12 th October 2026 21 Harrow Road Wigan WN5 0QJ The ADT and KOR, WHW AG, HFS, Mrs Billy-Bob and others (LG, CM) c/o Courts Building and “home” (and office). Dear Sirs and Madam, The Lies of Andrew Williamson Play-write Terence Rattigan wrote The Winslow Boy just after WW2 and it made him a fortune. Because it was a popular play, it was not long before London Films turned the play into a film, and Rattigan enhanced his play for the film screen-play. There is a section in the film about Human Rights – because 1948 was the year of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Ronnie Winslow ’ s sister, Kate, says that her issue with the 5/- (shilling) postal order was that a Government Department (in this case the Admiralty which was part of the Ministry of Defence) had ignored a fundamental human right, (the right to a fair hearing), and should be made to acknowledge it (such mistake). That was 1948 and it was the 1990s when HMG finally passed the Human Rights Bill through Parliament – the Act was passed in late 1998 (fifty years after Rattigan had incorporated Human Rights into his story) – which was based on a true event. As early as February 2006 it was disclosed to me (by Carol Dowd of the General Registry) that “the rules laid down” had not been followed when it was purported that a “registration of a custody order” took place on 28/05/2004; so a fundamental human right (the right to a fair hearing in the High Court) had been ignored BY THE DEEMSTER. In a PUBLIC hearing on 24/09/2007 D1 Kerruish and JA Tattersall heard an argument presented to them by an Amicus Curiae; that argument being prepared by Advocate “HFH” who worked at Mannin Chambers in July 2007, which Deemster Kerruish translated as “were the orders from Lancaster County Court properly registered in the Isle of Man High Court?” It had become “self-evident” that on 28/05/2004 NOTHING had actually been registered in the IOM High Court nor could a County Court “order” actually BE registered in the IOMHC. A kangaroo court can accept anything. In 2011, Advocate KOR supplied a Transcript of a kangaroo court meeting held on 05/11/2004 in court-room 5 and that transcript showed that Williamson lied from the Bench 3 times in his opening “presentation”. For completeness, here is what KOR produced in April 2011: Right, well it was first from Mrs Holmes I heard this morning and subsequently I ’ ve heard from Mr Holmes and I will do what I can to assist. Mr Holmes seems to take issue with orders made in the Lancaster County Court ( which have been registered : one back in May, and a more recent variation of that registered here yesterday ), where do we go from there? Those orders are binding The lies are underlined. Williamson HAD NOT heard from me: I wrote a letter to the Chief Registrar not to DD Williamson. It turned out that on 02/04/2004 Mrs Holmes had written to Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division and asked for something which was impossible – for section 8 Children Act 1989 “orders” made in Lancaster County Court to be “registered” in the Isle of Man (court). After the hearing on 24/09/2007, D1 and JA signed what they called a “judgment” in the issue of “were the orders from Lancaster County Court properly registered” and three times used the term non registration and once, in paragraph 47, used the seven-word phrase “when they had not been so registered.” Without even looking at the Child Custody Act 1987, I reasoned with the Chief Registrar on 05/11/2004 that a district judge in a County Court (in IOM a Sheading Court) was not as “senior” as a Deemster and the court in IOM is helpfully called the High Court, which means it is higher than a County Court. It developed that there is a definition in CCA 1987 (and in Order 51D which applied at the time) of “appropriate court,” which is NOT a County Court. When, on 01/07/2004, DD Williamson “told the Appellant” that orders from Lancaster were registered, he was lying . His actual words were “you appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event” when such order had not been (so) registered, nor could it be registered. The so-called order that had (not) been registered was the “residence order” and Williamson claimed that an application in the IOM for a section 9(1)(a) residence order under the Family Law Act 1991 would be a variation on the English section 8 residence order . There may be circumstances when a “residence order” can be treated as a “custody order” but an incoming section 8 residence order from a County Court in England is not one of those circumstances – as confirmed by “ when they had not been so registered .” By misdirecting readers with the adjective “properly” (like Is that couple properly married ; or is that woman properly pregnant ?) the two SGD judges showed recklessness as to the lawfulness of their review – it would have been much simpler and more honest to declare NOTHING WAS registered at the beginning of the hearing on 24/09/2007 because by that date Chief Register Peter Corkhill had confirmed that the so-called registrations were in error and “not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987”. If a non-qualified person can confirm an action was not in accordance with the requirements of an Act of Tynwald, and Stephen Holmes can question the seniority of a District Judge in England (and question the registration of a County Court document in the High Court) why did Deputy Deemster Williamson and Kevin O ’ Riordan blindly assume registrations were possible on 05/11/2004? Putting together the two phrases mentioned; in www.judgments.im/content/J1183.htm from paras. 12 and 47; the Deputy Deemster LIED from the Bench on 01/07/2004 when he told “both parties” that registrations had taken place because they had not taken place. In June 2026 KOR said categorically “He did not lie.” The phrase at the end of his intro on 05/11/2004 Those orders are binding was also a lie. “He did not lie” is a lie! KOR threw-in the two errors: an honest mistake and a deliberate untruth; but it seems that recklessness is a half-way point between complacency or negligence and a downright lie – I am certain that Williamson did not intend to lie but he should have known that the appropriate court for E+W is Her Majesty ’ s High Court of Justice of England (according to Schedule 1 of the CCA 1987) and not, as HFH wrote in July 2007 the “appropriate County Court”. The IOMHC had a due-process where DD Williamson lied from the Bench, KOR encouraged him to enforce his lie – making father have contact with his children by telephone and letter IOMG court ordered policy on a document that had NO Legitimate Basis the moment it was issued on 08/11/2004, and it was sent to the Departments of Home Affairs and of Education (as well as to the AG and circulated in the General Registry). Deemster declared “a fork shall be known as a spoon” and on 26/10/2007 the SGD quashed the declaration which meant the fork was a spoon for almost three years before it became a fork again. Now for the whole of those three years, Mrs Holmes adopted the mantra: “There ’ s a court order and Stephen Holmes is not allowed to see the children face to face” but the reality was there was no legitimacy to the totality of the “ordure of Williamson”. This, too, is in paragraph 47 of J1183: “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did” make on 05/11/2004. In the Transcript, Williamson alleged what so-called orders made in Lancaster County Court had “said” and he quoted “ Mr Holmes had reasonable contact with the children provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man .” The phrase “provided such contact takes place in the Isle of Man” is ultra vires (beyond the powers of) the Children Act 1989 for that Act of Parliament is for England & Wales only. Also “reasonable contact” between children and their father can be achieved by no order at all and “the father do have” is the beginning of an access order which had been abolished in E+W on 14/10/1991 (and also abolished in IOM on 01/04/1992). In that one italicised phrase quoted by Williamson on 05/11/2004 we have an access order (which no longer existed in law) a non order and an ultra vires (and therefore null-and- void) condition which was not actually registered in IOM on 28/05/2004. ― Towards the end of September 2026, “the news” told of Martha ’ s Rule which requires a second opinion in A&E if someone is dissatisfied with the first opinion. Hold that In 2004, author and economist Michael Lewis wrote Moneyball about the Oakland Athletics’ baseball team, and most readers were amazed and surprised by the story they were told; except for two reviewers Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler (both professors) – Richard later won a Nobel Prize for Economics. These two pointed-out, in https:// newrepublic.com/articles/61123/whos-first (in an article which Lewis described as both generous and damning), that “experts” make judgments that might be skewed by the expert’s own mind! These misjudgments had been described, years ago, by two Israeli psychologists, Amos Tversky and Danny Kahneman. Lewis himself was stunned by the information he found as a result of the actions of Danny Kahneman, (Tversky died in 1996), who had won a Nobel Prize (also in Economics) in 2002. The Undoing Project (Michael Lewis, 2017) is about Kahneman and Tversky and includes references to all the papers that show how these two established “how experts get things wrong”. For years this writer (G. Stephen Holmes, B.Sc [Math]) quoted Bertrand Russell; People would rather die than think; in fact most do! as the definitive reason for mistakes; but Danny and Amos showed that everyone can act upon a representative, or available, precedent without actually considering the nature of the problem. In Chapter 8 of the Undoing Project is the story of Don Redelmeier who is a Canadian internist, the Canada Research Chair in Medical Decision Sciences and a Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto and second opinion champion ! Redelmeier produced papers in 1990, 1996 and 2004, the second with Tversky and the third with Kahneman and all his work started with the paper “ Judgements under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases ” in Science 185 (1974) pp 1124-31. Danny and Amos alternately published papers as Tversky and Kahneman or Kahneman and Tversky; and the 1974 paper has Amos Tversky first. It is a stunning paper in my view; similar to the paper of John Forbes Nash of 1951 which led to the Nash Equilibrium in non-zero sum games and gained Nash a Nobel Prize in 1994. Having read the Undoing Project in 2017 when it was published, and re-read it a couple of times, when I heard about Martha ’ s Rule in September 2026 I wondered why it had taken “England” so long to implement something that Don Redelmeier introduced in Toronto almost thirty-years earlier , when he realised that most people, including Triage consultants, do not know HOW TO think! ― In 2024 millions of people discovered the Horizon (Post Office) scandal from a “docudrama” Mr Bates versus the Post Office ; and the fact that an authority will spread the misdirection “you are the only person complaining” to thousands of people; who are not in contact with one-another – and I had found that the Family Courts (County Courts in England) are exactly the same as the post office – that mistakes become systemic but only ever appear to affect one person. Although from 2005 to 2016 I never once used the term “alienated parent” (about myself) after 2016/2017 I found that one Facebook group has over 1,000 members and there are many groups for parents who are traumatised by being prevented from having a family life with their children. Who is to blame for this? ... and there must by tens-of thousands of parents who are suffering – like the millions who were traumatised during “Lockdown” in 2020 and 2021,, although lockdown ended. Judges and the legal “profession” is my simple answer ; especially provincial judges. An example is the Hillsborough Report produced by Peter Taylor (LJ) where he set a 15- minute limit to the time-frame for the tragedy; people who were still alive at 15:20 were assumed dead. LJ Murray Stuart-Smith repeated the mistake in 1997. Both LJ ’ s were judging under uncertainty. On 29 th October 2003, whilst in a “County Court” a District Judge said (from the Bench) “But the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom” which began a similar (to Hillsborough) 23-year fight with authority because the Isle of Man is NOT a part of the UK. The colleagues of the judge acted like the Post Office prosecutors (“thugs in suits”) and agreed with the first mistake. District Judges Gordon Nuttall (died Jan 2026) and Robert M. Forrester (retired 2016) both judged in an uncertain manner in a children matter – both assumed that the Statute the Children Act 1989 could apply to Manx (Isle of Man-born) children who had resided in Lancaster, England but had left England before applications (questions) were asked about their futures. The actual date of departure from the United Kingdom was 09/08/2003 and that was also the date of arrival in IOM with the INTENT of remaining indefinitely. Rather than checking statutes or precedents both Nuttall and Forrester assumed jurisdiction (powers) effectively over another place (the Isle of Man). General Acts of Parliament for E+W (England & Wales) do not extend to the Isle of Man , but judges are like the A&E consultants who use inherent biases to make decisions without the opportunity of a second opinion. Backing the judges is the legal profession which is just as likely to rely on ONE precedent which was used fifty-years earlier or just before October 2000, as to take into consideration the Statute What is significant about 2000? ― Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted on 02/10/2000 bringing the European Convention on Human Rights (“ the Convention ”) into English statute. Section 6(1) of the 1998 Act states that it is unlawful for a public authority (including a Judge) to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right such as the right to a fair hearing. If a citizen walks into a court and the judge alleged the Isle of Man is part of E+W then the hearing is NOT fair and is therefore unlawful. Since 14/10/1991 in E+W children matters have been determined under the Children Act 1989 which can be found AS IT WAS PUBLISHED in 1989 in legislation.gov.uk It is very simple – the welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration of the Court; to delay answering a question shall be considered as prejudicial to the welfare of the child; and the preferred outcome is “no order at all”. It is better NOT to make an order than to make an order – making an order could involve many hours of litigation. In 2001 [I have the citation [2001] EWHC 2 FLR 118 Re X and Y] Judge Munby used no order at all to allow children to be removed from the jurisdiction of E+W (to France, I think). On about 27/10/2003, a solicitor in Kendal applied to Kendal County Court for “leave to remove children from the jurisdiction of E+W” – Manx children who started school in the Isle of Man on 02/09/2003. Claiming powers was the paramount consideration of DJ G. Nuttall on 05/11/2003. There is a status defined in statute called habitual residence and where children are habitually resident decides which physical jurisdiction has powers (also called jurisdiction or vires [in Latin]); but two precedents from 1990 and 1993 confirm that children can lose an habitual residence in, say, E+W or S or IOM, in a single day. One Act of Parliament contains the information for E+W and NI (Northern Ireland) and S (Scotland) and a different Act (based on the Family Law Act 1986) contains information for the Isle of Man. Habitual residence in E+W or IOM [ or NI, J, G, S, even in a UK Dependent Territory] confirms that each jurisdiction would have powers, but being physically present in a “country” would mean that nation ’ s courts have jurisdiction The precedent [1990] UKHL J0726-4 Re: J confirms that it is easy to lose an habitual residence; and the “H” children lost their habitual residence in E+W by mid-September 2003; probably on 18 th August 2003. In fact, here is a challenge to ANY legally qualified “charlatan” in the Isle of Man: I say that because of an event recorded by the DHSS in 2006; that the Isle of Man DHSS paid Child Benefit for the Manx children from 18 th August 2003, [and that E+W, or HMG – DWP had paid it from 04/12/2000 to 17/08/2003 – to midnight on Sunday 17 th August] the Manx children were habitually resident in the Isle of Man from 18/08/2003. Could any person in public authority in the Isle of Man present a reason WHY E+W had any powers over Child 1 Holmes and Child 2 Holmes after 18/08/2003 or even 03/09/2003 when the Manx children began at Rushen Primary School. Now section 86 of the CYPA 2001 states that no-one should not disclose the name of the school which the children attend; but after 08/11/2004 Mrs Holmes gave the Ordure of Williamson to people at Rushen Primary School and the Police knew where the children were being educated in case I saw my children near Rushen P.S. In fact Williamson SHOULD NOT HAVE SENT his Ordure (which had no basis in law) to the IOMC – but because he was High Bailiff for 15-years and had sent ALL his orders to the criminal justice system; he saw no reason to change his MO (method of working – Modus Operandi ) when he moved to the civil law court. Obviously not a single Advocate would tell him how to work – such Advocate would have lost his (or her) licence to operate in the High Court! A real problem in the Isle of Man is that the Family Court (civil law) Welfare Office is in the Probation Service which is a criminal law entity. IN THE ISLE OF MAN: Various judges looked at applications made about H and H (Manx children), and in 2007 a judgment was published in a matter that was listed as Mr H (me, Stephen Holmes) versus Mrs H but the matter was Stephen Holmes versus “a Deemster” Sadly, the first judge to look at anything to do with the Holmes children was the utterly incompetent Deputy Deemster Williamson who blindly assumed that the Isle of Man could be bound by a section 8 Children Act 1989 “order” made in a County Court in England; part of which gave Mrs Holmes leave to remove the Manx children from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland to the Isle of Man, permanently (another word for habitually). (See above: by that order she also has permission to remove the children to the Isle of Man ). Williamson read a document which relinquished powers but alleged that powers over the Manx children remained in a County Court in E+W although the Manx children were physically present in the Isle of Man from mid-August 2003. Specifically, in this matter, KOR, WHW and HFH (now HFS) all assumed things and made decisions based on assumptions (like that a fork can be ordered to be a spoon ) without even looking at the statutes of Tynwald (or of Parliament in Westminster). When Deemster Tim King entered the fray on 25/10/2006 he was guided by WHW into dealing with a matrimonial order when no orders were made under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003. By that date (the end of October 2006), DD Andrew Williamson, AD Tim King, KOR, WHW and Probation Officer Patricia Ingram ALL assumed that the declaration of Williamson (which had no basis in law) was IOMG policy – and even the DHA and DOE acted on the document which had no basis in law. The “experts” knew absolutely nothing – just like the Post Office knew nothing about the state of Horizon (it was shit) and the general public know nothing about biases (which is how people like AKW can appear to be “learned” but actually know nothing – not even that contact is a CHILD visiting or staying with the person named in the order). In fact it was the order from ENGLAND which appeared be “In force” in the IOM – as Ingram said in 2005; the latest order for indirect contact was PUT IN PLACE by Lancaster County Court on 27/10/2004; which was totally unlawful and also untrue. Section 8 contact CANNOT apply in the Isle of Man (which has section 11(1)(b) contact). The Deemsters were not finished with malfeasance! After Mrs Voirrey Moore of the Civil Summary Team wrote to Stephen Holmes on 27/02/2007 it was 100% certain that nothing could be registered in the IOM High Court after 14/10/1991; so nothing was registered on either so-called registration date (28/05/2004 and 04/11/2004 – yesterday ). As the Ordure of Williamson mentioned registrations on both dates followed by “IT IS DECLARED” then there was nothing to declare – it was as if paragraphs 1 and 2 were null-and-void and null- and-void. IT IS ORDERED that a plain copy of null-and-void be handed to the head teacher at Rushen Primary School and lodged with IOMC (in Douglas and Port Erin). It took almost 7-months for the SGD to set-aside a declaration that had no basis in law the moment it was made; and just before the PUBLIC hearing on 24/09/2007, David C. Doyle had judged that the matter was divorce proceedings and issued an order which caused the unlawful arrest in Birmingham of Manx father Stephen Holmes. It is my view that none of the full-time Deemsters between early 2004 and late 2011 had any idea about THE LAW, let alone how to make judgments under uncertainty. This is proven by the allegation that the registration process could be “improper”. Either an order is registered or not registered and if it is not registered then there can be no issue about such process – it DID NOT HAPPEN. If it did not happen then a Government policy based on an assumption that it did happen is null-and-void and compensation should be due to the father and to the children who were denied a family life with each other for between three and thirteen years. The vast “conspiracy” was not deliberate lying (like an A&E consultant would not misdiagnose deliberately) but neither was it “mere negligence”. It was recklessness as to the lawfulness of what went on – even the Acting Deemster who used that expression was being reckless for in his flummery of 25/10/2006 (recorded in 2009 MLR p.112 paragraphs 16 and 17 – also J906 in CHP 2008/84) he used the term matrimonial five times – the matter started as a children matter (or a minors ’ matter because the Form C1 was headed wrongly). With recklessness, everyone involved, even KOR, HFS and Sharon Roberts SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that a County Court CONTACT Order cannot miraculously become a “custody order”. The most helpful thing is the short titles of the Acts of Tynwald; the terms custody and access were in the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 and are therefore made about adult guardians ; and the terms contact and residence are in the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 and are therefore about children (or young people). Clearly neither DJ Forrester nor DJ Nuttall in England knew this because both these imbeciles made section 8 orders beginning “the father do have ... contact.” Deemsters did not know adults from children, a divorce from residence or a registration from a non registration – and in 2026 there is still no-one in Devil ’ s Island with the wit to actually understand that when a “learned Deemster” says an order is registered and it clearly has not been registered that the allegation is not true . It cannot be considered as an honest mistake because Deemsters swear to execute the laws of this Isle justly – and “you appear to have a – an order from Lancaster” is not a certain statement. Williamson appeared to be an imbecile and a liar. Doyle appeared to be an imbecile and a liar. Walter Wannenburgh did not know the difference between a divorce proceeding and a children matter (the CYPA 2001 from the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003). HFS did not know a High Court from a County Court and actually said “from the appropriate County Court”. KOR introduced recognition assuming registrations had taken place and then a miraculous enforcement without a proceeding under section 9 of the CCA 1987 followed. Kerruish alleged that Human Rights did not apply because the Manx 2001 Human Rights Act was not enacted in 2004. The English Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted in England and “father do have indirect dealings with his children (in the Isle of Man)” is incompatible with the Convention in England – so it must be incompatible with the Convention in the Isle of Man even though the Manx Act has not been enacted; i.e. it was unlawful. This is a thinking-man writing; and it is probable that there is no-one in Devil ’ s Isle of Manure who actually understands what “when they had not been so registered” means! Certainly there was a blind acceptance of “the court orders that the father do have contact in the Isle of Man” which is the equivalent of both “a fork shall be known as a spoon” (in IOM) of “the father do be an orang-utan” (in IOM). The stupidity of all judges associated with IOM was confirmed by JA Geoffrey Tattersall QC on 24/09/2007 when he shouted “ But the Judge made an order ”. This led to the question “When is a court order not a court order?” and the evident answer “when it ’ s ultra vires ”. D1 and JA could have summarised the entire opinion held in J1183 with “orders from England were ultra vires in IOM” but they used the verbose phrase “there was no legitimate basis upon which the DD could have made the” ordure which he excreted. They had written 2,000 words before that! Before late October 2007 when D1 and JA confirmed their “findings” I questioned the wisdom of sending Respondent have indirect contact with the said children to the Police and to the Head Teacher, but after 01/11/2007 I used the words “Deputy Deemster Williamson lied from the Bench on 05/11/2004” because he did lie and the Two in the SGD confirmed he lied (in the two phrases from paras 12 and 47). By the middle of 2008, the application made by Stephen Holmes on 18/05/2004 (which was dismissed with no order at all made under IOM statute) had obtained the opinions (unlawful opinions) of KOR, WHW, Tim King (QC), Linda Sullivan (QC), Mike Kerruish (QC), David “Charlatan” Doyle, HFH (now Smith), Geoffrey Tattersall (QC) and DCD (again) in March 2008; NONE OF WHOM knew what they were doing in a family court! The simplest common-law precedent is the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree initiated by the great American jurist Felix Frankfurter in 1939 (Nardone v. USA). Williamson poisoned the tree by authorising registrations on 27 or 28 May 2004 which did not happen “in law”. He swallowed his own poisonous fruit on 05/11/2004 and KOR fell for it as well. The whole case became classic Kahneman & Tversky judgements under uncertainty; Williamson said documents were registered when they hadn ’ t been nor could they be. The Americans have lovely words for the actions of Williamson – a SNAFU or FUBAR. Williamson said in Nov. 2004 “I don ’ t expect a head teacher or every Constable to go rushing to the Child Custody Act to find out what the cause of a registered order is” when it is reasonable to expect the Deemster to saunter to the same Act to find-out if a section 8 Children Act 1989 contact order can actually be registered under section 7 of that Act. (It cannot be). Doyle, especially, made his own FUBAR (Foul-Up Beyond All Recognition) when he said (on 03/09/2007) that proceedings were divorce proceedings 2004 stroke 144; not knowing a divorce from a children matter. This is an example of the quality of D2 and DD in 2003 to 2007/8; at about 5% quality [95% shit]. SNAFU is a foul-up also: Situation Normal: All Fouled-Up. Deemster walks into court-room; fails to introduce the case (“Right just let me come up to speed on this”) then assumes something is true when it is untrue. Even the SGD judges commented that Stephen Holmes did not appeal against a dismissal of an application; a dismissal is administrative and does not require “an appeal” – but it turns out that the so-called “order” issued had no basis in law so there was nothing to appeal in any event. All Deemsters involved; the Judge of Appeal and KOR, WHW and HFH (even Michael Moyle) gorged on rotten fruit (unlawful flummery) and exacerbated the malfeasance (wrong-doing) down to “quashing” an order which had no basis in law; the solution was a declaration of ultra vires . Courts must consider ultra vires documents as null-and-void from the moment they are made; not valid until quashed. If Forrester had alleged Stephen Holmes be an orang-utan in IOM, Williamson would have authorised it being registered, and I would have been imprisoned in the Wildlife Park – he was that bad, having been a clerk to lay-justices in Kent and simply advised them on the law before sentencing. His rise to Deemster was meteoric and ill-deserved. I first encountered Williamson on 1 st July 2004 and within three minutes had established the fact that he was clueless about “family law” for he assumed a County Court section 8 Children Act 1989 order could have effect in the High Court in the Isle of Man somehow The reality is that English statute generally has no effect in IOM and whatever a Deemster says is not necessarily “of merit”. Once Williamson had confirmed his allegation that “the order from Lancaster” had been registered in the IOM High Court as if it were a custody order made under a 1971 Act of Parliament, the whole of the legal profession in IOM gorged on Williamson ’ s poisonous fruit so that IOMG policy towards Stephen Holmes and his two children was unlawful, child-rights abuse; leading to human rights abuses for four or five years. Rather than stopping the malfeasance, Deemsters Doyle and Kerruish misdirected the Manx people to exacerbate it. Specifically, KOR, WHW and HFH did nothing to address the Foul-Up (the Snafu) because of complacency leading to ignorance – identical to the lack of sense described by Tversky and Kahneman in 1974 in the leading scientific journal called Science What is apparent to anyone who looks at judgements J1183, J906, J1149 and J1356 objectively is that Deemsters Williamson, King and Doyle (and to some extent Corlett on 20/01/2009) were morons; a person with an apparent IQ of about 70. King was only involved for one day (25/10/2006) when he used the word matrimonial 5 times recorded in a PUBLIC document in 2009. Williamson was a moron on 01/07/2004 and therefore a complete moron and charlatan on 05/11/2004 and throughout 2005. Doyle was a moron on 03/09/2007 and therefore a complete moron on 29/11/2007, 10/03/2008 and on 14/12/2011 [J1149]. His statement that events that occurred in 2004 had been “ventilated in court on many occasions” was total flummery because the non registration had barely been mentioned in court even in September 2007. There is the heading The effect of non registration , but in paragraph 15 of J1356 Tattersall and Melton gave clarity as to whether orders had been properly registered ; they did not, even in 2013, confirm that the so-called registrations were in fact non registrations. Now Kerruish was not a moron – just ill-informed when he said the Convention is not retrospective. If a lay man wants to know about Human Rights in Britain (E+W or S, or even NI) he might download the European Convention on his computer from the world- wide-web or he could go to (even) the Human Rights Act 2001 on legislation.gov.im – in fact it is simpler to go to the Act of Tynwald than the 1998 Act in legislation.gov.uk The introductory text is An ACT to give further effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights ; and for connected purposes. Section 6(1) is it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right and the Convention is included in Schedule 1 of both the English and Manx Act (UK and IOM). Public authority includes a judge or court or tribunal. [A single judge is the court ]. The Act gives further effect – like being able to bring a case to court; but the Convention applied BEFORE the 2001 Act became STATUTE. Except not in Lancaster County Court for the allegation made by Nuttall in October 2004, repeated by Williamson on 05/11/2004: “ By an order made last week – same Court – Lancaster County – 27th October: apparently Mr Holmes had brought some applications before that Court for specific issue order prohibitive steps and residence orders and each of those applications was dismissed. Clause 2 the father shall have indirect contact with the children to be exercised by way of telephone calls, letters and e-mails, one of each per week . Paragraph 3: paragraph 4 of the order of 24th February which provided for direct contact is revoked . The father is entitled to make further application for direct contact but will be required to satisfy the court that the children are not at risk of emotional harm from him so at present there is no order for direct contact – quite the contrary there is a prohibition on it ” Such order for indirect contact is contrary to Article 8 of the Convention and is therefore unlawful in England. The children had left England for the Isle of Man before the kangaroo court meeting on 24/02/2004 and therefore the hearings were unfair contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. If the hearings were unfair, the orders produced were null-and-void. On 27/10/2004 DJ Nuttall also purported to make a Theft Order – he ordered that the property belonging to Stephen Holmes in Lancaster, England be stolen and sold and that the proceeds of that sale be used in the Isle of Man to fund malfeasance. On 04/11/2004 the so-called Ancillary Relief Order was purportedly registered in Isle of Man High Court under “unknown statute” or “unknown rule” and the annual maintenance awarded by the moron G. Nuttall to Mrs Holmes to “keep” the children was accepted as lawful in the Isle of Man. The sum was £0.05p per child per year, but Mr Holmes was prohibited from even seeing his children as stated by Williamson (unlawfully and such Order did not exist in IOM) “ there is no order for direct contact – quite the contrary there is a prohibition on it ”. In the mind (with an IQ of about 70) of Williamson there was a prohibition on section 11(1)(b) CYPA 2001 contact between Stephen Holmes and his children but section 11(1)(b) contact is an order that requires the Manx mother (Mrs Yvonne Holmes) to allow the children to visit or stay with the person named in the order – named; not “the Respondent”. Another useful word for the actions of Williamson, Doyle, Corlett, Tattersall is what happens when a succession of snafus and FUBARs occurs – globally the actions (four so-called judgements) constitute a “ clusterfuck ”; being a cluster of fuck-ups; and Deemster Sharon Roberts repeated “ fucks-it-up ” in J1296 in 2012 – whilst she was contributing to the FUBAR. Her contribution was that Mr Holmes continues at length on the erroneously registered orders when Peter Corkhill, Chief Registrar, invented “registered in the High Court by this office erroneously” or “erroneously registered” when NOT-registered was the actuality. There you have it; on 28/05/2004 two so-called orders from a County Court in England were NOT registered in the IOM High Court (into the Register ) but they appeared to be erroneously registered and for 7-years [from February 2006 Dowd to May 2013 Tattersall] not ONE person in the Isle of Man honestly proclaimed that no registrations actually took place which caused 10-years of rights abuses and malfeasance; recklessness as to the lawfulness of what went on and downright lies and misdirection and stupidity – right up to the Governor of IOM who was advised by an Attorney General with a minimal knowledge of Manx Statute. The real problem with the Isle of Man is that there is nobody in public authority with the intelligence to understand just HOW STUPID the whole legislative system is – and by the legislative system I mean all people involved in it; about 300 Advocates and hundreds (probably over a thousand) of support staff. All with an average IQ of about 75; there may be five people who “get it” but 5 out of 300 is pathetic! In the textbook Government and Law in the Isle of Man published in 1994 David C. Doyle wrote about Natural Justice – but when Mrs Holmes applied for an “order” on 03/09/2007 Doyle Judged in his own cause assuming that the matter was “divorce proceedings”! He could not be trusted to make lawful decisions after that date (a Monday) because I was arrested in Birmingham on 05/09/2007. In November 2007, WMPA (West Midlands Police Authority) paid me £2,000 compensation for the SNAFU in the West Midlands caused by Doyle ’ s incompetence. No-one in the Isle of Man has ever admitted any malfeasance although wrong-doing is the MO of ALL the Dumpsters (as I call them). This whole debacle in both Lancaster County Court and the IOM High Court is so unbelievable that a work of fiction would not be taken seriously if judge after judge made the same mistake. But Sharon Roberts and Andrew Corlett in October 2012 and January 2009 respectively suggested that an “issue” was erroneously registered orders from a County Court in Lancaster – paragraph 19 of J906 (2009 MLR p. 112) “ It is of course the case that the Staff of Government Division had at that time [October 2006] yet to deal with the issue of the erroneous registration of the Lancaster County Court Orders and Mr. Holmes told me during the course of the hearing that so far as he was concerned he did not become aware of the full background to the unlawful registration of the Court Orders until March 2007. ” The issue was the non registration and Corlett even said “full background to the unlawful registration”. Corlett continued to misdirect the PUBLIC with “ 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 subordinate legislation setting out the detailed procedure for proper registration to take place (i.e. the Rules of the High Court of Justice (Child Custody) 1991 – GC 232/91) is, as with much subordinate legislation made in the Isle of Man, virtually impossible to obtain. ” What is “seeking to research?” I was NEVER looking for subordinate legislation (which is NOT virtually impossible to obtain) but had asked the question several times “What is this due process of registration which allows an English Court order which HAS NO BASIS IN STATUTE in England become the IOMG policy about a Manx father in the Isle of Man which, in turn, gives powers to the IOM Constabulary to arrest a father if he even sees his own children in Devil ’ s Island?” In J1183 it is suggested by Tattersall and Kerruish that the Ordure of Williamson of 16 th Nov. 2005 had three valid orders and one which had no basis in law; but paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the DIV 2004/144 Ordure of 16/11/2005 were also of no value because nothing had been registered on 04/11/2004 and Williamson ’ s decisions throughout 2005 were made on an erroneous assumption. In J1183 at paragraph 25 we see: 1. The [Appellant] do have leave to withdraw his Applications which are marked withdrawn. 2. There be no order as to costs save for the Legal Aid assessment of the Respondent ’ s costs. 3. For reasons which will be given in writing no further Application for an Order under Part 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 in respect of the said children or either of them may be made by the [Appellant] without the leave of the Court within 2 years of the date of this Order. Note that Williamson also “ordered” that For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the Order for indirect contact between the [father] and the said children made in the Lancaster County Court on the 27th October 2004 and registered in this Court on