⟡ “The Removal Was Unlawful. The Filing Was Immediate. The Hearing Must Be Now.” ⟡
This Is Not a Request. It’s a Procedural Alarm. Filed in the Name of Four Stolen Citizens.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/COURT/INJUNCTION-REQUEST-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_HighCourt_EmergencyInjunction_ReinstatementOfChildren.pdf
Formal request to the Administrative Court for an emergency injunction hearing following unlawful removal of children during an active Judicial Review.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an emergency application to the Administrative Court requesting immediate judicial intervention to reinstate four unlawfully removed children. The removal occurred on 22 June — carried out without warrant, notice, or legal justification — and while a Judicial Review, civil claim, and criminal referral were actively pending. The filing cites specific rights violations under the Children Act 1989, ECHR Article 8, and the Equality Act 2010. Attached: full JR bundle, medical documentation, and proof of retaliatory context.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Children were removed without lawful authority, judicial order, or parental consent
The applicant was medically unable to speak and had clearly stated written-only communication needs
No accommodations were made by police or court despite disability disclosures
A 16-year-old child, Romeo, was taken with no individual threshold or legal process
Emergency relief is necessary to reverse ongoing harm and procedural sabotage
This wasn’t an urgent intervention. It was an organised extraction under color of law.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because urgency isn’t a tone — it’s a statutory demand when rights are being violated in real time.
Because this application is not an accessory to litigation — it is the litigation.
Because if the court delays, it becomes part of the act.
Because children don’t belong to local authorities, and access isn’t optional for disabled litigants.
Because this archive doesn’t wait for permission to prove procedural panic.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 31 – No evidence presented to justify removal
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Interference with family life without lawful process
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments for written-only access
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9 – Unlawful separation of children from parents
UNCRPD Articles 13 & 14 – Denial of access to justice and procedural safeguards for disabled parents
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was a state-led act of intimidation carried out without law, notice, or shame.
This wasn’t child protection. It was a removal campaign against evidence.
This wasn’t a delay. It was a high-speed retaliation dressed in legal silence.
SWANK hereby demands that this hearing not only be granted — but treated as the jurisdictional siren it is.
We are not asking for a ruling. We are demanding the right to be heard before our family disappears again.
This post is not about what’s been done. It’s about what’s still happening.
⟡ 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.