Another Doyle rant

The Holmes Office From the office of G. Stephen Holmes Wigan, England 24th May 2015

Dear David C. Doyle, There is a change in “rules” in the United Kingdom on 8 th June 2015 with regard to driving licences. For your information, I have copied the document that is available from post offices in England (and probably Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales).

The second paragraph (left) clearly explains why there is a counterpart, but after 8 June 2015, that counterpart is unnecessary, and it has never been necessary to show the “paper” part of the driving licence as a form of identity. I have travelled to Belfast and to and from Dublin (and to Manchester, and London) and shown only the photo-card part of my driving licence.

“…it will no longer have any legal status”.

DVLA document no. INS227/1 2/15

I “collect” expressions and quotes – and the Orwell comment (above) is one of my favourites. The thing that you do not want to hear, but that I have the right to tell you, is that you would rather die than think. You have never stopped to think for one moment about the problems you caused for Katie and Ben Holmes – you just read a document that had no legal status issued by charlatan AK47 Williamson. Then, on 14 th December 2011 you decided that the “no fair criticism” view prevailed over the “NO LEGAL BASIS” judgement. You are an biased imbecile, David – you judge in own cause and nemo judex in causa sua. It is almost as if you do not understand the phrase “will no longer have any legal status”!

So, what you need to know is that NONE of the so-called “orders” of the Lancaster County Court had ANY legal status in the Isle of Man, ever. In the jurisdiction of the High (civil) Court of the Isle of Man, those documents headed Lancaster County Court were void, void, void. Williamson alleged they had been registered “here” – here being the Isle of Man High Court; but a County Court CANNOT bind the High Court.

What does all this say about the Isle of Man, David? — It says that the Isle of Man is a jurisdiction where the chief justice (and Deputy Governor) cannot be trusted; where the judges are so powerful that they rule by court order whether the order is lawful or not – usually not. It says that you are a charlatan; and that Deputy Dumpster Williamson was a total s--t who abused (the rights of) children – and you condoned that abuse of fundamental human rights – and then contributed to it.

You “judged” that I have “an irrational obsession” but neither you nor Tim King knew the difference between a children matter and a matrimonial proceeding! You referred to the “case” as “divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144” on 3rd September 2007; you imbecile. How can anyone in the Isle of Man trust a judge who does not know the difference between a “divorce order” and a “contact order” or anyone in the court offices who does not know the difference between a “registered” document and one that is not registered.

If you already hold a counterpart, after 8 June 2015 it will no longer have any legal status. You should destroy the counterpart after this date.

If you have a document that looks like a court order issued by the ass AK47 Williamson, it had no legal status in the first place because AK47 Williamson never held the welfare of the child as his paramount consideration: like you, all he was interested in was status and money.

I will not rest until RIGHT is DONE; and I have the freedom to tell you what you probably don’t want to hear; that you were an ass in the court on 3 rd September 2007, an ass on 29 th November 2007, an ass on 10 th

March 2008 [what case number did you use?] and a complete ass and charlatan on 14 th December 2011.

It is not the job of a judge to enter the court-room and begin a dispute with one of the people in the court; but that is what happened again and again in the “High Court of Injustice of the Isle of Man” – you started a dispute with me on 3rd September 2007 and I wasn’t even in the court-room! Williamson started a dispute with me within two minutes of mumbling “Right let me come up to speed on this” on 1 st July 2004. I had never even seen the charlatan until 1st July 2004 – I had worked with his son, Alex, and Alex was amazed that I did not know his father was High Bailiff (in 2000). The first time I had sight of AK47 Williamson, he lied to me when he alleged that “a – an order from Lancaster” was registered in the High Court – when it had not been so registered, so there was no legitimate basis upon which the wicked judge Williamson could have made the order which he did. The Staff of Government Division decision to “quash” or “revoke” the so-called declarity order was nonsense – all Deemster Kerruish and Tattersall JA could have done was to declare the so-called order of 5th November 2004 void ab initio; and to declare paragraph 4 of the so-called order of 16 th November 2005 void ab initio. They should also have declared void the nonsense written by Williamson and signed 30th November 2005 – but dated 16 th November 2005; the letter that contained the term “considerable history.” Now, please tell me, David: what the hell is a considerable history?

Can you see why I call the civil law court the Isle of Man Kangaroo Court of Injustice? I have the right to call it that – you did NOT have power to abuse the rights of Katie and Ben Holmes on 10 th March 2008 – you should have opened a NEW case about the children under the CYPA 2001 – not continued case Divorce 2004/144 – because you did that, your so-called order was void ab initio also; it was unlawfully made under Doyle's law. Where is the name Children and Young Persons Act 2001 on the so-called court order?

How is anybody supposed to know what Act of Tynwald is being used if the Deemster doesn't put the Act on the court order – David? What Act was used on the false instrument of 05/11/2004? – I will tell you because you need to be told – the Child Custody Act 1987. And in the phrase that tells you which Act – the one which uses the word “registered,” – is the crux of the problem for there was no registration! When you alleged that there was a “residence order” on 29 th November 2007 (when you told me to “shut up” while you were giving “judgement”) you lied because that was a Section 8 “Residence Order” which had become spent; not a section 11(1)(a) residence order in the Isle of Man. You are a useless turd. I may be irrationally obsessed (I take that as a compliment – at least I was working for good not evil) but you are a useless unprofessional “turd” who showed partiality to the wicked.

The INS227/1 document tells people what they need to know. None of the so-called court orders I have seen from the former Family Division of your Kangaroo court tell people what they need to know – they concentrate on who the matter is “between” and have names of wankers Deemsters in capital letters.

Because your court always lists children matters as adversarial disputes between adults – only Public Law Part 3, 4 and 5 applications are listed as Re The Child – and does not hold the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration; you hold the status of the Deemster as paramount – and advocates are only interested in money, all your court orders have no legal status from the outset.

Finally, Mr Turd, I will explain “will no longer have any legal status.” – The document becomes spent and is void – the document can be destroyed.

The document issued by Williamson on 5 th November 2004 had “no legal status” on the day it was made, but because it was made by a Deemster who had sworn an Oath it was treated as being good and proper. Fiftyfour weeks later, the wanker issued the same declaration; that too was of no legal status the moment it was made, and the “Reasons for Decision” letter complete BS. And that letter contained the “considerable history” phrase – which is where you got it from; you idiot!

For the whole of 2005 (and 2006) the policy towards me was one which had no legal status. So this document has no legal status either; but I can use it to tell you to “go and f- yourself” and put my opinion in the public domain in the same way that you put your opinion of my obsession in the public domain in 2011; you biased f-quit and abuser of the rights of children.

And finally …

The title of an Act of Tynwald is the full introduction to the Act. For example, An Act to give further effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights; and for connected purposes is known by the short title or citation as the Human Rights Act 2001; it is different from the Human Rights Act 1998, for the latter is an Act of Parliament in Westminster; is for the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); and has no effect in the Isle of Man. The UK Human Rights Act 1998 also contains a phrase about the appointment of judges in the European Court.

The title of what is cited as the High Court Act 1991 contains the following – (based on the Senior Courts Act 1981 of England & Wales – also cited as the Supreme Courts Act 1991) – AN ACT to repeal and replace with amendments enactments relating to the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court and the administration of justice therein; to establish a new division of the High Court to be called the Family Division; to make new provision with respect to the jurisdiction in admiralty of the High Court; to extend the remedies available under petitions of doleance; to enable the High Court to award provisional damages for personal injuries; to make new provision with respect to the power of the High Court to order disclosure of documents and the inspection of property, etc. in proceedings for personal injury and death; &c; … and for connected purposes.

Where is the Family Division of the High Court? — Oh, I know: you and Mike Kerruish got rid of it.

The High Court Act 1991 received Royal Assent and was passed by Tynwald on 9 th July 1991; and was promulgated at Tynwald in July 1992. When did the Rules of the High Court 2009 receive Royal Assent?

The Act as it is written now, after it was messed-up by the two Deemsters, has no Family Division! But the title of the Act says “to establish a new division of the High Court to be called the Family Division”. How can it be lawful if the Act says establish a new division and that new division no longer exists because the judges (who are supposed to be independent of Government) do not want the new Division? The title of the Act also uses the term petitions of doleance [doleance meaning complaint] but the Form for such application to the High Court now calls it a “doleance claim”. A complaint is a complaint; it is not a claim; for the petitioner must prove his complaint. My complaint to the High Court of “justice” is that there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did on 5 th November 2004 so the so-called order (court ordure) was void from the moment it was made – and that wrong has NEVER had a remedy because you and other Deemsters show partiality to the wicked (which is contrary to your oath).

I believe that you and Corlett act on the assumption that the Statutes of the Isle of Man do not apply to you!

You have returned to the ancient “breast law” which was seen by John Stanley as a euphemism for “making up the rules as they went along” and is seen by me, a concerned, informed and fair minded citizen, in exactly the same way. You will research any common law precedent to get your own way; whether it complies with Statute passed by Tynwald or not – usually not!

You put in the public domain – “Unfortunately the Claimant's obsession continues and it has now become irrational.” I am putting in the public domain that you did not know the difference between a children matter (under the Children and Young Persons Act 2001) and a divorce matter (under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003) because you spent four years in the Court of General Gaol Delivery. In Trial By Jury by Gilbert and Sullivan, the barrister mistakes bigamy for burglary and the line “gets a laugh”. “Divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144” gets no laugh in 2015; got no laughs in 2007; and shows what an imbecile you are, David Charlatan Doyle.

I say again, and I have the right to tell you: ARGO! I consider that you did not have the right to imply that my “obsession” had become irrational on 14th December 2011; you swore an Oath, but you do not abide by it.

Best regards,

G. Stephen Holmes B.Sc.