A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
Filed with Deliberate Punctuation
“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 claim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label N1 claim. Show all posts

Chromatic v Civil National Business Centre [2025] SWANK PC-096 (CC)



⟡ Addendum: On the Geometry of Paper and the Audacity of Persistence ⟡

Filed: 7 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/CNBC/PC-096
Document: 2025-05-07_Core_PC-096_CNBC_UpdatedN1ClaimCoverLetter.pdf
Summary: Cover letter to the Civil National Business Centre accompanying an updated £23.6 million N1 claim bundle—an act of procedural perseverance demonstrating that patience, when measured in megabytes and interest accrued daily, can itself become jurisprudence.


I. What Happened

On 7 May 2025, the claimant sent to Northampton a parcel so heavy with righteousness it could dent a filing cabinet. Within lay an updated N1 claim, witness statement, schedule of losses, annexes, medical evidence, and the quiet conviction that bureaucracy eventually yields to repetition more readily than reason.


II. What the Letter Establishes

That documentation is a weapon of elegance.
That when institutions refuse to listen, one may speak instead through pagination.
That £23,600,000 is not hyperbole but a quantified form of disbelief.
The letter re-asserts that even arithmetic, when laced with contempt, becomes advocacy.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this submission is an architectural feat—an updated cathedral of evidence mailed to a post-industrial shrine. It transforms the act of “sending paperwork” into an exhibition of procedural couture.


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – continued indifference to disability accommodations.

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 and 8 erosion through delay.

  • Administrative Decorum – failure to issue a claim number before the claimant’s patience expired interest-bearing.


V. SWANK’s Position

The Civil National Business Centre remains a mausoleum of envelopes; SWANK, however, regards every posted bundle as performance art.
This letter stands as the manifesto of the indefatigable: an ode to numbered attachments and the dignity of registered post.


⚖️ 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.

Addendum Filed. Because the Harm Didn’t Stop After the Claim.



⟡ SWANK Legal Continuity Archive ⟡

“You Ignored the First Statement. Here’s What Happened Next.”
Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/N1/ADDENDUM/STKATHERINES
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-18_SWANK_CourtLetter_UpdatedWitnessStatement_Addendum_N1_Simlett.pdf


I. A Witness Statement Was Filed. They Continued Anyway.

This document is not a courtesy.
It is a formal update and procedural escalation submitted to the County Court Money Claims Centre at St Katharine’s House, London — addressed to those who either failed to respond to the harm or continued inflicting it despite pending litigation.

The original witness statement was dated 5 May 2025.
The events necessitating this addendum occurred immediately after.

They read the claim.

And responded with more breach.


II. What the Addendum Records

  • New instances of verbal contact forced, despite clinical adjustments on record

  • Email and phone contact attempts made in breach of:

    • N1 claim protections

    • The Equality Act 2010

    • Prior police reports and regulatory filings

  • Formal reassertion of:

    • The legal basis for written-only communication

    • The psychiatric and respiratory risk created by unsolicited contact

  • Request for acknowledgment and accommodation by the court itself

This wasn’t a supplemental filing.

It was a warning: continued breach has been logged.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because witness statements don’t expire just because the system pretends not to read them.
Because when public bodies continue to harm after litigation is filed, they’re not negligent — they’re calculated.

We filed this because:

  • The retaliation was escalated post-claim

  • The adjustments were still ignored

  • The County Court had to be told — plainly, and in writing

Let the record show:

  • The harm continued

  • The complaint expanded

  • The statement evolved

  • And the archive — caught it all


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not file claims for sport.
We do not submit witness statements as emotional gestures.
We do not tolerate retaliation continuing under the nose of a pending case.

Let the record show:

The court was informed.
The breaches were recent.
The witnesses are still harmed.
And SWANK — keeps the timeline intact.

This wasn’t an update.
It was a notification of persistence — and of legal contempt made public.


⟡ 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.



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.


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 claimSimlett 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.


I Filed the Lawsuit and I Couldn’t Breathe — Everyone Got the Email.



⟡ “I Filed My Lawsuit. They Ignored My Lungs.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Informs Kirsty Hornal, NHS, Legal Counsel, and RBKC of N1 Claim Filing — Links Ongoing Respiratory Harm to Social Work Conduct

Filed: 24 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-10
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-24_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_N1ClaimFiling_DisabilityImpactStatement.pdf
Summary: Email from Polly Chromatic announcing formal N1 lawsuit filing. Sent to Kirsty Hornal, NHS, and legal teams. Cites exacerbated vocal cord injury and asthma from Hornal’s previous visit.


I. What Happened

On 24 February 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a group email to:

  • Kirsty Hornal (Westminster)

  • Laura Savage (Merali Beedle)

  • Simon O’Meara (Blackfords)

  • Gideon Mpalanyi (RBKC)

  • Philip Reid (NHS)

She stated:

“I’m submitting my lawsuit today. Have a nice week.”
“My vocal cords are still extremely exacerbated from Kirsty’s last visit... I can barely talk and also can’t breathe well.”

She attached the N1 Claim Form, making this a formal timestamped filing announcement.

The email was also forwarded to Harley Street Mental Health, requesting delivery to Dr. Rafiq — confirming clinical documentation of harm.


II. What the Record Establishes

• The N1 claim was served and timestamped to all relevant actors on 24 Feb 2025
• A direct health impact (vocal cord damage, asthma exacerbation) from Kirsty’s presence was documented
• This forms part of the disability timeline and adjustment refusal narrative
• NHS staff were made aware that social work visits were causing harm
• No responsive duty of care was triggered — reinforcing deliberate inaction


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because lawsuits don’t begin with papers — they begin with harm.
Because emailing “I can’t breathe” isn’t a metaphor when it follows safeguarding escalation.
Because the harm and the legal filing were in the same sentence — and the system still refused to adjust.

SWANK logs every filing that came with a body count.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that social work visits can physically injure disabled claimants.
We do not accept that such injuries are irrelevant when disclosed alongside legal action.
We do not accept that this message was unclear.

This wasn’t a declaration of intent. It was a declaration of injury — and SWANK preserved it.


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.