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

Chromatic v The Complaints Commission – On the Fantasy of Noncompliance When No One Will Say What the Rules Are


“What Exactly Am I Allegedly Failing to Comply With?”

⟡ A Formal Follow-Up to the Complaints Commission After Years of Fictional Noncompliance

IN THE MATTER OF: Official silence, safeguarding fiction, and the state’s bizarre refusal to issue instructions while accusing the parent of not following them

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 8 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-PRATT-HOMESCHOOLINGDEMAND
Court File Name: 2020-08-08_Records_PrattFollowUpPhoneCallAndHomeschoolDemands
Summary: This letter — written after a follow-up call with Willette Pratt of the Complaints Commission — outlines the complete absurdity of being accused of noncompliance when no written expectations have ever been provided. It clearly lists the outcomes Polly seeks, the statutory failures of both the Department of Social Development and the Department of Education, and cites the relevant legal protections under UK homeschooling law. It is a bureaucratic crucifixion wrapped in velvet.

I. What Happened

  • On 7 August 2020, Willette Pratt phoned Polly to reiterate the need for “homeschooling compliance” by 31 August.

  • Polly responded — again — that she had already complied by meeting with Deputy Director Mark Garland in 2017 and submitting all required documentation.

  • Polly reiterated that her actual complaint was about procedural and legal misconduct by both the Department of Social Development and the Department of Education.

  • She listed 6 formal outcome requests, including:

    • Statutory investigation reports

    • An explanation for prolonged investigation timelines

    • A formal investigative review of the children’s forced hospitalisation and sexualised exams

    • A formal written letter from the Department of Education outlining homeschooling procedures

  • She enclosed an outline of UK homeschooling law, affirming that:

    • There is no requirement to follow the national curriculum or school hours

    • There is no legal obligation to notify the state of homeschooling

    • Home-educated children are not automatically vulnerable

II. What the Letter Establishes

  • That Polly has repeatedly asked for written procedures to ensure compliance — and been ignored

  • That no formal guidance has ever been provided from the Department of Education

  • That the safeguarding actions taken were not only disproportionate — they were dangerous

  • That the Department of Social Development appears to have operated without legal threshold

  • That Polly has been asked to follow rules that don’t exist, then blamed for not following them

  • That the state’s internal communication failure is now impacting a lawful educational arrangement

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding cannot be used to coerce without providing legal basis. Because quoting UK homeschooling law to your own government should not be a requirement of being a mother. Because every time the state refuses to provide written instructions, it weaponises confusion. Because Willette Pratt’s polite concern cannot substitute for actual policy. Because this letter isn’t just a summary — it’s a referendum on bureaucratic irresponsibility.

IV. Violations

  • Denial of written procedural guidance

  • Procedural retaliation disguised as safeguarding

  • Absence of statutory reports after repeated safeguarding visits

  • Illegal clinical examination of children without informed consent

  • Fabricated truancy threat despite homeschool approval

  • Breach of due process and parental rights under UK homeschooling frameworks

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this document as an encyclopaedic demonstration of lawful resistance. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

  • That no parent should be harassed while waiting for instructions the state refuses to provide

  • That quoting law is not defiance — it’s diligence

  • That safeguarding based on bureaucratic silence is not lawful — it’s retaliatory

  • That compliance requires clarity, not improvisation

  • That this letter is not a request for clarification — it is a formal rebuke of institutional failure

⟡ 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 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 The Bucket of Concern – On the State’s Sudden Fascination with Where My Toilet Is


🛁 “You Have No Bathroom, Therefore You Must Be Supervised”

⟡ A Fictional Account of Homeschool Neglect Penned by a Social Worker with No Access to Records, Law, or Logic

IN THE MATTER OF: Compost toilets, renovated homes, and the bureaucratic delusion that a mat on the floor is neglect when the children are thriving

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 19 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-SOCIALDEV-SUPERVISIONTHREAT
Court File Name: 2020-08-19_SafeguardingNotice_SupervisionThreat_SmithJosephTCI
Summary: This letter from Ashley Smith-Joseph of the Department of Social Development threatens court action unless Polly Chromatic attends a meeting to “discuss concerns” about her children's welfare. These concerns include sleeping on a mat in a shared room, homeschooling, and the use of a composting toilet — all of which had previously been disclosed, explained, or approved. It’s a marvel of bureaucratic repetition, constructed to sound lawful while presenting no evidence of actual harm.

I. What Happened

  • Polly was accused of failing to provide proper education — despite having formal homeschooling approval from Mark Garland in 2017

  • She was accused of poor hygiene for using a compost toilet — despite previous medical and court-approved documentation explaining environmental adaptations

  • The letter acknowledges recent home renovations and improvements, then inexplicably declares them insufficient

  • It recycles vague “community concerns,” citing no specifics, no incidents, and no reports from professionals

  • It states that Polly has “not engaged” — despite hundreds of documented communications and submissions over multiple years

  • It concludes with a threat to seek a Supervision Order if Polly fails to comply — a legal measure that gives the state oversight without formal removal, often used to coerce rather than assist

II. What the Letter Actually Reveals

  • That Polly’s children were healthy, present, and safe — but the state disapproved of the décor

  • That Polly was punished for self-sufficiency, including using a compost toilet and managing home renovations

  • That no actual risk was identified — only aesthetic disapproval and middle-class horror at not having a porcelain toilet

  • That “lack of engagement” was cited despite full compliance, indicating retaliation for questioning safeguarding power

  • That no clear threshold was provided for how to satisfy the Department — only that if Polly didn’t attend, they would escalate

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because compost toilets are not abuse. Because educating your own children is not noncompliance. Because sharing a sleeping space is not neglect — especially when your children are safe, nourished, and excelling. Because a state that can’t define “neglect” without referencing paint colour, shared rooms, and homegrown hygiene systems isn’t safeguarding — it’s moralising. And because this letter proves once again that institutional overreach always disguises itself as “concern.”

IV. Violations

  • Misrepresentation of living conditions to justify escalation

  • Procedural harassment via vague “community concerns”

  • Misuse of safeguarding mechanisms to coerce attendance

  • Failure to acknowledge or document previous approvals and adaptations

  • Threat of court involvement without statutory threshold

  • Retaliation for asserting lawful educational autonomy

  • Mischaracterisation of environmental adaptations as harm

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this letter as Exhibit A in the criminalisation of lawful parenting through aesthetic elitism. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

  • That living simply is not neglect — and composting is not abuse

  • That every parent has the right to homeschool without being punished for it

  • That children sleeping on a mat together are not at risk — they are a family

  • That supervision threats are not support — they are control

  • That this letter contains no lawful threshold — only bureaucratic ego and ignorance

⟡ 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:

When Bureaucracy Erases Trauma by Calling It a Policy Violation

 📩 SWANK Dispatch: My Children Were Sexually Abused by a State Doctor—But You’re Threatening Truancy

🗓️ 6 August 2020

Filed Under: DSD misconduct, homeschool retaliation, sexual abuse by physician, safeguarding trauma, truancy misuse, shifting policy excuse, administrative gaslighting, unlawful property entry, complaint commission, public school rejection

“You threatened to take my children
despite the fact that I submitted my curriculum.
But when a doctor exposed them
in front of nine adults,
you didn’t even file a report.”
— A Mother Who Has Survived State Surveillance in Multiple Countries

This letter to Willette A. Pratt, Senior Investigative Officer at the Complaints Commission, outlines a catalogue of procedural violence by the Department of Social Development (DSD), including:

  • Sexual abuse of her sons at the National Hospital by a doctor during an unconsented “safeguarding” exam

  • Multiple unannounced visits and forced interrogations with no explanation

  • Illegal property entry, including dismantling her fence

  • No reports ever given, violating legal and ethical obligations

🧠 I. Bureaucracy Over Trauma

Despite the trauma:

  • The family was told their homeschooling wasn’t approved

  • They were declared truant

  • The mother was threatened with child removal unless she submitted:

    • Written homeschool request

    • Curriculum

    • Child ages

    • Her qualifications

    • Socialisation evidence

    • An annual teacher assessment

All of this after the Department had acknowledged her homeschooling approval in 2017 through Mark Garland.

🧬 II. A Mother’s Timeline of Survival

The letter gives a concise migration history that highlights her effort to protect her family:

  • Moved between the USA, Grand Turk, Providenciales, and London to escape trauma

  • Survived robbery, housing collapse, deportation separation, mould exposure, and state harassment

  • Homeschools four children in the face of constant obstruction

🧾 III. What She Asked For

  • Direct communication from Edgar Howell at the Department of Education

  • A transparent copy of the homeschool policy

  • Respect for the agreement made with Mark Garland

  • Legal clarity and consistency

SWANK Summary:

She was following the rules.
They kept changing the rules.
And now they want to punish her
for surviving what their systems inflicted.


No comments:

I Had to Write the Constitution Back to the People Who Forgot It

 📜 SWANK Dispatch: When Human Rights Must Be Petitioned to Protect Children from the State

🗓️ 15 July 2020

Filed Under: human rights petition, social work abuse, illegal medical examination, lawful homeschooling, systemic trauma, constitutional breach, public health endangerment, procedural failure, retaliation for complaints

“You have not treated us fairly. You have not protected our lives.
You have broken the law, and called it care.”
— A Mother Who Petitioned the Human Rights Commission with a Timeline Longer Than the Pandemic

In this ten-page letter to the Human Rights Commission, Polly Chromatic lays bare 3.5 years of sustained abuse by the Department of Social Development, escalating from unwanted visits to medical assault — all under the guise of safeguarding. With statutes cited, timelines presented, and health risks documented, this is not a complaint.
It is an indictment.

🧾 I. The Legal Core

Section 17(6) of the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015
States that parents must receive a written report of any investigation.

Status: Not once. Not ever.

Emergency Powers (COVID-19) Regulations, 2020
Restricted entry into private residences except under clear emergency or essential worker capacity, with ID.

Status: Breached on 26 March 2020.

Education Ordinance, 2009
Recognises homeschool as a valid educational path with Ministerial approval.

Status: Approval granted — then ignored by every other department.

⚠️ II. Documented Harms

  • Sexual assault of her sons during forced hospital exams in front of 9 adults (2017)

  • Repeated home invasions, including fence removal (2019)

  • Property defacement, neighbour violence, and threats

  • Medical instructions from a doctor contradicting UK NHS guidance

  • Emotional abuse, gaslighting, and repeated interruptions of homeschooling

All while suffering from severe eosinophilic asthma — a condition that makes every uninvited visit a potential death sentence.

📅 III. The Timeline of Lawbreaking

  • 2016–2020: Dozens of interventions, no reports

  • 2017: Approval to homeschool granted by Mark Garland

  • 2017–2020: Truancy threats continue regardless

  • 2020: COVID violations escalate with visits during lockdown

“They questioned my compost toilet.
They never questioned whether their actions were lawful.”

🧠 IV. Fundamental Rights Violated

  • 🛑 Right to Life

  • 🛑 Protection from Inhuman Treatment

  • 🛑 Right to Private and Family Life

  • 🛑 Protection of Religion, Conscience, and Health Standards

  • 🛑 Right to Education

  • 🛑 Protection from Discrimination

  • 🛑 Lawful Administrative Action

This isn’t accidental.
This is a pattern of procedural contempt.


No comments:

I’m Not Asking for Favour. I’m Asking for Law.

 📬 SWANK Dispatch: When the Attorney General Is Your Last Resort

🗓️ 15 July 2020

Filed Under: legal appeal, homeschool retaliation, social worker abuse, sexual trauma, investigation without report, attorney general intervention, procedural breach, children’s rights, systemic harassment

“The law says I should receive a report. I have received none.
Not in 3.5 years.”
— A Mother With the Statute and the Suffering to Prove It

This dispatch — addressed directly to Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles, the Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands — is not a complaint.
It is a legal invocation.

Polly Chromatic, on 15 July 2020, outlines 3.5 years of documented harassment by the Department of Social Development, citing sexual abuse by a doctor, emotional trauma, and ongoing procedural violations — all under the false pretext of an investigation that has never produced a single report.

📜 I. Statute Invoked, Law Ignored

According to Section 17(6)–(7) of the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance 2015:

“The director shall provide a report of the results of an investigation to the parent of the child… unless doing so would endanger safety or compromise a criminal case.”

• No report was ever provided
• No exemption was cited
• No criminal case was initiated

Ergo: The department is in violation of the law.

⚠️ II. The Harassment Is Documented — The Lawbreaking, Ongoing

Noelle outlines a history of:

• Homeschooling retaliation despite prior approval
• Sexual abuse of her children during a coerced hospital examination
• Emotional and psychological distress from unrelenting state involvement
• Total disregard by Ashley Adams-Forbes
• No response from the Complaints Commissioner

And now, the Attorney General herself is asked:
Will you enforce the law you swore to uphold?

🧾 III. Final Plea to Power

“Please use your power as Attorney General to ensure that the Department of Social Development follow the Turks and Caicos Law.”

It is not a request for special treatment.
It is a demand for lawful governance.


No comments: