“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 Westminster: Consular Protection Formally Requested After Emergency Removal of U.S. Citizen Children


⟡ “They Took Four Disabled U.S. Children Without Threshold. I Requested Diplomatic Intervention. Because This Isn’t a Custody Dispute — It’s a Treaty Violation.” ⟡
When Family Law Fails, Foreign Policy Begins. And This Archive Just Filed Its Passport.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/CONSULAR-PROTECTION-URGENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_USAEmbassy_ConsularProtection_RetaliatoryRemoval.pdf
Emergency formal request to the U.S. Embassy for immediate consular intervention following the unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children from their disabled mother by Westminster Council under an invalid Emergency Protection Order.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic wrote to the U.S. Embassy Consular Affairs Team requesting urgent diplomatic protection after her four U.S. citizen children — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — were removed without notice by UK authorities under an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). The removal occurred while:

  • A £23M civil claim was pending against two NHS trusts

  • A Judicial Review was active

  • No risk threshold was ever established

  • Medical, disability, and diplomatic protocols were ignored

  • Prior embassy contact had already been initiated

The email included references to legal filings, psychiatric records, medical evidence, and the complete digital archive of events at www.swanklondon.com.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Four children were removed without consular notification, violating Article 36 of the Vienna Convention

  • The children are medically fragile and wholly dependent on their disabled mother

  • Retaliation appears linked to public litigation and whistleblower documentation

  • The local authority failed to provide placement information or medical transition

  • The parent was denied access to the court and to legal counsel during removal

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was international overreach masked as child protection.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot take U.S. citizens without telling their government.
Because a parent under live litigation cannot be treated as though rights no longer apply.
Because “child protection” cannot be used to erase civil claims, psychiatric assessments, or embassy protections.
Because when diplomacy becomes necessary, we send a cover letter, a witness statement, and a court archive.

IV. Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular notification of U.S. citizen seizure

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44 – EPO granted without risk, notice, or medical basis

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access entirely disregarded during removal

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8 – Denial of due process, right to family life, and fair legal remedy

  • UNCRC Articles 7, 9, 24 – Right to nationality, family unity, and healthcare violated

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal participation denied to disabled litigant

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t child welfare. It was a sovereign breach disguised as social work.
This wasn’t jurisdiction. It was a retaliatory seizure of medically dependent children from their American mother.
This wasn’t a legal order. It was a bureaucratic theft — and now, the embassy has been formally served.

SWANK hereby archives this diplomatic request not as diplomacy, but as a legal intervention cloaked in velvet, sealed with evidence, and sent to the only entity Westminster cannot ignore: the United States of America.

⟡ 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