Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 25 July 2025 Passport Office, Joanna Rowland-Director General Passports, D. Shaw-Head of Complaints Affidavit of Truth Affidavit, Intent to Lien Bodhisattva-Passport, Application-PEX5313931145 AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH To Establish a Court of Record under Common Law (Unrebutted = Lawful Default and Judgement) Affiant(s): Hannah: (Family Lindsay), living woman Jason: (Family Tyldesley), living man On behalf of: The living being known as Bodhisattva Jungle Regarding Passport Application: PEX 531 393 1145 To: D. Shaw, Head of Complaints Department Joanna Rowland, Director General HM Passport Office, PO Box 767, Southport, PR8 9PW Date: 25th July 2025 Subject: Lawful Claim Regarding Passport Application and Trespass Upon Inalienable Rights I, Hannah: (Family Lindsay), and I, Jason: (Family Tyldesley), living woman and man respectively, do solemnly and truthfully affirm the following facts, and do hereby declare them to be true, correct, complete, and not misleading, to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1. Status and Standing 1.1. We are living, sovereign beings created by nature, endowed with inalienable rights. We are not legal persons or corporate fictions, nor do we consent to representation or agency under statutory jurisdiction. 1.2. We act in full honour and good faith on behalf of the living being known as Bodhisattva Jungle , who, like all natural beings, is born with inalienable rights not granted by the State but inherent by birth. 1.3. We do not consent to be treated as agents of the legal persons "HANNAH CLARE LINDSAY" or "JASON BRIAN TYLDESLEY", nor do we accept any presumed authority over our daughter on this basis. 2. Factual Background 2.1. On or around 24th August 2024, we submitted a lawful application for a passport for our daughter, Bodhisattva Jungle, including a notarised affidavit of fact establishing her identity under common law. 2.2. After nearly a full year of administrative delay, repeated errors, and internal mismanagement—acknowledged by HM Passport Office—the Office has now demanded a statutory declaration , despite having failed to rebut our affidavit or establish lawful authority to compel such a submission. 2.3. We issued multiple lawful notices: Conditional Acceptance Upon Proof of Claim; Notice of Estoppel by Acquiescence; Final Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure. 2.4. HM Passport Office has failed to rebut any of the above notices point-for-point , nor provided any proof of lawful jurisdiction, contract, or authority to compel our compliance. 2.5. An email dated 1st July 2025 acknowledged receipt of our final notice, but attempted to reassert administrative procedure without addressing our lawful position or providing lawful rebuttal. 3. Claims and Harm 3.1. By obstructing the issuance of a passport without rebutting our lawful notices and affidavit, HM Passport Office has: Trespassed upon the inalienable right to travel of a living being; Attempted to coerce consent to statutory jurisdiction; Ignored lawful due process under common law; Caused undue delay, distress, and material harm. 4. Lawful Right to Remedy 4.1. Under natural and common law, unrebutted affidavits stand as truth . 4.2. The burden of proof lies on any party asserting jurisdiction, authority, or obligation over us or our daughter. 4.3. No such proof has been presented. Therefore, we assert that all prior notices and affidavits stand as unchallenged truth in law , and a court of record now exists . 5. Fee Schedule and Remedy Sought 5.1. Unless all points in this affidavit are rebutted point-by-point under oath within 14 days of receipt, the following will be established by lawful default: HM Passport Office is liable for trespass, harm, and coercion. The right to travel of Bodhisattva Jungle has been unlawfully obstructed. The following fees are now due and payable: Unlawful Act Fee Trespass to right to travel £50,000 Obstruction and delay (10+ months) £25,000 Emotional distress and harm £10,000 Administrative handling and lawful notices £5,000 Attempted unlawful inducement to contract £25,000 Wilful dishonour of Final Notice to Cure £15,000 Continued delay following estoppel £10,000 Total £145,000 5.2. The lawful remedy now sought is: Immediate issuance of the passport for Bodhisattva Jungle without further obstruction; Payment in full of £145,000 for trespass, harm and breach of duty , enforceable by commercial lien and judgement of a court of record. 6. Conditions of Rebuttal 6.1. If any statement in this affidavit is false, let it be rebutted point-by-point , under oath , with full liability , and supported by verified evidence , within 14 (fourteen) days of receipt. 6.2. Failure to lawfully rebut shall constitute tacit agreement and lawful default . 6.3. Default shall establish this affidavit as the judgement of a court of record , and will be used as the basis for lawful enforcement. Affirmation We affirm that the foregoing is true and correct, in full honour and with the intent to create lawful record. All rights reserved. Without prejudice. Signed and sworn this day: Signed by Jason, Hannah and two witnesses on 25th July 2025 Previous Item Next Item

Notices & Declarations Previous Item Next Item 22 August 2025 Cardiff Magistrates Court, Companies House Certificate of default - ZJR - Companies House Notice, Certificate of Default ZJR-Companies House CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT & NOTICE OF ENFORCEMENT Date: 22 August 2025 Affidavit Reference: 2500056578 From: Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Wooda Lakes Pancrasweek Holsworthy Devon EX22 7JN To: Louise Smyth CBE Chief Executive & Registrar Companies House Crown Way Cardiff CF14 3UZ (Ref: CR71/00032/25) Jamie Phillips Compliance Team Leader Companies House Crown Way Cardiff CF14 3UZ (Ref: CR71/00032/25) Pete Cowan Prosecuting Solicitor Companies House Crown Way Cardiff CF14 3UZ (Ref: LEGAL/PSC/ZJR/451/CR2) Lee Jenkins Prosecuting Solicitor Companies House Crown Way Cardiff CF14 3UZ (Ref: CR71/00032/25) Huw Morgan Legal Adviser to the Justices Cardiff Magistrates’ Court Fitzalan Place Cardiff CF24 0RZ (Court Ref: 2500056578) Declaration I, Jason : (Family Tyldesley), a living man, do hereby certify into the record of my Court of Record the following unrebutted facts: That on 25th July 2025 , I served upon each of the above-named individuals, in their private capacity , a sworn Affidavit of Truth and Court of Record . (Copy Enclosed) That this affidavit required rebuttal by sworn affidavit, under full personal and commercial liability, within fourteen (14) days of service. That no rebuttal has been received from any party. No sworn affidavit, no point-by-point rebuttal, and no lawful proof of jurisdiction or contract has been provided. That the only response received was a letter dated 31st July 2025 (from Prosecutor Pete Cowan), which: Confirmed receipt of my notices; Asserted they had “no legal effect”; Provided no sworn affidavit, no rebuttal of any claim, and no evidence of lawful authority. That such dismissals are irrelevant in law. The maxim stands: “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in law.” Accordingly, the affidavit dated 25th July 2025 now stands as a final judicial determination in my Court of Record, binding in law and commerce, enforceable against all named parties. Court of Record Standing A Court of Record is lawfully established when: A living man testifies on oath; A permanent record is kept; The right to truth, remedy, and enforcement is upheld. The record shows: Trespass, misfeasance, and coercion under colour of law; Failure to rebut lawful notices; Knowledge and dishonour by silence or dismissal;Commercial liens unrebutted and matured. Lien and Liability Each named party is subject to a personal and commercial lien of £1,250,000 , for harm, trespass, and fraud by misrepresentation. These liens are: Publicly published via my website repository : ( https://www.zenjungle.org/notices-and-declarations/affidavit-of-truth-%26-court-of-record ); Enforceable in equity, commerce, and at law; Binding upon indemnity insurers. Enforcement Action By this notice, I confirm that enforcement will now proceed as follows: Filing of a Part 7 Claim in the High Court of Justice to convert the affidavit and liens into a court-sealed judgment debt. Serving of a Liability Notification to each party’s indemnity insurer, together with the affidavit, lien schedule, and this certificate. Enforcement by High Court Enforcement Officers , charging orders, or third-party debt orders. Continuation of publication and transparency in all actions taken. Final Declaration The Affidavit of Truth dated 25th July 2025 is now final, unrebutted, and binding . All liens are matured. Enforcement is in progress. Signed by my living hand and seal, this 21nd day of August 2025. Jason : (Family Tyldesley) Living Man under Common Law, All Inalienable Rights Reserved Court of Record Established Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent 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