⟡ “They Placed the Children Before the Hearing. I Found the Timestamp. It Was Sent at 23:39 — The Night Before the Court Pretended to Decide.” ⟡
This Wasn’t an Oversight. It Was Premeditated Displacement — Filed With a Clock, a Screenshot, and International Contempt.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/PROCEDURALBREACH-PLACEMENT-BEFORE-ICO
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_FamilyCourt_ProceduralBreach_PlacementBeforeHearing.pdf
Supplementary evidence submitted to the Family Court and U.S. Embassy showing that the foster placement of Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal occurred prior to the Interim Care Order (ICO) hearing — confirming the outcome was decided in advance.
I. What Happened
At 15:33 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a written notice to the Family Court and copied the U.S. Embassy. Attached was a timestamped email from Kirsty Hornal, dated 23 June 2025 at 23:39, confirming that placement into foster care had already occurred — hours before the ICO hearing that allegedly authorized it.
The supplementary submission was sent to:
Five Family Court divisions
Her solicitor, Alan Mullem
London ACS, the U.S. Embassy in the UK
Her statement was clear: The hearing was a rubber stamp for a decision already implemented.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The ICO hearing on 24 June 2025 was procedurally meaningless, as the children had already been placed
Kirsty Hornal’s email provides direct written proof of pre-hearing implementation
The Family Court was misused to retroactively legitimize a removal that had already taken place
The parent and her legal access were deliberately circumvented
This wasn’t negligence — it was coordinated procedural fraud
This wasn’t a breach. It was a staged legal event — filed too late to be honest, and too early to be accidental.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because if the state removes children before the judge speaks, the courtroom is just scenery.
Because timestamped administrative decisions sent at midnight are not protection — they are retaliation.
Because the U.S. Embassy now has evidence that removal occurred without lawful judicial approval.
Because you cannot trust the outcome of a hearing that confirmed what had already been done.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 38 – ICOs must precede, not postdate, placements
Family Procedure Rules, Rule 12.1 – Proceedings must be timely and fair
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – No valid hearing if outcome is predetermined
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access denied in a false proceeding
UNCRPD Article 13 – Justice process invalidated by preemptive action
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – U.S. Embassy not notified in advance of action against its citizens
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t child protection. It was procedural theatre performed with forged timing and false solemnity.
This wasn’t a hearing. It was a post hoc ritual to mask removal without law.
This wasn’t legal. It was a timestamped confession — and now it’s filed forever.
SWANK formally archives this submission as an act of jurisdictional confrontation and evidence-based dissent.
They took the children.
They staged the hearing.
We found the timestamp — and sent it to the Embassy.
⟡ 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 premature removal deserves a PDF.
© 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.