“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 passport control attempt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label passport control attempt. Show all posts

They Said “Supervision Order.” I Said “Abuse of Process.”

 ⚖️ SWANK Dispatch: I Filed to Dismiss the State's Lies. Legally. Loudly. Publicly.

🗓️ 7 January 2021

Filed Under: supervision order dismissal, legal abuse, child protection overreach, statutory noncompliance, passport overreach, court process violation, unfounded safeguarding, procedural misapplication, legal defence, F Chambers

“If my children were in danger,
you wouldn’t need to lie to the court.
But you did.
Which means they weren’t.”
— A Mother Who Took the Department of Social Development to Court for Filing Fiction

This formal legal application, submitted by F Chambers on behalf of Polly Chromatic, moves to dismiss the Department of Social Development’s request for a twelve-month Supervision Order filed in September 2020.

What makes this filing extraordinary isn’t just its precision — it’s that it exposes a full procedural collapse of lawful safeguarding under the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance 2015.

🧾 I. Seven Legal Grounds. No Leg to Stand On.

The application asserts that the state's case must be dismissed because:

  1. The file includes dated, misleading, and erroneous information

  2. It is a blatant abuse of court process

  3. The department failed to meet basic statutory obligations under sections 4, 9, 12, 18, and 22

  4. It overreaches its legal authority — notably by trying to control passports

  5. The department didn’t notify the mother or children as required by law

  6. It fails to disclose harm — the legal threshold for any such order

  7. It wastes court time and diverts resources from real safeguarding needs

📌 II. Why This Filing Matters

  • It shifts the narrative from defence to prosecution of the process itself

  • It forces the department to justify its paperwork — not just its posture

  • It sends a message: “You cannot weaponise safeguarding without evidence and expect no resistance.”

🧠 III. SWANK Commentary

This isn’t just about getting a case dismissed.
It’s about getting a state narrative unmasked.

Because when the only harm is the application itself —
The court becomes the crime scene.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions