⟡ “I Asked for the Court Order. He Told Me to Read the Rightmost Attachment and Stop Emailing.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Legal Support. It Was Client Management by Ambiguity — Filed While Four Children Remain Missing.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/LEGALREP/DOCUMENTREFUSAL-CONSULARBLOCK
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_CourtOrderBundle_RequestAndDismissal.pdf
Email response from solicitor Alan Mullem dismissing urgent request for official court documents following the removal of four U.S. citizen children under an Emergency Protection Order. The solicitor instructs the client not to send “a multitude of emails” and refers to an unspecified “extreme right attachment.”
I. What Happened
At 15:01 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic formally requested — in writing — the following documents from her solicitor, Alan Mullem:
The full court bundle
The official court order
The agreed note of judgment
These materials were necessary to inform the U.S. Embassy of the legal basis for the removal of Regal, Prince, King, and Honor — all U.S. citizen children — and to proceed with the discharge application and jurisdictional review.
At 15:03, Mullem replied with the following:
“Please it is in the extreme right attachment I will speak in the morning and arrange an appointment next week please do not send any lengthy emails or a multitude of emails.”
No file was attached. No document identified. No instructions clarified.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The solicitor failed to confirm what documents were sent or where to find them
The request for vital jurisdictional materials was reduced to a tone complaint
The client, a disabled American mother under state surveillance, was asked to reduce communications
U.S. Embassy was cc’ed — making this not only evasion, but diplomatic negligence
The solicitor appears to believe the removal of four children can be resolved “next week”
This wasn’t legal reply. It was archival evidence of detachment.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because clarity is not optional when a client is locked out of proceedings.
Because dismissive tone isn’t professionalism — it’s evasion in a suit.
Because when the client is filing diplomatic alerts and you’re replying with vagueness, you are no longer acting.
Because the archive doesn’t wait for attachments — it logs their absence.
IV. Violations
SRA Code of Conduct, Rule 3.5 – Failure to keep client properly informed
SRA Principle 4 – Lack of respect and service to vulnerable client
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Written-only access breached through unstructured reply
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Obstruction of access to legal documents undermines right to fair process
UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal participation obstructed for disabled litigant
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a reply. It was the legal version of looking away while the embassy is watching.
This wasn’t document delivery. It was an insult to clarity, dignity, and due process.
This wasn’t professional conduct. It was theatre — and we’ve kept the script.
SWANK hereby logs this solicitor response as an act of administrative dilution.
You don’t say “extreme right” when lives have been moved without consent.
You don’t dismiss emails when the archive is already global.
You don’t advise silence while the record is being published.
⟡ 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 evasion deserves a thread.
© 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.