"Salmon Addition" Report on the malfeasance in Government/Governance relating to a children matter

On 5th July 2019 the following was presented to the Governor as a Petition of Redress of Grievence – THE HUMBLE PETITION of:Dorothy Salmon and Philip Salmon of 54 Duke Street, Douglas SHEWETH THAT:In March 2009 the Isle of Man Government updated the Code of Conduct for Public Servants; that publication was issued out of the Office of Human Resources. This Code defines the minimum standards of conduct that members of staff are expected to observe when carrying out their official duties.

It is intended to complement any codes already in place through employing authorities and any professional or ethical codes. It also gives individual employers across Government the opportunity to develop and implement more detailed, job specific codes of conduct.

Employing authorities have a duty to make public servants aware of this Code and its principles and in line with the requirements of the Isle of Man Government Principles of Corporate Governance and Code of Conduct to put in place arrangements to ensure compliance with formal codes of conduct defining standards of personal behaviour.

The Code was originally developed by the then Personnel Office in conjunction with a working group comprising representatives from across Government, with the support of the Chief Officers’ Group and the then Civil Service Commission, and the endorsement of the Council of Ministers.

The Code applies to all public servants and defines the minimum standards of conduct that members of staff are expected to observe when carrying out their official duties The Code is effective from 1st April 2009.

The Code of Conduct for Public Servants is intended to be read in association with the Staff Guidance Note on Conflicts of Interest approved by the Council of Ministers April 2007 the importance of these two measures for the regulation of the interaction of the public with public servants is beyond question, they are the foundation upon which the integrity of public service stands.

As a direct consequence of the Sir Jonathan Michaels Report to the Tynwald together with the recent reports from Select Committees to the House of Keys and Tynwald which have specifically made mention of the conduct of public servants, coupled with our own recent experiences of dealings with Government Departments we say is highly persuasive of persistent and systematic failures of the Code to regulate the conduct of public servants in Government of the Isle of Man Wherefore your Petitioners seeks that:A Committee of three Members be appointed with powers to lake written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, as amended, to consider and report back to Tynwald on the fitness for purpose of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants and any remedies which it considers to be appropriate.

Signed by:[Signed by Dorothy Salmon]

[Signed by Philip Salmon]

Dorothy Salmon Mrs.

Philip Salmon.

[emboldened phrase in the “remedy” added by me, G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc.]

-1-

At a meeting in (the “Court of”) Tynwald on 17th October 2019 the following was stated – The Civil Service Code 5.1 The role of the Civil Service is, with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity, to assist the duly constituted Government of the Isle of Man in formulating its policies, carrying out decisions and administering public services for which they are responsible.

5.2 Civil servants are employees of the Commission and, subject to the provisions of this code, they owe their loyalty to the Government which they serve.

5.3 This code should be viewed in the context of the duties and responsibilities set out for Ministers in the Ministerial Code.

5.4 Civil servants should serve the Government in accordance with the principles set out in this Code and recognising: (a) the accountability of civil servants to the Minister; (b) the duty of all public officers to discharge public functions reasonably and according to the law; (c) the duty to comply with the law,including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice; and (d) ethical standards governing particular professions.

5.5 Civil servants should conduct themselves with integrity, impartiality and honesty.

They should give honest and impartial advice to Ministers, without fear or favour, and make all information relevant to a decision available to them. They should not deceive or knowingly mislead Ministers, Tynwald, or the public.

5.6 Civil servants should endeavour to deal with the affairs of the public sympathetically, efficiently, promptly and without bias or maladministration.

5.7 Civil servants should endeavour to ensure the proper, effective and efficient use of public money.

5.8 Civil servants should not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or those of others. They should not receive benefits of any kind from a third party which might reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity.

5.9 Civil servants should conduct themselves in such a way as to deserve and retain the confidence of Ministers and to be able to establish the same relationship with those whom they may be required to serve in some future Government. They should comply with restrictions on their political activities.

A speaker continued …

“Civil servants should not seek to frustrate the policies, decisions or actions of the Government by declining to take, or abstaining from, action which flows from decisions

by Ministers. Where a matter cannot be resolved by the procedures set out … [etc.] he or she should either carry out his or her instructions, or resign …

“That in outline, Mr President (of Tynwald), deals with the Government Code. We have also the Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct, in which Aspect 5: Standards of Conduct it is stated that: “The openness, integrity and accountability of individuals within a Department is the cornerstone of effective corporate governance. The reputation of the Department depends on the standards of behaviour of everyone in it, including agents contracted to it.

“Therefore the Minister, Members, and senior officers of a Department will need to: -2-

•

exercise leadership by conducting themselves as role models for others within the Department to follow;

•

ensure compliance with relevant professional and corporate standards of personal behaviour and codes of ethics;

“Mr President, Hon. Members, these are exacting standards that the people of this Island have an absolute right to expect; and to see enacted these Codes as adopted and promulgated by the Government.”

The Code of Conduct for Public Servants 2017 consists of six pages. The introduction of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants sets out the basis for what follows within it: This Code defines the minimum standards of conduct that members of staff are expected to observe when carrying out their official duties. It is intended to complement any codes already in place through employing authorities and any professional or ethical codes. It also gives individual employers across Government the opportunity to develop and implement more detailed, job specific codes of conduct.

Mr Philip Salmon gave oral “evidence” to a three-person committee on 28 th Nov. 2019.

Select Committee on the Code of Conduct for Public Servants Chair: Timothy Mark Crookall Others: Julie Marie Edge; Kate Alice Lord Brennan There now follows my opinions and some evidence for these three people. .

Quite simply, any code of conduct reflects the rules of Natural Justice (which demands fairness, competence and accountability) so the code of conduct IS fit for purpose; but the real questions are is ANY person in public authority in the Isle of Man (which I now call Devil’s Island) actually fit for purpose; and if he of she (in future “he” to include male and female) is not (fit to do the job for which he is employed) what can be done about it; what remedy is available for incompetence?

This is my “Report on Incompetence of Mann” (“IOM”) and I show that many people in public authority in Devil’s Island, including judges, advocates and senior public servants (and I name several) have “made up the rules as they have gone along” and those rules are neither fair nor lawful. I have no idea what the remedy is; but that is not why I have prepared this report – this report is further evidence that Codes of Conduct and STATUTES are ignored daily in Devil’s Island because that has always been the “MO” – the Modus Operandi or method of working.

There is a matter I wish to use to highlight that any “rules” can be ignored by anyone in Devil’s Island without consequence – and that matter began before 1 st April 2009, but continued after it when many decisions were made that were NOT compliant with the new “code of conduct”. But many of the decisions made BEFORE 1st April 2009 were unlawful so a code of conduct would not have helped: a culture of accountability may have helped.

I have to start with events in 2011, because that year is after the “date in question”, and in June 2011 I complained to the Chief Registrar, Stephen Cregeen, about events in 2004/2005/2006 and 2007. On 27 th January 2006 I had met with the previous Chief Registrar Peter Corkhill and one of his staff, a Mr Paul W. Coppell.

Unbelievably, despite (in 2011) requesting that an “independent” investigation took place in the Government Office known as the General Registry (an office defined by Statute) -3-

Mr Cregeen asked Paul Coppel to investigate my complaint – he was biased and incapable of being impartial.

The General Registry has a copy of the so-called “Report” made by Mr Coppell and I have now ensured that Mr Roger Phillips has a copy. In 2011 Mr Coppell had to act with integrity and openness; but he had poisoned his own tree in 2006 (he mentions the meeting) so could not be trusted in 2011.

What I must “paint” now, is a picture of competence in the General Registry in the 21 st century, and this picture began with the appointment of AK Williamson as Deputy Deemster on 1st September 2002. In 2011, David Doyle announced a Code of Conduct for members of the judiciary in Devil’s Island and this, too, is fit for purpose; but is generally not followed in the High Court and there is no openness or accountability in the Island’s civil court, (and “integrity” is questionable).

When I say competence – I mean incompetence. In 2007, David Doyle said that a previous application to the High Court (via the High Court Office [part of the General Registry]) led to “divorce proceedings” (a matter under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003) when the application was actually for an order under (Section 11 of) the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 so Doyle was so incompetent that he did not know the difference between a matrimonial matter and a children matter and was therefore unfit to hold the position of a High Court Judge. AK Williamson did not know the difference between a High Court and a County (or Sheading) Court or between an order that had been “registered” in the High Court and an order that had not been registered! The two Appeal Division judges (in 2007: Kerruish and Tattersall) did not know the difference between the United Kingdom and England & Wales for they described the UK as “a jurisdiction” when it is NOT a single jurisdiction but three distinct jurisdictions! The proof of this is ALL in the “public domain” – published on Deemster’s authorisation in/on various IOMG web-sites.

When a Deemster says “a fork shall be known as a spoon” or “this human being shall be known as an orang-utan” nobody in “authority” in Devil’s Island is capable of thinking that a colleague (Deemsters are also people in public authority who must abide by Statutes of the Isle of Man) has done or said wrong! A Dumpster (my term for such a being) can “do anything he thinks necessary.”

So, in 2011, this is what Paul W. Coppell wrote to his “boss” Stephen Cregeen.

INVESTIGATION INTO COMPLAINT OF MR S HOLMES DATED 16TH JUNE 2011 CARRIED OUT BY PAUL W COPPELL, DIRECTOR OF COURTS & TRIBUNAL SERVICES Introduction On 16th June 2011 Mr Holmes submitted a complaint using the “comments form” provided at the Isle of Man Courts of Justice Public Counter.

The Complaints Process The General Registry Complaints Procedure requires that any verbal complaint be dealt with by the relevant officer or if requested investigated by a senior officer and that a report back is provided within 10 working days.

If a complaint is provided in writing, as in this instance, the form will be referred to an appropriate officer by the Chief Registrar, and in such circumstances, the same process would apply in that it may be referred to a senior officer.

-4-

Following the receipt of an initial acknowledgement, Mr Holmes in correspondence both to me and to the Chief Registrar, sought that the investigation be carried out by an independent appointee. The Chief Registrar has determined that it is both reasonable and in line with procedure for the complaint to be carried out by the Director of Courts & Tribunal Services, as its most senior officer.

It should also be noted that the only involvement I have had with the matter in the past, was to accompany the then Chief Registrar at a meeting he had with Mr Holmes in 2006, at a time when I had no involvement in the Division and was there primarily to take notes.

The Complaint Whilst the content of what was provided contained much information, as part of the investigation process I have sought to clarify from its content the specific issues Mr Holmes wishes to complain about, … It is my view that the following is a list of the specific issues raised/alleged: 1. Documents were registered erroneously 5. The Court Form C1 is not correct/appropriate 1. Documents were registered erroneously Having reviewed the very many items of correspondence etc in relation to this issue, I have determined that it is not appropriate or necessary to carry out a further fully comprehensive investigation.

The reason for this is simply as a result of the fact that, as indicated in the complaint, the matter had previously been investigated by the then Chief Registrar, Mr P R Corkhill in 2007, following which Mr Corkhill sent a letter to Mr Holmes in which it was stated that “it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously”. In that sense, it is clear therefore that the issue has already been investigated.

Whilst there would appear to be a question as to what impact if any this “error” may have had, given that the only issue with the documents registered was that of certification, it is clear that as the court had determined the issue, any challenge to the validity of such must be made via the legal process.

In addition, it is also noted that this issue has been raised by Mr Holmes on many, many occasions and in many differing forms, including in litigation.

5. The Court Form C1 is not correct/appropriate Mr Holmes contends that the content of the Court Form C1 is not correct with regards to statutory provision and also that certain elements of it are not appropriate.

The contents of that form are prescribed and are therefore a) the appropriate form and b) not able to be amended without due process.

That said, The General Registry must be cognisant of the need to keep its guidance, forms etc under review and to process any required amendments where appropriate. I would therefore recommend that the issues raised in this regard are borne in mind at the appropriate time.

Paul W. Coppell JUDGED that it WAS appropriate for him to investigate the complaint when he had been involved in the meeting on 27 th January 2006 and had already decided that my complaint was “invalid” in 2006!

He then goes on to say “I have determined that it is not appropriate or necessary to carry out a further fully comprehensive investigation.”

-5-

His reason for this decision was that he claimed PR Corkhill (it was R.P. Corkhill) had previously investigated the matter.

But my complaint to Cregeen was that the documents had NOT been registered – the phrase “registered erroneously” was determined by R. Peter Corkhill in 2007 – and the letter was not to me, Mr Holmes, but was addressed to Mannin Chambers and sent on 25th July 2007.

This letter formed part of the “bundle” prepared by Mannin Chambers with documents from the General Registry – so its exact contents are in the public domain. In addition judgment 2DS 2007/9 published on-line as J1183.htm (in judgments.im/content/) contains the following 43.

It appears that the orders were registered albeit that the requirements which are clearly set out in sections 7 and 12 [see next para.] were not met.

44.

Such a conclusion is supported by a letter of the Chief Registrar to Mr Beckett dated 25 July 2007 in which he concedes that it would appear that the two orders were registered in the High Court erroneously and not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987. [Sections 7 and 12].

This is part of that actual letter –

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.

I put the term “[sic]” in here because the file was not number 2004/114 but 2004/144 and none of the registration documents are actually contained in that case file!

Corkhill stated “registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously” and Coppell simply stated “registered erroneously” but Corkhill explained that it was not in accordance with the requirements of an Act of Tynwald. The Appeal judges incorrectly used the phrase “not properly registered” instead of the term “NOT registered”; but there is a heading between paragraphs 45 and 46 which is “The effect of non registration” and paragraph 47 contains the phrase “when [the orders/they] had not been so registered” meaning, for clarification such documents HAD NOT BEEN registered. That was the cause of my complaint in 2011 – by that time Corkhill had gone from being Chief Registrar and Cregeen had taken over – so a NEW investigation was required for the effect of acting as if something had happened when such HAD NOT HAPPENED. The so-called registrations were unlawful and did not actually happen – so my complaint to Coppell was NOT “Documents were registered erroneously” but “Documents WERE NOT REGISTERED and you-lot covered it up”.

It then developed that people in public authority (civil servants) could not count to three!

But I will “come to that” shortly.

-6-

On 1st July 2004, in Court, Deputy Deemster Williamson claimed in the Family Division of the High Court that “a – an order from Lancaster” (County Court) had been registered “here” [when it had not been registered]. He ORDERED that an Application for an Order I had made to the High Court Family Division be dismissed so he made no section 11 order – he actually made “no order at all” [see section 1(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 – the “CYPA 2001” – which allows for making no order at all].

On 5th November 2004 Williamson again alleged that registrations had taken place “one back in May and … one yesterday” [4th Nov. 2004] and he made a declaration (a declaratory order) to that effect. It later developed that such declaration had no basis in law, but my problem was with the so-called “registrations” because I had not been informed of such a process. From about February 2005 to the end of February 2007 I asked everybody in public authority “what is this thing called a registration? ” and received NO reply. I tried everything – I even attempted to sue the Deputy Deemster for lying from the Bench and causing me much “work” – there was a hearing on 25 th October 2006 which I was unable to attend but Acting Deemster Tim King claimed that the matter was matrimonial (it was not) and did not answer the question of “what is a registration?”

In addition to his incompetence in November 2004 (when he issued a document that had no basis in law) Williamson issued almost exactly the same declaration in November 2005 – so for 54 weeks he pursued his own policy of unfairness and outlawry – and never once checked requirements that his superiors later described (above) as “clearly set out in sections 7 and 12.” Notice the word requirements – plural.

So in 2006 I complained to Chief Registrar Corkhill that there had been maladministration in the “registration process” and a meeting (it was “an ambush”) was held. As a result, Carol Denise Dowd wrote to me on 9 th February 2006 in the following manner. .

General Registry Oik-Recortyssee Carol Dowd Director of Courts Services

Mr S Holmes 127 Ballabrooie Drive Douglas Isle of Man IM1 4HH

General Registry Isle of Man Courts of Justice, Deemsters Walk, Bucks Road Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 3AR Telephone: 01624 685481 Fax: 01624 686165 E-mail: carol.dowd@registry.gov.im

Our ref:

sh070206/sd

Your ref: Date:

9th February 2006

Dear Mr Holmes Formal Complaint – Holmes v Holmes FD/UK/COR/02 and DIV 2004/144 Following your meeting with the Chief Registrar on 27th January 2006, I reply to your allegation that there had been maladministration in the Isle of Man when accepting the UK orders at front of house.

Mrs Holmes submitted two court orders from the Lancaster County Court with this court on 2nd April 2004 for registration. The two orders submitted were true copies of the orders made.

However, the courts administration did not follow the rules laid down ensuring that the copy -7-

orders submitted were certified copies.

I enclose herewith of the orders submitted by Mrs Holmes on 2nd April 2004 and the certified copies of these orders, and I apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused.

Yours sincerely,

Carol Dowd Director of Court Services Ms Dowd stated that I has alleged maladministration. Then she wrote that the “Courts Administration” [office] did not follow the rules laid down. Later on, Corkill (who asked Dowd to review the registrations) stated that the requirements of an Act of Tynwald called the Child Custody Act 1987 had not been accorded to – surely that constituted maladministration? Certified copies of orders were required for a successful registration but the photocopies submitted by Mrs Holmes on 2 nd April 2004 were not “certified”. The modus operandi “MO” – the method of working – in the High Court Office is one of maladministration; to retrospectively obtain certified documents to fix the failures of the past – and apologise for inconvenience which was the total destruction of my family life. Effectively, parental responsibility was taken from me – which was not just “inconvenient” but unlawful and catastrophically damaging to my children and to me.

Throughout 2005 and 2006, nobody answered any questions about the registrations or the administrative actions in the General Registry (under R.P. Corkhill) so in February 2007, having found another Children Act 1989 administrative order from Lancaster County Court I asked that this too be registered in the IOM High Court – by that time I KNEW that a County Court COULD NOT BIND a High Court.

This is the letter I received – .

High Court Office Oik ny Ard-Whaiylyn Operations Manager Miss Jayne Williams Isle of Man Courts Administration

Isle of Man Courts of Justice Deemsters Walk Bucks Road Douglas Isle of Man IM3 1AR Telephone (01624) 686191 Fax (01624) 685236 E-mail: highcourt@registry.gov.im

27th February 2007 S Holmes 127 Ballabrooie Drive DOUGLAS Isle of Man Dear Sir Registration of Court Order – Katarina May Holmes and Peter Elliot Benedict Holmes I am in receipt of your undated letter regarding the registration of an order issued under the

-8-

Children Act 1989 from Lancaster County Court dated 3rd February 2004.

•

Your application should be made through Lancaster County Court;

•

The papers should be sent direct to the Isle of Man General Registry, Courts Division, from Lancaster County Court and must include copies of the applications and supporting documents in relation to the order;

•

The order will need to be certified by Lancaster County Court and must have the wording “I certify that this is a true copy of the original order of this Court” on it AND be signed by an appropriate person (either the Judge or a Registrar).

I trust this is of assistance. In the meantime, I return the adjournment order dated 3rd February 2004 to you.

Yours faithfully

Voirrey Moore Civil Summary Team There are THREE bullet points on this document – THREE; but Carol Dowd only followed ONE criterion namely that of certification. And the certification on the “copies” that Mrs Dowd enclosed with her letter in February 2006 was NOT by a Judge or a Registrar.

Now we look again at the “non investigation” by Coppell in 2011 – AFTER the Code of Conduct was implemented.

Coppell wrote “given that the only issue with the documents registered was that of

certification, it is clear that as the court had determined the issue, any challenge to the validity of such must be made via the legal process .” In the extract from his report

(above) I emboldened the “only issue” phrase. How is it clear that the COURT has determined the issue? – it may be clear to Paul “I can only count to ONE” Coppell; but if a public servant cannot note THREE bullet points on a letter then he should resign from office – should he have even been appointed as a servant of the people?

Natural justice and fairness In 1994 a private company (Parallel Publishing) published a book entitled Government and Law in the Isle of Man and a young Advocate named David Doyle contributed to this book. In 2003 Doyle was made Second Deemster and acted in the (criminal law) Court of General Gaol Delivery (“CGGD”) until the untimely death of Mike Kerruish in 2010.

This is what Doyle wrote in that 1994 publication – There is a procedure in the Isle of Man whereby a petition of Doleance (an obsolete word from the French doléances meaning a complaint—see the judgement of Deemster Farrant in the case of Petition of James Burns Martin 1943) can be presented to the High Court for determination. In England, a similar procedure (but not the same process) would be an application for judicial review. If a public body strays beyond its powers, then there is a procedure whereby a citizen affected by such ultra vires action can seek a remedy from the courts. Public bodies must act within the powers given to them by Act of Tynwald and they must exercise any discretion granted to them in a proper and reasonable way. Furthermore, these bodies and indeed other entities must act in accordance with basic principles of natural justice. They must give members of the public a fair hearing.

The rules of natural justice are minimum standards of fair-decision making imposed by the common law. (See Judicial Review 1992 Michael Supperstone QC and James Goudie QC). There are [three] accepted rules of natural justice: nemo judex in causa sua (no-one can be a judge in [his] own cause), and audi alteram partem (hear the other side), although other rules have been referred to without achieving general recognition.

[Other texts include a third fundamental rule ostendo testimonium (produce the evidence)].

-9-

1994 was long before the “code of conduct” was implemented – but this comment confirns that people working for public bodies, including Deemsters and the High Bailiff and all officers of the three courts, have always had to give members of the public a fair hearing. Note that since 1991 the Petition of Doleance had been defined by STATUTE, yet Doyle referred to a precedent judgment in 1943 – nothing from “the last few years!”

In my experience, since moving “back home” to the Isle of Man from England in 2004 – but I had only left the Island (for a second time) in October 2001 – nobody in public authority has given me a fair hearing, and the worst offender was Deputy Deemster AK Williamson because he had no clue about civil law having spent about 30 years in criminal law courts in England and in the Isle of Man. In the judgment “J1183.htm” Deemster Kerruish and “JA” Tattersall confirm that Williamson lied! At paragraph 12 it is confirmed that Williamson told me orders from Lancaster had been “registered” when they had not been (so) registered (in the midst of paragraph 47). This was a man who swore an Oath to execute the laws of this Isle justly. One of the Statutes includes the phrase “the welfare of that child shall be the court’s paramount consideration.” The welfare of any child is NEVER the paramount consideration of any “officer of the High Court” (including staff in the Family Court Welfare Office – which in turn is, absurdly, part of the criminal justice system)!

David Doyle, in 2007, completely ignored the rules of natural justice or the CYPA 2001 and judged that his opinion that the matter was “divorce proceedings” took precedence over the welfare of the children.

I have already mentioned “paragraph 47” and in my analysis of the totality of J1183.htm, there are only two phrases of any consequence – they are both in this paragraph. 1. when they had not been registered and 2. there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.

My analysis is correct because Kerruish and Tattersall assumed that Mrs Holmes and the (Manx) children had been “living in Lancaster, England” when leave was sought to remove the (Manx) children from the jurisdiction of England & Wales (“E+W”) but from 18th August 2003 the (IOM) DHSS had been paying Child Benefit to Mrs Holmes for Katie and Ben Holmes and from 3 rd September 2003 both (Manx) children had attended Rushen Primary School which is not in England (or Wales). So the English County Court NEVER had jurisdiction over Katie and Ben – two English judges assumed that the Isle of Man was (and is) bound by the Children Act 1989 – although on 24 th February 2004 Judge Robert M. Forrester in Lancaster purported to grant leave to Mrs Yvonne Holmes to remove the Manx children from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (the two jurisdictions of E+W and Scotland) and Northern Ireland to the Isle of Man permanently. Kerruish and Tattersall wrongly gave validity to English Court orders that had no validity in the Isle of Man – and IOM was the only jurisdiction these two clowns could comment on in the High and Kangaroo Court of Injustice of the Isle of Man. Also on 24th February 2004 Forrester purported to make a Section 8 “residence order” then to give permission to Mrs Holmes to take the children to the Isle of Man; then he purported to make a section 8 “contact order” – and Williamson later assumed that those section 8 orders were “binding” on the Isle of Man although the “contact order” contained the phrase “provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man”.

The assumption that such “orders” could be registered (or were capable of being registered) is absolutely insane – and that assumption was made in 2007 by Kerruish and Tattersall. It would seem (to me) that the First Deemster and Judge of Appeal were “unfit for purpose” – and when Doyle took over he, too, was incapable of making a fair judgment. In www.judgments.im/content/J1149.htm (given on 14th December 2011, a couple of months after Doyle published a Code of Conduct for himself and other Judges in DI), Doyle stated that the “SOGD” were of a clear “view.” That view was that “no fair criticism” could be made of Williamson for his “belief” that orders had been - 10 -

“properly registered.” A view is an opinion and it is not necessarily lawful – in this case it was not a lawful opinion for it showed bias or partiality to the wrong-doing. So even First Dumpster Doyle did not follow a code of conduct or Statutes! Of course the Code of Conduct for members of the judiciary is “fit for purpose” but sometimes (and only “sometimes”) it is the Dumpsters who are not fit to be high court judges (or even County Court judges!) They may not have criminal intent, but sometimes they act without (the) law.

Williamson actually said in court on 5 th November 2004 (witnessed and transcribed by Kevin O’Riordan – now a part-time Deemster and also unfit for purpose) that he could not expect every constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is! But it is reasonable to expect any civil servant or public servant or officer of the Crown (and someone who has sworn the “Dumpster ’s Oath”) to actually READ THE ACT. Even in J1183.htm, Tattersall and Kerruish judged – “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)].”

NB in [2] immediately above: sent to the appropriate court in the United Kingdom.

It is reasonable to check what the “appropriate court” is for E+W and it is the High Court not a County Court. So when (in section 7) we see “provision corresponding to section 12” the “sending court” must also be an appropriate court – and not “an inappropriate court” such as a Magistrates’ Court or County Court.

See paragraph 37 of the judgment: 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.

It can be seen that whether there is a code of conduct or not, fairness and doing-right shall be the expected actions of all persons in public authority in the Isle of Man – right up to the First Deemster (who is also Deputy Governor and President of the High Court) and including ALL Deemsters and the Attorney General and Ministers and even “executive officers” in Government Departments and Offices. But the motto of all these people appears to be Quocunque Jeceris SNAFU – whichever way we are thrown we WILL Foul-Up; or Let Wrong Be Done.

And the crazy thing is, wrong-doing is admitted and (almost) glorified. Corkhill (again):

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.

MRS HOLMES COULD NOT legally make an application to register orders in the Isle of Man High Court – the officers at the Lancaster HIGH COURT had to make such - 11 -

application; and there is a blind assumption that although the documents referred to above do not exist, the declaration of Williamson “endorsed the Lancaster County Court orders.” It later developed that there was no legitimacy to the so-called order made by Williamson (and sent to the POLICE) on 5th November 2004.

Two senior judges in “Manxland” purported to quash or revoke an order that had no basis in law. If an document has no basis in law, such as a nine-pound note, it cannot be “revoked” merely declared void from the outset. Doyle mentioned the term ultra vires in 1994 – and a County Court (so-called) order that alleges section 8 “contact” take place in the Isle of Man is self evidently ultra vires – beyond the powers of a County Court in England or Northern Ireland to make such a statement. Ultra vires documents must be treated as void by the courts – but when a Deemster acts beyond his powers there is no procedure in the Isle of Man to hold him (or her) accountable – there is no openness; no integrity and no accountability – and that lack of “trust” goes up to the First Dumpster and the Governor and the Attorney General – and all officers of Tynwald including the President – (but not including the Clerks and legally qualified personel in Tynwald administration). Even the “Tynwald Select Committee” is possibly unfit for purpose (in my view; in my valid opinion).

Despite the evidence published by people in governance in Devil’s Island (like the FACT that Williamson lied for he said orders were registered when they were not registered) nobody in authority will do anything about such wrong-doing. Criticism of Williamson was essential for HE LIED FROM THE BENCH – he contravened his Oaths.

And in attempting to remedy a wrong, further wrongs were ignored or

introduced like the allegation that United Kingdom orders continue to be valid and exist in that jurisdiction!

The Children Act 1989 DOES NOT BIND Scotland nor

Northern Ireland and it certainly DOES NOT BIND THE ISLE OF MAN, or Devil’s Island; but if a Dumpster assumes it does then a SNAFU – a foul-up – occurs .

One key phrase in the Petition of Salmon is “fit for purpose” and this statement leads to a number of questions about many entities in Devil’s Island being fit for purpose.

When it comes to a matter relating to children (or minors), the Isle of Man is not fit for purpose for no children matter is listed in the High and Kangaroo Court as “Re – the Child.” The Children Act 1989 of E+W has in the full title AN ACT to reform the law relating to children. The CYPA 2001 of Devil’s Island has “AN ACT to reform the law relating to children” in the full title, but in the domain of the First Dumpster and President of the High Court children matters are listed as Adult versus Adult with the child as an object to be “won or lost.” Dumpsters condone this wrong-doing despite having a Code of Conduct. The DHA (the Probation Service is part of the DHA) condones this wrong-doing, and the Children Advocate condones this wrong-doing.

I have complained to the Governor and the Attorney General about the way children are treated in civil court in Devil’s Island and it appears that the Crown condones this wrongdoing.

So we look at historical matters and we find that Tynwald is not fit for the purpose of creating workable Acts for children – for it made a SNAFU with TWO Acts; one in 1987 and one in 1991.

England & Wales introduced an Act in 1971 called the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 – but Tynwald continued using the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 (which, in turn was based on a 1925 and an 1886 Act of Parliament for England & Wales: two Guardianship of Infants Acts). In an attempt to provide continuity throughout the United Kingdom (its three jurisdictions) the Family Law Act 1986 was enacted so that High Court decisions about the guardianship of minors could be reciprocated throughout the - 12 -

jurisdictions of the UK. Instead of calling a “mirror Act” the Family Law Act 1987, Tynwald gave its Act the short title Child Custody Act 1987 but did not enact it! The first wrong had been done in Tynwald – an Act was “pending” which was about adults having the right to have “custody” of a child; but children had rights which were “waiting in the wings” – something else that needs an explanation for “DI”.

Since about 1980, two agencies had been working on the rights of children: the United Nations and the English authorities with responsibilities for children . It was realised that adults having “custody of children” and adults having “access to children” was incompatible with the UN Convention on Human Rights (and therefore the European Convention on Human Rights) in the right to “family life” and so new measures were adopted.

These were the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”) and in E+W the Children Act 1989. In E+W, “custody,” “access” and “care and control” went into the dustbin of history and “residence” and “contact” entered legal dictionaries as the UNCRC compliant terms for England, Wales (then Scotland and Northern Ireland) where the CHILD resides with an adult and the CHILD has contact with the person NAMED IN AN ORDER if the Court can be persuaded to make an order.

Between the Children Act 1989 being passed in November 1989 and it being enacted in October 1991, Tynwald proposed and passed a repetition of Parliament (“P”) 1989 Chapter 41 but absurdly called it the Family Law Act 1991 (1991 Chapter 3). But the draftsmen put the word “custody” in the full title – confusing EVERYBODY including themselves. And it was not until October 1992 that the Family Division of the High Court came into being – but people still thought that an adult had the “residence order” and an adult had “contact with the child” when it was the MINOR who had section 9 contact and residence.

Incidentally, section 8 of the Children Act 1989 changed in 2014 – section 11 of the CYPA 2001 has not been updated to stay in line with more sensible thinking – and as this report shows, sensible, legal thinking is not an MO in DI. For ELEVEN YEARS, the Family Law Act 1991 was misused by all people in public authority in the Isle of Man for it was thought that the new measures (residence / contact/ specific questions / prohibited steps orders) applied to adults not minors. The Family Court Welfare Office was scrapped in E+W but remains in existence in the criminal justice system in Devil’s Island without openness, integrity or accountability – without knowledge! As Terry Pratchett brilliantly (in my view) observed: “They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not half as bad as a lot of ignorance” and the Isle of Man certainly has “ignorance in bucketloads”.

At last, in 2001, the CYPA 2001 was passed, but that too took 18 months to re-enact Parts 1 and 2 of the FLA 1991, and by that time (1 st February 2003) AK Williamson had been running the Family Division of the High Court for 6 months having been made a Deputy Deemster in 2002. He had been a criminal court judge for 14 years and sent all his orders to the criminal justice system – he knew NO civil law whatsoever and did not hold the welfare of children as paramount.

The Family Law Act 1991 was NOT fit for purpose and the Family Division of the High Court (now dead and buried since Deemsters Doyle and Kerruish killed it in 2009) was also unfit for purpose. With the changes to the Children Act 1989 in 2014, England & Wales have kept-up with social and and other relevant changes, but Devil’s Island continues its policy of SNAFU and cover: foul-up then cover-up.

It is easy to summarise the behaviour of an entire jurisdiction with one extract from the “report” by Coppell in June 2011 (AFTER the Code of Conduct was implemented).

Whilst there would appear to be a question as to what impact if any this “error” may have had, given that the only issue with the documents registered was that of certification, it is clear that as the court had determined the issue The error was that documents were NOT registered: NOT, NOT, NOT. Any statement that - 13 -

they were registered was untrue; even the terms “registered erroneously” and “not properly registered” are misleading at best.

Recently, in Iran, there has been an admission that a Ukrainian passenger aircraft was “shot down in error.” An Isle of Man Government civil servant would have written there would appear to be a question as to what impact this “error” may have had . There is no question as to what the erroneously shooting-down had; and I hope that all readers of this report now realise that the impact of the error of purporting to register a document from England has caused YEARS of distress and weeks of wasted public office time because nobody in IOM has the wit understand basic English! If anybody had admitted fault, then a remedy may have been possible, but accountability is not a thing known in Devil’s Island – especially in the legal “profession”.

Having “scratched the surface” with an analysis of “registered by this office erroneously i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987” we find that there is absolutely nothing beneath the surface – that Deemsters lied in court and that Tynwald passes Acts without checking on the validity of their provisions. This is the full title of the Family Law Act 1991 – An Act to make new provision with respect to parental responsibility for and guardianship of minors; to make new provision as to the custody and maintenance of minors; to amend the law relating to declarations of status; and for connected purposes . A “word-search” finds that the only occurance of

the word “custody” in this 1991 Act is in the long title – so the Act made NO provisions as to the “custody of minors” at all.

Similarly, the High Court Act 1991 has in the long title “to establish a new division of the High Court to be called the Family Division;” but there is no “new” division in the High Court called the Family Division where (for example) the Statute of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is the mainstay of matters relating to children; the Civil Division uses Deemster’s rules, “bowel Law” and precedent to make decisions – often contrary to the CYPA 2001. As another example of the High Court being unfit for purpose, Deemster Andrew Corlett wrote in 2016 that it was the duty of the court to promote the welfare of the child “throughout his childhood” when it is the COURT ITSELF that must consider the welfare of the child whilst determining the question asked of it.

It (the Court) must also use the “no order principle” (section 1(5)) whereby making no order at all shall be the default order of the Court. Williamson actually did this on 1 st July 2004 – he ORDERED that my application for an order be dismissed (a “no order Order”). The SOGD (Tattersall and Kerruish) and Doyle then further muddied waters by claiming that I did not appeal against the dismissal of my Application; what was there to appeal? No Section 11 CYPA 2001 order was made and section 1(5) of the CYPA 2001 was followed.

The main problem with ALL people in authority in the Isle of Man is with their interpretation of “rules” and that they can say things like “Mr Holmes says it was not done in good faith.”

Well, Deemster Kerruish and JA Tattersall confirmed that Williamson had told me that orders from Lancaster County Court had been registered in the High Court when they had not been registered so Williamson lied and did not act in good faith. It then develops that nobody in the Isle of Man is trustworthy to remedy a problem when someone in a court lies; nobody “below” him (DD AK-47) and nobody “above” such as the AG or Governor.

The evidence of wrong-doing is in the High Court Office – and various on-line (and one published) judgment: J906.htm; (which is also 2009 MLR p. 112); J1149.htm and J1183.htm (which was published in 2012 although the case number was 2DS 2007/9 and the initial hearing was 13th April 2007). This was initially a matter about Manx children and the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

Williamson made an order that had no basis in LAW (in Statute) on 5 th November 2004 and it was March 2007 before I had information that led to my correct determination that his “order” was a false instrument sent to the Police and a Head Teacher (in the - 14 -

Department of Education). An application to set aside a wrong document is “an appeal” in the Isle of Man; but it took from 13 th April 2007 to 24th September for the High Court to hear argument (although it was self evident) and another five weeks to produce a judgment where the words “no legitimate basis” were used. If the document had said “Mr Holmes shall be an orang-utan as ordered in Lancaster, England” the “ape order” could have been set aside immediately without a three year delay.

And the repurcussions of this twelve-year-SNAFU are still being felt for I now have included evidence in support of the Salmon Petition that the attitude of most people in authority in the Isle of Man is that the Codes of Conduct are advisory guidelines that don’t need to be followed if the public servant finds a complainant to be critical of another person in authority. This lack of accountability goes up to the Governor and Deputy Governor (and AG and SG) and it is most unlikely that a “politician” on a “select committee” will find that “yes – the Deputy Deemster did lie in Court and all his colleagues and support staff backed up and even encouraged the lie.” That is the Isle of Man for you! I “go back” to Paul Coppell’s use inverted commas and phrase “what effect if any this “error” had” and say that one effect is the fact that I am still complaining in 2020 that Williamson LIED FROM THE BENCH in 2004 and nobody has done anything about it – nobody – not even the Queen! I have written to her mediocrity Mrs Windsor and she, too, believes what people tell her rather than “published evidence” such as “when they had not been so registered.”

False documents To use the “SOGD” term (from 26 th October 2007); purported; on 28th May 2004 it was purported that two documents that “looked like” Court Orders from a County Court in England were “registered” in the Isle of Man High Court (by a Chief Registrar, Jayne Williams). [Ms Williams was actually Assistant Chief Registrar but, like a Deputy High Bailiff is equivalent to the High Bailiff so the Assistant Chief Registrar is equivalent to the Chief; and Deputy Assistant Chief.] Four documents were produced on 28 th May 2004 alleging the Registration of a Custody Order made in the United Kingdom (in the Isle of Man High Court, under the Child Custody Act 1987) when they had not been registered. These four documents were sent to Mrs Yvonne Holmes but not sent to me, the father of Katie and Ben Holmes. Looking at the High Court Act 1991, we find, in section 28, that the Chief and Assistant Chief Registrar are directed and supervised by the First Deemster or the Deemster to whom they are attached (in the matter) – in this case, Williamson. Mrs Holmes had hand-written a request to Williamson on 2 nd April 2004 and said “Please register these documents in the Isle of Man courts” (I think there is an “s” on courts – because it is hand-written it is difficult to establish. But the “to” address has Family Division and the Family Division only existed in the High Court not a Sheading Court (oh! there is no sheading court) so registration could only take place in ONE court – the High Court as the section 7 header reads “Regisration of custody order in High Court”.

In his kangaroo court on 5 th November 2004, Williamson said “I can’t expect every … constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is.” [FACT – I have a transcript provided by O’Riordan]. But it is reasonable to expect the Deemster to read the Child Custody Act 1987 and to establish whether it is indeed possible to register a Section 8 Children Act 1989 “contact” order in the Isle of Man High Court given that the County Court order alleges that section 8 “contact” take place IN THE ISLE OF MAN! Fast forward to 2009 when the Deemsters (Kerruish and Doyle) CHANGED the Rules of the High Court (and this is AFTER 2007 when Kerruish was involved in the so-called appeal of April to October 2007) and we find in paragraph 33 of the Rules of the Family Court (2009) 33. Registration of UK custody orders On receipt of a certified copy of a custody order made in a British jurisdiction for registration, the Chief Registrar shall — - 15 -

(a) register the order in the register by entering particulars of — (i) the name and address of the applicant and his interest under the order; (ii) the name and whereabouts or suspected whereabouts of the child, his date of birth and the date on which he will attain the age of 16; and (iii) the terms of the order, its date and the court which made it; (b) file the certified copy and accompanying documents in the General Registry; and (c) give notice to the court which sent the certified copy and to the applicant for registration that the order has been registered.

This is preceded by – 31. Interpretation of Part 4 In this Part – "the 1987 Act" means the Child Custody Act 1987; "the appropriate court" means(a) in relation to England and Wales, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales; (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; "the appropriate officer" means – (a) in relation to England and Wales, the secretary of the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales; (b) in relation to Scotland, the Deputy Principal Clerk of Session; (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Master (Care and Protection) of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland; "British jurisdiction" means England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; "custody order" means a custody order within the meaning of section 20 of the 1987 Act; "the register" means the register kept for the purposes of Part I of the 1987 Act; "registration" means registration under Part I of the 1987 Act or, in relation to a custody order made by the Court, under Part I of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament).

IN 2007, the SOGD NEVER mentioned section 20 of the 1987 Act – the judges were negligent. And they NEVER interpreted “appropriate court.” Negligent again.

Although it was determined that the orders from Lancaster County Court had not been so registered, the eight registration documents continue to be stored in the High Court Office / General Registry and until 2011 were interpreted by ALL staff in this building (including Advocates and Dumpsters) as being “erroneous and improper” but not unlawful! That ridiculous interpretation persists.

BUT THEY WERE UNLAWFUL! In 2012, I asked the SOGD (again) to review the matter and tell the General Registry that no registrations took place and to review the eight documents (four from 28 th May 2004 and four from 4th November 2004, ALL signed by Jayne Williams) so that they could be declared void from the outset and expunged from record. JA Tattersall and his sidekick Chris Melton judged (J1356.htm paragraph 15) that – “In so far 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.”

The “Appellant” DID NOT SEEK clarity as to whether the County Court orders had been registered – he sought a declaration that such so-called orders had NOT been registered – and he sought an Order that they be expunged from record. And the Appellant now - 16 -

seeks a statement from the Isle of Man Cabinet Office to the Ministry for Injustice (aka “justice”) in England asking why a County Court judge would “order” section 8 “contact” to take place IN THE ISLE OF MAN after granting leave and permission for the Manx children to be removed from the jurisdiction or England & Wales TO THE ISLE OF MAN permanently? Why did officials bound by LAW assume the Isle of Man to be intra vires?

Also, a statement is requested from the Select committee that the Deputy Deemster Williamson was “unfit for the purpose” of sitting in the (late – R.I.P.) Family Division of the High Court (turning it into a kangaroo court) because he had 25 years experience in criminal law courts and zero months experience in “the law relating to children.” I have said before, and I say again, and I am not being insulting, that a trained chimpanzee would have made a more trustworthy Deputy Deemster than AK Williamson and his appointment was a nadir for the rule of law in the Isle of Man . Rule of Law in the Isle of

Man has barely risen above this low point for David Doyle was equally ill-experienced in civil law when he became “D1” in 2010 and Andrew Corlett admitted to “learning a great deal” from Williamson in 2007 when he, too, became a Deputy Dumpster.

There now follows FOUR letters from the domain of Peter Corkhill, a public servant – two from 2007 and an addendum written in 2009, just a few days before the Code of Conduct came into being. The first was written after I reviewed Dowd’s letter of 9/2/2006 where she admitted that the “rules laid down” had NOT been followed but covered up the maladministration!

I note that the Code of Conduct includes mention of a “minister” but NO Minister has responsibility for the General Bloody Registry – it is the domain of the First Dumpster who is not accountable for anything.

And since about 2015, it seems that the General Registry had become the Isle of Man Courts of Justice although the High Court Act 1991 states that the General Registry is the office of records of the High Court. The same entity is the office of records of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction (to give it its proper title) and also the office of records of the CGGD. There is actually no IOMG “entity” called the Courts of Justice and in the High Court, justice is not available if the matter relates to children because no-one has a clue what they are doing (in my view).

- 17 -

The issues I had were that no registrations were “proper” and no certified copies were obtained of the 27th October 2004 so-called orders. The certification obtained by Dowd was not by the correct “appropriate officer”. It was the “team” of Dowd, Coppell and Corkhill who were vexatious (in my view) – and my view is substantiated by evidence provided by Corkhill, Dowd and Coppell.

- 18 -

.

General Registry Oik Recortyssee R.P Corkhill Chief Registrar

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

Isle of Man Government Reiltys Ellan Vannin

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.

I enclose for your information copies of the relevant documents held in the General Registry files, if you wish to discuss this with me, do please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

R. P. CORKHILL CHIEF REGISTRAR

- 19 -

.

General Registry Oik Recortyssee R.P Corkhill Chief Registrar

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

Date: 14th August 2007

Stephen Holmes 74 WoodvilleTerrace Douglas IM2 Dear Mr Holmes,

I refer to your letter of 12th August 2007 addressed to “The General Registry”.

The Child Custody Act 1987 is the authority which allows for court orders such as those issued by the Lancaster County Court to be registered with the Court in the Isle of Man. The Court Orders made by Deputy Deemster Williamson are valid Court Orders and can only be overturned or “set-aside” by due appeal process.

Your application of March 2007, which I understand was made with the assistance of a legally qualified friend, was made to the Appeal Court and sought to have the Deputy Deemster's Orders “set-aside”.

The Orders cannot be “set-aside” unless due process is followed and you should persist with your application to the Appeal Court.

Yours sincerely,

R. P. CORKHILL CHIEF REGISTRAR Note – above, the Child Custody Act 1987 is NOT an “authority” that allows for the registration of County Court Orders in the Isle of Man High Court – only High Court orders (or Court of Session in Scotland orders) can be registered in the Isle of Man High Court. There is a clue in the heading of section 7 “Registration of custody orders in High Court.” The morons (and that is the only word that can be used about public officials in the GR / High Court Office) encapsulated the term “Leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom” in “custody orders” although what an adult being granted “custody of a child” has to do with removing a child from a union of jurisdictions is beyond me.

FINALLY – this the exact wording of another letter to me from “judge in his own cause” Corkhill.

General Registry header: Oik-Recortyssee

Our Ref: CR/23032009

rd

23 March 2009 Dear Mr. Holmes, I have taken advice in relation to the three complaint forms you have submitted to General Registry on 5 - 20 -

March 2009. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to respond to you.

There are two issues involved which are distinct and separate: the conduct or capability of my staff and any claim for damages you might have. The latter is a matter for you to pursue through the Courts. This letter responds only to your complaints about my staff and I am mindful of the government “Standardised Procedure for Responding to Complaints from the General Public”.

The essence of your complaint is that two of my officers, Mrs. C. Dowd and Mrs. J. Farquhar were responsible for the erroneous registration of Courts Orders from England with the Court in the Isle of Man. You raised your concerns with me when we met on 27 January 2006. At that meeting I explained to you how you should address matters before the Court and I agreed to examine the matter of the registration of Court Orders using the General Registry Complaints Procedure (the government Standardised Procedure). I wrote to you on 30 January 2006 summarising what we had agreed in our meeting.

As the matters of which you had complained concerned the Courts Division, I asked Mrs. Dowd as Director of Courts to conduct the required investigation. As you know, Mrs. Dowd wrote to you on 9 February 2006 explaining the error and apologizing to you (copy enclosed).

Subsequently in 2007, after you had appealed to the Court as I had advised in January 2006, it came to light that Mrs. Dowd's investigation in January/February 2006 had not revealed the full extent of the error made regarding the registration of the Court Orders from England. At the request of the Amicas Curiae, I examined the position and reported thereon to Mannin Chambers by letter dated 25 July 2007 (copy enclosed). I understand that subsequently your appeal was successful.

In January 2006 your complaint was properly investigated, errors were found and you were issued with an apology. Appropriate action was taken to rectify the position.

In July 2007 a further investigation was undertaken which revealed an incompleteness about the January 2006 investigation. A full report was submitted to the Amicas Curiae, the relevant procedure notes were revised to reflect the correct procedure for registering Court Orders from other jurisdictions and appropriate action was taken with the staff involved to avoid future errors.

I am satisfied that the January 2006 investigation of your complaint revealed an error and you were issued with an apology. Whilst the July 2007 investigation revealed the fuller extent of the error made, it was nevertheless the same error for which you had already received an apology. Appropriate action has been taken to ensure procedure notes are up to date and staff have been instructed in their use. In accordance with the government Standardised Procedure, I am satisfied that your complaint has been dealt with and the procedures have been exhausted.

Although your complaint was dealt with in January/February 2006 and an apology was issued to you, you have continued to repeat the complaint on numerous occasions. Your complaint has been dealt with properly in accordance with procedures. Those procedures have now been exhausted and I must ask you to desist from submitting repeated copies of the same complaint.

Yours sincerely,

R. P. Corkhill, Chief Registrar QUITE SIMPLY: if the investigation in 2006 was “proper” then further wrongs would not have been uncovered in 2007. There was no investigation in 2006!

I repeat this utter nonsense –

“Subsequently in 2007, after you had appealed to the Court as I had advised in January 2006, it came to light that Mrs. Dowd's investigation in January (and) February 2006 had not revealed the full extent of the error made regarding the registration of the Court Orders from England. At the request of the Amicas - 21 -

Curiae, I examined the position and reported thereon to Mannin Chambers by letter dated 25 July 2007. I understand that subsequently your appeal was successful.”

For Corkhill to allege he “examined the position” is like a ten-year old trying to read Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. In 2009 he could not spell “Amicus”! (He used an “a”) I did not “appeal” as Corkhill “advised in January 2006” because, until the letter of 27 th February 2007, I had no “grounds” to appeal – Corkhill would not explain to me what the due process of “registration” had been: he did not reference the Statute.

Note also the words “I reported thereon to Mannin Chambers”. He DID NOT report to me, although I now hold copies of that letter; and note that he admits essential documents “DO NOT EXIST”! If documents DO NOT EXIST then there is rotten fruit! .

In recent months, I have learned of numerous incidents where the rules of natural justice (or common sense) have NOT been followed.

I watch films and documentaries on television and I have studied the 6 episodes by historian Lisa Hilton on Downfall of a King and Killing a King (on BBC 4) about Charles 1 st of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I is revealed in both these series’ of three documentaries that “the law” was whatever either side decided it to be! I was reminded constantly of the attitude in the Isle of Man – for example Williamson exclaimed that “I can do anything I think is necessary;” or I am a Deemster; I can do anything! What he actually did after exclaiming this divine right, was to issue a document that had no basis in law and his “superiors” made “no fair criticism” of the rights-abusing bastard.

There is no difference between the attitude of Charles Stuart and AK Williamson or between Charles Stuart and Richard Gozney! Gozney actually wrote in 2016 (to me, personally) that “there is nothing I can add to what has been said to you before!”

The representative of “the Queen” in the Isle of Man judged in his own cause which he may not do! He is NOT above the law – I complained to the representative of the Lord of Man – the Governor of Devil’s Island and he acted in exactly the same way as ALL people in “the law” in public authority in the pip-squeak jurisdiction called the Isle of Man – I turn a blind eye to the lies and wrong-doing of previous years because I am a representative of the “Crown”. I cannot be bothered with this matter because my colleagues have already lied to you enough!

Now I repeat words from Stephen Cregeen which show how he has accepted a mantra that has no basis in law. I wrote to this “clown” after Coppell had opined that “this error had minimal effect” and on 11 th August 2011 (after the Code of Conduct came into effect) in the following manner. .

General Registry Oik-Recortyssee Chief Registrar Stephen Cregeen

Mr S Holmes

Our ref: - 22 -

Chief Registrar’s Office Isle of Man Courts of Justice Deemsters Walk, Bucks Road Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 3AR Telephone: (01624) 685265 E-mail: stephen.cregeen@registrv.gov.im

Marine House 2 Marine Parade Peel

Your ref Date:

11th August 2011

Dear Mr Holmes I write with reference to your complaint about the General Registry and the issues you raised in response to the investigation undertaken by Mr Coppell, Director of Courts and Tribunal Services.

I am unable to undertake any investigations into matters relating to members of the judiciary and my response is also limited due to the matter CP 2008/084 formerly CLA 2008/046 which is currently before the courts.

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 N 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).

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.

This (above) is the first written record of the word “reciprocal”.

I challenge ANYBODY in Devil’s Island to show me where the law is that makes provisions for the reciprocal enforcement of “such orders.” Nowhere in the Child Custody Act 1987 is the word “reciprocal” (or reciprocity).

In January 2009, in 2009 MLR p112, Andrew Corlett alleged that Section 8 orders (of the Children Act 1989) were “termed” custody orders but the word “custody” does not occur in the CA 1989 nor in the CYPA 2001 in Devil’s Island. This is the “divine right of Dumpsters” attitude – that “what I say is the law.”

In paragraph 19 of www.judgments.im/content/J906.htm we find: ‘Anyone seeking to research the law and procedure relating to the registration in the Isle of Man of "custody orders", as they are termed, made in the U.K. would immediately find themselves hampered by the fact that the relevant … legislation setting out the detailed procedure for proper registration to take place … is, as with much subordinate legislation made in the Isle of Man, virtually impossible to obtain.’

- 23 -

Above is what is colloquially termed “a crock of shit.” To show what “shit” goes on in the head of Deemsters, let us look (again) at sections 7(1), 12(3) and 21 of the Child Custody Act 1987 (an Act of Tynwald). Note that this is an ACT and not “subordinate leglslation” (such as the Rules of the High Court 2009) but that either subordinate rules or Acts are very easy to obtain and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. I suggest that it is the minds of the Dumpsters that are closed to reviewing legislation and procedure – they would rather make-up their own so-called rules.

7

Registration of custody order in High Court [P1986/55/27(4) and (5)]

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.

12 (There is a header for section 12) (3) On receiving an application under this section the court which made the custody order shall, unless it appears to the court that the order is no longer in force, cause the following documents to be sent to the appropriate court in the part of the United Kingdom specified in the application, namely— (a) a certified copy of the order, &c.

21 Interpretation “appropriate court”, in relation to any part of the United Kingdom, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 SO WE HAVE TO RESEARCH paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 and we find that the correct appropriate court for England & Wales is Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England.

IN J1183.htm, in October 2007, Tattersall and Kerruish wrote at 16 – “We repeat what we have already said, that this court has no jurisdiction to make any determination as to the validity or effect of such orders made in the [English] Court and that any challenge to the validity or effect of such orders must be made in England. It is sufficient for this court to say that such orders were capable of being registered in the Isle of Man courts.”

And at 53 – It should be noted that nothing we have said in this judgment would prevent the orders made by the [English] Court on [date] and [date] from being recognised and enforced in the Island if, but only if, they were registered in the High Court in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987. Equally, absent any judicial determination to the contrary in the United Kingdom, such orders remain in force in that jurisdiction.

AT NO POINT DID THE SOGD judges note that the correct appropriate court HAD TO BE the High Court of Justice in England and not an inferior County Court so that the allegation that such orders were “capable of being registered” was the inevitable “crock of shit” in action – like the allegation by Williamson that such orders had been registered was a “COS”. Like the MO of the Dumpsters is apply shit first, then justify it; or produce court-ordure only.

In December 2014, I attended a lecture given by Advocate Paul Beckett and I now reproduce Paul’s introduction to this lecture.

- 24 -

A Human Rights Commission for the Isle of Man? Is the Equality Bill only half the story?

Advocate Paul Beckett M.A., M.St. (Oxon.) © 2014 Why does all this matter?

The range of human rights enjoyed by citizens of the Isle of Man is far wider than many would even dream of. The popular press talks of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Human Rights Act 2001 passed by Tynwald and brought into force (with some reluctance on its part) on 1st November 2006. This is only the tip of an iceberg. How can any one lawyer, any one public official, any Member of Tynwald or of a local authority, any single member of the judiciary – our own home grown or imported for the occasion – keep on top of all this? Yet keep on top of it they must.

For these are the people’s rights and the people must not, through antipathy, budget cuts, ignorance, indifference, or misconception, be deprived of them.

The whole iceberg Sight must not be lost of the fact that the Isle of Man has for decades been bound by the provisions of a number of international human rights documents, all of which – with or without local enabling legislation – are justiciable and may be pleaded before the Courts: •

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention, or simply, the ‘Convention’) 1950 [and the Human Rights Act 2001]

•

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

•

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966

•

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979

•

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989

In addition, the Isle of Man is under the wing of the United Kingdom as regards its obligations entered into as a member of the world’s oldest human rights organisation, the International Labour Organisation.

On 13th April 2007, Dumpster Mike Kerruish asked Paul Beckett to attend court “on my behalf” after I had written to the High Court Office on 19 th March 2007 – in effect “appealed” against the so-called order of Williamson of 5 th November 2004 because it had no basis in law and was court ordure. I have already discussed that the SOGD failed in its duty of care to children under (Statutory) Section 1(2) of the CYPA 2001 because it took SEVEN MONTHS to confirm that an order that no basis in law had no basis in law.

Mike Kerruish introduced the allegation “Recipriocity under the 1987 Act” when recipriocity DID NOT EXIST “FULL-STOP”. Section 8 orders are NOT “termed” custody orders as Corlett alleged in J906 in 2009 because at the FOOT of Children Act 1989 orders in England is the “rule reference” such as “C21 Blank Order” or C43 Contact/ Residence/Specific Issue/Prohibited Steps Order or C44B Leave to remove Child from UK.

- 25 -

It is, in the twenty-first century, insane to encapsulate “child arragement orders,” “specific issue orders” or “prohibited steps orders” in the nineteenth century term “custody orders” where “custody of a child” was a right conferred on an ADULT by Court Order before 1991/92. But lack-of-reason is not a barrier to judicial thinking in the Isle of Man! Nor is it in North West England in the County Courts for once one District judge acts on the assumption that a POS English Act can extend to the Isle of Man (like judge Forrester alleged “section 8 contact” could take place in the Isle of Man) and a Dumpster with “no brain” became involved (and Advocate O’Riordan) then the whole legal and judicial profession agrees with the poison and children are denied their right to a family life with their father throughout their childhood.

What effect if any this “error” had! I despair at the land of my birth and those in senior public authority there; in particular Corlett, Quinn, Wannenburgh and Gozney. It is possible to train a chimpanzee to do one thing well – but it seems that a lifetime in public service in law in the Isle of Man is a barrier to doing the right thing! .

Dr Hannah Fry gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures in 2019 – televised on 26 th, 27th and 28th December 2019. In the final lecture, one of the guests was Dr Katie Atkinson of Liverpool University who is developing algorithms for use in courts. This can be done because algorithms are logical and logic and reason are interchangable. The quote “Reason is the soul of all law” is well known in mature legal systems, but seems to be unknown in the Isle of Man where “opinion rules supreme.”

IF the first contact is wrong – such as the Form C1 is STILL creating a “zero-sum game” or a case BETWEEN A and B listed as Holmes VERSUS Holmes then there can only be one winner (mathematically) so CHILDREN LOSE – and are abused. The algorithm fails at the opening step. The Children matter MUST BE LISTED AS Re: The Child and the judge must consider the welfare of the CHILD above ALL OTHER considerations such as the provisions of a 1987 or 1953 or 1872 Act of Tynwald or a precedent from BEFORE the Human Rights Act 1998 became law (in E+W) on 1 st October 2000. THE UNCRC has more weight in Devil’s Island because it was ratified by Tynwald in 1994 – BUT NEVER USED because of antipathy, budget cuts, ignorance, indifference, or misconception by public servants.

In fact, in my view, those five factors are what drive Devil’s Island.' Antipathy, saving money (and pocketing funds), ignorance, indifference, and misconception. Arrogance is another massive problem in the legal profession – people “think they know law” like Corkhill thought an “erroneous registation” was a registation when it was nothing! By being arrogant, complacency begins and that leads to misconception and/or ignorance and then incompetence.

I have been studying “The World According to David Charlatan Doyle” and found his affection for Geoffrey Ma, Chief Justice of Hong Kong. Doyle “went on” about the Rule of Law for years and years and even quoted Judge Ma’s opinion that “It is the law, and only the law, that the Courts apply” but David Doyle FAILED to comprehend that when his colleagues Kerruish and Tattersall judged and correctly recorded that there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did, that Williamson was NOT applying the Law in his court; he had convened a kangaroo court and “made up the rules” and therefore he did not apply the Law. - 26 -

I have recordings of both (kangaroo) court “meetings” that I attended in 2004 (on 1 st July and 5th November) and on both occasions Williamson LIED. At the first meeting I asked if I could appeal the registration and Williamson said that he “thought” I would have to go back to Lancaster! But the registration took place in the Isle of Man – so his reply was nonsense. I think it was Thomas Hobbes that wrote “Reason is the soul of the law” but “I think you would have to go back to Judge Forrester” (Williamson’s words) was not rational (reasonable) and not a valid basis for a decision. On 1 st July 2004, a mantra was begun which continues TO THIS DAY – whatever a Deemster says IS THE LAW whether it has no basis in statute or is plain nonsense; like King Charles Stuart, a Deemster can do no wrong! This is not a sensible way to govern a jurisdiction: to assume that what anyone in public authority (including judges and “lawyers”) says is true and holds sway over the facts.

The only remedy for the continuity of malfeasance described above is for the First Deemster to be held accountable for the failures in the civil justice system where matters relate to children. Wrongs need to be admitted and not covered-over with allegations that “no fair criticism” can be made of the liar and producer of false documents.

As David Doyle has “retired,” First Deemster Corlett must be questioned about the fact that Williamson lied (admitted by other members of the judiciary) and the allegation that a false document can be quashed or revoked when it is not possible to revoke a ninepound note.

In fact, Andrew Corlett is intimately connected to the wrong-doing of 2004 for in Court on 13th January 2009 when AG’s Advocate Oliver Helfrich said that Mr Holmes alleges the regisrations constituted an unlawful process Corlett said “But it was an unlawful process” but he did not realise that because the first so-called registration of 28 th May 2004 was unlawful (and did not happen) then everything that followed that non-event was tainted and unlawful – even the so-called hearing on 25 th October 2006 with Acting Dumpster Tim King of England was nonsense because he thought (as did AG’s Advocate Walter Wannenburgh) that the so-called order of 5 th November 2004 was indeed a Court Order when it was self-evident (given that the issuing Court was a County Court) that Williamson’s endorsement of an English Section 8 order had no legal basis.

The legal doctrine is called The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree or fruit of the poisoned tree and, simply, if the first action is wrong or unlawful then the “tree is poisoned” and consequently all of its fruit is rotten. Doyle stated his opinion that this doctrine is “colourful words” but then Doyle did not know that File 2004/144 was a file referring to an Application about two Manx children; he thought it was “divorce proceedings” because (in my view) he was hopelessly out of his depth in the High Court and incompetent.

In a similar analogy, I will suggest that the full Title of the Family Law Act 1991 poisoned the tree by alleging the law about “guardianship of minors” was changed when it was NEW LAW relating to minors not relating to the guardians of such. It would be reasonable to suggest that all minors matters between that 1991 Act being enacted on 1st April 1992 and its subsequent re-enactment on 1 st February 2003, NO CHILDREN MATTER was EVER governed correctly. And when the new 2001 Act was enacted, Williamson ensured it was business as usual and “Kramer versus Kramer” because he never read or thought about Statute – he just “made up the rules as he went along.”

- 27 -

One remedy for this catalogue of wrong-doing is “damages”. The former Deputy Deemster should be asked to pay compensatory damages to me and two both my children for the evil he has delivered to them: and Doyle, Corlett, Tattersall and the Chambers of the Hopelessly Misgoverned Attorney General also contribute to this enormous sum; I suggest a figure in the region of £800,000. After all, children were abused “throughout their childhood” in Devil’s Island.

There is one more “remedy”.

You should ask Richard Gozney why he judged in his own cause?

He JUDGED that there was nothing he could add to what had been “written”. He should have apologised. He should have criticised Doyle for recording a “view” and ignoring the statutory obligation to lawfully register something – if it is not lawful then it is not done.

He should have read what I wrote and compared it with judgment J1183.htm for the initial LIE is admitted there – and I did tell him that Katie and Ben were already living in the Isle of Man before the end of August (and proved it with a letter) so the County Court in Lancaster had no powers to make orders about Manx children in the Isle of Man. But of course he would not fully understand Manx law – he would think of it as an extension to English Law when it is mostly different from English Law. It is for the Committee to supply the remedy for the Petition of Salmon – but it is also for the Committee to see that following Statute is not what people in public authority in Devil’s Island (IOM) do. So following Codes of Conduct is not what they do either – the MO in the Isle of Man is to “make up your own rules and hang the consequences.”

In order to ensure that ALL children matters, in the future, are dealt with as matters relating (or “Re:”) the child, Andrew Corlett must be persuaded to CHANGE THE “FORM C1” so that it does not introduce an adversarial matter of parent versus parent where children are abused by the winner and by the “state”. Stephen Robertson (another “judge in his own cause” in the courts building) has informed me that Forms are Dumpster approved in which case it is the Dumpsters who have ensured the years of malfeasance in the High Court in matters relating to children. And the malfeasance does not stop with the Dumpsters – it extends to magistrates as well. A panel of laymagistrates purported to make a “contact order” about father J.R. Fletcher that Mr Fletcher could only have “section 11 contact” with his twin sons A & G twice a year. This was in 2011, five years after the 2001 Human Rights Act entered into force; and denied A & G and Mr Fletcher basic rights to a family life in a father/child manner by court ordure. And Mr Fletcher is not the only parent who has been ordered to have minimal “dealings” with his own children in Devil’s Island – the Courts still make “contact orders” about the ADULT showing that judges, magistrates and advocates DO NOT FOLLOW THE STATUTE. The heading on section 11 of the CYPA 2001 is “Orders relating to children” not pseudo-orders relating to the guardians of children.

Sorry that this is 15,000 words that you three have to read, but if people with “wit and intelligence” had been made Dumpsters then Right may have been done in the High Court rather than the proven wrong that has been done in the Isle of Man Kangaroo courts of injustice and corruption presided over by incompetent First Dumpsters for the last 30 years (going back to the late Jack Corrin).

Thank you Mr & Mrs Salmon for submitting the Petition and thank you Committee for publishing this damning view on the state of justice in Devil’s Island aka IOM. - 28 -