A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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

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 Westminster: EPO Discharge Filed Following Procedural Exclusion and Diplomatic Breach


⟡ “They Took Four Children. They Never Told Me Why. They Never Told the Embassy. They Never Told the Truth.” ⟡
This Isn’t a Discharge Request. It’s a Jurisdictional Correction. Filed. Timestamped. Litigated.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/EPO-DISCHARGE-FILING
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Application_FamilyCourt_EPO_Discharge_JurisdictionalBreach.pdf
Formal application submitted under Section 44(10) of the Children Act 1989 requesting immediate discharge of the Emergency Protection Order granted to Westminster on 23 June 2025, following removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children without hearing, threshold, or medical coordination.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were removed from their home under an Emergency Protection Order granted to Westminster Children’s Services. The parent, Polly Chromatic, was excluded from the hearing despite disability accommodations requiring written-only communication due to PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and asthma. No threshold of risk was established. No notice was provided. No consular protections were activated despite all four children being American citizens. The Emergency Protection Order was discovered after the removal had already occurred. A full Judicial Review and Emergency Relief Request is now live.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • EPO was granted without notice, hearing, or lawful justification

  • Parent was excluded despite documented disability accommodations

  • No safeguarding threshold was communicated or substantiated

  • No medical or diplomatic coordination was arranged for vulnerable U.S. children

  • The court and council failed to protect the procedural and constitutional rights of the family

This wasn’t urgency. It was evasion with a stamp.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Emergency Protection Orders require emergency — not paperwork theatre.
Because the only danger the children faced was being removed into silence.
Because Westminster didn’t notify the parent or the Embassy — and that silence was strategic.
Because Regal is not an acronym. He is a 16-year-old American citizen with rights they pretended not to see.
Because the discharge wasn’t just procedural. It was jurisdictional hygiene.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 44 – EPO granted without legal threshold or risk of significant harm

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to honour medically verified communication accommodations

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, 14 – Exclusion from hearing, family interference, disability discrimination

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Failure to notify U.S. authorities of child removal

  • UNCRPD and UNCRC – Breach of disabled parent protections and child rights to health, family, and autonomy

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was legal seizure under falsified urgency.
This wasn’t a miscommunication. It was a deliberate jurisdictional blackout.
This wasn’t just unlawful. It was historically familiar — and now, formally documented.

SWANK hereby files this discharge application not as a plea — but as a formal realignment of law to fact.
We do not consent to theatrical orders.
We do not wait for permission to correct the record.
We file. Repeatedly. Relentlessly. Jurisdictionally.

⟡ 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 Metropolitan Police: Disability Rights Violated During State-Enforced Child Removal


⟡ “They Let the Social Workers In. They Ignored My Disability. They Took Four Children While I Was Medically Silenced.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Police Assistance. It Was Police Enforcement of Unlawful State Harm.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOLICE/DISABILITY-VIOLATION-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Complaint_MetPolice_DisabilityViolation_ChildRemoval.pdf
Formal complaint filed with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) detailing failures by Metropolitan Police to uphold disability law, verify legal authority, or follow trauma-informed safeguarding during the 23 June 2025 child removal.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Metropolitan Police officers entered the home of Polly Chromatic and assisted Westminster Children’s Services in the forcible removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children. At the time, the parent — medically documented with PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and eosinophilic asthma — had active written-only communication directives and was party to ongoing civil (N1), Judicial Review, and emergency relief proceedings. Police failed to observe any disability accommodations, verify the Emergency Protection Order’s legitimacy, or safeguard the rights of the 16-year-old child, Regal, who was removed without hearing or court review.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Police officers enabled removal without validating the legal basis of the EPO

  • Documented medical accommodations were entirely disregarded

  • No written notice, opportunity to present evidence, or trauma-informed safeguards were offered

  • Officers acted as enforcers of institutional retaliation rather than neutral protectors

  • The presence of an active JR and civil claim was ignored in real-time

This wasn’t just misconduct. It was state-endorsed abuse under blue-light authority.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because trauma-informed policing cannot be bypassed when children are involved.
Because failing to ask for paperwork is not procedural neutrality — it’s complicity.
Because ignoring a disability access directive is not an oversight. It is an act of exclusion.
Because when four Americans are taken under unclear British orders, the police are not bystanders.
They are enablers.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – No reasonable adjustments made for documented disabilities

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

  • College of Policing Code of Ethics – Breach of duty to verify, safeguard, and prevent institutional harm

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from participation in justice

  • Children Act 1989 – Failure to verify safety, legality, or medical transition planning for children removed

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t community protection. It was jurisdictional malpractice carried out in uniform.
This wasn’t police neutrality. It was state violence facilitated by procedural ignorance.
This wasn’t a failure to act. It was an act of failure — recorded, timestamped, and now archived.

SWANK has formally submitted this complaint not merely as protest — but as litigation preparation.
You cannot remove a mother’s voice and call it safeguarding.
You cannot ignore medical directives and call it lawful.
You cannot assist unlawful removal and expect impunity.

⟡ 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: Judicial Review, Emergency Relief, and U.S. Embassy Notified Following Child Removal


⟡ “We Filed Judicial Review, Emergency Relief, and Psychiatric Evidence. They Filed Silence.” ⟡
When Four American Children Are Taken by the State, the First Weapon Is the Archive.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/ADMINCOURT/JR-EMERGENCY-CHILDREMOVAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_AdminCourt_JRSubmission_ChildrenRemovalNotice.pdf
Formal notification to the Administrative Court and U.S. Embassy that a Judicial Review and Emergency Reinstatement Request has been filed following the unlawful removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children by Westminster.

I. What Happened

At 04:03 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a full Judicial Review bundle to the Administrative Court and formally notified the U.S. Embassy. The bundle includes:

  • A Judicial Review claim

  • An Emergency Relief Request

  • A Psychiatric Assessment

  • Addenda on Retaliatory Removal and Non-Separation of Siblings

  • A formal cover letter and procedural chronology

The children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were removed on 23 June 2025 without threshold, without a hearing, and in breach of disability accommodations. The notice was issued to ensure diplomatic oversight and judicial record.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Removal occurred without notice, without threshold, during active N1 civil proceedings

  • Disability accommodations were disregarded despite formal documentation

  • No safeguarding plan or medical continuity was established for chronically ill children

  • Procedural rights were bypassed under the guise of emergency

  • The response to public documentation was not dialogue — it was force

This wasn’t child protection. It was state retaliation staged as an emergency.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the court is notified and the embassy is looped in, the removal isn’t local anymore — it’s international.
Because this wasn’t one letter — it was a legal barrage with medical receipts and timestamped addenda.
Because psychiatric impact isn’t theoretical when it’s caused by institutional violence.
Because our evidence wasn’t disorganised. It was bundled. In full. Before dawn.
Because nothing speaks louder than a parent who drafts under siege and files in silence.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Removal without safeguarding threshold or procedural justification

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Documented accommodations ignored

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – No hearing, no access, no due process

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

  • UNCRC Articles 9, 24 – Separation of siblings and denial of medical continuity

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from legal protection mechanisms

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a notice of complaint. It was a jurisdictional siren filed to both court and country.
This wasn’t a single document. It was a strategic sequence of filings designed for maximum evidentiary effect.
This wasn’t desperation. It was legal precision with diplomatic targeting.

SWANK hereby archives this dispatch not only as a legal warning, but as a structural declaration:
The removal happened. The filings happened.
And now, the oversight begins.

⟡ 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 NHS: Clinical Letter Requested to Confirm Psychological Harm After Child Removal


⟡ “My Children Were Taken. I Asked My Doctor for a Letter. That, Too, Will Now Be Filed.” ⟡
When Clinical Reality Meets Institutional Fantasy, Only One Side Brings Medical Records.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/CLINICAL-IMPACT-LETTER-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_NHS_ClinicalLetter_ChildRemovalMentalHealthImpact.pdf
Formal written request to NHS consultant Philip Reid for a clinical support letter confirming psychological deterioration and disability impact following the state-forced removal of four children.

I. What Happened

In the early hours of 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a written clinical request to Dr. Philip Reid (NHS) regarding the acute medical consequences of her children’s removal by Westminster Children’s Services. The children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were taken without notice, accommodations, or medical coordination on 23 June 2025. This letter formally requests medical acknowledgment of exacerbated PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and Eosinophilic Asthma, alongside the clinical impact of forced separation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The removal of children caused immediate clinical deterioration

  • Ongoing legal proceedings require medical confirmation of harm

  • Communication access needs (written-only directives) remain active and violated

  • Emotional stability is now conditioned on reunification

  • The NHS is requested to confirm what the archive has already documented: this removal is not only legal — it is medical

This wasn’t parenting under strain. It was clinical harm triggered by institutional force.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because clinical collapse is not a footnote — it’s a jurisdictional event.
Because this isn’t a health scare. It’s health sabotage with paperwork.
Because medical records don’t lie, even when social workers do.
Because if the NHS responds, it confirms state harm.
And if it doesn’t, that silence will be filed next.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known medical and communication disabilities

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 6, 8 – Inhumane treatment, denial of access, violation of private/family life

  • UNCRPD Articles 13 & 25 – Denial of accessible healthcare and protective intervention for disabled litigants

  • NHS Duty of Care – Emotional and respiratory health jeopardised by state actions without coordination

  • Family Procedure Rules – Exclusion of medical context in family intervention planning

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a parental reaction. It was a medical emergency caused by legal misconduct.
This wasn’t a family matter. It was a collapse in breathing, voice, and psychological integrity.
This wasn’t a request for help. It was a request for documentation — because we already knew the answer.

SWANK hereby logs this letter as a formal evidentiary request.
Not because the court demanded it.
But because our lungs did.

⟡ 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: