Questions to AAG Quinn (John LM)

Memorandum from G. Stephen Holmes, Manxman To MHKs, MLCs, members of the “judiciary,” people of the Isle of Man Subject:

Wrong-doing (malfeasance; misgovernment) in the General Registry

Date:

4th December 2014

On most “IOMG” letters, underneath the Coat of Arms are the words Isle of letters from the General Registry, the words Isle of Man Government are missing – and they are also missing on letters purportedly from the Isle of Man Courts of Justice – what used to be called the High Court Office.

Man Government – but on

Isle of Man Government I am only concerned about the High Court – I am not concerned with the domain of the High Bailiff (presently John Needham) called the Court of Summary Jurisdiction (“CSJ”) or the Court of General Gaol Delivery. The High Court is the domain of the First Deemster, who is President of the High Court and is also Deputy Governor – Her Majesty’s Deputy Governor – an officer of the Crown. Actually, when letters were issued from the High Court Office, underneath the Coat of Arms were the words Courts Administration. Since 2012 letters are no longer from the High Court Office – they are now from the Isle of Man Courts of “Justice.” The administration of all the courts is the work of public officials – civil servants – people in public authority, but whereas with any other government official, such as a “social worker,” there is a path of accountability leading to a Minister, then the Council of Ministers and ultimately to “the people,” with a clerk in a Court Office (and we will only consider the office that supports the “High Court of ‘justice’”) that clerk is answerable to the chief executive of the General Registry, the Chief Registrar, who is directed and supervised by Her Majesty’s First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls – who is “the Crown in the Isle of Man”. But other officers of the Crown do not “give a damn” about failures in the office of records of the High Court or in the back office administration of court processes.

On 18th May 2004, I submitted a “Form C1” to the Court Office – and at the head of the form were the words, and in the following script, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN, Family Law Act 1991 This “Form C1” was given to Deputy Deemster AK Williamson, former High Bailiff, who made a “decision” on 1st July 2004 and wrote “IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be and is hereby dismissed.” Four months later, AK Williamson scheduled a “meeting” at short (3 hours) notice and issued what purported to be a “declaratory order”. It later developed that there was “no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.” I will repeat that – on 5th November 2004 Deputy Deemster AK Williamson produced a document that “looked like” a court order, but that document had no legal basis.

On 3rd September 2007, just three weeks before a review of the events leading-up to the false order of 5 th November 2004, Deemster David Doyle alleged that the “divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144” had a “considerable history” but case Div 2004/144 was not a divorce – it was a matter relating to children. Doyle (now First Deemster) did not know the difference between a children matter and a matrimonial matter!

I did not have any family life with my own Manx children for three years because of unlawful “errors” in the courts building, errors made by the Chief Registrars and by Deemsters (Doyle, Williamson, King) and by the then Attorney-General turning a blind eye to wrong-doing (or malfeasance or misgovernment).

I have attempted to USE THE LAW to solve the problems caused by incompetence in April to July 2004, and Stephen Cregeen has “judged” that I am trying to exercise a right of the Crown! On 1 st December 2014 I wrote a one-page letter to the Acting Attorney-General, and asked him three simple questions – to which I expect to receive no answer because Mr Quinn knows that I am right and Cregeen, Williamson, Doyle and himself have been doing wrong in this single matter in the past – in some cases for more than ten years. So there can be no justice in the Isle of Man when a servant of the Crown (a Deemster or the Attorney-General) errs in law and issues a false instrument which becomes government policy.

1st December 2014

s_h_iom@yahoo.com

Open letter to HM Attorney General (Acting) John L.M. Quinn Dear Sir, You once informed me that you are the legal advisor to IOM Government and to “The Crown” in the Isle of Man. As you are aware, last month I received a letter from the Chief Registrar, Stephen Cregeen alleging that MY RIGHT, as a Subject, under the Bill of Rights 1688, is “a separate residual Crown prerogative right.”

Cregeen states that as his belief, but then continues to tell me that he is “directed” to return correspondence to me, and with the correspondence, he returned my Petition of Right that was addressed to Her “Majesty” Queen Elizabeth (Windsor) of England, Lord of Man, via her Deemster Alistair Montgomerie. Cregeen does not know the difference between a Subject and the Crown!

My questions to you, Mr Quinn, are: 1. who advised Cregeen (?), because this man is too stupid to consider anything on his own; and 2. who directed him to return the correspondence and the Petition to me (?), for commitments against such petitioning are illegal.

I find the attitude of Cregeen just about sums up the attitude of the “second estate” in the Isle of Man – the imbeciles just “make it up as they go,” and nobody seems to rock the boat.

I have a third question: what part of “no legitimate basis” do you not understand?

There was no legitimacy to the so-called “order” issued by the vile Deputy Deemster “AK47” Williamson on 5 th November 2004, and yet “no fair criticism” was made of this rights-abusing charlatan by his colleagues. Now if you are familiar with Manx statute, you will know section 45 of the Customary Laws Act 1422 which is headed Partiality and misgovernment prohibited. Williamson misgoverned two hearings in 2004, and his colleagues (Deemster Kerruish and Tattersall JA) showed actual bias to the rights-abusing charlatan by making “no fair criticism” of him. That remark can mean one of two things – either the SOGD judges showed a flagrant disregard of their Oaths and the 1422 Statute, or Deemster Kerruish (as First Deemster) had himself directed the Assistant Chief Registrar to “register” documents from a County Court in England in the Isle of Man High Court on 28 th May 2004. If so, the office of the First Deemster has acted unlawfully in the past, and actions of the present First Deemster cannot be trusted. I don’t trust Doyle anyway because of what he did on 3 rd September 2007 when he put the life of an 11-year-old girl (my daughter Katie) at risk. Doyle spoke of “divorce proceedings” showing that he didn’t know the difference between a matter under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 and a matter under the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, but misgovernment is prohibited BY LAW – by STATUTE. It is also prohibited by the rules of natural justice and by all common law precedent; but not in the High Court of “justice” of the Isle of Man: Doyle, Williamson and now Corlett (and Roberts, Melton and even Tattersall) have turned the High Court into a kangaroo court of injustice. Officers of the High Court (who are appointed in writing by the First Deemster) regularly ask the judges what to do, thereby compromising the independence of the judiciary, but asking the AG would have been just as worthless because nobody spotted that “provided such takes place in the Isle of Man” was ultra vires and should have been treated as void by the courts. Well, we had the baboon AK47 Williamson in the Family Division and he wouldn’t have known vomit from vegetable soup or ordure from chocolate so there was no chance of “good government” in the High Court of Justice, Family section.

I look forward to answers to my three questions above: and repeated below: 1. Who advised Cregeen before he wrote the letter of 12th November 2014?; 2. Who directed Cregeen to return the Petition to me?; (was it Doyle or Montgomerie?); and 3. What part of the phrase “no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did” do you not understand?

Best regards, Signed G. Stephen Holmes G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc. Continued –

Here is an edited version of the court (office) ordure from Cregeen –

The Bill of Rights (plural) was, until 1896, known as An Act declaring the rights and liberties of the Subject and “Seteling” the Succession of the “Crowne” – it was not known as The (1688) Bill of Rights until the last 3 years of the nineteenth century: because of The Short Titles Act 1896 older Acts are now known by a short title, or “s.t.”

Tynwald library contains the Statutes at Large of England and of the United Kingdom back to Magna Carta Libertatum 1215. The library also has two versions of the Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man – the first edition from 1975 and the fifth edition from 2003. The Bill of Rights 1688 extends to the Isle of Man. In the midst of the second page of the Bill of Rights are the words “The Subject’s Rights” and one of them is the Right to petition the King. The famous Archer-Shee Case of 1909-10 was brought about by a Petition of Right. The right to Petition became unnecessary in England & Wales after the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, but the 1947 Act does not extend to the Isle of Man, so the only method to review actions

by officers of the Crown such as the Deputy Deemster and officers of government who are directed and supervised by an officer of the Crown, such as Government Advocates in the Chambers of HM Attorney-General or the Chief Registrar or Assistant Chief Registrar, is by Petition of Right.

No-one shall be a judge in own cause – Nemo judex in causa sua – is the fundamental rule of natural justice, and represents one of the minimum standards of fairness. “I do not believe that the Courts can exercise jurisdiction” and “I return the documentation to you” is the Chief Registrar judging that his “belief” is lawful, and that he can make a decision that cannot be questioned.

That is also what Acting Attorney-General John Quinn did in March 2013, just days after becoming the Government and Crown legal adviser – and he admitted that he had only looked at “recent” correspondence and paperwork – not at paperwork going back to 2 nd April 2004 and earlier; so the Acting Attorney-General is another charlatan officer of “the Crown”!

And so I have put this memorandum into the public domain in an effort to persuade the Acting Attorney-General that he has a legal (and moral) obligation to answer sensible questions put to him by a subject. The Deputy Deemster had legal, moral and social obligations to ensure that the rights of Manx children were upheld between receiving a letter on about 6th April 2004 and sending out a letter on 30 th November 2005, but AK47 Williamson completely failed in his duty of care to Manx children. He was a complete charlatan who should NEVER have been promoted from the CSJ to the High Court for he turned it into a kangaroo court of injustice. The High Court has never recovered from his imbecilic misgovernment of family cases.

I want to know who advised Chief Registrar Cregeen BEFORE he wrote to me on 12th November 2014?

I want to know who directed the Chief Registrar to return my Petition of Right to me?

I want to know why nobody in the Crown takes any notice of the term “no legitimate basis”?

How can the Deputy Deemster issue a so-called order that has no basis in law and get away with it? Deputy Deemster AK Williamson “in effect” abused the rights of my children in 2004 and 2005 and “no fair criticism” was made of him by his colleagues – he got away with abusing (the rights of children) for years.