“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 no court order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label no court order. Show all posts

Chromatic v Metropolitan Police: In the Matter of Unlawful Removal, Missing Orders, and Procedural Theatre


⟡ “No Order, No Justification, Just Screams” ⟡
A filmed removal. Five officers. Zero paperwork. A legal vacuum with blue epaulettes.

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOL/SF-REMOVAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_SWANK_Removal_MetPolice_UnlawfulExtraction.pdf
Video evidence and incident account of a child removal conducted without lawful authority, warrant, or safeguarding rationale.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025 at 1:30pm, five uniformed officers from the Metropolitan Police entered the family residence at London W2 6JL. They proceeded to remove all 4 children from their mother, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.), without presenting a court order, warrant, emergency protection order, or any written documentation whatsoever. The children were visibly distressed, begging not to be separated from their lawful parent.

The removal was filmed in full and is now publicly available via SWANK’s evidentiary archive:

🎥 Watch the removal video

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural Breach: No lawful authority presented — no warrant, no emergency order, no Section 20 consent, and no legal threshold met for removal.

  • Human Impact: Four broken-hearted children forcibly removed from their home, weeping and terrified, with no trauma-informed mitigation.

  • Power Dynamics: Five armed agents of the state versus one disabled mother and her children, with no safeguarding professional present.

  • Institutional Failure: A policing body acting extrajudicially, bypassing court authority, with no documentation or clinical oversight.

  • What’s Not Acceptable: When the law is absent and uniforms are present, we are not in a democracy. We are in performance.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because child removal without legal basis is not rare — it is routine, and routinised. Because silence would imply consent, and SWANK does not consent to state overreach disguised as "concern."

Because the image of four children being dragged from their mother without paperwork should haunt every bureaucrat who signs off such conduct.

Because mothers are not meant to narrate their child’s abduction in legal prose. But if we must, it will be with velvet gloves and juridical knives.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 44 (no EPO); Section 46 (no police protection threshold met); Section 20 (no consent)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (Right to private and family life), Article 6 (Right to fair process)

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to consider disability accommodations; discriminatory enforcement

  • PACE 1984 – Entry without warrant; no lawful justification under Part II

  • UNCRC – Article 9 (Separation without judicial scrutiny); Article 3 (Best interests not paramount)

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not safeguarding. It was seizure.
This was not lawful enforcement. It was theatre in uniform.
We do not accept removals with no legal basis.
We do not accept unfiled trauma.
We do not accept five officers and zero signatures.

This incident is now formally archived.
It will be cited. It will be pursued.
And it will never be 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 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:

⟡ Chromatic v State: Four Minors Taken, One Surveillance Archive Responded ⟡


⟡ “Four U.S. Citizen Children Taken at 1:37 PM. No Order Shown. No Destination Given. Their Mother Couldn’t Speak — But She Could Archive.” ⟡
Filed same day. Documented by video. Escalated internationally.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/0622-REMOVAL-FOURCHILDREN
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-22_SWANK_Letter_USAEmbassy_ChildrenRemoval_ConsularInterventionRequest.pdf
Formal consular intervention request following police-led seizure of all four children without hearing notice or disability accommodations.

I. What Happened

At 1:37 PM on Monday, 23 June 2025, four U.S. citizen children were removed from their home by UK authorities. The door was opened by a minor. No order was shown. No placement disclosed. The mother, Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett, professionally known as Polly Chromatic, was disabled, nonverbal, and in litigation against the same authorities who removed them.

Despite:

  • Her documented medical need for written-only communication

  • An active Judicial Review against Westminster and RBKC

  • A pending N1 civil claim for £23 million

  • Multiple ongoing complaints to regulatory bodies

  • A legal archive showing procedural misconduct
    — authorities forcibly removed her children without lawful participation, presence, or accessible notice.

All of it is captured on video.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • No emergency was in progress

  • No procedural fairness was extended

  • No care order was shown at the door

  • No disability accommodations were honoured

  • No destination disclosed for the children

  • No legal justification was provided in accessible form

  • No notice was given in advance — only a silent envelope, shoved into a mail chute, never acknowledged in writing

Meanwhile, the mother:

  • Had already submitted multiple reports of harassment

  • Had asked for all communication to be written

  • Was already suing them in court

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this isn’t child protection — it’s jurisdictional panic.
Because they didn’t just take children — they bypassed every structural safeguard to do it.
Because if they had a lawful order, they would have shown it.
Because you cannot seize American children from a disabled mother, during open litigation, and expect silence.
Because this wasn’t safeguarding.
It was a pre-emptive archive destruction attempt — and it failed.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 and 27 – failure to accommodate; victimisation

  • Children Act 1989, Section 47 – no threshold met; procedural overreach

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, and 14 – no fair trial; breach of family life; disability discrimination

  • UK GDPR / Data Protection Act 2018 – failure to provide written outcome or legal basis

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) – failure to notify U.S. government of citizen child removal

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that children vanish at 1:37 PM because the mother couldn’t speak.
We do not accept that a care order lives in an envelope that never arrived by law.
We do not accept that retaliation wears a lanyard and files nothing.
We do not accept any process that forces a minor to open the door to his own removal.
We do not accept that silence equals consent.
We do not accept their secrecy.
We document it.

⟡ 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: