⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed date: 21 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-RM-RECALL0512
PDF Filename: 2025-07-21_SWANK_Addendum_RositaMoise_EmailRecall_PretendItWasn'tSent.pdf
1-Line Summary: Rosita Moise attempts to recall her formal response to a pre-action protocol letter — as if procedural non-responsiveness could be unsent into history.
I. What Happened
On 12 May 2025, following weeks of silence regarding my Pre-Action Protocol Letter (dated 25 April 2025), Rosita Moise responded — then immediately attempted to recall the response.
Her email was a formal communication regarding an Equality Act and Judicial Review challenge to the unlawful PLO escalation against me and my children. The subject line referenced the PLO proceedings, disability discrimination, and the Local Authority’s duties under the Equality Act 2010.
Having sent it, Ms. Moise issued a Microsoft Outlook recall request — as if the legal record might obey a button.
The result?
A formal public authority, responding late to a lawful pre-action letter, then tried to make that response vanish — without apology, correction, or replacement.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
This incident lays bare the professional fragility beneath the polished silence:
That Bi-borough Legal Services has no interest in accountability, only optics;
That the Equality Act is treated not as binding legislation, but as a PR risk;
And that when procedural evasion is finally challenged, the response is not amendment — it is attempted erasure.
Rosita Moise’s recall attempt is not simply administrative. It is juridical fantasy: the notion that what was poorly handled may be unsent into irrelevance.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because legal correspondence is not a WhatsApp thread.
Because safeguarding decisions made against disabled parents cannot be recalled like an office birthday invite.
Because the Local Authority did not respond adequately — and now seeks to pretend it didn’t respond at all.
This recall request is not just petty. It is archivally offensive.
And because a Local Authority solicitor trying to un-send a formal email responding to litigation is not professional discretion — it is procedural immaturity.
IV. Violations
Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol – Failure to provide a timely, accountable, or consistent response
Article 6 ECHR – Undermining fair access to justice through retroactive non-disclosure
Equality Act 2010 – Avoidance of duties by deletion
Professional Standards (Solicitors Regulation Authority) – Conduct unbecoming of legal responsibility
Reality – Attempting to recall a formal pre-action reply as if litigation is a group chat
V. SWANK’s Position
The Local Authority had every chance to engage with the substance of my claim.
Instead, it responded late, then tried to disappear its own reply — without issuing a corrected version, without acknowledging receipt of exhibits, and without addressing the disability violations at the heart of the complaint.
To recall an email is not a remedy. It is a metaphor for this entire case.
This document has been preserved as proof that when faced with formal legal scrutiny, RBKC/Westminster Legal Services’ instinct was not to defend itself — but to delete itself.
⚖️ 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.