⟡ The App Proposal at the Scene of Judicial Carnage ⟡
“Because what every litigant in public law needs... is a mobile app.”
Filed: 9 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/INBOX/UNSOLICITED-APP-PITCH-FAUX-CLIENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-09_SWANK_Inbox_UnsolicitedMobileAppPitch.pdf
Unsolicited cold email received by Polly Chromatic amid live legal action, offering custom mobile apps with no context, no recipient awareness, and no salience.
⟡ Chromatic v Irrelevance: On the Uncurated Collapse of Email as Jurisdictional Space ⟡
Inbox pollution, unsolicited marketing, client misfire, spam etiquette, litigation context breach, digital absurdity, SWANK inbox integrity
I. What Happened
On 9 June 2025, amid judicial review filings, safeguarding escalations, and Ombudsman submissions, Polly Chromatic received an unsolicited email from Suman Kumari with the subject line “Client”.
The sender inquired whether Ms Chromatic was interested in a mobile app for Android, iOS, or iPad, without reference to any known service, relationship, or legal context. The message presumed casual interest, despite being sent to an address formally published as a legal-only inbox under public scrutiny.
II. What This Establishes
⟡ Failure to read the room — or the archive
⟡ Inbox intrusion into a jurisdictional zone, where only evidence should enter
⟡ Presumption of commercial neutrality amidst legal warfare
⟡ Digital parasitism: offering mobile tools to a company engaged in litigation documentation
⟡ Naming of “client” where no relationship exists
This is not correspondence. It is inbox graffiti.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because even unsolicited pitches have jurisprudential implications. This isn’t a customer service inbox. It is a litigation vault. And the appearance of digital detritus inside the evidentiary corridor must itself be recorded — not for legal escalation, but for archival integrity.
SWANK does not permit aesthetic vandalism in legal space.
We do not accept unsanctioned app metaphors for structural trauma.
IV. Thematic Failures
Breach of SWANK Written Communication Policy – non-legal contact to legal archive address
Lack of due diligence – address is not commercially listed, but legally structured
Digital literacy breach – no sender qualification, no relevance, no opt-in mechanism
Failure of discernment – proposal during active litigation archive expansion
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t outreach. It was overreach.
This wasn’t commerce. It was carnivalesque.
We do not accept mobile app pitches in the midst of safeguarding litigation.
We do not build “iPad solutions” for government surveillance.
And we will not — under any conditions — download detritus in PDF.
⟡ 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:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.