Chromatic v. Moise (Intermediary Hostility and the Preservation of Tone)

---

Moise v. The Mirror Court (On the Etiquette of Ignoring Disability and the Panic of Procedural Structure)

Filed date: 21 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-RM-IC0718
PDF Filename: 2025-07-21_SWANK_Addendum_RositaMoise_IntermediaryContempt.pdf
1-Line Summary: Rosita Moise challenges procedural transparency and attempts to undermine lawful intermediary contact by dismissing communication rights.

---

I. What Happened

On 18 July 2025, Senior Solicitor Rosita Moise, writing on behalf of Bi-borough Legal Services (RBKC and Westminster), responded to a standard procedural notice regarding intermediary contact and communications protocol.

Rather than acknowledging the Court-notified role of SWANK London Ltd. as procedural intermediary, Ms. Moise elected to focus on a trivial issue — suggesting that the inclusion of an Islington recipient in a prior message was sent "in error" and must be deleted. Her response completely ignored the core content of the email: the assertion of disability-accommodated written-only contact and centralised intermediary submission practices, already filed with the Court and repeatedly disclosed.

In dismissing the role of SWANK London Ltd. as a formal point of communication, Ms. Moise not only refused to acknowledge lawful adjustments, but subtly redirected the exchange to center perceived impropriety rather than the documented, accessible, and archived structure I have implemented to navigate these proceedings.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This incident underscores the Local Authority legal team’s sustained discomfort with any process that:

• Removes their ability to control the framing of procedural exchanges;

• Documents their contradictions or missteps in an archive outside their internal remit;

• Asserts the independent legitimacy of a disabled Litigant in Person using an intermediary framework that mirrors legal representation but answers to no one but the parent.

Rather than acknowledge that I am managing proceedings through SWANK London Ltd. due to medical necessity and judicial disclosure, Ms. Moise chose to:

• Dismiss the procedural structure without cause;

• Issue an implicit reprimand over a non-substantive CC;

• Ignore the very accessibility accommodation I had just formally restated.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is exactly how procedural suppression works: not by explicit denial, but by ignoring disclosures, redirecting tone, and undermining process under the guise of etiquette enforcement.

Because this is the same legal department that:

• Received my Equality Act pre-action protocol letter,

• Was named in my Judicial Review and civil litigation,

• And has yet to meaningfully respond to the medical or legal violations that prompted those filings.

And because the professional contempt for a parent using her own platform and legal strategy is now so evident it no longer hides in subtext.

---

IV. Violations

• Article 6 ECHR – Undermining access to a fair hearing via dismissal of procedural intermediary

• Article 8 ECHR – Interfering with private communication accommodations

• Children Act 1989, Section 22 – Procedural cooperation and parental inclusion

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20 & 149 – Failure to implement known disability adjustments

• Human dignity – An official refusing to recognise a lawful communication structure filed with the court

---

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. was not merely copied to protect my health — it was disclosed to protect procedural truth. It exists because public agencies have failed to respond proportionately, lawfully, or with integrity.

When a Local Authority solicitor cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of a disabled parent’s intermediary system — and instead redirects the conversation to a CC field — she exposes not just her pettiness, but her professional discomfort with written accountability.

This post has been archived to ensure future correspondence from Rosita Moise is received with the exact level of aesthetic skepticism and documentary scrutiny it now warrants.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.