Letter to the President

E-mail: s_h_iom@yahoo.com To : President of the High Court

Isle of Man Courts of Justice Quaiylyn Cairys Ellan Vannin Deemsters Walk, Bucks Road Douglas, Isle of Man

10th September 2012 Your Ref: SR/KC/SR My Ref: CHP 2012/999

Dear David Doyle, You may think that I am irrationally obsessed; you may think that I use colourful words; and you may think that I did not positively engage in “proceedings” on 10 th March 2008. But I did not get myself arrested on 5th September 2007 – I did not ask you to make a “prohibited steps” or “specific question” order on 3 rd September 2007 – Yvonne made that application and you issued an order from the Family Division under a case file number that had ended on 1 st July 2004 that had no validity outside the Isle of Man; your “order” of 3rd September 2007 was worthless, but the consequences of it put Katie's life at risk and cost West Midlands Police £2,000! Well done, Sir. WMP should claim from you!

On 8th April 2011 advocate Kevin O'Riordan supplied me with a transcript of the hearing on 5 th Nov. 2004 – here is how it started.

AKW: Now, I’ve got Mrs Holmes?

Mrs H. (quietly) 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.

I wrote to the Chief Registrar, not to Andrew Williamson. Those “orders” were not binding because a County Court cannot bind a High Court – a superior court of record; we do not have civil Sheading courts. I did not apply for an order to be made on 5 th November 2004; Williamson decided to do that when Mrs Holmes called him. How could Mrs Holmes contact a Deemster? You never talk to me!

Did you advise on this document that was e-published on 11th / 13th October 2011?

2.

The High Court

The structure of the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man is governed by the High Court Act 1991. There are three full time judges of the High Court - the First Deemster, the Second Deemster and the Deemster. The First Deemster is President of the High Court and has responsibility for the distribution of the work of the High Court and the Court of General Gaol Delivery. The Judge of Appeal, presently a part-time appointment, sits in the Appeal Division. Unless the parties otherwise consent, the quorum of the Appeal Division is at least two judges of the High Court. A Deemster may not sit on an appeal from his own judgment or order.

The First Deemster presides over civil matters and deals with Appeal Division work. The Second Deemster presides over family proceedings in the High Court and deals with civil matters and some Appeal Division work. The Deemster presides over criminal proceedings in the Court of General Gaol Delivery.

3.

Jurisdiction

The High Court is a superior court of record which deals with civil and family matters. Its jurisdiction and procedures are in the main dealt with by the High Court Act 1991 and the Rules of the High Court 2009. The Court of General Gaol Delivery is a separate superior court of record which deals with criminal matters and its jurisdiction and procedures are in the main dealt with by the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1993. The Appeal Division of the High Court is a creature of statute and deals with appeals in civil, family and criminal matters.

4.

Administration

The General Registry, headed by the Chief Registrar, provides the administration for the High Court.

The actual administration of Court matters is in the domain of the First Deemster, therefore the Crown.

You don't seem to know the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, and neither does Andrew Corlett.

Andrew Williamson had no clue about it! It was passed on 11th July 2001 and is AN ACT to reform the law

relating to children; to re-enact Parts I and II of the Family Law Act 1991; &c.

1.

Welfare of the child

(1)

When a court determines any question with respect to — (a) the upbringing of a child, or (b) the administration of a child's property or the application of any income arising from it, the welfare of that child shall be the court's paramount consideration.

(2) In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

(5) Where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under this Part or Part 2, 4 or 5 with respect to a child, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.

PART 2 ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO CHILDREN 11. Orders with respect to children (1) The orders which the court may make with respect to a child under this section are as follows — (a) a "residence order", that is, an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom the child is to live; (b) a "contact order", that is, an order requiring the person with whom the child lives to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order; (c) an order that, in meeting parental responsibility for the child, no step which could be taken by a parent in meeting his parental responsibility for the child, and which is of a kind specified in the order, shall be taken by any person without the consent of the court; [a "prohibited steps order"] (d) an order giving directions for the purpose of determining a specific question which has arisen, or which may arise, in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for the child; [a "specific question order"] (e) an order varying or revoking a previous order under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).

On 1st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson made no order at all.

The Staff of Government Division judgement gives part of the picture.

1. On 2nd April 2004 Mrs Holmes wrote to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division, enclosing copies of the two orders, namely the residence and contact order, and the order granting leave to permanently remove the children to the Isle of Man made by District Judge Forrester and asked that such orders be registered at “the Isle of Man Court.”

2. On or about 28th May 2004 notice of registration of such orders by the Isle of Man High Court [‘the High Court’] was sent to the Respondent. The Appellant was not informed of the registrations.

3. By application dated 18th May 2004 the Appellant applied to the Isle of Man High Court for a residence order in respect of both children.

4. At a hearing of such application on 1 st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Appellant that the English orders made on 24th February 2004 had been registered and ORDERED that his Application “be and is hereby dismissed.”

5. The Appellant did not appeal against such dismissal of his application.

We now know that it was a non registration on 28th May 2004, so when Williamson told me that the English orders made on 24th February 2004 had been registered he lied to me because they had not been registered. Similarly, he opened the 05/11 hearing with three lies.

Whether or not there are degrees of wrongness, on a scale of 0 to 10, the decision of Williamson to accept the “registration” process scored zero. In Williamson's point of view, when the Family Division of the court determined a question with regard to the upbringing of a child the welfare of that child was of no consideration. He was “an incompetent shit.”

A glimpse at sections 7 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987 would have told a person of average intelligence that the Children Act 1989 “orders” of 24 th February 2004 could not be registered in the Isle of Man, but Williamson was so arrogant that he had become complacent, and that complacency led to an ignorance of statute and procedure and Conventions including the European Convention on Human Rights. Governor MacFadyean described Williamson as “an excellent appointment” when he was probably the most incompetent Deemster ever. Since 1417. What you don't seem to realise is he sent a false instrument to the Police on 5 th November 2004 – there was no legitimacy to his two paragraph declaration and yet you accepted the “no fair criticism” remark on 14 th December 2011. He issued a false instrument and it circulated for three years. That is not honourable!

Like I have said, when Deemster Kerruish and Judge Tattersall made the “no fait criticism” remark they put culpability for the unlawful 28th May 2004 actions on the office of the President of the High Court, Mr Kerruish himself. In any event, responsibility for the distribution of work was with Mr Kerruish in 2004, and according to Andrew Corlett in 2011 Deputy Deemster Williamson “bore virtually singlehanded all the work of the Family Division.” Mr Kerruish was responsible for that.

You are now First Deemster and President of the High Court, so responsibility for the eight year snafu that was DIV 2004/144 & FD/UK/CORFU/04/02 is now with you; you screwed-up on 3rd Sept. 2007, you screwed-up on 29th November 2007 (you believed that there was a “residence” order but that order was self-revoking!) I think you screwed-up on 10th March 2008 and that you were biased on 14/12/2011.

Think about the 24th February 2004 “residence order,” Mr Doyle.

The document looked like a Court Order, it was headed Lancaster County Court: Case Number KN03P0016:

Order

Residence and Contact Order: Section 8 Children Act 1989

The full name(s) of the children

Boy or Girl

Date(s) of Birth

Katarina May Holmes Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes

Girl Boy

19th May 1996 28th August 1999

The Court orders that

1. the father has permission to withdraw the applications for residence and prohibited steps orders 2. Katarina Holmes and Benedict Holmes shall reside with their mother, Yvonne Holmes 3. Yvonne Holmes has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man (please see separate Order attached)

The separate Order attached read The Court grants leave to Yvonne Holmes to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently.

The “life” of the residence order was very, very short – it lasted as long as it took to read paragraph 3. It was like a Higgs boson; it existed for a very short time period then ceased to exist.

You don't seem to have grasped that the Children Act 1989 does not extend to the Isle of Man; it is not in the Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man, published by HM Attorney General in July 2003!

On 29th November 2007 you accepted that there was a “residence” order but it ceased to exist as soon as it was made, and it wasn't registered – it was a non registration; Deemster Kerruish and Judge Tattersall confirmed so on 26th Oct. 2007 and 1 month later you accepted that it had been registered!

The High Court listed Yvonne Holmes as the respondent to the review in the Staff of Government Division, but an officer of the High Court from the General Registry should have been the respondent because “this office” purportedly registered the documents in the first place, not Mrs Holmes, and she could not make such an application anyway. Lancaster County Court should have applied.

The word is snafu, David – Situation Normal: All Fouled-Up. Except we don't usually say fouled.

It IS fruit of the poisoned tree – if the tree had not been poisoned on 28 th May 2004 then you would not

have acted in such a stupid manner in 2007 and 2008, or in December 2011; and even that idiot Tim King might not have looked such a moron on 25th October 2006. It all started when Williamson was appointed Deputy Deemster after 15½ years as a magistrate. In 2004 I didn't even know what a magistrate was! I didn't know anything about civil or criminal law; I was a feather in the breeze – and then on 1st July 2004 I walked into a court in the Isle of Man, and my world began to fall apart. But Williamson knew nothing of civil law, and that was a disgrace, David – an absolute disgrace. And you jumped in on 3 rd September 2007; because Williamson sent civil court orders to the Police, Yvonne took your POS order to the police and it was faxed to WMP, and I was arrested in Birmingham.

Your domain is a disgrace, David; you cannot even cope with an application to determine a question with regard to the upbringing of children without causing years of trauma – if Williamson screwed-up Katie and Ben, how many other families did he destroy in four years or so. “I get a lot of these cases,” he said in court on 1st July 2004. I bet you screwed-up those as well, I thought to myself.

The first rule of law is “everyone is equal under the law.” In the Isle of Man, the first rule of the Deemsters is “we are the law!” Really, David, in my experience, “God help anybody who attends a court hearing with you or your Second Deemster or Deemster Roberts!” I learned in 2007 that equity takes precedence over common law (see section 32 of the High Court Act 1991). I then reasoned that when the Family Division of the High Court was formed in 1991 that children's matters, by then under the Family Law Act 1991, hearings were under the rule of statute, not of common law, and that Statute takes precedence over common law. Judge Rutherford said “the English common law, developed and interpreted over the centuries, has been largely superseded” with statutory legislation – good, Human Rights Convention compliant statutory legislation. It is not used in the Isle of Man! In 2009 it seems that you and Mr Kerruish took the Isle of Man back 50 years by doing away with Statute and Equity – you now deal only with common law.

Tell me honestly, David, how can “Respondent have indirect contact with the said children” be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8, of course). How can a hearing that begins without a proper introduction and three lies in the opening monologue be fair? [He did not hear from me, I wrote to the Chief Registrar; the orders were not registered; and those “orders” were not binding. When Kevin said “I think this is very akin to the situation we have had in another case, Mrs C and Mr G,” Williamson enthused – Yes! He should have said “I don't think so, Mr O'Riordan”].

Everyone has the right to a fair hearing. Since mid 2005, I have asked questions of staff in the General Registry and Court Offices and have been treated fairly twice – once when Mrs Moore wrote to me in February 2007, and in the Staff of Government Division review, but even then Mr Kerruish and Judge Tattersall made biased and unlawful comments. Again, if you read the judgement you will note that my Application of 19th March 2007 was to ask that Williamson's declaration of 05/11/2004 be set-aside because it had been defective the moment it was made. It should have been set-aside within a couple of months, but Williamson considered another application in 2005, and here we are in 2012 – in September 2012 – with my writing to you, again, asking for you to, just once, Let Right Be Done.

Open a dialogue with me – somebody from The Crown; talk to me. I have a dispute with the Crown in the Isle of Man; not with the Isle of Man Government, and the best way to resolve a dispute is to talk to the person concerned. As President of the High Court you are the person concerned; not Keiron Murray, not Adam Wood, but you – the “office” of First Deemster. This dispute can only end with an admission of responsibility and payment of damages, (or with me being killed by distress).

This has got nothing to do with Stephen Robertson or Sharon Roberts; this is all because administrative wrongs took place more than eight years ago and no remedy for those wrongs has ever been produced.

You have a Court of Injustice, Mr Doyle – not a court of fairness – you issue Court Ordure, and will continue to do so unless you begin to consider Statute, not just your own rules.

I have copied this to the Governor and Keiron Murray (because we have no functioning AG). My mobile number is ________ and I will attend an office to discuss an out-of-court settlement at very short notice.

I have e-published this document at issuu.com [All matters are in the public domain anyway].

Best regards,