Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): medical assault

Showing posts with label medical assault. Show all posts

Chromatic v Tyranny in Disguise – On the Unforgivable Weaponisation of Safeguarding Against an Educated Mother

“My Children Deserve Better Than This Government”

⟡ A 10-Page Petition Detailing Safeguarding Abuse, State Harassment, Medical Assault, and Constitutional Erosion

IN THE MATTER OF: Systemic incompetence, sexualised medical violence, lawful homeschooling, and the state’s deep confusion about how laws work

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 15 July 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-HRC-FINALPETITION
Court File Name: 2020-07-15_Records_HRCComplaintSocialDevelopmentAbuseAndRightsViolations
Summary: This final, exhaustive petition to the Human Rights Commission outlines 3.5 years of harassment by the Department of Social Development. It details unlawful investigations, medical abuse of children, constitutional breaches, homeschooling sabotage, disability discrimination, trespass during COVID lockdown, and the state’s absolute inability to articulate the legal basis of its interference. It is statutorily referenced, medically supported, and completely devastating.

I. What Happened

After obtaining full legal approval to homeschool her children, Polly Chromatic (then Noelle Bonneannée) endured a multi-year campaign of safeguarding “concern” that involved:

Sexual assault of her sons on hospital exam tables in front of 9 adults
Illegal trespass on private property during the COVID lockdown
Unlawful demands to forcibly retract her children’s foreskin
Yelling through her windows
Entering her home without notice
Ignoring her formal complaints and medical documentation
Refusing to close an investigation or provide the mandatory written report

Despite following every procedure, submitting every curriculum, and responding to every demand, she and her children remained targeted. This petition exposes every part of that misconduct.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That TCI’s Children Ordinance 2015 §17(6) mandates that parents receive investigation reports — which never occurred
That the Emergency Powers (COVID-19) Regulations were violated by social workers entering private property during lockdown
That the Department of Social Development caused emotional and psychological abuse through medical misconduct and invasive, erratic visits
That constitutional rights were violated in no fewer than 11 categories, including:
- Right to family life
- Protection from inhuman treatment
- Right to education
- Freedom of conscience and belief
- Freedom from discrimination
- Protection of property and private life
That the state failed to follow its own laws, ignored documentation, and repeatedly disrupted the wellbeing of a thriving, legally protected homeschool family

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when safeguarding becomes sexual abuse, someone must file it. Because the law exists to protect children — not to harass their mothers. Because composting toilets are not child endangerment. Because quoting §17(6) for the sixth time in six months is not “excessive” — it’s survival. And because this petition proves, with chilling clarity, that the government of Turks and Caicos was not protecting a family — it was dismantling one.

IV. Violations

Statutory breach of Children Ordinance 2015 §17(6)
Violation of Education Ordinance 2009
Violation of Emergency Powers (COVID-19) Regulations
Unlawful trespass
Sexual assault of children by medical staff
Disability discrimination (eosinophilic asthma)
Procedural harassment and emotional trauma
11 direct constitutional rights violations
Misuse of safeguarding to enforce cultural conformity

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this petition as a constitutional masterpiece. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

That this case is not about protection — it is about persecution
That forcing foreskin retraction is not “cultural difference” — it is abuse
That social workers yelling through windows during a pandemic are not acting in anyone’s best interest
That quoting 10 laws in 10 pages is not excess — it is defence
That this document belongs in a law school textbook titled “What Happens When the State Forgets Its Place”

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v The Banality of Harm – On the Legal Cost of Homeschooling in a State That Fears Intelligence

🕊️ When the State Forgets the Law, the Mother Files a Petition

⟡ A Human Rights Complaint Concerning Safeguarding Abuse, Medical Assault, and the Criminalisation of Lawful Homeschooling

IN THE MATTER OF: Harassment Masquerading as Oversight, Circumcision Coercion, and the Deep Stupidity of Ignoring a Woman with Degrees

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 15 July 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-HRC-HOMESCHOOL-HARASSMENT
Court File Name: 2020-07-15_Court_Petition_HRC_TCI_Homeschooling_Harassment_DisabilityAbuse
Summary: Submitted to the Turks and Caicos Human Rights Commission, this petition chronicles 3.5 years of illegal surveillance, state trespass, child abuse by medical professionals, circumcision coercion, harassment of a lawful homeschool family, and direct violations of constitutional rights. It cites TCI legislation, COVID emergency law, NHS medical guidance, and a full timeline of state intrusion — while remaining calm, clinical, and lethal.

I. What Happened

After obtaining full legal approval to homeschool her children, Polly Chromatic (then known as Noelle Bonneannée) endured 3.5 years of state surveillance, unlawful entry, police-assisted removals, and abuse disguised as medical "safeguarding." Her children were subjected to sexualised examinations in front of multiple adults. Her home was repeatedly entered without warrant. Her son’s foreskin became the subject of unsolicited state advice. Social workers shouted through her windows, ignored medical documentation, and trespassed during COVID lockdowns.

This petition is not just a complaint — it is a constitutional record of state misconduct so detailed it should be printed on vellum and sealed in a climate-controlled vault.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That the Department of Social Development repeatedly acted outside the bounds of the Children Ordinance 2015
That social workers violated COVID Emergency Powers by entering private property without cause
That the family experienced medical and emotional abuse as a direct result of safeguarding misapplication
That homeschooling was lawfully approved but continuously treated as deviant
That constitutional rights under the Turks and Caicos Bill of Rights were repeatedly violated, including:
- Protection from inhuman treatment
- Protection of private and family life
- Protection of education rights
- Freedom of conscience and religion
- Protection from discrimination
That the family’s environmental and health-conscious lifestyle was treated as suspicious rather than responsible

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what a human rights petition should look like — unimpeachable, irrefutable, and embarrassing for the state. Because “safeguarding” should not be a loophole for authoritarian interference. Because social workers who confuse composting with child abuse need to be held legally and intellectually accountable. Because when your child is sexually examined without consent during a pandemic, your next move should absolutely be a 10-page legal document filed with a Commission. And because this family deserves not only justice — but precedent.

IV. Violations

Breach of Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015
Violation of Emergency Powers (COVID-19) Regulations
Breach of Education Ordinance, 2009
Multiple constitutional violations under the TCI Bill of Rights
Medical abuse and coercion
Procedural harassment, trespass, and unlawful investigation
Failure to provide lawful written outcome reports despite statutory mandate

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this petition as a master record of principled resistance. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

That no government department has the right to reframe lawful parenting as deviance
That trauma inflicted by a doctor with state authority is not “routine” — it is criminal
That when safeguarding becomes indistinguishable from surveillance, it ceases to be protection
That quoting ten laws in ten pages is not overkill — it’s a shield
And that this family — despite repeated abuse — remained lawful, educated, dignified, and correct

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v InterHealth Canada – On the Medical Crime of Spectacle Performed in the Name of Safeguarding

“Nine Adults in a Semi-Circle is Not a Medical Exam — It’s an Inquisition”

⟡ A Formal Complaint Detailing the Forced Genital Examination of Children, Bureaucratic Amnesia, and a Mother’s Surgical Memory

IN THE MATTER OF: Medical assault, safeguarding theatre, and four traumatized children subjected to state-sponsored humiliation

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 8 November 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-COCKBURN-INTERHEALTH-MEDMALPRACTICE
Court File Name: 2020-11-08_Court_Complaint_CockburnMedical_InterHealth_MedicalMisconduct
Summary: In this devastatingly detailed complaint, Polly Chromatic (then Noelle Bonneannée) recounts how the Department of Social Development forced her and her children into a Cockburn Town hospital room where, on 25 May 2017, a group of nine adults surrounded her sons during a non-consensual genital examination conducted by Dr. Antrieve Benjamin. The complaint also exposes InterHealth Canada’s failure to provide records from a 2019 visit, falsified immunisation claims, and the deeply unethical practice of asking a mother to “recreate” her children’s traumaso a doctor could retroactively type up her own medical report — three years later.

I. What Happened

On 25 May 2017, Polly was forcibly escorted — with her mother and four children — to Cockburn Town Medical Centre by social workers and police.
Her sons, aged 8, 5, and 3, were subjected to genital exams without consent or privacy, with nine adults seated around them “as if it was some kind of show.”
Her 8-year-old was physically violated and deeply traumatised, with the doctor forcibly retracting his foreskin.
The 5-year-old refused to be touched, while the 3-year-old was likewise subjected to this invasive exam.
Her infant daughter was not examined at all, revealing the inconsistency of the abuse claim.
In 2020, when Polly requested the records, she was told they didn’t exist. She had to wait four hours while Dr. Benjamin wrote them up from memory — and asked Polly what had happened to include in the report.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That no consent was sought, and no privacy was provided — thus constituting medical assault
That records were missing or fabricated after the fact, showing administrative misconduct
That Polly was wrongly accused of not vaccinating her children, despite presenting verified immunisation records from three countries
That the 2017 and 2019 visits were both triggered by fabricated safeguarding reports, and compounded by malpractice, trauma, and gaslighting
That the Ministry of Health refused to release records — violating both data protection and patient rights

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the retraction of a child’s foreskin in a room full of officers is not a safeguarding measure — it’s a civil rights violation. Because mothers shouldn’t have to fund, correct, and deliver their own medical records to receive justice. Because safeguarding should not be a euphemism for humiliation. And because this complaint is a landmark indictment of a system that forgot what consent, protection, and ethics mean.

IV. Violations

Medical assault on minors
Violation of privacy and bodily autonomy
Refusal to release medical records (2019 incident)
Administrative negligence and record falsification
False immunisation allegations
Retaliatory safeguarding escalation
Forced participation under duress

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this complaint as Exhibit K in the archive of medical retaliation, record falsification, and systemic indifference to children’s dignity. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

That nine adults surrounding naked children is not protection — it is state abuse
That demanding payment for after-the-fact medical reports is extortionate
That InterHealth Canada owes not just compensation but accountability
That safeguarding begins with consent — and ends when it’s replaced by coercion
That no mother should have to write the report the doctor should have written three years ago

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Bureaucratic Amnesia – On the Forensics of Remembering What the State Pretends to Forget

“If You’re Going to Force a Genital Exam, At Least Learn My Name”

⟡ A Formal Rebuttal to a Safeguarding Timeline So Vague, It Forgot What Year It Was

IN THE MATTER OF: Fabricated neglect, unlawful medical assault, mistaken addresses, and a mother who logged it all with better records than the state

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 24 October 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-REBUTTAL-MEDICALASSAULT-2020
Court File Name: 2020-10-24_Court_Letter_Rebuttal_SafeguardingFabrications_MedicalAssault
Summary: In this detailed rebuttal to a safeguarding report filed with the TCI courts, Polly Chromatic (then Noelle Bonneannée) documents the unlawful forced medical examination of her children in 2017, the institutional memory lapses that followed, and the egregious factual errors in the court's own report — including using the wrong name, wrong address, and wrong phone number. What emerges is a tragicomic record of state negligence dressed up as safeguarding, and a mother doing the work of five departments in self-defence.

I. What Happened

On 23 May 2017, police and social workers forcibly appeared at Polly’s home and demanded she and her children go to the hospital.
At the hospital, Polly’s sons were subjected to non-consensual genital exams, with nine adults seated in a semi-circle like an audience. Her daughter was not examined.
No prior consent was sought. No privacy was offered. No lawful justification was given.
In the court documents filed three years later, this event was vaguely referenced, misdated, and blamed on Polly for “relocating” — despite her consistent presence and unchanged phone number.
Polly’s rebuttal letter:
- Lists the exact date, location, and parties involved
- Disputes the invented “neglect” and “invisibility” claims
- Asserts the trauma this caused her family
- Notes that the state's own documents contradict each other
- Requests the psychological evaluation results that were never shared

II. What the Letter Establishes

That the safeguarding visit in 2017 involved forced medical procedures without consent
That court records filed in 2020 contain provable errors, including wrong dates and incorrect phone numbers
That Polly was not hiding or “unreachable,” as falsely claimed
That DSD’s narrative is a self-contradictory collection of bureaucratic guesses
That the court received a report riddled with omissions, deflections, and fictional chronology

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because medical assault is not “protocol.” Because writing “we couldn’t locate the family” doesn’t erase the fact that you had her phone number and email all along. Because it is not the mother’s job to remind government departments what year it is, what island she lives on, or how trauma works. Because this letter is a testimony to truth told in full paragraphs, while institutions sputter out inaccuracies under court seal.

IV. Violations

Non-consensual genital examination of minors
Misrepresentation of safeguarding history
Procedural breaches in forced state medical intervention
Administrative falsification (wrong names, numbers, and claims of absence)
Retaliatory and unlawful safeguarding escalation
Withholding of psychological records and institutional gaslighting

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this letter as Exhibit J in the archive of state-administered amnesia and trauma-by-form letter. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

That safeguarding cannot be weaponised to justify assault
That vague reports with contradictory timelines are not evidence — they are cover stories
That no parent should have to correct the record of an incident she didn’t consent to
That medical violations require accountability, not erasure
That this rebuttal is a cornerstone document in the catalogue of procedural abuse and legal gaslighting

⟡ 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.

The Letter That Corrected the Record. With Names, Dates, and the Receipts.

⟡ SWANK Medical Abuse Rebuttal Archive ⟡

“They Called It a Welfare Check. It Was a Coordinated Attack.”
Filed: 24 October 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/ASSAULT-REBUTTAL/2020-10-24
📎 Download PDF – 2020-10-24_SWANK_Rebuttal_Letter_MedicalAssault_SocialDevFabrications_TCI.pdf

I. They Claimed to Be Helping. They Orchestrated a Violation.

On 24 October 2020, this formal letter was issued to legal counsel by SWANK’s Director.
It does not ask for justice.
It records the failure of it.

This document is a comprehensive timeline correction, setting the record straight on:

The sexualised “medical” inspections of three boys by Dr. Antrieve Benjamin,
The coercive tactics employed by TCI’s Department of Social Development,
And the years-long paper trail of deceit, fabricated referrals, and procedural theatre.

This isn’t a complaint.
It’s a surgical rebuttal — dated, footnoted, and unflinching.

II. What the Letter Makes Clear

That no medical safeguarding threshold was ever triggered
That the infamous May 2017 “exam” was neither consented to nor lawful
That housing conditions were fabricated post-hoc to justify the intrusion
That the system relied on the victim’s silence to complete the narrative

They did not expect you to respond.
They certainly did not expect you to file it, timestamp it, and publish it.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because they manipulated chronology to conceal state harm.
Because they mistook trauma for weakness.
Because they assumed — as they always do — that a disabled woman with children would have neither memory nor archive.

We filed it because:

It is the primary counter-narrative to a fabricated state dossier
It restores intellectual control over a moment engineered to strip bodily control
It names names, dates, and addresses — not in rage, but in register

This is not an appeal.
It is a formal correction to the colonial record.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not request clarification from those who violated consent.
We deliver it — on headed paper, with legal structure.

We do not let their summary stand.
We issue our own.

Let the record show:

They said welfare.
They meant surveillance.
They performed assault.
And we filed the reply — with timestamps and tone.

This isn’t closure.
This is archival jurisprudence.

⟡ 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.

3.5 Years of Evidence They Never Wanted to See

📚 SWANK Dispatch: The Timeline They Ignored

🗓️ 14 July 2020

Filed Under: institutional gaslighting, timeline of abuse, report withholding, homeschool approval ignored, sexual misconduct, illegal entry, pandemic violations, educational interference, maternal advocacy

“I don’t need to try so hard to prove myself?”
Then why have I been investigated non-stop, forced to submit income, degrees, and curriculum — and never once received a report?”
— A Mother with a Timeline. And a Law Degree’s Worth of Patience.

This 9-page, legislatively cited timeline is Noelle Bonneannée’s final attempt to turn relentless surveillance into lawful accountability.

Addressed to Ashley Adams-Forbes, it chronicles every visit, violation, retaliation, and lie from November 2016 to July 2020, culminating in a letter that could easily double as a legal brief.

🗂️ I. This Is Not a Case. This Is a Siege.

2017: Her boys were sexually assaulted by a doctor during a forced exam
2017–2020: Harassed despite confirmed homeschool approval
2019: Social workers dismantled her fence to illegally enter
2020: Entered her home during lockdown against COVID emergency powers
2020: Despite requests, no report has ever been provided

“I should be innocent until proven guilty.”
“Instead, I have been treated as guilty without cause — and without explanation.”

🧑‍🏫 II. She Homeschools. They Pretend Not to Know.

From Mark Garland’s confirmation to repeated curriculum submissions, every legal step was followed.

• Homeschool curriculum sent in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
• Degrees provided upon request
• Proof of income supplied
• Truancy officers still appeared
• Social workers still interrogated her
• The Department still failed to update its records or close its case

💥 III. The Department’s Greatest Hits (of Lawbreaking)

Defacing property
Threats from neighbours ignored
Fence destruction
Medical abuse
Pandemic violation
Harassment during grocery trips
Institutional gaslighting
No legal closure

✍️ IV. Her Questions Deserve Answers

What is the purpose of each case?
What is the solution?
How can we move on with our lives?

The Department offers no answers — only more surveillance.

You Were Not Investigating. You Were Circling.

⟡ A Ministry of Harm: Filing What the Islands Forgot ⟡

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-COMPLAINT-COMMISSION
📎 Download PDF — 2020-08-06_SWANK_TCI_ComplaintsCommission_SocialDevComplaint_MedicalAssault_TruancyThreat.pdf

I. A Government That Would Not Stop Arriving

This formal complaint was filed to the Complaints Commission of the Turks and Caicos Islands, after three years of institutional surveillance so repetitive, so medically reckless, so politely colonial — it became indistinguishable from harassment in slow motion.

The core facts:

The parent complied with all educational laws
The children were healthy, documented, and schooled
The mother had disabling respiratory illness

Yet despite this:

Unlawful home visits continued
Police were used to enforce attendance at the Ministry
A medical incident occurred on their premises

And even after all that?
They left the file open — “in case.”

This is not safeguarding. This is jurisdictional addiction.

II. What This Complaint Documented

This complaint was filed after obedience failed.
It includes allegations of:

Repeated breaches of medical shielding
Coercive requests for documents already submitted
Emotional harm to children through constant monitoring
The use of uniformed officers to enforce procedural humiliation
A complete absence of closure despite full compliance

It is not a request. It is a record of betrayal.

III. Who Was Involved

Named or implicated:

Ashley Adams-Forbes – orchestrating repeated visits
Truancy enforcement officers – untrained, unaccountable, and dispatched without legal basis
Ministry of Education staff – incapable of updating their own compliance records
Medical responders – present not as protectors, but as tools of compliance theatre

Let the record show: every name was already on file.
SWANK simply arranged the citation.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not consider repetitive intrusion to be care.
We do not confuse medical collapse with compliance failure.
We do not accept that silence from a Complaints Commission is neutrality.

This document was filed because:

The laws were followed
The mother was medically exempt
The record needed to exist — before they revised it

This is not vengeance. It is administrative survival.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

“My Children Deserve Better Than This Government”

⟡ A 10-Page Petition Detailing Safeguarding Abuse, State Harassment, Medical Assault, and Constitutional Erosion

⟡ METADATA

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

🕊️ When the State Forgets the Law, the Mother Files a Petition

⟡ A Human Rights Complaint Concerning Safeguarding Abuse, Medical Assault, and the Criminalisation of Lawful Homeschooling

⟡ METADATA

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

“Nine Adults in a Semi-Circle is Not a Medical Exam — It’s an Inquisition”

⟡ A Formal Complaint Detailing the Forced Genital Examination of Children, Bureaucratic Amnesia, and a Mother’s Surgical Memory

⟡ METADATA

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

“If You’re Going to Force a Genital Exam, At Least Learn My Name”

⟡ A Formal Rebuttal to a Safeguarding Timeline So Vague, It Forgot What Year It Was

⟡ METADATA

I. What Happened

II. What the Letter Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ SWANK Medical Abuse Rebuttal Archive ⟡

I. They Claimed to Be Helping. They Orchestrated a Violation.

II. What the Letter Makes Clear

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

🗂️ I. This Is Not a Case. This Is a Siege.

🧑‍🏫 II. She Homeschools. They Pretend Not to Know.

💥 III. The Department’s Greatest Hits (of Lawbreaking)

✍️ IV. Her Questions Deserve Answers

⟡ A Ministry of Harm: Filing What the Islands Forgot ⟡

I. A Government That Would Not Stop Arriving

II. What This Complaint Documented

III. Who Was Involved

IV. SWANK’s Position