“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 u.s. children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label u.s. children. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: EPO Discharge Application Filed Following Procedural Exclusion and Medical Disruption


⟡ “You Called It Emergency. We Filed for Discharge. Now the Archive Has Spoken and the Court Has Been Served.” ⟡
When the Law Is Abused in Silence, It Must Be Corrected in Writing — Publicly, Jurisdictionally, Elegantly.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/EPO-DISCHARGE-S44-FINAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Application_FamilyCourt_Discharge_EPO_NoLocationDisclosure.pdf
Formal application submitted under Section 44(10) of the Children Act 1989 to discharge the Emergency Protection Order used by Westminster to remove four disabled U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic filed a Section 44(10) application with the Family Division to discharge the Emergency Protection Order (EPO) granted to Westminster Children’s Services on 23 June 2025. That order was used to forcibly remove Regal, Prince, King, and Honor — all U.S. citizen children with chronic medical needs — without notice, threshold, or due process. The mother was excluded from proceedings due to documented disabilities (PTSD, asthma, muscle dysphonia) and her need for written-only access was ignored. The removal was retaliatory, unannounced, and procedurally opaque. The EPO was issued amid a live Judicial Review and an active £23M civil claim.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The EPO was used to bypass ongoing legal action already filed

  • Parent was denied participation due to known medical access requirements

  • No risk threshold was established, nor was placement disclosed post-removal

  • Medical continuity was broken: four asthma patients missed transition of care

  • U.S. consular notification was never made — despite all four children being dual nationals

This wasn’t an order for protection. It was a theatre of jurisdiction staged without the subject present.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot claim protection while concealing placement.
Because no one signs off on child removal during hospital appointment season unless retaliation is the real motive.
Because Section 44(10) exists for exactly this: to call out EPOs used as shields for administrative misconduct.
Because the parent was excluded. The solicitor was ineffective. So we filed the law ourselves — and posted it in public.
Because you cannot redact a filing already published in the archive.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44(10) – EPO discharged due to lack of threshold, access, and transparency

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access ignored in violation of written-only protocol

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, 14 – Fair hearing rights denied; family life disrupted; disabled litigant excluded

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular notification upon removal of U.S. citizens

  • UNCRPD and UNCRC – Violations of parental access, sibling unity, and medical safeguarding rights

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a care order. It was a jurisdictional ambush now subject to reversal.
This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a procedural hit job carried out while the system looked away.
This wasn’t a cry for review. It was a statutory demand for correction filed on time and in public.

SWANK hereby archives this Section 44(10) Application not as a plea — but as a discharge trigger activated by law, logged by evidence, and served to the world.

You ignored the parent.
You ignored the embassy.
You ignored the archive.
Now we file — and we don’t ask twice.

⟡ 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:

⟡ In re Chromatic: A Hearing the Mother Never Heard About ⟡


⟡ “They Called It a Care Order. This Is What Actually Happened.” ⟡
Filed because the judge didn’t ask. Logged because the system pretended it already knew.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0624-PROCEDURAL-HISTORY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_ProceduralHistory_CareOrderChallenge.pdf
Timeline of judicial exclusion, disability discrimination, secret hearings, and the removal of four U.S. citizen children without lawful access.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four children were taken without warning, explanation, or visible court order.
The mother, Polly Chromatic, was given no notice of any hearing.
She is nonverbal. No accommodations were made. No documents were shown. No contact was offered.

But instead of collapsing, she filed.
This is her procedural history — because the system refused to keep one.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Secret hearing authorising removal

  • Exclusion of disabled litigant known to be nonverbal

  • Denial of participation in violation of FPR, Equality Act, and Article 6

  • No transcript, no judgment, no service

  • Four American children removed during an active Judicial Review

  • Every remedy since initiated by the mother — not the court

This isn't a family court. It's a court against the family.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because they will pretend the timeline was “complex” or “confidential.”
Because they’ve already forgotten that the mother was never in the room.
Because the truth doesn’t belong in their minutes. It belongs in an archive.

SWANK logged it because they didn’t.
SWANK published it because they won’t.
And because if you remove children in silence — this is the sound of the record catching up.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 34 – denial of contact

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – family life

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to provide access

  • FPR Rules – procedural breaches of notice and participation

  • Judicial transparency principles – absence of transcript, judgment, disclosure

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept exclusion as procedure.
We do not accept that silence is protection.
We do not accept that a care order can be granted while the mother files alone, unheard, unseen.
We do not accept any court that allows the state to take children without even logging who filed what — or when.

So we logged it. In velvet. In archive. In print.

⟡ 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 Westminster: Where Are the Children? ⟡


⟡ “One Day After They Took the Children, I Filed This. I’m Still Nonverbal. But the Document Isn’t.” ⟡
Contact was denied. So this was filed. Because no one should need permission to see their children after the state seizes them.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0624-EMERGENCY-CONTACT-REINSTATEMENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Application_CareOrder_EmergencyContactReinstatement.pdf
Filed in response to post-seizure silence. No contact. No updates. No reply. Just a disabled mother documenting retaliation in real time.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025 at 1:37 PM, police and Westminster Children’s Services removed four U.S. citizen children from their home without warning, documentation, or a care order shown. No contact has been allowed since.

By the next morning, Polly Chromatic filed this: a formal court application for emergency contact and possible reinstatement — because the state hasn’t even told her where her children are.

She still can’t speak.
So this speaks for her.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Contact was denied for four U.S. children without cause

  • No legal notice, no court order shown, no accommodations for disability

  • No destination disclosed, no contact facilitated

  • Proceedings occurred in secret, excluding the disabled parent

  • This application calls for emergency remedy, judicial review, and reinstatement — in law, not in silence

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a mother is still waiting to hear her child’s voice.
Because nonverbal does not mean absent.
Because “care” without contact is not protection — it’s procedural disappearance.
Because Polly filed this from the archive.
Because you cannot delete the voice that filed it.

This is how legal resistance is documented.
This is what emergency looks like — when you're already under surveillance, already excluded, and still file faster than the state can redact.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 34 – unlawful contact refusal

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – right to family life

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to accommodate

  • FPR Rules Part 18 & 12.3 – breach of urgent access protocols

  • Due process doctrine – no lawful cause, no written disclosure

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept a system that takes children on Monday and falls silent by Tuesday.
We do not accept procedural cowardice disguised as safeguarding.
We do not accept exclusion by design — not for Polly, not for anyone.
We do not accept that retaliation can hide behind court doors closed to disabled parents.
We do not accept contact refusal as status quo.

We accept only this:
They removed the children. She filed. They went silent. She published.

⟡ 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: