A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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. RBKC [PC-103]


⟡ Addendum: The Silence of Samira Issa — Indirect Inclusion by Conduct⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HIGH-COURT/PC-103
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-103_HighCourt_SamiraIssaIndirectInclusionAddendum.pdf
Summary: High Court addendum establishing Samira Issa’s contributory role in procedural retaliation, harassment, and disability discrimination within the RBKC safeguarding apparatus.

I. What Happened

Social worker Samira Issa operated as a recurrent agent of interference during the claimant’s medically-documented respiratory crises in February 2024.
Her behaviour, while not individually named in the N1 claim, constitutes an indispensable thread in the institutional fabric of retaliation.

Key episodes include:
• Accompanying her mother to the claimant’s home (25 Feb 2024) without authorization or professional introduction.
• Suppressing or obscuring hospital referral content, thereby withholding grounds for escalation.
• Participating in efforts to silence video documentation of social work conduct (28 Feb 2024).
• Ignoring repeated requests for written-only communication accommodations required under the Equality Act 2010.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Establishes a pattern of harassment during documented illness.
• Demonstrates procedural collusion between individual officers and RBKC Children’s Services.
• Substantiates disability discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
• Confirms indirect liability through agency action within the ongoing N1 civil claim.
• Forms part of the archival narrative of medical retaliation between 2022 and 2025.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To record how silence and omission operate as tools of control.
• To preserve the evidence of disability erasure in safeguarding protocols.
• To expand the Mirror Court’s catalogue of “agents by indirect inclusion.”
• To illustrate that absence of signature is not absence of culpability.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20 and 27 (Reasonable Adjustments & Victimisation)
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3 and 8 (Protection from Degrading Treatment; Respect for Private and Family Life)
• Data Protection Act 2018 — Unlawful withholding of information
• Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) — Professional misconduct and failure to provide transparency

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “co-operation failure.” This is administrative cowardice in a cardigan.

We do not accept the recasting of harassment as “support.”
We reject the bureaucratic habit of pretending omission is neutral.
We document every act of procedural politeness that masks violence.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

Filed by: Polly Chromatic

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer

This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd (United Kingdom)
and SWANK London LLC (United States of America).

Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
Every division operates under dual sovereignty: UK evidentiary law and U.S. constitutional speech protection.

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 ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
alongside 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 International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards,
registered under SWANK London Ltd (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA).

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA)
All formatting, typographic, 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.