“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 Application Filed Following Procedural Exclusion and Medical Disruption


⟡ “You Called It Emergency. We Filed for Discharge. Now the Archive Has Spoken and the Court Has Been Served.” ⟡
When the Law Is Abused in Silence, It Must Be Corrected in Writing — Publicly, Jurisdictionally, Elegantly.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/EPO-DISCHARGE-S44-FINAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Application_FamilyCourt_Discharge_EPO_NoLocationDisclosure.pdf
Formal application submitted under Section 44(10) of the Children Act 1989 to discharge the Emergency Protection Order used by Westminster to remove four disabled U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic filed a Section 44(10) application with the Family Division to discharge the Emergency Protection Order (EPO) granted to Westminster Children’s Services on 23 June 2025. That order was used to forcibly remove Regal, Prince, King, and Honor — all U.S. citizen children with chronic medical needs — without notice, threshold, or due process. The mother was excluded from proceedings due to documented disabilities (PTSD, asthma, muscle dysphonia) and her need for written-only access was ignored. The removal was retaliatory, unannounced, and procedurally opaque. The EPO was issued amid a live Judicial Review and an active £23M civil claim.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The EPO was used to bypass ongoing legal action already filed

  • Parent was denied participation due to known medical access requirements

  • No risk threshold was established, nor was placement disclosed post-removal

  • Medical continuity was broken: four asthma patients missed transition of care

  • U.S. consular notification was never made — despite all four children being dual nationals

This wasn’t an order for protection. It was a theatre of jurisdiction staged without the subject present.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot claim protection while concealing placement.
Because no one signs off on child removal during hospital appointment season unless retaliation is the real motive.
Because Section 44(10) exists for exactly this: to call out EPOs used as shields for administrative misconduct.
Because the parent was excluded. The solicitor was ineffective. So we filed the law ourselves — and posted it in public.
Because you cannot redact a filing already published in the archive.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44(10) – EPO discharged due to lack of threshold, access, and transparency

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access ignored in violation of written-only protocol

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, 14 – Fair hearing rights denied; family life disrupted; disabled litigant excluded

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular notification upon removal of U.S. citizens

  • UNCRPD and UNCRC – Violations of parental access, sibling unity, and medical safeguarding rights

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a care order. It was a jurisdictional ambush now subject to reversal.
This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a procedural hit job carried out while the system looked away.
This wasn’t a cry for review. It was a statutory demand for correction filed on time and in public.

SWANK hereby archives this Section 44(10) Application not as a plea — but as a discharge trigger activated by law, logged by evidence, and served to the world.

You ignored the parent.
You ignored the embassy.
You ignored the archive.
Now we file — and we don’t ask twice.

⟡ 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