Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 9 September 2025 Companies House Liable Parties - Key Responses no rebuttals Response Collection ZJR-Companies House The following are the responses from Companies House the court and Jacobs. None demonstrate rebuttal and together they crystalise default and liability. 25.05.22 L Jenkins .pdf Download PDF • 3.92MB 25.08.28 Pete Cowan .pdf Download PDF • 1.67MB 2025 - 09 - 03 - Jacobs Internet Template Dismissal .pdf Download PDF • 1.34MB 25.05.16 Peter Cowan .pdf Download PDF • 2.03MB 25.03.25 Pete Cowan .pdf Download PDF • 2.00MB 23.06.21 Jamie Phillips .pdf Download PDF • 3.52MB 25.03.12 Pete Cowan .pdf Download PDF • 3.04MB 25.07.03 Huw Morgan to Jason .pdf Download PDF • 3.38MB 25.05.22 Cardiff Magistrates' Court .pdf Download PDF • 1.99MB 25.07.03 Huw Morgan to Jason .pdf Download PDF • 3.38MB 25.06.12 Cardiff Magistrates' Court to Jason .pdf Download PDF • 4.32MB 25.05.25 Pete Cowan .pdf Download PDF • 1.84MB 25.07.11 Court Notice to Jason .pdf Download PDF • 3.12MB 25.04.16 Pete Cowan .pdf Download PDF • 1.98MB Previous Item Next Item

Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 10 July 2025 Torridge Council, Steve Hearse, Devon Magistrates Court Affidavit of Truth & Intent to lien Affidavit, Cease & Desist, Intent to Lien JT-Council Tax All Notices and Responses are signed as dated. WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOTICE OF REBUTTAL, AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH, CEASE AND DESIST, NOTICE OF INTENT TO LIEN, AND ENFORCEMENT RECORD RE: Fraudulent “Liability Orders” Dated 4 July 2025 Account Ref: 411116152 | Case Nos: 294249 & 294458 NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT From: Jason: (Family Tyldesley) A living man under common law Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek, Holsworthy, Devon EX22 7JN To: Steve Hearse , Chief Executive Torridge District Council Riverbank House, Bideford, Devon EX39 2QG The Clerk of the Court North & East Devon Magistrates Court Civic Centre, North Walk, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 1DX Date: 10 July 2025 PART I – REBUTTAL AND CHALLENGE This notice is issued in continuity and reinforcement of the formal Council Tax Rebuttal and Sovereign Declaration Package dated 20 June 2025 copy enclosed), delivered without prejudice and under common law. All prior declarations, demands, and rebuttals stand as unrebutted and form part of the record of facts. I, Jason: (Family Tyldesley), a living man under common law, do not consent to representation by or joinder with the legal fiction “JASON TYLDESLEY.” I am not a person, subject, agent, resident, employee, or citizen of any statutory body, nor am I party to any lawful contract with Torridge District Council. On 4 March 2025 , I served a lawful System Removal Notice , revoking all presumed consent, demanding proof of jurisdiction, and formally objecting to all statutory claims and assumptions. No rebuttal or evidence has ever been provided. This remains unrebutted . On receipt of two “Summons for Non-Payment” in June 2025, I issued a Notice of Rebuttal and Conditional Acceptance . Again, no response or lawful counterclaim was received. You have now issued alleged “Liability Orders,” with threats of enforcement, deductions, and collection actions—all based on administrative assumption , not lawful judgment. These “orders”: Are not sealed or signed by any magistrate ; Appear on council letterhead , not the court’s; Provide no proof of contract , consent, or jurisdiction. They are therefore void ab initio , and their continued use constitutes fraud by misrepresentation . PART II – AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH I, Jason: (Family Tyldesley), solemnly affirm: I am a living man under natural and common law jurisdiction. I have never entered into a lawful contract with Torridge District Council. I do not recognise the authority of Barnstaple Magistrates Court unless jurisdiction is proven. I have never knowingly or voluntarily consented to be: Represented by any legal fiction; An agent, subject, officer, taxpayer, resident, or citizen of the Crown or statutory body. I have never provided explicit, informed, voluntary consent to any statutory scheme, obligation, or enforcement procedure. I hereby reaffirm and repeat the revocation of all presumed or assumed consents , whether historical, implied, or otherwise. I do not owe the claimed amounts, and no lawful proof of obligation exists. Any claim relying on my failure to appear or respond is fraudulent , as I have provided lawful notice and rebuttal. I hereby lawfully refuse to provide any private, financial, or personal information to any party acting without verifiable lawful authority. This affidavit is made on penalty of perjury under natural law and remains open for rebuttal for 14 days from date of receipt . After that time, all facts stated shall stand as truth in law and lawful judgement by default . Signed: __________________________________ Date: 10 July 2025 PART III – CEASE AND DESIST ORDER You are hereby ordered to: Cease all further communications demanding money or private financial information ; Withdraw and nullify all so-called liability orders ; Refrain from contacting third parties (e.g. enforcement agents) ; Acknowledge that no jurisdiction has been proven . Any further action will be treated as trespass, harassment, unlawful coercion , and malfeasance in public office . PART IV – PROVISIONAL ESTOPPEL Due to your failure to: Rebut lawful notices; Prove jurisdiction; Identify a named human being responsible for claims... … estoppel by silence and acquiescence is now provisionally invoked. You are estopped from further claims unless and until: Jurisdiction is proven; A lawful claim is submitted by a named and liable party. PART V – SCHEDULE OF BREACHES & INVOICE Breach Description Fee Unlawful summons issued without jurisdiction £1,000 Issuance of false liability orders £1,000 each Coercive demand for private information £1,000 Fraudulent misrepresentation of court process £2,500 Trespass upon rights/property (ongoing) £250/day Emotional distress and administrative burden £750 Failure to identify human liable party £500 Total Immediately Due: £7,000 + £250/day from 4 July 2025 onward Payment Terms: Full settlement is required within 14 days of receipt of this notice. If unpaid, this will constitute a lawful debt , enforceable by lien, lawful claim, or court action without further notice. PART VI – NOTICE OF INTENT TO LIEN Absent remedy and full settlement within the time stated: A Lawful Lien Notice will be issued; Naming Steve Hearse , the Chief Executive, as liable party; Secured against future pay, pension, or assets; With full publication of liability and wrongdoing. PART VII – NOTICE OF ENFORCEABILITY AND RECORD OF DUE PROCESS Let it be known that the undersigned, Jason: (Family Tyldesley), has: Notice/Instrument Served Date Response Deadline Status System Removal Notice 4 Mar 2025 18 Mar 2025 Unrebutted – Default Established Sovereign Declaration & Jurisdictional Rebuttal 20 Jun 2025 4 Jul 2025 Unrebutted – Default Established This Notice & Affidavit 10 Jul 2025 24 Jul 2025 Pending Together, these form a lawful and evidential record of unrebutted claims, standing, and invoices. Accordingly, all facts stated herein shall stand in law if not rebutted within 14 days. Failure to respond or remedy shall constitute a lawful judgment by default , giving rise to enforceable claims against those named and involved. If you are unfamiliar with the lawful implications of unrebutted affidavits, tacit consent, or common law enforcement, you are strongly advised to seek competent legal counsel immediately . Ignorance of lawful process is no defence , and any further action based on assumption or administrative procedure, rather than proven jurisdiction and due process, may give rise to personal liability, outside the protection of your corporate or public role. YOU HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY NOTIFIED. FAILURE TO RESPOND WITHIN 14 DAYS OF RECEIPT shall constitute full agreement to all facts, terms, invoices, and lawful demands as stated. Lawful remedies will then be pursued without further notice. All rights reserved. Without prejudice. Without recourse. Non-assumpsit. No contract. I do not consent. Signed, Jason: (Family Tyldesley) Living man under common law WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOTICE OF REBUTTAL, CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, AND LAWFUL NON-ATTENDANCE RE: CASE NOs. 294249 & 294458 – Council Tax Summonses Dated 16 and 17 June 2025 Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent From: Jason: (Family Tyldesley) A living man under common law jurisdiction Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek, Holsworthy, Devon EX22 7JN To: Steve Hearse , Chief Executive (Principal), Torridge District Council, Riverbank House, Bideford, Devon EX39 2QG & The Clerk , North & East Devon Magistrates Court, Civic Centre, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 1DX Date: 20th June 2025 SUMMARY OF POSITION This is a lawful notice of rebuttal, conditional acceptance , and formal notice of non-attendance to the summonses referenced above, issued in clear breach of lawful notice and without demonstrated proof of authority, jurisdiction, obligation, or lawful agency. You have failed to respond to the “System Removal Notice” served on 4 March 2025 (signed copy enclosed) , which revoked all consent and demanded lawful proof of claim. Your continued presumption constitutes knowing trespass, harassment, and misrepresentation. KEY DECLARATIONS I am a living man , not a corporate fiction, legal person, or subject of statutory governance. I am neither a resident, citizen, agent, employee, nor officer of any political corporation or statutory body. I am not contractually bound to any administrative scheme or regulation unless: Full disclosure was provided; A valid, mutually agreed contract was formed; Two wet-ink signatures exist as evidence of explicit, voluntary consent. I do not consent to represent the legal fiction “JASON TYLDESLEY” , nor do I act as its agent, surety, or trustee. No evidence has been presented proving that: Lawful jurisdiction exists over me as a living man; A verifiable obligation exists under common law; I have lawfully and knowingly surrendered inalienable rights. ON STATUTORY PRESUMPTION VS. LAWFUL AUTHORITY Statutory systems operate by consent and under presumption . They are administrative mechanisms of governance, not instruments of law. Without lawful contract or explicit, informed consent , all claims remain presumptive and non-binding. Administration becomes criminal when: Consent is explicitly denied yet ignored; Presumptions are enforced as obligations; No accountability is provided for those enforcing unverified claims. This is no longer administration —it is unlawful governance by deception and coercion. Any officer or employee acting upon such false claims incurs personal liability. NOTICE OF TRESPASS AND PERSONAL LIABILITY Effective immediately, any further: Summons, demand, or enforcement; Use of my private address for unsolicited statutory claims; Reliance upon presumed agency, citizenship, or residency… … constitutes trespass , fraud , and criminal misrepresentation , with full personal liability falling on the claimant. You are reminded: No immunity exists for ultra vires acts —an agency cannot shield individuals from accountability for unlawful acts done in its name. A trespass fee of £1,000 per instance will now apply, along with full lawful claims for damages. NOTICE OF LAWFUL NON-ATTENDANCE As there has been: No verified proof of lawful jurisdiction; No contract, no consent, no joinder; No named individual accepting liability; And continued attempts at forced joinder despite notice… …I will not attend your administrative summons. Attendance would imply consent to your unlawful presumption. This notice stands as formal rebuttal of jurisdiction , denial of all claims , and refusal of contract . You are now on notice. FORMAL NOTICE TO THE CLERK AND MAGISTRATES COURT Let it be known for the avoidance of doubt: I do not recognise the authority of the Magistrates’ Court in this matter unless lawful jurisdiction is first proven. The Magistrates’ Court is an administrative forum , acting under presumption of consent and authority. Now that jurisdiction has been lawfully challenged, this court must: Prove jurisdiction with verifiable evidence; Dismiss the claim in absence thereof; or Refer the matter to a court capable of hearing a jurisdictional challenge, such as the High Court. If this administrative forum proceeds without resolving the jurisdictional challenge , it acts ultra vires , without lawful standing, and any resulting orders or penalties are null and void ab initio . LAWFUL DEMANDS You are now required to: Immediately withdraw all summonses and claims . Provide proof of lawful authority, contract, and jurisdiction . Acknowledge personal liability by identifying the human being(s) making these claims. Chief Executive Steve Hearse , as the named principal and recipient of prior notice, is now personally liable for all further trespass, damages, and misrepresentations. All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit I do not consent. I do not accept your offer to contract. I waive the benefits. Yours faithfully, Jason: (Family Tyldesley) Living man, under common law (All inalienable rights reserved) WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT Jason : (Family Tyldesley)Wooda Lakes, PancrasweekHolsworthy, DevonEX22 7JN To: Steve Hearse (Chief Executive)Torridge District CouncilRiverbank HouseBidefordDevonEX39 2QG Date: 4th March 2025 Subject: Final Notice – Revocation of Assumed Consent, Demand for Removal from Mailing Lists, and Immediate Cessation of All Statutory Claims, Licensing, Enforcement, and Regulatory Demands Against All Associated Legal Entities 1. Declaration of Living Status, Revocation of Assumed or Presumed Consent, and Legal Entities Covered I, Jason : of the family Tyldesley, am a living, breathing man under common law jurisdiction and not a legal fiction, corporate entity, or statutory person. This notice applies to all legal entities associated with me as a living being , including: The legal person : “JASON TYLDESLEY” (a statutory creation presumed without full disclosure or explicit agreement). All associated companies : Zen Jungle Limited (Company No. 12553647) Zen Jungle Retreat Limited (Company No. 12763398) Zen Jungle Estates Limited (Company No. 12758334) Revocation of Assumed Consent & Prohibition of Unlawful Claims of Any Kind I have never consented to representation by a legal fiction and therefore hold no obligation to any contracts, liabilities, or statutory claims presumed under that fiction. I hereby revoke any and all assumed or presumed consent to any statutory obligation, past, present, or future, related to any of the above entities. No claim of any kind that relies on the assumption of statutory authority is lawful unless full, verifiable proof is provided that such claims lawfully apply to a living being. This includes, but is not limited to: Council tax demands and property-related claims. Business rates, licensing requirements, and statutory registrations. Fines, penalties, or enforcement actions under statutory regulations. Any statutory obligation claimed against myself or any associated company. I declare that any claim reliant on assumption or presumption of consent to statute is unlawful following this revocation , as consent cannot lawfully be presumed once explicitly denied. If Torridge District Council believes it has lawful authority over me or any of the above-listed entities, it must now provide strict proof of claim (see Section 4). 2. Formal Demand for Immediate Removal from Torridge District Council Systems I do not consent to any continued use of my name, legal person, associated companies, or property address in any mailing lists, automated systems, or databases used to generate statutory claims, licensing demands, enforcement actions, or unsolicited correspondence . Under common law rights to privacy, property, and non-interference , I now require: Immediate and permanent removal of Jason : (Family Tyldesley), JASON TYLDESLEY, and all associated companies from all Torridge District Council databases and automated processing systems. A complete and permanent cessation of all statutory demands, penalty notices, enforcement actions, and further correspondence. Written confirmation within 14 days that all records have been updated and no further automated claims will be generated. Failure to comply will constitute unlawful interference, harassment, and trespass upon my property. 3. Explicit Non-Consent to Statutory Data Processing (GDPR Referenced with Non-Jurisdiction Clause) While this demand is made under common law , I also make the following explicit non-consent declaration under your own statutory data processing rules : I do not recognize GDPR as overriding my inalienable rights under common law. However, since Torridge District Council operates within statutory frameworks, it must adhere to its own rules. Under Article 17 (Right to Erasure) and Article 21 (Right to Object) of the UK GDPR , I now explicitly object to any further processing of my personal data for unsolicited statutory claims. Failure to comply confirms that Torridge District Council is acting unlawfully under both common law and its own statutory requirements. 4. Strict Proof of Claim – Final Opportunity to Prove Lawful Authority If Torridge District Council believes it has lawful authority over me, I require: Proof of jurisdiction – Evidence that the Council has lawful (not assumed) authority over me as a living being , not just my legal fiction or associated companies. Proof of lawful claim – Full evidence that any statutory claims, licensing requirements, or enforcement actions are valid, binding, and lawfully applicable beyond mere statutory assumption. Proof that my inalienable rights were knowingly waived – A wet-ink, mutually signed contract showing my fully informed, explicit, and voluntary consent to be bound by statutory obligations. Failure to provide all of the above will confirm that no lawful claim exists and that all prior demands were issued fraudulently, without due process, and under false presumption of authority. 5. Notice of Trespass – Unlawful Use of Private Property for Fraudulent Claims Effective immediately , I serve formal notice that any further: Statutory demands, licensing requirements, enforcement notices, fines, or penalties sent to my private address , or Attempts to enforce obligations upon me without lawful proof of claim … will constitute trespass, harassment, and fraudulent misrepresentation. Consequences of Further Trespass A fee of £1,000 per unsolicited statutory demand, penalty notice, or unlawful claim sent to my address. Formal legal action for harassment, misrepresentation, and interference if further correspondence is received. A claim for damages against Torridge District Council and any individuals responsible for non-compliance. 6. Royal Mail Notification – Return to Sender for Unlawful Correspondence In addition to this notice, I will be formally notifying Royal Mail that all correspondence from Torridge District Council is to be returned to sender . Any mail from Torridge District Council attempting to reach my property will be deemed an unwanted statutory claim , for which Torridge District Council will remain fully liable. Any claims that I “did not respond” after this notice will be fraudulent, as Torridge District Council will have knowingly ignored my lawful demand for non-interference. 7. Final Warning and Consequences of Non-Compliance This is your final opportunity to lawfully resolve this matter. I now require: Written confirmation within 14 days that my legal person and all associated companies have been removed from all Torridge District Council systems. A formal statement confirming that no further statutory claims will be generated, sent, or enforced against me. Strict proof of claim if you believe you have lawful authority to override this notice. Failure to comply within 14 days will result in: A formal complaint filed with the ICO against Torridge District Council for unlawful data processing. A lawful claim for damages for trespass, misrepresentation, and harassment. Further lawful notices of liability against any individuals responsible. This is not a request —this is a lawful demand based on inalienable rights, natural justice, and fundamental privacy principles. I expect full and immediate compliance. Yours sincerely, Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Living Being under Common Law Jurisdiction(All Inalienable Rights Explicitly Claimed and Reserved, Without Prejudice) DECLARATION OF NON-CONSENT AND LIVING AWARENESS Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent. Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. I, the living man/woman known as Jason: (Family Tydelsey) , standing in my natural capacity under natural and common law, do hereby give notice as follows: ✦ 1. Living Being I am a living, conscious being of flesh, blood, and breath. I am not a legal fiction, corporate entity, trust, title, estate, or any registered instrument. I do not consent to the presumption of such identity, nor to being treated as subject to commercial or administrative codes. ✦ 2. Inalienable Rights My rights are inborn, inviolable, and inalienable. These include, but are not limited to: the right to life, freedom, privacy, freedom of movement, self-determination, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, conscience, bodily autonomy, security of property, trade, barter, and the right to contract—or not to contract—freely. These rights are not subject to grant, regulation, removal, or surrender. Any act or claim that attempts to override, restrict, or administratively bind these rights without lawful contract is void, unlawful, and without effect . ✦ 3. No Joinder or Assumed Agency I do not consent to any joinder with a legal person, trust, estate, or registered name created or maintained without my explicit knowledge and agreement. No other being, organisation, or institution may lawfully act as agent, trustee, surety, or executor on my behalf without a valid, lawful contract between living beings, executed with full disclosure, mutual agreement, and two wet ink signatures. No act of registration, including at birth or thereafter, creates lawful agency or obligation upon me. ✦ 4. No Contract, No Obligation I stand under natural and common law only, and am bound by no external authority, jurisdiction, or obligation unless founded upon a valid contract made knowingly, voluntarily, with full disclosure, explicit consent, and two wet ink signatures. Where no such contract exists, no obligation is lawfully owed. ✦ 5. Inferior Jurisdictions Require Consent Jurisdictions such as statute, equity, maritime or admiralty are consensual constructs. I do not consent to their application to me without lawful contract and proven joinder. No claim of jurisdiction may arise from registration, presumption, silence, or assumed benefit. ✦ 6. Revocation of Implied Consent I revoke all presumed, inherited, or implied consents—whether arising from silence, registration, or non-rebuttal. Consent must be expressed and informed; presumption is not proof. ✦ 7. No Obligation to Respond or Perform Receipt of communication is not evidence of agreement. No duty exists to respond, appear, or perform in the absence of lawful contract. Silence is not acquiescence. ✦ 8. Living Awareness Sovereignty is not granted; it is the nature of being. I stand as source-aware and self-originating, and do not submit to any construct, claim, or jurisdiction lacking moral or lawful basis. ✴️ Lawful and Enduring Principles This notice stands upon enduring lawful and moral principles, including: Quod ab initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescit – That which is void from the beginning cannot become valid by the passage of time. Consensus facit legem – Consent makes the law. Inalienable rights cannot be transferred or removed. He who asserts must prove. The burden of proof lies upon the claimant. All rights reserved. No rights waived.Given for the record and in honour. Autograph of the Living Being: ________________________ Date: ________________________ UNIVERSAL STANDING DECLARATION OF SOVEREIGN STATUS AND REBUTTAL OF PRESUMED JURISDICTION Private and Without Prejudice Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal Special Delivery – For the Private Record I. LAWFUL STANDING DECLARATION I, a living man known as Jason:(Family Tyldesley) , born of nature and not a legal fiction, hereby affirm and declare my sovereign status. I am not subject to the authority of any man-made entity, corporation, Crown, or government unless by voluntary , informed , and explicit consent established via lawful joinder. No such consent has ever been knowingly or lawfully given. I am not the legal fiction, corporate entity, trust, or estate created or referenced by the registration of birth or issuance of any state-generated certificate or identity document. “That which is created is subject to its creator. I was not created by the state, and therefore I am not subject to it.” II. REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTIONS, TRUSTS, JOINDER & AGENCY I rebut: Any presumption of statutory or equitable jurisdiction; Any constructive, resulting, or implied trust allegedly created in my name; Any presumption that I am the beneficiary , trustee , executor , employee , or agent of any such trust or entity without my express and lawful agreement; Any assumption of legal representation or agency on behalf of the legal fiction or Crown; Any attempt to substitute statutory obligations for lawful duty . I do not act, nor have I ever knowingly and voluntarily acted, as an agent , employee , servant , or representative of the Crown, the United Kingdom Government, or any corporate or governmental entity deriving authority from the Crown. There exists no contract or agreement: Bearing two wet ink signatures, Formed with full disclosure and lawful meeting of minds, Wherein I knowingly accepted a role of agency, representation, or employment. Any such presumption of service, employment, fiduciary role, or Crown agency is hereby lawfully rebutted in full . Nemo potest praesumitur alienam personam agere – No one is presumed to act as another’s agent without proof. All legal, commercial, or administrative constructs that rely upon: Assumed consent, Silence as agreement, Birth registration as contract, Single signature adhesion agreements, are hereby lawfully and finally rebutted in full. A valid contract requires full disclosure, two wet ink signatures, and a lawful meeting of minds. Without all three, no contract exists in law. III. DENIAL OF REPRESENTATION OF LEGAL PERSON I do not now, nor have I ever, consented to represent or act as agent for the legal fiction or corporate entity identified in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS as JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY , whether in part or in whole, in any legal, commercial, or statutory context. Any presumption of such representation, joinder, or agency is hereby lawfully rebutted in full . There exists no valid or enforceable contract: Formed by mutual agreement, Made with full disclosure, Entered into voluntarily, and Signed with two wet ink signatures, that binds Jason:(Family Tyldesley) , a living man, to the obligations, debts, duties, or liabilities of the legal person JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY . He who denies must rebut; he who alleges must prove. If such a contract or instrument exists, I require its presentation in full, signed by both parties, or all presumption of representation is null and void. IV. CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE ON PROOF OF CLAIM Any man, woman, or entity making a claim, demand, or order against me, or seeking performance, payment, or compliance, must first provide: Verified Proof of Claim – A sworn, signed statement under full commercial and personal liability; Proof of Jurisdiction – Demonstrating lawful authority over the living man Jason:(Family Tyldesley), not the legal fiction; Evidence of Lawful Contract – A valid agreement, bearing my wet ink signature, formed with full disclosure and mutual consent, not presumed or unilaterally imposed; Statement of Cause – Lawful basis for any alleged debt, obligation, or duty; Identification of Claimant – Full legal and personal identity of the living man or woman making the claim, including their capacity and liability; Proof of Injury or Harm – Evidence of a verifiable injured party and measurable damage or loss caused by the living man Jason:(Family Tyldesley), with direct causation and standing to claim. Failure to provide these items within 14 days constitutes tacit agreement that no lawful authority or claim exists and that any further action will be deemed harassment, trespass, and unlawful coercion. V. REBUTTAL OF STATUTORY PRESUMPTION & COERCION I rebut and do not consent to: The presumption of guilt over innocence; The inversion of burden of proof ; The use of threats, penalties, or fear to induce compliance; The treatment of men and women as subjects of legislation without explicit and lawful agreement. Consent cannot be presumed or coerced. That which is not freely given is void. Quod ab initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescit. VI. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS I expressly reserve all inalienable rights under: Natural Law Common Law The Laws of God (where applicable) The original jurisdiction of the living I waive no rights by silence, mistake, omission, nor through the actions of third parties. Any action taken against me absent verifiable lawful authority will be treated as trespass with full lawful recourse. VII. NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST You are hereby placed on notice to cease and desist all presumptive claims, enforcement attempts, or administrative correspondence unless and until you meet the conditions listed above. Continued assertion without lawful proof will be considered wilful trespass and may result in: Lawful claims of harassment, Private penalties under trespass, Personal commercial liability. VIII. STANDING DECLARATION This document constitutes my final, standing, and universal rebuttal . No further engagement will be made unless new lawful evidence is presented. Reference this notice in all future matters. DECLARANT Jason:(Family Tyldesley) a living man All rights reserved, none waived Without prejudice Signature: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________ Previous Item Next Item

Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 21 April 2025 Cardiff Magistrates Court, Companies House Response to Correspondence, Rebuttal of presumption and Motion to Dismiss or Refer Cease & Desist, Motion to Dismiss, Rebuttal of Presumption ZJR-Companies House 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 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. ✦ 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: Common law is the only default jurisdiction of England and Wales. A man is born with inalienable rights , and bound to no authority by default. 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 Was I born equal to all other men and women, with no living being above me and no default obligations? Did I have inalienable rights at birth, and what are they? Have I ever been lawfully and explicitly informed of these rights? Under which jurisdiction do these inalienable rights exist, and how are they recognised in law? Is that jurisdiction the default lawful jurisdiction for all living beings? ✦ SECTION 2: Distinction Between Living Man and Legal Fiction Am I a living man, or a legal person? Does the concept of a person involve any limitation or alteration of the inalienable rights I have as a man? How can inalienable rights be lawfully limited or restricted, if at all? Does statute law represent a limitation or restriction on those rights? Is statute law applied to the living man, or to the legal fiction known as a person? Have I ever entered into a lawful, informed, voluntary contract agreeing to represent the person? If not, has such representation been presumed, assumed, or inferred without lawful agreement? If I apply for a licence or register a business, does this create a change in the jurisdiction I operate within? Does registration or licensing create obligations that would not otherwise exist under common law? 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 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? Is presumption, assumption, or inference a statutory construct? Can such mechanisms lawfully operate before the living being has consented to statute? Can inalienable rights be lawfully restricted under common law by presumption or inference alone? Unless lawfully agreed otherwise, is common law the only lawful jurisdiction applicable to me? ✦ SECTION 4: Burden of Proof, Nature of Claim What is the nature of a crime under common law—does it require an injured party or measurable loss? Is there an injured party in this matter? If so, is that party the lawful claimant? Is this a statutory claim or a claim under common law? 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? In any claim, who bears the burden of proof? If a claim is made under statute, must the claimant first prove that statutory jurisdiction lawfully applies to the respondent? 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 Previous Item Next Item

Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 29 September 2025 Devon Magistrates Court, Steve Hearse, Torridge Council, Devon & Cornwall Police Notice of Procedural Trespass and Criminal Misconduct Notice of Trespas & Misconduct, Affidavit ZJR-TDC-Licensing Claims 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: 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, 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 Statute binds the persons it creates ; it does not create or bind living beings, absent consent. Licensing duties therefore apply only to legal persons, which are distinctly separate from living men or women. Personhood is a mechanism of representation; joinder is required. Joinder requires explicit contract, informed, voluntary with 2 wet signatures; none exists. Presumption that a man is or represents a person collapses once challenged; proof has never been given. The only crimes proven are those committed by State agents. 10. Remedy and Notice Accordingly, I require within 14 days: Written confirmation that the personal case has been withdrawn. Written admission that no lawful defendant exists. Withdrawal of all statutory claims. Admission of trespass, false imprisonment, and interference. 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: 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. 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. 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. 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.” 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: Summons and defective personal case papers (unsigned, unstamped). Adjournment notices from May–September 2025 (showing abandonment of the personal case). Penalty schedule and Invoices (Updated and enclosed) Already served on or held by parties - Some required to be supplied to affiant. Jurisdictional Challenge, 21 April 2025. - (Served and Published) Estoppel after Jurisdictional Challenge, 11 June 2025. - (Served and Published) Conditional acceptances of council claims (May–June 2025). - (Served and Published) Trespass Notices posted and served at Wooda Lakes. - (Served and Published) Custody and hearing records of 18–19 September 2025. - (Not yet supplied to affiant) Defective arrest warrant - No stamp or signature - (Not yet supplied to the affiant) 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: I am Jason : family Tyldesley, a living man. I am not a “person,” whether legal or natural, within the meaning of statute. I am not, and never have been, the “defendant” in this or any statutory case. I do not accept or adopt “personhood” as a status. I have never entered into joinder or contract to represent a statutory person, nor has any such evidence ever been produced. 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: Summons and defective personal case papers (unsigned, unstamped). Adjournment notices from May–September 2025 (showing abandonment of the personal case). Penalty schedule and Invoices (Updated and enclosed) Already served on or held by parties - Some required to be supplied to affiant. Jurisdictional Challenge, 21 April 2025. - (Served and Published) Estoppel after Jurisdictional Challenge, 11 June 2025. - (Served and Published) Conditional acceptances of council claims (May–June 2025). - (Served and Published) Trespass Notices posted and served at Wooda Lakes. - (Served and Published) Custody and hearing records of 18–19 September 2025. - (Not yet supplied to affiant) Defective arrest warrant - No stamp or signature - (Not yet supplied to the affiant) 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 Previous Item Next Item

BUTTERFLY PROGRAM ACCOMODATION OPTIONS Cabin Options All jungle cabins are equipped as follows Private outdoor deck Fully fitted kitchen Breakfast bar dining Power Shower Comfy living space Private parking Weekly housekeeping service Including cleaning, linens and towels replacement is available from £65 per week in private cabins. Guests in shared cabins will do their own cleaning and laundry (washing machine in the cabin) unless all agree to share the weekly housekeeping charge, which varies depending on the number of beds in use. EXPLORE PRIVATE CABIN EXPLORE SHARED ENSUITE EXPLORE DORM CABIN A private home from home By choosing a private cabin you have the whole cabin to yourself, including the kitchen, living space, bathroom and king size bedroom. Some but not all cabins also have an outdoor bath tub on the deck. These cabins really are home from home. They have everything you need, even a dishwasher, freezer and washing machine. You will have two parking spaces outside your door and your own high speed internet connection. BOOK YOUR RETREAT Shared En-suite Cabin There are 5 shared en-suite bathroom cabins at the retreat and they are all located with a view onto the lake. Each bedroom has a king bed and a private newly fitted shower room. The kitchen, living space and huge outdoor deck will be shared between a maximum of two participants sharing the cabin and there is ample living space and storage. As with all other cabins they are fully equipped and have private parking at the rear. BOOK YOUR RETREAT Dorm Cabin (up to 4 sharing) As the most cost effective accomodation option, the dorm cabin offers you a bed in one of two twin rooms in one of the luxury cabins. This means there may be up to 4, same sex participants sharing. Dorm cabins have a single shared bathroom but are otherwise identical to the other cabin types. They have beautiful kitchens and lounge space, breakfast bar dining for 4 and a large outdoor deck where you can sit or dine with a view. BOOK YOUR RETREAT

​This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. I am a title 01 This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. Previous Item Next Item This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click the Data icon on the add panel to your left. In the Content Manager, you can update your items, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. Your collection is already set up with fields and content. Add your own by editing each field, or import CSV files to your content manager. You can create fields for rich text, images, videos and more. Remember to click Sync, so visitors can see your collections on your live site. You can add as many collections as you need. Use input elements like custom forms and fields to collect info from your site visitors and store it in your content manager Collections. Make sure all your elements Connect to Data, and Preview your Live Site to check that everything is correctly binded.

Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 14 April 2025 Companies House, Cardiff Magistrates Court Final conditional Acceptance & Jurisdictional Challenge Conditional Acceptance, Notice ZJR-Companies House COVER NOTE ✦ ENCLOSURE SUMMARY Dear Pete Cowan / Lee Jenkins, Please find enclosed the following documents which you are lawfully required to acknowledge, address, and respond to within the appropriate timeframe: Final Conditional Acceptance & Jurisdiction Challenge Notice – Reaffirming my conditional acceptance of your claim only upon full proof of jurisdiction, standing, and lawful joinder. Includes demand for immediate withdrawal of the summons and full proof of lawful claim. Notice of Non-Consent to Appear or Contract (copy for your records) – Delivered to the court and copied to you, placing the court and claimant on notice of jurisdictional fraud, revocation of all implied consent, and your personal liability for knowingly advancing an unproven claim. Copy of Final Letter Dated 19 March 2025 , including: All four previous conditional acceptances, Rejection of all implied authority, Demand for immediate remedy and cessation of coercive behaviour. These documents are issued in lawful honour and without prejudice. You are now fully liable for any continued attempt to enforce a claim absent lawful proof, and this record shall be relied upon in any future claim for damages, fraud, or misrepresentation. FINAL CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE & JURISDICTION CHALLENGE NOTICE WITHOUT PREJUDICENOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTSpecial Delivery – Record of Service Maintained From: Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek Holsworthy, Devon EX22 7JN To: Pete Cowan / Lee Jenkins For the Prosecuting Solicitor, Companies House Crown Way Cardiff CF14 3UZ And: Clerk to the Justices Cardiff & Vale of Glamorgan Magistrates’ Court Fitzalan Place Cardiff CF24 0RZ Date: 14th April 2025 Your Ref: CR71/00032/25 RE: Final Conditional Acceptance and Lawful Challenge to Jurisdiction Rebuttal of Fraudulent Summons and Demand for Lawful Proof of Claim To Whom It May Concern, I, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), a living man operating exclusively under common law jurisdiction , write in good faith and with full honour. This notice constitutes final conditional acceptance of the claim purported under your reference, and a formal challenge to jurisdiction, lawful standing, and presumptive authority . 1. CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE REAFFIRMED I have not refused any lawful obligation . On at least four prior occasions—27 December 2024, 28 January 2025, 4 March 2025, and 19 March 2025—I have issued notices of conditional acceptance , clearly stating that I am willing to comply upon : Lawful proof of jurisdiction over me as a living man; Evidence of a valid and lawful claim ; A mutually signed, wet-ink contract demonstrating knowing, voluntary, and explicit joinder ; And full disclosure of the effect on my inalienable rights. No response has provided such evidence. Accordingly, your claim remains unproven , and any summons issued based on it is void and unlawful . 2. PRESUMED OR IMPLIED CONSENT IS NOT LAWFUL Be advised that: Any reliance on implied, presumed, or assumed consent is itself a statutory construct. Such constructs cannot lawfully operate until : Explicit common law consent has first been granted, Jurisdiction under statute has been voluntarily accepted via lawful contract, and A lawful meeting of minds with joinder has been established. Until such proof is provided, statutory law has no application , and common law remains the only lawful default jurisdiction . 3. LAWFUL CONSENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS To restrict my inalienable rights or bind me to a statutory jurisdiction, the following lawful standard must be met: Full Disclosure – My inalienable rights must be clearly stated and understood before any agreement, with documentation showing their status before, during, and after. Voluntary Agreement – No coercion, deception, threat, or omission may be present. Explicit Consent – The agreement must show two wet-ink signatures , with conscious joinder and lawful meeting of minds. I have never been presented with such a contract, nor have I ever knowingly, voluntarily, and explicitly agreed to surrender or restrict my inalienable rights. 4. UNLAWFUL JOINDER AND INVALID SUMMONS The entity “JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY” is a legal fiction , and as such: Cannot receive a summons, Cannot appear in court, And cannot lawfully be presumed to bind me, the living man, without joinder. I have never agreed to represent or be surety for this fiction, and I explicitly reject all such presumptions . Any summons issued based on presumed joinder is a legal nullity . 5. PERSONAL LIABILITY OF ALL AGENTS You are hereby notified that by attempting to proceed in absence of a lawful claim or jurisdiction, you assume personal liability for: £10,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation, £25,000 for coercion and undue influence, Unlimited damages for trespass, interference, defamation, and loss. This liability attaches to you personally , as the agent of a legal fiction has no protection when acting ultra vires or in absence of lawful authority. 6. LAWFUL DEMAND FOR REMEDY You now have seven (7) days from receipt of this notice to: Withdraw the summons and provide written confirmation of same, Provide lawful proof of claim , including: Jurisdiction over me, a living man; A wet-ink contract showing explicit and informed consent to statute; Full disclosure of the effect on my rights and status; Evidence of injury, loss, or harm creating a valid cause of action. Failure to provide this evidence will confirm that your claim is fraudulent, your summons void, and any further attempt to proceed will result in lawful remedy pursued against you in your personal capacity. 7. NOTICE OF STATUS I do not consent to statute. I do not act on behalf of, nor represent, any legal fiction. I operate exclusively as a living man under common law, with all inalienable rights intact and reserved. Any further claim made absent lawful proof will be treated as unlawful harassment, trespass, fraud, and abuse of process . 8. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE WARNING – ATTENDING COURT IS NOT CONSENT Should I choose to attend court, it will not be to “answer” the claim or to plead guilty or not guilty to an unproven and fraudulent charge. My presence will be solely to: Formally and publicly challenge the lawful foundation of statutory jurisdiction , Demand evidentiary proof of any and all statutory authority and obligations , Expose that all such authority is presumed and relies on the fiction of implied consent , And to reassert that implied consent is itself a statutory mechanism requiring prior, voluntary, and lawful agreement under common law . Let this serve as lawful warning: any public proceeding that exposes this truth risks irreparable reputational harm to the court , Companies House , and the statutory model of governance . This notice is issued not in threat, but in lawful transparency and honour. 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) (All inalienable explicitly claimed and reserved) Previous correspondence enclosed with proof of special delivery. WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek Holsworthy, Devon EX22 7JN To: Pete Cowan (Prosecutor) Companies House Crown Way Cardiff CF14 3UZ Date: 19th March 2025 Your reference : CR71/00032/25 Subject: Final Notice – Rejection of Fraudulent Summons, Demand for Proof of Claim, and Formal Revocation of Assumed Authority 1. No Summons Can Be Issued Without a Proven Claim I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 12th March 2025 , in which you falsely claim that I am required to enter a plea to an alleged charge under the Companies Act 2006. Let it be stated for the record: There is no case to answer unless a valid claim is first proven. No summons can be lawfully issued unless jurisdiction, obligation, and liability are established with evidence. You, Pete Cowan, do not have the authority to "authorise a summons" —only a properly constituted court, upon receiving valid and proven information, can do so. Any attempt to issue a summons without a proven claim is unlawful and void. A summons based on an unproven claim constitutes fraud, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. Until Companies House proves a lawful claim, no valid charge exists, and no lawful summons can be issued. 2. Burden of Proof Rests Entirely with Companies House Your letter falsely assumes that I must enter a plea —this is a fundamental misrepresentation of the law. Let it be made absolutely clear : Burden of proof lies solely with Companies House. I am not required to respond to a claim that has not been lawfully substantiated. A summons cannot be used as a coercive tool to force a response where no lawful claim exists. If Companies House believes it has a valid claim, it must first provide strict proof of claim, including: Proof of jurisdiction – Evidence that Companies House has lawful authority over me as a living being (not just the legal fiction “JASON TYLDESLEY”). Proof of lawful claim – Full evidence that any alleged statutory obligation is binding, valid, and enforceable under common law. Proof that my inalienable rights were knowingly waived – A wet-ink, mutually signed contract proving my fully informed, explicit, and voluntary consent to be bound by statutory obligations. Until all three are provided, no valid claim exists, and no lawful proceedings can take place. 3. Definition of "Informed Consent" – The Standard You Must Meet Your claim assumes that I have consented to be bound by the Companies Act 2006. Let it be formally stated: Any consent to statute is a consent to the restriction of inalienable rights. For consent to be lawful , it must be fully informed and explicitly agreed upon . To meet the standard of informed consent, the following must exist: A clear statement of my inalienable rights, both before and after the contract is signed. Full disclosure of how consenting to statute restricts my inalienable rights. Joinder with two wet signatures , proving a knowing, voluntary agreement to the restriction of my rights. No such contract exists. Since you cannot provide this proof of informed consent , then no jurisdiction exists, and any claimed obligation is fraudulent. 4. Rejection of Your False Claim That Common Law "Has No Basis in Law" Your letter states that my reliance on common law jurisdiction "has no basis in law." This is factually and legally incorrect. a) Common Law is the Foundational Legal System in the UK The UK’s legal system is built on common law principles , and all statutory law must derive its authority from it. The absence of a contract or voluntary agreement means common law is the only lawful jurisdiction that can apply. b) No Presumption of Authority Can Be Lawful A statute is not a contract. Companies House cannot impose obligations without evidence of informed consent and joinder. Without a valid contract or explicit agreement, statutory law cannot be presumed to apply to me. 5. Personal Liability of Pete Cowan & Companies House Officials By attempting to issue an unlawful summons without proof of claim , you, Pete Cowan, have: Accepted full personal liability for this claim and its consequences. Waived any protection under corporate or government immunity , as no lawful claim has been established. Assumed personal liability for fraud, misrepresentation, and coercion should you continue without proving lawful jurisdiction. Let this serve as formal notice that you, Pete Cowan, and any other officials involved, will now be held personally liable for: £10,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation if you proceed without lawful proof of claim. £25,000 for coercion and undue influence , should you attempt to force me into a plea without proving jurisdiction. Unlimited damages for unlawful harassment, trespass upon my rights, and interference with my peace. 6. Notice to Remove All Statutory Claims Against Me This is now a final and formal notice that all statutory claims against me are to be permanently removed unless full proof of claim is provided. This applies to: ✅ The legal person “JASON TYLDESLEY” (a statutory creation presumed without agreement). ✅ All associated companies : Zen Jungle Limited (Company No. 12553647) Zen Jungle Retreat Limited (Company No. 12763398) Zen Jungle Estates Limited (Company No. 12758334) Any further attempt to impose statutory claims upon me will be treated as fraud. 7. Final Opportunity to Prove Claim or Cease and Desist You now have 14 days (until 2nd April 2025) to: Provide full lawful proof of claim , including: Proof of jurisdiction over me as a living being (not just the legal fiction “JASON TYLDESLEY”). A wet-ink, mutually signed contract proving my voluntary consent to statutory obligations. Full legal evidence that any alleged charge is valid, lawful, and binding under common law. Cease and desist from all further demands, threats, and coercion. Failure to comply will result in: A formal claim for damages. Legal action for fraud and misrepresentation. Public exposure of this fraudulent claim. This is not a request —this is a lawful demand . I expect full and immediate compliance. Previous correspondences are included for your reference. Yours sincerely, Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Living Being under Common Law Jurisdiction (All Inalienable Rights Explicitly Claimed and Reserved, Without Prejudice) Without Prejudice Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Jason : (Family Tyldesley)Wooda Lakes, PancrasweekHolsworthy, DevonEX22 7JN To: Lee JenkinsFor the Prosecuting Solicitor, Companies HouseCrown Way, CardiffCF14 3UZ Date: 4th March 2025 Subject: Response to Unfounded Criminal Proceedings Notice – Demand for Proof of Claim, Jurisdiction, and Lawful Authority Dear Lee Jenkins, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 3rd February 2025 , regarding Zen Jungle Retreat Limited (12763398) , in which you reference CR71/00032/25 . Please take this as my formal response to your claims. As documented evidence of my prior good faith efforts , I have enclosed copies of my previous two Conditional Acceptance responses , sent on 27th December 2024 and 28th January 2025 , both of which remain unanswered in any lawful manner. Your failure to provide the required proof of claim, jurisdiction, or lawful authority in response to these notices confirms that your demands are unsubstantiated and unenforceable . Furthermore, the continued threats contained in your latest correspondence amount to unlawful coercion, misrepresentation, and an abuse of process . 1. Failure to Provide Proof of Claim – Burden of Proof Remains on Companies House At no point have I refused any lawful obligation. Instead, I have consistently conditionally accepted your demands upon proof that they are lawfully applicable . To date, no such proof has been supplied . Instead, your office continues to operate under presumptions and coercion rather than lawful authority . To reiterate, my previous letters lawfully demanded: Proof of lawful claim that establishes any enforceable obligation upon me as a living being (Jason : of the family Tyldesley) under common law. Proof of jurisdiction that Companies House has lawful authority over me, rather than over the legal fiction ("JASON TYLDESLEY"). A valid contract demonstrating explicit and voluntary agreement, including two wet-ink signatures and full disclosure of the terms. Despite these requests, no such proof has been forthcoming. Absent these proofs, there is no valid claim, no lawful obligation, and no enforceable jurisdiction over me. 2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Unlawful Coercion Your letter falsely asserts that a summons will be issued on 28th March 2025 without further warning , unless I comply with demands that remain legally unsubstantiated . This is an egregious misuse of authority, as: A summons is a judicial instrument , which must be issued by a court of law with proven jurisdiction—not arbitrarily threatened by an administrative entity such as Companies House. Making false or misleading legal threats in order to induce compliance through fear is an act of coercion, misrepresentation, and unlawful intimidation , which are criminal offenses under common law. Any demand made under duress, threat, or misrepresentation is legally void and unenforceable . Unless Companies House provides lawful proof to substantiate its claims, your threats of prosecution amount to fraudulent misrepresentation and an abuse of process . 3. Distinction Between the Living Man and the Legal Person – Proof of Jurisdiction Required For clarity, I am Jason : (Family Tyldesley) , a living, breathing man under common law jurisdiction . I am not the legal fiction ("JASON TYLDESLEY") , which exists only within statutory law and can be regulated by Companies House only if I have voluntarily consented to such jurisdiction . Your claim assumes that because a legal person was registered , the living man is automatically bound by statutory obligations. However, Companies House has failed to prove: That I voluntarily agreed to represent the legal person. That any statutory obligation overrides my inalienable rights as a living being. That Companies House has lawful jurisdiction over me beyond assumed or implied consent. Until you provide strict proof of Companies House’s lawful authority over me as a living being, your demands remain invalid, unenforceable, and fraudulent . 4. Notice of Personal Liability – Lee Jenkins, You Are Now Accountable As the signatory of the letter dated 3rd February 2025 , you have assumed personal liability for any unlawful threats, coercion, and misrepresentation contained therein. Should you proceed with issuing a fraudulent summons or further coercive demands: You will be held personally accountable for your actions, as no corporate entity or employer can shield you from liability for harm, misrepresentation, or fraud. A formal private prosecution may be initiated against you for misfeasance in public office, fraud, and coercion . I reserve the right to seek lawful remedy against you for any damage caused, including reputational harm, financial loss, and distress . I strongly advise you to seek independent legal counsel regarding your personal liability before proceeding with any further unlawful threats. 5. Final Demand for Lawful Resolution To resolve this matter honorably, I now require the following within 14 days from the date of this letter: Full proof of claim, including evidence of lawful authority, jurisdiction, and contractual agreement. Confirmation in writing that Companies House will not proceed with any prosecution or summons in the absence of lawful proof of claim. Immediate cessation of coercive demands, misrepresentations, and threats. Failure to comply with the above within the stated timeframe will result in: A formal complaint against you, personally, and against Companies House for fraud, misrepresentation, and unlawful coercion . A notice of liability issued to you for any harm, injury, or loss caused by your actions . Further legal action , including private prosecution , for any continued fraudulent misrepresentation or abuse of process. 6. Consequences of Non-Compliance If no lawful proof is provided and Companies House proceeds with issuing a fraudulent summons or legal action without proving its claim , the following actions will be taken: Formal public exposure of Companies House’s fraudulent conduct. Private prosecution initiated against any individuals responsible for issuing unlawful threats. Claims for damages arising from misrepresentation, coercion, and interference with my natural rights. Lee, this is your final opportunity to resolve this matter lawfully . I strongly urge you to reconsider your role in this, as your actions now carry personal consequences. I remain open to honorable and lawful resolution but will not tolerate coercion, fraud, or threats based on unproven claims . For your convenience and to ensure full transparency, I have enclosed copies of my two previous responses dated 27th December 2024 and 28th January 2025 , as well as noted your reference CR71/00032/25 . Enclosures: Copy of letter dated 27th December 2024 (First Conditional Acceptance) Copy of letter dated 28th January 2025 (Final Notice and Conditional Acceptance Reaffirmed) Yours sincerely, Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Living Being under Common Law Jurisdiction(No Legal Fiction – All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice) Without Prejudice Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Jason : (Family Tyldesley)Wooda Lakes, PancrasweekHolsworthy, DevonEX22 7JN Date: 27th December 2024 To:Jamie Philips and Louise SmythCompanies HouseCrown Way, CardiffCF14 3UZ Your References: COMP/12758334 & COMP/12763398 Subject: Notice Regarding Lawful Basis for Claims and Notice of Liability Dear Jamie and Louise, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 16th December 2024 regarding Zen Jungle Estates Limited and Zen Jungle Retreat Limited. While I appreciate your prompt response, I must reiterate my concerns and objections regarding the assertions made within your recent letter, which appear to lack lawful substantiation. I am compelled to address several pressing issues that remain unresolved: 1. Lawful Basis of Claims and Authority To date, I have not been provided with any lawful proof of claim demonstrating that I, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), or the referenced legal entities are lawfully obligated to comply with the filing requirements you assert under the Companies Act 2006. It remains my position that any party making a claim bears the burden of proof to demonstrate its lawfulness. As a public authority, Companies House must operate within the principles of accountability and transparency, ensuring that any demands imposed on individuals or entities are supported by lawful evidence. Until you provide unequivocal evidence of your authority and jurisdiction, any claims or demands made remain unproven and unenforceable. 2. Misrepresentation of Company Status The continued listing of the referenced companies as "overdue" on the Companies House website constitutes a false and damaging representation, given the absence of lawful evidence obligating these entities to file accounts. This misrepresentation interferes with my right to trade and barter under natural law and constitutes an unlawful encumbrance on the entities’ ability to operate freely. I hereby demand that this misrepresentation be corrected immediately. Should you fail to supply lawful evidence of obligation, the companies must be listed as "exempt" until proven otherwise. 3. Notice of Liability As the signatory of the letter dated 16th December 2024, Jamie Philips is assuming personal accountability for any unlawful actions, including coercion, misrepresentation, or breaches of my inalienable rights. This includes but is not limited to: Making unsubstantiated claims of authority or obligation. Restricting or interfering with my natural rights and the operations of the referenced entities. I now formally notify you that by acting as an agent of a legal entity, you assume personal liability for any resulting harm caused by your actions or inactions, as per the principles of common law and equity. 4. Remedy Sought To resolve this matter amicably and in good faith, I request the following actions be taken within 21 days from the date of this letter: Provide lawful proof of claim demonstrating your authority and jurisdiction over me, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), and the referenced legal entities. Remove any misrepresentation regarding the status of the companies on the Companies House website, listing them as "exempt" until lawful proof is supplied. Confirm in writing that no further action will be taken unless and until lawful proof is provided. Failure to address these issues satisfactorily within the specified timeframe will confirm the absence of any lawful authority over me or the referenced entities. Any continued correspondence or actions that constitute coercion, misrepresentation, or interference with my natural rights will result in further action being taken to seek remedy for unlawful trespass and damages. I remain open to resolving this matter in transparency, honour, and good faith. Yours sincerely, Jason : (Family Tyldesley) All inalienable rights reserved Without Prejudice Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Jason : (Family Tyldesley)Wooda Lakes, PancrasweekHolsworthy, DevonEX22 7JN To:Jamie Philips and Louise SmythCompanies HouseCrown Way, CardiffCF14 3UZ Date: 28th January 2025 Your References: COMP/12758334 & COMP/12763398 Subject: Final Notice – Conditional Acceptance Reaffirmed, Proof of Claim Required, and Notice of Liability for All Companies Linked to Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Dear Jamie and Louise, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 20th January 2024 concerning Zen Jungle Estates Limited (12758334) and Zen Jungle Retreat Limited (12763398) . Despite previous lawful requests, no proof of claim, jurisdiction, or lawful authority has been provided. This letter serves as a final notice regarding not just these two companies, but all entities for which "Jason Tyldesley" is listed as a director on Companies House records. 1. Reaffirmation of Conditional Acceptance – Burden of Proof Rests on You At no point have I refused compliance. I have consistently provided conditional acceptance , meaning that I am fully willing to comply upon receipt of lawful proof that such obligations exist. This means that there has never been a refusal to file accounts or meet any other demand, but rather a lawful requirement that Companies House first provide proof that these obligations apply. Until such proof is provided, the burden remains on Companies House, not me , and thus, any threats of penalties, prosecution, or action are entirely unlawful and inappropriate. Prosecution or legal action in the absence of proof is a fundamental violation of due process, an abuse of authority, and an attempt at coercion rather than lawful enforcement. 2. Distinction Between the Legal Person and the Living Man – Jurisdiction Must Be Established It is essential to make the distinction between: The legal person ("JASON TYLDESLEY") , which is a registered entity created within statutory law. The living, breathing man (Jason : of the family Tyldesley) , who holds inalienable rights and is not automatically subject to statutory obligations unless freely and knowingly contracted into them. Proof Must Establish Jurisdiction Over the Living Man, Not Just the Legal Person For any obligation or authority to be enforceable, Companies House must prove: Whether the demand for accounts applies to a legal person or a living man. Whether statute can lawfully bind a living man with inalienable rights. Whether consent was given knowingly and explicitly , or whether obligations are merely assumed based on legal fiction. Absent such proof, statutory obligations do not automatically apply to a living man and any attempt to enforce them without proving jurisdiction amounts to coercion. 3. Extension of this Notice to ALL Companies for Which I Am Listed as Director This notice applies to Zen Jungle Estates Limited, Zen Jungle Retreat Limited, and any other companies for which I am listed as a director in Companies House records. Until Companies House provides lawful proof of claim demonstrating obligation and jurisdiction over these companies: They must be listed as "exempt" from filing requirements. Any public reference to “overdue” accounts, statutory penalties, or threats of legal action must be removed immediately to prevent fraudulent misrepresentation. Failure to correct these public listings may result in legal action for misrepresentation, reputational damage, and unlawful interference with my right to trade and barter. 4. Proof of Lawful Authority – Joinder, Two Wet Signatures, and Full Disclosure Required Despite multiple requests, Companies House has failed to provide: Proof of lawful authority establishing Companies House’s right to impose obligations upon me, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), or any referenced entities. Proof of contract or consent , which meets the following lawful requirements: Joinder – demonstrating that there was a meeting of minds between both parties. Two wet signatures – a legally binding contract must be signed in ink by both parties to demonstrate agreement. Full disclosure – The contract must explicitly state how my inalienable rights are affected and show my legal standing before and after the agreement. Important Clarification for Jamie: The company registration document does NOT meet these criteria. A single electronic signature on a registration document does not create a binding agreement that imposes obligations upon me or affects my inalienable rights. A contract must have both parties signing in ink with full understanding of its effects in order to be lawful. If Companies House intends to rely on the registration document, I require an explicit demonstration of where my full and informed consent was given with knowledge of the impact on my natural rights. Until you provide such proof, any assertion that obligations exist is unfounded and unenforceable. 5. Personal Liability for Agents – Jamie, You Are Now Personally Accountable Jamie, as the signatory of this correspondence, you assume personal liability for your role in perpetuating unverified claims. I have enclosed a Guide to Personal Responsibility as an Agent , which I urge you to review carefully. If you enforce obligations without evidence , you can be held personally responsible for any harm resulting from your actions. Government agents are NOT immune when they act beyond lawful authority. If you believe you are protected by your role, I strongly advise you to seek independent legal counsel regarding personal liability. 6. Final Demand for Remedy To resolve this matter fairly, I require the following within 14 days from the date of this letter: Provide the lawful proof of claim that establishes Companies House’s right to impose statutory obligations upon me or any associated companies. Confirm that all companies for which I am listed as director will be recorded as "exempt" until proof of claim is provided. Cease and desist from issuing further threats, demands, or misrepresentations regarding overdue accounts or penalties until proof of claim is established. Issue written confirmation that no legal action, penalties, or coercive measures will be taken unless Companies House lawfully substantiates its claims. 7. Consequences of Non-Compliance Failure to comply within 14 days will result in: Formal complaints and legal action against Companies House and its agents for fraudulent misrepresentation and coercion. Further notices of liability against individuals perpetuating unlawful claims. Claims for damages resulting from misrepresentation and reputational harm. This is the final notice and opportunity to resolve this matter lawfully. Jamie, I encourage you to seriously reconsider your role in this situation. You are acting on behalf of an entity, but that does not absolve you of personal accountability when issuing unlawful claims. I remain open to lawful and honorable resolution and expect that this matter will now be handled appropriately. Yours sincerely, Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Living Being under Common Law Jurisdiction ( No Legal Fiction – All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice ) How to Operate Safely and Avoid Personal Liability: A Guide for Agents of Governments, Corporations, and Legal Entities Many agents acting on behalf of governments, corporations, or other legal entities operate under the assumption that their actions are protected by the authority and framework of the entity they represent. However, this belief often overlooks fundamental principles of law, accountability, and liability under both natural law and common law. Below is a detailed explanation of why claims and actions are personal in nature, how personal liability is created, and the relationship between agents and their associated legal entities. 1. The Nature of Claims: Why They Are Personal in Nature 1.1 All Actions Originate with Living Beings Governments, corporations, and other legal entities are legal fictions —abstract constructs created through statutes, charters, or agreements. They lack physical existence, consciousness, and the capacity to act on their own. Therefore: Living beings act as agents on behalf of legal entities to carry out actions such as issuing demands, enforcing obligations, or engaging in correspondence. Every action or claim originates with a living being , who becomes personally responsible for that action. While an agent may claim to be acting "on behalf of" a legal entity, their actions—whether lawful or unlawful—are carried out personally. Responsibility for these actions is directly attributable to the living being performing them. 1.2 Lawful vs. Unlawful Claims A claim or action becomes personal when it is: Unlawful : Violates natural law, common law, or statutory law. Breaches the rights of another, such as their right to peace, property, or due process. Unproven : Fails to provide lawful evidence of authority, jurisdiction, or consent. Relies on presumptions or coercion rather than substantiated facts. Under common law , an individual is liable for harm, injury, or loss caused by their actions, whether or not those actions were taken "on behalf of" a legal entity. No entity can shield an agent from accountability for their unlawful or harmful actions. 2. The Relationship Between Agents and Legal Entities 2.1 What Is an Agent? An agent is an individual authorized to act on behalf of a legal entity, such as a government or corporation, in specific matters. The relationship between the agent and the entity is governed by the law of agency , which imposes duties and limits on the agent's authority. 2.2 Limits of Agency An agent’s authority is limited in the following ways: Scope of Authority : An agent can only act within the powers explicitly granted by the legal entity. Actions taken outside of this scope (ultra vires actions) are not legally protected and render the agent personally liable. Duty of Lawfulness : Agents must act within the bounds of the law. Actions that are unlawful cannot be justified by the agent’s role or the instructions of their employer. The principle of "no one can delegate what they do not possess" applies—if the entity has no lawful authority to make a claim, the agent cannot lawfully enforce it. 2.3 Personal Accountability of Agents Agents remain personally accountable for their actions when: They fail to verify the lawfulness of their actions. They act negligently, recklessly, or maliciously. They cause harm, injury, or loss to another living being. Example :An agent who issues a demand for payment without lawful evidence of jurisdiction or consent becomes personally responsible for the harm caused by that demand. The legal entity cannot absorb liability for the agent’s unlawful behavior under common law principles. 3. Why Agents Do Not Have Absolute Power, Authority, or Protection 3.1 Legal Fictions Have No Inherent Authority Legal fictions, such as governments or corporations, derive their authority solely from the explicit, voluntary, and informed consent of the governed or the individuals they interact with. If this consent cannot be proven, any action taken by an agent is a presumption of authority and lacks a lawful basis. 3.2 Agents Are Personally Responsible for Proving Claims When an agent makes a claim or demand (e.g., for payment or compliance), they are personally responsible for: Proving the legal basis of their actions : Establishing that the action is lawful. Demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction or authority. Providing evidence of consent : Showing that the individual being addressed has voluntarily and explicitly agreed to the obligations being enforced. Failure to provide this evidence renders the claim unlawful and exposes the agent to personal liability. 3.3 Protection Does Not Extend to Unlawful Acts Agents are not immune from accountability when their actions are: Outside the lawful authority of the entity they represent. Harmful or coercive in nature. This principle is affirmed by: The ultra vires doctrine , which voids actions taken beyond an entity’s lawful powers. Natural law and common law principles , which hold individuals accountable for harm, regardless of their role or title. 4. Creation of Personal Liability An agent creates personal liability when they: Act Without Lawful Authority : Making claims or demands without substantiating jurisdiction, consent, or the legal basis for the claim. Fail to Establish Consent : Enforcing obligations without proving that the individual has voluntarily agreed to them. Cause Harm or Loss : Through negligence, recklessness, coercion, or misrepresentation. Rely on Coercion or Deception : Using threats, penalties, or misrepresentation to compel compliance. Under common law , any action that violates another’s inalienable rights creates liability for the harm caused. 5. The Illusion of Protection for Agents of Governments and Corporations 5.1 No Immunity from Accountability Agents who believe they are protected by their affiliation with a government or corporation misunderstand the limits of agency law. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that individuals are accountable for unlawful actions, even when acting "under orders." The Nuremberg Principles established that following orders is no defense for unlawful or harmful actions, and this principle applies to all agents of legal entities. 5.2 Coercion and Misrepresentation When agents act coercively or misrepresent their authority, they: Step outside the lawful scope of their agency relationship. Create personal liability for the harm caused by their actions. 6. Advice to Agents: Avoiding Personal Liability Verify the Lawfulness of Actions : Ensure that every action or claim is lawful under both statutory and common law. Establish Jurisdiction and Consent : Confirm that the individual being addressed has consented to the jurisdiction or obligations being enforced. Act Within Authority : Stay within the explicit limits of your authority as an agent. Respect Inalienable Rights : Recognize the individual’s right to peace, property, and self-determination. Be Prepared to Provide Evidence : Ensure that all claims and actions are substantiated by lawful evidence. 7. Conclusion The relationship between agents and legal entities does not absolve agents of personal liability for unlawful or harmful actions. All claims and actions are personal in nature, and agents bear the burden of ensuring that their actions are lawful, evidence-based, and respectful of the inalienable rights of others. Failure to do so creates personal liability for any harm caused, regardless of the authority they believe they represent. Do You Understand the System You Serve and Enable? 1. Have You Questioned the Authority You Uphold? Every day, agents of governments and related entities enforce laws, collect taxes, and implement policies. Many do so with the belief that they are upholding justice, preserving order, and serving the public good. But have you ever paused to ask yourself: Do I truly understand the system I am serving? Have I considered how it affects not just the public but also my own freedoms? Have I ever questioned whether this system has lawful authority and how that authority was gained—or assumed? The legal and governmental systems you support may seem natural and necessary, but their true nature, origin, and methods often go unquestioned. By digging deeper, you may discover that the system operates in ways that prioritize control and financial extraction over fairness, justice, or the consent of the governed. 2. The Machine of Global Control: A System Beyond Borders The system you serve is not confined to your country or jurisdiction. It is part of a global, interconnected network—a machine designed to consolidate power and wealth. This system: Operates across borders through shared leadership and influence : Central banks, global corporations, and international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank are interconnected entities shaping laws and policies worldwide. Holds governments in perpetual debt : Governments rely on private central banks to fund their operations. This debt—owed to private financial institutions—is repaid by taxpayers, ensuring a steady flow of public money into private hands. Enforces rules set by unelected powers : Global organizations like the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and G7 influence policies that trickle down into national legislation, often bypassing democratic processes entirely. If this system were truly about serving the public, why does it function in ways that serve corporate and financial elites at the expense of individual freedom and prosperity? 3. Taxation: Extraction Without Consent Taxation is presented as necessary to fund public services like schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. But have you ever considered the full extent of taxation, the hidden ways it operates, or where the money actually goes? Visible Taxes Income Tax : Taken directly from your wages, often before you’ve even seen them. Council Tax : Charged simply for occupying property that you supposedly own. Fuel Duties, Road Tax, and Excise Fees : Taxes that restrict your ability to travel freely and increase the cost of living. Hidden Taxes VAT : A tax on almost every product or service, paid without thought. Environmental Levies : Charges on energy bills, often framed as necessary for sustainability. Inflation : This is perhaps the most insidious tax of all. Inflation devalues money, reducing your purchasing power. Yet inflation is not a natural occurrence—it is a deliberate result of central banks and governments printing money and increasing debt. Where Does the Money Go? While the origin of money is always the taxpayer, the destination is rarely the taxpayer’s benefit: Global Corporations and Banks : Governments award lucrative contracts for weapons, pharmaceuticals, and infrastructure projects to global suppliers, often with minimal accountability for pricing or quality. Debt Servicing : A significant portion of taxes is used to repay loans to private banks, with interest. Government Infrastructure : A vast amount of money is spent maintaining the bureaucracy itself—salaries, offices, pensions, and perks for those in power. If the system were truly about serving the people, wouldn’t more of this wealth flow back to them, instead of consistently benefiting corporations, banks, and global institutions? 4. The Question of Lawful Authority The legal system is presented as an unquestionable authority, but have you ever considered how its power was established? Authority is only lawful when it is derived from the voluntary, informed consent of the governed. Yet this system relies heavily on: Implied Consent : You are presumed to have agreed to its rules simply because you exist within its jurisdiction, even though you were never asked. Coercion : Non-compliance is met with fines, penalties, or imprisonment—hardly a voluntary choice. Deception : Citizens are rarely informed of their rights under natural law, which predates and supersedes man-made statutes. True authority does not need to rely on coercion or deception. It stands on mutual agreement, transparency, and fairness. Without these, the legitimacy of the system must be questioned. 5. War: Complicity in Harm Through Unchallenged Consent War offers a stark example of the consequences of not questioning implied, unlawful consent. Governments are the only entities empowered to: Declare war, often without the informed consent of the people. Purchase weapons using taxpayer money, often from a small group of global corporations profiting from destruction. Wage violence that causes harm, injury, and death to other living beings, including civilians. This raises a critical question: by participating in the system—whether through enforcement or taxation—are you complicit in these actions? Under natural and common law principles, knowingly contributing to harm or injury is a crime. Consider: Every tax payment funds government decisions , including the purchase of weapons and the wages of those who deploy them. Every unchallenged law grants legitimacy to actions taken in your name, even if those actions conflict with your principles. By not challenging implied consent, individuals and agents alike risk becoming complicit in actions that violate natural law, such as the harm caused by war. This is a significant moral and legal consequence of participating in a system that assumes authority rather than earning it through explicit agreement. 6. Deception and Coercion: Tools of the System If the system were truly designed for the benefit of the people, why does it rely so heavily on deception and coercion to maintain its power? Consider: Public Misunderstanding : Most people, including many of those enforcing the system, have little understanding of how it operates or who it serves. Fear-Based Compliance : Laws and taxes are enforced not through voluntary agreement, but through the fear of penalties. Selective Transparency : Information about government spending, global influence, and systemic corruption is often hidden or difficult to access. A truly just system would not need to use these methods. It would operate openly and with the explicit consent of those it governs. 7. The Costs of Governance Governments require enormous resources to maintain their operations—resources that are extracted from the public. These costs include: Creating Laws : The endless production of new statutes and regulations, most of which restrict freedoms rather than protect them. Enforcing Laws : Police, courts, and prisons consume vast amounts of public money. Running Government Infrastructure : Salaries, offices, vehicles, pensions, and other expenses add to the burden. Does it ever feel like the system exists more to sustain itself than to serve the people? 8. A Call to Reflection This isn’t about rebellion or condemnation—it’s about understanding and reflection. Consider the following: Do you understand the system you enforce and its origins? Have you questioned how it impacts your own freedoms? Are you comfortable being personally liable for enforcing rules that may lack lawful authority? Have you considered the moral implications of complicity in harm caused by government actions? As an agent of this system, you hold an important position. But that also means you have the power to question, reflect, and ultimately choose your role. 9. The Opportunity for Change The system relies on your belief in its legitimacy and your willingness to enforce its rules. Without these, its power diminishes. By understanding its true nature and questioning its authority, you can take the first step toward creating a fairer and freer world—not just for others, but for yourself as well. This is not about defiance but about reclaiming sovereignty. True freedom begins with understanding. Previous Item Next Item

Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 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 Sent by Special Delivery – Without Prejudice – All Rights Reserved 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 All rights reserved, none waived. I act in honour, without vexation, and under peaceful intent. Signed, Signed by Jason on 21st April 2025 Previous Item Next Item

Joint the team and community at our retreat. We have managerial, grounds care, construction, housekeeping and hospitality, bar and restaurant roles to fill. JOIN THE TEAM ZEN JUNGLE IS NOW HIRING Our vision is an awakened world, free of mind and ego The Zen Jungle transformational retreat is now open and we are building our team and retreat community. We have a diverse range of exciting opportunities, some to both live and work at this beautiful, 40 acre paradise on the border of Devon and Cornwall. There's 5 lakes, woodland abundant nature, a growing number of newly refurbished log cabins and our new Bistro, bar and kitchen will soon be open, followed closely by our lakeside bar and grill. It's a place for peaceful fun and deep personal transformation and awakening. WHO WE NEED? We are looking for like-minded people, focussed on personal transformation and self realisation to create a uniquely peaceful, transformative and special place. Apply Now About the retreat The retreat is a unique combination : A Life-changing, transformational teaching centre, We teach guests a whole new perspective and help them find their peace, freedom and purpose. Luxury holiday accomodation Between transformational retreats we are available for holidays and mini-breaks in our luxury, self contained cabins. A Private members club. As a place for peace and recreation we are available to locals and visitors for day visits. Our spaces, bars and soon the restaurant will be open to members, together with bookable spaces, classes and talks. A self sufficient, self realised community We are a group of people who have found personal transformation and self realisation. We are living in peace, growing our food and coaching guests and visitors to lose their mind noise. CURRENT VACANCIES (Open until Mid April 2023) Hotel, Bar & Bistro Manager An all round hospitality manager. Responsible for guest bookings, experience, quality, bar and restaurant team management. Housekeeping & Laundry High quality, full time housekeeping professional, experienced in guest changeovers and general cleaning for bistro and bars etc, who can work flexible hours. Groundscare, growing & maintenance An all rounder who is a proficient in gardening, grounds keeping, maintenance and ideally able to drive plant and machinery, Marketing, Operations & Admin An experienced co-ordinator with a flair for marketing and social media. This will be retreat operations so good organisation and administration skills will be needed. Personal Transformation & Becoming a Zen Jungle Coach (essential for those wishing to become community residents) It is our aim that the whole team will eventually become proficient in guest coaching, becoming part of the transformational teaching team during retreats. This means taking the life-changing, transformational jouney with us as part of your training to both awaken to new perspectives on life and find your own blissful peace within. Find out more about the journey here . Our roles are for residents & non-residents If you are interested in joining the retreat community and have the right skills, we have limited accomodation available for those who also wish to become coaches. All roles can also be non-resident, where you travel to the retreat daily, For those who do wish to become resident at the community, accomodation is subject to completing the teaching journey to be signed off as a guest coach within 6 months. APPLY FOR A ROLE

Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 9 September 2025 Ministry of Justice Legal, Treasury Solicitor Companies House / Court Insurer Bonder Holder Notification Commercial Lien, Notice ZJR-Companies House Insurer / Indemnifier Notification Letter Date: 9th September 2025 To: The Treasury Solicitor (Government Legal Department), One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4TS Ministry of Justice Legal Directorate, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ Department for Business & Trade Legal Advisers, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET NOTICE TO INDEMNIFIERS AND BOND HOLDERS — COMMERCIAL LIEN From: Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Wooda Lakes, Pancrasweek, Holsworthy, Devon, EX22 7JN Re: Notification of Commercial Lien Against Named Officers You are hereby notified that the following individuals and entities are each bound by a commercial lien , arising from sworn judicial instruments (Affidavit of Truth, Certificate of Default, and Final Master Notice) served, published, and unrebutted: Louise Smyth CBE – Chief Executive & Registrar, Companies House Jamie Phillips – Compliance Team Leader, Companies House Pete Cowan – Prosecuting Solicitor, Companies House Lee Jenkins – Prosecuting Solicitor, Companies House Huw Morgan – Legal Adviser, Cardiff Magistrates’ Court Jacobs Enforcement Ltd – Birkenhead, Wirral, including directors and certificated enforcement agents Basis of Lien Affidavit of Truth and Court of Record (25th July 2025) — unrebutted. Certificate of Default (22nd August 2025) — estoppel confirmed. Final Master Notice (1st September 2025) — served and published. Supplemental Notice to Jacobs (8th September 2025) — liability crystallised. Schedule of Trespass and Penalties — updated 8th September 2025, current total £9,100,000 plus £1,250,000 each pending Jacobs director/agent upon disclosure. These instruments together form a Court of Record judgment , binding in law and commerce. Your Position as Indemnifiers As indemnifiers and bondholders for the named officers, you are now on notice that: These liabilities attach personally and corporately. Your indemnity contracts are now engaged. You are jointly and severally liable to satisfy these sums unless the debtors discharge them. Required Action You are required, within 14 days of receipt : To acknowledge this notice in writing, confirming your recognition of the lien. To state whether you intend to honour the indemnity. To confirm that you have communicated this lien to the insured/bonded officers. Failure to respond will be taken as dishonour, extending liability. Jacobs Enforcement Ltd As a certificated enforcement company, Jacobs Enforcement Ltd must maintain insurance and bonds. They have been separately required to disclose their insurer and bondholder details. You are hereby notified that they are lien-bound corporately, with individual directors and agents to be added upon disclosure. Publication All lien instruments are also published for public record via my repository: 👉 https://www.zenjungle.org/sovereign-community/notices-and-declarations-list Further publication of this lien and the facts it records will follow in high-traffic, public-facing forums to ensure that the existence, basis, and amounts of this lien are known to the wider public. This step will be taken to ensure accountability and transparency unless full remedy is made without delay. By my living hand and seal, this 9th day of September 2025 . Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Living Man — Court of Record Established Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Documents Enclosed : Notice of Commercial Lien sent special delivery and published 9th September : www.zenjungle.org Notice of Commercial Lien | Zen Jungle Retreat Previous Item Next Item

Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 9 September 2025 Jacobs Enforcement & Insurer Supplemental Notice of Crystalisation to Jacobs Enforcement Commercial Lien, Notice, Cease & Desist ZJR-Companies House NOTICE OF LIABILITY CRYSTALLISATION, COMMERCIAL LIEN, AND INSURER NOTIFICATION DEMAND Date: 9th September 2025 Your Ref: 91070771 Client Ref: 25017935E Court Ref: 2500056578 To: Jacobs Enforcement Ltd 6 Europa Boulevard Birkenhead Wirral CH41 4PE From: Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Wooda Lakes Pancrasweek Holsworthy Devon EX22 7JN 1. Liability Crystallisation On 19th August 2025 , Jacobs Enforcement Ltd issued a “Notice of Enforcement” citing a purported “Warrant of Control.” On 1st September 2025 , you were placed formally on notice that this instrument is void ab initio , and that any action upon it would constitute trespass, harassment, and unlawful conversion of trust property. On 3rd September 2025 , you replied by dismissing my sworn judicial instruments as “standard letters obtained via internet websites,” asserting they were “not accepted,” and declaring your intention to continue action regardless. This constitutes dishonour after notice . “Not accepted” is not rebuttal. By failing to rebut by sworn affidavit under full commercial liability, your dishonour crystallises liability. 2. Commercial Lien Accordingly, Jacobs Enforcement Ltd is now formally added to the Commercial Lien Schedule arising from my Court of Record judgment, Certificate of Default (22nd August 2025), and Final Master Notice (1st September 2025). The £100,000 notice penalty (19th August 2025) has now matured. A further £250,000 penalty is applied for your 3rd September dishonour. Jacobs Enforcement Ltd is now bound corporately. Each responsible director and certificated enforcement agent will be added personally to the lien schedule at £1,250,000 each , upon identification. The current lien total as at 8th September 2025 stands at £9,200,000 , and continues to accrue. 3. Trust Property Warning The companies you purport to enforce against are vested in a private irrevocable express trust , a fact on record with Companies House. Any interference with company assets therefore constitutes not only trespass but also unlawful conversion of trust property , for which you will be held personally and corporately liable. 4. Insurer and Bondholder Notification You are hereby informed that your liability insurers and bondholders are deemed to be on notice of this lien as of today’s date. You are required, within seven (7) days of receipt of this notice , to: Provide the full details of all insurers and bondholders covering Jacobs Enforcement Ltd, its directors, and certificated enforcement agents in respect of enforcement activities; and Provide written confirmation that these insurers and bondholders have been notified of this lien and the liabilities attaching. Failure to comply will be treated as further dishonour, misrepresentation, and concealment, extending liability under the lien. 5. Publication and Parallel Notice For the avoidance of doubt: The Affidavit of Truth (25th July 2025) and Certificate of Default (22nd August 2025) are already published for public record at 👉 https://www.zenjungle.org/sovereign-community/notices-and-declarations-list This notice, together with the updated lien schedule, will be forwarded directly to insurers, bondholders, and the Treasury Solicitor in parallel. Final Declaration Your dishonour is recorded. Jacobs Enforcement Ltd, its directors, and certificated agents are now liable personally and corporately. Your indemnifiers are engaged. By my living hand and seal, this 9th day of September 2025. Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Living Man — Court of Record Established Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Documents enclosed Notice of Commercial Lien Sent Special delivery and published 9th September 2025 www.zenjungle.org Notice of Commercial Lien | Zen Jungle Retreat Previous Item Next Item