“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
Showing posts with label Emergency Reinstatement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emergency Reinstatement. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Chronic Asthma Treatment Jeopardised by Unlawful Removal of Children


⟡ “You Took Them Without Consent. You Now Risk Their Medical Neglect.” ⟡
The Court Has Been Notified. The Asthma Appointments Have Been Scheduled. The Clock Is Now Theirs.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/MEDICAL-ALERT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_FamilyCourt_UrgentMedicalAsthmaAppointments.pdf
Formal medical alert filed to the Family Division regarding four U.S. citizen children with chronic eosinophilic asthma and their scheduled hospital appointments, now jeopardised by unlawful removal.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic notified the Administrative Court and Family Court Centre that all four of her unlawfully removed children suffer from chronic eosinophilic asthma and have scheduled respiratory hospital appointments at Hammersmith Hospital throughout July and August. The children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were removed on 23 June without medical planning or consent, placing them at direct risk of asthmatic crisis, neglect, and discontinuity of care.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The removal occurred with no transitional medical handover

  • Scheduled care plans were ignored despite known chronic respiratory conditions

  • Hospital appointments are non-deferrable and tied to long-term respiratory stability

  • Risk of acute attacks and avoidable medical deterioration is now state-induced

  • The Emergency Reinstatement Request pending in court must take medical urgency into account

This wasn’t just removal. It was medical disruption in breach of duty of care.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because asthma isn’t political. It’s physiological.
Because you cannot claim protection while cancelling respiratory treatment.
Because King, Prince, Honor, and Regal do not have time to wait for jurisdiction to catch up.
Because when court filings are ignored, oxygen becomes evidence.
Because this isn’t only family law now — it’s public health law, and it’s on record.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 1 – Welfare of the child not treated as paramount

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Interference with family and medical autonomy

  • UNCRC Articles 24 and 3 – Right to health care and best interests of the child

  • NHS Duty of Care – Breach in continuity of treatment for chronic conditions

  • Public Health Duty – State-induced risk of medical neglect post-removal

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t just poor planning. It was state-induced medical endangerment.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was asthma treatment disruption by bureaucratic negligence.
This wasn’t a neutral action. It was removal without an inhaler, without a plan, without a clue.

SWANK hereby archives this not as a plea — but as a jurisdictional warning served with medical timestamps.
The hospital knows the dates.
The court now does too.
The next breath is the State’s responsibility.

⟡ 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:

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Urgent Request for Voluntary Return of Children Following Judicial Review Filing

Here is your very snobby SWANK post for the Urgent Request for Voluntary Return of Children – Judicial Review and Emergency Relief Filed:

⟡ “You Took Four U.S. Citizens. We Filed in Court. Now We’re Asking, Once, Politely, for Their Return.” ⟡
This Is a Courtesy. Not a Concession. The Archive Has Already Been Filed.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/RETURN-REQUEST-JR-FILED
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_UrgentReturnRequest_JRFiled.pdf
Formal letter requesting the immediate voluntary return of four disabled U.S. citizen children following the filing of Judicial Review and Emergency Reinstatement proceedings.

I. What Happened

At 03:46 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal request to Westminster Children’s Services for the voluntary return of her four U.S. citizen children. The children were removed on 23 June 2025 under an Emergency Protection Order that is now under legal challenge. The letter confirms that a Judicial Review, an Emergency Reinstatement Request, and a Procedural Addendum have all been filed — rendering the emergency basis void. It outlines medical appointments, existing disability accommodations, and ongoing civil litigation (£23 million N1 claim) ignored at the time of removal.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The children were removed under false pretences with no legal threshold

  • Active disability accommodations, live court cases, and medical needs were ignored

  • There has been no legitimate justification for the children's continued separation

  • Westminster has the power — and obligation — to return them voluntarily now

  • The letter gives 24 hours to act before international escalation, including U.S. consular and federal complaint mechanisms

This wasn’t a surrender. It was a final chance to act with dignity before litigation proceeds globally.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because sometimes the most powerful legal move is offering the institution a polite exit before it destroys itself.
Because the system was not just reckless — it was rehearsed.
Because we do not file complaints for sympathy. We file them for court, for country, and for history.
Because this request wasn’t made in fear. It was made after filing in every direction that matters.
Because the next step is no longer optional — it is jurisdictional.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 31 – Removal without threshold met or proven

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability accommodations ignored during and after removal

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, 14 – Denial of fair process, family life, and non-discrimination

  • UNCRC Articles 9, 24 – Family separation and medical disruption without legal hearing

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to notify U.S. Embassy of removal of American minors

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Justice system exclusion of disabled litigant

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a legal escalation. It was a diplomatic warning, filed in courtesy and lined in velvet contempt.
This wasn’t just a removal. It was a jurisdictional breach involving four international citizens.
This wasn’t a plea. It was the last formal offer of restraint before global litigation continues.

SWANK hereby notifies all recipients that silence will be treated as active participation in the continued harm of four medically vulnerable U.S. children.
The documentation has already been filed.
This was your window.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions