An "open" letter to an officer in the Isle of Man Courts

10th June 2012

Apt. 5, 2 Marina House Peel City

Mr Stephen Robertson c/o Courts Building, Douglas Dear Mr Robertson, My claim against the Courts Administration Office I write in relation to our brief (helpful) discussion on 31st May, which was brought about by your letter of 25th May 2012.

I refer you to section 28 of the High Court Act 1991 (under Administration; Office and officers of the High Court).

(1) The General Registry shall be the office of records for the High Court.

(2) The Chief Registrar, Deemsters' clerks and such other clerks in the General Registry as the First Deemster may nominate in writing shall be officers of the High Court.

(3) Officers of the High Court shall discharge their duties under the direction and supervision of the First Deemster or, in the case of a Deemster's clerk, the Deemster to whom he may be attached.

In section 58 (Interpretation) we find that 'Chief Registrar' shall include the Assistant Chief Registrar and a Deputy Assistant Chief Registrar.

When, on 25th July 2007, Peter Corkhill (then Chief Registrar) wrote to Mannin Chambers and admitted that the actions in “this office” were unlawful, he meant that the actions in the High Court Office (on 28th May and 4th November 2004) were unlawful. He used the phrase “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987,” but that phrase was a verbose way of saying “unlawfully.” The law was “broken.” An “illegal” action took place on 28 th May 2004.

My claim from 2008 was against The General Registry (Oik Recortyssee), a statutory board of the Isle of Man Government; but my letter (and claim) of 30th April 2012 (two copies; one to Stephen Cregeen and one to David Doyle) is against the Courts Administration Office (High Court Office).

The actions on 28th May 2004, the unlawful and improper (and erroneous) so-called “registrations,” were performed by the Assistant Chief Registrar. I had tried to claim from the General Registry, because Miss Williams (now Mrs Farquhar) “worked in” the General Registry and Peter Corkhill (and Carol Dowd and Paul Coppell) are “government staff” in the Registry. But by Statute (by the High Court Act 1991), when an officer of the Court (such as the Assistant Chief Registrar) discharges a duty, such as the “Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom” under the Child Custody Act 1987, in the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT, he or she acts under the direction and supervision of the “First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls, and Deputy Governor.”

So I have claimed pecuniary damages FROM THE COURTS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE because it was the Isle of Man Courts Administration that was negligent (res ipsa loquitor negligent – the thing speaks for itself) on 28th May 2004 (and again on 4th November 2004).

That unlawful action on 28 th May 2004 caused Deputy Deemster Williamson to issue a declaration and order on 5th November 2004 that had “no legitimate basis,” but the rights-abusing bastard ordered that the unlawful declaration be sent to the Police and a head teacher. And on 26 th October 2007, the Isle of Man High Court judged that “although no fair criticism can be made of the” rights-abusing bastard Williamson … “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did,” (on 5th November 2004).

If the Deputy Deemster is not accountable for sending a false document to the Police, then the First Deemster (or the “office of the First Deemster) IS (or was) responsible for failing to supervise and direct an officer of the Court to actually follow the law, to follow the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 and act in a lawful manner. The “buck stops” with the First Deemster, an officer of the Crown.

The unlawful declaration made by the bastard Williamson on 5th November 2004 caused the involvement of the criminal justice system because the stupid bastard had sent a declaration from the Family Division (a part of the Civil Divisions of the High Court in 2004) to the Police and Probation Service. I was arrested several times in 2005 and 2006, and I suffered extreme emotional distress (I did not have a proper family life with my own children for THREE YEARS) because Williamson sent that unsafe, unlawful, abusive declaration to the Police and others; and he did that because the socalled “registration” by Miss J. Williams on 28th May 2004 was purportedly made, and that so-called registration was supported by four false documents headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT. For a judge to produce a false document is a felony! (See the Forgery Act 1952, s 3(3)).

The High Court Office has acted in an unlawful manner. The “office of the First Deemster” is culpably negligent. If I submit a claim to the High Court Office against the Courts Administration Office, the Court Office is going to return the claim to me saying that I have not complied with Rule 7.9. I am NOT asking to enter a Court Process because everybody in that Court Office is biased.

What I have done, Mr Robertson, is to make a claim by letter from the Courts Administration Office TO the Courts Administration Office, in an attempt to resolve the matter.

On 5th September 2007 (at about 20:00) I was arrested in Birmingham, England. I was released WITHOUT CHARGE on the morning of 6th September 2007. I was alarmed, distressed and very hurt by the incident, and the 13 hour detention was “false imprisonment.” I did not claim from the constable who arrested me, or from the custody sergeant who detained me, I claimed damages from the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, who appointed somebody to deal with the matter.

On 28th May 2004, Miss Jayne Williams unlawfully produced documents; (committed forgery). She acted by statute under the supervision and direction of the then First Deemster. That First Deemster wrote that no criticism should be made of the Deputy Deemster for his “assumption” (2DS 2007/9) thereby accepting responsibility for the unlawful action. Because of what happened in my Doleance Claim from Andrew Williamson in December 2011, I am now claiming from the “manager” of the Courts Administration Office, present First Deemster David Doyle, and that claim was made on 30th April 2012. Your letter of 25th May 2012 DOES NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. I have not asked to “engage in a Court Process,” I have suggested that the office of the Courts Administration Office headed by the First Deemster (even under the guidance of the Governor or the Queen) SETTLE this matter by entering in a dialogue with me (a discussion or “negotiation.”)

I am trying to PREVENT a Court hearing – it would do the Isle of Man no good if the Guardian ran a headline Deemsters abuse Rights of Children: Destroy Manx families.

Personally, Stephen, I blame the bastard Williamson – he had NO CLUE what he was doing, and I believe that Mr Kerruish was being “humane” on 26th October 2007 with the “no fair criticism” comment. But on 14th December 2011, David Doyle repeated that comment TWICE, thereby putting culpability for an action that has NEVER been reviewed (the hearing on 24 th September 2007 was in the matter of Court Orders of 05/11/2004 and 16/11/2005) but has been admitted as being unlawful – that is the first so-called registration of 28 th May 2004 – on the First Deemster.

Your letter is nonsense! If I had claimed again from the General Registry, AND if my claim had been dismissed, then you would be right, but I claimed from the General Registry in 2008 (and 2011) but I asked to withdraw the claim because it was NOT the fault of the Isle of Man Government that the High Court officer broke the law in 2004, culpability for that unlawful action is with the High Court itself, and therefore with “D1” and probably with the Governor or even the Queen.

Note also that what you wrote on 25th May 2012 was wrong – the General Registry DOES NOT undertake the work of the courts administration. Staff from the General Registry are appointed “officers of the Courts” by the First Deemster (or by the High Bailiff) so that when a member of staff undertakes an administrative action in that Court, he or she is acting as an “officer of the Court” under the direction of a Crown appointed officer. If the member of staff deals with a member of the public, (such as when Carol Dowd wrote to me on 9th February 2006, on General Registry headed paper), she or he is acting as a member of the “Government civil service”.

Confusion has arisen because the Address is the same! Letters from the General Registry are labelled from General Registry, Isle of Man Courts of 'Justice,' but letters from the High Court Office are from Isle of Man Courts of 'Justice'.

I have a “bunch” of letters from Oik Recortyssee, all with Isle of Man Government (Reiltys Ellan Vannin) underneath the coat of arms; but the bunch of letters from Oik ny Ard-Whaiylyn have Isle of Man Courts Administration underneath the “two crows”. Your letter from Isle of Man Courts of 'Justice' had nothing under the two crows logo.

For the avoidance of doubt, an officer of the Crown DOES NOT have immunity from suit of claim for damages if he or she is involved in an administrative action or issue. Williamson has immunity from prosecution for his biased action on 1st July 2004 – he had jurisdiction. But he probably should not have immunity for the action on 5th November 2004. No matter, because the “no fair criticism” remark has removed Williamson from blame – blame is now 100% with the Crown in the form of the First Deemster. The Courts are (presumably) Her Majesty's Courts, so, like the case of Archer-Shee versus The King in 1909 and 1910, the Crown may be sued, and will probably lose, because the lawlessness is admitted. In any case, the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 now allows actions against the Crown as if it is any other entity.

I look forward to hearing from you so that this matter (that has been ongoing for eight years) may be at least progressed, or hopefully resolved. It will only be resolved when we agree on a settlement amount – that is the amount of pecuniary damages the Office of the First Deemster pays me for years of extreme emotional distress caused by an admitted unlawful action on 28 th May 2004.

As a guide, I can tell you that I agreed to accept £2,000 from West Midlands Police in November 2007, because the arrest on the night of 5 th September 2007 (caused by David Doyle) was unsafe. You may be surprised how little I would accept from the Courts Administration Office, but £2,000 per day (for 1085 days – the length of time Williamson's unlawful declaration was used to abuse me and to abuse the rights of my Manx children, Katie and Ben Holmes); £2,170,000, would be a good starting point. Tell you what; I'll halve it; £1,085,000. If the Isle of Man Courts of Justice (who you seem to now represent) pays me £1,000,000 I will “go away.” Otherwise, I will pursue this matter until I die.

The people of Londonderry waited more than 38 years before the Saville report recorded that the events on 30th January 1972 (Bloody Sunday) were “unjustified and unjustifiable.” In 2007 (and again on 13th January 2009) it was admitted that the so-called “registrations” were unlawful. A “killing” can be unlawful, or an administrative action can be unlawful, but the result is lives ruined – not for the dead person, but for the survivors. On 28th May 2004, the High Court destroyed the lives of my Manx children, Mr Robertson; and who knows what the future consequences of that unlawful act might be?

West Midlands Police settled the matter “out of court;” The Courts Administration Office (and the General Registry) exacerbate problems, involve the criminal justice system in civil matters and make the Isle of Man a less pleasant place to live. And at the top of this culture of abuse is the Crown in the Isle of Man; a group of 8 or 10 officers. The judiciary have, in this matter, been corrupt and malicious and are NOT immune because they have the responsibility of office, although they did not make the unlawful actions.

Please make sure that First Deemster David Doyle reads his copy of this letter, Mr Robertson.

Best regards,

G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc. (I make no apology for referring to Williamson as a bastard; he was arrogant, complacent, ignorant and incompetent; he was evil, and it is my right to call him a bastard, as it is David Doyle's right to think that I am irrationally obsessed. Were the people of Londonderry irrationally obsessed for thirty-

eight years? On 3rd September 2007 David Doyle “dived in” to case DIV 2004/144 and screwed-up. I have a For The Record recording of the hearing on that date – and Mrs Holmes LIED under Oath to the stupid Deemster; stupid because he accepted the lies of a member of the public.)

Postscript On another (related) matter, please inform Stephen Cregeen that his letter of 11th August 2011 (reiterated in February 2012) was complete ordure.

I have found reference to the case in 1523 involving the claim of the Countess of Derby in the Chancery Court in England. In that case, and ever since, it was confirmed that the Isle of Man is no part of the realm of England and is not governed by the law of England “but by special name an Act may extend to it.”

Cregeen alleged on the 11th August 2011 that because of the Family Law Act [1986] (Dependant Territories) Order 1991, that came into force on 14th October 1991, an order made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 in February 2004 could be extended to the Isle of Man in 2004.

The Family Law Act 1986 did extend to the Isle of Man when it was first made. It is in the Attorney General's Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man, published in the summer of 2003 (fifth addition, up to the end of July 2003), but missing from this Chronological Table are the Children Act 1989 (of England & Wales), the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and the Human Rights Act 1998. The Children Act 1989 did indeed come into force on 14th October 1991, but on that day, the legal terms from the Family Law Act 1986 (‘custody,’ ‘access,’ ‘care and control’ orders) ceased to exist in England & Wales. ‘Custody’ and ‘access’ orders had ceased to exist in the Isle of Man on 19 th March 1991, because the Family Law Act 1991 consigned them to “the dustbin of history,” (as did the CA 1989 in E+W). What the FLA 1986 (DT) Order 1991 did was to allow the reciprocity of EXISTING ‘custody’ and ‘access’ orders between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom and between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, after the CA 1989 came into force in England & Wales. What that meant was that if the High Court in London had made an ‘access’ order under section 1 of the FLA 1986 in 1987 or 1989 or even on 12 th October 1991, that order could be “registered” in the Isle of Man in 1992 or '93 if, BUT ONLY IF, the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 were complied with (see again Paragraphs 51 of the judgment in 2DS 2007/9 of 26th October 2007).

The key to the LACK OF reciprocity is in the name of one of the types of section 8 CA 1989 orders (or section 9 FLA 1991, now section 11 CYPA 2001); in England & Wales and in Scotland called the specific issue order and in the Isle of Man called a specific question order. Whereas a section 1 Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 ‘access’ order made by the Common Law Division of the High Court in 1988 could become a section 1 Family Law Act 1986 ‘access’ order even as late as 1999, or 2000, there is no vehicle for a section 8 Children Act 1989 contact order to become a section 11 CYPA 2001 contact order in the Isle of Man – the CA 1989 DOES NOT extend to the Isle of Man. There is also no way that a section 11(1)(c) CYPA 2001 specific question order can become a section 8 CA 1989 specific issue order in Scotland OR in England & Wales; in most cases the specific issue or question is specific to the jurisdiction in which the child is resident.

And would you please question Stephen Cregeen on HOW a section 13(1) 33(7) “Leave to remove child from UK” Children Act 1989 “order” can be a “custody order.” Even I can understand the confusion some legal people (including insane judges) have with the concepts of ‘custody’ and residence, or ‘access’ and contact, but it must take a special type of person to consider that an order granting leave for Manx children to be removed from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently is a ‘custody’ order, and may be reciprocal between England & Wales (or the whole of the United Kingdom) and the Isle of Man. By a ‘special type of person,’ I mean somebody like Williamson with ‘special educational needs,’ such as a moron or even a cretin, or the devious Peter Corkhill who judged that the matter was properly investigated in 2006 when the investigator found unlawful errors but failed to do anything about them.

Also, on 11/08/11 Mr Cregeen wrote: “In relation to the matter of your application under section 33 of

the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1989 (as amended by section 20 of the Criminal Justice, Police and Courts Act 2007), as decisions under this are judicial decisions they do not fall under matters that can be considered as complaints against administration.”

His letter was headed Oik-Recortyssee Chief Registrar's Office.

When I submitted an application to the Office of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction (an administrative office) at the end of September 2008, a clerical officer replied to me saying that “The High Bailiff has asked me to advise you…” I did not ask the High Bailiff for Legal Advice – I was given legal advice by a person with a great deal of experience in legal matters.

On 5th March 2009 (reference KA/DDC) Andrew Corlett wrote to J.J. Wild Eq. The letter was headed High Court Office (Oik ny Ard Whaiylyn) and had Isle of Man Courts Administration underneath the coat of arms. Deemster Corlett WAS NOT making a judicial decision – he was trying to find an advocate to represent me; he was helping to administer a matter and was not acting in a judicial capacity.

Michael Moyle did not make a judicial decision at the end of September 2008, the clerk (under the direction and supervision of the High Bailiff) was “giving me legal advice.” It WAS an administrative matter and, as I have shown, officers of the Crown ARE NOT immune if they snafu during an administrative matter. What I complained about THEN, and what I continue to complain about, is that the clerk went straight to the High Bailiff to ask him “what to do,” thereby compromising the independence of Mr Moyle. Of course Michael Moyle wasn't going to reopen a case in the interests of justice because HE had acted ultra vires in 2006! Miss Williams DID NOT ask the First Deemster what to do on 28th May 2004, she was instructed by the bastard Williamson, who was NOT making a judicial decision. On 8th April 2011 I was given the following “advice” by an advocate.

On 5 November 2004, the Court was therefore proceeding on a false premise, namely that the Lancaster County Court Orders had been properly registered here. Registration is usually an administrative process, meaning that neither the parties to a case nor their advocates would normally be given any detail of the process, and even the Deemster might not have been involved, so that he would not necessarily be aware of any deficiency.

David Doyle quoted the “no fair criticism” comment so we have to believe that Williamson did not know about the letter to his Clerk of 2nd April 2004 and that the First Deemster is to blame for not ensuring that Miss Williams acted lawfully. But the Clerk to Mr Moyle is completely responsible for compromising the independence of the High Bailiff and passing on legal advice from a man I would not ask to remove a stone from my shoe, let alone ask a legal question. But my point is still this – I wrote to the Court Manager at the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and I received legal advice from the judge; nothing happened in Court – it all happened in the Court Office, where the High Bailiff should NOT have been administering a case. Similarly, the letter from Mrs Holmes of 2nd April 2004 should have been returned because she was flirting with the former High Bailiff – the incompetent shit Andrew Williamson. Note that my letter of 5th November 2004 (erroneously filed in Case File FD/UK/COR/04/02) was addressed to the Chief Registrar, but should have been to the Court Manager.

How did a letter to the Chief Registrar end up in the hands of Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5 th November 2004?

One final question in this postscript; What Act of Tynwald was used for the Ancillary Relief “order” on 4th November 2004?

There are huge problems in the Courts Administration Office – problems that a punitive payment to me of £1,000,000 would help address. I cannot say that the decision on 28 th May 2004 “ruined my life,” because I had the choice of whether to let it ruin my life. It did cause me extreme distress for a 28 months, and got me arrested several times, but it probably destroyed my daughter's relationship with her father for ever, so for that I will NEVER forgive the High Court of fucking injustice of the Isle of Man because the High Court abused my children; and abused them and abused them, and even when the unlawful declaration had been set-aside, the Second Deemster abused them some more. He even used the same file reference DIV 2004/144 – the case that had been dismissed 4 years earlier.