“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: Full Judicial Review Bundle Filed and Declared for Judicial Notice in Family Court


⟡ “We Filed a Judicial Review Bundle. Then We Filed a Psychiatric Assessment. Then We Told the Family Court. Because They Forgot to Ask.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Courtesy. It Was Judicial Intervention by Necessity — with Attachments.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/JR-NOTICE-BUNDLE03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Notice_FamilyCourt_JudicialReview_RetaliatoryRemoval_Declared.pdf
Email notification to the Family Court formally submitting the full Judicial Review bundle, psychiatric evidence, and procedural challenges to Westminster’s Emergency Protection Order of 23 June 2025.

I. What Happened

At 05:27 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic issued formal judicial notice to the Family Division, attaching the entire Judicial Review bundle filed between 17–24 June. The notice concerns the Emergency Protection Order under which her four disabled U.S. citizen children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were forcibly removed without warning, threshold, or disability accommodations.

The materials submitted include:

  • Judicial Review Claim

  • Emergency Reinstatement Request

  • Addendum on Retaliatory Removal

  • Addendum on Sibling Non-Separation

  • Psychiatric Assessment (Dr Rafiq, 26 Nov 2024)

  • EX160 Fee Exemption

  • Formal Cover Letter

  • Swank London Ltd. Archive Link (for public jurisdictional reference)

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The Family Court was not previously informed of live Judicial Review proceedings

  • The EPO was granted while disability accommodations and medical evidence were suppressed

  • No procedural pathway was given for the parent to challenge the removal in advance

  • The Family Court has jurisdictional obligation to recognise active High Court proceedings

  • U.S. diplomatic status of the children remains unacknowledged despite multiple filings

This wasn’t notification. It was jurisdictional correction filed against systemic silence.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Family Court cannot pretend the Administrative Court doesn’t exist.
Because Dr Rafiq’s psychiatric assessment is not an accessory — it’s admissible evidence.
Because removing four American minors while ignoring their JR status isn’t oversight — it’s erasure.
Because failure to consolidate jurisdiction is how bad law gets dressed up as discretion.
Because we file so that history will not mistake inaction for ignorance.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44(10) – EPO challengeable without legal threshold

  • Family Procedure Rules, Part 4.4 & 12.20 – Failure to notify or disclose parallel proceedings

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Refusal to accommodate written-only communication

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, 14 – Denial of fair process, family integrity, and disability access

  • UNCRPD and UNCRC – Violations of both parental protection and sibling rights

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

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a formality. It was a litigation threshold crossed with full documentation.
This wasn’t compliance. It was compulsory correction of a Family Court failure to acknowledge live jurisdictional conflict.
This wasn’t legal etiquette. It was a structural warning submitted in silence and published in full.

SWANK hereby logs this dispatch not as a supplement, but as a jurisdictional anchor.
The review is filed. The assessment is attached. The archive is public.
You weren’t just informed. You were served — and now, you’ve been archived.

⟡ 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