⟡ “They Took Four Disabled U.S. Children Without Threshold. I Requested Diplomatic Intervention. Because This Isn’t a Custody Dispute — It’s a Treaty Violation.” ⟡
When Family Law Fails, Foreign Policy Begins. And This Archive Just Filed Its Passport.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/CONSULAR-PROTECTION-URGENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_USAEmbassy_ConsularProtection_RetaliatoryRemoval.pdf
Emergency formal request to the U.S. Embassy for immediate consular intervention following the unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children from their disabled mother by Westminster Council under an invalid Emergency Protection Order.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic wrote to the U.S. Embassy Consular Affairs Team requesting urgent diplomatic protection after her four U.S. citizen children — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — were removed without notice by UK authorities under an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). The removal occurred while:
A £23M civil claim was pending against two NHS trusts
A Judicial Review was active
No risk threshold was ever established
Medical, disability, and diplomatic protocols were ignored
Prior embassy contact had already been initiated
The email included references to legal filings, psychiatric records, medical evidence, and the complete digital archive of events at www.swanklondon.com.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Four children were removed without consular notification, violating Article 36 of the Vienna Convention
The children are medically fragile and wholly dependent on their disabled mother
Retaliation appears linked to public litigation and whistleblower documentation
The local authority failed to provide placement information or medical transition
The parent was denied access to the court and to legal counsel during removal
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was international overreach masked as child protection.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because you cannot take U.S. citizens without telling their government.
Because a parent under live litigation cannot be treated as though rights no longer apply.
Because “child protection” cannot be used to erase civil claims, psychiatric assessments, or embassy protections.
Because when diplomacy becomes necessary, we send a cover letter, a witness statement, and a court archive.
IV. Violations
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular notification of U.S. citizen seizure
Children Act 1989, Section 44 – EPO granted without risk, notice, or medical basis
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access entirely disregarded during removal
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8 – Denial of due process, right to family life, and fair legal remedy
UNCRC Articles 7, 9, 24 – Right to nationality, family unity, and healthcare violated
UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal participation denied to disabled litigant
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t child welfare. It was a sovereign breach disguised as social work.
This wasn’t jurisdiction. It was a retaliatory seizure of medically dependent children from their American mother.
This wasn’t a legal order. It was a bureaucratic theft — and now, the embassy has been formally served.
SWANK hereby archives this diplomatic request not as diplomacy, but as a legal intervention cloaked in velvet, sealed with evidence, and sent to the only entity Westminster cannot ignore: the United States of America.
⟡ 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.