Memo 2 AAM

Memorandum from G. Stephen Holmes To:

Alastair Montgomerie

Subject:

An Application for Justice

Date:

9th December 2014

I have been considering the letter of 3 rd December 2014, signed by your Clerk, Nora Lees, containing your opinions on my Petition of Right. To remind you, here is the gist of the content – She refer(s) to my memorandum and re-submitted Petition of Right both dated 17th November 2014.

In addition to those matters raised by the Chief Registrar, as you are aware I was appointed to deal with criminal cases in the Court of General Gaol Delivery.

For a number of reasons therefore, I consider that I am not able to entertain your Petition.

I remind you of your speech on 1st April 2011; “I am very much aware of the great honour that has been bestowed upon me today and the trust being reposed in me.

“My primary role as Deemster … is to preside over criminal proceedings in the Court of General Gaol Delivery.” What is your secondary role as Deemster? And your tertiary role?

You go on to mention David Doyle’s role in the same Court, and his book published in 2010.

Doyle sat in the upper criminal court for almost seven years – I believe his first “case” in the Family Division of the High Court was on 3rd September 2007, when he issued an “order” that put the life of an 11 year-old girl at risk. Doyle particularly referenced “divorce proceedings” when the matter was about children, so “Our Trusty and Well-beloved David Charles Doyle” did not know the difference between a matter under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 [or 2001 before that] and a matter under the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. And “AK46” Williamson did not know the difference between a matter under the Child Custody Act 1987 and a children matter.

In 2008 I received a copy of the FTR (“For The Record”) recording of the kangaroo court meeting on 3rd September 2007, and I quote verbatim from the “judgement” issued by Doyle on that day. – “This matter has a considerable history; and I have had a brief opportunity of considering the court file, and it appears that by order made on the 16th of November 2005 in Divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144 that his honour the deputy Deemster Williamson, for the avoidance of doubt, ordered that the order for indirect contact between Mr Holmes and the children, the child born 19 th May 1996 and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes born 28th of August 1996 [actually 1999], and I quote, made in the Lancaster County Court on the 27th of October 2004 and registered in this court on the 4th of November 2004 remains the effective order for contact between Mr Holmes and the said children; unquote.”

Did Doyle look at evidence? — Of course not; he looked at the Court File!

Your Oath included “to execute the laws of this Isle justly.” Law includes civil law as well as criminal law; and your Oath is based on section 45 of the Customary Laws Act 1422 which is headed Partiality and misgovernment prohibited. By turning a blind eye to the wrong-doing and incompetence of Doyle, Williamson (and Corlett) you too have misgoverned my Petition.

What “matters” were raised by Stephen Cregeen? He thought that the right to Petition the Queen was “a separate residual Crown prerogative right” when it is a right of “the Subject”. Cregeen did not know the difference between an obligation of the Crown and the right of a subject! To rephrase an American analogy, neither Doyle nor Cregeen know the difference between vomit and vegetable-soup.

I have put the phrase “Trusty and Well-beloved” in inverted commas because I do not trust David C. Doyle at-all. I think that the First Deemster is completely untrustworthy and is a charlatan in the Civil Division. And as for “AK46” Williamson – words fail me to describe his incompetence. I can only think of one phrase – “we might have had Jimmy Savile on the Deemster Panel.”

You describe being a Deemster as a great honour – and I am sure that you feel that way, but by ignoring my Petition for JUSTICE – for RIGHT to be done (not wrong), you too have joined the catalogue of wrong-doing in the Isle of Man Kangaroo Court of Injustice in the Isle of Man. And I don’t care

whether it is the lower, or upper criminal law courts, or the “High Court,” injustice is the name of the game. Geoffrey Robertson wrote a book with the title “The Justice Game” in 1997; I could (and may well) write a book about civil law in the Isle of Man called Injustice Island, and my “target” will be the legal “profession” and the Deemsters because (in my opinion) we have had 1035 years of injustice from “The Two” – and now “The Three” have taken over the great tradition of “making-up the rules”.

Geoffrey Robertson states in his Preface (The Justice Game, Chatto and Windus, 1998 p. xi) that one of the purposes of law is to show that what public officials do is, in fact, wrong. The Staff of Government Division wrote (in 2DS 2007/9, on 26/10/2007) that “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did,” on 5th November 2004. I had a right to a fair hearing on 05/11/2004; my children had the right to a fair hearing, but “AK46” Williamson issued a “declaratory order” that had no basis in law. There was no “registration”. A due process of “registration” did not take place on 28th May 2004; and a due process of registration did not take place on 4th November 2004; but all were purported to have taken place. I looked at case file FD/UK/COR/04/02 in July 2014 – I even photographed the cover –

– and I noted that the eight documents (actually twelve) dated 4 th Nov. and 28th May, 2004 are still in this “court file,” although I applied IN WRITING for the SOGD to declare said documents void and expunge them from record. Tattersall and Melton stated that I had asked for “clarity” as to whether the so-called orders from Lancaster were registered properly! Spot the difference between the following two requests – 1. I seek clarity as to whether the so-called orders from Lancaster were registered properly; & 2. I hereby apply for the registration documents dated 28 th May 2004 [four documents in all] to be declared void and expunged from record.

It seems to me that Advocates in the Isle of Man, and Deemsters (and the Judge of Appeal) are experts at making up the rules. There was no legitimacy to the so-called “order” of the Family Division of 5 th November 2004, and yet this “policy statement” was circulated to the Police and the Department of Education (and Children), and given to the clowns in the Court Welfare Office on Prospect Hill, and even made its way to the Chambers of HM Attorney-General where it was used to deny me the right to a family life. The “eight documents” [four dated 28 th May 2004 and four dated 4th November 2004] are false instruments, but the court file still exists and none of those documents should (or can) exist in law.

They must be expunged, so I am asking you, Alistair, to DO GOOD – to DO RIGHT – to LET RIGHT BE DONE, and raise an Application to the untrustworthy First Deemster; demand that he declares the eight documents void ab initio and expunge them from record.

There is absolutely no doubt that actions in the High Court Office on the two dates specified (28/05 and 04/11) were wrong, and that misgovernment is prohibited, so wrong-doing is prohibited by law. Equity (who’s rules prevail over the rules of common law – see High Court Act 1991 s. 32 or the precedent of the Earl of Oxford case 1615) will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy – and the remedy to the wrong-doing of 28/05/2004 and 04/11/2004 is to declare the documents void and expunge them from record, which even a Deemster with no experience in civil law could do. The extension to that remedy is pecuniary compensatory damages – Deputy Deemster AK Williamson destroyed the Holmes family

with the false instrument of 5th November 2004, and its extension on 16 th November 2005. Rather than acting with Partiality (which is prohibited) the SOGD should have ordered the suspension from duties of AK46 Williamson – a weapon of destruction like the AK47 machine gun.

I am willing to settle my claim for compensatory pecuniary damages by sensible negotiation; but it is the officers of the Crown who are acting unlawfully by concentrating on biased “views” like “no fair criticism” and ignoring statutory judgments such as “there was no legitimate basis upon which” the charlatan AK46 Williamson “could have made the [so-called] order which he did.” You will also note that on 26/10/2007 the SOGD purportedly revoked the so-called order of 05/11/2004, but that so-called order could not exist because it was false and unlawfully, therefore it could not actually be “revoked” – you can’t revoke something that does not exist in the first place!

The Petition of Right is addressed to Queen Elizabeth (Lord of Man) care of YOU, Deemster Montgomerie; it cannot go to David C. Doyle because he is defendant – Stephen Cregeen is a defendant – this is the first Petition in history where the defendant has decided his guilt! I “advocate” that Doyle, Corlett, Cregeen [Dipsy, La-La, Po] and Tattersall [Tinky-Winky] are hopelessly out of touch with modern law relating to children, and Cregeen has “raised matters” in a letter which in his view is an end to the Petitioning. The Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown specifically states that Commitments for such Petitioning are illegal, yet Cregeen unlawfully committed to return the Petition to me. It is, in my view, illegal for you to ignore my Petition of Right of 17th November 2014, so I demand that you LET RIGHT BE DONE and consider the remedy and extension to remedy included in the Petition; declare void and expunge file FD/UK/COR/04/02, and award me £3,000,000 compensation (to be paid by the Crown) for destruction of my family for the last ten (and more) years. The Queen should not have appointed to the position of Governor somebody who would appoint AK46 Williamson to the position of High Court Deemster because he had “NFC” – he had No Clue what he was doing in a “matter relating to children” – as I have said, Jimmy Savile would have made a better judge in a children matter.

You are a public official, Alistair, [“I, Alastair Aitken Montgomerie, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God ”], and the matter with regard to Katie and Ben Holmes entered the public domain on about 9 th November 2004 when Mrs Holmes took the false declarations issued by Williamson to the Police in Douglas and Port Erin, and to the Head Office of the DOE (and to the head teacher at Rushen Primary School) so I am putting a copy of this memorandum to you in the public domain in order to embarrass you into doing something.

I have had ten years of High Court Ordure. I admire your honesty (that you don’t know civil law) but Williamson knew no civil law in 2002 when the Lt. Governor appointed him Deputy Governor in 2002.

I have said this many times in the past, and will continue to say it, a trained chimpanzee would have been a better appointment than AK46 Williamson. But despite your honesty, I ask you to Let Right Be Done rather than bullshit me with “General Gaol Delivery – not my problem.” It is your problem because you are Her Majesty’s Deemster.

I am willing to negotiate a settlement; but someone “sensible” must engage with me, and not untrustworthy David. There is J1149.html on judgments.im in which Doyle accuses me of having become irrationally obsessed: wrote the judge who thought that case 2004/144 was a divorce! I have the right to hold this opinion; “Our Trusty and Well-beloved David Charles Doyle” is an imbecile. What are you, Alistair? Do you stand for Right or wrong-doing?

If you stand for justice and Right, then you are duty (and Oath) bound to Let Right be Done; but if you play along with Doyle, Corlett, Tattersall, Quinn, Cregeen, Roberts, Melton &c., then you will do nothing and leave me to “sue” the United Kingdom in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. I believe that I will win that suit because wrong-doing has been the MO of the IOM Kangaroo Court.

Regards, issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/Memo_2_AAM

.

Not the three Deemsters, but Chief Registrar Cregeen (in red); Second Deemster Corlett (in yellow); and “Dipsy” David Doyle, D1 (green).

The General Registry published the swearing-in ceremony for the two Deemsters and the Attorney-General – it took place on 1st April 2011 – and the attitude of all concerned was “We are members of the judiciary and we are wonderful”. Corlett even praised the charlatan “AK46” Williamson but evidence supports the thesis that Williamson screwed-up every children matter that he dealt with in the Family Division of the Kangaroo Court of Injustice.

It is a fact that a children matter in the Isle of Man is NOT listed as Re x (A Child) or Re X and Y (Children) but as Kramer versus Kramer, or Holmes v Holmes or Fletcher v Fletcher. Making a children matter adversarial is misgovernment (which is prohibited) and is the first step to abusing the rights of children & parents, and causing extreme emotional distress to all those involved.

Deemsters: Abusing rights of children since 1992.

AK46 Williamson: abused (the rights of) children from 1 st September 2002 to 6th January 2008, and beyond; a weapon of destruction.