⟡ “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.