“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 procedural exclusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label procedural exclusion. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Judicial Review Filed and Formally Declared for Judicial Notice


⟡ “The Emergency Protection Order Was Granted. We Filed Judicial Review. And Then We Filed Again. Twelve Times.” ⟡
Judicial Notice Is Not a Request. It’s a Statutory Warning Delivered With Evidentiary Grace.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/ADMINCOURT/JR-NOTICE-WESTMINSTER
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Notice_AdminCourt_JudicialReview_FilingDeclared.pdf
Formal submission to the Family Division requesting judicial notice of a live Judicial Review challenging Westminster’s unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children, citing retaliatory motive and disability-based procedural exclusion.

I. What Happened

At 05:19 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted formal judicial notice to the Family Court that a full Judicial Review had been filed to the Administrative Court between 17–24 June 2025. The JR filing challenges the Emergency Protection Order granted to Westminster on 23 June — the same order used to forcibly remove four disabled American children without threshold, accommodation, or consular notification.

The bundle includes:

  • Judicial Review Claim

  • Emergency Reinstatement Request

  • Psychiatric Assessment (Dr Rafiq, 26 Nov 2024)

  • Addenda on Retaliation and Sibling Non-Separation

  • Cover Letter and EX160 Fee Exemption

  • Public archive reference at www.swanklondon.com

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • EPO was used as retaliation against public legal documentation

  • Procedural fairness was denied due to known disabilities

  • The parent was under live litigation (civil claim and JR) at the time of removal

  • The Family Court was never informed of consular, medical, or procedural breaches

  • Judicial Notice is now required to avoid compounding jurisdictional misconduct

This wasn’t an update. It was a structural warning to the judiciary.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Family Court proceedings cannot pretend the Administrative Court doesn’t exist.
Because no judge should act on an EPO when a JR on that EPO is already filed and timestamped.
Because evidence isn’t sequential — it’s simultaneous.
Because what Westminster calls a safeguarding order, the archive now calls exhibit one.
Because the children weren’t just taken unlawfully — they were taken mid-litigation.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44 – EPO misused without imminent risk or due process

  • Family Procedure Rules, Part 4 – Failure to disclose concurrent litigation to the court

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Denial of access via disability exclusion

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Denial of fair hearing and private/family life

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – U.S. Embassy not notified

  • UNCRPD and UNCRC – Breaches of child protection, medical access, and family preservation

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t Family Court neutrality. It was judicial ignorance orchestrated through omission.
This wasn’t just administrative error. It was a jurisdictional collision now formally noticed.
This wasn’t just a procedural step. It was evidentiary alignment served before the next hearing.

SWANK has submitted this Judicial Notice not to ask for reconsideration — but to demand legal recognition of what has already been filed, published, timestamped, and archived.
You may not read every document.
But you’ve now been officially notified.
The record is no longer optional.

⟡ 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 Family Court: Formal Complaint Over Refused Disability Accommodations in Proceedings


⟡ “You Had the Diagnosis. You Had the Documents. You Still Delivered the Court Process Like I Wasn’t Disabled.” ⟡
Access Isn’t Abstract. It’s the Law You Chose to Breach.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/COMPLAINT-DISABILITYACCESS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Complaint_FamilyCourt_DisabilityAccommodationFailure.pdf
Formal complaint submitted to the Family Court for its failure to provide legally mandated disability accommodations during critical safeguarding proceedings.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Family Court administration documenting its repeated and unlawful failure to accommodate her disability access needs. Despite years of documented diagnoses — including eosinophilic asthma, muscle dysphonia, and PTSD triggered by unannounced contact — the Court failed to coordinate with her solicitor, refused to facilitate written-only engagement, and allowed Westminster Children’s Services to deliver supervision orders in person, without consent or prior notice. The procedural exclusion was complete — and deliberate.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The Court was on full, written notice of specific disability-related access needs

  • No written-only participation option was arranged, offered, or acknowledged

  • No attempt was made to coordinate with her legal representative

  • The Court permitted paper delivery methods known to cause psychological harm

  • These actions directly violated statutory duties and triggered clinical symptoms

This wasn’t a miscommunication. It was procedural hostility toward the disabled, wrapped in judicial decorum.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because participation should never require survival against your own disability.
Because access needs aren’t theoretical — they’re jurisdictional.
Because the Family Court didn’t forget. It ignored.
Because when the law says “reasonable adjustments,” and the Court does nothing, that silence becomes exclusion.
Because institutional respectability does not excuse architectural ableism.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments and provide equal access to public function

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Denial of a fair hearing due to exclusion

  • Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 3AA – Noncompliance with protections for vulnerable litigants

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Refusal to ensure effective access to justice

  • Judicial Office Guidelines – Breach of duty to safeguard against procedural discrimination

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t process. It was a method of procedural silencing.
This wasn’t oversight. It was court-sanctioned erasure.
This wasn’t justice. It was a refusal to acknowledge the disabled as lawful participants.

SWANK does not recognise any ruling issued through inaccessibility.
We do not grant legitimacy to courts that treat disability as inconvenience.
This post is not a complaint. It’s an official entry in the archive of how inclusion was denied — in writing, and by design.

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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:

You Don’t Have to Believe Me. You Just Have to Treat Me.


🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 24 November 2024
I’M NOT AVOIDING THERAPY. YOU’RE AVOIDING ACCESS.
Also titled: “When Silence Is the Only Accommodation You Won’t Offer.”

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Therapy Denial · Access Sabotage · Disability Discrimination · Community Exclusion · Verbal Adjustment Refusal · SWANK Procedural Harm Index

To: Kirsty Hornal
Cc: Dr Philip Reid, Gideon Mpalanyi, Laura Savage, Simon O’Meara

🩺 THE STATEMENT THEY RECEIVED—AND STILL REFUSED TO UNDERSTAND:

“I’d love to go to therapy but no one will provide adjustments for my disability needs...”
“It is not our problem. It is your community’s problem.”
“You keep expecting us to behave like people who don’t have a disability—and we can’t.”
“Someone needs to call the mental health practice and explain that I can’t explain everything verbally.”

You didn’t misunderstand.
You simply didn’t care to translate accommodation into action.

🧠 FOR THOSE ALLERGIC TO DIGNITY, HERE’S A TRANSLATION:

I asked for therapy.
You offered a trapdoor lined with expectations.

I required written communication.
You insisted on performance.

I named the exclusion.
You punished the diagnosis.

This is not “non-engagement.”
It’s exclusion, dressed up in procedural couture.

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT (IGNORED, AS EVER):

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

Your refusal is now formal.
Your evasion is now archived.

Polly Chromatic
Denied services. Denying your excuses.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swanklondon.com


No comments: