“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 Delivery Intimidation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Delivery Intimidation. Show all posts

Chromatic v Westminster – Post as Procedural Weaponry and the Siege of Unverified Service


🪞SWANK London Ltd.

NOTICE OF SERVICE OBSTRUCTION AND RETALIATORY DELIVERIES

A Procedural Clarification Regarding Unverified Mailings and Post-Trauma Protocol

Filed Date: 28 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-DELIVERY-0825
Court File Name: 2025-07-28_SWANK_Addendum_UnverifiedDeliveries_ServiceObstruction.pdf
Filed By: Polly Chromatic
Court Labels: Service harassment, safeguarding interference, delivery trauma, procedural obstruction
Search Description: Trauma-based objection to unverified deliveries following private prosecution

I. What Happened

On 24 July 2025 — less than 24 hours after the filing of a formal criminal prosecution against Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal — I received five (5) unsolicited and unverified packages at my home. These packages were unmarked, unexpected, and unaccompanied by any official notice or explanatory email. They were not identified by sender, origin, or purpose.

Given the documented pattern of intimidation, procedural harassment, and surveillance-by-post to which my family has been subjected for over a year, I immediately sought clarification from the Local Authority. Ms. Rosita Moise explicitly stated that no packages had been sent.

The packages remain unopened, and their anonymity and timing are currently logged as part of a formal safeguarding concern.

II. What This Notice Establishes

  • That I have made multiple police reports over the past year relating to unlawful or retaliatory deliveries.

  • That I have expressly asked that any legally significant post be confirmed via email in advance, or concurrently with delivery, as a condition of fair and trauma-informed communication.

  • That I am invoking a right to written clarification of service, in accordance with both safeguarding duties and Article 6 rights of fair procedure.

  • That the Local Authority is on notice that I will not open unidentified post under duress, and non-email-verified delivery shall not constitute lawful service.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This pattern is not coincidental — it is procedural intimidation masquerading as administrative communication. When mail becomes a threat vector, institutions must adapt their methods. The reliance on surprise packages — particularly following legal escalation — reveals a disturbing commitment to psychological siege over lawful transparency.

This notice constitutes formal rebuttal to any future claim that service was “attempted” by post without verified identification. It is also a shield against the theatre of procedural sabotage, in which recipients are blamed for not decoding the silence of unlabelled envelopes.

IV. Violations

  • Article 8 ECHR – Right to private and family life (disruption via intimidation)

  • Article 6 ECHR – Right to a fair trial (obstructive and unclear service)

  • Children Act 1989 – Duty to protect from emotional harm

  • Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination via refusal to adapt communication for trauma

V. SWANK’s Position

Let it be known that the post is no longer neutral.

When a litigant has been forced to file private prosecutions against council officers, is managing trauma from unlawful removals, and has already received death threats via institutional process — the burden of clarity shifts.

You do not get to say “we sent it in the post” and then call that accountability. If a package is important, you must email the recipient and say so. Anything less is posturing. Anything anonymous is now logged as procedural misconduct — or worse.

This post is hereby sealed in silk and service-franked with indignation.

SWANK’s formal communication standards now require dual-channel confirmation (electronic and physical) for all legally significant service. Anything else will be returned to sender — unopened, unacknowledged, and logged as a safeguarding hazard.

We are not afraid of your envelopes.
We are just tired of the way you use them.

—

✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Court Correspondent and Archival Litigant
director@swanklondon.com

.⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. 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 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and 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 protocols. © 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.
No comments:

SWANK v Unidentified Courier: Hand-Delivered Retaliation Package After Public Audit Release


⟡ “He Looked Through My Mail Slot. Then He Forced a Package Through It. Then He Left Without a Name.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Delivery. It Was Surveillance With a PDF.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RETALIATION/UNMARKED-DELIVERY-17JUNE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_IncidentRetaliation_PackageSlotInAfterAudit.pdf
Incident report and evidentiary email to solicitor documenting a coercive hand-delivery by unidentified man following public audit release.

I. What Happened

On 17 June 2025, an unidentified man arrived at the home of Polly Chromatic and forcibly shoved a package through the front door mail slot. No name was given. No warrant was shown. The act occurred within hours of a SWANK blog post publishing the audit of Westminster Children’s Services. The man opened the mail slot beforehand to peer inside. The recipient — a disabled litigant in ongoing proceedings — experienced the event as threatening, especially given its timing, lack of identification, and prior retaliation patterns.

A video was recorded and is now archived:
📹 Watch Video – Retaliatory Slot-In (17 June 2025)
📹 Watch Video – Follow-up Bicycle Departure (20 June 2025)

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The visit was unannounced, unbadged, and procedurally undocumented

  • Occurred immediately after SWANK released a major evidentiary audit

  • The act of prying through the mail slot violated physical and emotional boundaries

  • The package was not requested, consented to, or identified by authority

  • It was clearly part of a pattern of intimidation by delivery — not information sharing

This wasn’t compliance. It was an intimidation tactic masquerading as post.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because documents don’t require surveillance to arrive.
Because a hand through the door is not neutral — it’s a threat.
Because this wasn’t a procedural drop-off. It was a retaliatory message without a signature.
Because the video tells the story better than any redacted report ever could.
Because SWANK doesn’t just report misconduct — we film it.

IV. Violations

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Behaviour likely to cause alarm and distress

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Violation of home privacy and personal security

  • Equality Act 2010 – Intimidation of disabled litigant with communication-related impairments

  • GDPR Principles (Article 5) – Lack of purpose transparency or data-processing legitimacy

  • Common Law Trespass – Physical intrusion by forcing item through mail chute uninvited

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t delivery. It was a performance of presence after documentation made them nervous.
This wasn’t an accident. It was an orchestrated act of intimidation — caught on camera and timestamped.
This wasn’t professional. It was procedural theatre, enacted without badge or warrant.

SWANK has now archived the footage, the correspondence, and the context.
We are not waiting for further visits.
We are documenting every knock. Every slot. Every silence.

⟡ 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.


No comments: