Memoirs of a Troubled Individual Date
:
May 2013
In the Manx Independent of 18/04/2013, “journalist” Adrian Darbyshire reported – “ Appellant Stephen Holmes was described in court as giving the impression of being a 'troubled individual' who had an unhappy time in a custody and contact battle with his ex-wife over the couple's two children.”
It was in the newspaper, so it must be true! Actually, it was stated in a judgment issued on 23 rd October 2012 (by Deemster Sharon Roberts) – “ As I said, I feel very much for Mr Holmes. He has clearly not undergone a very happy time in his life over the last few years and he gives the impression of being a troubled individual. I echo the sentiments of Deemster Doyle when he said Mr Holmes should put matters behind him. I note he has had a diagnosis and very much hope that life for Mr. Holmes can be better in the future.” [J1296 on courts.im]
So why did it take from 23 rd October 2012 to 18th April 2013 for a comment to be reported? And why did Darbyshire assume that there had been a “custody and contact battle”? There are 96 families in Liverpool who had “unhappy times” between 16 th April 1989 and 12th September 2012 because “all and sundry” accepted that “the fans were to blame”. “No contemporaneous documents have been disclosed concerning the briefng given by SYP to the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Home Secretary Douglas Hurd when they visited Sheffeld on 16 April 1989. The Prime Minister’s Press Secretary later revealed, however, that he had been informed on the day that drunkenness and violent crowd behaviour were significant causes of the disaster. ”
“What followed, over an 11-year period, were various different modes and levels of scrutiny, including Lord Justice Taylor’s Interim and Final Reports, civil litigation, criminal and disciplinary investigations, the inquests into the deaths of the victims, judicial reviews, a judicial scrutiny of new evidence conducted by LJ Stuart-Smith, and the private prosecution of the two most senior police offcers in command on the day. “Despite this range of inquiry and investigation, many bereaved families and survivors considered that the true context, circumstances and aftermath of Hillsborough had not been adequately made public. They were also profoundly concerned that following unsubstantiated allegations made by senior police offcers and politicians and reported widely in the press, it had become widely assumed that Liverpool fans’ behaviour had contributed to, if not caused, the disaster.”
There are a number of survivors who have “sworn on Oath” that on the afternoon of 15th April 1989, within a couple of hours of 95 people having died in appalling circumstances, police officers “blamed the fans”. The “mantra” began on the afternoon of 15 th April – the fans are to blame. Reporter Adrian Darbyshire couldn't even check what had made me give the impression of being “a troubled individual” because it was not a “custody and contact battle” with my ex-wife; it was in fact the malfeasance (wrong-doing) of officers in the General Registry and several Deemsters; especially the former High Bailiff AK Williamson (who became “Deputy Deemster” on 1 st September 2002). This man was a charlatan, and he is responsible for causing the distress which leaves me giving the appearance of being a troubled individual; (possibly Chief Registrar Angela Humphrey had something to do with it – probably not). Deemster David Doyle was far more cutting on 14th December 2011 [J1149: CHP 2011/83] – Unfortunately the Claimant's obsession continues and it has now become irrational. We are, yet again, here in court in 2011 dealing with matters which arose in 2004 and which have been ventilated in court on many previous occasions. It is in nobody's interests to permit these ill-founded and misconceived claims to go any further. The Claimant must now do his best, with all the help he can obtain, to rid himself of his irrational obsession referred to at the outset of this judgment.
[I was the Claimant in matter CHP 2011/83: the appellant in matter 2DS 2012/40 – J1356, and the Respondent on 5th November 2004]. The High Court Office is in such a state of utter chaos that it doesn't know what to call people – it -1-
insists on archaic terms when “Mr Holmes” would be far more sensible. On 5 th November 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson issued what he called a “declaratory order” – indeed the first emboldened heading is IT IS DECLARED – and one of the terms of his declaration purported to be “that the Respondent have indirect contact with the said children as authorised by the order of the Lancaster County Court of 27th October 2004 and registered in this court on 4th November 2004. But the so-called order of the Lancaster County Court was not registered on 4 th November 2004, so Mr Holmes was not the “respondent” in a proceeding under the Child Custody Act 1987: in fact there was no proceeding under the Child Custody Act 1987 because nothing had actually been registered. There was a purported proceeding, but no orders from Lancaster County Court had in fact been so registered in the High Court in the Isle of Man. And so I have an “irrational obsession” and have become a “troubled individual” because people in Insular Authority have erred in law. A good acronym is snafu – a foul-up, in a state of utter chaos. The mantra first appeared on 1st July 2004 – Deputy Deemster Williamson started it: “You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event.” “You” was Mrs Yvonne Holmes and me, father of Manx children, Katie and Ben Holmes. The “order” from Lancaster looked like this – Lancaster County Court Case Number: KN03P00016 Order
Residence and Contact Order Section 8 Children Act 1989 The full name(s) of the children
Boy or Girl
Date(s) of Birth
Katarina May Holmes Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes
Girl Boy
19th May 1996 28th August 1999
The Court orders that 1. the father has permission to withdraw the applications for residence and prohibited steps orders 2. Katarina May Holmes and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes shall reside with their mother, Yvonne Holmes 3. Yvonne Holmes has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man (please see separate order attached) 4. the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man Ordered by District Judge Forrester on
24th February 2004
But there was a “separate Order attached” to this “ C43B Residence/Contact/Specific Issue/Prohibited Steps Order” and that was a C44 Leave to remove child from UK Order, the terms of which were “The Court grants Leave to Yvonne Holmes to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently.” When Williamson said “a – an order from Lancaster” he referred to the C43B order not the C44 order. But wait a minute: this is a County Court judge in England stating that Manx children shall reside with their mother, Yvonne Holmes – that is the section 8 Children Act 1989 “residence order”. Then the judge said “remove these Manx children to the Isle of Man” [but see the other Order – paragraph 3 is not actually part of this Order – it is administrative]. The separate Order attached says from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland “to the Isle of Man permanently” and was purportedly made under sections 13(1) and 33(7) of the Children Act 1989 (an Act of Parliament). It ends with the word permanently. Having read the “order from Lancaster” up to paragraph 3, a question is begged: “which court now -2-
has jurisdiction over the said children?” Jurisdiction includes “powers” or vires and all actions by a body (including a court or tribunal) must be intra vires or within its powers. If anybody has ever seen more than three “cop shows” on TV then he or she will have heard the words “this is outside my jurisdiction!” It is such an obvious question (“Do I have jurisdiction?”) that it is never asked in a court! Judge Forrester should have said at the beginning of the hearing on 24th February 2004 “I am not sure that I have jurisdiction in this case [KN03P00016].” For the purposes of satisfying the minutiae of the law it would have been reasonable for Judge Forrester to issue a section 8 Children Act 1989 specific issue order stating that “This County Court grants leave for these children to be removed from this jurisdiction, that is the jurisdiction of England & Wales. Any future applications regarding the upbringing of Katie and Ben Holmes should be governed by the appropriate legislation in the jurisdiction where they reside habitually in the future.” He may have asked: “I assume that the Isle of Man has appropriate legislation to deal with questions regarding the upbringing of children?” I could have answered: “Oh yes, we have the Family Law Act 1991 which is a repetition of the Children Act 1989 and entered into force on 1 st April 1992, about six months after the Children Act 1989 entered into force on 14th October 1991. We have contact orders, residence orders, specific question orders and prohibited steps orders under section 9 of our act with regard to minors.” I would not have added, “But we have a cretin for a Deputy Deemster” because at that time I didn't know Deputy Deemster Williamson was a charlatan and cretin! I found that out on 1 st July 2004. The term is ultra vires – beyond the powers of – and ultra vires actions must be treated as void by the courts. Once one had read the words “to the Isle of Man permanently,” one has to treat the “residence order” as spent, or otiose. “A – an order from Lancaster” becomes a section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact order” – the terms of which include the ultra vires phrase “provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man.” In fact the first part of the phrase is ultra vires also because it is referring to the FATHER having “contact with the children” and the father is an adult not a child. Section 8 of the 1989 Act is headed with orders with respect to children. The clue is in the name of the Act – it is headed Children Act 1989 – an Act to reform the law relating to children. The CA 1989 repealed both the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 and the Guardianship Act 1973, which were Acts with respect to persons who were “guardians of children”. In the Isle of Man the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 was repealed by the 1991 Family Law Act, but that old 1953 Act was headed “An Act to amend the law relating to the Guardianship and Custody of Infants” and was clearly an Act about adults. The Acts previous to the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 are unknown – one could have been the 1577 Customary Law and one even before that! Even if the separate Order attached had not been made, paragraph 4 of “a – an order from Lancaster” was ultra vires and ultra vires. It was beyond the powers of the Children Act 1989 because it purported that the FATHER do have the contact; and it was beyond the powers of the Court to attempt to ensure that the “dealings” were in the Isle of Man. Add paragraph 3 and the separate order attached and we have a three-times ultra vires remark. But despite this, and despite the fact that the Children Act 1989 does not extend to the Isle of Man, for it is not in the Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man, the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT gave the appearance that the TWO orders from Lancaster County Court had been “registered” in the High Court in the Isle of Man on 28 th May 2004 when they had not been so registered. 1989 Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) (1989 c.4) Security Service (1989 c.5) Official Secrets (1989 c.6) SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1989 (1989 c.24) EXTRADITION ACT 1989 (1989 c.33) STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) ACT 1989 (1989 c.43) -3-
power to ext.: s.28(3) power to ext.: s.7(4) power to ext.: s.15(3) ext. GC 422/89 power to mod.: s.29(2)
PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1989 (1989 c.45)
(s.40(1)) ext. Crime (Sentences) 1997, SI 1997/1775
I can't see the Children Act 1989 in this list. In 2012 I found a letter in 1522-1920 MLR, headed General Registry. Mr G. Haywood, Librarian Tynwald Library Legislative Building, Douglas
Our ref:
M12
Date
13 April, 2004
Dear Mr Haywood, Subject: Manx Law Reports Please find herewith a copy of the final retrospective volume, covering the years from 1522 to 1920, to add to your set of Manx Law Reports. Any enquiries should be made to the Library. Telephone
01624 687593
&c.
I found that 1522-1920 MLR was published on 2nd April 2004. On 2nd April 2004 Mrs Yvonne Holmes sent a letter to Deputy Deemster Williamson of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man. It is impossible that AK Williamson was not aware of the final retrospective volume of Manx Law Reports, for the General Registry was responsible for its production [back to 1983 when T.W. Cain decided that it would be beneficial for the Isle of Man to have its own volumes of relevant cases]. There follows Page ONE of the 1522-1920 MLR: and below that part of page 2. IN THE ESTATE OF THE EARL OF DERBY (Deceased)
Privy Council. (The Members of the Council, advised by Sir Robert Brudenell, C.J. (Common Pleas), Sir Robert Brooke [Broke] and Sir Anthony Fitzherbert. JJ (Common Pleas), and His Majesty’s Counsel): Michaelmas Term 1522 Constitutional Law— constitutional status of Isle of Man— relations with United Kingdom—Isle of Man not part of realm and English law therefore inapplicable— Countess of Derby not entitled to dower in Island under English law following death of Earl— no writ of error in England for erroneous judgment in Island
“In Michaelmas Term 1522, 14 Hen, VIII. various offices were found before certain commissioners after the death of Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby, and it was found by some of them that certain manors were recovered against the Earl for the performance of his will, and the will was found, and further that the Earl died seised and his heir being under age. And it was said that the King should have the wardship, and his wife her dower, and that the recoverers could not enter without suing an ousterlemain, etc. It was found by another office that the said Earl at the time of his death was seised of the Isle of Man. Thereupon came the Countess, by her counsel and sued for her dower … BRUDENELL, C.J., with the assent of BROKE and FITZHERBERT. JJ., and all the King’s Counsel, said that the office was absolutely void, because the Isle of Man is not parcel of the realm and they do not use the law of the land. It is like Tournai, when it was in the King’s hands, and Normandy or Gascony, which are absolutely outside the power of the Chancery— and that is -4-
the place (and no other) for endowing the widow of the King’s tenant. The Isle of Wight, however, is made part of the county of Southampton by statute. And Wales and Ireland are part of the realm. A writ of error lies in England for an erroneous judgment given in Ireland or Wales but not for such erroneous judgment given in the Isle of Man, Gascony or Calais for they are not part of the realm and do not use the laws of the realm. One Stanley pretended title to certain lands of the aforesaid Earl’s, complaining that the said Earl disseised him and died seised, but no office was found concerning this. FITZHERBERT, J.: It seems that the King may enter in right of the heir without an office. But BRUDENELL., C.J. and BROKE, J. were against him. (Note that)”. Petition dismissed. THE ISLE OF MAN CASE [Trinity 1598] And another point was moved, [namely] whether the statutes of the Parliament of England are binding on this Isle without express mention of it or the matter and manner involved. And it was said by counsel for the Earl and affirmed by counsel for the other side, that nobody in this Isle had any [estate of inheritance] in the Island or in lands there (Except the Earl and the Bishop) and that they are, and are accustomed to be, governed by laws other than those of this country, and they showed in writing what laws they have. And after various things had been moved touching this point, it was held by the said Judges in attendance that the Statute of Uses [27 Henry VIII] and the Statute of Wills were not binding on the said Isle nor on the inheritance of it, nor was any other Statute made in England without special and express provision for it. And it is in the same position as Ireland, where the people are ruled by Act of Parliament of their [own] country and not by any law of England, unless it is an Act of Parliament which enacts laws expressly for the people of Ireland and Wales. [See cases citied for those Countries.] Above is from the 1598 Derby Succession case. Available in 2004 on the DCA web-site [the DCA was the successor to the Lord Chancellor's Department and came into being in July 2003] was the following – Departments and agencies are asked not to •
state or imply that the Islands are part of the United Kingdom (or of Great Britain, or of England) or to act on that assumption.
Do United Kingdom Acts apply to the Islands? Acts of Parliament do not normally extend to the Islands. If they do, they may do so either by virtue of the Act itself (this may be either expressed on the face of the Act or by necessary implication) or by Order in Council made with the Island's agreement under an enabling provision contained in the Act. For an Act to extend otherwise than by an Order in Council is now very unusual. The Insular Authorities would be fully consulted in the rare event that the former approach was under consideration.
If the Children Act 1989 had extended to the Isle of Man, somebody in the Isle of Man Government would have known, and even one of the Deemsters might have known. But when T.W. Cain (and the Chief Secretary, and Governor Ian Macfadyen) appointed AK Williamson as Deputy Deemster they inflicted on the users of the Family Division of the High Court a charlatan who made Josef Fritzl appear a model user of planning laws. “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”. I told the charlatan that I was unaware of such a registration to which he commented “Oh, I see.” But he didn't see. There is a rule about disclosure – it developed that the High Court Office had informed Mrs Holmes of the so-called registration on 28 th May 2004 but not informed the -5-
“respondent” or “father” as I prefer to call myself – father of Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes. I, Stephen Holmes, have had a very unhappy time for the last nine years because I have not had a family life with my own Manx children. I have not had a family life with my own Manx children because on 5th November 2004 AK Williamson issued a “policy document” on which it was recorded the family policy for the future with regard to the Holmes family. “Respondent [father, Manxman Stephen Holmes] have indirect contact with the said children.” In 2009, Police prosecutor Rosemary Burnett described the Family Division “declaratory order” as “some kind of injunction” but Chief Constable Gary Roberts has described it as a false instrument. “Isn't that a forgery?” I asked him. “No, it is not a crime, Stephen,” was his [correct] reply. I have perused “contract law” and established that Chief Constable Roberts is correct – a false instrument is not necessarily a forgery – and in this case it was not a false instrument used with criminal intent, but it misrepresented the actuality of the situation. One Williamson had “finished with” this matter on 30 th November 2005 – yes, 2005: 55 weeks after he issued a false instrument – a clutch of Deemsters and Acting Deemsters (and High Bailiff Moyle) entered the fray, showing bias (partiality) in siding with the cretin Williamson. Transcript of the Hearing (filed as Div. 2004/144 – Holmes v Holmes) of 1 st July 2004. 11:54:25 11:56:05
AKW Right let me come up to speed on this. AKW Right what am I being asked to do good people you appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event is that right?
11:56:15
MrsH Yes that's right.
11:56:16
GSH I was unaware that that order had been registered here
11:56:20
AKW Oh I see.
Note the time gap between AKW's introduction “let me come up to speed on this” and “What am I being asked to do here good people?” Ninety seconds: a minute and a half. I have read about cases where points of law take DAYS to discuss, or weeks to get-around-to! The Solway Harvester case is one – Advocate Jason Stanley eventually gave the Deemster the definition of manslaughter in the Criminal Code 1872 – “Whosoever shall unlawfully kill another”. It took weeks to get to the point! On 1st July 2004 AK Williamson shuffled papers for 90 seconds. And because he accepted that “orders” from a County Court were binding on a High Court, he began this “unhappy time” actually before he even entered the court-room on 1 st July 2004. As I have said, Michael Moyle entered the fray. Then Deemster Tim King entered the fray on 25 th October 2006 and stated that I was disgruntled with the administrators of matrimonial proceedings. Then David Doyle entered the fray on 3rd September 2007 and managed to get me arrested in Birmingham, England. [One good thing that happened – I received £2,000 from West Midlands Police Authority in compensation for pain and suffering caused by 12 hours in a police cell. Thank you, Deemster Doyle]. So how come Deemster Doyle was making a judgment on 14 th December 2011? Because he allowed himself to judge “in own cause” – he is the First Deemster in the Isle of Man and thinks he is above the law. He probably learned from AK Williamson in 2003, but with Williamson it was case of the blind and insane leading the “blind” David Doyle. On 1 st April 2011 Deemster Andrew Corlett said – “… but I would also like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor His Honour Andrew Williamson who bore virtually singlehanded all the work of the Family Division and from whom I learned a great deal during
-6-
our hand over period. I am very pleased to see him back in the Courts where he sits from time to time on family cases.”
I am terrified that AK Williamson was allowed back in the High Court after he retired on 6 th January 2008 after 52 months as Deputy Deemster because he had NO CLUE what he was doing in family cases – no clue whatsoever. The evidence to support this statement was provided by Kevin O'Riordan, another charlatan – now president of the Isle of Man Law Society – on 8 th April 2011. Kevin sent me a transcript of the meeting on 5 th November 2004 at which AK Williamson issued a two paragraph declaratory order that had no legitimate basis. With a “doc” file, I could do a “phrase count” and I noted that AK Williamson used the term prohibitive steps SEVEN TIMES in 15 minutes. He also lied to the parties in his kangaroo court-room. O'Riordan did not correct him or question the validity of his statements – the most arrogant being “I can do whatever I think is necessary for the immediate protection of the children” – like abusing them for the next three years! The term is prohibited steps – and it is in the section “Orders with respect to children”. Williamson was all for issuing a prohibitive steps order against me, an Adult. What about Human Rights? No consideration was taken by the charlatan. What about Children's Rights? Children in the Isle of Man have rights? Since when? I was looking up Margaret Thatcher in a mediocre book, and I thought I might find some information about the Children Act 1989. The book has a Timeline of British Social History from 1900 to 1999: including many Acts of Parliament such as the 1902 Education Act and the introduction of Family Allowance in 1946 [changed to Child Benefit in 1977]. However, I did find in 1989 : “Margaret Thatcher, George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachov declared the end of the Cold War. “1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child signed and issued by the General Assembly of the United Nations.” The book does not have “Children Act 1989 passed” in this Timeline, but the UNCRC is enough. Besides, the CA 1989 was such a major reformation in Law that it was not until 14 th October 1991 that it entered into force, so I looked at 1991. It's not there. But the following is – 1991: Gulf War began. UK finally agreed that every child has all the rights listed in the UNCRC. I checked this fact on a web-site – and then another (and another) – “ On 20 November 1989 the governments represented at the General Assembly (which included the UK) agreed to adopt the Convention into international law. The UK signed the Convention on 19 April 1990, ratified it on 16 December 1991 and it came into force on 15 January 1992. ”
“The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international agreement that protects the human rights of the children under the age of 18. On 16 December 1991, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland formally agreed to make sure that every child in the UK has all the rights as listed in the convention. “The Welsh Assembly Government has shown its commitment to the convention by adopting it as the basis for policy making for children in Wales.
“Altogether there are 54 articles in the convention. Articles 43-54 are about how adults and governments should work together to make sure all children are entitled to their rights. ” But what about the Isle of Man? This is from the web-site of the Department of Education (for England & Wales). -7-
Overseas territories and crown dependencies British overseas territories are not part of the United Kingdom but come under its sovereignty. These territories include Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Montserrat, St Helena and its dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), the Pitcairn Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands. They ratified the UNCRC from 1997. Crown dependencies fall under the sovereignty of the British Crown but have a different constitutional relationship with the UK than overseas territories. The Isle of Man is the only crown dependency to ratify the UNCRC. The last reports submitted to the committee on the implementation of the Convention by the crown dependencies and overseas territories can be downloaded. Please note that the Falkland Islands submitted their initial report separately from the other overseas territories, but they were examined by the UN Committee at the same time as the UK’s second periodic report. The concluding observations include the Falkland Islands. The Isle of Man and the overseas territories submitted its latest periodic report jointly with the main UK’s third and fourth consolidated periodic reports [in 2007]. These reports were examined at the same time as the main UK report.
If Jersey and Guernsey have not ratified the UNCRC then ratification was not automatically with the UK's acceptance of the Convention, so my question was briefly “When did the Isle of Man accept that all Manx children have all the rights listed in the UNCRC?” The answer is 2nd September 1994. Published November 2000 by the Council of Ministers On 21st September 2000, representatives of the Isle of Man Government appeared before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to answer questions on the initial report prepared by the Government and submitted under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention was adopted on 20th November 1989 and entered into force on 2nd September 1994. It is a requirement of the Convention that jurisdictions to which it extends provide reports periodically on their compliance with the Convention. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child may then question those jurisdictions. The Isle of Man Government submitted an initial report in 1998 and an update of the initial report in 1999. (signed) J. Fred Kissack, [Chief Secretary in 2000] Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is that everyone has the right to respect for his privacy and family life, his home and correspondence; and everyone includes children. AK Williamson was Deputy High Bailiff in September 1994 and High Bailiff in 1998, 1999 and 2000 – the times when the Isle of Man Government submitted its initial and updated reports to the Committee on Children's Rights. AK Williamson should have had a copy of the UNCRC on his desk from 1st September 2002 onwards, but the arrogant cretin had no copy of the CYPA 2001; and when he was presented with a request from Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) “I am therefore enclosing these copy orders to be registered at the Isle of Man Court,” he should have been able to confirm in the Child Custody Act 1987 that “these copy orders” cannot in fact be registered. But this was hubristic AK Williamson! The hierarchy of the judiciary at that time was “First Deemster, Second Deemster, Judge of Appeal, Deputy Deemster.” There were only six people, the Governor, the Lord Bishop and possibly the President of Tynwald above him.” Williamson thought that the sun shone out of his own anus! In the transcript is the following dialogue – 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 …
-8-
D
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.
The Law, according to Williamson, is not as it is written [“Where the Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order…”] but is Williamson's understanding of that law. This is a man who has sworn the Deemster's Oath – to execute the laws of this Isle justly: and he did not understand that “certified copy” meant a copy at least certified by somebody with a signature, not a plain photocopy of something that looks like a court order headed “County Court.” Section 7 of the 1987 Child Custody Act continues – I'll start it again – Where the Chief Registrar receives a certif ied copy of a custody order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom and sent to him under a provision corresponding to section 12 and having effect in that part, he shall forthwith cause the order, together with particulars of any variation, to be registered in the High Court in the prescribed manner.
“under a provision corresponding to section 12” would send a reasonable person to section 12 in order to gain an understand of this law. 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 specif ied in the application, namely — (a) (b) (c)
a certif ied copy of the order, and where the order has been varied, prescribed particulars of any variation which is in force, and a copy of the application and of any accompanying documents.
The “application” has to be made by the court that made the custody order in the first place (section 12(1) – Mrs Holmes was not “an appropriate court”. This man Williamson was unbelievable! He actually said in his kangaroo court on 5 th November 2004 “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.” I expect the Deputy Deemster to actually study the Child Custody Act 1987 before he makes some allegation of his “understanding of the Law.” He really was a cretin in the High Court – he turned the court of justice into a court of outlawry – where Deemster's opinion was of more value than Statute or Equity or even of precedent. Logan Mountstuart may have called him CAUC – a Complete And Utter Cretin. Or worse. Am I giving the impression of being a 'troubled individual'? Do I have an irrational obsession? No! My obsession is entirely rational! Am I troubled? No, I am laughing as I am writing this, thinking of David Doyle reading it and thinking “What can we do to shut this man up?” I am going to quote some more of the dreadful Child Custody Act 1987 because it is ordure – 12 Registration of Manx custody order in UK [P1986/55/27(1)-(3) and 28(1)]
(1) Any person on whom any rights are conferred by a custody order made by a court in the Island may apply to that court for the order to be registered in any part of the United Kingdom under any provision corresponding to section 7 and having effect in that part. (2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made in the prescribed manner, contain the prescribed information and be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed. (3) On receiving an application under this section the court which made the custody order … to the appropriate court in the part of the United Kingdom…
What exactly is the 'appropriate court'. In order to find out we have to actually read the Child Custody Act 1987, not rely on an understanding of the law pulled out of a hat. It is a court of superior record: a High Court in the jurisdictions of England & Wales or Northern Ireland, or a Court of Session in Scotland. The definition is in section 21 of the Child Custody Act -9-
1987, and the definition from P1986/55 is in section 32 – superior court. A Sheriff's Court cannot bind the High Court in the Isle of Man and a County Court in England cannot bind the Court of Session in Scotland. The “orders” from Lancaster County Court are not from an “appropriate court.” There was with Mrs Holmes letter no copy of the application or of any accompanying documents. When the High Court Office received a letter asking for such, Chief Registrar Peter Corkhill entered the fray and wrote the following – 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. From an inspection of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic] 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.
1. The file was DIV 2004/144, but NONE of the documents pertaining to the wrongful purported registration are in that file – they are ALL in file FD/UK/COR/04/02; and 2. “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987” means unlawfully. All around Douglas there are parking signs with Road Traffic Act 1985 on them. This 1985 Act is an Act of Tynwald. The 1987 Child Custody Act is an Act of Tynwald. If an action is not in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1985 it is unlawful. The action of “this office” of 28th May 2004 was not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 and so it was an unlawful act – any documents issued as a result of that outlawry must be treated as void ab initio: worthless court ordure. On 1st July 2004 AK Williamson had in front of him in court four false documents – he spent 90 seconds shuffling papers before stating that there was the appearance of “a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here” when no order had in fact been registered: the documents were void in any event. “You appear to have nothing, is that right?” Mrs Holmes would have said, “no, that is wrong, because I have documents telling me that a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom has been registered under the Child Custody Act 1987 in the Isle of Man High Court.” Sorry, that document is void ab initio: it is worthless – it is indeed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT ORDURE. If a judge in England had written “Stephen Holmes do be an orang-utan provided he is in the Isle of Man” the High Court Office would have registered the ape-order from Kendal, and I would have been arrested for impersonating a human being when there is a registered order stating I am an orang-utan. That is how big a cretin AK Williamson was in 2004. The Child Custody Act 1987 – ignored. The Children and Young Persons Act 2001 – ignored. The European Convention on Human Rights – ignored. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – ignored. - 10 -
The precedents of Lady Derby's dowery of 1522 and the Derby succession of 1598 – ignored. Williamson's understanding of the Law – accepted. “There was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did,” but we will make no criticism of the rights abusing outlaw charlatan because he is “one of us!” He was a disgrace; he brought the High Court and the Deemsters into disrepute; and by taking his side all (most AM is the exception) Deemsters have taken the fruit of the poisoned tree and “shown partiality to the wicked.” I have learned such a lot in the last few years (what can better suit your needs than the tasks that befall you?) but the people I have had to deal with have shown themselves intransigent and at times downright stupid. That is not to say they are stupid people – it is to say that they have encountered a situation that they do not understand, and decided to apply rules for a different, inapplicable situation. On Wednesday 29th October 2003 (at about 12:05 in the mid-day) District Judge Gordon Nuttall said in court (it was a hastily scheduled hearing in Lancaster County Court chambers) “The Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom”. I corrected the “stupid man” – “No, it isn't”. Nuttall: “I'm not going to argue with you, Mr Holmes.” The fundamental rule is nemo judex in causa sua – no-one can judge in own cause. Actually, the fundamental rule is everyone is equal under the law – be you ever so high, the law is above you. These rules really are basic! Thou shalt not kill. “What, that's not a rule – I have no intention of killing anyone. If I could kill someone and it not be unlawful I would not do so because to kill someone I would at some stage have to judge in my own cause – “It is my judgment that this human deserves to die.” Theft is another related problem – “I have judged that this person or entity deserves not to own this thing that they own, and I deserve that I should have it! I have judged in my own cause.” All I am talking about here is Rights – fundamental human rights – the right to a family life. On Friday 5th November 2004, at about 14:11, Williamson judged in his own cause – three times. Description Date Time 13:51:36 14:11:52 14:21:21 14:37:27 14:37:43 14:41:47 14:42:09
Deputy Deemster Williamson – Family Division 05/11/2004 Location Douglas Court 5 Speaker Note TESTINGS Div 2004/144 & FD/UK/COR/04/02 Holmes v Holmes - In Person & K O'Riordan DDW Adjourns for a few minutes DDW Recommences K O'Riordan Addresses DDW Mrs Holmes Addresses DDW DDW Gives declarity orders
Produced by FTR Log Notes™ He stated 1. – subsequently I heard from Mr Holmes; [he had not! I wrote to the Chief Registrar]; 2. – orders from Lancaster County Court were registered in the Family Division of the High Court; and 3. – “Those orders are binding. He issued what he called a declaratory order. It began IT IS DECLARED. It was confirmed on 26th October 2007 that there was no legitimacy to the declaration of 5 th November 2004, but no Deemster or public official in the General Registry (or any other branch of - 11 -
the Isle of Man Government understood that “no legitimate basis” upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did,” means that the declaration was a false instrument. Oh yes, Chief Constable Gary Roberts does. The police arrested me in 2005 and 2006 (three or four times in 2005 and at least twice in 2006) and I have a criminal record. Why did the police arrest me? Because Williamson ORDERED that his two paragraphs declaratory order be lodged with the Police. Why would he do that? Because he judged it appropriate – he had spent 15 years sending criminal court orders to the police and the probation service, why shouldn't a two paragraph declaration from the Family Division of the civil court go to the police? Because you are no longer High Bailiff, Andrew – you waved farewell to criminal law on 31st August 2002 and “miss it like a hole in the head.” Well, no, you do miss having people enforce your orders, so you used the constabulary as your own personal civil enforcement officers. “We was just following orders,” said PCs Kelly and Kermode. And they were. How many police officers would question an order from a court that said “Respondent have indirect contact with the said children.” Rosemary Burnett (an Advocate) said that there was “some kind of injunction empowering arrest!” So we look at the courts.im web-site and the page about attending Family Court – that is now called the Civil Division – Family Business section of the High Court of injustice of the Isle of Man. Page last updated on 6 August 2009
Attending a family court A family court is usually a 'closed' court, meaning members of the general public are not permitted to come and sit in the public gallery. In family cases only certain people will be allowed in the courtroom, these include:the applicant (the person who has made an application to the court for an order); the respondent (the person against whom any order applied for may be granted); advocate(s) if either or both parties are legally represented; court welfare officer (if requested); a Guardian ad Litem (if appointed); and any witnesses. The court may decide that other people should be included in the proceedings and will make an order to that effect. You may be allowed to take a 'friend' in to court with you. To do this you must first ask the Deemster's permission.
Section 11 CYPA 2001 orders are orders with respect to a child, and have been since 1 st April 1992. The Family Division was created by the High Court Act 1991, but did not come into existence until 1st October 1992. [From 1st April 1992 to 31st January 2003, orders were with respect to minors, under the Family Law Act 1991]. Clearly, the courts.im web-site is referencing the High Court because Deemsters sit in the High Court, not in the juvenile court. But the web-site information is WRONG – it was updated wrongly on 6 th August 2009 and has not been changed in three-and-a-half years. A section 11 CYPA 2001 order IS NOT MADE AGAINST an ADULT! It is an order with respect to the child. It is just utter incompetence, I am sure you will agree, and although I have nothing personal against the First or Second Deemster, or Deemster Roberts; I know that Deputy Deemster AK Williamson was not cut out for civil law and was utterly incompetent to the point that he abused the rights of children; but for these people to continue to judge in own cause is unacceptable. “The Claimant must now do his best, with all the help he can obtain, to rid himself of his irrational obsession - 12 -
referred to at the outset of this judgment”.
Is it an irrational obsession to want Right to be done? Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 [commenced on 1st February 2003] begins 1. Welfare of the child. [P1989/41/1; 1991/3/1] (1) When a court determines any question with respect to — (a)
the upbringing of a child, or
(b)
the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it,
the welfare of that child shall be the court’s paramount consideration.
I walked into a court-room on 1 st July 2004 to be confronted by the belligerent cretin and charlatan AK Williamson who opened the “hearing” in a completely incompetent manner. He then stated that there appeared to be an order registered when no registration had actually happened and he dismissed the Application out of court. Four months later he issued an unlawful declaration that ensured Manx children had no family life with their own father for the next three years and when the Staff of Government Division judges decided that there was no legitimacy to that declaration, they judged in the cause of Williamson the cretin that no fair criticism could be made of a man who ensured that Manx children had no family life with their father for the next three years. And Deemster Doyle was no better on 3 rd September 2007, or 29th November 2007 or 10th March 2008. And as for his biased performance on 14 th December 2011 – it was a model of partiality and misgovernment and it belittled all who have the courage to stand up to authority. I could rid myself of this obsession if the officers of the crown would act in an appropriate manner instead of acting unethically, dishonestly and unlawfully. Since 1422 we have had a law that states that Partiality and misgovernment are prohibited. I have no experience of any Court in the Isle of Man before 1 st July 2004, but since that day, in fact since 25th May 2004 when the High Court Office gave my FLA 1991 (form C1) Application the reference DIV 2004/144 and listed it as Kramer v Kramer [it was about my children – my application of 18th May 2004 was an application asking the court to determine a question with regard to the future of Katie and Ben Holmes, children] the High Court has misgoverned everything I have been involved with, and partiality, bias, immoral and unethical actions have turned the court into a court of injustice. The maxim is Let Right Be Done; the maxim in the General Registry (CATS division) and the High Court is LET WRONG BE DONE. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy; the Deemsters will not consider a remedy, rather they oppress without remedy rather than the law would. England had a torrid time with Charles Stuart from 1625 to 1649 – we had a dreadful time from 2002 to 2008, and that horror is continuing because the Deemsters judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked. The Deemsters: Abusing Human Rights since April 1992. THEY CAN'T EVEN GET THE WEB-SITE RIGHT. A contact order IS NOT MADE AGAINST AN ADULT – IT IS THE CHILD WHO HAS CONTACT with the person named in the order, if the court can be persuaded to make an order. Making NO ORDER should be the preferred option. That is not just consistent with my understanding of the law; that IS THE LAW. Williamson was not the law: Williamson was a charlatan pretending he knew some law, but what he knew was at least 16 years out of date and getting older. And Deemster Corlett learned a great deal from him! That is why I give the impression of being a troubled individual! For three years I fought against an unlawful declaration issued by a cretin; then it was revoked, and now more than five years the “club” accept that “no fair criticism can be made of the” charlatan Deemster. - 13 -
I am happy to make “unfair criticism” of him, but I don't think it is unfair – I think it is justified and I advocate that criticism is justified to keep public confidence in the independence of the judiciary. What sort of person would make a declaration “father do have indirect dealings with his own children?” First of all a cretin in England, District Judge Nuttall took exception to my criticism of his colleague, District Judge Robert Moron Forrester who had “ordered” that the Manx father “do have reasonable contact with the children provided such [contact] takes place in the Isle of Man,” and then that C43B Contact Order [section 8 Children Act 1989, an Act that does not extend to the Isle of Man] was NOT registered in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT on 4 th November 2004 [but two documents were produced purporting that they had been registered] and then AK Williamson dived back into the fray with his declaration that had no legal basis. The kangaroo court hearing of 5th November 2004 is a “model” of “HOW NOT TO HOLD A HIGH COURT HEARING” by AK Williamson and K O'Riordan. D
Now, I’ve got Mrs Holmes?
MrsH Yes D
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.
D
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. 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
D
Yes
KOR
Where essentially because there is a divorce ongoing in England, because there are Orders as I understand it in England for residence and contact there may even have been an Order for removal from the jurisdiction, and if there hasn’t been there probably should be –
D
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
D
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.
D
Do you want to tell me what Orders there have been?
KOR
Well what I suppose what I’m more curious about is what has led Mrs Holmes to come to you today. My understanding is there’s a probably a defined contact order or maybe it’s a reasonable contact order but with some note on the file, but Mr Holmes is under the impression he has contact every third week at the contact at the children’s centre but that that’s all he’s got.
D
No. - 14 -
KOR
Right in that case it would probably be very helpful if I let you tell me what you’ve got there.
D
By an order of 24th February this year Mrs Holmes has a residence order in respect of the children – by that order she also has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man. By that order clause 4 Mr Holmes had reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man.
KOR
Right
D
By an order made last week – same Court – Lancaster County – 27 th October apparently Mr Holmes had brought some applications before that Court for specific issue order prohibitive steps and residence orders and each of those applications was dismissed. Clause 2 the father shall have indirect contact with the children to be exercised by way of telephone calls, letters and e-mails, one of each per week. Paragraph 3: “Paragraph 4 of the Order of 24 th February which provided for direct contact is revoked. The father is entitled to make further application for direct contact but will be required to satisfy the court that the children are not at risk of emotional harm from him” – so at present there is no order for direct contact – quite the contrary there is a prohibition on it.
KOR
Did it go as far as a prohibition or did it just revoke to the earlier order?
D
Well he’s revoked the order for reasonable contact.
KOR
Yes it seems to me that possibly leaves a void
D
There is a positive order for indirect contact but the entitlement of the entitlement to direct contact is revoked.
KOR
Yes
D
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.
D
Yes he’s bound by it.
The jurisdiction in England is the same jurisdiction that granted leave to Yvonne Holmes to remove the Manx children from the whole of the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently on 24 th February 2004. Therefore, from 24th February 2004 AT THE LATEST [I would argue from 18th August 2003] the High Court of “justice” in the Isle of Man had jurisdiction or powers or vires over Katie and Ben Holmes, but the person exercising that vires was the inept and incompetent cretin AK Williamson. His statements “quite the contrary there is a prohibition on it” and “there is a positive order for indirect contact” are equivalent to “the County Court in England has stated that the rights of the Manx children should be abused here in the Isle of Man and I am not in position to stop that rights abuse – in fact I am going to ensure that these children will be abused until further notice, and if Mr Holmes doesn't like it then he can go back to England” [where they don't want anything to do with the Manx children any more]. KOR
So whether he has tried to exercise direct contact and that’s what’s brought Mrs Holmes to you I know not.
D
Well it is because looking at his letter to me of 5 th November today, I have just been to see my children at Rushen Primary school and they’ve told me that a Judge has said I could not see them.
KOR
Right
D
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…
D
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.
D
Yes – so as I say I would be prepared to make a prohibitive steps order and I may be prepared to give declaratory orders to the effect that the English orders are binding and enforceable here and that I - 15 -
have no power to vary them and that Mr Holmes is entitled to the contest which the Judge in England has said he may have. I mean I can’t do any more than that, I can’t make the law up any more than Mr Holmes can as you know. KOR
Of course.
D
Yes. Is there anything I’ve said you disagree with Mrs Holmes?
MrsH No not at all. D
It’s been accurate so far has it – and you would seek reinforcement of the English order?
MrsH I would Sir because the school are saying that they need something in writing in order to prove to Mr Holmes that he cannot take the children from school or indeed see them at school.
There is the confidence of the great deputy Deemster – asking Mrs Holmes if it has “been accurate so far?” And the phrase that takes the biscuit “I can't make the law up any more than Mr Holmes can as you know!” But there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did because the requirements for registration under sections 7 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987 had not been met – as was again confirmed by JA Tattersall and Dm Melton in writing on 2nd April 2013 – J1356 2DS 2012/40. What did the people of Liverpool do between 2000 and 2009? Put yourselves in one widows position. The Police were to blame for the tragedy because somebody opened a gate and let thousands of people surge into the ground. A “pen” that should have held around 1600 people (or maybe 2000) had about 3000 in it and 96 people died. There were “various different modes and levels of scrutiny, including Lord Justice Taylor’s Interim and Final Reports, civil litigation, criminal and disciplinary investigations, the inquests into the deaths of the victims, judicial reviews, a judicial scrutiny of new evidence conducted by LJ Stuart-Smith, and the private prosecution of the two most senior police officers in command on the day, ” but “many bereaved families and survivors considered that the true context, circumstances and aftermath of Hillsborough had not been adequately made public.” How could at least TEN investigations not uncover the true context of the tragedy?
Very simple – “no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for him accepting what he believed to be correct, namely that the orders had been properly registered, [but] given that there was in fact no proper registration there was no legitimate basis &c.” The Hillsborough levels of scrutiny would have consistently said “no fair criticism can be made of South Yorkshire Police;” then on 12th September 2012, more than 23 years later; “Oh, criticism may be levelled at South Yorkshire Police.” LJ Stuart-Smith and LJ Taylor, cannot be blamed for being biased in favour of South Yorkshire Police, but Deemster Kerruish and Tattersall JA are guilty of turning a blind eye to the misgovernment and malfeasance of Deputy Deemster AK Williamson (probably because he was due to be 'sent to Richmond Hill' on 6 th January 2008. During December 2007 Adrian Darbyshire gave the cretin an exit interview, and all was explained – Deputy Deemster Andrew Williamson is looking forward to retirement next week after a 20 year-career in Manx law. The eldest of three brothers, [he was born in Douglas in 1946], Andrew Williamson was educated at Michael School and then Ramsey Grammar, before leaving his Island home to study law at Nottingham Regional College of Technology, as it was then. 'I decided I wanted to be a barrister,' he explained. 'I joined one of the Inns of Court, The Middle Temple, and was subsequently called to the Bar. I haven't a clue now what sparked my interest in law. There was no family connection. It just struck me as interesting and I've always like the sound of my own voice!' After being called to the bar, he practised in and around London and then about seven years later, he became a deputy clerk to the justices in inner London for two years before becoming clerk to the justices in Ashford, Kent, for eight years. - 16 -
'I enjoyed London while I was there but, after 11 years there and then eight in Kent I was glad to be saying goodbye. An Islander always wants to come home — I missed the hills and the sea.' And so he returned to his Island home, becoming Deputy High Bailiff on 6th January 1988. Following the retirement of Weldon Williams in January 1995, he became the High Bailiff, before being appointed Deputy Deemster in September 2002, although half of his time as High Bailiff had been spent also as an acting Deemster. As Deputy Deemster, he has specialised in family law, landlord and tenant and contract cases. 'I've not touched crime since I became Deputy Deemster,' he said. 'I miss it like a hole in the head. I've done enough criminal law and was quite happy to leave that behind.' 'When I joined [the CSJ] people were not used to working at the speed that I was. I was trained to work at pace in the Inner London Magistrates courts where you would expect to get through a list of 40 charges in the morning and 130-140 traffic summonses, at least one contested, in the afternoon.'
None of the experience listed here prepared AK-46 for a decision maker in the field of children law. One friend commented – “They gave him the job because there wasn't a trained chimpanzee in the Wildlife Park.” Children law is specialised – especially when there is an option to make no order at all, rather than make one and screw things up. But with 34 years practicing, and over 15 as [Deputy] High Bailiff, who was Williamson going to listen to? On 1st July 2004 I argued with him – GSH I didn't think an order from the UK had any validity here in the Isle of Man AKW It does if it is registered. GSH Can I appeal against the registration AKW I think again you would have to go back to judge Forrester. Nonsense, Andrew. It does if it is properly registered, but if it is not properly registered then it is not registered. And to be properly registered all the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 must be met. The staff in the High Court Office should have had a Deemster produced check-list. 1. Correct appropriate court – a court of superior record? 2. Is the order a Custody order as defined in section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament)? 3. Has the Court in England or Scotland or NI made the Application to Register, or did the mother hand-write a letter to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division? 4. Is the original application and all supporting documentation with the custody order? 5. Is the photocopy a certified copy? Is that certification by a Judge or a Registrar? In this case, on 2nd April 2004 Mrs Yvonne Holmes made the application and as Corkhill admitted all the documentation did not exist. None of the documents were certified copies. The court was a County Court and one of the orders was an “Order Contact Order,” most certainly not a custody order and not even an “access order”. Not one of these five criteria were complied with. On 20 th May 2008 Acting Deemster Linda Sullivan said in court – Linda Sullivan: Clearly here Mr Holmes is complaining about his ability to see his children. He seems to accept on the one hand that he does not have an absolute right to have contact with his children, but he seems to be suggesting that the children have an absolute right to see him and that therefore that should overcome any diffculty that a Court might have in not allowing him to have contact with the children, because the children have an absolute right to have contact with him. Such a view is totally misconceived, such orders that have been made in relation to contact or - 17 -
access (because the two mean the same things in spite of the problem Mr Holmes seems to have with the use of those two words): it used to be access until the 1989 Act: it is now contact, in that jurisdiction of England: it both comes to exactly the same thing. And in this long history there have always been orders of the court directing what contact should take place, had Mr Holmes been unsatisfed with that in any way it was always open to him to appeal that which he has not seen ft to do.
Access was a right conferred by a court on an adult – it is the child that has contact “with the person named in the order” [if the court can be persuaded to make a section 8 (or section 11(1)) order]. The word access may mean the same as the word contact, but the legal concept of access was defined in the 1953 Guardianship of Infants Act, and that of contact in the 1991 Family Law Act IN THE ISLE OF MAN. Sullivan used the year 1989 – the year of the Act in England & Wales; she was a Deemster sitting in the High Court in the Isle of Man to where the Children Act 1989 does not extend. It does not matter if it used to be access until 1973 or 1999, it did not change in the Isle of Man with the 1989 Act – it changed in the Isle of Man with the 1991 Act and was re-enacted with the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, an Act to reform the law relating to children [and to remove from statute forever the awful terms of custody of a child and access to a child and replace them with concepts compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Quite simply, our Deemsters do not “cut the mustard” in the civil courts. Deemster Kerruish came closest in recent years, but the habit of training a Deemster in a criminal court before letting him loose on civil matters was a disaster as the 21st century approached and the Human Rights Act 2001 was looming. “Executive” Government had an extensive training program about the Human Rights Act in 2002 and 2003 and then another “kick in the pants” in 2006, but in the General Registry, the Chief Registrar is responsible for ensuring that all actions are Convention compliant and he is the worst abuser of the rights of members of the public who have the misfortune to deal with him. And I am not being personal about any individual – Humphrey, Corkhill, Cregeen have all been negligent in their approach to implementing the requirements of the Human Rights Act 2001 – perhaps because they answer to no MHK or senior officer in Government – for direction and supervision of administrative matters officers of the High Court discharge duties for the First Deemster (who is also answerable to nobody). At a funeral recently I was informed that the deceased fought to right wrongs. I don't care who did wrong – the First Deemster, a clerk on the counter: the chief Minister or a taxi driver (licensed by some govt. office); the Deputy Deemster or a clerk in the Lancaster County Court; until that wrong is remedied – and that remedy has to have substance; “you were issued with an apology” or “our procedures have been changed” is not enough; I will “never give up: never surrender.” I lost a £250,000 property in England because of wrong-doing in England [I had a £40,000 mortgage – that is £210,000 unlawfully taken off me because of ultra vires actions by judges] and I did not see my own children at all during 2006 and half of 2007. I saw Katie and Ben a little bit in 2005, but it was not quality contact for them because Williamson had issued a declaration that encouraged Mrs Holmes, and the Department of Education and the Department of Home Affairs to PREVENT Manx children having any kind of direct contact with me, contrary to law, contrary to morals and contrary to social conventions and to standards of basic human decency. Wouldn't you be obsessed – wouldn't you want to ensure that it didn't happen again? On 23rd October 2012 Deemster Sharon Roberts issued what she called a General Civil Restraint Order – and threatened me – “Mr. Holmes you must obey the direction contained in the Order. If you do not you will be guilty of contempt of Court and you may be sent to prison. ” Yes, and? I have now applied to take this matter to Her Majesty's [Privy] Council or the JCPC – the Judicial - 18 -
Committee of the Privy Council. That is a measure of the lengths I will go to in order to Let RIGHT be Done. There is a doctrine called the fruit of the poisonous tree coined by Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1939. It applied to illegally obtained evidence, but it is analogous with the production of false documents that are used in evidence. It is also relevant in a dialogue as that between AKW and KOR on 5 th November 2004. 1. Williamson alleged that he had heard from Mr Holmes – he had not, I had written a note to the Chief Registrar (who at the time was Angela Lloyd-Humphrey LL.B. (a legal degree). 2. Williamson stated that the “orders” of the County Court were “registered here” meaning the High Court of the Isle of Man. 3. Williamson stated as a fact that “Those orders are binding.” There was no registration and the orders were not binding – the tree was poisoned in that hearing so ALL points raised were of no consequence – were fruit of the poisoned tree. But there was one more lie – “I have no paperwork – I think this is very akin to” something else. Williamson positively enthused the word “Yes!” [KOR has given me a precedent]. Well, NO! In 2011 KOR admitted in writing that the other case was a divorce in the Principle Divorce Registry. I had by that time obtained the missing sheet from the Child Custody Act 1987 – Schedule 1 [to Part 1]. The Appropriate Court is the High Court of Justice of England, not a County Court and not a Divorce Registry. KOR replied “The Principle Divorce Registry is the High Court!” [Well if it is the High Court call it the High Court, don't call it the “washrooms behind the bicycle sheds, you moron!] OK, so what this is very akin to was a case in the correct appropriate court; whereas this is actually a matter that finished in the County Court on 24th February 2004 with the words “to the Isle of Man permanently” meaning “Deputy Deemster Williamson in the Isle of Man; jurisdiction is yours.” “I think again you would have to go back to Judge Forrester!” [no, he is another cretin who doesn't know what he is doing, just like you, you charlatan sloth!] It is impossible to argue with someone like Williamson, so you have to wait until you have fresh information and “have another go!” But when you do, a clerk in the back office will abuse his position and visit one of the Deemsters and say “this man is irrationally obsessed” – what can we do to stop him. By the time I got into the court-room on 20 th September 2012 with Deemster Roberts, I had forgotten what I was there for! Roberts: “From reading all his submissions as aforesaid I half expected Mr. Holmes to be belligerent but I was pleasantly surprised to find Mr. Holmes polite, sensible and apologetic for some of the more colourful expressions in his submissions. He articulated, and I understood perfectly, that he wants two things. The first is a complete review of the Statutes and Rules in the Isle of Man which can be said to relate to the Lancaster Orders – not just for his benefit but for the benefit of all who may be faced with a situation bearing some similarities to those pertaining to the Lancaster Orders. ”
I too had expectations of the Deemster that were not met, I found her helpful and willing to listen, but the Deemster was interested in straining the gnat when she had swallowed the camel! In January 2012 I was alerted to The Winslow Boy for an example of direct examination by an advocate. It is, of course, complete fiction; but it piqued my interest in the real case and of the Advocate Sir Edward Carson of whom I was barely aware. What a great man he was – a wonderful advocate to the age of 55 or so, and then the founder of the state of Northern Ireland: he was leader of the Ulster Unionists, and as a Dubliner he was well aware of the huge problems awaiting him in - 19 -
1910/11. Carson had one last issue to deal with before he moved to “create” NI: one of the great civil rights cases of Anglo-American jurisprudence – the Petition of Right of Martin Archer-Shee (versus The Crown) in 1909/1910. It is the case that inspired The Winslow Boy by Rattigan, and much of the story is true. And it has analogies with my situation for the “buck stopped” in 1908-10 with the Crown, the Lords of the Admiralty being in the domain of the King – in 1909 Edward 7 th – in 1910 George 5th. The President of the High Court in the Isle of Man is Her Majesty's First Deemster and that office has responsibility for direction and supervision of administrative duties discharged by officers of the High Court; who are in turn appointed by the First Deemster. In a logical sequence, responsibility for the production of four false instruments on 28 th May 2004 likes with the office of the First Deemster. Although Williamson knew all about and Williamson authorised the wrongful action on 28th May 2004, the work of the High Court was distributed to him by the First Deemster – T.W. Cain in 2002, and J.M. Kerruish in 2003. Deemster Kerruish would not have known how useless Williamson was – he had been Acting Deemster since 2000(?) so it would have been assumed he knew what he was doing. Taking over as First Deemster on 1 st February 2003, (the same day the CYPA 2001 commenced), Mr Kerruish would have been reluctant to “pull” Williamson from the Family Division or sack the charlatan, so he let him be. It was “innocent negligence!” But Deemster Kerruish was one of the panel in the review court who on 26 th October 2007 made “no fair criticism” of Williamson – so Deemster Kerruish was saying “the buck stops with me.” Other Deemsters took the “no fair criticism” remark as meaning “How could he possibly know what wrongs had been done in the Courts Administration?” But after Deemster Corlett admitted that Williamson bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division and then Paul W. Coppell made an admission on 27th June 2011, it became evident that it was Williamson himself who authorised the “non registrations” on 28th May 2004. Coppell “Whilst it is easy to consider that the role of Courts Administration and the Courts themselves 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.” In other words: “Deemster Williamson, what do we do with these two photocopies of documents that look like Court orders from an English County Court submitted by Mrs Holmes (and addressed to you) on 2nd April 2004?” AKW “You register them in this court under the Child Custody Act 1987.” Clerk “Shouldn't we check with the Attorney General?” AKW “Hell, No. Not that moron; in order to prevent the courts business becoming stalled just Register them under the Child Custody Act 1987. If there's any come-back, I'll deal with it in Court.” Clerk “Should we inform Mr Holmes, the father of the children”. AKW “What for? There is no requirement on disclosure in the 1987 Act”. This is just like Nick Leeson, but the other way round! Leeson made his unlawful trades in the front office and then justified them in the back office: Williamson assisted administrative actions in - 20 -
the back office, and then declared them valid in his own kangaroo court where he exercised Williamson's Law; a court of summary civil injustice [“ I was trained to work at pace in the Inner London Magistrates courts where you would expect to get through a list of 40 charges in the morning and 130-140 traffic summonses, at least one contested, in the afternoon.” BFD! Big Deal!]
“You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event!” No we don't. But by making “no fair criticism” of the Charlatan, Deemster Kerruish said to me “sue the General Registry if you want, but leave the Deputy Deemster alone.” Deemster Doyle made it very clear on 14th December 2011 that “no fair criticism” was the law. On 2 nd April 2013 Melton and Tattersall wrote that it was an observations. Well, it was a WRONG observations! Doyle: “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. 12. Mr. Holmes this morning said that he did not dispute the Staff of Government Division decision.”
And that is right, I don't dispute their decision, and Deemster Roberts and Stephen Robertson (and Stephen Cregeen and Paul Coppell) have put a stop on suing the General Registry; so I only have one option left – sue the crown. It can be done; the last remnants of power of the Crown ended in 1947 with the Crown Proceedings Act – the Crown is like any other entity – it can be sued. But a judge has judicial immunity! No, not quite – a judge has judicial immunity if he is on the bench acting in a judicial capacity, but if an officer of the High Court, such as the Assistant Chief Registrar, issues four false documents headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT that purportedly recorded some administrative action that had not in fact happened, then the buck stops with the officer of Her Majesty's First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls (and Deputy Governor and President of the High Court). On 5th November 2004, although the case was listed with a strange combination file reference number [Div 2004/144 & FD/UK/COR/04/02] and as Holmes v Holmes, because Williamson held a kangaroo court meeting and issued a false instrument at the end of the meeting, the hearing was the beginning of The Crown versus Stephen Holmes with officers of the entity “the Crown in the Isle of Man” as the decision maker. The hearings were unfair! Every Deemster (and the High Bailiff – the case moved to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in 2005/6) had made their decision BEFORE entering the court because it was unbelievable that Deputy Deemster Williamson had issued a false instrument and abused the rights of children and their father! Williamson: No – he is a family man with children and grand-children. Well, yes: Williamson – he is a charlatan in the civil court. He may have been efficient in a magistrates court, but he was not intelligent enough for work in children's matter – he could only deal with adversarial disputes, and he “piled in” on the side of the “party” with breasts. “Again I sympathise; I don't expect every headmaster or even every constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is”. But it is expected of the Deputy Deemster (who is governing the Family Division) to study the Child Custody Act 1987 not just bluff his way through hearings. And if criticism is necessary, then criticism should be made. But it wasn't; and Doyle accepted it as “gospel”. J.M. Kerruish died in 2010 and now D.C. Doyle is First Deemster – so now the buck stops with Deemster Doyle, who is inexplicably involved in the snafu, again because he had spent 4 years in the Court of General Gaol Delivery before being thrown in to matter DIV 2004/144 (that ended on 1st July 2004, but had been resurrected) on 3 rd September 2007. He got me arrested – which was nice; and the life of my 11 year-old daughter was put at risk on 5 th / 6th September 2007. Which was - 21 -
unacceptable. Deemster Doyle dived in on 10th March 2008 and “ordered” the following. The contact at this stage shall be in accordance with the child’s present stated wish to have direct contact every other Saturday for four hours but subject to such contact taking place in the presence and under the supervision of either the Respondent’s mother, or one of the Respondent’s brothers, or a Methodist Church Minister from either Douglas or Port Erin, or such other appropriate adult as may be agreed from time to time between the parties in writing No further applications for orders under Part 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 in respect of the said children or either of them may he made by the Respondent without the leave of the Court within 2 years of the date of this Order The Parties and the said children may continue to have contact with the Court Welfare Officer in an endeavour to assist in relation to contact On 1st July 2004 I was the Applicant. How I became the Respondent on 10 th March 2008 I have no idea. On 6th July 2011 Deemster Corlett referenced “the Respondent's Application!” They really don't have a scooby-doo! Abusing the rights of children for 21 years! Continuing to abuse the rights of children, contrary to basic human decency. The Isle of Man : Where You Can have your family destroyed. I return to the Archer-Shee Case in 1909/10. On 12th July 1910, Sir Edward Carson said to the judge “this is the worst case of oppression without remedy that I have ever encountered in 33 years at the bar”. Carson would have turned over in his grave between 1990 and 2010 for the people of Liverpool and he should be spinning fast in the matter of the Crown in the Isle of Man versus Stephen Holmes (and Katie Holmes and Ben Holmes). The Isle of Man: Where you Can have oppression without remedy: Where the rule of law has broken down because the Deemsters are above the law and anyone can judge in own cause without fear of rebuttal. I have almost had enough – almost, but not quite.
- 22 -