⟡ “They Scheduled a Hearing Without Telling Me. I Asked for the Date So I Could Tell the Embassy.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Calendar Query. It Was a Jurisdictional Ultimatum — Filed in Velvet, Copied to Sovereignty.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/CMH-REQUEST-OVERSIGHT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_Request_CMH_HearingDateAndDetails.pdf
Formal written demand for the time, date, and access provisions of the upcoming Case Management Hearing (CMH), filed amid active consular coordination following the removal of four U.S. citizen children.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025 at 15:04, Polly Chromatic submitted a direct request to her solicitor, Alan Mullem, demanding immediate confirmation of the upcoming Case Management Hearing (CMH) referenced in correspondence from Rosita Moise.
The email made clear:
The need for 72 hours’ notice
The necessity of remote attendance due to disability
The presence of U.S. consular coordination protocols
As of submission, no reply had been logged. No link provided. No hearing time disclosed. Four U.S. citizen children — Regal, Prince, King, and Honor — remained removed under a challenged EPO.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The court and legal representative failed to notify the parent of a scheduled CMH
Disability access and international status were clearly stated — and unacknowledged
The solicitor was formally instructed to retrieve basic jurisdictional data
The archive was cc’ed in real time — making silence a form of procedural misconduct
The mother was required to chase her own access to a hearing about her children
This wasn’t a scheduling request. It was a sovereignty alert ignored by counsel.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because you don’t get to remove children and then hide the hearing.
Because consular presence requires notice, not retroactive apologies.
Because if the solicitor won’t secure a link, the archive will file the absence instead.
Because this wasn’t a case update — it was a demand written for jurisdictional memory.
IV. Violations
Family Procedure Rules, Part 4 & 18 – Failure to notify party of scheduled hearing
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability accommodations disregarded
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular access to foreign nationals’ hearing
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Denial of fair participation in judicial process
UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal access and communication denied to disabled litigant
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t about logistics. It was a formal record of denial dressed up as forgetfulness.
This wasn’t a request for a Zoom link. It was a jurisdictional clock ticking toward escalation.
This wasn’t accidental. It was a pattern — and now it’s logged.
SWANK hereby logs this request not as an email — but as a filing of absence, silence, and deliberate delay.
The hearing is scheduled.
The mother wasn’t told.
But now the archive has the timestamp — and the embassy has the thread.
⟡ 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 silence deserves a citation.
© 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.