To the charlatan chief registrar

Memorandum (and Claim) from G. Stephen Holmes To

:

Chief Registrar Stephen Cregeen

Subject

:

You profess false knowledge – you, sir, are a charlatan.

Date

:

10th June 2013

On 17th February 2012 you sent me a letter in which you claimed to have finalised an investigation with your letter of 11th August 2011.

Date:

17th February 2012

Dear Mr Holmes I write with reference to your email of 16th February 2012 in connection to your complaint submitted in 2011.

The matter was fully considered in 2011 in accordance with the complaints procedure for General Registry including a review which I undertook as Chief Officer which was concluded with my letter to you of 11th August 2011.

Yours sincerely

I was completely unsatisfied with your “conclusion” of 11th August 2011 for you included the paragraph – “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.”

You expressed your opinion that the Staff of Government confirmed that “the orders were registered erroneously.” The Staff of Government DIVISION of the High Court confirmed no such thing – on 2nd April 2013 the Staff of Government Division confirmed its conclusion of 26 th October 2007 that the requirements for “registration” HAD NOT BEEN MET. I am not being derogatory, Mr Cregeen, but I am calling you a charlatan and I assert that you have lied to me – you are cheating me. It is not your fault, because you rely on the First Deemster for direction and supervision, so the First Deemster is also a charlatan. This is also confirmed by the SOGD in the 02/04/2013 on-line judgment. “… shortly before the hearing before this court in 2007 His Honour Deemster Doyle had made an ex parte order for the return of the Appellant's daughter which had led to the Appellant's arrest by the West Midlands Police and his subsequent detention when he was on holiday with such daughter in Birmingham.”

In fact, (and you can check this in file DIV 2004/144), Doyle alleged that “Gordon Stephen Holmes return Katarina May Holmes to the Isle of Man forthwith.” Doyle was supposedly sitting in the Family Division of the High Court. Where does it say that Stephen Holmes should be arrested on suspicion of child abduction?

On courts.im we can find (in J1356) – “6. On 25 May 2004 the Appellant made an application in the Isle of Man for a residence order in respect of both children but at a hearing on 1 July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Appellant that orders made by the Lancaster County Court had been registered and dismissed his application.” Actually, the application was made on 18 th May, not 25 May 2004 – the SOGD were WRONG with the date.

The Deputy Deemster TOLD ME that the “orders” made by Lancaster County Court had been “registered” in the Isle of Man HIGH Court. But the SOGD re-confirmed their conclusion of 26 th October 2007 – “12. On 19 March 2007 the Appellant sought to appeal the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on 5 November 2004. Notwithstanding the passage of time, this court

[Deemster Kerruish and Tattersall JA] gave the Appellant leave to appeal out of time and in its judgment delivered on 26 October 2007 concluded that the requirements for the registration of the orders made by the English courts were not met. Accordingly this court quashed the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson.”

Deputy Deemster Williamson lied to me on 1st July 2004 – he told me that documents had been registered but later it was concluded that the requirements for registration had not been met. That makes your allegation about provisions for reciprocal enforcement of “orders” a lie – you profess knowledge of something that you do not have, based on an erroneous assumption that documents from England were “registered”.

I have just one experience in my life of being compensated for something – and that compensation was paid by West Midlands Police Authority around 12 th November 2007 as a result of the false instrument issued by David Doyle (from the Family Division of the High Court) on 3 rd September 2007.

Doyle stated that I should return Katarina to the Isle of Man immediately; but Doyle could NOT bind me with an order from the High Court in the Isle of Man because I was in England with my daughter. WMP(A) assumed that the “order” was valid in England and I was arrested wrongfully. I was also falsely imprisoned. I claimed Compensation from WMP and the claim was settled sensibly out of court.

On 28th May 2004 there was no registration. On 1 st July 2004 Williamson lied to me from the Bench and wrote IT IS ORDERED that the said Application [of 18 th May 2004] be and is hereby dismissed. I did not appeal against that Order because the case ended on 1 st July 2004.

The only relevant phrase in the 82 paragraphs of court ordure of 2 nd April 2013 [2DS 2012/040] is “given that there was in fact no proper registration there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.” There was no legal reason upon which the Deputy Deemster could base a declaratory order of the High Court of “justice” because the socalled orders from England had NOT been registered [the word “properly” is not necessary] in the Isle of Man High Court. In fact, Mr Cregeen, any reasonable person would see the words “High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man” and compare the level of court with a County Court in England and conclude that the High Court cannot be bound by an order of the County Court or Shire Court (or Sheading Court). There is a clue in the name of the High Court – it is called the High Court because it is a Court of Superior Record.

So I am complaining to you AGAIN, Mr Cregeen, because the Courts web-site has recently (about 10th April 2013) put judgment J1356 on-line and this judgment contains a mass of private matters “(IN CHAMBERS)” means that the matter should not be put in the public domain, but this judgment has shown that you have lied to me in your biased dealings with me in August 2011 and in February 2012. You also sent me a letter on 3rd July 2012 in which you said that you would forward all correspondence to THE “Government Advocate who will respond in due course” and is without doubt another charlatan.

From the moment I met Peter Corkhill on 27th January 2006 I have known that all staff in the General Registry (whether officers of the High Court or just Government clerks) have been determined that my children should NOT have any family life with me whatsoever because that

rights-abusing rotter Williamson bore all the work of the Family Division. He really was a CAUC – a complete and utter charlatan – and you have followed in the footsteps of your predecessor Corkhill.

Now Mr Coppell alleged – “In general, that the General Registry considers whether it is it appropriate to allow its staff to face inappropriate, offensive and abusive behaviour from its customers without taking action to deal with such content”.

What about customers of the General Registry being abused, humiliated, arrested, caused needless anxiety and extreme emotional distress by a bunch of Rights abusing charlatans; several of whom are members of the “club” that is the Crown in the Isle of Man? What Sharon Roberts and David Doyle and Andrew Corlett have all alleged is that it is OK for the Deputy Deemster to lie in court and issue a false instrument disguised as a “declaratory” order but that it is NOT acceptable to criticise the rights-abusing rotter or anyone who takes his side.

What part of “Right to liberty and security” do you struggle with, Mr Cregeen?

What part of “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

If the Deputy Deemster lies to the parties from the Bench at the very beginning of the first hearing (which he did) how can that “hearing” be fair or the “president” be considered to be independent and impartial. A fair minded and informed observer would find that your allegations of 11 th August 2011 were biased and wrong and that you should not have been permitted to even make such outrageous claims.

If you wish to “take action to deal with such content” of this letter then please do so; but I suggest that you enter sensible negotiations with me because the evidence is now overwhelming that the General Registry and half-a-dozen Deemsters (and the Judge of Appeal) have acted with outlawry in the High Court of “justice” of the Isle of Man, turning it into a kangaroo court of injustice.

None of this is personal, Mr Cregeen – you just have no clue what you are talking or writing about!

“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). ”

But the documents from England WERE NOT registered in any case! There was no more validity to the “Respondent have indirect” dealings with his own Manx children than an statement “Mr Holmes shall be an orang-utan!”

Your statutory part of Government is a joke, Mr Cregeen; a complete joke – and the present First Deemster is one of the biggest clowns in the circus you manage. If that is sufficiently derogatory or in contempt of the “order” of Sharon Roberts of 23 rd October 2012, then “come and get me”; bring it on – I cannot get into court to undo the damage caused by the CAUC Williamson – but the Court is the only place that can deal with the previously evacuated court ordure; such as “Although no fair criticism can be made of the” rotter Williamson! That's like making no criticism of OJ Simpson or Josef Fritzl.

The four false documents issued on 28th May 2004 (and they were false because the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987 were not accorded to) were signed by the Assistant Chief Registrar. In law (the High Court Act 1991 s. 58) Chief Registrar shall include Assistant Chief Registrar so on 28th May 2004 the Chief Registrar (an officer of the High Court, directed and supervised by the First Deemster) produced four false instruments that fraudulently represented the actuality of events – they purportedly recorded registrations but in fact recorded nothing.

I was arrested in February 2005. I was arrested in September 2005. I was arrested in October 2005 and I was arrested in January 2006. The High Bailiff asserted that the Deputy Deemster had produced a good and proper document on 5th November 2004 when in fact there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did [Paragraph 13 of 2DS 2012/040].

I hereby claim damages from the General Registry the sum of £584,000 because an unlawful act took place on 28th May 2004 and that unlawful act denied me my right to liberty, to a family life, to good mental health and caused me years of unnecessary distress and suffering. [I have claimed eight years at £200 per day].

Angela Humphrey had an LL.B. – a Bachelor of Laws degree; and she was responsible for the production of eight false instruments on 28th May and 4th November 2004 – and supplying them to the cheat and charlatan Williamson on (especially) the 5 th November 2004.

Like WMP, I suggest, Mr Cregeen, that you agree to pay compensation because Mrs Humphreys acted with outlawry. Corkhill lied and cheated in 2007 and 2009; and you have lied and cheated in 2011 and 2012.

On 18th February 2013 I sent a “Form C1” to the High Court office and I received a response from Louise Alderman. She gave my application reference number DIV 2004/144 (but that Application was ordered dismissed on 1st July 2004 and the hearing on 5th November 2004 was under case FD/ UK/COR/04/02, so Div 2004/144 ended in 2004) and listed it as Holmes versus Holmes. Where is there mention of a respondent in the CYPA 2001 (an Act to REFORM the law relating to children)?

Miss Alderman also stated that I should consider an appeal against a previously made order by section 11(1)(e) of the said 2001 CYP Act states that an order can be one that varies or revokes a previously made order.

Just goes to show that you have no clue how to deal with a question to determine the upbringing of a child in the General Registry (Family business section); no clue whatsoever.

I will continue (until I die) to fight the malfeasance done by AK Williamson and Angela Humphrey and Peter Corkhill and David Doyle and those imbeciles from England – Tattersall JA, Sullivan, King and Melton.

Do you really think I am getting a fair deal from you when you lie to me in letters – and you claim knowledge about something that you clearly know nothing about?

Let's bring about “closure” of this matter. If you have to involve David Doyle (as President of Courts of Injustice) [another charlatan] then do so; or bring in the Chief Minister.

Andrew K Williamson lied to me on 1st July 2004, poisoned the tree and since then nothing anybody in that den of thieves has done has been lawful – culminating in more ordure on 8 th May 2013. Now do something useful you rights abusing charlatans – or take action to deal with my statements of truth. I know this will get to Mr Quinn – and I assert that he is also a charlatan and on 26 th March 2013 he denied me the right to a fair hearing – he looked at recent events reviewed by Mr Murray – documents were produced before the 26/10/2007 conclusion was published in the public domain.

Kindest regards;

Stephen Holmes B.Sc. This is on issuu.com/gsholmes/docs