“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 transcript request. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transcript request. Show all posts

Referenced in: Re C (Due Process) [2012] EWCA Civ 1489 — “Participation is the Minimum Threshold of Justice"

⟡ “A Record Denied — Because Due Process Doesn’t Vanish on Request” ⟡

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILY/TRANSCRIPT-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_Request_for_ICO_Hearing_Transcript_and_Record.pdf
Formal request for court transcripts and attendance records after a secretive Interim Care Order imposed without notice, representation, or consent.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) issued a formal written demand to Westminster Legal Services, the Family High Court, and multiple related bodies requesting the complete transcript and legal submissions from the hearing that removed her four children.

She specified that:

  • She was never informed the hearing was scheduled.

  • No documents were served.

  • No solicitor was authorised to act.

  • No consent was given for any filings in her name.

The request invoked Article 6 of the ECHR, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the Family Procedure Rules, insisting that the authorities confirm whether they would disclose the record as a court document or an FOI response.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A procedural black hole: no notice, no service, no participation.

  • Institutional gatekeeping preventing parents from even seeing what was done in their name.

  • The absurdity of having to formally request basic records to prove one’s own exclusion.

  • The transformation of safeguarding into a closed-circuit theatre of power.

This was not an administrative formality. It was the deliberate concealment of process.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot exercise rights over your children by clairvoyance.
Because an unnotified hearing is not justice — it is administrative seizure with a legal gloss.
Because if the record is hidden, there can be no accountability, only anecdote.
And because SWANK is not in the business of anecdote. We are in the business of evidence.

IV. Violations

  • Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6: Right to a fair hearing

  • Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20–21: Duty to make reasonable adjustments

  • Family Procedure Rules 2010 — Participation and disclosure

  • Freedom of Information Act 2000

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not due process.
⟡ This was procedural erasure. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the normalisation of clandestine hearings or the casual deletion of parents from the legal record.
We will document every exclusion. Every time.

⟡ 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:

They Scheduled a Meeting. I Filed My Jurisdiction in Writing.


⟡ SWANK Procedural Safeguarding Archive – Westminster City Council ⟡
“If You Schedule a Legal Meeting, Expect a Legal Reply — In Writing.”
Filed: 28 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-WRITTEN-TRANSCRIPT-ASSERTION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-28_SWANK_WCC_PLOMeeting_Email_WrittenParticipation_TranscriptRequest.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic

I. You Scheduled a PLO Meeting. I Scheduled Jurisdiction.

This document records a formal communication to Westminster Children’s Services, issued by the medically exempt parent in anticipation of a PLO (Public Law Outline) meeting.

It includes:

  • An assertion of written-only communication based on documented disability

  • A formal demand for a transcript or full recording

  • Clarification of legal, medical, and procedural boundaries

  • A reminder that participation in proceedings must not come at the cost of health or legality

This wasn’t resistance.
It was compliance redefined — with terms attached.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That the parent was:

    • Aware of the PLO agenda

    • Informed of her rights

    • Willing to participate — in a format that didn’t compromise her health

  • That WCC was:

    • On formal notice of communication boundaries

    • Warned against coercive verbal participation

    • Given a lawful alternative: transcript or written response only

Let the record show:

This wasn’t evasion.
It was a boundary set in legal formatting — and archived for forensic continuity.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because disability is not a disruption to process — it is a process the law already accommodates.
Because written-only participation isn’t refusal — it’s compliance with both medicine and statute.
Because when you can’t trust the tone, you demand the transcript.

We filed this because:

  • The PLO process cannot erase adjustment enforcement

  • Participation is not forfeited by disability

  • And the parent arrived in writing — exactly where she was legally required to be

Let the record show:

The format was chosen.
The notice was given.
The Council was copied.
And SWANK — filed the whole thing, timestamped and unimpressed.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept safeguarding escalation triggered by medically justified boundaries.
We do not accept participation misinterpreted as absence.
We do not accept “process” as a pretext to disregard health.

Let the record show:

She participated.
She adapted.
She responded.
And the archive — responded back.

This wasn’t resistance.
It was an evidentiary RSVP, in perfect jurisdictional prose.

⟡ 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: