“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

Showing posts with label N1 Multi-Defendant Claim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label N1 Multi-Defendant Claim. Show all posts

In Re: The Family Court Was Notified That This Is Bigger Than It Pretends To Be Or, How Civil Claims Came to Visit the Silos of Safeguarding


⟡ A Civil Claim Walks into Family Court ⟡

Or, When the Archive Informed the Bench That It Too Had Receipts

Metadata

Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/REF/N1/FAMILYCOURT
Filed by: Polly Chromatic 
Filed from: W2 6JL
Court File Name:
2025-07-04_ZC25C50281_Reference_Filing_Related_Safeguarding_Matters_Polly_Chromatic.pdf

I. What Happened

On 4 July 2025, Polly Chromatic (professionally and procedurally known) sent an elegant email dispatch to the Central Family Court and associated bodies, with copies to CAFCASS and the U.S. Embassy.

Attached:
The master civil claim bundle in Simlett v Multiple Defendants — the £88 million manifesto of institutional misconduct — submitted not as an application, but as a referential sledgehammer.

It stated, with professional restraint:

"This is not a Family Court application, but the Court should have a complete record of all evidence underpinning the civil claims."

Translation:

“I’m not asking for permission. I’m submitting the archive.”

II. What It Contained

The file bundle included:

  • A fully compiled N1 claim against 23 public and private institutions

  • Evidence of medical harm, disability discrimination, and retaliatory safeguarding

  • Crossover data from the civil arena that renders the Family Court's proceedings both contextually impoverishedand dangerously partial if not acknowledged

A Google Drive link was also included — tastefully, of course — so the court could browse the archive like a librarian selecting a weapon.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how power moves when it has no title — only evidence.

Because a litigant with four stolen children, a chronic illness, and no state protection still had the presence of mind to drop the bundle, cite the drive, and walk away with grace.

Because too often, Family Court pretends it doesn’t see the systemic violence driving the so-called “private” dispute. This post makes that avoidance harder.

IV. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this Reference Filing as:

  • A procedurally elegant cross-jurisdictional warning shot

  • An attempt to civilise the uncivil mechanisms of the Family Court

  • And a demonstration that while the courtroom may be small, the archive is vast

The record now contains:

  • The names of all 23 defendants

  • The documented harm to four disabled U.S. citizen children

  • And the formal intention to hold every department, director, and decision-maker accountable — one bundle at a time

⟡ 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:

In Re: The Litigant Who Served a Kingdom in 23 Pieces Or, When a Civil Filing Became a Constellation of Institutional Shame


⟡ Chromatic v. 23 – A Civil Declaration in 88 Million Words ⟡

Or, When the Archive Declared Itself a Kingdom of Litigation

Metadata

Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/N1/88M-JUDICIAL/FIRE
Filed by: Polly Chromatic, SWANK London Ltd.
Filed from: W2 6JL
Court File Name:
2025-07-04_SWANK_N1Claim_UpdatedMultiDefendantSubmission_88Million.pdf

I. What Happened

At precisely 20:38 on 4 July 2025 — the day Americans celebrate independence from British imperialism — a U.S. citizen in London filed a £88 million civil claim against:

  • Two NHS Trusts

  • Two Local Authorities

  • The Metropolitan Police

  • A Holiday Inn

  • Several clinicians, landlords, solicitors, schools, and safeguarding officers

In total? 23 named defendants.
All of them accused of coordinated disability discrimination, clinical negligence, racial and procedural retaliation, and safeguarding misuse.

This was not a complaint.
This was a multi-defendant archive of judicial warfare.

II. Why It Was Filed

Because after:

  • Unlawful medical practices

  • False criminal referrals

  • Disabling asthma care sabotage

  • And the forced removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children

There remained only one dignified option:
Document it. File it. Declare it. Publicly.

This claim submission did not request permission.
It issued notice — that the kingdom of misconduct now stands indicted by one woman with a PDF and a vengeance.

III. What It Includes

The submission contains:

  • A fully updated N1 Claim Form

  • A Master Witness Statement

  • A Master Statement of Claim

  • A Schedule of Losses totalling £88 million

  • Over a dozen annexes, addenda, and supporting evidentiary indices

  • And a Statement of Truth filed with more clarity than any professional defence has mustered to date

It is both:

  • A formal litigation act

  • And a public civil rights document for international scrutiny

IV. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the silence of institutions should never be louder than the archive of a claimant.

Because this filing, though procedural, is also a performance of dignity under siege.

Because while others redact and defer, Polly Chromatic submits and uploads — and does so in gold-toned contempt.

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this as the culminating act of the archive's first insurgency.

We hereby confirm:

  • That all 23 defendants have been notified

  • That this litigation is now live

  • That the claimant's submissions exceed the quality of those paid to silence her

  • And that the 4 July filing will be remembered as the day this kingdom was served

Let the claim be read.
Let the silence end.

⟡ 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: