“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label policy denial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy denial. Show all posts

Chromatic v The Education Department That Never Wrote Down Its Own Policy – On the Tragedy of Being More Prepared Than the State


🎓 “Please Provide Me the Law, Since You Seem to Have Misplaced It.”

⟡ A Formal Letter to the Department of Education After Years of Harassment Over Lawful Homeschooling

IN THE MATTER OF: The Right to Educate, the Abuse of Authority, and the Extraordinary Harm Caused by Not Reading the Policy Before Making a Threat

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 5 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-EDUCATION-HOMESCHOOLING-DENIAL
Court File Name: 2020-08-05_Court_Letter_TCI_EducationDept_HomeschoolingDenial_AbuseSummary
Summary: This letter, sent to Edgar Howell (Director of Education, Turks and Caicos), is a formal, cutting response to three years of escalating threats, false truancy accusations, and unlawful safeguarding actions — despite full compliance with a legal homeschool arrangement approved since 2017. The letter recounts sexual abuse by hospital staff, illegal property entries, fabricated vaccination concerns, and the failure of multiple departments to read the actual legislation. It ends, with composed sarcasm, by asking for the very policy they claim was never followed — even though it was never provided.

I. What Happened

In June 2017, Polly Chromatic (then known as Noelle Bonneannée) met in person with Deputy Director Mark Garland and submitted her curriculum, degrees, and intent to homeschool. This was done with the full understanding that Garland was the correct authority. She continued submitting documentation yearly.

Despite this, she was:

  • Accused of truancy in public by a truancy officer yelling at her in a grocery store

  • Repeatedly visited by social workers without reports or legal reason

  • Forced to submit her children to invasive hospital “examinations” — including genital inspection

  • Subjected to warrantless entry, even during COVID lockdown, in violation of emergency laws

  • Blamed for not speaking to “the right person” despite having never been told who that was

  • Threatened again in 2020, three years after full compliance, with having her children taken

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That no policy was ever provided, even after direct request

  • That the Department of Education and Department of Social Development coordinated unlawful threats

  • That social workers fabricated medical concerns (non-vaccination) and used them as pretext for repeated trauma

  • That the Complaints Commission acted not as a mediator, but a fresh source of coercion

  • That officials repeatedly shifted blame rather than acknowledge a departmental failure to document or communicate correctly

  • That the family’s trauma is not incidental — it is the direct result of bureaucratic laziness and safeguarding theatre

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this letter proves that even in the face of institutional incompetence, the mother followed every rule. Because asking for “the policy” after three years of harassment is not a formality — it’s a slap in the face. Because “talked to the wrong person” is not a legal defence. Because no one should have to endure forced sexualised exams of their children while the department argues over who was CC’d. Because safeguarding without records is not oversight — it’s an excuse to trespass.

IV. Violations

  • Failure to provide written homeschool policy or legal process

  • Accusation of truancy despite full compliance

  • Sexual assault of minors in clinical setting without lawful grounds

  • Warrantless entry during a national pandemic

  • Threats of removal based on bureaucratic blame-shifting

  • Retaliatory conduct under the guise of safeguarding

  • Procedural negligence at the Department of Education, Social Development, and the Complaints Commission

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this document as a formal indictment of every public official who forgot how laws work. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

  • That providing documentation in 2017 should not result in threats in 2020

  • That truancy cannot be claimed when no policy was ever disclosed

  • That trauma inflicted during “examinations” cannot be undone with apologies

  • That when a mother is asked to be both the educator and the administrator, the state has failed

  • And that the most dangerous thing about safeguarding misuse is not the action — it’s the delusion of authority without law

⟡ 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.

No comments:

Chromatic v The Department That Forgot Its Own Approval – On the Legal Consequences of Being Obedient in a Chaotic State


 “Mark Garland Approved It. The State Just Forgot.”

⟡ A Mother’s Curriculum, a Deputy Director’s Approval, and the Years of Safeguarding Harassment That Followed Anyway

IN THE MATTER OF: A mother who complied, a state that didn’t, and the institutional amnesia that weaponised its own paperwork

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-GARLAND-APPROVAL-DISPUTE
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Records_MarkGarlandHomeschoolApprovalDispute
Summary: In this 2-page email, Polly Chromatic (then known legally as Noelle Bonneannée) explains that her homeschool arrangement was fully approved by Mark Garland in 2017, that she submitted her curriculum and qualifications as instructed, and that she has faced years of safeguarding harassment and truancy accusations anyway. The email exposes a state that not only fails to coordinate internally — but punishes the parent for its own poor memory.

I. What Happened

  • Polly met in person with Mark Garland in 2017 and submitted her children’s curriculum and her academic credentials (BA and MA). He approved her choice to homeschool.

  • Despite this, she was harassed three separate times by the truancy officer Mr. Kennedy — including being shouted at in a grocery store.

  • The Department of Social Development conducted multiple safeguarding intrusions:

    • Forcing hospital visits where her sons were sexually assaulted in front of nine adults

    • Trespassing on her property by dismantling her fence

    • Entering her home during the COVID-19 lockdown in violation of emergency laws

  • She repeatedly contacted Garland to confirm approval, which he gave — and which the department acknowledged

  • In 2020, the Complaints Commission told her none of that mattered and insisted she follow a different policy, allegedly communicated by Edgar Howell — whom she had never spoken to

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That formal homeschool approval was granted in 2017

  • That all requested documentation had already been submitted to the correct official

  • That no written policy or procedure has ever been provided, despite years of requests

  • That safeguarding harassment continued despite full legal compliance

  • That the state invented a procedural noncompliance only after being questioned

  • That institutional coordination between education, complaints, and social development officials is non-existent

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no parent should be told they “spoke to the wrong official” after years of obedience. Because truancy officers should not behave like bounty hunters. Because safeguarding is not an excuse for public defamation or medical abuse. Because when a mother complies with every instruction and is still threatened with child removal, the problem is not the mother — it is the memory hole of the state.

IV. Violations

  • Breach of procedural fairness

  • Repeated safeguarding intrusions without lawful basis

  • Forced hospital visits and medical abuse of minors

  • Defamation via public truancy accusations

  • COVID-19 emergency law violations

  • Institutional retaliation for documented compliance

  • Failure to provide education policy in writing

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this as a definitive exhibit of state incompetence dressed up as concern. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

  • That institutional forgetfulness is not the same as parental noncompliance

  • That safeguarding chaos is not a valid justification for trespass

  • That education departments must provide policy before accusing parents of violating it

  • That no child was ever protected by a truancy officer screaming in a supermarket

  • And that this email is a masterclass in forced compliance — and its legal consequences

⟡ 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.

No comments:

I Asked for the Policy in 2017. I’m Still Waiting in 2020.

 📚 SWANK Dispatch: When Approval to Homeschool Is Weaponised Against You

🗓️ 5 August 2020

Filed Under: homeschool sabotage, administrative gaslighting, social worker overreach, truancy threats, institutional memory failure, medical abuse, policy denial, bureaucratic cruelty

“I was approved. I submitted everything. But they kept moving the goalpost.”
— A Mother in Compliance, Not Complicit

In this dispatch dated 5 August 2020, Polly Chromatic finally directs her words to the actual Director of Education, Edgar Howell, after three years of being bounced between Mark Garland, Mr. Kennedy, and the Department of Social Development — all of whom demanded documentation, received it, and still continued to threaten her family with unlawful action.

What she asked for was simple.
What she received was state-fuelled trauma.

🗂️ I. Homeschool Policy? She Asked in 2017.

Polly’s BA and MA degrees were submitted.
She submitted her curriculum every year since 2017.
She had verbal approval from Mark Garland, who confirmed it in writing.

Yet in 2020, she’s told:

“You spoke to the wrong person.”

No policy was ever provided.
But truancy threats were. Repeatedly.

🚨 II. Institutional Harassment in Lieu of Lawful Process

Let us catalogue:

• May 2017: Her sons were sexually assaulted during a forced examination by a doctor in front of 9 adults — under the orders of Social Development
• March 2020: Her home was entered against her will and against COVID Emergency Powers
• August 2020: Her fence was dismantled and her children were forcibly taken for a vaccination check (they were vaccinated)

No reports. No charges. No apologies. Just more visits.

⚖️ III. The Complaint Became the Crime

When she contacted the Complaints Commission, she was told:

“You’re not approved to homeschool and they may take your children.”

Thus, the very act of filing a complaint resurrected a false allegation she had resolved three years earlier — a tactic as coercive as it is cruel.

📎 Final Request, Made Clear:

“Please provide me with written approval to homeschool along with the policy and procedures that I need to follow.”

What she deserves: a written policy.
What she demands: lawful treatment.
What she gets: recycled threats dressed as safeguarding.


No comments: