“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 Safeguarding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Safeguarding. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v. Mullem (Disintegration by Representation)


🪞SWANK London Ltd

LEGAL OBSTRUCTION & MISCONDUCT – PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Filed Against Alan Mullem, Former Solicitor, MBM Crawford Street

Metadata

Filed Date: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-AM-LOI-0729
Court File: 2025-07-29_CriminalProsecution_AlanMullem_LegalObstructionAndMisconduct.pdf
Summary:
SWANK formally files a private criminal prosecution against Alan Mullem for obstruction, misconduct, and dereliction of legal duty.

I. What Happened

Between 24 and 28 June 2025, solicitor Alan Mullem inserted himself into a live safeguarding crisis and promptly collapsed any remaining structure of procedural sanity. While purporting to act on behalf of the mother, he silenced her communication, withheld critical documents, gaslit her legal strategy, and failed to notify her of the Interim Care Order (ICO) hearing—at which her four U.S. citizen children were removed. His signature appears nowhere helpful. His presence accomplished nothing lawful.

Instead of protecting his client’s interests, Mr. Mullem actively dismantled them. He issued threatening emails. He sabotaged her filings. And in a move almost too on-brand for the legal theatre of child protection, he excused his failure to notify her of court by blaming her for not opening an envelope.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This Laying of Information, submitted under Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, establishes the following allegations:

  • Misconduct in Public Office (Common Law)

  • Perverting the Course of Justice

  • Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997)

  • Professional Negligence with Procedural Consequence

The evidence includes a curated catalogue of email threads, unreturned filings, and patronising sign-offs that would make any self-respecting advocate blush.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this man told a disabled mother in crisis that she was “being silly” — while her children were unlawfully removed.

Because he refused to file or even read the applications she lawfully prepared.

Because his legal representation operated not as a shield, but as a sieve through which all procedural rights were drained.

Because in safeguarding law, misrepresentation is not just unethical — it is structural violence, and it enables institutional harm to proceed unchallenged.

IV. Violations

  • Failure to notify client of ICO hearing (24 June 2025)

  • Dereliction of legal duties under the Solicitors Code of Conduct

  • Procedural sabotage during active safeguarding crisis

  • Suppression of lawful filings and diplomatic notifications

  • Discriminatory failure to accommodate written-only communication

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accuse Alan Mullem of being an ineffective solicitor.
We accuse him of being a catastrophically effective saboteur.

His actions — coordinated or careless — removed the last internal mechanism of legal protection. The prosecution is now formally filed, and the evidence is devastating. We will not restore public trust in safeguarding law until professionals like this are exposed, disqualified, and prosecuted accordingly.

⚖️ 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:

Chromatic v Westminster Borough Council [2025] SWANK 183 On the Nature of Truth, and the Unforgiving Geometry of Verification

⟡ “Verified by Velvet” ⟡
The Filing of Truth: A Statement Notarised by the Legitimacy of Ink

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/TRUTH/0626-A07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_SWANK_StatementOfTruth_FamilyCourtVerification.pdf
1-line summary: Declaration affirming the factual accuracy of the full Family Court bundle submitted by Polly Chromatic.

I. What Happened

As part of the Family Court bundle submitted on 26 June 2025, Polly Chromatic filed a Statement of Truth attesting to the factual accuracy of all accompanying materials and documents. This includes evidence, procedural timelines, and every sworn declaration lodged under Sections A–H.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural fidelity and legal responsibility

  • Adherence to statutory verification practices

  • A sworn rejection of misrepresentation, fiction, or hearsay

  • Personal accountability at the highest evidentiary standard

III. Why SWANK Logged It

In cases of safeguarding misuse and retaliatory interference, the filing of a Statement of Truth is not merely a legal requirement — it is an act of procedural sovereignty. This declaration reflects the refusal to be mischaracterised or erased. It is the final seal on a living archive of institutional harm.

IV. Violations

Although this filing is a protective act rather than a grievance, it reinforces the court's obligation to:

  • Recognise verified evidence as privileged

  • Treat procedural violations as more than minor oversights

  • Respect the sworn declarations of disabled litigants and parent-carers

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t just a tick-box form. It’s the notarisation of memory — signed not in passive compliance, but in visible resistance.

Polly Chromatic has verified every detail filed in her name.
Let no agency pretend otherwise.
Let no court forget.

⟡ 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:

Racial Identity Isn’t Optional. Ignoring It Is a Violation.


⟡ “We’re Not White. We’re Not Ignoring That Anymore.” ⟡

A mother issues a formal multi-agency submission detailing racial erasure, linguistic suppression, and cultural exclusion within a PLO process meant to assess “family needs.”

Filed: 19 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-19_SWANK_Email_PLO_RacialDiscrimination_LanguageAccess_SocialWorkEngland.pdf
A formal email to Westminster and RBKC officials, copied to NHS, the Metropolitan Police, and Social Work England, documenting concerns around racism, misrepresentation of the children’s father, and systemic refusal to accommodate cultural or language needs.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic issued this email to over twelve institutional contacts after repeated efforts to schedule a PLO meeting devolved into racial mischaracterisation and disregard for the father’s linguistic and cultural identity.

The email included:

  • Concern over how her children’s non-white background was erased

  • Objection to forced English-only communication despite known barriers

  • Complaint about the refusal to provide cultural or linguistic accommodations

  • A formal cc to Social Work England and the Metropolitan Police

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Institutional refusal to acknowledge ethnic and linguistic needs

  • Systemic misrepresentation of the father’s role and origin

  • Hostile, mono-cultural framing of a cross-cultural household

  • Patterned sidelining of both parent and paternal identity

  • Multi-agency record of escalation, sent to medical and legal oversight bodies

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because saying “he’s not white, he’s not English, and you’re ignoring that” is not inappropriate — it’s the only honest thing left to say.
Because when a mother documents the erasure of her children’s identity, and no one replies —
that silence becomes part of the record.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010: racial discrimination and cultural exclusion

  • Human Rights Act: interference with private and family life

  • Language Access breach: failure to offer translation or accommodate

  • Ethical misconduct under Social Work England’s framework

  • Institutional gaslighting of lived ethnic identity

V. SWANK’s Position

Polly Chromatic was never asking for special treatment.
She was asking that her children’s origins not be deleted for bureaucratic convenience.
This letter proves the request was made —
and the silence was deliberate.

⟡ 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:

Still Under Investigation: A Bureaucracy That Can’t Conclude What It Can’t Prove


⟡ The Archival Gaslight: How a Department Rewrote Its Own Failures ⟡

“The doctor indicated that all of the children were in good health at the time of this visit.” Yet somehow, the investigation remained open.

Filed: 11 September 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/SAF-02
📎 Download PDF – 2020-11-09_SWANK_Safeguarding_SmithJoseph_DisclosureNarrative.pdf
A disclosure letter from Turks and Caicos Social Services, retroactively stitching unsubstantiated allegations into a legally meaningless but administratively menacing timeline.

I. What Happened

On 11 September 2020, Turks and Caicos’ Department of Social Development issued a formal response to lawyer Ms Lara Maroof. The request sought clarity on the state’s long-standing involvement with Polly Chromatic (then addressed by legal name).

What followed was not a straightforward record. Instead, the Department produced a retrospective pastiche of “concerns”:
• An incomplete 2017 abuse claim never followed up
• A 2018 allegation of children being seen outside during school hours
• A 2019 visit during home renovation where children were unwell — followed by a medical exam that confirmed all were healthy

Despite no injuries, charges, or verified risk, the Department continued oversight, invoking the Care and Protection Ordinance 2015 to justify intrusive involvement well into 2020.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Investigations were opened, not closed — and never resolved

  • Ordinary relocation was treated as evasion

  • Medical clearance was acknowledged — but ignored

  • Consent to examination was given — then framed as insufficient

  • Homeschooling, home renovation, and skin rashes became the state’s holy trinity of suspicion

  • No findings. No injuries. No abuse. Just formatting.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is not an outlier — it is how institutions preserve their authority when evidence fails them.

The Department did not provide a record. It provided a narrative alibi — one stitched together from half-completed visits, unverifiable claims, and a timeline so loosely held it contradicts itself.

This is safeguarding as myth-making. A curated illusion of danger, sustained by the sheer audacity of keeping an investigation “open” regardless of what was found.

It is precisely this kind of bureaucratic fable that SWANK was founded to dissect.

IV. SWANK’s Position

This was not a disclosure.
It was an institutional ghost story.

We reject the legal haunting of families via unresolved paperwork.
We reject the strategic use of children’s names to justify uninterrupted oversight.
We do not accept safeguarding narratives built on “maybes,” “was alleged,” or “unable to locate.”
We file this because it is what they file instead of fact.

This was not safeguarding. It was a weaponised memory lapse — corrected here, in ink and in public.

SWANK London Ltd. will always remember what they redact.

⟡ 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: