“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: Family Court Formally Notified of Judicial Review Challenging Emergency Removal


⟡ “We Filed Judicial Review. We Filed Psychiatric Evidence. We Notified the Family Court. We Didn’t Whisper It — We Archived It.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Submission. It Was a Warning Dressed in Jurisdiction.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/JUDICIALNOTICE-JR-BUNDLE01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Notice_FamilyCourt_JudicialReview_RetaliatoryRemoval.pdf
Formal notification to the Family Court declaring active Judicial Review proceedings and requesting legal recognition of filings related to the Emergency Protection Order issued by Westminster on 23 June 2025.

I. What Happened

At 05:23 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a judicial notice to the Family Division confirming that a full Judicial Review bundle had been filed between 17–24 June. The JR challenges the procedural and legal legitimacy of the Emergency Protection Order used to remove her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — all of whom are disabled U.S. citizens.

The materials include:

  • Judicial Review bundle

  • Emergency Reinstatement Request

  • Retaliatory Removal Addendum

  • Non-Separation Sibling Addendum

  • Psychiatric Assessment by Dr Rafiq (26 Nov 2024)

  • Fee Exemption Form (EX160)

  • Cover Letter and Procedural Chronology

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The Family Court was not informed that a JR had already been filed

  • Disability accommodations (written-only access) were ignored at every procedural stage

  • Psychiatric documentation was omitted from the hearing record

  • The removal occurred while legal action was already underway — including civil and High Court filings

  • No attempt was made to notify the U.S. government, despite the children’s nationality

This wasn’t omission. It was orchestrated ignorance performed under robes and doctrine.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Family Court cannot operate in procedural isolation when higher courts are engaged.
Because a judge cannot claim fairness while pretending judicial context doesn’t exist.
Because this wasn’t a plea — it was a formal jurisdictional collision notice.
Because Regal wasn’t just removed — he was removed while already documented as medically and legally protected.
Because what they ignored in chambers, we filed in the archive.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44(10) – Misuse of EPO without verified risk or legal rebuttal

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to provide written access for disabled litigant

  • Family Procedure Rules, Part 4 & 12 – Failure to disclose parallel High Court action

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Right to fair hearing, family integrity, and disability inclusion

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

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t legal oversight. It was deliberate procedural amnesia administered by judicial omission.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was retaliatory removal executed in a court that refused to look up.
This wasn’t a hearing. It was a one-sided performance — and we’ve filed the footage, the filings, and the fallout.

SWANK hereby logs this judicial notice as an evidentiary intervention.
Not because the court invited it — but because the law required it.
The silence is theirs. The filing is ours.

⟡ 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