Claim from Ministry of Justice

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

14th October 2013

c/o s_h_iom@yahoo.com Tel: 07624 437273 07780 209517

To: Mr Paul Russell; Ms Helen Hynes Lancaster Court Office Mitre House, Lancaster Dear Sir and Madam, KN03P00016 Private Law case about Katie Holmes and Ben Holmes N.B. This is an “Open Letter” to two “managers” in Lancaster civil court office – two “civil servants”.

R.M. Forrester and G. Nuttall (and D.S. Gee and Rawkins) are civil court judges in Lancaster. KN03 is Kendal 2003; and P 0016 is a “Private Law case” no. 16.

Q. Where were Katie and Ben Holmes living from 8th August 2003? – A. The Isle of Man. Q. When did Ms. Livesey make an application for leave to remove the two Manx children from the jurisdiction of England & Wales? – A. At the end of October 2003; almost three months later.

Q. Which court had jurisdiction (power; vires) over the Manx children in October 2003? – A. The Isle of Man High Court of “justice” [for civil matters].

Q. What was the content of the C44B Leave to remove child from UK “order” of 24 th February 2004?

– A. that the Manx mother (Yvonne Holmes) could remove the Manx children from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Isle of Man permanently.

Q. Which court had jurisdiction over Katie and Ben Holmes on and after 24 th February 2004? – A. The Manx courts – not the courts in Scotland; and not the courts in England & Wales.

Not only should the court office have asked “Do we have jurisdiction or power in this private law case?” but the judges, Nuttall and Forrester should have asked exactly the same question. But on 29 th October 2003, IN LANCASTER, [at about 12:03] Nuttall stated that “the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom”; and he alleged that the Children Act 1989 – for England & Wales only – could be extended to the Isle of Man. On 24th February 2004 Forrester acted as if a C43 “contact order” could bind the Isle of Man when he wrote “provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man!” The term for these actions is ultra vires; and ultra vires actions are improper and corrupt.

In 1522 – in the Earl of Derby (deceased) case, His Majesty's Privy Council confirmed that general Acts of Parliament do not extend to the Isle of Man. The Children Act 1989 is such a general Act; Forrester overturned 480 years of legal history with “provided such [contact] takes place in the Isle of Man” to which jurisdiction Mrs Yvonne Holmes has been given leave to remove the Manx children permanently. [See 1522-1920 MLR page 1].

If “evidence” is obtained [or created] improperly it is called the poisoning of the tree; and evidence derived from such improperly obtained “evidence” is called “fruit of the poisoned tree.”

The tree was poisoned by Nuttall on 29th October 2003; it was further poisoned by him on 5 th November 2003, and then it was twice poisoned by Forrester on 24 th Nov. 2003 and 23rd Dec. 2003.

Finally, on 24th February 2004, Forrester “killed the tree” with his “provided such takes place in the Isle of Man” comment. Any actions after 24/2 are tainted or improper or unlawful.

When I claimed from “you lot” in July 2013, I was complaining about the alleged powers that Nuttall and Forrester claimed over Katie and Ben Holmes after paragraph 3 of the 24/02/2004 “Order Residence and Contact Order” and after reading the “separate order attached”: these clowns had no powers because the Manx children were “in the Isle of Man permanently” with the leave and permission of a County Court judge. The “Order Contact Order” of 27 th October 2004 had no vires whatsoever and was void ab initio. The so-called “contact order” of 24/02/2004 had no sense to it -1-

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

because it was about the “Father” having [reasonable] contact with his own children. All actions on 24th February 2004 were improper; but especially those written about after Forrester used the words “to the Isle of Man” and “to the Isle of Man permanently.”

In a recent judgment of 5 th September 2013, [Re J (A Child)] Sir James Munby wrote in paragraph 28 – “I have said this many times in the past but it must never be forgotten that, with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. When a family judge makes a placement order or an adoption order in relation to a twenty- year old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We must be vigilant to guard against the risks.” This warning is ten years late.

My son Ben Holmes had his fifth birthday (in the Isle of Man) on 28th August 2004; and then on 27th October 2004 District Judge Gordon (‘is a moron’) Nuttall purported to issue a section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact order” which read that “the Father do have indirect contact with the children,” contrary to law. Eight months earlier Forrester had given retrospective leave and permission to Manx mother Yvonne Holmes to remove the Manx children from the Jurisdiction of England & Wales and from the other two legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom (Scotland and Northern Ireland) to the Isle of Man permanently. Ben had attended Rushen Primary School since 2nd September 2003 (as had Katie) so without power (ultra vires), Gordon Nuttall made an order that Manx mother Yvonne Holmes and Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes (and me) have had to live with since the end of October 2004; all because he did not ask the crucial question at the end of October 2003 and on 5 th November 2003; “Do I have jurisdiction, powers or vires in this matter about Katarina and Benedict Holmes?” The answer should have been NO, because the children and their mother were habitually resident in the Isle of Man (and domiciled); and had been since 18 th August 2003 before any applications were made with respect to them under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 [An Act to reform the law relating to children].

Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (enacted on 1 st October 2000) it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention [on Human Rights].

Article 6 is the right to a fair hearing; and Article 8 is the right to privacy and a family life. An order about a Manx father – that he should only enjoy “indirect” dealings with his own children is incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention; and the manner in which the hearing was conducted

by Nuttall was unfair and therefore unlawful. Therefore, the Lancaster Court Office acted unlawfully by scheduling a hearing about the future of Manx children who were already habitually and permanently resident in the Isle of Man with the leave of a judge; and therefore it is Lancaster County Court from whom I am claiming compensation for damage inflicted by the improper actions of a County Court “judge” because the Court Offices did not check whether the Isle of Man was bound by the CA 1989 [which it is not].

In January 2004 I found a document about the British Islands on the DCA web-site. The document seemed to be “quite old” because it referenced not the DCA (Department for “Child Abuse”) but the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD).

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.

Who's responsible for what?

Click here for a list of officials in the Islands Branch of the Constitutional Policy Division. Click here for a list of the Branch's areas of responsibility. [sends to end of document]

In Brief Departments and agencies are asked to: •

consult the Lord Chancellor's Department before briefing Ministers to make statements or to answer

-2-

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

Parliamentary Questions about the Islands; •

consult the Lord Chancellor's Department during the drafting process where a proposed Bill appears relevant to the Islands, and before including in any published Bill any provision relating to the Islands;

•

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

•

assist the Lord Chancellor's Department by considering and commenting promptly on Island Laws;

•

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". You should ensure that any consultative or other process for overseas territories takes in all the Crown Dependencies.

Constitutional position The constitutional relationship of the Islands with the United Kingdom is not enshrined in a formal constitutional document. It is rather the outcome of historical processes and accepted practice.

The most recent statement of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Islands is to be found in Part XI of Volume 1 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the constitution, published in 1973 (known as the Kilbrandon Report). The Report, however, acknowledged that there were areas of uncertainty in the existing relationship which itself was complex. It did not purport to draw up a fully authoritative statement and the Islands are known to be particularly sensitive to the need to obtain their consent, in accordance with democratic principle, to any decision taken in the United Kingdom which has legal implications for them.

The government of the Islands The Islands have their own legislative assemblies, administrative, fiscal and legal systems and their own courts of law (see our useful website links). The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the ultimate court of appeal.

The Channel Island legislatures pass primary legislation which requires approval by The Queen-in-Council (Royal Assent).

The Isle of Man Lieutenant Governor (The Queen's representative), subject to the consent of the Lord Chancellor, grants Royal Assent to most primary legislation passed by the Island's legislature (Tynwald). In the case of a minority of Bills, Royal Assent is reserved to The Queen-in-Council.

The Island legislatures are:

• •

Isle of Man

-

The Court of Tynwald <http://www.tynwald.org.im>

Jersey

-

States of Jersey <http://www.gov.je/>

-3-

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

• • •

Guernsey

-

The States of Deliberation <http://www.gov.gg/>

Alderney

-

The States of Alderney <http://www.alderney.gov.gg/govern/>

Sark

-

The Chief Pleas <http://www.sark.gov.gg/>

Tynwald comprises the House of Keys (the Lower House) with 24 popularly elected members and the Legislative Council (the Upper House) with eight members elected by the House of Keys, together with the Attorney General and the Bishop of Sodor and Man. Tynwald Court and the Legislative Council are presided over by the President of Tynwald who is elected by the Members of Tynwald. The States of Jersey, the States of Deliberation and the States of Alderney are elected. In Sark, a proportion of the Chief Pleas are elected.

There are no political parties in the Islands.

The Isle of Man has adopted a Cabinet-style Government with a Chief Minister elected by the Isle of Man Parliament (Tynwald), and up to nine Ministers chosen by the Chief Minister from members of Tynwald.

History The Isle of Man first came under the English Crown in the fourteenth century following periods under the suzerainty of the Kings of Norway and Scotland. In 1405 the Island – with its "regalities" – was granted to Sir John Stanley and his heirs. From then up to 1765 it was ruled by the Earls of Derby, and later the Dukes of Atholl, as Kings or Lords of Man. By Acts of Parliament passed in 1765 and in 1825, the rights of the Lords of Man reverted to the Crown, and for a time the Island was very largely governed from London.

In addition to the Lieutenant Governor, other Crown Officers in the Isle of Man are the First and Second Deemster (the judges of the High Court) and Attorney General. The latter - like the Law Officers in the Channel Islands - is legal adviser to both the Crown and the Island government.

Relationship with the United Kingdom The United Kingdom is responsible for the Islands' international relations and for their defence and the Crown is ultimately responsible for their good government. This means that, in the circumstances of a grave breakdown or failure in the administration of justice or civil order, the residual prerogative power of the Crown could be used to intervene in the internal affairs of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

The European Union The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not Member States nor are they part of the UK Member State.

Economic Matters The Islands are internally self-supporting and neither receive subsidies from, nor pay contributions to, the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey make annual contributions towards the cost of common services such as defence and overseas representation.

The public revenues of the Islands are raised by income tax, duties on imported goods and by other taxes.

The responsibility for prescribing the taxes and their rates and for determining how the revenue should be spent is a matter for the Island legislatures.

The Isle of Man maintains most of its indirect taxes at the same level as those of the United Kingdom and there is a common customs area between the two territories. Under the Customs and Excise Agreement with the Isle of Man, which came into operation on 1 April 1980, customs and excise duties and value added tax paid in the Island are collected by the Island's own Customs and Excise Service; and the Island is also allocated that part of the indirect taxation revenue which is collected in the United Kingdom and attributable to goods and services consumed in the Isle of Man. In view of the Customs and Excise Agreement with the Isle of Man, there are no customs controls on the movement of goods and travellers between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom.

Jersey and Guernsey each have their own Customs & Excise service and operate as separate customs areas, levying their own indirect taxation. There are, therefore, customs controls on the movement of goods and travellers between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom. No value added tax is imposed in Jersey or Guernsey.

How are Island Laws made?

Almost all the Islands' domestic legislation is made by their own legislatures. The Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) examines such legislation in order that the Lord Chancellor, as the Privy Counsellor primarily concerned with matters relating to the Islands, may advise the Privy Council whether Her Majesty in Council may properly be advised to make an assenting Order. Channel Island Laws always require approval by The Queen-in-Council. The question of whether, and if so when, an Assenting Order may be

-4-

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

refused is one of particular sensitivity with the Channel Islands.

The Islands legislate for the territorial waters adjacent to them and for the airspace over their territories and over those territorial waters. The Islands do not share the view that the UK Parliament has a residual power to legislate for all those areas, but regardless of the strict legal position, it would be contrary to normal constitutional practice for it to do so in matters that are domestic to the Islands. Occasionally, UK legislation is extended to the Islands by Order in Council after consultation with the Islands and with their consent.

Before submitting a proposal to the Lord Chancellor that a Channel Island law or a Manx Bill be sent to the Privy Council for Royal Assent (or in the case of the Isle of Man only, returned to the Lieutenant Governor for the exercise of his delegated powers of Royal Assent), the Islands Branch at LCD consults those Government departments that have policy responsibility for the matters concerned in the United Kingdom.

Most Channel Island Laws have been passed by the Island legislatures before they are sent formally to the Lord Chancellor's Department. If the Island authorities identify a need for advice from a UK perspective beforehand, appropriate consultation will be undertaken at this stage; in these circumstances, consulted departments are encouraged to comment. Departments and agencies should only draw attention to substantial defects in those laws; comment on points of drafting and provide information about the way in which an Island law differs from United Kingdom legislation in the same field. In the more usual circumstances of submission after Island approval, departments need only draw attention to possible substantial defects. If, however, the departments and agencies consider, in any particular case, that such drafting and information points might be valuable for the Island governments in relation to subsequent legislation, the Lord Chancellor's Department will pass them on to the appropriate quarter.

The Isle of Man almost invariably seeks the Lord Chancellor's Department's observations on draft Bills or, where that has proved impossible, on Bills as introduced into Tynwald. Departmental or agency comments, including drafting comments, are therefore always welcome, as is information about comparable United Kingdom law. Although refusal of Royal Assent would be wholly exceptional it may, at this stage, be possible to influence the contents of a Bill.

The r么le of the Privy Council The Privy Council is the parent body of the Cabinet (which, constitutionally, is a Committee of Privy Counsellors).

The Crown acts through the Privy Council to fulfil its responsibilities for the Islands. It is the practice at the beginning of each reign to appoint Committees of the Privy Council to consider petitions from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man respectively. The Council's main business in connection with the Islands is to deal with legislative measures submitted for ratification by Order in Council (Royal Assent). The Lord Chancellor is the member of the Council primarily concerned with the affairs of the Islands. He ensures that the Islands' legislative measures are scrutinised and that there is consultation with any other Ministers who may be concerned (including, if necessary, the Law Officers of the Crown) before the measures receive the Royal Assent.

Do United Kingdom Acts apply to the Islands?

Acts of Parliament do not normally extend to the Islands. If they do, they may do so either by virtue of the Act itself (this may be either expressed on the face of the Act or by necessary implication) or by Order in Council made with the Island's agreement under an enabling provision contained in the Act. For an Act to extend otherwise than by an Order in Council is now very unusual. The Insular Authorities would be fully consulted in the rare event that the former approach was under consideration.

An enabling provision for an Order in Council, known as a "permissive extent clause" in a Bill, could take the following form: "Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, direct that any provision of this Act shall extend, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man".

Such enabling provisions should be included in published Bills only after the Lord Chancellor's Department has consulted the Island Governments. Similarly, any Orders that the Islands subsequently agree should only be made under such provisions as are drafted in consultation with them. It is therefore important that the Lord Chancellor's Department be consulted at an early stage if the content of a proposed Bill appears relevant to the Islands and before any mention of the Islands is made in a published Bill. If any Statutory Instruments are to be made under legislation that extends to the Channel Islands, it is important that the Islands be consulted in advance and that their consent be obtained, as would be the position with primary legislation. Direct contact with the Island Authorities should preferably not be made unless the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Island Government concerned have specifically agreed such action but, in any event, it is essential that the Lord Chancellor's Department be notified of such contact where it concerns policy matters.

-5-

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

Who can communicate with Island governments?

In view of the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for matters relevant to the Islands, all official communications with the Island Governments on matters of policy pass between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the respective Lieutenant Governors (or, in respect of the Isle of Man, the Chief Secretary). Other departments and agencies should therefore approach Islands Branch at the Lord Chancellor's Department about Island matters. Direct contact with the Island Authorities should not be made unless the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Island Government have specifically agreed such action.

Visits to the Islands The Islands Branch should also be consulted about all official visits to the Islands and about all visits by Ministers in order to ensure that the Island authorities are notified and, where appropriate, that their agreement to the proposed visit is obtained. Islands Branch will also provide any necessary background briefing.

Visits to the Islands by officials, if made specifically at the request of an Island Government for the purpose of providing information or advice, are generally chargeable to that government on the basis of the cost of travel and subsistence for visits of up to four days; and, for longer visits, of travel, subsistence, salary and superannuation.

Charges may be waived in those instances where the department/agency concerned regards the visit as being also in the furtherance of a United Kingdom interest. In order to avoid misunderstanding, it should always be made clear to the authorities in the Island concerned (before the visit takes place) whether a charge will be made.

Contacts If in doubt, please telephone or e-mail a member of the Islands Branch: Norma Williams: 020-7210 1504 norma.williams@dca.gsi.gov.uk &c What part of 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 do you not understand?

Shortly after finding this document, I went to the public counter and asked a clerk “What is the relationship between the Department of Constitutional Affairs and this Office?” and was told : “We are the Department of Constitutional Affairs.” Therefore, if it is a DCA rule that departments and agencies should not state or imply that the Islands are part of the UK, why did Nuttall and Forrester consider the Private Law matter of Katie and Ben Holmes when the two Manx children were habitually resident in the Isle of Man, with their Manx mother, Yvonne Holmes, from 18 th August 2003 at the latest? Was it because they had no clue what they were doing, because that is how it seems to me.

Also, Section 8 of the CA 1989 is about orders with respect to the child – “father do have” is an order about the father who is an adult, and therefore it is not an order with respect to the child.

So the reason I am writing to you is to claim compensatory damages from you because actions in Kendal and Lancaster court offices in 2003 and 2004 were ultra vires [and void ab initio] and therefore improper or unlawful. Nothing in these events constituted a crime, but they were res ipsa loquitor negligent. My only experience of a “the thing speaks for itself” action was in 2007 with West Midlands Police Authority (WMPA) when I was arrested “on suspicion of child abduction”.

The truth was that I had NOT abducted Katie; so the arrest was wrongful or improper and the imprisonment false. Now, whatever any of the “judges” think, the Isle of Man is NOT bound by the Children Act 1989 nor by any general orders purportedly made under such Act; and the so-called “contact orders” of 24/02 and 27/10 were of no value or void. The so-called “residence order” of 24/02/2004 became immediately spent upon reading paragraph 3 of the purported order and the “separate order attached”. So the truth is that the “order” of 24/02/2004 was null and void; and the so-called orders (plural) of 27/10/2004 were null and void – the Court in England could not allocate monies in an Ancillary Relief matter because the Manx children had been in the Isle of Man for the previous 15 months.

And what about White versus White? [2001]. The “assets” in England should have been split 50% – -6-

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

50% not the unfair 100% to the Manx mother (who had been living in the Isle of Man since about 20th July 2003) and 0% to the Manx father who had to leave England (indeed the whole of the UK) in order to have any kind of family life with his own children after the ultra vires attempt at an “order”

by Forrester on 24/02/2004. In fact, I was singularly, permanently and habitually resident in the Isle of Man from 1st April 2004 onwards.

Isn't a court hearing supposed to be under certain “rules” so that the hearing is fair? How can the hearing be fair if the CA 1989 section 8 “contact order” is about the Manx father? How can the hearing be fair if the judge, indeed the court office, does not consider whether it actually has jurisdiction? In August 2006 Gee alleged that the jurisdiction point had been taken and “found against” me; but there is no evidence that the jurisdiction point had ever been considered. Judge Rawkins directed on matter KN03P00016 in July / September thereby putting him in dispute with me; for I did not ask for you to present this biased man with a “children's matter”.

I am interested in facts, not in opinions. It is a fact that the Isle of Man is outside the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and it is a fact that Forrester granted leave to Manx mother Yvonne Holmes to remove the Manx children Katarina and Benedict Holmes from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (Wales, Scotland, England) and Northern Ireland to the Isle of Man permanently, more than six months AFTER Yvonne Holmes and our Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes had begin living (residing) habitually and permanently in the Isle of Man (from just before 18th August 2003 – that is two-thousand-and-three). In fact, Mrs Holmes began living in the Isle of Man (with Katie and Ben) on Sunday 20th July 2003.

These facts lead to the only conclusion that Forrester acted ultra vires on 24th February 2004; so instead of the County Court considering the welfare of Katie and Ben Holmes as their paramount consideration, the court offices and at least TWO judges (Nuttall and Forrester) put their own biased opinions as their paramount consideration and consequently abused the rights of Katie and Ben Holmes. I count child rights abuses as “child-abuse.” The child does not know the difference between emotional abuse and “rights abuse” but it is evident that Nuttall and Forrester abused the rights of Katie and Ben by their res ipsa loquitor negligence of law.

There was a case in the Privy Council in 1716 [1522-1920 MLR p. 10] listed as Christian v Corren; and the consequence of that case is that the Crown has an inherent jurisdiction to intervene to prevent the failure of justice. “Justice” is very simply “that which is fair” and the Eu. Convention on Human Rights (article 6) guarantees a fair hearing. The first question that must be asked is “do we have jurisdiction” and contrary to what Gee alleged (that the jurisdiction of KN03P00016 had been decided against me!) the County Court in Kendal DID NOT HAVE jurisdiction or power on 5 th November 2003 when Nuttall alleged that the TWO (both means two) applications in front of his court that day could actually be heard. “Both” applications were my application for a section 8 CA 1989 “residence order” and Yvonne's application for a section 8 “specific issue order” of leave to remove the Manx children from the jurisdiction of England & Wales; made months after the Manx children had already been removed permanently and habitually to the Isle of Man. If you have ever noticed your bank statements, you will be aware of a section on the back (or even on the front) headed Dispute resolution. This section states that if you have a disagreement with the “bank” over the “agreement” you must speak to us first. The fact is that on 29 th October 2003 Gordon Nuttall said “The Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom”. This statement put me in dispute with Nuttall (and with the Court Office in Kendal) and then with the Court Office in Lancaster; and on 23rd December 2003 (in Lancaster) with the charlatan and child-abuser RM Forrester. On 23/12/2003 Forrester alleged that I was having “reasonable contact” with my own children. It is the CHILD who has contact with the “person named in the order,” not the (adult) father.

Mrs Holmes “petitioned” Kendal County Court for a divorce (decrees nisi and absolute) in March 2003. This did NOT put us in “dispute” because I made no objection to the petition. Then in July 2003 Yvonne and Katie & Ben left England for the Isle of Man permanently – the land of their births (domiciles of origin).

-7-

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

On Wednesday 29th October 2003 Nuttall said in a court-room in Lancaster; “The Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom,” then on 5th November 2003 Nuttall “ordered” (in Kendal) that – “Both applications (Father's application for a Residence Order and Mother's application for leave to remove the children from the jurisdiction) be listed for hearing &c on 24 November 2003 &c”.

On 24/11/2003 Forrester “ordered” that “1. Application for a Residence and Specific Issues Orders be adjourned to 23 February 2004 … at Lancaster County Court”.

That 23/02/2004 hearing was adjourned to 24/02/2004 and the first thing Forrester did was to grant leave to me to withdraw my application for a residence order – and I asked to withdraw that Application because my children had been in the Isle of Man for more than seven months by that time. So, on 24/02/2004 there was no “dispute” between Yvonne and me; and there was no dispute between me and the Court Service. But then Forrester started a dispute between him & Nuttall and the Court Service against me with all judges in the North West biased in favour of the Moron Robert Forrester. That dispute started with the ludicrous “Order : Contact Order” the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man which was null and void the moment it was made: except Forrester called it a “court order” so all and sundry accept it as being a valid “order of the County Court.”

I do understand the assumption that because Forrester (and Nuttall) is a judge, that what he says is factual, but the reality is that the Isle of Man is not part of the UK and that most general Acts of Parliament extend to the Isle of Man so the question of jurisdiction should have been paramount.

How many cases do you think that Forrester and Nuttall had ever encountered where the children were born and raised in the Isle of Man? I suspect none.

Of course, on 24/02/2004 Forrester had an implied jurisdiction to do what is “best” – and the only thing he could do was to make the section 8 Specific Issue Order such as “the children may be removed from the jurisdiction of England & Wales”. But he purportedly made a section 13(1) 33(7) “Leave to remove child from UK” order – an order that had NOT been applied for. And that stupidity goes back to the idiocy by Nuttall “the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom”.

So by 28th February 2004 I was in dispute with RM Forrester because he had acted ultra vires. No sensible person reading paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the so-called “order” of 24/02/2004 would say “this is a good order” – a fair minded and informed observer would say that these Manx children are now habitually resident in the Isle of Man and therefore outside the powers of any person in public authority (see Interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998) in England & Wales. So there was no dispute between Yvonne Holmes and Stephen Holmes after 24/02/2004 (in England) because ALL parties (mother, father and our children) were “in the Isle of Man, permanently and habitually”. But Forrester had decided to convene a kangaroo court hearing in June 2004 and attempted to retain jurisdiction over Katie and Ben Holmes who were permanently in the Isle of Man (with his leave).

Now we come to 27th October 2004; Nuttall attempted to revoke an ultra vires statement and made what he called a contact order about me, an Adult. “The father do have indirect contact” is NOT a section 8 contact order – it is a Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 “access” order using the word “contact” and is ultra vires in four ways!

Having made a false statement, Nuttall went on to improperly or unlawfully seize a property in England belonging to a Manx man who was by that time IN THE ISLE OF MAN permanently – from Thursday 1st April 2004 I was habitually and permanently resident (and domiciled) in the Isle of Man, beyond the powers of English civil courts.

I have likened this matter to Hillsborough 1989. The last “formal” investigation was the Stuart-Scott “review” which ended in 2000 and found – “nothing wrong!” We now know that the enquiries by Taylor and Stuart-Scott did not consider evidence but were misled by the assumption that the Police notes were complete. The evidence now shows that the South Yorkshire Police lied for more than twenty years. The judges in Lancaster “county” court have misled themselves for ten years – and -8-

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

acted on the assumption that the Isle of Man is bound by the Children Act 1989.

I told Nuttall on 29th October 2003 “No, it isn't” – the Isle of Man is NOT part of the United Kingdom. Forrester wrote “from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently” on 24/02/2004 therefore he agreed that the Isle of Man was not in the UK. How could he then assume that a CA 1989 section 8 contact order extended to the Isle of Man? There are three basic rules for fairness in dealing with others : and these are the fundamental rules of natural justice. They are ostendo testimonium, nemo judex in causa sua et audi alteram partem: produce the evidence, no-one shall judge in own cause and hear the other side.

Nuttall stated what he alleged was a fact; he was wrong. He said; “the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom,” and I said “No it isn't.” He then “judged in own cause” when he said “I'm not going to argue with you, Mr Holmes.” He said the equivalent of: “The fans are to blame;” I said “No they were not;” “I am not going to argue with you – my opinion is right!”

Nuttall poisoned the tree just as surely as SYP poisoned the tree on 15 th and 16th April 1989.

“No contemporaneous documents have been disclosed concerning the briefng given to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary by SYP when they visited Sheffeld on 16 April 1989. The Prime Minister’s Press Secretary later revealed, however, that he had been informed on the day that drunkenness and violent crowd behaviour were signifcant causes of the disaster.”

[HIP Report : 12 September 2012].

I remember being in a court-room (in Lancaster) with Forrester at about 11:30 on 23 rd December 2003 and when referring to my Manx children [Katie and Ben were both born in Douglas, Isle of Man] he said “You are having reasonable contact with them”. By that time I already knew that it is the CHILD who has contact with “the person named in the order” [if the Court can be persuaded to make a section 8 order]; so Forrester's comment was null and void – he was using the word “contact” but thinking in terms of “access” – a term that ceased to exist on 14/10/1991 when the Children Act 1989 was enacted. Forrester was a charlatan in hearings with respect to children for he had no idea of the up-to-date legislation [the Children Act 1989]. Nuttall also showed his ignorance of statute when he wrote “That the Father do have indirect contact with the children” on 27 th October 2004.

The reason I am sending this letter to “all and sundry” at this time is because of a public document in judgments.im – J1356 issued by two QCs; C. Melton and G.F. Tattersall of Byrom Street chambers in Manchester.

4. On 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 24February 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. … copies of the residence order and the order granting leave to permanently remove the children to the Isle of Man. 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.

Note that by the time applications were made to Kendal County Court, Mrs Yvonne Holmes and our two children were already resident in the Isle of Man – Katie and Ben started school at Rushen Primary School on 2nd September 2003 – and I have documentation to prove that fact. In fact ALL -9-

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

the documentation that exists supports MY case that Nuttall and Forrester acted ultra vires (beyond [their] powers) from 29th October 2003; and then again from 24/02/2004. It may have been reasonably incidental to act on 24/02/2004 with the “leave to remove” order; but once Forrester stated “to the Isle of Man [permanently]” ALL actions by anybody in HMCTS (including the comments by Gee in August 2006 and the purported “directions” of July 2013) have been like those of Taylor and Stuart-Scott with regard to Hillsborough.

Having allocated 100% of the time “with the children” to the Manx mother (on 27/10/2004) Nuttall unlawfully seized MY property – a £260,000 house in Lancaster, England and improperly ordered (and therefore did not order) that it be sold and all proceeds (approx. £210,000) be sent to a solicitor in England. Despite Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (the right to peaceful enjoyment of property), in February 2005 a civil court officer unlawfully broke into my property at 9 The Piazza, Lancaster and prevented me from even entering my own “home.” The socalled “ancillary relief order” allocated the amount of maintenance to be paid by a Manx-man to a Manx-woman for the upkeep of Manx children until 2018 or 2021 at the latest [when Ben finished tertiary education].

Even the most naïve first year law student should be able to read the so-called “contact order” made

by Nuttall on 27th October 2004 and say “this is NOT a section 8 contact order”.

“The Court orders that

2. The father do have indirect contact with the children”

Nuttall may as well have “ordered” that The Manx children be abused in the Isle of Man. Would you have questioned such an order? I doubt it.

I refer again to the recent comment by Sir James Munby; that a bad decision can affect children for 80 or 90 years. The decisions by Nuttall and Forrester to claim jurisdiction where they did not have such has cost me my family and £230,000 in 2005; and nothing can bring back the nine years that I have NOT had a family life with my own children because of the improper and unlawful actions of two of “Her Majesty's” judges. Nobody was vigilant against such malfeasance in 2004.

Judge Rawkins should know the basic rule “Nemo judex in sua causa” and he is clearly biased in favour of his colleague Forrester; so he cannot be trusted to make a decision on this matter. When I claimed from WMPA in October 2007 [and was paid £2,000 in November 2007] the Authority had already admitted acting in error. Effectively Forrester admitted that he had no jurisdiction on 24/02/ 2004 when he wrote “to the Isle of Man permanently.” But he then changed his mind; and nobody in public authority in England has had the courage to admit that he acted improperly and unlawfully because he is a district judge. Forrester (and Nuttall) became evil in 2004; because of their stupidity in 2003; and in 2013 Judge Rawkins has blindly accepted that evil acts were good and proper.

What you can do now You can settle this claim with me. I am claiming the value of my house back – I lost £210,000 on about 16th July 2005 because of the improper actions of Nuttall on 27/10/2004; and this evil charlatan made that improper “order” because of what he “thought” on 29 th October 2003 – that the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom: which it most certainly is not.

In 2006 I read about the case of Helen Green who worked for Deutsch Bank in London. She was awarded £800,000 because she was “bullied at work”. I was bullied in life because I was bullied in court – and I was bullied in court because judges Nuttall and Forrester acted on the assumption that the Isle of Man was (and still is) part of England; and is bound by an Act of Parliament for England & Wales only. There is an Act of Parliament called the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. What jurisdiction does that Act apply to? Yes, Scotland. Children's law is jurisdiction dependent. The 1980 Hague Convention about adults having “custody” of children has been replaced by the European Convention on Contact – it is the CHILD who has contact; not the adult who has “access to the child.”

I claim compensation from what is now HMCTS – what was Court Services in 2003/2004 – a section - 10 -

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

of government that had moved from the Lord Chancellor's Department to the DCA in 2003. In 2007 I was paid £2,000 by WMPA for less than 24-hours distress. The distress caused by the unlawful and improper actions by Nuttall on 27th October 2004 has far outweighed the distress caused by a mistake made by a police-officer on 5th September 2007. I can make a claim from a “government department” if there has been negligence. Nuttall had a duty of care on 29 th October 2003 and again a year later on 27th October 2004, but he breached that duty of care. Nuttall “worked” within the “DCA” [now the MOJ] but a judge is actually an officer of the Crown, and the Crown is an entity that can also be sued for negligence. Nuttall was negligent on 29 th October 2003 after the Kendal Court Office was negligent on 27th October 2003 when it accepted two Applications about children who were already habitually resident in the Isle of Man. Nuttall was again negligent on 5 th November 2003; Forrester was negligent on 24th November 2003 [in the Kendal court] and again on 23rd December 2003 [in Lancaster]; but the act that most caused NINE YEARS of distress was the blind assumption by Forrester that immediately after stating that the Manx children could be removed [by their Manx mother] from the whole of the UK to the Isle of Man permanently he could reclaim jurisdiction by making a section 8 CA 1989 “contact order” about an adult.

Following persistent complaints in 2005 and 2006, Judge Rhodes “entered the fray” in November 2007; [and D.S. Gee entered the fray on 31st August 2006]; and nothing was done to address the wrong-doing by the court offices and by the judges (especially Forrester and Nuttall, but including N.A. Law).

I have tried to obtain redress recently but judge Rawkins has “judged in own cause” and caused further distress. The same distress has continued unabated for nine years; and as I was paid £2,000 for ONE DAY of distress in 2007, I claim £1,000 PER DAY since the ultra vires action on 24 th February 2004. I therefore claim £3,650,000 from the Ministry of “Injustice” and from the Crown (an entity that may be sued under the CPA 1947) because of the actions of two court offices [Kendal and Lancaster] from about 27th October 2003 [to date] and because of the actions of Nuttall and Forrester in 2003 and 2004.

So, Ms Hynes; Mr Russell, (and the biased Judge Rawkins); I G. Stephen Holmes claim ThreeMillion pounds from the Ministry of “Justice” – the Government department responsible for the abuse of my rights and the abuse of my Manx children for the last ten or so years.

You can do one of two things: you can settle this with me, or you can attempt to brush this under the carpet. I have copied this to the Justice secretary and to the CEO of the MOJ and to Sir James Munby and to the press – it is available on issuu.com/docs/gsholmes at Claim_from_MOJ You may wish to settle this matter by sensible negotiation.

As soon as Forrester wrote “the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man” I said to anyone who would listen : “He can't do that!” But that is what he did. But he could not do what he did – it was not right. Even as a child I was taught that two wrongs do not make a right – and the cover-up by Gee in August 2006 was also “a wrong” – it was malfeasance.

The biggest wrong after 24/02/2004 was by Nuttall on 27th October 2004 – was the “indirect dealings” remark, EIGHT MONTHS after the Manx children had arrived in the Isle of Man permanently according to Lancaster County Court. Having acted improperly on that day, he alleged that the “maintenance amount” until the Manx children ended “tertiary education” would be £0-05 per year (per child). That too was wrong or improper, and therefore the seizure of 9 The Piazza in February 2005 was also improper; and I lost £210,000 in July 2005. I want that loss repaid – I demand that the Crown and HMG (the Ministry of “injustice”) settle this claim for £3,650,000.

There has been much talk recently about “Jimmy” Savile: he abused children. Forrester and Nuttall abused children – rights abuse, but abuse nevertheless; and these two people were “Her Majesty's” - 11 -

This is a claim for compensation (made by Stephen Holmes) from the MOJ and the Crown. It will take about 20 minutes to read.

judges – working in an environment where they were in a position of trust; trusted to uphold the rights of children. They knew nothing of the law relating to children in 2004; and the Children Act 1989 was enacted in October 1991 – thirteen years earlier. The Children Act 1989 is An Act to reform the law relating to children. In other parts of Sir James's J2694 judgment we find reference to the publicising of “private court hearings.” I am publicising the hearings of 24/02/2004 and 27/10/2004 because the two judges involved (Forrester and Nuttall) destroyed lives for ten years.

Katie Holmes and Ben Holmes have not had a family life with their Manx father since October 2004 because Nuttall alleged that the Manx father could only “enjoy” indirect dealings with his own Manx children in the Isle of Man on 27th of that month – he may as well have “ordered” Abuse these Manx children. I cannot be accused of contravening section 97 of the CA 1989 because two QCs have already made public the contents of “orders” made by a county court in England.

Let us agree that Nuttall abused the rights of Ben and Katie Holmes on 27 th October 2004; after he abused everyone on Wednesday 29th October 2003 by alleging that the Isle of Man is part of the UK; for there is no way that you can dispute that “father have indirect contact” with his own children is an abusive comment. Therefore I am claiming from you, HMCTS/Lancaster Court Office and “the Crown” for ten years of wrong-doing and causing ten years of extreme emotional distress. No matter what Rawkins “directs” cannot undo the malfeasance – and I claim £3,000,000 from you, Ms Hynes.

I look forward to e-mails from you so that we can begin settlement of this genuine claim; it is essential that it is settled to restore public confidence in civil (county) family courts; because the evidence contained in this letter shows that judges abused children just as surely as Jimmy Savile abused many girls.

Kind regards,

G. Stephen Holmes [I am not likening the crimes of Jimmy Savile with the actions of Nuttall and Forrester; but these two charlatans abused their positions of trust in 2003 and in 2004]

- 12 -