Report on Wrong-Doing

INVESTIGATION INTO WRONG-DOING IN THE “GENERAL REGISTRY” OVER A PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS. CARRIED OUT BY STEPHEN HOLMES, Manx Citizen.

14th May 2012 To:

Apt 5, 2 Marine Parade Peel City

Governor Wood, Chief Minister Allan Bell MHK, First Deemster Doyle, Isle of Man Newspapers

On 27th June 2011, the following document was sent to Chief Registrar Stephen Cregeen by Paul W. Coppell.

INVESTIGATION INTO COMPLAINT OF MR S HOLMES DATED 16TH JUNE 2011 CARRIED OUT BY PAUL W COPPELL, DIRECTOR OF COURTS & TRIBUNAL SERVICES Introduction On 16th June 2011 Mr Holmes submitted a complaint using the “comments form” provided at the Isle of Man Courts of Justice Public Counter.

The Complaints Process The General Registry Complaints Procedure requires that any verbal complaint be dealt with by the relevant officer or if requested investigated by a senior officer and that a report back is provided within 10 working days.

If a complaint is provided in writing, as in this instance, the form will be referred to an appropriate officer by the Chief Registrar, and in such circumstances, the same process would apply in that it may be referred to a senior officer.

Following the receipt of an initial acknowledgement, Mr Holmes in correspondence both to me and to the Chief Registrar, sought that the investigation be carried out by an independent appointee.

The Chief Registrar has determined that it is both reasonable and in line with procedure for the complaint to be carried out by the Director of Courts & Tribunal Services, as its most senior officer.

It should also be noted that the only involvement I have had with the matter in the past, was to accompany the then Chief Registrar at a meeting he had with Mr Holmes in 2006, at a time when I had no involvement in the Division and was there primarily to take notes.

The Complaint Whilst the content of what was provided contained much information, as part of the investigation process I have sought to clarify from its content the specific issues Mr Holmes wishes to complain about, though I accept that this was not made easy by the manner of submission in that it contained much obscure references and information and contained intemperate and abusive language. It is my view that the following is a list of the specific issues raised/alleged: 1. Documents were registered erroneously 2. Court staff had been instructed/directed by members of the Judiciary 3. High Bailiff Williamson had not acted appropriately 4. High Bailiff Moyle had not acted appropriately 5. The Court Form C1 is not correct/appropriate

-1-

1. Documents were registered erroneously Having reviewed the very many items of correspondence etc. in relation to this issue, I have determined that it is not appropriate or necessary to carry out a further fully comprehensive investigation.

The reason for this is simply as a result of the fact that, as indicated in the complaint, the matter had previously been investigated by the then Chief Registrar, Mr P R Corkhill in 2007, following which Mr Corkhill sent a letter to Mr Holmes in which it was stated that “it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously”. In that sense, it is clear therefore that the issue has already been investigated.

Whilst there would appear to be a question as to what impact if any this “error” may have had, given that the only issue with the documents registered was that of certification, it is clear that as the court had determined the issue, any challenge to the validity of such must be made via the legal process. In addition, it is also noted that this issue has been raised by Mr Holmes on many, many occasions and in many differing forms, including in litigation.

2. Court staff had been instructed/directed by members of the Judiciary Mr Holmes contends that it is not appropriate for court staff to seek direction from the members of the Judiciary they serve.

Whilst it is easy to consider that the role of courts administration and the courts are completely distinct, and that in some large jurisdictions this may be the case to a greater extent than it is in a smaller jurisdiction such as the Isle of Man, it is my view that this cannot reflect the reality as to how every day process will work.

Using the example of an application of any kind being received by courts administration, whilst the great majority of “business as usual” activity is processed by administrative staff, prior to it being provided to the relevant Judicial/Legal Officer for preparation for and attendance at hearing, it is plainly obvious that where there is any doubt, clarification etc. as to whether a matter may be listed, that the presiding officer would expect, and the administrative staff seek, such clarification. To do otherwise would be to enable courts business to become stalled.

I therefore find that the complaint in this regard is without foundation.

3/4 High Bailiff Williamson/Moyle had not acted appropriately I have determined to deal with these two matters together as they are identical in terms of both issue and resolution.

When acting in a Judicial capacity such officers may only be investigated by two means: · Where in relation to a court decision made – by Appeal to a superior court · Where in any other capacity – by following any relevant complaints process In relation to the former, clearly this complaints process cannot consider such matters.

In relation to the latter, neither I nor the Chief Registrar has the jurisdiction or authority to investigate a complaint in relation to a Judicial Officer.

In addition, it is also noted that this issue has been raised by Mr Holmes on many, many occasions and in many differing forms, including in litigation.

5. The Court Form C1 is not correct/appropriate Mr Holmes contends that the content of the Court Form C1 is not correct with regards to statutory provision and also that certain elements of it are not appropriate.

The contents of that form are prescribed and are therefore a) the appropriate form and b) not able to be amended without due process.

That said, The General Registry must be cognisant of the need to keep its guidance, forms etc. under review and to process any required amendments where appropriate. I would therefore recommend that the issues raised in this regard are borne in mind at the appropriate time.

-2-

Additional Issues & Recommendations Whilst investigating this matter, I have had cause to become aware of the huge amount of documentation submitted by Mr Holmes and the resultant impact that this has clearly had, this includes: · More than 25 formal complaints submitted · Many attempts to litigate · Vast quantities of correspondence It is also clear that many of those items are duplicative and contain inappropriate, offensive and abusive content and that the approach taken by Mr Holmes could be considered as vexatious.

Whilst the General Registry must endeavour to processes matters it receives, its management is also under a duty of care to ensure that its officers and staff are not open to abuse etc.

In the light of this I would therefore recommend the following: 1. In relation to this matter specifically, that no further “complaints” are investigated unless the General Registry is satisfied that it contains matters which are sufficiently different to those addressed in this or previous reports/responses, so as to justify being considered a new complaint, and that any that are provided which are not are responded to accordingly 2. In general, that the General Registry considers whether it is it appropriate to allow its staff to face inappropriate, offensive and abusive behaviour from its customers without taking action to deal with such content Paul W Coppell Director of Courts & Tribunal Services 27th June 2011 In 1422 Tynwald approved a Customary Law; this law is still in Statute and has been renamed the Customary Laws Act 1422. Two clauses of this Act follow – 13 Lieutenant may take Enquest Also we give for Law, that our Lord or his Lieutenant may take any Enquest at his own Will and Pleasure.

45 Partiality and misgovernment prohibited For-as-much as before this Time, by Misrule and Wilfulness of the Lieutenant and Receiver, the Law of Mann hath been misgoverned to them that they hated too rigorous, and to them that they did like over favourable, so that oft Times, through this Misgovernment, the People have been wronged, and Profit taken to the Lord, otherwise than the Law would.

And whereas Profit should be taken not, but done as the Law would for Favour.

Wherefore be it ordained from henceforth, that the Officers be true principally to the Lord and the Laws of the Land, to be governed duely and truely betwixt the Lord and his Commons, and betwixt Party and Party, without Rigour, Fraud, or Colour. And that the Deemsters may give their Judgment at their Perils, saving ever the Lord's Prerogatives, and to be ruled by Advice of the Council and the Deemsters.

As can be seen from the introduction of the “report” by Coppell he clearly states that he had an “involvement” in January 2006 [“It should also be noted that the only involvement I have had with the matter in the past, was to accompany the then Chief Registrar at a meeting he had with Mr Holmes in 2006, at a time when I had no involvement in the Division and was there primarily to take notes.”] A fair minded and informed observer would be of the opinion that even a “note taker” was involved in the early stages of a complaint.

-3-

Following the receipt of an initial acknowledgement, Mr Holmes in correspondence both to me and to the Chief Registrar, sought that the investigation be carried out by an independent appointee.

The Chief Registrar has determined that it is both reasonable and in line with procedure for the complaint [sic] to be carried out by the Director of Courts & Tribunal Services, as its most senior officer.

The similar fair minded and informed observer would find it completely unreasonable and totally inappropriate for the most senior officer in the “division” of a statutory board of government that had acted unlawfully in 2004 (TWICE – see below) to carry out an investigation into that unlawful action.

But then Mr Coppell said that had not carried out a thorough investigation!

1. Documents were registered erroneously Having reviewed the very many items of correspondence etc. in relation to this issue, I have determined that it is not appropriate or necessary to carry out a further fully comprehensive investigation.

The reason for this is simply as a result of the fact that, as indicated in the complaint, the matter had previously been investigated by the then Chief Registrar, Mr P R Corkhill in 2007, following which Mr Corkhill sent a letter to Mr Holmes in which it was stated that “it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously”. In that sense, it is clear therefore that the issue has already been investigated.

There exists only ONE letter from 2007 in which the sentence “the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously,” occurs and that letter was NOT sent to me; Mr Holmes – that letter was sent to HH/FK at Mannin Chambers, a firm of advocates who were working for THE COURT (as amicus curiae – a friend of the Court).

And this is how that letter begins –

Mannin Chambers Third Floor Atlantic House

Your ref: HH/FK/07-066 Date: 25th July 2007

Dear Sirs,

Registration of Court Orders Amicus Curiae Thank you for your letter of 17th July 2007 asking for copies of the following: 1. The letters from the Lancaster County Court enclosing copies of the applications, supporting documentation and the Order.

2. Copies of the certified Orders from Lancaster County Court signed by the Judge or Registrar.

The documents referred to above do not exist. The application to register the orders in the Isle of Man was made directly by Yvonne Holmes.

-4-

From an inspection of the file DIV 2004/114 it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously, i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987.

Mr Corkhill explained the word “erroneously” – not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 – and “quite simply,” if an action is not in accordance with the requirements of an Act of Tynwald, it is unlawful. It is not an allegation that the action of registration (on 28 th May 2004) was unlawful, the former Chief Registrar R.P. Corkhill (not P R) in a letter to a firm of Advocates (not to Mr Holmes) admitted that the action of registration was unlawful.

According to an “order” of the Family Division of the High Court of Injustice in the Isle of Man issued on 5th November 2004, orders from Lancaster County Court dated 24th February 2004 and 27th October 2004 were purportedly “registered” in the Isle of Man High Court on 28 th May 2004 and on 4th November 2004 respectively.

Mr Corkhill concluded his explanation of 25th July 2007 with a further admission – Upon an examination of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic] in 2006, it was noted that documents submitted by Yvonne Holmes were not certified copies and therefore certified copies of the two Orders were sought by this office from the Lancaster County Court. A comparison of the February 2004 documents shows that the copies submitted by Yvonne Holmes were true copies but not certified copies. For some reason we do not have certified copies of the October 2004 documents.

The General Registry is the office of records for three significant Courts – the Court of Summary Jurisdiction (see the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1989); the High Court (see the High Court Act 1991) and the Court of General Gaol Delivery (I have no interest or knowledge of the Act of Tynwald involved, but it is probably the General Gaol Delivery Act from the sixteenth century). The First Deemster is ultimately responsible for all three Courts Administration Offices, although the High Bailiff is mainly responsible for the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and in 2003-2007 the Deputy Deemster was responsible for the Family Division of the High Court.

The Chief Registrar wears “two hats” – he is at the same time a Government Officer responsible to the Chief Minister through the Treasury (Letters from the General Registry are headed ISLE OF MAN Government), and through the Courts Administration (as an officer of the High Court) as the manager of the Director of Courts (and Tribunal) Services an officer in the Courts Administration under the First Deemster.

But in fact, as can be seen from the letter of Corkhill dated 25th July 2007, he is answerable to nobody!

Stephen Cregeen is the same!

In 2012, Mr Cregeen sent me a letter (headed Isle of Man Government: General Registry) with the following – Date: 17th February 2012 Dear Mr Holmes I write with reference to your email of 16th February 2012 in connection to your complaint submitted in 2011.

The matter was fully considered in 2011 in accordance with the complaints procedure for General Registry including a review which I undertook as Chief Officer which was concluded with my letter to you of 11th August 2011.

Yours sincerely I had “lost” the letter of 11th August 2011, so on 3rd May 2012, I sought a replacement copy – -5-

Mr S Holmes Marine House 2 Marine Parade Peel

Our ref: Your ref Date: 11th August 2011

Dear Mr Holmes I write with reference to your complaint about the General Registry and the issues you raised in response to the investigation undertaken by Mr Coppell, Director of Courts and Tribunal Services.

I am unable to undertake any investigations into matters relating to members of the judiciary and my response is also limited due to the matter CP 2008/084 formerly CLA 2008/046 which is currently before the courts.

In relation to orders which are made in courts in England there are provisions which allow for the reciprocal enforcement of such orders. In the case of the Lancaster Court Orders in 2004 as the procedure was not followed the orders were registered erroneously, which was confirmed by the Staff of Government in their judgment which has been previously acknowledged.

The relevant amendments made to the Family Law Act 1986 (Parliament) s1 by the Children Act 1989 (Parliament) came into force on 14 October 1991. (That date is significant as it is also the date on which the Family Law Act (Dependent Territories) Order 1991 (SI 1991/1723) extending the reciprocity of the FLA 1986 Part 1 (as so amended and modified by the 1989 Act and the 1991 Order) to IOM in addition to Scotland and N Ireland came into force and the date on which the Child Custody Act (Tynwald) 1987 came into force by Appointed Day Order.

In relation to the matter of your application under section 33 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1989 (as amended by section 20 of the Criminal Justice, Police and Courts Act 2007) as decisions under this are judicial decisions they do not fall under matters that can be considered as complaints against administration.

In relation to the matter of the file reference numbers I have re-enforced the requirement to ensure that any other files that are formally linked to a matter are fully cross-referenced and that in future when a file is requested to be viewed that the relevant associated files which are cross referenced are also provided for inspection subject to and in accordance with an applicable provision of rules of court and/or relevant consent or approval required there under.

The current court forms, subject to minor amendments, were introduced in 2009 following the introduction of the Rules of the High Court 2009. The statutory provision in respect of forms is set out in section 27B of the High Court Act 1991 (as amended by s.5 of the Administration of Justice Act 2008) which provides for the forms to be prepared or approved by the Deemsters for Proceedings in the High Court. I can advise that we are looking at the content and format of the Court forms, within our available resources, and considering comments mace in respect of them in order that where revisions are considered appropriate to improve court operation proposals can be put forward for consideration by the Deemsters.

Yours sincerely

-6-

Stephen Cregeen Chief Registrar http://issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/from-cregeen_20110811

In relation to orders which are made in courts in England there are provisions which allow for the reciprocal enforcement of such orders. In the case of the Lancaster Court Orders in 2004 as the procedure was not followed the orders were registered erroneously, which was confirmed by the Staff of Government in their judgment which has been previously acknowledged.

The Isle of Man is NOT part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Acts of Parliament in England DO NOT extend to the Isle of Man. This has been the case “for ever”.

However, there are a handful of Acts of Parliament that have been extended to the Isle of Man, and these may be found in a document published by HM Attorney General in the Isle of Man at the end of July 2003 – a Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man. Magna Carta Libertatum 1297, Edward Coke's (pronounced Cook) Petition of Right 1627, the Human Rights Act 1988, the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 are missing from this Chronological Table, but the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1700 are included in the Chronological Table.

I found a reference to a case in Chancery in England in 1523 – almost 500 years ago – the laws of England DO NOT apply in the Isle of Man. Cregeen mentioned the Family Law Act 1986 (Dependent Territories) Order 1991 in his letter of 11th August 2011, but that “Order” (Act of Parliament) does not actually extend to the Isle of Man; there is a reason for its creation, but that reason is beyond the comprehension of the idiot Stephen Cregeen (he failed to include the 1986 part in his explanation – he couldn't even name the order properly).

The real problem with the idiots Cregeen and Coppell in 2011 (and Dowd, Coppell and Corkhill in 2006, and Corkhill in 2007) is their use of the word “erroneously.” No further admission of “unlawfulness” has EVER been admitted by anybody in the General Registry (which includes the Courts Administration) or by the decision makers in the courts – and that includes the First and Second Deemster and the former High Bailiff.

On Wednesday 14th December 2011, just before a hearing in the High Court where the biased first Deemster was about to deliver a judgment (arrived at before the hearing on 14/12), an Advocate by the name of Paul Morris handed me a file – COPY OF FILE FD/UK/COR/04/02 HOLMES. In this file were the following two documents from Lancaster County Court.

-7-

On 24th February 2004 the COUNTY COURT in England issue an ORDER – Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom – Section [13(1)][33(7)] Children Act 1989 (an Act that does not extend to Scotland or the Isle of Man) reading “The Court grants leave to Yvonne Holmes to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently.”

It transpired that on 2nd April 2004, Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) took the above headed documents into the public office at the Isle of Man Courts of “Justice” building and asked what to do with them. She was told (by an officer who was NOT permitted to give legal advice) to ask the Deputy Deemster in writing to register them. There and then she hand-wrote a note to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson asking that the above two orders be registered in the Isle of Man Court.

It transpires that a registration used to be a due-process defined in sections 7 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987 (an Act of Tynwald) that entered force at the very end of 1987, just three weeks before Andrew Williamson entered the judiciary as a paid magistrate in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction (on 6th January 1988).

Section 7 begins “Where the Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order made by a -8-

court in any part of the United Kingdom,” and section 12 contains the criteria that must be followed for the successful registration of such a custody order in the High Court (the appropriate court).

•

The Court that made the custody order in the first place must make the application;

•

All supporting documentation must accompany the document;

•

The order must be properly certified and that certification must be by a Judge or Registrar.

None of these criteria were complied with.

On 14th December 2011, David Doyle confirmed something that I had been unsure about for eight years; the High Court in the Isle of Man is a High Court. In England, the High Court BINDS the County Court and the County Court follows the High Court but the County Court binds no lower courts. An “order” made in a County Court in England CANNOT bind the High Court in the Isle of Man. There now follows parts of the Child Custody Act 1987 and note that the 'appropriate court' (mentioned in Section 12(3)) is Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England not a County Court.

7 Registration of custody order in High Court (1) 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 (subsection 3) 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.

12(3) 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) (b) force, and (c) 21

a certified copy of the order, and where the order has been varied, prescribed particulars of any variation which is in a copy of the application and of any accompanying documents.

Interpretation

(1) In this part – 'appropriate court', in relation to any part of the United Kingdom shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1; 'custody order' has the meaning given by section 20; 'part of the United Kingdom' means Scotland or Northern Ireland or England & Wales.

20

Meaning of 'custody order'

(1) In this Part 'custody order' means, subject to the following provisions of this section – (c) an order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom which is a Part I order as defined in section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament).

Schedule 1 Meaning of Certain Expressions in Part I 'Appropriate court' 1. In Part I 'the appropriate court' means (a) in relation to England & Wales, Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England; (b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session; (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland.

Section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987 can only be used for the registration of custody orders -9-

made in Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of England; both “orders” from Lancaster COUNTY Court were headed Children Act 1989, an Act of Parliament that does not extend to the Isle of Man (or to Scotland), despite what Cregeen wrote on 11th August 2011.

With regard to bias (partiality) which is prohibited by Law (since 1422), there are simple rules of fairness that must be observed by ALL citizens (right up to the Prime Minister / Chief Minister and the officers of the Crown including the sovereign herself) and these are called the principles of natural justice (for they are natural or self-evident).

•

All persons are equal under the law.

•

Evidence must be produced that is of substance.

•

Hear the other side.

•

No man can judge in [his or her] own cause.

I have a recording of a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court on 1 st July 2004 where Andrew Williamson was presiding.

He mumbled something and then looked at papers for ninety seconds. It transpires that his mumbled comment was “Right let me just come up to speed on this.”

At 11:56:07 AKW said: “Right what am I being asked to do here good people? You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event. Is that right?”

Mrs YH said: “That's right”.

Mrs Holmes said “that's right” because shortly after 28th May 2004, she had received four documents of which these are two –

- 10 -

These documents are not just erroneous, but are unlawful; another good word for them is forgeries.

On 28th May 2004, the Assistant Chief Registrar produced four forged documents, purporting to record an event called the “Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom,” but the “custody order” was headed “Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom.”

In 2006 I found (and bought) a book by Steve Lowe and Alan McArthur called Is It Just Me Or Is Everything Shit.

Everything has been shit in the Family Division of the High Court of Injustice in the Isle of Man (now renamed CIVIL Division: Family Business) since 1st September 2002. That date is signficant because it was on that date that High Bailiff Andrew Williamson waved fare-well to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and walked into the newly created position of Deputy Deemster in the High Court.

He was shit. His arrogance caused extreme complacency, and his ignorance caused extreme incompetence. Don't forget that the informal letter of “application” of 2nd April 2004 was addressed to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division, General Registry and under section 28(3) of the High Court Act 1991 the clerk discharges duties under the direction and supervision of the Deemster to whom he is attached. And, according to Paul Coppell – Using the example of an application of any kind being received by courts administration, whilst the great majority of “business as usual” activity is processed by administrative staff, prior to it being provided to the relevant Judicial/Legal Officer for preparation for and attendance at hearing, it is plainly obvious that where there is any doubt, clarification etc. as to whether a matter may be listed, that the presiding officer would expect, and the administrative staff seek, such clarification.

To do otherwise would be to enable courts business to become stalled.

The Courts Administration staff (who, as officers of the Courts discharge duties under the direction - 11 -

of the First Deemster) would have sought clarification from Andrew Williamson with regard to the “registration” of the Children Act 1989 “orders” and Williamson would have instructed them to release the documents (note that they were not disclosed to me).

In the Forgery Act 1952, we find the following – 1

Definition of forgery

(1) For the purposes of this Act, forgery is the making of a false document in order that it may be used as genuine, and in the case of the seals and dies mentioned in this Act, the counterfeiting of a seal or die, and forgery with intent to defraud or deceive, as the case may be, is punishable as in this Act provided.

3 Forgery of certain documents with intent to defraud or deceive (3) Forgery of the following documents, if committed with intent to defraud or deceive, shall be felony, and punishable with imprisonment for any term not exceeding seven years:(a) Any official document whatsoever of or belonging to any court of justice, or made or issued by any judge, magistrate, officer, or clerk of any such court; Now it would do no good to have staff in the High Court imprisoned for forgery – and Andrew Williamson retired on 6th January 2008, (but the cretins invited him back), but the FACT IS that the Court itself (documents dated 28th May 2004 were headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT) was negligent on and before 28th May 2004.

There is another rule in the principles of Natural Justice – the rule of the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree; and this rule is completely unknown to First Deemster David Doyle.

“27. In his oral submissions this morning Mr. Holmes stressed in effect that his complaints go back to what he describes as the unlawful registration on the 28th May 2004. It is clear that the main complaint of Mr. Holmes is the registration of the English Orders in the Isle of Man. Mr. Holmes says it all boils down to the 28th May 2004. In Mr. Holmes' somewhat colourful words the tree was poisoned then and everyone seems to have eaten from it. Mr. Holmes says that what was done was not done in good faith. He says he is not a vexatious litigant and that he is not abusing the process. In effect he asks the court to exercise its discretion in his favour and to let him continue with his claims.”

Mr Doyle is BIASED in favour of his own ignorance, and bias is prohibited by Law – by the 1422 Act. “to what he describes as the unlawful registration” IT WAS an unlawful registration on 28th May 2004; any idiot with the ability to comprehend basic English can understand that – but even since January 2009, the “new team” of Doyle, Corlett, Cregeen, Coppell and Attorney General Harding have “eaten the fruit of the poisoned tree,” poisoned by Assistant Chief Registrar Williams on 28th May 2004, acting under the direction and supervision of one or other or BOTH Deemster Kerruish and Deputy Deemster “Adolph” Williamson.

It DOES all “boil down to” the unlawful event on 28th May 2004 – if the officers of the Court had actually understood the Child Custody Act 1987 (and note that when it was made the Act in force was called the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 and was about the guardians of children, not about children themselves), then they may have been able to notice that a section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact order” is NOT the same as a Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 “custody order”.

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 26th October 2007. The issues raised by the Claimant in that appeal were twofold: firstly, whether orders made by the Lancaster County Court on the 24th 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 - 12 -

some of the following history from that judgment.

4. On the 25th 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 24th February 2004.

5. On the 27th October 2004 the Lancaster County Court ordered that the Claimant do have indirect contact with the children. There was no appeal by either party against such order. On or about 4 th November 2004 such order was purportedly registered by the High Court in the Isle of Man. 6. Deputy Deemster Williamson on the 5th November 2004 made an order declaring that the orders of the Lancaster County Court registered in the Isle of Man were of full effect and enforceable within this jurisdiction.

Acting Deemster King's judgment of the 25th October 2006 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". 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 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].

The Staff of Government Division's judgment of the 26th October 2007 8. On the 19th March 2007 the Claimant applied to have the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5th November 2004 set aside. The Staff of Government Division gave the Claimant leave to appeal out of time and delivered a detailed judgment on the 26th October 2007.

9. At paragraph 47 of that judgment the Staff of Government Division stated that in absence of proper registration of the orders made by the Lancaster County Court on the 24th February 2004 and the 27th October 2004 it necessarily followed that the totality of the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on the 5th November 2004 "cannot stand and must be quashed". The orders contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Deputy Deemster Williamson's order were not founded on any orders made by the Lancaster County Court and the Staff of Government Division did not interfere with such orders. In respect of paragraph 4 of Deputy Deemster Williamson's order, such being expressly founded upon the proper registration of the order made by the Lancaster County Court on the 27th October 2004, the Staff of Government Division stated that it "cannot stand and must be quashed".

10. At paragraph 47 of the judgment of the Staff of Government Division the court stated that "… no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for ... accepting what he believed to be correct, namely that the orders had been properly registered …"

11. It can be seen therefore that the Staff of Government Division were of the clear view that "no fair criticism" could be made of Deputy Deemster Williamson for accepting that the orders had been properly registered.

There was absolutely no point is disputing the decision of the Staff of Government Division of 26th October 2007 – I had applied (not appealed) to have a defective declaration set-aside because it was defective and it was indeed quashed because it had no legitimate basis because the so-called registrations of 28th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 WERE NOT LAWFUL. - 13 -

But the Staff of Government Division was biased, and bias is prohibited by law. When they wrote that “no fair criticism can be made” of the child-rights-abusing cretin Williamson, they were allowing a judge who had 19 years and ten months experience to retire without being accused of a forger and a child-abuser. The abject ignorance of the judiciary in the Isle of Man (including Acting Deemsters) is shown in paragraph 7 above: that Stephen Holmes 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.”

In 1989 England & Wales passed the Children Act 1989, an Act to reform the law relating to children. Guess how the Manx Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is introduced? An Act to reform the law relating to children; to re-enact parts 1 and 2 of the Family Law Act 1991 &c. Many parents are unmarried and many divorced parents have questions about children long AFTER matrimonial proceedings. The clue to the applicability of children's law is in the names of the Acts – the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the Children (Northern Ireland) Act 1995, the Children Act 1989 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 – they are statutes about children and are not matrimonial proceedings. Tim King is now a High Court judge in England – but he was Acting Deemster in a High Court matter in the Isle of Man in 2006, where he was biased and ill-informed and the defendant (Attorney General's Chambers) was biased in favour of another officer of the Crown.

I had launched an “attack” on the way the Family Division of the High Court in the Isle of Man, led

by Williamson but directed and supervised by First Deemster Kerruish, mishandled children's matters. The Isle of Man High Court abused me and my children because nobody actually checked to establish whether an order from a County Court in England that released Manx children from the jurisdiction of the “home courts” could be registered in the High Court in the Isle of Man under an Act of Tynwald that ceased to have any applicability on 14th October 1991. The registrations of 28th May 2004 was unlawful the moment it was made, but Williamson misled himself and two parents in stating that a section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact” order could miraculously become a section 11 CYPA 2001 prohibitive steps order in the Isle of Man and, because he had sent orders to the police for 15¾ years, he sent a declaration to the Police so that they could use the criminal justice system to deny the basic human rights of Manx children – all through eating the fruit of the poisoned tree. In 1994 advocate Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote a paper: Entrapment Evidence: Manna from Heaven or Fruit of the Poisoned Tree? It is in the Criminal Law Review (pages 805-16) and David Doyle has not criticized Geoffrey for his colourful language.

On 5th November 2004, the cretin Williamson said “prohibitive steps” EIGHT times; the term is prohibited steps, and it applies to the CHILD not to the Adult. Williamson did not even notice that a so-called contact order from Lancaster COUNTY Court which read “the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man,” appeared to be about the FATHER and NOT about the CHILD, tried to bind a jurisdiction that cannot be bound by an Act of Parliament from Westminster and was made immediately after stating that the Manx children could be removed to the Isle of Man permanently – they had been attending school in the Isle of Man since 2nd September 2003.

In 2005, I had never heard the term ultra vires; but David Doyle had, and he wrote about it in 1993 or 1994. I am a mathematician, not a lawyer – I was first alerted to the doctrine of ultra vires in late October 2007. It fits perfectly the actions of “this office” acting outside the powers given to them by an Act of Tynwald, such as the action on 28th May 2004; and ultra vires actions are illegal (not merely erroneous); therefore they are res ipsa loquitor negligent.

Although I have no legal qualifications, I KNEW that the declaration made by Williamson on 5th November 2004 was “nonsense,” but I did not have the information available to have it set-aside because it would have involved the Human Rights Convention and the Human Rights Act 2001 had not been fully enacted in 2004.

It was much later that I realized that the Family Division of the High Court is still “living-in” the 1980s – it has not moved beyond 1990/91. Remember, my application to the High Court was made - 14 -

on 18th May 2004, not 25th May 2004 as David Doyle alleged.

4. On the 25th 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.

But the “orders” made on 24th February 2004 were NOT registered. An application was made on 18th May 2004, a file was opened (DIV 2004/144), a hearing was scheduled, at that hearing the Deputy Deemster lied to the Family Division of the High Court by alleging the orders were registered when they were not registered, and the application (under section 1 of the CYPA 2001) was dismissed. The proceeding given reference DIV 2004/144 was an attempt at bringing a proceeding under the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. The case file DIV 2004/144 should have been closed on 1st July 2004, but it was NOT closed because the associated case file (FD/UK/Custody Order Registration / April 2nd) remained (unlawfully) open.

On 4th November 2004 no registration took place, but the Assistant Chief Registrar released another FOUR false documents alleging a registration had taken place when no such event had happened.

On 5th November 2004, I wrote a letter to the Chief Registrar and handed it to a person at the public office. I was told “Deemster will see you at two!”

At that hearing, advocate Kevin O'Riordan said to Williamson – 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 …

Williamson enthused “Yes.” ALL judges involved (King, Sullivan, Corlett A, Doyle, Kerruish and Tattersall) have blindly assumed that Williamson was acting in his “official capacity” as a judge, but 1. He scheduled the hearing after I had written to the Chief Registrar about an administrative action, and 2. the declaration he issued on 5th November 2004 was judged to have no legitimate basis – because the “registrations” had not been proper – had not happened. Williamson issued a false document on 5th November 2004 and ordered that his false declaration be sent to the Police and the Head-teacher at Rushen Primary School. Williamson was acting ONLY in the proceeding under the Child Custody Act 1987, FD/UK/COR/04/02, but he inextricably linked it to the dismissed (not adjourned) matter DIV 2004/144 and listed me as “the respondent,” although I had, before 5 th November 2004, no knowledge of a “due-process” (or in this case an undue process) under the Child Custody Act 1987 because the correspondence was between Mrs J. Brogan (Williamson's Clerk) and Mrs Holmes only.

Williamson had sworn an Oath to execute the laws of this Isle justly, but on 5th November 2004, he executed the Child Custody Act 1987 illegally, and sent a false instrument to the Police.

Who heard a renewed application in 2005? Williamson the see-you-next-Tuesday. And who upheld the rights of the Manx children between March 2005 and the end of November 2005? Nobody – Williamson continued to abuse me and my children, culminating in the issue of a further false declaration on 16th November 2005, again under the CCA 1987, but this time given reference number DIV 2004/144 ONLY, and with Stephen Holmes as the “applicant.” During 2005, the Court changed the applicant and the respondent three times.

Looking at the actions between 4th November 2004 and 26th October 2007 objectively, we find that a “policy document” was purportedly “in force” in the Isle of Man based on an unlawful action on 4 th November 2004.

Here is how Williamson introduced the hearing on 5th November 2004 – - 15 -

AW

Thank you

AW Now, I’ve got Mrs Holmes?

Mrs H Yes. AW Yes … and Mr Holmes – you appear – do you Mr O’Riordan?

KOR Yes, whether I’m going to remain on the record is another thing but I’m certainly appearing this afternoon.

AW Right, thank you. 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.

KOR Your Honour I don’t know what has led to this afternoon’s hearing procedurally. &c.

The hearing was not properly introduced, and in the first paragraph of substance Williamson lied three times. He had not heard from Mr Holmes – I wrote to the Chief Registrar and that letter is the ONLY note with MY NAME that is in File FD/UK/COR/04/02; the Orders made in the County Court had NOT been registered; and those orders were not binding because 1. they had not been so registered as he claimed; 2. they were made under an Act of Parliament that does not extend to the Isle of Man; 3. the contents of one of the paragraphs were in direct contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights that has been binding in the Isle of Man since 1953.

All comments in the hearing are of no value because the whole hearing was held under “Williamson's Law” not any Acts passed by Tynwald.

What is not shown on the Transcript, sent to me on Friday 8 th April 2011, is what happened during this dialogue – KOR Yes it clearly makes sense for everybody to know what the position is and indeed now the orders have been registered here they effectively…

AW They are binding KOR The mere registration it seems to me in itself covers that base to some extent in that if the police and the school know that the orders are registered here and that that gives them the effect of Manx court orders in a way that’s all they need to know even without declaratory relief on top.

AW It possibly is; but again I sympathize. I don’t expect every primary school headmaster or indeed every constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is. [Laughter]. So that’s the way I would be prepared to accept the undertaking myself rather than prohibitive steps.

Williamson LAUGHED as he imagined a Constable “rushing to the Child Custody Act.” In paragraph 47 of the judgment of 26th October 2007, just after the judges wrote their biased, very biased, no fair criticism comment, was the phrase “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did,” on 5th November 2004. The BASIS of the declaratory order was unlawful and therefore the declaration itself was false.

If that is a judge acting in his bona fide capacity as a High Court judge in the Isle of Man, then I am an orang-utan. [Bona fide – in Good Faith!] How any idiot in the Isle of Man would accept an action by a County Court in England (after releasing children FROM its jurisdiction or power) could accept by being bound is beyond me.

KOR (again) … there may even have been an Order for removal from the jurisdiction, and if there hasn’t been there probably should be – AW There has been KOR … but one way and another I think you’re in a situation you can enforce but you cannot vary or otherwise interfere unless - 16 -

AW 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, and we seem to have the crazy situation here where mother and children are in the Isle of Man, Mr Holmes is presently residing in England but may well return to the Isle of Man, but everybody’s having to trog over to England for proceedings, so whether or not there is scope by negotiation to end up in a situation where this Court has more power than it seems to have right now I don’t know. I have no idea.

Kevin O'Riordan: I HAVE NO IDEA. … there may even have been an Order for removal from the jurisdiction, and if there hasn’t been there probably should be.

AW There has been.

There was a order to remove the Children from the jurisdictions of England & Wales and of Scotland and of Northern Ireland to the Isle of Man permanently, and yet the Court in England ASSUMED jurisdiction over Manx children who were habitually and permanently resident in the Isle of Man (and domiciled here) and the Manx judicial officers and advocates accepted that lunacy as if it were an every day occurrence.

More lunacy – AW There is a positive order for indirect contact but the entitlement of the entitlement to direct contact is revoked.

KOR Yes AW Now 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 – or vary it in Lancaster.

KOR Yes but either way he seems to me to be stuck with the jurisdiction in England.

AW 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.

AW Well it is because looking at his letter to me of 5th 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 AW 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…

AW 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.

But Williamson DID NOT understand the Law – he thought that “orders were binding” when, quite clearly, (his declaration could not stand and had to be quashed), they were not binding on 5th November 2004. Williamson was prepared to make an order prohibiting a father from having a family life with (or even seeing) his own children. Williamson was a rights-abusing bastard.

In 2012 I became familiar with a case in England in 1908 and 1910 now known as The Archer-Shee Case but originally presented as Archer-Shee versus The King. Martin Archer-Shee (the suppliant) won!

- 17 -

The case was immortalized by Terence Rattigan in 1946 and '48 with his play and motion-picture The Winslow Boy. At one point in the real case, advocate for the Suppliant, the great Edward Carson shouted at the judge – “This is the worst case of oppression without remedy that I have ever come across in 33 years at the Bar.” Andrew Williamson versus Stephen Holmes knocks the Archer-Shee case into a “cocked hat”. There is no doubt that the case that began again on 5th November 2004 was Williamson versus Holmes with Williamson as the biased and incompetent (and evil) judge making decisions in his own deluded cause. Actually, insanity would be an apt description for his gibberish – “I have heard from Mr Holmes!” after his insane arguments on 1st July 2004 I never wanted to see the ignorant shit again; in fact I declined to even see him on Court on 16th November 2005 because I might have harmed him, which would have done my case no good at all.

This was part of the argument on 1st July 2004 – AW: Well if this is before the courts in England at present em well 1, I wouldn't interfere with it anyway any more than they would interfere with a matter that was before me; and 1, If that order has been registered here, my belief is I haven't power to vary it anyway any more than the English Courts would have power to vary my orders would.

SH: I don't want to vary that order, I want a resident order in the Isle of Man. AW:

Well that would be by variation of this wouldn't it?

SH:

Not as far as I am aware, Sir

AW: Well it would, because clause two of the order says they will reside with their mother. If I'm to make an order for shared residence that would vary that order.

SH: I didn't think a UK order had any validity in the Isle of Man AW: SH:

It does if it's registered here.

Can I appeal against it being registered?

AW: I think again you'd have to go back to Judge Forrester and towards the end of the hearing – SH: AW:

He believes that the Isle of Man is part of his jurisdiction.

He is wrong.

Later – AW: We're all bound by the law; me included And then he went and acted outside the law that he didn't understand and abused the rights of children and their father.

This matter is now Stephen Holmes versus The Queen because “all the Queen's men” have backed the rights-abusing Deputy Deemster.

In the Archer-Shee case, the Commander of Osborne Naval College made his decision on the morning of 8th October 1908; that George Archer-Shee had stolen and cashed a 5/- postal order. The Tree was poisoned after Cdr: R. Cotton spoke to the “postmistress.” Cotton put his findings in writing, and despite the clerk at the post office being unable to identify the Cadet, the Captain (A.H. Christian) made his decision by about 14:00 on 8th October 1908 – that George Archer-Shee was guilty. From then on, all the officers in the Admiralty ate the fruit of the poisoned tree and would not accept that the Cadet could have been innocent.

A “team” of people was involved in the forgery of 28th May 2004 – First Deemster Kerruish, Deputy Deemster Williamson (to who's Clerk the letter of 02/04/04 was addressed), the Chief Registrar, the Director of the Courts Services of the General Registry and the Assistant Chief Registrar who signed the false documents on 28th May 2004. There then followed SEVEN years of cover-ups. I was - 18 -

granted permission to view file DIV 2004/144 (that Corkhill had inspected in July 2007, although he couldn't even get the reference number right – he put DIV 2004/114) on 27th June 2011, and I noted that on the front is the message SEE ALSO FD/UK/COR/04/02 and DIV 2007/251, and I did ask to see the Family Division / Custody Order file there and then, but that request was turned down.

When I had fought my way through DIV 2004/144 (about 1000 pieces of paper) I was astounded to find that NONE of the documents relating to the unlawful actions of 28 th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 were actually in this file, which is why I later asked for a viewing of file FD/COR, and why it was given to me on Wednesday 14th December 2011.

Even during the review (that took SEVEN MONTHS) during 2007, all correspondence from the Court Offices pointed to ONE proceeding in the High Court, given a joint reference, but with a file header DIV 2004/144. I was deliberately misled by THREE Chief Registrars and especially by Carol Dowd in 2006 and Paul Coppell in 2011, then by Stephen Cregeen.

But what is much, much worse has been the attitude of High Bailiff Moyle in 2005 – he said “I'm sure the Deputy Deemster knows what he is doing,” and that of Attorney General John Corlett in 2006, and of Tim King in October 2006 (a matrimonial dispute!), and even Governor Captain Haddock. Mr Moyle was a saint in comparison to Williamson, King and WJH Corlett.

Had the Courts Administration provided me with all documentation (called disclosure) I may have been able to establish the extent of the felonies being committed in the High Court long before 2011, but I merely asked for the defective declaration of 5th November 2004 to be set-aside because it WAS defective and it was set-aside. That the High Court took it upon itself (without evidence) to make “no fair criticism” of the child-rights abusing bastard was the biased opinion that led David Doyle to act like a moron on 14th December 2011.

On Monday 3rd September 2007 Deemster Doyle presided over a hearing where an application had been made and received on that very day. He asked Mrs Holmes to swear an Oath stating that the contents of her “application” were true – she did so.

Doyle Are the contents of your application true?

YH: Yes sir.

Doyle: I've had an opportunity of looking at the court file and there's 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.

YH: That is correct sir.

OH NO IT WASN'T. The “terms” of one of the “orders” are recorded on the false document on the following page.

2.

Katarina and Benedict shall reside with their mother Yvonne Holmes.

3.

Yvonne Holmes has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man [permanently].

4.

The father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man. The section 8 Children Act 1989 “residence order” [Katarina and Benedict shall reside with their mother Yvonne Holmes] had a “life” of a split second – the moment the court ordered that the Manx children could be removed from the United Kingdom TO THE ISLE OF MAN [permanently] the Court in England “lost” jurisdiction (or power or vires) over “the said children.”

Paragraph 4 above and below is the most ultra vires statement that could be made; it is unlawfully, illegally, ultra vires; (unlawful to the power of three); 1. It is applied to the father, not the children; 2. the court has just relinquished jurisdiction over the children; 3. the judge is trying to bind the Isle of Man with an Act of Parliament that does not extend to the Isle of Man – the Children Act 1989.

- 19 -

Again, the Court office has confused the word “custody” with “residence” and “contact” with “access;” and the document is headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT and clearly lists the Lancaster COUNTY COURT (not Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England).

This order was NOT registered – Mr Corkhill had admitted in writing on 25th July 2007 that the registrations of 28th May 2004 had been illegal, that letter had been sent to Mannin Chambers and then forwarded to Mrs Holmes in the bundle for the hearing on 24th September 2007.

I need to spell it out properly.

ISLE OF MAN Section 11 CYPA 2001

ENGLAND & WALES Section 8 CA 1989

Orders with respect to the child residence order

Residence, contact and other orders with respect to child residence order

contact order specific question order

contact order specific issue order

prohibited steps order prohibited steps order Clearly, a section 8 Children Act 1989 specific issue order is NOT and NEVER CAN BE a section 11 CYPA 2001 specific question order, and therefore a section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact” order - 20 -

CANNOT EVER become a section 11 Children and Young Persons Act 2001 “contact” order.

Children's law is jurisdiction dependent and orders are NOT reciprocal between England & Wales and Scotland or the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland or England and the Isle of Man. Especially after the Court in England had granted leave to Yvonne Holmes to remove the children from the whole of the United Kingdom TO THE ISLE OF MAN permanently; and recorded that permission or leave TWICE on the same day.

Whether the Court in England had residual vires over the Manx children between 27th October 2003 and 24th February 2004 is irrelevant (a fair minded person would give the County Court some leeway) once the Court had written to the Isle of Man permanently, that power or vires ceased, so the paragraph “father have reasonable access to the Manx children in another jurisdiction” was complete nonsense and not worth the paper it was written on; illegal, defective Court ordure.

On 28th May 2004 the Assistant Chief Registrar “registered this ordure” without following the requirements of an Act of Tynwald.

Ultimately, responsibility for the production of four forged documents on 28 th May 2004 is with the “office” the First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls; therefore the Crown authorized illegal activity.

Public officials sign a contract with the Isle of Man Government (Human Resources). In their capacity as government officials, the Court Manager would be under a government contract, but in his or her capacity as an officer of the Court, he acts under the direction of an officer of the Crown.

The Governor, MHKs, members of Council, the Bishop and the Deemsters swear an Oath to the Queen (contained in the Bill of Rights 1688), and then another Oath – in the case of the Deemsters “to execute the laws of this Isle justly.”

It must now be obvious to anyone that the action on 28th May 2004 was crown authorized “felony”.

Although I personally have no doubt whatsoever that Andrew Williamson was 100% responsible for instructing Miss Williams to issue the false documents on 28 th May 2004, BY STATUTE (the High Court Act 1991) the First Deemster was culpable – still is culpable.

Documents from England were not registered, could not be registered, but on 1st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson acted on the assumption that they were registered. I did not appeal against his decision because he had dismissed a proceeding (DIV 2004/144).

On 4th November 2004 a further unlawful incident happened; and on 5th November 2004 Williamson produced a document that had no legitimate basis (and sent it to the Police) and began the sequence of events that led to David Doyle's biased outburst on 14th December 2011.

“27. In his oral submissions this morning Mr. Holmes stressed in effect that his complaints go back to what he describes as the unlawful registration on the 28th May 2004. It is clear that the main complaint of Mr. Holmes is the registration of the English Orders in the Isle of Man. Mr. Holmes says it all boils down to the 28th May 2004. In Mr. Holmes' somewhat colourful words the tree was poisoned then and everyone seems to have eaten from it. Mr. Holmes says that what was done was not done in good faith.”

Mr Doyle DID NOT ANSWER this point – he “ridiculed” the principle of the fruit of the poisoned tree, and went on to justify actions of his “friends” in October 2006, himself in March 2008, Sullivan in May 2008 and even accepted the biased view that “no fair criticism could be made of the” vile rights-abusing Williamson.

In the judgment delivered on 26th October 2007 was the phrase “there was no legitimate basis upon which the” vile rights-abusing Williamson could have made his “declaratory order” on 5th November 2004, then that declaration was unlawful the moment it was made. It was an unlawful document in 2006, so Deemster Tim King had no justification in sating what he said because there was a false document issued by Williamson “floating around,” that had “yet to be” formally set-aside, but had to be set aside because it was based on illegal actions of 28th May 2004 and 4th November 2004.

- 21 -

Similarly, there was no legitimacy to the “order” made by David Doyle on 3rd September 2007 that caused West Midlands Police to wrongfully arrest me and cost then £2,000 in a “out of court” settlement David Doyle made what he called an “order” on 10th March 2008 and he mentions this IN PUBLIC, so I can quote it here – - 22 -

My judgment of the 10th March 2008 16.

I should also record that on the 10th March 2008 I delivered judgment (in DIV 2004/144) granting residence and contact orders in respect of the children. The Claimant sadly did not positively engage with those proceedings. He did not attend the hearing on the 10th March 2008.

The hearing had been set by an order made on the 29th November 2007.

He admits that the CASE FILE was DIV 2004/144 in 2008, but the original application was MINE, was on 18th May 2004 and was dismissed by the insane child-rights abusing Williamson on 1 st July 2004 –

“The claimant” did not attend the hearing on 10 th March 2008 because the Isle of Man High Court of Justice had “fucked my rights” on 5th November 2004 and fucked them again throughout 2005 and 2006, and made no fair criticism of a child-rights abusing fucker (Williamson) on 26th October 2007 and after the hearing on 29th November 2007 (where David Doyle “ordered” the hearing on 10 th March 2008) I saw no reason why he was not going to fuck my rights and the rights of my children on that date – and basically – he did!

I have found that every time I have entered a court-room in the Isle of Man, and the first time was 1 st July 2004, I have ended up in a dispute with the judge – Williamson, Sullivan, Corlett and Doyle (I even argued with Judge of Appeal Tattersall on 24th September 2007 because he said something unlawful) and “NO MAN MAY JUDGE IN OWN CAUSE,” but the judges always have.

- 23 -

In the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on about 15th December 2005 Michael Moyle said “I'm sure the Deputy Deemster knows what he is doing!” If the vile rights-abusing fucker knew what he was doing, then HE KNEW in 2005 that his declaration of 5th November 2004 was unlawful Ordure and that he had destroyed a Manx family.

Deemsters Tattersall and Kerruish wrote on 26th October 2007 that the United Kingdom was “a jurisdiction” – when it is no such thing.

When Williamson dismissed my application on 1st July 2004 I thought – “great! I won't have to go back to that shit-pot place again – that guy is shit and is a shit! He knows nothing of the Law relating to CHILDREN.” And here we are, EIGHT YEARS LATER, with a shit-pot oligarch as First Deemster, a negligent incompetent as Second Deemster, an absent Attorney General and a Governor who does nothing about the “rottenness in the State of the Isle of Man.” The Human Rights Convention has actually been binding in the Isle of Man since 1953, and one of the crucial rights is that to a FAIR hearing. “what am I being asked to do here good people? You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event,” is not a fair way to introduce a hearing (on 1st July 2004) [and the order from Lancaster WAS NOT registered on 28th May 2004; and the documents were NOT disclosed to me until May 2007!] “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.”

This is how the 05 November 2011 hearing ended.

AW It possibly is, but again I sympathize. I don’t expect every primary school headmaster or indeed every constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the force of a registered order is. [laughter] So that’s the way I would be prepared to accept the undertaking myself rather than prohibitive steps.

KOR I’m obliged.

AW Thank you. Mrs Holmes what views do you have on this if I give you orders that you can serve on the headmaster and lodge with the police and accept Mr Holmes undertakings that he will abide by the orders now that he understands them? Will that solve your problems do you think?

Mrs H It will Sir AW Good well I’m pleased about that and it may be that there are ways forward from here now that everybody is on the same hymn sheet as it were. Alright I hope something has been achieved.

Thank you.

KOR Thank you your Honour.

AW Thank you ladies I will draft an order and let you have it. Where do we serve – we put an address to serve an order on Mrs Holmes, where do we serve Mr Holmes? Mr O’Riordan can we do that at your office or not?

S.H. AW

Ballabrooie Drive.

The address on your letter that’s care of 127 Ballabrooie Drive?

KOR Yes. I think from my purposes I don’t know what further involvement I’m going to have it makes sense for that to be the address for service and that he’s still down for the moment at least as a litigant in person insofar as – well this is an end to these proceedings anyway.

AW Yes, nevertheless I am as ever very grateful for your input.

- 24 -

KOR Thank you your Honour.

DW

Thank you.

“Good well I’m pleased about that and it may be that there are ways forward from here now that everybody is on the same hymn sheet as it were. Alright I hope something has been achieved. Thank you.”

I hope something has been achieved – YES – on 5th November 2004 Williamson forged a document and sent it to the Police; that is quite an achievement.

SEAL OF THE HIGH COURT

- 25 -

There was “no legitimacy” to this declaration and order – because Williamson used to be High Bailiff he ordered that a false declaration be sent to the Police. “respondent have indirect contact with the said children” is NOT a section 11 CYPA 2001 “CONTACT” order (neither is it a section 8 Children Act 1989 contact order – it is a section 1 Family Law Act 1986 access order using the word contact, but it contravenes Article 8 of the Convention (on Human Rights) and therefore should have been struck out by authorities in England, but they didn't give a shit because the whole family were in the Isle of Man. I had the right to a family life with my children in 2005 and 2006 and 2007, and my children had the right to a family life with me in 2005 and 2006 and 2007, but because the unlawful event happened on 28th May 2004, a sequence of unlawful events happened in November 2004 and my family was destroyed by Court document (a false document). Every time I went near my children in 2005 and 2006 Mrs Holmes called the police and I was arrested. There is nothing like being arrested to make you think that “the police are taking this shit seriously”. On 5th July 2010 Deputy Chief Constable Gary Roberts said “we were given a false instrument, (and acted on it).” The police are unlikely to challenge the validity of a document issued by a Deemster; but in this case, they should have done.

Once Michael Moyle accepted the validity of a false instrument in December 2005, my children were destined to be brought up by a one-parent family and I was marginalized from the lives of my own children.

On 10th March 2008, David Doyle did NOTHING positive for our children. The idiot Court Welfare Officer began her report with “At the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in front of the Deemster on 29th November 2007, the Deemster …” A government officer supposed to be helping children didn't even know what fucking court she was in!

The Isle of Man is supposed to be a 2.5 star jurisdiction! It is shit and corrupt and ignorant and incompetent; but that incompetence and corruption is most noticeable in ONE group of people who work for one entity – the Crown; and the most corrupt are the Deemsters – now Doyle and Corlett (I don't know anything about Montgomerie – but I do know that his wife, Wendy, was in charge of “legal aid” – so there is no chance of bias there!)

Corruption and Favoritism in the High Court – unlawful actions accepted as good and proper!

And once one starts (Williamson on 28th May 2004/ 5th November 2004) the whole lot follow – right up to the First Deemster.

IN August 2011 David Doyle published a Code of Conduct for members of the judiciary, and on 14th December 2011 he was a biased as possible in a hearing where he had no intention in finding even any errors in the previous actions of his fellow officers of the Crown, even ridiculing a Petitioner who had been fucked by the same entity – by the same office – in 2004.

I did not want to be in dispute with Williamson, or with O'Riordan, or with Andrew Corlett or with David Doyle – I returned to the Isle of Man on 1 st April 2004 (seven months after my children and their mother), after a short period in England, and I wanted to be a FATHER to my children – I have PR. Williamson ensured in 90 seconds at the beginning of a hearing that my children DO NOT HAVE a father with PR – he ensured that Mrs Holmes could do anything to ensure that Manx children did NOT have a family life with their Manx father for the next 3½ years and David Doyle ensured that nothing changed in 2008, although his “order” was not a false instrument used with felonious intent.

I think it is pretty understandable that I am “pissed off” with the office of the First fucking Deemster and Clerk of the fucking rolls and all officers of the Crown involved with the illegal “profession” in the Isle of Man. I think the Manx judicial system is an example in incompetence and ignorance – in the triumph of evil – I have the RIGHT to hold these opinions.

- 26 -