Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re: A British police ‘PNC’ & UK Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) etc over miscarriage of justice because politicians will illegally… exclude a person labelled ‘adopted’ from jury nullification of legislation like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (in the UK) with compensation that would have happened immediately if it did not lead to the jury nullification with compensation of draconian adoption legislation too (08.03.2022)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
I was labelled ‘adopted’ as a child so draconian adoption legislation could be used against me, before as an adult being publicly labelled a ‘serious organised criminal’ so the ban on peaceful freedom of expression in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 could be used against me.
I think that ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 would have been immediately removed from the statute books, and if necessary through jury nullification, if it had not been the case that jury nullification of legislation would have resulted in the jury nullification with compensation of draconian adoption legislation too.
The central reason for the miscarriage of justice is that politicians illegally try and… exclude a person who is labelled ‘adopted’ from jury nullification and compensation over any other egregious legislation, because it will result in the same with draconian adoption legislation.
There are of course additional legal problems when a person who is labelled ‘adopted’ has not only just had our identity changed but had our nationalities and citizenships changed too so that includes other governments like the UK who have competing draconian adoption legislation. The whole ‘adoption’ industry is just a free for all.
The CCRC management will know British politicians are legally obliged to agree an accurate and contemporaneous police ‘PNC’ with me, that if they do not want to do the CCRC know the ECHR could only refer back to a.. civil jury to correct. I have never waived my legal right to a civil jury, or to choose my own legal assistance of a McKenzie friend, over jury nullification of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (which we forced off the statute books) and draconian adoption legislation.
In any event a ‘PNC’ would need to record that my real name is actually Donna Bugat.
There is a… pattern of state persecution so each and every ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 case was never an isolated one.
It is probably necessary to point out that ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 did not provide the government with any legal right to collect DNA. In my own case they just kept destroying my DNA anyway, because my DNA was actually problematic for them because it… proves what I am saying, that I am not related to the strangers who posed as my parents etc.
Notes:
The politicians knew a civil jury would always immediately know:
a) I was maliciously targeted in Parliament Square, Central London because I had no criminal record of any kind either before or after, I was in Parliament Square, Central London, in either the rest of the UK, or indeed the world, so I clearly did not become a criminal just by being in Parliament Square, Central London
b) the reason for my (along with others) being maliciously targeted was politicians were in fact illegally trying to stop my (and others) legal right to choose my (our) own legal assistance of a McKenzie friend, and a civil jury, including for jury nullification of legislation with compensation
The preference of the state is for… more and more legislation and… less and less juries, despite the fact that on balance it is strongly arguable the reverse is necessary.
In fact oversight of… legislation by a jury is one way law abiding private citizens can actively participate in a democracy, beyond a mere tick in a box every so often, at something called an election.
c) the politicians essentially used ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 as ‘gateway’ legislation they knew did not of itself meet any civil or criminal thresh-hold as the means to falsely and maliciously accuse myself and others in Parliament Square, Central London of all sorts.
In any legal sense, what is really unclear is why the two Blair’s (the former British PM and top cop) did not (at the very least) resign on Mothers Day 2006.
The public have an entirely reasonable expectation politicians and public officials do not only not abuse public office for their own personal ends, but do not use public office and the apparatus of the state to… intentionally cause… harm to law abiding private citizens. There is supposed to be a balance of checks and safeguards with the peace and harmony of the rule of law, without which there cannot even be any genuine democracy.
The courts found the two Blairs illegally published my adopted identity on Mothers Day 2006 with information they knew to be untrue regarding what was already agreed on that same day, which was really my civil jury lawsuit over my unlawful arrest. I did have the evidence on me the Metropolitan police if they needed to know, did know my identity on and before Mothers Day 2006 so falsely claiming they did not know my identity (that they were not really legally entitled to know anyway because ss 132-138 SOCPA did not meet any civil or criminal thresh-hold) was just one of the many… manipulative… excuses used to unlawfully arrest people with ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005. I wasn’t arrested for any ‘prompt and effective investigation’ (ss 110 SOCPA 2005) which was one of the Blairs legislative ’catch all’ sleights of hand to specifically try and circumvent lawsuits. In fact it transpired that I was unlawfully arrested so that an Inspector Lyons could illegally try and improperly pressure me to agree to… waive my legal right to a civil jury and jury nullification of legislation with compensation.
It was only after the shocking attack on me on 4th September 2006 because the politicians were trying to cover up Mothers Day 2006 that the two Blairs had a Supt Terry and a Chief Inspector Robinson write perjured witness statements to try and cover up my meeting with Inspector Lyons from whom no witness statement was ever produced. It is a matter of court record that when the government tried to introduce without any prior disclosure perjured witness statements from a Supt Terry and Chief Inspector Robinson on 14th September 2006 (that failed to mention an informal meeting with me they asked to have on 7th July 2006) their (even at that time) very many serious and unlawful actions over Mothers Day 2006, were found by a court to be ‘void ab initio’.
The politicians hadn’t helped themselves with their Hansard from the House of Lords on 23rd May 2000. That refers to the… prior political agreement between political parties to illegally ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, before the Metropolitan Police disclosed in 2007 that ‘both houses and black rod’ had on 19th May 2006, approved the further unlawful use of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 on 23rd May 2006 in Parliament Square, Central London. I was also unlawfully arrested then and released without charge, before Brian who was not arrested was found to have ‘no case to answer’ over being maliciously prosecuted over campaign property that was stolen by the government (where I already had a civil jury lawsuit before the case against Brian went to court) because I was unlawfully arrested.
Haw & Anor v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2007] EWHC 2960 (Admin) (12 December 2007)
The so called ‘landmark’ published ‘Contempt of Court’ case about 26th March 200…7 in the High Court about Brian and myself was a distraction from ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 and the fact we did not waive our right to a re-hearing in the High Court because there are no valid legal reasons the Magistrates Court do not have audio recordings of proceedings so that it is clear, who said what, when and why, to avoid unnecessary disputes. It is clear that where there are any disputes about what is said, it must be decided in favour of what the member of the public says, because it is the court who should make audio recordings of proceedings. In fact, I had properly as advised by a lawyer, asked for legal representation which the judge completely ignored before abruptly leaving the court. I was only at the Magistrates court by happenstance for someone else, before being told I was listed but the court staff could not produce the alleged six ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 summons listed, before the court much later produced (only after I was unlawfully arrested by private security it turned out had no contract in the court) the alleged summons that had only been sent by the judge on the Friday (this was the Monday) on the same day Brian had asked me to accompany him to the same court to ask about summons against the two Blairs (one of which he got against the top cop Blair, on the day the PM Blair resigned) Of course it is doubtful if the politicians would have enacted ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation… if there had been audio recordings in the Magistrates Courts, and of course politicians would never have enacted that legislation for the cases to be heard before… a jury who would immediately know it was completely… political.
In one ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 case at a Crown Court, a senior Judge abruptly said quite a long way into a trial, that he had to abandon the trial because he said he was in business with a family member of one of the senior police officers from Charing Cross in the case. (The business the judge referred to was used to illegally destroy illegally seized independent video footage legally taken in another case we won) The fact is there would have been jury nullification of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation with compensation regardless of any other opportunistic wrongdoing by state actors.
The Labour and Tory politicians then illegally covered up the identity of their not so unknown male assailant who violently attacked me in 2007 when he punched me in the head in front of many witnesses, in the run up to the London Mayoral election in 2008, when politicians very much did not want jury nullification of their legislation.
In February 2008, when that deceit about the ‘unknown’ male assailant, involving an ‘Acting’ Inspector Cole had swiftly unravelled, a former MP and Tory Minister for Vitol known as Alan Duncan then got out of a taxi and instead of going into the Palaces of Westminster (Houses of Parliament) through the pedestrian entrance came up behind me (I was facing the other way) and around myself and others to walk into the Houses of Parliament through the vehicular exit of ‘Carriage Gates’. I was later unlawfully arrested with two other members of our campaign by Belgravia Police on the false pretext of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, so that an Acting Inspector Cole could around 20 hours later drop that false pretext, and “further” unlawfully “arrest” just me for an alleged S5 Public Order complained of by the MP Mr Duncan that Palace of Westminster police obviously could not have unlawfully arrested me at the time, for the simple reason it never happened. An Acting Inspector Cole had his own motive to unlawfully arrest me because he had already been directly involved in illegally covering up the identity of their unknown male assailant, and the fact he had violently punched me in the head. On 3rd April 2008, a former Tory MP called Simon Burns collided with and injured a cyclist from the MOD when the MP was leaving through the same ‘Carriage Gates’ in his 4×4, and it was reported in the press that Brian was a witness. I didn’t see the MP breathalysed, although it was publicly claimed he was. It was a week later it was witnessed that I made a lawful citizens arrest of the former Labour Mayor of London and boss of top cop Livingstone for illegally covering up the violent attack on me by their unknown male assailant because it was all about illegally stopping jury nullification of legislation. So the Labour party then used the false and malicious complaint by the Tory MP and later Minister for Vitol Duncan from February 2008, who was paid £160,000 pounds by Vitol to do that, to later unlawfully arrest me and just illegally imprison without any legal representation or trial to distract from jury nullification of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, with the nevertheless… non-imprisonable alleged s5 Public Order, during the London Mayoral campaign. The politicians were undeniably illegally trying to stop jury nullification of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation that would also result in the jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation with compensation too.
That is how I got my still outstanding High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 before the actual London Mayoral election that both the Labour and Tory London Mayoral candidates had to agree between.. themselves to try and illegally… also cover up before and after the election.
I would have thought it was a strange way for politicians to conduct their electoral campaigns because a law abiding private citizen does not need to be an elected or unelected politician or head of state to have jury nullification of politicians egregious legislation.
The escalating situation that led to 48 unlawful arrests and false imprisonments of myself (not including those of others in Parliament Square, Central London) in my case over Mothers Day 2006 then resulted in the premeditated political torture and attempted murder of me (the government have always refused to hand over the CCTV that does belong to me)
The government then used the State Opening in 2010 to unlawfully arrest Brian and myself (it was the… same Acting Inspector Cole yet again, and while I was holding a bundle of perjured witness statements that had been given to me by the government !!that conspicuously did not include any witness statement from an Inspector Lyons from Mothers Day 2006 ) to try and stop jury nullification of legislation. The best Johnson could do was leg it to the High Court before Brian and myself were released to bring a malicious prosecution against us in the High Court where I still did not waive my right to a civil jury. We were openly complaining about our by then unprecedented jury lawsuits not proceeding in anything that could be called a timely manner. The government reasonably knew by then even a civil jury would refer some matters involving politicians and universal jurisdiction and no statute of limitations, to a criminal jury too. There was no reasonable prospect anyone was going to let me say much if anything on a witness stand under oath, when I started blowing the whistle on Johnson et al in his malicious prosecution when the court was closed to the press and public before I was illegally denied legal representation because I had effectively ‘won’ that round, which wasn’t a ‘win’ from my perspective, because of the way I was being treated by politicians. So the Court of Appeal had to refer Johnson’s malicious prosecution back to the High Court. In the meantime I did really win outright in HQ11X00563 in January 2011 (and not May 2012) that was fronted by Westminster Council that Johnson had not wanted ‘joined’ with his malicious prosecution, precisely because I had won in January 2011. Johnson was unable to claim costs from me, in April 2011 in his malicious prosecution of me, because I pointed out he was only trying to illegally overtake our own lawsuits, and of course I had won HQ11X00563 that did involve him where he owed me money. The British Tories instead paid the former Australian Labour PM Rudd $1.4 billion dollars, instead of paying me compensation.
I… again confirmed in the British High Court in December 2012 that I had never waived my right to a civil jury, in another lawsuit, when the issue of the torture etc of me was raised by the court in the ‘case management’ hearing.
There was a very serious escalation from Mothers Day 2006 supposedly using ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005.
So the former Tory MP Simon Burns who was posing as a ‘Transport Minister’ by then was involved in my boyfriend Neil then being violently attacked when he was dragged from his vehicle several days later when (the video shows) police were trying to grab… his phone to stop him ringing his insurer, and a lawyer. The video shows I was phoned by someone else so I heard what was going on. The police knowingly used the false pretext Neil’s vehicle insurance that was valid throughout the rest of the EU, was for unknown reasons, not valid in the UK. There was subsequently a TV programme about millionaire ‘boy racers’ in the UK ‘featuring’ the ‘Lambo Lewis’ who had unlawfully arrested and seriously injured my boyfriend. (There is a reasonable belief that ‘Lambo Lewis’ was already involved in an earlier malicious prosecution against me) The truth is Neil was never the same after the seriously violent attack on him.
In April 2013, the Tory MP Simon Burns (who is different from a Met police officer and Chief Constable of Northern Ireland of the same name who was also involved) was still the ‘Transport Minister’ when the British government then unlawfully arrested Neil who was driving his car, when we left the High Court while the government was still trying to argue they could circumvent my legal right to a… civil jury, before I also won a malicious prosecution brought against me with a… criminal jury in May 2013 without returning to the UK while supposedly on bail. I had previously returned to the UK for that criminal jury trial that was adjourned by the court without giving reasons or my agreement only for Neil to in the meantime be unlawfully be arrested again because he had accompanied me to court, before that malicious prosecution against him was thrown out by a court too. He died in 2020 shortly after he was forced to claim political asylum in Ter Apel refugee centre in the Netherlands.
The politicians did not and do not seem to… accept that law abiding private citizens are legally entitled to peacefully move on with our own lives, without state interference, and that not everything is all about politicians, and whatever they may want.
I am clearly not voluntarily in Australia, and if we are being honest I was not voluntarily in the UK either, and my own… home is in Breizh, France.
I think the reason I was unlawfully arrested both inside and outside a County Court in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia in December 2021, because I have officially renounced draconian adoption legislation, is because I do not (reasonably believe I) need the… ‘permission’ of any politician or court to as someone who is labelled ‘adopted’ officially renounce draconian adoption legislation, which I do not in so doing, commit any known civil or criminal offence.
I did not ask to be labelled ‘adopted’ or a ‘serious organised criminal’ which is something politicians… chose to do that does not mean I need to accept that in my own life.
There is no way any properly informed person would want to be labelled ‘adopted’ because that ALSO means being… excluded from the jury nullification of any other egregious legislation with compensation because that would result in the jury nullification of draconian adoption legislation with compensation too.
It is perfectly understandable that I would want to be able to move on with my own life in my own home in Breizh, France.
A kinder evolution is achievable.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 