Notices & Declarations

21 April 2025

Devon Magistrates Court

Notice of Challenge to Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss

Notice

ZJR-TDC-Licensing Claims

NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS

To:

The Clerk to the Justices

North Devon Magistrates’ Court

The Law Courts, North Walk

Barnstaple

EX31 1DX

From:

Jason : (Family Tyldesley)

A living man

Zen Jungle Retreat

Wooda Lakes,

Pancrasweek

Holsworthy,

Devon

EX22 7JN

Date: 21st April 2025

Case Reference: Not provided | Council reference : LIT/001/2024

Summons Date: 3rd June 2025

✦ SPECIAL APPEARANCE – UNDER DURESS AND WITHOUT CONSENT

I, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), a living man, hereby issue this notice to challenge jurisdiction and move for immediate dismissal of the claim brought against me by Torridge District Council in relation to the alleged breaches of statute law.

This appearance—should it be made—will be under special appearance only, by duress, and without consent, for the sole purpose of seeking lawful clarification and proof of jurisdiction and exposing the absence of any lawful cause of action or proof of claim.

✦ JURISDICTION MUST BE PROVEN BEFORE PROCESS

It is a foundational principle of law that jurisdiction is the first question that must be settled before any court may proceed. Without jurisdiction, all actions, rulings, and procedures are void ab initio (from the beginning). The onus is upon the party asserting jurisdiction — in this case, the claimant — to provide clear, lawful evidence that jurisdiction exists.

As affirmed in Hagon v. Lord Advocate (1960) SC (HL) 31 and Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, a court that acts without jurisdiction is acting unlawfully, and any judgment it makes is null and without legal effect.

Furthermore, under common law, it is established that: “The burden lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.” (“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”).

Thus, until and unless the claimant proves jurisdiction lawfully exists — by evidencing voluntary, informed, and explicit consent to statute — the court has no lawful standing to proceed, and must immediately hold all process in abeyance or dismiss the claim.

I therefore challenge the jurisdiction of this court to hear any claim against me as a living man based on statutory obligations, until such time as the claimant proves all of the following, lawfully and in writing:

✦ THE THREE-PART LAWFUL TEST FOR STATUTORY CLAIMS

Jurisdiction Without Consent That statutory jurisdiction lawfully applies to the living man without relying on circular reasoning, presumption, inference, or assumption which are themselves statutory mechanisms.
Lawful Consent to Be Governed by Statute That I have lawfully consented to be governed by statute through a contract that includes:
- Full disclosure of my inalienable rights before contract,
- Voluntary, uncoerced agreement,
- Two wet signatures proving lawful joinder.
Lawful Agreement to Represent Legal Fictions That I have knowingly and voluntarily agreed to represent either:
- The legal fiction “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY”, or
- The legal entity “Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd.” —and that such representation binds me to statutory obligations.

Unless all three conditions are met and evidenced, there is no lawful cause for this claim to proceed, and any hearing or judgment would be ultra vires, void ab initio, and a breach of natural and common law.

✦ PREEMPTIVE REBUTTAL TO MISUSE OF “KOFA v OLDHAM” OR SIMILAR CASES

It is anticipated that the claimant or court may attempt to cite Kofa v Oldham MBC [2000] 1 WLR 1440 as precedent in matters relating to statutory obligation or jurisdiction. Let it be made clear:

This case was confined strictly within the bounds of statutory interpretation; it did not deal with, examine, or establish jurisdiction over living men or women under natural or common law.
It involved a local authority's internal process under housing statute, and any conclusions drawn pertained only to those already subject to statutory contract or administrative rules.
The court’s finding in that case assumed jurisdiction by virtue of the parties’ accepted participation in a statutory scheme, and did not establish that statutory jurisdiction applies to all by default.

Therefore, any attempt to use Kofa v Oldham to prove jurisdiction over a living being who has neither consented to statute nor entered into joinder is a misrepresentation of that case, and a fraudulent extension of statutory scope.

To adopt such a precedent as a substitute for lawful proof of jurisdiction would, by implication:

Eliminate all inalienable rights,
Establish that statutory authority supersedes natural law, and
Allow presumption to override explicit consent, thereby reversing the principle that government is servant to the people.

Such a position is both logically void and lawfully unacceptable, as it would mean that no living man or woman is ever truly free — a premise that is in direct conflict with both natural law and the common law tradition of this land.

The lawful test remains: without explicit contract, with full disclosure and joinder, there is no lawful jurisdiction. Case law that presumes jurisdiction cannot substitute for lawful agreement where no contract exists.

✦ NOTICE OF NO JOINDER TO LEGAL FICTITIOUS ENTITIES

I do not, and have never, knowingly or lawfully consented to represent or act as:

The corporate legal fiction “Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd.”
The statutory fiction or “person” known as “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY”

No lawful contract exists binding me, a living man, to obligations incurred or assigned to these artificial entities.

By issuing duplicate notices to both entities, the claimant has acknowledged the separation of man from fiction. Yet no proof has been provided showing lawful joinder or authority to transfer obligations to me personally. To proceed without such proof is misrepresentation and, knowingly done, constitutes fraud.

✦ FRAUDULENT PROCESS BY CLAIMANT AND COURT

To issue a summons without first proving jurisdiction is:

A breach of due process,
A violation of the presumption of innocence,
And a form of procedural fraud.

The burden of proof lies solely upon the claimant—not upon the accused. I have issued multiple notices to the claimant demanding lawful proof of claim. No such proof has been provided.

The creation and listing of this case without first establishing lawful jurisdiction is a serious error. Should the court proceed without rectifying this, it will share liability for misrepresentation and trespass upon my rights.

✦ PRESUMPTION CANNOT LAWFULLY ACHIEVE WHAT CONTRACT CANNOT

Maxim of Law: “Quod non valet directum, non valet per obliquum” — “What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.”

No authority may lawfully restrict or compel the waiver of inalienable rights by inference, presumption, or statutory implication, if that same restriction would be unlawful without the explicit, voluntary, and informed agreement of the individual under common law.

Yet this is precisely what is attempted through statutory mechanisms which:

Assume jurisdiction without proof,
Infer representation of legal fictions,
Require licences, registrations, or compliance without contract,
And presume obligation in the absence of harm, consent, or joinder.

Such mechanisms indirectly impose the same restrictions upon a living being that could only be lawfully imposed directly through a common law contract that meets all of the following criteria:

Full Disclosure of inalienable rights and their lawful standing prior to any agreement,
Voluntary Agreement, made free of coercion, silence, assumption, or administrative pressure,
Two Wet Signatures evidencing lawful joinder and a meeting of minds.

Therefore, any presumption that statutory jurisdiction applies — and which creates or enforces a restriction upon inalienable rights — is, by definition, a fraudulent substitution for lawful contract, and must be dismissed as unlawful under common law.

In short: What cannot be done directly by lawful means, cannot be enforced indirectly through policy, process, or presumption.

✦ REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL

You are now formally required to:

Cease all proceedings until jurisdiction is lawfully and adequately proven by the claimant.
Strike out or dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction, lack of injured party, and lack of lawful cause of action.
Confirm in writing that the matter is dismissed or held in abeyance pending jurisdictional proof.

✦ THIS COURT LACKS LAWFUL COMPETENCE TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION

This is a challenge to jurisdiction, not to policy, procedure, or statutory compliance.

The Magistrates’ Court is a summary, administrative venue whose officers — whether lay or district — are empowered only to apply statute presuming that jurisdiction already exists. It is not a court of record and does not possess the judicial authority to determine foundational jurisdictional issues, nor matters pertaining to:

The existence and status of inalienable rights,
The lawful requirement of contract and joinder,
The authority of statute over a non-consenting living man.

Accordingly:

If jurisdiction cannot be lawfully proven — and instead rests on presumption, inference, or circular logic — this court has no lawful authority to proceed.

Should this court attempt to continue, it will be operating ultra vires and acting under colour of law.

I therefore respectfully require that this matter either:

Be struck out immediately for want of lawful jurisdiction, or
Be referred to a court of record competent to hear and determine jurisdictional and constitutional challenges.

Proceeding without addressing this challenge would constitute a wilful breach of natural justice and a trespass upon the rights and peace of the living man.

This notice is issued respectfully and lawfully. If any part of this notice is disputed, I require a written rebuttal within 7 days, providing full and lawful proof of claim, supported by affidavit and signed by a living man or woman who takes full liability for the statements made.

Failure to respond will constitute tacit agreement that no lawful jurisdiction exists, and that no lawful claim can be made against me.

✦ SCHEDULE A – LAWFUL QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION OF JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY, AND CLAIM

(Attached: 4-section list of lawful interrogatories)

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

Signed,

Signed by Jason on 21st April 2025