Psalm 82 verse 2

THOUGHTS INSPIRED BY PSALM 82 How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? [verse 2] Who are the wicked?

I have only met a handful of wicked people in my fifty-five years on planet earth; one of them is Andrew K. Williamson and another is Kevin O'Riordan. The former was an officer of the Crown operating in the Isle of Man, the latter is an “advocate” (a solicitor in the Isle of Man).

How can I call an officer of the crown “wicked?”

Easily, because on 5th November 2004, Deputy Deemster Andrew Williamson scheduled a hearing at short notice, and at that hearing he produced what he called a “declaratory order” that had no basis in Isle of Man Statute! On 26th October 2007 two officers of the Crown judged that there was “no legitimate basis” upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the declaration that he made on 5th November 2004 because the declaration was based on the erroneous assumption that due processes called “registrations” had happened (on 28th May 2004 and on 4th November 2004); when, in fact, those registrations were not proper, and therefore in law they had not happened.

But the two judges on 26th October 2007 showed partiality to the wicked Williamson by stating that “no fair criticism” could be made of the virulent, heathen sloth and child-rights-abusing bastard.

Isn't that a bit strong, Stephen?

No, it isn't: it isn't strong enough! I cannot think of the correct words to describe Andrew K. Williamson, former High Bailiff in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in the Isle of Man. When he became Deputy Deemster on 1st September 2002, after a 14¾ year career as a paid magistrate, he swore “to execute the laws of this Isle justly”. Three laws of this Isle from 2001 are the Education Act 2001, the Human Rights Act 2001 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. Let's look at the latter – the CYPA 2001.

At the top of the actual Act of Tynwald is the “introduction” that includes the words “to reform the law relating to children.” The act was passed by Tynwald on 11th July 2001, but according to the Attorney General in the Isle of Man, it was not fully enacted until February 2003. Nevertheless, by 2004, Andrew Williamson would have had ample opportunity to read 1) the CYPA 2001 and 2) the Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man, also published by the Attorney General in 2003. Andrew Williamson? Read an Act of Tynwald? Not a chance. No way!

I first “met” Williamson on 1st July 2004 at a hearing to determine an Application I had made on 18th May 2004 for a “section 11 Children and Young Persons Act 2001 residence order,” (although the form the idiots in the High Court Office gave me in April 2004 was headed Family Law Act 1991. No matter; this Act was re-enacted by the CYPA 2001; and section 11 of the CYPA 2001 is exactly the same as section 9 of the FLA 1991; it contains the definitions of the four types of “Orders with respect to children” that may be made AFTER 19th March 1991.)

Williamson released an order that stated he had listened to “evidence” and “IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be and is hereby dismissed.” Under the CYPA 2001 it is possible for the decision maker in the Court to make no order at all. The case ended on 1st July 2004.

But it transpired that there was an unlawful process had taken place in the high court office (or the Isle of Man High Court) on 28th May 2004. In 2006 I was provided by the High Court Office with a recording of the hearing on 1st July 2004 and right at the beginning of that hearing Williamson said “You appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event.”

To an imbecile, it appeared that an “order” from the County Court in England had been “registered” but to a person with the ability to read and comprehend Isle of Man statute, the document from Lancaster had NOT been registered in the Isle of Man because it could NOT be so registered.

During the period 1st July 2004 to 26th July 2007, the Isle of Man High Court (and all Advocates in -1-

the Isle of Man to whom I spoke, including the Attorney General John Corlett, and three or four servants of the Crown) failed to inform me of the existence of the Child Custody Act 1987, an Act of Tynwald. Note the date of this Act – December 1987. Note that Andrew Williamson was appointed Deputy High Bailiff on 6th January 1988. Note that the Act to reform the law relating to children in England & Wales is the Children Act 1989 and the Act of Tynwald to create a new division of the High Court in the Isle of Man is the High Court Act 1991 and the Family Law Act 1991 was four years AFTER the CCA 1987. The CCA 1987 needed reviewing in 1991.

The CCA 1987 is called the Child Custody Act – it contains the “old” legal concept “custody” where an ADULT used to be able to apply to a court for a custody order; that is an order of the court conferring the right of custody on an adult.

On 19th March 1991 in the Isle of Man and on 14th October 1991 in England & Wales, the terms “access” and “custody” ceased to exist. The term “care & control order” also ceased to exist in England & Wales on 14th October 1991, but it was February 2003 before the Isle of Man removed “care and control orders” from statute. Nevertheless, by the time Williamson addressed the issue of an Application received by the Family Division of the High Court in the Isle of Man, the old regime of “access” and “custody” had long gone – in March 1991.

Idiots in the Isle of Man (such as the Attorney General and his/her minions) refer to custody and access as if they are still valid concepts. They are not. This is in a documents dated October 2005 (re-printed August 2006), issued by HM Attorney General in the Isle of Man. 12. Glossary The following are terms you will come across in this leaflet access order: An order made prior to the implementation of the Family Law Act 1991, providing for a parent without actual custody to have access to the child and the terms on which access is to take place. applicant: Parent or guardian who has applied to have the child returned contact order: An order under the law as reformed by the Family Law Act 1991 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, requiring the person with whom the child lives to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order. custody order: An order made prior to the implementation of the Family Law Act 1991, giving to a person either legal custody (the rights over a child affecting his or her person, including how the child spends his or her time), or actual custody (physical possession of the child). guardian: A person other than a parent, appointed by a court, or by a parent to look after the interests of a child after the parent’s death. A guardian has parental responsibility for the child. jurisdiction: The power of a court to hear and decide a case or make a certain order; the territorial limits within which the judgments or orders of a court may be enforced or executed. prohibited steps order: An order under the Family Law Act 1991 or, since 2003, the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, that no step of the kind or kinds specified in the order, which could be taken by a parent in meeting his or her parental responsibility, shall be taken by any person without the consent of the court. Typically these orders prohibit a person from taking the child away from their usual home. residence order: An order under the Family Law Act 1991 or, since 2003, the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom the child is to live. A residence order does not deprive either of the child’s parents of parental responsibility for other aspects of the child’s upbringing. In particular it does not deprive the non residence parent of the right to have a say in where the child will live.

In the same leaflet as this Glossary we find the following:– “The orders available to the courts include residence orders, which settle with whom the child is to -2-

live, and contact orders, which deal with any form of contact which the child is to have with the other parent and significant people such as grandparents or step-parents. Orders expressed in terms of custody and access continue to have effect unless a court discharges and replaces them with a residence or contact order or the child turns 18.

Unless the court orders otherwise, a parent with a residence order may take a child out of the Isle of Man for a period of up to one month without a prior application to the court or the consent of the other parent.

Failure or refusal to return the child to the Island once this period has expired will constitute a wrongful retention of the child for the purposes of the Hague Convention and the European Convention (see section 4).

In cases where abduction is feared and there is evidence to support that fear, the court may make a prohibited steps order to restrain either or both parents from taking the child off the Island at all.

2. What the law says about child abduction In the Isle of Man, child abduction involves both the civil and criminal law. However, once a child has been removed from the Island, parental abduction is usually treated as a civil matter.

I Civil Law The law in the Isle of Man is primarily governed by the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 (the CYP Act), which came fully into force in February 2003, repeating the concept of parental responsibility, meaning the duties, rights and authority which a parent has in respect of their child which had been created by the Family Law Act 1991.

II Criminal Law Under the Child Custody Act 1987, it is a criminal offence in the Isle of Man for any person connected with a child (which includes parents, guardians and anyone having responsibility for the child), to take or send the child out of the Isle of Man without the consent of any other person who has parental responsibility for the child. A parent who has the right to have contact with or access to a child will usually also have parental responsibility.

No offence is committed, however, where the person removing the child has a custody/residence order in respect of the child unless in doing so he is in breach of an order made by the court under the CYP Act. The laws differ between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. In the past these legal differences caused conflicts of jurisdiction where proceedings could be brought in respect of the same child in the different jurisdictions at the same time. Orders made in one court were not necessarily recognised or enforceable in the other court which made it possible, for example, for parents to ignore an order obtained in the United Kingdom, remove the child to the Island and institute fresh proceedings there in the hope of obtaining a different result.

To overcome this problem, Parliament passed the Family Law Act 1986 and Tynwald enacted Part I of the Child Custody Act 1987. The legislation aims to prevent competing proceedings being commenced in the two jurisdictions at the same time and also allows orders made in the United Kingdom to be recognised and enforceable in the Isle of Man, and vice versa.

The party wishing to have an order enforced in the other jurisdiction should apply to the court which made the order. That court will then forward the papers to the appropriate court in the other jurisdiction, which will then register it.

A court in either jurisdiction may order that a child may not be removed from the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man. If the child is removed in contravention of an order, the child has to be returned from where he or she was taken and only the court which made the original order may give consent to the child being removed from that place.

-3-

A court may also order passports to be surrendered, the disclosure of the child’s whereabouts or particulars of other proceedings concerning him or her and may give special authority to an officer of the court or constable to ensure the recovery of the child.

The Channel Islands and the Overseas Dependent Territories The United Kingdom is responsible for the Channel Islands which, together with the Isle of Man, make up the 3 Crown Dependencies.

The United Kingdom is also responsible for 14 Overseas Dependent Territories, namely: Anguilla; Bermuda; the British Antarctic Territory; the British Virgin Islands; the Cayman Islands; Gibraltar; Monserrat; Pitcairn Island; St Helena and dependencies (Asuncion and Tristan Da Cunha); South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Although orders made in the Isle of Man are recognised and enforceable throughout the United Kingdom, and vice versa, orders made in the Channel Islands and the Dependant Territories are not. However, such orders are likely to be given considerable weight in the respective courts.

The Hague Convention has been extended to the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat and Bermuda. Local specialist legal advice should be taken in the event of an abduction between the Channel Islands or the Dependant Territories and the Isle of Man. NOTE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CANNOT SPELL DEPENDENT! The CHILD has the RIGHT to have contact with the parent – a contact order is “an order with respect to the CHILD;”– it is not an “access order” about an adult having access to a child – that particular way of thinking ENDED in 1991 because it was NOT compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. But the Manx Attorney General uses access and contact or residence and custody as if they are the same legal concept because he or she is (was) an ignorant idiot!

Establishing contact with your child in a Hague Convention Country The assistance which can be offered to applicants seeking to establish or enforce rights of access under the Hague Convention is limited. The reason for this is to be found in the case of Re G (a Minor) (Hague Convention: Access) [1993] 1 FLR 669 (Court of Appeal: 9th December, 1992). In that case the Court of Appeal held that Article 21 of the Hague Convention (which is incorporated into English law by Schedule 1 to the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (of Parliament) and into Manx law by Schedule 1 to the Child Custody Act 1987) gives no power to a court to determine issues or make orders, and that, therefore, those wishing to apply for access must apply for a "contact order" under the usual domestic law provisions contained in section 8 of Children Act 1989 (of Parliament) (which are equivalent to the provisions in the Manx CYP Act ).

A circular dated 5 March, 1993 (reported at [1993] 1 FLR 804) explains that the duty of the Central Authority in access cases under the Hague Convention is limited to finding lawyers who are willing to act for the applicant and assisting them to apply for legal aid.

Once lawyers have accepted an applicant's instructions, the case will be conducted as if it were an ordinary application for contact under the CYP Act. This means that no special priority is accorded to these cases and no special provisions are made for the fact that the applicant is overseas.

Although it is possible to make an application for contact under the Hague Convention to any level of court competent to deal with family proceedings, it is generally accepted that, because of their substantial foreign element, contact applications arising from Article 21 should be heard and determined in the High Court.

The real problem with these “feckin eejits” is that they apply the term CONTACT to the ADULT “establishing contact with your child”.

How access cases are handled Cases which come under either the Hague Convention or the European Convention will be handled by the Attorney General’s Chambers. If the Attorney General’s Chambers is unable to secure -4-

voluntary compliance with the orders, the application will be forwarded to lawyers with experience in these matters. The lawyers will then take instructions, secure legal aid if you qualify and commence any necessary proceedings.

If your case does not come under the Conventions you will need to secure the services of a lawyer in the country in which your child is living. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) will be able to offer assistance in locating a lawyer and may be able to provide similar assistance to that provided in the case of abduction to a non Hague Convention country. Contact details for the FCO are provided in section 14 of this leaflet.

III Civil Law If you fear that your child might be abducted, then you and your advocate should consider making an application to the court for either, a Prohibited Steps order, Residence order and/or a Parental Responsibility order under the CYP Act. It may also be prudent to obtain an injunction preventing the other parent from removing the child, or seeking that the child be made a ward of the High Court. Wardship imposes an automatic prohibition on taking the child out of the Isle of Man. Orders can, if necessary, be made without notice to the other side (ex parte).

In addition, where there is a contact/access order in force, and it is feared that the child may be abducted by the person exercising contact, an application may be made for a variation of the order to provide for the contact to be supervised.

A wide range of orders may be made under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children or within wardship proceedings, including "Seek and Find" orders, orders restraining persons from leaving the jurisdiction and requiring the surrender of passports.

In the Child Custody Act 1987, there are powers to order disclosure of a child's whereabouts, to order the recovery of a child, to restrict the removal of a child from the Isle of Man and to require the surrender of any passport containing details of a child.

If it is feared that a child might not be returned from a visit abroad, then it is possible to ask the court to allow the visit only on condition that the person taking the child abroad lodge a sum of money in court, (a bond - or a charge on property) which will be forfeit if the child is not returned.

The Child Custody Act 1987 is mentioned in this 2005 several times; obviously somebody has read parts of the CCA 1987, but it clearly states that the 1987 Act was passed after the Family Law Act 1986, an Act of Parliament for the United Kingdom. This Act was withdrawn in England & Wales with the implementation of the Children Act 1989 on 14th October 1991, and the Glossary CLEARLY states that an access order: and a custody order: are orders made prior to the implementation of the Family Law Act 1991, providing for a parents. The definitions include the phrase actual custody (physical possession of the child). A child is NOT a possession – for the first time in history in 1991 (in both the Isle of Man and in England & Wales – Scotland and Northern Ireland followed in 1995) CHILDREN HAVE LAW – children's law. The clue is in the names of the ACTS – the Children Act 1989, the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Only the Family Law Act 1991 in the Isle of Man was badly named – it was a repetition of Part 1 of the Children Act 1989 and it actually became enacted six months before the Act for England & Wales.

We turn to the Chronological Table and note that the Family Law Act 1986 (and therefore orders made under section 1 of the Act of Parliament) could extend to the Isle of Man, but only if the orders have been “registered”. [The party wishing to have an order enforced in the other jurisdiction should apply to the court which made the order. That court will then forward the papers to the appropriate court in the other jurisdiction, which will then register it.]

However, neither the Children Act 1989, nor the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, nor the Children -5-

(Northern Ireland) Order 1995, nor the Human Rights Act 1998 are in the Chronological Table and therefore orders made under section 8 of the children acts CANNOT extend to the Isle of Man, and cannot be registered.

When Williamson opened the hearing on 1st July 2004 with the statement “you appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that has been registered here in any event,” he had clearly not checked the Child Custody Act 1987 SINCE 1991! That's right; during his (short) career as a civil court judge (since September 2002) [but prior to that, even as “High Bailiff” he was used as an “acting Deemster”] he had not looked at the Child Custody Act 1987. And nobody in the Crown or in the legal profession in the Isle of Man has EVER understood that “access” and “contact” are NOT the same thing or that when section 11 of the CYPA 2001 states “Orders with respect to children” it means orders about the children and not orders about the adults. The Child has the right to a family life with both parents no matter what an idiot judge thinks.

Despite a few amendments, the Child Custody Act 1987 is essentially exactly as it was in 1987/88 and does NOT allow for the registration of a Children Act 1989 contact order, or any type of Section 8 Children Act 1989 order. In other words, BEFORE 1991, an “access” order made by a court in the Isle of Man could become an access order in Scotland, but after 1991 (and certainly since the CYPA 2001 was enacted) it has been impossible for an Isle of Man section 11 prohibted steps order to become an English section 8 prohibited steps order or impossible for a section 8 contact order to become a Manx section 11 contact order or a Scottish Section 8 specific issue order to become an Isle of Man specific question order. Impossible. Children's law is legal-jurisdiction dependent – in the UK the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 does not extend to England and the Children Act 1989 does not extend to Scotland (and certainly not to the Isle of Man or St. Helena).

The registration process.

The Child Custody Act 1987 makes provision for the recognition of “custody orders”. Section 6 is headed “Recognition of custody orders made in UK” Section 7 is: “Registration of custody orders in High Court” and begins “Where the Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order made in a court in any part of the United Kingdom and sent to him under a provision corresponding to section 12 and having effect in that part, he shall forthwith cause the order to be registered in the High Court in the prescribed manner.”

Section 12 contains the criteria for sending a Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 custody order in an “appropriate court” in any part of the United Kingdom and includes the criterion that the COURT which made the custody order must make the application. All appropriate papers must accompany the application and certified copy of the custody order.

When a court order is received by the Chief Registrar (section 7) it would seem sensible for the Chief Registrar to check the validity of the order. Section 21 of the CCA 1987 is headed “interpretation” and states that a “custody order” is defined in section 20 and that “appropriate court” is defined in Schedule 1.

But under Meaning of 'custody order', section 20(1)(c) tells us that it is “an order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom that is made under Part 1 as defined in section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament).”

A section 8 children Act 1989 order cannot be registered under sections 7 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987.

Schedule 1 tells us: appropriate court “in relation to England and Wales, Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England”.

The County Court in England cannot bind the High Court of England & Wales, and therefore the County Court in Lancaster cannot bind the High Court in the Isle of Man, but the order “registered here in any event” was headed Lancaster County Court: Children Act 1989.

-6-

CHILD CUSTODY ACT 1987 Royal assent: 4 December 1987 Passed: 15 December 1987 AN ACT to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of courts in the Island to make orders with regard to the custody of children; to make provision for the recognition and enforcement of custody orders as between the Island and the United Kingdom; &c; and for connected purposes.

Enforcement of custody orders made in United Kingdom 6

Recognition of custody orders made in UK

(1) Where a custody order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom is in force with respect to a child who has not reached the age of 16, then, subject to subsection (2), the order shall be recognized and have the same effect in the Island as if it had been made by the High Court and as if that court had had jurisdiction to make it.

(2) Where a custody order includes provision as to the means by which rights conferred by the order are to be enforced, subsection (1) shall not apply to that provision.

(3) A court in the Island shall not enforce an order which is recognized in accordance with

subsection (1) unless it has been registered in the High Court under section 7 and proceedings for enforcement are taken in accordance with section 9.

7

Registration of custody order in High Court

(1) Where the Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom and sent to him under a provision corresponding to section 12 and having effect in that part, he shall forthwith cause the order, together with particulars of any variation, to be registered in the High Court in the prescribed manner.

(2) An order shall not be registered under this section in respect of a child who has attained the age of 16, and the registration of an order in respect of a child who has not attained the age of 16 shall cease to have effect on the attainment by the child of that age.

9

Enforcement

(1) Where a custody order has been registered under section 7, the High Court shall have the same powers for the purpose of enforcing the order as it would have if it had itself made the order and had jurisdiction to make it; and proceedings for or with respect to enforcement may be taken accordingly.

(2)Where an application has been made to the High Court for the enforcement of an order registered under section 7, the Court may, at any time before the application is determined, give such interim directions as it thinks fit for the purpose of securing the welfare of the child concerned or of preventing changes in the circumstances relevant to the determination of the application.

(3) The reference in subsection (1) to a custody order does not include a reference to any provision of the order as to the means by which the rights conferred by the order are to be enforced.

12

Registration of Manx custody order in UK

(1) Any person on whom any rights are conferred by a custody order made by a court in the Island may apply to that court for the order to be registered in any part of the United Kingdom under a provision corresponding to section 7 and having effect in that part.

-7-

(2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made in the prescribed manner, contain the prescribed information an be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed.

(3) On receiving an application under this section the court which made the custody order shall, unless it appears to the court that the order is no longer in force, cause the following documents to be sent to the appropriate court in the part of the United Kingdom specified in the application, namely – (a)

a certified copy of the order, and

(b) and

where the order has been varied, prescribed particulars of any variation which is in force,

(c)

a copy of the application and of any accompanying documents.

(4) Where a court in the Island revokes or varies an order which is registered in any part of the United Kingdom under a provision corresponding to section 7, the court shall cause notice of that variation or revocation to be given in the prescribed manner to the court in which it is registered.

20

Meaning of 'custody order'

(1) In this Part 'custody order' means, subject to the following provisions of this section – (c) an order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom which is a Part I order as defined in section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament).

21

Interpretation

(1) In this part – 'appropriate court', in relation to any part of the United Kingdom shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1; 'certified copy' in relation to the order of a court shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 2 of Schedule 1; 'child', except in section 15, means a person who has not attained the age of 18; 'custody order' has the meaning given by section 20; 'part of the United Kingdom' means Scotland or Northern Ireland or England & Wales.

Schedule 1 Meaning of Certain Expressions in Part I 'Appropriate court' 1. In Part I 'the appropriate court' means (a) in relation to England & Wales, Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England; (b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session; (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland.

Certified copy of a court order 2. (1) In Part I 'certified copy' (a) in relation to the order of a court in the Island, means a copy certified by the proper officer of the court to be a true copy of the order or of the official record of the order; (b) in relation to the order of a court in the United Kingdom, has the meaning given by section 42(1) of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament).

(2) In sub-paragraph (1 )(a) 'the proper officer' means (a) in relation to the High Court, the Chief Registrar; -8-

(b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction, the clerk of the court.

On 28th May 2004, despite NONE of the three essential criteria mentioned in section 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987 being complied with (the mother of the children hand-wrote a letter to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division, General Registry and included non-certified photocopies) FOUR documents were produced and sent to the mother only (no “respondent father”) telling her that County Court “orders” from Lancaster, England HAD BEEN registered!

There were three people aware of the registration on 28th May 2004; Deputy Deemster Andrew K. Williamson, his clerk Mrs Jacqui Brogan (who relies on the Deemster for direction and supervision) and Assistant Chief Registrar Jayne Williams, (an officer of the court reliant on either First Deemster or Andrew Williamson for direction and supervision).

The registration on 28th May 2004 was unlawful; it did not happen. All document produced on 28th May 2004 were false documents or forgeries, and these forgeries were only sent to one parent, so the other parent (me) did not know of their existence until May 2007!

Forgery is a crime – the combined WICKED team of Williamson, Williams and Brogan perverted the course of justice on 28th May 2004 – they purported to record something that could not have happened since 1991 – in 13 years these clowns had learned nothing about children's law.

On 1st July 2004 Williamson dismissed a perfectly reasonable application and closed the application file (given reference DIV 2004/144 by the High Court Office on 25 th May 2004). The case that should have been listed as Re: Katarina and Benedict Holmes (but was actually listed as Stephen Holmes versus Yvonne Holmes) ended on 1st July 2004.

An unlawful action – a wicked action – had taken place on 28th May 2004 (but the date of the unlawful action was not disclosed until 10th November 2004), and that action was lurking in the background, ready to destroy Manx children.

During 2007 a solicitor “told me” the term ultra vires; “beyond the powers of.”

In 2003, while the Courts in England & Wales were part of the Lord Chancellor's Department, a document was produced about the “British Islands”. In this document was the phrase: “agencies and departments must NOT state that the Islands are part of the United Kingdom (or of England, or of Great Britain) or act on that assumption.”

On 29th October 2003 a judge in England said in civil court (a county court) “The Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom”.

For the ensuing four months the County courts in northern England acted in an ultra vires manner – the court offices and three judges acted on the assumption that the Children Act 1989 could be used to bind the Isle of Man. Things got worse on 24th February 2004 when a judge granted leave “to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently”. Surely, that was good? No, because having formally relinquished jurisdiction over Manx children, the county court judge (Robert “Moron” Forrester) decided that he could bind the Isle of Man with a section 8 “contact order” but he applied the concept (and the Children Act 1989 is similarly headed to the CYPA 2001 8 Residence, contact and other orders with respect to children) to an adult not to a child. Paragraph 4 of the “order” of 24 th February 2004 is the most ultra vires statement since the Children Act 1989 became law on 14th October 1991 (and probably since).

4. The father do have reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes -9-

place in the Isle of Man. Paragraph 3 stated: The children may be removed from the United Kingdom (see separate order).

On 28th May 2004 the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT (assistant chief registrar Jayne Williams) supposedly registered this nonsense in the Isle of Man under section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987. On the same day, she purported to register an order headed “Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom” as if it was a custody order.

Quite simply, the Isle of Man High Court (office) [where Williamson was directing and supervising; being the only person in the “office” with any legal knowledge] made a snafu on 28 th May 2004 because the Deputy Deemster “thought he knew what he was doing.” He said “you appear to have a – an order” when what HE had was an ultra vires document that had been unlawfully processed through the court office. Williamson knew all about the registration – it was he who directed it.

But the officers of the Crown who followed he thought that he acted appropriately – they showed partiality to the wicked. By March 2007, the officers who had judged unjustly and sided with wicked Williamson were High Bailiff Michael Moyle, Attorney General John Corlett (and his advocated Walter Wannenburgh), Captain Paul Haddock and an acting Deemster Tim King.

Finally, at the beginning of March 2007 it became evident that the registration process with defective, but the data Child Custody Act 1987 had not been revealed (the first date that it was mentioned was 13th (or 15th) April 2007!

“The Wicked” include judges Gordon Nuttall and Robert Forrester in England – Nuttall stated that the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom and Forrester assumed that the CA 1989 extended to the Isle of Man and that he could make a contact order about a father. Notice that all these people are “servants of the Crown” so a dispute had begun “the Crown versus Stephen Holmes” with Williamson as the unjust (and ignorant) judge in the Isle of Man. What he did on 5th November 2004 should have got him dismissed from the judiciary.

Nobody has really studied his actions, so I begin with part of a transcript from the impromptu hearing that he scheduled on the afternoon of Friday 5th. This transcript was e-mailed to me by Kevin O'Riordan (KOR) on 8th April 2011.

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 I have no paperwork – I think this is very akin to another matter! Yes! Those orders are binding.

- 10 -

It was a fact on 5th November 2004 that neither the orders supposedly registered “back in May” nor the “recent variation” supposedly registered “yesterday” had not actually been registered – indeed COULD NOT BE SO registered and therefore the opening of the hearing contained several untruths; the biggest being “Those orders are binding” – those documents WERE NOT BINDING. There followed twenty minutes of nonsense and at the end of 20 minutes Williamson stated that he would make a “declaratory order” based on the Child Custody Act. He said at one stage: 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.

It may not be up to a headmaster or a constable to “rush” to the Child Custody Act 1987, but a servant of the Crown who has sworn to execute the laws of this Isle justly should have examined the Child Custody Act 1987 to establish whether he can still use an Act from four years before the Family Law Act 1991 (or two years before the Children Act 1989) in the twenty-first century. It is clear that he did not know what he was doing on 5th November 2004 as he three times used the term “prohibitive steps” when the Section 11 CYPA 2001 order is a “prohibited steps order” and it applies to the CHILD not to the Parent.

At the end of the unfair hearing on 5th November 2004, Williamson the sloth issued a declaration that the only contact a parent could enjoy with young children was by letter or telephone, thereby depriving the CHILDREN of their RIGHT to a family life with their own legitimate father. What a vile child-abusing bastard Williamson was!

There is a rule that a judge cannot be prosecuted if he is acting in his judicial capacity, but Williamson was not acting in any judicial capacity on 5th November 2004 – he had stated that “those orders are binding” when they were not binding. He had no power to issue a declaration on 5 th November 2004 – his declaration stated that “registrations” had happened (on 28th May 2004 and on 4th November 2004) when no registrations had actually happened. Because Williamson had spent more than 14 years in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction (the criminal court) he sent his declaration to the Police – a Family Division court order should not go to the Constabulary. Police officers interpreted the unlawful declaration as “some kind of injunction empowering arrest”.

For the period 8th November 2004 to mid-August 2007, because a servant of the Crown had issued a document with IT IS DECLARED and IT IS ORDERED on it, even though it had no legitimacy, the advocates (who are officers of the Court) and members of the Constabulary and FOUR officers of the Crown sided with the wicked Williamson. The case that had been wrongly listed as Stephen Holmes versus Yvonne Holmes on 1st July 2004 and dismissed was miraculously and unlawfully resurrected as the Crown and the Chief Constable versus Stephen Holmes with Williamson and Michael Moyle as judges and the Attorney General and Governor as backers of the judges.

I cheered in January 2007 because I read that Williamson the sloth had asked to retire on 6th January 2008 – giving him a twenty year career as a judge in the Isle of Man. I applied to the High Court to have the unlawful (defective) declaration set-aside on 19th March 2007 and had the first directions hearing on Friday 15th April 2007 with Deemster Kerruish presiding. “This seems to me to be an appeal against an order made under the Child Custody Act 1987,” said the First Deemster on that day. The declaration of 5th November 2004 (and a subsequent unlawful declaration made by Williamson on 16th November 2005) had NO Act of Tynwald listed – so it was impossible to know which Act was used. Mr Kerruish had read the CCA 1987 in April 2007, but Williamson had not done so in 2004.

The hearing was on 24th September 2007 and was listed as a “review in the Staff of Government Division” with me, Stephen Holmes, as appellant and Mrs Yvonne Holmes as the “respondent”.

The only relevant statement by Mrs Holmes was “if the Appellant is right and the orders were not properly registered then the order of 5th November 2004 should be set-aside”.

The declaration (and order) of 5th November 2004 was quashed in its entirety because the criteria mentioned in section 12 were not followed before 28th May 2004 and before 4th November 2004 and - 11 -

therefore the “due process” of “registration” was an unlawful process.

But Williamson was retiring on 6th January 2008, just three months later. The tow judges (Geoffrey Tattersall and Mike Kerruish) delayed giving judgement until Friday 26th October 2007 – exactly 155 weeks after Williamson had scheduled a hearing on 5th November 2004. Williamson had nineweeks left (including Christmas 2007) so the judges “took pity” on the virulent sloth and wrote that no fair criticism could be made of the child-rights-abusing bastard. “How long, oh entity that is the Crown in the Isle of Man, will you judge unjustly and show bias towards the wicked.”

Of course criticism of Williamson should have been made, but once an “appeal judge” has decided to be biased (and the informed and fair minded person would have no hesitation in criticizing Williamson) then the other members of “the entity” decide that “no criticism” is correct. “No fair criticism may be made of Josef Fritzl because &c” GET REAL. On 3rd September 2007 David Doyle entered the fray.

He convened a hearing at two hours notice in response to an application by Yvonne Holmes that I should bring my daughter Katie back from Birmingham in England to the Isle of Man immediately.

The case was listed as DIV 2004/144 Yvonne Holmes versus Stephen Holmes and the “order” was headed “IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN: FAMILY DIVISION” another civil court order – Mrs Holmes took it to the Police and the Isle of Man Police faxed the civil order to England. I was arrested on Wednesday 5 th September 2007 in the evening and locked in a police cell in Birmingham for 13 hours. I was released without charge on the morning of 6 th and later received compensation from West Midlands Police for being falsely imprisoned.

On 27th November 2007, David Doyle again entered the fray and judged with Mrs Holmes – that a section 11 CYPA 2001 residence order MUST BE MADE in respect of Katie and Ben Holmes (who had been denied a family life with me for three years because of the unlawful declaration by Williamson).

The Court Welfare Office became involved. The opening line of the “report” was “At the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in front of the Deemster on 27th November 2007”. The “reporter” (a woman who worked in the Probation Service in the DHA, part of the criminal justice system) did not know what court she was in.

It has come to my attention over the last eight years that the servants of the Crown in the Isle of Man think that they are “above the law”. They think they know “everything” and that what they say is “gospel” but they actually know nothing. In the Book of Tao is the saying: (71 the Disease): He who knows a lot but says he knows little and has much to learn has true knowledge; He who knows nothing but says he knows everything is the source of evil in society.

I can understand why the judges did not criticize Williamson – he was to retire in nine weeks and they didn't want to damn a twenty-year career because of an unlawful event that could be blamed on the Courts Administration. But the fact is that Williamson is completely to blame for the unlawful action on 28th May 2004 – the proof for this was provided by another “sloth,” advocate Paul Morris, on 14th December 2011, and by Deemster Andrew Corlett on 1st April 2011 (published on 14th April). Corlett “praised” 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”. Deemster Corlett admitted learning “a great deal” from the most complacent, ignorant and incompetent civil court judge the Isle of Man has ever had. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

It is now February 2012, and we have a newer judiciary – in August 2011 First Deemster Doyle produced a “code of conduct” but he and others still “make it up as they go along.” After Williamson retired, he was invited back to be a decision maker in family matters in the civil court.

After Moyle retired he was invited back as a Deputy High Bailiff. John Corlett has re-entered the legal “profession” as a consultant. Captain Haddock has gone.

- 12 -

Andrew Corlett is unaware of how to deal with a children's matter; David Doyle is biased and Stephen Harding is “working on other matters;” Miss M.A. Norman is acting Attorney General.

And in 2008 a complete moron made a decision in the Common Law Division of the High Court – the detestable Linda Sullivan. In 2008, 17 years after the term disappeared from statute Loopy Linda said that “access and contact are the same thing”.

The Crown in the Isle of Man is the most biased and corrupt entity it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. There is no “independent commission;” all judges judge that other judges know what they are doing, even when they issue false documents. And the members of the Isle of Man Law Society (from whence most of the judges in the Island are recruited) are just as bad.

Take the status of Parental Responsibility (PR).

At the top of this brief article is the paragraph (from the AG): The law in the Isle of Man is primarily governed by the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 which came fully into force in February 2003, repeating the concept of parental responsibility, meaning the duties, rights and authority which a parent has in respect of their child which had been created by the Family Law Act 1991. PR was mentioned in Part 1 of the FLA 1991, and the CYPA 2001 is headed as An Act to reenact parts 1 and 2 of the Family Law Act 1991; to reform the law relating to children; &c.

Repeating is not quite the correct word – re-enacted is better.

If a couple are married, both parents have PR. If a couple are not married, the mother automatically has Parental Responsibility. But PR is NOT a status that should be “ordered” by the Court – the father either has it or he does not have it. If it is not obvious that a father has PR then a Court may confirm by Court Order that “Mr Jackson has Parental responsibility for Zoe Jackson,” but Mr J. already has it; the court order is merely “confirmation”. Proof that an unmarried father has PR can be as simple as “Name of Father” on a birth certificate, or an written admission from the mother that the father is the “biological father.”

DNA can be useful in the twenty-first century.

This goes to show that the drafters and interpreters of law DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING! Section 1 of the CYPA 2001 begins with Where a court determines any question with regard the the upbringing of a child the welfare of that child shall be the court's paramount consideration.

Subsection 1(5) states that the court shall NOT make an order unless it determines that making an order is better for the child than making no order at all; so when I applied (on 18 th May 2004) for a section 11 CYPA 2001 order and Deputy Deemster Williamson dismissed my application, he was acting within his section 1(5) powers – he made “no order at all”.

But the combined team of Williamson, Williams, and Brogan HAD acted unlawfully on 28 th May 2004 and had begun proceedings under the Child Custody Act 1987 because Williamson had not read the Act in fourteen years, and he had not comprehended section 11 of the CYPA 2001 “Orders with respect to the child.”

Therefore on 5th November 2004, under “case reference” DIV 2004/144, Williamson began an adversarial matter: Andrew Williamson versus Stephen Holmes. In the hearing on 5th November 2004 Williamson showed his ignorance with the phrase: “Well I can do anything that I think is necessary for the immediate protection of the children” NO NO NO – he HAD TO act within his powers granted him by the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 and was bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 is the Right to a fair hearing and a hearing scheduled at less than three hours notice where the decision maker begins by lying to his own court and then says he can do “whatever I think is necessary” IS NOT FAIR. - 13 -

Article 8 of the Convention is the Right to a family life and an unlawful declaration that the children should not see their father is NOT Convention compatible, but is an absolute abuse of power by the virulent sloth.

So there you have it; Williamson was an absolute bastard in the Isle of Man High Court and he virtually ran single-handed all the work of the Family Division from 1st September 2002 to 6th January 2008.

ALL OFFICERS OF THE CROWN that have been asked have assumed that Williamson acted in good faith! Therefore the Crown in the Isle of Man is the most biased and incompetent and corrupt entity in the Isle of Man – the members (right up to First Deemster David Doyle and the Attorney General and the previous Governor) act like Henry Tudor (8th); “we have a divine right to snafu”.

David Doyle, Andrew Corlett; HOW LONG WILL YOU JUDGE UNJUSTLY AND SHOW PARTIALITY TO THE WICKED? The wicked includes, of course, Andrew Williamson, Linda Sullivan, Tim King, and Michael Moyle. And yourselves.

If a police constable acts outside his powers, there is a chain of “command” where a complaint can be heard and possibly rectified.

But when the initial unlawful action is by an officer of the Court (appointed in writing by the First Deemster) [in this case Jayne Williams], the chain of command goes to the Crown and the Crown in the Isle of Man thinks it is above the law. Therefore I am in an adversarial dispute with David Doyle and Andrew Corlett and M.A. Norman and probably with Governor Adam Wood because an officer of the Court, guided and supervised by Williamson the sloth, unlawfully “registered” documents from an English County Court that could not be registered and her later boss Peter Corkhill admitted on 25th July 2007 that orders had be registered “by this office” erroneously “i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987”.

If a person parks on Douglas promenade without a parking disk or for more than two hours they have not acted in accordance with the requirements of a Road Traffic Act or local bylaws. The Courts Administration (the High Court Office) section of the General Registry, guided by an officer of the Crown who knew exactly what they were doing, acted outside the powers given to it by an Act of Tynwald and then the Deputy “feckin” Deemster issued a false declaration based on an erroneous assumption that a Section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact order” could miraculously become a Section 11 CYPA 2001 contact order by application of an Act that was passed by Tynwald BEFORE the Family Division of the High Court came into existence. What a corrupt, malicious moron!

In 2006 the Governor and Attorney General and High Bailiff and Tim King judged unjustly and showed bias to the wicked; in 2007 the First Deemster and Judge of Appeal judged correctly (they set-aside Williamson's defective declaration) but showed bias to the wicked by failing to criticize the child-rights-abusing bastard; and since then David Doyle, Linda Sullivan, John Corlett, Andrew Corlett and Stephen Harding have judged unjustly and shown bias to the wicked. And in 2011 Williamson was still invited into the High Court of Injustice where he could snafu in children's matters without any criticism being made.

Now I don't mind a dispute, but I despise bias – an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The most biased entity in the Isle of Man is that which answers to no-one; the Crown.

The Crown makes me sick – the members of this group in the Isle of Man show no regard for Human Rights – not even of children.

Now ask yourself (if you have managed to get this far); “What good has the Crown done for Katie and Ben Holmes since 2004?” What good has the Crown done for Stephen Holmes or even for Yvonne Holmes since 2004? If you can say that any good has come of the events on 28th May 2004 and 4th & 5th November 2004 then you have failed to understand that citizens have rights and that the Crown is BOUND by the Human Rights Act 2001 (section 20); in other words, you are another - 14 -

biased rights-abusing moron.

How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? All your lives? Or one day will you be able to say; “Oh yes! Andrew Williamson did his utmost to destroy the family lives of Manx children Katie and Ben Holmes, and their father Stephen, and he was a liability in the Civil court”.

I am available for a dialogue; but who has got the courage to answer the question “How long?”

There must be a time when partiality to the wicked Williamson is no longer shown and fair decisions will be made by the Crown in the Isle of Man; will it be in my life-time?

On 29th September 2011, Judge Geoffrey Tattersall confirmed that Children's matters should be dealt with differently from any other court process. In the Isle of Man, a section 1 CYPA 2001 is still listed as Kramer versus Kramer when it is RE: THE CHILD. Until the Feckin High Court Office begins to understand its responsibilities towards children, and the Attorney General understands that A CHILD HAS CONTACT with an ADULT (or other person) it is not the RIGHT of the adult to have “contact”, we have the potential for further unjust judgements and partiality to the wicked and incompetent.

My name is Stephen Holmes and I have learned to hate (with a glad heart!) the Crown in the Isle of Man because it is the most corrupt entity to have established itself in Ellan Vannin. It is time that the Crown was accountable to the people instead of being “unaccountable to itself”.

From the AG's document on Child Abduction: the AG wrote in 2005: II Criminal Law Under the Child Custody Act 1987, it is a criminal offence in the Isle of Man for any person connected with a child (which includes parents, guardians and anyone having responsibility for the child), to take or send the child out of the Isle of Man without the consent of any other person who has parental responsibility for the child. A parent who has the right to have contact with or access to a child will usually also have parental responsibility.

I have two unmarried friends who have a child- Louise Krüger Pearce. Andrea Krüger gave birth to Louise in the Isle of Man in July 2005; at the time Andrea was habitually resident (and paying tax) in the Isle of Man, and had been for more than three years – it was her intention AT THAT TIME to remain indefinitely in the Isle of Man and therefore the domicile of origin of Louise is the Isle of Man. Andrea Krüger registered the birth of Louise at the Registries and she listed Mark Pearce as the father. For the next six-and-a-half years Louise had regular contact with Mark – and Mark paid considerable funds to Andrea so that Louise could have a good quality of life.

On 16th December 2011 Andrea took Louise to Australia.

The Leaflet is headed –

International Child Abduction and Contact Information for parents • Has your child been taken overseas without your consent?

• Is your child being kept overseas against your wishes?

IT IS THE CHILD that has CONTACT with the parent. As correctly stated above, a contact order is an order that REQUIRES the parent with whom a CHILD lives to ALLOW the child to visit or stay with the “person named in the order” (usually the other parent). So there is NOTHING wrong with the LAW – the CYPA 2001. The WRONG – the Wickedness – is in the interpretation of the Acts of Tynwald, and the first line of inquiry is usually a member of the Isle of Man Law Society; an advocate. On 5th November 2004 the first advocate I encountered in the Isle of Man said in court:– I then had him arrive at my office a few minutes ago so I had the benefit of about 5 minutes of - 15 -

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 I think this is very akin to – I KNOW that “this” was NOT akin to anything else the High Court of Injustice has encountered before because in THIS case the declaration issued by the moron Williamson was unlawful.

A case under the CYPA 2001 is about a child, but the child NEVER has competent legal representation and the judges have no clue how to deal with a matter under sections 1 and 11 of the CYPA 2001 – they have only had 21 years to get used to it – the FLA 1991 contained exactly the same concepts of orders with respect to children, not orders conferring the right of “contact” (or lack of it) on an adult!

In the case of Louise Krüger Pearce the authorities are forcing Mark to go to Australia to visit his Manx daughter who is being kept overseas against the wishes of her father and grandparents, and the advocates (including the Attorney General) are only interested in money – unjust judgements and greed and bias rules their incompetent and virulent thoughts.

It is time we had a competent children's advocate in the Isle of Man, after all, we have reformed law relating to children; but morons to interpret it. The spirit of Williamson lives, unfortunately.

I think I used to be a “proud Manx-man”. I am proud of the Manx people, but I hate the influence on that most corrupt of entities – the Crown – on the “land of my birth”. Look at Henry 8 th – one year he “wrote” In defense of the Seven Sacraments and later he declared himself “head of the church” so he could fornicate with another woman! The Crown in England now has almost no power, but here in the Isle of Man where the heads of two statutory boards of Government (the Attorney General's Chambers and the General Registry) are Servants of the Crown [The Chief Registrar is guided and supervised by the First Deemster] and even the Chief Secretary liaises with the Governor and the Lord Chancellor (part of the Ministry of Injustice in London, which is responsible for appointing servants of the Crown), the Crown is the most powerful entity and can “get away with murder”. On 5th November 2004 one servant of the Crown authorized the abuse of my children – rights-abuse, but abuse nevertheless, and more than seven years later the First Deemster has allowed himself to judge unjustly because it “wouldn't look good” of criticism was made of a child-rights-abusing bastard.

The problems go back to March 1991 when the “new” structure was put in place – a new Family Law Act to replace the ancient Guardianship of Infants Act 1953, then a new Division of the High Court in which to hear Children's matters, but with morons manning the decision making process (such as a criminal court judge) and morons administering proceedings and a bunch of lawyers who have NO code of conduct (save greedily asking for as much money as they can) and no program of Continuous Professional Development. Things reached an all-time nadir on 1st September 2002 when Andrew Kalashnikov Williamson was “promoted” to the High Court and set about turning the Family Division into a Court of Injustice. It is still a Court of Injustice, and will remain so while David Doyle and Andrew Corlett judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked.

The power of the Crown in the Isle of Man has to be limited as it has been in England and now in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I heard the verse from Psalm 82 read by David Doyle on 29th January 2012 and it struck me that he is one of the people to whom this verse is addressed. He has judged in favour of the wicked – he was inextricably involved in the case DIV 2004/144 (Williamson versus Stephen Holmes) in 2007 and 2008, so a “fair minded and informed person” would have no hesitation in asking him to remove himself from a matter where he has previously “eaten poisoned fruit”. Not our Dave – he has decided that he is now a qualified psychologist! How long Deemster Doyle? How Long?

Stephen Holmes B.Sc. - 16 -