Chromatic v Westminster & Others – A Sovereign Complaint on Behalf of U.S. Children Removed in Retaliation

⟡ "This Is Not a Custody Case, It’s a Consular Emergency" ⟡
— Four U.S. citizen children, unlawfully seized under a false safeguarding pretext
 
Filed: 30 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/EMBASSY/RETALIATION-0625
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-30_SWANK_Letter_USEmbassy_ConsularProtectionRequest.pdf
Formal diplomatic request to the U.S. Embassy seeking consular protection following the retaliatory removal of four American children from their disabled mother in London.

---

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four American children—Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir—were unlawfully removed from their home in London under the guise of an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). Their mother, Polly Chromatic, had filed a £23 million civil claim (N1) weeks earlier for systemic negligence, and a judicial review application days prior. The children, all U.S. citizens and medically fragile, were placed in UK state custody without credible cause. This action took place in the absence of due process and amid repeated diplomatic silence.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Retaliatory Misuse of Safeguarding Powers

• Violation of U.S. Citizens' Rights Abroad

• Failure to Protect Disabled Mother and Medically Vulnerable Children

• Active Civil Litigation Silenced Through Family Court Intervention

• Escalation Without Prior Assessment, Transparency, or Legal Merit

These children were not "at risk." They were at risk of the institution.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the seizure of U.S. citizens abroad, in retaliation for lawful legal filings and activism, is not just a family dispute — it is an international violation.
Because safeguarding claims are not above accountability when used as weapons.
Because what was needed was medical support, not police force.
Because silence is complicity.
Because the State Department has a duty to intervene when its youngest citizens are taken under false pretexts.

---

IV. Violations

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963)

• Articles 6, 8, and 14 of the ECHR

• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

• Equality Act 2010 – Disability Discrimination

• Children Act 1989 – Proportionality, Necessity, and Procedural Fairness

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a welfare intervention. It was a diplomatic scandal.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was retribution.
This was a seizure of four medically compromised American children for no lawful reason, in the context of protected legal claims against the UK state.
We do not accept the narrative. We do not accept the silence.
We will not stop filing.

---

⟡ 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.

© 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.