“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 ICO Discharge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ICO Discharge. Show all posts

On False Foundations, Retaliatory Escalation, and the Judicial Duty of Anxious Scrutiny


⟡ N244 Application Bundle – Strike Out or Vary Interim Care Orders ⟡

Filed: 22 September 2025 — precisely 08:00 hours
Reference: SWANK/N244/ICO/2025-09-21

Download PDF: 2025-09-21_N244_StrikeOutOrVaryICO_Bundle.pdf

Summary: Core bundle application to dismiss or vary Interim Care Orders dated 23 June 2025, with support and annexed evidence establishing disproven allegations, procedural abuse, and rights violations.

I. What Happened

• On 21 September 2025, the Applicant filed an N244 Application in the Central Family Court (Case ZC25C50281).
• Relief sought: strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process (FPR 4.4), or in the alternative, discharge the ICO and direct immediate reunification of the children.
• Grounds: false intoxication allegation disproven by NHS Resolution and oxygen evidence; procedural defects; welfare harm; breaches of Children Act 1989; violations of Equality Act 2010 and Articles 6 & 8 ECHR.

II. What the Document Establishes

• The ICO rests on a false foundation: a misread oxygen saturation chart at St Thomas’ Hospital, reframed as “intoxication.”
• Procedural lawlessness: coercive misuse of s.20, disregard for welfare checklist, children’s voices silenced.
• Welfare collapse: disrupted homeschooling, asthma instability, belongings withheld.
• Human rights infringed: separation disproportionate, discriminatory, and irrational.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve the judicial record of retaliatory escalation: Audit Demand → Cease & Desist → PLO → EPO → ICO.
• To demonstrate that state safeguarding powers were weaponised not for welfare, but to deflect liability.
• To anchor dismissal in Bromley’s authority (consent must be real, voluntary, informed) and Amos’ doctrine (proportionality is non-negotiable).

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Children Act 1989 – s.1, s.22 duties to promote upbringing within the family.
• FPR 4.4 – abuse of process justifies strike-out.
• Equality Act 2010 – breach of reasonable adjustments, indirect discrimination.
• ECHR Articles 6 & 8 – fair trial, family life.
• Case Law – Re B-S, Re C, Mabon, Johansen v Norway, Neulinger & Shuruk v Switzerland.
• Academic Anchors – Bromley’s Family Law; Amos, Human Rights Law.

V. SWANK’s Position

The ICO is not safeguarding — it is institutional retaliation draped in judicial costume.

We do not accept foundations built on falsity.
We reject coercion dressed as consent.
We document the retaliatory sequence until the Court itself cannot look away.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

Every allegation disproven. Every procedural breach annotated. Because a false order deserves not variation but extinction.

⚖️ 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: