“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label ICO Hearing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ICO Hearing. Show all posts

Referenced in: Re C (Due Process) [2012] EWCA Civ 1489 — “Participation is the Minimum Threshold of Justice"

⟡ “A Record Denied — Because Due Process Doesn’t Vanish on Request” ⟡

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILY/TRANSCRIPT-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_Request_for_ICO_Hearing_Transcript_and_Record.pdf
Formal request for court transcripts and attendance records after a secretive Interim Care Order imposed without notice, representation, or consent.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) issued a formal written demand to Westminster Legal Services, the Family High Court, and multiple related bodies requesting the complete transcript and legal submissions from the hearing that removed her four children.

She specified that:

  • She was never informed the hearing was scheduled.

  • No documents were served.

  • No solicitor was authorised to act.

  • No consent was given for any filings in her name.

The request invoked Article 6 of the ECHR, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the Family Procedure Rules, insisting that the authorities confirm whether they would disclose the record as a court document or an FOI response.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A procedural black hole: no notice, no service, no participation.

  • Institutional gatekeeping preventing parents from even seeing what was done in their name.

  • The absurdity of having to formally request basic records to prove one’s own exclusion.

  • The transformation of safeguarding into a closed-circuit theatre of power.

This was not an administrative formality. It was the deliberate concealment of process.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot exercise rights over your children by clairvoyance.
Because an unnotified hearing is not justice — it is administrative seizure with a legal gloss.
Because if the record is hidden, there can be no accountability, only anecdote.
And because SWANK is not in the business of anecdote. We are in the business of evidence.

IV. Violations

  • Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6: Right to a fair hearing

  • Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20–21: Duty to make reasonable adjustments

  • Family Procedure Rules 2010 — Participation and disclosure

  • Freedom of Information Act 2000

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not due process.
⟡ This was procedural erasure. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the normalisation of clandestine hearings or the casual deletion of parents from the legal record.
We will document every exclusion. Every time.

⟡ 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:

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: ICOs Issued Without Notification to Parent or Solicitor


⟡ “They Said I Could Have Responded. I Was Never Told There Was a Hearing. Neither Was My Solicitor.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Late Notice. It Was No Notice. And Now It’s Supplemented with Silence — Filed for Discharge and History.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/ICO-NOSERVICE-NOCOUNSEL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_FamilyCourt_SupplementaryEvidence_NoServiceNoRepresentation.pdf
Supplementary evidence submitted by Polly Chromatic confirming that neither she nor her solicitor received notice of, or attended, the Interim Care Order hearing that removed four U.S. citizen children from their mother.

I. What Happened

At 15:40 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an email to five Family Court inboxes — and copied the U.S. Embassy — providing two letters as documentary confirmation that:

  • She received no service for the ICO hearing on 23 June

  • Her solicitor was not present

  • The hearing proceeded without representation or participation

  • The orders were issued without procedural integrity

The attachments were from her legal representative and the local authority, both confirming her procedural absence.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The ICO was granted without notification or inclusion of the parent or her solicitor

  • This wasn’t delay or accident — it was a deliberate procedural void

  • The mother is a disabled U.S. citizen requiring written access — ignored

  • Four U.S. citizen children — Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal — were removed under orders issued in procedural vacuum

  • The court is now formally on notice that its own orders are jurisdictionally compromised

This wasn’t a hearing. It was a simulation — performed without the litigant or her legal voice.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the system excludes both parent and counsel, it has no system left to defend.
Because removal under these conditions is not lawful — it’s theatrical.
Because silence is not consent. And absence, when uninvited, is not abandonment.
Because history must be archived in real time — especially when due process is redacted.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 38 – Orders require service and legal presence

  • Family Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1 & Rule 18 – Notice and representation are mandatory

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Reasonable adjustments disregarded

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of legal access for disabled litigant

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Fair hearing rights ignored

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Embassy not notified of hearing affecting its nationals

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a protection order. It was a procedural forgery approved in the absence of law.
This wasn’t judicial caution. It was a sanctioned silence wrapped in institutional paperwork.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was structural abandonment filed in the name of care.

SWANK hereby archives this supplementary filing as a citation of deliberate exclusion — with names, dates, and receipts.
They granted the orders.
We were never served.
And now, the archive has filed what the court forgot to deliver.

⟡ 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 service failures deserve a record.

© 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:

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Judicial Orders Issued Without Notice, Inclusion, or Legal Access


⟡ “They Granted Care Orders for Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal. I Wasn’t Told the Hearing Existed.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Miscommunication. It Was a Jurisdictional Erasure — Filed with Velvet Malice and Carbon-Copied to the Embassy.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/ICO-HEARING-NOTICE-VIOLATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_LackOfNoticeForICOHearing.pdf
Formal email from Polly Chromatic to solicitor Alan Mullem requesting urgent explanation for her exclusion from the Interim Care Order hearing that placed four U.S. citizen children under state custody.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a direct email to solicitor Alan Mullem after discovering that the court had already held — and ruled on — an Interim Care Order (ICO) hearing concerning her four children: Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal.

She had:

  • Received no notice

  • Been given no access

  • Had no representation

  • And was prevented from making submissions

Despite her known status as a disabled litigant, no adjustments were made to ensure participation. She demanded an immediate explanation for this legal blackout — and cc’ed the U.S. Embassy.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A hearing took place without the parent’s knowledge or involvement

  • The solicitor has not confirmed attendance, absence, or reason for silence

  • No disability access was arranged — in breach of prior notices and legal duties

  • Four disabled American children were judicially removed with no procedural fairness

  • The court acted in absence of the one person legally entitled to respond: the mother

This wasn’t omission. It was institutional choreography — with the parent written out of the scene.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because removal by EPO is already severe. But holding a second hearing to grant ICOs — and keeping the mother out — escalates the breach from domestic to diplomatic.
Because disabled litigants do not require “inclusion” — they require access by right.
Because four U.S. citizens are now detained under orders made in a vacuum of law, ethics, and process.
Because asking for clarification is no longer personal — it is jurisdictional theatre logged for transatlantic review.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 38 – ICOs must involve due process and fair notice

  • Family Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1 – All parties must be notified and able to attend

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known disability access

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of participation in legal proceedings due to disability

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – No fair trial or hearing access

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – U.S. nationals seized without consular notice

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was exclusion dressed in robes.
This wasn’t legal process. It was silencing by court calendar.
This wasn’t judicial care. It was foreign family separation rubber-stamped in secret.

SWANK hereby archives this message as a letter of record, a notice of breach, and a permanent filing of procedural shame.
The children were heard about.
The mother was not heard from.
And the archive heard everything.

⟡ 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 erasure deserves a transcript.

© 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:

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: ICOs Granted Without Notice, Representation, or Legal Justification


⟡ “They Granted Care Orders for Four U.S. Citizen Children. I Wasn’t Told There Was a Hearing.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Just Exclusion. It Was State-Orchestrated Jurisdictional Disappearance — Filed for the Record, Copied to a Government.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/ICO-HEARING-NOTICE-ABSENCE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_LackOfNoticeForICOHearing.pdf
Formal demand for explanation after Interim Care Orders were granted for four U.S. children — Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal — without the disabled parent being notified, represented, or allowed to participate.

I. What Happened

At 15:20 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic emailed solicitor Alan Mullem after discovering — without notice — that the court had granted Interim Care Orders (ICOs) that morning for all four of her children.

Polly:

  • Had no prior notification of the hearing

  • Was not present

  • Was not represented

  • Was given no opportunity to speak or submit evidence

She demanded immediate answers:

  1. Why was she excluded?

  2. Was her solicitor notified and silent?

  3. Did the court document any legal reason for excluding a known disabled U.S. citizen parent?

The U.S. Embassy in London was cc’ed.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The ICOs were granted without basic procedural fairness

  • The parent was excluded from a hearing that altered her legal parental status

  • No adjustments were made for her disability, despite numerous prior notices

  • Her solicitor’s silence or absence remains unexplained

  • The Embassy was forced to retroactively monitor a hearing it should have been informed of in advance

This wasn’t child welfare. It was an international removal ratified in silence.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because hearings don’t happen if one party is systemically disappeared.
Because when you remove the children and the parent’s voice, you are not protecting — you are erasing.
Because exclusion without reason is not neutrality — it is jurisdictional violence.
Because the courtroom became a stage, and the parent was deliberately uninvited.
Because the archive does not rely on invitation — it relies on evidence.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 38 – ICOs require just and fair participation

  • Family Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1 – Mandatory notification of hearings violated

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Written access and disability adjustments ignored

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Right to a fair hearing denied

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular notification for U.S. citizen minors

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from access to justice

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was judicial ghosting of a disabled American parent.
This wasn’t due process. It was a procedural mirage performed without consent.
This wasn’t lawful. It was state-stagecraft played out in the absence of the only person who mattered.

SWANK formally archives this demand not as a plea — but as a recorded indictment of procedural erasure.
They held the hearing.
They granted the orders.
They forgot one thing: the archive was watching.

⟡ 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 erasure deserves international notice.

© 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:

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: ICO Hearing Proceeds Without Notice, Representation, or Legal Participation


⟡ “Interim Care Orders Were Granted for My Children — and I Wasn’t Told the Hearing Was Happening.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Just Exclusion. It Was Judicial Vanishing in Plain Sight — Logged With Jurisdictional Malice.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/ICO-NOTICE-VIOLATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_LackOfNoticeForICOHearing.pdf
Formal inquiry submitted by Polly Chromatic to her solicitor, demanding immediate clarification for her exclusion from a same-day hearing in which Interim Care Orders were granted for four U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

At 15:20 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic learned — retroactively — that Interim Care Orders (ICOs) had been granted for her children: Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal.

She sent an immediate written demand to solicitor Alan Mullem with three urgent questions:

  1. Why was she not given notice of the ICO hearing?

  2. Was he informed in advance — and if so, why didn’t he inform her?

  3. Does the court record offer any lawful justification for excluding a known disabled U.S. citizen parent?

The email was also cc’ed to the U.S. Embassy.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The parent was completely excluded from a major hearing involving custody of her children

  • No notice, no representation, no participation was permitted

  • The hearing proceeded without addressing known disability access needs

  • The solicitor failed to notify or advocate — and has not confirmed attendance or awareness

  • The Embassy was forced to monitor a process that occurred without the parent entirely

This wasn’t child protection. It was administrative deletion masquerading as jurisdiction.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because removal by Emergency Protection Order is violent enough — but granting ICOs without notice is judicial erasure.
Because disabled litigants aren’t invisible unless the court needs them to be.
Because if your name isn’t called in a hearing that removes your children, it is not a hearing — it’s a performance.
Because what was missing from that courtroom was not just a mother — it was a constitution, a treaty, and a file.

IV. Violations

  • Family Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1 – Duty to ensure parties are notified of all hearings

  • Children Act 1989, Section 38 – ICOs cannot be granted without fair process

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known written-access requirement

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from justice

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No notification to U.S. Embassy during proceedings involving American citizens

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Denial of right to a fair hearing

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a court hearing. It was a bureaucratic ambush disguised in procedural robes.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was institutional cowardice performed on mute.
This wasn’t lawful. It was an act of exclusion so violent, it now exists as diplomatic evidence.

SWANK hereby archives this message not just as a demand — but as a declaration of legal blackout, filed and timestamped by the parent who was erased from her own life’s jurisdictional crisis.

⟡ 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 exclusion deserves exposure.

© 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: