“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

Showing posts with label Cockburn Medical Misconduct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cockburn Medical Misconduct. Show all posts

Chromatic v InterHealth Canada – On the Medical Crime of Spectacle Performed in the Name of Safeguarding



“Nine Adults in a Semi-Circle is Not a Medical Exam — It’s an Inquisition”

⟡ A Formal Complaint Detailing the Forced Genital Examination of Children, Bureaucratic Amnesia, and a Mother’s Surgical Memory

IN THE MATTER OF: Medical assault, safeguarding theatre, and four traumatized children subjected to state-sponsored humiliation


⟡ METADATA

Filed: 8 November 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-COCKBURN-INTERHEALTH-MEDMALPRACTICE
Court File Name: 2020-11-08_Court_Complaint_CockburnMedical_InterHealth_MedicalMisconduct
Summary: In this devastatingly detailed complaint, Polly Chromatic (then Noelle Bonneannée) recounts how the Department of Social Development forced her and her children into a Cockburn Town hospital room where, on 25 May 2017, a group of nine adults surrounded her sons during a non-consensual genital examination conducted by Dr. Antrieve Benjamin. The complaint also exposes InterHealth Canada’s failure to provide records from a 2019 visit, falsified immunisation claims, and the deeply unethical practice of asking a mother to “recreate” her children’s traumaso a doctor could retroactively type up her own medical report — three years later.


I. What Happened

  • On 25 May 2017, Polly was forcibly escorted — with her mother and four children — to Cockburn Town Medical Centre by social workers and police.

  • Her sons, aged 8, 5, and 3, were subjected to genital exams without consent or privacy, with nine adults seated around them “as if it was some kind of show.”

  • Her 8-year-old was physically violated and deeply traumatised, with the doctor forcibly retracting his foreskin.

  • The 5-year-old refused to be touched, while the 3-year-old was likewise subjected to this invasive exam.

  • Her infant daughter was not examined at all, revealing the inconsistency of the abuse claim.

  • In 2020, when Polly requested the records, she was told they didn’t exist. She had to wait four hours while Dr. Benjamin wrote them up from memory — and asked Polly what had happened to include in the report.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That no consent was sought, and no privacy was provided — thus constituting medical assault

  • That records were missing or fabricated after the fact, showing administrative misconduct

  • That Polly was wrongly accused of not vaccinating her children, despite presenting verified immunisation records from three countries

  • That the 2017 and 2019 visits were both triggered by fabricated safeguarding reports, and compounded by malpractice, trauma, and gaslighting

  • That the Ministry of Health refused to release records — violating both data protection and patient rights


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the retraction of a child’s foreskin in a room full of officers is not a safeguarding measure — it’s a civil rights violation. Because mothers shouldn’t have to fund, correct, and deliver their own medical records to receive justice. Because safeguarding should not be a euphemism for humiliation. And because this complaint is a landmark indictment of a system that forgot what consent, protection, and ethics mean.


IV. Violations

  • Medical assault on minors

  • Violation of privacy and bodily autonomy

  • Refusal to release medical records (2019 incident)

  • Administrative negligence and record falsification

  • False immunisation allegations

  • Retaliatory safeguarding escalation

  • Forced participation under duress


V. SWANK’s Position

We log this complaint as Exhibit K in the archive of medical retaliation, record falsification, and systemic indifference to children’s dignity. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

  • That nine adults surrounding naked children is not protection — it is state abuse

  • That demanding payment for after-the-fact medical reports is extortionate

  • That InterHealth Canada owes not just compensation but accountability

  • That safeguarding begins with consent — and ends when it’s replaced by coercion

  • That no mother should have to write the report the doctor should have written three years ago


⟡ 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.