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

The Care Plan That Never Was


⟡ SWANK Legal Dispatch II ⟡

A Second Engraving of Institutional Delusion
September 2020

Three Years of Silence and One Letter of Nonsense

I. A Legal Response to a Fabricated Reality

After three years of intrusion without justification, the Department of Social Development (DSD) issued a letter on 11 September 2020, accusing Polly Chromatic of “non-compliance.”

The reply—penned with steel and clarity by Mark A. Fulford of F Chambers—articulated what any legitimate authority should already understand:

"The only point of ‘non-compliance’ would be the alleged Care Plan of August 2019, which, prior to your letter, our client had never seen or heard of."

In other words: You cannot violate a phantom.

II. Absence of Engagement = Institutional Failure

DSD's three-year silence is laid bare as both procedural negligence and a breach of natural justice.

  • Polly’s correspondence: voluminous, specific, and archived.

  • DSD’s replies: two in total, only after legal pressure.

  • Complaints: never disclosed.

  • Allegations: never served.

  • Medical reports: withheld entirely.

“Our client has not seen even one complaint, one report, or one shred of documentation.”

A department operating like a rumour mill, not a public authority.

III. Legal Standards Quoted, Institutional Conduct Condemned

“It is trite law that any person, before having their fundamental rights and freedoms infringed, deserves to know the complaint against them.”

The letter is restrained—but humiliating.
It reminds DSD that transparency is not a luxury. It is the law.

IV. A Reasonable Request—Still Unmet

The solicitors at F Chambers requested, plainly and properly:

  • All documentation relating to the case

  • All medical records taken during the children’s forced examinations

  • The mythical August 2019 Care Plan

Only then, the letter stated, could Polly even consider a meeting with a child protection officer.

No reply. No plan. Just bureaucratic mist.

V. Closing Remarks, Laced with Poise

“This does require that all parties and stakeholders act with full transparency, fairness, and reasonableness…”

In SWANK translation:
Produce the paperwork—or stand down.


© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
This letter was the velvet glove—do not mistake it for weakness.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy


No comments:

When Lawyers Must Remind the State of Basic Procedure


⟡ SWANK Legal Dispatch ⟡

A Formal Dressing Down Delivered in Legal Stationery
September 2020

Noncompliance Requires a Plan to Exist First

I. Representation Acquired, Patience Exhausted

After three years of silence, evasions, and procedural delusion, Polly Chromatic appointed legal counsel to confront the Department of Social Development (DSD) in Grand Turk.

The result? A legal letter so fundamental, it had to remind the state that a person cannot be accused of noncompliance with a plan they have never received.

The social worker’s assertion: noncompliance.
The solicitor’s response: defamatory nonsense.

II. F CHAMBERS Responds with Elegance and Fire

Let the record show:

  • Polly’s communications—meticulous, archived, repeated.

  • DSD’s engagement—non-existent, until prompted by legal pressure.

  • The infamous “August 2019 Care Plan” was never served, never disclosed, and possibly never existed.

“How can our client be non-compliant with a Care Plan she has never received?”

The question is legal. The answer is obvious. The shame is theirs.

III. Legal Violations Identified by Counsel

The Department of Social Development failed to:

  • Disclose any complaint or allegation

  • Provide a single report regarding the family

  • Honour constitutional protections

  • Observe natural justice or procedural fairness

“It is trite law that any person, before having their fundamental rights and freedoms infringed, deserves to know the complaint against them.”

Apparently, this was news to DSD.

IV. Requests Made on Record

The solicitors at F CHAMBERS issued the following demands, on the legal record:

  • All case reports from the beginning of proceedings

  • All medical records held on the children

  • The mythical August 2019 Care Plan, if it exists

Until these are disclosed, the letter states, any expectation of engagement is unreasonable—and legally void.

V. Legal Tone, But the Message Is Crystal Clear

“Our client wishes to do all that is required… but this does require that all parties act with full transparency, fairness, and reasonableness.”

Translation?
Do your job—or kindly get out of the way.


© SWANK Archive. All Patterns Reserved.
This letter stands as official proof that the gaslighting was mutualised—and rebutted.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy


No comments:

Documented Obsessions