⟡ This Is Not Justice, It’s Administrative Amnesia ⟡
— When a mother must notify the President of a Family Court that her rights were jurisdictionally ignored
Filed: 27 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/LETTER/0627-PRES
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-27_SWANK_Letter_PresidentFamilyCourt_UrgentReconsiderationRequest.pdf
Urgent letter to the President of the Family Division requesting review of the 23 June 2025 EPO and procedural harms.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, four U.S. citizen children were removed from their home without service, threshold evidence, or consular notification. Five police officers entered the premises unannounced. No safeguarding order was provided beforehand, nor was any medication, clothing, or contact arrangement prepared.
The children were taken without explanation. Their rights, devices, and daily medical routines were stripped from them — and from their disabled mother, whose legal filings had already redirected jurisdiction.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
No legal service or documentation preceded removal
Police-led ambush occurred outside judicial process
Consular authorities were never notified — a breach of international law
Disability accommodations were ignored for both parent and children
Contact was restricted as coercive leverage
Multiple legal filings (C100, EPO Discharge, C2s, Judicial Review) were already in motion
III. Why SWANK Logged It
This document was submitted to the President of the Family Division, not for drama — but because drama was imposed. It exists to clarify that the Emergency Protection Order was executed without lawful justification, that international norms were disregarded, and that no protective or evidentiary procedures were respected.
It logs the evidentiary inversion: those tasked with safeguarding instead became agents of suppression.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Lack of lawful threshold for removal
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Article 36 breach
Equality Act 2010 – Disability-based procedural discrimination
Family Procedure Rules – Non-service and contact obstruction
ECHR Articles 6 & 8 – Right to fair hearing and family life
V. SWANK’s Position
When procedural failure becomes policy, it is not an error — it is an architecture of harm.
This letter is not a plea. It is a record.
It was sent to the highest officer in the family court system because the lowest mechanisms failed with precision.
The children are not evidence of parental failure.
They are evidence of state misconduct.
We do not ask for justice.
We annotate its abandonment.
⟡ 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:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.