“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 No Notice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Notice. Show all posts

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: FOI Request for the Files Behind the Secret Removal


⟡ “If This Was Lawful, Show the Paperwork.” ⟡
A Freedom of Information Request, Because Secrets Are Not a Safeguarding Tool.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FOI/WESTMINSTER-REMOVAL-0623
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_FOI_Westminster_ChildrenRemoval_RecordsRequest.pdf
Formal FOI request demanding disclosure of all documentation surrounding the removal of four U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Westminster City Council following the sudden removal of her four U.S. citizen children from their home at approximately 1:37 PM. The removal was carried out without service, notice, representation, or visible legal authority. The FOI request demands production of all communications, risk assessments, court documents, and coordination records from Westminster Children’s Services and any affiliated police agencies involved between 17–24 June 2025. It specifically asks for identification of the individuals who approved, planned, or executed the act.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Four American children were taken without paperwork shown or served

  • No hearing was attended or accessed by their disabled mother

  • No agency has disclosed the internal basis for the action

  • Westminster has treated transparency as optional and process as private

  • This FOI request forces the record out from behind the curtain

This wasn’t a protective intervention. It was a procedural ambush buried in bureaucratic opacity.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because if there was a lawful reason — it would already be on the table.
Because transparency delayed is justice denied.
Because a removal without record is not safeguarding — it’s jurisdictional vandalism.
Because FOI isn’t just an administrative request. In this context, it’s a demand for institutional confession.
Because no child’s life should be altered in secret — and then left undocumented.

IV. Violations

  • Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Failure to proactively disclose significant public actions

  • Children Act 1989 – Absence of procedural protection in removal

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability-based exclusion from participation

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Right to fair procedure and family life

  • UNCRC, Articles 9 and 12 – Removal without cause, consultation, or transparency

  • Common Law Duty of Candour – Evasion of responsibility through silence

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t just secrecy. It was institutional cowardice disguised as discretion.
This wasn’t a record. It was a paperless process built on tactical omission.
This wasn’t lawful. It was documentless power used against the voiceless.

SWANK demands full disclosure.
The archive doesn’t wait politely for injustice to explain itself — it serves notice that concealment will be 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 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.

⟡ 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 Family Court: Complaint for Unlawful and Inaccessible Removal


⟡ “No Hearing. No Notice. No Order. And No One Thought It Unusual?” ⟡
When Process Is Replaced by Pretend, the Archive Submits a Complaint.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/COMPLAINT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Complaint_FamilyCourt_UnlawfulRemovalAndDisabilityExclusion.pdf
Formal complaint filed with the President of the Family Division regarding the unlawful, inaccessible removal of four U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division. The complaint addressed the unlawful removal of her four U.S. citizen children by Westminster Children’s Services and Metropolitan Police — all carried out with no notice, no disability access, and no visible court order. The hearing, if it occurred at all, was inaccessible, undisclosed, and held without any participation from the disabled parent. No consular notification was made, and no accommodations were offered, despite longstanding medical documentation and active Judicial Review proceedings.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The parent was excluded from all procedural participation

  • No written notice, order, or communication was delivered prior to removal

  • No disability access measures were enacted before or after

  • No consular authority was informed despite all parties being U.S. citizens

  • The Family Court enabled the use of secret orders to enact jurisdictional trespass

This wasn’t just a breach. It was a systemic performance of erasure.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when children are removed and no one in the court can explain how — it isn’t law.
Because silence cannot be served in place of notice.
Because not one agency paused to ask whether their “removal” was even procedurally valid.
Because the parent’s identity — disabled, foreign, and in litigation — was treated not as protected, but expendable.
Because when the President of the Family Division has to be contacted to remind the court that due process exists —
SWANK considers that event historically significant.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Removal without notice, participation, or judicial transparency

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to make disability-related adjustments

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – No fair hearing, no protection of family life

  • Family Procedure Rules – Breaches in service, disclosure, and hearing participation

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No notification to the U.S. Embassy

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Complete disregard for communication access

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t family court. It was institutional ghostwriting of parental removal.
This wasn’t legal process. It was a self-authored fiction stamped with a seal.
This wasn’t exclusion. It was targeted procedural disappearance.

SWANK submits this complaint not as a plea — but as a ledger entry in an expanding archive.
We do not ask for integrity.
We document the cost of its absence.

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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