⟡ “They Took the Children Without Consent. Then They Sent an Email About ‘Family Time’ — as If the Archive Hasn’t Already Filed Four Court Actions.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Contact Planning. It Was Institutional Gaslight — CC’ed to the Source of Harm.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CONTACT-PRETEXT-POSTREMOVAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Westminster_FamilyTime_SamBrown_HornalAttached.pdf
Email sent by Sam Brown (Westminster) offering “family time” days after the unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children under a procedurally deficient Emergency Protection Order.
I. What Happened
At 13:10 on 24 June 2025 — less than 48 hours after forcibly removing Regal, Prince, King, and Honor — Sam Brown of Westminster Children’s Services emailed Polly Chromatic attaching a letter about “family time.”
The message was sent without any reference to:
The fact that removal occurred under active Judicial Review
The pending EPO discharge application and emergency contact filings
The diplomatic protection request filed with the U.S. Embassy
The prior request to cease all contact with Kirsty Hornal, who was cc’ed anyway
The sender addressed the parent by her full legal name — despite formal notice to use Polly Chromatic — and disregarded written-only disability accommodations.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Westminster initiated informal communication while formal legal processes were underway
Kirsty Hornal was included on the message despite formal removal and misconduct referrals
The tone of the email attempted to normalise the unlawful removal
The archive was openly disregarded as jurisdictional authority
Contact was framed as a casual option — not as a right that was violated
This wasn’t scheduling. It was rebranding violence as visitation.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because no email about “family time” can be taken seriously when the removal was unlawful.
Because communication isn’t neutral when it comes from the same system that excluded the parent from court.
Because cc’ing the perpetrator isn’t protocol — it’s retaliatory formatting.
Because informal offers cannot erase formal violations.
Because we don’t take meetings. We file complaints. And we post them.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 34 – Contact rights infringed under unlawful order
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Written-only access needs ignored
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Right to fair hearing and family life denied
UNCRPD Article 13 – Attempted informal contact undermines formal legal process
Data Protection and Conduct Duties – Use of legal name and cc’ing of named officer after formal removal request
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t family time. It was institutional revisionism sent via Outlook.
This wasn’t a gesture. It was procedural mockery staged as courtesy.
This wasn’t an error. It was a tactical minimisation of trauma, responsibility, and law.
SWANK hereby archives this email as an example of post-removal gaslight-by-template.
You don’t get to remove the children unlawfully and follow up with a meeting invite.
You don’t get to rebrand harm as routine.
And you definitely don’t get to CC Kirsty Hornal — not after everything.
⟡ 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.