“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 truancy fabrication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truancy fabrication. Show all posts

Chromatic v The Complaints Commission – On the Fantasy of Noncompliance When No One Will Say What the Rules Are


“What Exactly Am I Allegedly Failing to Comply With?”

⟡ A Formal Follow-Up to the Complaints Commission After Years of Fictional Noncompliance

IN THE MATTER OF: Official silence, safeguarding fiction, and the state’s bizarre refusal to issue instructions while accusing the parent of not following them

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 8 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-PRATT-HOMESCHOOLINGDEMAND
Court File Name: 2020-08-08_Records_PrattFollowUpPhoneCallAndHomeschoolDemands
Summary: This letter — written after a follow-up call with Willette Pratt of the Complaints Commission — outlines the complete absurdity of being accused of noncompliance when no written expectations have ever been provided. It clearly lists the outcomes Polly seeks, the statutory failures of both the Department of Social Development and the Department of Education, and cites the relevant legal protections under UK homeschooling law. It is a bureaucratic crucifixion wrapped in velvet.

I. What Happened

  • On 7 August 2020, Willette Pratt phoned Polly to reiterate the need for “homeschooling compliance” by 31 August.

  • Polly responded — again — that she had already complied by meeting with Deputy Director Mark Garland in 2017 and submitting all required documentation.

  • Polly reiterated that her actual complaint was about procedural and legal misconduct by both the Department of Social Development and the Department of Education.

  • She listed 6 formal outcome requests, including:

    • Statutory investigation reports

    • An explanation for prolonged investigation timelines

    • A formal investigative review of the children’s forced hospitalisation and sexualised exams

    • A formal written letter from the Department of Education outlining homeschooling procedures

  • She enclosed an outline of UK homeschooling law, affirming that:

    • There is no requirement to follow the national curriculum or school hours

    • There is no legal obligation to notify the state of homeschooling

    • Home-educated children are not automatically vulnerable

II. What the Letter Establishes

  • That Polly has repeatedly asked for written procedures to ensure compliance — and been ignored

  • That no formal guidance has ever been provided from the Department of Education

  • That the safeguarding actions taken were not only disproportionate — they were dangerous

  • That the Department of Social Development appears to have operated without legal threshold

  • That Polly has been asked to follow rules that don’t exist, then blamed for not following them

  • That the state’s internal communication failure is now impacting a lawful educational arrangement

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding cannot be used to coerce without providing legal basis. Because quoting UK homeschooling law to your own government should not be a requirement of being a mother. Because every time the state refuses to provide written instructions, it weaponises confusion. Because Willette Pratt’s polite concern cannot substitute for actual policy. Because this letter isn’t just a summary — it’s a referendum on bureaucratic irresponsibility.

IV. Violations

  • Denial of written procedural guidance

  • Procedural retaliation disguised as safeguarding

  • Absence of statutory reports after repeated safeguarding visits

  • Illegal clinical examination of children without informed consent

  • Fabricated truancy threat despite homeschool approval

  • Breach of due process and parental rights under UK homeschooling frameworks

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this document as an encyclopaedic demonstration of lawful resistance. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

  • That no parent should be harassed while waiting for instructions the state refuses to provide

  • That quoting law is not defiance — it’s diligence

  • That safeguarding based on bureaucratic silence is not lawful — it’s retaliatory

  • That compliance requires clarity, not improvisation

  • That this letter is not a request for clarification — it is a formal rebuke of institutional failure

⟡ 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 Bureaucratic Blame-Shifting – On the Consequences of Following the Wrong Instructions from the Right Man


“Please Stop Pretending My Children Are Truant When You’ve Read None of the Emails”

⟡ A Formal Complaint to the Complaints Commission on the Abuse, Trespass, and Fictional Truancy Allegations of TCI Social Development

IN THE MATTER OF: Illegal safeguarding, contradictory state instructions, fabricated truancy threats, and the absurdity of being harassed for following directions

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-COMPLAINTS-TRUANCYTHREAT
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Court_Letter_TCI_ComplaintsCommission_SocialDevComplaint_TruancyThreat
Summary: This complaint letter was sent following a face-to-face meeting with Willette A. Pratt (Senior Investigative Officer) to formally document a series of illegal actions and procedural contradictions by the Turks and Caicos Islands Department of Social Development. The letter outlines sexualised medical abuse, illegal home entries, false vaccination claims, and a fabricated truancy threat — all rooted in the state’s inability to remember its own policy or communicate within departments. The tone is resolutely civil, even as the content burns through institutional credibility like acid.

I. What Happened

  • In May 2017, social workers and police forced Polly Chromatic and her children into a hospital where her sons were sexually assaulted by a doctor in front of nine adults, including herself and her mother — with no lawful basis or privacy

  • In August 2020, police and social workers again entered her property — this time by dismantling her fence — and forcibly removed the family for interrogation without cause or paperwork

  • In the same month, another forced hospital visit occurred over fabricated non-vaccination concerns, again disproven by medical staff

  • In March 2020, staff entered the property during COVID-19 lockdown, without consent, PPE, or legal justification

  • At every stage, the Department of Social Development failed to provide any investigative reports, despite legal obligation

  • Despite a homeschooling arrangement approved by Mark Garland in 2017, Polly was accused of truancy by the Complaints Commission — because, as it turns out, she “spoke to the wrong person”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Polly followed every instruction from officials — and was punished for it

  • That Mark Garland, the Deputy Director, provided the homeschool approval and policy in 2017 — which she followed to the letter

  • That the Department of Education never made direct contact or provided updated procedures

  • That Willette Pratt herself implied Polly’s children could be removed unless she complied with new (undisclosed) procedures

  • That abuse and trespass were regular, unacknowledged occurrences, presented as if they were routine

  • That institutional memory is nonexistent, but institutional overreach is flourishing

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when your children are assaulted in a hospital and then accused of truancy three years later, something has gone catastrophically wrong. Because safeguarding doesn’t mean fabricated drama followed by radio silence. Because this mother followed the law — and the state simply forgot what it told her. Because a “policy” that cannot be named or provided is not a policy — it’s institutional gaslighting.

IV. Violations

  • Sexual abuse of minors under clinical pretext

  • Trespass and unlawful removal

  • Violation of Children Ordinance 2015: failure to provide investigative reports

  • COVID-19 Emergency Law violations

  • Misuse of truancy enforcement to harass a law-abiding mother

  • Procedural deflection by social development, education, and complaints staff

  • Violation of right to education and protection from arbitrary state interference

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this letter as an unflinching statement of lawful resistance. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

  • That a parent who follows departmental policy should not be threatened with child removal

  • That speaking to a deputy director is not “the wrong person” — it’s a chain of command

  • That safeguarding authorities cannot operate on memory, mood, and untraceable policy

  • That asking for the actual written procedure you’re accused of breaching is not subversive — it’s survival

  • That institutional confusion is not an excuse — it’s a liability

⟡ 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:

How to Disappear a Family (Without Ever Losing Their Number)

 🧾 SWANK Dispatch: I Didn't Relocate — You Just Lied

🗓️ 24 October 2020

Filed Under: false relocation claim, sexual abuse cover-up, social worker evasion, psychological evaluation, truancy distortion, homeschool retaliation, DSD negligence, environmental trauma, institutional gaslighting

“They touched my children without consent.
Then claimed they couldn’t find us.
While calling me on the same number I’ve had since 2016.”
— A Mother Who’s Been ‘Relocated’ Without Ever Moving House

This 6-page memorandum to Mark Fulford of F Chambers is a bombshell of misconduct, denial, and bureaucratic revisionism.

In it, Polly Chromatic traces the systematic erasure and distortion of traumatic incidents, including:

• Sexual abuse of her children during an unconsented medical examination
• Fabricated claims of relocation to excuse DSD’s abandonment of the case
• Contradictory timelines from official reports and emails
• A full rebuttal of false educational neglect claims
• Evidence of DSD’s continued harassment despite full compliance

🧠 I. The “Relocation” Myth

Despite being present, reachable, and compliant, DSD repeatedly claimed:

  • “The family had relocated”

  • “They were unable to complete assessment”

  • “They could not locate the mother”

Meanwhile:

  • She was living at the same Palm Grove address

  • She had the same phone number since 2016

  • She was home ill during 2018 — not missing

  • DSD had previously visited her there — on record

“If they couldn’t find me, why didn’t they call me?”
“They did. Many times.”

👩‍⚖️ II. What She Documents

  • Medical assault of her sons with no consent and no privacy

  • Clear motive to cover up this by claiming an incomplete investigation

  • Constant homeschool obstruction, despite written approvals

  • Threats to inspect children’s notebooks — even though all learning is digital

  • Mould-related illness from uninhabitable conditions in Providenciales

  • Interference in home renovations used to justify safeguarding action

  • Fabricated safeguarding concerns based on sightings during "school hours"

  • One-sided “psychological evaluations” that were never returned

⚠️ III. Why This Letter Exists

Because institutional memory loss is not a clerical issue — it is a weapon.
And this letter ensures that:

  • Every lie is dated

  • Every contradiction is documented

  • Every abuse is followed by a name and a timestamp


No comments: