Covering letter 20140414 and Petition of Right

14th April 2014

c/o 12 Douglas, IM1

Her Majesty's Attorney General Address as on envelope [England+Wales and Isle of Man] Dear Sir, Petition of Right (enclosed) I have sent the attached Petition of Right to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Lord of Man, for the hearing in the Court at Windsor Castle on 28th April 2014 when “Her Majesty was pleased by and with the advice of Her Privy Council!” Again, an entity in the “justice system” has showed “partiality to the wicked”.

The Bill of Rights 1688 extends to the Isle of Man and as one of the Queen's people(s) it is my Right to Petition for a remedy to the grievances I have with Her Officers in the Isle of Man, notably the contemptible and detestable charlatan AK Williamson (former Deputy Deemster); who I describe fairly as the evil Deemster.

As can be seen from the Petition, Williamson lied from the Bench on 1 st July 2004, then lied to me and “blackmailed me” from the Bench (with the assistance of MY counsel Kevin O'Riordan) on 5 th November 2004 because “a tree had been poisoned” on 28th May 2004. The same tree was further poisoned on 4 th November 2004. I was arrested in the Isle of Man in 2005 because Williamson lied from the Bench on both 1 st July and 5th November 2004 and on the latter occasion he issued a declaratory (or “declarity”) order that had no basis in law.

On 3rd September 2007 Deemster Doyle acted irrationally and cause further “criminal justice” actions – and all because on 24th February 2004 a Judge in England acted in an ultra vires manner by alleging that “reasonable contact” should take place in the Isle of Man – a jurisdiction not bound by Parts 1 and 2 of the Children Act 1989. Documents issued by County Courts in England were not “registered” in the High Court of “justice” of the Isle of Man although it was purported that they were [on 28th May and 4th November 2004].

The Order issued by His Honour Judge (of Appeal) Tattersall on 11 th December 2012 cannot be any clearer: “any applications he may wish to make in respect of the 8 documents of 28 th May 2004 and 4th November 2004”.

Those 8 documents should have been expunged from record after the Order of 26 th October 2007, but they still exist in file FD/UK/COR/04/02 as “valid documents” although they have no more validity than the following – IN THE ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT Family Division Upon consideration of the documents submitted to this Court IT IS DECLARED: 1. that the item below shall be known as “a spoon”; and

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

In Chambers – Deputy Deemster AK Williamson : 5th November 2004 Since 2005 I have asked hundreds of people to do something about AK Williamson's evil actions in 2004 (and 2005) but nobody cares that children were abused for years because we had the worst Deemster ever in Williamson – a criminal court (magistrates') clerk promoted to a High Court Deemster! A trained chimpanzee could have done a better job. It is in black ink in paragraph 47 of the judgment of First Deemster and Tattersall of 26th October 2007, (the only true statement in that judgment), “they had not been so registered.” The socalled “orders” from Lancaster County Court had not been registered – it was purported that they had – and that wrong has NEVER had a remedy. I demand a remedy to the wrongs of officers of the Crown in 2004.

You both have copies of the Petition and I urge Mr Grieve to ensure that Right is Done on 28 th April or as soon after as is practical. Mr Quinn, please inform HE Lt Governor Wood that I have requested the Lord of Man to request that Right be Done in this matter. I really don't understand why nothing positive has been done in eight years since I complained to Chief Registrar Peter Corkhill and it was found that the rules laid down were not followed [see the letter from Carol Dowd dated 09/02/2006].

Best regards, G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc.

JCPC 2013/0103

AT THE COURT AT WINDSOR CASTLE The 28th day of April 2014 PRESENT THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY IN COUNCIL

The following report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was read— “Having considered an application praying Your Majesty to reverse, alter or vary the order of the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man, Staff of Government Division, dated 2nd April 2013 or to grant further relief, in the matter between GORDON STEPHEN HOLMES (Appellant) v THE GENERAL REGISTRY OF THE ISLE OF MAN GOVERNMENT (Respondent) and having considered written submissions from the parties we have agreed to report to Your Majesty as our opinion that the application for permission to appeal should be REFUSED because the application does not raise an arguable point of law. The application is wholly without merit.”

HER MAJESTY was pleased by and with the advice of Her Privy Council to approve the report and to order that those charged with administering the Government of The Isle of Man and all others whom it may concern are to ensure that it is punctually observed and obeyed.

Clerk of the Privy Council AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE Created : 03/04/2014, 13:48:00, Melanie Knowles Modified : 04/04/2014, 08:30:00, Angela Chandler Last printed : 04/04/2014, 09:30:00 Editing time: 5 minutes.

JCPC 2013/103

IN THE COURT AT WINDSOR CASTLE on the 28th day of April 2014 Petition of Right To :

The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty

From : Stephen Holmes, Manxman, Bachelor of Science, Your Majesty's subject and Petitioner.

IN THE MATTER of the Isle of Man Government versus G. Stephen Holmes, April 2004 to date; and IN THE MATTER of Your Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Services [agency of the Ministry of Justice] HMCTS versus G. Stephen Holmes, October 2003 to date.

Your Most Excellent Majesty, 1. The Bill of Rights of 1688 allows a subject to Petition the Sovereign; and such Act extends to the Isle of Man: whereas the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 does not extend to the Island.

“Right to petition”. (from the 1688 Bill of Rights).

“That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such Petitioning are illegal.”

2. The Earl of Oxford case of 1615 confirms that the rule of equity prevails over the rule of common law and Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.

3. Within Your Majesty's Government of the Isle of Man (“IOMG”) is an office called the General Registry with a chief officer known as the Chief Registrar. Within the General Registry is an office called the High Court Office, part of the Courts and Tribunals Services Department of the General Registry. Your Majesty's First Deemster is President of the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man and is ultimately responsible for the administration of cases in the High Court – our only civil court.

4. The High Court is governed by the High Court Act 1991; [based on the Senior Court Act 1981]; Section 28 of such Act states that the Chief Registrar is the chief officer of the High Court and is directed and supervised by the First Deemster. Section 32 of the 1991 HC Act states that rule equity prevails over rule of common law; and it is well known that Statute prevails over equity and common law. Section 58 of the 1991 HC Act states that in law the Chief Registrar includes the Assistant Chief Registrar (and a Deputy Assistant Chief Registrar).

5. Section 45 of our Customary Laws Act 1422 states that Partiality and misgovernment [are] prohibited. This section is the basis of the Deemster's oath.

6. It has become well known that on 28th May 2004 two documents from Lancaster County Court were purportedly “registered” in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT by the (Assistant) Chief Registrar.

That is what was purported to have happened, but on 26 th October 2007 the First Deemster confirmed that such documents from the Lancaster County Court had not been so registered in

the Isle of Man High Court. That so-called registration was wrong: and a subsequent purported registration of 4th November 2004 was also wrong such that there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the “order” which he did on 5th November 2004.

7. The entirety of processes between Friday 2nd April 2004 and Monday 29th October 2007 was wrong – including the “review” in the Staff of Government Division on 24th September 2007 [resulting in the judgment of 26th October 2007 and the order issued on 29 th October 2007] – although it appeared that the process styled as an “appeal” from 19 th March to 29th October 2007 was successful. Misgovernment is prohibited by law; and the process of purportedly registering documents from England on 28th May and 4th November 2004 was misgovernment and wrong.

8. The Staff of Government Division erred in law in their judgment for it was alleged that the socalled orders of the Lancaster County Court were capable of being registered in the Isle of Man High Court (under section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987) but the requirements defined in section 12 state that the appropriate court has to be a court of superior record such as Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of England [see paragraph 1 of schedule 1 of the 1987 CC Act; and section 32 of the Family Law Act 1986 (of Parliament: chapter 55) on which the Child Custody Act 1987 of Tynwald is based].

9. The Staff of Government Division [First Deemster and Judge of Appeal] also stated wrongly that when “applications” were made to Lancaster County Court both myself and Mrs Holmes were residing in England which implied that the English court has jurisdiction or powers to consider such applications; but Mrs Holmes and the two Manx (Isle of Man) born children were resident in the Isle of Man from 8th August 2003, before applications were made to Kendal County Court office. In 2006, HHJ Gee, commented that “habitual residence founded jurisdiction” in private law case KN03P00016 re: Katarina May Holmes and “others” but when case file KN03P00016 was opened on or about 27th October 2003 Mrs Holmes and Katarina and her brother Benedict were habitually resident in the Isle of Man. The so-called orders of Lancaster County Court were and are ultra vires (beyond the powers of) England & Wales and should have been treated as void by the High Court in the Isle of Man. The Amicus Curiae alerted the Appeal Division judges to the fact that the Manx children had started school in Port Erin Isle of Man at the beginning of September 2003, but the Division judges ignored this fact and stated that Mr and Mrs Holmes were resident in England in 2003. That is misgovernment which is prohibited. That wrong has never had a remedy.

10. The First Deemster and Judge of Appeal were biased or partial in making no fair criticism of the Deputy Deemster for a belief that the orders from an English County Court had been registered in the Isle of Man High Court; the Deputy Deemster had sworn to execute the laws of this Isle justly and yet on 5th November 2004 he issued a “declaratory order” that had no basis in law. The Appeal Division judges purported to revoke a declaration that had no legitimate basis when a declaration that the so-called order was void ab initio would have sufficed and given clarity to the situation that existed between 5th November 2004 and 30th October 2007 – that a false instrument had been circulated through various of Your Majesty's Isle of Man Government Departments and Officers. The Isle of Man Constabulary was “served” with a plain copy of such false declaration and Constables arrested Your Petitioner for breach of a criminal injunction in 2005 and 2006. It

later developed that the Deputy Deemster supervised the so-called registration of 28th May 2004.

11. Your Majesty's Second Deemster entered the fray on 3rd September 2007 and instead of referring to Statute and precedent he read “the court file” and made various untrue statements about the existence and terms of a court order that was void ab initio. Your Petitioner was arrested in Birmingham in England on 5th September 2007 “on suspicion of child abduction” as a result of a civil court document being faxed to Birmingham Police Station.

12. Your Majesty's Deputy Deemster (Andrew Corlett) stated in Court on 13 th January 2009 that the process before 5th November 2004 was “an unlawful process”, but his judgment issued on 20 th January 2009 [2009 MLR 112] did not include this admission. However, in a letter to the Amicus Curiae dated 25th July 2007 the Chief Registrar admitted that “this office” – that is the General Registry of the Isle of Man Government – acted outside the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987; or unlawfully. That admission is also in the Judgment of 26th October 2007.

13. Katarina Holmes, Benedict Holmes and Stephen Holmes had the right to a family life from 10 th November 2004 [when the false document of 5th November 2004 was circulated] to 30 th October 2007 but that right was denied by Deemster issued false instrument – the policy in the Isle of Man was that Your Petitioner could only enjoy “indirect” dealings with his own children – effectively withdrawing my Parental Responsibility. I have never enjoyed a family life with my children here.

14. Because I was deemed “successful in my appeal” in 2007 – the so-called declaratory order was purportedly revoked [although a document that has no legitimate basis cannot be revoked because it does not exist in law] – I did not pursue the matter in the Judicial Committee in 2008.

15. In October 2012, because the Deputy Deemster had erred on 5 th November 2004, and because the General Registry had acted unlawfully in May and November 2004, Deemster Roberts issued a General Civil Restraint Order – to last two years.

16. This Deemster did not err in law, but Her Honour repeated many of the “untruths” circulating in the General Registry – that the “orders” were registered erroneously and that the terms of the Lancaster orders were binding on the Isle of Man. The declaration of 5 th November 2004 used the word “registered” but failed to inform Your Petitioner under what Act of Tynwald such documents appeared to be registered. Rather than stating to Your Petitioner that the ultra vires documents from England were “registered under section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987” the Deputy Deemster merely used the word “registered” and listed the “registration matter” as Between Mrs Yvonne Holmes and Mr G. Stephen Holmes with me as the respondent to the registration process – a process which I knew nothing about until 2007 when an officer in the Civil Summary Team informed me of three “issues” with regard to a successful registration, none of which were followed on 4th November 2004 (and none of which were followed on 28th May 2004).

17. Judge of Appeal Tattersall directed on an “appeal” against the General Civil Restraint Order on 11th December 2012 [in case 2DS 2012/40] and stated that Your Petitioner could make any application regarding “the 8 documents” of 28 th May 2004 and 4th November 2004.

More

importantly than the appeal against the GCRO was my application to have all 8 documents declared void and expunged from record, but instead of remedying the wrongs of 28 th May 2004 and 4th November 2004, Tattersall JA and Melton Dm recorded that –

“15. In so far as the Appellant had sought clarity as to whether the English orders had been

properly registered, the judgment of this court had given such clarity.”

18. Whereas it is clear to Your Petitioner that the so-called orders of the English County Court had not been registered on either of the so-called dates of registration, it is not clear to Deemsters and officers of the High Court that on 28th May 2004 nothing lawful happened and so the tree was poisoned – causing all subsequent actions to be fruit of a poisoned tree and therefore unsafe, tainted and unlawful.

19. If the appeal division is correct in making “no fair criticism” of the Deputy Deemster, then the First Deemster was responsible for the wrongful action on 28th May 2004 because under section 28 of the High Court Act 1991 the First Deemster is responsible for the direction and supervision of officers of the High Court in their administrative duties, such as the “registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom” under sections 7, 12, 20 and para 1 of Sch 1 of the Child Custody Act 1987. Therefore it is not the General Registry that is ultimately responsible for ten years of rights abuses against Manx children and their Manx father, but the office of Your Majesty's First Deemster. Your Majesty should appoint Deemsters who know civil law, but on 1st September 2002 AK Williamson was made Deputy Deemster – and he knew no children law: none whatsoever.

20. Your Petitioner has studied both the play by Terrence Rattigan [“The Winslow Boy”] and the case of Martin Archer-Shee v.The King [KBD July 1910] and likens the matters in the Isle of Man to that very case; wrongs were done in the domain of Your Majesty's Deemsters and those wrongs have never had a remedy. Wrongs have been met with further wrongs.

21. I humbly request Your Majesty to send my complaint back to the Judicial Committee of Your Privy Council to Let Right Be Done.

22. The four documents headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT and signed by the Assistant Chief Registrar on 28th May 2004 must be declared void ab initio, and expunged from record.

23. The four documents headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT and signed by the Assistant Chief Registrar on 4th November 2004 must be declared void ab initio, and expunged from record.

24. A declaration must be made to the effect that orders from a County Court in England cannot be “registered” in the Isle of Man High Court.

25. Criticism of the Deputy Deemster is essential – and a review of all children cases in the High Court [Family Division] should be undertaken to show that such were not misgoverned.

26. As an extension to the above remedies, Your Petitioner claims pecuniary damages from the Isle of Man Government for the misgovernment and partiality of Deemsters and officers of the High Court (and police officers of the Crown); proportional over 104 years to the damages paid to Mr Archer-Shee in 1911 – £800,000 by my calculation. I claim £800,000 from the Office of Your Majesty's First Deemster for putting me through ten years of needless distress and emotional torture.

27. I would be pleased to resolve this matter by sensible negotiation with Your Lt. Governor in the Isle of Man; but Mr Wood (and his predecessor) has ignored my Petitions.

28. On 8th February 1952 it was recorded that Your Majesty stated “I shall always work … to advance the happiness and prosperity of my peoples”. With the appointment of Andrew K Williamson to Your Majesty's Deputy Deemster in the Isle of Man, that work of 50 years in the Isle of Man ended; although AK Williamson swore the Deemster's oath on or about 1 st September 2002, he failed to comply with his legal, moral and social obligations, culminating in the release of a declaration that had no legitimate basis on 5th November 2004. My “appeal” of 19th March 2007 was listed as IN THE MATTER of the Appeal of G. Stephen Holmes of 19 th March 2007; and IN THE MATTER of the Order of the Family Division of 5 th November 2004; but Mrs Holmes was wrongly made the “respondent” to the “appeal” on 24 th September 2007; although she is not mentioned on the Order of 26th October 2007 or in the headers of the four orders from 13 th April 2007 to 15th June 2007. The General Registry should have been the “respondent” to the Appeal Process because it was the General Registry (“this office”) that acted unlawfully on 4th November 2004 and 28th May 2004 and produced the 8 false documents.

29. Mrs Yvonne Holmes was listed as “the Applicant” in the 8 false documents, but BY LAW, it was the High Court in England that should have made the application of 2 nd April 2004 – any Application by a member of the public should not have been treated as an application – it was unlawful; although Mrs Holmes cannot be held responsible for what the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division did with the informal letter addressed to him / her on 2nd April 2004.

30. The actions of the General Registry and the High Court itself over the last ten years have had no legal basis; there was no arguable case to “register” the so-called “C44B Leave to remove child from UK order” of 24th February 2004, or the so-called “Order Residence and Contact Order” of the same date. In fact, Your Majesty, statement 4 – that the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such takes place in the Isle of Man is the most ultra vires order in the history of the Children Act 1989. It is inconceivable that a High Court judge would read that so-called order and think it binding on the Isle of Man; but that is what happened – which was misgovernment, and was and is prohibited by ancient statute.

31. Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 is headed : “Privacy for children involved in certain proceedings.” Section 80 of the Manx Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is headed : “Identification of child or young person in media”. In Re X and Y (Children) on 18th December 2000, Justice Munby wrote – “Because it involves children, I have prepared this judgment in anonymised form so that those parts of it which I have just mentioned may, although given in chambers, be treated as having been given in open court. However, nothing must be published which might lead, either directly or indirectly, to the identification of the children involved in this case.”

32. By “ordering” that “contact” could take place in the Isle of Man, District Judge Forrester indirectly identified Manx children Katarina and Benedict Holmes; the identification was such that on 18 th April 2013 an Isle of Man newspaper, the Manx Independent, published from the judgment by Tattersall JA and Melton Dm the following interpretation – “ Appellant Stephen Holmes was described in court as giving the impression of being a ‘troubled individual’ who had an unhappy time in a custody and contact battle with his ex-wife over the couple’s two children.” Tattersall JA and Melton clearly wrote

“Mrs Yvonne Holmes, his now former wife ” and mentioned that applications had been made with regard to “their two children” which unlawfully (and criminally) identified Katie and Ben.

33. Deputy Deemster Williamson ordered that the false declaration of 5th November 2004 be sent to the Isle of Man Police in Douglas and Port Erin; and to the head teacher at Rushen Primary School, which led to the identification in the Isle of Man Examiner (and in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction) of my name and the existence of a Family Division “order” with the mention of my Manx children on it – no attempt was made to comply with section 80 of the 2001 CYP Act. 34. The so-called registrations on 28th May 2004 were wrong : unlawful but the documents fraudulently misrepresented the actuality of the true status, and the act of fraudulent misrepresentation is a civil matter.

But the action of publicising details that lead to the

identification of children started by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5 th November 2004 was a criminal offence: and both judges Nuttall and Forrester in England also led (indirectly) to the identification of Katie and Ben Holmes in 2004 and 2005; criminal actions occurred in England also.

35. Your Council allege that my application does not raise an arguable point of law, but the Deemsters have acted with outlawry and issued documents that purport to be lawful; Your Council applies the adage “it is OK for us to justify unlawful actions but citizens cannot expose our outlawry.” The statement “No fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for his belief” could be used for the most appalling injustices in an attempt to justify (for example) genocide : but justifying abuse of the rights of Manx children is not something that should be permitted, even if it is the First Deemster who makes the statement.

36. Your Council mentioned only the judgment of 2 nd April 2013 in case 2DS 2012/40 but my Application that led to the creation of file JCPC 2013/103 also asked to “ alter or vary the order of

the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man, Staff of Government Division, dated 26 th October 2007 and to grant further relief” but that matter has been conveniently ignored by Your Council.

Please read this Petition at the Court hearing on Monday 28 th April 2014; and send it to Your Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with the endorsement to LET RIGHT BE DONE. It is essential that the JCPC reviews all events in the Isle of Man from 2 nd April 2004 to 8th May 2013 (and some recent decisions by the staff in the General Registry of Your Majesty's IOMG).

I ask Your Majesty to work to advance my happiness and prosperity by granting this request, and I remain Your suppliant,

G. Stephen Holmes

Petitioner in person

cc: Your Majesty's Attorney General of England & Wales.

LET RIGHT BE DONE

.

General Registry Oik-Recortyssee Carol Dowd Director of Courts Services

Mr S Holmes 127 Ballabrooie Drive Douglas Isle of Man IM1 4HH

General Registry Isle of Man Courts of Justice, Deemsters Walk, Bucks Road Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 3AR Telephone: 01624 685481 Fax: 01624 686165 E-mail: carol.dowd@registry.gov.im

Our ref:

sh070206/sd

Your ref: Date:

9th February 2006

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

.

General Registry Oik Recortyssee R.P Corkhill Chief Registrar

General Registry Isle of Man Courts of Justice Deemsters Walk Bucks Road, Douglas IM1 3AR Telephone: 01624 685481 Fax: 01624 685236 Email: peter.corkhill @registry.gov.im

Isle of Man Government Reiltys Ellan Vannin

Mannin Chambers Third Floor Atlantic House 4-8 Circular Road Douglas IM1 1AG

Your ref: HH/FK/07-066 Date: 25 July 2007

Dear Sirs, Registration of Court Orders Amicus Curiae Thank you for your letter of 17th July 2007 asking for copies of the following: 1. The letters from the Lancaster County Court enclosing copies of the applications, supporting documentation and the Order.

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

The documents referred to above do not exist. The application to register the orders in the Isle of Man was made directly by Yvonne Holmes.

From an inspection of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic] it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously, i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987. However, Deputy Deemster Williamson made the order of 5th November 2004, effectively endorsing the provisions of the Orders from the Court in Lancaster.

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

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

Yours sincerely,

R. P. CORKHILL CHIEF REGISTRAR