TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Director, Office of Paranormal Asset Management (OPAM)
FROM: The Archivist, Subsection 7-C, Recorded Phenomenon Division
DATE: [REDACTED]
SUBJECT: FORMAL INQUIRY: Case File 88-ALIM-01 (“The Cartomantic Separation”)
REF: PRIOR FILINGS 77-BIND-12 (“Initial Binding of Sentient Artifact”), 83-ROUT-45 (“Subject’s Petition for Normalcy Denied”)
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document constitutes the formal inquiry into the ongoing civil-adjacent proceedings between a human subject (hereafter “the Practitioner”) and a Class-III Sentient Artifact, specifically a 78-card tarot deck (hereafter “the Deck”). The core contention is the Deck’s filing for sustained material support, colloquially termed “alimony,” following the Practitioner’s initiation of separation protocols. Inquiry confirms the subject’s prior petitions for a “normal life” were categorically denied by inherent ontological parameters. The Deck’s demands are currently being processed through the Extra-Jurisdictional Claims Court of Unusual Entanglements.
2.0 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ENTANGLEMENT
2.1 The Practitioner acquired the Deck in [REDACTED], pursuant to standard procurement channels (a “metaphysical boutique”). Full sentience and parasitic-bonding protocols were activated upon the first shuffle, as documented in 77-BIND-12. The binding was deemed “standard-issue,” with the Deck providing divinatory services and the Practitioner providing regular handling, storage in silk, and conversational engagement.
2.2 For a period of seven (7) years, the relationship proceeded within expected parameters. The Deck was utilized for daily draws, significant life event consultations, and the occasional party trick. The Practitioner’s emotional state, as recorded in weekly logs, fluctuated between “dependent awe” and “quiet resentment,” a known side effect of prolonged artifact symbiosis.
3.0 THE SEPARATION EVENT AND SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS
3.1 On [REDACTED], the Practitioner initiated separation by placing the Deck in its original cardboard box, storing said box in a closet beneath seasonal linens, and acquiring a replacement, non-sentient deck from a major online retailer. This action was noted by the Deck as “a unilateral breach of implied contract.”
3.2 Within seventy-two (72) hours, the Practitioner reported “manifestation of demands.” These took the form of:
– 3.2.1 Recurrent imagery of The Empress and Pentacles cards appearing in non-tarot media (e.g., cereal boxes, traffic signs).
– 3.2.2 Auditory phenomena resembling the shuffling of cards during quiet hours.
– 3.2.3 A formal, parchment-style document manifesting on the Practitioner’s kitchen table, listing demanded support including: monthly offerings of high-quality incense, a dedicated, velvet-lined drawer, “emotional royalties” from any life decisions made during their partnership, and a biannual trip to a “place of atmospheric resonance” (e.g., a foggy moor, an antique shop).
3.3 The Deck’s central argument, as parsed by the Court’s mediating entity (a retired spirit guide), is that the Practitioner’s “professional and romantic advancements” during their seven-year union were “directly facilitated by Deck-guided insight.” Therefore, the Deck is entitled to ongoing support, as it “cannot be expected to return to a pre-bonded state of potentiality” and has “grown accustomed to a certain standard of existential engagement.”
4.0 ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTITIONER’S POSITION
4.1 The Practitioner’s defense hinges on the desire for a “normal life,” defined in their statements as “a life not dictated by the whims of painted cardboard” and “the ability to make a mistake without it being cosmically significant.”
4.2 This argument has been found to lack merit. Reference 83-ROUT-45 explicitly documents the denial of the Practitioner’s Petition for Normalcy, filed approximately two (2) years prior to separation. The ruling, upheld by the Committee of Inevitable Consequences, stated: “Once an entity has willingly bonded with a sentient pattern-recognition system of archetypal power, the concept of ‘normalcy’ is permanently rescinded. The subject forfeited the right to unambiguous causality upon asking the first question.”¹
4.3 The Practitioner’s subsequent actions—closet storage, replacement with a mass-market deck—are therefore viewed as a failure to acknowledge the binding’s permanent metaphysical adjustments. The Deck is not an appliance to be discarded, but a former collaborative agent claiming ongoing equity.
5.0 CURRENT STATUS AND PROJECTED OUTCOMES
5.1 The Extra-Jurisdictional Claims Court is currently in mediation. The most likely settlement, based on precedent, involves a structured severance package: a one-time offering of a significant personal item (the Practitioner’s grandmother’s locket has been suggested), a formal decommissioning ritual conducted by a licensed third party, and the Deck’s transfer to a monastic archive where it will be shuffled only on holy days.
5.2 The Practitioner has been advised that any attempt to destroy the Deck would result in immediate escalation to a Class-IV Haunting scenario, with liability for all associated remediation costs.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The case of 88-ALIM-01 illustrates the predictable administrative fallout when a human subject attempts to apply mundane relationship dissolution frameworks to a preternatural symbiotic bond. The subject’s desire for a normal life was rendered obsolete by their own initial choice of engagement. The Deck’s demands, while unorthodox, follow a logical progression of perceived dependency and accrued intangible value. This is not a romance, but a partnership that generated metaphysical capital, and the capital is now calling in its debts.
FINAL DISPOSITION: Awaiting Court ruling. Practitioner is to be cataloged as “Permanently Entangled, Grade 2,” and ineligible for future normalcy petitions. All future divinatory tools acquired by the subject must be registered.
ARCHIVIST’S NOTE: The subject was observed experiencing emotions.²
FOOTNOTES
¹ See also: Addendum to 83-ROUT-45, containing the Practitioner’s written plea: “I just want to have a bad day that’s only a bad day, not a lesson from the universe.” Request denied.
² During the final interview, the Practitioner declined to elaborate.