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

The Courts May Not Coordinate. We Do. — Civil Transparency, Judicial Review Edition


⟡ Transparency Filed: Civil Claim Update Notified to the Court ⟡

“I have contacted the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) to request an update on my N1 claim.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/N1/ADMIN-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_N1Claim_Simlett_v_MultipleDefendants_CourtNotification.pdf
A notification sent to the Administrative Court confirming that the claimant has requested a status update from CNBC regarding an N1 civil claim. Ensures procedural transparency and links Judicial Review and civil matters in the official record.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., formally notified the Administrative Court Officethat she had contacted the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) regarding the lack of progression on her civil claim, Simlett v. Multiple Defendants.

The claim was:

  • Originally submitted in March 2025

  • Linked contextually to the Judicial Review already on record

  • Still unsealed and unacknowledged by the CNBC as of the time of writing

This message:

  • Preserves transparency

  • Creates procedural linkage

  • Reasserts the SWANK-written-only communication policy

II. What the Filing Establishes

  • Active procedural diligence by the claimant

  • The Administrative Court is now on notice that a related civil claim is pending

  • Disability adjustment reaffirmed in formal contact

  • Ensures that no miscommunication or jurisdictional compartmentalisation can later be claimed

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence compounds when institutions don’t talk to each other — and the burden of coordination should not fall on the disabled claimant.

This letter shows:

  • That the claimant is transparent

  • That the record is maintained

  • That the court was notified — and cannot say otherwise

This is how public archiving makes administrative silence accountable.

⟡ 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:

If the Court Forgot, We Didn’t. — A Claim Filed Into Silence


⟡ Claim Filed. System Quiet. Follow-Up Sent. ⟡

“As of today, I have not received confirmation of service or any progression details regarding this claim.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/N1/CNBC-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_N1Claim_Simlett_v_MultipleDefendants_ProgressUpdateRequest.pdf
A formal request to the Civil National Business Centre regarding an N1 claim left in judicial limbo. The claim was filed months ago. The system did not reply. SWANK did.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (legal name: Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) submitted a written request to CNBCseeking confirmation of service and progression for her N1 civil claim, Simlett v. Multiple Defendants.

That claim was:

  • Filed in March 2025

  • Submitted under her protected written-only communication protocol

  • Not acknowledged

  • Not sealed

  • Not progressed

This letter places the court on written record — and places its delay inside SWANK’s archive.

II. What the Filing Establishes

  • The court has failed to respond to a live, legally compliant civil claim

  • Medical adjustment protocols were reasserted and remain unaccommodated

  • The claimant followed proper procedure — it is the court that fell silent

  • The system’s inaction is now formally entered into the evidentiary chain

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because delay is not neutral.
Silence is not clerical.
And unacknowledged claims do not cease to exist — they accumulate jurisdictional weight.

This letter isn’t a reminder.
It’s a reckoning.
It does not beg for response — it marks procedural failure in bold, on the record.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a multi-defendant N1 claim can vanish into administrative air.
We do not accept silence from courts as due process.
We do not accept that a medically exempt claimant must chase the system that was paid to act.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the seal is absent,
The evidence isn’t.
If the court cannot confirm receipt,
We publish the request.
And if the claim disappears from their inbox,
It will not disappear from ours.

⟡ 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:

The Moment They Could No Longer Pretend Not to Know


⟡ Procedural Contact: CNBC Acknowledged the Claim ⟡

Filed: 25 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/N1/CNBC/CLAIM-SUB-01
Author: Polly Chromatic
Jurisdiction: Civil National Business Centre (CNBC), HMCTS

📎 Download the Filing Email (PDF)
Formal N1 Claim Submission to CNBC – Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett v. Multiple Defendants
Includes full email header, timestamped metadata, and proof of lawful submission

I. The Email That Ended Pretence

At precisely 21:06 GMT on the evening of 25 March 2025, the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) received what they could no longer ignore: a formal submission of claim, filed in the name of Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett, and lodged against multiple defendants for clinical negligence, discrimination, and procedural misconduct.

No ambiguity. No misplaced attachment. No excuse.
They received it. They were copied. And the clock began ticking.

II. Submission as Evidence, Not Request

In this jurisdictional ballet of bureaucratic foot-dragging and clerical vanishing acts, the email itself is a sword:

It affirms jurisdiction, initiates procedural responsibility, and renders any subsequent “miscommunication” legally suspect.

The address used — Applications.CNBC@justice.gov.uk — is not a customer service line. It is the door to litigation. And SWANK, with its velvet ledger, recorded the knock.

III. Archival Elegance: Why This Matters

This email marks the first moment of formal procedural engagement with the court. It is not merely administrative; it is jurisprudential theatre. The kind where silence from the other side isn’t discretion — it’s defeat.

For future reference, rebuttal, or reminder:

They knew. They were served. They proceeded anyway.

⟡ 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