Response to K Murray

Memorandum from G. Stephen Holmes To

:

Acting Attorney General John L M Quinn; Governor Adam Wood

cc

:

First Deemster Doyle, Government Advocate Keiron Murray.

Date

:

1st May 2014

Subject

:

The letter of 29th April 2014 : Ref: JLMQ/JR/AGCH.57

I do not wish to be indecorous or disrespectful but I do have freedom of speech and expression, and you are a sometime “officer of the High Court” so you have to treat me fairly; I am saddened that I cannot be anything but disrespectful to AK46 Williamson – the weapon of mass destruction from 1 st September 2002 to 6th January 2008 (and continuing into 2014).

England had Jimmy Savile and Max Clifford – we had AK46 Williamson: he was evil.

Williamson purported to issue a “declarity order” on 5th November 2004, but “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.” That false instrument had the words “In Chambers” on it – and Family Division (of the High Court) at the top.

Williamson “ordered” that this “order” be served on a head teacher and lodged with the police – thereby putting in the public domain the names and dates of birth of Manx children – and the fact that there was a “matter” in the High Court relating to the Manx children. Williamson not only forged a document on 5th November 2004, (contrary to section 3 of the Forgery Act of 1952) but he contravened section 80 of the CYPA 2001.

Then we have the following published in the Manx Independent on 18/04/2013 –

Father told: stop court claim bids

This article names Williamson, Doyle, Roberts – all of whom acted unfairly. “…concerned and order made in the February 2004 in Lancaster County Court that his children…” “…a 'troubled individual” who had an unhappy time in a custody and contact battle … over the couple's two children.”

“Mr Holmes argued the Manx courts had given wrongful and illegal effect to the orders of English court.” – The Isle of Man HIGH COURT had given unlawful effect to all “orders” from Lancaster.

On 18th December 2000 Judge Munby in London [Re X and Y] wrote – Because it involves children, I have prepared this judgment in anonymised form so that those parts of it which I have just mentioned may, although given in chambers, be treated as having been given in open court.

However, nothing must be published which might lead, either directly or indirectly, to the identification of the children involved in this case.

The statement “nothing must be published which might lead, either directly or indirectly to the identification of the children involved in this case” is included because of section 97 of the Children Act 1989. Section 80 of the CYPA 2001 is a repetition of section 97 of the English Act. Williamson breached section 80 himself on 5th November 2004 – he actually said to Kevin O'Riordan in court “I can't expect every … policeman to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is.” The so-called “orders” of the Lancaster County Court were not registered in the Isle of Man High Court – not at all. That is a fact that has failed to penetrate the thick skulls of most people in public authority in the Isle of Man; including First Deemster David Doyle and Stephen -1-

Harding, Stephen Cregeen and Keiron Murray. When the General Registry published the anonymised form of J1183 [they even anonymised Lancaster County Court – and used the term English court, which is not helpful] the phrase “when they had not been so registered” was included in paragraph 47.

The SOGD cleverly (and deviously: although being devious is not a crime) used the word properly several times, but then assumed that I would not understand its misuse. “The documents were not properly registered” means that the documents were NOT registered – use of the word properly is unnecessary, confusing and irrelevant.

Despite what Tattersall and Melton (and Doyle) alleged in December 2011 and April 2013, the analogy for this whole matter, going back to the letter to Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division of 2nd April 2004 from Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) is fruit of a poisoned tree – the “tree” being poisoned on 28th May 2004 when it was purported that “orders” from Lancaster County Court were registered in the Isle of Man High Court by the (assistant) Chief Registrar acting under the direction and supervision of the evil AK46 Williamson. Those documents were not registered, and contrary to what Deemster Kerruish and Tattersall alleged in paragraph 16 of their judgment of 26 th October 2007, were not capable of being registered because they had not been made in the 'appropriate court' in England+Wales – see Schedule 1 of the Child Custody Act 1987.

In the “bollix letter” of 29th April 2014 is the “aside” [in brackets] “ in particular for such time as you are resident here”. I will TELL YOU again – from 18 th August 2003 [AT THE LATEST] Yvonne Holmes and our two children [minors] were resident IN THE ISLE OF MAN: supposedly under the protection of the laws of the Isle of Man, including the dreadful Child Custody Act 1987 and the wonderful Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) 2001. But unknown to me, when I was temporarily resident in Lancaster in England, the High Bailiff was given the Family Division of the High Court “to play with” and this charlatan AK46 Williamson did not possess the ability to read statute. On 1st July 2004 he opened a “hearing” with the words “Right just let me come up to speed on this” followed by an allegation that there appeared to be “a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event.” Neither of the two so-called orders from Lancaster County Court had been registered in the Isle of Man High Court “in accordance with the requirements of the Chid Custody Act 1987” [according to R. Peter Corkhill writing on 25 th July 2007] and the “rules laid down” had not been followed [according to Carol Dowd writing on 9 th February 2006] so the allegation by the Deputy Deemster on 1st July 2004 was a lie or untrue; and the Deputy Deemster was not fit to sit in the Family Division of the High Court because he lied from the Bench. The fact that he lied is in J1356.htm of 2DS 2012/40 published on judgments.im on about 12th April 2013 – see paragraphs 6 and 12.

Making “no fair criticism” of Williamson was like making no criticism of Jimmy Savile: or Adolf Hitler. One “wrong” is understandable; all humans err. But Williamson erred on 28 th May 2004 because he authorised that (non) registration; then on 1 st July and 5th Nov. 2004; then throughout 2005 culminating in a document headed REASONS FOR DECISION signed by him (not on 16 th Nov. 2005) on 30th November 2005. Everything in that document is false – everything! The tree was poisoned so badly on 28th May 2004 that the first thing the Acting Attorney General did after being sworn in was to take the fruit of the poisoned tree and write to me on about 25 th March 2013 telling me I am wrong; when it was Williamson that acted in an evil manner in 2004 and all the Deemsters and staff in the General Registry have taken the fruit of a poisoned tree and followed suit. Stephen Cregeen became evil in February 2012 because he repeated his wrongs of 2011.

Our officers of the Crown in the Isle of Man (not the Police Constables, but I mean the Deemsters and HM Attorney General [whether Acting or actual] are so stupid when it comes to reading statute]. That stupidity extended (in 2007) to an Advocate named Hazel Hammonds [HH/FK] who prepared a “Skeleton Argument” for the High Court in June/July 2007.

Although advocate Paul Beckett was Amicus Curiae for matter 2DS 2007/9 from 26 th June 2007 to 24th September 2007, his “junior” HH prepared the skeleton argument sent to the Court and to me (and for some reason copied to Mrs Yvonne Holmes) on 27th July 2007.

The judgment of 26th October 2007 refers to Statute – that statute being the Child Custody Act 1987, -2-

which I think is an absolute ordure Act of Tynwald for the 21 st century. [I am allowed to think it crap or rubbish]. The statutory framework for the registration of a “custody order” from an appropriate court in the United Kingdom is contained in a number of sections of the 1987 CC Act, particularly, sections 7, 12, 20, 21 and paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. Section 21 is headed “Interpretation” and although the skeleton argument included the whole of the 1987 Act as an appendix to the “bundle”, the argument itself referenced only sections 6, 7, 9 and 12. So the full statutory framework is sections 6, 7, 9, 12, 20, 21 and Schedule 1, and these sections IN THE ACT reference P1986/55 – the Family Law Act 1986 of Parliament, the amicus curiae presented to the High Court (appeals or Staff of Government Division) only three-quarters of a “story”.

Following this sentence, the section in [brackets] are “margin entries” from the Statute 1987/3 Section 6 has [P1986/55/25] and is headed Recognition of custody orders made in UK but has the section heading “Enforcement of custody orders made in the United Kingdom”.

Section 7 has [P1986/55/27(4) and (5)] and is headed Registration of custody order in High Court.

Section 9 has [P1986/55/29] and is headed Enforcement Section 12 has [P1986/55/27(1)- (3) and 28(1)] and is headed Registration of Manx custody order in UK Section 20 has [P1986/55/1, 32 and 42] and is headed Meaning of ‘custody order’ There now follows section 21 21

Interpretation of Part I (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; “certif ied 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; “child of the family” shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 1; “custody order” has the meaning given by section 20; “part of the United Kingdom” means England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; “prescribed” means prescribed by rules of court.

There now follows section 21 In the Act of Parliament [P1986/55] the “interpretation” including the “appropriate court” is in section 32 – so Schedule 1 should have the margin entry – P1986/55/32.

One cannot make a decision in court with three-quarters of the Statute available – but that is what the SOGD had on 24th September 2007; because the Amicus Curiae had not presented sections 20, 21 and Schedule 1 of the 1987 CC Act to their Honours. Mr Beckett had not presented these sections to the Court because Hazel Hammonds was negligent in the preparation of the skeleton argument. Sections 6 and 9 are not really relevant [The High Court wrote – It is thus self-evident that, pursuant to sections 7 and 12, for the orders made by the Lancaster County Court to be registered by the High Court it was required that the Lancaster County Court should send the High Court a certified copy of orders made together with a copy of the Respondents application and accompanying documents.]

But the High Court in the Isle of Man cannot lawfully register “orders” from a County Court because the County Court is not the correct 'appropriate court' for England & Wales.

In Part I “the appropriate court” means — (a)

in relation to England and 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.

Missing from the “judgment” but included in the review of the Statutory Framework is the term appropriate court – [2] on receiving an application the court which made the custody order shall cause the following -3-

documents to be sent to the appropriate court in 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, [c] a copy of the application and of any accompanying documents [section 12(3)] Although section 12 is for an “application” by the Isle of Man to “register” a “custody order” in an appropriate court in the United Kingdom, in section 32 of the Family Law Act 1986 (the Act upon which the totality of the 1987 Child Custody Act is based) the reverse is true – that the “custody order” must be sent by the court of superior record: a County Court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland is not the correct appropriate court. Although it may appear that I am dealing with matters that happened “years ago” or “somewhat previously” as Mr Quinn quipped, this very matter of the correct appropriate court being the High Court was raised in Lancaster County Court in a hearing on 29th January 2014 – by His Honour Judge Lancaster. The following section of P1986/55 was raised – 32.

(1) In this Chapter "the appropriate court", in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, means the High Court and, in relation to Scotland, means the Court of Session.

The Family Law Act 1986 is an Act of Parliament in Westminster for the whole of the United Kingdom, but the Children Act 1989 is for England & Wales only; the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is for Scotland only and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 is for Northern Ireland only.

So very simply, a County Court “order” CANNOT be lawfully registered in the High Court of justice in the Isle of Man and any Deemster who alleges that such can happen has turned the High Court into a kangaroo court of injustice – which is what the Family Division of the High Court became up to 2009 when it was merged into the new “Civil Division”. It is still the case that the Civil Division – Family Business section of the High Court of injustice is a kangaroo court because Deemster Corlett “learned a great deal” from his predecessor AK46 Williamson – Corlett is trying; but children matters are still adversarial where the status of the Deemster and the amount of money the Court and the advocates can screw out of the fee paying parents is the paramount consideration of the Advocates and of the High Court of injustice. David Doyle is president of the High Court and Doyle has been inextricably involved in snafu “screw Stephen Holmes and his children” since 3rd September 2007.

There: I have not mentioned the names of my children in this memorandum. It was not me who ordered that a false instrument be sent to the police in Douglas and Port Erin and to Rushen Primary School – for that I have to thank the charlatan and child-rights abuser AK46 Williamson.

This whole matter is “King SADIM” – everyone who touches it is covered in court ordure. And still “minor” Ben Holmes [oh, I have named my 14½ year-old son] is abused by the state and consequently by his mother – he has no family life with his father because the Manx mother has been encouraged to prevent children having such with their father since 2004; by an evil man AK46 Williamson; then by David C. Doyle who was second Deemster at the time and is now “D1”.

The Deemsters – abusing Manx children since 2002.

The Isle of Man – Giving you Freedom to Flounder and Perish.

The Crown in the Isle of Man: an entity staffed by charlatans and egoists.

Now, Mr Murray; I show you the entirety of the text published by Isle of Man Newspapers.

THE appeal court has up-held a civil restraint order against a divorced father of two aimed at preventing him continuously bothering the court and named individuals with ‘repetitive and unmeritorious’ claims.

Appellant Stephen Holmes was described in court as giving the impression of being a ‘troubled individual’ who had an unhappy time in a custody and contact battle with his ex-wife over the couple's two children.

He had made repeated applications to both the English and Manx courts all of which had failed. These all concerned an order made in February 2004 in Lancaster Country Court that his children should reside with his ex-wife, who was given permission to remove them permanently to the Isle of Man. In November 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson made an order declaring that orders of the English court were enforceable within the Manx courts.

-4-

Mr Holmes argued the Manx courts had given wrongful and illegal effect to the orders of English court. He lodged a petition of doleance in June 2008 against the General Registry and the former Chief Registrar. Mr Holmes subsequently amended then withdrew the proceedings but further doleance applications followed. In a petition against Deemster Williamson he claimed damages of not less than £2 million.

In December 2011, Deemster David Doyle struck out that doleance claim on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. The same month, the appellant gave an undertaking not to take any further proceedings against the General Registry or Andrew K Williamson.

But in April 2012, Mr Holmes handed the Chief Registrar a further petition against the Courts Administration Office for damages as a result of negligence.

The Civil and Family Courts Business Manager wrote to the appellant advising him that he was prevented from making such a further claim.

Mr Holmes then sought a review of that decision by means of a Petition of Doleance against ‘HM The Queen (the Crown, not Her Majesty herself)’, seeking repeal of the Child Custody Act 1987.

That doleance claim was struck out by Deemster Roberts as being totally without merit. She also made a general civil restraint order, to remain in force until October 2014, preventing the appellant from issuing a claim or making any applications in any court without her consent.

Mr Holmes appealed but his appeal has now been dismissed. The appeal court judges said that while it is appropriate that litigants should have unrestricted access to the courts, in a very few cases it is not.

They said they had absolutely no doubt that it was ‘inevitable and essential’ that a general civil restraint order should have been made to provide a filter for potential claims to prevent the court and others being ‘troubled by repetitive and/or unmeritorious claims’.

Earlier this year I discovered that the judgment of Deemster Kerruish and the charlatan Tattersall of 26th October 2007 had been published on-line.

7. On [date] a District Judge sitting in the [English] Court ordered [inter alia] that : [1] The Appellant have permission to withdraw his applications for residence and prohibited steps.

[2] Child A and Child B should reside with the Respondent.

[3] The Respondent have permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man. [4] The Appellant do have reasonable contact with the children provided that such contact took place in the Isle of Man. [5] The Children and Family Reporter do file a report on the question of contact.

On the same day, a District Judge made a further order in which he granted leave to the Respondent to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently.

Tattersall and Melton confirmed in J1356 – “In 2003 when the Appellant and Mrs Yvonne Holmes, his now former wife [‘Mrs Holmes’] were residing in England, both parties made applications to the Kendal County Court relating to their two children.

Ultimately on 24 February 2004 District Judge Forrester sitting at the Lancaster County Court made orders that the children should reside with Mrs Holmes, that Mrs Holmes should have permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man and that the Appellant should have reasonable contact with the children provided that such contact took place in the Isle of Man. There was no appeal by either party.”

Mrs Holmes and our Manx children were NOT residing in England; not from 8 th August 2003. There is proof that the first KN03P00016 meeting in Kendal was on 5 th November 2003, but there was the kangaroo court meeting on 29th October 2003 when Nuttall alleged “the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom”.

Instead of threatening me, you should be “slamming” HMCTS in England+Wales because it was the cretins attached to what was then the Court Service that acted beyond powers (ultra vires) in the fall of 2003. Two of those cretins were Judges Forrester and Nuttall in Lancaster on 24/02 and 27/10 2004, neither of whom had any powers to make decisions about Manx children because the Manx children were “living” in the Isle of Man with their Manx mother.

You may wish to read about the assassination of Dr Luis Carlos Galan in August 1989. The Galil assault rifle used to murder the “president elect” was supplied to a drug cartel by Israeli Military Industries [“IMI”] via the Government of Antigua. IMI were unaware that their weapons were heading for Columbia; believing them to be used to arm the Antiguan defence force.

-5-

“On receipt of the Israeli explanation, the Columbian government issued a formal but ferocious protest note to the government of Antigua.” [Geoffrey Robertson : The Justice Game, 1999].

On receipt of photocopies of documents that looked like court orders issued in a County Court (a court of inferior record) on 24th February 2004, containing the phrases “Yvonne Holmes to remove the children to the Isle of Man” and “father do have contact in the Isle of Man,” the Governor (or Deputy Governor) should have issued a ferocious protest note to the Department for Child Abuse [DCA] in London; complaining that the Manx children had already been resident in the Isle of Man for six months before leave was granted to remove them from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Isle of Man permanently. The court in England did not have jurisdiction to release Manx children from their jurisdiction; all “orders” from Kendal and Lancaster purportedly with respect to the Manx children were ultra vires and should have been treated as void by the High Court in the Isle of Man – but on 1st September 2002 AK 46 Williamson was appointed as Deputy Deemster; and all children's matters were misgoverned between that date and the date the charlatan retired; on 6th January 2008. In December 2007 Adrian Darbyshire conducted an “exit interview” with Williamson, and we learned that he had been in criminal courts for at least 25 years before being let loose in the civil court in around 2000 when he was still High Bailiff. He really did turn the Family Division into the Kangaroo Court of Injustice of the Isle of Man; and Tattersall (and Melton) ignored basic standards of humanity, decency and lawfulness making “no fair criticism” of the charlatan who acted without law or due procedure on 1 st July and 5th November 2004, and authorised the falsification of records to be kept in the High Court Office on 28 th May 2004.

I say it again – The Deemsters – abusing Manx children since 2002. AK Williamson; abusing citizens from the Bench in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. There was a headline in the Guardian in 1996 with a picture of Neil Hamilton : “ A liar and a cheat.”

Perhaps this would be appropriate : HE'S the 'Singing Judge', known equally for his eloquence in court and vocal dexterity on stage. But Deputy Deemster Andrew Williamson is looking forward to retirement next week after a 20 year-career in Manx law.

A Manxman born and bred, he was born at the Jane Crookall maternity unit in December 1946 and brought up in Kirk Michael.

The eldest of three brothers, Williamson was educated at Michael School and then Ramsey Grammar, before leaving his Island home to study law at Nottingham Regional College of Technology, as it was then.

A liar, a cheat and a charlatan

'I decided I wanted to be a barrister,' he explained. 'I joined one of the Inns of Court, The Middle Temple, and was subsequently called to the Bar. I haven't a clue now what sparked my interest in law. There was no family connection. It just struck me as interesting and I've always like the sound of my own voice!'

Following the retirement of Weldon Williams in January 1995, he became the High Bailiff, before being appointed Deputy Deemster in September 2002, although half of his time as High Bailiff had been spent also as an acting Deemster.

As Deputy Deemster, he has specialised in family law, landlord and tenant and contract cases.

'I've not touched crime since I became Deputy Deemster,' he said. 'I miss it like a hole in the head. I've done enough criminal law and was quite happy to leave that behind.'

Williamson had no experience in family law before 2000 and should not have been allowed near a children case; but such was the complacency of the High Court in 1999-2003 that we ended up with an appointment worse than a trained chimpanzee. Such is “justice” in the Isle of Man that “liking the sound of your own voice” is a criterion for making decisions in the civil court; lying and cheating are condoned by brother Deemsters, and families were destroyed without consideration of the long-term consequences.

-6-