Polemic essay

A Polemic (controversial, disputatious) Essay by G. Stephen Holmes For a period of 28 months, from mid November 2004 to the beginning of March 2007, I was the subject of a so-called “court order” issued by Deputy Deemster AK Williamson, purportedly made in the Family Division of the High Court of “justice” in the Isle of Man. I say “purportedly “purportedly”” because there was no legality to the socalled order of the Family Division issued on 5 th November 2004; and there would have been no legal basis to the so-called order from the outset – the “order” was void ab initio. initio. AK Williamson was High Bailiff from 1995 and Deputy High Bailiff before that [from 6 th January 1988] – he spent a total of 15⅔ 15⅔ years in the lower criminal court called the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Williamson knew no civil law.

Williamson “ordered” that his two paragraph declaratory order of be “served” in two places – at the school where children were being educated, and at Port Erin Police Station and Police Headquarters Douglas. The High Court is a civil court, and a declaration by the High Court does not need to be sent to the criminal justice system (in this case the Isle of Man Constabulary) unless children are at risk – but if children are at risk there HAS TO BE evidence presented to the court to protect the children. The fact is that from the date that AK-47 Williamson was appointed Deputy Deemster, 1 st September 2002, all Manx children involved in “children proceedings” were at risk from the Deputy Deemster because he had no clue about Human Rights or even children rights.

Unbeknownst to me, on 1st July 2004, AK Williamson began a dispute between himself and me with him as the Judge! He LIED from the Bench on Thursday 1 st July 2004 – he alleged that there was “a – an order from Lancaster” County Court that had been “registered” in the High Court in the Isle of Man when no such orders had in fact been registered, and it should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that no valid registration had taken place. But I am talking about the Isle of Man High Court of Justice where no First Deemster has ever been a specialist in CIVIL LAW; the path to First Deemster has always been through the Court of General Gaol Delivery, the upper criminal court. “Roy” Eason went from High Bailiff to Second Deemster to First Deemster; Henry Callow went from High Bailiff to Second Deemster; but AK Williamson went from 25 years in the criminal courts in England & Wales and the Isle of Man to the Family Division and the Common Law Division of the High Court of Justice – without ANY training or qualifications; a trained chimpanzee would have made a better Deputy Deemster.

Governor Ian Macfadyean described Williamson as “an excellent appointment” – but I would describe Williamson as “the worst civil court Deemster ever;” the worst Deemster since 1422 (or 1417; or 1366). And the thing is that Macfadyean had no evidence to substantiate his allegation – the report for 1 st July 2004 shows the following cases – Div 2000/199 Robley v Robley - A Thomas & P Pringle Div 2004/054 Cass v Cass - J Quinn & A Hannan Div 2004/144 Holmes v Holmes - Both In Person Div 2003/180 Watling v Watling - S Watson & J Thornley Div 2004/028 Cubbon v Cubbon - J Thornley & A Hannan Div 2004/149 Purvis v Crellin - In Person both parties Div 2002/089 Quayle v Quayle - A Hannan - no appearance Div 2003/212 Moore v Moore - P Butterworth & P Pringle (no notice given) Div 2002/168 Fox-Hulme v Fox-Hulme In person & No appearance of res DDW Mrs Fox-Hulme sworn in - evidence in chief Div 1999/259 Brown v Brown - A Hannan & J Quinn Div.2004/180 Faragher v Carter Ex Parte - E McPherson Div 2004/181 Hughes v Carter Ex Parte - E McPherson Div.2003/302B McAleer v McAleer – D Jones & R Lindley (for K O'Riordan) One wonders how many of these cases were in fact children matters – it seems that cases going back to 1999 were misgoverned because children matters were not listed as Re A Child but as Kramer versus Kramer; just like cases in New York State in the 1970s and 1980s.

There was an Act of Tynwald from 1953 called the Guardianship of Infants Act which was based on two Acts of Parliament in Westminster – the 1886 and 1925 Guardianship of Infants Acts. But whereas Parliament introduced the Guardianship of Minors Act in 1971 and the Guardianship Act in 1973, before the Children Act 1989 [passed in November 1989], Tynwald did nothing between 1953 and 1990 when the Family Law Bill was pushed through to introduce the concepts contained in the Children Act 1989 to Manx authorities. Even with the creation of a new Division of the High Court called the Family Division (on 1 st October 1992) nothing changed – the High Court Office continued to list children matters as Kramer versus Kramer and used the prefix Div on every case to confuse David Doyle in the future – Doyle was appointed in March 2003.

Now read on – and understand why I am writing this polemic; and why I am so angry with the Deemsters.

I found “The “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” Hotel” (2012) for 99p recently; and bought (and watched) it.

One of the “Ainslie couple”, Douglas (Bill Nighy) and Jean (Penelope Wilton), [and it is Jean Ainslie] says to Graham (Tom Wilkinson) – “Thank you … for averting my complete humiliation”. humiliation”.

“Humiliating” was a word I used a lot, to myself, in 2005.

On 5th November 2004, The Deputy Deemster, “His Honour” AK Williamson, issued a “declaration” from the High Court of “Justice” of the Isle of Man, listing me as the “Respondent” in a matter which I actually knew nothing about! I had been the “Applicant” in a matter in relation to my children, but I thought that when Williamson wrote “IT “IT IS ORDERED that the Applicant’ Applicant’s Application [for a Residence Order] be and is hereby dismissed” on 1st July 2004 that “case” was closed. That case SHOULD HAVE BEEN closed, but I had unknowingly become the respondent to another case in which disclosure had not taken place – as I have just said; “I knew nothing about case FD/UK/COR/04/02” which was a proceeding [in fact a purported proceeding] under another Act of Tynwald.

So so-called declaratory order of 5th November 2004 had the phrase “ IT IS DECLARED … that the Respondent have indirect contact with the said children …” and it is that phrase that was interpreted by many people in the Isle of Man as “some kind of injunction empowering arrest.” I was the “respondent”.

In 2007, after a process lasting 8 months – more than 240 days – the High Court of “Justice” confirmed that “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did” on 5th November 2004 – his so-called order was an unlawful document having no basis in law. law.

The phrase “[IT “[IT IS DECLARED that the] Respondent have indirect contact with the said children” children” caused my complete humiliation. humiliation. As recently as 19th January 2015 it has been reported to me that there was “an injunction preventing [me from] seeing my children;” but there never was any injunction – in fact there was never a court order; order; just a false instrument masquerading as a court order.

That false instrument should have been declared void immediately, but the person who issued the false instrument, Deputy Deemster AK “47” Williamson, considered an application about the same Manx children in 2005 – and he “dragged out the matter” for about nine months [therefore abusing the rights of the children] before making almost exactly the same declaration as he had made on 5/11/2004 on 16th November 2005.

There is a rule of natural justice [a fundamental rule for consideration of any question] that can be expressed in Latin or English – Nemo judex in causa sua; sua; no-one can be a judge in [his] own cause. cause. Williamson was wrong on 5th November 2004; there was no legitimate basis upon which he could have made the so-called order which he made on 5th November 2004, and therefore the totality of events between March 2005 and 16 th November 2005 was unfair – and an ancient Manx law from 1422 prohibits bias or partiality. Williamson acted unlawfully on 5th November 2004, then continued to act unlawfully from late March 2005 to 30 th November 2005, two full weeks after he declared (falsely) that the “Applicant” could enjoy “indirect contact” with his own Manx children “as authorised by the Order of the Lancaster County Court of 27 th October 2004 and registered in this Court [that is the High Court in the Isle of Man] on 4 th November 2004.” In fact, the so-called order of the Lancaster County Court was NOT registered in the Isle of Man High Court on 4 th November 2004 or on any date thereafter. It could not be registered because a County Court CANNOT bind a High Court.

Williamson ordered that the so-called order of 5 th November 2004 be put in the public domain – it was circulated to sections of the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Education, so that by the end of November 2004, many people assumed that there was “ an injunction against Stephen Holmes” Holmes” which prevented a Manx father even seeing his Manx children. children. But there was no legitimate basis to that order – I knew so, but the Court Office (part of the General Registry) believed the Deputy Deemster (who was wrong) and not the Manx father (who was right).

By mid-May 2005 my humiliation was complete; and I became unacceptably anti-social and disinhibited. Well who wouldn’ wouldn’t be? I had been a hands-on father for eight – almost nine – years but was then denied any family life with my own children; and my children were denied a family life with me. I just wanted to die, but if I had died I would have been no use to my children, and AK-47 Williamson would have “won”. As it was, I was no use to my children ever again; because the Deputy Deemster did not know how to govern a matter relating to children under the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. The collective knowledge of the Deemsters of children law was woefully inadequate, and remains so in 2015 when responsibility for children matters is given to Williamson’ Williamson’s successor, Andrew TK Corlett – who is now Second Deemster.

First Deemster David C Doyle was second Deemster in 2007, and he presided over a “kangaroo court” hearing on 3rd September 2007. At that time, there were just a handful of Acts of Tynwald that could be used in the Family Division of the High Court of “justice;” the Short Titles being – the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003, the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, the Human Rights Act 2001 and the Child Custody Act 1987

and Family Law Act 1991. The Application of 3 rd September 2007 had been under the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, but David C. Doyle referred to “Divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144” when there was never a divorce proceeding (or a nullity, or a judicial separation) in the Isle of Man Kangaroo Court of Injustice – there was a children matter about Manx children KM and PEB Holmes. Doyle did not know the difference between the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 – and neither did AK-47 Williamson; and neither did the Chief Registrar in 2004: the detestable and incompetent Angela Lloyd-Humphrey. It may be to do with the name because there is an Advocate in “Government” named Angela Crapper, who is [crap].

The first time I encountered Andrew Williamson, (on 1st July 2004), I thought he was “a shit” – and nothing has ever happened in the Isle of Man to persuade me that my initial assessment was incorrect. And over the next FIVE YEARS (and Williamson retired on 6th January 2008) I established that a trained chimpanzee would have made a better judge in the Family courts – Williamson was totally unsuitable to be a High Court judge [a civil court] because he had no experience of civil law when he was given the Family Division “to play with” on 1st September 2002. He was a “Governor’ “Governor’s appointment” – but he had such hubris that he thought he knew everything. He had The Disease – he thought he knew everything but in fact knew nothing and was therefore a source of evil in society. Hubris or extreme arrogance leads to complacency; complacency leads to ignorance; and ignorance leads to incompetence. Williamson had all these attributes in abundance – and Doyle did not know the difference between a divorce and a contact order!

For three years I “fought” with the High Court of “justice” of the Isle of Man, and on Monday 29 th October 2007 a court order was released by the High Court Office [now known as the Isle of Man Courts of Justice] Justice] th which stated that the “order” of the Family Division of 5 November 2004 “is revoked”. I picked up this “order” from the public counter at about 16:30 on that glorious Monday.

But the signed judgement of the Isle of Man High Court of “justice” of 26th October 2007 stated that with regard to the so-called order of 5 th November 2004, “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.” Wait a moment! There was no legitimacy to a court order – the socalled order of 5th November 2004 was unlawful from the outset. Therefore it was void from the outset – void ab initio – and could not in fact be “revoked” merely declared void ab initio. initio.

The heading of the section of the 1422 Customary Laws Act [s. 45] is Partiality and misgovernment prohibited. prohibited. The Deputy Deemster swore an oath to execute the laws of this Isle justly, then issued an “order” that had no basis in law – that is what “no legitimate basis” means. And just before the so-called order was purportedly “revoked,” [the hearing was on 24 th September 2007, and the judgement handed down on Friday, 26th October 2007] David Doyle alleged that the proceedings were [a] divorce.

David Doyle judged in a case on 14 th December 2011; and he mentioned his involvement in case Divorce 2004/144 on 29th November 2007! Six weeks later, the “learned Deemster” read a lesson from the Bible at the Holocaust Memorial Service – and he read Psalm 82 which includes the verse “How “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?” wicked?”

From 1st September 2002 to 6th January 2008 the incumbent of the position of Deputy Deemster was a man of such hubris that he was utterly incompetent at his job, and part of his job was deciding in children matters.

Williamson and the High Court Office turned every children matter into an adversarial dispute; often between AK Williamson and one of the parents! The facts show that on 1 st July 2004, within two minutes of walking into the “kangaroo” court-room, [and ninety seconds of that two minutes was “silence”] Williamson lied from the Bench by alleging that a document from a County Court in England was “registered” in the Isle of Man High Court when in fact no documents had been so registered. registered. Williamson lied from the Bench at the beginning of the hearing – it was effectively his opening statement in case Div 2004/144; “you appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event” – but no order from a County Court in England had in fact been so registered – nothing was registered in the Isle of Man High Court and by Statute – under the Child Custody Act 1987 – no County Court order can be registered in the High Court – the “order to be registered” must come from Her Majesty’ Majesty’s High Court of Justice of England – see section 1 in Schedule 1 of the Child Custody Act 1987.

Williamson caused my complete humiliation on 5 th November 2004; and by the beginning of May 2006 that humiliation was total because there was not a person in public authority, or any Isle of Man Advocate, who believed that “Stephen Holmes is right and AK Williamson is wrong.” Right I was; wrong he was – and under the “rules of equity,” [which prevail over the rules of common law] equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. But in the Isle of Man “High” court of “justice,” administered by the Chief Registrar and his “officers,” wrong-doing or misgovernment in children matters is normal, so it is the view of “the Three” – the First and

Second Deemsters, and even the third Deemster Montgomerie, and of Judge of Appeal Tattersall, and of Deemsters Roberts, Melton and O’ O’Riordan, that the wrongs of AK Williamson can be tolerated because he had been High Bailiff for 15⅔ 15⅔ years [and by definition High Bailiff includes Deputy HB]. Partiality and misgovernment are OK in the High Court of Justice and in the High Court administrative office of the General Registry because Deemsters can “make up their own rules”.

Thank you OL PARKER for scripting the line “for averting my complete humiliation” in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and enabling me to “get this off my chest.”

AK-47 Williamson caused my humiliation through his ignorance of civil statute and procedure on 1 st July 2004 (and before – in fact from about 5th April 2004) and 4th and 5th November 2004; and then again on 16th and 30th November 2005 [he released a signed document dated 30th Nov. 2005 which I received on 2nd December 2005]. The phrase that caused me extreme emotional distress was “Respondent have indirect contact with the said children” because MY CHILDREN could have no family life with me, their father, if I could only deal with them by letter, telephone call or e-mail. Williamson was depriving children of a family life with a parent because he was ignorant of statute and procedure.

The following people did nothing to avert my complete humiliation – Kevin O’ O’Riordan, Pat Ingram, Alison Thomas, Mike Culverhouse, R. Peter Corkhill, Carol Denise Dowd, Paul W. Coppell, “Captain Paul Haddock” [Lt. Governor], John Corlett (AG), Michael Moyle (HB – Moyle alleged in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction that Williamson would know “what he is doing!”), John Wright, Deemster Tim King, Walter Wannenburgh, Mrs Voirrey Moore, Deemster Kerruish, (the First Deemster knew that Williamson had screwed-up, but His Honour determined not to disgrace Williamson and was therefore biased), Deemster David Doyle, Judge of Appeal Geoffrey Tattersall, Hazel Hammonds, Marilyn Gilbert (from the “Family Court Welfare Office” – began a report by alleging she was in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction!), David Doyle again, Deemster Linda Sullivan, Robert Long (advocate at Dickinson Cruickshank), Deputy Deemster Andrew Corlett, Oliver Helfrich (Government Advocate from AG’s AG’s chambers), Will Greenhow, Jonathan Wild, Gary Roberts (although the Chief Constable has listened to me), Peter Corkhill again, Corkhill’s successor Stephen Cregeen, Paul W. Coppell (again), Stephen Robertson, Deemster Andrew Corlett again, Deemster Sharon Roberts, Deemster Chris Melton, Judge of Appeal Tattersall again, and now Governor Adam Wood.

The critical judgement by Deemster Kerruish and Judge of Appeal Tattersall was that, with regard to the declaration of 5th November 2004, called “a declaratory order,” there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did. But the two judges preceded that statement with the biased view that “no fair criticism” could be made of the Deputy Deemster for his belief that documents from a County Court in England (that “looked like court orders”) had been registered in the Isle of Man High Court when in fact those documents had not been registered. The whole matter from 2 nd April 2004 to date has been based on A LIE – a false premise – the case is Fruit of a Poisoned Tree, poisoned on 28 th May 2004 when it was purported that under an Act of Tynwald called the Child Custody Act 1987, two documents from England had been registered in the Isle of Man High Court, but these documents originated in a court of inferior record in England (a County Court) and therefore could not be (and were not in fact) registered in the Isle of Man High Court. How can no criticism be made of the Deputy Deemster? It is a fact that taking the view that no fair criticism can be made of a colleague who has done wrong is biased or partial and partiality has been prohibited by law since 1422 in the Isle of Man. Children Katie and Ben Holmes had the right to a family life with their father in the Isle of Man from the moment they arrived in this jurisdiction (and that “moment” was 7 th and / or 8th August 2003 – Katie arrived on 7th to reside permanently and habitually; Ben and Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) arrived on 8 th). With the issue of the so-called “order” of 5th November 2004, that right was denied the children and was denied their father, me, causing me utter humiliation in Manx society – “there is an injunction preventing him seeing his children. What must he have done to them?” In fact, nothing; and there was no injunction – there was no court order.

Stephen Holmes was right on about the 14 th November 2004 when he said (to anyone who would listen) “This Order is bollocks; nonsense; unlawful rubbish”. And it was, but the Staff of Government Division (of the High Court) judges took the view that “no fair criticism” could be made of the rights abusing charlatan who made the order. That view is biased (in my opinion) and the whole matter from 2 nd April 2004 to date has been misgoverned, (it certainly hasn’ hasn’t been well governed!) which is also prohibited by old law.

There has been circulating in the Isle of Man a statement about rights made by Advocate Paul Beckett. I have slightly modified that statement, and put the attributes in alphabetical order.

“For these are the people’ people’s rights, and the people must not, through antipathy, budget-cuts, greed, ignorance, indifference, misinterpretation or mistake, or outlawry, be deprived of them.” them.”

Two Manx children were denied of their fundamental right to a family life from 5 th November 2004 to 30th October 2007 by false “court order” and when setting aside that false order two judges made “no fair criticism” of the charlatan that made the so-called order in the first place. A father (me) was denied of his basic right to be treated as a human being (!); to my right to a family life with my own children; to a fair hearing; to freedom from mental torture – the inability to even see my own children without being questioned by the Police (because Williamson had ordered that his false declaration be sent to the Police) was emotionally distressing – every day; and several other fundamental rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the “UNCRC” which had been enacted by Tynwald on 2 nd September 1994) was breached on many occasions in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Notice that no Politician has been mentioned in this polemic – the main culprits are members of the legal “profession.” Deemsters Corlett and Doyle were members of the Isle of Man Law Society (they had passed the Bar exam in the Isle of Man) before becoming Deemsters, but these two judges have not the first clue how to govern a children matter without abusing the rights of children and parents. The Chief Registrar is a charlatan who quotes “pseudo rules” that he cannot substantiate (and his predecessor, Corkhill, was just as bad). Two or three Assistant Chief Registrars in the General Registry have lied to me on several occasions, one of them; Carol Dowd, perjured herself in an affidavit! The Chief Registrar answers to the First Deemster only, and the First Deemster answers to nobody – he and his second is (are) appointed by Royal Warrant.

Other Deemsters are appointed by Her Majesty’ Majesty’s Lt. Governor – almost always from the pool of Advocates; from a pool of mainly arrogant sociopaths who think that being wrong is a virtue because they have passed a bar exam and become able to solicit for work.

I include an example of the stupidity of the Deemsters and members of the legal profession in the Isle of Man. I insert a picture of an every-day item in every household –

If a Deemster were to “order” or “declare” that “ The above item shall be a spoon,” spoon,” there would have to be a review of the declaration in the Staff of Government Division of the High Court and “no criticism” would be made of the Deemster who made such a declaration. That is the level of idiocy we have reached in the Isle of Man. There was no legitimacy to the so-called “order” of 5 th November 2004 so criticism of the rights abusing charlatan (and moron) who issued the order was essential on 26 th October 2007 and is essential now in 2015.

David Doyle clearly referenced “divorce proceedings” on 3rd September 2007, but no divorce proceedings ever took place in the Isle of Man – Doyle did not know the difference between matrimonial and children matters; and Doyle is now First Deemster.

And finally – new this week, realised on Thursday 22 nd January 2015, TEN-YEARS after a judge used the phrase, we move on to the concept of a “final order”.

A “case” and/or procedure (proceedings) has a life; life; it becomes an entity – 1. Application; 2. acceptance of the application; 3. scheduling of a preliminary or “directions” hearing; 4. further correspondence; 5. a hearing; 6… [possibly other actions]; 7. a final order by the judge in the court-room; 8. THE END. In March 2005, I wrote to the Court Manager at Lancaster County Court; that letter was treated as an application for a hearing in a NEW case; a case relating to Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes. A new case file was opened, LA05P00026, and a hearing scheduled for 1st April 2005; judge Gordon Nuttall presiding. An order was produced, the footer of which told us the “form” was C21 Blank Order (in small writing) and underneath the line with C21 Blank Order on it is the address of the court and details of opening hours and how to contact the court. LA05P00026 had a short life of about three days: the end. end.

The English Coat of Arms is at top left with the words In the Lancaster County Court at the top middle.

“This court” – that is Lancaster County Court – having made a final order in the Private Law case about the children mentioned at the top of this and other so-called orders, [the other case being KN 03P00016], “orders” that, under the Children Act 1989 “all further orders regarding the children should be made to the Court in the Isle of Man.” The rest of the so-called “order” follows (and note that the place of birth is NOT included; but both Katie and Ben were born [and have a domicile of origin] in the Isle of Man and NOT in England & Wales] – Coat of Arms

The case about the Manx children Katarina and Benedict Holmes ENDED on 24 th February 2004 when judge Robert M. Forrester “ordered” that the children be removed to the Isle of Man permanently. permanently. Case KN03P00016 had a life – case file opened about 27 th October 2003; FINAL ORDER made on 24/02/2004 and the final order was –

Applying this concept to the case in the Isle of Man we get the following – 1. On 18th May 2004 an application was received by the (High) Court Office signed by me, Stephen Holmes, and a case file was opened, stupidly labelled Div (short for divorce) 2004/144.

2. A letter was sent to me on 25th May 2004, stating that Mrs Holmes (the mother of the children) had the right to attend the court at the directions hearing, which would be presided over by Acting Deemster Williamson.

3. There was further correspondence in the form of a telephone call and a further letter from the High Court Office to me over the administration of the directions hearing, which was scheduled for 1 st July 2004 at 11:50 a.m.

4. The hearing took place and Mrs Holmes attended. AK Williamson mumbled some words at the opening of the hearing, [“Right just let me come up to speed on this”] and then shuffled papers for 90 – 95 seconds before alleging something [that turned out to be untrue]. He issued “an Order”.

5. On 12th July 2004, the High Court Office released the “sealed order” of the Deputy [not Acting] Deemster in case Div 2004/144, the final part of which read – “ IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be and is hereby dismissed”. The Application of 18th May 2004 was dismissed; the end. end.

Case Div 2004/144 had “a life” and AN END. The order prepared on 12 th July 2004 was the final order in case Div 2004/144.

Unknown to me, another case file had been opened, case file FD/UK/COR/04/02, but nothing in this second case file had any legal value because “the rules laid down” were not followed by the Isle of Man High Court – by the Assistant Chief Registrar releasing and signing FOUR false instruments on 28 th May 2004, and sending them to Mrs Yvonne Holmes. The court record of the hearing on 1 st July 2004 states that it is a “directions hearing” in case Div 2004/144 at 11:54:21.

Description Date Time

DEPUTY DEEMSTER WILLIAMSON - SUMMARY BUSINESS & FAMILY LAW 01/07/2004 Speaker

Location | Douglas Court 7 Note

08:44:38

TESTINGS

08:58:27

9.05 am

Summary Business

09:02:07

0392988

Blackhorse Offshore v Wayne McKee - Mr Herbert for Pl - McKee In Person Other matters

10:38:39

11.30 AM

FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTIONS COURT

11:35:59

Div 2004/054

Cass v Cass - J Quinn & A Hannan

11:54:21

Div 2004/144

Holmes v Holmes - Both In Person

The “directions court” became a kangaroo court at 11:54:21 – AK Williamson did not introduce the case to be heard [which was listed as G. Stephen Holmes versus Yvonne Holmes instead of Re K and P (Minors) or Re Children] – and the similar listing for the hearing on 5 th November 2004 [again a kangaroo court] is FD/UK/ COR/04/02 [Yvonne] Holmes v [Stephen] Holmes because Mrs Holmes was unlawfully treated as the applicant in the FD/UK case – whereas Stephen Holmes had been the applicant in the children case stupidly listed as a divorce. The Court swapped applicant and respondent several times – Misgovernment!

At the kangaroo court hearing of 5th November 2004 Williamson issued a false instrument masquerading as a declaratory order and that false instrument had no legitimacy because all the documents in case file FD/ UK/COR/04/02 were ultra vires and should have been treated as void from the outset – especially the four documents produced on 28th May 2004 which were not disclosed to me until the second half of May 2007!

The case reference number on the “orders” issued in 2005 was Div 2004/144 – but that case had a final order on 1st July 2004 – that case DIED and then was miraculously resurrected in the Isle of Man Kangaroo Court of Injustice – and remained as “a zombie case” [a matter or the walking dead] until March 2013 when a NEW case file was opened with respect to CHILDREN Katie and Ben Holmes. On 6 th July 2011, IN COURT, I requested that Andrew Corlett close file Div 2004/144, but Corlett refused to do so, although a final order had been made in that case SEVEN YEARS EARLIER. Corlett had no clue what he was doing on 06/07/2011; just as Williamson had no clue what he was doing in 2004 and Doyle had no clue what he was doing in 2007.

The more I have studied the former “Family Division” of the High Court in the Isle of Man, the more I have realised that the administers of “justice” have turned the “Civil Division – Family Business” section of the civil court into a kangaroo court of injustice, and it appears that since the Family Division was formed by the High Court Act 1991 (on 1st October 1992) children matters have always been misgoverned.

The full title of the High Court Act 1991 is – “ AN

ACT to repeal and replace with amendments enactments relating to the

constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court and the administration of justice therein; to establish a new division of the High Court to be called the Family Division; to make new provision with respect to the jurisdiction in admiralty of the High Court; to extend the remedies available under petitions of doleance; to enable the High Court to award provisional damages for personal injuries;

to make new provision with respect to the power of the High Court to order disclosure of documents and the inspection of property, etc. in proceedings for personal injury and death; to amend the law relating to actions for damages for personal injuries, including injuries resulting in death, and to abolish certain actions for loss of services; to enable the High Court to award damages as well as or in substitution for, injunction or specific performance; to amend the Arbitration Act 1976; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments relating to the High Court and the administration of justice; to make further provision with respect to the administration of justice and matters connected therewith; and for connected purposes.”

In 2009 the Family Division ceased to exist, replaced by a “common law” court presided over by “a pip-squeak judge”, Andrew TK Corlett, who admitted that he “learned a great deal” from AK-47 Williamson! The blind and stupid leading the blind and moronic! Corlett confirmed on 1 st April 2011 that AK47 Williamson “bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division;” and that “work” included directing and supervising (and instructing) officers of the High Court in how to administer or “govern” children matters in the Family Division of the kangaroo court of injustice! I assert that EVERY children matter in the High Court was listed as a “divorce” and as an adversarial dispute between adults. Rather than the welfare of the child being the paramount consideration of the Deputy Deemster, the sound of his own voice, his status in society, and money were the paramount considerations of the biggest charlatan ever to disgrace the Isle of Man Courts of “justice” building in the civil courts.

I quote section 1(1)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, AN ACT to reform the law relating to children; to re-enact Parts 1 and 2 of the Family Law Act 1991; … ; &c., &c., which entered into force on 1st February 2003.

When a court determines any question relating to … the upbringing of a child … the welfare of that child shall be the court’s paramount consideration.

The “court,” in the form of Deputy Deemster AK47 Williamson, could not be bothered checking THE LAW to establish if so-called “orders” from a County Court in England had in fact been registered in the Isle of Man High Court; a matter that would take a competent legal professional about five minutes to check. No registrations in fact took place; the four documents produced and signed by the Assistant Chief Registrar on 28th May 2004 were false; and disclosure of these four documents did not take place until three years later.

The Child Custody Act 1987 “matter” [which was unlawful in its entirety] was completely unrelated to the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 matter; but the Form C1 which was supplied to me by the High Court Office in April 2004 had Family Law Act 1991 at the header. The FLA 1991 [Parts 1 and 2, and the Application was made under Part 1 of the CYPA 2001] was re-enacted by the CYPA 2001 on 1 st February 2003, 14 months before the High Court Office supplied me with a form to apply to the court to determine a question with regard to the upbringing of Manx children who had been habitually and permanently resident in the Isle of Man since (I will say) 9th August 2003.

2003.

HUBRIS! Williamson, O’Riordan, Ingram, Moyle, Doyle and Corlett – that includes the present First and

Second Deemsters – have such hubris; hubris; such extreme arrogance; that their competence is questionable at best, and non-existent at worst. And the proof of that is in the allegation by Doyle on 3 rd September 2007 that the proceedings from 18th May 2004 to 12th July 2004 were “a divorce.”

Thank you, Deemster David Doyle, for ensuring my complete humiliation on 5 th September 2007 when I was arrested in Birmingham “on suspicion of child abduction.” It was a false arrest, but West Midlands Police Authority admitted their error and paid me £2,000 compensation in November 2007.

Andrew “Kalashnikov” Williamson issued a false declaration on 5 th November 2004, and that declaration was used by the Police as “some kind of injunction empowering arrest” throughout 2005 and into 2006, but “no fair criticism” was made of this charlatan judge in October 2007, although there was no legality to what happened on 4th and 5th November 2004 [in the Court Office and in the Family Division of the High Court itself] nor on 28th May 2004. The matter is a cluster of snafus committed by the Deemsters and administrators of “justice” such that we do indeed have a civil kangaroo court of injustice in the Isle of Man. I wish nothing but wisdom and competence on those involved in children matters in the Isle of Man, but while extreme arrogance and ignorance is the MO – the modus operandi – of those public authorities involved in such matters, the kangaroo courts will continue to abuse the rights of children and parents alike!

This essay is indeed controversial – never before has a citizen been so outspoken about the abilities of a Deemster or a “troop” of Deemsters; Williamson, Doyle, Corlett, Melton, Roberts, Sullivan, King and now Kevin O’ O’Riordan the twit has been admitted to the Panel of part-time “baboons”. My criticism of these imbeciles is only in their attitude to children law – that is the only type of case I have experienced in the kangaroo court of injustice; but I have thought about this matter every day for the last 10, or almost 11, years!

On Monday 3rd September 2007, just as surely as Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 or Germany marched into Poland in 1939, so David Doyle bludgeoned his way into the Holmes family. family. So did “AK-47” Williamson on

1st July 2004. Applications had been made, but there was LAW: Statute to be followed – “the welfare of the child shall be the court’s court’s paramount consideration”.

“I have had an opportunity of looking at the court file” said Doyle! “This matter has a considerable history,” said Doyle. “Divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144,” said Doyle, and released a so-called “order” that sits in case file Div 2004/144 which ENDED on 1st July 2004. I was the Applicant on 18 th May 2004 in Div 2004/144; Mrs Holmes was the Applicant on 3 rd September 2007 in a completely different matter that most certainly was not a divorce.

Doyle put Katarina’s life at risk! I was arrested in Birmingham, England, “on suspicion of child abduction” because of the so-called order issued by the imbecile David Doyle on 3 rd September 2007 and faxed by the Isle of Man Constabulary to WMPA – West Midlands Police Authority. I was arrested at about 20:00 on Wednesday 5th September and released for a police cell at 09:15 the following morning. Katarina, who was 11⅓ at the time, was put in a taxi in Birmingham at ten-o’clock at night and sent to Heysham where she was put on a ferry which arrived in Douglas at 6 a.m. She had seen her father arrested at the Holiday Inn on Broad Street and had been taken in to Police protective custody for a couple of hours – all because Williamson could not be bothered checking Statute in 2004 – because Williamson had been promoted from the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to the High (civil law) Court in September 2002.

As I have said, on 1st April 2011 ATK Corlett, now 2nd Deemster or “D2” stated that he had “learned a great deal” from AK Williamson.

But there was no legitimacy to the so-called “order” of the Deputy Deemster of 5 th November 2004, and that “order” destroyed my family. Doyle continued the destruction on 3 rd September 2007 and again on 29th November 2007 and 10th March 2008 – I was so disgusted by the competence of Doyle that I did not come to Court on 10th March 2008 – I was on holiday, staying with friends (a holiday that had been organised for quite some time).

I quote again from the essay by Paul Beckett of December 2014 (available on Old Court Chambers web-site) “For these are the people’s rights, and the people must not, through ignorance, indifference, budget-cuts, misconception or antipathy, be denied of them.” On Page 1 he mentions the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) which was enacted by Tynwald in 1994 in the Isle of Man. The Eu Convention on Human Rights (1950) gained persuasive authority in the Isle of Man in 1953, but the Human Rights Act of 2001 was not enacted until 1st November 2006. Nevertheless, Respondent have indirect contact with the said children (and there was no legitimacy to such phrase) does not uphold any rights whatsoever and was indeed unlawful and void ab initio. initio.

I am still suffering emotional distress because of actions in 2004/05; and only recently it has been alleged that there was an injunction against me, an allegation that has caused loss of sleep and needless anxiety.

I was in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction one time (in the public gallery) and noted that Andrew Lang stepped out of the public gallery and into the body of the court to advise the court of the Mental Health Act. Act. Mr Lang’s expertise is in the English Act, but the Manx Act is based on the English Act. NEVER has an advocate advised a Deemster on the Children and Young Persons Act 2001.

2001. My only experience of being represented was on 5 th November 2004 when Kevin O’Riordan said to Williamson “I don’t know what has led to this afternoon’s hearing procedurally.” Instead of asking for an adjournment (the RIGHT thing to do if the court could be kangaroo), Kevin went on to state that he had no paperwork but thought “this is very akin” to something else, to which Williamson enthused “Yes.” “I have no paperwork but I think this ten-page polemic essay is very akin to War and Peace.”

Peace.”

Williamson alleged that orders from Lancaster COUNTY Court had been registered in the High Court but the Act that allows for “registrations” does not permit the registration of County Court Orders in the Isle of Man High Court – the correct appropriate court is a High Court.

Court. Where was the expert on the Child Custody Act 1987 or the Children and Young Persons Act 2001? Nowhere to be seen – and it transpires that in a children hearing there is NEVER an advocate to keep a watching brief on behalf of the child – advocates always represent their fee-paying clients and so children have their fundamental rights denied by the Court.

Court.

Deemsters abuse the rights of children! children! Her Majesty’s Second Deemster alleged that a process that had ended was a “divorce proceeding;” did not know the difference between a divorce and a children matter; and he was led by a Deputy Deemster who had no clue what he was doing in a civil court. Aargh!!! Deemsters!

The hubris of Deemsters destroys Manx families and abuses the rights of Manx children.

Finally, I deal with “What “What is wrong with the Isle of Man?” Man?” The rule of LAW does not exist in the Island’s civil court!

The Deputy Deemster issued an order from the Family Division of the High Court, the “meat” of which was –

IT IS DECLARED 1. that the said Orders of the Lancaster County Court registered in this Court are of full effect and enforceable within the jurisdiction of this Court that is to say within the Isle of Man and that this Court is not empowered to vary such orders 2. that the Respondent have indirect contact with the said children as is authorised by Clause 2 of the said Order of the 27th day of October 2004 of the Lancaster County Court But there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made this so-called order and so there was “rule by unlawful court order” not rule of law. Clauses 1 and 2 are both untrue.

Then Tim King (a temporary or Acting Deemster) entered the fray and alleged, on 25 th October 2006, that the proceedings were matrimonial. matrimonial. The Attorney General supported this view – and the view that the Deputy Deemster was competent, but to call Williamson competent was like calling the policies of the National Socialists reasonable. reasonable.

Then, on 3rd September 2007, David Doyle entered the fray and made the so-called order that caused wrongful arrest and false imprisonment in England!

The case of “G and A (children)” [ FAM 2010/312] has confirmed that no-one in the Isle of Man has one iota of a clue about the law relating to children. children. The welfare of the CHILD is NEVER the paramount consideration of the court, – the Department of [Health and] Social Care continues to use the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for children matters (in the public domain, but still “in camera,” in chambers, or anonymised – thereby putting civil matters in the criminal justice system and putting children at risk. risk.

And the ultimate disgrace is the “Family Court Welfare Office” which is part of the Probation Service! The PS is part of the criminal justice system; and as I stated, Marilyn Gilbert did not even know which court she was in at the kangaroo court hearing (with “Dipsy” David Doyle) on 29th November 2007!

Rule by court order is the rule of injustice in the Isle of Man, and so the government of many civil matters is crap and not “good government.” Justice has failed in the Isle of Man – and it is time for the Crown to intervene – the only problem with Crown Intervention is that the Crown allocates the Ministry of “Injustice” to confirm that government in the Isle of Man is good, and government in the Ministry of Injustice is just as likely to be crap as in the Courts and Services in the Isle of Man. Nevertheless, I am sending this polemic to Chris Grayling, the “Justice” secretary, and to Jeremy Wright QC the Attorney General; and to the Queen (and Lord of Man) herself. The Court Service, now the Hopelessly Misgoverned Courts and Tribunal Services, part of the Ministry of Injustice, has contributed greatly to this foulup – this SNAFU – when Judge Robert Moron Forrester issued what purported to be “court orders” from Lancaster County Court on 24th February 2004. He did not have jurisdiction to make orders about the Manx children in any case but he purportedly granted leave to Yvonne Holmes (Mrs, a Manx mother) to remove [Manx] children from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain [England & Wales, and Scotland) and Northern Ireland “to “to the Isle of Man permanently”. permanently”. Having relinquished any power over Manx children to the courts in the Isle of Man the Moron Robert Forrester alleged that “contact” [that is section 8 Children Act 1989 contact] could take place “in the Isle of Man” – a jurisdiction to which the Children Act 1989 does not extend.

In 2005, Forrester’s colleague, Gordon Nuttall alleged that a “final order” had been made but judged that the final order was not the order releasing the Manx children to the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man courts permanently, but an ultra vires “Order Contact Order” purportedly made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 EIGHT MONTHS LATER. That ultra vires document arrived in the Isle of Man on 4 th November 2004, then the Isle of Man kangaroo court of injustice wasted no time at all in alleging that an ultra vires (and therefore void) document from England was “law in the Isle of Man” because “it has been registered” when it had not in fact been registered and was as meaningful as the “this fork shall be a spoon” order above.

And so I conclude with my VIEW that when it comes to matters relating to children living in the Isle of Man, we have kangaroo courts, incompetent government departments and state invoked (and state condoned) childrights abuse; going back to before 2001; probably 1999 and probably to 1 st April 1992 when the Family Law Act 1991 was enacted to replace the hopelessly obsolete Guardianship of Infants Act 1953.

Deemsters – abusing the rights of Manx children since 1 st April 1992. Deemsters – misgoverning matters relating to Manx Minors and Manx children since 1 st April 1992. The Deemsters – making up the rules since 979 A.D., and showing no sign of stopping making up the rules. Deemsters – Letting WRONG BE DONE. The people must not, FOR ANY REASON, be deprived of [these] rights. Members of my family were deprived of a fundamental human right – the right to a family life – for TEN YEARS because the Deputy Deemster was incompetent; and the present First and Second Deemsters have done nothing to ensure that other families do not suffer in the way that the Holmes children suffered in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and to date. date.