“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

Documented Obsessions

Polly Chromatic v Westminster Family Court: Complaint for Unlawful and Inaccessible Removal


⟡ “No Hearing. No Notice. No Order. And No One Thought It Unusual?” ⟡
When Process Is Replaced by Pretend, the Archive Submits a Complaint.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/COMPLAINT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Complaint_FamilyCourt_UnlawfulRemovalAndDisabilityExclusion.pdf
Formal complaint filed with the President of the Family Division regarding the unlawful, inaccessible removal of four U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division. The complaint addressed the unlawful removal of her four U.S. citizen children by Westminster Children’s Services and Metropolitan Police — all carried out with no notice, no disability access, and no visible court order. The hearing, if it occurred at all, was inaccessible, undisclosed, and held without any participation from the disabled parent. No consular notification was made, and no accommodations were offered, despite longstanding medical documentation and active Judicial Review proceedings.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The parent was excluded from all procedural participation

  • No written notice, order, or communication was delivered prior to removal

  • No disability access measures were enacted before or after

  • No consular authority was informed despite all parties being U.S. citizens

  • The Family Court enabled the use of secret orders to enact jurisdictional trespass

This wasn’t just a breach. It was a systemic performance of erasure.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when children are removed and no one in the court can explain how — it isn’t law.
Because silence cannot be served in place of notice.
Because not one agency paused to ask whether their “removal” was even procedurally valid.
Because the parent’s identity — disabled, foreign, and in litigation — was treated not as protected, but expendable.
Because when the President of the Family Division has to be contacted to remind the court that due process exists —
SWANK considers that event historically significant.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Removal without notice, participation, or judicial transparency

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to make disability-related adjustments

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – No fair hearing, no protection of family life

  • Family Procedure Rules – Breaches in service, disclosure, and hearing participation

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No notification to the U.S. Embassy

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Complete disregard for communication access

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t family court. It was institutional ghostwriting of parental removal.
This wasn’t legal process. It was a self-authored fiction stamped with a seal.
This wasn’t exclusion. It was targeted procedural disappearance.

SWANK submits this complaint not as a plea — but as a ledger entry in an expanding archive.
We do not ask for integrity.
We document the cost of its absence.

⟡ 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 Westminster & RBKC: Procedural Erasure and Solicitor Misconduct


⟡ “A Hearing Without a Party Is Not a Hearing” ⟡
Legal Fiction by Omission. Theatre of Process Without the Script.

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/COURT/ADDENDUM-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Addendum_JR_ICOExclusionAndSolicitorNonDisclosure.pdf
Addendum detailing how the Claimant was excluded from the ICO hearing and misrepresented by silence.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, an Interim Care Order (ICO) was granted at a hearing the Claimant, Polly Chromatic, was never told existed. There was no service, no notice, no participation. Her solicitor—Alan Mullem—failed to inform her, failed to consult her, failed to submit any response or evidence, and failed to notify her even after the fact. The only way she learned of the hearing was by discovering correspondence that had never been shared with her. The removal of her four U.S. citizen children had occurred the previous day—23 June—without any Emergency Protection Order or procedural notice.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural exclusion from a hearing central to the deprivation of parental rights

  • Failure of legal representation at the most consequential juncture

  • No opportunity to be heard, informed, or defend

  • Weaponisation of silence as representation

  • Removal justified by a hearing that deliberately erased the subject of its judgment

This wasn’t an oversight. It was orchestration.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is not law. It’s litigation by disappearance.
Because a solicitor who withholds the existence of a hearing is not a representative — they are a filter.
Because children were taken first, and legal recognition was only sought after the fact.
Because the Family Court functioned as a rubber stamp, not a deliberative forum.
Because the right to participate is not decorative.
Because this is not child protection. It is institutional erasure under the guise of care.

IV. Violations

  • Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights – Denial of fair hearing

  • Children Act 1989 – Breach of duties to notify and involve the parent

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments for written-only communication needs

  • Solicitor Conduct Rules – Duty of communication and informed instruction

  • Civil Procedure Rules, Part 12 & 21 – Due process and service obligations

  • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9 – Separation without due process

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t representation. It was containment.
This wasn’t service. It was suppression.
This wasn’t a hearing. It was a juridical blackout.

SWANK rejects the use of legal theatre to retroactively justify child removal.
We document not just what happened — but how the system conspired to make it disappear.
The ICO granted on 24 June 2025 is jurisdictionally tainted and morally void.
We do not accept it. We will not refer to it as lawful.

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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 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:

Polly Chromatic v Family Court: Signature Dispute, Solicitor Termination, and Post-Hearing Nullification


⟡ “Representation Without Consent Is Not Representation” ⟡
The Signature Was Theirs. The Silence Was Engineered.

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/DECLARATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Declaration_FamilyCourt_SignatureDisputeAndRepresentationTermination.pdf
Formal declaration terminating legal representation and disputing unauthorised use of name and signature.

I. What Happened

On 25 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal declaration to the Family Court stating that she never authorised her solicitor, Alan Mullem, to represent her during the Interim Care Order hearing of 24 June 2025 — a hearing she was not informed of, not invited to, and did not attend. She received no prior notice, no documents, no explanation, and no follow-up. Despite this, legal documents appear to have been submitted in her name. She has now revoked all authority for Mr. Mullem to act and has officially disputed any document bearing her name or signature made without her explicit, informed consent.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The Claimant was not informed of a critical hearing involving the removal of her children

  • A solicitor appeared to act on her behalf without instructions, communication, or consent

  • No documentation was received before or after the hearing

  • The Claimant is now self-representing and demands that all documents be verified

  • The hearing, and any outcome relying on misrepresented consent, is procedurally contaminated

This wasn’t legal aid. It was reputational laundering.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because representation is not a performance staged without the client.
Because signing someone’s name without consent is not advocacy — it is forgery in slow motion.
Because silence engineered through institutional pathways is not an accident — it is tactical.
Because the Family Court has been used to process removals without authentic representation, oversight, or autonomy.
Because in every jurisdictional war, the signature is the first casualty.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Lack of notice and parental involvement

  • Solicitor Regulation Authority Code of Conduct – Breach of client communication and instruction duties

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Right to fair trial and representation

  • Mental Capacity Act 2005 (as applied) – No proof of capacity breach, yet total procedural exclusion

  • Civil Procedure Rules, Part 21 & 22 – Unauthorized filing and misrepresentation

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t oversight. It was orchestration.
This wasn’t consent. It was procedural theatre.
This wasn’t a solicitor-client relationship. It was proxy-control by institutional design.

SWANK formally asserts that any signature submitted without communication, consent, or comprehension is null.
No order obtained through that silence can stand.
The Family Court is hereby placed on notice — silence will no longer be accepted as a strategy.

⟡ 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: