“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 coordinated retaliation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coordinated retaliation. Show all posts

Re Chromatic – On the Strategic Malfeasance of Hornal & Brown


Hornal & Brown – Coordinated Retaliation, Documented and Distributed

A Chronology of Harassment, Fabrication, and Evasive Bureaucracy in Velvet Detail

Metadata

  • Filed: 10 July 2025

  • Reference Code: SWANK-MISCONDUCT-HB-0710

  • Document Title: 2025-07-10_SWANK_Addendum_HornalBrown_RetaliationMisuse

  • Summary: A joint evidentiary chronology of misconduct by Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown, establishing a coordinated pattern of retaliation following legal filings.

I. What Happened

Following the filing of multiple legal actions — including a Judicial Review, N1 civil claim, and formal complaints — Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown escalated a campaign of procedural harassment against Polly Chromatic, culminating in:

  • The unlawful removal of her children under a disputed EPO

  • Surveillance-style visits

  • Contact interference and information suppression

  • Coordinated email silence and misrepresentations to court

This post documents the sequence of events tying their retaliatory behaviour to the timeline of filings.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • On 15 February 2025, the first police report was filed against Kirsty Hornal.

  • On 7 March 2025, an N1 claim was submitted naming both her and Brown as co-defendants.

  • Between March and June 2025, a coordinated silence campaign ensued — despite lawful communications being maintained through writing.

  • On 23 June 2025, the children were removed less than 48 hours after major legal submissions were escalated.

Additionally:

  • Contact has been limited or denied without lawful basis.

  • Repeated refusals to clarify alleged “risk” suggest post-hoc justification for institutional retaliation.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This is not accidental mismanagement. It is a calculated pattern of misuse, enabled by internal shielding mechanisms that have:

  • Repeatedly ignored police reports

  • Failed to respond to documented evidence

  • Retaliated specifically after key filings

SWANK London Ltd. has logged this not only for the courts but for international viewers, U.S. diplomatic officials, and institutional oversight bodies now actively watching the archive.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 10 and Section 20 misuse

  • Data Protection Act 2018 – mishandling of documented disability disclosures

  • ECHR Article 8 – Interference with family life

  • Safeguarding protocols – weaponisation of child protection without lawful threshold

  • Judicial independence – interference via procedural retaliation post-filing

V. SWANK’s Position

The conduct of Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown is no longer confined to the realm of poor judgment.
It is institutional retaliation by design, and this post forms part of a broader legal and public record that will continue to expand — until all relevant actors are removed, referred, or replaced.

Let it be known:

The names are in the archive. The timeline is live. And their silence is now incriminating.

⟡ 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: