“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. Moise (Confident Obstruction in the Name of Legal Process)


🪞SWANK London Ltd

LEGAL MISDIRECTION & SAFEGUARDING COLLUSION – PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Filed Against Rosita Moise, Legal Officer, Westminster City Council Children’s Services

Metadata

Filed Date: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-RM-LOI-0729
Court File: 2025-07-29_CriminalProsecution_RositaMoise_LegalCollusionAndRetaliation.pdf
Summary:
SWANK files a private criminal prosecution against Rosita Moise for deliberate legal obstruction, collusion in safeguarding retaliation, and misconduct during a live emergency removal of four U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

In late June 2025, while the Emergency Protection Order (EPO) was executed against the mother and four minor children, Rosita Moise, acting in her capacity as Westminster legal counsel, issued a series of evasive, misleading, and hostile communications.

Rather than responding to lawful applications, Rosita spent her days:

  • Misrepresenting the scope of the Family Procedure Rules

  • Demanding compliance with procedures she herself refused to follow

  • Gaslighting written-only requests and court-endorsed disability accommodations

  • Aligning with obstructive safeguarding actors while undermining the family’s legal capacity

She did not serve justice. She served procedural sabotage with a lowercase "s."

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This Laying of Information, filed under Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, includes allegations of:

  • Misconduct in Public Office

  • Perverting the Course of Justice

  • Obstruction of Lawful Application Procedures

  • Complicity in the Unlawful Removal of U.S. Citizen Children

The evidence includes over a dozen emails in which Ms. Moise, when faced with valid procedural queries, responded not with accuracy — but with threat, dismissal, or outright contradiction.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a mother asks how to file a court application, a legal officer should not respond with a wall of red tape dipped in contempt.

Because this officer had a professional duty not to mislead — and she chose to weaponise uncertainty.

Because institutional chaos is not a defence. It is a strategy, and Rosita executed it with unnerving poise.

IV. Violations

  • Knowingly issuing false claims about court filing status

  • Obstructing or ignoring valid applications (N244, C100, C2)

  • Failing to acknowledge written-only disability accommodations under Equality Act 2010

  • Deliberate suppression of family court access during safeguarding dispute

  • Contributing to the unlawful restriction of four U.S. citizen minors

V. SWANK’s Position

Rosita Moise was not confused. She was performing obstruction in silk-lined gloves.

Her role was not to adjudicate — it was to assist in stripping a mother’s legal footing while children were held under false pretext. Her confidence was not based in law, but in impunity.

This prosecution is now filed — and no email header, job title, or “we believe this matter is resolved” footer will erase it. She was not just part of the system. She was key to its failure.

⚖️ 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.