Moise v. Memory (On the Service of Orders Through Ghosts and the March of Assessments Built on Nothing)

---

⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

Filed date: 21 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-RM-HR0709
PDF Filename: 2025-07-21_SWANK_Addendum_RositaMoise_HearingNoticeAndAssessmentDeclaration.pdf
1-Line Summary: Rosita Moise attempts to validate retrospective order delivery via a dismissed solicitor, while advancing assessments built on an already-crumbling foundation.

---

I. What Happened

On 9 July 2025, Ms. Rosita Moise — acting as Senior Solicitor for Bi-borough Legal Services — contacted me regarding the upcoming 11 July 2025 hearing in Case ZC25C50281. Her email contained several notable procedural maneuvers:

1. She claimed that court orders from 23 June had been served to me indirectly via Mr. Alan Mullem — a solicitor I had already ceased authorising for communication, due to serious breakdown and lack of trust.

2. She re-attached the same orders without addressing the delay or the failure of direct service, nor acknowledging that forwarding via a now-dismissed representative may not meet lawful delivery requirements.

3. She proceeded to outline a slate of expert assessments (psychiatric, psychological, paediatric) that would allegedly be "proposed" at the hearing — despite these being rooted in the safeguarding referral from St Thomas’ Hospital, now formally discredited via NHS Resolution correspondence.

In other words, Rosita's message presented a legally fragile chain of events as seamless procedural advancement, leaning heavily on formality while avoiding the substance of falsified grounds.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This communication highlights several elements of institutional opportunism:

• The misuse of a prior legal relationship to paper over service failure

• The declaration of high-intrusion assessments with no mention of the disproven foundation on which they were based

• A thin gesture of accessibility (“if you require any measures to attend”) to pre-empt criticism, without acknowledging that the proceeding itself was born of medical error, not legal merit

Ms. Moise invokes procedural dignity while bypassing the factual collapse beneath her case structure. It is as if she intends to sweep a cracked foundation with a well-formatted broom.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because while I was struggling to understand why court orders had not reached me directly — amidst medical trauma, wrongful separation from my children, and ongoing retaliatory escalation — the Local Authority’s legal team chose to cite a dismissed solicitor as a delivery mechanism.

Because I am now being assessed based on referrals which no longer hold any clinical integrity, but which no one in the Local Authority is willing to disavow.

And because every parent deserves to know: if the truth changes, so must the process. But in this case, the process kept moving — unbothered by its own illegitimacy.

---

IV. Violations

• Family Procedure Rules – Service Requirements – Failure to directly serve a Litigant in Person

• Article 6 ECHR – Undermined fairness due to indirect notification of hearing and order

• Article 8 ECHR – Continuation of assessments intruding on private life despite disproved grounds

• Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate procedural adjustments in service delivery

• Public Law Principles – Disproportionate continuation of action following acknowledged factual error

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a neutral administrative update. It was a backfilled justification of flawed notice and an agenda of assessments launched atop a falsehood.

Rosita Moise’s email presents a performance of propriety. She writes as if the past twenty days of collapse — including admissions of medical inaccuracy and new legal filings — have not occurred. But they have. And SWANK will not allow time to be rewritten simply because procedure wishes to ignore it.

If an order is issued on false premises, it must be reviewed.
If a solicitor is dismissed, service through them is invalid.
And if safeguarding rationale is disproven, the assessments it spawned must stop.

This filing marks the moment where their silence about truth was no longer about oversight. It became preservation. And preservation, unbothered by fact, is not law. It is institutional vanity.

---

⚖️ 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.