“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

Polly Chromatic v Westminster & RBKC: Procedural Erasure and Solicitor Misconduct


⟡ “A Hearing Without a Party Is Not a Hearing” ⟡
Legal Fiction by Omission. Theatre of Process Without the Script.

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/COURT/ADDENDUM-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Addendum_JR_ICOExclusionAndSolicitorNonDisclosure.pdf
Addendum detailing how the Claimant was excluded from the ICO hearing and misrepresented by silence.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, an Interim Care Order (ICO) was granted at a hearing the Claimant, Polly Chromatic, was never told existed. There was no service, no notice, no participation. Her solicitor—Alan Mullem—failed to inform her, failed to consult her, failed to submit any response or evidence, and failed to notify her even after the fact. The only way she learned of the hearing was by discovering correspondence that had never been shared with her. The removal of her four U.S. citizen children had occurred the previous day—23 June—without any Emergency Protection Order or procedural notice.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural exclusion from a hearing central to the deprivation of parental rights

  • Failure of legal representation at the most consequential juncture

  • No opportunity to be heard, informed, or defend

  • Weaponisation of silence as representation

  • Removal justified by a hearing that deliberately erased the subject of its judgment

This wasn’t an oversight. It was orchestration.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is not law. It’s litigation by disappearance.
Because a solicitor who withholds the existence of a hearing is not a representative — they are a filter.
Because children were taken first, and legal recognition was only sought after the fact.
Because the Family Court functioned as a rubber stamp, not a deliberative forum.
Because the right to participate is not decorative.
Because this is not child protection. It is institutional erasure under the guise of care.

IV. Violations

  • Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights – Denial of fair hearing

  • Children Act 1989 – Breach of duties to notify and involve the parent

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments for written-only communication needs

  • Solicitor Conduct Rules – Duty of communication and informed instruction

  • Civil Procedure Rules, Part 12 & 21 – Due process and service obligations

  • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9 – Separation without due process

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t representation. It was containment.
This wasn’t service. It was suppression.
This wasn’t a hearing. It was a juridical blackout.

SWANK rejects the use of legal theatre to retroactively justify child removal.
We document not just what happened — but how the system conspired to make it disappear.
The ICO granted on 24 June 2025 is jurisdictionally tainted and morally void.
We do not accept it. We will not refer to it as lawful.

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.

Documented Obsessions