“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 attorney general complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attorney general complaint. Show all posts

Chromatic v Lawlessness – On the Unacceptable Reality of Being Smarter Than Your Own Government


⚖️ Lawyer Up, or Stand Down: The Ordinance Wasn’t Optional

⟡ A Third Formal Letter to the Attorney General Regarding Social Development’s Legal Breach and Persistent Harassment

IN THE MATTER OF: Unlawful Investigations, Unacknowledged Complaints, and the Collapse of Basic Statutory Integrity

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 15 July 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-AG-LEGAL-BREACH
Court File Name: 2020-07-15_Court_Letter_AG_TCI_SocialDevComplaint_LegalBreach
Summary: A final, lawyer-level request for intervention sent to the Attorney General, laying out the Department of Social Development’s sustained violation of Section 17(6) of the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015. It includes a timeline of harassment, evidence of ignored complaints, and a demand for legal accountability — all composed with civility sharp enough to draw blood.

I. What Happened

This letter marks the third formal outreach to Attorney General Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles regarding a 3.5-year unlawful safeguarding investigation. Polly Chromatic (then legally Noelle Bonneannée) presents:

  • A documented history of harassment initiated by her decision to homeschool

  • Clear evidence of statutory breach, including failure to provide a required investigation report

  • Evidence of trauma, including medical abuse and psychological harm

  • Repeated dismissal by local authority figures (e.g. Ashley Adams-Forbes)

  • And complete non-response from the Complaints Commissioner

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That the Department of Social Development is operating in breach of TCI law

  • That the family has experienced institutional abuse disguised as oversight

  • That the required outcome report under §17(6) was never produced

  • That no exemptions under §17(7) apply — no safety risk, no criminal proceedings

  • That all attempts at resolution through internal complaints channels have failed

  • That the Attorney General is being asked — politely — to do her job

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what it looks like when a citizen knows the law better than the people paid to enforce it. Because law is not something you “interpret” when it’s inconvenient. Because citing subsection 17(6) three times in two weeks should not be necessary — and yet here we are. Because when a state agent ignores her duties, a mother with documentation becomes more powerful than the director of safeguarding.

IV. Violations

  • Breach of Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance §17(6)

  • Unlawful and indefinite investigation with no report or plan

  • Denial of justice through ignored formal complaints

  • Emotional and medical harm inflicted on minors through procedural negligence

  • Failure of oversight at both departmental and AG levels

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this document as a final escalation in defence of legal reality. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

  • That procedural clarity is not a privilege — it’s a statutory requirement

  • That unending investigation is indistinguishable from harassment

  • That trauma does not disappear because it was inflicted by a state actor

  • And that no mother should be forced to remind the Attorney General of her own jurisdiction

⟡ 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:

Chromatic v. Indefinite Surveillance – On the Legal, Moral, and Maternal Demand for Closure


🧠 The Law Is Clear. The Department Is Not.

⟡ A Second Letter to the Attorney General Concerning Social Development’s Legal Amnesia, Homeschool Sabotage, and Psychological Harm

IN THE MATTER OF: Institutional Harassment, Legal Violations, and the Unacceptable Cost of Having an Intelligent Family in a System Built for Compliance

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 15 July 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-AG-HOMESCHOOL-HARASSMENT
Court File Name: 2020-07-15_Court_Letter_AG_TCI_SocialDev_Harassment_Homeschool_Trauma
Summary: A calm but brutal letter to Attorney General Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles requesting legal intervention after 3.5 years of unlawful surveillance by Social Development in Grand Turk. It outlines repeated statutory violations, emotional harm to the children, and total disregard for the legal rights of the mother — including her right to receive a formal investigative report, as required by the Children Ordinance. It is simultaneously a request, a warning, and a record.

I. What Happened

After homeschooling her children with formal approval since 2017, Polly Chromatic (then writing as Noelle Bonneannée) found herself locked in an ongoing battle with Social Development — one defined by unannounced visits, gendered dismissal, and total procedural incoherence. This second letter to the Attorney General makes several things clear:

  • That her children have suffered trauma due to departmental interference

  • That no report has ever been issued regarding the so-called “investigation”

  • That statutory law requires such a report

  • That the department has never articulated risk, resolution, or purpose

  • That her patience has limits, and her legal literacy has not

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015 §17(6) requires delivery of an investigation report to parents

  • That this report was never provided, violating clear legal mandate

  • That the Complaints Commissioner has also failed to respond

  • That the social work department is operating beyond the bounds of its legal authority

  • That institutional involvement has caused documented psychological and emotional harm to the children

  • That the mother’s educational rights have been obstructed, not protected

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no mother should have to beg the Attorney General to get the state to follow its own laws. Because quoting subsection 17(6) is not a flex — it’s a survival tactic. Because legal letters should not be the last refuge of families trying to be left alone, but they are. And because if trauma is caused by the very system tasked with preventing it, then the system is not broken — it’s abusive by design.

IV. Violations

  • Statutory breach of §17(6) of the Children Ordinance

  • Failure to produce mandatory investigation report

  • Inaction on formal complaints submitted to oversight bodies

  • Psychological harm inflicted on children through needless surveillance

  • Harassment under the guise of safeguarding

  • Gendered and philosophical bias against lawful homeschool families

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this letter as a formal record of legal insubordination by the state, and a tribute to the author’s relentless command of dignity under duress. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

  • That quoting the law to the state is not hostility — it’s clarity

  • That 3.5 years without findings is not oversight — it’s state gaslighting

  • That trauma inflicted under the name of protection is still trauma

  • And that a woman who writes two letters to the Attorney General in the same week while raising four children and running an educational programme is not to be underestimated

⟡ 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:

We Obeyed Everything. They Protected Nothing.


⟡ To the Attorney General: A Letter of Exhausted Obedience ⟡

Filed: 15 July 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-LTR-AG
📎 Download PDF — 2020-07-15_SWANK_TCI_Letter_AG_SocialDevComplaint_AAdamsF_MGarland_LegalBreach.pdf

I. 3.5 Years of Obedience. Zero Years of Protection.

This is the formal complaint submitted to the Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands after three and a half years of unlawful surveillance, unsolicited home visits, and jurisdictional harassment conducted under the banner of “child welfare.”

The social workers had no statutory grounds.
The complainant had done nothing unlawful.
And yet the oversight never arrived.

This is not a cry for help. It is a declaration of exhaustion by compliance — where every deadline was met, every form submitted, and every demand answered.

And still, the harassment continued.

II. The Allegations (Which the State Refused to Answer)

This letter details:

  • The refusal of Social Development officers to acknowledge eosinophilic asthma and shielding status

  • Repeated attempts to gain access to a medically vulnerable household

  • The unlawful collection of documents, IDs, and health details under threat

  • The systemic disregard of the Education Ordinance, which the parent complied with in full

What should have been a closed file became a test of endurance:
How long could one family obey before someone would protect them?

III. Named, Filed, and Remembered

The document includes reference to:

  • Ashley Adams-Forbes, Deputy Director of Social Development

  • Mark Garland, Director of Education

  • Unnamed truancy officers, whose visits were intrusive, unnecessary, and medically reckless

Each name is preserved not for vengeance, but for record integrity.
We do not redact the people who refused to act — even when warned.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not consider silence a lawful response.
We do not consider “reviewing your complaint” a substitute for action.
We do not confuse colonial politeness with compliance with law.

This letter is not rhetorical. It is procedural.

It is addressed to the Attorney General — because every other official had already failed.

Let the record show:

  • The timeline was sent

  • The medical harm was detailed

  • The education laws were quoted

  • The silence was documented, dated, and filed




No comments: