Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): U.S. Nationals

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

Re the Movement of U.S. Citizen Minors (Jurisdictional Noncompliance) [2025] SWANK 29 When sovereignty is ignored for convenience.

⟡ Assurance Request: International Movement of U.S. Citizen Children under Care Order ZC25C50281 ⟡
Chromatic v. The Jurisdictional Escape Fantasy [2025] SWANK 29 — “You do not get to export your mistakes.”

Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/USCHILD-MOVEMENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-01_RE_External_Urgent_Assurance_Request_International_Movement_of_US_Citizen_Children_Case_No_ZC25C50281.pdf
Demand for written assurance that U.S. citizen children will not be removed from jurisdiction without court authority.

Court Labels:
International Jurisdiction, U.S. Nationals, Interim Care Order, Foreign Movement Risk, Westminster Legal, CAFCASS, Consular Oversight, Family Division Case No: ZC25C50281

Search Description:
SWANK demands assurance children will not be removed from UK without court and parental consent; diplomatic referral pending.

I. What Happened
On 1 July 2025, Polly Chromatic, founder of SWANK London Ltd., issued an urgent assurance request to Westminster Legal and Children’s Services, copying U.S. consular officials and relevant authorities. The request, filed under Family Court Case No: ZC25C50281, demanded confirmation that none of the four U.S. citizen children subject to an Interim Care Order would be removed from England and Wales without:

The express written consent of both parents, and
Prior permission of the Family Court.

The request invoked not only ongoing domestic proceedings, but international protections and oversight from the U.S. Department of State, CAFCASS, and judicial review proceedings already in motion.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Westminster has failed to proactively confirm jurisdictional boundaries regarding international removal.
There is a credible legal risk that children with dual rights may be transferred without lawful consent.
Medical risk factors and ongoing legal proceedings are being ignored in favour of logistical control.
A failure to respond within 48 hours triggers automatic escalation to diplomatic and court authorities.
The U.S. Embassy has already been looped into a system that has repeatedly failed to manage its own jurisdiction.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the same institution that couldn't handle local safeguarding cannot be trusted with international discretion.
Because you cannot detain children one week and contemplate their export the next.
Because legal silence, in the context of foreign nationals, is not discretion — it’s breach, at scale.
Because SWANK does not ask institutions to behave. It gives them deadlines.
And because every quiet decision made about these children is now a matter of global record.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, §33 – Local authority does not have power to remove child from jurisdiction without court order
Family Law Act 1986, Pt. I – Jurisdictional limitations over child movement
HRA 1998, Art. 8 – Protection of family life, esp. for dual-national children
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Art. 36 – Duty to notify and consult U.S. authorities
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 10 – Family unity in cross-border cases

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t an inquiry. It was a jurisdictional line drawn in archival ink.
We do not accept informal transfers of children with formal rights.
We do not accept bureaucratic absconding disguised as discretion.
We do not accept international law being used selectively, when convenient.
You removed the children unlawfully. You do not now get to remove the country.

⟡ 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.

Re the Four Minors (Procedural Vanishing & Post-Factum Oversight) [2025] SWANK 28 When CAFCASS arrived after the children were gone.

⟡ Notification of Procedural Misuse & Unlawful Emergency Removal of Four U.S. Citizen Children ⟡
Chromatic v. The Fiction of Safeguarding [2025] SWANK 28 — “When procedure is power, silence is complicity.”

Filed: 28 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/CAFCASS/EPO-ALERT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-28_Formal_Notification_Procedural_Misuse_and_Unlawful_Emergency_Removal_of_Four_Children.pdf
Formal notice to CAFCASS disputing lawful basis of child removal under EPO; U.S. consular, disability, and misconduct dimensions engaged.

I. What Happened
On 28 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, acting as mother and litigant-in-person via SWANK London Ltd, issued formal notification to CAFCASS regarding the unlawful emergency removal of her four children on 23 June 2025.
The notice identifies significant procedural concerns, including:

No formal communication with CAFCASS prior to, during, or post-removal
No clarity on whether a Guardian has been assigned
Involvement of named officers (Hornal, Brown, Westminster/RBKC) known to be under professional misconduct referrals
Known disability-related needs and U.S. citizenship protections ignored at the point of intervention

Confirmation was demanded on CAFCASS’s role, Guardian assignment (if any), and a guarantee of independence from tainted assessments.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

An Emergency Protection Order was executed without CAFCASS visibility or accountability
Four U.S. citizen minors were removed without safeguarding oversight or neutrality
A disabled mother was procedurally bypassed and her exemptions disregarded
Officers currently under formal misconduct review have remained active contributors to decisions
The institution intended to monitor safeguarding failed to monitor its own absence

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because what happened on 23 June wasn’t “emergency removal” — it was reputational self-defence.
Because CAFCASS cannot claim independence while remaining institutionally silent.
Because children should not be caught in retaliatory process theatre staged by adults with unresolved power.
Because disability isn’t a technicality. It’s jurisdictional.
And because no Guardian can be neutral if they inherit the lies of officers under referral.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, §41 – Guardian duty to represent the interests of the child
Equality Act 2010, §§20 & 149 – Failure to honour reasonable adjustments and prevent discrimination
ECHR, Art. 8 – Interference with family life without adequate procedural protection
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Art. 12 – Equal recognition before the law
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Art. 36 – Failure to engage consular safeguards for U.S. minors

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was strategic disappearance under colour of law.
We do not accept removals executed without procedural guardrails.
We do not accept “emergency” as a permanent excuse.
We do not accept CAFCASS oversight that begins after the damage.
The children were not shielded. The officers were.
SWANK has filed the record. CAFCASS now decides whether it joins the timeline — or becomes part of the problem.

Chromatic v The Crown: On the Relocation of the Documented and the Damned

⟡ SWANK Position Statement – Grounds for Protective Relocation and International Oversight ⟡
A Legal Justification for Diplomatic and Human Rights Intervention on Behalf of U.S. Nationals

Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/INTL/PROTECTIVE-RELOCATION
📎 Download PDF: 2025-07-01_SWANK_Position_ProtectiveRelocationAndOversight.pdf
Summary: A formal position statement asserting the legal and humanitarian right of a disabled U.S. mother and her four citizen children to protective relocation, following sustained Crown-led retaliation.

I. Applicant Identity and Protected Status

The Applicant, Polly Chromatic (legal name: Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett), is a disabled U.S. citizen. She is the mother of four minor children, all American nationals by birth — and all currently caught in a Crown jurisdiction that treats citizenship as inconvenience and disability as defiance.

Her diagnoses include:

Eosinophilic Asthma
Muscle Dysphonia
PTSD induced by institutional harassment and procedural sabotage

Her crime: Filing lawful documents.
Her punishment: Removal, silence, and erasure by policy.

II. Grounds for Protective Relocation

1. Procedural Exile

Stripped of access to family life, medical updates, and participation in any legal forum that doesn’t pre-condemn her.
Safeguarding has become not a shield, but a weapon.

2. Disability-Based Persecution

Her health conditions were not accommodated. They were weaponised. Used as evidence of incapacity by institutions that refused to even pronounce their names correctly.

3. Child Protection and Citizenship Harm

All four children are U.S. citizens.
None received consular protection.
All were removed without process, care plans, or lawful grounds — as if citizenship ends at the border of safeguarding fiction.

4. Transnational Retaliation Pattern

The United Kingdom and Turks and Caicos have demonstrated remarkable coordination in one regard: their talent for retaliating against disabled women who file too well.

III. Requested Oversight and Action

Polly Chromatic requests formal recognition as:

A procedurally exiled U.S. citizen
A disabled mother of four endangered minors
A documented target of safeguarding-based retaliation

She seeks:

Protective relocation to the U.S. or neutral territory
Diplomatic intervention by the U.S. State Department
Investigation by UN Special Rapporteurs
Legal accountability under Crown, UN, and consular law

IV. Supporting Documentation

This position is not hypothetical. It is:

Substantiated by a Declaration of Transnational Retaliation
Supplemented by Judicial Review filings and N244 applications
Reinforced by 13+ SWANK Addenda
Mapped in the Master Retaliation Timeline
Known to the U.S. Embassy and Office of Children’s Issues

The pattern is complete. The proof is filed.

V. SWANK’s Position

There is no law left in a jurisdiction where disability is framed as risk and foreign children are removed with diplomatic indifference.

This is not a relocation of preference.
This is a relocation of survival.

SWANK London Ltd affirms Polly Chromatic’s legal, moral, and humanitarian right to:

Protective relocation
Diplomatic relief
International legal remedy

Filed and submitted by:
SWANK London Ltd
Evidentiary Audit Division
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
www.swanklondon.com
director@swanklondon.com

Signed:
Polly Chromatic
(legal name: Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett)

⟡ Second Title (Case Law Style):
Chromatic v The Crown: On the Relocation of the Documented and the Damned

Court Labels:
Protective Relocation, Procedural Exile, U.S. Nationals, Disability Persecution, Crown Jurisdiction Abuse, SWANK Filing

Search Description:
Position statement requesting relocation and oversight for U.S. citizens retaliated against under Crown safeguarding abuse

Filename:
2025-07-01_SWANK_Position_ProtectiveRelocationAndOversight.pdf

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every omission is documented. Every silence is intentional. Every exile is evidentiary.

This is not a petition. It is precedent.
This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument of sovereign resistance.

We do not ask. We file.
We do not wait. We archive.

Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.)

Of Notable Jurisprudence

Chromatic v Westminster: On the Stability of Law and the Instability of Safeguarding Theatre

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion