“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 court filing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court filing. Show all posts

Addendum Filed. Because the Harm Didn’t Stop After the Claim.


⟡ SWANK Legal Continuity Archive ⟡

“You Ignored the First Statement. Here’s What Happened Next.”
Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/N1/ADDENDUM/STKATHERINES
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-18_SWANK_CourtLetter_UpdatedWitnessStatement_Addendum_N1_Simlett.pdf

I. A Witness Statement Was Filed. They Continued Anyway.

This document is not a courtesy.
It is a formal update and procedural escalation submitted to the County Court Money Claims Centre at St Katharine’s House, London — addressed to those who either failed to respond to the harm or continued inflicting it despite pending litigation.

The original witness statement was dated 5 May 2025.
The events necessitating this addendum occurred immediately after.

They read the claim.

And responded with more breach.

II. What the Addendum Records

  • New instances of verbal contact forced, despite clinical adjustments on record

  • Email and phone contact attempts made in breach of:

    • N1 claim protections

    • The Equality Act 2010

    • Prior police reports and regulatory filings

  • Formal reassertion of:

    • The legal basis for written-only communication

    • The psychiatric and respiratory risk created by unsolicited contact

  • Request for acknowledgment and accommodation by the court itself

This wasn’t a supplemental filing.

It was a warning: continued breach has been logged.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because witness statements don’t expire just because the system pretends not to read them.
Because when public bodies continue to harm after litigation is filed, they’re not negligent — they’re calculated.

We filed this because:

  • The retaliation was escalated post-claim

  • The adjustments were still ignored

  • The County Court had to be told — plainly, and in writing

Let the record show:

  • The harm continued

  • The complaint expanded

  • The statement evolved

  • And the archive — caught it all

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not file claims for sport.
We do not submit witness statements as emotional gestures.
We do not tolerate retaliation continuing under the nose of a pending case.

Let the record show:

The court was informed.
The breaches were recent.
The witnesses are still harmed.
And SWANK — keeps the timeline intact.

This wasn’t an update.
It was a notification of persistence — and of legal contempt made 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 Moment They Could No Longer Pretend Not to Know


⟡ Procedural Contact: CNBC Acknowledged the Claim ⟡

Filed: 25 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/N1/CNBC/CLAIM-SUB-01
Author: Polly Chromatic
Jurisdiction: Civil National Business Centre (CNBC), HMCTS

📎 Download the Filing Email (PDF)
Formal N1 Claim Submission to CNBC – Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett v. Multiple Defendants
Includes full email header, timestamped metadata, and proof of lawful submission

I. The Email That Ended Pretence

At precisely 21:06 GMT on the evening of 25 March 2025, the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) received what they could no longer ignore: a formal submission of claim, filed in the name of Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett, and lodged against multiple defendants for clinical negligence, discrimination, and procedural misconduct.

No ambiguity. No misplaced attachment. No excuse.
They received it. They were copied. And the clock began ticking.

II. Submission as Evidence, Not Request

In this jurisdictional ballet of bureaucratic foot-dragging and clerical vanishing acts, the email itself is a sword:

It affirms jurisdiction, initiates procedural responsibility, and renders any subsequent “miscommunication” legally suspect.

The address used — Applications.CNBC@justice.gov.uk — is not a customer service line. It is the door to litigation. And SWANK, with its velvet ledger, recorded the knock.

III. Archival Elegance: Why This Matters

This email marks the first moment of formal procedural engagement with the court. It is not merely administrative; it is jurisprudential theatre. The kind where silence from the other side isn’t discretion — it’s defeat.

For future reference, rebuttal, or reminder:

They knew. They were served. They proceeded anyway.

⟡ 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