Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Transcript and Service Record Demanded After ICO Hearing Held Without Notice

---

⟡ “I Was Never Told There Was a Hearing. So I Requested the Transcript — and the Trail of Their Silence.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Curiosity. It Was Evidentiary Excavation — Filed for the Record, and Copied to Washington.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/TRANSCRIPT-SERVICERECORD-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_FamilyCourt_TranscriptAndServiceRecord_ICOHearing.pdf
Formal request to the Family Court demanding the full transcript, attendance list, and service record for the ICO hearing that removed Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal from their disabled U.S. citizen mother — without prior notice.

---

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025 at 15:26, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal email to five divisions of the Family Court — as well as the U.S. Embassy — requesting three specific records regarding the ICO hearing held earlier that day:

1. Transcript of the full proceedings

2. Attendance record of all parties and legal representatives

3. Service record documenting how and when the mother was notified

The email stated clearly that:

• The mother was not informed of the hearing

• She did not attend

• She received no opportunity to participate

• She disputes the legality of the orders made

• The documentation is required for a formal procedural challenge now underway

The communication was jurisdictional, evidentiary, and diplomatic.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• The Family Court held a major hearing without notifying or including the mother

• The mother is disabled and requires written access — which was never facilitated

• The email makes clear that the procedural validity of the ICO is in question

• Multiple departments were contacted simultaneously to prevent misdirection or delay

• The U.S. Embassy was cc’ed, elevating this from domestic failure to international breach

This wasn’t a request. It was a jurisdictional trigger — typed in velvet and served to five inboxes and one embassy.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot claim lawful care if the parent was silenced before the hearing began.
Because when courts act without notifying the parties, they act without law.
Because if the process was proper, the court should be eager to provide the transcript.
Because when the children are gone and the parent was never called, only the record remains — and we just asked for it.

---

IV. Violations

• Family Procedure Rules, Rule 12.9 & 27.2 – All parties entitled to notice and record

• Children Act 1989, Section 38 – ICOs cannot be granted ex parte without legal cause

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to implement required written-only access

• UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of access to justice for disabled litigant

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular coordination prior to seizure of U.S. nationals

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Right to a fair hearing and participation obstructed

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t an email. It was a filing of absence, addressed to the void that replaced due process.
This wasn’t about paperwork. It was a reclamation of visibility through structural confrontation.
This wasn’t optional. It was archival war — formatted, addressed, and served to every institutional inbox capable of pretending it didn’t happen.

SWANK hereby logs this request as an act of sovereign retrieval.
They removed the children.
They hid the hearing.
We filed the absence — and now we want the proof.

---

⟡ 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 hearings deserve records.

© 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.

---