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

In re: The Unlawful Seizure and Degrading Treatment of Four Medically Vulnerable U.S. Citizen Minors


They are not safe. They are being treated like trash.

They must be returned home immediately, where they will be safe and properly cared for.

If you have any information about their location, treatment, or safeguarding breaches:
Email: director@swanklondon.com
All reports remain anonymous.

⚖️ 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:

In the Matter of Evidentiary Integrity and the International Rights of Four American Children (Polly Chromatic v. Westminster et al)


SWANK London Ltd. – Press Statement

Subject: Public Documentation of Safeguarding Misconduct, Disability Discrimination, and Judicial Retaliation in the United Kingdom

Issued by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
director@swanklondon.com
www.swanklondon.com

Filed: 21 July 2025

Statement

SWANK London Ltd. confirms that a substantial evidentiary archive is now live and publicly accessible, documenting over a decade of unlawful safeguarding practices, disability-based discrimination, and procedural retaliation by multiple UK institutions — including Westminster City Council, the Metropolitan Police, NHS Trusts, and Family Court agents.

This documentation includes legal filings, court submissions, medical evidence, police reports, and contemporaneous logs of contact restriction, identity erasure, and harm to four U.S. citizen children diagnosed with eosinophilic asthma. These children were unlawfully removed from their mother on 23 June 2025 under an Emergency Protection Order based on false medical claims, later disproven by NHS Resolution.

Polly Chromatic, acting as a Litigant in Person and Procedural Intermediary, has submitted Judicial Reviews, N1 civil claims, and formal police reports against numerous professionals now under scrutiny. Multiple regulatory complaints are underway, including with Social Work England, CAFCASS, Ofsted, the Information Commissioner’s Office, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

The SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue is an independent public archive created to preserve this legal record in real time. It exists not for spectacle, but for survival — and to protect children and disabled parents from systemic harm, unlawful seizure, and evidentiary distortion.

We welcome ethical, trauma-informed reporting and are prepared to provide indexed briefings to interested journalists or legal correspondents upon request.

Please direct inquiries to:
Polly Chromatic – director@swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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:

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: 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: