“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 US Citizen Children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Citizen Children. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster and RBKC: Ombudsman Petition Filed After Disability-Based Retaliation


⟡ “We Were Told to Raise It with the Ombudsman. So We Did.” ⟡
A Bureaucratic Referral Filed in Protest of Procedural Violence

Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/LGSCO/COMPLAINT-WESTMINSTERRBKC-DISCRIMINATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_Complaint_LGSCO_WestminsterRBKC_SafeguardingDiscrimination.pdf
Formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) regarding safeguarding misuse, disability discrimination, and retaliation by Westminster and RBKC.

I. What Happened

On 31 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The complaint detailed how Westminster and RBKC:

  • Escalated intervention after legal filings and judicial reviews

  • Denied medical and disability accommodations

  • Retaliated against lawful procedural action by removing four disabled U.S. citizen children

  • Used safeguarding powers to override jurisdictional limits and obstruct due process

  • Ignored prior complaints and refused to disclose necessary data

The complaint was filed after both councils continued retaliatory conduct despite formal notice, placing the burden of remedy on external oversight bodies.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Safeguarding was used as an instrument of punishment

  • Disabled U.S. citizen children were removed without legal justification

  • Disability rights were denied in both process and outcome

  • Westminster and RBKC refused to acknowledge the harm of their actions or correct course

  • Procedural safeguards became mechanisms of institutional aggression

This was not service failure. It was policy weaponised as removal.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because complaints systems exist to delay reckoning.
Because when four disabled American children are removed in retaliation for legal action, it is not a “service issue” — it is state aggression through administrative euphemism.
Because the archive was created precisely for what ombudsmen cannot contain:
Retaliation with a council letterhead.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 22 – Duty to promote the welfare of the child

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Disability discrimination and lack of accommodation

  • UK GDPR, Article 15 – Data access repeatedly denied

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, and 13 – Denial of due process, family life, and effective remedy

  • UNCRPD, Articles 7, 13, and 23 – Rights of disabled children, access to justice, and family unity denied

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a record of harm the state refused to name.
This wasn’t an appeal for correction. It was an evidentiary dispatch submitted in protest.
This wasn’t a bureaucratic act. It was an act of jurisdictional preservation.

SWANK logs this not because we expect resolution — but because the archive outlasts denial.

⟡ 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: Family Court Formally Notified of Judicial Review Challenging Emergency Removal


⟡ “We Filed Judicial Review. We Filed Psychiatric Evidence. We Notified the Family Court. We Didn’t Whisper It — We Archived It.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Submission. It Was a Warning Dressed in Jurisdiction.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/JUDICIALNOTICE-JR-BUNDLE01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Notice_FamilyCourt_JudicialReview_RetaliatoryRemoval.pdf
Formal notification to the Family Court declaring active Judicial Review proceedings and requesting legal recognition of filings related to the Emergency Protection Order issued by Westminster on 23 June 2025.

I. What Happened

At 05:23 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a judicial notice to the Family Division confirming that a full Judicial Review bundle had been filed between 17–24 June. The JR challenges the procedural and legal legitimacy of the Emergency Protection Order used to remove her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — all of whom are disabled U.S. citizens.

The materials include:

  • Judicial Review bundle

  • Emergency Reinstatement Request

  • Retaliatory Removal Addendum

  • Non-Separation Sibling Addendum

  • Psychiatric Assessment by Dr Rafiq (26 Nov 2024)

  • Fee Exemption Form (EX160)

  • Cover Letter and Procedural Chronology

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The Family Court was not informed that a JR had already been filed

  • Disability accommodations (written-only access) were ignored at every procedural stage

  • Psychiatric documentation was omitted from the hearing record

  • The removal occurred while legal action was already underway — including civil and High Court filings

  • No attempt was made to notify the U.S. government, despite the children’s nationality

This wasn’t omission. It was orchestrated ignorance performed under robes and doctrine.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Family Court cannot operate in procedural isolation when higher courts are engaged.
Because a judge cannot claim fairness while pretending judicial context doesn’t exist.
Because this wasn’t a plea — it was a formal jurisdictional collision notice.
Because Regal wasn’t just removed — he was removed while already documented as medically and legally protected.
Because what they ignored in chambers, we filed in the archive.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44(10) – Misuse of EPO without verified risk or legal rebuttal

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to provide written access for disabled litigant

  • Family Procedure Rules, Part 4 & 12 – Failure to disclose parallel High Court action

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Right to fair hearing, family integrity, and disability inclusion

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

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t legal oversight. It was deliberate procedural amnesia administered by judicial omission.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was retaliatory removal executed in a court that refused to look up.
This wasn’t a hearing. It was a one-sided performance — and we’ve filed the footage, the filings, and the fallout.

SWANK hereby logs this judicial notice as an evidentiary intervention.
Not because the court invited it — but because the law required it.
The silence is theirs. The filing is ours.

⟡ 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: EPO Discharge Filed Following Procedural Exclusion and Diplomatic Breach


⟡ “They Took Four Children. They Never Told Me Why. They Never Told the Embassy. They Never Told the Truth.” ⟡
This Isn’t a Discharge Request. It’s a Jurisdictional Correction. Filed. Timestamped. Litigated.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/EPO-DISCHARGE-FILING
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Application_FamilyCourt_EPO_Discharge_JurisdictionalBreach.pdf
Formal application submitted under Section 44(10) of the Children Act 1989 requesting immediate discharge of the Emergency Protection Order granted to Westminster on 23 June 2025, following removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children without hearing, threshold, or medical coordination.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were removed from their home under an Emergency Protection Order granted to Westminster Children’s Services. The parent, Polly Chromatic, was excluded from the hearing despite disability accommodations requiring written-only communication due to PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and asthma. No threshold of risk was established. No notice was provided. No consular protections were activated despite all four children being American citizens. The Emergency Protection Order was discovered after the removal had already occurred. A full Judicial Review and Emergency Relief Request is now live.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • EPO was granted without notice, hearing, or lawful justification

  • Parent was excluded despite documented disability accommodations

  • No safeguarding threshold was communicated or substantiated

  • No medical or diplomatic coordination was arranged for vulnerable U.S. children

  • The court and council failed to protect the procedural and constitutional rights of the family

This wasn’t urgency. It was evasion with a stamp.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Emergency Protection Orders require emergency — not paperwork theatre.
Because the only danger the children faced was being removed into silence.
Because Westminster didn’t notify the parent or the Embassy — and that silence was strategic.
Because Regal is not an acronym. He is a 16-year-old American citizen with rights they pretended not to see.
Because the discharge wasn’t just procedural. It was jurisdictional hygiene.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44 – EPO granted without legal threshold or risk of significant harm

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to honour medically verified communication accommodations

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, 14 – Exclusion from hearing, family interference, disability discrimination

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to notify U.S. authorities of child removal

  • UNCRPD and UNCRC – Breach of disabled parent protections and child rights to health, family, and autonomy

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was legal seizure under falsified urgency.
This wasn’t a miscommunication. It was a deliberate jurisdictional blackout.
This wasn’t just unlawful. It was historically familiar — and now, formally documented.

SWANK hereby files this discharge application not as a plea — but as a formal realignment of law to fact.
We do not consent to theatrical orders.
We do not wait for permission to correct the record.
We file. Repeatedly. Relentlessly. Jurisdictionally.

⟡ 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