⟡ “I Won’t Tolerate Hostility — Even From a Judge.” ⟡
Because courtrooms shouldn’t require inhalers.
Filed: 14 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-24
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-14_SWANK_Email_Kirsty_NormalisedHostility_AsthmaTrigger_JudicialBoundary.pdf
A one-line boundary that should be taught in law school. The parent writes to say she will not tolerate hostility from anyone, including judges, because it exacerbates her asthma. In a system where aggression is standard and dignity is optional, this message is more than defiance — it’s a clinical declaration.
I. What Happened
She emailed to say:
– Hostile behaviour has become normalised by institutions.
– In her home, it isn’t tolerated.
– It worsens her asthma.
– So does talking.
– And if the court expects either, it’s violating her medical rights.
She said it without formatting.
She said it without fear.
She said it like someone who’s had enough.
II. What the Email Establishes
That hostility is not abstract — it has physical consequences
That even judicial aggression must respect medical disability
That refusal to tolerate harm is not defiance — it’s compliance with her own care
That the parent has clearly stated boundaries based on health, not mood
That normalised aggression is no longer a procedural default — it’s a trigger
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because when the room makes you sick,
you don’t open a window — you write it down.
Because dignity is not an attitude; it’s a clinical necessity.
And because when they bring hostility,
you bring court filings.
IV. Violations Identified
Institutional Normalisation of Hostility in Legal and Social Work Settings
Failure to Adjust for Known Respiratory Disability During Communication
Use of Coercive Tone as a Substitute for Procedural Integrity
Judicial and Social Work Breaches of Clinical Accommodation Obligations
Emotional Endangerment with Physical Health Implications
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a tantrum.
It was a medical threshold.
She told them aggression makes her sick.
She told them talking makes her ill.
She told them it applies to everyone — even the judge.
And if they don’t like that,
they can read it again,
on the record,
with their tone turned down.
⟡ 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.