Donna Bugat

Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (Case 352 & CI- etc): My damages claim (Writ & Originating Motion incl, statement and particulars) for permanent injunctions against adoption legislation & British House of Lords (ie: Australian Constitution Act 9th July 1900 etc) with absolute right of adopted people to register to live in Universal Old City of Jerusalem (20.08.2021)

Re: Interim Order (para 33) Particulars of claim & Political Asylum & substantial additional damages because British & Australian politicians stopped my High Court… jury lawsuits in the UK, while I was in Europe, going ahead in a timely manner, because I am adopted.

The statement/particulars of claim to go with the Writ form 5A and Originating motion form 5B, following discussion at the County Court and receipt of court forms several weeks ago, are attached.

I just need the court to let me know the fee (if any) refer paragraph 8 and if I can pay it over the phone or I should come into the court and pay it (I am claiming any fees paid, back as damages)

Donna Bugat (Plaintiff/Appellant) CI-

-v-

State of Victoria (Defendant/Respondent 1)
DJCS/Adoption Victoria (Defendant/Respondent 2)
Murdoch’s Newscorp (Defendant/Respondent 3)
Senator J McGrath (Defendant/Respondent 4)
DHSS (Defendant/Respondent 5)
Angus Knight (Defendant/Respondent 6)

Particulars of Claim & Writ Form 5 A and Originating Motion between parties Form 5B)

---

1. I… knew adoption was wrong when I was a… small child.

I am an autonomous human being, not an automaton, and adoption is a political rather than legal construction.

It is entirely natural for most people to be law abiding civilians, so the nature versus nurture ‘debate’ with adoption is a complete distraction.

2. I am bringing this claim with my true identity of Donna Bugat (not the false identity that is officially used by the State of Victoria and others that I personally find is just used as another way to abuse and try and undermine me)

The State of Victoria recklessly put in place adoption legislation that is intended to stop adopted people who legally and naturally reject adoption, from bringing jury lawsuits for damages, that include a permanent injunction against adoption legislation because it causes life threatening physical and emotional harm.

I asked to go home to my own family when I was around ten years old and this was refused without my having any legal representation, let alone that was independent, or any court hearing, despite everyone including the adult strangers from the highest levels of the British and Australian intelligence services who posed as my parents and godparents, knowing there were no legal grounds to stop me, including because it is in fact and law entirely legal and natural for an adopted person to reject adoption and adoption legislation, at any time.

I was also legally entitled when I was a child too, to political asylum that would have provided legal representation and paid any court fees.

I was forced to leave Australia when I was a teenager because I legally and naturally rejected adoption legislation, and the government did not want a jury lawsuit.

The British and Australian politicians illegally leaked my adopted name along with false information using the false pretext of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK, on Mothers Day 2006 with the intention of illegally stopping my having a High Court jury civil lawsuit with a permanent injunction against ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, because that would inevitably lead to a permanent injunction against adoption legislation too.

The politicians knew that my jury lawsuit through ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 being used in Parliament Square, Central London, would lead to the end of global adoption legislation.

There is no reasonable doubt the State of Victoria put in place a sequence of events through adoption legislation that resulted in my lawsuits in the UK, because there had been no lawsuit in the State of Victoria that would have prevented adoption legislation being used to exile me from Australia as a teenager.

The politicians intended on Mothers Day 2006 to try and… shift blame from politicians on to me, as a completely innocent and law abiding adopted civilian.

The attempt by British and Australian politicians to shift blame from themselves on to me, resulted in my repeatedly being illegally prevented from giving evidence in courts, in the UK, while being unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned 48 times, including twice in Holloway Prison, while the torture and attempted murder of me was also covered up, because British and Australian politicians knew jury lawsuits would result in permanent injunctions against adoption legislation including in the State of Victoria.

The politicians punished an adopted person because they didn’t want to face the fact that adoption legislation is past it’s use by day.

The State of Victoria put in place a series of events through adoption legislation putting my life at risk, knowing adoption legislation is neither necessary or proportionate, because it is possible to have legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood, which would better protect and improve outcomes for all vulnerable children in out of home care.

It is self evident that adoption legislation is a political, rather than legal construct that can be construed so widely it can be used against any political group out of political favour at any time.

I reasonably believe I am also entitled to a permanent injunction against the related Australian Constitution… Act 9th July 1900 (and Australia Act 1986) which extends to the unelected British House of Lords and State Governors and the Federal Governor General in Australia.

I am not saying there should or should not be a Constitution, but rather that there are serious legal problems with the Australian Constitution… Act that have adversely impacted on people through adoption.

I do not personally believe it is legal or democratic to have compulsory voting because it does not incentivise politicians to serve the public but does give a false impression politicians have a mandate to govern which they could not say if no-one voted for them.

My claim raises a number of very important and serious legal issues that are not at all ’settled’ in law or civil society.

3. The original adoption Case 352 is with the County Court in the State of Victoria, but I am not aware and the Court is not aware, and indeed no government department involved with adoption like the DJCS/Adoption Victoria is aware of a) any process to claim damages including b) without opening a new case number.

(The basic non response of politicians and government departments is to in practise not help adopted people with any or all legal problems related to adoption and adoption legislation, but to instead try to shift blame back on to the adopted person and leave it to us to try and deal with onerous legal proceedings completely on our own)

I am asking a jury for a court order that Australian government departments make a proper agreed record of the torture and attempted murder of me by the British PM Johnson which happened because I am adopted, and which is a serious legal issue involving no statute of limitations and universal jurisdiction, all of which in practise has obviously placed me at further serious disadvantage.

(Refer paragraph 28 & Australian embassy in London, before politicians started becoming Ambassadors so they could stop reports being made by public servants, while claiming they could continue to give themselves legal immunity despite resigning from politics. The Australian embassy in London could no longer be relied on to make and keep proper reports about Australian citizens, because politicians like Downer et al became Ambassadors to cover up what is going on while claiming it means they can give themselves legal immunity too)

I was subject to serious political persecution in the UK too, because I am adopted, and which could not have happened if the State of Victoria had not used adoption to force a fake identity on me.

4. It is central part of my claim for damages that no problems with adoption or adoption legislation are the ‘fault’ of adopted people.

I am claiming substantial damages from the State of Victoria for making me as an adopted person go through onerous legal proceedings that are traumatising (anything to do with courts is traumatising for me because of the truly violent political persecution of me in the UK too, because I am adopted) to stop having a fake identity imposed on me through adoption legislation.

5. Any objective view of the sum total of the controlling and predatory nature of adoption legislation could only conclude it is based on an extremely narrow predominantly male world view that perceives women, as merely existing to serve whatever happens to be the ‘needs’ of selfish egos who portray themselves as a ’ruling’ class.

I am not and cannot be at ‘fault’ for the legal problems with adoption legislation.

6. The facts are I asked to go home to my own family when I was around ten years old and this was refused without my having any legal representation, let alone that was independent, or any court hearing, despite everyone including the adult strangers from the highest levels of the British and Australian intelligence services who posed as my parents and godparents, knowing there were no legal grounds to stop me, including because it is in fact and law entirely legal and natural for an adopted person to reject adoption and adoption legislation, at any time.

I am not at ‘fault’ because adoption legislation did not ensure proper due process.

It’s one thing if members of the intelligence services and so on choose as adults to use fake identities which they are paid to do etc, but it is something entirely different when the government forces fake identities on vulnerable children. The adoption racket is obviously an open invitation to government intelligence services, which is a real problem for vulnerable children.

7. Political asylum.

It is unconscionable that politicians and public officials try to… shift blame for any problem related to adoption legislation on to an adopted person who legally and natural rejects adoption and adoption legislation.

The politicians and public officials ‘make believe’ world of adoption legislation that is in practise completely unworkable and can be construed so widely it can be used against any group out of political favour at any time, has undermined genuine efforts to improve outcomes for all vulnerable children in out of home care, while entangling vulnerable children who do not need out of home care.

It is self evident it is illegal to actually legislate to force vulnerable children to pretend adult strangers are parents and family, including forever.

Adoption legislation which creates extraordinary barriers to political asylum for an adopted person, was used to also deny me my basic right to claim political asylum that I had as a child, that would have meant I had legal representation and would not have needed to pay any court fees.

There is a very serious outstanding legal issue relating to adoption legislation preventing adopted people from claiming political asylum, including because of the manner in which nationalities and citizenships were originally changed.

There are so many times I should have had the opportunity to claim political asylum instead of being forced to put up with adoption.

There needs to be a real option of political asylum for people who have been adopted.

8. I am simply not willing to fill out another selective bureaucratic form ‘requesting’ a fee waiver from the State of Victoria who already know I am legally entitled to that, however they look at it, so I will pay the full fee and am claiming that fee back, in these particulars, as further damages.
9. The County Court should agree that I can file and serve and be served any paperwork by email, because I do not through no ‘fault’ of my own have any solicitors address to have anything sent to, and the reality is my home address is 64 XXX XX XXXXX XXX, XXXXXXXXX, 22450, Bretagne, France.

Legal Representation:

10. It really is completely the fault of the State of Victoria that I did not have legal representation in the UK or France, solely because of adoption legislation.

It really is unfair the State of Victoria and the likes of Angus Knight have an unlimited budget for legal representation courtesy of the British PM Johnson, and I am claiming damages for that too.

I cannot be at ‘fault’ for not having had legal representation I should have had, regarding adoption, or if that continued, the political asylum, since I was a small child.

I reasonably believe that in the long standing absence of legal representation through no ‘fault’ of my own, that I should only have needed to produce a signed witness statement confirming a witness statement is true, because that is what best serves the interests of justice that cannot be reduced to a bureaucratic tick box exercise related to financial means, or specialised legal jargon from qualified legal professionals.

The peace and harmony of the rule of law naturally exists, regardless of any and all bureaucracy.

I would not need to jump through an onerous legal obstacle course now, if there was no adoption legislation, and the sensible alternative of legally reviewable custody arrangements for vulnerable children until adulthood, which would for example have facilitated my living with my little sister from the same mother and father.

There are of course considerable emotional and financial costs associated just with having to change so much documentation in an adoption case, related to our true identity, that an adopted person should just be able to have a lawyer do for us. So I am claiming damages for that too, because of course to also have to explain over and over to every government department and so on, your true identity that has changed because of adoption is very distressing too.

I had a right to the alternative of political asylum, rather than adoption, which was denied to me, as a child, through no fault of my own.

11. So, I now know the reason I was exiled as a teenager from Australia and further isolated from any family or friends, was to avoid a… jury lawsuit.

That is also why British and Australian politicians then illegally leaked my adopted name in the UK along with false information on Mothers Day 2006, while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, to try and hide what was already agreed was a High Court jury lawsuit. It was inevitable the facts of my adoption and problems with adoption legislation that explain how I came to be in the UK, would emerge in my lawsuit.

It is obviously not in any way my “fault” that politicians and press lied about something as serious as legal proceedings, which they have no legal right to do.

It wasn’t like anyone was giving their opinion, on Mothers Day 2006. It was an outright lie, by the BBC that all the rest of the press then ‘relied’ on to lie themselves, and specifically about legal proceedings, which of course legally they cannot do, and was… against a law abiding private citizen.

The Foreign Office in Australia under Downer was trying to deny I am an Australian citizen in October 2006, which is really dishonest.

12. The history of adoption legislation in the State of Victoria and elsewhere, like the UK, ultimately also means if you look at the combined effect of adoption legislation around the world, that an adopted person including in the State of Victoria and the UK, can be stopped from choosing to be Jewish and living in the only Jewish State on the Mediterranean and in the world.

So all adopted people of any race, religion, politics or none, must have the absolute legal right to if they choose, to register to live in the Universal Old City of Jerusalem.

This means that an adopted person can choose to be Jewish and live in the Universal Old City in Jerusalem in reasonable self defence that is not contingent on the ambiguous Balfour Declaration, or the UN. It is more likely than not that I would have stayed in Israel in 1984 when I went to the Yad Mordechai kibbutz, next to Gaza, before the ‘rabbit proof fences’ if there had not been adoption legislation, which there also is there too.

It cannot be lawful in any circumstances for adoption legislation to be used to discourage or stop people being Jewish.

13. I was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned 48 times while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, in the UK in Europe by politicians and public officials using ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 (now repealed) and the PRSR Act 2011, while I was repeatedly stopped from giving evidence in any court, so they could avoid their blushes about adoption legislation. And the related issues of the British House of Lords, along with State governors and Federal Governor Generals in Australia who have unlimited terms, imposed by Westminster through the Australian Constitution… Act from 9th July 1900. There was a member of the British House of Lords who was the Governor General in Australia when I was born, along with a British General as State Governor in Victoria, when conscription was reintroduced for the Vietnam War, while it remains any British politician, or member of the monarchy like a Prince Henry who was a Governor General in Australia can be imposed.
14. There is no reasonable doubt the State of Victoria put in place a sequence of events through adoption legislation that resulted in lawsuits in the UK, because there had been no lawsuit to prevent my being sent from Australia as a teenager.
15. The undeniable facts are the State of Victoria and Australian politicians are responsible for horse trading using adoption legislation, to cause me prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm because it’s a legal impossibility to explain away that adoption legislation is unworkable, to a jury.

The ss 132-138 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 legislation which was RICO style legislation used by politicians against peaceful campaigners, like myself, is the same as adoption legislation in the sense that just because some people might choose or want to go along with the legislation, does not mean it is legal and can be imposed on everyone.

(In the UK, the abuse of process that ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation definitively was, that gave exemptions to politicians and their cronies, was really used as a false pretext by politicians from all political parties to unlawfully arrest and falsely imprison us, on mostly anything and everything else, when there was no global pandemic, except for a brief time in 2009

The whole point of Murdoch’s mouthpiece Blair was to illegally legislate against law abiding members of the public as much as possible using the false pretext of war which he was notorious for doing.

Blair had also personally enacted new adoption legislation in 2002, to ‘incorporate’ the Hague Adoption Convention but he didn’t want to front up in court about his use of torture on me as an adopted woman and mum, on the mainland UK

There is no reasonable doubt British and Australian politicians did not want a lawsuit involving me as an adopted person and a jury, while I was in Parliament Square, Central London)

There was a very big difference between being able to as an adult, at least walk back the emotional abuse of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 being inflicted on you, to a point, and trying to live with the additional and by comparison overwhelming burden of the inextricably linked physical and emotional abuse of adoption legislation every single day of your life, as an adopted child and adult.

I learned a lot about the importance of genuine free speech that an adopted person who rejects adoption and adoption legislation does not really have in the political sphere.

It remains straightforward that the legal alternative to adoption is legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood for any vulnerable child in out of home care, which could happen to anyone for any number of reasons.

It is politicians and public officials behaving like advertising salesman who are making false promises of a “deal” with adopters that they must be called parents and families, forever.

It is completely perverse when people who cannot adopt children claim they are discriminated against, because it is adoption that discriminates against vulnerable children in out of home care, who have unreasonable demands imposed on them by adult strangers.

16. The unreasonable demands of adoption legislation from adult strangers consist of wholly arbitrary indefinite emergency powers that are completely disproportionate.

There are a number of examples of recent revocation cases in the UK, that include the barbaric and abhorrent practise of psychologists being paid to recommend vulnerable children be stopped from having any contact with their own family members for… no other reason, than to force them to “learn” new “emotional connections” with adult strangers called “adopters”.

There can be very serious reasons why any vulnerable child in any “out of home care” might not be able to have contact with some family members, but adoption legislation is not of itself either one of the reasons or a legitimate reason. And nor is any claim adoption legislation is the “purview of Parliament” because there is a legal right to permanent injunctions against legislation, including adoption legislation, or political asylum.

17. The very serious legal issues of nationality and citizenships are not legally resolved with any legal certainty or in favour of the adopted person, because of adoption legislation.

The State of Victoria could not have had, and did not have any legal authority to use adoption legislation, to change vulnerable children’s identities, including nationalities and citizenships that politicians claim is part of a Federal remit, that is further complicated by the… political evolution of passports in Australia, that the Governor General and British monarchy claim an unknown right to issue. It is arguable Australian citizenship and the right to a passport is not legally contingent on the Governor General or monarchy, or ‘recognising’ them.

There is a huge legal quagmire politicians are at fault over about arbitrarily changing vulnerable children;s identities, nationalities and citizenships while worse not protecting and safeguarding existing nationalities and citizenships, that because adoption is intended to be forever, is hidden.

The historical truth is governments selectively collect information to suit whatever their politics and those of their cronies might happen to be.

The politicians and public officials did not care and… intended it to be forever, when they changed my true identity where I am an Australian citizen legally born in Australia, to arguably the reverse, through dual British and Australian nationality while completely excluding any existing additional other Mediterranean nationalities and citizenships, making a completely unworkable legal situation that relied on multiple governments varying adoption legislation.

That would have been remedied with a jury lawsuit in the UK, so I am obviously also legally entitled to a jury in the State of Victoria too.

The politicians et al have never cared if and when the State of Victoria’s adoption legislation is used to undermine or change an adopted person’s… existing Australian citizenship.

18. It is self evident, that an adopted person who legally and naturally rejects adoption and adoption legislation also rejects revocations because they are still completely arbitrary and also unworkable because an adopted person is forced to under duress in a proposed revocation, to agree that adoption legislation is legitimate without in any way, addressing or redressing any real legal problems.
19. It is self evident that an adopted person who rejects adoption and adoption legislation is excluded from all politics in Australia, the UK or Europe.
20. The State of Victoria knew what was going on while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, when they hired Sir Ken Jones who was Head of ACPO as the DAC, while the Federal government who were trying to deny I am an Australian citizen offered him Australian citizenship.

There are the same revolving doors of political parties in the State and Federal governments in Australia who basically do whatever Westminster, who can impose any State Governor or Governor General, tells them to do, which does not improve or strengthen democracy.

It is obvious there would be raised eyebrows in Westminster if Australia invented a monarchy and House of Lords (there is no comparable institution to the British House of Lords in Australia, the EU, or United States) and imposed a Governor General on Westminster.

So the Australian referendum on the British monarchy was a diversion from the Australian Constitution… Act from 9th July 1900 (and the weasel words of the Australia Act 1986) that does not include a Prime Minister.

I repealed ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK (which would have happened on Mothers Day in 2006 with a permanent injunction) so it is lawful to have a permanent injunction not just against the adoption legislation, but the inextricably linked British House of Lords, but State Governors and the Governor General and Australian Constitution Act 1900 and Australia Act 1986. The legal reality is people living in Australia can decide to have a genuine Constitution or not, and what that might look like.

An Australian Republic could still choose to remain part of a Commonwealth, so the current status quo only serves self interest, rather than the public interest.

Privacy

21. It is a complete myth that adopted people have any privacy because it is governments who hold and share our personal adoption information, including however… they want, which does not work in practise, and is indeed sold to robber media barons like Murdoch’s Newscorp.

It is of course well known, politicians and public officials, along with a cult of celebrity routinely publicly parade adopted children as their latest ‘must have’ accessory they have ‘saved’ with an absolute disregard for any privacy of an adopted person.

The global multibillion dollar adoption industry is absolutely rife with unscrupulous political, financial and emotional blackmail.

A person who has a full time nanny or is sent to boarding school does not have adoption imposed on them and a soldier has to be paid money and given weapons before agreeing to be separated from their family, possibly forever, so adoption legislation just makes no sense at all.

‘Forced Adoptions’

22. The politicians use of the relatively recent term ‘forced adoptions’ including in the State of Victoria is a purely political and cynically manipulative excuse for what in legal terms could only refer to child trafficking which politicians have always reasonably known is illegal.

The former PM Gillard was completely insincere (refer para 28) and trying to buy time.

The reality is all adoptions of vulnerable children are forced because an adopted child is an autonomous human being who is excluded by virtue of their vulnerability, from the decision, despite the fact, adoption is not in any circumstances, a necessary or proportionate response.

The problems with adoption legislation and the way it is used have not changed, so it is just political propaganda being used to try and present adoption legislation in a new way that is intended to continue, by pretending any problems were just… in the past.

The latest Adoption ‘Inquiry’ in the State of Victoria has only served to provide politicians from all political parties with free legal representation for… themselves in all circumstances, while adopted people by comparison can lack that.

In fact politicians in the State of Victoria have already agreed with Federal politicians in advance of the conclusion of their inquiry, to continue funding their vulgar ’One Stop Adoption Shops’ regardless of any problems with or the legality of any adoption legislation. So politicians are diverting all the money into continuing adoptions at any cost, while trying to buy time to avoid addressing problems with adoption from the past, that still exist in the here and now.

There are no politicians who have made the slightest efforts to genuinely address the existing legal problems with adoption legislation so politicians have not only forced adoptions, but have… forced the legal situation of a lawsuit with a jury, about the physical and emotional harm caused by adoption legislation.

I have never personally heard a politician say anything about adoption, they ‘reasonably believed’ was true, and could repeat on a witness stand under cross examination, before a jury.

The legal point should be to help… all vulnerable children in out of home care achieve far better outcomes, through legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood, which don’t narrow the focus away from the child, and legal representation which is so obviously in the best interests of a child in out of home care, towards what an adult stranger who is in reality a carer would prefer to be called or the deal they want.

There was never any little adoption pack given to adopted children explaining as a starting point our legal rights, which were always more important than a list of unreasonable demands from adult strangers.

---

23. My forced return to the State of Victoria in Australia in July 2019

I was forced return from my own home in the Breton Woods in France, to Australia, because of adoption legislation, in the State of Victoria, the UK and France.

There is no true due process to adoption in the State of Victoria (that is not my ‘fault’) including with other governments (the Hague Adoption Convention is legally meaningless political window dressing) so I was forced to return to Australia in July 2019 which was in beach of non-refoulement really. There is no help from government departments for adopted people with legal problems related to adoption legislation.

The legal reality is the State of Victoria put in place a sequence of events through adoption legislation, that has caused me prolonged physical and emotional harm in multiple countries because adoption legislation will always be open to abuse by unscrupulous politicians and public officials.

24. Australian Embassy in London & August 2011 & Senator J McGrath & 31st December 2019

I was telephoned by an unknown male claiming to be from a government department, on 31st December 2019 who absolutely refused to identify himself, before threatening me that I would never be able… to stop my adoption, including regardless of however much adoption had or did harm me, and that I did not even have the right to go to any court about my adoption.

That was pretty much a similar situation when I was forced to leave Australia as a teenager, so apart from the fact adoption is a political, rather than legal construct, it was very distressing.

I do now reasonably believe that the unknown male who telephoned me was a) either a Senator J McGrath or that b) the Senator knows the identity of the unknown male who telephoned me.

The facts are a Murdoch mouthpiece called Senator J McGrath was employed by the British Tory PM Johnson in the Mayor of London ‘campaign’ in 2008, which happens to be how I got my still outstanding Habeas Corpus High Court Order on 16th April 2008, in the UK, that a Senator J McGrath was literally paid to try and cover up, while I was in Parliament Square, Central London.

And Vitol Oil (and the Labour London Mayor Livingstone and Lord Malloch Brown who works for Vitol ) also paid a £160,000 pound bribe to a (now former) Tory MP, called Alan Duncan (who works for Vitol and later armed mercenaries in Libya in 2011, he and MI6 called errr “protesters” which was obviously another war about artificially inflating the price of abiotic oil)… during quite a surreal juxtaposition with HQ11X00563 in the UK.

Senator McGrath was involved in trying to cover up my still outstanding High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 because they were trying to continue to shift blame from themselves, on to me.

N.B: Vitol call themselves a ‘commodity trader’ (who are essentially a state within a state with an annual turnover of $270 billion, who work with MI6 so it is not entirely clear to the public, how and in what way, the state and company are separate entities) who make their money out of ‘manipulating’ the price of oil, so they lose profits when there is a global glut of oil. They only slithered out of Moscow in the run up to the British referendum, for the sake of ‘keeping up appearances’. It does appear to be quintessentially British to spy for the American and Russian governments, and often at the same time.

It would be stretching credibility to say the Australian Senator J McGrath was at any time legitimately employed by Johnson, because it was not legitimate to try and shift blame from politicians on to me.

It is common-sense that if the now British PM Johnson and the now Australian Senator J McGrath (who was later the PM’s adviser to the Australian PM Turnbull too) along with Labour’s not so anti-war Livingstone and the (now former) Tory MP, Alan Duncan, had not covered up my still outstanding Habeas Corpus High Court Order from 16th April 2008, neither candidate (Johnson or Livingstone) would have stayed as Mayor of London, or become Mayor of London. It transpired the London Mayoral election was run on the premise of Johnson covering up for Livingstone (or to put it another way, the Labour and Tory political parties agreeing to cover up, my still ongoing High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order, for each other)

The vanity project of the London Mayoralty is entirely about… political ‘policing’ and nothing else, so we faced the brunt of that state violence.

25. I was already repeatedly stopped from giving evidence in courts, in the UK, (which politicians do know about) like when I was shockingly literally kidnapped from a court by the government during live proceedings on 19th July 2007 to stop me giving evidence in a case (I subsequently “won”) that also involved Murdochs Sky News and Times too (who had illegally used a picture of me in a Times article about Constitutional Reform and Europe) and the admitted illegal use of Special Branch. This was before I was also stopped from giving evidence in the High Court on 23rd June 2010, when I was illegally denied legal representation and the court was closed to the public.

It is a legal impossibility to claim that when Johnson publicly started maliciously prosecuting Brian and myself in the UK after the State Opening in 2010, when Johnson was posing as a) the Mayor of London, b) a paid journalist for the Telegraph and c) the boss of the top cop, and d) the monarch’s gardener, in Parliament Square, Central London, that it was anything other than… political.

It was the politician Johnson who was illegally using his public office to try and hide from a civil or criminal… jury lawsuit against him too.

The politicians knew they were intending to try and stop my jury lawsuits because that would stop adoption legislation.

26. Murdoch lied in an article in the Times naming me on 30th January 2011 before I was also stopped from giving evidence in court in HQ11X00563 while Murdoch lied to the Leveson Inquiry, and politicians invented new legislation against me. The British PM Johnson who was still Mayor of London, then illegally claimed to have used that new legislation, with the now British Labour Leader of the Opposition Starmer who was the DPP then, on 16th January 2012 against me, which I proved was whatever anyone claimed, illegal before a criminal jury at Southwark Crown Court on 8th May 2013 without needing to appear in court after I was forced out of the UK, and exiled to France. Senator J McGrath became an Australian Senator after I was exiled from the UK in 2013 and the British PM Johnson the supposed journalist only became the British PM when I was forced out of my home in the Breton Woods in France, and Europe, in July 2019.

It was not okay for Murdoch’s Newscorp to knowingly… lie about very serious… legal proceedings in 2011 too. There was no “legal cat and mouse game”.

It’s not complicated there were a pack of lies published by politicians from Mothers Day 2006 onwards.

It wasn’t Murdoch and his Newscorp being maliciously prosecuted by his political cronies.

I really don’t see any reason why Murdoch’s Newscorp who paid the former Australian PM Rudd was £1.4 billion of British taxpayers money, through the Tories, pays me $3 billion dollars in damages because Murdoch publicly wanted to illegally ‘remove’ Brian and myself without any caveats on how that was done, because it transpired that unknown to us, and through no ‘fault’ of our own, we stood in the way of his multibillion pound BSkyB deal too.

27. The British PM Johnson did not have legal immunity as Mayor of London that he could not now claim as PM.

The British PM Johnson refused without lawful excuse to hand over the CCTV that belongs to me of the torture and attempted murder of me (over which there is no statute of limitations and universal jurisdiction) including in a timely manner and so I could make my own decisions. The fact he did not have legal immunity as the Mayor of London, means he still could not then claim to have legal immunity by becoming PM through refusing to hand over the CCTV, and stand trial before a jury.

That was a genuine legal problem for Murdoch too in Westminster, which is a small place, but in reality Murdoch makes money spinning the British House of Lords anyway.

The politicians really do try and shift blame for the problems created by adoption legislation on to adopted people, who have to try and deal with the legal problems if unworkable adoption legislation, but it simply is not my fault adoption legislation that is unworkable is used by unscrupulous politicians.

The refusal to hand over the CCTV of the politically motivated torture and attempted murder of me, including in a timely manner so I could make my own decisions, and because I am an adopted person does prove beyond all reasonable doubt, unscrupulous politicians like the British PM Johnson will hide life threatening physical and emotional harm they cause to an adopted person.

28. I asked two staff from the Australian embassy in London who came to speak with me in August 2011, precisely how many Australian citizens they had in my situation all around the world, and they said, I am the only one and that they “write reports (which I did not know) and tell politicians what is going on, and politicians know, but the politicians don’t care”.

I don’t personally need or even expect politicians to care (that in any circumstances would be an unrealistic expectation at the best of times, anyway) but where there is a problem of politicians making with regard to legislation, which there most certainly is with adoption legislation (that happens to be related to the Australian Constitution which is only a legislative Act too) there is a reasonable expectation politicians will make efforts to legally address that, including by being adult enough to speak with a person affected.

The fact politicians can say they don’t care about law abiding members of the public as much as they like, doesn’t change politicians do care about being on a witness stand in a court, being cross examined before a jury.

In fact the Australian politicians not only did alway know what was going on, but it repeatedly transpired were directly involved, before hiding away as Ambassadors in the Australian embassy in London these days, which creates purely political embassies to serve the interests of politicians rather than private citizens, who shouldn’t need to have a political allegiance.

The politicians in the State of Victoria are directly responsible for my being unable to live a safe an sustainable life in my own home in either the UK or France, after I was forced to leave Australia as a teenager, because they didn’t want a lawsuit in Melbourne.

The politicians in the State of Victoria enabled the British PM Johnson, and still do.

There was no reasonable expectation I could safely stop my adoption in the UK and get damages through my lawsuits there, which I should have been able to do, regardless of whether politicians “cared” or not.

29. Murdoch’s Newscorp & Westminster’s imaginary Injunction on 16th January 2012

Lord Marlesford from the Times complained in the British House of Lords on 27th January 2012 “we thought we had shot the fox” (on 16th January 2012) which was a shocking thing to say about me, including because I am an entirely law abiding civilian (and there was no injunction protecting me which there should have been while there was also no stay on HQ11X00563) while Murdoch’s cronies pretended they had an injunction (which must have been something they invented to say on 17th January 2012, thinking no-one would go and ask to actually see a copy)

Murdoch’s supposed ‘Crime’ Editor (no kidding that’s what they call themselves) from The Sun tried to be an apologist for a drunken male from something called the National Crime Agency (who they said was seconded from Thames Valley) who attacked and threatening me in April 2010. I realised that Murdoch really sent along his ‘crime’ editor in their black range rover, to see if I could identify the man, which I showed them I could.

It was all a little too obvious when Murdoch’s journalists would also come along like messengers to tell me what politicians were going to do or not do, that ran along the lines of what they thought they could or not get away with, so it became increasingly clear there were inappropriate discussions between Johnson who was supposed to be a politician, and Murdoch, going on… behind my back.

It could never be said either had what it takes to front up and practise peaceful free speech themselves in Parliament Square, Central London.

The thing is I was never personally interested in the robber media barons, in Westminster, while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, because I was learning all about genuine free speech and the importance of that, while practising it in a public square, and space, where we met members of the public just like ourselves from all around the world, while many thousands of people would pass through Westminster every day.

The Palaces of Westminster just don’t like a narrative that differs in any way from their own which basically consists of advertising salesman calling themselves journalists or politicians, or more often both, who have never stepped out of their comfort zone to even learn about genuine peaceful free speech, so they just read from a script given to them. In our experience in Westminster, a politician without a script handed to them by a ‘political adviser’ has no idea what to say.

I remember we asked the Tories George Osbourne in 2009 before they were in government the following year, and he became the Chancellor, before becoming a newspaper editor for Lord Rothermere, what the Conservatives plan was to leave Afghanistan (it was previously claimed in Whitehall at the beginning of the Brown administration the UK were going to invade Iran) because we were obviously genuinely curious, as anyone would be, and he just looked at us aghast and didn’t say anything, that in hindsight most probably indicates Whitehall were already plotting their wars in Libya and Syria.

The Conservatives first electoral ‘policy’ was they wanted to illegally ‘remove’ us without any caveats on how that was done, which first aired on Murdoch’s unquestioning Sky News, before being repeated by the BBC, while ITV couldn’t find any members of the public who had the slightest problem with us. The closed shop of what are called press conferences etc don’t include the questions members of the public might ask of their own free will.

The likes of Lord Rothermere were only willing to admit outside court proceedings (ie: in July 2010) they illegally used journalists posing as protesters, for Johnson, so he could by extension then maliciously prosecute Brian and myself, which was not only a pretty weird thing for them to do, and so obviously political, while Johnson also worked for the Daily Telegraph too, so they were in practise also maliciously prosecuting, all of which was absolutely unlawful, that they were all too cowardly to admit inside a court in legal proceedings. The Daily Mail illegally door-stopped me in a lift in the High Court when I told them to leave me along because they were involved, while it transpired Lord Rothermere was going to Chequers to speak to Cameron. There are only the same robber media barons from Westminster in Australia.

It was essential to make a safe place for free speech for law abiding civilians in Westminster because the only language Westminster relentlessly use is warmongering, which they would never do if it was only themselves as politicians who were sent to war. There’s never been a politician in Westminster discovered on a front line anywhere, defending free speech for law abiding civilians.

The most important fact I learned in Parliament Square, Central London in the 7 plus years I was there, 24/7, genuinely defending free speech, is that most members of the public do not simply believe whatever the robber media barons claim, despite most robber media barons always claiming most members of the public do.

The only people who viciously objected to us in Westminster, was after all, politicians and their media mouthpieces, who were promoting the Iraq War, we along with most members of the public opposed, that led to so many more vulnerable children being harmed and trafficked by politicians falsely claiming they are trying to ‘save’ them (while politicians were really only trying to artificially inflate the price of abiotic oil etc)

The political narrative of war is carefully choreographed to cynical try and give politicians plausible deniability, which there isn’s because of course war is by definition always a catastrophe for a civilian population.

I literally learned something new every single day I was in Parliament Square, Central London, that I had not known, from other members of public from all around the world.

(I obviously very strongly oppose on legal grounds, any idea that the likes of the British PM Johnson could use the Australian Constitution… Act to impose himself as a State governor in Victoria or a Governor General in Australia too)

30. DHSS: Hotel quarantine August 2020

I was illegally detained in hotel quarantine in Melbourne in August 2020 (and then treated differently to other people) because there was no legal oversight, which can be attributed to the same “the politicians know and don’t care” that staff from the Australian embassy in London said in August 2011.

I remember when we first went to get tests for Covid and they said when the first group of people went they would only test people with ’symptoms’ despite the fact there was one identified case of a young person who had been properly isolating for ten days.

(It was an example of why people should be able to test themselves for free rather than being forced to rely on a government department, or a health system which was operating beyond capacity before a global pandemic that was itself being put at risk including by going place to place when it could also be spreading the pandemic too)

Then the DHSS turned up and said everyone had to now get tested before they then later said everyone had to go into hotel quarantine, before later saying they had lost all the tests, so everyone had to get tested again but the DHSS did;t even give everyone the results of second tests, that were the third tests for some people. There was no such thing as contract tracing then.

And the DHSS kept me in hotel quarantine longer than others without giving me any explanation or putting any legal grounds in writing. Then they said I was ‘free’ to leave at 10pm at night after the curfew at that time and when the area was completely deserted, and that I had to make my own way back on public transport. The DHHS would;t even give me anything in writing saying it was okay to travel after curfew when I pointed out they were telling me I had to break their own rules, while also not providing me with a taxi that we had to get there. So i had to wait until the following day so that someone could come and help me carry my luggage I couldn’t carry myself. to public transport which wasn’t close by anyway.

The overall impression was hotel quarantine was primarily a political headline and talking point for politicians that could also be used by politicians and public officials to be spiteful, rather than helpful. The hotel itself was bemused and did the best they could. It could not be easily dismissed in my own case as having been used as a political opportunity to be spiteful; considering I have been subjected to prolonged political persecution, and was being stopped from living in my own home in France, purely for political reasons, using adoption legislation, or that my boyfriend had at that same time unexpectedly claimed political asylum in the Netherlands (where the Hague Adoption Convention is based) the DHSS knew all about. The endless something is always some other departments remit is at the very least a manipulative excuse. There weren’t exactly too many EU citizens claiming political asylum in the Ter Apel refugee centre in the Netherlands at that time, so directly connected to me.

It was a lot to try and process under increasingly exceptionally difficult circumstances.

My Welsh boyfriend claimed political asylum in the Netherlands (which he was forced into doing by the German government who tried to re-possess his oxygen machine which I complained about to the ECHR and obviously most benefited the British PM Johnson too) although it was always unclear why he was in Ter Apel refugee centre who didn’t have the medical facilities to look after him) before he died on 2nd October 2020, or why the DHSS and State of Victoria wouldn’t facilitate my travelling to him, which he asked me to do. So he died stateless in the Netherlands.

The background was my boyfriend Neil was walking around absolutely fine before he was incredibly violently attacked by the British government in the UK (which I heard happening) several days after I had confirmed in the High Court, in the UK, I was asserting my right to a jury, and he was never the same again, after that violent attack.

My best friend Brian was also walking around absolutely fine before he was violently attacked by the British government, in the UK, on the day Johnson became Mayor of London. Brian had later died in a German hospital in 2011, where a specialist said he had never seen such a “catastrophic breakdown” in someone’s immune system that he said had happened over two years, so it had happened because Brian was in so much pain because he wasn’t originally given proper medical treatment for the back injury which the government caused and the hospital in the UK did not properly identify at the time, for ‘unknown reasons’. The specialist also said he had never seen someone fight to hard to live too.

The British government and Johnson publicly lied when they said Brian died in Berlin, because I was with him when he died in hospital in Bremen in Germany, so I don’t know why they lied. Brian had expressed a wish to get political asylum somewhere, because he said we couldn’t continue living in the UK, and when he was in hospital in Germany and I had to travel back and forth I was constantly being harassed by the government over that too, which took place while Johnson was also maliciously prosecuting both of us, including while Brian was in hospital in Germany, and in a medically induced coma, and during HQ11X00563. It was completely outrageous. I remember the High Court in the UK, actually asking me to ring Brian in hospital in Germany to ask him something for them, which I just absolutely refused to do.

One of the hardest things I ever had to do, was return to Parliament Square, Central London after Brian died, when the things that were said and done by the politicians in Westminster were truly shocking. Brian hadn’t wanted to go to Germany while I was still in the UK, because he said the government would use it as an ‘opportunity’ to be increasingly vicious to me, which was true, because common decency is not in their political lexicon.

The contrast between Brian who was a real gentleman, and the now British PM Johnson who was the Mayor of London, journalist and boss of the top cops at that time, could not be greater, because Johnson has had his own identity his whole life, while being handed every possible advantage that he has only abused to… intentionally harm other people for his own personal financial gain.

I remember after Brian died, I was walking down Whitehall and Johnson was in front of me, standing there clearly plotting something to do with Parliament Square, Central London with another journalist and so he saw me, and literally hid behind the pillars of the Parliamentary bookshop by Parliament Square, Central London, because he was so cowardly he couldn’t look me in the eye after what he had done to Brian and myself.

31. DJCS/Adoption Victoria

The DJCS/Adoption Victoria are an empathy free zone selectively controlling the information politicians want adopted people to have or not have, while using phoney interviews with adopted people at best, as a fishing expedition, to ask adopted people for information which they know it is illegal for them to do using the false pretext of interviews, that are not in any way connected to… helping adopted people, in any way. They are very much a government department focused on shifting the blame for any… legal problems with adoption or adoption legislation, on to the adopted person, for us to try and deal with completely on our own. They just regurgitate whatever politicians want them to which is hardly independent, and completely pointless because they are not dealing with real legal problems adopted people can face, in real life, every single day.

A permanent injunction against adoption legislation would at least begin to put adopted people back in control of our own information, that is best not held by a government department like the DJCS/Adoption Victoria, whose only purpose is to justify and continue the abuse of adoption legislation with reckless disregard for the real legal problems caused to adopted people.

It’s unavoidable that “out of home care” needs to move beyond the ‘make believe’ world of adoption legislation and into the real world of legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood for vulnerable children in ‘out of home care’.

The politicians have made adoption a magnet for predatory paedophiles who can make any unreasonable demands they like, in the knowledge there is no, let along ongoing genuine… legal scrutiny, ever.

32. Angus Knight

Angus Knight shared my information with the British government, so they have refused to keep an accurate and contemporaneous record, or fulfil their legal obligations for the simple reason the British PM Johnson and a former BBC ‘Journalist’ a Ms Coffey gave them a £300 million pound contract so they have unlimited …legal representation paid for by the British taxpayer (An audit would show Westminster Council used their entire legal budget in HQ11X00563 which must have involved handing out a considerable amount of brown envelopes to try and avoid settling with me) while I don’t have legal representation, which also happens to benefit a Senator J McGrath and politicians in the the State of Victoria too.

I do reasonably believe the reason I now realise Angus Knight do nothing but lie, bully and harass me, is because they are being paid to do that, in the same way, it transpired Westminster Council used their entire legal budget in HQ11X00663 that could only have been used to essentially hand out brown envelopes, to bully and harass me, that was used to try and prevent me giving evidence in court, and stop any legal settlement.

I am claiming the £300 million pounds contract Angus Knight have with Johnson et al in damages a) because it is being used to fund unlimited legal representation for Angus Knight, while I have no legal representation, so it is being used against me, while I continue to be caused physical and emotional harm and b) so Johnson cannot just keep using adoption legislation, while paying off people to try and hide what he does, so he can stay in public office.

Angus Knight don’t have evidence of a policy of any kind about anything, let alone that would withstand any legal scrutiny, including before a jury.

It’s not like Angus Knight can genuinely try telling a jury, they don’t know anything.

33. Interim Order:

I ‘reasonably believe’ the true legal reality is I am legally entitled to an interim Court Order that the State of Victoria provide me with:

a) free public housing for me in Government House in Victoria, including because the unelected State Governor has alternative housing in Australia, including during a global pandemic, or alternative housing of my choice in Melbourne, because it is adoption legislation stopping me living in my own home

(It’s a matter of published fact the British monarchy chose to not go to court after they belatedly claimed they could register a somewhat opaque claim at the Land Registry over part of Parliament Square, Central London related to the disingenuous GLA Act 1999 because it is all really public land)

I did properly apply for public housing in Victoria in 2019 which was however anyone looks at it, spuriously refused because I have my own home in the Breton Woods, in France, because the State of Victoria knew there was a problem with adoption legislation, long before that, when I was in the UK.

b) the equivalent of Disability Support Pension the State of Victoria are not going to produce any health professional to dispute

until there is an… agreed settlement of my claim.

---

It is beyond any ‘on the balance of probabilities’ and all ‘reasonable doubt’ that if I had had access to medical treatment in France in my own home (which I didn’t after I couldn’t get a new EHIC card after the one from the UK ran out after I was exiled and the embassy in Paris refused to do anything while Australian politicians are sitting in the London embassy, and I knew the EHIC card doesn’t give people free medical treatment in France anyway because I had been seriously ill and hadn’t been able to afford prescriptions which were very expensive for one of the illnesses, or proper hospital treatment etc etc) any medical professional would have said the State of Victoria could force me to return to Australia, and certainly not in advance of of the State of Victoria having arranged free citable accommodation in the State of Victoria, because otherwise a person can at the very least be treated like a political football, albeit my own case is worse.

I was technically in the first country I entered after being exiled from the UK too, but there was still the problem of political adoption legislation and the Hague Adoption Convention all of which puts politicians before people.

It wasn’t even realistically possible to get any medical records from the UK.

Much of what happened in France took place within the backdrop of politicians arguing over the British referendum and whatever deal they then wanted to make, the sum total of which turned out to be, politicians supposedly arguing about whatever they wanted after the British government withdrew.

From the perspective of an adopted person who has already been repeatedly exiled and all that goes with that, which is very real, and all because of adoption legislation, which is a political football really, whatever the political free for all that Brexit really is, was like another version of adoption legislation, that just compounded the existing harm.

---

I am claiming substantial damages from the State of Victoria for also not being able to live a safe and sustainable life in my own home in the Breton Woods in France, since July 2019.

The reality is if I “win” my lawsuit then I receive damages, and if I lose which would be a perverse outcome (having a fake identity forced on me has… already caused ongoing and profound losses for… me my whole life) then the State of Victoria are going to claim my home in the Breton Woods, France in “costs” anyway, and will still have to provide me with over 55 public housing in the State of Victoria.

It is not right, and I don’t want to be played off between State and Federal politicians, and who does what with whatever department, and who just don’t take the very real problems with adoption legislation at all seriously.

The statement by Australian embassy staff (para 28) who made reports says it all.

The State of Victoria did not provide me with any timely or easily accessible legal process to address the legal problems with adoption legislation while I was in the UK, and the State of Victoria did send me legal documents to my home address in the Breton Woods in France.

The Australian embassy in London is operated solely for the benefit of politicians posing as Ambassadors, to claim they can have further legal immunity out of public office, rather than working for the benefit of the public, these days.

It is traumatising returning to the State of Victoria in Australia which I obviously did not voluntarily do, because of adoption and adoption legislation which forced me to leave Australia as a teenager.

There is nothing that has changed on the adoption front in the State of Victoria where there are still the same old lies being told and sold by politicians and government departments.

I have never lived in Australia since being a teenager so it is very difficult for me in every respect including because it was adoption that forced me to leave in the first place, and it is still adoption that is the problem.

I do not have the opportunity to begin to build a new life in the State of Victoria and enjoy doing that, because I still have the same old fake identity from adoption that has always caused me nothing but problems. I have a fake identity, I don’t want, that means I have to keep repeating that it is not actually my identity but something that is forced on me, which literally stops me moving on with my own life.

I don’t personally believe it is possible to fully overcome PTSD (which would be nice) while the government continue to force a fake identity on me that is only a reminder of what caused the PTSD in the first place. It is very debilitating when you have lived with PTSD since being a small child.

I can at least have a website with my name Donna Bugat, so that I can use my real identity there which also means I don’t need to keep explaining anything to government departments because it is written on a website with my own name. I like my own name, and not the fake identity imposed on me.

I have had politicians dishonestly claim I am not an Australian citizen and British news media being disparaging about my being an Australian citizen, which all ‘overlooks’ the problem of my fake identity through adoption, so it is very traumatic. It;s not really possible for me to make my own decisions that I would like to make, with a fake identity that is imposed on me.

34. Medical expenses:

I was seriously physically and emotionally ill when I was in my own home in the Breton Woods in France with PTSD, and inextricably linked multiple auto-immune and related illnesses.

You guessed it that the Australian embassy in Paris did not care and illegally asked me in 2019, to give them permission to give my name to the press (for reasons they did not explain, and which they then claimed they did not need my permission to do without explaining the legal rationale of that to me) which would appear on the face of it, to me, to more likely than not be an attempt to retrospectively try and get me to ‘agree’ to a cover up over the fact my adopted name was illegally leaked on Mothers Day 2006) It wasn’t really helpful when I was very ill to be further confused by that.

(I personally ried to have as little as possible to do with the robber media barons in Westminster, because the… starting point was they illegally leaked my adopted name, and as a private citizen, who hadn’t done anything ‘wrong’ at all, along with what they knew to be completely false information, which was never put right, that only seriously escalated with their bullying and harassment of me)

It is not possible in Australia to access some healthcare, I need that I cannot afford that in turn directly affects my ability to properly access overall healthcare because it is inextricably linked.

I now believe there is no realistic expectation I can access proper medical treatment until this claim is settled by agreement or before a jury, so my claim includes unlimited costs for medical treatment of my choosing it is only the State of Victoria unnecessarily delaying.

The absence of access to proper healthcare, including of my own choosing, has had a serious adverse impact, that is the worst aspect of everything to do with adoption.

There was no genuine reason the State of Victoria could not have agreed legal terms while I was still in my own home in the Breton Woods in France, so I could have a safe and sustainable life of my own there, because of course it is much better for someone to be in their own home, which was of course the case from when I was a small child really.

The fact of my adoption, has made not having the stability of being in my own home in the Breton Woods in France, including during a global pandemic, obviously even more difficult, because I am just the same as anyone else who should be able to be and feel safest and so on, in their own home.

I look forward to waking up one day in a world when there is no adoption legislation because adopted people have real lives and life stories, in the same world as everyone else, that should never have been defined by a ‘make believe’ world of adoption.

35. I am not sure the issues relating to political asylum can be properly resolved prior to a civil jury trial in a court of law, because of the cumulative adverse affects of adoption.

Additions and amendments:

I reserve the right to make any additions and or amendments.

This statement is true.

Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)

Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (Case CI-): FAO SRL Re: My witness statement in claim for damages and permanent injunction against adoption legislation etc because politicians do not have unfettered power to arbitrarily impose unworkable legislation (20.08.2021)

FAO SRL:

The Court staff said this afternoon when I visited in person, they want to pass my claim across to the SRL who I had never heard of before, to issue. They took a time stamp, copy attached, and i pointed out the statement/particulars (ie: witness statement) were attached to the email (see below) read by the court staff in the morning.

Background:

It’s fair to say, anyone subjected to politicians and government departments passing the buck between themselves while all try and shift the blame for the harm caused by adoption legislation on to an adopted person should be able to have political asylum rather than being put through such an onerous ordeal, that can unsurprisingly result in prolonged PTSD.

No properly informed adopted person would want to be subjected to something as onerous as adoption legislation that doesn’t guarantee free and ongoing legal representation for the adopted person. I am after all claiming damages for not having had legal representation, including while politicians instead give Angus Knight… unlimited legal representation paid for by the public. There is nothing an adopted minor can do, or anywhere they can go to get help, because you don’t have any legal representation, in an adult strangers creepy world of ‘make believe’ adoption.

I attended the County Court in person on 4th August 2021 because I reasonably wanted to have an ex-parte permanent injunction against adoption legislation, along with the State of Victoria et al paying damages, to try and stop the continuing physical and emotional harm adoption legislation is causing. Any member of the public is supposed to be able to have immediate access to a court for the purposes of an ex-parte permanent injunction that it could not be said politicians and government departments do not know about or have opposed in writing, including with any legal grounds.

The legal obligation was and is on the State of Victoria to put in place an easily accessible legal process for me to get a permanent injunction against adoption legislation, that was also not reliant on me having electricity, or access to a mobile phone or computer and so on, that provides for damages.

I clearly cannot be at ‘fault’ for the real world reality, the ‘make believe’ world of adoption legislation is unworkable.

____________

---

In practice the proper administration of justice means anyone like a plaintiff, like me, can and should be able to produce a signed and dated witness statement including confirming the statement is true, to be presented before a court and jury.

____________

---

I do not reasonably believe the Defendants in my own claim can, will or have, denied the harm caused, by adoption and adoption legislation including before a jury.

In my case it is identifiable British and Australian… politicians who have used adoption legislation to intentionally physically and emotionally harm me, while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, because the incontrovertible evidence is they stopped any jury lawsuits going ahead for precisely that reason, because of my nationalities.

It is a matter of fact politicians refused without lawful excuse to hand over the CCTV that belongs to me, including in a timely manner, of their torture and attempted murder of me, so I could make my own decisions.

It is undeniable I would have benefited from having been able to have political asylum with the only real problem being adoption legislation and the Hague Adoption Convention that is widely understood to be unworkable.

The fact some adopted people may choose to go along with adoption legislation does not mean it can be imposed on anyone.

The staff in the Australian embassy in London (before it was taken over by former politicians like Downer posing as Ambassadors to arguably prolong their legal immunity by not writing reports) wrote reports for politicians who they said “do not care” and have ‘inquiries” that given the starting point is politicians “do not care” could not even be intended to address or redress the legal problems an adopted person faces in the real world, which is quite different from the ‘make believe’ world of politicians adoption legislation. It was when Downer was a Foreign Minister, that politicians started trying to dishonestly claim I am not an Australian citizen, in the buck passing between British and Australian politicians.

There was no point in the State of Victoria having their latest adoption ‘inquiry’ because politicians “don’t care” about any legal problems with adoption legislation, so an ‘inquiry’ at best just buys them more time at the expense of an adopted person being caused harm.

Most people might reasonably think a politician only “cares” if they are being cross-examined before a jury in a court of law over causing prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm, over which most people would have had the option of claiming political asylum anywhere, but is not so straightforward for adopted people, whose identities, including nationalities and citizenships have been changed.

I have explained that the State of Victoria could not have had the legal authority to arbitrarily change adopted children’s nationalities and citizenships, which politicians themselves variously claim beyond an individual persons autonomy, is a federal remit and by extension the British monarchy and Governor General who issue passports, although the Australian Constitution… Act 9th July 1900 (and the evolution of passports) mean much is not legally settled in law or civil society.

There is no doubt I have Australian citizenship with my own true identity, with legal conflicts arising out of adoption legislation, with dual British and Australian nationality, that also excluded other nationalities and citizenships.

I clearly did not voluntarily return to the State of Victoria from my own home in France before the global pandemic while continuing to have problems with governments departments because there cannot be clarity with arbitrary legislation that doesn’t genuinely have any due process.

The court staff said on 4th August 2021, that I instead should bring a lawsuit and gave me what they considered to be the relevant court documents.

I notified the County Court of my Writ and Originating motion and particulars/statement of claim today, on the 20th August 2021 and asked how I could pay if whatever amount the court wanted

The adoption legislation is a political, rather than legal construct.

The legal reality is politicians do not have unfettered power to arbitrarily impose whatever adoption legislation they like that there cannot be a lawsuit against including with a jury and regardless of how much physical and emotional harm is caused, because that would be an abuse of (due) process.

It cannot be that adoption legislation is the only legislation in the world an adopted person cannot have a permanent injunction against along with claiming damages, because adoption legislation can be construed so widely it can be used on any group out of political favour at any time.

A revocation is of itself clearly no use to an adopted person who legally and naturally rejects the ‘make believe’ world of adoption, because revocation means an adopted person is a) forced to agree under duress, that adoption legislation is legitimate, while a revocation does not b) actually address or redress any or all harms caused by adoption and adoption legislation.

There are no legal grounds that mean some children should be subjected to an arbitrary, extremely disproportionate and wholly unnecessary adoption, instead of all vulnerable children in ‘out of home care’ who are not ordinarily living with their biological parents having legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood, that must come with independent legal representation.

When I asked how to pay for the claim, the court staff sent me an email with a link that says I could pay online. I questioned this by return email, because the court has not given me a case number which I would need to pay the money, according to their own online form. When I did not receive an answer by email and there was no-one answering phones I then went in person to the County Court to pay in person.

I showed the staff member in the court office, the emails today, on 20th August 2021, and they agreed I was correct that I could not pay online until I had a case number, which the link the court sent me themselves clearly indicates is necessary. The staff member then said they would give the case to their self-represented litigants department to check and issue. I questioned why it could not just be issued by any member of staff in the court and the member of staff said the issuing team are not working in the court, but have the means to issue cases, with court stamps and take payments, while they are at home, as do the self-represented litigants team.

I was astonished really, because I am being stopped from living a safe and sustainable life in my own home, that happens to be in France, where I was not able to by contrast bring the claim for example while in my own home in France (and the embassy in Paris were as unhelpful as they could possibly be while I was seriously ill while a government department had taken ages and made me pay money to get some documents sent to my home address in France) before a global pandemic.

It is still not really clear to me why a member of staff in the court could not get the staff who are not in the court to issue the claim, that is about damages for harm caused by adoption and permanent injunctions against adoption legislation which is not the only legislation in the world to never have caused any harm.

Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)