Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): International Jurisdiction

Showing posts with label International Jurisdiction. Show all posts

Re the Movement of U.S. Citizen Minors (Jurisdictional Noncompliance) [2025] SWANK 29 When sovereignty is ignored for convenience.

⟡ Assurance Request: International Movement of U.S. Citizen Children under Care Order ZC25C50281 ⟡
Chromatic v. The Jurisdictional Escape Fantasy [2025] SWANK 29 — “You do not get to export your mistakes.”

Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/USCHILD-MOVEMENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-01_RE_External_Urgent_Assurance_Request_International_Movement_of_US_Citizen_Children_Case_No_ZC25C50281.pdf
Demand for written assurance that U.S. citizen children will not be removed from jurisdiction without court authority.

Court Labels:
International Jurisdiction, U.S. Nationals, Interim Care Order, Foreign Movement Risk, Westminster Legal, CAFCASS, Consular Oversight, Family Division Case No: ZC25C50281

Search Description:
SWANK demands assurance children will not be removed from UK without court and parental consent; diplomatic referral pending.

I. What Happened
On 1 July 2025, Polly Chromatic, founder of SWANK London Ltd., issued an urgent assurance request to Westminster Legal and Children’s Services, copying U.S. consular officials and relevant authorities. The request, filed under Family Court Case No: ZC25C50281, demanded confirmation that none of the four U.S. citizen children subject to an Interim Care Order would be removed from England and Wales without:

The express written consent of both parents, and
Prior permission of the Family Court.

The request invoked not only ongoing domestic proceedings, but international protections and oversight from the U.S. Department of State, CAFCASS, and judicial review proceedings already in motion.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Westminster has failed to proactively confirm jurisdictional boundaries regarding international removal.
There is a credible legal risk that children with dual rights may be transferred without lawful consent.
Medical risk factors and ongoing legal proceedings are being ignored in favour of logistical control.
A failure to respond within 48 hours triggers automatic escalation to diplomatic and court authorities.
The U.S. Embassy has already been looped into a system that has repeatedly failed to manage its own jurisdiction.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the same institution that couldn't handle local safeguarding cannot be trusted with international discretion.
Because you cannot detain children one week and contemplate their export the next.
Because legal silence, in the context of foreign nationals, is not discretion — it’s breach, at scale.
Because SWANK does not ask institutions to behave. It gives them deadlines.
And because every quiet decision made about these children is now a matter of global record.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, §33 – Local authority does not have power to remove child from jurisdiction without court order
Family Law Act 1986, Pt. I – Jurisdictional limitations over child movement
HRA 1998, Art. 8 – Protection of family life, esp. for dual-national children
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Art. 36 – Duty to notify and consult U.S. authorities
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 10 – Family unity in cross-border cases

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t an inquiry. It was a jurisdictional line drawn in archival ink.
We do not accept informal transfers of children with formal rights.
We do not accept bureaucratic absconding disguised as discretion.
We do not accept international law being used selectively, when convenient.
You removed the children unlawfully. You do not now get to remove the country.

⟡ 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.

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: U.S. Consular Oversight Requested Under Vienna Convention Following Child Removal

⟡ “You Removed Four Americans. We Requested a Consular Visit. We Filed the Vienna Convention.” ⟡
When Britain Breaks Its Own Law, America Shouldn't Need an Invitation to Watch.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USA/CONSULAR-VISIT-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_USAEmbassy_ConsularObservationRequest_ChildrenRemoved.pdf
Formal request to U.S. Embassy for consular visit and protective observation following the unlawful removal of four disabled American children by Westminster Children’s Services.

I. What Happened

At 03:54 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic issued an urgent diplomatic request to the American Citizen Services division of the U.S. Embassy in London. The letter outlines the unlawful removal of her four U.S. citizen children on 23 June 2025 by Westminster Council. No warrant was provided. No hearing was held. No consular notification occurred. Judicial Review proceedings, emergency reinstatement applications, and multiple regulatory complaints are now active. All four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were removed without transition planning, in breach of UK law, U.S. treaty rights, and international protocol.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The U.S. government was not notified of the seizure of four American minors
No medical transition plan was coordinated despite chronic conditions (eosinophilic asthma)
The lead child, Regal, age 16, was removed without autonomy consideration
Parental disability accommodations were ignored, triggering access and safeguarding violations
A consular response is now necessary for diplomatic oversight and constitutional protection

This wasn’t a domestic issue. It was a foreign seizure of American citizens under false pretences.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because international jurisdiction doesn’t start when a parent files in D.C. — it starts the moment foreign soil targets an American child.
Because the Vienna Convention was ratified for exactly this.
Because Regal isn’t just 16 — he’s an asthmatic dual citizen removed in a legal blackout.
Because silence by the Embassy would signal acquiescence.
Because this isn’t just court failure. It’s international breach — and we filed it.

IV. Violations

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to notify U.S. government upon removal of citizen minors
Children Act 1989 – Lack of lawful threshold, order, or medical justification
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Family integrity and due process rights denied
Equality Act 2010 – Access accommodations and disability protections ignored
UNCRC & UNCRPD – Violation of child autonomy, medical access, and disabled parental protections
U.S. Treaty Obligations – Breach of dual-national child protections under federal law

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a safeguarding action. It was an international incident staged by a local authority.
This wasn’t lawful jurisdiction. It was a treaty breach executed with bureaucratic confidence.
This wasn’t a family matter. It was a constitutional violation with a UK postmark.

SWANK hereby archives this as the formal notice that America has been asked — directly, jurisdictionally, and in writing — to observe, record, and respond.
No one can say they weren’t told.
This post is the proof.
The next move belongs to Washington.

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.