Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI- : Re: I am reasonably suing with a jury as per 1st September 2021, for my freedom of expression that includes a permanent injunction against adoption legislation & substantial financial compensation so I have my own identity & could choose if I wanted, to be a female media baron in Westminster etc (05.09.2021)
Peaceful freedom of expression.
The court will need to issue my claim as per 1st September 2021, or we could have… a jury to decide if I can have a… jury to safeguard my freedom of expression that is unreasonably being interfered with to cause me ongoing harm.
I don’t accept the ongoing unreasonable political interference in what could only ever be my peaceful freedom of expression, that necessarily includes not needing the permission of the state or any robber media barons, to enjoy my own identity.
** It is self evident my adopted name and false information using ss 132- 138 SOCPA 2005 would never have been illegally leaked to the press in the UK on Mothers Day 2006 if I was not adopted, and I was a female media baron in Westminster.
The British and Australian politicians clearly intended beyond all reasonable doubt, to illegally stop my lawful peaceful freedom of expression because I am adopted and I am not a female media baron in Westminster etc. The direct connection between adoption legislation and ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 is and was the false claim an adopted person needs permission to have any freedom of expression including to use and enjoy our own identity.
I have unimpeachable integrity defending peaceful freedom of expression.
It’s not even like Murdoch or the other robber media barons in Westminster who are all male could compete with me on a level playing field by being in Parliament Square, Central London, themselves.
It’s a legal impossibility to just try and explain away the ongoing physical and emotional harm caused to me and intended by the political corruption on Mothers Day 2006 solely because I am an ordinary person who was doing nothing more extraordinary than peaceful freedom of expression.
The politicians and press cannot cannot change the fact the likes of Murdoch are on public record lying about legal proceedings in their own press and in person to a public inquiry to try and sidestep and overtake legal proceedings in a court involving them (ie: 19 July 2007 -19 July 2009 -19 July 2011) for the purposes of continuing ongoing harm. It is undeniable that Murdoch was maliciously targeting me during for example HQ11X00563 by relying on state violence.
Murdoch maliciously targeted me precisely because of my peaceful ordinary freedom of expression which he tried to stop with the torture and attempted murder of me, that he has always profited from.
He is not really what anyone would call an ‘investigative’ journalist.
No ordinary law abiding civilian merely practicing peaceful freedom of expression should ever have politicians and robber media barons try and illegally stop and hide that by… lying !!!! about legal proceedings (because the known truth always was I had a lawsuit against the state, not the other way round) which is not part of any legitimate freedom of expression by politicians and media barons.
I would not personally be applying to or asking permission from or paying money to the likes of Murdoch and his minions for me to use my own identity and speak in a public space including in a court with a jury, against him, because that is my peaceful freedom of expression.
I am reasonably suing for my freedom of expression that includes a permanent injunction against adoption legislation and substantial financial compensation so I could choose if I wanted, to be a female media baron in Westminster etc.
A male dominated world of advertising salesman who call themselves politicians and journalists falsely claim to be saving vulnerable children with their make believe world of adoption that is only about their own egos. Murdoch et al have never been interested in peaceful freedom of expression or improving equality and justice, let alone for ordinary civilian children and women. They could not even admit they were using overwhelming state violence to illegally try and stop the peaceful freedom of expression of an innocent and defenceless civilian woman.
They did know on Mothers Day 2006 that I am an ordinary woman who is adopted who proved beyond all reasonable doubt, they have no recognised defence in law to adoption legislation, ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 or as it transpired the British House of Lords.
There is an ongoing intention by Murdoch and another adopted person, politician, and journalist like Gove, who like Blair et al with the continuing unreasonable demands of adoption legislation including by the British House of Lords, have always demonstrably been mouthpieces of the media baron Murdoch.
The political corruption behind my unlawful arrest and false imprisonment on Mothers Day 2006 for the sole purpose of illegally leaking my adopted name along with false information with the intention of stopping my jury lawsuit, about my peaceful freedom of expression including my right to use my own identity was not only unconscionable, but part of an intended pattern to illegally stop my having the peaceful freedom of expression to use my own identity.
The sum total of Westminster is women are only supposed to aspire to at most be a spare heir.
There is a very big difference between Murdoch grandstanding at a public inquiry in the UK etc, and fronting up in a court before a jury trying to explain away my freedom of expression.
My freedom of expression does not have to be whatever Murdoch et al wants, and indeed I view freedom of expression quite differently, because ordinary people just like myself, who don’t want to be like the robber media barons of this world, know there are a multitude of serious issues to properly address that are not for anyone else’s ‘entertainment’ or profit.
(My ‘lived experience’ of state violence being used to maintain Westminster’s doctrine of male domination, is political legislation that is not legal primarily relies on innocent civilians being churned through for example a Magistrates Court because the fact the court has no jury and does not keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings provides the best opportunity to cause a hidden pattern of escalating and sometimes life threatening physical and emotional harm.
The undeniable evidence is the bogus ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case against Brian and myself in the UK sought to illegally keep any political Contempt of Court case from the Magistrates Court out of the High Court because Brian and myself could not possibly have committed a Contempt of Court. Brian was standing up for me, complaining about my being bullied, including while I was ill. The court records themselves prove it is the Magistrates Court who admitted they refused without reasonable excuse to keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings they had the legal responsibility, and every opportunity including with technology to do, to avoid the he said/she said accompanied by state violence.
The real ‘take-away’ from our political Contempt of Court case was the fact the Magistrates Courts were repeatedly being used against us, for political reasons, that could only continue through a refusal by politicians and complicit media barons, to guarantee the Magistrates Court take and maintain an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings that are easily accessible and available to the public.
It was a City of London lawyer, the Westminster Magistrates Courts and an Attorney General who later illegally repeatedly threatened to imprison anyone without either legal representation or trial if an accurate and contemporaneous record of far from legal and solely political prosecutions which they could not stop being produced as evidence of corruption in civil jury lawsuits.
The ‘paradox’ in the veneer of Contempt of Court legislation is that it says a judge needs to give ‘permission’ for an agreed accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings to be made which a reasonable person would properly understand really means, if a judge refuses to agree an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings could be taken and maintained that was easily accessible and available to the public then they showed bias, while a judge who agreed an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings was not biased.
It was actually a very serious Contempt of Court for the two Blairs to illegally leak my adopted name to the press with false information on Mothers Day 2006, when they should at the very least have resigned.
Politicians and media barons bringing political cases against law abiding civilians routinely rely on continually finding illegal means to try and manipulate any legal system for their own personal and financial profit.
A straightforward example was trying to ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London with political legislation like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that as Hansard from 23 May 2000 highlights dishonestly pretended otherwise for public consumption because of course those trying to ban peaceful freedom of expression there, were the ones who most oppose that themselves because they are occupying the British Parliament with the unelected House of Lords. The unelected British House of Lords who clearly exhibit arrogance and self entitlement in Hansard would not repeat what they said about peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London there, or in any court, let alone before a jury.
How could one adopted person like the politician and journalist Gove who goes along with adoption legislation deny another adopted person who rejects adoption legislation a jury to remedy the ongoing harm caused because adoption legislation is political rather than legal ?
The fact some people might go along with adoption legislation or ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation which are and were both opposed to peaceful freedom of expression, for any number of reasons, did not and does not mean either or both could be imposed on anyone or everyone else.
I conclusively proved by defending peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, that Blair, Gove and Murdoch et al did not and do not, that I am illegally denied a jury and legal representation and in my lawsuits, solely for political not legal reasons.
It is clearly unreasonable for an adopted person to have our own identity in part or whole erased to avoid any adult stranger the at most embarrassment of being called a carer, rather than parent and family.
The fact the consistent use of a jury as a court, rather than an unelected British House of Lords or a monarchy is the best opportunity of achieving justice by stopping political legislation that is not legal, is the reason disreputable advertising salesman posing as politicians and press do everything they can to illegally try and and stop jury lawsuits.
The rule of law and democracy is not compatible with the anti-competition corruption of cronyism.
Murdoch is just a sleaze-bag who does not put himself on page three of his beloved Sun, and it was never legal for the corrupt Murdoch and Gove to lie in the Times about onerous legal proceedings in a court, they were illegally trying to avoid themselves.
How could my having a tent and not occupying Parliament Square, Central London possibly be a crime when the unelected members of the British House of Lords occupy Parliament to legislate state violence legitimate peaceful opposition ?
It is not difficult for someone with money to make money using and exploiting the British House of Lords who make money by occupying the British Parliament, opposing making everyone healthier and wealthier with the peace and harmony of the rule of law and democracy that is supposed to be about equality of arms and justice. It is clearly the sign of a maturing democracy, and not anti-monarchist, to have a genuine Constitution in Australia, that guarantees a starting point of improving equality and justice with juries and in particular to help limit the use of political legislation that is not legal)
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 