“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 Judicial Retaliation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judicial Retaliation. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster and RBKC: Ombudsman Petition Filed After Disability-Based Retaliation


⟡ “We Were Told to Raise It with the Ombudsman. So We Did.” ⟡
A Bureaucratic Referral Filed in Protest of Procedural Violence

Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/LGSCO/COMPLAINT-WESTMINSTERRBKC-DISCRIMINATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_Complaint_LGSCO_WestminsterRBKC_SafeguardingDiscrimination.pdf
Formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) regarding safeguarding misuse, disability discrimination, and retaliation by Westminster and RBKC.

I. What Happened

On 31 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The complaint detailed how Westminster and RBKC:

  • Escalated intervention after legal filings and judicial reviews

  • Denied medical and disability accommodations

  • Retaliated against lawful procedural action by removing four disabled U.S. citizen children

  • Used safeguarding powers to override jurisdictional limits and obstruct due process

  • Ignored prior complaints and refused to disclose necessary data

The complaint was filed after both councils continued retaliatory conduct despite formal notice, placing the burden of remedy on external oversight bodies.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Safeguarding was used as an instrument of punishment

  • Disabled U.S. citizen children were removed without legal justification

  • Disability rights were denied in both process and outcome

  • Westminster and RBKC refused to acknowledge the harm of their actions or correct course

  • Procedural safeguards became mechanisms of institutional aggression

This was not service failure. It was policy weaponised as removal.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because complaints systems exist to delay reckoning.
Because when four disabled American children are removed in retaliation for legal action, it is not a “service issue” — it is state aggression through administrative euphemism.
Because the archive was created precisely for what ombudsmen cannot contain:
Retaliation with a council letterhead.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 22 – Duty to promote the welfare of the child

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Disability discrimination and lack of accommodation

  • UK GDPR, Article 15 – Data access repeatedly denied

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, and 13 – Denial of due process, family life, and effective remedy

  • UNCRPD, Articles 7, 13, and 23 – Rights of disabled children, access to justice, and family unity denied

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a record of harm the state refused to name.
This wasn’t an appeal for correction. It was an evidentiary dispatch submitted in protest.
This wasn’t a bureaucratic act. It was an act of jurisdictional preservation.

SWANK logs this not because we expect resolution — but because the archive outlasts denial.

⟡ 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: U.S. Embassy Formally Informed of ICO Endorsement and Hearing Listing


⟡ “You Confirmed the Removal Was Judicially Endorsed. I Confirmed It Was Diplomatically Escalated.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Status Update. It Was a Sovereign Transfer of Jurisdiction — Filed Directly to the United States.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/CONSULAR-REINFORCEMENT-NOTICE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_USAEmbassy_ConsularNotice_JudicialEndorsementConfirmed.pdf
Confirmation email to the U.S. Embassy (London ACS) documenting that Interim Care Orders (ICOs) have been judicially endorsed in the UK, reinforcing the need for immediate and ongoing consular involvement on behalf of four U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025 at 14:59, Polly Chromatic sent a formal email to LondonACS@state.gov, summarising verified information from legal correspondence:

  • Interim Care Orders (ICOs) were made

  • The court endorsed the removal

  • A new hearing is being scheduled

  • All documents and transcripts are being requested

  • Consular escalation is now fully justified and activated

This email formalised the United States' diplomatic foothold in an active UK child protection case involving disabled minors, international violations, and a silenced parent.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The U.S. government has formally been placed on notice of court involvement

  • The removal is not accidental — it is judicially endorsed retaliation

  • Diplomatic engagement is not speculative — it is now procedurally required

  • The parent responded to escalation with archive, legal citations, and jurisdictional clarity

  • Every word of this message is a trigger to foreign protection mechanisms

This wasn’t a check-in. It was an evidentiary acceleration of cross-border intervention.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you don’t wait until children are disappeared to file for oversight.
Because when the court is complicit, only a second jurisdiction can intervene.
Because “new hearing listed next week” means a new theatre of harm, unless interrupted.
Because the parent didn’t panic. She wrote it, filed it, and cc’ed it to herself.

IV. Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – U.S. not notified of detention of its nationals

  • Children Act 1989 – ICO issued without threshold, medical accommodation, or consular coordination

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Continued exclusion of disabled parent

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Violation of procedural fairness and family integrity

  • UNCRC Articles 9, 10, 24 – Right to family, international coordination, and healthcare unfulfilled

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Disabled litigant denied procedural participation

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t new info. It was the moment silence became complicit — and the archive responded in full.
This wasn’t an email. It was a bilateral document filed by necessity.
This wasn’t mere correspondence. It was a notification to power — written without apology.

SWANK hereby logs this message as the jurisdictional inflection point between domestic misconduct and international accountability.
They confirmed the ICO.
We confirmed the Embassy.
The next filing won’t be an update. It will be a reckoning.

⟡ 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 removal deserves a reply — in international law.

© 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