⟡ “We Filed Judicial Review. We Filed Psychiatric Evidence. We Notified the Family Court. We Didn’t Whisper It — We Archived It.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Submission. It Was a Warning Dressed in Jurisdiction.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/JUDICIALNOTICE-JR-BUNDLE01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Notice_FamilyCourt_JudicialReview_RetaliatoryRemoval.pdf
Formal notification to the Family Court declaring active Judicial Review proceedings and requesting legal recognition of filings related to the Emergency Protection Order issued by Westminster on 23 June 2025.
I. What Happened
At 05:23 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a judicial notice to the Family Division confirming that a full Judicial Review bundle had been filed between 17–24 June. The JR challenges the procedural and legal legitimacy of the Emergency Protection Order used to remove her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — all of whom are disabled U.S. citizens.
The materials include:
Judicial Review bundle
Emergency Reinstatement Request
Retaliatory Removal Addendum
Non-Separation Sibling Addendum
Psychiatric Assessment by Dr Rafiq (26 Nov 2024)
Fee Exemption Form (EX160)
Cover Letter and Procedural Chronology
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The Family Court was not informed that a JR had already been filed
Disability accommodations (written-only access) were ignored at every procedural stage
Psychiatric documentation was omitted from the hearing record
The removal occurred while legal action was already underway — including civil and High Court filings
No attempt was made to notify the U.S. government, despite the children’s nationality
This wasn’t omission. It was orchestrated ignorance performed under robes and doctrine.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the Family Court cannot operate in procedural isolation when higher courts are engaged.
Because a judge cannot claim fairness while pretending judicial context doesn’t exist.
Because this wasn’t a plea — it was a formal jurisdictional collision notice.
Because Regal wasn’t just removed — he was removed while already documented as medically and legally protected.
Because what they ignored in chambers, we filed in the archive.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 44(10) – Misuse of EPO without verified risk or legal rebuttal
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to provide written access for disabled litigant
Family Procedure Rules, Part 4 & 12 – Failure to disclose parallel High Court action
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Right to fair hearing, family integrity, and disability inclusion
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular notification of U.S. child removal
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t legal oversight. It was deliberate procedural amnesia administered by judicial omission.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was retaliatory removal executed in a court that refused to look up.
This wasn’t a hearing. It was a one-sided performance — and we’ve filed the footage, the filings, and the fallout.
SWANK hereby logs this judicial notice as an evidentiary intervention.
Not because the court invited it — but because the law required it.
The silence is theirs. The filing is ours.
⟡ 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.