Wholly Collateral Attack

A Wholly Collateral Attack There is a judgment in the public domain on the courts.im web-site. Stephen Holmes is the Claimant – 7. On the 25th October 2006 Acting Deemster King struck out proceedings brought by the Claimant in the Isle of Man in respect of allegations that the High Court in the Isle of Man had wrongly and illegally given effect to English court orders. Deemster King commented that instead of going down the obvious route of challenging the orders by way of appeal the Claimant “has embarked on a wholly collateral attack on those concerned in the administration of justice on this Island and particularly those who are concerned in the administration of the process of the matrimonial proceedings.”

It was alleged by a Deemster that Stephen Holmes had embarked on a wholly collateral attack on those concerned in the “administration of justice on this Island;” Deemster Tim King went on to allege that in particular it was on those in the administration of the process of matrimonial proceedings.

In the Isle of Man, a matrimonial proceeding would be under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2001.

On 18th May 2004, Stephen Holmes submitted an application to the High Court Office asking the Court to “determine a question with regard to the upbringing” of children – an Application under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. The Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2001 is introduced as 1; The CYPA 2001 is introduced as an Act to reform the law relating to children; to re-enact parts 1 and 2 of the Family Law Act 1991; &c. A matrimonial matter is not a children's matter.

The 18th May 2004 Application was for a Children's matter; not in a matrimonial matter (a divorce). On 25th May 2004 the High Court Office sent Stephen Holmes a letter informing him of a directions hearing in that matter. There was a three week delay; and the directions hearing took place in front of Deemster Andrew K. Williamson on 1st July 2004.

The following is a transcript of the first minute-and-a-half of the hearing of 1 st July 2004, supplied by the High Court Office in 2006.

AKW:

Right let me come up to speed on this. (pause of about 85 seconds)

AKW:

Right, what am I being asked to do here good people? You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event, is that right?

Mrs. H:

Yes, that's right.

At the end of the hearing, the document produced stated that “evidence” had been considered and “IT IS ORDERED that the said Application” [of 18 th May 2004] “be and is hereby dismissed.”

It transpired that two orders (not an order from Lancaster, but two orders) from Lancaster County Court had been purportedly “registered” in the Isle of Man High Court on 28 th May 2004, but it -1-

transpired that it was in fact a non registration.

The proceeding on 1st July 2004 (application 18th May 2004, hearing allocated 25th May 2004, rescheduled 28th May 2004, application dismissed 1st July 2004) was not a matrimonial proceeding; it was a children's matter. Deemster King was wrong, and if he was wrong on that basic point, how many more errors did he make? The man was an idiot!

The County Court Orders from Lancaster, England were not registered on 28th May 2004; on 25th July 2007 the Chief Registrar admitted that the purported registration by “this office” had not been in accordance with the requirements of an Act of Tynwald (called the Child Custody Act 1987), so the admission of unlawfulness had been made by the CEO of the General Registry upon examination and inspection of files in the General Registry (albeit 9 months after Deemster King's insane allegation).

According to Deemster King the obvious route was to “challenge the orders” but the so-called County Court Orders had been made under an Act of Parliament known as the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 1989 does not extend to the Isle of Man. The County Court in England cannot bind the High Court in England, and the civil court in the Isle of Man is called the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man because it is not a civil Sheading Court. We used to have Sheading Courts.

The Family Division of the High Court (established in July 1991 as a new division) can manage “matrimonial matters” and “children's matters” and disputes between adults over money. To allege that I had embarked on a wholly collateral attack on the administrators of “justice” in the Isle of Man is to allege that the action of 28 th May 2004 was “just” (four false instruments were produced) or that the Isle of Man was bound by orders made in a County Court under a general act of Parliament that does not extend to the Isle of Man, or that the declaration of the Deputy Deemster on 5 th November 2004 was a reasonable declaration when it was adjudged on 26 th October 2007 that “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did” on that date (05/11/2004).

I had never been in a court-room in the Isle of Man before Thursday 1 st July 2004. What I saw and heard that day appalled me, because the decision maker was incompetent.

During the summer of 2002 interviews were held for the newly created position of Deputy Deemster (see the Civil Jurisdiction Act 2001); one of the applicants being High Bailiff Andrew Kalashnikov Williamson. On 1st September 2002 the man who had spent 15⅔ years in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction was promoted to a High Court Deemster. The CSJ is a criminal court, and the High Court is civil law court, so fifteen years experience as a magistrate does not prepare a sloth like Williamson for High Court work.

He was arrogant, complacent, ignorant, incompetent, corrupt and malicious – as a result he abused the -2-

rights of adults and children alike. It is probable that every children's matter that came before this incompetent sloth was misdirected; and for 4⅓ years he failed to give any user of the Family Division a fair hearing, contrary to law. But no fair criticism may be made of him because two judges commented so on 26th October 2007, just ten weeks before Williamson retired!

On 1st April 2011 Deemster Andrew Corlett “praised” Williamson and said that he “bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division and from whom I learned a great deal during our hand-over period.” On 6th July 2011 I attended a hearing in the Civil Division: Family Business section of the High Court where Andrew Corlett presided, and the new Second Deemster showed all the arrogance and incompetence of his predecessor (as Deputy Deemster); Corlett indeed learned a great deal from Williamson! He wrote that he would consider the Respondent's application!

My experience of the “civil justice system” in the Isle of Man by the end of 2004 was two hearings with Williamson; one of which resulted in a document that looked like a Court Order from the Family Division that was headed as follows – FD/UK/COR/04/02 High Court : Family Division Between Yvonne Holmes

Applicant

G. Stephen Holmes

Respondent

and

IN THE MATTER of Katarina May Holmes (d.o.b. 19 th May 1996) and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes (d.o.b. 28th August 1999); and IN THE MATTER of the Orders of the Lancaster County Court of 28 th May 2004 and 27th October 2004 and registered in this Court on 28th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 respectively – IT IS DECLARED two paragraph declaration; of no value because it was quashed in its entirety.

On 26th October 2007, the Staff of Government Division wrote [inter alia] the following – 9.

On 2nd April 2004 Mrs Holmes wrote to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson [Family Division] enclosing copies of [the] two orders, namely the Residence and Contact order, and the order granting leave to permanently remove the children to the Isle of Man made by District Judge Forrester, and asked that such orders be registered at the Isle of Man Court.

10.

On or about 28th May 2004 notice of registration of such orders by the Isle of Man High Court [‘the High Court’] was sent to the Respondent. The Appellant was not informed of the -3-

registrations.

11.

By application dated 18th May 2004 the Appellant applied to the Isle of Man High Court for a residence order in respect of both children.

12.

At a hearing of such application on 1 st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Appellant that the English orders made on 24 th February 2004 had been registered and ordered that his application be dismissed.

13.

The Appellant did not appeal against such dismissal of his application.

14.

On 27th October 2004 District Judge Nuttall sitting in the Lancaster County Court ordered that the Appellant do have indirect contact with the children, such contact to be exercised by way of telephone calls, letters and e-mails [one of each per week].

15.

Although the Appellant contends that he has appealed against such order, we have seen no document in support thereof.

16.

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

17.

On 4th November 2004 the order made by District Judge Gordon Nuttall was purportedly registered by the Isle of Man High Court.

18.

On 5th November 2004 there was a hearing before Deputy Deemster Williamson. The Respondent says, and the Appellant did not dispute, that such hearing was prompted by the unannounced arrival of the Appellant at the children’s school that morning. It seems that the purpose of the hearing was to clarify the position in relation to the orders made by the Lancaster County Court in respect the children.

19.

Both parties attended such hearing: the Appellant was legally represented.

The effect of non registration

46.

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

47.

In our judgment, in the absence of proper registration of the orders made in the Lancaster County Court on 24th February 2004 and 27th October 2004 it necessarily follows that the totality of the order by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5th November 2004 cannot stand and must be quashed. Paragraph 1 of such order expressly recorded that the Lancaster County Court orders had been registered when they had not been so registered, and paragraph 2 of such order was based upon the incorrect premise that there had been proper registration. Although no fair criticism can

-4-

be made of the Deputy Deemster for him accepting what he believed to be correct, namely that the orders had been properly registered, given that there was in fact no proper registration there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.

It is outside the jurisdiction of the Courts in the Isle of Man to “comment on” the legality of orders from a County Court IN ENGLAND, but it is within the jurisdiction of the High Court in the Isle of Man to comment on the validity of English County Court orders in the Isle of Man; but when the Island appoints an English Acting Deemster (such as Tim King) or appoints a Deputy Deemster (Williamson) these morons lose all common sense and act as if the contents of an English “court order” can be 100% legal (or binding) in the Isle of Man. It is possible for a judge to undertake investigations on his own volition; King could have investigated in October 2006, but he made stupid comments; Williamson “poisoned the tree” on 1 st July 2004 with the comment “You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event.”

On 24th February 2004 District Judge Forrester sitting in the Lancaster County Court appeared to order [inter alia] that : [1]

Stephen Holmes has permission to withdraw applications for residence and prohibited steps.

[2]

Katarina and Benedict should reside with their mother, Yvonne Holmes

[3]

Yvonne Holmes has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man. (see other order).

[4]

The father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man.

[5]

The Children and Family Reporter do file a report on the question of contact.

On the same day, District Judge Forrester made a further order in which he granted leave to the Respondent to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently The Children Act 1989 does not extend to the Isle of Man. The statement at paragraph 2 is supposedly a Section 8 Children Act 1989 “residence order”. The statement at paragraph 3 means that from referring to the other order (to the Isle of Man permanently), the Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes are “from now on” habitually and permanently resident in the Isle of Man with the permission of the Court in England + Wales; the residence order ceases to be effective.

Paragraph 4 is ultra vires nonsense because “provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man” contravenes the rules of law – it tries to bind the Isle of Man with section 8 of the Children Act 1989, an Act that does not extend to Scotland. An ultra vires statement is unlawful – the statement has no more validity that “the father do be a chimpanzee in the Isle of Man.”

-5-

On 28th May 2004 the officer of the High Court, Assistant Chief Registrar acting under the the direction and supervision of a Deemster purportedly registered the so-called orders in the Isle of Man High Court and issued documents to Mrs Holmes only informing her of a registration which was in fact a nonregistration.

These are the administrators of 'justice' in matrimonial proceedings in the Island, that Tim King referred to in 2006.

For a whole year until 16th November 2005, Williamson presided over a matter concerning Katie and Ben Holmes; but all the time his actions were based on a “belief” that orders from England had been registered when the actions were non registration.

I launched a wholly collateral attack on unlawful actions of administrators and on the devious Williamson, and when I asked the Chief Registrar Peter Corkhill to investigate in January 2006 he asked an incompetent manager to investigate – an “error” was found but covered-up. Michael Moyle – Williamson's successor as High Bailiff – got involved in 2005 to mid-May 2006 and exacerbated problems.

We don't have administration of justice in the Isle of Man; we have administration of injustice – everything I have experienced to do with the Courts Services Division (now the Courts and Tribunal Services Division) of the General Registry, and the decision makers known as Deemsters (except Alistair Montgomery) and two High Bailiffs, and the Courts Administration Office (except for the office of the Court of General Gaol Delivery) has been incompetent “court ordure” and that ordure begins (now) with First Deemster David Doyle because he believes rubbish like “ administration of the process of the matrimonial proceedings”.

The Law is in Statute and the Law is NOT an Ass. It is the interpretation of law that is the ass. When a cretin like Andrew Williamson is “let loose” with the Family Division and begins a process (and that process is still on-going) with “you appear to have” and then an order from a County Court in England,” which is registered [purportedly under sections 7 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987] here [in the High Court], when the order is not in fact registered, then we have mayhem in the Courts.

“You appear to be a chimpanzee, Mr Holmes; I'm going to have to send you to the Wild-Life Park until such time as you succeed in having this declaration quashed!”

I have launched a wholly collateral attack on stupidity; on ultra vires actions, on insane interpretation of rules.

All Deemsters should be aware of the following – Thomas Stanley, second Earl of Derby and Lord of the Isle of Man died in the Island in 1522. At the time of his death, his eldest son, Edward, was a minor; and during his minority his affairs were left -6-

under the guardianship of the Lieutenant-Governor and Bishop of the Island, the Archbishop of York, the Chancellor of England, and others. Though Lord Derby made careful arrangements for the guardianship of his son, he neglected to make adequate provision for the support of his widow. Lady Derby petitioned King Henry 8th for a dower; but it was held by the King's Council that the Isle of Man, being no part of England, and not being governed by English laws, was out of their power [their vires] and thus they could not interfere on her behalf by granting her a dowry out of the revenue of the Island. [The judges in this case went on to affirm that the statutes De Donis, of uses, and wills, nor any other general Act of parliament, did extend to the Isle of Man ; but by special name an Act may extend to it.]

Lady Derby's claim had the effect of obtaining a decision from the highest authority on the judicial and legal independence of the island; and the suit, if of no advantage to herself, affirmed an important constitutional question.

Blackstone wrote about the Isle of Man in the eighteenth century : “The Isle of Man is a distinct territory from England and is not governed by our laws; neither does any act of Parliament extend to it unless it be particularly named therein; and then an Act of Parliament is binding there.”

From the Background Briefing to the Crown Dependencies document issued by the Ministry of Justice in February 2011 (updated from previous documents issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Constitutional Affairs available in 2001 to 2011) we find – UK legislation does not normally extend to the Crown Dependencies. In instances where it does extend, it may do so either by virtue of the Act itself or by Order in Council made with the their agreement under an enabling provision contained in the Act which provides for it to be extended to the Crown Dependencies.1 For an Act to extend otherwise than by an Order in Council is now very unusual.

1 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 provide for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man”.

In 2003/2004, at the time the Courts in Kendal / Lancaster were considering the matter of Katie and Ben Holmes, Manx children, there was a seven page document available on the Department of Constitutional Affairs web-site about the British Islands; and although the document referred to its previous incarnation (the Lord Chancellor's Department), the same statements as found in the Background Briefing guides from the DCA and MOJ were readily available. In particular, the statement that “Departments and Agencies are asked not to State or imply that the Islands are part of the United Kingdom, or of Great Britain, or of England, or to act on that assumption.” I believe I alerted judge Forrester to the existence of the DCA web-pages on 24th February 2004, but judge Forrester ignored my suppliance.

In the Isle of Man in 2003 (a year after Williamson became Deputy Deemster) HM Attorney General

-7-

issued a Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man. The Children Act 1989 is not in this Chronological Table.

Returning briefly to the suggestion of the insane Tim King – instead of going down the obvious route of challenging the orders by way of appeal the claimant has &c.

The Lancaster County Court orders were made in Lancaster, England. If the Children Act 1989 does not extend to the Isle of Man (which it does not – we have the Children and Young Persons Act 2001), then there is no need to “appeal the orders” in England because the contents of the orders have no validity in the Isle of Man. It only appeared that the orders bound the Isle of Man because of the event on 28th May 2004, but that was unlawful, and a non registration. How can anyone refer to officers who purport to do something but in fact produce false instruments as “administrators of justice?”

We do not have Courts of justice in the Isle of Man, the domain of the first Deemster are courts of INJUSTICE. We have all “fallen for” that British confidence trick – self regulation! In 2011 David

Doyle proposed a Code of Conduct for him and his fellow judges – but he began his introduction alleging that “we” are justifiably proud of the high standard of conduct.

The Chief Secretary tried this same old confidence trick in 2006; just before the implementation of the Human Rights Act 2001. [The UK had enacted its Human Rights Act 1998 in October 2000 – our Human Rights Act 2001 waited in the wings for five years! Note that the Human Rights Act 1998 is missing from the Chronological Table]. Effectively, Mrs Williams stated that “we don't need to do anything” because the principles of “good government and natural justice” were those behind the Convention, and “we already do that anyway!”

The basic principles of natural justice dictate that the people must be dealt with fairly – no-one can judge in own cause; hear the other side; produce the evidence. Article 6 of the Convention does indeed state that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing. I walked into a court-room in the Isle of Man on 1st July 2004 and the decision maker, Deputy Deemster Andrew K Williamson lied to himself, to Mrs Holmes and to Stephen Holmes; “You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event!” We may have appeared to have an order from Lancaster registered, but the evidence shows that we had nothing registered in the High Court in the Isle of Man and “in any event” a County Court cannot bind the High Court.

Our Deemsters are rubbish (when it comes to children's law) and the administrators of “justice” are rubbish when it comes to children's law. When an attempt is made to remedy the wrong, all effort is put into exacerbating it.

-8-

On 24th February 2004, in a County Court in England, a district court judge acted in an insane manner; in consecutive breaths he asserted that the Isle of Man is outside the United Kingdom and then that an Act of Parliament extends to the Isle of Man. “Mrs Holmes can take the Manx children out of the United Kingdom permanently and then Mr Holmes can have reasonable access to the children (but I am going to use the “new” word contact) provided such takes place beyond the powers of this Court!” That was the poisoning of the tree, and that was the poison that Andrew Williamson believed in 2004, and throughout 2005; that King believed in 2006, that David Doyle believed on 3rd September 2007, and to a certain extent that the judges in the Staff of Government Division believed on 24th September and 26th October 2007; that the judge in England did have some residual vires after releasing the Manx children “to the Isle of Man permanently.” He didn't.

So I am continuing my wholly collateral attack on the wrong-doers in the Isle of Man Courts and in the General Registry and the Crown and the officers of HM Attorney General because on 5 th November 2004 Deputy Deemster Andrew K Williamson issued a declaration that had no basis in law, and in setting aside the unlawful declarations, his “brother judges” made no fair criticism of the child-rightsabusing sloth so that he could retire with his reputation intact.

The High Court in the Isle of Man had wrongly and unlawfully given effect to English court orders! The

so-called registrations were non registrations, so there is nothing to appeal in the Isle of Man. A review of the 5th November 2004 declaration revealed that the documents were not in fact registered! Acting Deemster Tim King was a moron in court – and he is now a High Court judge in England!

First Deemster David Doyle repeated the statements by Tim King on 14 th December 2011 and it is published on the world-wide-web. I have no wish to appeal against the decision by David Doyle, but I do wish to point out that the ramblings of a Deemster are ofter Isle of Man Court of injustice Ordure; Deemsters are often biased and out-of-touch and ignorant of statute and I am not proud of the standard of conduct of the judiciary in the Isle of Man, so am continuing my collateral attack on injustice.

I will repeat the fact: on 5th November 2004 the Deputy Deemster issued a false document; one that had no basis in the law of this Isle (a law Williamson had sworn to execute justly); a declaration that authorised the abuse of rights of Manx children. When that false declaration was actually set-aside three years later, no criticism was made of the child-rights-abusing Deemster.

Claims for pecuniary

damages (Williamson destroyed a Manx family) have fallen on deaf ears, in the same way that claims on the Admiralty were ignored during the period 18 th October 1908 to 29th July 1910 in the Matter of the Petition of Right of Martin Archer-Shee: Archer-Shee v. The King. But that is another story.

The Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2001 is AN ACT to re-enact Part II of the Judicature (Matrimonial Causes) Act 1976 and Part III of the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1986; to make new provision for the sharing of pensions on the dissolution or annulment of marriage; to enable reciprocal provision to be made for the enforcement of certain financial orders; and for connected purposes.

1.

-9-