“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
Showing posts with label CCBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CCBC. Show all posts

Your Email Will Not Be Actioned. — What Happens When Courts Close the Door Mid-Sentence


⟡ “This Mailbox Is Now Closed.” — Justice, Bounced Back ⟡

“Your email will not be actioned.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/CCBC/REJECTION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_CCBC_MailboxClosure_AutoRejectionNotice.pdf
An automated rejection from the Civil Court Bulk Centre. The claim was filed. The email was delivered. The reply? A closed inbox, no forwarding, and no responsibility. SWANK archived the bounce.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic attempted to send a court-related communication regarding Simlett v. Multiple Defendants to what appeared to be a valid email address for the Civil Court Bulk Centre (CCBC).

The response was immediate:

“This mailbox is now closed. Your email will not be actioned.”

No case reference.
No redirect.
No indication whether earlier correspondence had been read, processed, or filed.
Just a wall of silence in autoreply form.

II. What the Bounce Reveals

  • Court infrastructure has become untraceable: valid channels vanish without public notice

  • The claimant’s medical adjustment for written-only communication is rendered meaningless

  • There is no public accountability when a filing is lost to an inbox closure

  • The court’s own failure to forward, redirect, or explain becomes the obstruction

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because even misrouted justice reveals something:
That our legal infrastructure is not built for clarity.
It’s built for deferral.
For opacity.
For redirecting accountability until the claimant gives up.

This isn’t about one email.
It’s about an entire communications architecture that erases by default.

SWANK didn’t misfile.
The system misdesigned.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept inboxes as legal voids.
We do not accept “closed” as a valid excuse from courts.
We do not accept that claimants must research their way out of system collapse.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the mailbox is closed,
We publish the closure.
If the claim disappears,
We document the disappearance.
And if justice cannot be emailed,
We’ll show exactly why not.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions