“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 care order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label care order. Show all posts

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:

Polly Chromatic v Family Court: Demand for Care Order Record from Hidden Hearing


⟡ “A Hearing I Wasn’t Told About Has a File I’m Not Allowed to See” ⟡
If the Process Is Real, Where’s the Record?

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/REQUEST-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Request_FamilyCourt_CareOrderFileDisclosure.pdf
Formal request to Family Court for full records of a care order hearing that occurred in secret on 22 June 2025.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal request to the Family Court asking for the full court file, transcript, attendance list, and service details for a care order issued the previous day — a hearing which resulted in the forcible removal of her four U.S. citizen children at 1:37 PM. She had received no notice of the hearing, was unable to attend, and was excluded entirely despite her documented communication and disability accommodations. No court document had been served at the time of removal.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A care order was issued on 22 June 2025 without prior notice to the mother

  • No documentation, explanation, or copy of the order was provided during or after removal

  • A disabled parent was procedurally excluded from the hearing

  • The court file and basic legal facts were not disclosed

  • The solicitor on record failed to notify or represent the client

This was not legal process. It was the administrative concealment of it.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because court hearings conducted without the subject are not justice — they are ghost trials.
Because no child should be removed based on paperwork no one has seen.
Because when you ask for the court file and are met with silence, it is not incompetence. It is design.
Because in a lawful system, records are discoverable — not hidden behind paternalistic pretext.
Because this letter confirms the process was not only inaccessible — it was cloaked.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Parental right to be notified and heard

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Denial of fair hearing

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known communication needs

  • Family Procedure Rules, Parts 12 and 18 – Requirements to serve and disclose court documents

  • Common law natural justice principles – Right to know the case being made against you

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was procedural laundering of jurisdictional violence.
This wasn’t transparency. It was evidentiary exile.
This wasn’t law. It was a closed loop designed to erase contestation.

SWANK formally logged this letter as a demand for the full evidentiary basis of an unlawful removal.
If the system will not show the record, then the archive will show that it didn’t.

⟡ 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.


Let me know if you'd like it formatted for upload or paired with a second submission to RCJ or legal ombudsman.⟡ 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:

⟡ Chromatic v Silence: The Return Hearing Begins with a Document, Not a Voice ⟡


⟡ “They Took the Children on Sunday. This Is the Document That Speaks for Me in Court — Because They Never Let Me Speak Before.” ⟡
A mother silenced by law speaks through archive. No hearing. No voice. Now: jurisdictional prose.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0622-RETURNHEARING-POSITION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-22_SWANK_Statement_CareOrder_ReturnHearingPosition.pdf
Formal Position Statement submitted after procedural removal of four U.S. citizen children from a disabled parent without representation or accessible notice.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025 at 1:37 PM, four children — all U.S. citizens — were removed from their London home by UK authorities. The mother, Polly Chromatic, was not informed. She was not heard. She could not speak. No order was shown. No hearing transcript was provided.

In the aftermath, this Position Statement was filed — because she will be present at the next hearing, whether or not her voice is permitted.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • No accessible notice of hearing

  • No legal representation provided

  • No order presented at the time of removal

  • Active legal proceedings were already underway (Judicial Review + civil claim)

  • The parent is medically nonverbal — a fact known to all agencies involved

  • All four children were removed without legal process that complied with disability or family law

This statement lays out the facts, the failures, and the demands — all in writing, because no one in court has yet offered anything else.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Position Statements are not just documents — they are restorative records.
Because when a disabled parent is excluded from a hearing, the system cannot pretend it was just process.
Because every sentence here restores what they tried to erase: her lawful place in that courtroom.
Because Polly’s voice has always been the archive — and this is how it speaks.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – failure to accommodate; exclusion of a disabled litigant

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6 (fair trial) and 8 (family life)

  • Family Procedure Rules – procedural defects and no service

  • Children Act 1989 – lack of lawful threshold or proportionality

  • Safeguarding Regulations – misused to retaliate, not protect

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that the law can remove four children while excluding the mother from the room.
We do not accept that disability is an excuse for silence.
We do not accept that an archive can be erased by removing children at 1:37 PM.
We do not accept any process that bypasses consent, court access, or due process.
We do not accept that her voice was missing.
It was simply not spoken. It was written — and now, archived.

⟡ 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: