⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
A Sovereign Mother’s Emergency Dispatch
In re Chromatic v. Local Authority (UK), Regarding the International Notification of Child Removal and the Consular Silence of Empires
📎 Metadata
Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-EX-0624-USCONS-DIPLOREQ
Court File Name: 2025-06-24_SWANK_USChildren_DiplomaticOversightRequest_UKEmergencyCourt
1-line summary: Formal request for diplomatic oversight submitted to U.S. Embassy following removal of four American citizen children by UK authorities.
I. What Happened
At 01:37 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic formally alerted American Citizen Services (U.S. Embassy, London) of the unlawful and retaliatory removal of her four minor children — all of whom are documented U.S. citizens with complex medical needs.
The UK Administrative Court had already received a Judicial Review and Emergency Reinstatement Request, citing safeguarding abuse, retaliatory supervision threats, and procedural exclusion of the mother as a litigant in person.
This email was not written as a plea.
It was a foreign policy flare.
II. What the Request Establishes
That international jurisdiction was engaged, triggering Vienna Convention obligations
That medical care for U.S. minors was interrupted by unlawful state seizure
That the request was made clearly, urgently, and with all necessary reference to active UK court proceedings
That silence by U.S. officials after notification would constitute tacit compliance with domestic overreach
You cannot claim to protect citizens abroad if you remain quiet while they are processed like local property.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because consular oversight is not decorative.
Because children who hold U.S. passports do not lose nationality when seized by British authorities.
Because silence from the Embassy after a lawful request for diplomatic intervention becomes diplomatic complicity.
SWANK does not assume abandonment.
But we document it in advance.
IV. Violations and Stakes
Removal of minors without jurisdictional clarity
Interruption of scheduled medical care (Hammersmith Hospital)
Violation of Vienna Convention Articles 5, 36, and 37
Exclusion of U.S. parent from emergency proceedings in defiance of civil filings
The letter was sent.
The evidence was public.
The children were already gone.
The only thing left to test was whether the Embassy would speak.
V. SWANK’s Position
This communication will remain part of the record — as will any silence that followed it.
The U.S. Embassy was duly and lawfully notified.
The children remain separated.
The mother continues to litigate.
The archive continues to grow.
In history, as in war, there are dispatches.
This was one.