Notices & Declarations

13 October 2025

Devon & Cornwall Police, Devon Magistrates Court, Torridge Council

NOTICE OF DISHONOR, CLARIFICATION REQUEST, AND FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE

Motion to Dismiss, Notice

ZJR-TDC-Licensing Claims

With Prejudice. Notice to principal is notice to agent, notice to agent is notice to principal.

From: Jason : family Tyldesley — a living man Zen Jungle Retreat, Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek, Holsworthy, Devon. EX22 7JN

To:

The Justices' Clerk, Barnstaple Magistrates' Court, North Walk, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 1DU
The Crown Court (Clerk), Southernhay Gardens, Exeter, Devon EX1 1UH
Chief Executive & Head of Legal, Torridge District Council, Riverbank House, Bideford, Devon EX39 2QG
Chief Constable, Devon & Cornwall Police, Police Headquarters, Middlemoor, Exeter, Devon, EX2 7HQ

Your Reference/ Case Nos: 502500030055 (Personal : JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY) & 502500030128 (company: Zen Jungle Retreat Limited)

Date: 13th October 2025

Re: Follow-up to Notice of Procedural Trespass dated 29th September 2025; Dishonor; Clarification of Case Status; Challenge to Foundational Authority

1. NOTICE OF DISHONOR

On 29th September 2025, a comprehensive Notice of Procedural Trespass and Criminal Wrongdoing, together with supporting Affidavit of Truth, was served upon all four parties listed above via Special Delivery.

That Notice:

Challenged jurisdiction, consent, and joinder
Identified fatal defects in both the personal and company cases
Demanded proof of lawful authority to proceed
Required written response within 14 days
Detailed crimes committed by State agents (trespass, false imprisonment, interference)
Gave Notice of Intended Prosecution

Fourteen (14) days have now elapsed.

No response has been received from any party.

Effect of Silence

By the maxims of law:

Silence is acquiescence
He who does not deny, admits
An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth

The facts, claims, and challenges set out in the Notice of 29th September 2025 therefore stand unrebutted on the record and are now established as truth.

Specifically, the following remain uncontested and are therefore accepted:

No lawful defendant exists in either case
No joinder or contract has been proven or produced
The personal case was void ab initio
The company case cannot attach to a living being without proven joinder
Trespass to land, trespass to person, and false imprisonment were committed by State agents
All presumptions of personhood, jurisdiction, and consent are null and void

This constitutes dishonor.

2. URGENT CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

The hearing date of 17th October 2025 is now four days away.

Despite the events of 18-19th September 2025, critical information has not been provided:

A. Status of the Personal Case (502500030055)

Last adjournment notice dated 3rd June stated adjournment to 20th June, none since.
It stated that “the case may proceed in your absence”, no threat of arrest.
Was this case formally withdrawn, abandoned, or consolidated?
If this was the case used to create the 19th September hearing, why no notices?
If it remains active, where is the adjournment notice (with time) for 17th October?
On what legal basis does a personal case exist for a company licensing matter?

B. Bail Status

At the hearing of 19th September, the Magistrate purported to place "me" on unconditional bail
Adjournment & Bail were both discussed in my absence.
No written notice of bail or adjournment has been received since.
What was the basis for arrest, and the basis for bail? - No hearing was scheduled or missed.
To whom does bail attach—the living man or a purported "defendant"?
Without notice, how can compliance or breach be determined?

C. Company Case Adjournment (502500030128)

An adjournment notice was received for the company case to 17th October 2025
It requests "attendance of a director or company secretary"
Both are statutory legal persons (offices), not living beings
Without proven joinder, no living being can be compelled to appear in such a role

D. Procedural Confusion

The chronology demonstrates systematic irregularity:

Personal case: no adjournment beyond June, yet arrest in September
Hearing of 19th September: personal case adjourned to 17th October (stated verbally, absent me)
Adjournment notice dated 22nd September: only the company case listed for 17th October 2pm.
No reference to bail, personal case, or the living man.

This creates intolerable uncertainty and suggests the personal case is being used as a device for coercion while being quietly abandoned in favor of the company case.

Clarification Demanded

Within 48 hours of receipt of this Notice, provide in writing:

Confirmation of the status of case 502500030055 (personal case): active, withdrawn, consolidated, or abandoned?
If active, provide the lawful basis for a personal case in a company licensing matter
Written confirmation of bail status, conditions, and to whom bail attaches
Confirmation of which case(s) will be heard on 17th October 2025, with scheduled time(s).
Proof of joinder or contract showing authority to compel a living being to represent a statutory person.

Failure to clarify constitutes further dishonor and evidence of bad faith.

3. POSITION REGARDING 17TH OCTOBER 2025

Given the silence, confusion, and unresolved jurisdictional challenges, I state the following for the record:

A. No Lawful Defendant Exists

As set out in the unrebutted Notice of 29th September:

The personal case has no statutory foundation (licensing attaches to companies, not living beings)
The company case cannot proceed without proven joinder to a living representative
I am Jason : family Tyldesley, a living man—not a "person" (legal or natural) within the meaning of statute
I have never consented to represent any statutory person
No contract of joinder has been produced

Therefore: there is no defendant capable of answering either case.

B. Special Appearance Under Duress (If Applicable)

If I attend on 17th October, it will be:

Under duress and protest only
For the sole purpose of challenging jurisdiction
Not to submit to the court's claimed authority
Not as a "defendant," "person," or representative of any statutory entity

I do not recognize the court's jurisdiction over a living man absent proof of consent, joinder, or lawful authority.

Any attendance is conditional and does not constitute:

Acceptance of personhood
Submission to jurisdiction
Consent to be treated as a defendant
Waiver of any rights or standing

This shall be stated clearly on the record if I appear.

C. If I Do Not Attend

Non-attendance would not constitute:

Failure to appear (as no lawful defendant exists)
Contempt (as no jurisdiction has been proven)
Admission of any claim

Rather, it would reflect:

The absence of a proven defendant
The system's failure to rebut foundational challenges
The lack of lawful authority to compel attendance

Any further warrant or conviction in absence would constitute:

Continuation of false imprisonment
Proceeding without jurisdiction
Evidence that the system relies on force, not authority

4. THE FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE

This matter has now moved beyond procedural irregularities. It concerns the foundational legitimacy of the system's claimed authority.

The Core Question

Does the statutory system have lawful authority over a living being who has not consented, or does it proceed by presumption, conditioning, and force?

This is not "pseudolaw." It is a challenge to the jurisdictional basis of the system itself.

The System's Response Options

The system has three options:

Option 1: Prove Authority

Produce evidence of joinder, contract, or consent
Demonstrate how statute lawfully binds a living being who has explicitly refused personhood
Rebut the challenges with sworn testimony and evidence

Option 2: Admit the Presumption

Acknowledge that the system operates on presumption of consent
Admit that no explicit contract exists
Concede that jurisdiction rests on assumption, not proof

Option 3: Proceed by Force

Ignore the jurisdictional challenge
Label it "pseudolaw" without rebuttal
Enforce through arrest, detention, and penalty
Rely on might, not right

Fourteen Days of Silence Suggests Option 3

The failure to respond is telling. It suggests:

The system cannot rebut the challenge
The system will not admit the presumption
The system will proceed with force regardless

But force is not authority. It is evidence of the absence of authority.

The Label of "Pseudolaw"

The term "pseudolaw" is used to dismiss challenges without engaging with them. It is a form of conditioning—a reflexive response that protects the system from examination.

But the challenge remains:

Statute is a human-created system. This is not disputed.
Living beings exist prior to and independent of statute. This is not disputed.
Statute binds what it creates: persons (legal and natural). This is confirmed by statute itself.
Living beings are not persons unless they consent. This follows logically and philosophically.

Calling this "pseudolaw" does not rebut it. It merely avoids the question.

The Question for the Record

I ask the Court, the Council, and the Police directly:

Do you claim authority over a living man on the basis of:

Proven consent and contract? (If so, produce it.)
Presumption? (If so, admit it.)
Force? (If so, acknowledge that authority rests on coercion, not legitimacy.)

Silence or evasion confirms Option 3: the system proceeds by force, conditioning, and presumption—not by lawful authority.

5. CRIMES REMAIN UNREBUTTED

The Notice of 29th September detailed crimes committed by State agents:

Trespass to land (10th June 2025)
Trespass to person (18th September 2025)
False imprisonment (29 hours detention)
Misrepresentation and interference (19th September hearing)

These remain unrebutted.

No response, no denial, no justification has been provided.

By silence, these crimes are admitted.

Agents remain personally liable. The Notice of Intended Prosecution stands.

6. DOCUMENTARY CHAIN

This Notice forms part of the continuing documentary record, which includes:

Notice of Procedural Trespass and Affidavit of Truth (29th September 2025) ✓
This Follow-Up Notice (13th October 2025) ✓
Jurisdictional Challenge (21st April 2025) ✓
Estoppel after Jurisdictional Challenge (11th June 2025) ✓
Multiple conditional acceptances and notices (May–September 2025) ✓
Defective warrant, arrest records, and court transcripts ✓

All documents are preserved and published at:https://www.zenjungle.org/sovereign-community/notices-and-declarations-list

This ensures transparency, prevents spoliation, and creates an accessible record for all interested parties.

7. SUMMARY

14 days have passed with no response: dishonor is confirmed
Critical information remains withheld: bad faith is evident
No lawful defendant exists: both cases fail
The fundamental challenge remains unanswered: authority is unproven
Crimes by State agents remain unrebutted: liability stands
17th October is four days away: clarification is urgent

Required Within 48 Hours:

Status of personal case 502500030055
Bail confirmation and conditions
Which case(s) proceed on 17th October
Proof of joinder or lawful authority
Response to the foundational jurisdictional challenge

If No Response:

Further dishonor is established
The system's reliance on force over authority is confirmed
Any action taken on 17th October proceeds without jurisdiction
All consequences flow to the agents acting without lawful authority

8. CLOSING STATEMENT

Authority is either legitimate or it is imposed by force and deception.

Fourteen days of silence speaks volumes.

The living man stands outside the statutory boundary, unconsented, unjoindered, and unbound.

Prove otherwise, or admit you cannot.

Signed: _____________________________Jason : family Tyldesley, a living man