⟡ 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.
Let the record show:
We asked for legal clarity.
They gave us unlawful proximity.
So we escalated — to the top.
This isn’t advocacy.
This is documented refusal by legal dispatch.