“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
Showing posts with label DSD overreach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DSD overreach. Show all posts

They Said “Supervision Order.” I Said “Abuse of Process.”

 ⚖️ SWANK Dispatch: I Filed to Dismiss the State's Lies. Legally. Loudly. Publicly.

🗓️ 7 January 2021

Filed Under: supervision order dismissal, legal abuse, child protection overreach, statutory noncompliance, passport overreach, court process violation, unfounded safeguarding, procedural misapplication, legal defence, F Chambers

“If my children were in danger,
you wouldn’t need to lie to the court.
But you did.
Which means they weren’t.”
— A Mother Who Took the Department of Social Development to Court for Filing Fiction

This formal legal application, submitted by F Chambers on behalf of Polly Chromatic, moves to dismiss the Department of Social Development’s request for a twelve-month Supervision Order filed in September 2020.

What makes this filing extraordinary isn’t just its precision — it’s that it exposes a full procedural collapse of lawful safeguarding under the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance 2015.

🧾 I. Seven Legal Grounds. No Leg to Stand On.

The application asserts that the state's case must be dismissed because:

  1. The file includes dated, misleading, and erroneous information

  2. It is a blatant abuse of court process

  3. The department failed to meet basic statutory obligations under sections 4, 9, 12, 18, and 22

  4. It overreaches its legal authority — notably by trying to control passports

  5. The department didn’t notify the mother or children as required by law

  6. It fails to disclose harm — the legal threshold for any such order

  7. It wastes court time and diverts resources from real safeguarding needs

📌 II. Why This Filing Matters

  • It shifts the narrative from defence to prosecution of the process itself

  • It forces the department to justify its paperwork — not just its posture

  • It sends a message: “You cannot weaponise safeguarding without evidence and expect no resistance.”

🧠 III. SWANK Commentary

This isn’t just about getting a case dismissed.
It’s about getting a state narrative unmasked.

Because when the only harm is the application itself —
The court becomes the crime scene.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions