Chromatic v The Crown: On the Relocation of the Documented and the Damned

---

⟡ SWANK Position Statement – Grounds for Protective Relocation and International Oversight ⟡
A Legal Justification for Diplomatic and Human Rights Intervention on Behalf of U.S. Nationals

---

Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/INTL/PROTECTIVE-RELOCATION
📎 Download PDF: 2025-07-01_SWANK_Position_ProtectiveRelocationAndOversight.pdf
Summary: A formal position statement asserting the legal and humanitarian right of a disabled U.S. mother and her four citizen children to protective relocation, following sustained Crown-led retaliation.

---

I. Applicant Identity and Protected Status

The Applicant, Polly Chromatic (legal name: Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett), is a disabled U.S. citizen. She is the mother of four minor children, all American nationals by birth — and all currently caught in a Crown jurisdiction that treats citizenship as inconvenience and disability as defiance.

Her diagnoses include:

• Eosinophilic Asthma

• Muscle Dysphonia

• PTSD induced by institutional harassment and procedural sabotage

Her crime: Filing lawful documents.
Her punishment: Removal, silence, and erasure by policy.

---

II. Grounds for Protective Relocation

1. Procedural Exile

Stripped of access to family life, medical updates, and participation in any legal forum that doesn’t pre-condemn her.
Safeguarding has become not a shield, but a weapon.

2. Disability-Based Persecution

Her health conditions were not accommodated. They were weaponised. Used as evidence of incapacity by institutions that refused to even pronounce their names correctly.

3. Child Protection and Citizenship Harm

All four children are U.S. citizens.
None received consular protection.
All were removed without process, care plans, or lawful grounds — as if citizenship ends at the border of safeguarding fiction.

4. Transnational Retaliation Pattern

The United Kingdom and Turks and Caicos have demonstrated remarkable coordination in one regard: their talent for retaliating against disabled women who file too well.

---

III. Requested Oversight and Action

Polly Chromatic requests formal recognition as:

• A procedurally exiled U.S. citizen

• A disabled mother of four endangered minors

• A documented target of safeguarding-based retaliation

She seeks:

• Protective relocation to the U.S. or neutral territory

• Diplomatic intervention by the U.S. State Department

• Investigation by UN Special Rapporteurs

• Legal accountability under Crown, UN, and consular law

---

IV. Supporting Documentation

This position is not hypothetical. It is:

• Substantiated by a Declaration of Transnational Retaliation

• Supplemented by Judicial Review filings and N244 applications

• Reinforced by 13+ SWANK Addenda

• Mapped in the Master Retaliation Timeline

• Known to the U.S. Embassy and Office of Children’s Issues

The pattern is complete. The proof is filed.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

There is no law left in a jurisdiction where disability is framed as risk and foreign children are removed with diplomatic indifference.

This is not a relocation of preference.
This is a relocation of survival.

SWANK London Ltd affirms Polly Chromatic’s legal, moral, and humanitarian right to:

• Protective relocation

• Diplomatic relief

• International legal remedy

---

Filed and submitted by:
SWANK London Ltd
Evidentiary Audit Division
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
www.swanklondon.com
director@swanklondon.com

Signed:
Polly Chromatic
(legal name: Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett)

---

⟡ Second Title (Case Law Style):
Chromatic v The Crown: On the Relocation of the Documented and the Damned

Court Labels:
Protective Relocation, Procedural Exile, U.S. Nationals, Disability Persecution, Crown Jurisdiction Abuse, SWANK Filing

Search Description:
Position statement requesting relocation and oversight for U.S. citizens retaliated against under Crown safeguarding abuse

Filename:
2025-07-01_SWANK_Position_ProtectiveRelocationAndOversight.pdf

---

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every omission is documented. Every silence is intentional. Every exile is evidentiary.

This is not a petition. It is precedent.
This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument of sovereign resistance.

We do not ask. We file.
We do not wait. We archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and jurisdictional structure protected under international law and common sense.

---

Chromatic v Crown Governance: Jurisdictional Banishment Disguised as Safeguarding

---

⟡ SWANK Notice – Procedural Exile and International Displacement ⟡
Protective Claim on Behalf of Four U.S. Citizens and Their Disabled Mother

---

Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/INTL/EXILE-NOTICE-0725
📎 Download PDF: 2025-07-01_SWANK_Notice_ProceduralExile_ProtectiveClaim.pdf
Summary: Formal notice of procedural exile and a protective relocation claim on behalf of Polly Chromatic and her four U.S. citizen children, grounded in systemic state retaliation, disability discrimination, and mirrored safeguarding abuse across UK and Turks & Caicos jurisdictions.

---

I. Procedural Exile Declared

SWANK London Ltd formally declares that its Founder and Director, Polly Chromatic (legal name: Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett), and her four minor children — all American citizens — are now living in a state of procedural exile.

This term denotes a condition in which a family is functionally ejected from lawful civil participation within a state, due to:

• Weaponised safeguarding frameworks

• Bureaucratic retaliation in response to lawful resistance

• Refusal to provide medical, legal, or parental accommodations

Both the United Kingdom and the Turks and Caicos Islands — operating under Crown authority — have:

• Repeatedly separated this family without lawful cause

• Denied consular access, medical oversight, or trauma-informed care

• Silenced the legal voice of a disabled mother through structural exclusion

This is not exile by flight.
It is exile by procedure — and it has been filed.

---

II. Basis of the Protective Claim

A. U.S. Citizenship Rights

• All four children are American nationals

• No consular notification occurred during removal

• The mother, also a U.S. citizen, was denied treaty rights and legal access

B. Repeated State Retaliation

• Children removed without established harm

• Contact obstructed

• Medical records withheld

• Advocacy punished with further intrusion

C. Disability Persecution

• Eosinophilic asthma and muscle dysphonia repurposed as ‘concerns’

• No reasonable adjustments provided

• Psychological distress induced by hostile state conduct

D. Transnational Pattern

• Identical methods deployed in both the UK and Turks and Caicos

• A discernible Crown apparatus of coercive safeguarding across borders

---

III. Legal Instruments Violated

• Article 3, ECHR – Protection from inhuman or degrading treatment

• Article 8, ECHR – Right to private and family life

• UNCRPD – Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

• UNCRC – Convention on the Rights of the Child

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

• U.S. Diplomatic Protection of Nationals Overseas

---

IV. Intended Recipients

This notice has been formally submitted to:

• U.S. Embassy London

• U.S. State Department – Office of Children’s Issues

• UN Special Rapporteurs on Disability, Arbitrary Detention, and Violence Against Women

• Equality and Human Rights Commission (UK)

• Other international human rights documentation forums

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not an isolated incident. It is a pattern.
And this family no longer resides within a jurisdiction that acknowledges their rights.

They live in procedural exile.
Their only functioning state is the archive.

Relocation is not abandonment.
It is the final form of lawful resistance when every process becomes punishment.

This protective claim does not beg. It declares.
And it will be filed, forwarded, and referenced until a lawful state answers.

---

Filed and submitted by:
SWANK London Ltd
Evidentiary Audit Division
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
www.swanklondon.com
director@swanklondon.com

Signed:
Polly Chromatic
(legal name: Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett)

---

⟡ Second Title (Case Law Style):
Chromatic v Crown Governance: Jurisdictional Banishment by Safeguarding Procedure

Court Labels:
Procedural Exile, International Protective Claim, Crown Jurisdictions, Disability Retaliation, SWANK Filing

Search Description:
Protective relocation claim for U.S. citizens facing Crown-led safeguarding exile and disability persecution

Filename:
2025-07-01_SWANK_Notice_ProceduralExile_ProtectiveClaim.pdf

---

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every paragraph is evidentiary. Every structure is jurisdictional.
Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — not as homage, but as panic.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument forged under siege.

We file where others redact. We declare where others defer.
Because exile without recognition is erasure.
And erasure cannot withstand documentation.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All rights reserved.

---

Polly Chromatic v Alan Mullem: Solicitor Dismisses Court Document Request and Instructs Client to Cease Communication

---

⟡ “I Asked for the Court Order. He Told Me to Read the Rightmost Attachment and Stop Emailing.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Legal Support. It Was Client Management by Ambiguity — Filed While Four Children Remain Missing.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/LEGALREP/DOCUMENTREFUSAL-CONSULARBLOCK
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_CourtOrderBundle_RequestAndDismissal.pdf
Email response from solicitor Alan Mullem dismissing urgent request for official court documents following the removal of four U.S. citizen children under an Emergency Protection Order. The solicitor instructs the client not to send “a multitude of emails” and refers to an unspecified “extreme right attachment.”

---

I. What Happened

At 15:01 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic formally requested — in writing — the following documents from her solicitor, Alan Mullem:

• The full court bundle

• The official court order

• The agreed note of judgment

These materials were necessary to inform the U.S. Embassy of the legal basis for the removal of Regal, Prince, King, and Honor — all U.S. citizen children — and to proceed with the discharge application and jurisdictional review.

At 15:03, Mullem replied with the following:

“Please it is in the extreme right attachment I will speak in the morning and arrange an appointment next week please do not send any lengthy emails or a multitude of emails.”

No file was attached. No document identified. No instructions clarified.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• The solicitor failed to confirm what documents were sent or where to find them

• The request for vital jurisdictional materials was reduced to a tone complaint

• The client, a disabled American mother under state surveillance, was asked to reduce communications

• U.S. Embassy was cc’ed — making this not only evasion, but diplomatic negligence

• The solicitor appears to believe the removal of four children can be resolved “next week”

This wasn’t legal reply. It was archival evidence of detachment.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because clarity is not optional when a client is locked out of proceedings.
Because dismissive tone isn’t professionalism — it’s evasion in a suit.
Because when the client is filing diplomatic alerts and you’re replying with vagueness, you are no longer acting.
Because the archive doesn’t wait for attachments — it logs their absence.

---

IV. Violations

• SRA Code of Conduct, Rule 3.5 – Failure to keep client properly informed

• SRA Principle 4 – Lack of respect and service to vulnerable client

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Written-only access breached through unstructured reply

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Obstruction of access to legal documents undermines right to fair process

• UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal participation obstructed for disabled litigant

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a reply. It was the legal version of looking away while the embassy is watching.
This wasn’t document delivery. It was an insult to clarity, dignity, and due process.
This wasn’t professional conduct. It was theatre — and we’ve kept the script.

SWANK hereby logs this solicitor response as an act of administrative dilution.
You don’t say “extreme right” when lives have been moved without consent.
You don’t dismiss emails when the archive is already global.
You don’t advise silence while the record is being published.

---

⟡ 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 evasion deserves a thread.

© 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.

---