“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 RCJ Auto-Template. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RCJ Auto-Template. Show all posts

In Re: The Template That Tried to Replace the Rule of Law Or, How the High Court Mastered the Art of Saying Absolutely Nothing in 5000 Words


⟡ The Judiciary Will Be With You Shortly (Unless It Won’t) ⟡

Or, When a Judicial Cry for Help Was Met with a Filing Guide

Metadata

Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/JUDICIARY/AUTO/RCJ
Filed by: Polly Chromatic 
Filed from:W2 6JL
Court File Name:
2025-07-04_ZC25C50281_Automatic_Response_High_Court_Family_5.pdf

I. What Happened

On 4 July 2025, amidst an active Emergency Protection Order, multiple civil filings, and a declared international diplomatic concern involving four U.S. citizen children, the Claimant sent an urgent communication to the Royal Courts of Justice – Family Division.

The court responded instantly — not with a judge, a clerk, or a sentence of procedural clarity — but with an automated template.

The reply advised:

  • Not to expect a timely reply

  • Not to include multiple addresses (even for safety)

  • Not to presume their matter was urgent

  • And to read the GOV.UK website — a digital maze of forms, acronyms, and tragic optimism

II. What It Really Said

“Please don’t copy in all relevant parties.”
“Please don't expect us to read this if your hearing is beyond two weeks.”
“Please don't exceed 50 pages, or we won’t process your distress.”
“We’ll get to it — eventually — unless you asked too well.”

This is not delay. It is institutional self-defence by auto-script.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this response was not merely cold.
It was precisely designed to wear out urgency.

Because when the High Court itself:

  • Acknowledges ongoing deprivation of liberty

  • Suggests accessibility... then disclaims responsibility

  • Prioritises formatting over content —
    …it’s no longer adjudication. It’s administrative disappearance.

Because when legal emergencies meet pre-written macros,
justice becomes a waiting list with a coat of arms.

IV. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. hereby classifies this reply as:

  • Functionally bureaucratic

  • Legally indifferent

  • And a clinical demonstration of judicial evasion by automation

The response did not reference the case, the content, the children, or the EPO.
It referenced email etiquette.

SWANK therefore logs this as a secondary procedural harm — not by decision, but by design.

⟡ 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: