“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 procedural timeline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label procedural timeline. Show all posts

You Were Told. You Just Thought She’d Stay Quiet.



⟡ They Said They Weren’t Warned. She Sent Them a Timeline. ⟡
If you can't remember your own misconduct, don't worry — she logged it for you.

Filed: 5 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MULTI/EVIDENCE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-05_SWANK_EvidenceIndex_UpdatedCorrespondenceSummary.pdf
An updated master correspondence summary detailing legal notifications, police reports, disability rights enforcement, safeguarding retaliation, and procedural misconduct sent across institutions — in sequence, in writing, and now, in public.


I. What Happened

Social workers claimed surprise.
Lawyers said “we weren’t aware.”
Institutions feigned ignorance.
So the mother compiled everything.
This index is the official correspondence map: it proves that she notified every actor, repeatedly, across multiple channels, months before escalation.


II. What the Record Establishes

  • That Westminster was made aware of N1 litigation, police reports, and medical restrictions

  • That multiple refusals, exemptions, and legal boundaries were issued in writing

  • That safeguarding escalations occurred after these warnings — not before

  • That formal complaints, claims, and refusal proxies were time-stamped and institutionally ignored


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because paper trails don’t lie — people do.
Because the only thing more dangerous than retaliation is pretending it’s concern.
And because when you say “we didn’t know,” this document becomes your rebuttal.


IV. Violations Identified

  • Disregard for Active Legal Proceedings (N1, Judicial Review)

  • Retaliation Despite Police Reporting and Documented Objection

  • Disability Rights Violations Despite Repeated Medical Evidence

  • Coercive Safeguarding with Full Knowledge of Civil Litigation

  • Institutional Evasion Through Feigned Unawareness


V. SWANK’s Position

There is no more benefit of the doubt.
This isn’t a complaint. It’s a ledger.
It was sent to them — now it’s published for you.
If they ever try to say “this is the first we’re hearing of it,”
point them here and respond:
No, darling — this is the last.


⟡ 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.

Formal Proof, Informal Platform — When Messenger Became the Ministry

 📱 SWANK Dispatch: Exhibit A Confirmed — The Facebook Files

🗓️ Dated Evidence: June 2017

Filed Under: digital records, educational compliance, neglected documentation, truancy retaliation, government inaccessibility, homeschool approval, informal formality


“If Messenger conversations can be used against mothers, they can certainly be used to protect them.”
— A Mother Who Screenshot Her Way Through Stonewalls

With the release of “2017.06 Mark Facebook.pdf”Exhibit A is no longer anecdotal. It is primary evidence — a real-time documentation of Polly Chromatic’s compliance, clarity, and repeated requests for formal homeschool recognition.

This isn’t a chat.
It’s a procedural timeline, dressed in Messenger blue.


🧾 I. What It Confirms

• Date of initial outreach to Mark Garland: 15 June 2017
• Content: Requests for guidance, contact number provided, calls followed up
• Tone: Respectful, consistent, thorough
• Barriers: No response, missed calls, rescheduled calls, postponed action
• Proof of:

  • Intent to comply

  • Repeated attempts to formalise

  • Institutional avoidance


⚖️ II. Why It Matters

Polly was accused of being “unregistered.”
This file proves she was actively seeking registration — months before the state escalated.

Mark Garland’s pattern of delayed follow-through and non-issuance of official letters forms the very foundation of the maladministration and harassment complaints filed across 2020.


📌 Final Analysis:

Exhibit A shows:

  • She followed the chain of command.

  • She complied without coercion.

  • She was failed by those who promised clarity and delivered confusion.

The system said she didn’t ask properly.
This file says otherwise.



Documented Obsessions