Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): attorney general letter

Showing posts with label attorney general letter. Show all posts

Dear Attorney General, Please Remind Them I Can Read

⚖️ SWANK Dispatch: When the Law Is Clear but the Social Workers Pretend It Isn’t

🗓️ 15 July 2020

Filed Under: legal noncompliance, homeschool discrimination, child trauma, ignored statutory rights, medical abuse, Attorney General outreach, safeguarding hypocrisy, institutional harassment

“You can’t claim to protect children while ignoring the laws that do.”
— A Mother Who Has Read the Ordinance

To the Honourable Archive,

Three and a half years. That’s how long I endured harassment under the guise of safeguarding. The truth? It began when I chose to homeschool — legally, with full approval. But instead of respect, I received retaliation.

By 15 July 2020, I had exhausted polite routes. My letters to Ashley Adams-Forbes were ignored. My request to the Complaints Commissioner was met with silence. So I wrote to Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles, the Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands — not for favour, but for the enforcement of law.

📚 I. The Legal Requirement They Pretended Not to Know

According to the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015, a report must be provided to the parent of any child under investigation — unless a legitimate safety risk or criminal investigation precludes it.

I received nothing.
No report.
No explanation.
No lawful justification.

Just ongoing interference and unexplained intrusions into our private life.

🧠 II. The Consequences Were Not Administrative — They Were Traumatic

• My children were harmed by a doctor at the National Hospital — a violation directly facilitated by the system allegedly meant to protect them.
• They were subjected to emotional and psychological abuse from social work practices.
• They were never told why. And neither was I.

How can one teach one’s children to trust institutions when the institutions refuse to explain themselves?

⚠️ III. Polite Requests Were Ignored. Legal Duties Were Not Fulfilled.

The response to my formal concern was:

🫥 Silence from the Complaints Commissioner
🫥 No report from the Department of Social Development
🫥 Ongoing surveillance without grounds

Is it incompetence? Or just impunity?

⚖️ Final Plea to Power:

“I would also like to ask you to please use your power as Attorney General to ensure that the Department of Social Development follow the Turks and Caicos Law.”

This was not a request for favour.
It was a demand for lawful governance.
Whether or not she responded, the record now stands.

When the Harassers Quote Policy, We Quote Law.

⟡ We Quoted the Law. They Ignored It. So We Wrote to the Attorney General. ⟡

Filed: 15 July 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-AG-KNOWLES-LEGAL-INQUIRY
📎 Download PDF — 2020-07-15_SWANK_TCI_AG_RhondaleeKnowles_SocialDevHarassment_LegalAdviceRequest.pdf

I. This Is What We Do When Bureaucracy Pretends It Can’t Read

This letter was sent to Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles, Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands, in response to three years of:

Procedural harassment
Disregard of lawful home education
Failure to acknowledge disability
Repeated safeguarding theatre with no evidentiary base

It was not a complaint. It was a summons to reason — framed not in desperation, but in jurisdictional symmetry.

We cited their statutes.
We clarified their duties.
We annotated their silence.

II. What the Letter Actually Demands

This document:

Invokes specific TCI ordinances
Questions the lawful basis of Social Development’s interference
Demands clarification of the Department’s jurisdictional reach
Establishes a record of prior compliance with every legal requirement

It is not rhetorical.
It is pre-litigious, and exquisitely so.

It asks:

What is the lawful basis for your surveillance when no statutory breach has occurred?

And it dares them to reply.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when local officers overreach, we go to Cabinet-level counsel.
Because silence is no longer a shield when it’s filed in writing.
Because after three years of unsolicited visits, demands, and distortions — we asked the AG to confirm what the law actually says.

Let the record show:

The letter was sent
The children were documented
The law was quoted
The surveillance — was acknowledged by omission

This is not an “inquiry.”
It is a velvet ceasefire offer backed by law.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not consider maternal self-sufficiency a risk.
We do not believe that home education negates citizenship.
We do not accept that child welfare permits procedural trespass.