🪞 Misrepresentation by Continued Mislisting: The Court’s Unwarranted Attachment to Mr. Mullem
Polly Chromatic v The Administrative Reluctance to Let Go of Fired Solicitors
🔎 Court Metadata
Filed: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: ZC25C50281
PDF Filename: 2025-07-30_SWANK_Notice_CourtMislisting_AlanMullem.pdf
Summary: Formal demand to the Central Family Court to remove Alan Mullem from all correspondence and court records, following clear termination of instruction.
I. What Happened
Despite my formal termination of Alan Mullem’s instruction as solicitor on [date], and the submission of a Notice of Acting in Person on [date], court documentation continues to reflect Mr. Mullem as my representative. This is not a clerical oversight — it is a procedural error that has actively obstructed my participation in the case and misrepresented my legal position.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
This is not a matter of administrative lag. It is a failure of procedural fidelity. The continued mislisting of Mr. Mullem — a party I have expressly dismissed — undermines my status as a Litigant in Person and risks further miscommunication, delayed service, and unjust procedural assumptions.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the court must not cling to counsel I have cast off. The continued entanglement of a fired solicitor in my official proceedings does not merely reflect inefficiency — it suggests institutional inertia that prefers familiar names over legal truth. SWANK London Ltd exists to document precisely this type of bureaucratic gaslight.
IV. Violations
Procedural Inaccuracy – Misrecording of representation status
Right to a Fair Hearing (ECHR Art. 6) – Risk of delayed or improper service
Obstruction of Access to Justice – Disempowering a Litigant in Person
Failure to Act on Formal Notice – Ignoring properly submitted updates
V. SWANK’s Position
The court must, without further delay:
Correct its records to reflect that I, Polly Chromatic, am acting in person;
Cease all correspondence to or via Mr. Mullem;
Confirm in writing that these corrections have been completed.
Failure to do so constitutes a material obstruction, and will be escalated accordingly.
⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.