“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

On the Unlawful Detention of Four Foreign Nationals by a British Authority Without Diplomatic Consultation


⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 15 July 2025
Reference Code: ADD-A12-CITIZENSHIP
Court File Name: 2025-07-15_Addendum_ChildCitizenship_CrossBorderJurisdiction.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Summary: Legal confirmation that all four children are sole U.S. citizens and are entitled to international protection, consular oversight, and cross-border legal respect.

United States v Westminster City Council

I. What Happened

Westminster Children’s Services removed four American children — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — from their home on 23 June 2025, issuing an Emergency Protection Order without acknowledging or accommodating the children’s sole U.S. citizenship.

Despite this being a cross-border matter, no U.S. Embassy engagement has occurred. All children remain under foreign state control without lawful consular access, digital communication, or proper cultural rights.

II. What the Addendum Establishes

  • All children are U.S. citizens only — born on U.S. soil, with no U.K. citizenship.

  • The EPO has not been reviewed by diplomatic monitors.

  • No Hague or Vienna Convention provisions have been invoked.

  • The court is being asked to proceed as if the children are British minors, when in fact they are foreign nationals entitled to international protection.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Westminster cannot unilaterally detain children of a sovereign nation without accountability.
Because international treaties were designed to prevent this very overreach.
Because silence from the Local Authority is not procedural neutrality — it is jurisdictional negligence.

IV. Legal and Treaty Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Article 36) – Right to consular notification and oversight

  • Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) – Cross-border custody interference

  • European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8) – Family and national identity

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 9, 12, 30) – Right to identity, expression, and cultural belonging

  • 7 FAM 1700–1900 (U.S. State Dept.) – Mandatory diplomatic awareness in custody disputes abroad

V. SWANK’s Position

The court and the Local Authority must recognise the international scope of this case.
To continue without acknowledging the children's citizenship status is to unlawfully override international safeguards.
This is not a domestic protection matter.
This is a cross-border interference in the lives of four sovereign citizens.

SWANK asserts that the children’s removal — absent any U.S. diplomatic review — constitutes a procedural breach, a diplomatic concern, and a violation of treaty law.

⚖️ SWANK Legal-Aesthetic Footer

This document is not conjecture. It is jurisdictional objection.
It is not advocacy. It is legal authorship.
It is not commentary. It is an act of sovereign dissent.
Filed with velvet outrage and passport-bearing authority.

🖋 Polly Chromatic
Mother and Director, SWANK London Ltd
📍 Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.