“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 UNCRC Articles 8 & 37. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UNCRC Articles 8 & 37. Show all posts

Chromatic v Westminster (Four Flags, One Rope; Jurisdiction as Overreach; Safeguarding as Arbitrary Detention)


ADDENDUM: ON THE FORTUNE OF FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP

A Mirror Court Indictment of Parochial Overreach and Multi-Sovereign Folly

Metadata

I. What Happened

Westminster Children’s Services acted as though my four children were exclusively British wards, erasing their identities as citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Turks & Caicos Islands, and Haiti. This erasure denies diplomatic protections and distorts jurisdictional balance.

Despite formal notice to the U.S. Embassy and demonstrable international readership of the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue, Westminster persists in this parochial presumption — a wilful disregard of law, treaty, and identity.

II. What the Addendum Establishes

  • International Dimension – Four nationalities make this an international dispute, not a parochial safeguarding quarrel.

  • Protective Oversight – Consular and governmental obligations extend to the U.S., Haiti, and Turks & Caicos alongside the U.K. court.

  • Jurisdictional Conflict – Westminster’s unilateralism exposes Britain to diplomatic reproach.

  • Failure of Notification – Duties under the Hague Convention ignored.

  • Statutory Breach – Children Act 1989, s.22(4) disregarded: their wishes and identities unascertained.

III. Consequences

  • Courts risk entanglement in an international custody and rights dispute.

  • Each day of delay intensifies diplomatic exposure and strengthens the case for escalation.

  • Harm accrues: children denied consular protection, cultural continuity, and the integrity of their multi-national identities.

  • Britain itself now shoulders reputational damage for Westminster’s parochial folly.

IV. Legal and Doctrinal Violations

  • Children Act 1989, s.22(4) – children’s wishes, feelings, and identities ignored.

  • Article 8, UNCRC – right to preserve identity and nationality.

  • Article 37, UNCRC – arbitrary detention prohibited.

  • Hague Convention (1963) – duty of consular notification breached.

  • Article 8, ECHR – disproportionate interference with family life.

  • Article 6, ECHR – fairness compromised by erasure of identity.

  • Vienna Convention (1969) – good faith abandoned.

  • Equality Act 2010 – discriminatory treatment of international minors and disabled mother.

  • Re B-S (2013) – proportionality discarded.

V. SWANK’s Position

It is Britain’s peculiar fortune that these children are not simply British.
They are citizens of four sovereignties. Where Westminster binds them with one rope, SWANK declares four flags.

This is not safeguarding. It is parochial overreach: unlawful, discriminatory, and diplomatically reckless.

Closing Declaration

The Mirror Court declares:
These children carry four flags; Westminster may not erase three.
What Westminster brands as safeguarding, SWANK records as an international rights violation.

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
Mother and Litigant in Person

⚖️ 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: