“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

Documented Obsessions

Showing posts with label Jurisdictional Failure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jurisdictional Failure. Show all posts

Chromatic v Brown (Safeguarding Bias and International Disregard)


⟡ "Biased Brown and the Fall of Procedural Pretence" ⟡
A Managerial Misstep in Four Acts – Misconduct, Misfire, Misjudgment, Mismanagement

Filed: 27 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/REQUEST/0627-RSB
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-27_SWANK_Request_RemoveSamBrown_ProceduralBiasAndJurisdictionalMismanagement.pdf
1-line summary: Formal request for removal of Sam Brown due to procedural bias, retaliatory conduct, and failure to acknowledge legal jurisdiction.

I. What Happened

Sam Brown, positioned as a managerial representative of Westminster Children’s Services, failed to act with impartiality, legality, or procedural integrity during the events leading up to and following the 23 June 2025 police-facilitated removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children. Despite formal legal redirection and ongoing judicial review, Mr. Brown persisted in acting unilaterally, defensively, and outside the bounds of lawful engagement.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural bias incompatible with safeguarding neutrality

  • Email responses reflecting retaliatory tone following SWANK and Embassy filings

  • Disregard for legal service and diplomatic implications

  • Complicity in unlawful removal without notice, documentation, or jurisdictional clarity

  • Ongoing obstruction of transparency and trust within the family proceedings

III. Why SWANK Logged It

When a child protection officer becomes a mechanism of institutional harm, removal is not optional—it is judicial hygiene. The integrity of safeguarding depends on the credibility of its agents. This post joins a documented pattern of retaliation, bypass, and silence. We log what others dismiss.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Sections 22(4), 47(5)

  • ECHR Article 8 – Right to family life

  • Vienna Convention – Failure to consider consular implications

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability-based retaliation in process and treatment

V. SWANK’s Position

Sam Brown is not a neutral party.
He is an instrument of evasion, not protection.
His continued involvement imperils the procedural integrity of the case and corrodes the authority of the Family Court.
He must be removed.

⟡ 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: