Memorandum from G. Stephen Holmes To
: David Doyle, Andrew Corlett, Sharon Roberts, Geoffrey Tattersall, Chris Melton.
CC
: Adam Wood, John Quinn, Kevin O'Riordan, Bishop Robert, Archbishop Sentamu
Date
: 22nd November 2013
Subject
: Statutes of the Isle of Man : Reading and understanding statutes
Earlier this month I acquired a copy of the following book by S.I. Strong – Stacie Strong includes in chapter 2 the following section (2.1) on Statutes :– In the context of this discussion, the term ‘statutes’ includes not only law enacted by Parliament for domestic application but also refers to European legislation and international instruments such as treaties and conventions. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss whether and to what extent international instruments apply within the UK or the different ways courts can interpret statutory materials (i.e. either purposively or literally). However, some suggestions can be made regarding the way you should read and use statutes in your work. Students often overlook the importance of statutes, when in fact statutes are the first source of law that any lawyer – even a common law lawyer – should consider when faced with a legal problem. Remember, the UK embraces the concept of Parliamentary supremacy; therefore statutes constitute the supreme law of the land. However, because the UK is a common law jurisdiction, the study of law focuses largely on cases which supplement or elucidate statutes or which define the law in the absence of a statute. By focusing so heavily on case law, instructors and textbook writers can accidentally trick students into thinking that statutory law is not as important as the common law in these jurisdictions. Because cases can second edition : 2006 never replace or supersede a statute, students should learn to look first to see whether a statute applies to the question at hand and then identify the extent to which case law can and should apply. .
There now follow three quotes : the first two are from Carl Sagan – “Science is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything; with this tool, we vanquish the impossible. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true.” “One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority'. (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course, do not always follow this commandment!)” “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.” Eleanor Roosevelt, “In Our Hands” (1958 speech delivered on the 10th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
There was a hearing in the High Court in the Isle of Man on 1 st July 2004 with AK Williamson -1-
presiding. Williamson thought himself “an authority” and he remarked that there was the appearance of “a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event” when no such document had been registered “here” in the Isle of Man. The “entity” was “The High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man : Family Division” and Williamson was an appointed officer of the Crown, so he had a duty to ensure that the Human Rights of the man and woman in the court, and of the children, were upheld; but he failed in that duty – he was negligent. According to his successor, Andrew Corlett, Williamson bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division, but the evidence shows that his governance of children's matters was abominable. Subsequently to his misgoverning of application (given case file ref. no. Div 2004/144) on 1st July 2004, Williamson misgoverned a hearing on 5 th November 2004 concerning documents contained in case file FD/UK/COR/04/02. Again, he alleged that “orders” from England & Wales had been “registered” when they had not been registered. Why did he do this? Because he made the mistake of ignoring statute. And then on 3 rd September 2007 David Doyle ignored statute – he “looked at the case file!” (See below). Deemster Kerruish and Tattersall did not ignore the statute called the Child Custody Act 1987, but they ignored the High Court Act 1991 [s. 32] and the European Convention on Human Rights because “no fair criticism” was made of the charlatan and child-rights abusing Deputy Deemster, although there was no legitimacy to his two paragraph declaratory order of 5th November 2004. “Because cases can never replace or supersede a statute, Deemsters should learn to look first to see whether a statute applies to the question at hand, and then identify the extent to which case law can and should apply.” The Family Division was a common law (precedent) division! Section 7 of the statute was (and still is) headed “Registration of a custody order in High Court”. Surely, it fell on the Deputy Deemster to identify a “custody order” and that required looking at the definition in statute. “Where the [Assistant] Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order from any court in 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.” Section 12(3) states – On receiving an application under this section the court which made the custody order shall, unless it appears to the court that the order is no longer in force, cause the following documents to be sent to the appropriate court in the part of the United Kingdom specified in the application, namely(a) a certified copy of the order, and (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.
The statute defines “appropriate court” and it is not a County Court or a Sheriff's Court. On 5th November 2004, Kevin O'Riordan said in the kangaroo court hearing – “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” The Staff of Government Division confirmed that because no “registrations” had taken place in case FD/UK/COR/04/02, “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did” on 5 th November 2004 – that so-called “order” is held in case file FD/UK/COR/04/02; and it was copied to case file Div 2004/144, although Div 2004/144 ended on 1st July 2004 with the dismissal of the Application for a section 11(1)(a) “Residence Order” of 18 th May 2004. The two case files, under separate Acts of Tynwald, were inextricably linked. -2-
You can't even get the date of Application correct, can you? Not 25 th May 2004, but 18th May. “In the context of this discussion, the term ‘statutes’ includes not only law enacted by Tynwald for domestic application but also refers to European legislation and international instruments such as treaties and Conventions. It is beyond the scope (here) to discuss whether and to what extent international instruments apply within the Island or the different ways courts can interpret statutory materials (i.e. either purposively or literally). However, some suggestions can be made regarding the way you, the Deemsters should read and use statutes in your work. “Deemsters often overlook the importance of statutes, when in fact statutes are the first source of law that any lawyer (or judge) – even a common law lawyer – should consider when faced with a legal problem. Remember, the Isle of Man embraces the concept of parliamentary supremacy; therefore statutes of Tynwald constitute the supreme law of the Island. However, because the Isle of Man is a common law jurisdiction, the practice of law focuses largely on cases which supplement statutes or which define the law in the absence of a statute. By focusing so heavily on case law, Deemsters and advocates trick themselves into thinking that statutory law is not as important as the common law (precedents) in this jurisdiction.” I think this is very akin to that although I have no paperwork to substantiate my claim! alleged Kevin O'Riordan – and Williamson enthused : “Yes”. Sagan : First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. “Those orders are registered – those orders are binding!” NO, no. The argument from the SOGD that “no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster” is worthless – the Deputy Deemster alone was responsible for the wholesale abuse of the Rights of Katie and Ben Holmes from 10th November 2004 to January 2008; and from 10th March 2008 David Doyle has been responsible for their rights abuse because he put a “case file” as more important than the statute called the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. A section 11(1)(b) “contact order” is an order with respect to the CHILD. The Child has contact with the person named in the order, and a contact order should not be a declaration that encourages a parent to prevent a child or children having any kind of family life with their father. The so-called declaration “that the Respondent have indirect contact with the said children” had no legal basis in two respects. Ms Strong introduces the CLEO method of “answering legal questions” – the acronym means Claim; Law; Evaluate; Outcome. On 1st July 2004 I entered a court-room in the Isle of Man for the first time in my life and the “judge” claimed that “a – an order from Lancaster” (in England) had been registered in any event. Neither “order” of 24 th February 2004 was registered on 28 th May 2004 because none of the requirements contained in the statute had actually been complied with. On 13th January 2009 Andrew Corlett said in court “[But] it was an unlawful process” but in his “judgment” of 20th January quoted the rules contained in Government Circular 232/91 and not the statute. He claimed that these “judge made rules” were virtually impossible to find, but when I asked about the rules relating to the Child Custody Act 1987 in 2011, staff in the Tynwald library found these rules (and others – GC 191/91) in less than two minutes. “Rules” are judge made and are secondary to the Statute. Corlett ignored the statute as Williamson had done four years earlier. When Tim King quoted “matrimonial proceedings” on 25th October 2006 it was proven that this acting Deemster (who is now a High Court judge in England) had no clue about “the law relating to children” – that is the statute called the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. Corlett claimed (on 13/01/2009 that he knew what an “indirect contact” order was, but if a contact order (section 11(1) (b) of the CYPA 2001) is an order relating to the child; and requires the parent with whom the child lives to allow that child to visit or stay with the person named in the order, then the so called declaration that the Respondent (an Adult) have “indirect” dealings with the “said children” is not a section 11(1)(b) “contact order” but is ultra vires nonsense about an adult. This court ordure began with an allegation by judge Robert M. Forrester that “the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man” – a statement that was so ultra vires that it may as well have said “the father do be an orang-utan provided he is in the Isle of Man.” The idiots in the High Court Office fell for this ordure.
-3-
On 24th September 2007 Geoffrey “shouted” from the Bench : “But the judge made an order”. No, Geoffrey – on 24th February 2004 Forrester relinquished jurisdiction of Katie and Ben Holmes “to the Isle of Man permanently” and then alleged that the Manx father should be an orang-utan whilst he is in the Isle of Man. On 28 th May 2004 nothing of legal value happened – the so-called registrations were not proper (or were improper) and in law if something (say a marriage; an arrest) is improper then it cannot stand and must be treated as void or not happening – void ab initio. There is absolutely no evidence to support the “no fair criticism” remark – a fair minded and informed observer would scream : “BIAS – Partiality and misgovernment” both of which are prohibited by statute – by the revised Customary Law of 1422 now called the Customary Laws Act 1422. Also the European Convention on Human Rights, contained in schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 2001, contains the Article that hearings must be fair – a hearing cannot be fair if the judges are pre-disposed to not criticising a colleague (a “brother Deemster”) who has acted without reference to Law. ‘Mistrust arguments from authority’ said Carl Sagan. “I am a judge and I know” is not an argument that can be trusted; it is an opinion of a person too lazy to look up statute. The only phrase in paragraph 47 of the judgment of 26 th October 2007 that can be trusted is emboldened below. The words “properly” and “proper” are unnecessary and should be omitted. ‘Paragraph 1 of such order expressly recorded that the Lancaster County Court orders had been registered when they had not been so registered, and paragraph 2 of such order was based upon the incorrect premise that there had been proper registration.’ It is interesting to note that on 2 nd April of this year, Melton and Tattersall only “observed” – ‘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.’ Williamson had no power to make the order which he did on 5 th November 2004 and so that socalled declaratory order (and the High Court Office referred to it as a declarity order on For The Record) was ultra vires and void ab initio. It was fraudulent misrepresentation by Williamson on 5 th November 2004, then fraudulent misrepresentation by Williamson on 16 th November 2005, then malfeasance by Corkhill and Dowd from 27th January to 9th February 2006, then court ordure from Tim King (and Walter Wannenburgh and John Corlett) in August '06 and to 25 th October 2006 [and Linda Sullivan entered the fray at some stage] and then a “mess of potage” from 19 th March to 30th October 2007 – adding to the mess was David Doyle on 3 rd September 2007 when he failed (like a first year law student) to read the statute. The “tree” was thoroughly poisoned by early 2007. I have addressed this memo to all the “guilty” – Doyle, Corlett, Roberts, Melton, Tattersall and O'Riordan; and copied-in those who should do something about this continuous, and evil, wrongdoing; Governor Wood and Attorney General Quinn. This snafu is so wrong. It was TWO YEARS AGO that Doyle “judged unjustly and showed partiality to the wicked” and all the malfeasance by officers of the Crown is because nobody in this “gang” actually has the capacity to read the statutes of the Isle of Man. Williamson literally got away with child abuse – Katie was 8 and Ben 5 when Williamson abused them – more than nine years ago. Human rights start at home and at “the office” – especially if the office is a court-room. Katie, Ben and Stephen Holmes all had the right to fair dealing from the Isle of Man High Court in 2004 and 2005 (and 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013) and instead we got “the opinion of authority”. Williamson abused children as surely as Jimmy Savile abused many 15 year-olds. The “no fair criticism” remark is the most biased quote by Deemsters in the last twenty-five years; shame on those who do evil things; shame on you Deemsters and you judge of Appeal. I claim compensatory damages from the Deemsters, who are NOT immune from claim because none of them have actually applied the law of this Island – you have all applied precedent to suit -4-
rather than statute or equity – Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy; and equity prevails over common law. In the High court of injustice in Douglas meaningless authority prevails. The Conventions and the Human Rights Act 2001 binds the CROWN; Deemsters must act within the law – you must not use “precedent” to prevail over statutory requirements and Conventions. In judgment Case No 9BS02095 ; 9BS02096 delivered on 18th January 2013, Andrew Rutherford wrote : “One significant change has been the enormous growth of statutory legislation. The English common law, developed and interpreted by the judges over the centuries, has been largely superseded.” The Manx common law has been superseded, but Deemsters do not realise such. The “villain” in this matter has been AK Williamson – a “common law magistrate”. In fact, this charlatan was a clerk of the court (like Mr Tucker) in Kent for about 8 years before a group of illadvised officers gave him the job of Deputy High Bailiff. Williamson began as a criminal court “judge” in January 1988 – and his training (to, say, 1977/78) would have been in common law – and he would have been tricked into thinking that statutory law is not as important as the common law in this jurisdiction – that is to say, the Isle of Man. He knew no civil law whatsoever. In April 2011, Kevin O'Riordan sent me a “transcript” of the kangaroo court meeting of 5 th November 2004 (the one where Williamson issued a declaratory order that had no basis in the law of this Island) and Williamson used the term “prohibitive” steps SEVEN times. It is a prohibited steps order; and it is about the child. “Contact” is about the CHILD having contact; it is not access. Did you know that the term “custody” was defined in the Island in 1577? Well, it was – and it did not change for 380 years or so. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 [Tynwald] re-defined the rights a court could confer on an adult parent or guardian of a child; and that Act of Tynwald (which was based on the 1925 and 1886 Guardianship of Infants Acts of Parliament) remained in force until 1st April 1992. I can absolutely understand the difficulty clowns like Williamson had with the Family Law Act 1991. It should have been called the Minor's Act 1991; and it should NOT have had the phrase “custody of children” in the introduction for it was entirely based on the Children Act 1989 [P1989/41] which is an Act to reform the law relating to children. No matter, because the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is an Act to reform the law relating to children and to re-enact Parts 1 and 2 of the Family Law Act 1991. But by the time the CYPA 2001 was fully enacted on 1st February 2003, Williamson had been Deputy Deemster for five months and had already decided that he was “the law” in the Family Division; and his colleagues, Deemster Kerruish and Geoffrey Tattersall JA [and a couple of months later David Doyle] would have trusted this former High Bailiff (in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction) because he had been in the courts building “for-ever”. Williamson was a charlatan and a child-rights abuser; because he was a “common law” judge not a statutory judge. As for “Conventions” (and don't forget that Tynwald enshrined the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Manx law on 1 st September 1994), Williamson contravened the UNCRC again and again – I have spoken to many parents who came up against Williamson in the High Court and he bull-dozed over Human Rights – he entered into disputes with fathers or mothers and judged in his own cause. And in case FD/UK/COR/04/02 his colleagues Tattersall and Deemster Kerruish made “no fair criticism” of this charlatan for his “belief” that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. “Although no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for him accepting what he believed to be correct,” was the phrase on 26th October 2007; but for a judge to blindly “believe” that orders have been “registered in accordance with statutory requirements” when the statute has in fact been ignored is unacceptable – and criticism was essential to maintain public confidence in the Deemsters. Our Deemsters in the Isle of Man are “a law unto themselves”. Our “acting Deemsters” were hopeless (Sullivan, King, before 2002: Williamson) – because they undervalue or ignore our statutes. In his “opinion” of 14 th December 2011 Doyle did not even look at statute – on 3 rd September 2007 he “looked at the court file!” In fact, here is part of the transcript of the kangaroo court meeting on 3 rd September 2007 – DD is David Doyle: (and the time he said such) – DD: Thank you very much – if you'd like to take a seat where you were before. -5-
16:56:38 DD : I’ve also, Mrs Holmes, had an opportunity of looking at the em court file and there is obviously a considerable history to these proceedings. Is the present position that there is a residence order that the children reside with you, their mother, and that their father has indirect contact; is that the present position under the court order? [The court order had no legal basis.] 16:57:03 Yvonne Holmes : That is correct sir. [Mrs Holmes had no knowledge of STATUTE or precedent]. 16:57:15 DD : Subject to anything else you have to say, I’m minded to grant an order requiring the return of the child to the Isle of Man and also adjourning the Application for further directions.” I have transcripts of the hearings on 1 st July and 5th November 2004; on 05/11 Williamson started with “Right well it was from Mrs Holmes that first I heard today and then subsequently I’ve heard from Mr Holmes 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.” [Yesterday was the 4th November 2004, and the so-called order was not registered] Except those “orders” had NOT BEEN registered – not “yesterday” and not “one back in May” so there were at least three untruths in that opening remark. On 1st July 2004 Williamson referred to “evidence of both parties” but the “evidence” was all in the High Court Office – and consisted of four false instruments issued on 28 th May 2004 (“back in May”); two of which recorded the purported “registration” of a “Leave to remove child from UK” order under the Child Custody Act 1987. Disclosure of these documents did not occur – and there are still eight false instruments in the High Court Office, four dated 28 th May 2004 and four dated 4th November 2004 (“yesterday”) which should have been declared void ab initio by Williamson on 1st July 2004 or on 5th November 2004, or by the SOGD on 26th October 2007, but the pervasive statement is that “the orders were not properly registered and we have given clarity to that fact”. If clarity has been given, why did Carol Dowd confirm in an affidavit (on 18 th September 2008) – 5.3 On 28th May 2004 the Lancaster Orders of 24 th February 2004 were ‘registered’ 5.4 On 1st July 2004 His Honour Deputy Deemster Williamson made an Order dismissing Mr Holmes' application of 18 th May 2004. 5.5 On 4th November 2004 Orders of Lancaster County Court dated 27 th October 2004 ordering that Mr Holmes have indirect contact with the Children and also making orders in relation to ancillary relief ‘registered’. 5.6 On 5th November 2004 […] Deputy Deemster Williamson granted Mr Holmes indirect contact with the Children upon the terms of the Lancaster Court Orders.
Granting “Mr Holmes” indirect contact with the children is NOT a section 11(1)(b) “contact order” but a remark that encouraged Mrs Holmes (and the Police, and the teachers at a Primary School) to prevent Katie and Ben Holmes having any family life whatsoever with their Manx father, Stephen Holmes; and there was no legitimate basis upon which Williamson could have made the “order” which he did. That lack of legitimacy applied ab initio. Williamson authorised rights abuses. I recommend “How to Write Law Essays and Exams” by S.I. Strong to Doyle, Corlett, Roberts &c; the charlatans who judge in their own cause in the High Court of injustice of the Isle of Man; and abuse human rights – at home. I bet you thought I had gone away – and “good riddance”! Well I have not gone away, and I will never go away until I get closure on “my Hillsborough” – the case where my children were abused (rights abuse, but abuse nevertheless) by the Deputy Deemster. It took the people of Liverpool 23 years to “right the wrong-doing” that began on 15 th April 1989 when the police said “the fans are to blame.” It is ten years since a judge in England said “the Isle of Man is part of the UK” and closure on this matter is still nowhere in sight. I will accept a one-off payment of compensation from the High Court Office (the domain of Deemster David Doyle) – I will not settle for less than £700,000. s_h_iom@yahoo.com -6-