Open letter to Lt Gov & Deemsters

7th November 2016 s_h_iom@yahoo.com To: Lt. Governor Gozney, Deputy Governor Doyle, Second Deemster Corlett, Attorney General Quinn, Solicitor General Wannenburgh, Judge of Appeal Tattersall cc: Chief Minister Quayle, Chief Secretary Greenhowe, All Ministers, 3rd Deemster Montgomerie

Dear Sirs Incompetence and Outlawry in the judiciary: A complaint to you all

I live in England now, (since May 2015) under the rule of law in England & Wales (and other Acts that extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland). Prior to my move to Wigan, I lived in the Isle of Man under the rules of the Deemsters; and the only thing I knew for certain was that I NEVER knew where I stood! I heard the decision of three High Court judges, Chief Justice Thomas, Master of the Rolls Etherton and Sales (LJ) on Thursday 3rd Nov. and quickly obtained a summary of the judgement. I draw your collective attention to the phrases of the panel of judges: “[10] The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it. In the judgment of the Court the argument is contrary to both the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament…”

I repeat: There is nothing in the text of the 1972 [European Communities] Act to support its [the government’s] argument.

Twelve years ago (05/11/04) Dep. Deemster AK Williamson issued what he called a “declaratory order” that had no basis in law. On 1st July 2004, and it is recorded in what Deemster Kerruish, Tattersall JA and later Doyle (after he became D1) wrote, Deputy Deemster Williamson lied from the Bench in the High Court – actually the first words that he said in “this matter” were “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.” Here was the High Court of justice, and the 1987 Act has a section headed “1. Registration of custody order in High Court.” Nothing was in fact registered so the statement was a lie. There is nothing in the 1987 [Child Custody] Act that supports an allegation that “a – an order from Lancaster” has been registered in the HIGH Court in the Isle of Man. Many people in England (and also many in the Isle of Man) are outraged that the High Court acted competently last week – but no-one except me has expressed outrage at the utter incompetence of Deputy Deemster AK Williamson in 2004 (and throughout 2005) or of David Doyle in 2007 (3 rd September and 29th November) and on 14/11/2011 when he “judged in his own cause” and stated that an “obsession” had become irrational. In the Isle of Man it is the Deemsters who argue contrary to statute and then justify each other's opinions in a superior court, absurdly called the “Staff of Government” Division.

I have recently sent e-mails containing a short extract from what was a kangaroo court meeting on 1st July 2004, and the fact that Deputy Deemster Williamson lied is recorded in J1183.htm on judgments.im [and also in J1149]. The sound extract shows that I asked Williamson if I could appeal about the “orders being registered” [which is a due process in the Isle of Man] and the incompetent judge stated that I should go back to a judge in England! There is nothing in the 1987 Act that states I -1-

should go back to England and ask to vary or revoke an order made there. Similarly with the comment about “appealing the dismissal,” there is nothing in the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 to support a view that a dismissal of an Application can be appealed.

Thank you Justices Thomas, Etherton and Sales – you have restored my faith in the “justice” of the High Court in England; and thank you David Doyle for publishing J1183 in 2012 because you have shown that there is no law used in the High Court in the Isle of Man – none of the Deemsters actually read the Statute – you just make it up as you go!

Your problem is hubris! Your arrogance is so extreme that you are complacent, and that complacency leads to ignorance of statutes that you are supposed to execute “justly”. Your Code of Conduct demands (inter alia) diligence, knowledge and competence but all those To whom this letter is addressed have shown recklessness, ignorance, negligence and incompetence: I know more about THE LAW RELATING TO CHILDREN (the 2001 Act) than any of you recipients of this polite and chivalrous letter of complaint.

There is nothing in the 2001 Act that permitted AK Williamson to declare [Adult] respondent have indirect contact with the said children . Contact is a right of a child and the default order should have been (and was, on 1 st July 2004) no order at all.

The so-called order of 5th Nov. 2004 had no Act of Tynwald listed on it, but it was determined on 24th September / 26th October 2007 that it was a so-called order (not) made under the Child Custody Act 1987 (and later that there was no legitimate basis to the totality of such court ordure). If there was a due process of registration (and there was none) then I was listed as the Respondent to the process under the 1987 Act, but the documents prove (or the facts show) that I was not aware of that process – my name is NOT listed on any of “the eight documents” or the letters sent to Mrs Holmes telling her that orders had been registered (when they had not been so registered). How was I the respondent? – I wasn't!

What should have happened, and what still needs to happen, is that the Isle of Man needs to complain furiously to England – what part of England you need to complain to is up to you – there is a Crown Office in the Cabinet Office under the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary, although David Doyle is lecturing to the Oxford union about how great justice is in the Isle of Man when he did not know a “divorce proceeding” from a children matter in 2007! You could tell the truth to the Oxford Union – the truth that Doyle is incompetent.

Your argument that “this has been litigated” has no sway – because ALL actions by people in public authority in the Isle of Man have been tainted by an allegation by another idiotic judge, this time in England, that “the father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such takes place in the Isle of Man.” There is nothing in the Children Act 1989 that allows for an ADULT to have “section 8 contact” in another jurisdiction. The tree was poisoned before Williamson got hold of the matter, and listed it as a Divorce (application / proceeding): [Mr] Holmes versus [Mrs] Holmes and then listed the registration process as between Mrs Holmes and no-one! That was a further poisoning of the tree. The Chief Registrar should have been the “respondent” to the review in the Staff of Government Division because section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987 begins “When the Chief Registrar [which shall include a the Assistant Chief Registrar and a Deputy Assistant Chief Registrar – see Interpretation in the High Court Act 1991] receives a certified copy of -2-

a custody order” and not “when a member of the public applies for orders to be registered.” Mrs Holmes should NOT have been the Respondent to the so-called appeal – and I was not the respondent to the registration process because the socalled registration was not disclosed to me – have you heard the term “disclosure”?

It is the CONDUCT of Doyle, Corlett, Williamson, Roberts, Melton, and Tattersall that I am complaining about, and now I must include the CONDUCT of the Lt. Governor in my letters complaint because he too treated me unfairly, contrary to law (the Human Rights Act 2001, section 6). And as legal advisors to “government” and the Governor, the law officers (AG and the “new” SG) have also shown contempt for the law and support for incompetence in the judiciary, those mentioned above and also King and Sullivan.

I refer you to the court ordure excreted by Andrew Corlett in FAM 2010/312. He stated in paragraph 2 of the “judgement” of 5th August 2016 that – It is necessary, as Mrs Unsworth pointed out today, to pay attention to the protracted history of this matter which goes back to the original Ancillary Relief Order which was made following a hearing, and a reasoned judgment which I gave at the time. The order itself is dated 11th July 2012. In value short, that order provided that the former matrimonial home, 2 Horseshoe Avenue, Saddlestone, Douglas (the "Property") be sold forthwith at a price which may be agreed by the parties, or in default of agreement be set by the count. Mrs Fletcher was to receive 100% of the net equity following the sale, the purpose of that being that she would apply the proceeds of sale towards the purchase of a suitable property as a home for herself and the two children of the marriage. The property would then be held by Mrs Fletcher in her sole name subject to a charge in favour of Mr Fletcher for 50% of the equity in the property.

In accordance with the draft attached to the order, the charge would be realisable on various trigger events, the most relevant probably of which is the children attaining the age of 18 years or ceasing full time education.

Corlett thinks that the Government wants to take a house of a citizen, and give 100% of the proceeds to a former resident of a former Soviet Republic who has become an internet bride. The advocate for Lia Gulverdashvili stated a few weeks later – Furthermore, there is no requirement for Mrs Fletcher and the Children to remain on the Isle of Man, and therefore (subject to an Order of the Court permitting Mrs Fletcher to remove the Children from the Isle of Man) Mrs Fletcher could move somewhere she is able to get more for money.

Say Mrs Fletcher was given £180,000 from the sale of a house belonging to Jonathan Fletcher, and she took that money to England or Georgia, how would the divine Andrew Corlett ensure that the 50% equity which would be Jonathan's was realisable on a trigger event? He could not do so, because Manx “orders” do not extend to England or Georgia.

I have frequently described Andrew Corlett as “an idiot” and it is my right to hold this opinion about the former Deputy Deemster – who refused to close a file that had miraculously re-opened in 2005 after Williamson ordered that an Application “be and is hereby dismissed” on 1st July 2004, when there is NOTHING of legal value in the totality of file DIV 2004/144 or FD/UK/COR/04/02 or DIV 2007/251! I stand by my right to hold that opinion and state it politely and without prejudice.

To further complain about Corlett, note that he recorded that I have “an agenda” with regard to the judiciary and that is true – I want to see competence, not a return to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries when “the Two” just made it up as they went along and called it bowel law or some such twaddle – law held in the bowels of the -3-

Deemsters.

In the Isle of Man there is rule by court order whether the order is lawful or not, and in matters relating to children all orders are “dubious.” In my opinion, to call any Private law order from the Family Business section of Corlett's kangaroo court questionable is to overstate the actuality of such: nonsense, rubbish or “bollocks” would be more apt, and to call ATK Corlett stupid would be insulting to stupid people.

So continue to do nothing and put the future of the Isle of Man in jeopardy because HM Government may notice that justice has failed in the Isle of Man and bring in HMG. I wish! There is not the rule of law in the Isle of Man because the law is now in Doyle's bowels.

Now I refer to the “enemies of the people” comment in the Daily Mail. The Mail alleged that the three judges are enemies of the people of “Britain” because they interpreted statute. If they had not intepreted statute, then they would have been incompetent idiots: but they are not – they actually read the Statute and interpreted it, in my opinion, correctly.

Had Theresa May wanted to use a backdoor to change the European Communities Act 1972 she should have asked David Doyle what to do.

The High Court Act 1991 used to have the following (source, David C. Doyle in Government and Law in the Isle of Man 1994) – Under Section 2 of the 1991 Act, the High Court has the following divisions (a) three civil divisions to be called: (i) the Chancery Division; (ii) the Common Law Division; and (iii) the Family Division, (referred to collectively as “the Civil Divisions”); (b) The Staff of Government Division (referred to in the 1991 Act as “the Appeal Division”).

The full title of the Act includes the phrase “to create a new division of the High Court to be called the Family Division,” but the Family Division no longer exists – the Rules of the High Court 2009 have changed the Act and therefore the constitution of the High Court such that there is now only the Civil Division. And the Act has changed so that ONLY the Deemsters need to create or abolish Divisions of the High Court. The Rules were “laid before Tynwald,” a parliament with no legally qualified people in its membership, in June 2009, just before Tynwald Day, and probably “passed” immediately because no-one read them! It was not the wish of Tynwald to allow Deemsters to change the Act or the constitution of the High Court; Doyle and Kerruish snuck in a back door.

The “rules” in the Chancery Division used to be those of Equity; and it has been essential for the welfare of children that since 1 st April 1992 the Family Division was ruled by Statute and not by ordure common law: but in the new civil division, bowel law is the only type of law (which is outlawry) tolerated. Doyle could create a new division called the “Deal with critics Division” or the “deny free speech division” – the SGD has become a Division where human rights are “subjective” and the Chambers of HM Attorney General has become an office to protect outlawry at all costs. Law has failed in the Isle of Man civil court.

-4-

If ALL THE PEOPLE knew that from 1 st September 2002 to 6th January 2008 EVERY order relating to a children matter issued from the Family Division was not “what the Act required” (was not in fact lawful), there should be an outcry like that of the Telegraph, Mail, Express, and the Sun – such as “Deemsters are enemies of the people.”

In 2009 MLR 112 (missing from https://www.judgments.im/content/J906.htm) we find –

Held, adjourning the application to strike out: (1) Mr Holmes might well have a cause of action in negligence against the General Registry, so that, if he thought fit, he could amend his current petition of doleance to plead negligence on the part of the General Registry; and his petition of doleance could then continue on the basis that it was making a claim for a declaration of unlawfulness combined with a claim for damages, such claims being permissible under s 44 of the High Court Act 1991 (para 26).

The NEGLIGENCE was not, initially, on the part of the General Registry, but on the part of Deputy Deemster AK Williamson. And before that on the part of Judges Nuttall and Forrester IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION: the jurisdiction of England & Wales (but not Wales). What more do I need to persuade you to do Right and remedy the catalogue of wrongs.

I want to keep this as short as possible so I conclude with the allegation that Doyle and Corlett have become “enemies of the Manx people” because most actions by the Deemsters in the civil court are not supported by Acts of Tynwald. The future for the judiciary, and consequently of the legal “profession,” in “Devil's Island” is not good for outlawry rules in the Isle of Man because of the incompetence (and therefore misconduct) of D1 and D2. This was preceded by total misconduct, in fact pure outlawry, by AK Williamson – the worst Manx Deemster ever! Given the Deemster's ridiculous “oath,” it was outrageous that “no fair criticism” was made of this childrights-abusing, unpleasant, contemptible person.

I will not rest until RIGHT is done in the matter of The Deemsters versus Katie and Ben Holmes (Children) which ran from 2nd April 2004 to date and is still contunuing because, although equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy, no remedy is forthcoming from the “Crown.”

Regards,

Stephen Holmes

published on issuu.com

-5-