Chromatic v. Moise (Confident Obstruction in the Name of Legal Process)

---

🪞SWANK London Ltd

LEGAL MISDIRECTION & SAFEGUARDING COLLUSION – PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Filed Against Rosita Moise, Legal Officer, Westminster City Council Children’s Services

---

Metadata

Filed Date: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-RM-LOI-0729
Court File: 2025-07-29_CriminalProsecution_RositaMoise_LegalCollusionAndRetaliation.pdf
Summary:
SWANK files a private criminal prosecution against Rosita Moise for deliberate legal obstruction, collusion in safeguarding retaliation, and misconduct during a live emergency removal of four U.S. citizen children.

---

I. What Happened

In late June 2025, while the Emergency Protection Order (EPO) was executed against the mother and four minor children, Rosita Moise, acting in her capacity as Westminster legal counsel, issued a series of evasive, misleading, and hostile communications.

Rather than responding to lawful applications, Rosita spent her days:

• Misrepresenting the scope of the Family Procedure Rules

• Demanding compliance with procedures she herself refused to follow

• Gaslighting written-only requests and court-endorsed disability accommodations

• Aligning with obstructive safeguarding actors while undermining the family’s legal capacity

She did not serve justice. She served procedural sabotage with a lowercase "s."

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This Laying of Information, filed under Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, includes allegations of:

• Misconduct in Public Office

• Perverting the Course of Justice

• Obstruction of Lawful Application Procedures

• Complicity in the Unlawful Removal of U.S. Citizen Children

The evidence includes over a dozen emails in which Ms. Moise, when faced with valid procedural queries, responded not with accuracy — but with threat, dismissal, or outright contradiction.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a mother asks how to file a court application, a legal officer should not respond with a wall of red tape dipped in contempt.

Because this officer had a professional duty not to mislead — and she chose to weaponise uncertainty.

Because institutional chaos is not a defence. It is a strategy, and Rosita executed it with unnerving poise.

---

IV. Violations

• Knowingly issuing false claims about court filing status

• Obstructing or ignoring valid applications (N244, C100, C2)

• Failing to acknowledge written-only disability accommodations under Equality Act 2010

• Deliberate suppression of family court access during safeguarding dispute

• Contributing to the unlawful restriction of four U.S. citizen minors

---

V. SWANK’s Position

Rosita Moise was not confused. She was performing obstruction in silk-lined gloves.

Her role was not to adjudicate — it was to assist in stripping a mother’s legal footing while children were held under false pretext. Her confidence was not based in law, but in impunity.

This prosecution is now filed — and no email header, job title, or “we believe this matter is resolved” footer will erase it. She was not just part of the system. She was key to its failure.

---

⚖️ 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 the Matter of Flag Cards, Braided Hair, and the Right to Ride One’s Bike: Contact Observations Under Procedural Surveillance

On the Restriction of Bikes, Braids, and Breathing
SWANK London Ltd. v. Westminster Children’s Services

---

Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference: SWL-CF-0707-CALLLOG-01
PDF Filename: 2025-07-07_SWANK_Addendum_MonitoredCallFindings.pdf
Summary: Children reveal institutional interference with medical, educational, cultural, and physical freedoms during a contact session monitored by named defendant.

---

I. What Happened

On 7 July 2025, during a supervised contact call between Polly Chromatic and her four U.S. citizen children, monitored by social worker Kirsty Hornal, the children disclosed:

• Romeo (16) was told by Kirsty he is no longer allowed to ride a bike

• Romeo said he missed a previous call because no one informed him

• He must now ask social workers for permission to go to the gym

• All four children had recently been ill, though currently breathing “okay”

• Medical appointments at Hammersmith Hospital were cancelled without notice

• They have been registered at a new GP and are being moved to a new dentist and school without parental consultation

• Romeo and Honor asked to have their hair braided but were told they need maternal permission, which social workers are otherwise circumventing

Despite this, the children engaged warmly in flag card activities, Honor shared her drawings, and Polly reassured them that hearings were imminent and legal filings were ongoing.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• The Local Authority continues to act in ways that disrupt identity, suppress autonomy, and undermine medical and cultural continuity

• Kirsty Hornal, who is a named civil defendant and subject of multiple police reports, continues to monitor and limit contact

• The children’s disclosure of illness, restricted movement, silencing, and surveillance reflects both procedural collapse and emotional harm

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This call is a primary-source event, revealing in real time the extent to which safeguarding powers are being exercised not for protection, but for control.

SWANK London Ltd. files this as evidence of:

• Procedural Retaliation

• Cultural Suppression

• Disabled Medical Rights Interference

• Emotional Neglect and Surveillance Trauma

---

IV. Violations

• Article 8 – ECHR: Right to family life

• Children Act 1989: Parental Responsibility breaches

• Equality Act 2010: Cultural expression and disability accommodation ignored

• UNCRC Article 12 & 24: Children not consulted in decisions about their lives or health

---

V. SWANK’s Position

The continued use of monitored video calls by conflicted parties, coupled with the Local Authority’s covert assumption of parental powers, constitutes both legal usurpation and institutional intimidation.

SWANK views the restriction of a teenage boy’s bike use, and the denial of gym, grooming, and medical continuity, as a regime of child inconvenience, not child protection.

We assert that the children’s disclosure of illness, frustration, and lost routines under monitored conditions validates the mother’s immediate return application and Judicial Review.

They miss their home. They want their hair braided. They want to breathe without permission.

---

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.