“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label U.S. Citizenship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Citizenship. Show all posts

On the Unlawful Detention of Four Foreign Nationals by a British Authority Without Diplomatic Consultation


⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 15 July 2025
Reference Code: ADD-A12-CITIZENSHIP
Court File Name: 2025-07-15_Addendum_ChildCitizenship_CrossBorderJurisdiction.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Summary: Legal confirmation that all four children are sole U.S. citizens and are entitled to international protection, consular oversight, and cross-border legal respect.

United States v Westminster City Council

I. What Happened

Westminster Children’s Services removed four American children — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — from their home on 23 June 2025, issuing an Emergency Protection Order without acknowledging or accommodating the children’s sole U.S. citizenship.

Despite this being a cross-border matter, no U.S. Embassy engagement has occurred. All children remain under foreign state control without lawful consular access, digital communication, or proper cultural rights.

II. What the Addendum Establishes

  • All children are U.S. citizens only — born on U.S. soil, with no U.K. citizenship.

  • The EPO has not been reviewed by diplomatic monitors.

  • No Hague or Vienna Convention provisions have been invoked.

  • The court is being asked to proceed as if the children are British minors, when in fact they are foreign nationals entitled to international protection.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Westminster cannot unilaterally detain children of a sovereign nation without accountability.
Because international treaties were designed to prevent this very overreach.
Because silence from the Local Authority is not procedural neutrality — it is jurisdictional negligence.

IV. Legal and Treaty Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Article 36) – Right to consular notification and oversight

  • Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) – Cross-border custody interference

  • European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8) – Family and national identity

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 9, 12, 30) – Right to identity, expression, and cultural belonging

  • 7 FAM 1700–1900 (U.S. State Dept.) – Mandatory diplomatic awareness in custody disputes abroad

V. SWANK’s Position

The court and the Local Authority must recognise the international scope of this case.
To continue without acknowledging the children's citizenship status is to unlawfully override international safeguards.
This is not a domestic protection matter.
This is a cross-border interference in the lives of four sovereign citizens.

SWANK asserts that the children’s removal — absent any U.S. diplomatic review — constitutes a procedural breach, a diplomatic concern, and a violation of treaty law.

⚖️ SWANK Legal-Aesthetic Footer

This document is not conjecture. It is jurisdictional objection.
It is not advocacy. It is legal authorship.
It is not commentary. It is an act of sovereign dissent.
Filed with velvet outrage and passport-bearing authority.

🖋 Polly Chromatic
Mother and Director, SWANK London Ltd
📍 Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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:

Chromatic v Westminster City Council – On the Arbitrary Suspension of Lawful Education and the Rise of Retaliatory Safeguarding


⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 16 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-S01-WESTMISTAKES
Court File Name: 2025-07-16_SWANK_Summary_Westminster_TopViolations.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Summary: Documentation of the most severe and ongoing legal, ethical, and safeguarding violations committed by Westminster Children’s Services

❖ SWANK Summary:

“Top 7 Institutional Violations by Westminster Children’s Services”

A catalogue of legal, procedural, and ethical failures currently under formal and international review.

1. Interference with Lawful Home Education

Westminster disregarded a fully documented and academically rich home education programme that had been in place for years. Without consultation, they disrupted stable, legally compliant provision and imposed inferior tutoring while confiscating learning devices.
Breaches: Education Act 1996 (Section 7), Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR

2. Enforced Digital and Developmental Isolation

The children were stripped of iPads, iPhones, and bicycles, denied access to outdoor activity and digital communication — despite no court order authorising such deprivation.
Breaches: Article 8 ECHR (private/family life), Children Act 1989 (Sections 22 & 47)

3. Suppression of Children’s Views (Especially Regal, Age 16)

Regal is Gillick competent and vocal. His objections were ignored. He was told he may not express views about court, family, or personal restrictions.
Breaches: UNCRC Articles 12 & 13, Gillick Competence, Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression)

4. Institutional Retaliation Post-Filing

Every legal submission filed by the mother (e.g., PLO refusal, N244, Judicial Review) was met with escalated institutional interference — a pattern of retaliation and intimidation.
Breaches: Public Law Principles, Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010 (Disability Discrimination)

5. Improper Use of Emergency Protection Order

The EPO issued on 23 June 2025 was secured without credible evidence of immediate risk, and without full disclosure of procedural context or medical disability.
Breaches: Children Act 1989 (Section 44), Family Procedure Rules, Proportionality Doctrine

6. Sibling Separation and Excessive Surveillance

Regal is being held apart from his siblings for over ten hours a day; carers have enforced excessive monitoring. The emotional harm is visible and escalating.
Breaches: Children Act 1989 (Welfare Principle), UNCRC Article 9 (family unity)

7. Failure to Recognise and Respond to Dual Citizenship

Despite clear documentation, the Local Authority has not acknowledged the children’s U.S. citizenship or triggered proper consular notifications or international considerations.
Breaches: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, UK-U.S. bilateral protections, Family Court jurisdictional duty

SWANK Position:

Westminster Children’s Services have demonstrated not just procedural failure but institutional misuse of authority, misrepresentation of parental capability, and a pattern of retaliatory safeguarding. These actions constitute a sustained legal violation and are now under evidentiary review by the Family Court, the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, and professional regulatory bodies.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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:

In the Matter of Silence Received: Chromatic v. Unread Communication, SWANK Filed First


⟡ A MOTHER FILED, BUT NO ONE READ ⟡
The Removal, the Rights Breach, and the Statement That Should Have Stopped It

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0626-POSSTAT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_FamilyCourt_Addendum_PersonalPositionStatement.pdf
1-line summary: Position Statement documenting procedural exclusions, disability rights violations, and denial of contact.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four American children were removed from their mother under an Emergency Protection Order — without service, without grounds, and without allowing her to attend the hearing.
The removal occurred days after the mother submitted filings including a Judicial Review, a U.S. Embassy letter, and medical documentation — none of which were acknowledged by Westminster Children’s Services.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Denial of participation in the legal process (Article 6 breach)

  • Disability rights violations, including failure to accommodate written-only communication

  • Safeguarding misuse despite active medical needs and care schedules

  • Trauma and harm inflicted on both mother and children through sudden, unnotified removal

  • Pattern of institutional retaliation against legal filings

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This Position Statement was not simply personal — it was procedural, protective, and preventive.
It warned the court and agencies that forced removal would cause irreversible harm. It documented disability, dependency, and international jurisdiction. It made legal clarity impossible to ignore.

SWANK logged it to preserve this moment:
When a mother filed in time, and institutions chose not to read.

IV. Violations

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (Fair Trial)

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 10 rights of known carers

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  • Vienna Convention – Notification failure for U.S. nationals

V. SWANK’s Position

This Position Statement was the moment that made silence indefensible.
No safeguarding rationale can justify ignoring written medical records, consular protections, or disability adjustments.
Westminster chose coercion over communication.
SWANK chose record over erasure.

⟡ 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: Consular Protection Formally Requested After Emergency Removal of U.S. Citizen Children


⟡ “They Took Four Disabled U.S. Children Without Threshold. I Requested Diplomatic Intervention. Because This Isn’t a Custody Dispute — It’s a Treaty Violation.” ⟡
When Family Law Fails, Foreign Policy Begins. And This Archive Just Filed Its Passport.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/CONSULAR-PROTECTION-URGENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_USAEmbassy_ConsularProtection_RetaliatoryRemoval.pdf
Emergency formal request to the U.S. Embassy for immediate consular intervention following the unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children from their disabled mother by Westminster Council under an invalid Emergency Protection Order.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic wrote to the U.S. Embassy Consular Affairs Team requesting urgent diplomatic protection after her four U.S. citizen children — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — were removed without notice by UK authorities under an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). The removal occurred while:

  • A £23M civil claim was pending against two NHS trusts

  • A Judicial Review was active

  • No risk threshold was ever established

  • Medical, disability, and diplomatic protocols were ignored

  • Prior embassy contact had already been initiated

The email included references to legal filings, psychiatric records, medical evidence, and the complete digital archive of events at www.swanklondon.com.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Four children were removed without consular notification, violating Article 36 of the Vienna Convention

  • The children are medically fragile and wholly dependent on their disabled mother

  • Retaliation appears linked to public litigation and whistleblower documentation

  • The local authority failed to provide placement information or medical transition

  • The parent was denied access to the court and to legal counsel during removal

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was international overreach masked as child protection.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot take U.S. citizens without telling their government.
Because a parent under live litigation cannot be treated as though rights no longer apply.
Because “child protection” cannot be used to erase civil claims, psychiatric assessments, or embassy protections.
Because when diplomacy becomes necessary, we send a cover letter, a witness statement, and a court archive.

IV. Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular notification of U.S. citizen seizure

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44 – EPO granted without risk, notice, or medical basis

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access entirely disregarded during removal

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8 – Denial of due process, right to family life, and fair legal remedy

  • UNCRC Articles 7, 9, 24 – Right to nationality, family unity, and healthcare violated

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal participation denied to disabled litigant

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t child welfare. It was a sovereign breach disguised as social work.
This wasn’t jurisdiction. It was a retaliatory seizure of medically dependent children from their American mother.
This wasn’t a legal order. It was a bureaucratic theft — and now, the embassy has been formally served.

SWANK hereby archives this diplomatic request not as diplomacy, but as a legal intervention cloaked in velvet, sealed with evidence, and sent to the only entity Westminster cannot ignore: the United States of America.

⟡ 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: