PC-77477: ⟡ IN RE POLLY CHROMATIC (TCI) [2020] SWANK 77 ⟡

---

The Regulation They Broke While Quoting It.

Filed: 15 September 2020
Reference: SWANK / TCI Governor’s Office / PC-77477
Download PDF: 2020-09-15_Core_PC-77477_TurksAndCaicos_EmergencyPowers_CovidUnlawfulEntryRegulation.pdf
Summary: Official Government Gazette publication of the Emergency Powers (COVID-19) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (No. 18 of 2020) — the law solemnly ignored by the very officers charged with enforcing it.

---

I. What Happened

• On 15 September 2020, the Turks & Caicos Governor issued Regulation 18 of 2020, granting himself sweeping powers to control human proximity in the name of “public health.”
• The statute, a masterclass in colonial grammar, criminalised unlawful entry, mandated six-foot distancing, and sanctioned maskless trespass with penalties so precise they could be measured in inches.
• Weeks later, officials from the Department of Social Development — citing this very regulation — entered Polly Chromatic’s home unmasked, uninvited, and undisturbed by their own legislation.
• The Government Gazette therefore became Exhibit A in the jurisprudence of hypocrisy: law as ornament, compliance as a photo op.

---

II. What the Document Establishes

• The primary legal instrument governing COVID-19 conduct in the TCI.
• A written standard of behaviour breached first by its authors.
• Evidence that public health law was treated as ceremonial rather than functional.
• The statutory spine underpinning later complaints of unlawful entry and disability-risk exposure.
• Proof that “emergency powers” translate as “rules for others.”

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• Because every good case needs its scripture — and this was the scripture they forgot to read.
• Because jurisdiction requires a text, and this is the text they proved optional.
• Because evidence of governance is never as telling as evidence of its disobedience.
• Because pandemic law was less about distance than about deference.

---

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Emergency Powers (COVID-19) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (No. 18 of 2020) — breached Regulations 7 and 9 (governmental entry restrictions and mask mandates).
• Public and Environmental Health Ordinance (2009 Revised) — failure to protect public safety in official capacity.
• UN CRPD Art. 11 — protection in emergencies for persons with disabilities.
• ECHR Art. 8 — interference with private life without lawful basis.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “public health.”
This is performative containment with colonial undertones.

• We do not accept that regulation exists only for citizens.
• We reject the theatre of authority in latex-free gloves.
• We archive every statute that looked majestic in print and miserable in practice.

---

⟡ Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every section jurisdictional. Every preamble propaganda.
Because when law forgets to apply to lawmakers, it becomes literature.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance — and retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Unlicensed reproduction will be cited as panic, not authorship.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd (United Kingdom) and SWANK London LLC (United States of America). Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. Every division operates under dual sovereignty: UK evidentiary law and U.S. constitutional speech protection. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, alongside all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards, registered under SWANK London Ltd (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA). © 2025 SWANK London Ltd (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA) All formatting, typographic, and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

Surveillance Disguised as Delivery: Westminster’s Unauthorised Mail Slot Breach

---

⟡ The Knock That Wasn’t Just a Knock ⟡
"Surveillance, Styled as Logistics – A Grey Package Performance"

Filed: 15 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/INTIMIDATION-ENTRY-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025.06.15_IntimidationEntry_GreyPackageSurveillanceIncident.pdf
A doorbell surveillance record of unannounced contact after jurisdictional withdrawal — no delivery left, but the message was made clear.

---

I. What Happened

On the morning of Saturday, 15 June 2025, a man with a grey plastic-wrapped parcel and a helmet arrived at the door of a Westminster flat — uninvited, unannounced, and undescribed. He knocked repeatedly, rang the bell, audibly called out “Hello?”, and then — with no legal authority, consent, or notice — opened the internal mail chute to look inside the family’s private residence.

All four children were present.
No calling card was left.
No agency was named.
No item was delivered.

And yet, the camera rolled.

This act occurred just days after a jurisdictional audit was filed and Westminster Children’s Services were explicitly instructed to cease all contact following refusal of safeguarding jurisdiction. The visit did not come from a named individual. It did not resemble a delivery. It resembled an observation.

---

II. What the Incident Establishes

• Unlawful boundary breach – using the private mail slot as an entry point for surveillance.
• Staged mimicry of procedural visits – invoking the posture of delivery without leaving anything behind.
• Psychological intimidation of minors – exploiting their presence for impact.
• Improper weekend timing – further removing it from procedural legitimacy.
• Absence of lawful pretext – no statutory grounds, no emergency basis, no identification.

Even if it was a delivery, it performed like a threat. This wasn’t miscommunication. It was choreography.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because real concern does not peek through mail chutes.
Because legitimate care doesn’t require visual access without consent.
Because safeguarding theatre has a signature — and it’s almost always deniable.

This was not delivery.
This was not safeguarding.
This was a performance.

And SWANK London Ltd. does not permit uncredited theatre on our stage.

---

IV. Violations

This event is archived under the following breaches:

• Children Act 1989 – Emotional harm caused by unauthorised contact.
• Article 8, ECHR – Breach of private family life and home.
• Equality Act 2010 – Procedural intimidation against a disabled parent.
• UK GDPR – Attempted non-consensual visual inspection/data collection.
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Contact after formal withdrawal.
• Safeguarding Standards – Unlawful contact without basis or consent.

If it was care, it was care performed unlawfully.
If it was mail, it was mail disguised as surveillance.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not interpret grey plastic sleeves as neutral.
We do not consider door-slot peering as passive.
We do not consent to unmarked visitation in the name of care.

This is now formally logged as an intimidation tactic, procedurally outside lawful safeguarding, and stylistically indistinguishable from a threat.

—

📹 Watch the Full Footage Here:
https://youtu.be/p1kxGrFfEww?si=wBvlnF0zRylpMzD5

---

⟡ 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.

A Visit from the Imaginary Intern

---

🖋 ⟡ SWANK Black Paper ⟡
An Archive of Elegance, Intrusion, and Institutional Fantasy
Date Filed: 22 October 2020
Published by: SWANK London Ltd.
Official Website: www.swanklondon.com
Author: Polly Chromatic, Director
Registered Correspondence Address: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Contact: ✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---

LIES, FENCES, AND VIDEOTAPE

A Counter-Narrative in Six Scenes

---

I. Scene One: Fabrication at the Gate

They claimed: an interning social work student attended.
— He did not exist.

They claimed: they entered through an unchained gate.
— Every gate was chained. They broke the fence. The footage exists.

They claimed: rude signage on the fence.
— Correct. The original kind signs were defaced by a neighbour. The replacements were, shall we say, less forgiving.

---

II. Scene Two: Domestic Theatre of the Absurd

They claimed: “We saw her through a wide open door.”
— I was breastfeeding. Inside. They loitered wordlessly. I shut the door in confusion.

They claimed: I refused to comply.
— I dressed my children, opened the door, and recorded everything. The entire event is documented.

They claimed: noises of glass shattering.
— Fiction.

They claimed: police received permission to enter.
— They broke in. No permission was granted.

They claimed: “four hours of refusal.”
— Another fiction. I have the footage.

They claimed: permission was asked and received to photograph.
— It was not. They photographed without consent.

---

III. Invented Hygiene and Imagined Squalor

They claimed: “strong smell of urine,” “urine everywhere,” “no functioning bathroom.”
— We were remodelling. Compost system. Shower. They didn’t inspect the bathroom.

They claimed: mouldy fridge, spoiled vegetables.
— There was salmon. Apparently, salmon is now a safeguarding concern.

They claimed: “no food in the cabinet.”
— We don’t eat preservatives. The freezer was full.

They claimed: messy playroom.
— Children were playing.

They claimed: everyone slept on two mattresses.
— We had four—side by side—for safety. No headboard injuries. Revolutionary, apparently.

They claimed: “exposed plumbing and wires.”
— Mythical.

They claimed: structure “unsafe.”
— We were renovating. The property is owned. Shall we outlaw interior design?

---

IV. Misdiagnosis of Mental Health & Domestic Sovereignty

They claimed: concern for my mental state.
— My mental health is fine. I’d be concerned about theirs.

They claimed: children are “withdrawn.”
— They don’t talk to rude people.

They claimed: “poor grooming.”
— I was breastfeeding four children. Forgive me for not curating a lookbook.

They claimed: “no functioning kitchen.”
— They never entered the kitchen.

They claimed: “lack of compliance.”
— I cannot comply with an unseen plan.

---

V. Financial and Educational Myths

They claimed: doubts about my financial provision.
— I owned the home. Spent $3000/month on food. Paid every bill.

They claimed: doubts about homeschool.
— I had approval. Followed the curriculum. They ghosted.

They claimed: “no evaluation.”
— They never assessed. My children exceeded their standards, and that was the problem.

---

VI. Omitted Truths and Ongoing Questions

They omitted: the May 2017 doctor visit, where my children were harmed in front of nine adults.

They ignored: our active passport renewal process.

They claimed: we are “hiding.”
— We’ve lived at the same address since 2018.

They hinted: dysfunction.
— There is none. Our home is calm, our children are thriving, and our marriage is intact.

---

© SWANK London Ltd.

All patterns reserved.
Unauthorized reproduction, distortion, or bureaucratic hallucination is prohibited.

---

A Timeline of Harassment Dressed Up as Protection — Filed for the Record

 🛑 SWANK Petition: The Human Rights They Pretended Don’t Apply to Homeschooling Mothers

🗓️ 15 July 2020

Filed Under: human rights violations, emergency powers abuse, forced medical examinations, lawful homeschooling, child trauma, privacy breaches, misogynist oversight, procedural corruption

---

“I filed a curriculum. They sent police.”
— A Mother Whose Children Were Educated, Not Enrolled

On this solemn date, the 15th of July 2020, a ten-page petition was filed with the Human Rights Commission of the Turks and Caicos Islands by Polly Chromatic, a legally approved homeschooling mother, researcher, and writer — whose children were assaulted, her body medically endangered, and her home repeatedly violated under the grotesque excuse of “child welfare.”

Let us be precise.

---

⚖️ I. The Legal Right to Homeschool — Documented and Ignored

Permission was granted on 26 June 2017 by Mark Garland, yet the Department of Social Development—led by Ashley Adams, Jaala Kennedy, and Ashley Smith—refused to respect this approval.

• Curriculum: submitted yearly
• Degrees: provided (Bachelor + Master’s)
• Income: disclosed
• Communication: constant

Instead of de-escalation, they escalated surveillance. They questioned her about spanking. They challenged her religion. They dismantled her fence.

---

🏥 II. Medical Assault and the Weaponisation of Hospitals

May 2017: Her sons were sexually abused during an examination at the National Hospital in Grand Turk. The room had nine adults. No privacy. The mother objected — they ignored her. The doctor told her to forcibly retract her children’s foreskin with lotion, a direct violation of UK NHS guidelines, which state:
“Never try to force your son’s foreskin back… it may be painful and damage the foreskin.”

No accountability followed.
Only more visits.

---

🦠 III. High-Risk Asthma, Emergency Laws Broken, No Excuse

Despite Emergency COVID Powers and her documented eosinophilic asthma, social workers entered her property against her express instructions on 26 March 2020.

The law:
❌ They were not essential workers.
❌ They had no authority to bypass the Emergency Powers.
❌ They endangered her life, knowingly.

---

🧾 IV. Fundamental Rights Violated (as listed in the Constitution):

• 🏠 Right to private and family life

• 📚 Right to education

• ⚖️ Right to lawful administrative action

• 🧠 Freedom of conscience and belief

• 👩‍👧 Protection from inhuman treatment

• 📢 Freedom of expression

• ♻️ Environmental beliefs and practice

She did not invent these rights.
They simply failed to respect them.

---

📅 V. The Timeline That Won’t Be Forgotten

This petition meticulously documented nearly four years of violations, with dozens of emails, hospital visits, and unlawful property entries. It named names. Dates. Laws. Ordinances. Attachments.

It was not a cry for help.
It was a case file.
Bound in evidence. Sealed in truth. Ignored only by cowards.

---