Notice of Challenge to Jurisdiction, Final Notice of Dishonour and Default, and Statement of Private Prosecution Liability

NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION, FINAL NOTICE OF DISHONOUR AND DEFAULT, AND STATEMENT OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION LIABILITY

Served upon:

Mr Alessandro Roveri

Head of Legal Operations (South West) Justices’ Clerk

North and East Devon Magistrates’ Court (Code 1300)

Barnstaple Magistrates' Court 

North Walk 

Barnstaple 

Devon 

EX31 1DU

And :

Legal Services Department

Steve Hearse (CEO)

North Devon Council (Torridge District Council)

Riverbank House 

Bideford 

Devon 

EX39 2QG

Date: 30 June 2025

Ref: Case Nos. 502500030128 & 502500030128/1 to /8

Concerning:  ZEN JUNGLE RETREAT LIMITED

and the Legal Person styled as “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY”

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL. NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT.

To all recipients and liable parties (listed at the end of this document) in their private and professional capacity, I, Jason: (Family Tyldesley), a living man on the land, do hereby give final and lawful notice as follows:

Reference to Letter Dated 20 June 2025 and Unlawful Presumption

In your correspondence dated 20 June 2025 listing a further adjournment of the above case(s) to 26th August 2025, it was stated:

“The court can proceed in your absence if you do not attend.”

This statement is legally and fundamentally false.

No court can lawfully proceed against a living man without first rebutting a jurisdictional challenge. To proceed under colour of law while jurisdiction remains unrebutted is an act of fraud, coercion, and trespass. Your failure to respond to multiple conditional acceptances and proofs of claim demonstrates dishonour and default.

Questions for All Recipients (liable parties) to Reflect Upon

In addition to the lawful record already established, each officer, clerk, and agent is now asked to reflect upon the following lawful questions:

1. Why have you and the council failed to respond to a formal and lawful challenge to jurisdiction?

2. What lawful process permits a claim to proceed absent proof of jurisdiction, contract, or consent?

3. Do you believe statute is the default lawful jurisdiction for all men and women, thereby converting inalienable rights into state-controlled privileges?

4. Are you aware that by relying solely on statutory mechanisms and presumption, you may be violating foundational principles of law and incurring personal liability?

5. What training or authority have you received that permits you to override inalienable rights without contract, harm, or voluntary agreement?

⚠️ Clarification of Lawful Standing and Opportunity for Reflection

You are further invited to reflect sincerely on the nature of this communication. Do you consider the content of this notice to be mere opinion, rhetorical musing, or conspiracy?

If so, be advised: such an assumption may have profound personal consequences.

Ignorance of the law excuses no one. (Ignorantia juris non excusat)

This is a lawful, verifiable notice grounded in natural and common law principles, supported by recognisable English legal authorities. This moment is not one for dismissal or inertia, but a lawful opportunity to close the gaps in your legal and lawful understanding.

You are reminded:

• Proceeding without verified understanding or by relying upon hearsay within your agency or department does not absolve personal liability.

• Agency does not shield against unlawful conduct, particularly when that conduct is predicated on presumption of jurisdiction without evidence.

• Blind faith in statutory systems that bypass natural rights is neither lawful nor defensible once a jurisdictional challenge has been served and remains unrebutted.

For clarity and further reading:

Nash v Inman [1908] 2 KB 1 — confirms incapacity of those not competent to contract (applicable to the presumption of agency or consent through birth registration).

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952 — reaffirms the need for proven authority and due process before enforcement.

Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98 — establishes the foundational requirement that state power must be expressly justified in law, not assumed.

This is a lawful opportunity to cease further trespass, avoid compounding your liability, and restore honour to your position by acting with lawful reason.

📚 Understanding the Hierarchy of Law and the Limits of Statutory Jurisdiction

Let this serve also as a point of lawful education and personal warning.

The hierarchy of law under the British constitutional framework is clear and binding upon all public officers:

1. Natural Law (Divine or moral law) — immutable, universal principles such as life, liberty, and truth.

2. Common Law — derived from natural law, recognised in the courts of England as judge-made law, based on precedents, applied where harm, injury, or breach of peace can be proven.

3. Statute Law — created by Parliament, it governs legal persons and those who voluntarily consent to be bound by it.

“That which is expressed makes that which is implied silent.” (Expressum facit cessare tacitum)

This means statute cannot override natural or common law rights unless the man has agreed to operate within its jurisdiction — through a contract, joinder, or representation of a legal fiction. Even then, such agreement must be lawful and voluntary.

To be clear:

• Statutory mechanisms such as presumption, assumption, and administrative policy cannot lawfully be used to establish jurisdiction over a living man.

• Consent cannot be inferred where no full disclosure or wet-signed joinder exists.

• Silence, failure to appear, or administrative convenience do not constitute lawful agreement.

This notice has consistently maintained:

• That you may not lawfully act upon the legal fiction or attempt to draw jurisdiction over the living man without proving lawful joinder.

• That all attempts to do so in absence of contract are acts of fraud, trespass, and impersonation of lawful authority.

• That your own legal training may not have informed you of these foundational distinctions, but ignorance does not exempt you from liability.

In proceeding without lawful proof, you risk not only violating natural rights, but also bringing your agency and role into disrepute under both common law and commercial liability.

Should you still be unsure of these matters, you are urged to seek advice from a competent legal scholar familiar with foundational jurisprudence, contract law, and the limits of statutory reach. The time for blind reliance on procedure has passed.

The lawful status of this claim(s):

1. Jurisdiction Remains Lawfully Challenged and Unproven

This matter is subject to an unresolved and formally served challenge to jurisdiction. It is a maxim in law that “jurisdiction must be proven before it can be assumed.” A statutory court acting without lawful jurisdiction acts ultra vires and unlawfully.

“Quod ab initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescit.” (That which is void from the beginning does not become valid with time.)

As such, no hearing may proceed in absence, nor may any order be issued lawfully, until full, verifiable proof of jurisdiction is provided.

2. Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse

The repeated failure by both court and council officers to engage with the lawful points raised evidences either wilful neglect or unlawful presumption. These jurisdictional and contractual questions are not esoteric — they are foundational.

“He who fails to assert his rights has none.”

No rebuttal has been provided to multiple assertions of inalienable rights, agency limits, and the absence of lawful contract. You are now urged to seek legal clarity before incurring personal liability.

3. No Lawful Agency Exists Between the Living Man and the Legal Fictions

The court continues to address communications to:

• A company: ZEN JUNGLE RETREAT LIMITED, a registered legal fiction

• A person: “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY”, a created legal entity on a birth certificate

There exists no lawful or voluntary agency between myself, the living man, and either of these entities.

Lawful representation requires:

• Full Disclosure — of consequences and limitations on inalienable rights

• Voluntary Agreement — without coercion or penalty for non-consent

• Two Wet Signatures — proving mutual joinder of minds

None of these exist. Any assumption to the contrary is void ab initio.

4. Default and Dishonour Are Now Established in Law

All conditional acceptances have gone unrebutted, including those concerning:

• Licensing and registration claims

• Proof of lawful obligation

• Request for valid jurisdictional contract

Maxim of Law: “He who does not deny, admits.”

Failure to respond constitutes dishonour and legal default.

5. All Further Proceedings Constitute Personal Trespass and Liability

All future attempts to act on these claims constitute trespass against the living man, which is actionable under private criminal prosecution.

Statutory authority cannot excuse or obscure private liability where no consent or contract exists.

6. This Record Now Constitutes a Fully Evidenced and Served File of Default

Every communication has been:

• Signed and dated

• Delivered via tracked special delivery

• Receipted by court or council

• Followed up with lawful notices and rebuttals

You are now bound by the unrebutted record.

7. Demands and Instructions

• Dismiss all proceedings absent rebuttal

• Furnish names of all agents and officers involved

• Cease all contact absent verified jurisdiction and lawful contract

• Acknowledge this record as binding

8. Restatement of Jurisdictional Principle and Clarification of Law

“Jurisdiction must be proven before process.” (R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952)

Failure to observe this renders all proceedings void and unlawful.

9. Individual Notice of Personal Liability and Potential Criminal Prosecution

The following individuals are now placed formally on notice:

• Steve Hearse - Chief Executive Officer

• Phil Gilbert – Community Safety Officer

• Julie Mann – Food and Licensing Officer

• Peter Dryland – Environmental Protection

• Richard Whiting – Community Protection Officer

• Paul Cooper – Licensing Compliance Officer

• Ben Pocock – Licensing Officer

• Mr. Alessandro Roveri – Legal Adviser to the Magistrates Court

All are personally liable for trespass and any action taken in dishonour of this lawful record.

Declaration of Status and Non-Representation – Enclosed

Enclosed with this document is a duly signed Declaration of Status and Non-Representation, entered into the court record and forming part of all future notices, rebuttals, and correspondence.

This declaration lawfully affirms my status as a living man and formally rebuts any presumption of agency or representation of the legal person or company named in this matter.

Let it be noted by all recipients:

To attempt rebuttal of this declaration is to simultaneously declare oneself not sovereign, and thus bound by external authority and obligation without lawful proof — a position that, whether known or not, undermines one's own inalienable rights.

Accordingly, any attempt to restrict my lawful rights as a living man without proven jurisdiction and contract is, by implication, an attempt to restrict your own.

Served Without Prejudice, All Rights Reserved

By the Living Man: 

Signed by Jason on 30th June 2025