Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Formal Non-Consent to Contact Proposal Pending U.S. Embassy Oversight

---

⟡ “They Proposed Contact. I Proposed They Read the Treaty Obligations First.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Consent. It Was Jurisdictional Refusal Filed with Velvet and an Embassy Address.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CONTACT-PROPOSAL-NONCONSENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Westminster_ContactProposal_DoNotConsent_USOversight.pdf
Formal email to legal counsel refusing to consent to Westminster's proposed contact arrangement for four removed U.S. citizen children, citing consular rights, pending discharge application, and unresolved legal violations.

---

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a written directive to her solicitor Alan Mullem following receipt of Westminster Council’s “contact” proposal. The email made one thing unequivocally clear:

There would be no consent to any arrangements until:

1. The U.S. Embassy confirmed oversight, and

2. The discharge application under Section 44(10) was heard.

Polly further instructed Mr. Mullem to:

• Challenge the contact offer

• Assert disability rights

• Request consular access for all future proceedings

She concluded with a final statement of legal escalation:

“If not, I will proceed to act in person.”

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• The contact proposal was issued without resolving the legality of the removal

• Disability accommodations were once again omitted

• The solicitor had to be instructed explicitly to challenge state conduct

• The parent withheld consent and asserted consular authority

• The contact proposal was premature, inappropriate, and procedurally offensive

This wasn’t a parent declining contact. It was a litigant asserting jurisdictional supremacy.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because contact cannot proceed when the foundation is unlawful.
Because U.S. citizens deserve more than thirty-minute Zoom sessions from foreign soil.
Because a contact proposal is not a correction — it’s a continuation of harm.
Because when the solicitor hesitates, the archive proceeds.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, Section 34 – Contact proposals cannot proceed during unlawful detention

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability-based written-only access neglected again

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – U.S. Embassy not included in post-removal arrangements

• UNCRC Articles 9 & 10 – Family unity and international safeguards ignored

• UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal participation of disabled parent obstructed

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t resistance. It was jurisdictional structure in sentence form.
This wasn’t refusal. It was constitutional reservation in writing — timestamped, cited, filed.
This wasn’t unclear. It was the legal sound of velvet saying “no.”

SWANK hereby logs this refusal not as defiance — but as a procedural checkpoint for every action Westminster now attempts.
Consent is not assumed.
Jurisdiction is not ceded.
And Regal is not forgotten.

---

⟡ 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 diplomacy deserves a cc line.

© 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.

---