Petition of Right of Stephen Holmes 24/01/02

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

Petition of Right IN THE MATTER of the BILL OF RIGHTS 1688 Between: Petitioner: Stephen Holmes, B.Sc. and: The Queen (Governor Mr Adam Wood, the Queen's representative) Noticed parties: First Deemster Doyle, Second Deemster Corlett, Attorney General (Responsible parties: Andrew K. Williamson, W. John Corlett, T. Michael Moyle, Sir Tim King, Geoffrey Tattersall, David C. Doyle, Linda Sullivan, Andrew Corlett, Stephen Harding, Paul Haddock, G. Nuttall, R.M. Forrester) Date:

24th January 2012

The BILL OF RIGHTS 1688 is the Act of Parliament (made under the reign of William & Mary) that allows a citizen to claim from the Crown by a Petition of Right. It is – AN ACT DECLAREING THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE SUBJECT AND SETLEING THE SUCCESSION OF THE CROWNE. The fifth Right at the second section is: That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegal. (spelt with double LL)

The Bill extends to the Isle of Man: it is in the Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man (published by the Attorney General's Chambers in 2003) [and also on issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/

(there are several relevant documents on this site)]

In the Chronological Table of 2003 we find the following :– -1-

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Year 1679

HABEAS CORPUS ACT 1679 (31 Car 2 c.2)

Year 1688

CORONATION OATH ACT 1688 (1 W & M c.6)

Trade with France (1 W & M c.34)

Bill of Rights 1688

r. SLR 1867*

BILL OF RIGHTS 1688 (chapter 2 1 William & Mary sess. 2) Year 1689

CROWN AND PARLIAMENT RECOGNITION ACT 1689 (2 W. & M. c.1)

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 now allows a citizen to sue the Crown in the UK. Before 1947, in the UK, a citizen could sue the Crown under the BILL OF RIGHTS 1688 by Petition of Right. The CPA 1947 does not extend to the Isle of Man. The most famous precedent case is Archer-Shee versus Rex in 1910, immortalized in the play and motion-picture The Winslow Boy (Terrance Rattigan 1946). See Appendix 1.

The nature of my claim and its similarity to Archer-Shee versus Rex. On 28th May 2004 an unlawful action took place in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT – four documents were produced that all began in the following manner:– ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987 Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom GENERAL REGISTRY FILE REFERENCE

FD/UK/COR/04/02 (& DIV 2004/144)

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT

KN03P0016

1. APPLICANTS NAME:

YVONNE HOLMES

2. APPLICANTS ADDRESS:

Cambrai, Droghadfayle Road, Port Erin

3. APPLICANTS INTEREST UNDER THE ORDERS

Mother

Two documents ended in the following manner (two documents recorded other TERMS):–

8. TERMS OF ORDERS:

Yvonne Holmes to remove the child from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently

9. DATE OF ORDERS:

24th February 2004

10. COURT WHICH MADE THE ORDERS:

Lancaster County Court

11. DATE: i) Application filed:

2nd April 2004

ii) Order(s) registered

28th May 2004

-2-

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

iii) Notice of registration sent to Court which 28th May 2004 made the Order(s) iv) Notice of registration sent to Applicant J. Williams (signed)

28th May 2004

ASSISTANT CHIEF REGISTRAR

1. The documents purported to record the “registration” of a custody order made by a County Court in Lancaster in England under sections 7, 12, and 20(1)(c) of the Child Custody Act 1987 (an obsolete Act of Tynwald). No registration actually took place.

2. Assistant Chief Registrar Jayne Williams was directed and supervised by an officer of the Crown, Deputy Deemster Andrew K. Williamson and assisted by Mrs Jacqui Brogan.

3. An officer of the Crown (who had sworn to “execute the laws of this Isle justly”) authorized an officer of the court to produce four false documents that purported to record something when that action had not taken place.

4. On 1st July 2004 Andrew Williamson presided over a hearing and was corrupt and malicious but he had jurisdiction to dismiss the application in front of him.

5. On 5th November 2004 Andrew Williamson issued a false declaration and ordered that his false declaration be sent to the Police and a Headmaster at a local Isle of Man school.

6. On 26th October 2007 the Staff of Government Division judged that “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the [declaratory] order that he did,” on 5th November 2004 and quashed or set-aside the “false” order in its entirety. It also set-aside paragraph 4 of another declaration of 16/11/2005.

7. The result of the false declaration of 5th November 2004 was that it alleged the only “contact” I could enjoy with my Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes was “indirect” and therefore my Manx children were denied their right to any sort of family life with me for the next three years. It was obvious to anybody with a knowledge of the Convention (the European Convention on Human Rights) or the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 or the Family Law Act 1991 or even the Child Custody Act 1987 that the registrations were false and the declaration was abusive to natural rights of citizens (subjects of the Crown).

8. In the matter of Archer-Shee versus Rex the “Lords of the” Admiralty, as officers of the crown, had judged that young George Archer-Shee had stolen and forged a signature on a

-3-

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

5/- postal order and the boy was dismissed from naval college.

9. In the matter of Stephen Holmes versus Regina the “crown judicial and legal officers” have backed the decision of an ignorant right-abusing sloth on the erroneous assumption that “The crown can do no wrong in law” when the crown officer acted unlawfully.

10. The “tree was poisoned” on 28th May 2004 by Assistant Chief Registrar Jayne Williams (now Mrs Farquhar) under the direction, supervision and instruction of Andrew K. Williamson, and with the assistance of Deemster's Clerk. The rule of the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree is a well-known legal rule – once primary evidence is determined to have been illegally obtained any secondary evidence following from it may also not be used. It follows that if an action is false (such as the purported registration on 28th May 2004) then all subsequent actions based on that false action are unsafe and may also not be used.

11. On 1st April 2011 Deemster Andrew Corlett said: “I would also like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor His Honour Andrew Williamson who bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division and from whom I learned a great deal during our hand over period.” Williamson became Deputy Deemster on 1st September 2002 and he did indeed “run and manage” the Family Division of the High Court until he retired on 6th January 2008 after a twenty year career as a judge. I have no experience of his abilities in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction until 31st August 2002, but I know he was an ignorant sloth in the civil court for 5¼ years. He destroyed the Holmes family on 5th November 2004 and the Holmes family has never recovered. A partial recovery took place at the end of 2007, but during the period 10th March 2008 to 31st December 2008 David Doyle became involved in the case of Andrew Williamson versus Stephen Holmes (given reference DIV 2004/144 & FD/UK/COR/04/02).

12. Every officer of the Crown who has entered the fray (and this includes Judge of Appeal Geoffrey Tattersall, Michael Moyle, Andrew Corlett, John Corlett and David Doyle) has acted on the assumption that Williamson acted in good faith on 5th November 2004 and that it was the Courts Administration that was to blame for the erroneous and unlawful registrations of 28th May and 4th November 2004, but in actual fact it was Williamson who authorized the unlawful action because he had not read and did not understand the Child Custody Act 1987. A judge did not understand an Act of Tynwald!

13. In October 2006 Acting Deemster Tim King commented on the matter stating that I was

-4-

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

“disgruntled” with a matrimonial dispute, when I was, in fact, disgusted that a document purporting to be a Children Act 1989 section 8 contact order had become the “law” in the Isle of Man (when it was not the law). Tim King did not know what he was doing.

14. On 15th December 2005 Michael Moyle said that he was sure the Deputy Deemster knows what he is doing – he did not. Micheal Moyle treated me very badly.

15. In the judgement issued on 26th October 2007, just ten-days short of three-years after the unlawful declaration was made by the sloth Williamson, the judges made three or four basic and stupid errors (like describing the United Kingdom as a jurisdiction). They declined to criticize Williamson, in my opinion because he was retiring on 6th January 2008, just ten weeks later, so they did not want to damn his twenty year career. Criticism of Williamson should have been made and he should have been held accountable for the destruction of the family life of young Manx children because of his incompetence in the interpretation of civil law during 2004 AND 2005 (right up to 30th November 2005).

16. David Doyle assumed that the “orders” from England were valid at the end of 2007 and on 10th March 2008 he did not make an order “that required Mrs Holmes to allow the children to visit or stay with me”.

17. In May 2008 Acting Deemster Linda Sullivan stated that “access” and “contact” were the same thing – she is insane. In the Isle of Man the definition of the concept of an adult having access to a child was contained in the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 and the concept of contact was first defined in the Family Law Act 1991 that became enacted on 19th March 1991. The old concept applied to an adult, the new concept applies to a child.

18. On 13th January 2009 Oliver Helfrich (an Advocate in “HM” Attorney General's chambers) said in court that Mr Holmes “alleged” there was an unlawful process prior to the hearing on 5th November 2004 to which Andrew Corlett said; “But it was an unlawful process,” and he emphasized the word “was”. The actions of 28th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 were unlawful, and therefore the declaration of 5th November 2004 was false. The “tree” was indeed poisoned on 28th May 2004 and at least six officers of the Crown have adopted the position of the Lords of the Admiralty in 1908 and 1909; that the crown can do no wrong in law when the crown is responsible for wrong-doing.

19. In his judgement of 20th January 2009 Andrew Corlett wrote that anybody wishing to research the rules involving a “registration” of a custody order would find them “virtually -5-

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

impossible to find.” This is not so; they are readily obtainable from the Tynwald library, as is the Child Custody Act 1987, and in the judgement of 26th October 2007 no mention is made of the rules – the Statutory Framework section concerns just sections 6, 7, 9 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987, but no mention is made of sections 20 and 21 or schedule 1 of that Act. Andrew Corlett did not know what he was talking about.

20. Andrew Corlett wrote to J.J. Wild in March 2009 and described me as a “litigant in person” when I am a Petitioner and he stated that I was represented by Mr Paul Beckett, “Mr Becket appearing as amicus Curiae.” An amicus cannot represent the Court and a party at the same time.

21. Some time ago I was reviewing David Doyle's twenty-one “rules” of Natural Justice contained in Government and Law in the Isle of Man by Mark Solly (published in 1994) and I found the rule of “the fruit of the poisoned tree.” I checked the section on the Ali Daghir affair in London in 1991/2 and found the paper by Geoffrey Robertson QC Entrapment Evidence: Manna from Heaven or Fruit of the Poisoned Tree.

It now

seems clear that David Doyle has no clue of this doctrine.

22. The Law is constantly evolving; the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is introduced as AN ACT to re-enact Parts 1 and 2 of the Family Law Act 1991 and to reform the law relating to children (and for connected purposes); whatever the legislation was BEFORE 19th March 1991, when the FLA 1991 became enacted, is irrelevant – the LAW changed.

The statute changed again on 11th July 2001 when the CYPA 2001 became enacted. But the crucial date was 19th March 1991; the date the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 was repealed by the Family Law Act 1991 and the terms “custody” and “access” and “care and control” (orders made by Courts with regard to parents or guardians of children) were removed from statute and ceased to exist. About a year later the act of sodomy or buggery was decriminalized; before 1992 it was a crime to commit buggery; after 1992 it was not a crime. In one of the two chapters David Doyle contributed to the book by Mark Solly in 1994, he mentions the decriminalization of buggery three times, but makes NO mention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that was ratified in 1990.

23. David Doyle has obviously swallowed poisoned fruit because on 14th December 2011 he described the use of the doctrine of ultra vires (the fruit of the poisoned tree is inextricably linked to the doctrine of ultra vires) as “colourful language”. Use of the “f-word” might be construed as colourful. It is all-right for a QC to use a legal analogy; but the First -6-

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

Deemster mocked its use by an abused and oppressed “subject”.

24. I state again; the tree was poisoned on 28th May 2004 despite what David Doyle might have thought on 14th December 2011. David Doyle has “judged in his own cause” as did Williamson, as did Tim King, as did Mike Kerruish and Geoffrey Tattersall, as did Linda Sullivan, as did Andrew Corlett and even Michael Moyle. Former AG John Corlett was “clueless”. Williamson should have been barred from acting as a judge for what he did.

25. ALL the four documents issued on 28th May 2004 and signed by ASSISTANT CHIEF REGISTRAR Jayne Williams are false, because the “orders” could not actually be registered under sections 7 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987. The Child Custody Act 1987 used to allow for the registration of so-called custody orders that were defined in section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament). The law is a moving target, and there appeared to be a level of reciprocity between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom (and vice versa) between the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 and the Family Law Act 1986 – the Child Custody Act 1987 amended the law with regard to the “custody of a child” – a court could make a “custody order” about a parent having custody of a child. Any reciprocity ended on 14th October 1991.

26. Andrew Williamson was appointed Deputy High Bailiff on 6th January 1988, less than four weeks after the Child Custody Act 1987 was enacted. He probably heard the CCA 1987 promulgated at Tynwald in July 1988.

27. There were huge changes in law in 1989-1991 (changes of which Williamson was unaware).

28. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was passed in 1989 and ratified in 1990. The Children Act 1989 was passed in late 1989, (for England & Wales only), but it was not until 14th October 1991 that it became law in the combined jurisdiction. The Children (Scotland) Act was not passed until 1995. Tynwald passed the Family Law Act 1991 on 19th March 1991, so that by the end of 1991 in both the Isle of Man and in England & Wales the legal terms of an adult having “custody of a child” or “access to a child” or “care and control” were removed from statute. Section 8 of the CA 1989 and section 9 of the FLA 1991 (in the Isle of Man) were almost identical, differing by just a few words, but both headed Orders with respect to children.

29. There was no registration on 28th May 2004. It was not “proper” and therefore did not -7-

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

happen, indeed it could not happen. There was not even a “due process” followed for the supposed registration by the Assistant Chief Registrar! The application letter sent by Mrs Yvonne Holmes to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson on 2nd April 2004 specifically asked for the documents from England headed Children Act 1989 to be registered in the Isle of Man, and the Clerk would have asked Williamson what to do with the letter and photocopied documents. Section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987 begins “Where the Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order made by a Court in any part of the United Kingdom” and section 20(1)(c) states that a custody order is defined in section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament) – no mention is made in the CCA 1987 of contact orders or specific issue orders made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 because the CA 1989 was a future Act when the CCA 1987 was passed.

30. Compare the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 2001. The latter is for the Isle of Man only and the former is for the United Kingdom. The HRA 1998 cannot bind the Isle of Man and the HRA 2001 cannot bind Scotland or England & Wales. A further clue is in the naming of children’s legislation – the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is for Scotland and the Children (Northern Ireland) 1995 is not for Scotland or England & Wales (or the Isle of Man). The CYPA 2001 is for the Isle of Man only.

31. In 2006 I received a recording of the hearing in the Family Division of the High Court where Williamson first made a decision on a children’s matter.

He dismissed an

application (he wrote IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be and is hereby dismissed) which he could do because the default under the CYPA 2001 is to NOT make any order unless “the Court” considers that making an order is better than making no order at all. But his reasons were suspect – he had eaten his own rotten fruit.

32. At the start of a hearing on 1st July 2004 he mumbled some words; it took considerable concentration to understand what he said; it was “Let me get up to speed on this.”

33. There was a wait of a minute-and-a-half; about 95 seconds before Williamson “piped-up” again. “What am I being asked to do here good people?”

34. He allowed no answer to this stupid question; he continued with the allegation (a blind assumption) “You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event.”

-8-

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

35. In Williamson's deluded mind, it “appeared” that court orders from Lancaster, England had been “registered” (on 28th May 2004) but in actual fact they had not been registered and could not be registered because the Child Custody Act 1987 only allowed for the registration of section 1 Family Law Act 1986 orders not for section 8 Children Act 1989 orders, and the CA 1989 is not in the Chronological Table, so it does not apply in the Island.

36. Here is the sequence of unlawful events in 2004.

37. On 24th February 2004 the Lancaster County Court relinquished jurisdiction over children Katie and Ben Holmes by stating (retrospectively) that the children could be removed to the Isle of Man permanently.

38. On 2nd April 2004 Mrs Yvonne Holmes wrote an informal letter to Williamson via his clerk, Mrs Brogan, asking that “orders” be “registered”.

39. On 18th May 2004 I made application to the Court for a section 11 CYPA 2001 “residence order”. File DIV 2004/144 was opened for proceeding under the CYPA 2001.

40. On 28th May 2004 Assistant Chief Registrar, supervised by Williamson, unlawfully registered the two CA 1989 orders in the High Court although due process had NOT been followed. Reference number was FD/UK/COR/04/02, but the Court office and Williamson linked the two unrelated proceedings together; one was under the CYPA 2001 and the other (unlawfully) supposedly under the CCA 1987.

41. On 1st July 2004 Williamson ordered “dismissed” the Application of 18th May 2004.

42. On 27th October 2004 judge Gordon Nuttall purportedly made a section 8 Children Act 1989 contact order about Katie and Ben Holmes who had already left the jurisdiction.

43. On 4th November 2004, assistant chief registrar Jayne Williams issued four false documents purportedly recording the registration of the CA 1989 contact order despite none of the requirements for a successful registration being followed.

44. On 5th November 2005 I wrote a letter to the Chief Registrar complaining that it “appeared” the Isle of Man had become part of the United Kingdom.

Williamson

immediately scheduled a hearing so that he could “lay down the law.” That hearing was at 14:10 in the afternoon. I asked an advocate to “appear” for me. He knew nothing.

45. In April 2011 the advocate who had represented me in Court on 5th November 2004 sent -9-

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

me a transcript of the hearing on 5th November 2004. The whole transcript is available on issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/ Mr Kevin O'Riordan was “an officer of the Court” during the hearing. Here is how the hearing began:– AKW Now, I’ve got Mrs Holmes?

MrsH Yes AKW Yes. And Mr Holmes – you appear – do you Mr O’Riordan?

KOR Yes, whether I’m going to remain on the record is another thing but I’m certainly appearing this afternoon.

AKW Right, thank you. Right well it was from Mrs Holmes that first I heard today and then subsequently I’ve heard from Mr Holmes and I will do what I can to assist. Mr Holmes seems to take issue with orders made in the Lancaster County Court (which have been registered, one back in May, and a more recent variation of that registered here yesterday); where do we go from there? Those Orders are binding.

KOR Your Honour I don’t know what has led to this afternoon’s hearing procedurally. I have spoken to Mr Holmes on the telephone on a number of occasions months back when he was asking for general advice I tried to give him some general pointers. I then had him arrive at my office a few minutes ago so I had the benefit of about 5 minutes of instructions before coming up here this afternoon. From what I know of the case - I have no paperwork – I think this is very akin to the situation we have had in another case Mrs C and Mr G AKW Yes (AKW is Andrew K Williamson, Deputy Deemster at the time. KOR is Kevin O'Riordan.)

46. O'Riordan breached the duty of care to his client – his actions were completely unethical.

47. At the end of the hearing on 5th November 2004 Andrew Williamson issued a false instrument – a document that “looked like” a court declaratory order, but a document that had no legitimate basis because the actions on which it was based, the “registrations” were in themselves unlawful. But on 5th November 2004, when Kevin was my counsel and had an ethical duty to represent me competently and within the law, Williamson said that “orders” from Lancaster had “been registered; one back in May, and a more recent variation of that registered here yesterday” when, in fact, no registration had taken place - 10 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

OR COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE, my counsel did not dispute the validity of the actions of the sloth Williamson, in fact Williamson was encouraged by Counsel.

48. On 1st September 2002 a disaster happened in the Isle of Man – Andrew Williamson was made Deputy Deemster; a decision maker in the civil court – called the High Court. He acted in one of the three divisions; common law, chancery or Family, and according to Andrew Corlett, he virtually ran the Family Division BUT HE KNEW NO CIVIL LAW! He had worked with common (criminal) law for 14¾ years – he should not have sent ANY civil court orders to the Police but he did so throughout his career in the civil court.

49. The transcript of the hearing on 5th November 2004 shows just how stupid Williamson was; he even laughed when he said, “It possibly is but again I sympathise; I don’t expect every primary school headmaster or indeed every constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is. So that’s the way I would be prepared to accept the undertaking myself rather than prohibitive steps.”

50. I would have expected the decision maker to study the Child Custody Act (1987) and read the Act before blindly accepting that a supposed Section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact” order could become registered in the Isle of Man under that Act. 51. For the next 27 months I tried to establish exactly HOW a section 8 Children Act 1989 order from England could become a section 11 CYPA 2001 order in the Isle of Man and nobody answered this question; Williamson had declared the “fork to be a spoon” on 5th November 2004 and no-matter how stupid his declaration was (he stated that the only access I could have to my own children was “indirect,” thereby contravening Article 8 of the Convention and depriving children of their right to a family life with their father), most people (especially Crown servants) accepted that he had acted correctly. There was no legitimacy to Williamson's declaration of 5th November 2004 – it was outlawry. He personally continued to oppress me for the next 12½ months, judging in his own cause.

52. Eventually, at the end of February 2007, I received a letter from a member of the Civil Summary Team telling me the THREE criteria for a successful “registration” of an “order” from Lancaster County Court and I KNEW that two or three of those criteria had not been followed, therefore the supposed registration of 4th November 2004 was improper and therefore Williamson's declaration was defective and had to be set-aside. Instead of convening a Family Division hearing or asking Williamson to set-aside his own unlawful

- 11 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

declaration, the First Deemster stepped-in and allocated a proceeding in the Staff of Government Division; a case ran from 19th March 2007 to 30th October 2007 with a judgement issued and handed-down on Friday 26th October 2007. The crucial phrase in this judgement is “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did,” on 5th November 2004.

53. The “declaratory order” issued by Williamson on 5th November 2004 (assisted by the idiot Kevin O'Riordan) had no legitimacy – it was a false declaration, and the sloth ordered that it be sent to the Police and a headmaster at Rushen Primary School. The declaration of 5 th November 2004 was effectively a “policy document” and it was one that ensured Manx children had no family life with their Manx father and the Manx father had no family life or privacy with his own children – in fact the Police were called on a number of occasions when I was in a public place where my children were playing – the criminal justice system became involved because Williamson used to be High Bailiff.

54. Williamson had asked the Governor (Captain Haddock) if he could retire on 6th January 2008, twenty years after he started as a servant of the crown in the Isle of Man. When the hearing was eventually scheduled to consider setting aside the defective declaration of 5th November 2004, Williamson had three months left to serve; his “crown colleagues” could not see the ignorant rights-abusing sloth damned because he had destroyed one family in 2004. Just before they wrote “no legitimate basis” the two judges in the court of appeal made one of the biggest cover-up statements in Manx legal history “No fair criticism may be made of the Deputy Deemster”.

55. This is what happens when “poisoned fruit is eaten.” It is self-evident – the Children Act 1989 orders from England were not the “right type” of orders to be registered – in fact there is no “vehicle” under which a Section 8 contact order can actually be registered in the Isle of Man. Jayne Williams even wrote that a “Leave to remove a child from UK” order had be registered on 28th May 2004 under the child CUSTODY act. Nothing made sense after 28th May 2004, and all the “players” were stupid, corrupt and ignorant.

56. Because it was a judge who had poisoned the tree, all and sundry in the legal “profession” in the Isle of Man “fell over themselves” to abide by the unlawful terms of the defective declaration of 5th November 2004, and those who gorged on rotten fruit include High Bailiff Michael Moyle, Chief Constable Mike Culverhouse, Governor Paul Haddock, Chief Secretary Mary Williams, Attorney General John Corlett, advocates Walter - 12 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

Wannenburgh and Kevin O'Riordan and Acting Deemsters Tim King and Linda Sullivan.

57. Having read “The Winslow Boy” I was struck by the similarity to the “case” started by Andrew Williamson on 5th November 2004 and Archer-Shee versus Rex in 1910.

58. The Establishment in the Isle of Man, especially “the Crown,” has acted with total inflexibility and in a corrupt manner I have no objection to the Staff of Government Division attaching no criticism of Williamson because he was retiring in a couple of months, but I object to the lack of accountability for the decision. The SOGD effectively “blamed” the High Court Office, and sole blame can therefore be put at the hands of the officer of the court who signed four false documents on 28th May 2004; Assistant Chief Registrar Jayne Williams. But Williamson knew all about the letter of 2nd April 2004 because it was addressed to his clerk, and under the High Court Act 1991 the Chief Registrar includes the Assistant Chief Registrar and a Deputy Assistant Chief Registrar who are officers of the Court and officers of the court are directed and supervised by the First Deemster unless he or she is attached to a particular Deemster. First Deemster Mike Kerruish would have had no knowledge of the actions on 28th May 2004, whereas Williamson would have been responsible for authorizing the events of that black day. The trouble with officers of the Crown is that once one of them writes something down, no matter how stupid it is, every other officer thinks it is “gospel”. Williamson clearly said “Those orders are binding” on 5th November 2004 but those orders were NOT binding.

The Staff of Government Division judges made some appalling blunders in their judgement of 26th October 2007 including describing the United Kingdom as “a jurisdiction”. Making no fair criticism of Williamson was a blunder that enabled David Doyle to act like an ass on 14th December 2011, and knowing that he has left his decision almost impossible to appeal, he too has ensured that Williamson is considered blameless in the outright abuse of the rights of my children and the oppression of your Petitioner.

59. All that will have to change with the Review because of this Petition of Right.

60. Williamson didn't read the Child Custody Act 1987; King thought I was disgruntled with a matrimonial matter (I was furious that the Deputy Deemster had bound the Isle of Man with an ultra vires document form England), Deemster Kerruish and judge Tattersall thought the “orders” were binding in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom (without referring to English Statute) – almost as stupid as judge Gordon Nuttall stating “The Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom” on 29th October 2003. Linda Sullivan thought that - 13 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

it was called access before 1989 (actually it was 1991) and contact after and they were “the same thing” – which is like saying burglary and buggery are the same because they begin BU have a G as the fourth letter and end RY. Andrew Corlett wrote some stupid stuff in January and March 2009 and then David Doyle “put the boot in” on 14th December 2011.

61. And when the end is nearer So long for others sought, Then sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Kipling 1899.

62. David Doyle could have dismissed my Petition of Doleance in October 2011, but he dragged out the matter until 14th December 2011 before siding with Williamson, King, Sullivan and Corlett and describing a perfectly valid legal analogy as “colourful”. He is a named party now, so he cannot hear this Petition.

63. From 5th November 2004 onwards the “soulless oligarchy” called the judiciary in the Isle of Man (assisted by the Attorney General and many advocates) bulldozed over the rights of a father and his children, and that rights abuse continued for 155 weeks (ten days short of three years) or 1085 days.

64. The Crown destroyed my family, Mr Wood, just as surely as the Crown expelled George Archer-Shee – Andrew Williamson should have read the Child Custody Act 1987 in May 2004 instead of blindly instructing Jayne Williams to “register” documents in the Isle of Man that may was well have said “It is declared that Stephen Holmes do be considered an orang-utan in the Isle of Man”. What the sloth in England wrote on 24th February 2004 is the most ultra vires statement in legal history (!) that the father do have reasonable “contact” with his children provided such takes place outside the jurisdiction of the County Court of England! Under children's statute in England & Wales the rule is “habitual residence founds jurisdiction”. The county court in England instructed that Mrs Holmes and our Manx children Katie and Ben could remove themselves from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently, and that instruction was supposedly registered in the Island. Until 24th February 2004 the Court in England could have argued that it retained jurisdiction over Manx children Katie and Ben because applications had been processed by Kendal County Court. But after 24th February 2004, only an ignorant sloth would assume the county court in England could retain jurisdiction over Manx children Ben and Katie after “leave” had been retrospectively granted to remove the Manx children to the Isle of Man permanently.

- 14 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

65. Once one “crown officer” acted unlawfully, (in the Island) the Attorney General and his “team” endorsed the unlawful action, Michael Moyle (High Bailiff) assumed that Williamson knew what he was doing, and all officers of the crown backed Williamson “to the hilt”. Williamson actually authorized the abuse of the rights of Manx children on 5th November 2004 and that policy of abuse, endorsed by a man who swore an Oath to the crown and swore to execute the laws of this Isle justly, continued until the end of October 2007. And since then, not one officer of the crown has criticized the rights-abusing sloth.

66. This matter is very similar to Archer-Shee versus Rex – this is Stephen Holmes versus Regina under Bill of Rights 1688, and like Edward Carson, I need the permission of the Attorney General to sue the Crown in the Isle of Man and two of the culpable parties are David Doyle and Andrew Corlett and the previous Attorney General John Corlett. John Corlett should have done something positive in 2006 but he had “gorged on rotten fruit.”

67. The law is not an ass; especially the reforming Children and Young Persons Act 2001 and the Human Rights Act 2001; even the Child Custody Act 1987 is not an ass, but it is the interpretation of law (of statute) that is the ass – the idiot; only an idiot would interpret “father have indirect contact with the children” as “an order that requires the parent with who a child lives to allow the child to visit or stay with the other parent.” It appears that no officer of the crown has actually read the CYPA 2001.

68. Only an ass or an idiot would read Section 8 Children Act 1989 and think section 1 Family Law Act 1986; Andrew Williamson was that idiot!

Note that there is NO procedure under the “Rules of the High Court 2009” for how to Petition under the Bill of Rights 1688, so this as the formal Petition to have my Rights restored by the Crown because the officers of the entity that is the Crown in the Isle of Man has abused them for too long – since 5th November 2004 to be precise. The event that started the rot was the unlawful registration of 28th May 2004, made by the “team” Williamson (an officer of the Crown), Williams and Mrs Jacqhi Brogan. If Williamson had actually studied the Child Custody Act 1987 in the period 2nd April 2004 to 28th May 2004, then NONE of the events in the autumn of 2004, or throughout 2005, or through 2006 or into 2007 or in 2008, 2009 and 2011 would have happened and I would NOT be using a Petition of Right to embarrass the Crown in 2012.

- 15 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

Review and Remedies It is necessary for an independent decision maker to thoroughly review (a “judicial review”) the events in the Isle of Man High Court from 2nd April 2004 to 4th November 2004 and confirm that there was no legitimacy to any of the actions except the dismissal of the Application of 18th May 2004. All events between March 2005 and 30th December 2005 must be thoroughly reviewed because the decision maker who considered matters during 2005 was the decision maker (Williamson) who had unlawfully issued the declaration of 5th November 2004.

The involvement of John Corlett, Michael Moyle and Governor Captain Paul Haddock and especially the incompetent and negligent Tim King during late 2005 and until October 2006 must also be reviewed.

The actions of the negligent Linda Sullivan must be reviewed – (‘access’ and ‘contact’ are the same thing!)

The ONLY conclusion can be that the Crown was negligent when it appointed Williamson on 1st September 2002 and that negligence was manifested in the two-day-action on 4th and 5th November 2004; a document from England that could not bind the Isle of Man was unlawfully registered by an officer of the Court and then an officer of the Crown declared that the contents of that unlawfully registered document bound the Isle of Man (when they didn't) and he abused my rights and the rights of children and set in motion a set of events that continues to this day, and culminated in David Doyle talking about an “irrational obsession”. Williamson illegally, incompetently and negligently destroyed my family on 5th November 2004; he Contravened articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and ignored section 11 of the CYPA 2001 – he was and is a child-rights-abuser and a destroyer of families. All actions by officers of the Crown in the Isle of Man MUST BE REVIEWED. The following actions should take place – 1. The Child Custody Act 1987 must be repealed – it has no place in Island statute in 2012 and should have been repealed in 1991. A recommendation to Tynwald that the CCA 1987 be rescinded must be made.

2. Children's matters must be handled by the Deemsters correctly – a children's matter is - 16 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

re: the child – it must NOT be listed as Kramer versus Kramer. Children should have competent free representation in Isle of Man Courts; a children's matter is to determine a question with regard to the upbringing of a child–it should NOT be a dispute.

3. The officers of the Crown must learn the European Convention on Human Rights, contained in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 2001, and treat citizens accordingly.

The HRA 2001 is binding on the Crown. Williamson ignored the Convention.

4. The Chief Registrar must be made accountable to the Council of Ministers – at the moment he (as an officer of the Court) is directed and supervised by the First Deemster and therefore by “the Crown” - an entity (a soulless oligarchy) that thinks and acts as if it is above the law, especially if the reputation of one of its officers is at stake.

5. Some pecuniary compensation is desirable – I suggest compensation paid to me in the region of £500,000 – an amount well within the reach of the Crown. I was denied a family life by an unlawful document from 7th November 2004 to 26th October 2007; that is more than 2½ years of crown authorised rights abuse. £500,000 for 900 days of rights abuse and humiliation is reasonable when payments of £2000 per day are made.

I remain your “humble” Petitioner – note that I am NOT a litigant but a Petitioner, and I should be “unencumbered by legal formality”.

Yours &c,

Stephen Holmes B.Sc. I expect this Petition to be returned to me with the same comment that King Edward wrote on the foot of the precedent Petition of Right – “Let Right Be Done;” an independent and impartial and competent investigator must be appointed, and a hearing scheduled (or a settlement may be made “out of court”). Wrong was done on 28th May 2004, and a further devastating wrong was done on 5th November 2004 and for more than seven years the crown has acted like a soulless oligarchy.

LET RIGHT BE DONE (please initial this line)

- 17 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

Appendix 1.

The play The Winslow Boy is based on the real-life case brought by Martin Archer-Shee on behalf of his son George. The real advocate was Sir Edward Carson.

“In his crusade for a review of the decision to expel George, Carson found his path bestrewn with obstacles judiciously placed in the way of truth by the Lords of the Admiralty who were behaving with the total inflexibility that typifies Establishment behaviour when forced on to the back foot.

But Carson was not to be turned aside. Doggedly and brilliantly he fought his corner until, having exhausted all reasonable possibilities, he was forced to turn to the device of a Petition of Right to none other than the Admiralty’s “boss,” King Edward VII himself.

When the King appended the words “Let Right Be Done” to the Petition, Carson could at last proceed with a suit against the Naval College. On 30th July 1910, amid scenes of wild excitement both in the courtroom and outside on the streets of the capital, the Admiralty was forced to accept that George Archer-Shee had indeed been wrongfully dismissed from the College. At long last, right, albeit grudgingly, had been done.

By 1945 a war-weary British public was ready for a work based on the story of George ArcherShee, something far removed from the nightmare they’d just experienced. Terence Rattigan was just the man to give it to them. His “drama of injustice and of a little man’s dedication to setting things right” (Rattigan) struck just the right chord with audiences in 1946.

Act two begins: “The efforts of Mr. Arthur Winslow to secure a fair trial for his son have been thwarted at every turn by a soulless oligarchy.” This is dialogue from Act two – CATHERINE:

What is it: Petition of Right?

DESMOND:

Well, granting the assumption that the Admiralty, as the Crown, can do no wrong!

CATHERINE:

I thought that was exactly the assumption we refused to grant.

DESMOND:

In law, I mean. Now – er – a subject can sue the Crown nevertheless by Petition of Right.

CATHERINE:

Petition of Right? Yes?

DESMOND:

Redress being granted as a matter of grace and the custom is for the Attorney General on behalf of the Crown to endorse the Petition and allow

- 18 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

the case to come to court.

SIR ROBERT:

It is interesting to note that the exact words used on such occasions are ‘Let Right Be Done’.

ARTHUR:

Let Right Be Done. I like that phrase, Sir Robert.

SIR ROBERT:

It has a certain ring about it, has it not? Let Right Be Done.

Note (with regard to the Child Custody Act 1987) [appendix 2] In section 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987 there is mention of 'appropriate court'. In section 21 of the CCA 1987 for the interpretation of appropriate court we are referred to Schedule 1, and in schedule 1 we find that an appropriate Court in England & Wales is Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of England; there is no mention of a County Court – indeed an order from a County Court CANNOT bind the High Court. This is yet another reason that this Petition MUST BE HEARD, Mr Wood – the judiciary in the Isle of Man, led by First Deemster Doyle (who also authorises advocates and officers of the High Court) is uninformed when it comes to the Rights of citizens and especially children; it seems that Deemsters past and present would rather abuse the rights of children than follow the law.

Section 20(1)(c) of the Child Custody Act 1987 clearly states that the only documents that can be registered in the Isle of Man are those made under section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament in Westminster), an Act that was replaced by the Children Act 1989 on 14th October 1991.

David Doyle must be excluded from hearing this Petition (as must Andrew Corlett).

I suggest the Crown commissions Mrs Mary Robertson, former UN Ambassador for Human Rights, former President of ROI and a very competent advocate, to hear this Petition of Right under the Bill of Rights 1688; and I refer the Crown specifically to the precedent of Archer-Shee versus Rex in July 1910.

On acceptance of this Petition I will provide further examples of rights-abuses by officers of the Crown in the Isle of Man. The Deemsters may think they can “do no wrong,” but the facts show that they do not Let Right Be Done; they are worse than citizens – people often admit to having made mistakes, but the Crown in the Isle of Man can commit forgery and “get away with it.” It is time that changed.

- 19 -

G. Stephen Holmes versus Regina

24th January 2012

Bill of Rights 1688

Note: it is usual to adopt the assumption that “no proceedings shall lie against the Crown in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by any person while discharging or purporting to discharge any responsibilities of a judicial nature vested in him, or any responsibilities which he has in connection with the execution of judicial process.”

The ultimate question with regard to a judicial process is “Does this judge have jurisdiction or power to deal with this matter?”

On Wednesday 29th October 2003 judge Gordon Nuttall in Lancaster, England said “The Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom.” It is not, and has never been bound by the Children Act 1989 or the Human Rights Act 1998. Judge Robert Forrester relinquished jurisdiction over Manx children Katarina and Benedict Holmes on 24th February 2004 by granting leave for the children to move “from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently.” The supposed “order” issued by Gordon Nuttall on 27th October 2004 (headed Children Act 1989 section 8 Contact Order) was made without jurisdiction so he had no responsibilities in connection with the execution of judicial process. Similarly, the “order” of 27th October 2004 was not registered on 4th November 2004 and therefore Williamson had no responsibilities in connection with the execution of judicial process on 5th November 2004.

In addition, Williamson was acting as a “government administrator” on 28th May 2004 when he authorized the first unlawful registration so was not acting in good faith or in a judicial capacity, and therefore he (and all officers of the Crown who have been sucked-in to this unfortunate affair) is not immune from suit by Petition of Right.

The judiciary in the Isle of Man is the

“soulless oligarchy” so well described by Rattigan in 1948, and has thwarted all attempts at upholding basic rights like a fair civil hearing and a family life for a father and his children. In the precedent case; Martin Archer-Shee versus Rex, the “lords of the Admiralty” had acted in a “judicial capacity”. The case was NOT about the theft of the postal-order, it was about the presumption of guilt over the theft of the postal-order. My case is about the assumption by Andrew Williamson on 5th November 2004 that “Those orders are binding” when those orders were not and could not be binding and they had not been “properly registered” therefore not registered anyway. I say once more; they could not be registered because the CA 1989 does not extend to the Isle of Man – it is NOT in the Chronological Table.

Stephen Holmes

- 20 -