“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 jurisdictional refusal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jurisdictional refusal. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Formal Non-Consent to Contact Proposal Pending U.S. Embassy Oversight


⟡ “They Proposed Contact. I Proposed They Read the Treaty Obligations First.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Consent. It Was Jurisdictional Refusal Filed with Velvet and an Embassy Address.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CONTACT-PROPOSAL-NONCONSENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Westminster_ContactProposal_DoNotConsent_USOversight.pdf
Formal email to legal counsel refusing to consent to Westminster's proposed contact arrangement for four removed U.S. citizen children, citing consular rights, pending discharge application, and unresolved legal violations.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a written directive to her solicitor Alan Mullem following receipt of Westminster Council’s “contact” proposal. The email made one thing unequivocally clear:

There would be no consent to any arrangements until:

  1. The U.S. Embassy confirmed oversight, and

  2. The discharge application under Section 44(10) was heard.

Polly further instructed Mr. Mullem to:

  • Challenge the contact offer

  • Assert disability rights

  • Request consular access for all future proceedings

She concluded with a final statement of legal escalation:

“If not, I will proceed to act in person.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The contact proposal was issued without resolving the legality of the removal

  • Disability accommodations were once again omitted

  • The solicitor had to be instructed explicitly to challenge state conduct

  • The parent withheld consent and asserted consular authority

  • The contact proposal was premature, inappropriate, and procedurally offensive

This wasn’t a parent declining contact. It was a litigant asserting jurisdictional supremacy.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because contact cannot proceed when the foundation is unlawful.
Because U.S. citizens deserve more than thirty-minute Zoom sessions from foreign soil.
Because a contact proposal is not a correction — it’s a continuation of harm.
Because when the solicitor hesitates, the archive proceeds.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 34 – Contact proposals cannot proceed during unlawful detention

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability-based written-only access neglected again

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – U.S. Embassy not included in post-removal arrangements

  • UNCRC Articles 9 & 10 – Family unity and international safeguards ignored

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal participation of disabled parent obstructed

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t resistance. It was jurisdictional structure in sentence form.
This wasn’t refusal. It was constitutional reservation in writing — timestamped, cited, filed.
This wasn’t unclear. It was the legal sound of velvet saying “no.”

SWANK hereby logs this refusal not as defiance — but as a procedural checkpoint for every action Westminster now attempts.
Consent is not assumed.
Jurisdiction is not ceded.
And Regal is not forgotten.

⟡ 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 diplomacy deserves a cc line.

© 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:

They Had Jurisdiction. They Chose Evasion.


⟡ SWANK Jurisdictional Audit Archive – RBKC & Westminster ⟡
“They Received a Statutory Complaint. They Replied With a Threshold.”
Filed: 20 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/SECTION5-COMPLAINT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-20_SWANK_RBKC_WCC_Section5_StatutoryComplaint_SafeguardingMisuse_JurisdictionalRefusal.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic

I. A Complaint Was Filed Under Statute. They Declined to Investigate.

This document records a formal Section 5 statutory complaint under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, filed against both RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services for:

  • Misuse of safeguarding as a tool of institutional retaliation

  • Disability adjustment breaches despite medical evidence and legal notification

  • Unlawful process escalation without harm threshold

  • Procedural harassment masked as professional concern

  • Neglect of lawful communication boundaries

The named actors include Kirsty Hornal, Glen Peache, Edward Kendall, Rhiannon Hodgson, and supervising leadership across boroughs.

The complaint was submitted to both Monitoring Officers:

  • LeVerne Parker (RBKC)

  • Legal Services (Westminster)

II. What the Response Confirms

RBKC replied formally — not with denial, but with disqualification.

Their position:

  • The complaint, though received, was not accepted for formal review

  • The events described did not reach their internal threshold for maladministration

  • The named misconduct was described as outside of Section 5 jurisdiction, despite originating inside the council’s statutory operations

This wasn’t a refusal to acknowledge.
It was an evasive reclassification of liability.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when statutory harm is alleged and a Monitoring Officer responds by rejecting jurisdiction, that is not legal clarity — it is procedural erasure.
Because safeguarding is not outside policy when weaponised by employees of the state.
Because “we will not be investigating this” is not a neutral reply — it is a political one.

We filed this because:

  • The complaint was grounded in law

  • The refusal was grounded in internal thresholds

  • The misconduct was clear

  • And the legal duty — was evaded

Let the record show:

The statutes were cited.
The misconduct was named.
The thresholds were irrelevant.
And the refusal — was archived.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept councils redefining harm to avoid recordable responsibility.
We do not accept safeguarding escalation as immune from review.
We do not accept that a refusal to investigate is the same as innocence.

Let the record show:

The statute was activated.
The officer was notified.
The silence was formalised.
And SWANK — has indexed the dodge.

This wasn’t a rejection.
It was a policy performance of denial, caught in PDF.

⟡ 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: