“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
Showing posts with label Judicial Secrecy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judicial Secrecy. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Family Court: Demand for Care Order Record from Hidden Hearing


⟡ “A Hearing I Wasn’t Told About Has a File I’m Not Allowed to See” ⟡
If the Process Is Real, Where’s the Record?

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/REQUEST-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Request_FamilyCourt_CareOrderFileDisclosure.pdf
Formal request to Family Court for full records of a care order hearing that occurred in secret on 22 June 2025.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal request to the Family Court asking for the full court file, transcript, attendance list, and service details for a care order issued the previous day — a hearing which resulted in the forcible removal of her four U.S. citizen children at 1:37 PM. She had received no notice of the hearing, was unable to attend, and was excluded entirely despite her documented communication and disability accommodations. No court document had been served at the time of removal.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A care order was issued on 22 June 2025 without prior notice to the mother

  • No documentation, explanation, or copy of the order was provided during or after removal

  • A disabled parent was procedurally excluded from the hearing

  • The court file and basic legal facts were not disclosed

  • The solicitor on record failed to notify or represent the client

This was not legal process. It was the administrative concealment of it.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because court hearings conducted without the subject are not justice — they are ghost trials.
Because no child should be removed based on paperwork no one has seen.
Because when you ask for the court file and are met with silence, it is not incompetence. It is design.
Because in a lawful system, records are discoverable — not hidden behind paternalistic pretext.
Because this letter confirms the process was not only inaccessible — it was cloaked.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Parental right to be notified and heard

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

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known communication needs

  • Family Procedure Rules, Parts 12 and 18 – Requirements to serve and disclose court documents

  • Common law natural justice principles – Right to know the case being made against you

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was procedural laundering of jurisdictional violence.
This wasn’t transparency. It was evidentiary exile.
This wasn’t law. It was a closed loop designed to erase contestation.

SWANK formally logged this letter as a demand for the full evidentiary basis of an unlawful removal.
If the system will not show the record, then the archive will show that it didn’t.

⟡ 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.


Let me know if you'd like it formatted for upload or paired with a second submission to RCJ or legal ombudsman.⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions