“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

Documented Obsessions

Chromatic v Westminster: The Legal Nullity of Removal Without Law

⟡ APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF CUSTODY ⟡
"Jurisdictionally Void, Procedurally Absent, and Morally Reprehensible"

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/JURIS/0625-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Application_ReinstatementOfCustody.pdf
This document requests immediate custody reinstatement due to unlawful removal and regulatory collapse.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four U.S. citizen children were removed from their home without service of a valid court order, advance notice, or procedural safeguard. No Interim Supervision Order was lawfully served. The applicant, Polly Chromatic, was denied participation in any hearing beforehand. Social worker contact resumed despite active Judicial Review proceedings.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • There was no judicial process consistent with Family Procedure Rules

  • The children were removed absent legal clarity or authority

  • Retaliatory safeguarding occurred in response to SWANK filings and public record activity

  • Regulatory bodies failed to intervene, despite notice

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Family Court cannot allow the removal of children based on informal threats, bureaucratic backchannels, or retrospective justification. Because constitutional, international, and domestic norms require due process — and it was conspicuously denied. Because a mother should not need to sue for recognition of her legal parenthood in the face of state silence.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Unlawful interference with family life

  • Family Procedure Rules – Breach of notice, participation, and hearing rights

  • Article 8, ECHR – Right to family life

  • Vienna Convention – U.S. consular notification failure

V. SWANK’s Position

This removal was not child protection.
It was system protection.
It was not lawful.
It was not procedural.
It was not humane.

The Family Court is asked to either reinstate custody immediately or compel Westminster Council to justify their actions in a hearing held on record — not behind locked doors.

⟡ 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.