“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 Representation Failure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Representation Failure. Show all posts

In re: Mullem’s Envelope Theory of Jurisprudence


⟡ Addendum: Notification Failure – ICO Hearing ⟡

Filed: 1 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/MULLEM/PROC-FAIL
Download PDF: 2025-09-01_Addendum_NotificationFailure_ICOHearing.pdf
Summary: Solicitor instructed, hearing missed, file falsified, rights breached.

I. What Happened

• On 24 June 2025, an Interim Care Order was made at a hearing which I was not notified of.
• I was represented by Mr. Alan Mullem of MBM Crawford Street Solicitors, yet I had no opportunity to attend.
• The court record wrongly logged me as “unrepresented.”
• I only learned of the ICO after the order had already been made.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That representation on file is meaningless if counsel withholds notice.
• That Westminster secured an order against me without my knowledge or attendance.
• That the solicitor’s emails constitute contemporaneous admissions of failure.
• That Article 6 ECHR — the right to a fair hearing — was violated in broad daylight.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• Legal relevance: proves that even representation can be weaponised through silence.
• Educational significance: future training on how not to serve a vulnerable client.
• Historical preservation: the ICO made in absentia is now immortalised in the archive.
• Pattern recognition: aligns with systemic retaliation logged in prior SWANK entries.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Children Act 1989 (requirement for fairness and parental participation).
• Equality Act 2010 (failure to accommodate disability, incl. communication needs).
• Article 6 ECHR (denial of fair hearing).
• Judicial guidance on representation and duty of notification.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “legal representation.” This is absence masquerading as advocacy.

We do not accept that unopened envelopes amount to notice.
We reject the rewriting of records to erase representation.
We will continue to document every inversion of duty as data for reform and litigation.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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 Mullem: Demand for Hidden Hearing Documents After Silent Removal


⟡ “What Representation? What Notice? What Law?” ⟡
The Order Was Issued. The Children Were Taken. The Parent Was Never Informed.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SOLICITOR/REQUEST-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Request_Solicitor_CareOrderDisclosureAndTranscript.pdf
Formal request to former solicitor demanding production of court order, transcript, and evidence of notice following secret removal.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a formal request to solicitor Alan Mullem demanding urgent disclosure of all court documents related to the 22 June 2025 care order that led to the forcible removal of her four U.S. citizen children at 1:37 PM the day prior. The request includes the full care order, the hearing transcript, the attendance list, confirmation of representation, and proof of how (if at all) the hearing notice was served. At the time of the removal, Polly had received no documents, no warning, and no ability to speak due to her medical condition. She was never sent the order — only stripped of its subject matter.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A solicitor was on record, but no representation appears to have occurred

  • No hearing notice, order, or summary was sent to the disabled parent

  • The children were removed before the parent even knew a hearing had occurred

  • The hearing transcript, judicial identity, and court location were all withheld

  • The process of notice was so obscured it cannot be proven to exist

This was not law in motion. This was law as absentee theatre, performed to an empty seat.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because asking your solicitor for basic information about a hearing that dismantled your family shouldn’t be necessary.
Because representation is not a silent formality — it is a procedural anchor.
Because removing children without disclosing who signed the order is not lawful — it’s spectral governance.
Because when silence replaces service, and secrecy replaces scrutiny, the court record must be forced into daylight.
Because this solicitor’s failure wasn’t just a breach. It was part of the machinery.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Denial of participation and lawful notice

  • Family Procedure Rules, Part 12 – Failure to provide case documents

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Denial of fair trial and family integrity

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20–29 – Disregard for written-only disability adjustments

  • Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles – Failure to act with integrity, independence, and communication

  • UNCRC Articles 3, 9, 12 – Failure to involve the parent and safeguard children's best interests

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t legal support. It was legal sabotage.
This wasn’t silence. It was institutionally brokered exclusion.
This wasn’t advocacy. It was proxy abandonment in judicial costume.

SWANK records this request as a jurisdictional audit and evidentiary demand.
Because no mother should need to beg for the paperwork that dismembered her family.
And no solicitor should get to disappear behind the smokescreen they failed to contest.

⟡ 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: