⟡ “A Wealth of Conversations Without Engagement” ⟡
⟡ Judgment Delivered in the Absence of Accuracy, Access, or Asthma Medication ⟡
Filed: 29 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/FAMJUDG-2025-0623
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Judgment_DJBarrie_EPOAbductionFalseFindings.pdf
A formal record of District Judge Barrie’s written judgment authorising child removal under fabricated claims of maternal abandonment and procedural non-engagement.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, District Judge Barrie granted Emergency Interim Care Orders for four American children—Romeo, Prince, King, and Honour—based on a written judgment presented by Westminster City Council.
The mother, Polly Chromatic (known legally as Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonne Annee Simlett), was not present. The judgment accused her of “non-engagement,” “transient living,” and refusal to cooperate, despite overwhelming evidence of documented communication, lawful procedural filings, and medically necessary email-only correspondence.
The judgment claims the children were “not seen since February,” despite multiple medical appointments, educational updates, and Family Court filings by the mother throughout March–June 2025.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The Local Authority knowingly misrepresented a disability accommodation as "non-engagement"
The Family Court issued a life-altering order based on unverified hearsay
U.S. citizen children were forcibly removed without notice or procedural fairness
The judgment relied on a “welfare check” that never took place, then punished the mother for it
A high-conflict narrative was constructed entirely by professionals retaliating against legal challenge
Rebuttals, Judicial Review filings, and direct evidence of harm were ignored
III. Why SWANK Logged It
This moment is pivotal: it is not merely a bad ruling. It is a state-authored fabrication, written as a pretext for custody seizure.
The judgment reads not as judicial scrutiny but as Local Authority dictation, rubber-stamped by a system allergic to disabled mothers and procedural integrity.
SWANK logs this document as a case study in retaliatory child removal masquerading as child protection — where written policy was replaced by silent punishment, and courtrooms became echo chambers of unchecked assumption.
This judgment wasn’t legal reasoning.
It was legal ventriloquism — and the script was written long before the hearing.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – misuse of Section 38 thresholds
Equality Act 2010 – failure to accommodate disability (email-only communication)
ECHR Article 6 – right to a fair trial (mother excluded)
ECHR Article 8 – right to family life (no evidence of necessity or proportionality)
UNCRC – child removal without documented harm or sibling trauma analysis
Data Protection Act 2018 – reliance on unverified, uncorroborated personal data
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not safeguarding.
This was safeguarding theatre — written for a stage where the mother was denied a script, then accused of missing her cue.
SWANK rejects the premise that silence equates to danger, that asthma equates to incapacity, and that motherhood must perform distress to be believed.
This was a judgment against resistance — not evidence.
And it will remain here, archived and emboldened, until it is overturned.
⟡ 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.