Page 1

26th February 2014 Douglas, IM Isle of Man Administration Office Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Supreme Court and JCPC Parliament Square, London. Dear Sir or Madam, Stephen Holmes -v- The General Registry of the Isle of Man Government This case must proceed to a full hearing in the JCPC for the following reasons – 1. Our most ancient Act of Tynwald was the 1417 Customary Law, and there were Customary Laws promulgated in 1419, 1422 (two), 1429 and 1430. A Book of Precedents (a MSS by John Quayle) was published in the early 18 th century and contains some case-law for the period 1417 to 1430. The Isle of Man has ancient [almost 600 years ago] statutes and case law. 2. There is still one clause of what is now known as the Customary Laws Act 1417 in force, one of the 1422 “acts” has been repealed, as have the 1419, 1429 and 1430 Laws, but we have six clauses from the Customary Laws Act 1422 in force, and one clause from each of the Acts of Tynwald of 1577. 3. Section 45 of the Customary Laws Act 1422 is interesting, and is the basis for the Deemster's oath, mentioned in section 3(7) of the High Court Act 1991. 4. 45. Partiality and misgovernment prohibited. Forasmuch as before this Time, by Misrule and Wilfulness of the Lieutenant and Receiver, the Law of Mann hath been misgoverned to them that they hated too rigorous, and to them that they did like over favourable, soe that oft Times, through this Misgovernment, the People have been wronged, and Profit taken to the Lord, otherwise than the Law would. And whereas Profit should be taken not done as the Law would for Favour. Wherefore be it ordained from henceforth, that the Officers be true principally to the Lord and the Laws of the Land, to be governed duly and truly betwixt the Lord and his Commons, and betwixt Party and Party, without Rigour, Fraud, or Colour. And that the Deemsters may give their Judgment at their Perils, saving ever the Lord’s Prerogatives, and to be ruled by Advice of the Councel and the Deemsters.

In the Deemster's oath is the phrase “to execute the laws of this Isle justly.” 5. Partiality is also known as “bias” and one of the ancient rules of natural justice is the bias rule – no-one shall be a judge in own cause (nemo judex in causa sua). 6. Although I was successful in my “appeal” against the so-called declaratory order of Deputy Deemster Williamson of 5 th November 2004, and the hearing in the Staff of Government Division on 24th September 2007 was a hearing open to members of the public, because it was in fact about an unlawful process purportedly, but not, undertaken under an Act of Tynwald called the Child Custody Act 1987, the Deemsters were biased in a remark in paragraph 47 of the judgment, and erred in law in some of the comments made in the 2DS 2007/9 judgment of 26 th October 2007 (now online at issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/J1183). 7. The entire “appeal process” was misgoverned because Mrs Holmes was listed as the “Respondent” to the Application of 19 th March 2007. This application asked a Court of First Instance to resolve the matter of the defective declaration made by the Deputy Deemster on 5 th November 2004, and the General Registry (probably on the advice of the First Deemster) listed the matter as an appeal in the Staff of Government Division. Under the High Court Act 1991, “an appeal” was the correct process, but the General Registry was the entity that purportedly made the “registrations” on 28th May 2004 and 4th November 2004, and those processes of registration were unlawful – on both occasions. Mrs Holmes was not responsible for the unlawful actions by the Assistant Chief Registrar. 8. I had every intention of letting things be, but in April / May 2012 the Deputy Assistant Chief Registrar (Mr Robertson) involved himself in matters and reported to Deemster Sharon Roberts.


Deemster Roberts “used her initiative” and on 18th July 2012 made a proposal of what “order” she was going to make. 9. On about 20th September 2012 there was a hearing in the Chancery Division with me representing myself, and nobody representing the General Registry. I was pleasantly surprised at that hearing as I expected the Deemster to be belligerent and incompetent – I found her to be polite and reasonably well informed, but unable to make a fair and unbiased judgment. 10. On 23rd October 2012 Deemster Roberts released her decision; and after a few weeks I decided to appeal her decision of 23rd October 2012. 11. There was a preliminary hearing on 11th December 2012, with Judge of Appeal Tattersall presiding. Tattersall JA had presided over the hearing on 24 th September 2007, and I did not consider him to be partial in the matter of the “appeal” of 28 th November 2012 [2DS 2012/40] especially as he mentioned “the 8 documents” in his order of 11 th December 2012. The Appellant do file with the Court a Skeleton Argument dealing with his grounds of appeal against the general civil restraint order made by Deemster Roberts on the 23 rd October 2012 and any applications which he may wish to make in respect of the 8 documents issued on 28 th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 together with Authorities by 4.00 p.m. on the 25th January 2013

12. I was invited to file “any applications” in respect of the 8 documents. 13. In the midst of my Skeleton Argument (actually, quite close to the beginning, and listed as Application 1, paragraph 19: “I now formally apply, out-of-time, for the four documents

issued on 28th May 2004 be declared void and therefore expunged from record. Application 1”. 14. In the judgment of 2nd April 2013, Tattersall JA and Melton wrote – [paragraph 15] : “Insofar as the Appellant had sought clarity as to whether the English orders had been properly registered, the judgment of this court had given such clarity.” 15. The SOGD gave no “clarity” whatsoever – and they answered a question that was not asked of them – I asked [firstly] that four documents issued 28 th May 2004 be declared void [or void ab initio] not “clarity as to whether the County Court orders had been properly registered” because on 26th October 2007 it was made clear that the documents HAD NOT been registered on 28/05. 16. So it is evident that if the SOGD failed to do what it was asked to do with regard to the FIRST application made (before 25th January 2013), and it failed to do what it had been asked with regard to the Third application made in January 2013 [“I now formally apply, out-of-time, for

the four documents issued on 4th November 2004 to be declared void and expunged from record. Application 3.”] 17. No declaration was made with regard to “the 8 documents” so those false documents remain in the office of records of the High Court – that office being called the General Registry: and because the General Registry and High Court Office misgoverned hearings Div 2004/144 on 1 st July 2004 and FD/UK/COR/04/02 on 5th November 2004, and there was no legitimacy to the socalled “declarity order” issued by the Deputy Deemster on 5 th November 2004, then the procedure in 2007 [2DS 2007/9] was misgoverned from the moment Mrs Holmes was listed as the respondent – all the SOGD could have done was to declare the so-called order of 5 th November 2004 void ab initio; and all the judges could have done about the so-called order issued on 16th November 2005 [paragraph 4 in any event] was to declare that paragraph void ab initio. Being aware that there were at least four documents in Case File FD/UK/COR/04/02 (stored in the General Registry) the SOGD should have declared those documents void on 26 th October 2007 and ordered the void documents expunged from record. But that did not happen on 26th October 2007 and, despite being given the opportunity to do the right thing between 7 th February 2013 and 2nd April 2013, Tattersall JA and Melton made a statement that has left officers in the Court Office confused and uncertain – “Mr Holmes asked for clarity as to whether


the English orders had been properly registered and the court has given such clarity.” OK, the court gave clarity that the documents were not properly registered and therefore were not registered, but in paragraph 5 of J1356 [2DS 2012/40] and in paragraph 10 of J1183 [2DS 2007/9] is the statement that on 28th May 2004 the orders from Lancaster County Court were registered in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT. 18. It is understandable that the First Deemster and Judge of Appeal made their statement on 26 th October 2007 because they were setting the background but by 2013, because the actions had been unlawful, there was no need to re-iterate the wrong-doing of 2003/2004 because the SOGD had already confirmed in the midst of “paragraph 47” : when they had not been so registered, and headed a section with The effect of non registration. 19. Both “appeal” processes were flawed because an assumption was made right at the beginning of the hearings and judgments of 24/09/2007 and 07/02/2013 [J1183 and J1356]. 20. The court alleged that in 2003 [“On 2003” in the 2013 judgment] when both this “appellant” Stephen Holmes and Mrs Yvonne Holmes were residing in England, both made applications to the Kendal County Court. Mrs Holmes AND OUR CHILDREN were in fact residing IN THE ISLE OF MAN. 21. Even if they had been residing in England, on 24 th February 2004 Judge Forrester purportedly made an “order” under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. He made a section 8 residence order that the Manx children could reside with their Manx mother. He then permitted Yvonne Holmes to remove the Manx children from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Isle of Man permanently [and he recorded the word “permanently” in an “order” headed Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom]. 22. Since a case in 1522 in the Privy Council in London, it has been known that no general Act of Parliament extends to the Isle of Man and that the Isle of Man is not a part of the United Kingdom (or of England), but Judge Forrester alleged that the Manx father could have “reasonable dealings” with his own Manx children provided such took place in the Isle of Man. A more ultra vires remark is unimaginable. 23. There had been, in the High Court in London, a case in December 2000 Re X and Y which involved Leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction. Judge Munby used the section 1(5) no order principle [CA 1989]. [2001] 2 FLR 118-150 (Family Division). 24. Mrs Holmes had actually applied for leave to remove the Manx children from the jurisdiction of England & Wales on 27th October 2003, three months after she and the children had “come home” to the Isle of Man. Habitual residence founds jurisdiction in a children case, and the children and their Manx mother were already habitually resident (and permanently resident; and domiciled) in the Isle of Man from Sunday 20th July 2003. There is significant proof of residence on the dates 14th August 2003 and 2nd September 2003; and I saw my own Manx children in the Isle of Man in the early part of September 2003. 25. The Staff of Government Division erred in law in September / October 2007. For although they construed the Child Custody Act 1987, and in the judgment referred to sections 6(1), 6(3), 7(1), 9(1), 12(2) & 12(3), the terms custody order and appropriate court were not construed at all. 26. I refer to the Clothier Report of 1990. Manx legislation is usually a “repetition” of English legislation, but with various modifications to suit local requirements. 27. I note that in Re X and Y Judge Munby actually references the Guardianship of Infants Acts of 1886 and 1925, the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Children Act 1989. 28. In the Isle of Man in 2004, Deputy Deemster Williamson could have referenced the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953, the Family Law Act 1991, the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2001 [actually the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 repealed the 2001 MP Act on 1 st April 2004] and the Children and Young Persons Act 2001.


29. The Tynwald Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 was based on the 1886 and 1925 Acts of England & Wales; the Tynwald Family Law Act 1991 and Children and Young Persons Act 2001 are based on the Children Act 1989. The Tynwald Human Rights Act 2001 is almost an exact repetition of the Human Rights Act 1998 [c. 42]. But the Acts of Tynwald is for the Isle of Man and the Acts of Parliament are for England & Wales or the whole of the UK and do not extend to the Isle of Man. 30. But there was a difficulty with the Family Law Act 1986. Passed in 1986, this Act is [inter alia] “An Act to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of courts in the United Kingdom to make orders with regard to the custody of children; to make provision as to the recognition and enforcement of such orders throughout the United Kingdom; to make further provision as to the imposition, effect and enforcement of restrictions on the removal of children from the United Kingdom or from any part of the United Kingdom ”. It is chapter 55 of the Acts of Parliament for

1986, and Chapter 11 of the Acts of Tynwald of 1987 is called the Child Custody Act 1987. The Tynwald Act is based in part on c. 55 of the FLA 1986. It is “ 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; to enable two Conventions relating respectively to the civil aspects of international child abduction and the recognition and enforcement of custody decisions to be extended to the Island; to amend the criminal law relating to the abduction of children; and for connected purposes.”

31. According to the judgment of 26th October 2007, – 34. The statutory provisions relating to the recognition and enforcement in the Island of custody orders made in the United Kingdom are contained in the Child Custody Act 1987. We set out below the material parts of such Act as are relevant to the facts of this case. 35. Section 6(1) provides that 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 attained the age of 16, save where such order provides for the means by which such rights conferred by the order are to be enforced, the order shall be recognised 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. 36. Section 6(3) provides that a court in the Island shall not enforce an order which is recognised 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. 37. Section 7(1) provides that 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. 38. Section 9(1) provides that 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. 39. Section 12 relates to the registration in the United Kingdom of a custody order made by any court in the Island. It provides that : [1] an application for registration shall be made in the prescribed manner, contain the prescribed information and be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed [section 12(2)]. [2] on receiving an application the court which made the custody order shall cause the following documents to be sent to the appropriate court in the United Kingdom namely [a] a certified copy of the order, [b] where the order has been varied, prescribed particulars of any variation which is in force, and [c] a copy of the application and of any accompanying documents [section 12(3)]. 40. It is thus self evident that, pursuant to sections 7 and 12, for the orders made by the [English] Court to be registered by the High Court it was required that the [English] Court should send the High Court a certified copy of the orders made together with a copy of the Respondent`s application and any accompanying documents.

32. Although the on-line copy of the judgment ignores the actual location of the Court, it also ignores the statute of the court – a county court. Section 12(3) uses the terms custody order and


appropriate court. 33. A County Court in England cannot bind the High Court. The 'appropriate court' has to be a court of superior record such as the High Court in England & Wales, the High Court in NI or the Court of Session in Scotland. 34. Section 12 of the Act of Tynwald has the margin notes P 1989/55/27(1)- (3) and 28(1); and in the English Act, “interpretation” of sections 27 and 28 (and 29-31) are in section 32. In this Chapter [of the 1986 Act] — “ appropriate court ”, in relation to England & Wales or to Northern Ireland, means the High Court and, in relation to Scotland, means the Court of Session. 35. A Court Order from a County Court cannot be registered in the High Court of Justice in the Isle of Man. A section 13(1) Children Act 1989 “Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom” order is not a “custody order” by any definition or interpretation. 36. The letter from Chief Registrar R. Peter Corkhill of 25 th July 2007 is sufficiently in the public domain for it to be unnecessary to hide any dates or who it was from / to. .

General Registry Oik Recortyssee R.P Corkhill Chief Registrar

Isle of Man Government Reiltys Ellan Vannin

General Registry Isle of Man Courts of Justice Deemsters Walk Bucks Road, Douglas IM1 3AR Telephone: 01624 685481 Fax: 01624 685236 Email: peter.corkhill @registry.gov.im

Mannin Chambers Third Floor Atlantic House 4-8 Circular Road Douglas IM1 1AG

Your ref: HH/FK/07-066 Date: 25 July 2007

Dear Sirs, Registration of Court Orders Amicus Curiae Thank you for your letter of 17th July 2007 asking for copies of the following: 1. The letters from the Lancaster County Court enclosing copies of the applications, supporting documentation and the Order. 2. Copies of the certified Orders from Lancaster County Court signed by the Judge or Registrar.

The documents referred to above do not exist. The application to register the orders in the Isle of Man was made directly by Yvonne Holmes. From an inspection of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic] it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously, i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987. However, Deputy Deemster Williamson made the order of 5th November 2004, effectively endorsing the provisions of the Orders from the Court in Lancaster. Upon an examination of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic] in 2006, it was noted that documents submitted by Yvonne Holmes were not certified copies and therefore certified copies of the two Orders were sought by this office from the Lancaster County Court. A comparison of the February 2004 documents shows that the copies submitted by Yvonne Holmes were true copies but not certified copies. For some reason we do not have certified copies of the October 2004 documents.


37. It is a requirement of LAW – of the Statute that a member of the public does not make the “application” to register the so-called “custody order” – so none of the documents issued on 28 th May 2004 had any validity whatsoever. ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT Child Custody Act 1987 Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom GENERAL REGISTRY FILE REFERENCE FD/UK/COR/04/02 LANCASTER COUNTY COURT KN03P0016 1. APPLICANTS NAME: YVONNE HOLMES 2. APPLICANTS ADDRESS: Cambrai, Droghadfayle Road, Port Erin 3. APPLICANTS INTEREST UNDER THE ORDERS Mother 4. CHILD'S NAME: KATARINA MAY HOLMES 5. CHILD'S SUSPECTED WHEREABOUTS: with Mother, Cambrai, Droghadfayle Rd. 6. CHILD'S DATE OF BIRTH: 19th May 1996 7. DATE THE CHILD ATTAINS 16 YEAR OF AGE 19th May 20013 8. TERMS OF ORDERS: Yvonne Holmes to remove the child from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man, permanently 9. DATE OF ORDERS: 24th February 2004 10. COURT WHICH MADE THE ORDERS: Lancaster County Court 11. DATE: i) Application filed: 2nd April 2004 ii) Order(s) registered 28th May 2004 iii) Notice of registration sent to Court which made 28th May 2004 the Order(s) iv) Notice of registration sent to Applicant 28th May 2004

ASSISTANT CHIEF REGISTRAR

38. Mrs Holmes could not be the Applicant. There is no respondent. None of these documents are in file Div 2004/144 allegedly “inspected” by Corkhill between 17 th and 25th July 2007. The Assistant Chief Registrar, or the Deputy Deemster, did not consider the jurisdiction of a family situation where a mother had sent a letter from Port Erin Isle of Man (to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division) where a so-called “order” permitted Yvonne Holmes to remove both children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently. From 24 th February 2004, the civil court in the Isle of Man must have had jurisdiction over Katarina and Benedict Holmes but did not take it. 39. On 26th October 2007 the Staff of Government Division purportedly revoked or quashed an “order” that had no basis in law. That decision was flawed – the declaration could only be declared void; and a court of first instance could have done so. There could be no “respondent” to the “review process in the SOGD” because nothing lawful had happened. The General Registry staff chose to ignore the “no legitimate basis” statement and continue to this day to allege that the orders from a COUNTY COURT were registered albeit erroneously, and although the registrations were erroneous, the terms of the so-called orders from England were enforceable in the Isle of Man. Cregeen (Chief Registrar) on 11 th August 2011 wrote – In relation to orders which are made in courts in England there are provisions which allow for the reciprocal enforcement of such orders. In the case of the Lancaster Court Orders in 2004 as the procedure was not followed the orders were registered erroneously, which was confirmed by the Staff of Government in their judgment which has been previously acknowledged. The relevant amendments made to the Family Law Act 1986 (Parliament) s1 by the Children Act 1989 (Parliament) came into force on 14 October 1991. That date is significant as it is also the date on which the Family Law Act 1986 (Dependent Territories) Order 1991 (SI 1991/1723) extending the reciprocity of the FLA 1986 Part 1 (as so amended and modified by the 1989 Act and the 1991 Order) to IOM in addition to Scotland and Northern Ireland came into force and


the date on which the Child Custody Act (Tynwald) 1987 came into force by Appointed Day Order (GC 162/91).

40. At no time in the “judgment” of 26/10/2007 did the SOGD confirm that “the orders were registered erroneously”. 41. Should my “double appeal” go to the JCPC, the GCRO will have just a few months to go – and I can wait until 23rd October 2014 before I make a fresh Application to the High Court of injustice of the Isle of Man – but the so-called “registration documents” [the 8 documents] are still in file FD/UK/COR/04/02 and one of them alleges that the father can only enjoy indirect dealings with his own Manx children – that is the rights of the children to a family life should be denied by an ultra vires document from another jurisdiction, not registered in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT. 42. Then there is the “no fair criticism” remark. AK Williamson had to know of the registration process on 28th May 2004 [TEN YEARS AGO] so making no criticism of him is partiality which is prohibited by law. 43. The Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is based on the Children Act 1989, and the English Act has “Name(s) of Child(ren)” at the head of the FORM C1, but the Isle of Man Form C1 begins with Between (and ALL matters with a FAM prefix are listed as adversarial) all applications to determine the future of a child in the Isle of Man are misgoverned and misgovernment and bias are prohibited. I knew that matter Div 2004/144 was going to be misgoverned on 27th May 2004 when I received a letter from the High Court Office because Mrs Jacqui Brogan listed the matter as Holmes v Holmes. In England, matters relating to children are listed as Re: The Child. The matter in Lancaster was listed as KN03 [Kendal 2003] P-16 private law matter 16; and the matter in the Isle of Man was listed as a Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 Divorce 2004 no. 144. 44. There follows an extract from a document supplied to me by the Court Office in 2006 – Description Date Time 08:44:38 08:58:27 09:02:07

Deputy Deemster Williamson – Summary Business & Family Law 01/07/2004 Location Douglas Court 7 Speaker Note TESTINGS 9.05 am Summary Business 0392988 Blackhorse Offshore v Wayne McKee - Mr Herbert for Pl - McKee In Person

10:38:39 11:25:47 11:35:59 11:54:21 12:11:34 12:17:44 12:27:53 12:37:08 12:48:24 12:56:34 13:01:35 16:31:40 16:32:19 16:33:16 16:37:19 16:40:03

11.30 AM Div 2000/199 Div 2004/054 Div 2004/144 Div 2003/180 Div 2004/028 Div 2004/149 Div 2002/089 Div 2003/212 Div 2002/168 DDW DDW D Jones K O'Riordan Mr East Mrs Jones

FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTIONS COURT Robley v Robley - A Thomas & P Pringle Cass v Cass - J Quinn & A Hannan Holmes v Holmes - Both In Person Watling v Watling - S Watson & J Thornley Cubbon v Cubbon - J Thornley & A Hannan Purvis v Crellin - In Person both parties Quayle v Quayle - A Hannan - no appearance Moore v Moore - P Butterworth & P Pringle (no notice given) Fox-Hulme v Fox-Hulme In person & No appearance of res Mrs Fox-Hulme sworn in - evidence in chief Hull v Hull - K O'Riordan v D Jones Re: letter application of 28th June, 2004 contact re:report submissions

45. Of course any person looking at 11:54:21 | Div 2004/144 | Holmes v Holmes - Both in Person would assume the matter was a Divorce : when in fact the 18/05/2004 Application was about children. It should also be noted that the FORM C1 submitted by Stephen Holmes on 18 th May 2004 was headed Family Law Act 1991, not Children and Young Persons Act 2001, although the 2001 CYP Act had re-enacted Parts 1 and 2 of the 1991 FL Act fifteen months earlier. 46. A similar document was supplied for 5th November 2004– Description

Deputy Deemster Williamson – Family Law


Date Time 13:51:36 14:11:52 14:21:21 14:37:27 14:37:43 14:41:47 14:42:09

05/11/2004

Location Speaker

TESTINGS FD/UK/COR/04/02 DDW DDW K O'Riordan Mrs Holmes DDW

Douglas Court 5 Note

Holmes v Holmes - In Person & K O'Riordan Adjourns for a few minutes Recommences Addresses DDW Addresses DDW Gives declarity orders

47. In fact, the meeting on 5 th November 2004 was nothing whatsoever to do with matter Div 2004/144 – that matter ended on 1st July 2004, so the line above should have been – 14:11:52 | FD/UK/COR/04/02 | Y. Holmes v S. Holmes - In Person & K O'Riordan

48. Also, the “hearing” of 1st July 2004 was S. Holmes v. Y. Holmes. 49. If a children matter is listed as adversarial then the matter will be misgoverned and the welfare of the children overlooked at best or abused at worst. 50. The Staff of Government Division matter in 2007 was misgoverned by listing Mrs Holmes as the Respondent. She was the Applicant to nothing on 5th November 2004 – she applied to have a socalled Order Contact Order registered on 4 th November 2004, but lawfully she could not make that Application and no orders were in fact registered on 4 th November 2004. 51. Paul Beckett was the Amicus Curiae – I was appellant, but Mrs Holmes could not be respondent because she did not “register” the documents – the General Registry purportedly registered them, but the action was unlawful. 52. Now because paragraph 4 of the “judgment” of 02/04/2013 was wrong (Mrs Holmes was not actually resident in England between 20th July and 31st December 2003) the whole of the judgment is flawed – and the judges allowed false documents to continue to exist in the High Court administrative office. The SOGD erred in law TWICE – once in their judgment of 26/10/2007 and once in their judgment of 02/04/2013. 53. The General Registry must be held accountable for misgovernment (which is prohibited) and the Staff of Government Division (and Deemsters) must be held accountable for Partiality which is also prohibited. 54. I was entitled to a fair hearing on 1st July 2004 and 5th November 2004, and throughout 2005 but because the General Registry issued the 8 documents from the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT, nothing that has happened in the last Ten years has been fair or lawful. 55. This matter must be brought to a hearing with the JCPC otherwise the General Registry will continue to abuse the rights of Manx children. 56. The Children and Young Persons Act 2001 was enacted on 1 st February 2003, but since then every children matter has been listed as adversarial A v B. Although sometimes a “good” decision has been made, in many cases the Court itself enters the fray. Deemsters and the Judge of Appeal have alleged that a “contact order” (for example) must be appealed, showing that they have no understanding of section 11(1)(e) of the 2001 CYP Act or of section 8(2) of the Children Act 1989. In more than ten years, not one judgment has construed Section 11(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. 57. I have a photocopy of the Form C1 I was given in April 2004 – by a public officer in the Public Office of the Isle of Man Courts of “justice” building.

In the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man Family Division

Application for an Order Family Law Act 1991

Form C1


Between

Applicant

and

Respondent

58. Taking the notes out of the English Form C1 we find –

Application for an order

Form C1

Children Act 1989 except care and supervision orders, Section 8 orders and orders related to enforcement of a contact order. If you are applying for a section 8 order &c Cafcass/CAFCASS CYMRU will carry out checks as it considers necessary. Cafcass - Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (in England); &c. .

The Court

To be completed by the court Date issued Case number

The full name(s) of the child(ren)

Child(ren)’s number(s)

.

59. The Form C1 in the Isle of Man (revised in September 2012) still sets up an adversarial dispute. Children and Young Persons Act 2001 Rules of the High Court (Family Proceedings) 2009 APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER Between Applicant and Respondent and (Any other parties)

60. There you have it, the Isle of Man Court considers ALL children matters as adversarial: and that is reflected by the General Registry listing as Holmes v Holmes: when I attempted to appeal a matter (in England) in the Court of Appeal in London, the court office referenced the matter as Re H (Children). 61. Section 2 of the Form C1 I was given in 2004 referred to “residence orders”, “contact orders” “prohibited steps order” or a “specific question order” and the Children Act 1989 referred to the same types of orders; except for the word “issue” not “question”. I knew in 2004 that the Family Law Act 1991 was very similar to the CA 1989 so I did not understand why the word “Between” appeared at the top of such a document; and I know the only reason it is still there in 2014 is because nobody in the Isle of Man considers that children are people with rights. Many judgments on-line refer to the PARENT having contact with the child. 62. Another way in which the General Registry misgoverns children matters is in the abbreviation of cases FAM – and the words “Family Business”. At the header of Attending Court on the courts web-site, we are told that Family Business includes adoption and children orders such as contact


or parental responsibility, divorces or judicial separation, but an Adoption would be under either an Adoption Act or a different Part of the CYPA 2001, a divorce under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 and a children matter under the CYPA 2001 – and the parents may not even be married – the matter is still with respect to A CHILD and is not an adversarial dispute. From 1st April 1992 to 31st January 2003 the matter would have been about a Minor. Checking various volumes of MLR to 1995/7, a matter about a minor was listed as Re: H or IN THE MATTER OF B (A minor), but at some-time in the late 1990s all “family matters” were listed as adversarial – and for a long time as a DIVORCE whether there was a matrimonial matter or not. On 25th October 2006 Deemster King stated that I was disgruntled with matrimonial proceedings showing that the Acting Deemster had no business making a judgment on what was a misgoverned and ultra vires matter in 2004. Once the tree was poisoned on 28 th May 2004, all actions with all people in public authority in the Isle of Man, including those of three Cheif Registrars and two First Deemsters have been tainted by the fruit of the poisoned tree. And now Sharpe Pritchard have entered the fray – of course any comment by a person in the General Registry or a representative of the AG's chambers, or an Advocate from Appleby who also represent Zurich Municipal, the Island's governmental insurers, is correct! 63. In fact, I have been told lie after lie by staff in the General Registry and the very first lie was told to me by the Deputy Deemster. 64. The statement “Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom” was the first lie, and that lie was not even disclosed to me until May 2007, three years after it had become the mantra in the High Court Office. And Finally : on 27th February 2013 I received the following letter

Isle of Man Courts of Justice Quaiylyn Cairys Ellan Vannin

Mr G S Holmes 1 Castlemona Avenue Douglas ISLE OF MAN IM2 4EA Dear Sir,

Isle of Man Courts of Justice Deemsters Walk Bucks Road Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3AR

tel: +44 (0)1624 685253 email: enquiries@courts.im web: www.courts.im our ref: DIV2004/144 your ref:

26 February 2013

DIV2004/144 Holmes v Holmes – C1 Application received 18th February 2013 Further to your recently filed application we respond as follows. The Civil Division – Family Business section of the Court does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matters set out in your application. You may wish to consider the Appeal process in respect of existing Orders on file DIV2004/144 in the first instance. Case DIV 2004/144 ended on 1st July 2004 when AK Williamson ordered the application dismissed. Section 11(1)(e) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 allows a court of first instance to vary or revoke a previously made order. The matter was still listed as a divorce in 2013 and still listed as Holmes versus Holmes and therefore still misgoverned and misgovernment has always been prohibited by law.


There was no Act of Tynwald on the so-called “declaratory order” of 5 th November 2004; and the Deputy Deemster had alleged that the so-called “order” of the County Court was registered in the Isle of Man High Court and that he was not empowered to vary such orders. But if the due process of registration had been “proper” then the English section 8 contact order would have become a Manx section 11 contact order and under section 11(1)(e) and application could have been made to vary such an order – in other words, the Deputy Deemster again lied from the Bench. The General Registry misgoverned and the Deputy Deemster misgoverned in the High Court and by late November 2004 the tree had been well and truly poisoned so that since the beginning of 2005, everything that has happened has been fruit of the poisoned tree – any evidence produced by a Deemster or a public officer in the General Registry (and even in the Chambers of HM Attorney General and within the Isle of Man Constabulary – and thence in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction has been fruit of the poisoned tree and plain wrong. That wrong must be remedied; and as the SOGD remedied nothing on 2nd April 2013 [and made no criticism of the Deputy Deemster – that was biased] then the JCPC must remedy the wrong-doing – continuous wrong-doing for TEN YEARS. I remain your suppliant –

Stephen Holmes, B.Sc. [sent by pdf on 26th February 2014] [and on issuu.com/gsholmes/docs/Reason_for_Hearing ] IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

Reason for hearing  

The JCPC is considering my 3rd stage appeal. Of course, the General Registry has commissioned Sharpe Pritchard in London to defend their mal...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you