“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 Vienna Convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vienna Convention. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Consular Protection Formally Requested After Emergency Removal of U.S. Citizen Children


⟡ “They Took Four Disabled U.S. Children Without Threshold. I Requested Diplomatic Intervention. Because This Isn’t a Custody Dispute — It’s a Treaty Violation.” ⟡
When Family Law Fails, Foreign Policy Begins. And This Archive Just Filed Its Passport.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/CONSULAR-PROTECTION-URGENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_USAEmbassy_ConsularProtection_RetaliatoryRemoval.pdf
Emergency formal request to the U.S. Embassy for immediate consular intervention following the unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children from their disabled mother by Westminster Council under an invalid Emergency Protection Order.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic wrote to the U.S. Embassy Consular Affairs Team requesting urgent diplomatic protection after her four U.S. citizen children — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — were removed without notice by UK authorities under an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). The removal occurred while:

  • A £23M civil claim was pending against two NHS trusts

  • A Judicial Review was active

  • No risk threshold was ever established

  • Medical, disability, and diplomatic protocols were ignored

  • Prior embassy contact had already been initiated

The email included references to legal filings, psychiatric records, medical evidence, and the complete digital archive of events at www.swanklondon.com.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Four children were removed without consular notification, violating Article 36 of the Vienna Convention

  • The children are medically fragile and wholly dependent on their disabled mother

  • Retaliation appears linked to public litigation and whistleblower documentation

  • The local authority failed to provide placement information or medical transition

  • The parent was denied access to the court and to legal counsel during removal

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was international overreach masked as child protection.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot take U.S. citizens without telling their government.
Because a parent under live litigation cannot be treated as though rights no longer apply.
Because “child protection” cannot be used to erase civil claims, psychiatric assessments, or embassy protections.
Because when diplomacy becomes necessary, we send a cover letter, a witness statement, and a court archive.

IV. Violations

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

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44 – EPO granted without risk, notice, or medical basis

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access entirely disregarded during removal

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8 – Denial of due process, right to family life, and fair legal remedy

  • UNCRC Articles 7, 9, 24 – Right to nationality, family unity, and healthcare violated

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal participation denied to disabled litigant

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t child welfare. It was a sovereign breach disguised as social work.
This wasn’t jurisdiction. It was a retaliatory seizure of medically dependent children from their American mother.
This wasn’t a legal order. It was a bureaucratic theft — and now, the embassy has been formally served.

SWANK hereby archives this diplomatic request not as diplomacy, but as a legal intervention cloaked in velvet, sealed with evidence, and sent to the only entity Westminster cannot ignore: the United States of America.

⟡ 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: U.S. Consular Oversight Requested Under Vienna Convention Following Child Removal


⟡ “You Removed Four Americans. We Requested a Consular Visit. We Filed the Vienna Convention.” ⟡
When Britain Breaks Its Own Law, America Shouldn't Need an Invitation to Watch.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USA/CONSULAR-VISIT-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_USAEmbassy_ConsularObservationRequest_ChildrenRemoved.pdf
Formal request to U.S. Embassy for consular visit and protective observation following the unlawful removal of four disabled American children by Westminster Children’s Services.

I. What Happened

At 03:54 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic issued an urgent diplomatic request to the American Citizen Services division of the U.S. Embassy in London. The letter outlines the unlawful removal of her four U.S. citizen children on 23 June 2025 by Westminster Council. No warrant was provided. No hearing was held. No consular notification occurred. Judicial Review proceedings, emergency reinstatement applications, and multiple regulatory complaints are now active. All four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were removed without transition planning, in breach of UK law, U.S. treaty rights, and international protocol.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The U.S. government was not notified of the seizure of four American minors

  • No medical transition plan was coordinated despite chronic conditions (eosinophilic asthma)

  • The lead child, Regal, age 16, was removed without autonomy consideration

  • Parental disability accommodations were ignored, triggering access and safeguarding violations

  • A consular response is now necessary for diplomatic oversight and constitutional protection

This wasn’t a domestic issue. It was a foreign seizure of American citizens under false pretences.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because international jurisdiction doesn’t start when a parent files in D.C. — it starts the moment foreign soil targets an American child.
Because the Vienna Convention was ratified for exactly this.
Because Regal isn’t just 16 — he’s an asthmatic dual citizen removed in a legal blackout.
Because silence by the Embassy would signal acquiescence.
Because this isn’t just court failure. It’s international breach — and we filed it.

IV. Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to notify U.S. government upon removal of citizen minors

  • Children Act 1989 – Lack of lawful threshold, order, or medical justification

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Family integrity and due process rights denied

  • Equality Act 2010 – Access accommodations and disability protections ignored

  • UNCRC & UNCRPD – Violation of child autonomy, medical access, and disabled parental protections

  • U.S. Treaty Obligations – Breach of dual-national child protections under federal law

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a safeguarding action. It was an international incident staged by a local authority.
This wasn’t lawful jurisdiction. It was a treaty breach executed with bureaucratic confidence.
This wasn’t a family matter. It was a constitutional violation with a UK postmark.

SWANK hereby archives this as the formal notice that America has been asked — directly, jurisdictionally, and in writing — to observe, record, and respond.
No one can say they weren’t told.
This post is the proof.
The next move belongs to Washington.

⟡ 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 United Kingdom: Emergency Request for U.S. Protective Observation Under Vienna Convention

Here is your very snobby SWANK post for the URGENT Request for Protective Observation – U.S. Citizen Children Removed in UK Without Due Process:

⟡ “If Four American Children Disappear in London, Does the Embassy Notice?” ⟡
We Filed a Judicial Review. They Sent the Police. We Filed This Next.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/PROTECTIVE-OBSERVATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_USEmbassy_ProtectiveObservation_ChildrenRemoved.pdf
Formal request to U.S. consular authorities for active protective observation following the unlawful removal of four American minors without warrant, threshold, or medical continuity.

I. What Happened

At 01:53 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic sent an urgent request to U.S. consular services asking for protective observation over her four U.S. citizen children, who were removed by Westminster authorities without notice, lawful order, or disability accommodation. The removal came two days after the filing of a Judicial Review and public release of evidence documenting systemic safeguarding misuse. One child, Regal, age 16, was taken without consent, hearing, or legal representation — despite his age and autonomous legal status under UK law.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Four American children were removed on UK soil by British authorities without due process

  • The mother, a disabled U.S. citizen, was not notified, heard, or included in any legal forum

  • No safeguarding threshold or documentation was produced at the time of removal

  • Medical care was disrupted for all children, who suffer from eosinophilic asthma

  • Consular oversight has not yet been confirmed despite the invocation of Vienna protections

This wasn’t cross-agency confusion. It was an orchestrated jurisdictional suppression.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because diplomatic observation should not require a death, a headline, or a hashtag.
Because Regal is not a resident of Westminster. He is a U.S. citizen unlawfully detained.
Because removing children from a disabled American mother without cause is not oversight — it is escalation.
Because when a country ignores your documents, you file them internationally.
Because this archive didn’t wait for permission — it activated protection.

IV. Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Consular notification and observation rights violated

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Right to a fair hearing and family life denied

  • Children Act 1989, Section 31 – No legal threshold for removal met or disclosed

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate disability in proceedings

  • UNCRC Articles 9, 12, 24 – Unlawful separation, silencing of child views, disruption of medical treatment

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Disabled parent excluded from judicial protection

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was the scripted disappearance of vulnerable citizens under the colour of care.
This wasn’t family law. It was territorial overreach without cause or court.
This wasn’t consular delay. It is now a test of whether sovereignty means anything in the face of administrative force.

SWANK demands protective oversight not as a favour, but as a right guaranteed by treaty.
The removal happened without law. The Embassy must now act within it.

This post is not an alert. It is a legal instrument.

⟡ 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 United Kingdom: Emergency Diplomatic Request for U.S. Embassy Oversight in Foreign Removal Case


⟡ “This Is Not a Custody Dispute. This Is a Sovereignty Crisis.” ⟡
When Four American Citizens Are Removed by Foreign Authorities, the Embassy Must Step In — Not Watch.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/DIPLOMATIC-ESCALATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_USEmbassy_DiplomaticOversight_EmergencyCourtAction.pdf
Formal consular request urging U.S. Embassy intervention and oversight during active UK emergency court action involving removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

At 01:37 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an urgent email to U.S. consular officials in London requesting formal diplomatic oversight of an emergency UK court action concerning her four minor children — all of whom are U.S. citizens and were removed the previous day without legal grounds. One child, Regal, age 16, was taken without warrant, safeguarding threshold, or medical continuity. The request references Vienna Convention protections and includes direct links to evidence, legal filings, and SWANK's public archive.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Four U.S. citizen children were removed by UK authorities on 23 June 2025

  • No order, consent, or procedural threshold was presented at the time of removal

  • The children suffer from eosinophilic asthma and were mid-treatment at Hammersmith Hospital

  • The parent is disabled and was excluded from proceedings due to known medical access needs

  • A Judicial Review and Emergency Reinstatement Request are currently live before the High Court

This was not a removal. It was a cross-border jurisdictional collapse, disguised as safeguarding.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because consular silence enables cross-jurisdictional abuse.
Because this is not a question of parenting — it is a matter of citizenship, law, and human dignity.
Because Regal’s legal capacity was ignored. Because his nationality was overridden.
Because the archive exists to say: we did not whisper, we filed.
Because diplomatic neutrality, in the face of disappearance, is not professionalism — it’s complicity.

IV. Violations

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to notify the U.S. Embassy of custody or procedural interference

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Denial of fair process and family life

  • Children Act 1989 – No lawful basis for removal presented or served

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability access refusal during active legal process

  • UNCRC, Articles 9 and 24 – Separation and disruption of necessary medical treatment

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of justice to a disabled parent in legal proceedings

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a welfare concern. It was an international rights violation performed under local council stationery.
This wasn’t diplomatic delay. It was inaction with global consequences.
This wasn’t domestic jurisdiction. It was a foreign act committed on American minors.

SWANK calls upon the U.S. Embassy to treat this not as an inquiry — but as a sovereign alarm.
This post is not a record of the past. It is a declaration of what still requires interruption.

⟡ 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