⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Supervision Without Consent: The Retrieval of Paperwork and Power
In re Chromatic v. Mullem, On the Posthumous Collection of Collusive Documents from a Former Solicitor Now Legally Deceased
📎 Metadata
Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-FR-0624-SUPORD-COLLECT
Court File Name: 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_SupervisionOrderCollection
1-line summary: Client formally terminated solicitor and requested return of supervision order documents for independent audit.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal directive to Alan Mullem — recently removed as solicitor and added as a named defendant in a multi-million pound civil claim — requesting the return of all supervision order documentsand related case materials.
The tone was not conciliatory. It was curatorial.
This was not a negotiation. It was an archival demand.
II. What the Email Establishes
Termination of legal representation with full clarity and cause
Demand for return of documents previously lodged with counsel
Separation of procedural compliance from corrupted legal association
Notification to multiple court addresses, creating full jurisdictional traceability
There is a reason museums reclaim looted artefacts.
There is a reason archivists do not trust their enemies with originals.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is not just paperwork.
This is evidence held hostage — by a solicitor who mocked disability claims, dismissed diplomatic jurisdiction, and refused to act when children were removed under false pretenses.
SWANK London Ltd records this act of reclamation as an assertion of post-representational sovereignty. When institutions rot, the paper must be retrieved.
IV. Violations and Symbolic Weight
Collusive legal counsel refusing to protect against unlawful supervision
Retention of client materials after termination
Failure to provide immediate access to filings that materially affect a family’s legal position
Attempt to withhold or delay evidentiary material that SWANK now reclaims as historical proof of judicial farce
A supervision order imposed without consent.
A solicitor who refused to intervene.
A mother who now reclaims her legal estate.
V. SWANK’s Position
This communication is not merely an email. It is a documented reversal of power.
SWANK London Ltd hereby asserts that all supervision documents handled by Mr. Mullem during his tenure are tainted by conflict, and are now repurposed not for legal continuity — but for legal critique.
Every page retrieved is a curtain lifted.
Every signature is a residue of complicity.
The supervision order has already failed.
Now we collect its debris — and catalogue the cowardice.
⟡ 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:
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.