3rd June 2012
Apt. 5, 2 Marina House Peel City
To whom it does concern – G. Stephen Holmes versus The Queen This is part of the High Court Act 1991 (an Act of Tynwald). 58 Interpretation (1) In this Act'Chief Registrar' includes the Assistant Chief Registrar and a Deputy Assistant Chief Registrar; 'the Civil Division' means the Civil Division of the High Court. Administration 28 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.
On 30th May 2012, I received a letter from SR/CR at the Isle of Man Courts of “justice” – the letter is on the following page. In this letter, SR clearly states – The General Registry undertake the courts administration and it can be seen that the case that was withdrawn (on the page after) on 7th October 2011 was STEPHEN HOLMES versus THE GENERAL REGISTRY. The General Registry is the OFFICE OF RECORDS of the High Court – the administration of Court matters is under the direction and supervision of the First Deemster in the Courts Administration Offices. Indeed, there is a government document called “Structure of Government” in which the following two “boxes” can be found on the left hand-side, with no “lines of responsibility” to anybody other than “Deemster One.” First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls || Courts Administration Office As can clearly be seen from what SR wrote, the document handed to the Chief Registrar and copied to the First Deemster was a claim for negligence by the Courts Administration Office – and therefore against the First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls, NOT against the General Registry. “To the Isle of Man High Court, Courts Administration Office A Claim by Petition for damages as a result of negligence. Between G. Stephen Holmes (Petitioner) and [the] Courts Administration Office (negligent party and Defendant)” The negligence is res ipsa loquitor – the thing speaks for itself. I was only supplied with a file on 14th December 2011 that has enabled me to bring this claim against the First Deemster; on that date, in a Court-room in Douglas, advocate Paul Morris (on behalf of the Courts Office) handed me a document grandly headed COPY OF FILE FD/UK/COR/04/02 [Family Division / United Kingdom / Custody Order Registration / April 2 nd] HOLMES There are twelve documents in this file headed ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT, and signed, not by a judge, but by an Assistant Chief Registrar. Under sections 58 and 28 above, the Assistant Chief Registrar, as an officer of the High Court, discharges duties under the direction and supervision of the First Deemster. Although an officer of the Court signed these administrative documents, responsibility for their production was with the First Deemster.
Isle of Man Courts of Justice Quaiylyn Cairys Ellan Vannin
Mr S Holmes Apt 5 2 Marine Parade Peel Isle of Man
Isle of Man Courts of Justice Deemsters Walk Bucks Road Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3AR
tel: +44 (0)1624 685253 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org webs www.courts.im our ref SR/CR your ref:
25 May 2012 Dear Mr Holmes I write with reference to the document you handed to the Chief Registrar on 30 th April 2012 entitled â€œTo the Isle of Man High Court Courts Administration Office A Claim by petition for damages as a result of negligence Between G. Stephen Holmes Petitioner and Courts Administration Office Defendant (negligent party)â€? The claim cannot be processed as you need the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant in accordance with Rule 7.79 of the Rules of the High Court of Justice Isle of Man 2009. The General Registry undertake the courts administration and you withdrew the previous matter against the General Registry ORD 2011/033 (formerly CP 2008/84). A copy of the Court Order is attached for information. I would also draw your attention to the Judgment in Westbrook Dolphin Square Limited and Friends Provident Life and Pensions Limited  EWHC 2302 (Ch). Yours sincerely
Mr S.Robertson Enc.
ORD 11/033 (Formerly CP 2008/84) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN CIVIL DIVISION ORDINARY BUSINESS IN THE MATTER of the suit between STEPHEN HOLMES and THE GENERAL REGISTRY
Claimant Defendant At a Court held in Douglas On the 7th day of October 2011
HIS HONOUR DEEMSTER ANDREW CORLETT Upon considering this day in presence of Counsel for the Defendant and the claimant who appeared in person And having heard the parties Upon consideration had thereof IT IS ORDERED that:– 1. at the request of the Claimant this claim is marked “withdrawn” and is dismissed out of this court 2. there be no order as to costs. (–) SEAL OF THE HIGH COURT From the contents of File FD/UK/COR/&c it is known that on 2nd April 2004, Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) hand-wrote a letter to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division; asking that documents from England headed Children Act 1989 be “registered” in the Isle of Man. Mrs Holmes would have entered the public office of the ISLE OF MAN Courts of Justice building and asked what to do with two so-called “orders” from a County Court in England. There are TWO signs in the Public Office stating that staff or officers in this office “are not permitted to give advice on any legal matter(s).” Mrs Holmes hand-wrote a letter to Deputy Deemster Williamson, via his clerk – see HCA 1991 section 28(3) above. But ultimate responsibility for the response – “put a request in writing and address it to Deputy Deemster Williamson,” lay with the First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls, for an administrative process took place on 28th May 2004 – the two so-called “orders” from a COUNTY Court in England were purported to have been “registered” in the Isle of Man High Court under section 7 of the Child Custody Act 1987 by an officer of the High Court. The registration was unlawful. On 27th January 2006 I met with Chief Registrar Peter Corkhill and asked him to “investigate” the process of “registration”. He found errors but unlawfully attempted to cover them up. Then on 25th July 2007, he wrote to a firm of advocates in the Island and admitted that the action on 28th May 2004 had been “not in accordance with the requirements of” an Act of Tynwald, (the Child Custody Act 1987), and therefore unlawful. There was another unlawful registration on 4th November 2004. In all EIGHT false documents were released by the ISLE OF MAN Courts Administration (office – the High Court Office) and sent to Mrs Holmes only – they were not revealed to me until May 2007. In December 2011 I discovered that another four false documents were released about the 4th November 2004 unlawful action because an address had been incorrect; in all, the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT (assistant Chief Registrar) produced twelve forged documents – documents purporting to record something, when nothing had actually legally taken place. It is a felony for an officer of the Court to forge documents.
It is the simplest of explanations for why the Courts Administration Office (and ultimately the First Deemster) was negligent on 28th May 2004, and “poisoned the tree” with an unlawful action. There are several civil courts in England (County Court, High Court, Divisional Court), but only one civil court in the Isle of Man – the High Court. The High Court in the Isle of Man IS a High Court and cannot be bound by a lower court. Under Schedule 1, paragraph 1 of the Child Custody Act 1987 we find the explanation of 'appropriate court;' in England & Wales, Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of England; [and in Scotland, the Court of Session (not the Sheriff's Court)]. There are a further FOUR criteria for the successful registration of a 'custody order' from the High Court in England in the High Court in the Isle of Man; and none of those were followed on 28 th May 2004. Section 7 of the CCA 1987 begins “Where the Chief Registrar receives a certified copy of a custody order;” it does not begin “Where the Clerk to the Deputy Deemster receives a photocopy of a contact order.” The only types of orders that could be registered under the Child Custody Act 1987 between 15th December 1987 and 14th October 1991 were “custody orders” made under section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 by the High Court in London. As soon as the Children Act 1989 repealed the majority of the Family Law Act 1986 in England & Wales, there was no reciprocity between orders made about children. Deemsters swear an Oath to be impartial and to execute the laws of this Isle justly. The First Deemster has huge responsibilities in the High Court because if an officer of the Court (such as the Assistant Chief Registrar) issues false documents, “the buck stops” with Deemster One. Actually, I blame Andrew Williamson 100% for the snafu on 28th May 2004, but on 26th October 2007, Deemster Kerruish and Judge Tattersall made “no fair criticism” of Deputy Deemster Williamson for believing that documents from a County Court in England had been registered when they had not been registered. On 14th December 2011 First Deemster Doyle decided that Williamson was “beyond reproach,” because of what had been written (no fair criticism) on 26th October 2007. It follows that Deemster Kerruish was responsible for the unlawful action by the Assistant Chief Registrar (an Officer of the High Court) on 28th May 2004, “Officers of the High Court shall discharge their duties under the direction and supervision of the First Deemster” and therefore the “office of the First Deemster” was negligent on 28 th May 2004 and is responsible for unlawful actions that supposedly permitted the Deputy Deemster (on 5th November 2004) to produce a “declaratory order” that had no basis in Law – a false instrument – and send it to the Police where it was used as “some kind of injunction empowering arrest!” Hardly surprising; Williamson had been High Bailiff for 15½ years and was used to sending his Court Orders to the Police – when he moved to a position where he “bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division” (from September 2002 to December 2007) he continued to use the Police as his personal security service! Ultimately, the First Deemster has to be accountable for events in 2004 and 2005, and 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012; for destroying a Manx family (because of res ipsa loquitor negligence) and for not directing staff in the Courts Administration Offices in a reasonable and proper manner. The Crown is an entity that can be sued – in England under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; in the Isle of Man by a Petition of Right. I had hoped not to use the Petition of Right; that the Courts Administration Office would accept its accountability for acting in an unlawful manner on 28th May and 4th November 2004 and destroying a local Manx family through its negligence, but the staff in the Registry and Courts Administration do not know who they “work for.” That must be the fault of the First Deemsters – the late Mr Kerruish and presently Mr Doyle. Mr Corlett is also exceedingly incompetent (when it comes to matters relating to children) but this is hardly surprising since he admitted to learning “a great deal” from his predecessor, the vile, arrogant turd, Williamson. I am willing to meet with representatives from the Crown to discuss a remedy to this unlawful tragedy; a sequence of unsafe (fruit of the poisoned tree) events has been ongoing for eight years! Does anybody from the Crown have the courage to meet with me to resolve my grievance, or are you just going to try to bury the seven-year-snafu? The remedies are in my Petition that is with the Attorney General.