Reference Number: SWANK/APPLICATION/0625-A01
⟡ “A seizure is not safeguarding when law is neither served nor seen.” ⟡
COURT SUBMISSION – EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER CHALLENGE
Metadata
Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/APPLICATION/0625-A01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Application_EPOChallenge_DischargeRequest.pdf
1-line summary: Formal court application to discharge Emergency Protection Order issued without legal service or safeguarding basis
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, four U.S. citizen children were removed from their home under an Emergency Protection Order that was never lawfully served. The applicant, a disabled mother, was given no prior warning, no legal documentation, and no time to respond. The children were taken by force while calm and playing — the applicant was in her bedroom unaware until they were already crying by the door, escorted by five police officers.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
No legal service or disclosure of the EPO prior to removal
No evidence of risk, harm, or imminent danger to justify emergency intervention
Existing legal proceedings (N1 civil claim, Judicial Review) already filed
No consular notification under the Vienna Convention
Known retaliation against a whistleblowing, disabled U.S. citizen parent
Complete lack of cross-border consultation regarding father and grandmother overseas
III. Why SWANK Logged It
This was not child protection. This was a seizure dressed in bureaucratic costume, designed to silence, disorient, and punish a mother for asserting procedural truth.
It’s not just a legal failure — it’s a jurisdictional fraud.
The removal occurred in open defiance of international treaty protections and documented disability accommodations.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, s.44 – Improper application of emergency powers
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Right to family life and fair legal process
Equality Act 2010 – Discriminatory action against a disabled individual
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 37 – Failure to notify U.S. Embassy
Data Protection Act 2018 – Mishandling of jurisdictional records and redirections
V. SWANK’s Position
The Emergency Protection Order is void in spirit and application.
Its enforcement relied on coercion, deception, and institutional dominance — not law.
The applicant did not receive legal service.
The children were not in danger.
The timing aligned with peak exposure of safeguarding misconduct.
This was not lawful action. It was documented retaliation.
SWANK London Ltd. formally calls for the discharge of the EPO, recognition of disability discrimination, and legal consequences for misuse of safeguarding authority.
⟡ 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.