“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 U.S. Embassy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Embassy. Show all posts

SWANK London Ltd. v Westminster & RBKC: Urgent Judicial Review Demands Child Return and Sibling Non-Separation


⟡ “They Removed Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal Without Notice. I Filed for Return, Non-Separation, and the Archive Spoke First.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Review. It Was Jurisdictional Reversal Filed on Velvet — Delivered to the Court, the Councils, and the State Department.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/HIGHCOURT/N463-CHILDRETURN-NONSEPARATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_N463_UrgentApplication_ChildReturnAndNonSeparation.pdf
Emergency judicial review application under Form N463 filed by SWANK London Ltd., demanding the return of four U.S. citizen children unlawfully removed by Westminster and RBKC, with urgent interim relief preventing sibling separation.

I. What Happened

At 18:25 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, acting as Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a complete N463 emergency relief application to the Administrative Court, alongside the full Judicial Review claim (N461).

The submission followed:

  • The unlawful removal of four children on 23 June

  • The grant of ICOs in the parent's absence

  • No notice, no service, and no disability accommodations

  • No consular notification, despite U.S. citizenship of all four children

The application requested:

  • Immediate return of the children

  • Prevention of sibling separation

  • A hearing within 24–48 hours

All parties — including Westminster, RBKC, Cafcass, and the U.S. Embassy — were formally notified.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Local authorities conducted removals without lawful process

  • The Family Court issued binding orders without the mother or her solicitor present

  • U.S. diplomatic oversight was bypassed

  • A disabled parent was denied communication access

  • Four American children were separated from each other and from their mother by stealth proceedings

This wasn’t a filing. It was a diplomatic act disguised as litigation.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because removal is not lawful if the process was erased.
Because the archive does not seek mercy — it files structure, sequence, and jurisdiction.
Because the separation of siblings without consent or court approval is a state failure, not a welfare plan.
Because when four Americans are taken, the High Court must hear not just the claim — but the constitution beneath it.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44 & 38 – EPO and ICO misuse without service

  • Family Procedure Rules – Failure to notify, serve, or accommodate a disabled litigant

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – No reasonable adjustments made

  • UNCRC Articles 9 & 10 – Unlawful sibling separation and family interference

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of access to justice

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – U.S. Embassy bypassed

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Right to fair hearing and family life breached

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was removal by ambush, legalized by absence.
This wasn’t child welfare. It was retaliation, sterilized in silence.
This wasn’t unnoticed. It was archived, submitted, and served — with jurisdictional contempt.

SWANK hereby files this Judicial Review as a historic correction of procedural deceit.
The children are American.
The orders were void.
And the response was velvet-bound, timestamped, and transatlantic.

⟡ 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 review.

© 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: ICO Hearing Invalidated by Evidence of Prior Child Removal


⟡ “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.


No comments:

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Transcript and Service Record Demanded After ICO Hearing Held Without Notice


⟡ “I Was Never Told There Was a Hearing. So I Requested the Transcript — and the Trail of Their Silence.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Curiosity. It Was Evidentiary Excavation — Filed for the Record, and Copied to Washington.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/TRANSCRIPT-SERVICERECORD-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_FamilyCourt_TranscriptAndServiceRecord_ICOHearing.pdf
Formal request to the Family Court demanding the full transcript, attendance list, and service record for the ICO hearing that removed Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal from their disabled U.S. citizen mother — without prior notice.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025 at 15:26, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal email to five divisions of the Family Court — as well as the U.S. Embassy — requesting three specific records regarding the ICO hearing held earlier that day:

  1. Transcript of the full proceedings

  2. Attendance record of all parties and legal representatives

  3. Service record documenting how and when the mother was notified

The email stated clearly that:

  • The mother was not informed of the hearing

  • She did not attend

  • She received no opportunity to participate

  • She disputes the legality of the orders made

  • The documentation is required for a formal procedural challenge now underway

The communication was jurisdictional, evidentiary, and diplomatic.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The Family Court held a major hearing without notifying or including the mother

  • The mother is disabled and requires written access — which was never facilitated

  • The email makes clear that the procedural validity of the ICO is in question

  • Multiple departments were contacted simultaneously to prevent misdirection or delay

  • The U.S. Embassy was cc’ed, elevating this from domestic failure to international breach

This wasn’t a request. It was a jurisdictional trigger — typed in velvet and served to five inboxes and one embassy.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot claim lawful care if the parent was silenced before the hearing began.
Because when courts act without notifying the parties, they act without law.
Because if the process was proper, the court should be eager to provide the transcript.
Because when the children are gone and the parent was never called, only the record remains — and we just asked for it.

IV. Violations

  • Family Procedure Rules, Rule 12.9 & 27.2 – All parties entitled to notice and record

  • Children Act 1989, Section 38 – ICOs cannot be granted ex parte without legal cause

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to implement required written-only access

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of access to justice for disabled litigant

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular coordination prior to seizure of U.S. nationals

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Right to a fair hearing and participation obstructed

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t an email. It was a filing of absence, addressed to the void that replaced due process.
This wasn’t about paperwork. It was a reclamation of visibility through structural confrontation.
This wasn’t optional. It was archival war — formatted, addressed, and served to every institutional inbox capable of pretending it didn’t happen.

SWANK hereby logs this request as an act of sovereign retrieval.
They removed the children.
They hid the hearing.
We filed the absence — and now we want the proof.

⟡ 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 hearings deserve records.

© 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. 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 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 United Kingdom: Emergency Diplomatic Request for U.S. Embassy Oversight in Foreign Removal Case


⟡ “This Is Not a Custody Dispute. This Is a Sovereignty Crisis.” ⟡
When Four American Citizens Are Removed by Foreign Authorities, the Embassy Must Step In — Not Watch.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/DIPLOMATIC-ESCALATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_USEmbassy_DiplomaticOversight_EmergencyCourtAction.pdf
Formal consular request urging U.S. Embassy intervention and oversight during active UK emergency court action involving removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

At 01:37 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an urgent email to U.S. consular officials in London requesting formal diplomatic oversight of an emergency UK court action concerning her four minor children — all of whom are U.S. citizens and were removed the previous day without legal grounds. One child, Regal, age 16, was taken without warrant, safeguarding threshold, or medical continuity. The request references Vienna Convention protections and includes direct links to evidence, legal filings, and SWANK's public archive.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Four U.S. citizen children were removed by UK authorities on 23 June 2025

  • No order, consent, or procedural threshold was presented at the time of removal

  • The children suffer from eosinophilic asthma and were mid-treatment at Hammersmith Hospital

  • The parent is disabled and was excluded from proceedings due to known medical access needs

  • A Judicial Review and Emergency Reinstatement Request are currently live before the High Court

This was not a removal. It was a cross-border jurisdictional collapse, disguised as safeguarding.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because consular silence enables cross-jurisdictional abuse.
Because this is not a question of parenting — it is a matter of citizenship, law, and human dignity.
Because Regal’s legal capacity was ignored. Because his nationality was overridden.
Because the archive exists to say: we did not whisper, we filed.
Because diplomatic neutrality, in the face of disappearance, is not professionalism — it’s complicity.

IV. Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to notify the U.S. Embassy of custody or procedural interference

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Denial of fair process and family life

  • Children Act 1989 – No lawful basis for removal presented or served

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability access refusal during active legal process

  • UNCRC, Articles 9 and 24 – Separation and disruption of necessary medical treatment

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of justice to a disabled parent in legal proceedings

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a welfare concern. It was an international rights violation performed under local council stationery.
This wasn’t diplomatic delay. It was inaction with global consequences.
This wasn’t domestic jurisdiction. It was a foreign act committed on American minors.

SWANK calls upon the U.S. Embassy to treat this not as an inquiry — but as a sovereign alarm.
This post is not a record of the past. It is a declaration of what still requires interruption.

⟡ 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 UK Authorities: Emergency Alert for Removal of American Minor Without Legal Process


⟡ “He Was 16. He Was American. They Took Him Anyway — No Warrant, No Order, No Explanation.” ⟡
The Kingdom Ignored the Constitution. We Filed It With the Embassy.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/EMERGENCY-RISK-REGAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_EmergencyAlert_USChildrenRemoval_RightsViolationNotice.pdf
Diplomatic alert submitted to the U.S. Embassy regarding the unlawful removal of four American children and the detention of a 16-year-old boy without process or parental access.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal notice to U.S. consular services concerning the removal of her son Regal — a 16-year-old American citizen with asthma — who was taken by Westminster Children’s Services without a court order, warrant, or threshold justification. He was denied legal or family representation, not permitted to contact his parent, and remains in an undisclosed location. The document accompanies a High Court Judicial Review, an emergency injunction request, and a criminal referral. Regal is old enough under UK law to hold autonomy, but has been treated like contraband.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Regal was removed in secret, without documentation, consultation, or legal defence

  • His age (16) and nationality (U.S.) were ignored to facilitate institutional control

  • There was no medical accommodation or contact permitted after the removal

  • A live Judicial Review and emergency reinstatement were already underway

  • This is not domestic safeguarding — it is international rights interference

This wasn’t oversight. It was diplomatic negligence cloaked in child welfare theatrics.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the U.S. Constitution still applies — even when Westminster pretends it doesn’t.
Because a child’s age, autonomy, and passport are not optional details — they are jurisdictional facts.
Because silence after removal is not compliance — it’s obstruction.
Because this is not a matter of policy. It is a matter of sovereignty.
Because the archive is not asking for accountability — it is demanding international recognition.

IV. Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to notify the U.S. Embassy of custody or interference

  • Children Act 1989, Section 20/31 – No order, no threshold, no parental consent

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – No access to hearing, no respect for family life

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability-related exclusion from process

  • UNCRC Articles 9, 12, 24 – No child consultation, medical interruption, or legal support

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of justice to disabled parent

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t removal. It was an internationally reportable abduction dressed in council protocol.
This wasn’t protection. It was theft under institutional seal.
This wasn’t an accident. It was a knowing act of cross-border suppression.

SWANK has now raised the matter to U.S. diplomatic attention and expects formal engagement.
Regal is not a ward of Westminster. He is a citizen of a sovereign nation.
We are not requesting permission. We are triggering response.
This post is not advocacy. It is escalation.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions