Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (CI -) Re: Interim Order for peaceful freedom of expression with a tent in front of Parliament House, Victoria & permanent injunctions against adoption legislation & British House of Lords etc incl. Baroness 18 May 2006 Scotland of Asthal (Secretary General of Commonwealth etc) providing adopted people of any race, religion, politics or none with right to register to live in Universal Old City in Jerusalem (01.09.2021)
Re Interim Order: I don’t personally want to exercise my peaceful freedom of expression with a tent outside Parliament House in Victoria that I am in all the true circumstances essentially being forced to do. I have taken all reasonable steps myself to sensibly progress my claim, having been exiled as a teenager from Australia and having lived my whole adult life in exile, before being stopped from living a safe and sustainable life in my own home in France, in July 2019, because of adoption legislation.
I received an email last week on Wednesday 25th August 2021 from a Deputy Registrar (presumably from the County Court) who referred to an incomplete version of my claim he had, before and without my having been contacted by the SRL/had not been seen by the SRL. So I have updated and amended my claim now dated 1st September 2021 (see below) to be referred to and agreed between the SRL, Deputy Registrar, and myself.
RULE 5.02(1) Form 5A
WRIT
CI—-____——-
IN THE COUNTY COURT
OF VICTORIA
AT
Melbourne
BETWEEN
Donna Bugat
Plaintiff
and
- State of Victoria
Defendant 1 - Murdoch Newscorp
Defendant 2 - Senator J McGrath
Defendant 3 - Angus Knight
Defendant 4 - DHHS
Defendant 5 - Adoption Victoria/DCJS
Defendant 6
Date of Document: 1st September 2021
Filed on behalf of: Donna Bugat
Prepared by: Donna Bugat
Solicitors Code: None
DX: None
Tel. No: xxx xxx xxxx
email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ref:
TO THE DEFENDANT
TAKE NOTICE that this proceeding has been brought against you by the plaintiff for the claim set out in this writ.
IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding, or if you have a claim against the plaintiff which you wish to have taken into account at the trial, YOU MUST GIVE NOTICE of your intention by filing an appearance within the proper time for an appearance stated below.
YOU OR YOUR SOLICITOR may file the appearance. An appearance is filed by –
(a) filing a “Notice of Appearance” in the Registrar’s Office in the County Court
Registry, 250 William Street, Melbourne, or where the writ has been filed in the
office of a Registrar out of Melbourne, in the office of that Registrar; and
(b) on the day you file the Notice, serving a copy, sealed by the Court, at the plaintiff’s
address for service, which is set out at the end of this writ.
IF YOU FAIL to file an appearance within the proper time, the plaintiff may OBTAIN JUDGEMENT AGAINST YOU on the claim without further notice.
*THE PROPER TIME TO FILE AN APPEARANCE is as follows-
(a) where you are served with the writ in Victoria, within ten days after service;
(b) where you are served with the writ out of Victoria and in another part of Australia,
within 21 days after service
(c) where you are served with the writ in Papua New Guinea, within 28 days after
service
(d) where you are served with the writ in New Zealand under Part 2 of the Trans-
Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 of the Commonwealth, within 30 working days
(within the meaning of that Act) after service or, if a shorter or longer period has
been fixed by the Court under section 13(1)(b) of thatAct, the period so fixed;
(e) in any other case within 42 days after the service.
IF the plaintiff claims a debt only and you pay that debt, namely $ and $ for legal costs to the plaintiff or his solicitor within the proper time for appearance, this proceeding will come to an end. Notwithstanding the payment you may have the costs taxed by the Court.
Filed (1st September 2021) Registrar
THIS WRIT is to be served within one year from the date it is filed or within such further period as the Court orders.
Page 1
_______________________
Page 2
Plantiff’s endorsement of a statement of claim or of a statement sufficient to give with reasonable particularity notice of the nature of the claim and the cause thereof and of the relief or remedy sought in the proceeding.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM (consisting of paragraphs 1-19)
Jus Cogens
The plaintiff Donna Bugat says:
- I … knew when I was a… small child that adoption is wrong when I was robbed of my own identity and childhood.
- I am like most people, who peacefully live within the peace and harmony of the rule of law all the time.
I am not applying for an exemption from court fees the State of Victoria already know I am legally entitled to without my providing any further information, because that is just being used as another unfair bureaucratic obstacle to overcome, that I will instead claim back through additional compensation.
It is self evident I will not have safe and sustainable housing or access to proper medical treatment until this claim is legally settled.
I do not reasonably believe the State of Victoria have any legal grounds to oppose my permanent injunction against adoption legislation that would necessarily have to come from an adopted person who rejects adoption and the accompanying adoption legislation.
My Interim Order is to exercise my peaceful freedom of expression with a tent outside Parliament House in Victoria, that I am in all the true circumstances in reality being forced to do, because adoption legislation has stopped me living a safe and sustainable life in my own home in France, since July 2019.
It is not legally possible to use a civil injunction against me to enforce adoption and adoption legislation and it is not a criminal offence for me to entirely naturally and legally reject adoption and adoption legislation, including the Hague Adoption Convention.
Defendants 1-6 are jointly and severally liable in my claim for financial compensation and permanent injunctions, because each need/needed and rely/relied on each other to cause me prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm.
It is extremely exploitative to expect an ordinary person to also try and manage extremely distressing and onerous legal proceedings, without legal representation and while unwell, and also while I am not in my own home. So I am claiming financial compensation from the State of Victoria for my not having had legal representation that I would otherwise have had if I was not adopted, and so could also have claimed political asylum which most people with my lived experience would have.
I have known since August 2011 that Australian politicians do not care about any legal problems adopted people face with adoption legislation, so I do reasonably believe, politicians ‘Inquiry’ in Victoria between 2019 -2021 when the State of Victoria and Federal government have already agreed to continue adoptions regardless of any and all legal problems for adopted person has at best only provided free publicly funded legal representation for politicians instead of adopted people with legal problems arising from adoption, which is unfair.
The Defendants 1-6 with their entourage of publicly funded lawyers (however anyone looks at it) will by contrast try to claim costs from me by taking my home in France, because I entirely naturally and legally reject adoption and adoption legislation because it has no legitimate aim.
A law abiding adopted person who naturally and legally rejects adoption and the accompanying adoption legislation is intentionally excluded in any meaningful way from politics and history because adoption is not a legal construct, and bears no relationship to biological or historical facts, including medical information.
It cannot be that adoption legislation is the only legislation in the world an adopted person can not have a permanent injunction against because no politician can legally have unfettered power.
- I was born in Australia (Case 352 in the County Court) when an unelected member of the British House of Lords was a Governor General, and the State Governor was an unelected British general in Whites Only Australia (that had continued after World War Two and) when conscription was re-introduced during the Vietnam War.
I was raised by adult strangers from the highest echelons of the British and Australian intelligence services who posed as my parents and godparents.
For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm I have never been employed by any intelligence services.
My true identity is an Australian citizen, but my adopted identity reverses much with dual British and Australian nationality that also excludes any additional nationalities and citizenships.
I do not reasonably believe the State of Victoria had any legal authority including through any interpretation of the Australian Constitution Act 9th July 1900 to change my identity, including nationalities and citizenships using adoption legislation, that has caused me so much confusing, persecution and harm throughout my life.
The State of Victoria include politicians from numerous political parties.
- It is not true to say law abiding adopted people enjoy any privacy because governments routinely collect and selectively use our personal information for purely financial reasons that are not always legal.
- I was exiled from Australia as a teenager, which further isolated me, and have lived my whole adult life in exile from Australia so politicians could avoid at the very least a civil jury lawsuit, originating in the State of Victoria.
Everything about adoption legislation involves manipulative and unreasonable excuses, that shift blame on to an adopted person who rejects adoption and adoption legislation because it has no legitimate aim.
It should be common-sense that the freedom of expression of a vulnerable child not living with our own family, to have our own biological and historical identity that includes maintaining pre-existing nationalities and citizenships, along with contact with family members which must be automatic with siblings and can include legally reviewable custody arrangements only until adulthood, like other vulnerable children in out of home care, is more important than unreasonable demands by adult strangers who want to give themselves extraordinary and exceptional rights far beyond any ordinary carer, to instead to try and force adopted people to call them parents and a family including throughout our adulthood ignoring adults are supposed to be equal, by using completely arbitrary, disproportionate and unworkable adoption legislation.
6. It is obviously deeply distressing for me that my adopted name was illegally leaked on Mothers Day 2006 in the UK along with false information, but the British PM who was Blair at that time, and the top cop now Lord Blair, along with the Head of the BBC who also became a Lord, did not immediately resign, in what are endless political attempts to try and…. shift blame on to an adopted person who rejects adoption.
There is undeniably a prima facie case against British and Australian politicians regarding the self evident fact British and Australian politicians et al illegally chose the unelected dual national Baroness 18 May 2006 Scotland of Asthal who is now also the unelected Secretary General of the Commonwealth to illegally always try and stop my ever giving evidence before at the very least a High Court civil jury in the UK in Europe (refer “Both houses and black rod” 19 May 2006) about my peaceful freedom of expression that includes my mixed race, religion and politics identity, in the still… ongoing political scandal surrounding my 26th March 2006 Mothers Day case in Parliament Square, Central London.
It is beyond all reasonable doubt Baroness Scotland of Asthal has received corrupt payments to cause me serious ongoing physical and emotional harm in her various unelected roles including an Attorney General, unelected member of the British House of Lords and Secretary General of the Commonwealth, that she has only been able to do by exploiting my being disadvantaged by adoption legislation.
The politicians would have made the most almighty public squabble over my true identity, in the UK, over my lawsuit, without any regard whatsoever for the fact that adoption legislation is not my… fault.
The legal reality remains ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK (repealed on 31st March 2012) was like adoption legislation, political legislation that is not lawful.
It is very real that I forced the repeal of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK, despite the fact it is very unusual for ordinary people like myself, who are not politicians either, to repeal legislation.
It is the fact I am adopted that ‘complicated’ my being in Parliament Square, Central London (where politicians illegally banned peaceful campaigning) and the accompanying lawsuits.
____________
Hansard 23 May 2000 – 18 May 2006 – 23 May 2006 – 27 January 2012
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:
23 May 2000:… “the policy of successive governments there should not be demonstrations in Parliament Square must be maintained in the future….
“a statement of policy… self-evidently… there should not be demonstrations in Parliament Square”
14 May 2002:
Lord Marlesford:
Why a… protest site has been permitted on the area of Parliament Square; and whether they will ensure that the paraphernalia on the grass is removed whenever the protesters leave.[HL4181]
15 June 2004:
Baroness Trumpington: “… I find the whole thing disgusting and shameful. Why cannot it be moved to Speaker’s Corner at Marble Arch, which is the right place for such things?
18 May 2006:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil:
What further steps they propose to take to remove the demonstrations and placards from Parliament Square.
Lord Peston: My Lords, did the other place totally misunderstand the legislation? Every Member of Parliament in the other place to whom I have spoken thought that the immediate effect of passing this law would be that that mess in Parliament Square would be removed. A very long time has gone by and the mess is still there. I, for one, know of no place in the 18 May 2006 : Column 368 democratic world where anything like that would be regarded as a fundamental privilege for the sake of freedom of speech. Quite the contrary: in most of our friends’ Parliaments, armed police would busily remove the bloke within a minute”
Lord Renton: “My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that Parliament Square is one of the most historic and elegant places in the United Kingdom and that the various placards placed there from time to time diminish its importance?”
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: “My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is one of the most elegant squares in the country—indeed, in the world—and we now have appropriate parliamentary provisions to deal with what some would say was the desecration of the square…”
Lord Blackwell rose to call attention to the future of the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe; and to move for Papers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch:”… the best thing for the people of Europe as opposed to its politicians and bureaucrats would be for the United Kingdom to leave the EU and pursue our interests in the wider world. That might start the project’s disintegration, leaving the democracies of Europe to trade freely together linked through NATO. Once again, in that happy event, we will have saved ourselves by our endeavour and Europe by our example…”
The 19th May 2006: “Both houses and Black Rod”
The 23 May 2006 was about the British House of Lords Hansard on 23 May 2000.
25 Jan 2007 : Column 1571
House of Commons
Points of Order
1.26 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you are aware of the recent court case that has led to yet another reversal in the attempt to limit the protest in Parliament square. Whatever one thinks about that, there can surely be no human right to fill the square with incessant amplified noise, which interferes with the ability of Members to do their work, and which is a distraction and danger to police who are in the front line of providing security to the House. Have you received any advice as to whether the latest court judgment entitles the protestor in the square to recommence, as he has done, the broadcasting of amplified messages at unbearably high volume in that public place, which would not be allowed anywhere else that I can think of?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Jack Straw): “… As for the points raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about the Parliament square area, I think it would be wise for us to discuss it in the House of Commons Commission.”
26 Jan 2007:
Viscount Bridgeman : “… As my right honourable friend David Davis stated in another place, the current situation is contempt of Parliament and contempt of people’s right to protest.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: “… being arrested will affect your life for ever. For instance, you lose immediately the right to a visa waiver to the USA, even though you may be innocent of any offence. The Minister will be aware of many Acts that have been added to the statute book which lengthen the list of powers available to the police to control situations that pose a threat to the public interest. Those powers could have been used to address the situation in Parliament Square, in addition to civil action”
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Any bill can be committed to a Committee of the Whole House but the procedure is normally reserved for finance bills and other important, controversial legislation. The Chairman of Ways and Means presides over these Committees and the mace is placed on a bracket underneath the Table.
27 January 2012
Parliament Square:
Lord Marlseford & Lord Balmacara (about new legislation specifically targeting me)… “we thought we had shot the fox…. this is a persil amendment”
___________
There is no other institution that is similar to the unelected British House of Lords in Australia, Europe or the United States, which is why their cronyism that is not helping to make ordinary law abiding civilians healthier and wealthier, has become so institutionally corrupt with their occupation of the British Parliament in England.
Politicians can not give themselves unfettered powers.
I do reasonably believe that it is possible to have a permanent injunction against the British House of Lords, that a) includes stopping them being imposed in any political role involving Australia, including as State Governors or a Governor General or a Secretary General of the Commonwealth b) brings about through a refusal to recognize them and the Australian Constitution Act 1900 (and Australia Act 1986) that involved them, a genuine Australian Constitution.
I don’t pretend a genuine new Australian Constitution is something that could be accomplished overnight (refer paragraph 15)
(The reason not a single Australian politician challenged a Governor General sacking a Prime Minister, regardless of the rights or wrongs of that, is because there isn’t a genuinely Australian Constitution. The Australian Constitution Act is nothing like the American Constitution which did not invite the British monarchy to agree or disagree. The British House of Lords Hansard shows politicians knew politicians could leave the EU before and without Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty because of their 1972 Act which arguably does not necessarily apply to citizens. It is quite peculiar when Westminster complain about an EU, but not their own not so equal Union called the UK/GB)
The British and Australian politicians knew the European Courts in Europe who also have the UN in Geneva along with NATO, would have to refer my Mothers Day 2006 case back to at the very least a High Court jury in the UK (refer “both houses and black rod” 19th May 2006) because the case/s are political.
Suffice to say I did not vote in any London Mayoral election including in 2008 or any general election including in 2010 in the UK, or the EU referendum after I was exiled from the UK and living in my own home in France, because I am illegally excluded from voting using my own true identity that is real.
I know that Defendant 3. Senator J McGrath does not want to explain to any jury his own involvement in the cover up of a life threatening violent attack on me in the UK, by a male assailant politicians refused to identify that resulted in corrupt payments including £160,000 pounds to a now former Tory MP Alan Duncan who works for Vitol Oil like Labour’s Lord Malloch 9th July 2007 Brown (who was previously a UN Deputy Secretary General between April -December 2006) etc etc and my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order from 16th April 2008 (involving an Australian Labour Governor General Quentin Pryce 13th April 2008 too etc etc) because I am adopted.
- It is necessary to have a permanent injunction against adoption legislation because that is the only way to guarantee a restoration of adopted people’s right to claim political asylum that at least includes some legal representation.
It is not usual for people claiming political asylum to be asked to pay for court fees and legal representation.
A revocation of an adoption that is unusual anyway is unworkable because it forces an adopted person to under duress acknowledge adoption legislation anywhere and everywhere, along with the Hague Adoption Convention is legitimate while not addressing or redressing any or all harm caused to an adopted person. Quite why an adopted person could be expected to do a revocation without any legal representation is one of life’s little mysteries, especially when there are unelected politicians in the world like the British House of Lords who have such a low opinion of ordinary law abiding civilians.
- The British and Australian politicians et al obviously profit from the illegal refusal to hand over to me, the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me because I am adopted, so I could make my own decisions about that too.
I never had the choice to bring a criminal prosecution against the now British PM Johnson when he was a Mayor of London and boss of tops cops, because there is no easily accessible process when it is the state who commit serious crimes.
- It is a self evident fact British and Australian politicians intended to illegally stop me giving evidence about my being unlawfully arrested and false imprisoned 48 times while in Parliament Square, Central London, in for example HQ11X00563 in the UK including about 16th January 2012 that also included the City of London, and where I was also legally entitled to include the reports staff at the Australian embassy who spoke to me in August 2011 told me they wrote to Australian politicians, who they said don’t care about me (and had in fact in 2006 tried to falsely claim I was not an Australian citizen) none of which politicians wanted to explain to any jury that they could not contest.
(The British government also had what they called a ’gentleman’s agreement’ at that time with France, that involved the UK illegally returning unaccompanied minors who did not claim political asylum in the UK, to France, without the unaccompanied minors having access to any legal representation)
- Adoption is not used and promoted by politicians and robber media barons because they care about vulnerable children.
- 19 July 2007 -19 July 2009 – 19 July 2011
Murdoch lied in the Sunday Times on 30th January 2011 about malicious legal proceedings against me that involved him too, before lying in the Leveson Inquiry on 19th July 2011 to try and avoid HQ11X00563 that included my being literally kidnapped from a court during live proceedings on 19th July 2007 to stop me giving evidence in a case involving him and armed police etc, before he recklessly published the first Tory policy on Sky News on 19th July 2009 to illegally remove us without any caveats on how that was done etc that was also unquestioningly repeated by the BBC and was Murdoch et al’s Labour party policy too.
Murdoch knew he was lying about legal proceedings in his news media because he was illegally trying to stop me giving evidence including in HQ11X00563, against him.
It’s not really a level playing field being lied about and bullied by robber media barons who operate in Australia too, while hiding behind an entourage of lawyers.
It is obviously illegal for Murdoch to lie about legal proceedings, including so that he personally financially profits. He invented Baroness Thatcher and Lord Blair (a former top cop) et al while co-opting Lord Marlesford (the Sunday Times) and Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox (who also promoted the Dutch MP Geert Wilders) for Brexit who also like the former Australian PM Turnbull and former British Tory Minister are advisers on the same Global Panel Foundation etc etc.
Murdoch had in April 2010, sent along his ‘Crime Editor’ (no kidding that’s what they call themselves) from The Sun to try and bribe me, to cover up a drunken male seconded from Thames Valley Police by the National Crime Agency who was wired when he started threatening me after he had smashed up property, before police appeared and claimed they were arresting him for impersonating a police officer to them, which was really their ruse to help him get away with what he had done.
Lord Rothermere had admitted in 2008 that people who pose as journalists from Westminster’s “parliamentary press gallery” were illegally trying to get me unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned, before I complained to a Daily Mail journalist who was illegally trying to doorstop me in a lift leaving the High Court on 21st June 2010 that they were illegally involved in bringing malicious prosecutions, which they admitted outside court proceedings in the Daily Mail in July 2010 was true, after Lord Rothermere spent a weekend at Chequers with the British PM at that time who was Cameron.
Johnson was after all a journalist too, while simultaneously posing as Mayor of London and boss of top cops.
The revolving doors of Westminster are mostly advertising salesman posing as politicians and journalists.
It was the Guardian’s ‘legal affairs’ editor called Owen Bowcott who originally publicly suggested in May 2012, that my peaceful possession of an umbrella in a public space could be construed as a criminal offence (under new legislation invented to specifically target me) so I became the first person in the world maliciously prosecuted (the prosecution was unsuccessful) for being in peaceful possession of an umbrella in a public space. It was relatively speaking a gargantuan attempt to shift blame on to a law abiding civilian the state tortured and attempted to murder, which was certainly not a secret in Westminster.
I never even did any kind of civil disobedience like blocking a road or climbing a building.
I do have video footage from 8th December 2012 (that was several days after I had confirmed again, in the High Court, in the UK, I wanted a jury in my cases) which shows my boyfriend Neil struggling to breathe while being repeatedly violently attacked by agents of the state while he was in his car, so his phone, as the video shows, could be snatched from him to stop him calling a lawyer, which he explained he was doing, because he knew as the video also shows that he was being lied to, and that it was political. It is not explained why a signed and dated witness statement confirming everything he said was true, was not taken from him at the scene of the incident. The video shows someone else calling me on their phone, after Neil’s phone was snatched from him so he could not call a lawyer, and Neil then calmly explaining to me what was happening before I then heard him suddenly being dragged away so the government could try and cover up what was going on. The British Parliament and Channel Four later published a film promoted by the Daily Mail and broadcast by Channel Four on 31st December 2012 called ‘Millionaire Boy Racers’ in a cover up, that used the same government thug who is seen in our different video violently attacking Neil. The British Parliament knew they were covering up the violent unlawful arrest and false imprisonment of Neil, on 8th December 2012, by the time they broadcast their own spin on 31st December 2012, using the same thug who violently attacked Neil, playing to the robber media barons cameras with completely different members of the public.
The politicians had to invent a different and proven to be, phoney excuse to have Neil kidnapped while we were passing through the City of London after we left the High Court on 10th April 2013 in endless ongoing witness intimidation etc. I do not personally believe that what looked like the clearly false number of 666 which was being displayed by a senior supposed police officer of that spectacle, over other numbers, was real.
It is obviously not a co-incidence that Johnson (who along with Starmer both lost their malicious Crown Court jury case against me on 8th May 2013) became the British PM while Starmer who was the DPP became the Leader of the Opposition, after I was stopped from living in my own home in France, in Europe in July 2019. I liked living in France because it is a Republic so that gave me some idea of what that can be like, and because it is also considered absolutely normal to protest there, and there are no NATO bases, and I also lived in an autonomous region that is nuclear free too.
I didn’t live in Catalonia or anywhere else across the Pyrenees where there are also many Bugats (probably more than in Italy) because the unresolved issue of adoption made that too painful for me, particularly at that time. Most of all I adore my little stone cottage in my nature lovers paradise in the Breton Woods that had the most amazing birdsong I have ever heard in my life. Mediterranean history is in my view, absolutely fascinating.
I do understandably reasonably believe that it was either Senator J McGrath who was involved in the corruption of the cover up during the London Mayoral election in 2008, who then telephoned me to threaten me on New Years Eve on 31st December 2019, saying my case about my adoption would never go to court (proving it is political because the government are trying to stop some adoption cases going back to court) or he knows the identity of the male who did threaten me, while refusing to identify himself.
Neil did apply for political asylum in the Netherlands, and was in Ter Apel Refugee Centre, while I was at the same time illegally detained in hotel quarantine in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, in August 2020, before he died stateless on 2nd October 2020.
Defendants 1-6 are all legally liable for my being illegally detained in hotel quarantine in Melbourne, Australia which had a) no legal scrutiny while b) they did all reasonably know I am legally entitled to substantial financial compensation for an unprecedented miscarriage of justice.
I am just being lied to and relentlessly bullied.
Defendant 5 & 6 Adoption Victoria/ the DJCS, and DHSS just regurgitate whatever politicians tell them to say about adoption regardless of whether it is legal or not, so the government departments don’t help in any way with any very real legal problems an adopted person has to try and live with every single day.
I do not personally agree that an adopted person should ever need to have anything to do with Adoption Victoria/DJCS to access any of our personal information or that they have any right to ask an adopted person any questions that at best is only a fishing expedition to suit themselves, which they would know is illegal, and particularly since they are anything but impartial. It is legally inexplicable why and how they could possibly be involved in writing reports for courts about people who reject adoption. They most certainly not only do not care about legal problems adopted people can face, because of adoption legislation, but all too typically try to shift the blame on to the adopted person who rejects adoption, because people in those government departments obviously profit from continuing a global multi-billion dollar adoption industry that includes the incredibly vulgar ‘One Stop Adoption Shop’.
The former Australian PM Gillard was clearly grandstanding for the cameras, while buying time, with a phoney apology about ‘forced adoptions’ that is wholly political rather than legal terminology that she obviously would never repeat before a jury in a court of law.
It is deeply distressing to me that government departments want me to pay money to them to possibly at some time, “officially” maybe have, if it might happen to suit politicians and government departments, my true identity they robbed me of, along with so much else.
It is truly appalling from my perspective that Defendant 4, Angus Knight, misused my personal information in Australia to secure a multi-million pound contract with the British PM Johnson (who does not have legal immunity) that means Angus Knight are in breach of any and all legal obligations including keeping an accurate and contemporaneous record of the facts and having a functioning whistle-blowers policy while effectively being given unlimited public money to pay for them to have an entourage of lawyers.
Angus Knight know no jury would ever conclude they got their multibillion pound contract from the British PM for any other reason than to cover up the torture and attempted murder of me, while continuing to cause me physical and emotional harm because I am adopted.
- The reason the State of Victoria refused to provide me with public housing when I was forced while seriously ill to stop living in my own home in France, and return to Australia in July 2019 which I did not voluntarily do, while the Federal government in Australia also refused me Disability Pension that both also do during a global pandemic is because politicians do reasonably know I am also legally entitled to substantial financial compensation for an unprecedented miscarriage of justice that would provide for me to buy my own home in Australia too, along with unlimited costs for me to have any medical treatment of my choosing anywhere.
It is obviously not a co-incidence that Johnson became the British PM after I was stopped from living in my own home in France in July 2019.
The State of Victoria cannot and could not produce a health professional who can deny before any jury, my lived experience of adoption and the accompanying adoption legislation, including in multiple countries has caused me prolonged PTSD, multiple autoimmune and related illnesses.
The State of Victoria are legally obliged to pay me financial compensation so I can buy my own home in Australia too, that also covers unlimited costs for me to have any medical treatment I choose anywhere that I find difficult with PTSD anyway.
- The fact some adopted people may choose to go along with adoption legislation in the same way that some people chose to go along with ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in the UK did not and does not mean it is or was lawful to impose either on anyone or everyone. anywhere.
- My case could only be heard with the autonomy of a jury because the reality is when politicians use political rather than legal legislation that often also relies on illegally using other legislation too, to try and hide the original political legislation that in my own case was both adoption legislation and ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005.
My personal view is the likes of the BBC (who were furious the High Court confirmed the reason the Mayor of London and now British PM Johnson could not claim costs from Brian and myself in for example April 2011 was because politicians et al were illegally trying to overtake our genuine lawsuits) and the Australian born American citizen Murdoch oppose democracy through the unelected British House of Lords who advocate using armed force against peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, while wanting to enlarge NATO is to restrict peaceful freedom of expression and movement by law abiding civilians because they don’t like fair competition to their financial profits.
It is quite possible that if the British House of Lords had been replaced with a publicly elected second chamber (or there was no unelected chamber) before the EU referendum that the EU referendum result may have been different. The absence of the British House of Lords would have helped prevent the problems with adoption including the fact there is no separation of powers between the Judiciary/Law Lords and unelected politicians, although the problem with adoption legislation is global and includes Europe too. There are no legal grounds for religious members of the unelected British House of Lords to have special rights to legislate.
- A genuine Australian Constitution would have to guarantee any political case involving political legislation could only be heard with the autonomy of a jury.
- I have never delegated my own peaceful freedom of expression in Australia or elsewhere to any unelected State Governors, Governor General, Secretary General of the Commonwealth et al, or monarchy.
It is legally possible to have a permanent injunction against the Australian Constitution… Act 9th July 1900 (that was imposed by Westminster who still include the likes of Lord 9th July 2007 Malloch-Brown, and is based on them delegating whatever might happen to suit them through unelected State Governors, and the Governor General (the Australian Constitution Act 1900 does not include a Prime Minister or consider all Australian citizens equal and much has clearly still not been legally settled with the Australian Act 1986 that was incorporated into UK legislation too. It is still possible for Westminster to arbitrarily impose an unelected monarch and unelected member of the House of Lords as Governor Generals in Australia) so there can be a genuine Australian Constitution who can still be part of the Commonwealth if it has a publicly elected Secretary General.
It is obviously not anti-monarchist to have an Australian Republic with our own genuine Constitution that guarantees juries in political cases, and stays within the Commonwealth if it has a publicly elected Secretary General too.
(refer column 797 British House of Lords Hansard debate on Commonwealth of Australia Constitutional Bill 21st May 1900)
It is actually the sign of a maturing democracy, not anti-monarchist, for Australia to have its own genuine Constitution that does not rely on a monarch signing legislation or imposing unelected State Governors and a Governor General etc etc.
- It cannot be lawful to use adoption legislation to stop some people choosing to be Jewish when there is only one Jewish State on the Mediterranean and in the world.
I do not personally recognise the Balfour Declaration and I am not a Zionist either, because it has always been reasonable self defence that is not contingent on either, to have a Jewish State on the Mediterranean where Jewish people have always lived that is the only one in the world.
The legal reality is I would also be legally entitled to the autonomy of a jury in the Universal Old City in Jerusalem, and it would be possible to trial an autonomous city with clean renewable energy in the Golan that accepted adopted people of any race, religion, politics or none, along with juries.
- It is fair that the anti-competition Murdoch’s Newscorp (Defendant 2) and Angus Knight (Defendant 4) pay me $3 billion dollars (Murdoch’s Newscorp) and £300 million pounds (Angus Knight) financial compensation, which would mean my claiming less damages from the State of Victoria (Defendant 1) which are to be agreed. Defendant 5 & 6 are government departments in the State of Victoria so they should be part of damages agreed with the State of Victoria, although there is the issue of finding an impartial party adopted people can go to, to have access to our personal information. Defendant 3 should pay me four times the amount he amount he was paid to work for Johnson’s London mayoralty campaign in 2007/8 that resulted in my still outstanding Habeas Corpus Court Order on 16th April 2008 because Senator J McGrath was involved in corrupt payments being made to illegally try and stop me giving evidence in a court before a jury.
I could then in an unpaid voluntary role also help oversee a peaceful transition to a new and genuine Australian Constitution in an Australian Republic, and I would also like to contribute to a world class medical facility.
- My integrity is unimpeachable.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat: Plaintiff (there is no solicitor for the plaintiff)
Page 3
- Place of trial-
(if no place of trial is specified, trial will be in Melbourne) - Mode of trial – judge and JURY
(If a trial before a Judge and jury is not specified, trial will be before a
judge sitting alone.) - ** This writ was filed- (a) by the plaintiff in person Yes (b) for the plaintiff by [name or firm of solicitor], solicitor, of [business address of solicitor] as agent for [name of firm of principal solicitor], solicitor, of [business address of principal]
- The address of the plaintiff is – XX XXX XX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX 22450,
Bretagne, France. - The address for service of the plaintiff is – XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(because the plaintiff does not have a solicitor and is being stopped
from living a safe and sustainable life in her own home in France,
because of adoption legislation)
[Where the plaintiff sues by a solicitor, the address for service is the business address of the solicitor or, where the solicitor acts by an agent, the business address of the agent. Where the plaintiff sues without a solicitor, the address for service is stated in 4, but where that address is outside Victoria, the plaintiff must state an address for service within Victoria]
- The email address for service of the plaintiff is- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- The address of the defendant is-
Defendant 1: State of Victoria, Parliament House, Spring Street, East
Melbourne 3002
Defendant 2: Murdoch’s Newscorp, 40 City Road, HWT Tower, Southbank, Melbourne 3006
Defendant 3: Senator J. McGrath senatormcgrath@aph.gov.au/ PO Box 772, Nambour, Qld, 4560
Defendant 4: Angus Knight, Suite 501, Level 5, 10 Bridge Street, Sydney, 2000, New South Wales
Defendant 5: DHSS, 50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000
Defendant 6: Adoption Victoria/DJCS, GPO Box 4356, Melbourne, Victoria 3001
* [Strike out this paragraph where order made fixing time for appearance and substitute “THE PROPER TIME TO FILE AN APPEARANCE is within… days after service of you of this writ. ”]
** [Complete or strike out as appropriate.]
————
Donna Bugat 