Page 1

Memorandum from G. Stephen Holmes To


Lt. Governor Adam Wood, AAG Johnny Quinn, Deputy Governor David Doyle



30th August 2013



Corruption and perjury in the General Registry, and by officers of the Crown

On Sunday 18th August 2013 I was perusing some folders; and found a document that purportedly called itself An Affidavit. I remember reading the document in early October 2008, but lost it. The AFFIDAVIT OF CAROL DENISE DOWD was prepared by H.M. Attorney General's Chambers, Douglas [CP 2008/84] – and signed 26th day of September 2008 for the CHANCERY DIVISION.

IN THE MATTER of Order made by Staff of Government Division dated 26 th October 2007 and the unlawful documents issued by the Family Division dated between 5th November 2004 and 10th March 2008 in 2004/144 and IN THE MATTER of the High Court Act 1991, Human Rights Act 2001, the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, the Child Custody Act 1987 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 and IN THE MATTER of the High Court Office of the General Registry and the former Chief Registrar Angela Lloyd-Humphrey.

AFFIDAVIT OF CAROL DENISE DOWD I, CAROL DENISE DOWD, of Isle of Man Courts of Justice, Deemsters Walk, Bucks Road, Douglas, Civil Servant being sworn MAKE OATH as say as follows:Introduction: 1. I am the Director of Courts and Tribunal Services and I am authorised by the General Registry to swear this Affidavit in support of an application to strike out the Petition and to have the Petitioner declared a vexatious litigant. Set out below is, inter alia, a non-exhaustive overview of some of the dealings that Mr. Stephen Holmes (“Mr. Holmes”) has had with the General Registry since April 2004, including an assessment if the impact this has had on the time of the courts and the staff of the General Registry. 2. This Affidavit contains information within my own knowledge unless otherwise indicated. In so far as I shall refer to information supplied by * others, I believe the information to be true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. * both [sic] 3. There is now produced &c. 4. Given the weight of documentation &c. 5. Set out below is a chronology of some of the actions involving Mr. Holmes which have been before the Isle of Man Courts since April 2004; it is noted that Mr. Holmes has had the benefit of exemption &c. 5.1 On 2nd April 2004 Mrs. Yvonne Holmes wrote to the Isle of Man Courts &c. File FD/ UK/COR/04/02 5.2 On 18th May 2004 Mr. Holmes filed an application for shared / joint residence. File Div 2004/144. 5.3 On 28th May 2004 the Lancaster Orders of 24th February 2004 were ‘registered’. 5.4 On 1st July 2004 His Honour Deputy Deemster Williamson made an Order dismissing Mr Holmes' application of 18th May 2004. 5.5 On 4th November 2004 Orders of Lancaster County Court dated 27 th October 2004 -1-

ordering that Mr Holmes have indirect contact with the Children and also making orders in relation to ancillary relief ‘registered’. [Application by Mrs Holmes]. 5.6 On 5th November 2004 […] Deputy Deemster Williamson granted Mr Holmes indirect contact with the Children upon the terms of the Lancaster Court Orders. 5.12

On 16th November 2005 Deputy Deemster Williamson ordered that &c.

5.13 On 25th July 2006 a default action (case reference 0601013) was issued for the sum of £190,000 in the case of Stephen Holmes (Plaintiff) and “Peter Corkhill and Andrew Williamson” (Defendants). 5.15

On 25th October 2006 Acting Deemster King “ordered” &c.

5.16 On 19th March 2007 Mr Holmes made an application for the Family Division order of 5th November 2004 to be set aside and for compensation. Such application was listed for the Staff of Government Division under reference number 2DS 2007/9. 5.19 On 3rd September 2007 His Honour Deemster Doyle ordered (ex parte) that Mr Holmes do return Katarina May Holmes to the Isle of Man forthwith. 5.23 On 26th October 2007 His Honour Deemster Kerruish and the Judge of Appeal sitting in the Staff of Government Division ordered that the Order of Deputy Deemster Williamson dated 5th November 2004 be revoked. It further ordered that paragraph 4 of the Order of Deputy Deemster Williamson dated 16th November 2005 be revoked. 5.31 Mr. Holmes did not attend the Court on 10th March 2008. On that date His Honour Deemster Doyle considered &c. His Honour gave judgment and ordered &c. 30. Mr. Holmes visits to the public counter [or “front of house”] also take up a considerable amount of time. Most of the documentation submitted is hand delivered to the public counter by Mr. Holmes who will then remain in the public counter either demanding to speak to the Chief Registrar or members of the Courts Division staff or will talk about his case and express his views on this case and on the Judiciary to the public counter staff. Public counter staff are therefore prevented or delayed from dealing with other customers and work whilst they are dealing with Mr. Holmes. TAKEN and SWORN at Douglas


this 26th day of September 2008 Before me

: : : : :



(Commissioner for Oaths)


Missing from the above chronology were a “single action” on 27 th January and 9th February 2006. I had made a complaint to the General Registry on 16 th January 2006, but Peter Corkhill (Chief Registrar) and a manager in the General Registry (Paul W. Coppell) “ambushed me” on 27 th January 2006 in a “meeting”. Carol Denise Dowd sent me a letter on 9 th February 2006 which contained the following: – Dear Mr Holmes Formal Complaint – Holmes v Holmes FD/UK/COR/02 and DIV 2004/144 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 Dowd Director of Court Services C.c.

R P Corkhill, Chief Registrar

I NEVER used the expression “front of house” – that is in a theatre. “The Courts administration did not follow the rules laid down!” That is maladministration. Mrs Holmes submitted two court orders from the Lancaster County Court with this court on 2 nd 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.

In fact, the rules laid down were not followed because:1. The “orders” were not made by a court of superior record; 2. The “orders” were not actually “custody orders” as defined in the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 [or the Guardianship Act 1973] or the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953; 3. The court that made the “orders” did not make the application to register such “orders”; 4. No supporting documentation accompanied the “orders”; and 5. Neither were the “orders” certified; but when purportedly certified “orders” were obtained, the certification was by a clerk and not “the Judge or a Registrar”. In actual fact the “orders” were void ab initio because they [three out of the four] were headed Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 1989 does not extend to the Isle of Man; it is NOT listed in the Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man prepared for the Isle of Man Government in July 2003. No Deemster bothered to read this document. In July 2007, Chief Registrar Peter Corkhill wrote to Mannin Chambers – 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.

But on 27th February 2007, a Mrs Voirrey Moore of the Civil Summary Team (in the High Court Office) sent a letter to me with the following – 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 -3-

Children Act 1989 from Lancaster County Court dated 3 rd February 2004. •

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. In the meantime, I return &c. Dowd wrote in 2006 “the orders submitted by Mrs Holmes on 2 nd April 2004” and yet Mrs Moore wrote that the “application should be made through the Lancaster County Court. So the “orders” of 2004 should have been submitted through the Lancaster County Court. What Carol Denise Dowd did in September 2008 was to commit perjury. What she did in February 2006 was malfeasance and maladministration (wrong-doing). It was Corruption. It is evident to anyone with even a small amount of intelligence that in order for a document from another jurisdiction to be successfully registered in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT a certain “due process” must be followed, or “the rules laid down” must be followed. In a marriage ceremony, if the rules laid down are not followed, the couple are not married. The socalled certified copies of the “orders” obtained by Dowd in 2006 were signed by Miss V. P-Jones, a civil servant, and NOT by the Judge or a Registrar. The rules were NEVER followed – not even retrospectively – the action of Dowd was an unlawful cover-up. It has developed that on 2nd April 2004, a file was opened in the court office (part of the General Registry), and that file was labelled FD/UK/COR/04/02. Family Division – United Kingdom – Custody Order Registration – 04/02 – probably April 2nd. On or after 18th May 2004, following an Application by me on a Form C1, another case file was opened in an adversarial dispute over a “matrimonial proceeding”: Div 2004/144. On 1st July 2004, Deputy Deemster AK Williamson ORDERED that the said Application [of 18 th May 2004] be and is hereby dismissed. Case file Div 2004/144 should have been closed. AK Williamson lied in court, as confirmed by the SOGD on 2nd April 2013 in paragraphs 6 and 12 of the on-line judgment J1356. [Williamson told me that orders from Lancaster had been registered but those orders had not been registered]. Dowd and Corkhill KNEW that no “proper” registration process had taken place on 28 th May 2004 by 9th February 2006, but did nothing about it; and in July 2007 Corkhill admitted that the action had been unlawful. The verbose phrase “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987” could have been written as one word – unlawfully. Corkhill should have written “it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man [on 28 th May 2004] by this office erroneously, i.e. unlawfully.” But Corkhill started a mantra in July 2007 – the orders were registered erroneously. This mantra is similar to that started by South Yorkshire Police by the afternoon of 16 th April 1989 – the fans were to blame. The Liverpool fans were not to blame; and no orders from England were registered. Both mantras were untrue. The Staff of Government Division (judges) added further confusion to the mantra in October 2007 by stating that the orders were not properly registered; the staff in the General Registry (notably Stephen Robertson, Paul Coppell, Stephen Cregeen and Sharon Roberts) are confused by the word properly! In the middle of paragraph 47 of the judgment of 26 th October 2007 is the phrase “when they had not been so registered.” Use of the word properly is therefore unnecessary (as in the improper marriage) – the “orders” had not been registered on 28th May 2004 and further void documents from an English County Court were NOT registered on 4th November 2004. -4-

But in paragraphs 5.3 and 5.5 above, Dowd stated in a SWORN affidavit that documents had been ‘registered’. Dowd lied. She lied because the tree had been poisoned – she had “improperly obtained evidence” and presented it as if it was true when it was not true. So when John Quinn sent a letter on 26 th March 2013, he lied as well. Deemster Roberts has lied; Deemster Doyle lied in court on 3rd September 2007; even Deemster Kerruish and Geoffrey Tattersall JA got things wrong in Court on 24th September 2007 and in their judgment of 26th October 2007 because they were not thorough in the court process – they took the fruit of the poisoned tree. There is a colloquial expression that encapsulates events from 28 th May 2004 onwards – a fuck-up. In the past tense, a person or persons are involved – AK Williamson fucked-up: he took the fruit of the poisoned tree – in fact he probably authorised the fuck-up. Williamson fucked-up twice in court in 2004: once on 1st July 2004 when he lied by stating that documents had been registered when they had not been so registered and four times on 5 th November 2004 when he alleged that “Those orders are binding.” On Wednesday 5th September 2007, following the so-called “order” issued by Deemster David Doyle on 3rd September 2007 (at about 17:00) West Midlands Police Authority fucked-up: they arrested me on a “made-up charge”. On the morning of 6th September 2007 I was released without charge. I subsequently claimed compensation (pecuniary damages) from WMPA and in November 2007 (about 12th) received a cheque for £2,000. On 28th May 2004, four documents were produced headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT that recorded a fuck-up. These documents purportedly recorded the “Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom” [two so-called orders; one for each child – four false documents in all]. No registrations actually took place on 28th May 2004 – they were purported. Deputy Deemster Williamson had jurisdiction to dismiss the Application of 18 th May 2004, but he fucked-up by stating that orders had been registered when they had not been so registered. Because of the fuck-ups on 28th May and 1st July 2004, there was another fuck-up on 4 th November 2004 – Dowd alleged in an affidavit that “orders” had been ‘registered’ when nothing of legal value had in fact happened. There was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did on 5th November 2004; but that false instrument contained a policy statement – that Stephen Holmes have indirect dealings with his own Manx children – indirect being by way of telephone call, letter or e-mail. Katie and Ben Holmes had no family life with their father Stephen Holmes from 7 th November 2004 to January 2008 because of the existence of a false instrument with the name Deputy Deemster Williamson on it. AK Williamson fucked-up and destroyed a Manx family. Because AK Williamson used to be a stipendiary magistrate (called High Bailiff) in criminal court, he “ordered” that his declaratory order be sent to the Isle of Man Police where it was used as “some kind of injunction empowering arrest.” If I was in the vicinity of my own children in the Isle of Man between 10th January 2005 and 18th October 2007, Mrs Holmes called the police and a Constable would detain me or arrest me on suspicion of some minor offence. This POLICY of “indirect dealings” – this unlawful policy – appeared to be in force for 155 weeks or just shy (10 days shy) of three years before the SOGD confirmed that there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have issued the policy document. Corkhill and Dowd, Chief Registrar and Director of Courts Services, fucked-up in January and February 2006 by attempting to cover-up the malfeasance of Chief Registrar Angela Lloyd-Humphrey in April / May 2004 [and of Assistant Chief Registrar Miss Jayne Williams]. Deemster Tim King and AG John Corlett and counsel Walter Wannenburgh screwed-up in October 2006 – King used the expression “matrimonial proceedings” half-a-dozen times! Even J.M. Kerruish and Tattersall [JA] fucked-up in September / October 2007 because they failed to criticise the Deputy fucking Deemster and did not note certain crucial sections of the Child Custody -5-

Act 1987. The Application of 19th March 2007 included an extension to the remedy of having a defective instrument set-aside [because it WAS defective] but that application was not addressed by the tribunal. The extension was pecuniary damages. And then we come to the major fuck-up of September 2008 by Carol Dowd. I was NOT involved in the 02/04 to 28/04 FD/UK/COR fiasco; Mrs Holmes wrote to AK Williamson directly and informally, and disclosure of the actuality of events was not made (until May 2007! – and even then I had to demand it). I was not involved in the 4 th November 2004 fiasco – Williamson referred to something that happened “yesterday” and full disclosure did not take place (until May 2007). In August 2006 I received FTR recordings of the kangaroo court meetings of 1 st July and 5th November 2004, but I did not have these processed by a “trustworthy source” until 2011. On 8 th April 2011, Kevin O'Riordan sent me a “transcript” of the meeting he attended on 5 th Nov. 2004. D is AK Williamson [Deemster]; KOR is Kevin O'Riordan. D

Now, I’ve got Mrs Holmes?

MrsH Yes D

[Mrs Holmes]

Yes, and Mr Holmes – You appear, do you, Mr O’Riordan?

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

Right, thank you. Right well it was from Mrs Holmes that first I heard today and then subsequently I’ve heard from Mr Holmes and I will do what I can to assist. Mr Holmes seems to take issue with Orders made in the Lancaster County Court (which have been registered one back in May, and a more recent variation of that registered here yesterday), where do we go from there? Those Orders are binding.

KOR Your Honour I don’t know what has led to this afternoon’s hearing procedurally. I have spoken to Mr Holmes on the telephone on a number of occasions months back when he was asking for general advice I tried to give him some general pointers. I then had him arrive at my office a few minutes ago so I had the benefit of about 5 minutes of instructions before coming up here this afternoon. From what I know of the case – I have no paperwork – I think this is very akin to the situation we have had in another case Mrs C and Mr G; D


In the paragraph beginning “Right, thank you”, Williamson lied three times. He had NOT heard from me [I wrote to the Chief Registrar]; the orders from Lancaster had NOT been registered [not on 28 th May 2004 and not “yesterday”]; and therefore those “orders” were not binding. When Kevin said that “this is very akin to the situation we have had in another case” he had no paperwork (the word “evidence” springs to mind) upon which to base that allegation. “You appear to be an orang-utan, Mr Holmes” would be a good analogy. “You appear to have forged a six-pound note, Mr Holmes;” is another analogy. To quote Helen Fielding in Bridget Jones Diary; Williamson was a civil court fuck-wit. A trained chimpanzee would have made a more able Deputy Deemster. I am mainly concerned in this memorial about the action of CD Dowd in September 2008 – this devious and malicious civil servant LIED IN AN AFFIDAVIT. No documents were registered on 28th May 2004; no documents were registered on 4th November 2004. There was no legitimacy to a “policy document” that was circulated from about 10 th November 2004 to the end of October 2007. And when it was discovered that it was false, the SOGD attempted to revoke it! A false instrument cannot be revoked. Mr Paul Coppell was quite helpful in March 2013 – he used the term void ab initio. The four ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT documents issued on -6-

28th May 2004 were void the moment they were issued; and the four similar documents headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT issued on 4 th November 2004 were also void ab initio. The so-called declaratory order of 5th November 2004 could have been declared void ab initio in February of March 2006 when Dowd (and Corkhill) discovered that the rules laid down had not been followed; but instead of using initiative and scheduling a hearing to declare events void, Dowd and Corkhill began a campaign to discredit me – Corkhill admitted unlawfulness in July 2007 and Dowd lied on an affidavit in September 2008 – and the AG saw nothing wrong with submitting a false instrument to the High Court – to Deemster Corlett. Who was Deputy Deemster Corlett going to believe in January 2009? Carol Dowd or Stephen Holmes? He actually dismissed the Application by the AG on behalf of the General Registry on 13th / 20th January 2009 because, as he said in court on 13 th Jan., “it was an unlawful process.” And the fuck-ups continued; Deemster Doyle fucked-up in December 2011; he was biased and partial to the wicked. Then in June 2012 he wrote in a judgment about sensible negotiation; but his colleagues in the judiciary and those he supervises in the General Registry (the officers of the High Court) are allowed to get away with murder! Deemster Roberts fucked-up throughout 2012. It is my belief that child-rights abuse is child abuse. If an order of the court unlawfully alleges that the only dealings a Manx father can have with his own Manx children are “indirect” the CHILD is abused. The child does not know that the policy is wrong; and the mother was confused about the legality of a court order. Most people would assume that a Deputy Deemster would know the difference between a valid order and an invalid order, but this was AK Williamson who had spent 25 years in criminal courts before being let loose in civil courts where he could cause maximum social damage – he really was a fuck-wit. He did not know the difference between right and wrong. And all and sundry have stood by him or made no criticism of the child-rights abusing charlatan. A document that ends how Dowd's affidavit ends, and yet contains the lies that this particular Affidavit contains, should be investigated by appropriate authorities; as no “fucker” in authority has investigated such, it is left to me to alert those of the lies contained in said affidavit. But this is the Isle of Man where anything goes! Giving you freedom to lie, to cheat, to abuse the rights of children and to destroy families; especially if you work in the domain of the First Deemster. The fact is that on 5th November 2004 the Deputy fucking Deemster AK Williamson produced a false instrument with a policy statement “keep this father away from his own children.” If he abused the children in this case, how many other children did Williamson abuse from the civil court bench? How many cases did he govern correctly? I would be surprised if he actually did right in more than ten cases in about seven years as civil court Deemster: perhaps one each year seven in seven years. If this were a domestic matter, I would be “pressing charges”. But this is actually a matter of public interest – and the EVIDENCE contained in this “memorial” shows that the First Deemster (David Doyle); the Second Deemster (Andrew Corlett); the former Deputy Deemster (AK Williamson); Deemster Roberts; and those who occupy or occupied high positions in the General Registry (Corkhill, Coppell, Dowd, Cregeen, Robertson) are liars and cheats and will do anything to protect their positions and reputations; including abusing Manx children. The fact is that NO registration actually took place on 28 th May 2004 and that AK Williamson LIED on 1st July 2004; once the tree had been poisoned by improper actions on 28 th May and 1st July 2004 EVERY ACTION in the High Court of injustice involving any Deemster and everything in the General Registry (Courts [and Tribunal] Services Division) has been tainted or unsafe or unlawful – right up to the decision of Tattersall JA and C. Melton on 2 nd April 2013 [and May 2013] and the letter from John Quinn on 26th March 2013. The majority of officers of the Crown are incompetent lying fuckers and three consecutive Chief Registrars and most officers of the High Court are also lying fuckers. All should be prosecuted – by the lying fucker the Attorney General. Clearly, that is not going to happen because bias, misgovernment and corruption are a way of life in the General Registry; in the judiciary; and in the chambers of HM Attorney General. I nearly -7-

“pissed myself” on 29th January 2012 when David Doyle read Psalm 82 in a church – “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?” Nine years so-far! I am ALWAYS willing to negotiate an end to this matter that just goes on and on and on. My hope is that it eventually brings about the collapse of the Isle of Man Government and a replacement by a Westminster backed “governing council”; perhaps as a UK Dependent Territory. Again, that is not is not going to happen because nobody gives a shit when a citizen has his (or her) rights abused. In November 2002 [I was still in England with Katie and Ben, and Yvonne] Chief Registrar Angela Lloyd-Humphrey prepared the 2003-2006 Business Plan for the General Registry – and this Plan has the following structure –

Under section 28 of the High Court Act 1991 we learn that the Chief Registrar (as an “officer of the High Court”) is directed and supervised by the First Deemster in “administrative duties”. But the First Deemster did not direct and supervise the (deputy) Chief Registrar on 28 th May 2004 – that unlawful action was directed and supervised by the fucker AK Williamson who “bore virtually singlehanded all the work of the Family Division”; and later on in 2007 Williamson advised ATK Corlett who took over from him. Talk about the blind leading the blind! And also in this “document” of November 2002 [still available on the www dated 30/01/2003] Dowd stated that the Family Division of the High Court of “justice” determined “custody and access rights regarding children”. But the terms “custody” and “access” disappeared from Statute on 1 st April 1992 when the Family Law Act 1991 was fully enacted. The FLA 1991 was promulgated at Tynwald on 5 th July 1991 – [it was passed on 19th March 1991] – surely in the 12½ months between this Act [based on the Children Act 1989 {P1989/c41}] being passed and enacted, there was one Deemster {Jack Corrin} or advocate that realised “custody” was going to be completely replaced by “residence” and “access” was going to be completely replaced by “contact”. The concepts are entirely new – the clue is in the NAME of the 1989 Act of Parliament – the Children Act. Access and custody WERE about guardians of children; residence and contact are ABOUT THE CHILD [minor until 01/02/2003]. That the Chief Registrar made such a mistake in 2002/2003 [at the same time as Williamson moved from the criminal court to the civil court] shows what a failure the High Court had become under Deemster Cain. He was interested mainly in criminal law; Williamson knew only criminal law and Doyle had not even started. Deemster Kerruish had been mainly in the CGGD from 1997 to 2003; so NOBODY actually knew THE LAW regarding children in 2003/2004 as shown by the obscenity of Williamson's 05/11/2004 “declarity order” – “the Respondent have indirect” dealings with his own Manx children. It would have been more honest if Williamson had written “IT IS DECLARED that Stephen Holmes be mentally and emotionally fucked”. But honesty was not one of Williamson's attributes; and neither was knowledge of civil law. So, Mr Governor; Mr Queen's representative, your Deputy (the First Deemster) and his Deputy (the second Deemster) and the Deputy Deemsters from 2002 to 2011 were biased and misgoverned and misdirected officers of the High Court who worked for them in administrative tasks. And three Chief -8-

Registrars were allowed to “get away with murder” because nobody actually directs and supervises them. Stephen Cregeen can do “whatever he wants” – and is then permitted to judge in own cause; no different from AK Williamson on 5th November 2004 : He said – “Those orders are binding” when the ultra vires documents were NOT binding. He may as well have said “Screw the rights of the Manx children;” for that was the consequence of his unlawful and improper actions in 2004 and 2005; the child abuse lasted for three years. I make no apology for the language of this letter – the Deputy Deemster abused my children for three years and when it was found that there was no legitimacy to his declaration of 5 th November 2004 the first Deemster and Judge of Appeal made no criticism of the arrogant, complacent, ignorant, incompetent, charlatan and child-rights abusing bastard. If a Deemster does not know the difference between a “registered order” and a “non registered order” then he would not know right from wrong; and it is up to the Crown to admonish the bastard and to pay compensation to the victims of their malfeasance. I am STILL waiting for communication. LET RIGHT BE DONE. Best regards,

G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc. This document is available on under my name GSHOLMES and in my “docs” folder – as Affidavit_of_Dowd.


Affidavit of Dowd  

In September 2008 a public (civil) servant in the Isle of Man Government swore an affidavit. It is time to publish part of this pack of lies...