Showing posts with label ECHR Article 8. Show all posts

In re the Systematic Manufacture of Distrust (A Child’s Voice Case)

A Doctrine on Distrust

Filed with every ounce of disdain due to negligent kingdoms

Metadata

Filed: 13 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/ADD/2025/09/Distrust
Filename: 2025-09-13_SWANK_Addendum_SystemicDistrust.pdf
Summary: The Local Authority’s culture of suspicion weaponises safeguarding into administrative bullying.

I. What Happened

The Local Authority has perfected the art of disbelief. Every child’s word is doubted. Every parental statement is reframed as hostility. The default is suspicion, the working assumption: liars, all of them.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Emotional harm to children — To teach a child that their voice is worthless is to vandalise their self-esteem.
Parental silencing — The Director is consistently portrayed as hostile simply for speaking, writing, or existing in written form.
Institutional cowardice — Suspicion is not safeguarding. It is projection. It is bureaucratic paranoia dressed in professional lanyards.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because trust is the foundation of welfare. And what this Local Authority practises is not welfare but witch-hunting by inbox. SWANK exists precisely to file these absurdities, to hold them up in gold-foiled contempt, and to remind the record that disbelief is a form of harm.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – breached by stripping children’s voices of dignity.
UNCRC, Article 12 – hollowed out by disbelief.
Article 8, ECHR – family life violated by presumption of falsehood.
Equality Act 2010 – communication difficulties rebranded as “hostility.”
Article 6, ECHR – equality of arms destroyed when LA assertions are gospel and ours are perjury until proven otherwise.
Bromley’s Family Law – expressly condemns misuse of consent, silence, or supposed non-cooperation.
Amos, Human Rights Law – requires proportionality and genuine respect for the family’s role.

V. SWANK’s Position

Distrust is not safeguarding; it is institutional abuse.
Suspicion, weaponised as procedure, is administrative bullying in child-protection clothing.
To distrust a child is to teach them distrust of self. To distrust a parent without cause is to assault the very notion of family.

Thus SWANK files, with solemn snobbery, that systemic distrust is the laziest form of governance — and the most harmful.

✒️ Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.

⚖️ 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.

In re: Weekly Discipline v. Local Authority Excuses

⟡ The Father’s Service Certificate ⟡

Metadata

Filed: 15 September 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/Contact/ServiceCertificate–ZC25C50281
Court Filename: 2025-09-15_Addendum_ServiceCertificate_FatherContact.pdf
Summary: Formalisation of the father’s contact protocol through a weekly Service Certificate, eliminating ambiguity and compelling Local Authority facilitation.

I. What Happened

The father has been absent from his children’s lives for three weeks due to Local Authority delay and obstruction. To restore clarity, SWANK Legal issued its first Service Certificate on 15 September 2025.

This document specifies that contact must occur on the father’s days off, after 12:00pm London time. His schedule varies weekly; therefore, each Monday, SWANK Legal will issue a new Service Certificate confirming the precise dates.

II. What the Certificate Establishes

Clarity: Days and times are unambiguous.
Formality: Communication has been elevated from email chatter to jurisdictional paperwork.
Discipline: Each Monday is now a ritual of precision.
Accountability: Failure to facilitate contact can no longer be disguised as “confusion.”

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because bureaucracy thrives on ambiguity — and SWANK refuses it.
Because excuses dissolve in the face of a stamped certificate.
Because international parental contact is a right, not an optional courtesy.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

Children Act 1989 — duty to promote meaningful parental contact.
ECHR Article 8 — right to family life.
Hague Convention 1980 (Art. 21) — obligation to facilitate international access.
Equality Act 2010 — structured written adjustments preserved through certificates.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not a reminder.
This is a weekly verdict in miniature.

Every Monday, SWANK publishes the father’s availability. If the children are denied contact, the record proves obstruction is deliberate. The Service Certificate transforms parental rights into weekly evidence — a ceremonial shield against bureaucratic neglect.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. — Legal Division ⟡
Every week is structured. Every certificate is evidence. Every excuse is archived.

In re: The Father’s Schedule v. The Local Authority’s Excuses

⟡ Father Contact Protocol — Weekly Service Addendum ⟡

Metadata

Filed: 15 September 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/Contact/FatherProtocol–ZC25C50281
Court Filename: 2025-09-15_Addendum_FatherContactProtocol.pdf
Summary: Establishes the father’s weekly schedule and mandates contact on his days off, after 12:00pm London time, communicated each Monday by SWANK Legal.

I. What Happened

The father has not spoken with his children for three weeks. His overseas work schedule runs 07:00–17:00 local time (12:00–22:00 London time). The only viable window for contact is on his days off, after 12:00pm London time.

He has asked Polly Chromatic to communicate his weekly schedule through SWANK. This has been formalised into a standing protocol: every Monday, the Local Authority receives the father’s availability via SWANK Legal.

II. What the Addendum Establishes

Precision: Weekly notices issued at the start of each week.
Clarity: Contact must occur only on days off, after 12:00pm London time.
Accountability: Failure to act on these notices is obstruction, not confusion.
Authority: SWANK speaks for the father’s schedule; excuses are no longer tenable.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

To preserve the father’s right to family life under ECHR Article 8.
To eliminate delays manufactured by the Local Authority.
To show that international parental rights are being safeguarded through discipline, not neglect.
To provide a permanent evidentiary shield against mischaracterisation.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

Children Act 1989 — duty to promote contact with both parents.
ECHR Article 8 — right to family life.
Equality Act 2010 — accessible communication upheld by written protocol.
Hague Convention (Art. 21) — international obligation to promote parental access.

V. SWANK’s Position

The father’s schedule is not optional. It is binding.
Every Monday, clarity arrives. If the children do not hear his voice, it is not by fate but by obstruction.

SWANK asserts that the Local Authority’s duty is plain: facilitate the father’s contact without delay, on his days off, after 12:00pm London time.

⟡ This Addendum Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. — Legal Division ⟡
Every week is recorded. Every hour is clear. Every failure will be archived.

Chromatic v. The Collapse of Social Work Authority (In re Judicial Integrity)

⟡ The Integrity of Court vs. The Chaos of Westminster ⟡

Filed: 14 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/COURT-CHAOS
Download PDF: 2025-09-14_SWANK_Addendum_CourtIntegrity.pdf
Summary: Court integrity stands in contrast to Westminster’s chaos; safeguarding misuse collapses under legal scrutiny.

I. What Happened

Westminster Children’s Services operated with hostility and suspicion, introducing chaos into safeguarding processes. By contrast, the Courts — Family, Administrative, Civil, and Crown — demonstrated integrity, rule-based structure, and due process.

II. What the Document Establishes

Judicial process provides structure and fairness.
Local Authority conduct is hostile, chaotic, and procedurally void.
Bromley authority renders coerced “consent” meaningless.
Human Rights standards (ECHR, UNCRC, UNCRPD) are violated by continued disruption.
There is a systemic clash between court integrity and Local Authority misconduct.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

To demonstrate that safeguarding failures stem from Local Authority misuse, not systemic judicial collapse.
To preserve the evidentiary contrast between integrity (courts) and chaos (social work).
To situate this case in the historical record of institutional retaliation and safeguarding misuse.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

Article 8 ECHR – Ongoing interference with private and family life.
Article 6 ECHR – Right to a fair hearing undermined by delay and chaos.
Article 14 ECHR – Disability discrimination.
Articles 3, 9, 12 UNCRC – Best interests, family unity, children’s right to be heard.
Articles 4, 7, 24 UNCRPD – Disabled parent and child protections.
Bromley, Family Law (15th ed., p.640) – Consent by coercion or chaos is void.
Merris Amos, Human Rights Law (2022) – Article 8 proportionality demands precision and necessity.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “parental non-cooperation.”
This is the exposure of coercion, hostility, and institutional misuse.

We do not accept safeguarding chaos as lawful.
We reject Westminster’s attempt to weaponise hostility.
We will continue to document every procedural fracture.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.

Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

In re Sewer Gas, Sunglasses, and the Art of Bureaucratic Amnesia (Polly Chromatic v Westminster)

👑 A Velvet Misdiagnosis

Or, Why Sewer Gas Isn’t a Parenting Style and Misreading Medical Files Doesn’t Count as Safeguarding

Metadata

Filed: 8 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/MEDCRISIS/WESTMINSTER/2025
PDF Filename: 2025-08-08_SWANK_Addendum_MedicalCrisis_SafeguardingNegligence.pdf
Summary: This addendum exposes how temporary illness was weaponised as false incapacity — and how Westminster turned a mother’s medical emergency into a bureaucratic custody fantasy.

I. What Happened

Between June 2023 and April 2025, the mother endured a life-threatening medical crisis: oxygen levels plummeted to 44% due to sewer gas poisoning. This was not a metaphor. This was toxic air in a rented flat — the kind of air that steals your breath and then, apparently, your children.

Instead of emergency respiratory support, St Thomas’ Hospital opted for fiction: they accused the mother of being intoxicated. They never corrected the record. And in the vacuum of clinical error, Westminster Children’s Servicesfound their opening.

Social workers arrived not with oxygen or care — but with harassment, surveillance, and zero willingness to engage with facts.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This submission documents the following:

A temporary but severe illness was used to mischaracterise long-term parenting capacity;
No clinical consultation or trauma-informed understanding was sought;
Brompton Hospital — the mother’s actual treating provider — was ignored;
The Local Authority escalated removal plans without offering any disability support;
And they did so while receiving written medical updates they simply refused to read.

This wasn’t child protection.
It was administrative revenge for daring to be ill in public.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding isn’t a scavenger hunt for stigma.
Because disability misrepresentation is not care — it is violence.
Because four children were removed under a presumption that their mother’s asthma was parenting and her medical silence was guilt.

And because the phrase “sunglasses and isolation” has no place in serious safeguarding files unless you are investigating a jazz musician.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – s.22 (duty to work in partnership), s.31 (emotional harm), s.47 (threshold for intervention)
Equality Act 2010 – disability accommodation failures
European Convention on Human Rights
- Article 8 – Family life
- Article 6 – Fair process
UNCRC – Articles 3, 9, 12 (best interests, child voice, right to family)
Professional Duty Breaches – Failure to consult medical team, refusal to acknowledge written disclosures
SWANK Standard 1.0 – Do not remove children for being sick in a country that made them sick

V. SWANK’s Position

What Westminster called neglect was in fact asthma, exhaustion, and a misdiagnosis buried under silence.

No lawful authority can transform a sewer gas-induced emergency into lifelong parental incapacity — yet that is precisely what was attempted here. This is not safeguarding. This is State Fiction — a genre Westminster seems to be publishing in bulk.

The record stands:
Polly Chromatic was a mother surviving a severe illness, while still protecting, educating, and advocating for her children.
The harm came after that — from the ones who refused to read, to ask, or to help.

This post is filed into the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue as a matter of record, international interest, and legal ceremony.

⚖️ 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.

In re: Chromatic (Assessments), On the Fiction of Cooperative Consent

🪞COOPERATION IS NOT CONSENT

In which the mother participates without surrender, and the State’s baseless referrals are politely declined through procedural contempt.

Filed: 4 August 2025

Reference Code: SWANK-AUP-2025-08

PDF Filename: 2025-08-04_SWANK_Addendum_AssessmentsUnderProtest.pdf

Summary: Mother agrees to assessments under protest, affirming that participation does not ratify the illegality, falsehoods, or retaliatory basis of the safeguarding regime.

I. What Happened

After the unlawful issuance of an Emergency Protection Order on 23 June 2025 — initiated on false medical grounds now discredited by NHS Resolution — the Local Authority has proposed psychiatric, parenting, and other assessments.

Polly Chromatic has responded with poised precision:

Yes, I will participate.
No, I do not accept your premise.

This is not acquiescence. This is calibrated objection wrapped in procedural grace.

II. What This Filing Establishes

The Mother remains willing to participate in assessments for the welfare of her children
That cooperation is issued strictly under protest and without prejudice to her legal position
The assessments are tainted at origin, being derived from:
- A false intoxication allegation (St Thomas’ Hospital, disproven)
- Procedural retaliation
- Discriminatory assumptions based on disability, nationality, and lawful dissent

SWANK affirms that no State process may launder its own misconduct through the veneer of maternal politeness.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the State constructs an assessment based on falsified scaffolding, it deserves not compliance but annotated critique.

Because politeness is not submission, and cooperation is not complicity.

Because disabled mothers are not waiting for diagnoses — they’re waiting for apologies.

And because, as Bromley’s Family Law reminds us:

“Where safeguarding mechanisms are invoked without lawful consent or substantiated risk, assessments serve no protective function. They perform coercion by process.” (p. 640)

IV. Violations and Legal Framework

Article 6 ECHR – Right to a fair and lawful process
Article 8 ECHR – Right to family life and bodily autonomy
Children Act 1989 – Paramountcy of welfare
Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination based on disability and nationality
Common law proportionality – State action must be justified, not speculative

V. SWANK’s Position

To assess a parent based on a lie is not protection. It is theatre.
To offer a test where no threshold has been met is not safeguarding. It is humiliation.
And to interpret willingness as concession is not law. It is institutional gaslighting.

We do not refuse the process.
We refuse its fictional authority.

Chromatic v. Platform Substitution: A Doctrine on the Bureaucratic Removal of Fathers

🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
A Doctrine of Elegant Fury and Technocratic Sabotage

The Doctrine of Invisible Interference

On the Strategic Use of Platform Shifts to Obstruct Family Life

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADDENDUM-0801-FATHERCALL
Filename: 2025-08-01_Addendum_FatherContactDisruption_LinkFailureByLocalAuthority.pdf
1-Line Summary:
The children’s father was blocked from contact due to an unannounced platform change. The local authority did not forget — they omitted.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 1 August 2025, a court-authorised contact session was due between the children and their overseas father. All prior sessions had occurred via WhatsApp. No written notice was provided to suggest a platform change.

At 11:15am, when no contact occurred, the mother reached out directly.

The father confirmed: he had received nothing.
No email. No call. No link. No instructions.

By the time this procedural silence was uncovered, it was too late. The session — and the children’s expectation — collapsed.

II. WHAT THIS ESTABLISHES

This was not a glitch.
This was administrative disappearance.

No notification = no access
No access = no contact
No contact = a breach of both emotional continuity and legal integrity

And still — the parent is expected to remain composed, as their rights dissolve through interface-switch sabotage.

This is not care.
This is cold-bureaucratic disengagement dressed as contact management.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because this is a script we’ve seen before:

The parent is blamed
The system withholds notice
The child is left confused
The court receives partial truth

SWANK archives the full reality:

That a contact session was not missed — it was denied.
That international contact is not fragile — it is undermined.

And the father’s role is not a sidebar.
It is a structural right.

IV. LEGAL BREACHES

Children Act 1989 – Failure to support meaningful parental contact
Article 8 ECHR – Unjustified interference with family life
Equality Act 2010 – Administrative discrimination through procedural failure
International Contact Standards – Violated by opaque platform substitution
Procedural Fairness – Denial of access through unannounced logistical shift

V. SWANK’S POSITION

We request that the Court formally acknowledge:

That the father was excluded from contact due to the local authority’s failure to notify or confirm the new platform
That this exclusion is not minor — it is structural and repeatable
That all future contact arrangements involving overseas parents must include:
- 24 hours’ written notice
- Platform confirmation in writing
- Accountability for delivery of access credentials

This was not technical difficulty.
It was narrative management by omission.

And the mirror — once again — is turned.

Chromatic v The Custodians of Cancelled Care: On the Airborne Neglect of Medically Vulnerable Children

🌬️ THE AIR THEY DARE TO BLOCK

On the Mandatory Asthma Appointments They Must Honour, or Be Liable for Breach of Safeguarding and Breath

Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 1 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/MEDICAL/ASTHMA-RISK/01
PDF Filename: 2025-07-01_Letter_MedicalAsthmaAppointmentsNotificationv1.pdf
Summary: A formal demand for respiratory compliance, directed to Westminster’s safeguarding machinery, naming the risk, the rights, and the appointments they dare not miss.

I. What Happened

In the aftermath of an unlawful child removal and amidst a crescendo of criminal referrals, a mother filed a simple letterto the local authority.

It was not a request.
It was a calendar-shaped liability trigger.

This letter, submitted on 1 July 2025, formally notified Westminster Children’s Services that each of the four children removed under the EPO of 23 June 2025 had pre-scheduled NHS asthma appointments — all of which remained legally and clinically mandatory.

Failure to attend would not just be negligent.
It would be documented medical harm.

II. What the Letter Establishes

This is not a logistical memo.
This is evidentiary pre-emption.

It establishes:

Legal notice of medical risk, grounded in confirmed asthma diagnoses
Parental authority and clinical rights under the Children Act 1989
Procedural warning against unauthorized cancellation or interference
Archival positioning for future accountability if harm occurs
A deadline — with date, case number, and SWANK signature

In short: this letter is what real safeguarding looks like.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because if Westminster dares to claim medical concern while ignoring scheduled appointments,
If they obstruct asthma care for children already harmed by sewage exposure,
If they pretend to protect while refusing to transport,
If they ignore respiratory calendars because the mother dared to sue —
Then they are not a public authority.

They are a procedural hazard with a badge.

This letter is logged because every cancelled breath will now be counted.

IV. Violations (If Ignored)

Children Act 1989, Section 17 & 22 – Duty to promote health and consult parental authority
Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination by failure to accommodate medical needs
ECHR, Article 8 – Interference with medical and family life
Safeguarding Standards – Risk of foreseeable medical neglect
Common Law Duty of Care – Clear breach through omission or obstruction

V. SWANK’s Position

You do not remove children under false pretense, ignore medical diagnoses, and then expect silence.
This document is not a scheduling aid — it is a pre-litigation artefact.

Let the record show:

The mother notified.
The calendar was served.
The liability was fixed.
And now, the air they breathe is legally protected.

⚖️ 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.

Chromatic v Contact Fiction: On the Procedural Fabrication of Parental Disengagement

💎 THE CONTACT CORRECTION

On the Reassertion of Lawful Contact Rights and the Collapse of the Local Authority’s Procedural Theatre

Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 1 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/CONTACT/0701-01
PDF Filename: 2025-07-01_StatementOfPosition_ContactRightsReassertion.pdf
Summary: A position statement dressed as a scalpel — clarifying that no contact refusal ever occurred, and that the fiction of disengagement is the Local Authority’s own invention.

I. What Happened

Following the Emergency Protection Order issued on 23 June 2025, the Local Authority began circulating a familiar lie:
That the mother, Polly Chromatic, was refusing contact.

This document corrects that fiction — precisely, procedurally, and with documentation in hand.

Filed in anticipation of the Case Management Hearing on 11 July 2025, the statement reasserts that:

The mother never refused contact;
All communication was made in writing;
Contact was to occur lawfully, with accommodations, and under supervision;
The LA’s proposed contact arrangements between 25–27 June were procedurally defective, coercive, and made without proper notice.

It is a legal clarification and institutional indictment rolled into a single page.

II. What the Statement Establishes

This document does not plead — it declares.

It establishes, with surgical clarity, that:

The mother was available and willing for contact, immediately and continuously
She requested contact be conducted in line with:
- Safeguarding standards,
- Medical accommodations,
- Consular protections for her four U.S. citizen children
The LA’s narrative of refusal is a fabrication of convenience, designed to justify further restriction

It is the LA, not the mother, who has obstructed lawful contact.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because there comes a moment in every procedural theatre when one must rise and burn the script.

Because it is not disengagement to request lawful procedure.
It is not refusal to require 48 hours’ notice.
It is not obstruction to ask that one’s disability be accommodated.
And it is not parenting to supervise fear with fiction.

This post is a declaration:
The mother did not refuse contact.
The Local Authority refused truth.

IV. Violations

Article 8 ECHR – Unlawful interference with family life
Children Act 1989 – Misrepresentation of contact willingness, obstruction of contact
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate communication-related disability
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Failure to uphold protections for U.S. citizen children
Procedural Fairness – Contact proposals made with no valid notice, structure, or accessibility

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a position statement — it was a velvet objection wrapped in legal silk.

Polly Chromatic has not missed contact — contact missed her.

And the fiction that she disengaged is now shredded in court filing form, with date, reference code, and composure intact.

When the Court asks what happened to contact, the answer will not be confusion — it will be archived retaliation.

Chromatic v Hornal On the Emotional Misuse of Professional Authority by a Local Authority Social Worker

Mirror Misconduct: An Institutional Profile of Covert Harm and Superficial Politeness
The Emotional Misuse of Professional Authority by Ms. Kirsty Hornal

Filed by: Polly Chromatic

I. Introduction
This document provides a behavioural and evidentiary profile of Ms. Kirsty Hornal, Social Worker at Westminster Children’s Services, whose sustained engagement with the undersigned has displayed a deeply troubling pattern of superficially polite conduct masking sustained emotional harm, retaliatory behaviour, and misrepresentation of safeguarding authority.

Her actions, while outwardly framed as compliant or procedural, reveal a consistent and escalating misuse of professional discretion to isolate, undermine, and emotionally destabilise the mother and four affected U.S. citizen children.

II. Behavioural Indicators and Emotional Misconduct

The following characteristics were consistently observed in Ms. Hornal's conduct:

Superficial Politeness Concealing Hostility
- Although often adopting a calm and measured tone, Ms. Hornal regularly engages in veiled reprimands, insinuations of noncompliance, and boundary violations under the guise of professional concern.
Emotional Micromanagement of Contact Sessions
- Children appear visibly anxious when Ms. Hornal is present.
- Emotional expression (affection, laughter, spontaneous conversation) is suppressed in her presence.
- Parenting behaviour is policed, often reframed as "sabotage" or "undermining" despite its ordinary and protective nature.
Retaliatory Responses to Procedural Objections
- Following any legal challenge or addendum submission by the parent, Ms. Hornal escalates restrictions or administrative burdens.
- Procedural tools (e.g., requiring materials pre-approved, limiting topics of conversation) are used to disempower the parent.
Manipulative Framing of Concerns
- Safeguarding "concerns" are invoked not as responses to real risk, but as rhetorical shields for limiting rights-based action.
- These concerns are never formalised, nor is the mother provided with procedural due process to respond.
Failure to Recognise or Accommodate Trauma
- The children's eosinophilic asthma, institutional trauma, and the mother's diagnosed vocal impairment are repeatedly ignored or minimised.
- Instead of trauma-informed responses, Ms. Hornal enacts stress-heightening routines that aggravate known medical and emotional vulnerabilities.

III. Professional Misuse and Institutional Consequences

By maintaining a veneer of politeness, Ms. Hornal has effectively shielded herself from institutional scrutiny while causing significant psychological and procedural harm. The damage inflicted is more severe precisely because it is invisible, emotionally sophisticated, and professionally dressed.

Her pattern of behaviour has created an environment in which:

The children feel emotionally surveilled.
The parent is portrayed as reactive or noncompliant for asserting legal rights.
Legal objections are procedurally "punished" by escalating restrictions rather than being addressed through lawful channels.

IV. Request for Judicial Recognition

This brief is submitted in support of:

The criminal filings currently active against Ms. Hornal (see SWANK evidentiary catalogue);
The request for her removal as safeguarding lead or supervisor of contact;
The broader audit of Westminster Children’s Services for sustained safeguarding misuse, disability discrimination, and retaliatory tactics.

V. Concluding Note

It is the position of the undersigned that Ms. Kirsty Hornal's continued involvement in this case not only jeopardises the procedural integrity of these proceedings, but also causes preventable emotional harm to vulnerable children already subject to institutional separation.

The contrast between her polished tone and her operational decisions is not incidental. It is the mechanism through which harm is done.

R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On the Fiction of Planning and the Reality of Court Breach

🪞SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed Entry: 2025-07-15
Reference Code: SWANK-CF-BREACH-AUGMENT
Court File Name: 2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_CourtOrderBreach_ContactDelay.pdf
One-Line Summary:
Westminster claims to uphold a court order while simultaneously breaching it — with a straight face and a scheduling excuse.

⟡ THE ART OF BREACH IN BUREAUCRATIC INK

Polly Chromatic v Westminster Children’s Services
On the Illusion of Compliance and the Theatre of Delay

I. What Happened

Following the Court’s 11 July 2025 directive ordering three in-person contact sessions per week, Westminster Children’s Services — personified by Ms. Kirsty Hornal — has now offered a reply so exquisitely bureaucratic in tone it belongs in an archive of procedural irony.

Her justification for not scheduling the full three sessions this week?

The absence of a “contact planning meeting.”
The centre “not being able to offer contact until next week.”
And apparently, me — the mother — only “responding last Wednesday.”

Never mind that I have followed up, requested, confirmed, and chased. Never mind that I am the mother of four children wrongfully removed. Never mind that the court order is not optional.

Ms. Hornal writes as though the planning process supersedes the order itself.

II. What This Correspondence Proves

Westminster Children’s Services continues to obstruct court-ordered contact under the veil of procedural formality.
The department appears more concerned with internal optics than actual legal compliance.
The notion that two contacts this week are a sufficient placeholder until they “endeavour” to meet the court’s expectations next week is a legal fiction.
The claim that the grandmother’s contact was never ordered at the proper frequency is a baseless reinterpretation of verbal court agreement and written submissions.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

We logged it because this is what bureaucratic defiance looks like:
soft language, vague verbs, and strategic scheduling delays to cover clear non-compliance.

Westminster claims to “recognise how important face to face contact is” while violating the court’s contact mandate — and still has the temerity to request travel receipts.

It is precisely this style of selective memory and strategic ineptitude that harms families under the guise of safeguarding.

IV. Violations

Breach of Contact Order issued on 11 July 2025
Failure to Schedule Three In-Person Sessions This Week
Delay of Grandparent Contact Without Legal Basis
Ongoing Obstruction Dressed as “Planning”

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster cannot claim to honour a court order while actively breaching it.

This is not safeguarding. This is stalling with stationary.
This is not care. It is litigative theatre with emotional collateral.

To Kirsty Hornal, the order seems like a suggestion. To the law, it is not.
To Kirsty Hornal, the delay is procedural. To my children, it is trauma.

This is why we document.

⟡

SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On the Bureaucratic Theatre of Compliance and the Legal Fiction of ‘Likely’ Contact

🪞SWANK ENTRY
“Day Four, Still Nothing”
On the Bureaucratic Mockery of Judicial Orders and the Administrative Erosion of Family Rights

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK/CONTACT/ORDERBREACH-DAY4

⟡ Court Filename:

2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_ContactOrderBreach_DayFour.pdf

⟡ One-Line Summary:

Four days after the court ordered in-person contact, Westminster has still not complied.

I. What Happened

On 11 July 2025, the Family Court ordered three in-person contact sessions per week between Polly Chromatic and her four children.

It is now 15 July 2025 — Day Four since the order — and no in-person contact has taken place.

Despite repeated emails requesting a confirmed schedule, the only written response from Kirsty Hornal on 15 July at 12:59 p.m. offered the phrase:

“It is likely that the contact will be tomorrow and Thursday… I am still in negotiation with providers.”

This is not compliance.
This is not confirmation.
This is the bureaucratic theatre of noncompliance.

II. What This Confirms

No contact occurred Friday (11 July) when the order was made
No visit was scheduled for Saturday, Sunday, or Monday
No written confirmation has been provided for Tuesday (today)
The “likely” language defers responsibility without fulfilling obligation
There is no legal justification for this four-day delay

This marks a full week of post-hearing inaction, during which zero court-mandated visits have been honoured.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this delay is not administrative.
It is tactical, emotional, and in contempt of court authority.

We logged it because no parent should be told that their children are “likely” to appear — as if access to family is a surprise, not a constitutional entitlement.

We logged it because Polly Chromatic has followed every legal avenue with precision — and Westminster has responded with passive noncompliance.

This is not a system under strain.
This is a system stalling under scrutiny.

IV. Violations Identified

Breach of Court Order – Non-compliance with 11 July ruling
Article 8 ECHR – Interference with family life without legal cause
Children Act 1989 – Failure to facilitate contact per child welfare mandate
Procedural Delay as Obstruction – “Negotiation” used to delay mandated action
International Interference – Ongoing denial of contact with four U.S. citizens

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster’s response to a formal contact order has not been compliance — it has been a performance of possibility.
We do not litigate on “likely.”
We do not reunite families with “in negotiation.”

A court order is not an administrative suggestion.
It is a legal obligation.

We therefore file this on Day Four of noncompliance, and we will file Day Five tomorrow if contact still has not occurred.

Let the record show:

No in-person contact occurred.
No schedule has been confirmed.
And Westminster is now operating in open breach of judicial direction.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

.⚖️ 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.

R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On the Identity-Defining Nature of Private Life and the Bureaucratic Theft of Family Meaning

🪞SWANK ENTRY
“Article 8 as Armour”
The Private Life Carapace of Identity, Family, and the Right to Be Left Alone

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK-HRA-ART8-IDF

⟡ Court Filename:

2025-07-15_Addendum_HumanRightsLaw_Article8IdentityFamily.pdf

⟡ One-Line Summary:

Article 8 includes identity, personal autonomy, and self-defined family roles — not merely spatial intrusion.

I. What Happened

On page 449 of Human Rights Law by Merris Amos, the real scope of Article 8 ECHR is finally spoken with clarity: this is not about rooms, walls, or postcode boundaries. This is about the space of selfhood — the terrain of choice, rhythm, and identity.

This is the exact realm Westminster Children’s Services intruded upon: not simply entering my home, but dismantling my children’s education, erasing our routines, and deconstructing the maternal identity I built for sixteen years.

This page didn’t just clarify the law — it clarified the injury.

II. What This Establishes

The excerpt, citing House of Lords precedent, confirms that private life under Article 8 includes:

Identity
Self-fulfilment
Vocational expression
Chosen family roles
Emotional development
Life design itself

It specifically protects, as the text states, “the freedom to live life as he or she chooses.”
In this light, Westminster’s interventions weren’t procedural — they were existential violations.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this page vindicates the philosophical centre of my claim.

Westminster didn’t just interfere with housing or contact. They erased an entire structure of meaning — one my children and I built through consistent care, homeschooling, daily rituals, sibling support, and an international identity as an American family.

This wasn’t oversight.
It was identity erasure through bureaucracy.

IV. Violations Identified

Article 8 ECHR – Right to Private and Family Life
Violation of Parental Autonomy – Undermining lawful, identity-based parenting
Unjustified Interference in Identity-Defining Roles
Failure to Consider Less Intrusive Alternatives – Blanket removal over collaborative solutions

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not subscribe to the sterile interpretation of private life that begins at the threshold of one’s home and ends at the child protection inbox.

The privacy envisioned by Article 8 is a realm — not a location.
A realm where a human being is free to define meaning through parenting, teaching, protecting, celebrating.

To forcibly remove my children under a pretext that ignores this realm is to commit an act of safetheft — not safeguarding.

We log this page because it makes clear:
Parental identity is not a lifestyle choice.
It is a human right.

Filed with indignation and jurisprudential precision,
✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd.
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

R (Chromatic) v Westminster – On the Inviolability of Domestic Sovereignty and the Umbrella of Dignified Noncompliance

🪞SWANK ENTRY
The Inviolability of the Private Realm
A Treatise on Article 8, Parental Identity, and the Constitutional Boundaries of Bureaucratic Taste

⟡ Filed Under:

Article 8 Violations, Home Intrusions, Intellectual Contempt

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK-HRL-A08-PRIVATE

⟡ PDF Filename:

2025-07-15_Addendum_Article8_PrivateLifeDefinition.pdf

⟡ 1-Line Summary:

Article 8 jurisprudence makes it plain: privacy includes identity, space, selfhood — and Kirsty Hornal had no business interfering with any of it.

I. What Happened

While brandishing the ambiguous sword of “safeguarding,” Kirsty Hornal, acting on behalf of Westminster Children’s Services, breached the constitutional perimeter of private life — a realm explicitly protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and domestically codified through the Human Rights Act 1998.

Her intrusions were neither proportionate nor justified. Her attempt to undermine a lawful parenting model — one grounded in elective home education and intellectual independence — was not only bureaucratically tone-deaf but legally incompatible with every principle Article 8 exists to preserve.

On page 448 of Merris Amos’ Human Rights Law, the principle is articulated with precision: private life encompasses the personal, psychological, and domestic spheres within which individuals form identity, relationships, and meaning. Hornal pierced all three.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This excerpt synthesises decades of judicial reasoning and academic clarity, affirming that:

Private life is not confined to bedrooms and phone calls — it includes identity, parenting philosophy, and personal development.
State interference in these matters must be strictly necessary, demonstrably proportionate, and legally bounded.
Autonomy in parenting is not a form of eccentricity to be managed — it is a manifestation of liberty to be protected.

As Lady Hale writes:

“Article 8 protects two separate but related fundamental values: one is the inviolability of the home and personal communications… the other is the inviolability of a different kind of space – the personal and psychological space within which each individual develops his or her personality and relationships with other people.”

By that definition, Kirsty’s conduct was not safeguarding. It was state-sponsored identity intrusion, masquerading as child welfare.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this single page confirms what SWANK has argued for two relentless years:
Westminster’s interventions were not about child protection — they were about bureaucratic dominance, aesthetic bias, and the discomfort of encountering a mother who refused to submit.

The doctrine of inviolability is not ornamental — it is foundational.
This entry is therefore not just legal commentary. It is a constitutional citation in defence of dignity.

IV. Violations

Article 8 ECHR – Interference with private and family life without lawful necessity
Human Rights Act 1998 – Domestic application ignored by social services
Proportionality Doctrine – Breached by unfounded interventions
Principle of Least Restrictive Interference – Replaced with maximalist oversight for minimal concern

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not file this as mere critique.
We file it as a formal record of State transgression against a parent who had the courage to educate without permission, raise children with vision, and refuse compliance with bureaucratic taste.

Let it be known:
Polly Chromatic did not violate the law.
She embodied it.

And Lady Hale agrees.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

R (Chromatic) v Westminster – On the Improper Denial of Disability Support and the Reversal of Statutory Intent

⟡ Very Very Snobby Post No. 633.A

THE RETALIATORY REMOVAL OF DISABLED CHILDREN IN NEED

Or, How Section 17(10)(c) Was Ignored in Favour of Statutory Amnesia and Bureaucratic Cowardice

Metadata

Filed Date: 13 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A12-S17C-DISABILITYFAILURE
Court File Name: 2025-07-13_Addendum_S17_Failure_DisabilityRights
1-Line Summary: Statutory guidance on children in need was clear. Westminster chose not to read it.

I. What Happened

Between 2023 and 2025, Polly Chromatic, mother of four disabled U.S. citizen children, formally requested disability-related support from Westminster Children’s Services under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

Instead of lawful support, she received:

Silence
Delay
Institutional evasion
And ultimately, retaliatory removal

Westminster failed to:

Conduct assessments
Provide services
Coordinate medical support
Integrate disability accommodations
Or follow legal guidance on how to serve families in need

Instead, they escalated to child removal without lawful threshold, using the absence of services to justify the rupture they caused.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The text of Bromley’s Family Law (p.633) and the Children Act 1989 confirm that:

A disabled child is, by definition, a child in need under s.17(10)(c)
Local authorities must provide services to minimise the effect of disabilities
The duty applies before any safeguarding intervention, not retroactively

Westminster violated every one of these principles:

No disability register
No service integration
No plan
No proportionate justification
No adherence to Articles 3, 23, and 24 of the UNCRC or Article 8 ECHR

Instead, Westminster launched a coordinated reputational attack — distorting disability into dysfunction — then used it to sever the family.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Bromley’s page 633 isn’t hidden. It’s standard.
Because Section 17 isn’t flexible. It’s binding.
Because retaliation isn’t safeguarding. It’s misconduct.

This post documents a reversal of legal intent:
A statutory duty was ignored, then used as a vacuum to justify forced removal.

Every social worker involved had access to this page.
And chose to act as if its contents were negotiable.

They weren’t.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, s.17(1)(a), s.17(1)(b), s.17(10)(c) – Statutory breach
Children Act 2004 – Failure to coordinate or integrate disability support
Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination in service access
ECHR Article 8 – Unlawful interference with family life
UNCRPD Articles 7, 23 – Denial of rights related to disability and family unity
UNCRC Articles 3, 24 – Health, development, and wellbeing actively undermined

V. SWANK’s Position

To deny disability support, then penalise the resulting instability, is not safeguarding — it is sabotage.
To refuse to assist, then remove, is the bureaucratic equivalent of entrapment.

This post is now filed in the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue as part of our:

Retaliation Through Misuse of Law audit
Disability Discrimination Index
And upcoming submissions to international rights bodies

Because support denied is harm inflicted.
And in this case, it was inflicted with full knowledge of its legality — and with contempt for its consequence.

Re: The Doctrine of Discreet Child Exportation

⟡ **“A Letter to Confirm What Should Never Be Conceived” ⟡
— On the Curious Ambition of Relocating Children Without Telling Their Mother

Metadata Block
Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/MOVEMENT/ASSURANCE-REQUEST/2025
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-01_Letter_Westminster_ChildMovementAssuranceRequest.pdf
Formal demand for written assurances against extrajurisdictional removal of U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened
On 1 July 2025, Polly Chromatic issued an urgent letter to Westminster Children’s Services and Legal Services demanding confirmation that no attempt would be made to remove her four U.S. citizen children from England and Wales without her consent.
The impetus? A judicial authorisation to facilitate one-month abscondment in the name of safeguarding, apparently unaware that the term has a threshold above “because we can.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes
• Procedural breaches: tacit permission for cross-border movement without transparent justification
• Human impact: parents compelled to pre-emptively guard against institutional flight
• Power dynamics: the State’s presumption that mobility equals authority
• Institutional failure: no acknowledgement of the diplomatic or medical risks inherent in such a proposition
What is not acceptable:
That legal guardianship is performed like a sleight of hand trick—children vanish by administrative flourish.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because forced relocation by any other name remains forced.
Because the theatre of procedural consent is not consent when parents are relegated to spectators.
Because jurisdiction is not a passport for impunity, even when embossed with a Crown.

IV. Violations
• Article 8 ECHR — right to family life and procedural participation
• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations — failure to inform consular representatives
• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — primacy of the child’s best interests in cross-border removals

V. SWANK’s Position
This was not a safeguard.
This was the administrative choreography of disappearance.
⟡ We do not accept that relocation can be procedurally legitimised by opacity.
⟡ We do not accept that diplomatic obligations are optional accessories to safeguarding.
We will record every threatened departure—because transparency is not elective.

⟡ 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 threatened abscondment deserves an archive.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

A Doctrine on Distrust

Metadata

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ The Father’s Service Certificate ⟡

Metadata

I. What Happened

II. What the Certificate Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ Father Contact Protocol — Weekly Service Addendum ⟡

Metadata

I. What Happened

II. What the Addendum Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ The Integrity of Court vs. The Chaos of Westminster ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

👑 A Velvet Misdiagnosis

Or, Why Sewer Gas Isn’t a Parenting Style and Misreading Medical Files Doesn’t Count as Safeguarding

Metadata

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

🪞COOPERATION IS NOT CONSENT

In which the mother participates without surrender, and the State’s baseless referrals are politely declined through procedural contempt.

Filed: 4 August 2025

Reference Code: SWANK-AUP-2025-08

PDF Filename: 2025-08-04_SWANK_Addendum_AssessmentsUnderProtest.pdf

Summary: Mother agrees to assessments under protest, affirming that participation does not ratify the illegality, falsehoods, or retaliatory basis of the safeguarding regime.

I. What Happened

II. What This Filing Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations and Legal Framework

V. SWANK’s Position

The Doctrine of Invisible Interference

I. WHAT HAPPENED

II. WHAT THIS ESTABLISHES

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

IV. LEGAL BREACHES

V. SWANK’S POSITION

🌬️ THE AIR THEY DARE TO BLOCK

On the Mandatory Asthma Appointments They Must Honour, or Be Liable for Breach of Safeguarding and Breath

I. What Happened

II. What the Letter Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations (If Ignored)

V. SWANK’s Position

💎 THE CONTACT CORRECTION

On the Reassertion of Lawful Contact Rights and the Collapse of the Local Authority’s Procedural Theatre

I. What Happened

II. What the Statement Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ THE ART OF BREACH IN BUREAUCRATIC INK

I. What Happened

II. What This Correspondence Proves

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ Filed Date:

⟡ Reference Code:

⟡ Court Filename:

⟡ One-Line Summary:

I. What Happened

II. What This Confirms

III. Why SWANK Logged It