“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 Wilful Neglect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wilful Neglect. Show all posts

Chromatic v Newman (Supervisory Retaliation: Silence, Neglect & Institutional Harm)


CRIMINAL FILING – PRIVATE PROSECUTION BUNDLE

Polly Chromatic v Sarah Newman

on the Matter of Wilful Retaliation, Supervisory Negligence, and Strategic Silence

Filed: 26 July 2025

Reference: SWANK-SN-PP-0726

Court File Name: 2025-07-26_CriminalProsecution_SarahNewman_WilfulRetaliation.pdf

One-line Summary:

Private criminal prosecution bundle filed against Ms. Sarah Newman for supervisory complicity, unlawful silence, and procedural evasion under active safeguarding harm.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

Despite receiving dozens of documented objections, oversight notifications, and statutory clarifications, Ms. Sarah Newman – Executive Director of Bi-Borough Children’s Services – remained silent in the face of escalating procedural breaches, emotional harm, and retaliatory interference against the mother and four U.S. citizen children.

Throughout 2024–2025, she was directly copied on more than 60 formal communications, all evidencing:

  • Contact obstruction and material deprivation

  • Misuse of safeguarding authority

  • Evasive documentation practices

  • Endangerment of medically vulnerable children

At no point did Ms. Newman issue a corrective action, initiate inquiry, or uphold her duty of review. She has instead engaged in strategic omission, allowing misconduct to proliferate under her administrative supervision.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

This filing lays criminal information for:

  • Misconduct in Public Office (Common Law)

  • Wilful Neglect of Duty (Children and Young Persons Act 1933)

  • Complicity in Perverting the Course of Justice

  • Disability-Based Discrimination (Equality Act 2010)

The evidence includes all emails, assessments, objections, and procedural notices from March–July 2025. These documents show that Ms. Newman knowingly permitted unlawful conduct by her social work team, specifically:

  • Kirsty Hornal,

  • Sam Brown,

  • and other caseworkers under her direct line of authority.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because inaction is not neutral.
Because bureaucratic silence is not impartial.
Because willful blindness from senior leadership is criminal when children are harmed.

SWANK has now submitted three criminal prosecution bundles—each evidencing a coordinated institutional patternof:

  • Evidence suppression

  • Disability erasure

  • Judicial interference

  • Emotional sabotage

Ms. Newman’s supervisory position renders her directly accountable. Her refusal to intervene renders her legally liable.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Common Law Misconduct in Public Office

  • Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s.1

  • Perverting the Course of Justice

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6, 8, 14

  • Equality Act 2010 – Sections 15, 19, 20, 21

  • Children Act 1989 – Sections 17, 47, 22(4)

V. SWANK’S POSITION

Ms. Newman’s failure to protect the procedural, emotional, and educational welfare of the children under her care—despite full briefing and repeated warnings—constitutes a grave dereliction of public duty.

She is no longer a neutral party in this case. She is a named and prosecutable defendant.

This bundle is a formal laying of information to Westminster Magistrates' Court. The filing was submitted alongside a complete evidentiary bundle and master record of all prior communications.

🪞Mirror Court Note

Silence at the top is a decision.
Neglect at this level is orchestration.
SWANK has filed what she ignored.

⚖️ 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:

Chromatic v Westminster: On the Futility of Appeasement Following State-Sanctioned Child Seizure


⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

Filed date: 21 July 2025

Reference Code: SWANK-FV-WCC0623
PDF Filename: 2025-07-21_SWANK_Declaration_Westminster_NoAppeasement.pdf
1-Line Summary: Westminster cannot repair what they have done — they will be held accountable until justice for the children is achieved.

I. What Happened

Let us be absolutely clear: there is nothing Westminster can do to appease me at this point. The threshold for reconciliation was obliterated the moment they harmed my children.

This is not a dispute.
It is a reckoning.

On 23 June 2025, five police officers — with full support from Westminster Children’s Services — stormed our home and forcibly removed four U.S. citizen children from the only safe, medically monitored, and emotionally attuned environment they had ever known.

They did not pause to consider:
– the children's diagnosed asthma,
– the trauma of being separated from their mother,
– the absence of lawful grounds for such a violent intrusion.

It was not protection.
It was an ambush.

My children experienced the worst possible event imaginable — and Westminster sanctioned it with silence, with arrogance, and with procedural deceit.

There is no excuse for Westminster's lack of maturity.  

II. What the Statement Establishes

This is no longer about appeals, discussions, or good faith cooperation.
This is escalation.

Escalation into every tribunal, every chamber, every court.
Escalation into diplomatic corridors, oversight agencies, international rights bodies, and — if necessary — every page of public history.

Westminster has long misunderstood the scale of their error.
They assumed I was one mother.
They forgot I am also a mechanism.

A procedural intermediary.
A federal rights advocate.
And now, an author of the record they will one day be forced to answer to.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because my children have not been allowed to speak —
So I will.
Because my children have not been allowed to feel —
So I will.

Because the fear that Westminster inflicted on them deserves a public, elegant, and irreversible response.

They created this archive.
I simply filed it.

IV. Violations

  • Article 8 ECHR – Unlawful interference with private and family life

  • Children Act 1989, Section 22 – Failure to consider welfare and voice of child

  • Equality Act 2010 – Ignored disability accommodations and safeguarding history

  • UNCRC Articles 3, 7, 9, 12, 19, 23, 24, 39 – Systematic violation of child rights

  • Common Law Misconduct – Abuse of public authority without accountability

  • Wilful Neglect – Failure to prevent foreseeable harm during seizure

  • Harassment and Retaliation – Ongoing procedural targeting of a protective mother

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not repairable.
No apology will be accepted.
No compromise will be reached.
No soft diplomacy will dilute the trauma my children endured.

It is now time for Westminster to feel what they refused to feel on 23 June —
Fear, consequence, and exposure.

This post is not vengeance.
It is jurisdictional memory.

You cannot take my children and expect silence.
You cannot harm a family and expect stillness.

We escalate.

Because you did.

SWANK London Ltd – Where negligence meets its archivist.

⚖️ 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:

In the Matter of State Power Wielded Without Conscience: Re Westminster Children’s Services and the Velvet Reckoning of Criminal Liability


⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

Filed Date: 21 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-CR-WCC0225
PDF Filename: 2025-07-21_SWANK_CriminalLiability_WestminsterChildrenServices.pdf
1-Line Summary: Westminster Children’s Services and named officials now face criminal exposure under four high-order public justice statutes.

THE CRIMES THAT WESTMINSTER NOW FACES

A Catalogue of Institutional Criminal Liability

Affiliated Officers: Hornal, Brown, Newman, and Legal Counsel

I. Misconduct in Public Office (Common Law)

Maximum Sentence: Life imprisonment
Venue: Crown Court or higher
Legal Context:
This ancient common law offence applies when a public officer, acting in their official capacity, willfully neglects to perform their duty or willfully misconducts themselves, to such a degree that it constitutes an abuse of the public's trust.

In this case:
– Retaliatory safeguarding
– False referrals based on disproven allegations
– Suppression of disability accommodations
– Strategic obfuscation of procedural rights
All satisfy the threshold of deliberate abuse of state power, causing foreseeable harm to vulnerable children.

II. Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997)

Maximum Sentence:
– 6 months (Magistrates’)
– 5 years (Crown), plus Restraining Orders
Legal Context:
A course of conduct that amounts to harassment — including unwanted contact, surveillance-style visits, and persistent interference with daily life or health — especially where this conduct is repeated and targets an individual under the guise of professional authority.

In this case:
– Coercive correspondence
– Surveillance-like pop-ins
– Email threats against protected contact
– Suppression of lawful parenting

The actions are neither benign nor bureaucratic. They are strategically injurious — and documentably so.

III. Perverting the Course of Justice

Venue: Always Crown Court
Maximum Sentence: Up to 7 years
Legal Context:
This offence is reserved for the most serious misconduct involving fabrication, misrepresentation, or obstruction of the justice process.

In this case:
– Knowingly filing referrals based on disproven incidents
– Misrepresenting home conditions without lawful entry
– Manipulating contact restrictions
– Blocking evidence submission

The law is explicit: when public servants distort the judicial process to achieve an outcome they could not lawfully obtain, they are no longer acting lawfully at all.

IV. Wilful Neglect (Children and Young Persons Act 1933)

Maximum Sentence: 10 years
Venue: Either-way offence
Legal Context:
Where any person who has responsibility for a child willfully neglects that child in a manner likely to cause suffering or serious impairment, they may be criminally liable.

In this case:
– Unjustified removal from stable home
– Denial of medical continuity
– Isolation from siblings and parents
– Suppression of educational access

The harm is not theoretical. It is measured in A&E records, missed schooling, trauma symptoms, and state-led fragmentation of a bonded family unit.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not merely a child welfare dispute. It is a multi-agency cover-up, wrapped in safeguarding language, and executed by officers who confused state power for personal impunity.

Let it be formally recorded:

  • These actions meet the criteria for criminal prosecution.

  • The evidence is already filed, served, and indexed.

  • The Crown now has a choice: intervene, or become complicit.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer

This SWANK dispatch is filed as part of a private evidentiary record, legal complaint archive, and prosecutorial precursor. All references to named individuals refer strictly to professional actions already submitted in legal proceedings or formal complaints. This post is not defamatory — it is documentary.

Protected under:
– Article 10, ECHR
– Section 12, Human Rights Act 1998
– Civil Procedure Rules (Disclosure)
– Crown Prosecution Guidelines on Public Interest

This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic indictment.
Filed with solemn scorn.
Backed by statute.
Drenched in velvet fury.

© SWANK London Ltd. 2025.

⚖️ 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: