Dear Governor Richard

26th July 2007

e-mail s_holmes_i_t@hotmail.com

Dear Governor and Deputy Governor, So it develops that I have been trying to resolve the court ordure since January / February 2006 – but have been constantly thwarted by malfeasance, incompetence, corruption and further court ordure.

In February 2006, after I received a CRAP letter from Carol Dowd (which made no sense) I wrote to an officer of the Crown in the High Court office, one David Doyle. Here is the reply – and I repeat the sentence of ordure.

“It is not appropriate for … Doyle to engage in correspondence or private meetings or communications in respect of matters which are or may come before the courts for determination.

“I reiterate the points raised in my letter to you on the 25th January 2006.

If you are in any doubt as to your legal position you should seek legal advice and take appropriate action.”

I WAS NEVER IN ANY DOUBT AS TO MY LEGAL POSITION – Williamson had produced a false instrument on 5th November 2004 which abused the rights of Katie and Ben (Children) and abused my rights and caused me extreme mental distress.

Copy of the Registry Ordure

On 3rd September 2007 Doyle referred to the “matter” as “divorce proceedings” so it was DOYLE that

needed to seek legal advice. For the second Deemster to refer to a children matter (or indeed the matter of a NON-REGISTRATION) as “divorce proceedings” – was total insanity (not just inappropriate). Doyle is now Deputy Governor. And be in no doubt, the instrument referred to as a “declaratory order” by Williamson HAD NO LEGAL BASIS. And do you know what – the false instrument IS STILL IN THE COURT FILE although it should have been expunged on 30 th or 31st October 2007 as soon as the SOGD issued the signed judgement of 26th October 2007.

In 2012, one year after Doyle issued J1149.htm (which is complete poisoned fruit/court ordure) the Deputy Assistant (Chief) Registrar issued a signed copy of a document that had no basis in law.

Such document follows – and WHY WAS I listed as The Respondent? – TO WHAT WAS I THE RESPONDENT? The Registration process? How could I respond to the registration process when I was not informed IN WRITING what Act had (not) been used until May 2007? I have used the word “anarchy” to describe the High and Kangaroo Court of Injustice between 2003 and 2009, and the

new “rules of the high court” have done nothing to make the ordure emanating from that court any more lawful or the court any less kangaroo.

To adopt the attitude of Tricia Cocker and Doyle and Williamson and especially Coppell and Corkhill in 2005 and 2006: “telling me to piss off and give up” is not appropriate when it is the former Deputy Deemster and former second Deemster who have abused my children and / or encouraged Mrs Billy-Bob Brew to abuse the rights of Katie and Ben. Doyle purportedly made an order on 10 th March 2008 in case Div 2004/144 (when I did not engage with the ordure events) – but you need to ask (and answer) the following question – From 2nd September 2003 to 9th March 2008, what orders were actually in force in the Isle of Man with respect to Katie and Ben Holmes?

Where was the section 11(1)(a) residence order? Where was the section 11(1)(b) contact order (in the private law case Re:Children?) There is one easy answer – there was nothing because there had been no registration and all that happened on 4th and 5th November 2004 was unlawful nonsense.

Case file FD/UK/COR/04/02 only

It is not appropriate to write to an officer of the Crown but it is OK for such an officer to act with outlawry.

YOU MUST NOT IGNORE ME AGAIN. Blind eyes have been turned to the malfeasance of Deemsters for more than ten years – Williamson should compensate the Holmes family because he was negligent and ignorant and abusive to the rights of children – Doyle must be reprimanded for his negligence and stupidity and his insane obsession that a Deemster can do no wrong. So if a Deemster “ordered” that a fork shall be known as a spoon or Mr Holmes is now a baboon such an order or judgement (I am NOT irrationally obsessed – I am a Mathematician and I DESPISE ugliness such as ORDERED that a plain copy be lodged with the criminal justice system from the civil court) would stink out court files until the end of time or they were declared void ab initio. The judges in SOGD are all appointed by and with the blessing of Governor/ First Deemster / Chief Secretary / Chief Minister / AG so no appointment can be assumed to be truly impartial – and the evidence is that rather than being prohibited partiality and misgovernment are parts of the MO of the Isle of Man High and Kangaroo Court of Injustice presided over by David Charlatan Doyle.

The more I think about the débâcle between 28th May 2004 and 9th March 2008, the more appalled I am by the actions of all those in authority, including (especially) Doyle. On 29 th November 2008, [and this date is recorded in J1149 – as you can see below] Doyle actually said that there was a residence order. BUT IN THE ISLE OF MAN THERE WAS NO ORDER – there was no section 11(1)(a) Children and Young Persons Act 2001 residence order made in any Isle of Man Court –

and by 29/11/2007 the First Deemster Kerruish and JA Geoffrey Tattersall had confirmed that there had been no such registration – Doyle was WRONG. And Doyle was wrong on 3 rd September 2007 when his opinion resulted in putting my daughter’s life at risk. So there is no reason to assume that Doyle acted correctly on 10/03/2007 because he did not hold the welfare of Katie and Ben as HIS (that is, the court's) paramount consideration. Doyle was complacent on 3rd September 2007, on 12th September 2007 and on 29th November 2007, so there is no reason to assume he suddenly acted lawfully on 10th March 2008. Therefore, I cannot trust the First or Second Deemster – nor indeed any Deemster or the Judge of Appeal.

For TEN YEARS I have been asking to where do I complain when the wrong-doers are the Deemsters who claim they are acting in a “lawful” judicial capacity. On 14/12/2011 Doyle had made his decision before he entered the court-room – in fact he had made it before he read any of my submissions because he was not prepared to entertain the idea that Williamson had no clue what he was doing!

16. I should also record that on 10 March 2008 I delivered judgement (in DIV 2004/144) granting residence and contact orders in respect of the children. The Claimant sadly did not positively engage with those proceedings. He did not attend the hearing on 10 March 2008.

The hearing had been set by an order made on the 29 November 2007.

At the 29/11/2007 “hearing” the Kangaroo Court (of David Doyle) alleged that the residence order in favour of Mrs Yvonne Holmes existed, but four weeks earlier the High Court confirmed that there had been no registration and therefore the content of documents issued earlier in another jurisdiction was of no legal value in the Isle of Man. I am sorry to be so blunt, but Doyle was a moron.

The SOGD confirmed the unlawful policy in the Isle of Man from 05/11/2004 to 26/10 or 30/10/2007 that [2] ”the [Respondent] have indirect contact with the said children as is authorised by clause 2 of the said Order of the 27 Oct. 2004 of the Lancaster County Court.” But there had been no registration so clause 2 said [ nothing ]. Now how would you react, Mr Gozney (or you Mr Doyle) if a judge in the HIGH court in a jurisdiction had DECLARED that you could only have indirect dealings with your own children as authorised by Josef Fritzl in Austria? I was humiliated because it was perceived that I had harmed my own children or had done something awful to them – but actually Williamson had authorised a “registration” when no such “process” could actually take place – and Williamson was the person Katie and Ben needed protecting from.

I used the word obsessed to the twit Doyle; and he jumped on it – but he had made a SNAFU in 2008 so was not in a position to be impartial on 14/12/2011. Not only had he made a SNAFU on 10/03/2008, but he acted unlawfully and authorised the continued abuse of Katie and Ben and on 1 st November 2006 the Human Rights Act 2001 had entered into force in its totality. Doyle acted unlawfully because he contravened section 6 of an Act (a law) he had sworn to execute justly.

Almost every day I encounter something that reminds me what a total shit AK47 Williamson was in 2004 and 2005. Doyle is almost as bad. I was reminded of “shit” by the Ronald Searle creation St. Trinian's: the School song ends with “get your blow in first; He who draws his sword last always comes off worst.”

Williamson struck the first blow on 1st July 2004 with the allegation that there had been a registration – which set me back almost 33 months because it took until the end of February 2007 to establish some of the “rules” for a registration. Doyle got his blow in first on 3 rd September 2007 when he looked only at a court file AND NOT AT STATUTE – FFS I guess Doyle had never presided over a directions hearing in the Family Division of the High and Kangaroo Court of Injustice EVER; he said “I am minded to grant the order” because he took fruit of the poisoned tree and did not check to see whether there was any legality in the court ordure of 5 th November 2004 or 16th November 2005.

There was none (legality) – the totality of both orders was ordure; neither had any legitimacy – note that the file number is Div 2004/144 on the top of the 16/11/2005 ordure and that case ended with a dismissal on 1st July 2004. A dead case cannot be resurrected – not in the real world!

I cannot trust ANY Deemster and if I can't trust any Deemster then the Manx people cannot trust any Deemster and the Isle of Man DOES NOT HAVE THE RULE OF LAW. Rule by Court Order is OK when the court order is lawful, but when it has no legal basis (in any CYPA 2001 case) then it is court ordure and untrustworthy; and something must be done.

NOW DO SOMETHING GOOD, because I will not “piss off and shut up” – I will publicise this Deemster SNAFU and hopefully damage the reputation of the Isle of Man as a place with a mature system of “justice”; it is a place where if you have enough money and influence you can do whatever you like AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Please note that I mean no harm to any of the people about whom I complain – I am a supporter of Hanlon's Razor : “never attribute to malice that which can readily attributed to stupidity” but Williamson was an exception – he was malicious as well as stupid! Hanlon's Razor is in turn derived from the more famous Ockham's Razor - “keep it simple,” so (for example) the sentence in paragraph 47 of J1183 should have been “the so-called order or Deputy Deemster Williamson of 5 th November 2004 was unlawful” or the statement by Corkhill of 25 th July 2007 should have been “the purported registration was unlawful” instead of the “no fair criticism” remark being inserted before the simple expression or “registered by this office erroneously” becoming a mantra in the General Registry.

In the event you decide to do nothing, I ask that you produce evidence to support any argument you may have because since 1st November 2006 I HAVE NOT BEEN TREATED FAIRLY and I believe that treatment I receive, even from Deemsters, must be fair and impartial (see section 6 of the Human Rights Act 2001) and it has not been so is therefore unlawful.

Best regards,

Stephen Holmes B.Sc. (Mathematician and logician and Manxman) Post Script I was going to end this letter “there” but I have located the letter of 23 March 2009 written by the Chief Registrar (who was and is directed and supervised by the First Deemster (and Deputy Governor) or (probably) directed by no-one!

Here is some of the text of Corkhill's 2009 nonsense – the letter will be in a court file somewhere – it has Our Ref: CR/23032009 on it.

The essence of your complaint is that two of my officers, Mrs. C. Dowd and Mrs. J. Farquhar were responsible for the erroneous registration of Courts Orders from England with the Court in the Isle of Man. You raised your concerns with me when we met on 27 January 2006. At that meeting I explained to you how you should address matters before the Court and I agreed to examine the matter of the registration of Court Orders using the General Registry Complaints Procedure (the government Standardised Procedure). I wrote to you on 30 January 2006 summarising what we had agreed in our meeting.

As the matters of which you had complained concerned the Courts Division, I asked Mrs. Dowd as Director of Courts to conduct the required investigation. As you know, Mrs. Dowd wrote to you on 9 February 2006 explaining the error and apologizing to you (copy enclosed).

Subsequently in 2007, after you had appealed to the Court as I had advised in January 2006, it came to light that Mrs. Dowd's investigation in January/February 2006 had not revealed the full extent of the error made regarding the registration of the Court Orders from England. At the request of the Amicas Curiae, I examined the position and reported thereon to Mannin Chambers by letter dated 25 July 2007 (copy enclosed). I understand that subsequently your appeal was successful.

In January 2006 your complaint was properly investigated, errors were found and you were issued with an apology. Appropriate action was taken to rectify the position.

In July 2007 a further investigation was undertaken which revealed an incompleteness about the January 2006 investigation. A full report was submitted to the Amicas Curiae, the relevant procedure notes were revised to reflect the correct procedure for registering Court Orders from other jurisdictions and appropriate action was taken with the staff involved to avoid future errors.

I am satisfied that the January 2006 investigation of your complaint revealed an error and you were issued with an apology. Whilst the July 2007 investigation revealed the fuller extent of the error made, it was nevertheless the same error for which you had already received an apology. Appropriate action has been taken to ensure procedure notes are up to date and staff have been instructed in their use. In accordance with the government Standardised Procedure, I am satisfied that your complaint has been dealt with and the procedures have been exhausted.

Although your complaint was dealt with in January/February 2006 and an apology was issued to you, you have continued to repeat the complaint on numerous occasions. Your complaint has been dealt with properly in accordance with procedures.

Note that this ordure was written 18 months after the SOGD determined that “they had not been so registered” and “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.”

Here is my point, Governor: “the system” fails when someone “senior” in the system makes a SANFU. In the above case, Corkhill and his predecessor and AK47 Williamson REFUSED to confirm “what is necessary for a registration” – and even when the SOGD wrote THREE steps they DID NOT CONFIRM WITH THE STATUTE that the issuing court must be a High Court and that the “custody order” to be “registered” should actually be an order conferred by court over an adult giving “custody of the child” to that adult. Only a complete moron would interpret a “Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom” order as a “custody order”.

I have the text of the letter written by Dowd on 09/02/2006 and it is utter nonsense from “Noddy Goes to Court”.

The upshot of all this is, when it comes to matters relating to Manx children, the Isle of Man has a troop of Baboons dealing with them, so all that is issued is baboon ordure.

Here is a damning sentence from Corkhill in 2007 –

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.

If you drive “not in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1985” you “break the law” but if a Government Office with a moron at its head (directed and supervised by the First Dumpster) acts unlawfully EVERYTHING IS FINE IF HE SAYS IT IS FINE. Good luck with this, Richard.