“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 US oversight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US oversight. Show all posts

On the Fiction of Cooperation and the Impertinence of Counsel: A Note on Mr. Mullem’s Email


⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Dismissive Counsel, Diplomatic Oversight

In the Matter of Alan Mullem’s Contemptuous Reply to U.S. Jurisdictional Intervention

📎 Metadata

Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-CF-0624-MULLEM-DISMISSAL

Court File Name: 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_Dismissal_USOversightAndDischarge

1-line summary: Solicitor dismisses U.S. Embassy involvement and disparages client strategy in safeguarding crisis

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025 — one day after the unlawful seizure of four U.S. citizen children — solicitor Alan Mullem replied to a formal instruction from Polly Chromatic. She requested that he challenge a contact proposal issued by Westminster, which was offered during an active discharge and jurisdictional conflict.

Instead of advocacy, Mullem replied with contempt:

“You are being silly... The U.S. Embassy has no validity whatsoever...”

No legal basis. No protective strategy. No regard for consular oversight.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • Direct disrespect of client instruction

  • Disparagement of foreign diplomatic rights

  • Refusal to challenge unlawful contact proposals issued during a pending discharge motion

  • Subtextual alignment with Local Authority position — contradicting his duty of care

Mullem’s reply reveals a systemic problem: solicitors treating child removals as procedural irritants, not rights violations.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This exchange represents a collapse of legal representation.
It captures how agents of the legal system not only fail to protect — but actively mock the mechanisms of protection (disability accommodations, foreign oversight, withdrawal of consent).

SWANK records this not merely for litigation, but to document how routine cruelty is disguised as legal pragmatism.

IV. Violations

  • Breach of professional duty (failure to act on instructions)

  • Disability disregard (refusal to assert protected health-based objections)

  • Jurisdictional denial (dismissing foreign oversight of foreign nationals)

  • Procedural collusion (silencing objections instead of filing them)

Mullem chose to insult, delay, and abandon — at a moment when international protections were most needed.

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd classifies this message as exemplary misconduct by counsel:
Not only did Mr. Mullem refuse to act, he mocked the lawful assertion of international and medical rights — dismissing the U.S. Embassy as “invalid” and characterising emergency litigation as “silly.”

This posture reflects a legal ecosystem in which children may be taken, but objections must be polite — or discarded.

His removal from the case was not only warranted — it was overdue.

⟡ 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: