“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 civil litigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil litigation. Show all posts

The Letter That Should Have Ended the Game — Before They Played It Anyway.


⟡ “Your Letters Are Too Late — We’re Already in Court.” ⟡

Formal position statement issued by Polly Chromatic, invoking legal protection from further contact with Westminster representatives during ongoing civil litigation.

Filed: 5 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-BOUNDARY-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-05_SWANK_PLOPositionStatement_KirstyHornal_SamBrown_LegalBoundary.pdf
This is a direct assertion of legal non-engagement, issued after the N1 claim was filed and in response to continued harassment by Sam Brown and Kirsty Hornal.

I. What Happened

  • Polly Chromatic filed an N1 civil claim on 2 March 2025

  • Westminster sent a retaliatory PLO letter dated 15 April 2025

  • On 5 April, this letter was sent to formally prohibit all informal contact

  • It explicitly outlines procedural breaches and refusal to attend a post-litigation PLO meeting

  • It affirms written-only communication as a disability right and documents refusal of CIN visits

II. What the Statement Establishes

  • That Westminster was placed on legal notice prior to the PLO meeting

  • That further contact was restricted to formal channels only

  • That any informal meetings held after the claim were procedurally invalid

  • That the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 were explicitly invoked

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the law doesn’t pause for paperwork delays.
Because once litigation is active, harassment becomes malpractice.
Because this letter isn’t a warning — it’s a record.

IV. Violations

  • Procedural misconduct by attempting PLO post-litigation

  • Ignoring formal disability accommodation requests

  • Conducting safeguarding escalation without legal basis

  • Human Rights Act Article 6: denial of a fair process

  • Equality Act Section 20: denial of lawful communication adjustments

V. SWANK’s Position

They ignored the legal filing and went forward anyway.
That wasn’t oversight — that was defiance.
Now they’re on record, and the record is 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.

No comments:

The Timeline Is Public. The Archive Has Teeth.


⟡ SWANK Master Record ⟡

“This Is the Record They Can’t Rewrite.”
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RETALIATION/MASTER-TIMELINE/2025-05-21
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_ChronicleOfRetaliation_Timeline_PublicArchive.pdf

I. Memory, Weaponised Before It Could Be Erased

On 21 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. issued its Chronicle of Retaliation — a master timeline documenting the full sweep of state misconduct, medical deflection, institutional retaliation, and unlawful safeguarding escalation.

This is not a memoir.
This is a forensic artefact.
Authored by the harmed.
Filed by the sovereign.
Addressed to the court of history — and everyone now on notice.

II. What the Timeline Proves

Across 60+ entries, the record details:

  • NHS refusal of urgent care

  • Disability adjustments ignored by social workers

  • Fabricated safeguarding threats issued after legal filings

  • Police inaction during medical collapse

  • Council retaliation for FOI requests and formal complaints

  • International regulatory escalation to the UN, EHRC, and CQC

  • The forensic link between complaint and consequence

This is not a theory.
This is retaliation by date, location, and named hand.

III. Why SWANK Filed It Publicly

Because the institutions involved had years to correct.
Because they chose silence — and then escalation.
Because the pattern was no longer subtle — it was coordinated.

We filed this not to convince.
We filed this to seize the record — before they buried it beneath “procedure.”

This document now functions as:

  • A litigation timeline

  • A public warning

  • And a citational firewall against narrative distortion

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept erasure by delay.
We do not allow safeguarding fiction to replace lawful timelines.
We do not permit public memory to be curated by those who caused the harm.

Let the record show:

This was not random.
This was not a misunderstanding.
This was systemic.
And now, it is permanently timestamped and publicly preserved.

This is our version.
This is the version backed by law, receipts, and breathlessness.
And it is no longer private.

⟡ 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:

Retaliation Noted. Ignored at Their Own Risk.


⟡ SWANK Council Filing ⟡

“We Warned Westminster. They Escalated Anyway.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/INT-COMPLAINT/2025-06-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_WestminsterComplaint_KirstyHornal_SafeguardingThreat_DisabilityViolation.pdf

I. The Formal Warning They Pretended Not to Receive

On 2 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal written complaint to Westminster City Council regarding the conduct of Kirsty Hornal, following her now-infamous email dated 31 May 2025.

The message — threatening court action without meeting, assessment, or lawful basis — arrived:

  • In the midst of live litigation

  • In clear breach of disability adjustments

  • And with all the tonal subtlety of a bureaucratic threat wearing child protection drag

This internal complaint was not performative.
It was a final chance to behave.

They didn’t.

II. What They Were Told — and What They Ignored

The complaint explicitly laid out the following:

  • That written-only contact had been formally acknowledged by Westminster

  • That Sections 20, 26, and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 had been breached

  • That the act constituted harassment and victimisation under colour of law

  • That a police report (Ref: ROC10979-25-0101-IR) had already been filed

  • That their employee’s conduct occurred during a live civil claim already on record

This was not a miscommunication.
This was procedural cruelty hidden in Outlook formatting.

III. Evidence Submitted

The complaint included:

  • Exhibit A – The coercive email from Ms. Hornal (31 May 2025)

  • Exhibit B – A formal threat summary, with legal framing

  • Exhibit C – The official Metropolitan Police Report

Each exhibit was attached not for argument, but for legal forewarning — a fact Westminster is now institutionally bound to.

IV. Relief Sought

The requested reliefs were not extravagant. They were basic adherence to civilised conduct:

  1. Acknowledge the complaint

  2. Confirm no proceedings are underway

  3. Ensure written-only contact moving forward

  4. Investigate the use of safeguarding as intimidation

To ignore these is not incompetence. It is tactical negligence.

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not confuse politeness with compliance.
We filed this complaint to complete the evidentiary chain — the proof that Westminster was given notice, documentation, and a lawful chance to remedy.

They did not.

That decision now lives in the archive, alongside the email, the police report, the SWE referral, and the Ombudsman complaint.

This isn’t just a council failing.
This is what administrative retaliation looks like on record.

⟡ 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