Recognition) since 3rd September 2007 (Doyle – “divorce proceedings” and “I’ve looked at the court file”) I am publishing this so that anyone can read how AK “Irving” Williamson and DC “Irving” Doyle implemented and continued the Isle of Man policy of abusing (the rights of) children because they do not know what they are doing. SNAFU – Situation Normal: All Fouled Up. I will go to my grave with these facts – with the fact that Deemsters abused my Manx children because E+W judges abused Manx children as the main complaint. 121.
On 3rd September 2007 David Doyle said that a matter which had a “considerable
history” (but it would have had no history at all if Williamson had been able to read and think logically) was “divorce proceedings.”
On 14 th December 2011 the same David
Doyle had become a psychologist – Introduction 1. I now deliver my judgment in CHP 2011/83. At paragraph 15 on page 111 of the bundle filed with the court in respect of this matter Mr. Holmes (the Claimant) refers to the years 2005 and 2006 and says: "I was obsessed with overcoming the wrong committed on 5 th November 2004, with showing that Williamson had been wrong to declare that it was good and right to prevent me having a family life with my own children." 2. Unfortunately the Claimant’s obsession continues and it has now become irrational. We are, yet again, here in court in 2011 dealing with matters which arose in 2004 and which have been ventilated in court on many previous occasions. Background 3. Some of the relevant background to the Claimant's longstanding obsession is contained in the judgment of the Staff of Government Division delivered on the 26 th October 2007. The issues raised by the Claimant in that appeal were twofold: firstly, whether orders made by the Lancaster County Court on the 24 th February 2004 had been properly registered in the High Court in the Isle of Man pursuant to the Child Custody Act 1987 and secondly, if such orders were not properly registered to what extent orders subsequently made by the High Court in the Isle of Man should be revoked. I take some of the following history from that judgment. Paragraph 4 has already been stated. 122.
Firstly we note that the First Deemster used the term “properly registered” when
Doyle should have known that the so-called orders from Lancaster County Court HAD NOT BEEN registered.
Doyle only had four years and 111 pages to understand the
phrases “when they had not been so registered” and “The effect of non registration” but he had not the intellect to understand what I had told him again and again. He also alleged that an order can be revoked to some extent again showing an infantile understanding of English words. The totality of the so-called order of 5 th November 2004 could not stand because there was no legitimate basis upon which it was based. A ninepound note cannot be revoked – it is false the moment it is produced. A declaration that says “This fork shall be known as a spoon” cannot be revoked – if anyone had taken such seriously – it can only be declared void ab initio – from the outset.
123.
Secondly, Doyle failed to understand that my “obsession” was in 2005 and 2006
and that the evidence given to me in order to present a successful appeal was dated 27th February 2007 and received 1 st March 2007 – my “appeal” was deemed to be dated 19th March 2007 so Williamson was wrong in 2004 to declare that children Katie and Ben should have no contact with their father on 5th November 2004. 124.
The man who stated that the matter was a divorce wrote “Unfortunately the
Claimant’s obsession continues and it has now become irrational.” Any obsession was with Doyle and Kerruish and Williamson and O’Riordan in making a SNAFU out a children matter. Paragraph 2 ends with “which have been ventilated in court on many previous occasions” when no matters had in fact been ventilated in court because a Govenrnment Department always applied to have any of my applications to have something ventilated struck out and the friends of the First Deemster (and D1 himself) always ensured that an application by me was struck out because it could not be judged that AK Williamson was a liar and child-abuser.
He was a liar and he did abuse the
rights of children; and Mrs Holmes believed everything the lying bastard said or wrote. 125.
I must include paragraph 4 of 16 th November 2005 because that too was a
“declaration” – and there was no legitimacy to the declaration.
126.
This paragraph had no legitimacy whatsoever.
By 3 rd September 2007, Chief
Registrar Peter Corkhill had admitted that the prosess of registration had been unlawful: he used the verbose phrase “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987.”
His staff could have established this (in fact Mrs Dowd used the
term “rules laid down were not followed”) in February 2006 but the “team” of Dowd, Corkhill and Coppell were determined not to find anything wrong with the actions in 2004, two years earlier. 127.
Doyle included paragraph 4 above in his judgment on 3 rd September 2007 as
shown above and here – it appears that by order made on the 16 th of November 2005 in divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144 that his honour the deputy Deemster Williamson, for the avoidance of doubt, ordered that the order for indirect contact between Mr Holmes and the children, the child born 19 th May 1996 and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes
born 28th of August 1996 [sic], and I quote, made in the Lancaster County Court on the 27 th of October 2004 and registered in this court on the 4 th of November 2004 remains the effective order for contact between Mr Holmes and the said children; unquote.
128.
Williamson did not order, he declared – there is a difference, but this is the
paragraph where Doyle referred to the matter that occurred in 2004 as “divorce proceedings” which it was not; but of course Doyle did not know that. 129.
Again, Doyle “poisoned his own tree” – but in December 2011 he descibed this
“common sense” and self-evident doctrine as “colourful words” – calling Doyle a stupid “effing” imbecile is “colourful” – using the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree is “self evident”. 130.
To misquote Philip Larkin (in This Be The Verse) and use a strong colourful word
They fuck you up the Deemsters! Doyle is an “effing” imbecile who did not know the difference between a children matter and a matrimonial matter. Acting Deemster Tim effing King stated that the matter was “matrimonial” – and he is now a High Court judge in England. Doyle is a High Court judge in the Isle of Man – both Doyle and King are morons who turn a blind eye to child abuse. 131.
The philosopher HENRI BERGSON said: “Fortunately, some are born with spiritual
immune systems that sooner or later give rejection to the illusory worldview grafted upon them from birth through social conditioning. They begin sensing that something is amiss, and start looking for answers. Inner knowledge and anomalous outer experiences show them a side of reality others are oblivious to, and so begins their journey of awakening. Each step of the journey is made by following the heart instead of following the crowd and by choosing knowledge over the veils of ignorance.” 132.
I follow my mind / my brain; my heart is a muscle that pumps blood.
Social
conditioning caused me to, at first, accept that judge Forrester knew what he was doing, and I was forced to accept that Deputy Deemster Williamson and Kevin O’Riordan had some idea of the law relating to children in England and in the Isle of Man but, sensing something was amiss, I started looking for “answers.”
Williamson DID NOT
KNOW THE LAW in 2003/2004 but thought he did. Section 11(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is – 11
Orders with respect to children
[P1989/41/8]
(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 or is to live, 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; (e) an order varying or revoking a previous order under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d). 133.
Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 is –
8
Residence, contact and other orders with respect to children.
(1)
In this Act —
“a contact order” means an order requiring the person with whom a childlives, or is to live, to allow the child to visit or stay with the person namedin the order; “a prohibited steps order” means an order that no step which could be takenby a parent in meeting his parental responsibility for a child, and which is ofa kind specified in the order, shall be taken by any person without the consentof the court; “a residence order” means an order settling the arrangements to be madeas to the person with whom a child is to live; and “a specific issue order” means an order giving directions for the purposeof determining a specific question which has arisen, or which may arise, inconnection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child. 134.
It is self-evident that section 8 of the E+W Act is NOT identical to section 11 of the
Isle of Man Act, so a section 8 order is not and CANNOT BECOME a section 11 order. A section 11 order (i.e. a section 11(1)(e)) order has no equivalent in section 8(1), although section 8(2) allows such). 135.
A contact order is an order with respect to a CHILD but Robert Moron Forrester
purportedly “ordered” that the FATHER do have reasonable section 8 contact and the father is an adult not a child – his order was ultra vires because it purportedly stated what kind of access an adult could have in the Isle of Man; no-one in the Isle of Man accepted that a judge in England had acted as if he was a High Court Deemster – he was “only” a county court judge (an equivalent of a sheading court judge – but the IOM does not have sheading courts). … 136.
What I am going to do now is called critical analysis. It is a technique used by
academics to establish the “truth” about the content of documents, and an expert witness would use such a technique to establish the validity of a written statement – to remove “rules of thumb” or check dates of events. I have (on 25 th August 2017) gone to the J1183.htm document on the world-wide-web: on the pages controlled and published by part of Isle of Man Govenrnment and “pasted” the EXACT contents of that “webpage” in the box below. I “real-time” I have not yet done so: by paragraph 137 I will have done so.
2DS 0/0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN STAFF OF GOVERNMENT (APPEAL DIVISION) Between:
MR. H. and MRS. H. and MR. P. BECKETT, AMICUS CURIAE Judgment of His Honour Judge of Appeal Tattersall QC and His Honour Deemster Kerruish delivered on the 26th day of October 2007 1. This is the judgment of the Court. Introduction 2. Mr. H. [`the Appellant`] and Mrs. H. [`the Respondent`] are divorced but have 2 children : Child A [`Child A`] born on [date] and Child B [`Child B`] born on [date]. 3. The issues raised by this appeal are two-fold : firstly, whether orders made by the [English] Court in [year] have been properly registered in the High Court of the Isle of Man pursuant to the Child Custody Act 1987 and, secondly, if such orders were not properly registered, to what extent orders subsequently made by the High Court should be revoked. 4. Notwithstanding that the submissions made by the Appellant to this court were wide-ranging, the Appellant conceded that the central issue raised by his appeal related to the question of registration, albeit that, in the light of recent events, he also sought to pursue an application for residence in respect of Child A. Although at times the Appellant sought to persuade this court to declare that orders made by the [English]Court were invalid, ineffective or that such court lacked the jurisdiction to make them, he was unable to demonstrate to our satisfaction that this court has any jurisdiction to make such a declaration, a conclusion which at times the Appellant recognised to be the case, and we are satisfied that any attempt by the Appellant to challenge the existence or validity of such orders must be made in England and not in this separate jurisdiction. The relevant background 5. It is crucial to set out the relevant factual background. 6. In [year], when both the Appellant and the Respondent were resident in England, both made applications to the [English] Court relating to their children. The Appellant applied for a residence order and the Respondent applied for leave to remove the children from the English jurisdiction. It seems that such applications were transferred to be heard at the [English] Court. 7. On [date] a District Judge sitting in the [English] Court ordered [inter alia] that : [1] The Appellant have permission to withdraw his applications for residence and prohibited steps. [2] Child A and Child B should reside with the Respondent. [3] The Respondent have permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man. [4] The Appellant do have reasonable contact with the children provided that such contact took place in the Isle of Man. [5] The Children and Family Reporter do file a report on the question of contact. On the same day, a District Judge 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. 8. There was no appeal by either party against either of such orders. 9. On [date] the Respondent wrote to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson enclosing copies of the two orders, namely the residency order, and the order granting leave to permanently remove the children to the Isle of Man, made by a District Judge and asked that such orders be registered at the Isle of Man Court. 10. On or about [date] notice of registration of such orders by the Isle of Man High Court [`the High Court`] was sent to the Respondent. It does not seem that the Appellant was so informed. 11. By application dated [date] the Appellant applied to the Isle of Man High Court for a residence order in respect of both children. 12. At a hearing of such application on [date] Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Appellant that the English orders made on [date] had been registered and dismissed his application. 13. The Appellant did not appeal against such dismissal of his application. 14. On [date] a District Judge sitting in the [English] 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]. 15. Although the Appellant contends that he appealed against such order, we have seen no document in support thereof.
16. We repeat what we have already said, that this court has no jurisdiction to make any determination as to the validity or effect of such orders made in the [English] Court and that any challenge to the validity or effect of such orders must be made in England. It is sufficient for this court to say that such orders were capable of being registered in the Isle of Man courts. 17. On or about [date] the order made by a District Judge was purportedly registered by the Isle of Man High Court. 18. On [date] there was a hearing before Deputy Deemster Williamson. The Respondent says, and the Appellant did not dispute, that such hearing was prompted by the unannounced arrival of the Appellant at the childrens` school that morning. It seems that the purpose of the hearing was to clarify the position in relation to the orders made by the [English] Court in respect of the children. 19. Both parties attended such hearing : the Appellant was legally represented. 20. The order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson recites that, upon the Appellant undertaking that he would abide by the terms of the aforesaid orders of the [English] Court : `IT IS DECLARED 1. that the said orders of the [English] Court registered in this Court are of full effect and enforceable within the jurisdiction of this Court that is to say within the Isle of Man and that this Court is not empowered to vary such Orders. 2. that the [Appellant] have indirect contact with the said children as is authorised by clause 2 of the said Order of the [date] of the [English] Court.` 21. Although we do not doubt that the High Court had no jurisdiction to vary the orders made by the [English] Court, we will have to consider whether the Deputy Deemster was correct in his assumption that the orders had been registered in the High Court and, if not, the consequences of non registration of such orders. 22. On [date] the Appellant made application to the High Court for orders relating to residence and/or contact in respect of the children. 23. On [date] Deputy Deemster Williamson ordered that there be interim indirect contact as directed by the [English] [sic] Court Order of the [date] and such direct supervised contact as may be agreed and at the direction of the Court Welfare Officer. The Court Welfare Officer was ordered to arrange for a psychological assessment of the Appellant. 24. On [date] the Appellant made application to the High Court for a residence order in respect of the children and for a prohibited steps order. 25. At a hearing fixed for the determination of the Appellant`s applications on [date] there were reports from the Court Welfare Officer and a Chartered Clinical Psychologist. We have not seen such reports. The Appellant did not attend : he had previously indicated to the court that he would not appear and that he withdrew his applications. The Court ordered that : `1. The [Appellant] do have leave to withdraw his Applications which are marked withdrawn. 2. There be no order as to costs save for the Legal Aid assessment of the Respondent`s costs. 3. For reasons which will be given in writing no further Application for an Order under Part 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 in respect of the said children or either of them may be made by the [Appellant] without the leave of the Court within 2 years of the date of this Order. 4. For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the Order for indirect contact between the [Appellant] and the said children made in the [English] Court on the [date] and registered in this Court on the [date] remains the effective Order for contact between the [Appellant] and the said children.` 26. In the written reasons for his decision Deputy Deemster Williamson explained why he had felt it appropriate to prevent the Appellant making further applications to the court without leave for a period of 2 years. We will not repeat them here but the order was made in the context of there having been [number] applications in the English Court and [number] applications in the Manx court and threats by the Appellant to disrupt the lives of all concerned. Although Deputy Deemster Williamson expressly noted that there was no suggestion that the Appellant would deliberately harm his children, he expressed `considerable concern that his inconsistency, unpredictability, erratic behaviour causes and will cause emotional harm to them.` He agreed with the Court Welfare Officer that `the children needed a period in which to settle, free from applications, free from interviews with Welfare Officers and other professionals.` 27. We observe that, although Deputy Deemster Williamson would have been entitled to make the order which he did on the basis that the High Court had assumed jurisdiction over the children, in fact paragraph 4 of his Order was founded on the proper registration in the Isle of Man of the order made by the [English] Court on [date]. Again we will have to consider whether such order had in fact been registered in the High Court and, if not, the consequences of non registration on the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date]. The Appellant`s appeal 28. On [date] the Appellant applied to have the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date] set aside. Such
was in effect an appeal and was treated as such. Because such an appeal was made more than [number] months after the making of the order, the Appellant required the leave of this court to pursue such an appeal. 29. Although the Appellant`s application did not refer to the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date], given that the same issues may arise in respect of at least part of such order, we have treated his application as relating to both orders made by the Deputy Deemster. 30. Although during his submissions to this court, the Appellant complained about the delay which had elapsed since the making of such orders it should be noted that his application was only made on [date], and that there were delays in case management of this appeal due to the lack of notice of the proceedings to the Respondent. 31. At the commencement of the hearing on [date] this court, observing that the question of whether to grant leave to appeal out of time was inextricably linked to the merits of the appeal, heard full argument on all matters and reserved the question of the granting of leave to appeal and the merits of any such appeal. At such hearing the Appellant and the Respondent appeared in person and [advocate] appeared as amicus curiae. 32. Having considered all the submissions made at such hearing, we are satisfied that we should grant the Appellant leave to appeal out of time and we do so. Whatever may have been the reasons for the Appellant`s delay in pursuing his appeal, as hereinafter appears we are satisfied that his appeal has merit. 33. As already noted the central issue before the court was whether the orders made by the [English] Court on [date] and [date] were properly registered by the High Court. It is thus crucial that the court should consider the requirements for registration by the High Court and whether such requirements were met in this case. 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 recognised 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 make it ; and proceedings for or with respect to 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 the 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, and [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 [English] Court to be registered by the High Court it was required that the [English] Court should send the High Court a certified copy of the orders made together with a copy of the Respondent`s application and any accompanying documents. Were the requirements for registration met ? 41. We turn to consider whether the requirements for registration were met in this case. 42. It is clear that the application to register the orders made by the [English] Court on [date] was made by the Respondent herself writing to the General Registry, 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 which are clearly set out in sections 7 and 12 were not met. The Respondent herself cannot be criticised for such error because she was genuinely, and understandably, ignorant of the precise requirements for registration. In any event, she had believed that the General Registry had itself obtained certified copies of the orders from the [English] Court, which does not seem to have
happened. 44. Such a conclusion is supported by a letter of the Chief Registrar to [advocate] dated [date] 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 [English] Court on [date], which was purportedly registered in the High Court on [date], it is unknown how such order came to be registered. The Respondent conceded, in our view realistically, that such order could not have been properly registered. The effect of non registration 46. We consider first the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date]. 47. In our judgment, in the absence of proper registration of the orders made by the [English] Court on [date] and [date], it necessarily follows that the totality of the order by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date] cannot stand and must be quashed. Paragraph 1 of such order expressly recorded that the [English] Court orders had been registered, when they had not been so registered, and paragraph 2 of such order was founded upon the incorrect premise that there had been proper registration. Although no fair 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 recognise that the Deputy Deemster could have exercised the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man courts to make an order to like effect, he did not exercise such jurisdiction. 48. We turn to consider the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date]. We are satisfied that such order falls into two distinct parts : firstly, the orders contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and secondly, the order contained in paragraph 4. We will consider them separately. 49. The orders contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 related to the Appellant`s applications made on [date], and [date] and were not founded on any orders made by the [English] Court. We are satisfied that in respect of such parts of the order Deputy Deemster Williamson was assuming and exercising the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man court to make orders, if appropriate in respect of children residing in the Isle of Man. We cannot see any basis upon which it could be adjudged that the Deputy Deemster had no jurisdiction to make such orders, that such orders were in any way affected by the non-registration of the orders made by the [English] Court or that the Deputy Deemster was not entitled to make the orders which he did. Paragraph 1 merely gave the Appellant leave to withdraw his applications : we cannot see how the Deputy Deemster could have refused to grant the Appellant such leave. Paragraph 2 had no effect on the Appellant but merely related to the assessment of the Respondent`s costs. The order contained in paragraph 3 was amply justified for the reasons related in paragraph 26 above. Although in part such order relied upon previous applications in the English courts, in our judgment the lack of proper registration of the orders made by the [English] Court on [date] and [date] had no bearing on the entitlement of the Deputy Deemster to make such order. 50. [Advocate] submitted that this court should consider varying paragraph 3 of the order so as to remove the two year prohibition upon the Appellant making further applications under Part 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 in respect of either of the children. We cannot see any legitimate basis upon which we should accept such submission. We are satisfied that such prohibition was made for good reason and it will remain. In any event it will elapse very soon after the delivery of this judgment. 51. By contrast we are satisfied that paragraph 4, being founded expressly upon the proper registration of the order made by the [English] Court on [date] cannot stand and must be quashed. Again, whilst we recognise that the Deputy Deemster could have exercised the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man courts to make an order to like effect, he did not exercise such jurisdiction. Conclusions 52. It follows that we allow the Appellant`s appeal to the extent that the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date] is quashed and that paragraph 4 of the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date] is quashed. 53. It should be noted that nothing we have said in this judgment would prevent the orders made by the [English] Court on [date] and [date] from being recognised and enforced in the Island if, but only if, they were registered in the High Court in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987. Equally, absent any judicial determination to the contrary in the United Kingdom, such orders remain in force in that jurisdiction. 54. During the hearing the Appellant informed the court that since about [date] Child A had resided with him, whilst Child B continued to reside with the Respondent. In such circumstances the Appellant asked that we should make a residence order in his favour in respect of Child A. In response thereto the Respondent asked the court not to make any such order. 55. We do not know the precise circumstances in which Child A came to reside with the Appellant and in the absence of a Court Welfare Officer`s report or the Respondent`s consent, we do not consider that it is appropriate for this court - an appellate court - to make any residence order. Any application for a residence order should be made in the normal way and we have no doubt that any court determining any such application will wish to seek a report from the Court Welfare
Officer. 56. Finally, for the sake of transparency, we record that between the conclusion of the hearing and the delivery of this judgment the Appellant wrote a letter to the Judge of Appeal, a copy of which has been disclosed to the Respondent and the amicus curiae. We do not believe that the contents of such add anything to the submissions already made to the court or otherwise assist the court.
I SWEAR that the above is a true “copy” of judgments.im/content/J1183.htm and has not been altered in any way. 137. 26
(The page is now loaded [above] VERBATIM) This judgment was handed down on th
October 2007, and the hearing was evidently BEFORE that – (it was on 24 th
September 2007 and was attended by members of the public so that date is NOT “secret”) but that date is not relevant to an analysis. What is relevant are the other dates; so we must use some detective work to find those dates. 138.
In paragraph 26 is the term “2 years” and in paragraph 50 the sentence “In any
event it will elapse very soon after the delivery of this judgment.” Also in para. 50 is “remove the two year prohibition upon the Appellant making further applications under Part 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001.” Orders are created under Part 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001; Applications are made under Part 1! There is an error.
What is “very shortly after two years before 26/10/2007?” – There is no
“public interest issue” in stating that the “moratorium” expired on 16 th November 2007 – the so-called order was made on 16 th November 2005 “almost” two years before 26 th October 2007. 139.
“By contrast we are satisfied that paragraph 4, being founded expressly upon the
proper registration of the order made by the [English] Court on [date] cannot stand” is in paragraph 51 – so we see that an order made almost two years before 26/10/2007 had “no legitimate basis” [to quote the three words in paragraph 47]. Again the dates are irrelevant – paragraphs 9 to 12 clearly confirm that Deputy Deemster Williamson lied when he “told the Appellant” that the so-called orders from the [English] court had been registered “when they had not been so registered.” 140.
Who has section 11(1)(b) contact? – the CHILD. But “paragraph 4” [the one that
“cannot stand”] is as follows – “For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the Order for indirect contact between the [Appellant] and the said children made in the [English] Court on the [date] and registered in this Court on the [date] remains the effective Order for contact between the [Appellant] and the said children.”
“indirect [contact]
between ‘MR. H.’ {me} and the said children” is an “access order using the word contact” and is NOT a section 11(1)(b) contact order and the so-called order from the English Court had not been registered. 141.
I accuse the Isle of Man High Court under the direction and supervision of First
Deemster Doyle (and previously under the direction and supervision of Deputy Deemster Williamson in the Family Division in particular) of acting with outlawry, calling it “bowel law” or “law of thumb” or “Deemster’s law” and ruling by unlawful court order or court ordure, then publishing an anomymised judgment in an attempt to show that
“the court” (in this case Deputy Deemster Williamson) was right and the “appellant” was “irrational, obsessed, inconsistent &c.” when the reality is (was) that Deputy Deemster Williamson lied from the Bench about a due-process and then acted like David Irving in putting “blame” on a registration denier: me. 142.
Paragraph 53 contains “Equally, absent any judicial determination to the contrary
in the United Kingdom, such orders remain in force in that jurisdiction.”
England &
Wales is a jurisdiction; Northern Ireland is a jurisdiction; Scotland is a jurisdiction; but the United Kingdom is NOT. The Isle of Man is a jurisdiction – [ `IT IS DECLARED 1. that the said orders of the [English] Court registered in this Court are of full effect and enforceable within the jurisdiction of this Court that is to say within the Isle of Man and that this Court is not empowered to vary such Orders. But the orders had not been so registered] and the court in England had “[7] On the same day, a District Judge 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.”
From that “same
day” NO COURT in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [and Great Britain is England & Wales and Scotland – two distinct jurisdictions] had powers over the Isle of Man resident children. 143.
The above exact extract (without accurate dates) contains SO MANY ERRORS that
it is impossible to place any credibility on the totality of its contents – it is mostly like David Irving’s The Destruction of Dresden first published in 1963. By 1985 the version in German was published as “A Novel.”
J1183 is mostly “fiction” – the only accurate
section is the Statutory Framework section, and that is missing sections 20 and 21 and Schedule 1 where ‘appropriate court’ is defined.
Perhaps the term self-evident in
paragraph 40 is correct, but even that paragraph alleges that an order from a County Court can be “registered in the High Court” which is untrue. The phrases “when they had not been so registered” and “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did” are correct. The use of the term “properly registered” and its resulting confusion became a mantra used for the next ten years, and still being used. 144.
When the actual dates are inserted into J1183.htm (see
https://issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/judgment_2ds-2007_9 ) the so-called judgment becomes even more fictional! And the delays become apparent – and (as stated above) by mid-August 2003 the children were already under the jurisdiction of ALL courts in the Isle of Man; so paragraph 6 poisons the tree for the totality of J1183.htm – perhaps I should have made paragraph 6 “In 2003 &c.” 145.
I have the right of “freedom of expression” under the Human Rights Convention
which is replicated (with provisions) in the Human Rights Act 2001 on legislation.co.im 146.
I have the right to hold the opinion that Williamson is (was) a liar from the Bench
and that Doyle is utterly incompetent as First Deemster – the facts show that ten years ago he stated that a matrimonial (divorce) matter had been on-going in the High Court
(which was fiction) – and it is disgraceful that following the foul-ups by Deemster AK Williamson I had to strive to undo them. Williamson lied; there was no legitimacy to his so-called order of 5th November 2004, but “It is for him to change.” 147.
Why is it that a Deemster can lie and cheat and abuse children (the rights of Manx
children) and get away with it? – Is it because there is still only bowel law in the Isle of Man – that Human Rights do not apply and the Isle of Man is still the feudal society it was in 1410-1416 and before and there is no rule of law in the Isle of Man? 148.
Although the covering letter (not included in this issuu.com upload) is dated 29th
August 2017, for delivery just before 3 rd September (the tenth anniversary of the entry of David Doyle into the fray), finishing touches to this account of “Irving in the Isle of Man” was completed over the August public holiday (still “dubbed” a “bank holiday!) weekend; and comparison between the modus operandi of Irving and the MO (method of working) needs to be mentioned again in association with the MO of (for example) Kevin O’Riordan or anyone in “public authority” in the Isle of Man Government (and that includes Deemsters). 149.
Two editions of Hitler’s War were published (by Irving): 1977 and 1991; and it was
the 1991 edition that Deborah Irving “took issue with” in 1994 in her book “Denying the Holocaust.” 150.
In his expert evidence, Professor Richard J. Evans concentrated initially on the
1991 publication and its omission of certain “facts” that had been in the 1977 edition, which made the 1977 edition “not as bad” as the later one. Having established that the MO of Irving was one of falsification (after 1991), Prof. Evans began looking at his MO back to 1963 (when Destruction of Dresden was first published). He found that Irving had always “inferred rather than established with evidence.” 151. 8
So we look at the last sentence of the e-mail sent to me by O’Riordan at 16:55 on th
April 2011 – “However, regardless of registration, the Court here was still bound by
the provisions of the Child Custody Act 1987.” The High Court in the Isle of Man could only have been bound by the provisions of the CCA 1987 if the so-called orders of “the English Court” had been pre-1989 “custody orders” and if leave to remove the children from the jurisdiction of all English courts (i.e. from the jurisdiction of England & Wales) had not been granted, and the so-called “orders” had been made by Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice of England (see paragraph 1 in Schedule 1 of the CCA 1987). First and foremost, the High Court (and the Deemster) “here” and still is bound by the provisions of Section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 – that the welfare of the child shall be the paramount (above all others, including the provisions of an ancient [pre- Family Law Act 1991] Act or Tynwald) consideration “of the HIGH court.” 152.
In April 2011 the view of Kevin O’Riordan was wrong (any “view” is open to
interpretation) and then looking back at 2004, O’Riordan was wrong in court when he said “I think this is very akin to” something else!
153.
Geoffrey Tattersall was wrong in 2007 and was still wrong in 2013 – on 2 nd April
2013, curiously, exactly 9-years after Mrs Holmes wrote to the vile bastard Williamson, J1356 was handed-down – 2DS 2012/40. Paragraph 15 of this “judgment” is – In so far as the Appellant had sought clarity as to whether the English orders had been properly registered, the judgment of this court had given such clarity. 154.
The judgment of the court (on 26th October 2007) was “when they had not been
so registered” not “the orders were not properly registered” [that is an “inference”] but “clarity” was never given to people in public authority – therefore Kevin O’Riordan deliberately misinterpreted the evidence contained in the judgment. 155.
Also, David Doyle misinterpreted what matters had been “ventilated in court on
many previous occasions.” For a matter to be ventilated in court, both sides MUST BE HEARD. The hearing on 7th February 2013 was “Two judges versus Stephen Holmes” and the two judges were Tattersall JA and Melton (“D”). Both these judges are English not Manx and DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO BE MANX.
They were biased in
favour of the “views” of others, contrary to Oath! 156.
The MO of everyone in public authority in the Isle of Man since 2 nd April 2004 (and
therefore since 1st September 2002, date of Appointment) has been “trust the Deemsters – whatever they say is right!” At my first encounter with a Deemster was the phrase “you appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered.” Contrary to what the biased judges Tattersall and Melton alleged (“It is doubtful whether this is a helpful analogy in this case”) the fruit of a poisoned tree is very helpful in understanding methods of working – we ALL make “snap decisions” which are wrong; but when a Deemster does just that, as Williamson did between 2 nd April and 1st July in 2004, then that wrong judgment prevails over everything else, and 13 years pass without any admission of wrong-doing! I welcome a response from the Government’s legal advisers or an offer of settlement for the constant (now 13 years) wrongs inflicted on me and my family by IOMG and especially the Deemsters who are supposedly independent of “government.”
Independence of
government does not mean that orders can be issued without legitimacy or that no criticism can be made of a judge who acts without the law. No-one in the state, let alone Her Majesty’s Governor, or Deputy Governor, should be permitted to bulldoze over the rights of children and to do it again, and again, and again, – and they will abuse the rights of Manx children until 2099 and beyond unless Statute is executed justly (executed RIGHT) and children matters become questions about the CHILD, not adversarial disputes between a Deemster and a member of the public. The mantra is not Let Wrong be Done! With regards,