Ex parte SWANK: On the Disregard of Lawful Process and the Theatre of Retaliation [2025] SWANK DECLARATION

⟡ Jurisdiction Refused, Children Removed ⟡
Or, How Every Safeguarding Officer Became an Archivist’s Exhibit

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/JURIS/0625-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Declaration_JurisdictionalMisconduct.pdf
Formal declaration asserting that all state action post-complaint constituted procedural misconduct, retaliatory safeguarding, and unlawful family separation.

---

I. What Happened
On 25 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. issued a legal declaration confirming that Westminster City Council, CAFCASS, Social Work England, and the Family Court had each received — and each ignored — formal filings, medical evidence, jurisdictional objections, and litigation notices. In defiance of lawful process, four children remained separated from their mother, Polly Chromatic, despite the total absence of a valid, disclosed, or proportionate legal basis.

This declaration did not seek intervention. It notified breach.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Written-only communication needs were overridden and then criminalised

• Misconduct complaints were answered with further contact from the named parties

• Judicial Review, civil litigation, and criminal referrals were all disregarded

• Regulatory agencies rerouted redress back to the institutions under scrutiny

• Separation of a disabled mother from her children was enforced with no visible procedural authority

This was not administrative confusion. It was state-coordinated indifference.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It
SWANK logged this declaration because refusal is now a collective genre. Every institution performed the same act: nothing.
No investigation. No protection. No disclosure.
The refusal to act became its own choreography — one we have preserved, page by page, timestamp by silence.

This declaration is a jurisdictional mirror. We do not demand reflection. We install it.

---

IV. Violations

• Article 8, ECHR – Interference with family life without legal justification

• Equality Act 2010 – Discriminatory refusal to accommodate communication needs

• Children Act 1989 – Removal absent order, notice, or proportionate reasoning

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Systematic denial of redress and procedural clarity

• Public Sector Equality Duty – Failure to act on known risk and known disability

---

V. SWANK’s Position
We are no longer asking if the removal was lawful.
We are declaring — with legal record and velvet finality — that it was not.

This wasn’t “failure to engage.” It was institutional mimicry: agencies copying each other’s silence like a school of bureaucratic fish.

The mother did not disappear. She was erased — procedurally, administratively, and quite literally — by those who were notified, warned, and told not to proceed.

We are done writing requests.
We are now filing declarations.

⟡ 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.

---