Donna Bugat -v- Murdoch family & Ors (ie politicians, Vic Police & Cenitex) @ Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia: FAO Registrar: The politicians & Murdoch family et al illegally spun a politically motivated ‘trial by media’ etc against me in UK because they were naturally caught out over legislative deceit of legally unworkable 1984 Adoption Act in Victoria, Australia (I was not legally obliged to comply with & which was dishonestly made after they knew I was permanently living overseas) when I then had as an adult, High Court jury lawsuits in UK over legislative deceit of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 etc in UK; Orwellian Adoption Act from 1984 in Victoria, Australia (which does not give all adoptees a court certified copy/extract of our adoption court orders) & does not pay me as an Australian dual national adoptee, any/unlimited travel, accommodation, legal, medical and insurance expenses to indefinitely leave my own home incl then in Breizh, France, to go through exceptionally onerous & legally unnecessary ordeal of having to physically return to & appear in legal proceedings (duress & entrapment in breach of non refoulement) in original County Court in Victoria, Australia, (incl regardless of a global pandemic and while having major medical treatment in hospitals following recurrent cancer diagnosis) to ditch an adoption (incl. court order) (05.09.2024)
FAO Registrar:
I make this statement/of truth/ statutory declaration (in -addition/an addendum- to previous witness statements/of truth/ statutory declarations)
****************
1. My name is Donna Bugat (formerly known by my adopted name of Babs Tucker which it is agreed was illegally leaked by politicians and the press in the UK on Mothers Day 26th March 2006 while the Murdoch family lawyer Blair was grandstanding in Victoria, Australia, and it was falsely claimed I had done something wrong, which was a lie, no one has ever dared repeat in any court)
It is not necessary for me to use legal jargon in my witness statement/of truth/ statutory declaration, because I am not a lawyer.
I have a Mediterranean and Celtic background so it is serendipitous that my own home, is in Breizh, France, which happens to be an autonomous Celtic region in the Mediterranean country of France. I do miss the peace and tranquility of living in my own stone cottage built into the pink granite countryside, with my very own forest, in my nature lover’s paradise, where every day brought the most beautiful symphony of birdsong I have ever heard in my life.
The undeniable evidence is my adoption and adoption court order do not make me safe.
The Orwellian adoption legislation from 1984 in Victoria, Australia is clearly legally unworkable and so I was never legally obliged to ‘comply’ with it.
It is unconscionable the Murdoch family publicly incited the torture and attempted murder of me, in the UK, to cover up their own involvement in my ‘adoption’/ the human trafficking of me from Australia.
It was through the British Magistrates much continued to unravel for the Murdoch family et al when a) two CPS lawyers came forward as my witnesses on 9th July 2007 at City of Westminster Magistrates Court then b) another government employee gave evidence in Camberwell Magistrates Court on 17th July 2007 describing what he called an illegal Special Branch Operation against me c) before I was kidnapped on 19th July 2007 from inside the courtroom during live proceedings at Lavender Hill Magistrates Court to stop me giving evidence in a case that also involved the Murdoch family, who were also working with Special Branch in the UK d) the Bindmans partner as I previously showed writes about the uncharacteristic speed of IPCC police watchdog actions that same week)
I think it can be agreed the British Special Branch had -no legitimate interest- in my adoption.
The only justice I am ever going to be able to get is for it to be properly recorded, in my lawsuits in the UK, that I have ditched the adoption (and adoption court order) so I can finally move on with my own life. It is only then the Murdoch family will no longer be able to manipulate the existence and use of an adoption court order, and the endemic corruption of the 1984 adoption legislation for their own quite different ‘interests’. The Murdoch family are legally liable for financial compensation for me, because they repeatedly weaponised ‘adoption’… against me.
It’s past time that:
a) what is the adoption industry is cleaned up so -ALL- adoptees have real and genuine choices as adults, instead of having to endlessly be subjected to the corrupt ‘saviour’ propaganda of the Murdoch family who are the biggest global propagandists of adoption propaganda.
b) it is no bad thing, for there to also be a legally binding High Court agreement in my British lawsuits, that the British Magistrates Courts must make audio/audio visual recordings of all proceedings in the British Magistrates Court to avoid entirely foreseeable disputes, because the current default position of the entire British Judiciary et al that there has never been a corrupt District Judge is not and cannot be legally sustainable.
It’s as ridiculous as saying there has never been a corrupt robber media baron.
The British Magistrates Courts (and particularly in Westminster) are not ‘exempt’ from being corrupt, which lawyers first complained about.
The British supposed human rights NGO’s like Liberty or ShAmnesty International might like to take a long hard look at themselves and what they knew was going on.
It is obviously complete nonsense that the Murdoch family have anything to do with ‘investigative journalism’ and there are very serious legal questions over what exactly constitutes an ‘accredited’ journalist and why the more recent British Judicial spin, yet again tries to claim ‘journalism’ could enjoy ‘special rights’ of selective… recording in some courts, and how that could possibly promote the wider interests of justice, for everyone:
Lord Lebedev of the Russian Federation etc in the British House of Lords (from the seriously disreputable London Evening Standard etc which was previously co-owned by Lord Rothermere) has no interest in a British system of Justice:
The robber media barons are ‘curiously’ all males etc.
I cannot personally think of any actual legal grounds that even make an adoption court order necessary for an adult adoptee, and certainly when we have not been consulted or agreed to it continuing, which we could not have done, if we haven’t even been given a court certified copy/extract of our adoption court order (jncl free of charge) by the government, so that an adoptee can make a fully informed decision of our own, including about what court an adoptee might choose to go to.
The 1984 adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia which was based on me (like s 142 etc of the PRSR Act 2011 in the UK when I forced repeal of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) was a dirty backroom deal between a) the always misogynist Murdoch family, and b) the man who posed as my godfather who was Director General of ASIO at the time, and the person the spooks who ‘raised’ me called Alfred ‘Bloody’ (Deakin) Brookes who obviously wanted to avoid blushes too (they complained most about Brookes who they really didn’t like) and the Australian PM at the time, Hawke, who was a drunken and misogynist sleaze bag from Victoria, and the Victorian Premier Cain who was beholden to the Murdoch family too.
***************
3. My own adoption case exemplifies the endemic political corruption inherent in the adoption industry, and therefore the 1984 Adoption Act in Victoria, Australia that like all adoption legislation has nothing to do with adoptees having any personal agency to genuinely make our own decisions as adults.
4. The politicians and Murdoch family were just naturally caught out over their retrospective legislative deceit in the 1984 Adoption Act in Victoria, Australia, when I had High Court jury lawsuits over the legislative deceit of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 which was the political ban on peaceful freedom of expression by members of the public, in Parliament Square, Central London, contained in the Serious Organized Police and Crime Act in the UK to illegally facilitate the use of government agencies that would normally be used against organized crime (if the organized crime did not involve politicians) against instead peaceful freedom of expression by members of the public, in a public space) that I helped repeal.
(I was in Parliament Square, Central London in the years the British aristocracy was turning on and away from the ECHR and European Union, because the political parties who only hold out the fig leaf of a very narrow and self serving interpretation of democracy, have no interest in acknowledging or expanding rights for civilians/members of the public. The Brexit omnishambles finally happened while I was living in Breizh, France. The completely irresponsible and unrelenting onslaught of legislative excesses in the UK when I was in Parliament Square, Central London, was shocking. ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 was a cut and paste job from the United States ‘Rico’ Act except that the British version did explicitly include peaceful members of the public in the public space of Parliament Square, Central London.
I personally only support a genuine form of democracy which means every single piece of legislation must be voted on by the public to help try and avoid the worst legislative excesses, regardless of whether a country claims to be a ‘constitutional monarchy’ or a ‘republic’.
5. The only purpose of the retrospective abuse of process of the 1984 Adoption Act in Victoria, Australia is to try and illegally force adoptees to sign a waiver (which constitutes duress and entrapment) over any political wrongdoing to be released from the adoption court order as adults.
6. (The prison governor in Holloway in the UK in April 2008 when I was illegally imprisoned -during the Rudd regime in Australia – disgustingly tried to force me to sign a waiver, over what she had done -the gossip was rife among prison staff who said the prison governor took a huge bribe- and said she would not release me unless I did sign a waiver, but when I refused to sign the waiver, and she had to release me anyway, it was only then she also handed over the High Court Habeas Corpus paperwork -she had also been illegally withholding from me, that all resulted in my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order)
7. The Australian politician with the most legal responsibility over what happened to me in the UK, is Rudd, currently hiding behind free unlimited and…. publicly funded legal representation etc as the Australian Ambassador to the United States. The only reason the Australian politicians consistently failed in their legal duty to ensure I had… access to legal representation in the UK (the Howard administration dishonestly tried to say I was no longer an Australian citizen) was because of the adoption from Australia.
8. My lawsuits in the UK do directly involve Australian politicians et al, so do not need to be duplicated in Australia, because Australian politicians like Rudd had every opportunity to legally settle those lawsuits while I was in the UK, or France, but like Rudd, chose not to, because he was instead a beneficiary of the $1.4 billion dollars he was laundering from the British government through Ingeus, that (a jury would find even on just the ‘balance of probabilities’) he obviously would not have got if he had settled my lawsuits.
9. There is a reasonable belief I was originally maliciously targeted in the UK, to try and avoid High Court jury lawsuits that would inevitably introduce evidence of the abuse of process of the 1984 adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia, because the original malicious prosecution of me on 22nd February 2006 at Bow Street Magistrates (that was legally overtaken in many respects by Mothers Day being unarguably the first High Court jury lawsuit) was so utterly ridiculous etc.
It was self evident, the charge I was campaigning on my own (without authorisation) could not be made out as either a fact or as a point of law. I was obviously clearly not the only person who campaigned with Brian, and he was not the only person I campaigned with.
At the very least, the government came unstuck, in trying to shoe-horn the public into ‘groupings’ of what suited the government to try and most easily ban all members of the public from Parliament Square, Central London, rather than drafting a law that reflected actual and quite normal human behaviour. The fact the political parties had made the unions (including the Police Federation) exempt from the legislation meant it was entirely possible people would campaign, not just with Brian who was unarguably exempt from the legislation at that time, but with someone who was a union member who was exempt. The fact that someone might be exempt from the legislation did not mean the government could say that a person who was not exempt could not campaign with someone who was exempt. It was just that my case first raised that issue which existed more widely (because the unions were exempt too) the judges and the government must have known about.
10. My original ‘case stated’ did also highlight the very serious point of law, that is very much in the public interest, that British Magistrates Courts which are the courts most people in the UK will if they have to go to court, find themselves before, and is where most cases begin, and who can imprison people, must have audio/audio visual proceedings to avoid foreseeable disputes.
The default position of the Judiciary cannot be that District Judges in the British Magistrates Court are not ever misogynist drunks etc, or corrupt. The lawyer from Doughty Chambers who did ‘case stated’ (as an ‘officer of the court’ with an acknowledged ‘right of audience’) that proved to be so controversial because he was saying in legal jargon, the District Judge was (as a ‘point of law’) corrupt, was actually in all the true circumstances polite and restrained with regard to what was actually an appallingly out of control (and drunken) display of misogyny and corruption towards me by an exceptionally arrogant District Judge. The British Magistrates Courts are not a safe place for members of the public to be, because they are not properly regulated, with any checks and balances or safeguards.
I obviously did not suddenly become by peacefully being in Parliament Square, Central London, the -criminal- the British state made me out to be, in numerous ‘published’ cases, that only covered up what illegally went on in the British Magistrates Courts.
11. The time line shows the actual defective ‘case stated’ from 22nd February 2006 was ‘void ab initio’ including when it eventually went ahead in the High Court in November 2007 without my being notified of a hearing by the Judiciary –because- the Judiciary who were illegally being arbiters in their own case, had illegally denied me legal representation. The DPP had not even sent me his own bundle of whatever baloney he was going to say/said/refers to etc etc, while of course all the High Court Judges did have my contact details, because they had no problem sending me their illegal refusals of my having legal representation. The defective ‘case stated’ was still (like the subsequent ‘published’ not so ‘landmark’ alleged ‘Contempt of Court’ case involving the same District Judge which was intentionally hidden by the High Court by only including the detail of a subsequent (and also illegal) alleged hearing into the alleged Contempt of Court on 26th March 2007, on 29th March 2007) was still actually really (like the case of the inextricably linked alleged Contempt of Court case) really against… Westminster Magistrates and involving the same District Judge who obviously invented the alleged Contempt of Court against me on 26th March 200…7, when the lawyers re-submitted their case stated on 12th March 2007.
(12. I also think there is a very serious question mark over whether the ‘case stated’ should also have been against the fmr Tory MP Grieve who posed as the prosecutor which suggests it was actually a private prosecution (which did happen more generally) before he was made the British Attorney General in 2010 and then specifically threatened me in 2012 (after Brian had died) about the issue of court recordings. Mr Grieve failed to register acting as the prosecutor on the ‘official register of members interests.)
13. In all respects, my progressing my own case in a timely and safe manner was always overshadowed by the personal agendas of others.
14. The Australian politicians did have a legal responsibility to ensure I had… access to legal representation, and particularly when the British Judiciary (also) closed ranks over that original ‘case stated’ to repeatedly deny me legal representation, because they didn’t want a legally binding High Court jury ruling that the Magistrates Courts are legally obliged to make audio/audio visual recordings in the British Magistrates Courts which would obviously constructively help transform the British legal landscape.
15. My case that saw the British Judiciary close ranks against me and deny me legal representation, for their own personal reasons (when they could not be arbiters in their own case) over court recordings in the British Magistrates, also very much further highlights why no adoptee should ever have to rely on any judge to ditch an adoption court order. The British Judiciary completely breached the public trust placed in them, in my own case.
16. The ‘trial by media’ of me in the UK, that began on Mothers Day 26th March 2006 to illegally try and cover up that was unarguably the date of my first High Court jury lawsuit:
while the Murdoch family lawyer, Blair was grandstanding in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia:
_________________________
My case was always political.
The Murdoch family means no free press:
It is self evident the politically motivated 1984 Adoption Act in Victoria, Australia, is deceitful because the politicians and Murdoch family were not going to inform/tell a British High Court -jury- that:
a) they do not give all adoptees a court certified copy/extract of an adoption court order made while we were minors (incl free of charge) because they are putting as many unreasonable obstacles in the way of adoptees (that in the absence of all adoptees not being given a court certified copy/extract of an adoption court order, some adoptees do not even know they are adoptees) to try and stop adult adoptees ditching an adoption (& court order) made while we were minors.
(The BDM office in Victoria, Australia managed to send me a certified copy of my phoney birth certificate from the adoption, dated 29th April 2015, which was the new version that was supposed to replace the ‘sixth schedule’ birth certificates that identified adopted people as adoptees to other government agencies, to my home address in Breizh, France, so certified copies/extracts of adoption court orders could have been sent overseas too, by courts et al. I don’t know if BDM have ever issued a court certified copy of an adoption court order to adult adoptees because it is not something politicians, the courts, the Adoption Information Service, or BDM have ever mentioned.
The first time I saw anything related to the alleged adoption… court proceedings and an adoption court order were only… photocopies the Adoption Information Service in Victoria, Australia gave me in July 2019, and only when I was forced to return to Australia to try and sort out the legal quagmire created by politicians and the Murdoch family. The Adoption Information Service who say they moved into the DOJ in July 2019, have always refused to even provide me with one complete set by email, of whatever -photocopied- hospital and court records they claim to have, presumably because my parents marriage certificate was illegally excluded from adoption court records because the adoption/human trafficking ‘facilitated’ by the Murdoch family (to in my case the intelligence services who posed as my parents and godparents) was of itself, like too many adoptions illegal. The Murdoch family is much like Vitol Oil and MI6, in that it is quite difficult to identify where ‘overlap’ between what is an alleged business and what is the intelligence services start and finish.
b) would not -pay- me any/unlimited financial costs (ie: travel, accommodation, legal representation, medical expenses) to indefinitely leave my own home (in either the UK) or then Breizh, France, for me as an Australian and dual national adoptee, to as per… their 1984 Adoption Act in Victoria, Australia, go through onerous and unnecessary legal proceedings as per the 1984 Adoption Act (which was made after politicians and the Murdoch family knew I was living overseas) in the original County Court in the state of origin in Victoria, Australia, to ditch the adoption court order (including during a global pandemic and while going through major medical treatment in multiple hospitals for recurrent cancer.
The true consequences of the 1984 adoption legislation are it is unreasonable/unworkable/unlawful for a very many reasons, which means adoptees cannot be legally obliged to comply with the legislation, and does explain why I am claiming substantial compensation from the Murdoch family who publicly incited the torture and attempted murder of me, because their global adoption propaganda is like much of their propaganda, recklessly… unlawful. The anything but investigative journalism of the Murdoch family is spinning propaganda about adoption but not paying for the financial consequences for adoptees.
17. I have previously shown politicians and civil servants like a Ms Corrie McKenzie who previously worked for Rudd (and is a political appointee, not a civil servant) falsified state and federal government records to illegally make it appear as though I owned property in Australia too, to try and cover up how unreasonable the 1984 adoption legislation is. They compounded the very serious harm being caused to me over that lie, by actually refusing to amend records, including even when I was first diagnosed with cancer, and only finally amending those records, when their lie fell apart when I was hospitalised with cancer, and the hospital knew the records were untrue, and so eventually an actual civil servant went along with me to the two government agencies, when I was still seriously ill, because it turned out the cancer had returned. to amend the records that falsely claimed I owned property in Australia too. It’s fair for me to suspect that it was the same Australian ‘systems analyst’ from my unlawful arrest prior to a State Opening on 25th May 2010, in the UK, who falsified state and federal records in Victoria, Australia, to falsely claim I owned property in Australia, too, An adoptee is unfortunately all too often aware of how government will falsify ‘official’ records because so many adoption records of so many adoptees have been shown to be false. A Ms Corrie McKenzie certainly did not make any effort to amend any falsified ‘official’ state or federal government records that falsely claimed I owned property in Australia too, while she was lurking in the DOJ, trying to cover that up too.
18. There are no legal grounds for even making any adult adoptee go to any court to ditch an adoption/court order made while we were minors. It could simply be done by notifying an original court by email, from the comfort of our… own home.
(It’s like after the legal debacle of the original malicious prosecution of me under ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK, I notified of a -once in a lifetime- ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 notification in the UK on 3rd March 2006, pointing out there were no legal grounds to impose conditions on me -which the government could have challenged in a timely manner in court, but did not- that I then -revoked- in 2007, because there was no due process in the deceitful ss 132-135 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK, that I helped to repeal)
19. The Murdoch family inspired ‘Adopt Change’ in Australia (which is just another Murdoch family start up -after- I had civil jury lawsuits in the UK) is not promoting legal rights for -all- adoptees, but is instead just another vanity project for the Murdoch family cult of Hollywood celebrity, and hangers on, funded by state and federal government (why ?) agencies in Australia, who are at the same time, illegally trying to… stop adult adoptees legally ditching adoptions and adoption court orders.
The cult of celebrity are… notorious for using adoptees as the latest ‘must have accessory’ to get free publicity for themselves:
There are so many Hollywood ‘celebrities’ spinning the Murdoch adoption propaganda portraying themselves as ‘saviours’ etc of ‘orphans’. Of course the Murdoch family misogynist view of a women’s place in the world, is (in for example the UK) generally on page three of their beloved Sun.
20. It is known there are a significant number of undeclared conflicts of interest floating around among politicians. When I was forced to return to Australia in July 2019, to try and sort out the legal quagmire of my own ‘adoption’ the Murdoch family parachuted in a Liberal politician in Victoria, Australia, called Mr Bach who claimed to be an adoptee and that he had helped !!!! the fmr Mayor of London Johnson (before Johnson became FM & PM) while I was in Parliament Square, in Central London. This was when Johnson was openly maliciously prosecuting me. That would actually mean the now fmr Victorian MP Bach was -also- illegally involved in the undercover operation in the UK too, which also involved Johnson (and apparently in Bach’s own words, also him) -all- (for example) covering up the identity of a male who violently punched me in the head (which is how Johnson became the Mayor of London, and then FM & PM because he then covered up orchestrating his own torture and attempted murder of me, the fmr Australian PM Rudd was complicit in, and financially profited from)
21. My case highlights how adoptees do need to have real and meaningful legal rights that include to as adults say no to adoption, and an adoption court order, made while we were minors.
22. The adoption court orders are not even really about adoptees or adopters or our actual families/biological families, but are instead just another means of politicians and their wealthy mates trying to interfere in the private lives of adults who in the cas of adoptees happen to have been labelled adoptees as minors.
23. I am aware the Victorian government who illegally employed:
a) a Sir Ken Jones from ACPO in the UK where he reported directly to Blair, the Murdoch family lawyer, and who were all involved in the UK ‘Prevent’ program that is and was illegally used to run undercover operations incl by the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence services against peace campaigners like myself also (for example)
b) employed someone they claim/ed is a data analyst from Cenitex (I have previously mentioned who is called Mr Bailey) who also illegally failed to declare he was involved in my unlawful arrest during what video conclusively proves was an undercover operation prior to a State Opening on 25th May 2010 in the UK who has also illegally accessed my personal adoption information, including to spy on a family member, and has illegally sought to destroy information, specifically directly relating to jury lawsuits.
It was (as I have previously pointed out) Doughty Chambers who first raised my ‘case stated’ to the High Court in the UK which raised the legal issue that there need to be audio/audio visual recordings to avoid foreseeable disputes in British Magistrates courts where people can still be imprisoned without legal representation or trial.
The courts knew there was a very serious legal problem with not having audio/audio visual recordings in British Magistrates Courts which can imprison people without legal representation or trial incl on non-imprisonable alleged offences (which is why I have a still live High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008)
The alleged Contempt of Court on 26th March 200…7, involving the -same District Judge- from the still ongoing argument over the case stated from 2006 (which the politicians, MET police and Judiciary tried to hide with their reference to a 29th March 2007 hearing about the alleged Contempt of Court on 26th March 200…7) only happened because I had illegally been denied legal representation in 2006 that the same High Court Judge continued to do in 2007 (even after 26th March 2007 which was still trying to criminalise Brian and I) etc
s not about the press and courts publishing whatever they like (there are obviously no legal grounds for the press and courts to have cosy little arrangements that suit them (which only just goes to further confirm the Leveson Inquiry was staged).
The press and Judicial spin about courts, neatly ‘sidesteps’ the reality that most people in the UK, if they ever find themselves before a court, it will be the British Magistrates Courts who can… imprison people (which is very serious for most people) and yet refuse to make audio/audio visual recordings of proceedings to avoid foreseeable disputes. There are so many records that prove I simply was not safe in (also seriously misogynistic) British Magistrates Courts because they don’t make audio/audio visual recordings of proceedings.
The Australian politicians and Murdoch family have also relied on the priority of the British Judiciary has been to illegally stop a legally binding High Court civil jury ruling in the UK that British Magistrates Courts must make audio/audio visual recordings of proceedings in British Magistrates Courts to avoid entirely foreseeable disputes about Judicial conduct, because (as I have previously shown through documentary evidence) it cannot be the Judicial ‘default’ position that a member of the public is to blame, rather than Judicial misconduct, including corruption. The Australian politicians and Murdoch family knew I was illegally being denied… access to legal representation in the UK.
24. The fact I was indefinitely illegally denied legal representation over a case stated relating to… criminal proceedings by a High Court Judge on 25th May 2006, while he did not similarly stay ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 proceedings against me, was in any legal sense an admission the ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation was void/ed before I helped force it’s repeal (and that raised questions about why lawyers did not proceed with the High Court civil jury lawsuits in a timely manner) It was self evident the politician (who later became Attorney General in the UK in 2010, after the latest PM became the DPP, and covered up his own law firm Doughty’s ‘advice’ about the original ‘case stated’ about defective legislation in the UK) who was essentially bringing a private prosecution by acting as a prosecutor in Bow Street Magistrates, that the District Judge could not make out the ridiculous and malicious criminal charge in the original malicious prosecution of me that I was campaigning ‘on my own’. Again it was a case of politicians being caught out by their own defective legislation that deliberately failed to recognise that it was possible for two people who are equals to make an agreement to peacefully campaign together even if one of the people was unarguably exempt from the notification legislation at the time. One reason the government sought to illegally ‘re-define’ normal human behaviour to suit their political agenda which was to ban anyone peacefully campaigning in Parliament Square, was to try and force campaigns to have a single ‘organizer’ so the government could, through one person, ban a whole campaign. In practice, the British government violently attacked Brian, Steve and I, regardless of whether any of us notified, or as I did then revoke my once in a lifetime ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 notification from 3rd March 2006 (just like I am trying to ditch the ‘once in a lifetime adoption court order from 28th May 2006) or didn’t notify, because the true intention was not to regulate members of the public peacefully campaigning, but to ban people peacefully campaigning. The true intention of the 1984 adoption legislation in Victoria, Australia was actually to make it as difficult as possible for adoptees to ditch an adoption court order, when we should not even need to go to court, let alone, the original court.
I think it is again, only really possible to sensibly address the illegal use of undercovers in the UK (refer staged undercover Inquiry in UK) by ensuring British Magistrates Courts have audio/audio visual recordings, because it is very easy for the British government to cover up the illegal use of agent provocateurs in the British Magistrates Courts (that in my own cas included Australians) without audio and audio visual recordings of court proceedings in that court.
It was through the British Magistrates is started unravelling when two CPS lawyers came forward as my witnesses on 9th July 2007 at City of Westminster Magistrates Court then b) another government employee gave evidence in Camberwell Magistrates Court of what he called an illegal Special Branch Operation against me c) before I was kidnapped on 19th July 2007 from inside the courtroom during live proceedings at Lavender Hill Magistrates to stop me giving evidence in a case that also involved the Murdoch family working with Special Branch too)
25. When Brian was originally illegally forced to notify under ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK, the government just imposed unlawful conditions that had to be argued through a Magistrates Courts that all the government had to do when they lost any condition case, was impose new arbitrary conditions. The abuse of process of that legislative deceit (that is not dissimilar to the misleading 1984 adoption legislation in Vitoria, Australia, amounted to the legal definition of entrapment, which is illegal).
The overlapping legislative deceits in Victoria, Australia and the UK, coupled with the legal issue of being illegally denied… access to legal representation in the UK, by the British Judiciary including to illegally stop a legally binding High Court civil jury ruling that British Magistrates Courts must have audio/audiovisual recordings to stop foreseeable disputes about Judicial misconduct/corruption led to the torture and attempted murder of me and the inevitable cover up of that CCTV.
26. The Australian politicians do and did act illegally towards me in the UK by not ensuring I had (meaningful) … access to legal representation, because illegally stopping what nevertheless did eventually become my High Court jury lawsuits in the UK, are not and was not in the political interests of not just British but Australian politicians too, along with the anything but…. investigative journalism of the Murdoch family !!!!.
I do not personally believe there is or was anything about the 1984 Adoption Act in Victoria, Australia, that does or would prevent me from ditching the adoption court order, through my British lawsuits, without my needing to physically go to any court.
A kinder evolution is possible.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 