Seek legal advice

To:

“President” Keiron Murray Attorney General's Chambers, Douglas

CC:

Deemster David Doyle, Lt. Governor Adam Wood, Jon Callister

From:

G. Stephen Holmes, Douglas, Isle of Man (IM1 4HH, 127)

Subject:

Seek independent legal advice: a substantive case

Date:

7th September 2012

Dear Mr Murray, Just who do you think you are? The President of the Isle of Man? Justice Murray? … your continued correspondence will not deflect from proper consideration of the issues you raise in the appropriate forum.

6)

As to the 'outstanding’ Petitions of Right, the absence of the Attorney General meant it has been necessary for us to liaise with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that constitutionally appropriate mechanisms are put in place to provide appropriately routed advice to the Crown. That mechanism has at last been addressed by the Ministry of Justice and advised to us here at Chambers and I will be progressing upon my return to the office after MGP week.

7)

I request that all correspondence henceforth be addressed through me so that there is a proper line of communication.

8)

All insular communications, including those addressed to His Excellency, should be sent to me in hard copy only.

9)

All previous recipients of emailed communications have been advised to ignore those communications, as will be the case (following the sending of this letter) for all recipients of hard copy communications routed other than through me.

10)

We further recommend that you take independent legal advice, so that if you do have any proper substantive case to advance, it is presented properly and in the appropriate forum.

On 3rd September 2007 David Doyle issued a court order in the Family Division; Mrs Holmes received a copy of that order. Mrs Holmes showed the civil court order to the Isle of Man police and it was faxed to Birmingham city police station; I was arrested on the evening of 5 th September 2007.

My daughter's life was put at risk – I was imprisoned overnight at released at about 9:30 the following morning.

I claimed from West Midlands Police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The Chief Constable of the WMP appointed an officer to deal with me, a brief period of negotiation followed and I received a cheque for £2,000 at the beginning of November 2007.

On 5th November 2004 Deputy Deemster Andrew Williamson issued a declaration from the Family Division that had no basis in law. He ordered that his false declaration be lodged with the police in Douglas and Port Erin, and sent to the head teacher at Katie and Ben's school. That false declaration contained a mantra: “Respondent have indirect contact with the said children.” I think it was in 2009 that I spoke to Rosemary Burnett, (that was 20 months after the false declaration had been quashed because there was no legitimate basis upon which Williamson could have issued it), and she said that the police had been given “some kind of injunction.”

The WMP had nothing of legal value in England + Wales. The Isle of Man Police were sent nothing of legal value – they were sent a false instrument by an insane man who had spent more than 15½ years in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction (defined by the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1989) – more than 7 years as High Bailiff. All of Williamson's orders before 1 st September 2002 would have been sent to the criminal justice system. On 5 th November 2004 Williamson sent a false declaration from the CIVIL COURT to the Police; that was wrong.

When I first analysed the false instrument of 5th November 2004, I came to the conclusion “This is nonsense – the contravenes Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” The word I was actually looking for was defective, but for 28 months I was unable to bring an application to have the defective order set-aside because the High Court Office and the General Registry failed to disclose documentation to me – they believed that Williamson had acted honourably in declaring

that a Manx mother (and the Police) should prevent Manx children having any family life with their Manx father.

You will note that the Judgement of 26th October 2007 [2DS 2007/9] is headed “In the Matter of the Orders of the Family Division of 5th November 2004 and 16th November 2005” and it was the Court itself that added the 16th November 2005 order, my application was to ask for the 05/11/2004 document to be set-aside because it was defective or unlawful or wrong; information provided to me by the High Court Office at the beginning of March 2007 finally disclosed some criteria for a due process of registration.

The effect of non registration The false declaration of 5th November 2004 specifically mentions that “orders” from the Lancaster County Court [a County Court, not the High Court of Justice of England] had been registered on 28th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 and that those actions were false or non registrations or unlawful actions.

In 2007 I thought that the maxim was under equity a defective document has to be set-aside. In 2012 I noted that the maxim is that Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.

I have sent you copies of Forrester's 24th February 2004 “orders”. Those orders could not be registered in the Isle of Man because there is no appropriate mechanisms to allow for orders from the County Court made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 to be registered in the Isle of Man, and the SOGD used the term non registration. The “poisoning of the tree” was “provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man” – at paragraph 4.

The poisoning of the tree in the Isle of Man was the issue of four false documents headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT, Child Custody Act 1987, Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom, which were sent to Andrew Williamson and Mrs Holmes only. They are signed by an officer of the High Court, Assistant Chief Registrar Jayne Williams. That wrong, that forgery of documents by the Isle of Man High Court officer, acting under the direction and supervision of the President of the High Court, Her Majesty's First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls, has never had a remedy.

Since 28th May 2004 everything that has happened in the Isle of Man with regard to me, Stephen Holmes, with regard to my children, Katie and Ben Holmes, has been fruit of the poisoned tree – it is invidious.

The SOGD judgement includes the statement “At a hearing of such application on 1st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Appellant that the English orders made on 24 th February 2004 had been registered and dismissed his application.”

Williamson had jurisdiction to ORDER that the said Application [of 18th May 2004, not of 25th May 2004] be and is hereby dismissed, but the statement “the English orders of 24th February 2004 had been registered” was not true; the appearance was that they had been registered, but if the High Court officers / Deputy Deemster / President of the High Court had ensured that the appropriate mechanisms had been followed then the Deputy Deemster would not have committed perjury in court, (and the Second Deemster would not have issued a damaging Order on 3 rd September 2007 and put Katie's life at risk and got me arrested). Williamson committed perjury in Court on 1 st July 2004 because he took fruit of the poisoned tree.

The Deputy Deemster, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, officers in the General Registry, the Attorney General and an Acting Deemster had ample opportunity to remedy the wrong of 5 th November 2004, but it was left to me, the abused Manx father of the abused Manx children, to continue a policy of non-cooperation with an obscene (and unlawful) declaration [for which I was given a criminal record], until the letter from the Civil Summary Team dated 27 th February 2007 was received (on 1st March 2007).

Deputy Deemster Williamson's “declaration” of 5 th November 2004 was not just wrong – it was a false instrument used with the intention of denying Manx children and a Manx father their fundamental rights to a family life in the Isle of Man. For traumas such as false imprisonment, abuses that cause distress, citizens receive compensation or restitution. In 2006 bank worker Helen Green was awarded £800,000 because she was bullied at work for a prolonged period.

Because the High Court did not ensure appropriate mechanisms were adhered to on 28 th May 2004, Stephen Holmes and children Katie and Ben Holmes were bullied in life, and that bullying, causing great distress, continued for 1085 days. It could have ended on 16 th November 2005, but Williamson again issued a declaration that had no basis in law. It could have ended in January / February 2006, but the senior officers in the General Registry were negligent. It could have ended in the summer of 2006, but John Corlett and Walter Wannenburgh wanted to ensure that the status quo continued and then (on 25th October 2006) guided by Walter, Tim King thought that “it” was a matrimonial proceeding; he had taken the fruit of the poisoned tree and was not capable of rational thought. It could have ended in April 2007, but the Court dragged it out for seven months whilst Williamson continued to manage the Family Division The order of 3 rd September 2007 should NEVER have been made, (but it resulted my receiving £2,000 from the WMP).

For 1085 days of suffering, I should be paid damages in an out-of-court settlement. My claim for £2,000 per day is about right, and given the opportunities that the officers of the Crown in the Isle of Man have had to remedy the wrong during the three years of abuses, then £2,000 per day is an acceptable amount. I should be paid £2,170,000 and asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Crown in the Isle of Man cannot afford a prolonged procedure that could damage the reputation of the Isle of Man. If the Civil Division : Family Business section of the High Court cannot receive an application with regard to the upbringing of Manx children without causing years of trauma then the reputation of the judiciary and the jurisdiction of the Crown Dependency is “shot.”

Now, on 23rd August 2012 you wrote “We further recommend that you take independent legal advice, so that if you do have any proper substantive case to advance, it is presented properly and in the appropriate forum”.

I ask again, Mr Murray, “Just who do you think you are?”

I asked for independent legal representation on 5 th November 2004 and my counsel was Kevin O'Riordan of Simcocks, who is now Vice President of the Isle of Man Law Society. After listening to Williamson's LIES at the beginning of the hearing on 5 th November 2004 [Williamson stated “Those orders are binding,” when those orders, meaning the orders from Lancaster County Court, were not binding and could not be binding because they were made under an Act of Parliament that does not extend to the Isle of Man] Kevin further poisoned the tree with “I have no paperwork – I think this is very akin to the situation we have had in another case, Mr C and Mrs G,” to which Williamson enthused “Yes.” No! The only time I have had legal representation, my counsel added to the mayhem. Legal advice is advice on the law. Again, if you look at the SOGD judgement, under the words The statutory framework you will find no mention of the CYPA 2001, and no mention of section 20(1)(c), or schedule 1 of the Child Custody Act 1987. What is legal advice if it is not advice on the Law, which is held in Statute? If the Deputy Deemster cannot be bothered reading statute before lying to his own court, or my counsel can state “I have no paperwork; I think this is very akin to the downing of Pan Am 103,” then legal advice is not worth much.

I have stated publicly in the past that the majority of Isle of Man advocates are arrogant in their position, complacent in their approach, ignorant of Statute and therefore incompetent. You have shown the first attribute with “if you do have any proper substantive case to advance”.

The Isle of Man High Court issued false documents on 28 th May 2004, documents that purportedly recorded “registrations” but because they were non registrations recorded nothing. The Deputy Deemster sent a false instrument to the Police on 5 th November 2004 with the unlawful statement “Respondent have indirect contact with the said children” and my Manx children had no family life with me for the next three years because the false instrument was circulating in Government Departments; there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did. That order caused trauma and pain and suffering to Manx children and to their father, and the first appropriate forum to use to settle a claim for damages is to open a dialogue with those responsible for making the false declarations in the first place. But “no fair criticism” may be made of the Deputy Deemster (to who's clerk the letter of 2 nd April 2004 was addressed) so the First Deemster is culpable for the false instruments produced on 28 th May 2004 and the First Deemster is Her Majesty's First Deemster. Just like the Archer-Shee case, the Deemsters (in administrative function) operate in the domain of the Queen.

How dare you recommend to me that I take legal advice.

If the “team” of Williamson, Brogan, Williams, Humphrey and (ultimately) Kerruish had taken legal advice in May 2004 then none of this would have happened and I would not be writing to Isle of Man president and keeper of the reputation of Deemsters Murray!

It still staggers me that a clerk could read “Order – Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom,” and register it as if it is a custody order! It staggers me that Williamson could read “Contact Order” and accept that it was a custody order. It staggers me that Linda Sullivan said that access and contact “are the same thing!” Before 1991 (not 1989 as she said, the Children Act 1989 was not enacted until 14th October 1991) an adult had rights of access or custody conferred on him or her by court order; after 1991 the CHILD has the right of contact, whether the Court makes an order or not. That is legal advice, Mr Murray. “Father have indirect contact with the children” is NOT a contact order it is an access order using the word contact, and it denies access and therefore contravened the Convention [abusing the children and the father] and it was ultra vires because the Manx children had been permanently and habitually resident in the Isle of Man with the leave of the County Court in England, since 8th August 2003 / 24th February 2004.

You have the arrogance to tell me to seek independent legal advice.

I met a lady who worked in the courts building in 2005, (as a temp), and she was aware that “Mr Holmes keeps ringing.” She told me (here-say) that everybody in the office knew that I had been “landed in the shit” but nobody knew what to do. I did not know what to do. Now I do – sue the Crown! But before that happens, and it is a case that the Crown cannot win because it does speak for itself – “there was no legitimate basis upon which” the order of 05/11 could have been made, &c – why do you not attempt to settle this dispute out-of-court? Do you lack the courage to speak to me? Does the First Deemster lack the courage to open a dialogue with a member of the public?

How can you say if you do have any proper substantive case to advance? I did not see my own children for three years, Mr Murray. People are upset when they go on holiday and don't see their pets for a couple of weeks; I was paid £2,000 because I was locked in a cell for 13 hours because of something David Doyle did without seeking legal advice, so do not doubt that I have a substantive case against the Crown, Mr Murray. Deputy Deemster Williamson should have been charged under section 3(3)(a) of the Forgery Act 1952 for what he did on 5th November 2004; Miss Williams could have been charged for issuing four insane documents on 28 th May 2004 (and four more on 04/11/04) but she was “following orders”. If I have a case. Of course I have a case. Do you think I'm stupid?

An ultra vires action threatens the very rule of law. The Isle of Man High Court failed to follow statute on 28th May 2004, and so did the Deputy Deemster on 5 th November 2004 – his false declaration contravened the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. The fruit of the poisoned tree is a perfect analogy, and the wrongs of 28 th May 2004 still require a remedy. I have suggest a host of remedies, but the people considering them are biased and so nothing gets done. But eventually, restitution is due for three years (and more) of severe mental trauma, of extreme emotional distress – cause by negligence, arrogance and incompetence.

All you have to do is settle this matter out-of-court; make me an offer and I will go away. But do not ever tell me to seek legal advice; I find that the most insulting statement, especially when this all started with an unlawful action caused by somebody who was too arrogant to even check the law. I want closure on this matter – you need me to have closure on this matter; talk to me.

This “matter” has NEVER been given proper consideration, not even in the SOGD, and if (as in the SOGD review) the word proper is unnecessary – nobody has ever considered that I might be right – that Deputy Deemster Williamson did abuse me and my children on 5 th November 2004 by forging a document and sending it to the police. That is how it looks to any reasonable person, who might look at the facts of the case, not use common law rules to try to justify oppression!

I alert you (again) to the Customary Laws Act 1422 – s. 45, Partiality [bias] and misgovernment prohibited. In your opinion, a proper “forum” must be used – in my opinion the matter can be settled out-of-court, and it is probably better for the Isle of Man if it is settled out-of-court.

Best regards, Stephen Holmes