Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (Case 352 etc): My ‘Bogan’ Court Order with permanent injunctions against unworkable adoption legislation & British House of Lords etc (11.07.2021)
Re: ‘smoking email’ 17th January 2012 & HQ11X00563 (High Court Order 7th October 2011, Chief Executive of City of London, Museum of London & intellectual property rights/tort of conversion) etc
I… knew when I was a… small child that adoption is wrong.
The reality is adopted people who come from all walks of life from all around the world are arguably the most ‘diverse’ unrecognised ‘minority’ because adoption… legislation that is all unworkable has only ever been used to illegally… punish any adopted person who rejects adoption.
There are no legal grounds for adoption… legislation.
The legal reality is the existence of stamped court case number(s) 352 in Australia or my High Court Habeas Corpus Order from 16th April 2008 or HQ11X00563 with my counterclaim or my jury lawsuits with HQ12X002745, HQ12X03564 & HQ13X03488 in the UK could all be used/joined.
It is a matter of fact, I have already stated in legal records filed with the relevant acknowledgement in the British High Court in 2013, that politicians et al have ‘no recognised defence in law’ which has never been disputed, that means it must legally possible for me to use what is known as a ‘Default Judgement’ to have my court order.
There is not, and has never been, any legal dispute that the facts and circumstances of my case has universal jurisdiction with no statute of limitations.
My understanding of my use of a ‘Default Judgement’ would mean a) I do not need to pay any (further) court fees or costs in pre-existing cases in Australia, the UK and France b) unless the State of Victoria et al legitimately dispute within seven days, in writing by email to me, any part of my Court Order including by giving reasons why I should pay any (incl. further) court fees or costs, including for and before a jury.
I… already had ‘permission’ for a jury in my lawsuits in the UK, on the basis of legal matters with the same… substance as Australia, along with court orders that I could be served by email and vice-versa, so it cannot possibly be any different.
The unelected British House of Lords who… choose any identity they like for… themselves, and do not practice any separation of powers, agreed to have a referendum on the London Mayoralty, that based on only 34% voter turnout, was intended by “successive governments” to be used to illegally pass legislation to try and stop any peaceful campaign in Parliament Square, Central London.
The British House of Lords are similar to in many respects, but arguably worse than any single publicly listed corporation on the London Stock exchange in the City of London, because it is easy for wealthy people to ‘sponsor’ people in the British House of Lords, to… legislate for them, who cannot be voted out by… the public, so wealthy people can inevitably control/seize overall control of politics through the unelected British House of Lords, that in turn improperly influences, the House of Commons too, etc etc.
*******
The replacement of the British House of Lords with a publicly elected second chamber is really not a remotely controversial issue for the general public.
********
The facts include the former British PM Blair was elected on a manifesto of genuinely reforming the British House of Lords which he was never going to do, that Livingstone was in turn able to leverage to stand as Mayor of London following the referendum on the London Mayoralty that only had a voter turnout of 34%, all of which the former top cop Lord Blair used to get himself appointed to the British House of Lords etc etc.
The British Commonwealth’s BBC illegally leaked my adopted name on Mothers Day 26th March 2006 in the UK, to try and stop my ‘Bogan’ Court Order (the government and media label adopted people as ‘bogan’) that includes providing me with unrestricted peaceful freedom of movement and permanent injunctions against adoption legislation and the British House of Lords.
The public officials et al could not explain any of the following to a jury:
It is obviously a very serious problem when news media/a state broadcaster… lie about extraordinarily onerous… legal proceedings involving a private citizen:
The evidence is the GLA Act 1999, ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (repealed) and the PRSR Act 2011 all intended to illegally stop peaceful protest in Parliament Square, Central London, to… prolong the existence of the unelected British House of Lords. The Law Lords who moved to the Guildhall behind Parliament Square, Central London in 2009, claimed Parliament Square, Central London as their address which is strange and not consistent with the facts, including so many government departments claiming all sorts there.
The supposed ‘landmark’ (for example) Contempt of Court Case in the UK against Brian and myself (Haw & Anor v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2007] EWHC 2960 (Admin) (12 December 2007) that arose through the governments unlawful actions on 26th March 2007… too (where it was admitted… it was the government who refused without lawful excuse to keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings, which could not possibly be our “fault“) was clearly only trying to more generally keep us out of the High Court with our own jury lawsuits, over Mother’s Day 26th March 2006:
The facts are adoption legislation and ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 do not and could not include any power of seizure of persons or property.
The most the government could do under ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 was fine us for having a banner/s they did not like, which of course they could not really legally do.
The ‘smoking email’ from 17th January 2012: My Habeas Corpus Order 16th April 2008 & HQ11X00563:
The reverse of what is claimed by the former British PM, TM who was Home Secretary at that time, is true:
It was all the government departments who had… unreasonably delayed a pre-existing lawsuit… HQ11X00563 from February 2011, before coming up with their phoney… Judicial Review in 2012 (that didn’t involve me, in any way, but did subsequently illegally refer to me by name, without my knowledge, permission, let alone any evidence, in 2013, that typically lamented the fact… I exist)
_________________________
The… libelous bogus Judicial Review the government staged… themselves, that did not involve me, was not like my “case” (when the Judiciary do nevertheless refer to me in their “overall conclusions” which obviously did not adduce anything called evidence about me, to make what could only at best be their… personal comments about me) which by comparison involves a real High Court… jury lawsuit they exiled me !! to illegally stop:
________________________
I have never ‘reasonably believed’ the British Parliament thought they could ever try and square Mothers Day 2006 or my Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 or HQ11X00563 & the unprecedented state… corruption relating to 16th January 2012 (that included the City of London) before any jury.
The former British PM, TM who was Home Secretary on 16th January 2012… subsequently circulated what I discovered was a fraudulent ‘smoking email’ dated 17th January 2012 that was sent to me by the legal department of Westminster Council. The ‘smoking email’ (full disclosure was never made) dishonestly purported there was an injunction on 16th January 2012 protecting what was really the government’s undercover operation from BOTH ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 and the PRSR Act 2011 while they staged a phoney Judicial Review. I only discovered by happenstance when I went to the High Court and paid £5 pounds for a copy of the supposed injunction the government claimed existed on 16th January 2012, that no injunction they referred to existed.
In fact, the… reverse of what the Home Secretary et al dishonestly claimed was true, because the legal reality is I was protected, including by my counterclaim in the (for example) pre-existing continuing legal proceedings of HQ11X00563 (that had begun in… February 2011, that had not been heard in a timely manner, that also essentially replicated the nefarious complaints of the government in the PRSR Act 2011) where I had never needed an injunction, that had also not been stayed on 16th January 2012 (that I did not ever subsequently agree to a stay over either, where only Westminster Council withdrew their claim on 4th May 2012 because they knew they had lost, before and while the PRSR Act was being illegally enacted)
A pre-existing High Court… lawsuit legally took precedence over the diversion of a Judicial Review, started… a year later.
It was inconceivable that I would need an injunction on 16th January 2012 when I did not need and had not needed an… injunction in pre-existing legal proceedings brought against me in HQX110563 based on exactly the same facts, in exactly the same place of Parliament Square, Central London.
HQ11X00563 was an existing… lawsuit in the High Court, while the phoney legal proceedings staged by the governments undercover operation that by contrast had a legal entourage, was only a Judicial Review in 2012.
There was no ‘stay’ in HQ11X00563 (that I had previously stated in the High Court in fact, involved… all the government departments) on 16th January 2012.
The true facts are the British Parliament illegally refused to respond to my court stamped and published High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order dated 16th April 2008, including in a timely manner, and instead publicly lied, including when later publicly claiming an injunction existed protecting their undercover operation on 16th January 2012 from both ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 and the PRSR Act 2011, while legal records prove there was for example on that date, the still outstanding HQ11X00563 (they had brought against me, that had not been heard in a timely manner, and had not been stayed on or before that date of 16th January 2012 (that I did not agree to stay, incl. because it would cover some of the same matters nefariously complained of by the PRSR Act 2011) they did not withdraw until 4th May 2012, because they… knew they had… lost with my counterclaim etc… against them.
A man who worked at Westminster Council complained to me in March 2012, that all the money in the legal department there was being used (illegally) against me, which I could only conclude was being used for brown envelopes and in particular relating to 16th January 2012 that Westminster Council were also very much involved in. I did speak to the Leader of Westminster Council, a Mr Barrow, in Parliament Square, on 16th January 2012 when he resigned before decamping to Switzerland etc. I was there in Parliament Square, Central London on 16th January 2012 so of course I know who was there, and what they were all doing.
____________
My ‘Bogan’ Court Order means:
a) the BBC are legally obliged to… publish my ‘Bogan’ Court Order
There is no… legal explanation as to why the two Blairs, Livingstone and the British House of Lords did not all resign on Mothers Day 2006.
b) The Chief Executive of the City of London and the London Mayor produce a copy of our campaign property they illegally… stashed in the… Museum of London, so I can choose what could be displayed in a new publicly elected second chamber to replace the British House of Lords.
The City of London… Solicitors (the Chief Executive, a Mr Barradell who had also worked for Westminster Council) never replied as per their email to me about 16th January 2012, or 10th April 2013 involving a… City of London lawyer in the City of London, and Neil Kerslake who died after being in Ter Apel refugee centre when he was forced to claim political asylum, while the Museum of London et al, never notified me they had… stashed property in the Museum of London that I only found out by… happenstance.
I am quite certain the Chief Executive of the City of London (who formally worked for Westminster Council too) can’t explain to any jury why and how our campaign property the government never had any legal grounds to have, in the first place, was… stashed in the Museum of London !! to illegally try and stop our using it… anywhere… ourselves.
Another top cop (Hooligan-Howe who is also now another… Lord) was silent on basic… disclosure too:
I have consistently always understandably refused to give permission for the Museum of London (ie: the London Mayor and Chief Executive of the City of London) to display and profit from our campaign property politicians et al… stashed in there, to publish their continuing government lies about Brian and myself, which breaches much including our intellectual property rights !! (the tort of ‘conversion’ does not apply)
(In my own experience, the double act of Banksy and Wallinger are by comparison, pretty much Westminster ‘Establishment’ types really.
The con-artist Mark Wallinger sought to rip us off with his cheap imitation of our freedom of expression with his quite different ‘State Britain’ that lacked our human faces and the… truth about our unlawful arrests and legal cases etc, that it later turned out he was paid £100,000 by the British Parliament to do, while he did by comparison have… legal representation. His ‘State Britain’ in the Duveen galleries of Tate Britain published false information including that all the banners were copies (I know there is for example one banner that is not a copy) and that everyone had agreed to their banners being copied by him, including for his financial gain, which I knew was untrue (because I had never signed anything and I knew other people who had donated banners to me/us, who hadn’t either). Brian and myself eventually asked Wallinger who he thought owned ‘State Britain’ and he claimed he did, but refused to provide us with a copy of the contract he had with what turned out to be the government for his own personal financial gain. He obviously never really supported us at all, or he would have disclosed a copy of his contract with the British government. I don’t personally understand how Wallinger could possibly have spent £100k on very bad copies of our banners. I told Wallinger after the British Council paid for his rip-off of us, to be displayed in Berlin too, that if it was ever publicly displayed again I would take what I wanted from his rip-off, to stop it being publicly displayed including as being ‘associated’ with Brian and myself, because what was Wallinger going to do ? Have me arrested too ? etc etc. He then claimed he ‘donated’ his rip-off ‘State Britain’ to the Tate Britain. I don’t personally understand how Wallinger who had his own legal representation while we did not, could possibly have spent £100k on deliberately bad copies of banners.
In HQ11X00563, I did make an order in the High Court on 7th October 2011 that the two Banksy’s that another con-artist called Banksy who also had legal representation, while we did not, had donated to our campaign (I was with Brian when Uri Geller had offered to buy them before they were stolen by the government in 2006) be…. returned to Banksy for him to do what he wanted with, which was done. It was known that Brian and myself wanted to ‘dispose’ of the Banksy’s because they did not really reflect what we… did and our ‘lived experience’ of peacefully defending freedom of expression etc etc, so I just did that as politely as I could in all the true circumstances. It was obviously never the… intention of Brian and myself to become entangled with the quite ruthless London… ‘art-world’. It is a matter of fact that Banksy did… voluntarily give his details (which I had never done)… to the Metropolitan Police et al so the two donations could be returned to him just like he had (unlike me) agreed Mark Wallinger could copy his work for financial gain in ‘State Britain’ while both had… legal representation, to sell art to… ‘celebrities’ for large sums of money, all while… Brian and myself and others were being violently unlawfully arrested, in our consistent real legal battles, to defend peaceful freedom of expression (I was after all unlawfully arrested etc 48+ times and exiled which is entirely different to the ‘lived experience’ of either Messrs Banksy or Wallinger)
I did conclusively prove with the eventual repeal of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (that should have happened… at the latest on Mothers Day 26th March 2006) that… no-one had been legally obliged to provide their… personal details to the MET Police et al)
c) I could legally oversee the public election of a second publicly elected chamber in the UK, to replace the British House of Lords.
(It is entirely possible that a publicly elected second chamber could lead to further London Mayoralty and EU referendum, not least because there is no comparable ‘institution’ to the British House of Lords in Australia, the UK or United States)
The British House of Lords are legally obliged to resign because of my court order, and the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me, they refused without lawful excuse to hand over to me, including in a timely manner, that does mean their… votes on legislation could not be recognised in law/and they have ‘no recognised defence in law’.
It is self evident that I do own including the original copy, the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me the government could not impose any including arbitrary conditions on my having including in a timely manner. No government could copyright or trademark that is evidence I properly asked for in the Magistrates Court, so I could make my own… choices about bringing criminal or civil cases. It would only be legally possible for me to give a pardon over the contents of that CCTV, in return for the House of Lords resignation and replacement by a publicly elected second chamber. I would give the British House of Lords, pardons over the CCTV that would attract a sentence of more than one year (even under their own British House of Lords Reform Act 2014 where the CCTV is obviously still legally relevant) because it is in my own and most other people’s best interests to see improved… democratic processes.
The for example Lord Blair of Boughton has consistently… lied, both in the British House of Lords and publicly in the press, none of which he is willing to repeat under cross examination before for example a criminal or civil jury… anywhere.
c)
i) Murdoch’s Newscorp owes me $3 billion dollars compensation because his (for example) Lord Marlesford from the Times, will not be repeating Newscorp lies from for example the Sunday Times on 30th January 2011, or from the House of Lords Hansard on 27th January 2012,
about… legal proceedings against me, in any… court before a… jury. Newscorp always knew there was for example no injunction on 16th January 2012, protecting the undercover operation being used against me, etc etc in staged legal proceedings that did not involve me.
I should never have been treated differently from for example Murdoch’s journalist and politician Gove, (who says he is adopted too) just because I reject adoption… legislation and their other ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (now repealed) and PRSR Act 2011.
The former (for example) German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder used adoption legislation, while a politician !! to begin adopting children from Russia, while claiming… he could publicly reveal the identities and… adoption status of minors, for his own personal interests as an… adult. There is no real… privacy for adopted people.
ii) Angus Knight in Australia owe me £300 million pounds compensation because in fact, they illegally shared my personal information, in Australia, while hiding the life threatening physical and emotional abuse of me, to secure their multi-million pound contract with Murdoch et al’s ‘DWP’ in the UK.
There is nobody at Angus Knight who is willing to be cross examined in court before a jury.
I would personally want to use compensation to provide social housing with integral legal and healthcare on site, wherever possible, with a priority for people who have been adopted because any attempt to transition from adoption takes time and effort to do in a safe and sustainable way, which is different for every person, while there has never been any government support to do so, because of the unworkable adoption… legislation.
d) I am legally entitled to live a safe and sustainable life in my own home in France, free from adoption… legislation.
The legal reality is no French President could take me to court over for example my water bill with Saur, because the only reason I am not living in my own home in France is ( I was forced to return to Australia in July 2019 which is in breach of non-refoulement too) because of… adoption… legislation.
e) there is a permanent injunction against all adoption legislation and the Hague Adoption Convention involving so many (99+) countries, all of which… do not have any insurance cover, because adopted people can make our own choices.
There are no legal grounds for adoption legislation, that only punishes an adopted person who rejects adoption.
It is self evident it is only legally possible to have legally reviewable custody arrangements for vulnerable children in ‘out of home care’ until adulthood, including because children who have full time nannies or are sent to boarding school by their parents are not subjected to the wholly arbitrary and disproportionate use of adoption legislation.
My… personal view is that compensation should be paid to all adopted people with no questions asked and upon request, that at the very least, provides the equivalent sum of money of double the Disability Pension (in Australia)… regardless of where we live, along with free healthcare of our choosing at any time, anywhere, accompanied by any travel and accommodation costs.
Therefore adopted people are legally entitled to unrestricted freedom of movement for free healthcare of our… choosing at any time, anywhere.
The facts are no government has ever at any time, including during a global pandemic, cared about the physical or emotional health of all adopted people, and including in particular those who reject adoption.
f) adopted people have the absolute legal right to be registered to permanently live in the UN declared Universal Old City of Jerusalem with any relevant passport, regardless of our race, religion or none or whether or not we do actually choose to live there in person, which is actually legally helpful in many ways.
My own family are and have been for example, Jewish, Catholic and Muslim and I should not need anyone else’s permission including that of other Jewish people, anywhere, to be Jewish and live in the only Jewish State on the Mediterranean and in the world.
All things being equal it is reasonable self defence for adopted people to have our own state or country, which adopted people would not necessarily want, so being able to be registered to live in the UN Old City of Jerusalem protects adopted people’s pre-adopted status etc.
All adopted people are obviously legally entitled to keep or renounce any residencies, nationalities and citizenships we choose that accrued through our adoption, that also means we do not have to renounce any dual nationalities or citizenships, including if we choose to stand in elections.
A kinder evolution is possible
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 