NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL TRESPASS AND CRIMINAL WRONGDOING

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:

1. The Justices’ Clerk Barnstaple Magistrates’ Court North Walk Barnstaple Devon EX31 1DU

2. The Crown Court (Clerk) Southernhay Gardens Exeter Devon EX1 1UH

3. Chief Executive & Head of Legal Torridge District Council Riverbank House Bideford Devon EX39 2QG

4. Chief Constable, Devon & Cornwall PolicePolice Headquarters, Middlemoor, ExeterDevon, EX2 7HQ

Reference Case Nos: 502500030055 (individual) & 502500030128 (company)

Re: Licensing Claim, Fraudulent Personal Case, Procedural Trespass, False Imprisonment.

Date: 29th September 2025

To be filed into the record and served upon the Court, the Council, and the Police. 

1. Introduction

This Notice addresses the recent arrest, detention, and hearing arising from a licensing claim. It sets out, using statutory definitions, case law, and unrebutted notices already served, why:

• No lawful defendant exists;

• No case can be answered; and

• The only proven crimes are those committed by State agents.

2. Statutory Definitions and Boundaries

2.1 Legal and natural persons

• Companies Act 2006, s.16(2): “On the registration of a company … it becomes a body corporate.” → a legal person, created by statute, with rights and duties granted by statute.

• Human Rights Act 1998, s.1; ECHR Art.2: “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.” → a natural person, used in statute to mean a human recognised within the system, whose rights are described as inherent.

• Interpretation Act 1978, Sch.1: “‘Person’ includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate.”

• Thus defining natural and legal persons as distinct by their respective rights, being inherent or granted by statute. Both statuses sit inside the statutory boundary, distinct from the living outside it.

• Meaning: Cases related to granted rights route to legal, not natural statutory persons.

2.2 Personhood and joinder

• Personhood is the statutory mechanism by which a natural person (a human recognised in statute) may represent a legal person (e.g. a company).

• This requires joinder: an explicit contract of representation, entered into voluntarily, with full disclosure and two wet signatures.

• Without joinder, there is no lawful bridge from a living being to a statutory entity of person, they remain distinctly separate and do not represent each other.

2.3 The Statutory Boundary, only one lawful bridge can cross it - Joinder

• Statute binds only what it creates and defines: persons.

• Legal persons exist solely by statutory creation, and so are bound by it.

• Natural persons, when referenced, are recognised within statute, but remain statutory definitions.

• The living man, created by nature, is neither of these. He exists before and outside statute.

• The only lawful means of attaching statutory duties to a living being is by joinder: a bilateral contract whereby the living man knowingly agrees to represent a statutory person.

• Without such joinder, statutory obligations remain confined to statutory persons and cannot lawfully cross the statutory boundary into the natural realm. This is a matter of law and statute.

2.4 Presumption, challenge and the requirement for proof - A Conditioning Trick

• The State presumes that all living beings are “persons.”

• Once challenged, presumption collapses. This is a matter of law. The burden of proof falls on the claimant to show a valid joinder contract. After 14+ challenges and declarations, none has been produced.

• From this presumption flows the false assumption that statute binds the living man directly.

• This is untrue: in both natural law and statute itself, no such automatic attachment exists.

• Nash v Inman [1908] 2 KB 1: no contract, no liability.

• Maxim: He who asserts must prove.

3. Application to this Case(s)

3.1 Two independent and distinct cases were created

• Case 1: Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd — a company (legal person).

• Case 2: “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY” — a personal case which was not derivative of the company case. This was void ab initio.

3.2 Failures of the Personal Case

The case styled against “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY” was void from inception. It was not derivative of the company case, and it had no lawful basis because licensing obligations attach only to a company (legal person). The personal case fails for the following reasons:

(a) Cause of action

• Licensing duties are statutory obligations granted to legal persons.

• A living man or statutory natural person cannot be the direct target of a licensing claim.

• By definition, the claim could only attach to Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd (the company).

(b) Chronology of adjournments

• Earlier adjournment notices (May–June 2025) referred separately to the company and the personal case.

• Later notices (20th June) specifically indicated - “to tie up with other case - Jason Tyldesley”

• After June 2025, no further adjournment notices were issued in the personal case.

• The three most recent adjournment notices for (26th August, 22nd September and 17th October 2025) were addressed solely to the company. Specifying “to tie up with other case - Jason Tyldesley”, “for a director or company secretary to attend court” and “to deal with allocation when the director appears before the crown court”

• The arrest of 18th and hearing of 19th September resulted in adjournment of the personal case to 17th October 2025, yet the subsequent adjournment notice was dated 22nd September and listed 17th October2025 for the company case hearing.

(c) Hearing and arrest irregularities

• Despite the personal case not being adjourned beyond June, and ALL notices stating “If you do not follow these instructions or fail to attend the hearing, the court can still decide to deal with your case in your absence” with no mention or threat of arrest. I was arrested on 18 September 2025 as though the personal case was active.

• The warrant was defective (unsigned, unstamped, not served).

• At the hearing on 19 September 2025, the court attempted to misrepresent me, a living man, as the personal defendant, and placed the misrepresented me on bail.

• Yet the subsequent adjournment notice made no reference to bail, no reference to a personal case, and instead again listed only the company as defendant.

• No notification of bail has been received since.

(d) Effect

• This sequence shows that the personal case was never lawfully constituted, was used only as a device to justify arrest and detention, and is now being quietly abandoned in favour of the company case — the only claim with even a colour of statutory validity.

• The personal case was thus a fraudulent creation by the council, unlawfully accepted by the court, and unlawfully enforced by the police.

All cases fail for want of a living man or woman (inherently outside the statutory boundary), who is voluntarily, knowingly and explicitly wet-signed to a bilateral contract to represent a ‘defendant’ inside the statutory boundary; or proven harm, loss or interference. This is fatal in law and statute.

3.3 Failures of the Company Case

The case styled against Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd also fails, though it is the only entity that could even appear to be a statutory target. Its failures are structural and fatal:

(a) No joinder to a living being

• Statute binds only the persons it creates and defines.

• Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd is a legal person, a paper entity incapable of thought or action.

• For statute to act against the company in reality, it requires a living man or woman to represent it through joinder.

• I have never entered into joinder or contract to represent this company. Registration is not joinder.

• Therefore, the case cannot attach to me or any living being.

(b) Offences require a living actor

• Statutory “offences” such as licensing attach to a legal, not natural person but breaches require conduct. (Action to be taken or not taken)

• A legal person, being non-living, cannot itself take action, and therefore cannot commit an offence in and of itself.

• Without a living actor bound by joinder, the claim fails for want of a defendant capable of conduct.

(c) No evidence of offence

• No proof of alcohol sales, film showings, or any other regulated act has been presented.

• The case rests on speculation and supposition, not evidence.

• Alleged “offences” exist only on paper, unsupported by proof or conduct.

(d) PSC outside statutory boundary

• The People with Significant Control (PSC) for the company is a Private Irrevocable Trust.

• The Trust sits outside the statutory boundary, and no presumption of attachment may be made without proof of joinder.

• Attendance of a PSC cannot be compelled without trespass upon the trust.

(e) Attendance requested of director or secretary

• The adjournments repeatedly state: “for the attendance of a director or company secretary.”

• Both “director” and “secretary” are statutory legal persons, not living men or women.Without joinder, no living being can be compelled to appear in those roles.

Effect

• The company case, like the personal case, collapses once the statutory boundary is understood.

• Licensing duties are granted rights and attach only to legal persons.

• A legal person cannot answer by itself.

• Without joinder to a living being, there is no one capable of conduct, and therefore no defendant.

• Conclusion: There is no case for a living being (or natural person) to answer, and no legal person capable of answering in and of itself.

All cases fail for want of a living man or woman (inherently outside the statutory boundary), who is voluntarily, knowingly and explicitly wet-signed to a bilateral contract to represent a ‘defendant’ inside the statutory boundary; or proven harm, loss or interference. This is fatal in law and statute.

3.4 Challenges and declarations

• Status, jurisdiction, consent, and joinder were challenged and declared at least 14 times:

  • 21 April 2025: Jurisdictional Challenge.

  • 11 June 2025: Estoppel after Jurisdictional Challenge.

  • Multiple notices in May and June 2025 responding to council letters.

  • 18 September 2025: denial of personhood in custody.

  • 19 September 2025: “I am not a person. Who is the defendant?” stated on record.

• At no time was proof provided.

• Therefore: all presumptions are null.
  

4. Status and Standing

Accordingly, on the unrebutted record:

• I am Jason : family Tyldesley, a living man.

• I am not a person — legal or natural — unless I expressly and voluntarily agree by contract.

• I have not adopted any statutory status.

• I have not knowingly or voluntarily contracted to represent a legal person.

• I have not entered into any joinder with a legal person.

• No contract has been produced.

• I have challenged and revoked any presumption of joinder or consent.

5. Consequences

5.1 No defendant

• The company exists, but cannot act without joinder.

• The personal case was void ab initio.

• The living man has never been proven to be a “person” (Statutory status). ➡ No defendant exists to which statute can attach.

5.2 No case

• No evidence of alcohol sales, film showings, or harm has been presented.

• No offence exists without joinder. Explicit not presumed.

• No crime was committed by me, the living man.

• No offence can be committed by a non-statutory entity, such as a living man created by nature.

5.3 Crimes by the State

• Trespass to land: council officers entered despite posted notices, police for the unlawful arrest.

• Trespass to person: unlawful arrest on defective warrant.

• False imprisonment: 29 hours in custody without lawful cause.

• Interference: refusal to record denial of personhood, photographing private property, suppression of speech in court.

6. Preservation of Evidence

You are hereby instructed to preserve all evidence, including:

• Supply of Individual details, of police, court and council officers involved in case and arrest.

• Copies of warrants relied upon;

• CCTV/audio recordings from custody;

• Court records of the 19 September hearing;

• All council and police internal communications concerning the visit of 10 June and the arrest of 18 September.

Spoliation of evidence will constitute further trespass and liability.

7. Personal Liability of Agents

Agents of the State who act without lawful authority cannot rely on “just following orders.” Each remains personally liable for trespass, false imprisonment, and misrepresentation. Liability attaches individually to:

• Council officers who entered land past posted notices;

• Police officers who executed an invalid warrant;

• Custody officers who ignored denial of personhood;

• Court staff and magistrates who attempted to misrepresent the living man as a defendant.

8. Defining by Action

We are not defined by what we call ourselves but by what our actions reveal.

• The living man has acted consistently in honour: serving notices, conditionally accepting, demanding proof, and standing peacefully.

• The State and its agents have acted unlawfully: trespass, coercion, misrepresentation, and detention without cause.

By these actions, the State has defined itself, through the actions of its agents as a criminal organisation or vehicle of organised wrongdoing. 

9. Truths that Cannot Be Denied

1. Statute binds the persons it creates; it does not create or bind living beings, absent consent.

2. Licensing duties therefore apply only to legal persons, which are distinctly separate from living men or women.

3. Personhood is a mechanism of representation; joinder is required. 

4. Joinder requires explicit contract, informed, voluntary with 2 wet signatures; none exists.

5. Presumption that a man is or represents a person collapses once challenged; proof has never been given.

6. The only crimes proven are those committed by State agents.

10. Remedy and Notice

Accordingly, I require within 14 days:

1. Written confirmation that the personal case has been withdrawn.

2. Written admission that no lawful defendant exists.

3. Withdrawal of all statutory claims.

4. Admission of trespass, false imprisonment, and interference.

5. Settlement of penalties as previously noticed, and noticed herein in exhibits.

Failure to respond will confirm dishonour and liability for enforcement privately and publicly.

11. Executive Summary

• No defendant, no joinder, no consent, no jurisdiction.

• Personal case was void; company case cannot attach to me.

• Presumptions challenged 14+ times, never rebutted.

• No offence proven, no crime committed by me.

• Trespass and crimes committed by State agents.

• Agents remain personally liable. Agents have acted beyond lawful authority.

• The State, by its actions, has defined itself as criminal.

• To ensure accountability and transparency. this matter has been publicly documented and published at https://www.zenjungle.org/sovereign-community/notices-and-declarations-list.

All cases fail for want of a living man or woman (inherently outside the statutory boundary), who is voluntarily, knowingly and explicitly wet-signed to a bilateral contract to represent a ‘defendant’ inside the statutory boundary; or proven harm, loss or interference. This is fatal in law and statute.

12. Notice of Intended Prosecution

In addition to the matters above, take Notice that:

1. The unlawful entry onto posted land, the arrest without lawful authority, the detention of a living man for 29 hours, and the subsequent attempt to misrepresent him as a statutory person, together constitute criminal trespass, false imprisonment, and misfeasance in public office.

2. These actions are not isolated. They form a pattern of organised wrongdoing by council officers, police officers, and court officials, each acting in excess of lawful authority, despite clear and repeated notices served.

3. A parallel action for remedy will therefore be commenced, in a court of record, against all liable parties. This will include, but not be limited to:

   • Trespass to land;

   • Trespass to the person;

   • False imprisonment;

   • Criminal misrepresentation;

   • Aggravated damages for interference with rights, liberty, and property.

   • Misfeasance in public office.

4. Each individual officer and agent involved is on Notice that liability attaches personally as well as corporately, and no reliance can be made on “just following orders.”

5. This Notice therefore serves as a Notice of Intended Prosecution, declaring that enforcement will be pursued privately and publicly for the wrongs committed.

13. Supporting Documents / Exhibits

This notice is supported by, and incorporates by reference and select inclusion, the following documents already served on or held the parties, preserved as exhibits:

Included with this notice and affidavit:

1. Summons and defective personal case papers (unsigned, unstamped).

2. Adjournment notices from May–September 2025 (showing abandonment of the personal case).

3. Penalty schedule and Invoices (Updated and enclosed)

Already served on or held by parties - Some required to be supplied to affiant.

4. Jurisdictional Challenge, 21 April 2025. - (Served and Published)

5. Estoppel after Jurisdictional Challenge, 11 June 2025. - (Served and Published)

6. Conditional acceptances of council claims (May–June 2025). - (Served and Published)

7. Trespass Notices posted and served at Wooda Lakes. - (Served and Published)

8. Custody and hearing records of 18–19 September 2025. - (Not yet supplied to affiant)

9. Defective arrest warrant - No stamp or signature - (Not yet supplied to the affiant)

10. Notice of arrest and bail pending october hearing - (Not evidenced or supplied to affiant)

These are incorporated into this Notice and Affidavit and may be produced in full at any subsequent proceeding or enforcement.

For efficiency and transparency, a full copy of the supporting exhibits, including summons, adjournment notices, warrants, notices served, and related correspondence, has been published and preserved at: https://www.zenjungle.org/sovereign-community/notices-and-declarations-list 

This public record forms part of the evidence in this matter and is incorporated herein by reference.

This Notice and Affidavit form part of a Court of Record, established by sworn affidavits unrebutted. All facts herein stand as truth unless rebutted by sworn testimony, full disclosure, and evidence.”

By the hand of the living man, Jason: (Family Tyldesley). All rights reserved, none waived.

Signed by Jason : family Tyldesley, a living man  

Date: 29th September 2025  

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

In the Matter of the Licensing Claim, Arrest, and Trespass of September 2025

Affiant: Jason : family Tyldesley, a living man

Location: Zen Jungle Retreat, Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek, Holsworthy, Devon, EX22 7JN

Date: 29th September 2025

1. Preamble and Oath

I, Jason : family Tyldesley, being of sound mind, over the age of majority, and competent to testify, do solemnly affirm that the facts herein are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

This Affidavit is made in support of the Notice of Procedural Trespass and Criminal Wrongdoing dated 29th September 2025, and incorporates detailed evidential coverage of the matters therein.

2. Statutory Definitions and Boundaries

2.1 Legal and natural persons

• Companies Act 2006, s.16(2): “On the registration of a company … it becomes a body corporate.” → a legal person, created by statute, with rights and duties granted by statute.

• Human Rights Act 1998, s.1; ECHR Art.2: “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.” → a natural person, used in statute to mean a human recognised within the system, whose rights are described as inherent.

• Interpretation Act 1978, Sch.1: “‘Person’ includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate.”

• Thus defining natural and legal persons as distinct by their respective rights, being inherent or granted by statute. Both statuses sit inside the statutory boundary, distinct from the living outside it.

• Meaning: Cases related to granted rights route to legal, not natural statutory persons.

2.2 Personhood and joinder

• Personhood is the statutory mechanism by which a natural person (a human recognised in statute) may represent a legal person (e.g. a company).

• This requires joinder: an explicit contract of representation, entered into voluntarily, with full disclosure and two wet signatures.

• Without joinder, there is no lawful bridge from a living being to a statutory entity of person, they remain distinctly separate and do not represent each other.

2.3 The Statutory Boundary, only one lawful bridge can cross it - Joinder

• Statute binds only what it creates and defines: persons.

• Legal persons exist solely by statutory creation, and so are bound by it.

• Natural persons, when referenced, are recognised within statute, but remain statutory definitions.

• The living man, created by nature, is neither of these. He exists before and outside statute.

• The only lawful means of attaching statutory duties to a living being is by joinder: a bilateral contract whereby the living man knowingly agrees to represent a statutory person.

• Without such joinder, statutory obligations remain confined to statutory persons and cannot lawfully cross the statutory boundary into the natural realm. This is a matter of law and statute.

2.4 Presumption, challenge and the requirement for proof - A Conditioning Trick

• The State presumes that all living beings are “persons.”

• Once challenged, presumption collapses. This is a matter of law. The burden of proof falls on the claimant to show a valid joinder contract. After 14+ challenges and declarations, none has been produced.

• From this presumption flows the false assumption that statute binds the living man directly.

• This is untrue: in both natural law and statute itself, no such automatic attachment exists.

• Nash v Inman [1908] 2 KB 1: no contract, no liability.

• Maxim: He who asserts must prove.

3. Application to this Case(s)

3.1 Two independent and distinct cases were created

• Case 1: Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd — a company (legal person).

• Case 2: “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY” — a personal case which was not derivative of the company case. This was void ab initio.

3.2 Failures of the Personal Case

The case styled against “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY” was void from inception. It was not derivative of the company case, and it had no lawful basis because licensing obligations attach only to a company (legal person). The personal case fails for the following reasons:

(a) Cause of action

• Licensing duties are statutory obligations granted to legal persons.

• A living man or statutory natural person cannot be the direct target of a licensing claim.

• By definition, the claim could only attach to Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd (the company).

(b) Chronology of adjournments

• Earlier adjournment notices (May–June 2025) referred separately to the company and the personal case.

• Later notices (20th June) specifically indicated - “to tie up with other case - Jason Tyldesley”

• After June 2025, no further adjournment notices were issued in the personal case.

• The three most recent adjournment notices for (26th August, 22nd September and 17th October 2025) were addressed solely to the company. Specifying “to tie up with other case - Jason Tyldesley”, “for a director or company secretary to attend court” and “to deal with allocation when the director appears before the crown court”

• The arrest of 18th and hearing of 19th September resulted in adjournment of the personal case to 17th October 2025, yet the subsequent adjournment notice was dated 22nd September and listed 17th October 2025 for the company case hearing.

(c) Hearing and arrest irregularities

• Despite the personal case not being adjourned beyond June, and ALL notices stating “If you do not follow these instructions or fail to attend the hearing, the court can still decide to deal with your case in your absence” with no mention or threat of arrest. I was arrested on 18 September 2025 as though the personal case was active.

• The warrant was defective (unsigned, unstamped, not served).

• At the hearing on 19 September 2025, the court attempted to misrepresent me, a living man, as the personal defendant, and placed the misrepresented me on bail.

• Yet the subsequent adjournment notice made no reference to bail, no reference to a personal case, and instead again listed only the company as defendant.

• No notification of bail has been received since.

(d) Effect

• This sequence shows that the personal case was never lawfully constituted, was used only as a device to justify arrest and detention, and is now being quietly abandoned in favour of the company case — the only claim with even a colour of statutory validity.

• The personal case was thus a fraudulent creation by the council, unlawfully accepted by the court, and unlawfully enforced by the police.

All cases fail for want of a living man or woman (inherently outside the statutory boundary), who is voluntarily, knowingly and explicitly wet-signed to a bilateral contract to represent a ‘defendant’ inside the statutory boundary; or proven harm, loss or interference. This is fatal in law and statute.

3.3 Failures of the Company Case

The case styled against Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd also fails, though it is the only entity that could even appear to be a statutory target. Its failures are structural and fatal:

(a) No joinder to a living being

• Statute binds only the persons it creates and defines.

• Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd is a legal person, a paper entity incapable of thought or action.

• For statute to act against the company in reality, it requires a living man or woman to represent it through joinder.

• I have never entered into joinder or contract to represent this company. Registration is not joinder.

• Therefore, the case cannot attach to me or any living being.

(b) Offences require a living actor

• Statutory “offences” such as licensing attach to a legal, not natural person but breaches require conduct. (Action to be taken or not taken)

• A legal person, being non-living, cannot itself take action, and therefore cannot commit an offence in and of itself.

• Without a living actor bound by joinder, the claim fails for want of a defendant capable of conduct.

(c) No evidence of offence

• No proof of alcohol sales, film showings, or any other regulated act has been presented.

• The case rests on speculation and supposition, not evidence.

• Alleged “offences” exist only on paper, unsupported by proof or conduct.

(d) PSC outside statutory boundary

• The People with Significant Control (PSC) for the company is a Private Irrevocable Trust.

• The Trust sits outside the statutory boundary, and no presumption of attachment may be made without proof of joinder.

• Attendance of a PSC cannot be compelled without trespass upon the trust.

(e) Attendance requested of director or secretary

• The adjournments repeatedly state: “for the attendance of a director or company secretary.”

• Both “director” and “secretary” are statutory legal persons, not living men or women.Without joinder, no living being can be compelled to appear in those roles.

Effect

• The company case, like the personal case, collapses once the statutory boundary is understood.

• Licensing duties are granted rights and attach only to legal persons.

• A legal person cannot answer by itself.

• Without joinder to a living being, there is no one capable of conduct, and therefore no defendant.

• Conclusion: There is no case for a living being (or natural person) to answer, and no legal person capable of answering in and of itself.

All cases fail for want of a living man or woman (inherently outside the statutory boundary), who is voluntarily, knowingly and explicitly wet-signed to a bilateral contract to represent a ‘defendant’ inside the statutory boundary; or proven harm, loss or interference. This is fatal in law and statute.

3.4 Challenges and declarations

• Status, jurisdiction, consent, and joinder were challenged and declared at least 14 times:

  • 21 April 2025: Jurisdictional Challenge.

  • 11 June 2025: Estoppel after Jurisdictional Challenge.

  • Multiple notices in May and June 2025 responding to council letters.

  • 18 September 2025: denial of personhood in custody.

  • 19 September 2025: “I am not a person. Who is the defendant?” stated on record.

Responses:

• No proof of jurisdiction.

• No proof of consent.

• No proof of joinder.

• Silence and evasion.

Effect:

• By maxims, unrebutted affidavit and notice stand as truth.

• All presumptions against me are null and void.

4. Coverage Points

• Licensing = statutory duty: applies to legal persons only.

• Company case: attaches to Zen Jungle Retreat Ltd (legal person) but severed by Private Irrevocable Trust PSC.

• Personal case: void from inception; unlawful creation and acceptance.

• Joinder: required to bridge to living man; never proven.

• Status: declared and unrebutted — I remain a living man.

• Offences vs crimes: alleged offences = statutory breaches (never evidenced); real crimes = trespass, false imprisonment, misrepresentation.

• State action: pattern of organised wrongdoing by council, police, and court.

4A. Status Declared and Misrepresentation Denied

I declare on oath:

1. I am Jason : family Tyldesley, a living man.

2. I am not a “person,” whether legal or natural, within the meaning of statute.

3. I am not, and never have been, the “defendant” in this or any statutory case.

4. I do not accept or adopt “personhood” as a status.

5. I have never entered into joinder or contract to represent a statutory person, nor has any such evidence ever been produced.

6. Any attempt to misrepresent me as a person or defendant is trespass and misrepresentation.

5. Crimes Committed by the State

• Trespass to land: council officers entered despite posted notices (10 June 2025).

• Trespass to person: arrest on 18 September 2025 without valid warrant.

• False imprisonment: 29 hours detention.

• Interference: refusal to record denial of personhood, photographing of private bar, suppression of speech in court.

6. Preservation of Evidence

I demand preservation of:

• All warrants and authorisations.

• CCTV/audio of custody.

• Court records of 19 September hearing.

• Council and police communications re 10 June visit and 18 September arrest.

Spoliation constitutes further trespass.

7. Liability of Agents

• No agent may rely on “orders.”

• Personal liability attaches to council officers, arresting police, custody staff, and court officials who exceeded lawful authority.

8. Actions Define Character

• My actions: honourable — notices, conditional acceptances, peaceful standing.

• The State’s actions: unlawful — trespass, coercion, misrepresentation.

• Actions define character: the State has defined itself as criminal.

9. Intended Prosecution

I give Notice that parallel prosecution will proceed for:

• Trespass to land;

• Trespass to the person;

• False imprisonment;

• Criminal misrepresentation;

• Aggravated damages for interference with rights, liberty, and property.

• Misfeasance in public office.

10. Conclusion

• There is no defendant, no joinder, no consent, no jurisdiction.

• The personal case was void; the company case cannot attach.

• All presumptions have collapsed.

• The only crimes proven are those committed by State agents.

• This Affidavit stands unrebutted unless countered by sworn testimony, full disclosure, and evidence of contract.

11. Supporting Documents / Exhibits

This notice is supported by, and incorporates by reference and select inclusion, the following documents already served on or held the parties, preserved as exhibits:

Included with this notice and affidavit:

1. Summons and defective personal case papers (unsigned, unstamped).

2. Adjournment notices from May–September 2025 (showing abandonment of the personal case).

3. Penalty schedule and Invoices (Updated and enclosed)

Already served on or held by parties - Some required to be supplied to affiant.

4. Jurisdictional Challenge, 21 April 2025. - (Served and Published)

5. Estoppel after Jurisdictional Challenge, 11 June 2025. - (Served and Published)

6. Conditional acceptances of council claims (May–June 2025). - (Served and Published)

7. Trespass Notices posted and served at Wooda Lakes. - (Served and Published)

8. Custody and hearing records of 18–19 September 2025. - (Not yet supplied to affiant)

9. Defective arrest warrant - No stamp or signature - (Not yet supplied to the affiant)

10. Notice of arrest and bail pending october hearing - (Not evidenced or supplied to affiant)

These are incorporated into this Affidavit and may be produced in full at any subsequent proceeding or enforcement.Exhibits listed herein have been made publicly available at https://www.zenjungle.org/sovereign-community/notices-and-declarations-list 

Acting as a repository of record. This ensures transparency, prevents spoliation, and preserves the evidential chain.

12. Sworn Statement

This Notice and Affidavit form part of a Court of Record, established by sworn affidavits unrebutted. All facts herein stand as truth unless rebutted by sworn testimony, full disclosure, and evidence.

I, Jason : family Tyldesley, a living man swear and affirm that the foregoing is true, correct, and complete.

Signed on 29th September

Witnessed By:Hannah:(Family Lindsay) on 29th September