THE POLYPROSECUTOR FILES
A Proliferation of Procedural Filth:
On the Criminal Constitution of Retaliatory Safeguarding and the Collapse of Legal Credibility in Westminster
Metadata
Filed: 27 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-MULTI-DEF-0729
PDF Filename: 2025-27-29_CriminalBundle_MultiDefendants_ProceduralRetaliation.pdf
Summary: The full evidentiary arsenal in the multi-front prosecution of Westminster’s professional degeneracy and safeguarding sabotage
I. What Happened
Between June 2023 and July 2025, a family of medically vulnerable U.S. citizens suffered a campaign of institutional retribution masquerading as child protection.
What began with sewage gas poisoning and a lawful request for help was alchemised into a Kafkaesque cycle of:
Forced removals,
Disabling assessments,
And a baroque safeguarding pantomime performed by the very agents under criminal review.
This bundle consolidates the criminal filings, assessment objections, passport protections, Litigant-in-Person declarations, and evidentiary timelines into one prosecutorial artefact.
II. What the Filing Establishes
The individuals named herein — from GPs and social workers to hospital guards and legal officers — have not merely failed in their duty. They have strategically misused institutional machinery to retaliate against lawful resistance. Each has been formally prosecuted under private criminal law, with supporting documents that:
Trace the timeline of harm,
Document the obstruction of legal process,
Disqualify conflicted professionals,
And affirm international rights violations.
The removal of the children on 23 June 2025 was not protective. It was procedural sabotage in plain sight, initiated and executed by named defendants whose conduct now defiles the record of every public body involved.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a mother is forcibly separated from her children for lawfully requesting written communication —
When her speech impairment is ridiculed and then pathologised —
When four children are carted across counties and denied their education, medical stability, and modeling careers —
When court access is sabotaged by one’s own solicitor —
When the GP ignores asthma and the legal officer ignores disqualification —
When every warning is met with a package, and every filing with surveillance —
One does not mediate.
One files.
And then one publishes.
IV. Violations
Article 6 ECHR – Denial of fair hearing and procedural access
Article 8 ECHR – Interference with family life
Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding under false pretenses
Equality Act 2010 – Disability discrimination and failure to accommodate
Misconduct in Public Office – Across Westminster, RBKC, and NHS
Harassment Act 1997 – Emotional coercion, surveillance, and threats
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 – Valid LOIs filed against multiple parties
International Child Protection Standards – Violation of U.S. citizenship and consular access
V. SWANK’s Position
This bundle is not a petition — it is a velvet indictment.
It is what happens when an archive gains fangs.
Each file is a record of failure, a ceremony of accountability, a refusal to let these people lie uninterrupted.
It will be filed.
It will be read.
It will be remembered.
⚖️ 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.