🪞In the Court of Breath and Books
Polly Chromatic v. The Myth of Evasion
⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Filed Date: 13 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A09-VOICE-REPRESENTATION
Court File Name: 2025-07-13_Addendum_LegalRepresentation_VocalLimitations_LiPStudy.pdf
Summary: A formal position clarifying the Claimant’s legal representation status, vocal limitations due to disability, and her ongoing legal education as a litigant in person.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic is not refusing representation.
She is waiting for one that reads.
She has contacted firms. She has provided bundles. She has endured condescension from solicitors unwilling to read more than a page. She has done all this while clinically unable to speak for long periods, her voice stripped away by sewer gas-induced asthma and muscle dysphonia — conditions documented, diagnosed, and ignored.
In the meantime, she studies.
She reads Bromley’s Family Law.
She footnotes. She annotates. She files.
And yet the myth persists: that she is somehow avoiding help, gaming the system, or uncooperative. It’s not uncooperation — it’s overqualification with a side of trauma.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The Claimant is open to legal representation — but not to uninformed substitution.
Her vocal impairments are clinically diagnosed, disabling, and aggravated by procedural repetition.
She is an active legal learner, studying statutory frameworks and case law to comply and participate meaningfully.
Repetition, re-explaining, and disregard of previous filings constitute procedural harm.
Her position is grounded in lawful rights and informed limitations — not defiance.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because disability is not delay.
Because studying family law while fighting to keep your family is not arrogance — it’s grace under siege.
Because no one should be asked to repeat their pain to professionals too lazy to read it.
Because a woman who can’t breathe shouldn’t have to shout to be heard.
IV. Violations (Implied or Risked)
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate communication impairments
Children and Families Act 2014, Part 3 – Inadequate recognition of disability
ECHR, Article 6 & Article 8 – Fair trial and family life rights impeded by failure to accommodate
Court Duty of Fair Process – Procedural burdens imposed disproportionately on disabled litigants
As Bromley’s Family Law (11th Ed., p. 612) reminds us:
“The court has a continuing obligation to ensure the process remains fair and accessible to all parties, especially where a litigant’s capacity is affected by disability, trauma, or procedural fatigue.”
V. SWANK’s Position
Polly Chromatic is not evading the system. She is educating herself to survive it.
She is not resisting solicitors. She is demanding that they read.
She is not avoiding responsibility. She is rewriting what responsibility looks like — in citations, filings, and footnoted breath.
And she will keep filing, with or without a voice, until the court system realises that accessibility is not optional.
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
📍 Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.
⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.