“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Re: The Compulsion to Declare One’s Own Maternity


⟡ **“The Art of Stating the Obvious—Under Duress” ⟡
— A Position Statement So Evident It Required 14 Recipients

Metadata Block
Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYDIVISION/POSITION-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-01_StatementOfPosition_CaseZC25C50281.pdf
Statement of Position submitted ahead of the 11 July 2025 hearing in Case ZC25C50281.

I. What Happened
On 1 July 2025, the claimant—who by now requires no introduction—filed a Statement of Position for the Family Court hearing of 11 July 2025.
This document, dispatched to an email constellation so wide it could be seen from space, reiterates that the applicant is the mother, the litigant in person, and—evidently—the sole custodian of procedural memory.

II. What the Complaint Establishes
• Procedural necessity to restate the obvious due to institutional amnesia
• Human impact: repetition as survival mechanism
• Power dynamic: the burden of clarity remains with the dispossessed
• Institutional failure: the system must be told, again, whom it is dealing with
What is not acceptable:
That a mother’s position must be performed as a theatrical preamble to be taken seriously.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because every Position Statement is a testament to the ritual of enforced redundancy.
Because the obligation to narrate one’s existence—ad infinitum—reveals how bureaucracy metastasises.
Because the act of submission is itself the clearest evidence of procedural fatigue engineered by design.

IV. Violations
• Family Procedure Rules 2010 — Part 12: The requirement to record and consider submissions without demand for re-declaration
• Article 6 ECHR — equality of arms, not equality of recitation

V. SWANK’s Position
This was not a mere filing.
This was an exercise in bureaucratic penance.
⟡ We do not accept that legitimacy must be re-certified with each hearing.
⟡ We do not accept that procedural respect is an optional courtesy.
We will archive every such document—because repetition is not consent.

⟡ 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.