⟡ “They Said Domestic Violence. I Don’t Have a Partner. They Said Drugs. I Don’t Even Drink.” ⟡
You Can’t Just Invent a Threshold Because the Truth Is Inconvenient.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/ADMINCOURT/EPO-FALSITY-DECLARATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Statement_AdminCourt_EPOFalseClaimsRebuttal.pdf
Supplemental statement submitted to the Administrative Court rebutting the fabricated grounds used by Westminster Council to justify an Emergency Protection Order.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal supplemental declaration to the Administrative Court exposing the falsehoods underpinning the Emergency Protection Order issued on 23 June. The EPO was used to justify the police-assisted removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children — including Regal, age 16 — without warrant, without notice, and without disability accommodation. The claims that justified this were not just procedurally unsound — they were entirely fictitious.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Allegation: Domestic violence — Fact: Polly Chromatic has no partner, and no such incident has occurred
Allegation: Drug use — Fact: No history, charge, treatment, or documentation of substance use exists
These false claims were presented during live litigation — including a Judicial Review, civil claim, and criminal referral
No reasonable adjustments were made for documented disabilities (e.g. written-only access)
The EPO functioned as a pretext for silencing, not protection
This wasn’t child safety. It was an evidentiary takedown masquerading as safeguarding.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because lies filed in court are not protective — they’re performative.
Because the Emergency Protection Order wasn’t urgent — it was strategic.
Because Regal didn’t need protection from harm. He needed protection from the system that lied to remove him.
Because the parent wasn’t a risk — she was a litigant, and that was the real problem.
Because the archive didn’t wait to be invited. It filed. Loudly.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 44 – Misuse of EPO powers; no immediate harm substantiated
Family Procedure Rules – Deprivation of participation, notice, and response
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to implement reasonable adjustments
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Denial of fair trial rights and family integrity
Tort Law – Defamation – Filing of knowingly false allegations with reputational damage intent
UNCRC Articles 9, 12, 24 – Unlawful separation, exclusion from voice, and medical disruption
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t an Emergency Protection Order. It was a Retaliation Protection Order — for the council, not the children.
This wasn’t an error. It was a strategic defamation attempt filed in procedural costume.
This wasn’t law. It was an administrative vendetta with a PDF attachment.
SWANK has documented this filing not as explanation — but as forensic record.
We do not redact the lies. We publish them — and then we file the truth.
This is not an appeal for reconsideration.
It is a jurisdictional reminder: the archive saw everything.
⟡ 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.