⚖️ Lawyer Up, or Stand Down: The Ordinance Wasn’t Optional
⟡ A Third Formal Letter to the Attorney General Regarding Social Development’s Legal Breach and Persistent Harassment
IN THE MATTER OF: Unlawful Investigations, Unacknowledged Complaints, and the Collapse of Basic Statutory Integrity
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 15 July 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-AG-LEGAL-BREACH
Court File Name: 2020-07-15_Court_Letter_AG_TCI_SocialDevComplaint_LegalBreach
Summary: A final, lawyer-level request for intervention sent to the Attorney General, laying out the Department of Social Development’s sustained violation of Section 17(6) of the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015. It includes a timeline of harassment, evidence of ignored complaints, and a demand for legal accountability — all composed with civility sharp enough to draw blood.
I. What Happened
This letter marks the third formal outreach to Attorney General Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles regarding a 3.5-year unlawful safeguarding investigation. Polly Chromatic (then legally Noelle Bonneannée) presents:
A documented history of harassment initiated by her decision to homeschool
Clear evidence of statutory breach, including failure to provide a required investigation report
Evidence of trauma, including medical abuse and psychological harm
Repeated dismissal by local authority figures (e.g. Ashley Adams-Forbes)
And complete non-response from the Complaints Commissioner
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That the Department of Social Development is operating in breach of TCI law
That the family has experienced institutional abuse disguised as oversight
That the required outcome report under §17(6) was never produced
That no exemptions under §17(7) apply — no safety risk, no criminal proceedings
That all attempts at resolution through internal complaints channels have failed
That the Attorney General is being asked — politely — to do her job
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is what it looks like when a citizen knows the law better than the people paid to enforce it. Because law is not something you “interpret” when it’s inconvenient. Because citing subsection 17(6) three times in two weeks should not be necessary — and yet here we are. Because when a state agent ignores her duties, a mother with documentation becomes more powerful than the director of safeguarding.
IV. Violations
Breach of Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance §17(6)
Unlawful and indefinite investigation with no report or plan
Denial of justice through ignored formal complaints
Emotional and medical harm inflicted on minors through procedural negligence
Failure of oversight at both departmental and AG levels
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this document as a final escalation in defence of legal reality. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That procedural clarity is not a privilege — it’s a statutory requirement
That unending investigation is indistinguishable from harassment
That trauma does not disappear because it was inflicted by a state actor
And that no mother should be forced to remind the Attorney General of her own jurisdiction
⟡ 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.