“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Chromatic v Khan: The Litigant’s Reply to Legal Fiction


Safeguarding as Sabotage: The Velvet Gatekeeper Files

Polly Chromatic v. Sophia Khan
Procedural Obstruction, Legal Misrepresentation, and Retaliatory Conduct Wielded in a Barristerial Tone of Utter Indifference

Filed Date: 25 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-PROSECUTION-SK-0725
PDF Filename: 2025-07-25_LayingOfInformation_SophiaKhan_ProceduralObstruction.pdf
One-Line Summary: Private prosecution filed against Westminster’s solicitor for procedural sabotage and retaliatory obstruction of justice.

I. What Happened

Between 3 and 25 July 2025, Ms. Sophia Khan—solicitor for Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services—engaged in a campaign of carefully tailored legal negligence. While feigning procedural stewardship, Ms. Khan in fact:

  • Failed to schedule any assessments despite multiple written requests and full availability

  • Obstructed access to lawful remedy even after the original medical safeguarding allegation was formally disproven

  • Ignored direct challenges to misrepresentation of fact, jurisdiction, and family history

  • Enabled the unlawful continuation of an Emergency Protection Order now rendered legally indefensible

Her conduct was not merely incompetent—it was institutional gatekeeping refined into delay doctrine, polished with the gloss of procedural civility.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Ms. Khan now joins a formal criminal docket already populated by her colleagues Ms. Kirsty Hornal, Mr. Samuel Brown, and Ms. Sarah Newman—all previously referred for prosecution. Unlike them, however, Ms. Khan’s offense is singularly cynical: she knew exactly what she was doing.

The Laying of Information establishes:

  • Misconduct in Public Office

  • Obstruction of Justice

  • Neglect of Legal Duty

  • Harassment through procedural coercion and professional misrepresentation

She acted in close procedural coordination with all three co-defendants and functioned as the legal firewall enabling the continued misapplication of power.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no court should be expected to deliver justice while the advocate for the local authority is knowingly enforcing a safeguarding fiction. Because the role of a solicitor is not to rewrite the facts of a mother’s medical crisis in defence of a disproven safeguarding narrative. Because there must be a record—precise, public, and procedural—of what happens when legal actors forget the limits of their position.

And because institutional immunity dies when the velvet gloves come off.

IV. Violations

  • Misconduct in Public Office (common law)

  • Obstruction of Justice (perverting the course of justice)

  • Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

  • Procedural sabotage contrary to Family Procedure Rules 2010

  • Material interference with Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR

  • Dereliction of legal duty under the Children Act 1989

V. SWANK’s Position

Sophia Khan operated not as legal counsel, but as the quietest enforcer of procedural discrimination Westminster had left. While the named social workers destabilised the family, she ensured no resolution could occur. This prosecution is not simply about her personal failings—it is a direct challenge to the abuse of institutional position under the colour of law.

She has filed her last delaying email. This is the reply.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.