PC-477: When Men Mistake Their Proximity to a Courtroom for Proximity to God

⟡ Addendum: On the Intimidation of Witnesses Who Refuse to Be Convenient ⟡

Filed: 28 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/CRIM/INTIMIDATION-477
Download PDF: 2025-07-28_Core_PC-477_CriminalCourt_DouglasKalisa-WitnessIntimidation.pdf
Summary: A study in cowardice — the art of silencing truth under the pretext of procedure.

---

I. What Happened

Following formal proceedings in the criminal courts, one Douglas Kalisa engaged in a campaign of psychological intimidation aimed at the primary witness — a mother, disabled, articulate, and therefore intolerable to mediocrities.

His conduct, though veiled in procedural theatre, bore the usual hallmarks of a small man clutching institutional favour: veiled threats, strategic “concern,” and public pretence of professional duty.
Every exchange reeked of insecurity disguised as authority — the bureaucratic scent of cheap cologne and unchecked ego.

---

II. What the Document Establishes

• That witness intimidation need not arrive with a weapon — it may simply arrive with credentials.
• That misconduct is most comfortably performed by those with job titles to hide behind.
• That institutional men, when confronted by women of intellect, tend to confuse discomfort with danger.
• That the criminal court, ever the theatre of masculine melodrama, remains indifferent so long as the paperwork is polite.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because intimidation is not a side effect of justice — it is the costume in which injustice performs respectability.
SWANK logged this to remind the record that civility is not virtue, that tone is not truth, and that professional correspondence can constitute abuse when delivered with calculated condescension.

Every page of this entry is an indictment in couture: calm diction, scathing precision, and the quiet satisfaction of refusing to flinch.

---

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s.51 — intimidation of witnesses.
• Equality Act 2010, s.26 — harassment related to disability and sex.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 6 — right to fair participation without fear.
• Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct — apparently treated as a suggestion.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “professional correspondence.”
This is bureaucratic thuggery in Oxford commas.

We do not accept the erosion of safety as procedural inevitability.
We reject the theatre of intimidation staged in the name of order.
We will record every whisper of coercion until the archive itself testifies.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every footnote is a dagger. Every sentence is lacquered contempt. Every paragraph, a lesson in how elegance can bruise.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd (United Kingdom) and SWANK London LLC (United States of America). Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. Every division operates under dual sovereignty: UK evidentiary law and U.S. constitutional speech protection. 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 ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, alongside 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 International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards, registered under SWANK London Ltd (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA). © 2025 SWANK London Ltd (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA) All formatting, typographic, and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

Chromatic v. Kalisa (Narrative Reversal via Threat Memo)

---

🪞SWANK London Ltd

WITNESS INTIMIDATION & SECURITY RETALIATION – PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Filed Against Douglas Kalisa, Security Officer, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

---

Metadata

Filed Date: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-DK-LOI-0729
Court File: 2025-07-29_CriminalProsecution_DouglasKalisa_WitnessIntimidation.pdf
Summary:
SWANK files a private criminal prosecution against hospital security officer Douglas Kalisa for retaliatory conduct, witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice following a racially aggravated attack at St Thomas' Hospital.

---

I. What Happened

On 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic was verbally attacked by a black female patient at St Thomas’ Hospital while attending A&E in respiratory distress, accompanied by her minor (mixed-race) daughter. Despite being the victim of the attack — and medically compromised — she was denied treatment, subjected to a false safeguarding referral, and later blamed for the incident by hospital security.

Douglas Kalisa, acting in his capacity as security officer, later issued a written letter which:

• Misrepresented the nature of the January 2 incident

• Omitted all reference to the original attack against the claimant

• Threatened or implied blame in a manner likely to suppress further reporting

This letter, delivered weeks later, constituted not just a procedural error — but a retaliatory act against a mother who had the temerity to speak up. The CPS later escalated a criminal case against her. CCTV footage was never retrieved. Treatment was never provided. Her children were later taken.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

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

• Witness Intimidation

• Perverting the Course of Justice

• Harassment with Institutional Impact

• Collusion in Safeguarding Retaliation

The retaliatory letter authored by Mr. Kalisa is now formally submitted as evidence — alongside the medical timeline, safeguarding fallout, and police complaint filed on 8 April 2024.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because victims of racial abuse should not receive threats on letterhead.
Because mothers in respiratory crisis should not be followed home by police after being denied care.
Because when hospital security aligns itself with false safeguarding narratives, the result is not order — it is medical authoritarianism, and it leaves children in danger.

This was not protection. This was punishment.

---

IV. Violations

• Issuance of retaliatory correspondence after institutional misconduct

• Suppression of police report context (Ref: TAA-15934-24-0101-IR)

• Failure to disclose CCTV footage from the incident site

• Contribution to subsequent medical and family breakdown via written intimidation

---

V. SWANK’s Position

Mr. Kalisa’s actions were neither neutral nor bureaucratic. They were charged, calculated, and designed to intimidate. He did not just ignore the assault — he authored its official reversal.

This prosecution marks the beginning of formal accountability for all those who tried to rewrite reality in a hospital hallway. Your badge does not shield you from justice. Your clipboard does not erase causality.

When the mother gasped for breath, the system chose to stifle her voice instead.

---

⚖️ 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.