Polly Chromatic v Westminster: False Allegations Used to Justify Unlawful Emergency Protection Order

---

⟡ “They Claimed Domestic Violence. I Don’t Have a Partner. They Claimed Drug Use. I Don’t Use Drugs.” ⟡
The Emergency Protection Order Wasn’t Based on Risk. It Was Based on Fiction.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/EPO-REBUTTAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Rebuttal_Westminster_EPO_FalseAllegationsAndUrgentAction.pdf
Formal rebuttal submitted to legal counsel and U.S. consular authorities documenting the fabrication of claims used to justify the unlawful removal of four American children.

---

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Westminster Children’s Services obtained an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) that led to the police-assisted removal of four U.S. citizen children. The justification? Allegations of domestic violence and drug use — both of which were entirely fabricated. Polly Chromatic does not have a partner. No such events ever occurred. No substance use has been documented, observed, or alleged in any medical or legal forum until this EPO. These claims were filed without notice, without evidence, and without access accommodations — while a Judicial Review, N1 Claim, and Criminal Referral were pending.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• No partner exists, making the domestic violence claim factually impossible

• No history, documentation, or testing exists to support drug use claims

• The parent was not present, not heard, and not notified before EPO issuance

• Known disability access directives (written-only communication) were ignored

• Four American children with medical needs were removed without due process

This wasn’t child protection. It was a false affidavit disguised as safeguarding.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding claims must be based in evidence — not bureaucratic paranoia.
Because the archive does not let reputational assassinations pass without timestamp.
Because this EPO was not made in error — it was made in bad faith, and we know exactly why.
Because retaliation isn’t always loud — sometimes it wears the robes of family law and arrives unannounced.
Because every lie they tell becomes a new section of this archive.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, Section 44 – Misuse of EPO powers; no immediate risk substantiated

• Family Procedure Rules – Breach of natural justice; no hearing or representation

• Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate known disability and communication needs

• Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Denial of fair hearing and family integrity

• UNCRC Articles 9 and 24 – Unlawful separation and medical disruption

• Tort Law – Defamation – Publication of false, reputation-damaging allegations

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a protection order. It was a reputation hit job filed through legal paperwork.
This wasn’t judicial caution. It was executive panic in response to public exposure.
This wasn’t a court decision. It was a defamation tactic wrapped in institutional stationery.

SWANK has filed this rebuttal not as explanation, but as jurisdictional correction.
We do not accept lies filed under urgency.
We document them. Publicly. Permanently. And in full.

---

⟡ 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.

---