⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Emergency as Etiquette: The Injunction They Expected Not to Arrive
In re Chromatic v. Westminster, Regarding the Forced Removal of Four U.S. Citizen Children and the Filing That Refused to Whisper
📎 Metadata
Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-JR-0624-INJUNCTION
Court File Name: 2025-06-24_SWANK_EmergencyInjunctionRequest_ChildrenReturn
1-line summary: Emergency Injunction Hearing Request submitted following unlawful removal of children, supported by JR, psychiatric evidence, and retaliation addendum.
I. What Happened
At precisely 00:59 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an Emergency Injunction Hearing Request to the Administrative Court — in response to the unlawful, retaliatory, and medically endangering removal of her four children by Westminster Children’s Services.
This submission followed a Judicial Review filing already in progress, and included:
A cover letter of lethal grace
A psychiatric letter documenting disability-related communication restrictions
The full Judicial Review bundle
An addendum on retaliatory removal
A fee exemption form, because justice should not be subject to overdraft
II. What the Request Establishes
That Romeo, age 16, was removed without warrant, legal process, or consent
That his three younger siblings were removed under similarly opaque conditions
That the removals occurred after civil litigation had been filed, and are best understood as a form of legalised reprisal
That the Equality Act 2010 was violated through denial of disability accommodation, resulting in exclusion from proceedings and a forced police removal
An injunction was not a legal escalation.
It was a moral corrective.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when the institutions remove your children while pretending you’re not in litigation, you must become both litigant and historian.
Because this request is not just for relief — it is a ceremonial restoration of jurisdiction.
A declaration that you cannot lawfully remove four disabled children without triggering a judicial echo.
And because silence is not an outcome when your filing is timestamped, medically substantiated, and elegantly damning.
IV. Violations and Relief Sought
Violation of Article 8 ECHR – Family and private life
Unlawful removal under the Children Act 1989
Denial of disability rights under the Equality Act 2010
Retaliation for active litigation
Exclusion of a litigant in person during safeguarding escalation
Requested relief: Emergency injunction, immediate reinstatement of children, and court oversight of all future decisions involving safeguarding, access, or relocation.
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not a desperate filing.
It was a controlled ignition — designed to trigger judicial attention with precision, clarity, and zero theatrics.
SWANK London Ltd hereby asserts that this request stands as both legal action and historical witness:
To the removal.
To the retaliation.
To the refusal of silence.
Let this be known:
We filed it.
They received it.
We archived it before they could ignore it.
⟡ 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.