⟡ Five Officers, No Warning ⟡
"The EPO Ambush That Westminster Didn't Notify, Just Enforced"
Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/STATEMENT/0623-G01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Statement_EPOAmbush_ForcedPoliceRemoval.pdf
A factual account of the 23 June 2025 police-led removal of four U.S. children without service, notice, or procedural grounding.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, five uniformed police officers forcibly entered the home of Polly Chromatic, executing an Emergency Protection Order that had never been served or shown. The children were ambushed in the dining room. The mother was in her bedroom — unnotified, unheard, and removed from the moment her life was seized.
Romeo was told they would break down the door if he didn’t open it. Once he did, officers entered. No social worker gave explanation. No one allowed the children to pack. No medical supplies were taken. No order was shown. The removal was silent, weaponised, and administrative.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
No formal service of the Emergency Protection Order
Forced entry threatened and executed against a minor
The parent was not informed until after officers surrounded the children
No legal documentation or safeguarding rationale presented
A deliberate procedural bypass that disregarded legal norms
Four U.S. citizens removed without consular notice or access to asthma medication
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because removals of this nature aren’t just irregular — they are institutionalized terror. Because silence isn’t protection. Because Westminster conducted a removal by threat, not process. Because procedural theatre should not involve five officers and no paperwork. Because documenting the moment a life was ambushed is how we reclaim narrative authority.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 22(4): Duty to consult and inform
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8: Right to family life
Vienna Convention, Article 36: Consular access for foreign nationals
Equality Act 2010: Failure to accommodate disability-related needs (medications, trauma-informed process)
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not safeguarding. It was seizure.
This was not lawful. It was strategic disappearance.
It did not protect the children — it used them as leverage.
No matter what Westminster claims, no law was followed here.
SWANK considers this a defining instance of retaliatory overreach, and it is hereby filed as public, legal, and permanent testimony.
⟡ 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.