Her Majesty was pleased…

an Account of a SNAFU 1

by

G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc., Manxman

1 Situation Normal: All Fouled Up

A report on ten years of malfeasance and maladministration in the General Registry of the Isle of Man Government, and the

incompetence, misgovernment and partiality of Her Majesty’s Deemsters [and of the Judge of Appeal] in the Isle of Man.

- 1 -

Summary

It is well known that lawyers are arrogant; in surveys it has been revealed that many advocates are “closet

psychopaths” but in certain cases an advocate will have such hubris that he (or she) becomes complacent.

Arrogance leads to complacency; complacency leads to ignorance of the law; and ignorance of the subject

one is supposed to be “practicing” leads to incompetence.

On Thursday 1st July 2004 and on Friday 5th November 2004 two “legal professionals” were in the same civil

court-room; Deputy Deemster AK Williamson and “senior” Advocate K. O'Riordan; and on the latter occasion,

Kevin (KOR) was representing Stephen Holmes is a hearing scheduled by AK Williamson at three hours

notice. Williamson knew and “trusted” O'Riordan; O'Riordan knew Williamson and assumed that he knew

what he was doing.

But AK Williamson had spent 25 years in criminal courts before being given a civil court “to play with”. There

are cases reported where it was judged by the superior court that the Deputy Deemster erred or erred in

law; but it developed that on 28th May 2004 he was asked to assist in an administrative matter – a legal

administration of a “due process”: the so-called “Registration” of a “custody order” from a court in England.

The Deputy Deemster would have certainly told the administrative officer to “register these orders under the

Child Custody Act 1987 and record the information required in the rules of the High Court – see Government

Circular 1991/232.”

The due process of “registration” requires certain criteria (or “issues”) to be accorded to; and NONE of the

five criteria contained in the Child Custody Act 1987 were followed – the main one being that the so-called

“orders” were made in a County Court in England; and the only civil law court in the Isle of Man is the High

Court. It was purported that on 28th May 2004 two civil (county) court documents from England were

registered when they were not so registered, but nobody in the courts building actually checked the

statutory requirements for a proper registration. Notice that the registration had purportedly taken place

was sent to Mrs Holmes, but not to Mr Holmes; disclosure did not take place. So the “hearing” on 1 st July

2004 was a kangaroo court because it began with the allegation that registrations had taken place – the

evidence presented to two parents by the Deputy Deemster (or rather presented to the mother only) was

false. [Kevin O'Riordan was not actually in the same court-room as Stephen Holmes on 1st July 2004 – but

he attended the second kangaroo court meeting of 5th November 2004 and alleged that “this” was “very

akin” to something else – without referring to paperwork or “evidence”].

THREE AND A HALF YEARS after the so-called “registrations” of 28th May 2004 purportedly took place, two

judges in the Isle of Man confirmed that documents from England had not been so registered. But by the

end of November 2004 the “damage had been done”. A false instrument masquerading as a “court order”

was circulated through various Government bodies in the Isle of Man, and on that false policy document was

the mantra that alleged that Manx father G. Stephen Holmes should have no family life with his own young

Manx children. By late 2006 the Lt. Governor knew of the policy of “indirect dealings”; the Attorney General

knew and another Deemster had entered the fray and turned a blind eye to the abuses (rights abuse, but

abuses nevertheless). On 3rd September 2007 Deemster Doyle entered the fray and issued another false

instrument masquerading as a “specific question order”. Deemster Doyle did not refer to statute or rules of

the High Court, (or to case law); but read “the court file” which was full of false documentation.

Even the First Deemster and the Judge of Appeal were biased in their judgment of 26 th October 2007

because they made “no fair criticism” of the Deputy Deemster for issuing a declaration that had no basis in

law. A fair minded and informed individual would have strongly criticised the Deputy Deemster and perhaps

suspended him from his position from 26/10/2007 to 6/01/2008 (when he retired).

- 2 -

What followed the wrong of 28th May 2004 was a catalogue of wrongs – and wrong-doing (malfeasance) is

still the preferred method of working of the advocates in the Isle of Man Law Society and the Deemsters in

the High Court of Justice (the civil court) of the Isle of Man – including those involved in the administration

of children matters.

On 14th October 1991 England & Wales enacted the Children Act 1989 – that jurisdiction received NEW

children law – law exclusively for those under 18 years of age. The Isle of Man enacted “minor's law” on 1 st

April 1992, less than six-months later. The whole of the UK embraced the UNCRC on 16 th January 1992; the

Isle of Man embraced such on 2nd September 1994. The Family Division of the High Court was created on 1st

October 1992, but until 1999/2000 it was only one of the TWO Deemsters (latterly Deemster Kerruish and

Deemster Cain) who sat in the Family Division, and these two legal professionals had “cut their teeth” in the

Court of General Gaol Delivery – the upper criminal court [or the Manx equivalent of the Crown Court].

At least Deemster Cain and Deemster Kerruish acted in a superior court – AK Williamson was a magistrate in

the lower criminal court. Somehow, in the summer of 2002, he was given the position of Deputy Deemster

to start on 1st September 2002; presumably because there was no trained chimpanzee available. He was a

disaster for children law – although the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 [passed on 11 th July 2001] was

enacted on 1st February 2003, Williamson and the High Court Office put children law in the Isle of Man back

twenty years, not forward into the 21st century – and that is where it has remained ever since. Not a single

children matter is listed as Re A (A Child) or Re J (A Child) or Re H (Children) or Re X and Y; they are

all listed as Kramer versus Kramer. In what was called the Family Division [is now the Civil Division – Family

Business section] Advocates represent parents because the lawyers are only interested in money and status

– not in the rights of children. In the lower criminal court, magistrates will ask Andrew Lang to advise on

the Mental Health Act; but in the Family “division” in a children matter, the Deemster will assume that he

knows the law, and someone like KOR assumes he “knows the law” because he studied the Guardianship of

Minors Act 1971 for his law exams in 1987. The 1971 GOM Act was repealed on 14/10/1991.

Statute prevails over the rules of equity; Equity prevails over common law; and the European Convention on

Human Rights is now enshrined in statute in the Isle of Man and in England+Wales (and Scotland, and NI).

But the Deputy Deemster could issue a declaration alleging an Adult can only enjoy “indirect” dealings with

his own Manx children and nobody in public authority questioned the opinion of the Deputy Deemster for

THREE YEARS – when I questioned it, it took 8 months for a declaration that had no basis in law to be set-

aside – by that time a family had been utterly destroyed because of hubris.

The effects of actions in 2004 are still being felt.

Like Hillsborough – where it has taken 25 years to schedule a proper inquest where ALL the evidence will be

considered; the tree was poisoned on 15th and 16th April 1989 with the mantra “the fans are to blame” – the

Holmes family was destroyed on 28th May 2004 with the mantra “the orders from Lancaster County Court are

registered here”. TEN YEARS AGO. Like Derry/Londonderry – the protesters were armed – NO THEY

WERE NOT.

The First Deemster still asks AK Williamson to sit in private law hearings in the kangaroo court of injustice of

the Isle of Man; and as the following account shows, the malfeasance (that started in England with a judge

and administrators in Kendal assuming the Isle of Man to be part of England) has now returned to England

and has been accepted as “the right thing to do” by administrators in the Judicial Committed office – the

mantras of wrong-doing have extended to the Privy Council and on 28 th April 2014, 119 months after the

tree was poisoned in the Isle of Man, the “Queen's Most Excellent Majesty” will take the fruit of the poisoned

tree and will be please by and with the advice given to her by people of hubris.

- 3 -

Introduction

On Thursday 10th April 2014, at about 14:30 in the afternoon I received an e-mail from a Clerk in a court

office in London, England.

The e-mail was headed JCPC 2013/0103, and read —

Dear Sir,

Please find a draft Order regarding this matter attached.

The sealed Order will by issued shortly.

The attached document had a ludicrous long title including “Holmes v The General Registry” and ended in

the word REFUSED.

When I viewed the document, I noticed that the hearing at which my attempt to Appeal to the Judicial

Committee of the Privy Council [“JCPC”] was REFUSED has not taken place yet – it is due to happen on

Monday 28th April 2014. The hearing was due to take place at Buckingham Palace, but will take place IN THE COURT AT WINDSOR CASTLE

The last paragraph of the so-called “order” will begin HER MAJESTY was pleased by and with the advice of

Her Privy Council. It has already been decided how Her Majesty will feel about an injustice.

Her Majesty will be pleased by the advice of Her Privy Council in two weeks time!

Her Majesty has already decided the outcome of my appeal. Permission to have a hearing in the Judicial

Committee of the Privy Council is to be refused because the matter is essentially G. Stephen Holmes

versus Her Majesty’s First Deemster of the Isle of Man and it cannot be seen that the office of the

First Deemster in the Isle of Man has been corrupt in the past.

The Application to the JCPC administrative office was made because an Appeal to the Staff of Government

Division of the High Court in the Isle of Man failed to undo damage caused by wrong-doing in 2004! It was

not that there was anything wrong with the Applications to remedy the wrongs of 2004, but that the Judge

of Appeal [Geoffrey Frank Tattersall QC] and his “second” [Christopher Melton QC] made a ludicrous

statement regarding Applications. The “judgment” issued in case 2DS 2012/40 on 2nd April 2013, and

published on about 15th April included the following —

The relevant factual background

3. The background to the judgment of Deemster Roberts can conveniently be summarized thus.

4. On [sic] 2003 when the Appellant and Mrs Yvonne Holmes, his now former wife [‘Mrs Holmes’] were residing in England, both parties made applications to the Kendal County Court relating to their two children. Ultimately on 24 February 2004 District Judge Forrester sitting at the Lancaster County Court made orders that children should reside with Mrs Holmes, that Mrs Holmes should have permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man and that the Appellant should have reasonable contact with the children provided that such contact took place in the Isle of Man. There was no appeal by either party.

5. On 2 April 2004 Mrs Holmes wrote to the Clerk to His Honour Deputy Deemster Williamson enclosing copies of the residence order and the order granting leave to permanently remove the children to the Isle of Man. On or about 28 May 2004 notice of registration of such orders by the Isle of Man High Court was sent to Mrs Holmes but it does not appear that such notice was sent to the Appellant.

- 4 -

6. On 18 May 2004 the Appellant made an application in the Isle of Man for a residence order in respect of both children but at a hearing on 1 July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Appellant that orders made by the Lancaster County Court had been registered and dismissed his application. The Appellant did not appeal such decision.

7. Although the parties were both now resident in the Isle of Man, on 27 October 2004 District Judge Nuttall sitting at the Lancaster County Court ordered that the Appellant do have indirect contact [by telephone calls, letters and emails] with the children and subsequently on or about 4 November 2004 such order was purportedly registered in the Isle of Man High Court.

8. On 5 November 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson made an order declaring [inter alia] that ‘the orders of the Lancaster County Court registered in this Court are of full effect and enforceable within the jurisdiction of this Court’.

On Friday 26th October 2007 the Staff of Government Division handed down a judgment created after a

hearing on 24th September 2007 (in Public) which included the phrase (with reference to the so-called order

of 5th November 2004) that “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have

made the order which he did.”

In fact the SOGD confirmed this fact again on 2nd April 2013 – “However, it should be noted that at paragraph 47 of its judgment this court observed that :

“Although no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for him accepting what he believed to be correct, namely that the orders had been properly registered, given that there was in fact no proper registration there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did. Whilst we recognise that the Deputy Deemster could have exercised the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man courts to make an order to like effect, he did not exercise such jurisdiction.”

The words proper and properly should and can be ignored.

At paragraph 15 of the “judgment” of 2nd April 2013 [see http://www.judgments.im/content/J1356.htm] is

the confusing phrase – “In so far as the Appellant had sought clarity as to whether the English orders had been properly registered, the judgment of this court had given such clarity.”

At a Court held at Douglas on the 11th day of December 2012, His Honour Judge of Appeal Tattersall QC

recorded that The Appellant do file … any applications which he may wish to make in respect of the 8

documents issued on 28th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 … by 25th January.

What the Appellant (me, G. Stephen Holmes) applied for by 25th January 2013 was a declaration from the

Appeal Division that the four documents of 28th May 2004 are void and be expunged; and a further

statement that the four documents of 4th November 2004 are void and be expunged from record.

An Application that “the court give clarity as to whether the English orders had been properly registered”

was not made, for this Appellant has been dismayed by the lack of understanding of members of the

judiciary in the Isle of Man of the word improperly.

There is an American legal doctrine (which has been used in the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom)

called the Fruit of the Poisonous or Poisoned Tree which refers to improperly or unlawfully obtained

evidence.

In the order of 1st July 2004, made by Deputy Deemster AK Williamson (born 1946 – so will be referred to as

- 5 -

“AK 46”), in case referred to as Div 2004/144 [which was not in fact a divorce] the word “evidence” is used –

UPON consideration of the evidence of both parties – the evidence being the documents (four of) issued on

28th May 2004 purportedly recording the so-called “registration” of so-called orders of the Lancaster (English)

County Court.

At paragraph 6 (above: in the box) it is confirmed that on 1st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson “told

the Appellant” that the “orders from the English Court” had been registered. In paragraph 12 of the 2nd April

2013 judgment is “On 19 March 2007 the Appellant sought to appeal the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5 November 2004. Notwithstanding the passage of time, this court [Deemster Kerruish and Tattersall JA] gave the Appellant leave to appeal out of time and in its judgment delivered on 26 October 2007 concluded that the requirements for the registration of the orders made by the English courts were not met.”

The requirements for the registration of orders made by Lancaster County Court were not met – not on 28 th

May 2004 (and not on 4th November 2004) – and so there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy

Deemster could have made the “order” of 5th November 2004. But as wrong as issuing a declaratory order

that had no basis in law on 5th November 2004, Deputy Deemster AK 46 lied from the Bench on 1st July 2004

– he told “the Appellant” that the “orders” from Lancaster [and Lancaster has a County Court – the

documents were clearly headed In the Lancaster County Court] were registered when the requirements

for the registration of the orders were not met.

This was confirmed by the former Chief Registrar Peter Corkhill in writing on 25 th July 2007 [in a letter

addressed to Mannin Chambers using their reference number 07-066 and court file number Div 2004/144]

with the verbose phrase “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987”. This

verbose phrase could have been replaced with one word – unlawfully.

It is helpful to give the true factual background to the matter rather than the interpretation given by

Tattersall and Melton on 2nd April 2013 – in paragraphs 4 to 6 above.

It is alleged that “both parties made applications to the Kendal County Court relating to their two children” in 2003 whilst “the Appellant” and Mrs Holmes were residing in England.

The evidence shows that Mrs Holmes and the children were actually residing in the Isle of Man – and had

been habitually and permanently resident in the Isle of Man since Friday 8th August 2003.

It is a legal requirement for a successful “registration” under the Child Custody Act 1987 that ALL supporting

documentation must accompany the certified copy of the “custody order” to be registered – and supporting

documentation should have included statements from both parents with regard to matters considered in

England (Kendal on 5th and 24th November 2003 and Lancaster on 3rd and 24th February 2004) relating to the

Section 8 Children Act 1989 “Order Residence and Contact Order” of 24th February 2004.

There was a hearing in Kendal County Court on 5th November 2003 [a Wednesday] and an Order was

produced [a C21 Blank Order – an administrative order] relating to Isle of Man resident children Katarina

May Holmes and Peter Benedict Holmes. A “final hearing” was scheduled for 24 th November 2003 and

statements were ordered served and filed by 20th November 2003. These facts were known to the SOGD in

September 2007 because the Amicus Curiae (friend of the Court) presented them in his skeleton argument

sent to the Court Office on or about 27th July 2007.

On or about 17th November 2003 Mrs Holmes presented to Kendal Court the following –

- 6 -

KENDAL COUNTY COURT KN03P00016

STATEMENT OF YVONNE HOLMES

I, YVONNE HOLMES, of 25 Droghadfayle Road, Port Erin, Isle of Man, IM9 6EL will say as follows:

1. I am the mother of Katarina May Holmes, DOB. 19.05.96 and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes,

DOB. 28.08.99 and make this Statement pursuant to the Courts directions of the 5th November

2003.

Background

2. I was born in April 1959 at Isle of Man. I married Stephen in the Isle of Man in June 1990. We

are both from the Island and our two children were born in the Isle of Man in 1996 and 1999

respectively.

Mrs Holmes continued –

[13] … I had contemplated moving back to the Isle of Man with the children to obtain support with

childcare from my family, particularly from my mother who lives only a few miles from Port Erin. In

August 2003 I took the children to my parents’ with a view to making enquiries as to accommodation and

schooling.

15. I instructed my Solicitors to write to Stephen’s then Solicitors, seeking his formal consent to my

permanent removal of the children from the Court’s jurisdiction and a copy of my Solicitors’ letter dated 15th

September 2003 is attached hereto, marked “YH1”. By letter dated 5th October 2003 Stephen responded in

person … I became aware that he was formally contesting my removal of the children almost three

months after I had moved to the Isle of Man.

18. Katie and Ben both attend Rushen Primary School. This school is less than half a mile from home

– a 15-minute walk. Both children have settled into school life and are progressing well, making friends

mainly within school. Katie has become involved in many new activities both within and outside school.

My cousin is the Deputy Head-teacher at Rushen Primary School and she is also Ben’s reception class

teacher.

I make this Statement believing the same to be true and in the knowledge that it may be produced in

evidence to the Court.

Signed by Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) on about 17th November 2003

There is that word again – evidence.

Here is part of the skeleton argument presented to the appeal Division in mid-2007

Serial No: 2DS 2007/9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MANSTAFF OF GOVERNMENT DIVISION

IN THE MATTER of an Order of the Family Division made on 5 November 2004

and

IN THE MATTER of the Appeal of G Stephen Holmes dated 19 March 2007

SKELETON ARGUMENT OF AMICUS CURIAEPreamble

1. This matter, so far as it relates to this jurisdiction, stems from the Order of His Honour Deputy Deemster Williamson of 5th November 2004 although it is obvious from the Appellant’s submissions that his contentions strike to the root of the Orders in the Lancaster County Court (‘the Lancaster Orders’) which predate the order of 5th November 2004.

- 7 -

Chronology

6. The relevant chronology is as follows:-

(a) It seems that sometime before 5th November 2003 the Appellant applied to Kendal County Court for a Residence Order under the Children Act 1989 (of Parliament) in respect of the two children of Mrs Holmes and the Appellant, being Katarina May Holmes born on 19 May 1996 and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes born on 28 August 1999. It is understood that this application was made in response to Mrs Yvonne Holmes’ application for permission to remove the children from the jurisdiction of the Kendal Court to the Isle of Man. It is apparent, however, that the children had at that point already been removed from that jurisdiction as they started school in the Isle of Man on 3rd September 2003.

(b) On 5th November 2003 directions were given by the Court as to the filing of statements.

(c) On 24th November 2003 further directions were given as to contact, the filing of a report by the Children and Family Reporter as to residence and removal of the children to the Isle of Man, and as to transfer of the matter to Lancaster County Court for hearing.

(d) By Order of Lancaster County Court (District Judge Forrester) dated 24th February 2004 entitled ‘Residence and Contact Order’ (hereinafter ‘the First Order’) under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (of Parliament), Mrs Yvonne Holmes was granted a residence order in respect of the two children.

(e) By the same Order the Appellant was granted contact with the children on the basis that such contact would take place in the Isle of Man.

(f) By the same Order Mrs Holmes was granted permission to remove the children from the UK to the Isle of Man and a separate Order (hereinafter ‘the Second Order’) was drawn up in respect of that permission.

Summary

33. In all of the circumstances, the Amicus Curiae submits that the time to Appeal should be extended, that the Declarations of the 5th November 2004 and 16th November 2005 so far as they relate to the Lancaster Orders should be set aside and that the Appellant should be granted leave to submit an application for direct contact to his children.

Dated this 26th day of July 2007

(signed)

Paul Beckett as Amicus Curiae

The SOGD (“appeal Division”) judges were informed on 24th September 2007 that “It is apparent, however,

that the children had at that point already been removed from that jurisdiction as they started school in the

Isle of Man on 3rd September 2003.”

Mrs Yvonne Holmes, Katie and Ben Holmes (a “Manx family”) were habitually and permanently resident in

the Isle of Man from Friday 8th August 2003, so the allegation that Mrs Holmes was “resident in England” is

factually wrong. The appeal Division (First Deemster and Judge of Appeal) made exactly the same error at

the beginning of their judgment in matter 2DS 2007/9 issued on 26th October 2007 –

The relevant background

5. It is crucial to set out the relevant factual background

- 8 -

6. In 2003, when both the Appellant and the Respondent were resident in England, both made

applications to the Kendal County Court relating to their children. The Appellant applied for a

residence order and the Respondent applied for leave to remove the children from the English

jurisdiction. It seems that such applications were transferred to the Lancaster County Court.

There was no attempt at making any judgment or order anonymous in 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 2007, so the

names Stephen Holmes and Yvonne Holmes were in the public domain from about 10 th November 2004

when the Isle of Man police [part of the DHA] and the Department of Education received copies of the false

declaration of AK 46 Williamson of 5th November 2004 – there was no legitimate basis upon which AK 46

could have made that so-called court order.

Deputy Deemster AK 46 – a “weapon of mass destruction”.

Williamson gave his “exit interview” to A. Darbyshire at Isle of Man Newspapers in December 2007: he

ceased to be a member of the Isle of Man judiciary on 6 th January 2008, just two months after the 2DS

2007/9 judgment. He was a criminal law lawyer in England for a few years before becoming a clerk to lay

magistrates in London (two years) and Kent (8 years). On 6 th January 1988 he was appointed Deputy High

Bailiff in the Isle of Man, a position which he held until 1995. He was then High Bailiff until 1 st September

2002 when he promoted to the newly created position of Deputy Deemster. Williamson had spent 25 years

involved in the administration of criminal justice and was given the “job” of Deputy Deemster in the High

Court (the civil court in the Isle of Man – we don't have Sheading courts – the equivalent of a County Court)

as a “reward” but the Governor and Chief Secretary and First Deemster may as well have appointed an

orang-utan if one had been available.

The lower criminal court in the Island is the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and is also known as the High

Bailiff's Court, and Williamson had been in the Courts building for so long (15 years) that it was assumed

that he could do no wrong in court. But by 2003 ALL children matters in the Isle of Man (and the Children

and Young Persons Act 2001 was enacted on 1st February 2003, the day after the First Deemster retired and

the Second Deemster was promoted to the position of First Deemster [second Deemster was vacant for two

months before David C. Doyle was appointed]) were listed as adversarial disputes between parents –

whereas in England & Wales they are almost always listed as Re: A (A Child). Only recently, the Court of

Appeal in London has replied to correspondence with the header Re H (Children) but the so-called “order”

of AK 46 of 5th November 2004 contained [inter alia] the following –

FD/UK/COR/04/02IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN

FAMILY DIVISIONBetweenYVONNE HOLMES ApplicantandGORDON STEPHEN HOLMES RespondentandIN THE MATTER of the Orders of the Lancaster County Court of the 24th day of February 2004 and the 27th day of October 2004 and registered in this Court on the 28th day of May 2004 and the 4th day of November 2004 respectivelyIT IS DECLARED2. that the Respondent have indirect contact with the said children as authorised by Clause 2

of the Order of the 27th day of October 2004 of the Lancaster County CourtIT IS ORDERED3. that the Applicant do serve a plain copy of this Order upon the head teacher of Rushen

Primary School4. that a plain copy of this Order be lodged at Police Headquarters Douglas and at Port Erin

- 9 -

Police Station

Only a judge who had spent 25 years in criminal courts would Order that a declaration made “in Chambers”

in a CIVIL Court should be lodged with the Police!

It is a crime against section 80 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 to identify children either directly

or indirectly. AK Williamson made no attempt to anonymise or de-personalise the “order”; indeed he

“published” a document signed on 30th November 2005 giving details of everything regarding the Manx

children Katie and Ben Holmes.

Contact orders are with respect to children, not about the adult father; have been since 1st April 1991 in

the Isle of Man (and since 14th October 1991 in England + Wales).

AK 46 was a charlatan in the civil courts; especially dealing with children matters. He knew “nothing”.

In 2006 I received this “log” from the General Registry –

Description Deputy Deemster Williamson – Summary Business & Family Law [“AK 46”]Date 01/07/2004 Location Douglas Court 7

Time Speaker Note08:44:38 TESTINGS08:58:27 9.05 am Summary Business09:02:07 0392988 Blackhorse Offshore v Wayne McKee - Mr Herbert for Pl - McKee In Person10:38:39 11.30 AM FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTIONS COURT11:25:47 Div 2000/199 Robley v Robley - A Thomas & P Pringle11:35:59 Div 2004/054 Cass v Cass - J Quinn & A Hannan11:54:21 Div 2004/144 Holmes v Holmes - Both In Person12:11:34 Div 2003/180 Watling v Watling - S Watson & J Thornley12:17:44 Div 2004/028 Cubbon v Cubbon - J Thornley & A Hannan12:27:53 Div 2004/149 Purvis v Crellin - In Person both parties12:37:08 Div 2002/089 Quayle v Quayle - A Hannan - no appearance12:48:24 Div 2003/212 Moore v Moore - P Butterworth & P Pringle (no notice given)12:56:34 Div 2002/168 Fox-Hulme v Fox-Hulme In person & No appearance of res13:01:35 DDW Mrs Fox-Hulme sworn in - evidence in chief16:31:40 DDW Hull v Hull - K O'Riordan v D Jones16:32:19 D Jones Re: letter application of 28th June, 200416:33:16 K O'Riordan contact16:37:19 Mr East re:report16:40:03 Mrs Jones submissions

[This table shows that KOR was in the kangaroo court-room on 1st July 2004 with DD AK 46 W]

Of course any person looking at 11:54:21 | Div 2004/144 | Holmes v Holmes - Both in Person

would assume the matter was a Divorce : when in fact the 18/May/2004 Application was about children. It

should also be noted that the FORM C1 submitted by me on 18th May 2004 was headed Family Law Act

1991, not Children and Young Persons Act 2001, although the 2001 CYP Act had re-enacted Parts 1 and 2

of the 1991 FL Act fifteen months earlier (on 1st February 2003).

The Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is an Act to REFORM the law relating to children; not an Act

to re-state the concepts of “custody” and “access” in new words! There is the “no order” principle in the

CYPA 2001 [section 1(5)] which was also in the FLA 1991 [in section 1(3)] but there is no evidence that any

Deemster in the Isle of Man has ever made a “default” order – that is: no order at all.

Nuttall's SNAFU.

There was a directions hearing in Lancaster County Court on Wednesday 29th October 2003 at 12:00 with

regard to Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes (who had been habitually resident in the Isle of Man for

almost three months by that time – it could be argued that Katie, Ben and Yvonne ceased to be temporarily

resident in England & Wales on 20th July 2003; but the date 8th August 2003 is 100% accurate, and

- 10 -

20/07/2003 is open to debate). At that directions hearing, District Judge Gordon Nuttall (now retired) stated

that the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom. I informed the ignorant judge of his error, but he ended

the argument with “I'm not going to argue with you, Mr Holmes”.

A SNAFU is a foul-up – it is an American military acronym for Situation Normal : All Fouled-Up and is used

now even in children's TV programs.

Prior to Nuttall's stupid remark [it was plain wrong] the Court Service (now HMCTS) had been moved from

being an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor’s Department to the Department for Constitutional Affairs

– which is now the Ministry of Justice. The LCD had a web-site which was promptly updated to become

www.dca.gov.uk and e-mail addresses were changed, but the document on the web-site with relation to the

Isle of Man still referred to the Lord Chancellor’s Department, not the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

In January of 2004 I saved the following on my computer –

Introduction

This guidance is directed specifically at those in Government Departments or Agencies who deal, or are likely to deal, with matters affecting the Islands.

In Brief

Departments and agencies are asked to: [inter alia]

• consult the Lord Chancellor's Department before briefing Ministers to make statements or to answer Parliamentary Questions about the Islands;

• consult the Lord Chancellor's Department about proposed visits to the Islands by officials or Ministers;

• notify the Lord Chancellor's Department at the first opportunity of proposals for international agreements that might apply to the Islands and of any proposals to make Orders specifying such agreements as Community Treaties.

• Ensure that copies of Westminster legislation - whether primary or subordinate - which extends to the Islands are sent to the Lord Chancellor's Department for formal dispatch to the Island authorities so that they may be registered in the Islands.

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 act on that assumption;

• contact the Island Authorities direct unless, exceptionally, such contact has been agreed in advance by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Status of the Islands

The Islands are not part of the United Kingdom and have no representation in Parliament at Westminster. The "Crown Dependencies" comprise:

• the Bailiwick of Guernsey (including Alderney, Sark and Herm)

• the Isle of Man

• the Bailiwick of Jersey

They are internally self-governing "Dependencies" of the Crown included in the term "British Islands". They are "British Possessions" but not "colonies" (schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978). To distinguish them from the United Kingdom Overseas Territories (which term has replaced "Dependent Territories"), they should be referred to as "Crown Dependencies".

On 29th October 2003 Judge Nuttall, a judge “contracted” by the Court Service to dispense legal decisions in

the County Courts in Lancaster, Kendal and Ulverston, stated that the Isle of Man is part of England. He,

- 11 -

and his colleague Judge Robert M. Forrester continued to act on the assumption that Manx children were

somehow under their jurisdiction or powers, despite Mrs Holmes stating the truth that we are a Manx family

– therefore we are not English. By 15th September 2003 [the date Mrs Holmes’ solicitor wrote to me] Mrs

Holmes and the Manx children were habitually resident in the Isle of Man beyond the powers of judges

sitting in an English County Court. Latin for beyond the powers is ultra vires; and is an important legal

concept – if an action is ultra vires it must be treated as void by the courts. It is not really unlawful to act in

an ultra vires manner – it is outlawry; it is outside the law. There was a great example in the Isle of Man in

2006 in the Solway Harvester case – the concept of “corporate man-slaughter” does not exist in Statute in

the Isle of Man – under the 1872 Criminal Code of Tynwald only a person can unlawfully kill another person

it is not possible for a legal entity such as a company to do so. The charge against Mr Gidney was ultra vires.

Malfeasance in the High Court in the Isle of Man

It is recorded at paragraph 4 of 2DS 2012/40 and paragraph 7 of 2DS 2007/9 that –

7. On 24th February 2004 District Judge Forrester sitting in the Lancaster County Court ordered [inter alia] that :

[1] The Appellant [father] have permission to withdraw his application for residence and prohibited steps.[2] Katarina and Benedict should reside with their mother, Yvonne Holmes[3] Yvonne Holmes has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man.[4] The father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man.[5] The Children and Family Reporter do file a report on the question of contact.

On the same day, District Judge Forrester made a further order in which he granted leave to Yvonne Holmes to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently.

Paragraph [3] had the phrase – “please see separate order attached” – and the separate order did indeed say “remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently.”

Paragraph [2] of the Order of 24th February 2004 was a section 8 “Residence Order” although it now seems

certain that Judge Forrester had no power to make a section 8 residence order because the children were

already habitually resident beyond his powers and had been for 6½ months. A section 8 CA 1989 order

does not apply in Scotland, Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man; each jurisdiction has its own Statute relating

to children. The moment one reads paragraph [3] above and especially the word “permanently” on the

separate order attached, the “residence order” becomes spent and therefore void.

Paragraph [4] above is ultra vires in three ways. It is void ab initio.

The Children and Family Reporter could not report on the question of contact because he could not visit the

Isle of Man without the permission of the Lord Chancellor’s Department – by then the DCA.

Court Orders in England are footed in a particular way –

C21 Blank OrderThe Court Office at Kendal County Court, Burneside Road, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 1AB is open from 10:00am to 4:00pm Mondays to Fridays. Please address all correspondence to the Court Manager and quote the case number.Tel: 01524 68112 Fax: 01524 846471 Printed By: IMOORE Page No: 1

By the beginning of March 2004, Mrs Holmes and myself were in possession of documents from Lancaster

County Court headed –

- 12 -

In the Lancaster County Court

Case Number: KN03P00016

The full name(s) of the children Boy or Girl Date(s) of Birth

Katarina May Holmes Girl 19th May 1996

Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes Boy 28th August 1999

Order Residence and Contact Order Section 8 Children Act 1989

.

and

Order Leave to remove a child from the United KingdomSection 13(1) Children Act 1989

From mid-2003 to March 2004 I divided my time between Lancaster in England and Douglas in the Isle of

Man, but after Forrester alleged that I could enjoy reasonable “dealings” with my own Manx children

“provided such took place in the Isle of Man” I left England and returned home to the Isle of Man; although

my children were resident in Port Erin (and had been since 1st September 2003 – they were in Ballasalla from

8th August to 1st September; and they actually started school on 2nd September 2003) I stayed in Douglas –

16 miles away.

It became clear very quickly that Yvonne wanted to marginalise me from the lives of my children, so after 8

weeks (on 18th May 2004 – I had begum permanent and singular residence in the Isle of Man on 1 st April

2004) I applied for a section 9 Family Law Act 1991 residence order – on the basis of shared or joint

residence – I wanted our children to reside with both parents; but I stated that I did not expect “equal time”.

Mrs Holmes responded to a letter from me by hand-writing a letter to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster

Williamson, Family Division at the IOM Courts of Justice building in Douglas. She attached to her letter

photocopies of the so-called Children Act 1989 “orders” of Lancaster County Court.

Under section 28 of the High Court Act 1991, the Deputy Deemster (Williamson) was responsible for

direction and supervision of his clerk, and so Mrs Jacqui Brogan would have asked the Deputy Deemster for

direction on what to do with the request. Mrs Holmes wrote “Please register these copy orders in the Isle of

Man courts.”

In February 2007, I also made a request for a court order to be “registered” in the Isle of Man High Court of

Justice – the C21 Blank Order I asked to be registered was issued on 3 rd February 2004. I addressed my

letter, not to the clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division (because I knew that Williamson

would misgovern the application) but to the Court Manager of the High Court (Office).

I received the following letter

Dear Sir

Registration of Court Order – Katarina May Holmes and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes

I am in receipt of your undated letter regarding the registration of an order issued under the Children Act 1989 from Lancaster County Court dated 3rd February 2004.

- 13 -

• Your application should be made through Lancaster County Court;

• The papers should be sent direct to the Isle of Man General Registry, Courts Division, from Lancaster County Court and must include copies of the applications and supporting documents in relation to the order;

• The order will need to be certified by Lancaster County Court and must have the wording “I certify that this is a true copy of the original order of this Court” on it AND be signed by an appropriate person (either the Judge or a Registrar).

I trust this is of assistance.

The letter was signed by a member of the Civil Summary Team.

On 1st April 2011 Deemster Andrew Corlett stated that AK Williamson “bore virtually single-handed all the

work of the Family Division” [including the administration of cases] and on 27th June 2011 the Manager of

the Courts and Tribunal Services Division of the General Registry put in writing –

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 &c. 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 order to prevent the “court business” – in this case Family Division of the High Court business: IN THE

MATTER of Manx children Katarina May Holmes and Peter Benedict Holmes – becoming stalled, the

administrative staff in the High Court Office asked the Judicial Officer who bore single-handed all the work of

the Family Division (and to whom the letter of 2nd April 2004 was addressed via his clerk) AK 46 Williamson

what to do with the two documents issued by Lancaster County Court on 24 th February 2004.

“Register them under the Child Custody Act 1987!”

But the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 were –

1. Your application should be made through Lancaster County Court;

2. The papers should be sent direct to the Isle of Man General Registry, Courts Division, from Lancaster County Court and must include copies of the applications and supporting documents in relation to the order;

3. The order will need to be certified by Lancaster County Court and must have the wording “I certify that this is a true copy of the original order of this Court” on it AND be signed by an appropriate person (either the Judge or a Registrar);

4. The order had to be a “custody order” as defined in section 1 of Part 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 [chapter 55 of the Acts of Parliament for 1986]; and

5. The Court that made the application had to be the correct level of court and for England+Wales had to be Her Majesty’s High Court of England (a Court of Superior Record) not a County Court.

The “application” could only be lawfully made by the Lancaster High Court. The level of certification reflected the level of court – a Registrar is attached to a High Court [Court of Session in Scotland].

The Staff of Government Division made another fundamental error in Law on 26 th October 2007 because the following allegation was made –

“We repeat what we have already said, that this court has no jurisdiction make any determination as to the validity or effect of such orders made in the Lancaster County Court and that any challenge to the

- 14 -

validity or effect of such orders must be made in England. It is sufficient for this court to say that such orders were capable of being registered in the Isle of Man courts.”

It is sufficient for this court to say that orders made in the County Court in Lancaster were capable of being registered in the Isle of Man High Court – but they were not capable of being registered because only High Court can talk to High Court – the confirmation of that is in sections 27 to 32 of the Family Law Act 1986 – upon which much of the Child Custody Act 1987 is based.

One of the so-called registration documents of 28th May 2004 follows – but this document has no validity whatsoever – the C44B Leave to remove child from UK “order” was not so registered on that date –

ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT

CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987

Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom

GENERAL REGISTRY FILE REFERENCE FD/UK/COR/04/02LANCASTER COUNTY COURT KN03P0016

1. APPLICANTS NAME:2. APPLICANTS ADDRESS:3. APPLICANTS INTEREST UNDER THE ORDERS4. CHILD'S NAME:5. CHILD'S SUSPECTED WHEREABOUTS:6. CHILD'S DATE OF BIRTH:7. DATE THE CHILD ATTAINS 16 YEAR OF AGE8. TERMS OF ORDERS:

9. DATE OF ORDERS:10. COURT WHICH MADE THE ORDERS:11. DATE:i) Application filed:ii) Order(s) registerediii) Notice of registration sent to Court which made the Order(s)iv) Notice of registration sent to Applicant

YVONNE HOLMESCambrai, Droghadfayle Road, Port ErinMotherKATARINA MAY HOLMESwith Mother, Cambrai, Droghadfayle Rd.19th May 199619th May 20013Yvonne Holmes to remove the child from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man, permanently24th February 2004Lancaster County Court

2nd April 200428th May 200428th May 2004

28th May 2004

ASSISTANT CHIEF REGISTRAR

The terms of the above (false) document are not those of a 'custody order'.

Note that no “Respondent” is listed on this document: this false document; [not a “forgery” but a document that falsely represents the truth of the situation].

It was unlawful for Mrs Holmes to “file” the Application on 2nd April 2004, but fault for unlawfully accepting the application was in the domain of the Deputy Deemster because the informal letter of 2 nd April 2004 was clearly addressed to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division.

Section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987 is headed “Registration of a custody order in the High Court” so there can be no registration in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or Juvenile court.

Two processes were “under way” in the High Court in the Isle of Man – an application by me made on 18 th

May 2004; which was wrongly listed as the 144th divorce of 2004 [and as Holmes v Holmes when it was about the Manx children : Re H (Children)] and a “registration application” which was given a Family Division reference number FC/UK/COR for “custody order registration”. But no documents were in fact

- 15 -

registered in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT on 28 th May 2004 so “due process” was not followed and Mrs Holmes could not lawfully be the Applicant – so I could not be the Respondent on 5 th November 2004.

I was not the respondent on 1st July 2004 – I was the Applicant! This is the so-called “order” –

DIV. 2004/144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MANFAMILY DIVISION-------------------------

BetweenG. STEPHEN HOLMES ApplicantandYVONNE HOLMES Respondent

IN THE MATTER of the Applicant’s Application of the 18th May 2004 for a Residence Order in respect of KATARINA MAY HOLMES (born 19th May 1996) and PETER ELLIOT BENEDICT HOLMES (born 28th August 1999)

-------------------------At a Court Holden at Douglas (in

Chambers) on the 1st day of July, 2004His HonourThe Deputy Deemster Williamson

UPON consideration of the said Application and of the evidence of each Party and the representations of the Parties who both appeared in Person IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be and is hereby dismissed

SEAL OF THE HIGH COURT

[Note that no copy of this “order” exists in court case file FD/UK/COR/04/02.]

At the “kangaroo court” hearing on 1st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson considered papers in front of him for ninety seconds before stating that there was the appearance of “a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here.” No orders from Lancaster had been registered in the Isle of Man High Court – but FOUR documents had been created by the Assistant Chief Registrar which purportedly recorded such an event had taken place.

The “due process” from 18th May 2004 to 1st July 2004 [although the above order was not sealed until 12th

July 2004] was –

Application made : 18th May 2004

Case File opened and applicant informed that the Manx mother must be informed of the hearing : 25/05/04

Application dismissed on 1st July 2004 – no mention of “registrations” on 28th May 2004.

Case closed.

The kangaroo court meeting on 5th November 2004 [and it really was a kangaroo court because everything that happened in the hearing and afterwards was tainted by the fruit of a poisoned tree, poisoned on 28/05/2004 and again on 04/11/2004] concerned events in case FD/UK/COR but due process was not followed in that case – and nothing was in fact registered.

The FTR HTML file for the kangaroo court meeting of 5th November 2004 follows –

- 16 -

Description Deputy Deemster Williamson – Summary Business & Family LawDate 05/11/2004 Location Douglas Court 5

Time Speaker Note14:11:52 FD/UK/COR/04/02 Holmes v Holmes - In Person & K O'Riordan14:21:21 DDW Adjourns for a few minutes14:37:27 DDW Recommences14:37:43 K O'Riordan Addresses DDW14:41:47 Mrs Holmes Addresses DDW14:42:09 DDW Gives declarity orders

This was the meeting that never happened, because nothing that happened between 14:11:52 and 14:42:09 had any validity whatsoever. The tree was poisoned on 28 th May 2004 [in the Isle of Man] such that even the SOGD hearing was tainted by the fruit of the poisoned tree – and the First Deemster and judge of Appeal were negligent in not checking the 'appropriate court' issue.

The word is declaratory; not declarity!

In 2011, K O'Riordan supplied a transcript of the kangaroo court meeting at 14:11:52 and it is clear that no statute was interpreted, no cases were cited (although O'Riordan alleged that he thought “this” was very akin to something else but he did not produce evidence to substantiate his claim; Williamson concurred with an enthusiastic “Yes”. In his covering letter to the “transcript” O'Riordan claimed that the “technical error” was that Mrs Holmes had made the application and that Williamson would not have known about the registration process although Williamson's opening remark on 1st July 2004 was “You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event.”

After 5th November 2004 I endeavoured to establish what was this due process of registration such that when a judge in England could allege a Manx father should have indirect access to his own Manx children in another jurisdiction not bound by the County Court in England (and purportedly registered in a court of superior record in that other jurisdiction), the Deputy Deemster in the Isle of Man could only state “Respondent have indirect contact with his own Manx children” such that for the rest of their childhood the Manx children will have no family life with their Manx father.

Williamson could have declared “Bollix to the Human Rights Convention; stuff the UNCRC – these Manx children should not ever see their Manx father for the next ten years” and ten years later the JCPC would have decided Her Majesty was pleased.

The e-mail covering letter and the draft Order for the Privy Council COURT hearing on 28 th April 2014 show how many judicial officers work – the decision has already been made BEFORE the Court Hearing. If the tree has been poisoned and the judicial officer has taken the fruit of the poisoned tree, then the truth will never out. The best two examples of a tree being poisoned are Hillsborough 1989 and Derry/Londonderry 1972 (“Bloody Sunday”).

On the afternoon of 15th April 1989, some South Yorkshire Police officers had decided that the fans were to blame for the tragedy that occurred on that Saturday afternoon. By the time Prime Minister Thatcher and Home Secretary Hurd visited Sheffield on 16th April 1989, the mantra had started – and that mantra continued for 20 years – the fans are to blame. Similarly, the “rioters” on Bloody Sunday were armed because some soldiers said so, and innocent unarmed people would not be killed by the British Army.

As we all now know, or should know, the fans were not to blame – South Yorkshire Police caused the tragedy; and the protesters were unarmed. 23 years and 39 years respectively for the truth to out.

The documents from Lancaster County Court were not, and could not be, registered on 28 th May 2004 so the four documents headed –

ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT

CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987

Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom

and footed –

9. DATE OF ORDERS: 24th February 200410. COURT WHICH MADE THE ORDERS: Lancaster County Court11. DATE:i) Application filed: 2nd April 2004ii) Order(s) registered 28th May 2004iii) Notice of registration sent to Court which made the Order(s) 28th May 2004

- 17 -

iv) Notice of registration sent to Applicant 28th May 2004

ASSISTANT CHIEF REGISTRAR

are all false instruments that in fact record nothing because the documents (“so-called orders”) from the Lancaster County Court were not registered.

No “respondent” is listed on any of the four so-called registration documents, but these documents still exist in file FD/UK/COR/04/02 (and are not to be found in file Div 2004/144) when they should have been declared void ab initio on 26th October 2007. Failing that, the Staff of Government Division had a second opportunity to declare such documents void or void ab initio on 2nd April 2013, but it wrote that I had asked for clarity as to whether the “English Orders” [I stated Lancaster County Court so-called orders] had been properly registered.

Recently, I found a case where a couple were “not properly married”; the marriage of the actor William (Bill) Shatner. To avoid publicity, Mr Shatner and his “bride” decided to move the marriage ceremony from her father’s house (in Lebanon, Illinois) to her sister’s house outside the town. For a whole year, Mr and Mrs Shatner assumed they had been properly married, but then it was established that the house was outside the jurisdiction selected for the marriage licence; so the marriage was not proper – or “the couple were not married.” Use of the word “properly” is confusing and unnecessary.

Most of paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment of 26 th October 2007 follow –

The effect of non registration

46. We consider first the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5 th November 2004.

47. In our judgment in the absence of proper registration of the orders made by the Lancaster County Court on 24th February 2004 and 27th October 2004, it necessarily follows that the totality of the order by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5th November 2004 cannot stand and must be quashed. Paragraph 1 of such order expressly recorded that the Lancaster County Court orders had been registered, when they had not been so registered, and paragraph 2 of such order was founded upon the incorrect premise that there had been proper registration. …, given that there was in fact no proper registration there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.

Highlighted by GSH

The word(s) “proper” (and “properly”) could have been omitted from paragraph 47.

Also, given that the documents had not been registered, and there was no legitimacy to the declaratory order made by the Deputy Deemster AK Williamson on 5th November 2004, that “order” did not exist in law and could only be declared void ab initio; there was nothing to quash or revoke.

The Staff of Government Division (on 24th September 2007) only considered parts of sections 6, 7, 9 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987, although the skeleton argument of the Amicus Curiae, Mr Beckett, referred to section 20. In fact, any consideration should have considered sections 20, 21 and paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 as well as sections 7 and 12 – sections 6 and 9 are not relevant.

The statutory framework

34. The statutory provisions relating to the recognition and enforcement in the Island of custody orders made in the United Kingdom are contained in the Child Custody Act 1987. We set out below the material parts of such Act as are relevant to the facts of this case.

35. Section 6(1) provides that where a custody order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom is in force with respect to a child who has not attained the age of 16, save where such

- 18 -

order provides for the means by which such rights conferred by the order are to be enforced, the order shall be recognized and have the same effect in the Island as if it had been made by the High Court and as if that Court had had jurisdiction to make it

36. Section 6(3) provides that a court in the Island shall not enforce an order which is recognised in accordance with subsection (1) unless it has been registered in the High Court under section 7 and proceedings for enforcement are taken in accordance with section 9.

37. Section 7(1) provides that where the Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom and sent to him under a provision corresponding to section 12 and having effect in that part, he shall forthwith cause the order, together with particulars of any variation, to be registered in the High Court in the prescribed manner.

38. Section 9(1) provides that where a custody order has been registered under section 7, the High Court shall have the same powers for the purpose of enforcing the order as it would have if it had itself made the order and had jurisdiction to make it : and proceedings for or with respect to enforcement may be taken accordingly.

39. Section 12 relates to the registration in the United Kingdom of a custody order made by any court in the Island. It provides that :

[1] an application for registration shall be made in the prescribed manner, contain the prescribed information and be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed [section 12(2)].

[2] on receiving an application the court which made the custody order shall cause the following documents to be sent to the appropriate court in United Kingdom namely [a] a certified copy of the order, [b] where the order has been varied, prescribed particulars of any variation which is in force, [c] a copy of the application and of any accompanying documents [section 12(3)]

40. It is thus self-evident that, pursuant to sections 7 and 12, for the orders made by the Lancaster County Court to be registered by the High Court it was required that the Lancaster County Court should send the High Court a certified copy of orders made together with a copy of the Respondents application and accompanying documents.

Were the requirements for registration met?

41. We turn to consider whether the requirement for registration were met in this case.

42. It is clear that the application to register the orders made by the Lancaster County Court on 24 th

February 2004 was made by the Respondent herself writing to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, enclosing copies of the orders and asking that the same be registered. Although such copies were accurate copies of the orders made, they were not certified copies.

43. It appears that the orders were registered albeit that the requirements that are clearly set out in sections 7 and 12 were not met. The Respondent herself can't be criticised for such error because she was genuinely, and understandably, ignorant of the precise requirements for registration. In any events she had believed that the General Registry had itself obtained certified copies of the orders from the Lancaster County Court, which does not seem to have happened.

44. Such a conclusion is supported by a letter of the Chief Registrar to Mr Beckett dated 25 th July 2007 in which he concedes that it would appear that the two orders were registered in the High Court erroneously and not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987.

45. As to the order made by the Lancaster County Court on 27 th October 2004 which was purportedly registered in the High Court on 4 th November 2004, it is unknown how such orders came to be registered.

There is no section that considers the definition of a “custody” order, or the definition or interpretation of “appropriate court” (paragraph 39. subsection [2] above) and at least two of the so-called “orders” were not “custody orders”. The “appropriate court” MUST BE a court of superior record [for England & Wales the High Court] and not a County Court.

- 19 -

On 11th August 2011, Chief Secretary Stephen Cregeen entered the dispute and judged the following –

In relation to orders which are made in courts in England there are provisions which allow for the

reciprocal enforcement of such orders. In the case of the Lancaster Court Orders in 2004 as the

procedure was not followed the orders were registered erroneously, which was confirmed by the Staff of

Government in their judgment which has been previously acknowledged.

The relevant amendments made to the Family Law Act 1986 (Parliament) s1 by the Children Act 1989

(Parliament) came into force on 14 October 1991. That date is significant as it is also the date on which

the Family Law Act 1986 (Dependent Territories) Order 1991 (SI 1991/1723) extending the reciprocity of

the FLA 1986 Part 1 (as so amended and modified by the 1989 Act and the 1991 Order) to IOM in

addition to Scotland and N Ireland came into force and the date on which the Child Custody Act (Tynwald)

1987 came into force by Appointed Day Order (GC 162/91).

The arrogance of this man is staggering. Despite the overwhelming evidence to show that the so-called “orders” of the Lancaster County Court were NOT registered on 28th May 2004, and the statutory requirement that any “custody orders” must be made by the correct and superior court, Mr Cregeen continued with the mantra that the orders were registered (albeit) erroneously.

The Appointed Day Order paragraph is irrelevant – but shows again that a corrupt public official in the Isle of Man will do anything other than admit wrong-doing – and that mentality continues to the Attorney General, the First (and Second) Deemster, and the President of the Isle of Man Law Society.

The French word for wrongdoing leads to the word Malfeasance; although sometimes advocates use the word misfeasance. Malfeasance is worse – and it is exactly how the Deputy Deemster AK 46 Williamson acted in the Family Division of the High Court in every matter relating to Manx children between 1 st

September 2002 when he was appointed and mid- to late- 2007 just before he retired.

In an adversarial court dispute, a good argument will lose to a better argument. Advocates spend weeks in preparation of a case, often referencing thousands of documents. In the case of Whitehouse v Bogdanov in 1982, the professional magistrate heard argument for two days about whether the Statute actually allowed the charges to be brought – two days of court time.

On Thursday 1st July 2004 Williamson shuffled papers for ninety seconds before alleging that there was the appearance of “a – an order from Lancaster [County Court] that is registered here [in the Isle of Man High Court] in any event”. The order was not registered.

When I told the charlatan Williamson (and I have a recording of this) that I thought Orders from England had no validity in the Isle of Man, he said that they do or it does “if it is registered”.

“Can I appeal against that registration?” I asked the idiot.

“I think again you would have to go back to Judge Forrester,” he replied.

There now follows a list of “Family Division” hearings in the High Court of “justice” of the Isle of Man since about 2000 –

J1436 X v Y / 16 October 2013 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1414 H v H / 20 March 2013 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1394 MRS A (MOTHER) v MR B (FATHER) / 30 January 2013 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1393 MRS A (MOTHER) v MR B (FATHER) / 27 November 2012 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1298 ADOPTION / 26 October 2012 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1302 Mrs P (mother) v Mr P (father) / 06 June 2012 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1301 M (wife) v M (husband) / 15 May 2012 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1300 Mrs H (mother) v Mr C (father) / 02 February 2012 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1199 G v K / 20 December 2011 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1186 D v M and M and M Limited / 21 September 2011 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1141 Application to adopt H / 20 September 2011 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1168 A and B / 26 August 2011 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1116 L and J / 04 February 2011 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1111 F and K and A / 06 January 2011 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1113 C and C / 30 November 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1114 L and L / 08 November 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESS

- 20 -

J1115 P and J and DSC and HMAG / 29 October 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1103 G v K / 27 October 2010 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1112 R and R / 20 October 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1101 V and V / 20 July 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1058 Mr S and Mrs S / 28 June 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1045 Mr I and Ms C / 24 May 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ891 Ms B and Mr K / 23 March 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ376 Mrs W and Mr W / 19 February 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ369 Mr T and Ms B / 06 January 2010 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ886 T v B / 22 October 2009 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ591 Mr K v Mrs B / 21 October 2009 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1434 C v C / 16 October 2013 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1435 A v B / 30 August 2013 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1303 L v L / 24 July 2012 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ1315 Mr Q (husband) v Mrs Q (wife) / 23 May 2012 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1105 Z and Z / 20 October 2010 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1310 W v P / 27 September 2010 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1102 B v D / 18 August 2010 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ993 F [Wife] v F [Husband] / 24 September 2009 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ992 F [Wife] v F [Husband] / 08 September 2009 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ1004 MRS B v MR B / 20 August 2009 / CIVIL - FAMILY BUSINESSJ990 Ms B v Mr B / 30 June 2009 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ991 W [Wife] v W [Husband] / 06 April 2009 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ918 D v D / 20 February 2009 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ920 M v M / 04 November 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ653 L and C re costs / 27 October 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ645 L and C / 23 October 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ650 L and C re Jurisdiction / 23 October 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ748 W v B / 02 October 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ615 J (WIFE) and J (HUSBAND) / 13 August 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ617 HUSBAND and WIFE / 08 August 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ616 Y (WIFE) and Y (HUSBAND) / 08 August 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ749 M (husband) and M (wife) / 18 July 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ402 LCH v EMM / 18 June 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ406 DMKC v EMTM (part 1 of judgment) / 04 June 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ407 DMKC v EMTM (part 2 of judgment) / 04 June 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ292 DMK C v EMTM / 29 November 2000 / FAMILY DIVISION J403 Mr B v Mrs B / 18 April 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ404 MR M v MRS M (part 1 of judgment) / 13 March 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ405 MR M v MRS M (part 2 of judgment) / 13 March 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ371 Mr B v Ms D / 24 January 2008 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ134 WIFE v HUSBAND / 12 June 2007 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ355 MR M v MRS M / 20 November 2006 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ50 MR. M v MRS. M / 20 November 2006 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ51 MRS H v MR H / 04 August 2006 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ42 WIFE v HUSBAND / 24 May 2006 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ91 KM v CP / 02 May 2006 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ48 RT v JC / 24 April 2006 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ49 MR. B v MRS. B / 23 February 2006 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ40 FATHER v MOTHER / 25 January 2006 / FAMILY DIVISIONJ38 WIFE v HUSBAND / 24 January 2006 / FAMILY DIVISION

Note that not a single case is listed as “Re H (Children)”.

The All England [Law] Reports and the Family Law Reports are full of cases about CHILDREN in England & Wales, cases properly considered under the Children Act 1989, and they are all listed as Re (A Child) or Re (Children). My personal “favourite” is Re X and Y of 18th December 2000 with Justice Munby who is now Sir James Munby and is President of the Family Division of the High Court in England. The list of Statutes considered in this case; and list of cases cited follows [2001] 2 FLR 118 (FD).

Statutory provisions considered

Guardianship of Infants Act 1886, s. 5, Guardianship of Infants Act 1925, s. 1,Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, s. 1, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s. 25,Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986, s. 3(2), Children Act 1989, various sections,Children (Scotland) Act 1995, s. 11(7)(a)

Cases referred to in judgment [most of the citations from FLR pp 119/120]

- 21 -

A (Permission to Remove Child from Jurisdiction, Human Rights) Re [2000] 2 FLR 225, CAA v Liverpool City Council and Another [1982] AC 363; [1981] 2 WLR 948; [1981] 2 All ER 385B v B (A Minor) (Residence Order) Re [1992] 2 FLR 327 FDBaxter v Baxter [1948] AC 274, HLBelton v Belton [1987] 2 FLR 343, CABevan v Bevan [1974] Fam Law 126, CAC (A Child) (HIV Testing) Re [2000] Fam 48, sub norm C (HIV Test) Re [1999] 2 FLR 1004, FDC (Leave to Remove from Jurisdiction) Re [2000] 2 FLR 457, CACackett (orse Trice) v Cackett [1950] P 253, PDADChamberlain v de la Mare [1983) 4 FLR 434, FD and CACowen v Cowen [1946] P 36, CADH (A Minor) (Child Abuse) Re [1994] 1 FLR 679, FDD v A (1845) 1 Rob Ecc 279Dawson v Wearmouth [1998] Fam 75, [1997] 2 FLR 629, [1998] WLR 392, [1998] 1 All ER 271, CADawson v Wearmouth [1999] 2 AC 308, [1999] 1 FLR 1167, [1999] 2 WLR 960, [1999] 2 All ER 353, HLF (A Ward) (Leave to Remove from Jurisdiction) Re [1988] 2 FLR 116, CAF v F [1902] 1 Ch 688, ChDH (Application to Remove from Jurisdiction) Re [1998] 1 FLR 848, CAH (Contact, Domestic Violence) Re [1998] 2 FLR 42, CAH v H (Residence Order, Leave to Remove from Jurisdiction) [1995] 1 FLR 529, CAJ and Another v C and Others [1970] AC 668K (A Minor) (Removal from Jurisdiction) Re [1992] 2 FLR 98, FDK (Application to Remove from Jurisdiction) Re [1998] 2 FLR 1006, FDK (Supervision Orders) Re [1999] 2 FLR 303, FDL (Contact, Domestic Violence) [2000] 2 FLR 334; sub nom L (A Child) Re [2001] 2 WLR 339, CA Lonslow v Hennig (formerly Lonslow) [1986] 2 FLR 378, CAM (Leave to Remove Child from Jurisdiction) Re [1999] 2 FLR 334, FDMcGrath (Infants) Re [1893] 1 Ch 143, CAM v A (Wardship, Removal from Jurisdiction) [1993] 2FLR 715, FDM v M (Minors) (Removal from Jurisdiction) [1992] 2 FLR 303, CAM v M (Removal from Jurisdiction) [1993] 1 FCR 5MH v GP (Child Emigration) [1995] 2 FLR 106, FDMoody v Field (unreported) 13 February 1981Nash v Nash [1973] 2 All ER 704, CAO (Care or Supervision Order) Re [1996] 2 FLR 755, FDOxfordshire County Council v L (Care or Supervision Order) [1998] 1 FLR 70, FDPoel v Poel [1970] 1 WLR 1469, CA – [page 119 ends here]Porchetta v Porchetta 1986 SLT 105S (Removal from Jurisdiction) Re [1999] 1 FLR 850, FDSanderson v McManus [S v M] (Access Order) [1997] 1 FLR 980 [1997] SC (HL) 55 HL (Scot).T (Adoption, Contact) Re [1995] 2 FLR 251, CAT (Removal from Jurisdiction) Re [1996] 2 FLR 352, FDTyler v Tyler [1989]W (A child) (illegitimate child, Change of Surname) [2001]Ward v Laverty and Another [1925] AC 101, HL (Ir)White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981, [2000] 3 WLR 1571, [2001] All ER 293, CAYoung v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [1944] 1 KB 718

“T (Adoption)” “K (A Minor) (Removal from Jurisdiction)” &c. “Re: X and Y” is about the removal of children from the jurisdiction and the application of the “no order principle”.

Williamson opened his kangaroo court “hearing” of 1st July 2004 – TEN YEARS AGO – [3½ years after Munby's X and Y] with “Right just let me come up to speed on this” and ninety seconds later “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,” and the Application was dismissed because of the malfeasance of 28 th May 2004.

It took less than 5 minutes for Williamson to decide that the Application of 18th May 2004 should be dismissed, and thereafter began the case of the Isle of Man Government versus Stephen Holmes, “fought” in the High Court of “justice” [and briefly in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction] where ALL judges, Deemsters and administrators had taken the fruit of the poisoned tree with the mantra “the orders are registered.” Even when I successfully managed to have the so-called declarity order of 5th November 2004 set-aside, the First Deemster and Judge of Appeal decided that no fair criticism could be made of their “brother Deemster” because to do so may have undermined public confidence in the courts of justice.

- 22 -

The moment I first encountered AK Williamson I lost confidence in the Deemsters. The so-called order of 5 th

November 2004 [and I need to remind myself occasionally] included –

IT IS DECLARED

1. that the said orders of the Lancaster County Court registered in this Court are of full effect and enforceable within the jurisdiction of this Court that is to say within the Isle of Man and that this Court is not empowered to vary such Orders

2. that the Respondent have indirect contact with the said children as is authorised by Clause 2 of the said Order of the 27th day of October 2004 of the Lancaster County Court

AND IT IS ORDERED

3. that the Applicant do serve a plain copy of this Order upon the head teacher of Rushen Primary School

4. that a plain copy of this Order be lodged at Police Headquarters Douglas and Port Erin Police Station

The ‘SEAL OF THE HIGH COURT’ followed clause 4

The Family Division is a civil law court, and declarations from the civil court should not be lodged with the Police for Police Officers are not familiar with civil law – a “prosecutor” described the above declaration as “some kind of injunction” [obviously empowering arrest].

How pleased would Her Majesty be if she knew the entirety of this family tragedy?

One of Her Majesty’s Deemsters, the newly appointed Deputy Deemster AK 46, was a complete charlatan in the Family Division of the High Court because he governed children cases as adversarial proceedings in his own “civil court of summary jurisdiction,” and once a tree was poisoned, it was impossible for right to be done in any Government Department of Statutory Office – right up to the office of the First Deemster, or the Chambers of HM Attorney General.

The fact is that the Crown in the Isle of Man is corrupt. Not the officers of the Isle of Man Constabulary (who are all officers of the Crown) but the Deemsters and the Judge of Appeal and the Attorney General. There is “general ignorance” in the members of the Isle of Man Law Society because there is no program of CPD in the Society – the Advocates all “make things up as they go” rather than refer to statute. Kevin O'Riordan on 5th November 2004 – “I don't know what has led to this afternoon’s hearing procedurally.” If there has not been “due process” then it is the duty of an “officer of the court” to inform the judicial officer that the hearing could be a kangaroo court. With AK46 in any children matter from 1 st September 2002 to 6th January 2008, every hearing was a kangaroo court.

AND IT IS a legitimate interest of any person if due process has not been followed in proceedings “against” another citizen. A “contact order” under section 11(1)(b) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is an order with respect to THE CHILD – not an order about the Respondent / Adult / Father. It is the CHILD who has contact with “the person named in the order” if the court can be persuaded to make such an order – the default being “no order at all” – see section 1(5) of the CYPA 2001.

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 2001 states –

“It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is exactly the same.

The County Court in England had, on 24th February 2004, given Mrs Yvonne Holmes leave to remove Manx children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently, but on 27th October 2004 alleged that the “contact” a Manx father could have with his Manx children would be “indirect”. Therefore the order attempted to implement a policy whereby the Manx children could have no family life with their Manx father, neither in the Isle of Man, nor in England+Wales; nor in Scotland or Northern Ireland! Ultra vires actions are void, and the Manx children had been habitually resident in the Isle of Man since 8 th August 2003, so the so-called “Order Contact Order” under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 of 27th October 2004 should have been treated as void by the Isle of Man High Court.

- 23 -

However, FOUR documents were produced on 4th November 2004, two of them headed and footed thus –

ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT

CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987

Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom

GENERAL REGISTRY FILE REFERENCE FD/UK/COR/04/02LANCASTER COUNTY COURT KN03P0016

1. APPLICANTS NAME: YVONNE HOLMES2. APPLICANTS ADDRESS: Cambrai, Droghadfayle Road, PE.3. APPLICANTS INTEREST UNDER THE ORDERS Mother4. CHILD'S NAME: KM (and PEB Holmes)5. CHILD'S SUSPECTED WHEREABOUTS: With Mother6. CHILD'S DATE OF BIRTH: 19th May (and 28th August) 96 / 997. DATE THE CHILD ATTAINS 16 YEAR OF AGE: 19th May 2013 and 28.08.20168. TERMS OF ORDERS: [ultra vires]9. DATE OF ORDERS: 27th October 200410. COURT WHICH MADE THE ORDERS: Lancaster County Court11. DATE:

i) Application filed: 4th November 2004ii) Order(s) registered: 4th November 2004iii) Notice of registration sent to Court which made the Order(s): 4th November 2004iv) Notice of registration sent to Applicant: 4th November 2004

ASSISTANT CHIEF REGISTRAR

It is evident from “first glance” that this document is dubious because it is headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT and the fifth line says “County Court”. In England, a County Court cannot bind the High Court – in the Isle of Man the Court of Summary Jurisdiction cannot bind the High Court – section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987 states “Registration of a Custody order in [the] High Court” not in the CSJ or CGGD. When the CCA 1987 came into being there was no Family Division of the High Court – it was created on 1 st

October 1992, six months after the Family Law Act 1991 was enacted and the terms “custody” and “access” were thrown into the dustbin of history or ceased to exist in law. Two fundamental changes were enacted on 14th October 1991 in England+Wales and on 1st April 1992 in the Isle of Man:–

1. Courts could no longer make orders about parents or guardians of children, infants or minors; and

2. the no order principle was enacted where it is better for the court to make no order at all than make an order about the child.

In the Isle of Man, between 1st April 1992 and mid 1995 nothing changed; although the UNCRC – the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child entered into force on 2nd September 1994. Not one Advocate or Deemster has ever mentioned the UNCRC.

There was a newspaper item in October 2011 headed “Child cruelty findings to be made public”.

The LAW in the Isle of Man, and in England, states that it is a criminal offence to publish material that could lead to the identification of a child. Justice Munby in 2000 wrote – “Because it involves children, I have prepared this judgment in anonymised form so that those parts of it which I have just mentioned may, although given in chambers, be treated as having been given in open court. However, nothing must be published which might lead, either directly or indirectly, to the identification of the children involved in this case.”

On 18th April 2013, after reading the judgment of Judge of Appeal Tattersall and Deemster Melton of 2 nd April 2013 [2DS 2012/40: J1356.htm on judgments.im] the Manx Independent published an item –

Father told: stop court claim bids.

The 2011 article contained –

- 24 -

THE findings of a serious case review into a harrowing instance of child cruelty will be made public, Tynwald was told.The Isle of Man Examiner reported last month on how social services were heavily criticised during a court case in which a couple were jailed over a catalogue of cruelty and neglect meted out to a little girl with learning difficulties.In a written reply, newly-appointed Education Minister Peter Karran MHK said it was important that the island's Safeguarding Children Board was responsible for its own reviews. He said: “The findings from this review will be made public. It is essential the identities of any children involved are protected.

The 2013 article contained –

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.

He had made repeated applications to both the English and Manx courts all of which had failed. These all

concerned an order made in February 2004 in Lancaster Country Court that his children should reside with his ex-

wife, who was given permission to remove them permanently to the Isle of Man.

In November 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson made an order declaring that orders of the English court were

enforceable within the Manx courts.

Mr Holmes argued the Manx courts had given wrongful and illegal effect to the orders of English court. He lodged

a petition of doleance in June 2008 against the General Registry and the former Chief Registrar. Mr Holmes

subsequently amended then withdrew the proceedings but further doleance applications followed. In a petition

against Deemster Williamson he claimed damages of not less than £2 million.

As can be seen on previous pages, “his ex-wife” is identified as Mrs Yvonne Holmes and Deputy Deemster AK 46 Williamson ordered that his two paragraph declaratory order be served on a head teacher and lodged with the Isle of Man Police in Douglas and Port Erin.

There was no “custody and contact battle” with Mrs Holmes, the battle was with AK Williamson and the General Registry, then with Deemster Doyle (from 3rd September 2007) then with Judge of Appeal Tattersall. Tattersall said in a public court hearing on 24th September 2007 “But the judge made an order!”

Two Judges in England purportedly made orders with respect to Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes in 2004, and the identities of the two children and their parents were not protected by the High Court of “justice” of the Isle of Man – on the contrary, they were openly disclosed: especially by AK 46.

Darbyshire [the reporter for Isle of Man newspapers] – “an order made in February 2004 in Lancaster Country Court that his children should reside with his ex-wife, who was given permission to remove them permanently to the Isle of Man.”

A section 8 “residence order” [under the Children Act 1989] is valid in England & Wales only. In a children matter habitual residence of the child founds jurisdiction (or powers) for the proceedings concerning that child or children. Once permission had been given to remove “them” to the Isle of Man permanently, jurisdiction ended – so the “residence order” became immediately spent because it could not apply in the Isle of Man – a section 8(1) Children Act 1989 “contact order” is NOT the same as a section 11(1)(b) “contact order” under the [Tynwald] CYPA 2001 and vice versa.

The difficulty Judge Tattersall and the members of the Isle of Man Law Society have with law is that it is assumed that a judge made order is valid whatever it says. “Respondent have indirect contact with the said children” is NOT a section 11(1)(b) Children and Young Persons Act 2001 “contact order” but is a Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 “access order” using the word “contact”. It is about the Respondent / Adult; it is not about the CHILD having “contact” with the person named in the order. Judge Nuttall in England had no more wit – he alleged to order that the FATHER have indirect contact with the children [who had been habitually and permanently resident IN THE ISLE OF MAN for 15 months when he alleged the type of access a Manx adult could have to his Manx children].

Judge of Appeal Tattersall shouted “But the Judge made an order” on Monday 24 th September 2007 – he was wrong. Neither judge actually made an “order”: they issued ultra vires documents that had no validity in England+Wales – and certainly no validity in the Isle of Man because they were not registered.

So why did I spend hours in police cells following distribution of the false instrument by AK 46 in November 2004? — Because he was High Bailiff for years.

The Human Rights Act 2001 is helpful to distinguish between types of law –

20. Saving for criminal law

Nothing in this Act creates a criminal offence.

- 25 -

21. Application to Crown

This Act binds the Crown.

An order which states “the child shall have reasonable and regular contact with his father” is not a reasonable Section 11(1)(b) contact order because the court should have adopted the no order principle. Therefore a declaratory order that states “the Respondent have indirect” dealings with his own Manx children is not a valid order – it was ultra vires the CYPA 2001 and unlawful under the HRA 1998/2001. But it was not a criminal offence – what was criminal was to allow the publication of details that would directly lead to the identification of the children and the school which they attended (a primary school in Port Erin – no! Williamson actually mentioned Rushen Primary School).

But has Williamson been charged under section 80 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001? — No!

Has Adrian Darbyshire or Richard Butt been charged under section 80? — No they have not been charged.

It is “one rule” for the Deemsters and the officers in the General Registry (and in the Chambers of HM Attorney General) and “one rule – a different rule” for members of the public (and children) who are victimised by the evil Deemsters.

A civil matter is not a criminal matter : a criminal matter is not a civil matter.

Where did Williamson learn how to be a magistrate? — In the lower criminal court in England.

AK Williamson spent 15 years [more than] as [Deputy] High Bailiff in criminal courts and was then promoted to the High Court where he could wreak havoc.

As if enough wrong had not been done, David Doyle entered the fray on 3 rd September 2007 – and Deemster Doyle had been mainly in the Court of General Gaol Delivery from March 2003 – and he admitted that rather than refer to statute of case law, he would read “the court file!” I was arrested two days after Doyle became involved!

But Her Majesty was pleased by and with the advice of Her Privy Council.

On which “side” do you think the Privy Counsellors sit? — The side of the Appellant, or the side of the Isle of Man Government (which actually includes the Deemsters)?

On 5th November 2004 Deputy Deemster AK 46 Williamson produced a document that looked like an order, but on about 10th November 2004 I had proved that this document was nonsense. “You must appeal against it” I was told, but until 2007 the General Registry did not disclose “the rules laid down” for an appeal to be successful. Indeed, when Mrs Carol Dowd viewed the documents at the end of January 2006, she wrote to Lancaster Court Office and requested retrospectively certified copies of the two so-called orders of 24th February 2004. This is the letter I received on 11th February 2006, and I noted immediately that only one “set” of certified documents had been requested.

General RegistryOik-Recortyssee

Carol DowdDirector of Courts Services

General RegistryIsle of Man Courts of Justice,Deemsters Walk, Bucks RoadDouglas, Isle of ManIM1 3AR

Telephone: 01624 685481Fax: 01624 686165E-mail: carol.dowd@registry.gov.im

Mr S Holmes Our ref: sh070206/sd12Douglas Your ref:Isle of ManIM1 Date: 9th February 2006

Dear Mr HolmesFormal Complaint – Holmes v Holmes

FD/UK/COR/02 and DIV 2004/144

- 26 -

Following your meeting with the Chief Registrar on 27th January 2006, I reply to your allegation that there had been maladministration in the Isle of Man when accepting the UK orders at front of house.

Mrs Holmes submitted two court orders from the Lancaster County Court with this court on 2nd April 2004 for registration. The two orders submitted were true copies of the orders made. However, the courts administration did not follow the rules laid down ensuring that the copy orders submitted were certified copies.

I enclose herewith of the orders submitted by Mrs Holmes on 2nd April 2004 and the certified copies of these orders, and I apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused.

Yours sincerely,

Carol DowdDirector of Court Services

C.c. R P Corkhill, Chief Registrar

“The rules laid down had not been followed” [on 28th May 2004].

I did not use the term “front of house” – I would apply that to a theatre, although the High Court is more a theatre than a court – it would seem that Deputy Deemster AK46 learned how to be a civil court judge from Gilbert and Sullivan rather than from the Statutes of the Isle of Man.

Certification that Dowd obtained was NOT by a Judge or by a Registrar but by a court sub-manager.

The action between 16th January 2006 and 9th February 2006 was pure malfeasance – the deliberate intention of covering-up a wrong done by “this office” on 28th May 2004. No attempt was made to cover-up the wrong-doing of 4th November 2004, and I was not going to remind the wrong-doer Dowd about the “application” made on 4th November 2004. But the General Registry could have put a stop to the wrong-doing in February 2006 – instead, the problems were exacerbated.

Throughout 2006 I tried to get someone to do good – the Attorney General told me to “seek legal advice” and the Governor (whom I then referred to as Captain Haddock) also told me to pursue a remedy through the court – but it was the High Court that had done wrong in the first place by purportedly accepting that so-called orders from a County Court in England could be registered in the Isle of Man (although due process was not followed).

I was exceedingly distressed in 2006, especially when an Acting Deemster mentioned matrimonial proceedings. On 25th October 2006 there was another kangaroo court hearing – this time in the Common Law Division of the High Court of Injustice of the Isle of Man. Although the “judgment” has not been made public, Deemster Tim King's comments have been put in J906 on the judgments.im web-site.

[16] The application before Acting Deemster King was similar to that made in this case, namely one to strike out the proceedings. At p 806 of the bundle there is a useful summary by Acting Deemster King of the claim which was then being made by Mr Holmes. He says this:

'In essence, stripping out the detail, what this default action so called amounts to, is a claim by the plaintiff for the cost to him of investigating and researching what he regards as a defect in the orders made on this Island in the matrimonial proceedings. His case appears to be that in the matrimonial proceedings, the Manx court wrongly and illegally gave effect to an English court order. That may or may not be right and I make no comment on that; what I do say is that it appears to me that this so-called default action is not an action known to law. Because what this man is seeking to do, this plaintiff, instead of going down the obvious route if he challenges the orders in the matrimonial court by way of appeal, has embarked on a wholly collateral attack on those concerned in the administration of justice on this Island, and particularly those who are concerned in the administration of the process of the matrimonial proceedings. This is not a cause of action which from my reading of any authorities is known to law on the Island. It is quite straightforward, and was quite straightforward, for this plaintiff to pursue his grievances in relation to the

- 27 -

matrimonial proceedings in the way in which the law of the Island allows, namely through the appellant process.'

There were never any matrimonial proceedings in the Isle of Man – King must have thought that because one process was listed as Div 2004/144 Holmes v Holmes it was a process under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003. An in fact, the Manx court did wrong and unlawfully give effect to so-called Orders from an English County Court. King used the term matrimonial proceedings four times above – another mantra that appears to be good and proper, but when analysed critically turns out to be more court ordure.

In 2012, I was concerned by a comment by Deemster Sharon Roberts – “I am also mindful of Rule 2.4 of the Rules [of the High Court] which empowers me to make orders of my own initiative.”

There was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did on 5th November 2004. That so-called order appeared to be “in force” for three years [actually 1055 days] and the terms of that false declaration were that a Manx father was prevented from having any family life whatsoever with his own Manx children – declared by the administrators of matrimonial proceedings and child abuses and human rights violations in the Isle of Man – led by AK 46.

The Queen was pleased with his initiative.

What is most concerning is the on-going wrongness of this matter.

If something is unlawful then it is wrong. No matter who does the wrong thing, it is still wrong. Mrs Dowd stated that she had received certified copies of “orders” but the so-called orders were ultra vires and therefore void and the certification was not by a Judge or a Registrar. There had been no such registration, not on 28th May and not on 4th November 2004. Whether the terms of the “order” had been good or bad, it had no legal basis [this is the so-called declaratory order of 5 th November 2004] – but it was circulated to the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Education. The “view” that “no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster” was biased or partial and wrong – but it was only a view – not a legal statement. The legal statement was “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did”.

In 2013 I began examining the matter of the execution of William Christian in 1663. There was no legitimacy to the execution warrant issued by the two Deemsters in the last days of 1662, but the former Solicitor General of the Isle of Man was unlawfully killed on 2nd January 1663. The two Deemsters were imprisoned in the Fleet Gaol in 1663 but released later because their “crime” had been in the Isle of Man and not in England. When these two miscreants returned to the Island, they were re-instated as Deemsters. A Deemster can get away with murder because he is a Deemster.

On 5th November 2004, Deputy Deemster Williamson issued a declaratory order that destroyed a Manx family – abused the rights of two young Manx children and caused years of needless anxiety and distress to the Manx father, G. Stephen Holmes. I had never been in a civil court in the Isle of Man until Thursday 1 st

July 2004 – I had no criminal charges or “convictions” but my first encounter with the evil Deemster left me devastated. “You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here” was the legal equivalent of “you appear to be a – an orang-utan, Mr Holmes”. His entire attitude was “I am a Deemster so I am the Law”.

In 2007, a letter was sent to the Court Office –

Mannin Chambers (headed paper)

HH/FK/07-066

17 July 2007

High Court OfficeIsle of Man Courts of JusticeDeemsters WalkDOUGLASIM1 3AR

Dear Sirs

Registration of Court Orders – Lancaster County Court 24 February 2004

- 28 -

and 27 October 2004 under reference DIV.2004/114 and FD/UK/COR/04/02

Yvonne Holmes and Gordon Stephen Holmes

We act as Amicus Curiae to the Court in respect of an appeal by Stephen Holmes regarding registration of the above Orders.

We understand that the Orders were registered respectively on the 28 May 2004 and 4 November 2004.

We would be obliged if you could let us have copies of the following:

1. The letters from the Lancaster County Court enclosing copies of the applications, supporting document and the Order.

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

We would be obliged for copies of these items as soon as possible since we have to advise the Court of the position by the end of this month and we are anxious to ensure that the Staff of Government Division has all the relevant facts.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Mannin Chambers Limited

On 25th July 2007 Chief Registrar Peter Corkhill sent the following – note that the above is addressed to the High Court Office, not the Chief Registrar of the General Registry –

Isle of ManGovernment

Reiltys Ellan Vannin

General RegistryOik Recortyssee

R.P CorkhillChief Registrar

General RegistryIsle of Man Courts of JusticeDeemsters WalkBucks Road, DouglasIM1 3ARTelephone: 01624 685481Fax: 01624 685236Email: peter.corkhill @registry.gov.im

Mannin Chambers Your ref: HH/FK/07-066Third FloorAtlantic House Date: 25 July 20074-8 Circular RoadDouglasIM1 1AG

Dear Sirs,

Registration of Court OrdersAmicus 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.

- 29 -

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. However, Deputy Deemster Williamson made the order of 5th November 2004, effectively endorsing the provisions of the Orders from the Court in Lancaster. Upon an examination of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic] in 2006, it was noted that documents submitted by Yvonne Holmes were not certified copies and therefore certified copies of the two Orders were sought by this office from the Lancaster County Court. A comparison of the February 2004 documents shows that the copies submitted by Yvonne Holmes were true copies but not certified copies. For some reason we do not have certified copies of the October 2004 documents.

I enclose for your information copies of the relevant documents held in the General Registry files, if you wish to discuss this with me, do please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

R. P. CORKHILL CHIEF REGISTRAR

Again, the arrogance of the Chief Registrar (this cretin retired in 2009) is staggering – “Deputy Deemster Williamson made the order of 5th November 2004, effectively endorsing the provisions of the Orders from the Court in Lancaster.” Williamson made the order because he believed a County Court Order can be registered in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT but it can't – just because the provisions of an English order are endorsed by a magistrate who has been promoted way beyond the point of his own competence does not mean that the endorsement is lawful – it was not lawful. The phase “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987” is the admission that “this office” acted unlawfully, but Deemster King was obsessed with “matrimonial proceeding.”

Note that Corlett (on 20th January 2009 in J906.htm) mentions page 806 of the “bundle” – there were almost 900 pages submitted to the court of injustice by a Government Advocate in October / November 2008 (including a 27 page Affidavit sworn by Carol D. Dowd, which was full of untruths); which shows the level the Government will go to in order to cover-up misgovernment.

Deemster Linda Sullivan entered the fray in May 2008; and a firm of advocates supplied 108 pages of a transcript of the bollix and nonsense talked by this charlatan (acting) Deemster in 2008.

Commencement of CD 20 May 2008

Deemster Sullivan: In the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man, Common Law Division, Superior Business, in the matter of the Petition of G. Stephen Holmes dated 18th of January 2008 and the Respondents notice of motion of the 10th March. Can we have appearances please. Mr Holmes.

Mr Holmes: I'm Stephen Holmes: I'm litigant in person your honour. May I ask?

Acting Deemster: Yes and your content for that to be the case are you Mr Holmes?

Mr Holmes: May I ask your name please your honour.

Acting Deemster: Acting Deemster Linda Sullivan, Queen's Counsel. And you're happy to act in person Mr Holmes? You're not seeking adjournment to obtain representation?

Mr Holmes: No, Your Honour.

- 30 -

Later – (on page 106 of this transcript) [CD 20.05.2008].

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 difficulty 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 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 unsatisfied with that in any way it was always open to him to appeal that which he has not seen fit to do.

There used to be a legal concept called access before 1991 in the Isle of Man (Sullivan was on a “jolly” from England paid for by the Isle of Man Government and had mistakenly mentioned the Children Act 1989 which does not extend to the Isle of Man) but on 1st April 1992 access ceased to be a legal term and was replaced by the concept of the MINOR having “contact with the person named in the order”. The term “contact” was not applied to a CHILD in the Isle of Man until 1 st February 2003 [from 01/04/1992 to 31/01/2003 the term was Minor, not Child].

Under section 11(1)(e) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 it is possible to apply to the SAME COURT of First Instance for a new contact order or an order to vary or revoke a previously made section 11(1) (a), (c) or (d) order; it is not necessary to “appeal” a contact order as suggested by the ignorant and incompetent Sullivan.

Note how Sullivan introduced the hearing properly “In the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man, Common Law Division, Superior Business, in the matter of…” whereas Williamson introduced his kangaroo court meetings as “Right, let me just come up to speed on this” and “Right I've got Mrs Holmes: yes”. Not properly – therefore in law NOT introduced therefore a kangaroo court. “What am I being asked to do here?” was also used on 1st July 2004.

The meeting on 5th November 2004 contained the following – “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.”

Williamson had not heard from me, I wrote to the Chief Registrar (who at that time was Mrs Angela Humphrey LL.B.). The “orders” from Lancaster County Court had NOT been registered and were NOT 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

Williamson replied enthusiastically, “Yes!”

This was not very akin to anything else because the tree had been twice poisoned and documents from England not registered. Four lies in the first two minutes constituted a kangaroo court.

And the kangaroo court “order” caused even more confusion by referring to me, the Manx father of Manx children, as the “respondent” and Mrs Yvonne Holmes as the applicant to the “registration and children” matter; although I responded to nothing. “father do have contact with the Manx children” as alleged by the County Court judge in England in case KN03P00016, some 15 months after the Manx children and Manx mother had arrived permanently in the Isle of Man, was revised as “Respondent have contact with the said children as authorised by clause 2” of a so-called order [but in fact an ultra vires and therefore void document] of Lancaster County Court that was not registered in the Isle of Man but documents had been produced that gave the appearance of the so-called order being registered on 4 th November 2004.

When the time came to “review” the processes in 2004 in the Appeal Division, absurdly, Mrs Holmes was

- 31 -

listed as the Respondent to the “appeal” because the false instrument of 5 th November 2004 listed Mrs Holmes as the “Applicant” [because Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) hand-wrote a note to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster AK 46 Williamson on 2nd April 2004]. By Law Mrs Holmes could not make an Application to “register” a “custody order.”

The entirety or totality of events since 2nd April 2004 has been wrong or unlawful or “fruit of a poisoned tree” – poisoned by a comment by District Judge Gordon Nuttall on 29th October 2003 – “the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom”.

With the future observation that “Her Majesty was pleased by and with the advice of Her Privy Council” we have proof that decisions with regard to matters in the High Court of INJUSTICE of the Isle of Man are made BEFORE the Deemster even enters the court-room.

“You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here”.

SH: “Can I appeal against that registration?”

AK46: “I think again you would have to go back to Judge Forrester”.

“Although no fair criticism can be made of” Adolf Kalashnikov Williamson there was no legal basis to the totality of the so-called “order” issued on 5 th November 2004 and ordered lodged with the Police.

Isle of Man Newspapers publicised my name and mentioned that I have an “ex-wife” and that I had been involved in a “custody and contact battle” over my children – therefore my children could have been identified because AK Williamson ordered that a false instrument be sent to the police where it was used as some kind of criminal law “injunction”.

Her Majesty is head of the Church of England, a Christian organisation in the English speaking parts of the world.

Deemsters swear an oath on the Bible and part of that oath is “to execute the laws of this Isle justly”.

The action on 28th May 2004 was unlawful – Mrs Holmes could not lawfully apply to “register” orders from an English court (even intra vires documents, which these were not), so the Deputy Deemster held kangaroo court hearings in 2004 [on 1st July and 5th November 2004] and throughout 2005; Judge Nuttall even considered matters in Lancaster on 1st April 2005 and stated that an appeal against actions in England should be made in the Isle of Man – Williamson had a copy of that allegation as well!

By mid 2013, Deemsters Doyle, King, Sullivan, Kerruish, Corlett, Roberts and Melton, and Judge of Appeal Tattersall had all entered the fray, making error after error – Deemster Kerruish making the least errors – by not checking the entirety of the Child Custody Act 1987 and so alleging that the so-called orders of the County Court were capable of registration when they were and are not capable of registration; and Deemster Doyle digging the deepest hole for himself on 14th December 2011 when he alleged that the “no fair criticism” view was reasonable and lawful, and he ignored the “no legitimate basis” judgment. As soon as I read that Deemster Sharon Roberts had used “initiative” after 18 th July 2012, I knew that the entirety of the judicial “profession” in the Isle of Man was and still is corrupt; making decisions based on opinion and perhaps one obscure rule of the civil court, but ignoring that Statute has not been accorded to.

Now that corruption has extended to the administrators in the JCPC – the General Registry has told its agents (Sharp-Practice solicitors in London) that “we have done nothing wrong” and Sharp-Practice has told the administrators at the JCPC and despite the evidence that all actions in 2004 were wrong, the opinion of those on the side of the Deemsters and the General Registry – basically “The Crown in the Isle of Man” has decided that Her Majesty was pleased with the advice of Her Privy Council – that one of Her Majesty's Deemsters can cause the abuse of rights of Manx children for three years, and others can cause further rights abuse for seven years (and counting) and that any claim or appeal or application for review to the highest Court for the Isle of Man is refused because the applicant is a Manx father who has been a “troubled individual” (or his eyes are too close together; or his name is Holmes; or whatever reason we can think of).

I have said it before, and will keep on saying it, if the Deputy Deemster had issued the following –

- 32 -

IN THE ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT

Family Division

Upon consideration of the documents submitted to this Court IT IS DECLARED:

1. that the item below shall be known as “a spoon”;

AND IT IS ORDERED

2. that a plain copy of this Order shall be lodged with the Chief Constable: Mr Culverhouse.

In Chambers – Deputy Deemster AK Williamson : 5th November 2004

– there would have had to be an “appeal process” lasting 8 months for the spoon order to be revoked.

Our Constitution

The “constitution of the Isle of Man” was effectively established in 1095-7 by Godred [King Orry] – it comprised “the Lord”; “the Two” and the “Twenty-four” – the Two being the Deemsters.

Having gone through minor changes, the constitution is “the Lord of Man”; Legislative Council and the Twenty-four; but the Deemsters still feature at the top of the hierarchy as “the second estate”. Courts Administration is directed and supervised by the First Deemster, who is also Deputy Governor – and the Governor is the Queen's representative in this Crown Dependency.

If an unlawful action happens in the General Registry, which is the office that administers court processes, the only place to go to remedy that wrong is the High Court; which is the domain of the First Deemster. Deemsters are biased in favour of Deemsters and Advocates because they are all chosen from the same small pond – Advocates are licensed to operate in court by the First Deemster. A Deemster can do no wrong seems to be the mantra within the Law Society and, when it came to the opinion of Deputy Deemster AK Williamson, that was certainly the case. In the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 13 th

December 2005 High Bailiff Moyle said “I'm sure the Deputy Deemster knows what he is doing”. After being furious with Williamson for ten years now, I am certain that this charlatan had no clue of the Law relating to children – he was stuck in the period before 1991 and he put children at risk because of his hubris and incompetence. His colleagues (even Second Deemster Andrew Corlett who should have had nothing to do with his charlatan predecessor, but admitted publicly to “learning a great deal” from AK 46) will say nothing controversial about AK 46; because on 26th October 2007 it was published that “no fair criticism can be made of the” charlatan.

FOUR WORDS – “Her Majesty was pleased” – incensed me on 10 th April 2014 when I read them in a document; so this is my 20,800 word reply to e-mail of a clerk in “government” in England. Her Majesty may be pleased by and with the advice of Her Council, but the fact is that Deputy Deemster Williamson abused the rights of Manx children for more than four years because of his extreme arrogance.

“WE” in the Isle of Man do not govern children matters properly – and therefore the government of any matter concerning a child in the Isle of Man is corrupt.

THE LAW states that welfare of the CHILD shall be the paramount consideration of the “court” but the first thing the COURT OF INJUSTICE does is to list the matter as adversarial. If the parents are only slightly “annoyed” with one-another about the potential involvement of the High Court of “justice” in a question determining the future welfare of a child, by the time an Advocate has intervened on the “side” of one parent, and the court has listed the other parent as THE Respondent (and the COURTS.IM web-site tells us that it is the respondent against whom the order is to be made) the dispute will be exacerbated. Add into the mix a Deemster who ignores the “no order principle” and doesn't have a thorough grasp of child's rights and we have mayhem in the domain of the First Deemster.

Isn't it time we had JUSTICE for Manx children?

The Deemsters – Abusing the rights of Manx children since 1999: certainly since 01/09/2002.

Perhaps fifteen years of child abuse caused by hubris and incompetence in the High Court.

- 33 -

My children have had no family life with me since 2004; since Williamson bulldozed his way into the Holmes family. “Deemster will see you at two” I was told (at 11:00am on 5 th Nov. 2004) – and so I asked for the services of Kevin “no paperwork” O'Riordan – and he advised the Deputy Deemster at 14:10. “ 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.” I had asked KOR to prevent the Deputy Deemster from exacerbating his snafu of 1st July 2004 when he lied to me about the orders from Lancaster County Court being registered.

KOR – “You are right, Deputy Deemster, this item that looks like a fork IS a spoon, and I hope that Mr Holmes learns to behave himself in court in future!”

Her Majesty will be pleased by the way we have dealt with the problem of Mr Holmes. He must realise that he cannot dispute the legality of what Deemsters (and advocates) say and think.

But it is a criminal offence to publish information that can lead to the identification of children involved in proceedings; and on 5th November 2004 AK 46 Williamson ordered a private law “declaration” to be sent to the Police and a head-teacher, thereby leading to the publication of my name and of the insane allegation that I had been involved in a “custody and contact battle” about my children, who's name must be Holmes as they are my children – and their mother (although re-married) retains the name “Mrs Holmes”. On one occasion when my name was incorrectly printed as Stephen Hughes, Mrs Holmes contacted Isle of Man newspapers and asked them to change the surname from Hughes to Holmes – thereby ensuring my identity was made public!

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS when a magistrate is appointed to the civil court. It might have worked with Henry Callow – it might have worked with Alistair Montgomerie (but what is Mrs Wendy Montgomerie doing in the Legal Aid section of the General Registry? – there has to be a conflict there) – but it did not work with AK 46 – we could not have been worse off with anybody – even a cretin or moron, or imbecile, idiot or lunatic as Deputy Deemster. What am I saying, that is what we had: a moron for Deputy Deemster!

The head of the Church of England was pleased with the advice, although preceding the JCPC application was NINE YEARS of child-rights abuse and the complete destruction of a Manx family by the Deputy Deemster AK 46 Williamson. And no fair criticism can be made of AK 46; which is partial and is prohibited.

Partiality and misgovernment are prohibited BY STATUTE in the Isle of Man, but the JCPC administrators have judged that making no fair criticism of a child abusing judge (rights abuse) is lawful and “good government,” and that all the preceding actions are also good and proper even if the Chief Registrar has admitted that this office acted unlawfully!

“How long will You judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?” Psalm 82 v. 2.

“That is all I have to say about that.”

Published on 17th April 2014

- 34 -

I now have more to say – to rant – about:–

In 2007 I bought Government and Law in the Isle of Man by Mark Solly. [Published April 1994]

Chapter 17 was written by David C. Doyle, an Advocate with “Dickinson's” and is headed “Legislative System”. Doyle : “Public bodies must act within the powers given to them by Act of Tynwald,” and they must give members of the public a fair hearing.

Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention is usually abbreviated to “the Right to a fair trial” but it is actually the right to a fair hearing because the matter may be “civil” and a trial is usually associated with criminal matters.

How is a matter dealt with fairly?

There are certain rules governing “fairness” and they are fundamental to the Rule of Law – they are known as the rules of natural justice. Doyle mentioned two rules in 1994, but other texts give three fundamental rules; Doyle mentions the third one amongst 20 or so further rules. I will list just three –

1. Produce the evidence – ostendo testimonium

2. Hear the other side – audi alteram partem

3. No-one can be a judge in “own cause” – nemo judex in causa sua.

Within these three rules we see why the tree was poisoned on 28th May 2004 – without evidence it was judged that so-called orders from a Lancaster County Court could be registered in the Isle of Man High Court. No other side was considered: I am right and all others are wrong!

Where was the evidence? – there was none. “You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event”.

There was no evidence with Hillsborough – “The fans were to blame”.

There was no evidence with Bloody Sunday – “The protesters were armed”.

The fundamental rules of law are no-one shall be a judge in own cause and produce evidence: evidence that is substantive. Both sides must be heard – but if the “judge” takes one side then the other side will not be heard – “orders are binding if they are registered.” “Can I appeal against that registration?” A: “I think again you would have to go back to judge Forrester.”

Then O'Riordan sided with Williamson – “you can endorse but you cannot vary the English order!” But the order from the County Court in England had no validity. O'Riordan had judged in own cause and did not treat his own client fairly. Then he charged £600 for his services! In England lawyers are known as solicitors because they solicit – and so do prostitutes; but I know who I would trust first; in the Isle of Man I would rather trust a double-glazing salesman than an Advocate.

There is one advocate who is now known as Hazel Smith but was HH in 2007. She assisted in the preparation of the Skeleton Argument of the Amicus Curiae in July 2007 – see the reference above – HH/FK 07-066. There is a letter in the Court File reference PB/FK/07-066 addressed to His Honour Deemster Kerruish in which he (Paul Beckett) acknowledged that his expertise was not in family law. So Beckett asked HH to do the legal research for him. She completely missed section 20(1)(c); [section 20(1)(b) is mentioned, but that subsection is for Isle of Man “orders” – it is 20(1)(c) that is for “orders” from England; she ignored section 21 Interpretation and therefore she ignored paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 – the definition of the 'appropriate court'. This advocate was (and is) absolutely useless!

On 3rd July 2008 Hazel Hammonds sent me an e-mail –

Dear Mr Holmes,

Thank you for your note regarding this matter [the subject of the e-mail was left blank]. Unfortunately, the fact is that I am conflicted. Paul was appointed by the Court and I did the skeleton argument so I worked on the file. I simply cannot act against the very Court Paul was appointed by.

If you would have the benefit of legal aid, then I am sure the Court or Legal Aid could find you someone.

Have you tried John Wright? Or Simcocks? Or Mann & Partners?

If you cannot find anyone, then the Court can allow you to have an English barrister by granting a temporary commission. You would have to source a barrister who would be willing to do the work. I would suggest an

- 35 -

eminent Human Rights chambers such as Matrix Chambers (Cherie Booth’s set in London) - they would probably have a junior barrister who would be willing to make a great fist of a challenge like this to make a name for themselves. Matrix Chambers probably only recruit the brightest from the profession.

The best way is to approach the Bar Council to find an appropriate barrister willing to do legal aid.

Finally, there are no contingency fees (taking a percentage) in this jurisdiction or in England and Wales. We are precluded from agreeing contingency fees by our professional rules.

If you have no representation and you want it, you must apply for an adjournment of the hearing on 10th July.

Kind Regards,

And on 8th July 2008 –

Dear Mr Holmes

Your ingratitude is surpassed only by your rudeness.

I have explained that the Court can license an English Barrister. You have to identify one to act for you, their Clerk needs to agree the fees (with Legal Aid if that is afforded to you) and to ask the Court to appoint the barrister. I am sure the Bar Council will help you. There are sufficient barristers in the whole of England and Wales for you to find willing and able Counsel.

I have no more to say.

There may be sufficient barristers in the whole of England & Wales for me to find willing Counsel; but I have not have been unable to find “able Counsel”. John Wright is [expletive deleted]; and Kevin O'Riordan works for Simcocks.

So the difficulty is that ALL advocates “judge in own cause” without producing evidence. I no longer have a problem with an “Amicus Curiae” being conflicted, but I have a real problem with people like KOR, HH, and AK 46 who state a “fact” [that turns out to be an untruth] and then allow themselves for the rest of time to judge that what they have said is true. This whole matter started when Judge Gordon alleged (on 29 th

October 2003) that the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom! He “judged in own cause” and was totally wrong for the Isle of Man has NEVER been part of England or of Scotland or of the United Kingdom. Because this “cretinous judge” assumed jurisdiction where he did not have such, all Advocates and Deemsters in the Isle of Man sided with the wickedness. Back to the fork-spoon declaration!

It is not just Advocates and Deemsters who judge in own cause and therefore treat people unfairly – it happens in almost all walks in life.

In his autobiography called Another Part of the Woods, art historian Kenneth Clark wrote –

“From the age of about nine or ten, I began saying with extreme confidence ‘This is a good painting; that is a bad painting’ without any knowledge of why. This insane self-confidence continued until just a few years ago. It was surprising how many people agreed with my view.” Clark went on to describe his professional life as one long, harmless confidence trick. BUT IT IS NOT HARMLESS – making a judge in own cause can mean the difference between nothing and £150,000 – or £1,000 and £2,000,000!

In 1967, the Princely House of Liechtenstein sold its prized possession – a Leonardo da Vinci portrait of Ginevra de' Benci – to the “American people” for $5million (US); a world record at the time. The painting was acquired by the National Gallery of Art.

“The Italian word for juniper is "ginepro", which suggests that the juniper motif was used as a symbolic pun on Ginevra’s name. This pun is not supported by any contemporary historical source, however, and the juniper stood as a symbol of sorrow, pain, and loss in the whole of the Middle Ages. Therefore, the juniper frequently was used in portrait paintings of widows. According to Maike Vogt-Luerssen the woman depicted is not Ginevra de’ Benci but Fioretta Gorini, the widow of the murdered Giuliano de’ Medici. The painting was made by Leonardo in 1479/80. ”

At some time in the history of this painting, it was attributed to Lucas Cranach; an indication that there is no certainty in attribution with “ancient” works of art, as indicated by the comment by Sir Kenneth Clark.

Who determines whether is work is or is not by Leonardo da Vinci? Who judges in own cause?

On 14th December 1978, a painting was sold at Bonham's in Montpelier Street, London at an auction of Old

- 36 -

Masters. Listed as Gianpetrino circa 1500 and with a reserve of £500 to £1000, lot number 2 sold for £1,100 or about $2,000 including commission. It had the verbose title the Infants Christ and St. John Embracing but I will judge that the title the Holy Children Embracing is appropriate.

Even before the sale, it was known that this motif and the name Leonardo da Vinci are inextricably linked but it seemed unlikely that the Gianpetrino version was anything other than a studio copy of the “original work”. However, there was a surprise in store for the purchaser of the work – for the reverse side of the panel was the number 39 and the name LIONARDO DA VINCI in hand-painted Roman script.

Leonardo's Holy Children Embracing

Between April and July 2002 I assisted my friend Robbert Bolleurs in his “project Lost Leonardo” [or rather project Found Leonardo] and became more and more convinced that the thousand pound painting was not a studio copy of the original Leonardo version of the Holy Children Embracing, but was in fact the original itself. Now of course I may not make a judgment in own cause, but I may advocate that the painting No. 39 is the original. Similarly, no-one may judge in own cause that No. 39 is not the original – but may advocate that the painting is by Marco d'Oggiono or Bernardino Luini, or even Gianpetrino!

I believe that in pages 4 to 34 I have presented enough evidence to show that everything that happened in the Isle of Man from 2nd April 2004 to 28th April 2014 is a result of malfeasance or misgovernment which is prohibited by law.

I believe that the evidence I will present on the newly emerged Leonardo will be overwhelming; that there can only be a tiny amount of the doubt about the authenticity of this work – but then there can be a tiny amount of doubt about the authenticity of Ginevra de' Benci. There can even be a tiny amount of doubt about the authenticity of Mona Lisa. Did Leonardo da Vinci put every drop of paint on the poplar panel that eventually became the most famous painting in the world – with a value of 150-200 million pounds. The work is 77 x 53 cm; and each square centimetre is worth millions of pounds! The French would never sell La Gioconda.

Q. How many paintings are there attributed to Leonardo da Vinci? — A. Less than thirty.

Two of these thirty paintings have the title the Virgin of the Rocks; and feature the Virgin Mary, the Angel Uriel, and the two Holy Children (in a rocky background). Italian author (and art “expert”) Angela Ottino della Chiesa wrote in Leonardo da Vinci: The Complete Paintings [1967/69] that versions of the two Holy Children Embracing are derivations of the Virgin or the Rocks.

- 37 -