To D1 Deemster D. Doyle

5th May 2014

12 B Douglas, IM1

President of the High Court David Doyle Courts of injustice building Douglas, IM1 3AR Your Honour Deemster Doyle Div. 2004/144 I attended the lecture by Prof. Peter Edge at the Manx Museum on Saturday 3 rd May 2014 and was delighted by the subject, and the enviable knowledge of the Professor. I note that it is now the intention of the Isle of Man Law Society to make Manx Criminal Law and Procedure available online, to supplement Professor Edge's Manx Public Law. I note that in your book you reference section 80 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001; but the only case cited was in 2000 under the CYPA 1966 (section 34).

I am delighted to tell you that whereas I had no respect for AK Williamson; and have no respect for you or Andrew Corlett, or for Geoffrey Robertson or Chris Melton because you are all biased or “partial to the wicked,” I respected Professor Edge immediately.

The reason I do not respect you is that you mentioned case file Div 2004/144 in your public judgment of 14th December 2011; you published a case file reference number – to a member of the public that number was the 144th Divorce case in 2004. Except it wasn't a divorce – it was a matter about my Manx children, “Child A and Child B”.

Let me remind you what happened on 5th September 2007: Mrs Holmes took the “order” you issued on 3rd September 2007 into a police station in Port Erin or Castletown. You ordered that “Gordon Stephen Holmes do return Katarina May Holmes to the Isle of Man,” not that Katarina May Holmes be returned to the Isle of Man forthwith. You mentioned MY NAME on the so-called “order” but I am NOT A CHILD. Orders under section 11 of the CYPA 2001 are with respect to children. And Mrs Holmes made a NEW application with regard to Katie on 3 rd September 2007 – her application was nothing whatsoever to do with my Application of 18 th May 2004. My Application was dismissed by the charlatan Williamson on 1st July 2004 and that case file (Div 2004/144) should have been closed on about 12th July 2004 when the “order” was actually issued. Note that the socalled order of 1st July 2004 had the words “In Chambers” on it.

You wrote: My judgment of the 10 th March 2008 16. I should also record that on the 10 th March 2008 I delivered judgment (in DIV 2004/144) granting residence and contact orders in respect of the children. The Claimant sadly did not positively engage with those proceedings. He did not attend the hearing on the 10 th March 2008. The hearing had been set by an order made on the 29 th November 2007.

Div 2004/144 ENDED on 1st July 2004, so you held a kangaroo court “hearing” on 3 rd September 2007 and on 10th March 2008 – there were no intra vires “proceedings” with which to engage.

By mentioning “residence and contact orders in respect of the children” you had put the matter in the public domain on 10th March 2008, which was unlawful. Let me tell you what Justice Munby wrote in the High Court (E+W) on 18 th December 2000; two years before you became second Deemster.

Section IV on the other hand, as I have indicated, deals with an important point of law which should therefore, as it seems to me, be made available to a wider audience. Accordingly I propose to give leave for the reporting of this introduction and of Sections IV and VII of the judgment.

Because it involves children, I have prepared this judgment in anonymised form so that those parts of it which I have just mentioned may, although given in chambers, be treated as having been given in open court. However, nothing must be published which might lead, either directly or indirectly, to the identification of the children involved in this case.

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

The charlatan AK Williamson acted without legal basis on 5 th November 2004 in a true kangaroo court meeting (where he was advised by the cretin Kevin O'Riordan). He “ordered” that the instrument that had no legal basis be sent to the Police and to the head-teacher at Rushen Primary school and directly identified the names of Manx children involved in a “private law case”. I ask you, Deemster Doyle; how can identifying the names of children in an “in chambers” order be anything but unlawful (contrary to section 80 of the CYPA 2001)?

You mentioned the “no fair criticism” remark TWICE [paragraphs 10 and 11] on 14 th December 2011, but you ignored the “no legitimate basis” conclusion. You referred to the “no fair criticism” remark as a view – an equally valid view could be “Hitler did good”. What part of your Deemster's oath do you struggle with? “To execute the laws of this Isle justly” does not mean “read the court file” – especially in a children matter where the case reference number begins with the letters D.I.V. Note that the first letter from the High Court Office to ME (only) dated 25 th May 2004 had the heading Holmes v Holmes because the High Court has misgoverned every children matter since about 2000; a children matter should be listed as Re A (A Child) or Re H (Children) and should have been listed as such since 1st February 2003; but guess who bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division from 1st September 2002 to late 2007? The charlatan and rights abuser AK “46” Williamson. A fair minded and informed observer would have fined Williamson the maximum £2,000 for publishing the so-called declaratory order of 5 th November 2004 contrary to section 80 of the CYPA 2001. But nobody even considered that Williamson had no clue what he was doing in children matters – and your actions on 3 rd September 2007 [and I have a For The Record recording of the kangaroo court meeting] show that you also had no clue about “the law relating to children”. That phrase is in the introduction of the CYPA 2001 – it is An Act to reform the law relating to children; to re-enact the Family Law Act 1991; and for connected purposes. It is not an Act to encourage the abuse of the rights of children and their father; as far as I know there is no Act of Tynwald called the “Screw the Rights of Fathers Act”.

The cretins in the General Registry have “anonymised” J1183 [2DS 2007/9] although that judgment has been in the public domain since it was released on 29 th October 2007 (at 16:00) – and Tattersall and Melton mentioned my name and that of Yvonne Holmes (Mrs) in the kangaroo court judgment of 2013. And then the Isle of Man Manx Independent published the “report” on 18th April 2013 – in direct contravention of section 80 of the CYPA 2001. And what did you do? — Nothing.

Father told: stop court claim bids

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

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

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

Mr Holmes argued the Manx courts had given wrongful and illegal effect to the orders of English court. He lodged a petition of doleance in June 2008 against the General Registry and the former Chief Registrar.

Darbyshire alleged that: “These all concerned an order made in February 2004 in Lancaster Country Court that his children should reside with his ex-wife, who was given permission to remove them permanently to the Isle of Man”.

What utter nonsense, balderdash and bollix, Deemster Doyle. I made an application on 18 th May 2004 and that application was ORDERED dismissed by the cretin Williamson because he assumed

so-called “orders” from a County Court [not a Country Court] could be registered in the Isle of Man High Court under section 7 [and 12] of the Child Custody Act 1987, but an order from a County Court is not from the correct “appropriate court” according to section 32 of the Family Law Act 1986 [ch. 55] or paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Child Custody Act 1987. The SOGD judges “poisoned their own tree” in paragraph 16 of the “judgment” of 26 th October 2007 – they alleged that the so-called orders from Lancaster County Court were capable of being registered in the Isle of Man Courts – but section 7 is headed Registration of custody order in High Court; not in the CSJ or Juvenile Court – the High Court.

I had an Oral hearing with HHJ Lancaster in Lancaster County on 29 th January 2014, and we discussed “registrations” in the jurisdiction of England & Wales; I also mentioned registration in the Court of Session in Scotland; and registration in the Isle of Man High Court; at no point was a County Court (or a civil Sheading Court) mentioned; nor is a court of inferior record mentioned in either the Child Custody Act 1987 or the Family Law Act 1986 upon which the CCA 1987 is based.

The case Re X and Y is very interesting (2001 2 FLR 118) – Justice Munby mentions the 1886 and 1925 Guardianship of Infants Acts; the 1971 Guardianship of Minors Act; a Scottish Act before referencing the Children Act 1989; a sensible judgment in the Isle of Man (for a non order) could reference the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 and the badly titled Family Law Act 1991 before interpreting section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, but you looked at the court file on 3rd September 2007 and sided with the wicked. At his inauguration as Second Deemster, Andrew Corlett stated that he had learned a great deal from AK Williamson! I learned little from Professor Edge on Saturday because I need to check on anything that he said; I thought Williamson was a charlatan from the moment he uttered that there appeared to be “a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event.” Where was the evidence that the “orders” from Lancaster of 24 th February 2004 had been “registered”? In FOUR documents issued by the ISLE OF MAN HIGH COURT on 28th May 2004; but “this office” registered those so-called orders “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987”. Peter Corkhill actually wrote those words on 25th July 2007 – he admitted that people in the General Registry (High Court Office) acted unlawfully – and Williamson and you fell for the malfeasance [wrong-doing].

I have recently alerted the Acting Attorney General (HM – AG) that the names of my Manx children have been unlawfully publicised since about 9th November 2004, and that AK Williamson alone is responsible for the unlawful actions in the General Registry and in the DHA and the Department of Education (and even in the DHSS as was); and has caused hours of “wasted time” – I refuse to accept your judgment or the judgments of Tattersall or Roberts (or even the JCPC) because the tree was poisoned by Judge Forrester on 24 th February 2004 when he wrote “provided such […] takes place in the Isle of Man”. If Forrester had “ordered” that Stephen Holmes do be an orang-utan provided he is resident in the Isle of Man, Williamson, and ultimately you, would have accepted that the County Court judge had made a declaration that was binding in the Isle of Man. How wrong do you have to be before you will admit a ten year snafu?

Why was Williamson appointed Deputy Deemster? – Because there was no chimpanzee from the Wildlife Park applied for the job or was available. High Bailiff AK 46 was not “an excellent appointment” [as recored by the then Governor] – he was the worst possible type of person. He was a criminal judge: and I believe he committed so many crimes (perjury from the Bench, forgery of documents purporting to be court orders, section 80 offences) that he became criminal in his job.

What are you going to do to remedy this ten year snafu? – Are you prepared to negotiate sensibly, or will you continue to bury your head in the sand?

Before your ludicrous decision of 3rd September 2007, Deemster Kerruish said in Court “The Court must not enter the fray!” But Williamson started the fray on 28 th May 2004 when he advised his clerk and the Assistant Chief Registrar to “Register” the “custody orders” from a County Court in “this court” – that is the High Court of the Isle of Man (without legitimacy). Paragraphs 6 and 12 of the “judgment” of 2nd April 2013 confirm that Williamson lied from the Bench on 1 st July 2004; he made his decision to dismiss my application of 18th May 2004 BEFORE he entered his kangaroo court-room.

I had Parental Responsibility for Katie and Ben, but from 5th November 2004 that status was taken off me by the rights abusing charlatan Williamson, and NOTHING was done to benefit Katie and Ben from that date onwards – when you entered the fray on 3 rd September 2007 you further abused the rights of Manx children because you did not know the law relating to children.

Nine months after your bullshit remarks of 14 th December 2011, the Hillsborough Independent Panel report was published [on 12th September 2012]. I knew nothing about Hillsborough – I was in Australia from March 1989 to April 1990, but I identified with the people of Liverpool when I read the report because “the tree was poisoned” by the evening of Sunday 16 th April 1989; the Prime Minister and Home Secretary were told “the fans were to blame” by South Yorkshire Police on the Sunday immediately following the tragedy.

In 2DS 2007/9 of 26/10/2007, D1 Kerruish and Tattersall wrote – 1. we will have to consider whether the Deputy Deemster was correct in his assumption that the orders had been registered in the High Court.

The so-called orders were made in a County Court – a County Court binds no court at all; the High Court binds the High Court – the assumption that “the orders were registered” poisoned the tree to such an extent that you took fruit of a poisoned tree on 3 rd September 2007 and again in November 2007, and in March 2008, and on 14 th December 2011. Stephen Robertson then Sharon Roberts acted in a biased and “tainted manner” – but it all stems from the “assumption” that “the fans were to blame” on 28th May 2004; I know – the orders were registered when they were not so registered.

I am saying that you “directly” identified Katie as being a child who was “subject to” proceedings in 2007; and caused the unlawfully arrest and false imprisonment in England of her father on 5 th September 2007; so you were unfit to make orders in 2008 or in 2011. When it comes to matters concerning children, the Deemsters have been unfit for purpose since the mid 1990s – especially when AK Williamson was given children matters to misgovern whilst he was still a magistrate.

Unusually, Deemster Doyle, because of the content of a letter from JLM Quinn dated 29 th April 2014, I am publishing this letter on issuu.com/gsholmes/docs; and will continue to e-publish every letter I receive or comment made by person in public authority because since 1 st July 2004 almost every comment made by every judge or public official in the Isle of Man has been court ordure.

Mr Murray signed a letter with “ In relation to section 80, you may wish to consider the contents of what appears to be your own website issuu.com/gsholmes, published as it appears to be in or from the Isle of Man (in particular for such time as you are resident here) which is obviously available in the jurisdiction. The website contains various attachments with numerous direct or indirect references to the identity of your children, both of whom are minors …”

I have publicised documents that are already in the public domain – and any document with my name on it, that mentions that I have applied for “orders” with respect to my children indirectly identifies my children – and Williamson began that unlawful identification on 5 th November 2004 when he actually said in Court “I don’t expect every primary school headmaster or indeed every constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to see what the cause of a registered order is.”

Why would a constable “rush to the Child Custody Act”? Because Williamson used to be High Bailiff – he had sent “orders” to the Police for 15⅔ years; and saw no reason to stop when he sat in the civil court! That is the sort of person who gets appointed as decision maker in the High Court – someone who has no clue how to deal with a children matter.

The ball is in your “court” First Deemster and Mr President of the High Court; do something useful!

I bet you won't – I bet you will carry on turning a blind eye to malfeasance because you can.

How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

Best regards,