“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 verbal breach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label verbal breach. 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:

Ten Years of Intrusion. One Formal Email.


⟡ SWANK Psychological Harm Ledger ⟡

“We Told You There Were No Concerns. You Called That Evasion.”
Filed: 18 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CHILD-INTRUSION-DISABILITY
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-18_SWANK_Westminster_Complaint_TraumatisingInvestigations_ChildWelfareIntrusion_DisabilityImpact.pdf

I. There Were No Concerns. But You Made an Investigation Anyway.

This formal complaint, submitted to Westminster City Council on 18 October 2024, documents the psychological violence inflicted through unlawful, sustained, and medically harmful safeguarding inquiries — with no statutory trigger, no disclosed risk, and no lawful basis.

The children were well.
The parent was protective.
The system was relentless.

When truth didn’t justify escalation, they substituted intrusion.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • Repeated child welfare investigations with no credible allegations

  • Complete absence of statutory thresholds or safeguarding risk

  • Emotional and psychological harm caused by:

    • Prolonged scrutiny

    • Communication method breaches

    • Ongoing refusal to respect written-only adjustments

  • Disability exacerbation and fear of retaliation as lasting effects

  • Westminster’s refusal to acknowledge:

    • The family’s protected rights

    • The legal sufficiency of prior disclosures

    • The harmful cumulative impact of being investigated for parenting rather than supported for disability

This wasn’t child protection.

It was state paranoia disguised as protocol.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you report illness, they demand performance.
Because when you request written communication, they send another home visit.
Because when you show no signs of risk, they demand signs of submission.

We filed this because:

  • There was no risk

  • There was no concern

  • There was no justification

  • And yet, there was an investigation

Let the record show:

  • The family did not fail

  • The system did not pause

  • The breach was not accidental

  • And the complaint — is now in the archive

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept bureaucratic obsession as care.
We do not permit institutional suspicion to masquerade as safety.
We do not let councils punish silence and dignity as though they were danger.

Let the record show:

The request was lawful.
The children were safe.
The harm was caused by intrusion.
And the response — is now public.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was unlicensed curiosity with institutional teeth.

⟡ 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