⟡ The Silence Directive: Hornal & Brown ⟡
“Termination of Contact Due to Procedural Contamination”
Filed: 27 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/COURT/0627-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-27_SWANK_Notice_Westminster_CommunicationRestriction.pdf
Formal notification of communication bar issued to Westminster Council regarding two named officers under evidentiary restriction.
I. What Happened
On 27 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd filed a formal notice to Westminster City Council's Legal Services to terminate all direct communication from two named individuals — Ms. Kirsty Hornal and Mr. Sam Brown — of Westminster Children’s Services. This action followed the removal of four U.S. citizen children under an Emergency Protection Order dated 23 June 2025 and was instigated due to live Family Court proceedings, criminal referrals concerning these officers, and repeated infringements upon the Applicant’s legal and disability boundaries.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Active legal proceedings were undermined by informal, unfiltered communication
Disability accommodations and jurisdictional authority were repeatedly ignored
SWANK's centralisation of filings was bypassed, despite clear instruction
Communications from Hornal and Brown escalated procedural risk and retraumatisation
Westminster failed to recognise the legal unfitness of these officers as communicators during litigation
This was not mere discourtesy. It was a calculated trespass against judicial process and recognised disability protections.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
SWANK does not permit informality where institutional harm is active. The persistence of unauthorised contact during a live court matter represents not only administrative negligence, but a disregard for legal sovereignty, procedural integrity, and human rights jurisprudence. This event joins a pattern: named officers clinging to informal access even after formal escalation. SWANK’s audit now registers this as a canonical act of jurisdictional contamination — and an emblem of local authority insubordination toward due process.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to uphold disability accommodations
Children Act 1989 – Misuse of Emergency Protection mechanisms
Data Protection Act 2018 – Improper communications during litigation
Family Procedure Rules – Direct interference with court-managed communications
V. SWANK’s Position
⚠ This is not correspondence. This is command.
⚠ This was not safeguarding. It was procedural harassment.
⚠ No officer named in a criminal or regulatory complaint may maintain direct contact with a represented Applicant under active judicial review.
The archive has spoken. We will not reply to Hornal or Brown. We will only record.
⟡ 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.