“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Documented Obsessions

Chromatic v. Hornal (Jurisdictional Integrity and the Doctrine of Procedural Disqualification)


⟡ Hornal Must Be Removed ⟡
“No one who bypasses jurisdiction and breaches legal boundaries belongs on a safeguarding team.”

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/REQUEST/0626-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_SWANK_Request_RemoveKirstyHornal.pdf
Formal court request for the removal of social worker Kirsty Hornal due to sustained procedural misconduct and breach of legal communication directives.

I. What Happened

Ms. Kirsty Hornal, a social worker under Westminster Children’s Services, repeatedly initiated informal, unauthorised, and improper contact with the applicant’s family — in direct violation of legal redirect notices. She delivered supervision packages unannounced, refused to identify herself, and continued backchannel communication despite court-filings redirecting all correspondence to SWANK London Ltd.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Escalating misuse of professional authority

  • Retaliatory and coercive contact behaviour

  • Disregard for court procedure, formal jurisdiction, and trauma-informed guidelines

  • Unprofessionalism rising to the level of safeguarding endangerment

  • Clear loss of impartiality, creating prejudicial conditions for family court decisions

III. Why SWANK Logged It

No institution should reward procedural insubordination. When legal redirection is issued, it is not a suggestion — it is a boundary. Ms. Hornal’s refusal to abide by those boundaries, and her continued presence in these proceedings, has compromised both procedural integrity and maternal trust. Her presence is a symbol of Westminster’s retaliatory posture — not its protective one.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Failure to act in the best interests of the child

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Interference with family life (Art. 8)

  • Social Work England Code of Practice – Failure to maintain professional boundaries

  • Public Law Protocol – Bypass of formal process and legal service

V. SWANK’s Position

Kirsty Hornal’s involvement is procedurally contaminated. Her actions are incompatible with fairness, legality, or the protective ethos of the Children Act. This filing is not merely about one worker’s conduct — it is about the precedent that this court is prepared to set. Neutrality is not optional. Impartiality is not decorative. Trust in safeguarding depends on it.

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.