Affidavit of Truth & Court of Record

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH, COURT OF RECORD, AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

From: Jason : (Family Tyldesley) 

Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek, Holsworthy, Devon, EX22 7JN

To: 

Huw Morgan – Legal Adviser, Cardiff Magistrates’ Court 

Cardiff Magistrates’ Court, Fitzalan Place, Cardiff, CF24 0RZ 

Louise Smyth CBE – Chief Executive Officer, Companies House 

Jamie Phillips – Agent, Companies House 

Pete Cowan – Prosecuting Officer, Companies House 

Lee Jenkins – Prosecuting Officer, Companies House

Date: 25th July 2025

Court Reference : 2500056578 Company Nos: 12763398 & 12758334

OPENING STATEMENT

I, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), a living man born of woman, make this affidavit in my natural, private capacity under common law, with full knowledge and intent.

I convene this Court of Record under common law for the purpose of establishing truth and creating a perpetual judicial memorial of the unrebutted facts, defaults, and liabilities arising from the claims and actions of Companies House and Cardiff Magistrates’ Court in relation to me and associated legal fictions.

At its core, this matter raises the most fundamental question in law: how does one being, born equal and free upon the earth, gain lawful authority over another? What is presented as the routine enforcement of legislation is, in truth, the assertion of authority by one group of beings (government officers) over another equal being. The only lawful mechanism by which such authority can be exercised is through voluntary, informed, contractual agreement. Absent such agreement, any enforcement of statute against a living man or woman constitutes unlawful trespass.

It is the truth of this case that no lawful jurisdiction has ever been proven, despite multiple good‑faith opportunities provided through conditional acceptances and notices of challenge. The continued pursuit of claims, penalties, and orders in the absence of proven jurisdiction constitutes a direct and knowing trespass upon my inalienable rights — rights which the justice system and its officers are sworn to uphold.

Companies House, being a legal fiction, cannot act of itself. All actions in its name are executed by living men and women, who now act in their private capacity and therefore bear full personal and commercial liability for trespass, misrepresentation, coercion, and fraud under colour of law.

Any man or woman wishing to challenge this Court of Record must do so by sworn affidavit, under full commercial and personal liability, within fourteen (14) days of service. Failure to rebut under oath constitutes agreement to the facts and liabilities set out herein.

1. DECLARATION OF STATUS

I, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), a living man born of woman, affirm from my own firsthand knowledge that the facts herein are true, correct, and made in good faith.

I hold inalienable rights which cannot be transferred, waived, or removed except by explicit, voluntary, and informed agreement.

I am not, and do not consent to act as, the legal fiction “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY” or any other corporate/artificial entity. I do not recognise the presumption of statutory jurisdiction over my living being in the absence of lawful, fully informed, and voluntary joinder.

I retain all rights, remedies, and freedoms under common law.

1A. CONVENING A COURT OF RECORD

This affidavit, being sworn and witnessed, constitutes a sovereign Court of Record under common law.

By swearing and witnessing these truths, I convene a lawful court of record, recognised in English common law as the highest form of testimony.

As Sir William Blackstone stated in Commentaries on the Laws of England (Book III, Ch. 23):

“A court of record is that where the acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled for a perpetual memorial and testimony.”

This means:

• These statements now stand as judicial record.

• Any unrebutted facts within this affidavit become binding in law.

• Only a higher court of record (or sworn rebuttal under oath by a competent man or woman) may challenge these statements.

Thus, this affidavit is not merely correspondence — it is a living court of record, convened to establish truth, resolve controversy, and protect rights. Any man or woman who fails to rebut these sworn statements under oath agrees to their truth by acquiescence.

1B. ON LAW, LEGALISM, AND MISUSE OF THE TERM “PSEUDO‑LEGAL”

The responses from Companies House — particularly those of Prosecutor Pete Cowan — demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding and conflation of concepts: treating the administration of legislation (“what is legal”) as though it were law itself.

True law precedes and underpins all legislative acts. It rests on inalienable rights, the equality of all beings, and the principle that no one may exercise authority over another absent voluntary, informed agreement. Statutes are subordinate administrative rules which only apply by consent or contract.

To dismiss reliance upon these lawful principles as “pseudo‑legal” is to reveal a failure to distinguish between law (the immutable foundation binding all) and legalism (the internal mechanisms of a legislative system). This conflation undermines justice and obscures the real issue at hand: by what lawful authority do you act against me, a living man?

This Court of Record clarifies that this matter is not about technical statutory compliance. It is about the lawful basis — or absence thereof — for asserting authority over an equal being.

2. DETAILED CHRONOLOGY OF CLAIMS, NOTICES, AND UNREBUTTED TRUTHS

26 May 2022 – Companies House (Statutory Notice) Recipient: Myself. Response: Statutory notice of overdue accounts for period ending 31/07/2021, threatening penalties and prosecution. Unrebutted Truth: Administrative threat; no proof of lawful authority or contract.

13 September 2022 – Conditional Acceptance & Proof of Claim Request 

Recipient: Louise Smyth (Companies House) & Jim Harra (HMRC). 

Response: Conditional acceptance of Companies House and HMRC claims, subject to detailed proof (17‑point request covering contract, jurisdiction, lawful authority, and use of funds). Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal or sworn evidence; Companies House and HMRC placed on notice of personal liability.

11 October 2022 – Response to Gazette Notices 

Recipient: Louise Smyth (Companies House). 

Response: Challenged First Gazette notices for strike‑off as clerical error; reiterated non‑consent to statutory authority and asserted right to trade. Demanded withdrawal of strike‑off and lawful basis for obligations. Unrebutted Truth: No lawful response or withdrawal provided; strike‑off actions proceeded absent rebuttal.

10 May 2023 – Companies House (Overdue Accounts Notice) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Overdue accounts notice warning of penalties and prosecution. Unrebutted Truth: Administrative threat; no proof of authority provided.

24 May 2023 – Conditional Acceptance & Full Proof of Claim Request 

Recipient: Louise Smyth (Companies House). 

Response: Detailed conditional acceptance of all Companies House claims, challenging authority to compel obligations without proven voluntary consent. Required signed proof of contract, evidence of lawful authority, and meeting of minds. Unrebutted Truth: No lawful rebuttal; Companies House failed to meet the 21‑day deadline, leaving claims unproven.

21 June 2023 – Jamie Phillips (Compliance Response) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Reiterated Companies Act duties and penalties; refused to address jurisdictional challenge. Unrebutted Truth: Dismissal, not rebuttal; no lawful proof of claim provided.

11 July 2023 – Follow‑Up & Stop Dissolution Demand 

Recipient: Louise Smyth & Jamie Phillips (Companies House). 

Response: Reiterated conditional acceptance, demanded cessation of dissolution actions and proof of lawful authority. Highlighted lack of consent to statutory obligations and challenged their claims of automatic penalties. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal or proof provided; estoppel by silence continues.

20 January 2024 – Companies House (Gazette & Compliance Letters) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Further Gazette strike‑off notices and compliance threats addressed to “THE DIRECTORS.” Unrebutted Truth: Administrative notices; no lawful authority proven.

24 January 2024 – Third Notice to Prove Claim & Liability Warning 

Recipient: Louise Smyth & Jamie Phillips (Companies House). 

Response: Third notice demanding proof of lawful authority and consent; warned of accumulating personal liability for unlawful actions, coercion, and trespass. Unrebutted Truth: No lawful rebuttal; personal liability for all named agents stands.

13 September 2024 – Companies House (Warning Letters) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Further compliance notices for Zen Jungle entities. Unrebutted Truth: Administrative warning; no lawful rebuttal or proof of authority.

9 December 2024 – Further Notice Regarding Lawful Basis 

Recipient: Jamie Phillips & Louise Smyth (Companies House). 

Response: Challenged Companies House assertion that “the registrar has no need to prove lawfulness”; reaffirmed conditional acceptance and demand for proof of lawful authority and evidence of contract. Unrebutted Truth: No lawful rebuttal or evidence provided.

3 December 2024 – Companies House (Prosecution Threat) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Compliance & Enforcement instructs prosecuting solicitor to begin criminal proceedings. Unrebutted Truth: Administrative threat; no lawful rebuttal or jurisdictional proof provided.

27 December 2024 – Conditional Acceptance 

Recipient: Jamie Phillips & Louise Smyth (Companies House). 

Response: Conditional acceptance of Companies House claims upon proof of jurisdiction, lawful authority, and contract with two wet signatures. Unrebutted Truth: No lawful evidence provided. Companies House placed on notice of personal liability for misrepresentation.

28 January 2025 – Final Conditional Acceptance 

Recipient: Jamie Phillips & Louise Smyth (Companies House). 

Response: Reaffirmed conditional acceptance for all Companies House obligations relating to me or associated entities, demanded lawful proof of authority and contract. Unrebutted Truth: No lawful evidence provided; standing estoppel begins.

3 February 2025 – Lee Jenkins (Prosecution Warning) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Notification of imminent prosecution, with summons date set for 28 March 2025. Unrebutted Truth: Administrative threat; no lawful evidence of authority or consent provided.

4 March 2025 – Jurisdictional Challenge & Demand for Proof 

Recipient: Lee Jenkins (Companies House). 

Response: Challenged Companies House statutory claims, demanded evidence of jurisdiction over the living man and proof of consent. Unrebutted Truth: No lawful rebuttal; unrebutted allegations of coercion and misrepresentation.

12 March 2025 – Pete Cowan (Prosecution Letter) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Confirms authorisation of prosecution; states that my reliance on common law jurisdiction has “no basis in law.” Unrebutted Truth: Dismissal, not rebuttal; no sworn affidavit or lawful proof provided.

19 March 2025 – Final Notice & Revocation of Assumed Authority 

Recipient: Pete Cowan (Companies House). 

Response: Rejected fraudulent summons and demanded strict proof of claim and lawful authority. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal; unrebutted allegations of fraud and malicious prosecution.

25 March 2025 – Pete Cowan (Prosecution Warning) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Confirms trial will proceed absent filings by 28 March 2025. Unrebutted Truth: No engagement with jurisdiction challenge.

16 April – 16 May 2025 – Series of Prosecutor’s Letters 

Recipient: Myself and the Court. 

Response: Multiple letters from Pete Cowan, Companies House Prosecutor, dismissing my lawful notices as “pseudo‑legal” and repeatedly citing Kofa v Oldham [2024] EWHC 685 (Admin) as justification for proceeding without my consent. These letters indicated an intention to proceed even in my absence. Unrebutted Truth: These communications did not meet the standards of lawful rebuttal — they were neither sworn affidavits nor responsive to the specific points raised in my notices. A full rebuttal to the misapplication of Kofa v Oldham has already been provided in my prior correspondence, leaving the matter unrebutted and the estoppel intact.

14 April 2025 – Final Conditional Acceptance & Jurisdiction Challenge 

Recipient: Cardiff Magistrates’ Court (Clerk to the Justices) & Companies House prosecutors. 

Response: Final conditional acceptance of all claims pending proof of jurisdiction and a lawful contract showing voluntary, informed consent. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal or evidence provided.

22–25 May 2025 – Additional Prosecution Letters 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Further prosecution communications from Lee Jenkins and Pete Cowan reiterating intent to proceed under Companies Act duties. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal; estoppel continues.

28 May 2025 – Final Notice of Estoppel & Jurisdictional Default 

Recipient: Cardiff Magistrates’ Court (Clerk to the Justices) & Companies House prosecutors. 

Response: Declared estoppel by conduct and silence after repeated failure to rebut prior notices; objected to unlawful trial and confirmed jurisdictional default. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal received. Estoppel now binding.

3 June 2025 – Notice of Non‑Consent & Final Reminder 

Recipient: Cardiff Magistrates’ Court. 

Response: Reaffirmed non‑consent to proceedings and restated estoppel; reminded court of default and that no lawful jurisdiction had been proven. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal provided.

6 June 2025 – Matthew Griffiths (Court Officer) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Administrative court notice regarding case progression. Unrebutted Truth: No lawful rebuttal to notices; purely administrative.

8 June 2025 – Resubmission of Final Notice 

Recipient: Cardiff Magistrates’ Court. 

Response: Resubmitted Final Notice of Non‑Consent and Estoppel after Cardiff Civil & Family Justice Centre returned it in error; confirmed lawful service. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal provided.

12 June 2025 – Cardiff Magistrates’ Court (Administrative Notice) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Court notice confirming enforcement proceedings. Unrebutted Truth: Administrative escalation; no engagement with jurisdiction.

20 June 2025 – Final Notice of Unlawful Administration 

Recipient: Cardiff Magistrates’ Court. 

Response: Rejected and dismissed unlawful orders and penalties issued by the court for want of jurisdiction; warned of personal liability for enforcement. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal received; liability now personal and commercial.

23 June 2025 – Final Personal Liability Notice & Commercial Lien 

Recipient: Louise Smyth CBE, Jamie Phillips, Pete Cowan & Lee Jenkins (Companies House). 

Response: Imposed a personal commercial lien of £1,250,000 per agent for fraudulent misrepresentation, trespass, malfeasance, coercion, and harm. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal; lien stands by acquiescence.

3 July 2025 – Huw Morgan (Legal Adviser) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Letter dismissing my lawful notices as having “no legal effect.” Unrebutted Truth: Dismissal, not rebuttal; no sworn affidavit or proof of authority.

8 July 2025 – Final Notice of Personal Liability & Schedule of Trespass 

Recipient: Companies House officers and court officials. 

Response: Issued a detailed Schedule of Trespass and Penalties (minimum £1,250,000 per individual) with 14 days to rebut or cure. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal provided; schedule accepted by acquiescence.

11 July 2025 – Cardiff Magistrates’ Court (Further Steps Notice) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Administrative notice threatening enforcement. Unrebutted Truth: Administrative threat; no lawful rebuttal.

17 July 2025 – Huw Morgan (Legal Adviser) 

Recipient: Myself. 

Response: Final letter asserting intent to proceed; no engagement with jurisdictional challenge. Unrebutted Truth: Purely dismissive; estoppel by silence stands.

21 July 2025 – Final Conditional Acceptance & Personal Liability Notice 

Recipient: Huw Morgan (Cardiff Magistrates’ Court). 

Response: Conditionally accepted “Further Steps Notice” upon lawful proof of contract and jurisdiction; warned of trespass and personal liability for continued misrepresentation. Unrebutted Truth: No rebuttal or lawful evidence provided.

25 July 2025 – Affidavit of Truth & Court of Record 

Recipients: Cardiff Magistrates’ Court (Huw Morgan) & Companies House officers. 

Response: Convened a Court of Record, consolidating all unrebutted notices, liens, and estoppels into judicial record; provided final opportunity to cure by sworn affidavit and evidence of jurisdiction. Unrebutted Truth: This affidavit now stands as judicial record, unrebutted and binding in law.

2A: COMPLETION OF DEFAULT, ESTOPPEL, AND COMMERCIAL LIEN

By the unrebutted sequence of notices, conditional acceptances, and liability declarations detailed in Section 2, the following now stand as lawful and binding:

1. Estoppel by Conduct and Silence – All parties named herein have been given ample opportunity to rebut my notices, provide lawful proof of jurisdiction, or demonstrate a voluntary, informed contract granting lawful authority. No such rebuttals, affidavits, or lawful evidence have been received. Accordingly, estoppel by conduct and silence is now complete.

   
   

2. Standing Commercial Liens – The personal liability and commercial liens served on Louise Smyth, Jamie Phillips, Pete Cowan, Lee Jenkins, and any other agents acting in this matter are unrebutted. These liens, including the Schedule of Trespass dated 8 July 2025, now stand as lawful, enforceable debts in the sum of £1,250,000 per individual (joint and several).

   
   

3. Judgment by Acquiescence – By failure to rebut on point and under oath, the facts, claims, and penalties set out in my notices are admitted by acquiescence and now stand as judgment by estoppel in this Court of Record.
   

4. Ongoing Trespass and Liability – Any further action to enforce void orders, penalties, or statutory claims against me constitutes knowing trespass, fraud by misrepresentation, and coercion under colour of law. Each additional act will incur further personal and commercial liability, enforceable in law and equity.
   

3. STATEMENT OF UNREBUTTED TRUTH

No lawful rebuttal, under oath or otherwise, has been received to any of my notices, challenges, or conditional acceptances.

Accordingly, by the legal and lawful maxims:

• He who does not deny, admits. (Qui non negat, fatetur).

• An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.

• That which is not lawful to do directly cannot be done indirectly. (Co. Litt. 223).

As also affirmed in Bunbury v Fuller (1853):

“Where jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven and not assumed.”

And in Macfoy v United Africa Co (1961):

“A proceeding without jurisdiction is a nullity.”

The facts set out above now stand as truth in law and commerce, creating a lawful estoppel.

4: STATEMENT OF TRESPASS, HARM, AND CRIMINALITY

Despite my lawful challenges:

• Companies House agents and solicitors continued to pursue claims without proving jurisdiction, contract, or consent.
  

• Cardiff Magistrates’ Court issued administrative orders and threats of enforcement despite no proven jurisdiction and no rebuttal to my conditional acceptances.
  

• Enforcement threats now include seizure of property, trespass, and conversion without lawful process.
  

These actions constitute trespass, coercion, conversion, and misfeasance under colour of law, contrary to the principles in Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98, which affirms that public officials must prove lawful authority for any interference with property or rights.

At the heart of these wrongs lies the absence of any voluntary, informed contract by which I consented to be bound by the Companies Act or to act as surety for any legal fiction. To proceed against a living man absent such contract is to assert unlawful dominion over an equal being.

All officers of Companies House and Cardiff Magistrates’ Court are reminded:

• You are public trustees sworn to uphold the inalienable rights of living men and women.
  

• Magistrates’ Judicial Oath (Courts Act 2003):

“I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

• Civil Service Code:

“To uphold the law, and act with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.”

To proceed in defiance of these obligations constitutes misfeasance in public office and renders you personally liable.

5. SCHEDULE OF TRESPASS AND PENALTIES

As served in my unrebutted notices dated 8 July 2025, the following liabilities stand:

• Fraudulent Misrepresentation – £250,000

• Trespass to Rights and Property – £250,000

• Malfeasance in Public Office – £250,000

• Unlawful Harassment and Coercion – £250,000

• Personal Injury: Mental Duress and Threatened Harm – £250,000

Total per individual: £1,250,000 (joint and several).

6. OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

You are hereby given 14 calendar days from the date of service of this affidavit to provide:

1. A sworn affidavit from a competent party providing:

   • Evidence of lawful jurisdiction over me, a living man;

   • A fully disclosed, voluntary, and signed contract (two wet signatures) evidencing my consent to be bound by statute or represent the legal fiction.
     

2. A lawful rebuttal to all points raised in this affidavit and the chronology set out herein.

   
   

Failure to provide the above within the specified period will constitute final default, dishonour, and tacit acquiescence.

7. NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND CONSEQUENCES

Should you fail to cure within 14 days:

• All claims, orders, and proceedings against me shall be considered void ab initio.
  

• All named agents will be held personally and commercially liable for trespass, coercion, harm, and misfeasance.
  

• The unrebutted facts herein will stand as a certificate of default and judgment by estoppel, enforceable in law.
  

• I reserve the right to finalise commercial liens against named individuals and to pursue private prosecution under common law.
  

  
  

8. OATH AND WITNESSING

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true, correct, and made in good faith.

Signed and witnessed on 25th July 2025:

by Jason : (Family Tyldesley), Hannah: (Family Lindsay), Jayne:(Family Mariarty)

ANNEX A – REBUTTAL TO RELIANCE ON KOFA v OLDHAM [2024] EWHC 685 (ADMIN)

Context

Companies House prosecutors (particularly Pete Cowan) have repeatedly cited Kofa v Oldham [2024] EWHC 685 (Admin) as justification for proceeding with enforcement in the absence of my explicit consent.

Rebuttal

1. Material Difference of Subject Matter Kofa v Oldham concerned the administrative enforcement of council tax liability orders within a statutory framework that had been voluntarily entered into and accepted by the liable parties through their residence and participation in that framework. It did not address the fundamental question of whether jurisdiction can be lawfully established over a living man or woman absent explicit, informed contractual agreement.
   

2. No Application to Companies House Claims The case does not address the Companies Act 2006, nor the creation or enforcement of obligations against a living man acting outside of statutory joinder. It cannot be stretched to legitimise the imposition of obligations on me, a living man, in the absence of a proven, informed, and voluntary contract.
   

3. Failure to Address Jurisdictional Challenge Reliance on Kofa is non‑responsive to my lawful notices. My position has consistently been:

   • Statutory obligations cannot bind me or associated legal fictions without explicit informed consent.

   • Any purported authority over me requires proof of contract (two wet signatures) and jurisdiction. Kofa provides no such proof.
     

4. Judgment is Limited to Its Facts The High Court in Kofa did not create a universal rule that consent is unnecessary for all statutory enforcement. It confirmed only that, within its narrow context, statutory provisions applied to individuals already recognised within that administrative jurisdiction. It does not extinguish the requirement for lawful joinder when attempting to exercise authority over a non‑consenting living man.
   

5. Estoppel Remains As no sworn rebuttal addressing my core points has been received, their continued reliance on Kofa constitutes a dismissal, not a rebuttal. This maintains the estoppel by conduct and silence already established in my notices.
   

Conclusion

Kofa v Oldham is irrelevant to the issues of lawful consent, joinder, and contractual obligation raised in my notices and this affidavit. It cannot establish jurisdiction over me, nor prove the lawfulness of Companies House’s actions.