Negligence in Mann

Negligence “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

On 2nd April 2004 Mrs Yvonne Holmes handed-in a document to the public office – a document that looked “very much like” the following –

A covering letter was addressed to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division, General Registry; and note that the “Order” clearly states it was made under the Children Act 1989.

On 28th May 2004, the following document was produced that was signed by an Assistant Chief Registrar, Miss Jayne Williams.

Note that the document is headed – ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987 Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom The document then says LANCASTER COUNTY COURT FILE REFERENCE. Consider the two terms “Isle of Man HIGH COURT” & “Lancaster COUNTY COURT.”

The first question that springs to mind is – can a County Court bind the High Court?

Then we look at the word that appears twice at the top – Custody. Is an order that grants “leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man, permanently” a Custody Order?

A prudent and reasonable man would refer to the Child Custody Act 1987 for answers to such questions.

Suffice to say, the Child Custody Act 1987 REQUIRES that the “custody order” must – 1. be made under section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament); 2. be issued by Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of England; 3. be a properly certified copy (signed by a judge or registrar); 4. be accompanied by all supporting documentation and applications made the the appropriate court in England & Wales (the High Court); and that – 5. the applicant be the Court that made the order, not a member of the public AND that the application is made to the Chief Registrar, (not to the Clerk to the Deputy Deemster).

In addition, in July or August 2003, the Attorney General's chambers issued a Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament extending to the Isle of Man, and the Children Act 1989 is NOT in this Chronological Table, whereas the Family Law Act 1986 is (was) in this table.

The document clearly states that the Application (was) filed on 2nd April 2004, the date Mrs Holmes hand-wrote a letter to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, and note that under section 28(3) of the High Court Act 1991, the Deemster's Clerk is reliant on the Deemster for

“supervision and direction.” The Deputy Deemster would have been aware of the letter, of the two “Proceeding Files” (DIV 2004/ 144 and FD/UK/COR/04/02). Documents from the latter file – Family Division / United Kingdom / Custody Order Registration / April / 2nd – were sent to the “Applicant” Mrs Holmes and not to the Manx father of the Manx children, Stephen Holmes.

The simple question is now – was there negligence.

What would “a reasonable man” do, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, (such as conforming with the Law of the Isle of Man), when asked to “register” a section 13(1) 33(7) Children Act 1989 “Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom Order” under sections 7 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987?

Would he :– 1) Return the non-certified photocopies of orders to the person who had submitted them and tell the person that none of the legal requirements for a registration had been met? or 2) Instruct a clerk (acting under the title of Assistant Chief Registrar) to register the orders anyway, thereby acting unlawfully?

The action on 28th May 2004 was disgraceful. The Deputy Deemster had, just 18 months earlier, sworn to “execute the laws of this Isle justly,” but he “instructed” a clerk to act outside the law; an action that a “reasonable person” would say was negligent. But there is another consideration: in fact, on 25th July 2007, (more than three years later), the Chief Registrar admitted in writing that the actions of “this office” were unlawful – not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987. Acts of parliament exist to ensure that people and public servants follow them – acting outside the requirements of an Act of Tynwald is “outlawry,” is unlawful and thus negligent.

During the period 1st September 2002 and the end of 2007 (to 6th January 2008) the Isle of Man had an “outlaw” as Deputy Deemster – the man was not fit to sit in the Family Division of the High Court – he turned it into a COURT OF INJUSTICE. And on 1st April 2011, Williamson's successor, Andrew Corlett stated that he had learned a great deal from Williamson, and that he (Williamson) “bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division.”

In the Bill of Rights 1688, an Act of Parliament that DOES extend to the Isle of Man, we learn that in the time of King James II there were “divers evil councillors, judges and ministers” in the employ of the King.

The Deputy Deemster was not merely negligent, he was the epitome of the “evil judge.” The philosopher Lao-Tzu defined evil in his words on The Disease – He who knows nothing but thinks he knows everything has the disease and is the source of evil in society.

In April 2011, six-and-a-half years after a hearing on 5th November 2004 (at which Williamson issued a false declaration), advocate Kevin O'Riordan (another with the disease) sent me a transcript of the hearing 6½ years earlier. Williamson began by telling parties that “orders from Lancaster County Court” have been registered; and he concluded his introductory comment with; “Those orders are binding.” Those “orders” were NOT binding because they had not been registered; a reasonable person would have checked the Act of Tynwald before making an outrageous LIE to people in the Court, and condoning his own outlawry.

I have given the General Registry ONE LAST CHANCE – either they can admit their negligence (the matter is res ipso loquitor – the thing speaks for itself) and settle “out of court” or I will take the High Court to a Higher Court with a damaging (to the Isle of Man) negligence claim. We had in the employ of Her Majesty an evil judge, and his evil spread to the High Bailiff, the Attorney General and Governor Captain Haddock; (and even to the First Deemster and Judge of Appeal).

The Crown in the Isle of Man acted outside the law, and was therefore negligent, from 2nd April 2004 to 30th November 2005, and then again right up to 14th December 2011.