“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 statutory noncompliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statutory noncompliance. 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:

Twelve Legal Questions. Zero Legal Answers.

 ⚖️ SWANK Dispatch: When a Lawyer Has to Ask Why Your Children Were Touched

🗓️ 25 August 2020

Filed Under: legal intervention, forced medical exams, investigation without cause, rights breach, family life violation, child protection misconduct, lack of disclosure, systemic harassment, trauma documentation

“Was there a report of abuse? If so, where is it?
If not — then what gave you the right to examine my sons’ genitals?”
— A Mother, Represented and Still Waiting for Answers

This letter from attorney Lara Maroof of James Law Chambers to Ashley Adams, Deputy Director of Social Development, formalises the case that Polly Chromatic has been trying to make for over three years:
That no lawful cause has been given for the intrusion, medical violations, and trauma inflicted upon her and her children.

🧾 I. What This Letter Demands

Twelve direct legal questions, including:

  1. Was any report of suspected abuse ever made in 2017 or 2019?

  2. Was any assessment carried out before police and social worker visits?

  3. On what grounds were her three sons subjected to genital examinations?

  4. Why was no interview conducted with Polly prior to these exams?

  5. Why were the children not spoken to before being touched?

  6. What legal section was used to justify action — or inaction — under the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance?

  7. What lawful grounds existed for the 26 March 2020 home intrusion during national lockdown?

  8. Is there an active investigation or not?

These are basic statutory questions.
Yet none had ever been answered.
Even after three years.
Even after a lawyer asked in writing.

⚠️ II. What This Reveals

  • There is no record of a proper cause for any investigation

  • The department violated both medical ethics and legal procedure

  • No closure was given. No actions were explained.

  • The result has been chronic, legally sanctioned distress for Noelle and her children

“After three years, it is reasonable to expect your Department would have been able to form a very clear opinion…”
Instead — they formed no opinion, no case, and no lawful conclusion.

📌 Final Note:

The letter is from a lawyer.
The trauma is from a government.
The burden is on a mother.
And the silence, still —
is from the State.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions