“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: Judicial Review Filed and Formally Declared for Judicial Notice


⟡ “The Emergency Protection Order Was Granted. We Filed Judicial Review. And Then We Filed Again. Twelve Times.” ⟡
Judicial Notice Is Not a Request. It’s a Statutory Warning Delivered With Evidentiary Grace.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/ADMINCOURT/JR-NOTICE-WESTMINSTER
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Notice_AdminCourt_JudicialReview_FilingDeclared.pdf
Formal submission to the Family Division requesting judicial notice of a live Judicial Review challenging Westminster’s unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children, citing retaliatory motive and disability-based procedural exclusion.

I. What Happened

At 05:19 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted formal judicial notice to the Family Court that a full Judicial Review had been filed to the Administrative Court between 17–24 June 2025. The JR filing challenges the Emergency Protection Order granted to Westminster on 23 June — the same order used to forcibly remove four disabled American children without threshold, accommodation, or consular notification.

The bundle includes:

  • Judicial Review Claim

  • Emergency Reinstatement Request

  • Psychiatric Assessment (Dr Rafiq, 26 Nov 2024)

  • Addenda on Retaliation and Sibling Non-Separation

  • Cover Letter and EX160 Fee Exemption

  • Public archive reference at www.swanklondon.com

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • EPO was used as retaliation against public legal documentation

  • Procedural fairness was denied due to known disabilities

  • The parent was under live litigation (civil claim and JR) at the time of removal

  • The Family Court was never informed of consular, medical, or procedural breaches

  • Judicial Notice is now required to avoid compounding jurisdictional misconduct

This wasn’t an update. It was a structural warning to the judiciary.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Family Court proceedings cannot pretend the Administrative Court doesn’t exist.
Because no judge should act on an EPO when a JR on that EPO is already filed and timestamped.
Because evidence isn’t sequential — it’s simultaneous.
Because what Westminster calls a safeguarding order, the archive now calls exhibit one.
Because the children weren’t just taken unlawfully — they were taken mid-litigation.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44 – EPO misused without imminent risk or due process

  • Family Procedure Rules, Part 4 – Failure to disclose concurrent litigation to the court

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Denial of access via disability exclusion

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Denial of fair hearing and private/family life

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – U.S. Embassy not notified

  • UNCRPD and UNCRC – Breaches of child protection, medical access, and family preservation

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t Family Court neutrality. It was judicial ignorance orchestrated through omission.
This wasn’t just administrative error. It was a jurisdictional collision now formally noticed.
This wasn’t just a procedural step. It was evidentiary alignment served before the next hearing.

SWANK has submitted this Judicial Notice not to ask for reconsideration — but to demand legal recognition of what has already been filed, published, timestamped, and archived.
You may not read every document.
But you’ve now been officially notified.
The record is no longer optional.

⟡ 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