“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 legal inquiry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal inquiry. Show all posts

Twelve Legal Questions. Zero Legal Answers.

 ⚖️ SWANK Dispatch: When a Lawyer Has to Ask Why Your Children Were Touched

🗓️ 25 August 2020

Filed Under: legal intervention, forced medical exams, investigation without cause, rights breach, family life violation, child protection misconduct, lack of disclosure, systemic harassment, trauma documentation

“Was there a report of abuse? If so, where is it?
If not — then what gave you the right to examine my sons’ genitals?”
— A Mother, Represented and Still Waiting for Answers

This letter from attorney Lara Maroof of James Law Chambers to Ashley Adams, Deputy Director of Social Development, formalises the case that Polly Chromatic has been trying to make for over three years:
That no lawful cause has been given for the intrusion, medical violations, and trauma inflicted upon her and her children.

🧾 I. What This Letter Demands

Twelve direct legal questions, including:

  1. Was any report of suspected abuse ever made in 2017 or 2019?

  2. Was any assessment carried out before police and social worker visits?

  3. On what grounds were her three sons subjected to genital examinations?

  4. Why was no interview conducted with Polly prior to these exams?

  5. Why were the children not spoken to before being touched?

  6. What legal section was used to justify action — or inaction — under the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance?

  7. What lawful grounds existed for the 26 March 2020 home intrusion during national lockdown?

  8. Is there an active investigation or not?

These are basic statutory questions.
Yet none had ever been answered.
Even after three years.
Even after a lawyer asked in writing.

⚠️ II. What This Reveals

  • There is no record of a proper cause for any investigation

  • The department violated both medical ethics and legal procedure

  • No closure was given. No actions were explained.

  • The result has been chronic, legally sanctioned distress for Noelle and her children

“After three years, it is reasonable to expect your Department would have been able to form a very clear opinion…”
Instead — they formed no opinion, no case, and no lawful conclusion.

📌 Final Note:

The letter is from a lawyer.
The trauma is from a government.
The burden is on a mother.
And the silence, still —
is from the State.


No comments:

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.

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.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions