RESPONSE TO CORRESPONDENCE, REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION, AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR REFER

WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT Special Delivery – Record of Service Maintained Date: 21st April 2025

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

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

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

Ref: CR71/00032/25

✦ 1. Acknowledgement of Correspondence and Procedural Rebuttal

I acknowledge receipt of correspondence from the claimant dated 11 April 2025 and respond in full honour and without prejudice, for the lawful record.

However, it must be stated that the claimant has:

• Failed to provide lawful proof of claim or jurisdiction in response to multiple prior conditional acceptances;

• Proceeded to obtain a court summons without having satisfied the lawful burden of proof;

• And is now attempting to retroactively justify the claim via correspondence with the court, only after jurisdiction has been challenged.

This conduct represents a distortion of lawful process and an abuse of the court’s time. The burden of proof must be met before any application to the court is made, and certainly before a summons is issued. The proper forum for resolving such matters is lawful pre-court correspondence, not retroactive justification through court proceedings.

The use of the court in this manner—to build a case post-facto rather than present one lawfully at the outset—may constitute misrepresentation, procedural fraud, and administrative abuse.

To allow this matter to proceed without lawful standing would render the court itself complicit in a process that violates both due process and natural justice.

This document is submitted to prevent further waste of the court’s time, and to reaffirm that this is not the appropriate forum in which a claimant should attempt to prove a claim that has already been challenged as unlawful and unsupported.

The claim remains entirely unproven, as documented throughout this response and Schedule A. No lawful jurisdiction, no valid claim, and no contractual consent have been evidenced by the claimant.

Until such proof is provided in full and by lawful means, no obligation can lawfully arise, and any continued action in its absence may give rise to claims of fraud, trespass, and unlawful coercion.

✦ 2. Restatement of Lawful Position

I, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), a living man, do not consent to represent the legal fictions “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY” or “ZEN JUNGLE RETREAT LIMITED” nor act as surety or agent for any such entity.

I stand solely under common law jurisdiction. No contract exists between myself and any statutory authority that would indicate informed, voluntary consent to be governed by statute, or to represent a corporate person or entity.

I have made repeated and unrebutted conditional acceptances requesting:

• Proof of jurisdiction,

• Proof of lawful claim,

• Proof of consent to statute,

• Proof of representation of the person or corporate entity,

• And evidence of a valid cause of action.

To date, no such proofs have been provided.

✦ 3.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

1. Jurisdiction Without ConsentThat statutory jurisdiction lawfully applies to the living man without relying on circular reasoning, presumption, inference, or assumption which are themselves statutory mechanisms.

2. 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.

3. 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.

✦ 4. Kofa v Oldham Cannot Lawfully Be Used to Establish Jurisdiction

It is acknowledged that the claimant has cited Kofa v Oldham [2024] EWHC 685 (Admin) in an attempt to justify jurisdiction. That citation is fundamentally flawed and misapplied, and I now rebut its lawful relevance in full.

❌ Jurisdiction Was Never Under Challenge in That Case

The matter in Kofa v Oldham involved a statutory dispute within an accepted statutory framework. The respondent in that case did not challenge jurisdiction, nor did he object to being subject to statute. The issue being examined was administrative process, not foundational consent or lawful joinder.

As such:

• Jurisdiction was assumed, not proven.

• The court operated entirely within a statutory and administrative context.

• The judgment concerns enforcement procedure, not lawful application of jurisdiction to a living being.

❌ An Administrative Court Cannot Establish Jurisdiction Over a Living Man

The High Court (Administrative Division) is not a court of record, nor a constitutional forum. It operates:

• Within statutory rules and public policy,

• On the assumption of statutory jurisdiction,

• And cannot rule on natural law, status, or common law supremacy.

Therefore, its judgment has no lawful bearing on the question of whether statute can lawfully bind a living man without his consent.

❌ Presumption Cannot Establish Jurisdiction

The judgment in Kofa is being misused as if it could prove that statutory obligations apply by default. This is a circular and unlawful argument.

Presumption, assumption, and inference are statutory constructs. They cannot lawfully operate until after the living man has agreed to be bound by statute.

Using statutory tools to justify the initial application of statute is a self-referential fallacy.

✅ Only Common Law Is the Default Jurisdiction

The foundational lawful position is this:

1. Common law is the only default jurisdiction of England and Wales.

2. A man is born with inalienable rights, and bound to no authority by default.

3. Statutory jurisdiction is contractual, and can only become operative when:

   • Full disclosure is provided,

   • Consent is given voluntarily,

   • And the agreement is executed by two wet-ink signatures, evidencing joinder and lawful meeting of minds.

This standard is not optional—it is the minimum threshold for any lawful contract to exist under common law.

❌ Companies House Is Misusing Kofa v Oldham in an Attempt to Mislead the Court

It must be plainly stated that the use of Kofa v Oldham as proof of jurisdiction in this matter is not just irrelevant—it is an act of misrepresentation.

• It fails to address the actual points of proof required,

• It was introduced after a summons was unlawfully issued, without proof of claim or jurisdiction,

• And it has the effect of attempting to retroactively justify an unlawful process through unrelated precedent.

If this case is allowed to stand as proof of jurisdiction, it would mean:

• That consent is no longer required,

• That inalienable rights are overridden by default,

• And that statutory authority is presumed superior to natural law.

Such a position is not law. It is fiat. It is tyranny by assumption.

⚠️ Final Position:

Kofa v Oldham cannot lawfully establish jurisdiction over a living man. It is an administrative ruling applied within accepted statutory context. Any reliance on it as proof of claim or jurisdiction over me, a living man, is rejected, and any further use may constitute fraud and misrepresentation.

✦ 5. Unlawful Restriction of Inalienable Rights by Indirect Means

Let it be clear: my inalienable rights cannot be restricted without full disclosure and voluntary agreement under common law.

The use of assumed statutory jurisdiction to impose obligations I have not consented to is an unlawful attempt to achieve by indirect means what cannot be lawfully done directly.

⚖ Legal maxim: “That which cannot be done directly cannot lawfully be done indirectly.”

To bypass the requirement for consent by appealing to presumption is to commit fraud in equity and law.

✦ 6. Procedural Deficiency and Judicial Incompetence of Forum

This court, being a Magistrates’ Court, is an administrative tribunal presided over by lay magistrates. It does not operate as a court of record, nor does it possess lawful jurisdiction to:

• Rule on foundational issues of jurisdiction,

• Determine the lawful standing of statute over a living man,

• Or adjudicate disputes involving inalienable rights.

As such, this court cannot lawfully decide the matters raised in this notice.

✦ 7. Motion to Dismiss or Refer

Accordingly, I hereby motion that:

a) The matter be struck out entirely, due to:

• Lack of proven jurisdiction,

• Unlawful issuance of summons,

• Absence of claim,

• And failure to provide lawful evidence as previously requested.

OR

b) The matter be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction, capable of determining:

• The lawful applicability of statute to a living man,

• The limits of presumptive administrative authority,

• And the potential unlawful circumvention of inalienable rights.

✦ 8. Final Notice to All Parties

This process now clearly demonstrates:

• That Companies House has failed to provide lawful proof of any claim;

• That no contract, consent, or joinder has been evidenced;

• And that their continued pursuit of administrative enforcement is made knowingly, with full notice.

Let it be stated that this is not a game, nor a procedural formality. You are asked to enforce an obligation against a man with no proof of jurisdiction or lawful agreement, and to do so under the false guise of justice.

Any such action is unlawful, dishonourable, and potentially criminal.

✦ 9. Invitation to Remedy

For the avoidance of doubt and in service of transparency, I have enclosed as Schedule A a list of lawful questions relating to jurisdiction, consent, and authority.

These questions outline the lawful standard of proof required before any statutory claim can proceed against a living man.

I invite the court and Companies House to review these questions carefully and to provide clear, direct answers in honour and good faith.

Until such questions are answered fully, no assumption of jurisdiction can be deemed lawful.

I remain open to honourable resolution and request, once again, that:

• This matter be withdrawn in full,

• Or referred to a lawful court capable of hearing and ruling on the jurisdictional challenge.

• A response to this notice is requested within 7 days.

All inalienable rights reserved. 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)

Schedule A: Lawful Clarification of Jurisdiction, Authority, and Claim

Presented in Honour for Lawful Consideration Appended to: Response to Correspondence, Rebuttal of Presumption, and Motion to Dismiss or Refer By: Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Date: 14 April 2025

✦ Introduction (Opening Paragraph)

The following questions are presented in honour, without prejudice, to aid all agents, officers, and parties in identifying the lawful requirements for establishing jurisdiction, claim, and consent in any statutory matter concerning a living man.

These questions serve to clarify the lawful evidentiary standard required before any presumption of jurisdiction or obligation can proceed. Until all questions herein are lawfully answered in full, no lawful claim or enforcement can exist.

✦ SECTION 1: Inalienable Rights and Common Law Foundations

1. Was I born equal to all other men and women, with no living being above me and no default obligations?

2. Did I have inalienable rights at birth, and what are they?

3. Have I ever been lawfully and explicitly informed of these rights?

4. Under which jurisdiction do these inalienable rights exist, and how are they recognised in law?

5. Is that jurisdiction the default lawful jurisdiction for all living beings?

✦ SECTION 2: Distinction Between Living Man and Legal Fiction

6. Am I a living man, or a legal person?

7. Does the concept of a person involve any limitation or alteration of the inalienable rights I have as a man?

8. How can inalienable rights be lawfully limited or restricted, if at all?

9. Does statute law represent a limitation or restriction on those rights?

10. Is statute law applied to the living man, or to the legal fiction known as a person?

11. Have I ever entered into a lawful, informed, voluntary contract agreeing to represent the person?

12. If not, has such representation been presumed, assumed, or inferred without lawful agreement?

13. If I apply for a licence or register a business, does this create a change in the jurisdiction I operate within?

14. Does registration or licensing create obligations that would not otherwise exist under common law?

15. Am I made aware that applying for a licence or registering a business may result in limitations to my inalienable rights?

✦ SECTION 3: Statutory Jurisdiction, Presumption, and Consent

16. Is statute the default jurisdiction applied to a living being, or is it only applied by assumption, inference, or presumption? 16a. Can inalienable rights such as the right to trade or associate be lawfully limited by the absence of a licence or registration? 16b. If so, does that limitation require my prior informed consent through a lawful contract? 16c. Can a licence or registration requirement be enforced lawfully in the absence of contract, harm, or consent?

17. Is presumption, assumption, or inference a statutory construct?

18. Can such mechanisms lawfully operate before the living being has consented to statute?

19. Can inalienable rights be lawfully restricted under common law by presumption or inference alone?

20. Unless lawfully agreed otherwise, is common law the only lawful jurisdiction applicable to me?

✦ SECTION 4: Burden of Proof, Nature of Claim

21. What is the nature of a crime under common law—does it require an injured party or measurable loss?

22. Is there an injured party in this matter?

23. If so, is that party the lawful claimant?

24. Is this a statutory claim or a claim under common law?

25. Can any statute be lawfully applied to me in the absence of a lawful, informed, common law contract with wet signatures and mutual consent—without relying on circular reasoning or statutory constructs?

26. In any claim, who bears the burden of proof?

27. If a claim is made under statute, must the claimant first prove that statutory jurisdiction lawfully applies to the respondent?

28. If that cannot be proven, can any statutory claim be deemed lawful under common law?

✦ Closing Note

These questions stand as the lawful standard of inquiry and evidence that must be satisfied before any assumption of authority, liability, or statutory obligation can be lawfully imposed upon a living man.

Until each question is answered in full and lawful form, no claim, summons, enforcement, or obligation shall be considered valid or lawful.

All inalienable rights reserved.  Without prejudice,  By the living hand of:  Jason : (Family Tyldesley)  Living man under common law