“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
Showing posts with label Simlett v Multiple Defendants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simlett v Multiple Defendants. Show all posts

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.


No comments:

Your Email Will Not Be Actioned. — What Happens When Courts Close the Door Mid-Sentence


⟡ “This Mailbox Is Now Closed.” — Justice, Bounced Back ⟡

“Your email will not be actioned.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/CCBC/REJECTION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_CCBC_MailboxClosure_AutoRejectionNotice.pdf
An automated rejection from the Civil Court Bulk Centre. The claim was filed. The email was delivered. The reply? A closed inbox, no forwarding, and no responsibility. SWANK archived the bounce.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic attempted to send a court-related communication regarding Simlett v. Multiple Defendants to what appeared to be a valid email address for the Civil Court Bulk Centre (CCBC).

The response was immediate:

“This mailbox is now closed. Your email will not be actioned.”

No case reference.
No redirect.
No indication whether earlier correspondence had been read, processed, or filed.
Just a wall of silence in autoreply form.

II. What the Bounce Reveals

  • Court infrastructure has become untraceable: valid channels vanish without public notice

  • The claimant’s medical adjustment for written-only communication is rendered meaningless

  • There is no public accountability when a filing is lost to an inbox closure

  • The court’s own failure to forward, redirect, or explain becomes the obstruction

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because even misrouted justice reveals something:
That our legal infrastructure is not built for clarity.
It’s built for deferral.
For opacity.
For redirecting accountability until the claimant gives up.

This isn’t about one email.
It’s about an entire communications architecture that erases by default.

SWANK didn’t misfile.
The system misdesigned.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept inboxes as legal voids.
We do not accept “closed” as a valid excuse from courts.
We do not accept that claimants must research their way out of system collapse.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the mailbox is closed,
We publish the closure.
If the claim disappears,
We document the disappearance.
And if justice cannot be emailed,
We’ll show exactly why not.

⟡ 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:

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 claim, Simlett 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.


No comments:

No Seal. No Reference. Still Filed. — The Justice System Can’t Pretend This Didn’t Happen


⟡ N1 Filed. Court Still Silent. ⟡

“I have not received confirmation of receipt, a sealed claim form, or any reference number.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/N1/CNBC-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_N1Claim_Simlett_v_MultipleDefendants_StatusRequest.pdf
A formal inquiry to the Central London County Court regarding the missing procedural confirmation for Simlett v. Multiple Defendants. The claim was filed. The silence is now filed too.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, litigant and Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a written request to the Central London County Court for confirmation of her N1 civil claim, Simlett v. Multiple Defendants.

The claim was filed in early May 2025 and concerns:

  • Clinical negligence

  • Disability discrimination

  • Safeguarding retaliation

Despite the gravity of the case, no sealed claim form, reference number, or acknowledgment had been received.

This letter:

  • Reasserts the claim’s existence

  • Demands procedural transparency

  • Restates her legally protected written-only communication policy

II. What the Filing Establishes

  • The N1 submission is on record, with date, content, and venue

  • The court is now formally responsible for the delay

  • Silence becomes procedural failure, not personal confusion

  • Accountability begins here — not when the seal arrives, but when the file was first delivered

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because court silence, like institutional silence, is a tactic.

When the claim involves multiple public bodies,
When the allegations include retaliation and medical harm,
And when the court doesn’t respond —
The delay becomes evidence.

This isn’t an update request.
It’s a jurisdictional receipt — signed, dated, and archived.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that claims disappear because courts pause.
We do not accept procedural fog as legal response.
We do not accept the idea that sealed = real, and everything else is provisional.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the seal hasn’t come,
We still file.
If the court didn’t reply,
We still archive.
And if no reference is issued,
We make one ourselves — and type it in bold.

“Although an initial email acknowledgment was received, no sealed claim form or formal case reference had been issued at the time of this filing. This request documents that procedural gap.”

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions