PC-66045: When the entire government can’t locate its own policy, it begins policing the parent who can.

⟡ H.G. O’Neill & Co. — Request for Legal Information (Grand Turk Homeschool Harassment) ⟡

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference: SWANK/H.G.O’Neill & Co./PC-66045
Download PDF: 2020-08-06_Core_PC-66045_Email_HGO’NeillAndCo_GrandTurk_RequestForInformationRegardingHomeschoolingAndDepartmentInterference.pdf
Summary: Written plea for legal assistance sent to H.G. O’Neill & Co., documenting three years of unlawful interference, harassment, and administrative incoherence by the Turks & Caicos Departments of Social Development and Education.

I. What Happened

• On 6 August 2020, Polly Chromatic emailed H.G. O’Neill & Co., a local law firm in Grand Turk, requesting representation or at minimum clarification regarding the legal basis for repeated state interference in her family’s homeschooling arrangement.
• She had previously obtained explicit approval to homeschool from Mark Garland (Department of Education), only to be accused by the Department of Social Development of truancy, neglect, and non-compliance with policies that did not, in fact, exist in writing.
• Over three years, she was confronted by the Truancy Officer, visited unannounced by Social Development, and forced into hospital examinations — where her sons were subjected to degrading and invasive procedures without lawful justification.
• The correspondence also records the Complaints Commission’s Kafkaesque intervention: an investigation into her complaint that, within a single meeting, reversed its purpose and found her “noncompliant” with a policy the state itself refused to produce.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Proof of prolonged administrative persecution disguised as safeguarding.
• Documentary evidence that the Department of Education could not locate, cite, or issue a Homeschool Policy yet demanded adherence to it.
• Cross-agency collusion between the Department of Social Development, Complaints Commission, and Attorney General’s Office, each contradicting the others while insisting on compliance.
• Confirmation that the parent repeatedly sought legal counsel and due process but found only institutional circularity.
• The structural absurdity of a system in which the state claims authority without authorship.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• It is the primary-source document of bureaucratic collapse — when “safeguarding” mutated into harassment.
• It reveals a colonial continuity of control, reframed as “policy development.”
• It embodies the central paradox of post-imperial administration: the rule of law without the bother of a rulebook.
• It provides jurisprudential grounding for all subsequent Equality Act, Human Rights Act, and UN CRPD filings under SWANK’s evidentiary catalogue.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Education Ordinance 2009 (TCI) — failure to issue or publish homeschool regulations.
• Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance 2015 s. 17(6) — unlawful interference absent cause or report disclosure.
• UN CRPD Articles 7 & 24 — rights of children with disabilities and access to inclusive education without coercion.
• ECHR Article 8 — interference with private and family life without legal basis.
• Equality Act 2010 s.26 (UK cross-reference) — harassment related to disability and belief.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “educational oversight.”
This is administrative choreography — theatre performed in uniforms.

• We do not accept procedural farce as governance.
• We reject circular bureaucracy as culture.
• We will archive every instance where “policy” is invoked as religion but printed nowhere.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every sentence jurisdictional. Every paragraph colonial.
Because when a state cannot find its own paperwork, it finds its citizens instead.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance — and retaliation deserves an archive.

⚖️ 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.

SWANK :: Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion