“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: EPO Discharge Filed Following Procedural Exclusion and Diplomatic Breach


⟡ “They Took Four Children. They Never Told Me Why. They Never Told the Embassy. They Never Told the Truth.” ⟡
This Isn’t a Discharge Request. It’s a Jurisdictional Correction. Filed. Timestamped. Litigated.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/EPO-DISCHARGE-FILING
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Application_FamilyCourt_EPO_Discharge_JurisdictionalBreach.pdf
Formal application submitted under Section 44(10) of the Children Act 1989 requesting immediate discharge of the Emergency Protection Order granted to Westminster on 23 June 2025, following removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children without hearing, threshold, or medical coordination.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were removed from their home under an Emergency Protection Order granted to Westminster Children’s Services. The parent, Polly Chromatic, was excluded from the hearing despite disability accommodations requiring written-only communication due to PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and asthma. No threshold of risk was established. No notice was provided. No consular protections were activated despite all four children being American citizens. The Emergency Protection Order was discovered after the removal had already occurred. A full Judicial Review and Emergency Relief Request is now live.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • EPO was granted without notice, hearing, or lawful justification

  • Parent was excluded despite documented disability accommodations

  • No safeguarding threshold was communicated or substantiated

  • No medical or diplomatic coordination was arranged for vulnerable U.S. children

  • The court and council failed to protect the procedural and constitutional rights of the family

This wasn’t urgency. It was evasion with a stamp.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Emergency Protection Orders require emergency — not paperwork theatre.
Because the only danger the children faced was being removed into silence.
Because Westminster didn’t notify the parent or the Embassy — and that silence was strategic.
Because Regal is not an acronym. He is a 16-year-old American citizen with rights they pretended not to see.
Because the discharge wasn’t just procedural. It was jurisdictional hygiene.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44 – EPO granted without legal threshold or risk of significant harm

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to honour medically verified communication accommodations

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, 14 – Exclusion from hearing, family interference, disability discrimination

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to notify U.S. authorities of child removal

  • UNCRPD and UNCRC – Breach of disabled parent protections and child rights to health, family, and autonomy

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was legal seizure under falsified urgency.
This wasn’t a miscommunication. It was a deliberate jurisdictional blackout.
This wasn’t just unlawful. It was historically familiar — and now, formally documented.

SWANK hereby files this discharge application not as a plea — but as a formal realignment of law to fact.
We do not consent to theatrical orders.
We do not wait for permission to correct the record.
We file. Repeatedly. Relentlessly. Jurisdictionally.

⟡ 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