“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

Documented Obsessions

Showing posts with label Jurisdictional Breach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jurisdictional Breach. Show all posts

Chromatic v. Westminster: On the Necessity of Filing What Others Forbid


⟡ Emergency Custody, Judicial Review, and Written-Only Access ⟡
A Disabled Litigant's Consolidated Request for Procedural Rectitude, Parental Dignity, and Jurisdictional Reckoning

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/0625-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_CoverLetter_FamilyCourt_EmergencyCustodyAndReviewBundle.pdf
This cover letter formally submitted the three-part emergency bundle requesting reinstatement of custody, urgent child arrangements, and judicial review coordination.

I. What Happened

On 25 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a consolidated Family Court bundle demanding immediate legal scrutiny of the 23 June 2025 removal of four U.S. citizen children. The submission was addressed directly to the Central Family Court and emphasized:

  • Reinstatement of custody

  • Emergency child arrangements (C100)

  • Jurisdictional and safeguarding misconduct

  • A plea for all court communications to be in writing only, citing disability accommodation under the Equality Act 2010

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • There was no legal justification provided at the time of removal

  • Emergency filings were necessary to prevent further jurisdictional erosion

  • Multiple agencies had bypassed legal communication protocols

  • Protective applications had been filed with full coordination among prospective carers

  • Judicial Review proceedings were already in motion

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This cover letter represents a turning point in the evidentiary archive — the moment SWANK London Ltd. publicly demanded procedural restraint and disability-compliant communication from the judiciary itself. By formally insisting on written-only contact, it established a boundary often denied to disabled litigants.

IV. Violations

  • Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (fair hearing, family life)

  • Equality Act 2010 – Reasonable Adjustments for disability

  • Children Act 1989 – Improper safeguarding rationale

  • Civil Procedure Rules – Failure to serve or notify before drastic removal

V. SWANK’s Position

This document reflects the essence of legal activism through procedural fluency. It is not merely a cover letter — it is a refusal to be erased. SWANK London Ltd. reiterates that its public archive is not rhetorical. It is juridical.
This filing is the velvet boundary that institutions may not cross.

⟡ 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: