COVER NOTE

✦ ENCLOSURE SUMMARY

Dear Pete Cowan / Lee Jenkins,

Please find enclosed the following documents which you are lawfully required to acknowledge, address, and respond to within the appropriate timeframe:

1. Final Conditional Acceptance & Jurisdiction Challenge Notice – Reaffirming my conditional acceptance of your claim only upon full proof of jurisdiction, standing, and lawful joinder. Includes demand for immediate withdrawal of the summons and full proof of lawful claim.

2. Notice of Non-Consent to Appear or Contract (copy for your records) – Delivered to the court and copied to you, placing the court and claimant on notice of jurisdictional fraud, revocation of all implied consent, and your personal liability for knowingly advancing an unproven claim.

3. Copy of Final Letter Dated 19 March 2025, including:

   • All four previous conditional acceptances,

   • Rejection of all implied authority,

   • Demand for immediate remedy and cessation of coercive behaviour.

These documents are issued in lawful honour and without prejudice. You are now fully liable for any continued attempt to enforce a claim absent lawful proof, and this record shall be relied upon in any future claim for damages, fraud, or misrepresentation.

FINAL CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE & JURISDICTION CHALLENGE NOTICE

WITHOUT PREJUDICENOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTSpecial Delivery – Record of Service Maintained

From: Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek Holsworthy, Devon EX22 7JN

To: Pete Cowan / Lee Jenkins For the Prosecuting Solicitor, Companies House Crown Way Cardiff CF14 3UZ

And: Clerk to the Justices Cardiff & Vale of Glamorgan Magistrates’ Court Fitzalan Place Cardiff CF24 0RZ

Date: 14th April 2025 Your Ref: CR71/00032/25

RE: Final Conditional Acceptance and Lawful Challenge to Jurisdiction

Rebuttal of Fraudulent Summons and Demand for Lawful Proof of Claim

To Whom It May Concern,

I, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), a living man operating exclusively under common law jurisdiction, write in good faith and with full honour. This notice constitutes final conditional acceptance of the claim purported under your reference, and a formal challenge to jurisdiction, lawful standing, and presumptive authority.

1. CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE REAFFIRMED

I have not refused any lawful obligation. On at least four prior occasions—27 December 2024, 28 January 2025, 4 March 2025, and 19 March 2025—I have issued notices of conditional acceptance, clearly stating that I am willing to comply upon:

• Lawful proof of jurisdiction over me as a living man;

• Evidence of a valid and lawful claim;

• A mutually signed, wet-ink contract demonstrating knowing, voluntary, and explicit joinder;

• And full disclosure of the effect on my inalienable rights.

No response has provided such evidence. Accordingly, your claim remains unproven, and any summons issued based on it is void and unlawful.

2. PRESUMED OR IMPLIED CONSENT IS NOT LAWFUL

Be advised that:

Any reliance on implied, presumed, or assumed consent is itself a statutory construct.

Such constructs cannot lawfully operate until:

1. Explicit common law consent has first been granted,

2. Jurisdiction under statute has been voluntarily accepted via lawful contract, and

3. A lawful meeting of minds with joinder has been established.

Until such proof is provided, statutory law has no application, and common law remains the only lawful default jurisdiction.

3. LAWFUL CONSENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS

To restrict my inalienable rights or bind me to a statutory jurisdiction, the following lawful standard must be met:

1. Full Disclosure – My inalienable rights must be clearly stated and understood before any agreement, with documentation showing their status before, during, and after.

2. Voluntary Agreement – No coercion, deception, threat, or omission may be present.

3. Explicit Consent – The agreement must show two wet-ink signatures, with conscious joinder and lawful meeting of minds.

I have never been presented with such a contract, nor have I ever knowingly, voluntarily, and explicitly agreed to surrender or restrict my inalienable rights.

4. UNLAWFUL JOINDER AND INVALID SUMMONS

The entity “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY” is a legal fiction, and as such:

• Cannot receive a summons,

• Cannot appear in court,

• And cannot lawfully be presumed to bind me, the living man, without joinder.

I have never agreed to represent or be surety for this fiction, and I explicitly reject all such presumptions. Any summons issued based on presumed joinder is a legal nullity.

5. PERSONAL LIABILITY OF ALL AGENTS

You are hereby notified that by attempting to proceed in absence of a lawful claim or jurisdiction, you assume personal liability for:

• £10,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation,

• £25,000 for coercion and undue influence,

• Unlimited damages for trespass, interference, defamation, and loss.

This liability attaches to you personally, as the agent of a legal fiction has no protection when acting ultra vires or in absence of lawful authority.

6. LAWFUL DEMAND FOR REMEDY

You now have seven (7) days from receipt of this notice to:

1. Withdraw the summons and provide written confirmation of same,

2. Provide lawful proof of claim, including:

   • Jurisdiction over me, a living man;

   • A wet-ink contract showing explicit and informed consent to statute;

   • Full disclosure of the effect on my rights and status;

   • Evidence of injury, loss, or harm creating a valid cause of action.

Failure to provide this evidence will confirm that your claim is fraudulent, your summons void, and any further attempt to proceed will result in lawful remedy pursued against you in your personal capacity.

7. NOTICE OF STATUS

I do not consent to statute. I do not act on behalf of, nor represent, any legal fiction. I operate exclusively as a living man under common law, with all inalienable rights intact and reserved.

Any further claim made absent lawful proof will be treated as unlawful harassment, trespass, fraud, and abuse of process.

8. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE WARNING – ATTENDING COURT IS NOT CONSENT

Should I choose to attend court, it will not be to “answer” the claim or to plead guilty or not guilty to an unproven and fraudulent charge.

My presence will be solely to:

• Formally and publicly challenge the lawful foundation of statutory jurisdiction,

• Demand evidentiary proof of any and all statutory authority and obligations,

• Expose that all such authority is presumed and relies on the fiction of implied consent,

• And to reassert that implied consent is itself a statutory mechanism requiring prior, voluntary, and lawful agreement under common law.

Let this serve as lawful warning: any public proceeding that exposes this truth risks irreparable reputational harm to the court, Companies House, and the statutory model of governance.

This notice is issued not in threat, but in lawful transparency and honour.

 Without prejudice,

By the living hand of:

Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Living man under common law (Without joinder, without corporate status, without consent to statutory jurisdiction) (All inalienable explicitly claimed and reserved)

Previous correspondence enclosed with proof of special delivery.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek Holsworthy, Devon EX22 7JN

To: Pete Cowan (Prosecutor) Companies House Crown Way Cardiff CF14 3UZ

Date: 19th March 2025

Your reference : CR71/00032/25

Subject: Final Notice – Rejection of Fraudulent Summons, Demand for Proof of Claim, and Formal Revocation of Assumed Authority

1. No Summons Can Be Issued Without a Proven Claim

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 12th March 2025, in which you falsely claim that I am required to enter a plea to an alleged charge under the Companies Act 2006.

Let it be stated for the record:

1. There is no case to answer unless a valid claim is first proven.

2. No summons can be lawfully issued unless jurisdiction, obligation, and liability are established with evidence.

3. You, Pete Cowan, do not have the authority to "authorise a summons"—only a properly constituted court, upon receiving valid and proven information, can do so.

4. Any attempt to issue a summons without a proven claim is unlawful and void.

A summons based on an unproven claim constitutes fraud, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution.

Until Companies House proves a lawful claim, no valid charge exists, and no lawful summons can be issued.

2. Burden of Proof Rests Entirely with Companies House

Your letter falsely assumes that I must enter a plea—this is a fundamental misrepresentation of the law.

Let it be made absolutely clear:

• Burden of proof lies solely with Companies House.

• I am not required to respond to a claim that has not been lawfully substantiated.

• A summons cannot be used as a coercive tool to force a response where no lawful claim exists.

If Companies House believes it has a valid claim, it must first provide strict proof of claim, including:

1. Proof of jurisdiction – Evidence that Companies House has lawful authority over me as a living being (not just the legal fiction “JASON TYLDESLEY”).

2. Proof of lawful claim – Full evidence that any alleged statutory obligation is binding, valid, and enforceable under common law.

3. Proof that my inalienable rights were knowingly waived – A wet-ink, mutually signed contract proving my fully informed, explicit, and voluntary consent to be bound by statutory obligations.

Until all three are provided, no valid claim exists, and no lawful proceedings can take place.

3. Definition of "Informed Consent" – The Standard You Must Meet

Your claim assumes that I have consented to be bound by the Companies Act 2006.

Let it be formally stated:

• Any consent to statute is a consent to the restriction of inalienable rights.

• For consent to be lawful, it must be fully informed and explicitly agreed upon.

To meet the standard of informed consent, the following must exist:

1. A clear statement of my inalienable rights, both before and after the contract is signed.

2. Full disclosure of how consenting to statute restricts my inalienable rights.

3. Joinder with two wet signatures, proving a knowing, voluntary agreement to the restriction of my rights.

No such contract exists.

Since you cannot provide this proof of informed consent, then no jurisdiction exists, and any claimed obligation is fraudulent.

4. Rejection of Your False Claim That Common Law "Has No Basis in Law"

Your letter states that my reliance on common law jurisdiction "has no basis in law."

This is factually and legally incorrect.

a) Common Law is the Foundational Legal System in the UK

• The UK’s legal system is built on common law principles, and all statutory law must derive its authority from it.

• The absence of a contract or voluntary agreement means common law is the only lawful jurisdiction that can apply.

b) No Presumption of Authority Can Be Lawful

• A statute is not a contract.

• Companies House cannot impose obligations without evidence of informed consent and joinder.

• Without a valid contract or explicit agreement, statutory law cannot be presumed to apply to me.

5. Personal Liability of Pete Cowan & Companies House Officials

By attempting to issue an unlawful summons without proof of claim, you, Pete Cowan, have:

• Accepted full personal liability for this claim and its consequences.

• Waived any protection under corporate or government immunity, as no lawful claim has been established.

• Assumed personal liability for fraud, misrepresentation, and coercion should you continue without proving lawful jurisdiction.

Let this serve as formal notice that you, Pete Cowan, and any other officials involved, will now be held personally liable for:

• £10,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation if you proceed without lawful proof of claim.

• £25,000 for coercion and undue influence, should you attempt to force me into a plea without proving jurisdiction.

• Unlimited damages for unlawful harassment, trespass upon my rights, and interference with my peace.

6. Notice to Remove All Statutory Claims Against Me

This is now a final and formal notice that all statutory claims against me are to be permanently removed unless full proof of claim is provided.

This applies to:

✅ The legal person “JASON TYLDESLEY” (a statutory creation presumed without agreement). ✅ All associated companies:

• Zen Jungle Limited (Company No. 12553647)

• Zen Jungle Retreat Limited (Company No. 12763398)

• Zen Jungle Estates Limited (Company No. 12758334)

Any further attempt to impose statutory claims upon me will be treated as fraud.

7. Final Opportunity to Prove Claim or Cease and Desist

You now have 14 days (until 2nd April 2025) to:

1. Provide full lawful proof of claim, including:

   • Proof of jurisdiction over me as a living being (not just the legal fiction “JASON TYLDESLEY”).

   • A wet-ink, mutually signed contract proving my voluntary consent to statutory obligations.

   • Full legal evidence that any alleged charge is valid, lawful, and binding under common law.

2. Cease and desist from all further demands, threats, and coercion.

Failure to comply will result in:

• A formal claim for damages.

• Legal action for fraud and misrepresentation.

• Public exposure of this fraudulent claim.

This is not a request—this is a lawful demand. I expect full and immediate compliance.

Previous correspondences are included for your reference.

Yours sincerely,

Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Living Being under Common Law Jurisdiction (All Inalienable Rights Explicitly Claimed and Reserved, Without Prejudice)

Without Prejudice

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Jason : (Family Tyldesley)Wooda Lakes, PancrasweekHolsworthy, DevonEX22 7JN

To:Lee JenkinsFor the Prosecuting Solicitor, Companies HouseCrown Way, CardiffCF14 3UZ

Date: 4th March 2025

Subject: Response to Unfounded Criminal Proceedings Notice – Demand for Proof of Claim, Jurisdiction, and Lawful Authority

Dear Lee Jenkins,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 3rd February 2025, regarding Zen Jungle Retreat Limited (12763398), in which you reference CR71/00032/25. Please take this as my formal response to your claims.

As documented evidence of my prior good faith efforts, I have enclosed copies of my previous two Conditional Acceptance responses, sent on 27th December 2024 and 28th January 2025, both of which remain unanswered in any lawful manner.

Your failure to provide the required proof of claim, jurisdiction, or lawful authority in response to these notices confirms that your demands are unsubstantiated and unenforceable. Furthermore, the continued threats contained in your latest correspondence amount to unlawful coercion, misrepresentation, and an abuse of process.

1. Failure to Provide Proof of Claim – Burden of Proof Remains on Companies House

At no point have I refused any lawful obligation. Instead, I have consistently conditionally accepted your demands upon proof that they are lawfully applicable. To date, no such proof has been supplied. Instead, your office continues to operate under presumptions and coercion rather than lawful authority.

To reiterate, my previous letters lawfully demanded:

• Proof of lawful claim that establishes any enforceable obligation upon me as a living being (Jason : of the family Tyldesley) under common law.

• Proof of jurisdiction that Companies House has lawful authority over me, rather than over the legal fiction ("JASON TYLDESLEY").

• A valid contract demonstrating explicit and voluntary agreement, including two wet-ink signatures and full disclosure of the terms.

Despite these requests, no such proof has been forthcoming. Absent these proofs, there is no valid claim, no lawful obligation, and no enforceable jurisdiction over me.

2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Unlawful Coercion

Your letter falsely asserts that a summons will be issued on 28th March 2025 without further warning, unless I comply with demands that remain legally unsubstantiated. This is an egregious misuse of authority, as:

• A summons is a judicial instrument, which must be issued by a court of law with proven jurisdiction—not arbitrarily threatened by an administrative entity such as Companies House.

• Making false or misleading legal threats in order to induce compliance through fear is an act of coercion, misrepresentation, and unlawful intimidation, which are criminal offenses under common law.

• Any demand made under duress, threat, or misrepresentation is legally void and unenforceable.

Unless Companies House provides lawful proof to substantiate its claims, your threats of prosecution amount to fraudulent misrepresentation and an abuse of process.

3. Distinction Between the Living Man and the Legal Person – Proof of Jurisdiction Required

For clarity, I am Jason : (Family Tyldesley), a living, breathing man under common law jurisdiction. I am not the legal fiction ("JASON TYLDESLEY"), which exists only within statutory law and can be regulated by Companies House only if I have voluntarily consented to such jurisdiction.

Your claim assumes that because a legal person was registered, the living man is automatically bound by statutory obligations. However, Companies House has failed to prove:

1. That I voluntarily agreed to represent the legal person.

2. That any statutory obligation overrides my inalienable rights as a living being.

3. That Companies House has lawful jurisdiction over me beyond assumed or implied consent.

Until you provide strict proof of Companies House’s lawful authority over me as a living being, your demands remain invalid, unenforceable, and fraudulent.

4. Notice of Personal Liability – Lee Jenkins, You Are Now Accountable

As the signatory of the letter dated 3rd February 2025, you have assumed personal liability for any unlawful threats, coercion, and misrepresentation contained therein. Should you proceed with issuing a fraudulent summons or further coercive demands:

• You will be held personally accountable for your actions, as no corporate entity or employer can shield you from liability for harm, misrepresentation, or fraud.

• A formal private prosecution may be initiated against you for misfeasance in public office, fraud, and coercion.

• I reserve the right to seek lawful remedy against you for any damage caused, including reputational harm, financial loss, and distress.

I strongly advise you to seek independent legal counsel regarding your personal liability before proceeding with any further unlawful threats.

5. Final Demand for Lawful Resolution

To resolve this matter honorably, I now require the following within 14 days from the date of this letter:

1. Full proof of claim, including evidence of lawful authority, jurisdiction, and contractual agreement.

2. Confirmation in writing that Companies House will not proceed with any prosecution or summons in the absence of lawful proof of claim.

3. Immediate cessation of coercive demands, misrepresentations, and threats.

Failure to comply with the above within the stated timeframe will result in:

• A formal complaint against you, personally, and against Companies House for fraud, misrepresentation, and unlawful coercion.

• A notice of liability issued to you for any harm, injury, or loss caused by your actions.

• Further legal action, including private prosecution, for any continued fraudulent misrepresentation or abuse of process.

6. Consequences of Non-Compliance

If no lawful proof is provided and Companies House proceeds with issuing a fraudulent summons or legal action without proving its claim, the following actions will be taken:

• Formal public exposure of Companies House’s fraudulent conduct.

• Private prosecution initiated against any individuals responsible for issuing unlawful threats.

• Claims for damages arising from misrepresentation, coercion, and interference with my natural rights.

Lee, this is your final opportunity to resolve this matter lawfully. I strongly urge you to reconsider your role in this, as your actions now carry personal consequences.

I remain open to honorable and lawful resolution but will not tolerate coercion, fraud, or threats based on unproven claims.

For your convenience and to ensure full transparency, I have enclosed copies of my two previous responses dated 27th December 2024 and 28th January 2025, as well as noted your reference CR71/00032/25.

Enclosures:

1. Copy of letter dated 27th December 2024 (First Conditional Acceptance)

2. Copy of letter dated 28th January 2025 (Final Notice and Conditional Acceptance Reaffirmed)

Yours sincerely,

Jason : (Family Tyldesley)Living Being under Common Law Jurisdiction(No Legal Fiction – All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice)

Without PrejudiceNotice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Jason : (Family Tyldesley)Wooda Lakes, PancrasweekHolsworthy, DevonEX22 7JN

Date:27th December 2024

To:Jamie Philips and Louise SmythCompanies HouseCrown Way, CardiffCF14 3UZ

Your References: COMP/12758334 & COMP/12763398Subject: Notice Regarding Lawful Basis for Claims and Notice of Liability

Dear Jamie and Louise,

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 16th December 2024 regarding Zen Jungle Estates Limited and Zen Jungle Retreat Limited. While I appreciate your prompt response, I must reiterate my concerns and objections regarding the assertions made within your recent letter, which appear to lack lawful substantiation.

I am compelled to address several pressing issues that remain unresolved:

1. Lawful Basis of Claims and Authority

To date, I have not been provided with any lawful proof of claim demonstrating that I, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), or the referenced legal entities are lawfully obligated to comply with the filing requirements you assert under the Companies Act 2006.

• It remains my position that any party making a claim bears the burden of proof to demonstrate its lawfulness.

• As a public authority, Companies House must operate within the principles of accountability and transparency, ensuring that any demands imposed on individuals or entities are supported by lawful evidence.

Until you provide unequivocal evidence of your authority and jurisdiction, any claims or demands made remain unproven and unenforceable.

2. Misrepresentation of Company Status

The continued listing of the referenced companies as "overdue" on the Companies House website constitutes a false and damaging representation, given the absence of lawful evidence obligating these entities to file accounts. This misrepresentation interferes with my right to trade and barter under natural law and constitutes an unlawful encumbrance on the entities’ ability to operate freely.

• I hereby demand that this misrepresentation be corrected immediately.

• Should you fail to supply lawful evidence of obligation, the companies must be listed as "exempt" until proven otherwise.

3. Notice of Liability

As the signatory of the letter dated 16th December 2024, Jamie Philips is assuming personal accountability for any unlawful actions, including coercion, misrepresentation, or breaches of my inalienable rights. This includes but is not limited to:

• Making unsubstantiated claims of authority or obligation.

• Restricting or interfering with my natural rights and the operations of the referenced entities.

I now formally notify you that by acting as an agent of a legal entity, you assume personal liability for any resulting harm caused by your actions or inactions, as per the principles of common law and equity.

4. Remedy Sought

To resolve this matter amicably and in good faith, I request the following actions be taken within 21 days from the date of this letter:

1. Provide lawful proof of claim demonstrating your authority and jurisdiction over me, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), and the referenced legal entities.

2. Remove any misrepresentation regarding the status of the companies on the Companies House website, listing them as "exempt" until lawful proof is supplied.

3. Confirm in writing that no further action will be taken unless and until lawful proof is provided.

Failure to address these issues satisfactorily within the specified timeframe will confirm the absence of any lawful authority over me or the referenced entities. Any continued correspondence or actions that constitute coercion, misrepresentation, or interference with my natural rights will result in further action being taken to seek remedy for unlawful trespass and damages.

I remain open to resolving this matter in transparency, honour, and good faith.

Yours sincerely,

Jason : (Family Tyldesley)

All inalienable rights reserved

Without Prejudice

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Jason : (Family Tyldesley)Wooda Lakes, PancrasweekHolsworthy, DevonEX22 7JN

To:Jamie Philips and Louise SmythCompanies HouseCrown Way, CardiffCF14 3UZ

Date: 28th January 2025

Your References: COMP/12758334 & COMP/12763398Subject: Final Notice – Conditional Acceptance Reaffirmed, Proof of Claim Required, and Notice of Liability for All Companies Linked to Jason : (Family Tyldesley)

Dear Jamie and Louise,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 20th January 2024 concerning Zen Jungle Estates Limited (12758334) and Zen Jungle Retreat Limited (12763398). Despite previous lawful requests, no proof of claim, jurisdiction, or lawful authority has been provided.

This letter serves as a final notice regarding not just these two companies, but all entities for which "Jason Tyldesley" is listed as a director on Companies House records.

1. Reaffirmation of Conditional Acceptance – Burden of Proof Rests on You

At no point have I refused compliance. I have consistently provided conditional acceptance, meaning that I am fully willing to comply upon receipt of lawful proof that such obligations exist.

• This means that there has never been a refusal to file accounts or meet any other demand, but rather a lawful requirement that Companies House first provide proof that these obligations apply.

• Until such proof is provided, the burden remains on Companies House, not me, and thus, any threats of penalties, prosecution, or action are entirely unlawful and inappropriate.

• Prosecution or legal action in the absence of proof is a fundamental violation of due process, an abuse of authority, and an attempt at coercion rather than lawful enforcement.

2. Distinction Between the Legal Person and the Living Man – Jurisdiction Must Be Established

It is essential to make the distinction between:

1. The legal person ("JASON TYLDESLEY"), which is a registered entity created within statutory law.

2. The living, breathing man (Jason : of the family Tyldesley), who holds inalienable rights and is not automatically subject to statutory obligations unless freely and knowingly contracted into them.

Proof Must Establish Jurisdiction Over the Living Man, Not Just the Legal Person

For any obligation or authority to be enforceable, Companies House must prove:

• Whether the demand for accounts applies to a legal person or a living man.

• Whether statute can lawfully bind a living man with inalienable rights.

• Whether consent was given knowingly and explicitly, or whether obligations are merely assumed based on legal fiction.

Absent such proof, statutory obligations do not automatically apply to a living man and any attempt to enforce them without proving jurisdiction amounts to coercion.

3. Extension of this Notice to ALL Companies for Which I Am Listed as Director

This notice applies to Zen Jungle Estates Limited, Zen Jungle Retreat Limited, and any other companies for which I am listed as a director in Companies House records.

Until Companies House provides lawful proof of claim demonstrating obligation and jurisdiction over these companies:

• They must be listed as "exempt" from filing requirements.

• Any public reference to “overdue” accounts, statutory penalties, or threats of legal action must be removed immediately to prevent fraudulent misrepresentation.

Failure to correct these public listings may result in legal action for misrepresentation, reputational damage, and unlawful interference with my right to trade and barter.

4. Proof of Lawful Authority – Joinder, Two Wet Signatures, and Full Disclosure Required

Despite multiple requests, Companies House has failed to provide:

1. Proof of lawful authority establishing Companies House’s right to impose obligations upon me, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), or any referenced entities.

2. Proof of contract or consent, which meets the following lawful requirements:

   • Joinder – demonstrating that there was a meeting of minds between both parties.

   • Two wet signatures – a legally binding contract must be signed in ink by both parties to demonstrate agreement.

   • Full disclosure – The contract must explicitly state how my inalienable rights are affected and show my legal standing before and after the agreement.

Important Clarification for Jamie:

The company registration document does NOT meet these criteria.

• A single electronic signature on a registration document does not create a binding agreement that imposes obligations upon me or affects my inalienable rights.

• A contract must have both parties signing in ink with full understanding of its effects in order to be lawful.

• If Companies House intends to rely on the registration document, I require an explicit demonstration of where my full and informed consent was given with knowledge of the impact on my natural rights.

Until you provide such proof, any assertion that obligations exist is unfounded and unenforceable.

5. Personal Liability for Agents – Jamie, You Are Now Personally Accountable

Jamie, as the signatory of this correspondence, you assume personal liability for your role in perpetuating unverified claims. I have enclosed a Guide to Personal Responsibility as an Agent, which I urge you to review carefully.

• If you enforce obligations without evidence, you can be held personally responsible for any harm resulting from your actions.

• Government agents are NOT immune when they act beyond lawful authority.

• If you believe you are protected by your role, I strongly advise you to seek independent legal counsel regarding personal liability.

6. Final Demand for Remedy

To resolve this matter fairly, I require the following within 14 days from the date of this letter:

1. Provide the lawful proof of claim that establishes Companies House’s right to impose statutory obligations upon me or any associated companies.

2. Confirm that all companies for which I am listed as director will be recorded as "exempt" until proof of claim is provided.

3. Cease and desist from issuing further threats, demands, or misrepresentations regarding overdue accounts or penalties until proof of claim is established.

4. Issue written confirmation that no legal action, penalties, or coercive measures will be taken unless Companies House lawfully substantiates its claims.

7. Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to comply within 14 days will result in:

• Formal complaints and legal action against Companies House and its agents for fraudulent misrepresentation and coercion.

• Further notices of liability against individuals perpetuating unlawful claims.

• Claims for damages resulting from misrepresentation and reputational harm.

This is the final notice and opportunity to resolve this matter lawfully.

Jamie, I encourage you to seriously reconsider your role in this situation. You are acting on behalf of an entity, but that does not absolve you of personal accountability when issuing unlawful claims.

I remain open to lawful and honorable resolution and expect that this matter will now be handled appropriately.

Yours sincerely,

Jason : (Family Tyldesley)

Living Being under Common Law Jurisdiction(No Legal Fiction – All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice)

How to Operate Safely and Avoid Personal Liability: A Guide for Agents of Governments, Corporations, and Legal Entities

Many agents acting on behalf of governments, corporations, or other legal entities operate under the assumption that their actions are protected by the authority and framework of the entity they represent. However, this belief often overlooks fundamental principles of law, accountability, and liability under both natural law and common law. Below is a detailed explanation of why claims and actions are personal in nature, how personal liability is created, and the relationship between agents and their associated legal entities.

1. The Nature of Claims: Why They Are Personal in Nature

1.1 All Actions Originate with Living Beings

Governments, corporations, and other legal entities are legal fictions—abstract constructs created through statutes, charters, or agreements. They lack physical existence, consciousness, and the capacity to act on their own. Therefore:

• Living beings act as agents on behalf of legal entities to carry out actions such as issuing demands, enforcing obligations, or engaging in correspondence.

• Every action or claim originates with a living being, who becomes personally responsible for that action.

While an agent may claim to be acting "on behalf of" a legal entity, their actions—whether lawful or unlawful—are carried out personally. Responsibility for these actions is directly attributable to the living being performing them.

1.2 Lawful vs. Unlawful Claims

A claim or action becomes personal when it is:

1. Unlawful:

   • Violates natural law, common law, or statutory law.

   • Breaches the rights of another, such as their right to peace, property, or due process.

2. Unproven:

   • Fails to provide lawful evidence of authority, jurisdiction, or consent.

   • Relies on presumptions or coercion rather than substantiated facts.

Under common law, an individual is liable for harm, injury, or loss caused by their actions, whether or not those actions were taken "on behalf of" a legal entity. No entity can shield an agent from accountability for their unlawful or harmful actions.

2. The Relationship Between Agents and Legal Entities

2.1 What Is an Agent?

An agent is an individual authorized to act on behalf of a legal entity, such as a government or corporation, in specific matters. The relationship between the agent and the entity is governed by the law of agency, which imposes duties and limits on the agent's authority.

2.2 Limits of Agency

An agent’s authority is limited in the following ways:

1. Scope of Authority:

   • An agent can only act within the powers explicitly granted by the legal entity. Actions taken outside of this scope (ultra vires actions) are not legally protected and render the agent personally liable.

2. Duty of Lawfulness:

   • Agents must act within the bounds of the law.

   • Actions that are unlawful cannot be justified by the agent’s role or the instructions of their employer. The principle of "no one can delegate what they do not possess" applies—if the entity has no lawful authority to make a claim, the agent cannot lawfully enforce it.

2.3 Personal Accountability of Agents

Agents remain personally accountable for their actions when:

• They fail to verify the lawfulness of their actions.

• They act negligently, recklessly, or maliciously.

• They cause harm, injury, or loss to another living being.

Example:An agent who issues a demand for payment without lawful evidence of jurisdiction or consent becomes personally responsible for the harm caused by that demand. The legal entity cannot absorb liability for the agent’s unlawful behavior under common law principles.

3. Why Agents Do Not Have Absolute Power, Authority, or Protection

3.1 Legal Fictions Have No Inherent Authority

Legal fictions, such as governments or corporations, derive their authority solely from the explicit, voluntary, and informed consent of the governed or the individuals they interact with. If this consent cannot be proven, any action taken by an agent is a presumption of authority and lacks a lawful basis.

3.2 Agents Are Personally Responsible for Proving Claims

When an agent makes a claim or demand (e.g., for payment or compliance), they are personally responsible for:

1. Proving the legal basis of their actions:

   • Establishing that the action is lawful.

   • Demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction or authority.

2. Providing evidence of consent:

   • Showing that the individual being addressed has voluntarily and explicitly agreed to the obligations being enforced.

Failure to provide this evidence renders the claim unlawful and exposes the agent to personal liability.

3.3 Protection Does Not Extend to Unlawful Acts

Agents are not immune from accountability when their actions are:

• Outside the lawful authority of the entity they represent.

• Harmful or coercive in nature.

This principle is affirmed by:

• The ultra vires doctrine, which voids actions taken beyond an entity’s lawful powers.

• Natural law and common law principles, which hold individuals accountable for harm, regardless of their role or title.

4. Creation of Personal Liability

An agent creates personal liability when they:

1. Act Without Lawful Authority:

   • Making claims or demands without substantiating jurisdiction, consent, or the legal basis for the claim.

2. Fail to Establish Consent:

   • Enforcing obligations without proving that the individual has voluntarily agreed to them.

3. Cause Harm or Loss:

   • Through negligence, recklessness, coercion, or misrepresentation.

4. Rely on Coercion or Deception:

   • Using threats, penalties, or misrepresentation to compel compliance.

Under common law, any action that violates another’s inalienable rights creates liability for the harm caused.

5. The Illusion of Protection for Agents of Governments and Corporations

5.1 No Immunity from Accountability

Agents who believe they are protected by their affiliation with a government or corporation misunderstand the limits of agency law. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that individuals are accountable for unlawful actions, even when acting "under orders."

The Nuremberg Principles established that following orders is no defense for unlawful or harmful actions, and this principle applies to all agents of legal entities.

5.2 Coercion and Misrepresentation

When agents act coercively or misrepresent their authority, they:

• Step outside the lawful scope of their agency relationship.

• Create personal liability for the harm caused by their actions.

6. Advice to Agents: Avoiding Personal Liability

1. Verify the Lawfulness of Actions:

   • Ensure that every action or claim is lawful under both statutory and common law.

2. Establish Jurisdiction and Consent:

   • Confirm that the individual being addressed has consented to the jurisdiction or obligations being enforced.

3. Act Within Authority:

   • Stay within the explicit limits of your authority as an agent.

4. Respect Inalienable Rights:

   • Recognize the individual’s right to peace, property, and self-determination.

5. Be Prepared to Provide Evidence:

   • Ensure that all claims and actions are substantiated by lawful evidence.

7. Conclusion

The relationship between agents and legal entities does not absolve agents of personal liability for unlawful or harmful actions. All claims and actions are personal in nature, and agents bear the burden of ensuring that their actions are lawful, evidence-based, and respectful of the inalienable rights of others. Failure to do so creates personal liability for any harm caused, regardless of the authority they believe they represent.

Do You Understand the System You Serve and Enable?

1. Have You Questioned the Authority You Uphold?

Every day, agents of governments and related entities enforce laws, collect taxes, and implement policies. Many do so with the belief that they are upholding justice, preserving order, and serving the public good. But have you ever paused to ask yourself:

• Do I truly understand the system I am serving?

• Have I considered how it affects not just the public but also my own freedoms?

• Have I ever questioned whether this system has lawful authority and how that authority was gained—or assumed?

The legal and governmental systems you support may seem natural and necessary, but their true nature, origin, and methods often go unquestioned. By digging deeper, you may discover that the system operates in ways that prioritize control and financial extraction over fairness, justice, or the consent of the governed.

2. The Machine of Global Control: A System Beyond Borders

The system you serve is not confined to your country or jurisdiction. It is part of a global, interconnected network—a machine designed to consolidate power and wealth. This system:

• Operates across borders through shared leadership and influence: Central banks, global corporations, and international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank are interconnected entities shaping laws and policies worldwide.

• Holds governments in perpetual debt: Governments rely on private central banks to fund their operations. This debt—owed to private financial institutions—is repaid by taxpayers, ensuring a steady flow of public money into private hands.

• Enforces rules set by unelected powers: Global organizations like the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and G7 influence policies that trickle down into national legislation, often bypassing democratic processes entirely.

If this system were truly about serving the public, why does it function in ways that serve corporate and financial elites at the expense of individual freedom and prosperity?

3. Taxation: Extraction Without Consent

Taxation is presented as necessary to fund public services like schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. But have you ever considered the full extent of taxation, the hidden ways it operates, or where the money actually goes?

Visible Taxes

• Income Tax: Taken directly from your wages, often before you’ve even seen them.

• Council Tax: Charged simply for occupying property that you supposedly own.

• Fuel Duties, Road Tax, and Excise Fees: Taxes that restrict your ability to travel freely and increase the cost of living.

Hidden Taxes

• VAT: A tax on almost every product or service, paid without thought.

• Environmental Levies: Charges on energy bills, often framed as necessary for sustainability.

• Inflation: This is perhaps the most insidious tax of all. Inflation devalues money, reducing your purchasing power. Yet inflation is not a natural occurrence—it is a deliberate result of central banks and governments printing money and increasing debt.

Where Does the Money Go?

While the origin of money is always the taxpayer, the destination is rarely the taxpayer’s benefit:

• Global Corporations and Banks: Governments award lucrative contracts for weapons, pharmaceuticals, and infrastructure projects to global suppliers, often with minimal accountability for pricing or quality.

• Debt Servicing: A significant portion of taxes is used to repay loans to private banks, with interest.

• Government Infrastructure: A vast amount of money is spent maintaining the bureaucracy itself—salaries, offices, pensions, and perks for those in power.

If the system were truly about serving the people, wouldn’t more of this wealth flow back to them, instead of consistently benefiting corporations, banks, and global institutions?

4. The Question of Lawful Authority

The legal system is presented as an unquestionable authority, but have you ever considered how its power was established? Authority is only lawful when it is derived from the voluntary, informed consent of the governed. Yet this system relies heavily on:

• Implied Consent: You are presumed to have agreed to its rules simply because you exist within its jurisdiction, even though you were never asked.

• Coercion: Non-compliance is met with fines, penalties, or imprisonment—hardly a voluntary choice.

• Deception: Citizens are rarely informed of their rights under natural law, which predates and supersedes man-made statutes.

True authority does not need to rely on coercion or deception. It stands on mutual agreement, transparency, and fairness. Without these, the legitimacy of the system must be questioned.

5. War: Complicity in Harm Through Unchallenged Consent

War offers a stark example of the consequences of not questioning implied, unlawful consent. Governments are the only entities empowered to:

• Declare war, often without the informed consent of the people.

• Purchase weapons using taxpayer money, often from a small group of global corporations profiting from destruction.

• Wage violence that causes harm, injury, and death to other living beings, including civilians.

This raises a critical question: by participating in the system—whether through enforcement or taxation—are you complicit in these actions? Under natural and common law principles, knowingly contributing to harm or injury is a crime. Consider:

• Every tax payment funds government decisions, including the purchase of weapons and the wages of those who deploy them.

• Every unchallenged law grants legitimacy to actions taken in your name, even if those actions conflict with your principles.

By not challenging implied consent, individuals and agents alike risk becoming complicit in actions that violate natural law, such as the harm caused by war. This is a significant moral and legal consequence of participating in a system that assumes authority rather than earning it through explicit agreement.

6. Deception and Coercion: Tools of the System

If the system were truly designed for the benefit of the people, why does it rely so heavily on deception and coercion to maintain its power? Consider:

• Public Misunderstanding: Most people, including many of those enforcing the system, have little understanding of how it operates or who it serves.

• Fear-Based Compliance: Laws and taxes are enforced not through voluntary agreement, but through the fear of penalties.

• Selective Transparency: Information about government spending, global influence, and systemic corruption is often hidden or difficult to access.

A truly just system would not need to use these methods. It would operate openly and with the explicit consent of those it governs.

7. The Costs of Governance

Governments require enormous resources to maintain their operations—resources that are extracted from the public. These costs include:

• Creating Laws: The endless production of new statutes and regulations, most of which restrict freedoms rather than protect them.

• Enforcing Laws: Police, courts, and prisons consume vast amounts of public money.

• Running Government Infrastructure: Salaries, offices, vehicles, pensions, and other expenses add to the burden.

Does it ever feel like the system exists more to sustain itself than to serve the people?

8. A Call to Reflection

This isn’t about rebellion or condemnation—it’s about understanding and reflection. Consider the following:

• Do you understand the system you enforce and its origins?

• Have you questioned how it impacts your own freedoms?

• Are you comfortable being personally liable for enforcing rules that may lack lawful authority?

• Have you considered the moral implications of complicity in harm caused by government actions?

As an agent of this system, you hold an important position. But that also means you have the power to question, reflect, and ultimately choose your role.

9. The Opportunity for Change

The system relies on your belief in its legitimacy and your willingness to enforce its rules. Without these, its power diminishes. By understanding its true nature and questioning its authority, you can take the first step toward creating a fairer and freer world—not just for others, but for yourself as well.

This is not about defiance but about reclaiming sovereignty. True freedom begins with understanding.