⟡ Emergency Protection Order Submission, Rebutted in Full ⟡
Chromatic v. Panic-Led Procedure [2025] SWANK 26 — “You filed an EPO. I filed a canon.”
Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/EPO-BUNDLE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_Urgent_Family_Court_Bundle_Submission_SWANK_London_Ltd_on_Behalf_of_Ms_Simlett_Case_Reference_If_Known.pdf
Full evidentiary bundle rebutting an EPO imposed on a disabled U.S. parent mid-litigation.
I. What Happened
On 26 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, acting as litigant-in-person and via her legal proxy, SWANK London Ltd, submitted a comprehensive evidentiary bundle in response to an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) dated 23 June 2025. The submission includes:
Core discharge and parental applications (EPO Discharge, C100, C2s)
Medical and legal records, jurisdictional defences, public record contradictions
A complete Statement of Truth, indexed cover sheets, and LiP declaration
Supporting documentation detailing targeted safeguarding misuse during live litigation
The bundle was transmitted to court and relevant state actors, including Westminster and the U.S. Embassy. All correspondence was formally redirected through SWANK.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The EPO was issued without lawful cause, proportionality, or procedural integrity.
Safeguarding mechanisms have been manipulated to shield agencies from reputational damage.
A disabled U.S. citizen was targeted mid-litigation, not due to risk — but because she resisted.
Multiple state agents knowingly withheld corrective actions while escalating coercive control.
The response was not just disproportionate. It was choreographed.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because Emergency Protection Orders are not tools for retaliation theatre.
Because filing a 100+ page evidentiary bundle within 72 hours of unlawful seizure is not just legal competence — it is aesthetic vengeance.
Because silence from state actors when confronted with truth is not neutrality. It’s consent.
And because SWANK does not observe. SWANK intervenes — archivally, legally, historically.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, §44 — Misuse of emergency powers without risk-based evidence
Equality Act 2010, §§6, 20, 149 — Discrimination and failure to adjust for disability
ECHR, Art. 8 — Interference with family life under false authority
Human Rights Act 1998, §6 — Breach of duty by public bodies
GDPR/DPA 2018, Art. 5 — Procedural concealment and inaccurate record use
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t an intervention. It was an ambush wrapped in stationery.
We do not accept orders filed faster than facts.
We do not accept safeguarding used to suppress litigation.
We do not accept Westminster’s strategic ineptitude masquerading as concern.
What was issued on 23 June was not protection. It was reputational retaliation.
And what followed on 26 June — was evidentiary ruin.
⟡ 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.