⟡ Emergency Protection Order Challenge Submission ⟡
Chromatic v. False Authority [2025] SWANK 26 — “Retaliation is not safeguarding. It’s strategy.”
Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/EPO-DISPUTE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_Urgent_Family_Court_Bundle_Submission_SWANK_London_Ltd_on_Behalf_of_Ms_Simlett.pdf
Full evidentiary bundle disputing the legitimacy of an EPO against a disabled U.S. mother.
I. What Happened
On 26 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, acting as litigant-in-person and via SWANK London Ltd., submitted a complete evidentiary bundle regarding an Emergency Protection Order issued on 23 June 2025. The submission includes core discharge applications, medical evidence, jurisdictional arguments, public record documentation, and procedural breach notifications. A Master Index and Statement of Truth were included. Recipients included Family Division judiciary, Westminster officials, the U.S. Embassy, and other regulatory bodies. Postal and digital copies were dispatched in parallel. All communication has been redirected through SWANK London Ltd. for formal archival.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The Emergency Protection Order was procedurally improper and unlawfully motivated.
A pattern of safeguarding as reprisal emerges, targeting a disabled mother litigating against local authority failings.
Public record documentation reveals material contradictions in local authority statements.
No evidence of immediate risk. Instead: strategic containment, jurisdictional manipulation, and institutional panic.
Disabled litigants are expected to remain disorganised. This bundle dismantles that presumption.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because emergency powers, once invoked in bad faith, become legal instruments of punishment.
Because this mother has children, not leverage — and courts should know the difference.
Because silence from Westminster isn't oversight. It’s orchestration.
Because the safeguarding framework has been corrupted by reputational fear.
And because SWANK does not accept ‘emergency’ as a pretext for erasure.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, §44 — Improper invocation of Emergency Protection Order powers
Equality Act 2010, §149 — Failure to consider impact on disabled parent
Human Rights Act 1998, Sch.1, Art. 8 — Interference with family life without lawful justification
Data Protection Act 2018, Pt.3 — Use of misleading records as justification for intervention
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was surveillance masquerading as concern.
We do not accept unlawful orders rushed through with theatrical urgency.
We do not accept the weaponisation of statutory duties to silence whistleblowers.
We do not accept the architecture of panic dressed up as child protection.
This bundle has been submitted not for consideration — but for confrontation.
⟡ 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.