DAC Beachcroft LLP — Procedural Interference, False Authority, and Intimidation (14 November 2025 Event)

Reading County Court — Skeleton Argument During Judicial Silence and Continuation of the “Fear Economy” Method

A skeleton argument served into a frozen court, unsealed judicial letters, and a bundle of unsolicited cases evidence of procedural interference layered on top of an already collapsing local justice system in claim M05ZA443.

1. Overview — Skeleton Argument Served During Court Silence

On 14 November 2025, DAC Beachcroft LLP served a Skeleton Argument directly on the Claimant while Reading County Court remained non-responsive:

• no acknowledgement of the Claimant’s N244 filed 14 April 2025
• no confirmation of the alleged hearing listed for 18 November 2025
• no sealed order or CE-File entry
• no directions for evidence or argument
• no response to DAC Beachcroft’s own chasing emails

This followed the unsealed 12 September 2025 letter attributed to Deputy District Judge Hocking, sent by post only, not recorded digitally, and containing procedural misstatements as to:

• the existence of a Defendant strike-out application
• the treatment of the Claimant’s N244
• the refusal of transfer to the High Court

The combined effect is a collapse of procedural equilibrium at Reading County Court, exploited and intensified by DAC Beachcroft LLP through misrepresentation of legal authority and intimidation by process.

2. Evidence — Judicial Freeze and Defence-Side Escalation

The documentary record shows the following sequence:

• clerks initially respond promptly to the Claimant by email
• a rogue judicial letter is later issued by post only, unsealed and off-record
• subsequent emails from the Claimant are ignored
• DAC Beachcroft emails the court receives no reply
• DAC emails again still no reply
• DAC then serves a Skeleton Argument and a bundle of “cases” directly on the Claimant
• the court remains silent throughout

The administrative staff appear frozen; only unsealed judicial letters and third-party pressure remain active. Into that vacuum DAC Beachcroft attempts to manufacture procedural reality by deploying a higher-court instrument (a skeleton) at the wrong time, in the wrong forum and without any directions.

3. CPR Analysis — Improper Skeleton Argument and Application Evidence

I. Civil Procedure Rules — Rule 23.7 (Service of Evidence on Applications)

Evidence in support of or in answer to an application must be filed and served in accordance with the court’s directions and applicable time limits.

ANALYSIS:
NO DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT IN RESPECT OF ANY STRIKE-OUT APPLICATION.
THE DEFENDANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT WAS NOT SERVED PURSUANT TO ANY ORDER AND IS THEREFORE PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE AND VOID AS APPLICATION EVIDENCE.

II. Civil Procedure Rules — Rule 39.5 (Skeleton Arguments and Hearing Preparation)

Skeleton arguments are to be filed and exchanged in accordance with directions given for the hearing of the claim or application.

ANALYSIS:
NO SEALED LISTING ORDER EXISTS; NO TIMETABLE FOR SKELETON ARGUMENTS HAS BEEN SET.
SERVING A SKELETON ARGUMENT BEFORE ANY VALID LISTING OR DIRECTIONS CONVERTS A CASE-MANAGEMENT TOOL INTO AN INTIMIDATION INSTRUMENT AGAINST A LITIGANT IN PERSON.
THIS IS AN ABUSE OF CPR 39.5.

III. Civil Procedure Rules — Rule 3.4(2)(b) (Abuse of Process)

The court may strike out a statement of case if it is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

ANALYSIS:
THE DEPLOYMENT OF A PREMATURE SKELETON ARGUMENT AND A BUNDLE OF IRRELEVANT CASES, WHILE THE COURT IS SILENT AND THE CLAIMANT’S N244 IS UNDETERMINED, IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF PROCEDURAL ABUSE.
IT SEEKS TO CREATE A FALSE IMPRESSION OF PROCEDURAL INEVITABILITY AND TO PRESSURE THE CLAIMANT RATHER THAN ASSIST THE COURT.

IV. Civil Procedure Rules — Rule 1.3 (Parties’ Duty to Help the Court)

The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.

ANALYSIS:
RATHER THAN ASSISTING THE COURT TO MANAGE THE CASE JUSTLY, THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS EXPLOIT JUDICIAL SILENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FREEZE, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE UNDER RULE 1.1.

4. Jurisdiction and Venue — Misstatement of Transfer Power

I. Practice Direction 7A — Paragraphs 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 (High-Value Claims and Transfer to the High Court)

Claims exceeding £100,000, and those involving complex questions of law or public-interest issues, should be transferred to the High Court unless otherwise directed by a Master or a Designated Civil Judge.

ANALYSIS:
THE CLAIMANT’S AMENDED VALUE EXCEEDS £10 MILLION AND ENGAGES CIVIL RIGHTS, DATA-GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC-AUTHORITY ISSUES. A DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE HAS NO POWER, VIA AN UNSEALED LETTER, TO FINALLY DETERMINE THAT THE MATTER “IS NOT BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE HIGH COURT”.
ANY SUCH ASSERTION IS ULTRA VIRES AND CANNOT LAWFULLY DEFINE VENUE OR JURISDICTION.

5. Record-Keeping and Judicial Freeze — Off-Record Letters and CE-File Omission

I. HMCTS Digital Communications Protocol (2024) and Record-Management Duties

Responses to digital correspondence should, absent a sealed order, be issued through the same channel and recorded within the official case-management system.

ANALYSIS:
THE 12 SEPTEMBER 2025 LETTER WAS:
• NOT EMAILED
• NOT SEALED
• NOT LOGGED ON CE-FILE
• NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY FORMAL ORDER

THIS BREACHES THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (SECTION 3), THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 2018 (ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLE) AND HMCTS RECORD-MANAGEMENT POLICY. THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAYER IS EFFECTIVELY FROZEN; ONLY OFF-RECORD JUDICIAL LETTERS AND DEFENCE-SIDE PRESSURE REMAIN ACTIVE.

6. Statutory Harassment, False Representation and the “Fear Economy”

I. Fraud Act 2006 — Section 2 (False Representation)

A person is guilty of fraud if they dishonestly make a false representation, intending to make a gain or cause loss or risk of loss to another.

ANALYSIS:
DAC BEACHCROFT’S EARLIER ENVELOPE PRACTICE COURT-LIKE STATIONERY, SYNCHRONISED POSTING WITH CNBC MAIL AND THE CURRENT DEPLOYMENT OF A PREMATURE SKELETON ARGUMENT BOTH OPERATE AS FALSE REPRESENTATIONS OF PROCEDURAL AUTHORITY.
THEY PRESENT DOCUMENTS AS IF THEY WERE PART OF A LAWFULLY STRUCTURED PROCESS WHEN, IN FACT, NO SUCH PROCESS HAS BEEN VALIDLY ENGAGED.

II. Administration of Justice Act 1970 — Section 40 (Harassment and Intimidation by Process)

It is unlawful to engage in conduct calculated to subject another to alarm, distress, or humiliation through the misuse of process or appearance of official authority.

ANALYSIS:
SENDING A SKELETON ARGUMENT AND A BUNDLE OF CASES INTO A CONTEXT OF JUDICIAL SILENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FREEZE IS NOT NEUTRAL CORRESPONDENCE; IT IS PROCEDURAL HARASSMENT. IT SEEKS TO OVERWHELM AND INTIMIDATE A VULNERABLE LITIGANT RATHER THAN FACILITATE JUST ADJUDICATION.

III. Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 6, 8 and 13 (Fair Hearing, Privacy and Effective Remedy)

Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal, with respect for their correspondence and an effective remedy for breaches.

ANALYSIS:
OFF-RECORD JUDICIAL LETTERS, ABSENT DIGITAL LOGGING, COMBINED WITH DEFENCE-SIDE INTIMIDATION AND A LACK OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF LIVE APPLICATIONS, VIOLATE THE PRACTICAL ENJOYMENT OF ARTICLES 6, 8 AND 13.
THE RESULT IS A COURT THAT EXISTS ON PAPER, BUT NOT IN FUNCTION.

IV. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) — Retaliation Against Whistleblowing

Protected disclosures regarding systemic failure must not attract retaliation or detriment.

ANALYSIS:
THIS CLAIM FORMS PART OF A WIDER PUBLIC-INTEREST DISCLOSURE OF SYSTEMIC FAILURE ACROSS COURTS, HEALTHCARE, WELFARE AND HOUSING. DAC BEACHCROFT’S ESCALATING INTIMIDATION DURING LITIGATION IS RETALIATORY IN NATURE AND CONTRARY TO THE PROTECTIONS INTENDED BY PIDA.

V. SRA Principles (2024 Edition) — Rule of Law, Integrity, Independence and Standard of Service

Solicitors must uphold the rule of law, act with integrity, act independently, and provide a proper standard of service to clients and the public.

ANALYSIS:
BY LEVERAGING JUDICIAL SILENCE, SERVING UNORDERED SKELETON ARGUMENTS, DUMPING IRRELEVANT CASES AND MIRRORING COURT AUTHORITY, DAC BEACHCROFT HAS BREACHED PRINCIPLES 1–3 AND 5. ITS CONDUCT CORRODES PUBLIC TRUST IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND CONFIRMS ITS ROLE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL CAPTURE RATHER THAN NEUTRAL REPRESENTATION.

7. Truthfarian Equilibrium Analysis – Systemic Collapse Signature

Within the Truthfarian framework, equilibrium across procedure, rights, law and ethics is expressed as:

Eq(𝓢) = f(𝓟, 𝓡, 𝓛, 𝓔)

where:

𝓟 = Procedural Integrity
𝓡 = Rights Recognition
𝓛 = Lawfulness
𝓔 = Ethical Neutrality

IN THIS EVENT:
𝓟 ↓ (PROCEDURE COLLAPSES INTO FREEZE AND OFF-RECORD LETTERS)
𝓡 ↓ (THE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATIONS ARE IGNORED AND RIGHTS ARE MARGINALISED)
𝓛 ↓ (CPR, PD7A, HMCTS PROTOCOLS AND HUMAN-RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS ARE BREACHED)
𝓔 ↓ (ETHICAL NEUTRALITY IS REPLACED BY INSTITUTIONAL ALIGNMENT AND FEAR ECONOMY)

THEREFORE Eq(𝓢) → 0 — A COMPLETE EQUILIBRIUM COLLAPSE.

8. Conclusion – Procedural Interference and Continuation of the Fear Economy

The Skeleton Argument of 14 November 2025, served in the absence of directions, during judicial silence and against the backdrop of unsealed, unrecorded judicial correspondence, is not an administrative accident. It is the continuation of a documented pattern:

• impersonation of legal authority through envelopes and timing
• exploitation of administrative paralysis
• intimidation by documentary overburdening
• misstatement of jurisdiction and venue
• erosion of fair-hearing guarantees
• retaliation against public-interest disclosure

Under the Truthfarian doctrine, this disclosure records not merely individual error but a systemic fault-line in the justice infrastructure at Reading County Court. It stands as lawful evidence that the civic equation — truth as equilibrium between law and conscience — has been inverted.

9. Exhibits / Source Index

• Exhibit A – Letter dated 12 September 2025 (attributed to DDJ Hocking)
• Exhibit B – Email threads between Claimant and Reading County Court (August–November 2025)
• Exhibit C – DAC Beachcroft emails to Reading County Court (November 2025)
• Exhibit D – DAC Beachcroft Skeleton Argument and case-bundle served 14 November 2025
• Exhibit E – Envelope and stationery comparison archive (CNBC vs DAC Beachcroft)
• Exhibit F – Prior Truthfarian Disclosure: “DAC Beachcroft LLP — Impersonation of Legal Authority and the Fear Economy”