“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 Parental Rights Misread. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parental Rights Misread. Show all posts

In Re: The Judiciary Received Fire and Asked What It Meant Or, How a Civil Notice Became a Misfiled Mystery


⟡ The Court Received an Emergency and Responded With Puzzlement ⟡

Or, When Four Children Were Taken and HMCTS Asked for Clarification

Metadata

Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/JUSTICE/AUTOREPLY/ADMINCOURT
Filed by: Polly Chromatic 
Filed from: W2 6JL
Court File Name:
2025-07-04_ZC25C50281_Legal_Autoreply_Emergency_Notice_Unlawful_Removal_No_Contact.pdf

I. What Happened

On 28 June 2025, the Claimant issued a Legal Autoreply – Emergency Notice to the Administrative Court, detailing:

  • The unlawful police-assisted removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children

  • The lack of notice, medication, or safeguarding continuity

  • Ongoing N1 civil claims, judicial review filings, and procedural blockages

  • A formal assertion of active legal proceedings, disability rights, and parental exclusion

Six days later, on 4 July 2025 at 12:01, Rachael Abiola from the Administrative Court replied:

“Please be informed it is unclear what you are requesting from the court.”

No acknowledgment of the emergency.
No referral.
No clarification.
Just bewilderment wrapped in passive officialdom.

II. The Bureaucratic Absence

Let the record reflect:

  • The court received the facts of police-led child removal

  • The court acknowledged receiving the email

  • The court chose not to understand it

This was not ambiguity. This was an act of disavowal — institutionally engineered through bureaucratic selectivity.

The Claimant did not ask for action.
She informed the court that action was already underway.
HMCTS responded with “We’re unclear what you want.”

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this email is proof of:

  • How the courts perform ignorance

  • How systems delay responsibility through confusion

  • How legal emergencies are reclassified as clerical puzzles

Because it is not the public’s duty to phrase things so perfectly that the court has no choice but to care.

Because the court’s reply is a document of procedural dereliction in the face of an already-escalated legal event.

IV. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this as:

  • A moment of procedural disavowal cloaked in civility

  • A document of institutional inertia masquerading as professionalism

  • A demonstration that emergency declarations are often swallowed by the inbox

We hereby archive it as a failure not just of law, but of literacy.
When the court cannot parse the claim that four children were taken, it is not clarity that is lacking — it is care.

⟡ 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: