Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Blair & Johnson et al can never legally change they have… already been found guilty of illegally opposing peaceful freedom of expression by law abiding private citizens with now repealed ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that would still be on statute books & extended across UK if we had not opposed it, while politicians have similarly not identified any criminal offence in my also… officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation inside or outside any court of law, so politicians legally obliged to provide me with free Australian passport in my own identity & $1.4 billion dollars compensation so I can live in my own home in Breizh, France, officially registered as a peace campaigner (01.04.2022)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
The British PM Blair et al publicly chose to not set a good… example by illegally legislating with ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 to oppose peaceful freedom of expression by law abiding private citizens. This highlighted a reckless arrogance and disrespectful mindset by Westminster towards law abiding private citizens, while claiming an exemption from the legislation for example for the top cop and now Lord Blair and himself, along with most Westminster agencies who were all within the ‘designated area’.
I don’t personally view… peaceful freedom of expression as being something anyone needs to vote for in elections.
When Blair supported the election of President Putin on 26th March 2000, and then following the invasion of Iraq, signed a major oil deal for BP in Russia during a state visit beginning on 24th June 2003 in the UK, it was not because Blair supported peaceful freedom of expression or democracy in the UK or anywhere else.
Blair lost any… credible claim of supporting peaceful freedom of expression, with ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK, because he not only did not even support democracy in Parliament Square, Central London in the UK, but he actively abused public office to illegally use the state apparatus to oppose democracy. The ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation was never… intended to be any reasonable defence of law abiding private citizens, anywhere.
We had to consistently work to repeal ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation to maintain our peaceful freedom of expression and stop politicians extending the legislation across the UK. Blair lacked the basic… good manners to admit he was wrong, so we had to conclusively prove he was wrong anyway, which we did.
It has already actually been… proved in the UK, that Blair illegally used public office and the state apparatus to act with malice towards law abiding private citizens, in the UK, with ss 132-138 SOCPA which is a reality neither he nor Johnson et al can ever legally change.
There was no other legislation repealed by ordinary law abiding private citizens during that time.
The politicians didn’t suddenly care and get a conscience about ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005.
The first hand account is that it is real that Blair and Johnson illegally used public office and the state apparatus to lie about real, law abiding private citizens.
Blair’s ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation… against law abiding private citizens, like myself, literally saw myself and others publicly labelled including in courts as ‘seriously organised criminals’ by the likes of a Ms Abbott (Labour & Stop the War) who voted for ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 and a Sir Keir Starmer (former DPP and now Labour Leader of a so called Opposition) and a (Tory PM) Johnson as Mayor of London too, along with a Livingstone, Brown and Cameron, and business ‘interests’ like Vitol etc.Not a single one of them not only never stood for peaceful law abiding private citizens anywhere, but they also very seriously abused public office to use the state apparatus for their own personal and financial reasons. It is self evident if the monarchy really thought they were as popular as the news media scrum claim they are, on their behalf, they would also have the… good manners to set a good… example, by officially renouncing the institution of monarchy and along with the house of lords, standing for elections in a democracy instead. There is no politician or head of state who is ‘more important’ than… any law abiding private citizen.
(It turned out Blair had effectively bribed the monarchy by promising them part of the public space in Parliament Square, Central London, in the GLA Act 1999 he did not have the legal authority to do, so the monarchy would in return sign legislation without also declaring their conflict of interest, that did not change that I did not personally campaign in only Parliament Square, Central London, or that the monarchy could not stop the repeal of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005. The politicians also did not mention they had a prior political agreement among the political parties, articulated in Hansard in the House of Lords on 23rd May 2000 to illegally ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London)
The politicians knew ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 would not withstand any scrutiny whatsoever by a civil or criminal jury, who could not possibly understand how legislation could publicly label law abiding private citizens ‘serious organised criminals’ simply because of our peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London.
A Ms Abbott who lives in a state of denial, walked right on by her handiwork here in Parliament Square, Central London claiming she was “too busy” although she had not been “too busy” to actually vote for ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 to illegally ban peaceful freedom of expression, including by any of her own constituents.
There are academic theses from law departments about ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 which are incomplete because they do not include the… objective fact politicians were always illegally trying to stop civil and criminal… jury nullification of legislation.
There was no ‘UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly’ who ever came to speak with Brian and myself in all the years we were there, about what was going on in England, let alone about the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me… because we had actually made a… practical difference with the repeal of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, which the UN agency did not.
It is undeniable that the executive over-reach of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 would not have been repealed if we had not physically stood for peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, because it was only forced off the statute books by ordinary law abiding private citizens living within the peace and harmony of the rule of law. The reason ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation was repealed was because there were an unprecedented number of lawsuits over… jury nullification of legislation.
In fact, Johnson spent all his time as Mayor of London opposing us too:
The politicians used the manipulative… excuse of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 to illegally try and find any other ways of illegally trying to criminalize us, because once they had lied once, they… intended to… continue lying.
I am… labelled as ‘adopted’ by politicians too, so they could have claimed I am any race, religion, politics or none which would not make that true.
In fact, we were peace campaigners of any race, religion, politics or none, in Parliament Square, Central London.
There is no equivalence in our first hand experience about ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 and the news media scrum who are in the business of making money from advertising regardless of whether that comes from public money from politicians or corporate sponsors.
The politicians have similarly not identified any criminal offence committed inside or outside any court with my… officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation, because the arbitrary and and inconsistent legislation has never been about any reasonable defence of law abiding private citizens who are minors or adults who are labelled ‘adopted’.
The no due process and cognitive dissonance extends to politicians claiming there are ‘open adoptions’ but only if you are an adopted person who goes along with draconian adoption legislation that people who are not labelled ‘adopted’ do not have to do.
It is not true that draconian adoption legislation is the only legislation in the whole world that could never be nullified including with a civil and criminal jury, and regardless of any changes in politicians, governments, republics, monarchies, democracies and empires.
The Australian politicians who have not identified any criminal offence I commit as a person who they labelled ‘adopted’ with my officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation, are legally obliged to provide me with a free Australian passport in my own identity, and $1.4 billion dollars compensation, so I can live in my own home in Breizh, France, officially registered as a peace campaigner.
My pioneering two part compensation includes:
a) a person of any race, religion, politics or none who has been adopted having the choice to voluntarily and unconditionally receive the equivalent of $3000 Australian dollars per month, tax free that cannot be ‘means tested’ in any way, along with universal free healthcare of our choosing regardless of where we live or choose to live that also serves as a real universal basic income because people who are adopted come from all walks of life from all around the world and cannot be expected to keep ‘starting over’ in any circumstances.
(that would in my own case be paid by the State of Victoria)
b) exemplary and aggravated damages in individual cases that in my own case should be $1.4 billion tax free dollars (again paid by the State of Victoria)
(I should be able to collect my compensation from the Supreme Court in Melbourne, in Victoria)
The world can never have too many peace campaigners.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 