“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: Formal Contact Proposal Rejected Pending Consular Oversight and Legal Clarification

Here is your very snobby SWANK post for the formal email titled Proposed Contact – Response from Polly Chromatic:

⟡ “They Proposed Contact as if the Removal Was Lawful. I Replied as if They Still Had to Answer to the United States.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Response. It Was a Jurisdictional Rebuttal Served Through Velvet and Vengeance.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CONTACTRESPONSE-USCONSULARRIGHTS
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Westminster_ContactProposal_ResponseFromPollyChromatic.pdf
Formal reply to Westminster Council’s contact proposal following the removal of four U.S. citizen children — asserting legal objections, invoking consular jurisdiction, and refusing to engage without international oversight.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025 at 14:52, Polly Chromatic sent a formal email reply to Sam Brown (Westminster), in response to the council’s proposal for “30 minutes of virtual contact” followed by limited supervised visitation. The proposal was made one day after the Emergency Protection Order was used to forcibly remove Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal — four disabled U.S. citizen children — without notice, process, or consular notification.

In her response, Polly:

  • Refused to waive her legal position regarding the removal’s unlawfulness

  • Notified Westminster of active U.S. Embassy involvement

  • Demanded consular observer access for any and all contact

  • Required disability accommodations for all future interaction

  • Asserted the need for written court authority before engagement could proceed

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Westminster attempted to proceed with “contact” despite live legal and diplomatic intervention

  • The parent did not consent, nor accept the framing of the situation as normalised family time

  • Disability access requirements were again sidelined — and called out

  • The United States Embassy was cited as a jurisdictional presence requiring inclusion

  • All further action was explicitly paused by the parent pending international oversight

This wasn’t contact negotiation. It was a sovereignty correction filed from the archive to the inbox.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when rights are violated, you don’t proceed to “contact.” You proceed to court.
Because diplomatic escalation isn’t just a possibility — it’s already in motion.
Because this wasn’t a domestic matter. It was a foreign jurisdiction crisis with children at the centre.
Because every response must now be filed in evidence, not sentiment.
Because Polly Chromatic didn’t reply. She published.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 34 – Misrepresentation of contact rights following unlawful removal

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Refusal to account for written-only access needs

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to involve consular officials in contact decisions

  • UNCRC Articles 9 & 10 – Family unity and international jurisdiction dismissed

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of legal participation in appropriate form

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a parent responding to a letter. It was a legal entity asserting constitutional rights through jurisdictional formatting.
This wasn’t a contact schedule. It was a diplomatic moment archived in font and timestamp.
This wasn’t de-escalation. It was a warning — published, international, and non-negotiable.

SWANK hereby logs this response not as commentary, but as recorded consent refusal in a situation already governed by U.S. and international law.

You may offer half an hour of Zoom.
We’ve already filed judicial review, contacted the embassy, and posted the psychiatric report.

⟡ 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 jurisdiction deserves a reply.

© 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