“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
Showing posts with label international procedural abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international procedural abuse. Show all posts

This Was Not an Enquiry. It Was a Misuse of Jurisdiction.


⟡ We Asked for Fairness. They Asked for His Deportation Records. ⟡

Filed: 26 August 2021
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2021-IMMIGRATION-DIRECTIVE
📎 Download PDF — 2021-08-26_SWANK_TCI_ImmigrationMisconduct_CounselDirective_WLMills.pdf

I. When the Border Agency Asks for Your Partner’s Immigration File Mid-Complaint

This letter was addressed directly to William L. Mills, Director of the Department of Immigration, Turks and Caicos Islands — bypassing the front-line obfuscators and aimed precisely at executive accountability.

It is not a plea. It is a line in procedural concrete.

Filed in response to:

  • Gendered deflection

  • Invasive demands for your partner’s personal immigration file

  • The systemic refusal to investigate alleged racial profiling and procedural misconduct

  • The bureaucratic theatre of “we’re just asking”

They ignored your safeguarding report.
Then requested your husband’s deportation history.

II. What the Letter Establishes

  • Direct instruction to counsel — bypassing administrative delay

  • Loss of procedural trust — declared explicitly

  • Refusal to participate in informal contact

  • Reassertion of legal protocol — where none had been followed

It tells the Department:

You are not investigating. You are retaliating under institutional paper.

And we no longer recognise your email signatures as legitimate channels of resolution.

III. SWANK’s Position

We do not provide immigration documents to agencies accused of misconduct.
We do not assist in our own targeting.
We do not submit to border theatre disguised as policy engagement.

This letter was filed because:

  • The response to complaint was escalation

  • The request was retaliatory

  • The process was unsafe

  • The authority claimed — had no procedural basis

Let the record show:

We escalated to counsel.
You escalated to suspicion.
SWANK filed both.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions