⟡ “I Asked for My Paperwork Back. He Said ‘It’s All Emailed’ — As If That Explains What I Signed.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Legal Advice. It Was Digital Evasion by Someone Who Still Hasn’t Answered the Question.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/LEGALREP/EMAIL-REPLY-EVIDENCE-AVOIDANCE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_PaperworkRequest_EvasionResponse.pdf
Single-line reply from Alan Mullem in response to a formal request for return or explanation of documentation physically handed to him prior to child removal and emergency legal filings.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic sent an email to her solicitor, Alan Mullem, requesting either:
(a) the return of physical documents she had personally brought to his office; or
(b) a scanned copy by email.
The email was part of a post-removal follow-up after four U.S. citizen children — Regal, Prince, King, and Honor — were taken by Westminster under a legally dubious Emergency Protection Order. The solicitor responded with a single sentence:
“It’s all emailed.”
No documents were attached. No clarification of what was signed. No itemisation of what “it” included. No mention of legal significance, court filing, or procedural timing.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Solicitor refused to clarify or enumerate which documents had been signed or submitted
Physical paperwork brought in person was not returned, copied, or explained
The response disregarded the urgency and distress of the situation
Legal duties of transparency, informed consent, and client access were effectively dismissed
The solicitor acted as if the burden of clarification belonged to the disabled litigant — not him
This wasn’t communication. It was a masterclass in legal ambiguity, cc’ed to the archive.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when your children are taken and you don’t know what you signed, the solicitor doesn’t get to shrug in lowercase.
Because if the paperwork was “all emailed,” the question becomes: to whom, when, and what version?
Because legal support requires accountability, not curt deflection.
Because what you call a reply, the archive calls a file entry.
IV. Violations
Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct, Rule 3.5 – Failure to keep the client informed in a way they understand
SRA Principle 4 – Lack of transparency, integrity, and proper service
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Written-only access not respected in tone or substance
UNCRPD Article 13 – Disabled litigant not given equal access to legal process
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Obstruction of fair process through ambiguity
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t correspondence. It was a reply-shaped refusal to provide clarity.
This wasn’t service. It was solicitor minimalism dressed as sufficiency.
This wasn’t legal support. It was legal detachment — archived and timestamped.
SWANK hereby logs this interaction not as misconduct per se — but as proof of representative inertia.
A single sentence is not an answer.
A withheld file is not a resolution.
A missing explanation is now a matter of public record.
⟡ 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 obfuscation 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.