“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

Polly Chromatic v Unnamed Judge: Judicial Exclusion Complaint After Child Removal Without Process


⟡ “No Order. No Access. No Judge Identified. That’s Not a Ruling — That’s a Vanishing Act.” ⟡
When the Bench Excludes a Litigant to Approve a Removal, It’s Not Justice. It’s Jurisdictional Performance Art.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/JCIO/COMPLAINT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Complaint_JCIO_JudicialExclusionAndUnlawfulRemoval.pdf
Formal judicial misconduct complaint to the JCIO regarding the exclusion of a disabled parent from proceedings that resulted in secretive child removal.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) concerning the conduct of the Westminster Family Court judge who allegedly authorised the removal of her four U.S. citizen children. She was not notified of the hearing. She was not served. No order was provided. The hearing proceeded without her presence, participation, or representation — despite her documented status as a disabled American citizen with written-only communication needs. No efforts were made to accommodate her. The court knowingly excluded her.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A disabled litigant was completely excluded from life-altering proceedings

  • No documents, notice, or communication were served or shown

  • The presiding judge issued a care order despite the parent’s absence, silence, and known disability

  • The removal occurred without due process or safeguards — during live civil litigation

  • The hearing served as a vehicle for removal, not resolution

This was not judicial discretion. It was a structural abandonment of procedural integrity.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the judiciary is not permitted to function as an accomplice to jurisdictional disappearance.
Because the robe is not a shield for unlawfulness — especially not when it’s used to sign over children.
Because access to justice must be more than a slogan.
Because when the judge grants removal with no opposition, no advocate, and no notice —
they are not arbitrating. They are authoring harm.
Because judicial silence is still state violence.

IV. Violations

  • Judicial Conduct Guidelines – Failure to ensure fairness, transparency, and inclusion

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Denial of access adjustments for written-only communication

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Right to a fair hearing; right to family life

  • Children Act 1989 – Removal of children without lawful safeguards or parental inclusion

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Complete procedural exclusion based on disability

  • JCIO Code of Judicial Ethics – Undermining public confidence in judicial impartiality and access

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a judicial act. It was courtroom choreography for a foregone conclusion.
This wasn’t exclusion. It was state-sanctioned disqualification.
This wasn’t justice. It was a ceremonial enactment of removal, minus the law.

SWANK logged this complaint not to appeal — but to preserve the record.
We do not expect justice from the judiciary that hid this process.
We expect scrutiny, exposure, and eventual reckoning.
This wasn’t law. This was law abandoned.

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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.

Documented Obsessions