Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: Re: A mandatory public health order the unlawful state interference involving the torture & attempted murder of me because I reject adoption is recorded so I can claim compensation & a permanent injunction against adoption legislation & peacefully move on with my own life (10.09.2021)
I have received an email with attachment from a Deputy Registrar (presumably from the County Court) dated 8th September 2021, containing incorrect or incomplete information. I am also aware the SRL are legally obliged to contact me or make an appointment if they have any queries regarding my claim, which they have not done, so I have amended my claim accordingly to reflect that.
RULE 5.02(1) Form 5A
WRIT
CI—-__——-
IN THE COUNTY COURT
OF VICTORIA
AT
Melbourne
BETWEEN
Donna Bugat
Plaintiff
and
1. State of Victoria
Defendant 1
2. Murdoch Newscorp
Defendant 2
3. Senator J McGrath
Defendant 3
4. Angus Knight
Defendant 4
5. DHHS
Defendant 5
6. Adoption Victoria/DCJS
Defendant 6
Date of Document: 10th September 2021 Filed on behalf of: Donna Bugat Prepared by: Donna Bugat
Solicitors Code: NoneDX: NoneTel. No: XXX XXX XXXX email: XXXXXXXXXXXX.com
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 (10th 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 1-10)
The plaintiff Donna Bugat says:
- I… knew when I was a… small child that adoption is wrong, because I am like anyone else who knows and respects it is healthy to have your own autonomous peaceful freedom of expression provided by the stability of the peace and harmony of the rule of law.
The State of Victoria (Defendant 1) is legally responsible for putting in place the burden of uncertainty imposed by adoption that is best defined as a political cult because of its demagoguery and zealotry. The unhealthy arbitrary, indefinite and disproportionate unworkable adoption legislation, initially targeting vulnerable children imposes always changing unreasonable demands by strangers, that is only made possible through enduring inequalities including an absence of legal representation.
The truth is adoption legislation can only continue in the absence of a legal challenge to the legislation, because there is the simpler and safer alternative to adoption of carers and legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood that does not preclude politicians conferring any additional nationalities and citizenships on the person in care in their own right, that match a carer, and can only be renounced by the person in care, that cannot exclude any existing nationalities and citizenships.
I was raised by adult strangers from the highest echelons of the British and Australian intelligence services who posed as my parents and godparents, who made their own choices as adults to be paid to keep secrets. For the avoidance of doubt, I have never worked for any intelligence services. I was sent away from Australia as a teenager to further isolate and punish me because I reject adoption so I have lived my adult life in exile. I briefly visited Melbourne one 10th September to meet my little sister I was raised separately from (there were obviously never any legal grounds for us to be raised separately) before very sadly she ’suddenly’ died exactly four years later on the 10th September shortly before she was due to come and live with me in the UK. I was told to never return to Australia, before the Australian government dishonestly tried to claim I am not an Australian citizen.
The fact is I am an Australian citizen which was only ‘complicated’ by my adoption that changed the true legal position of too much while excluding any of my own existing additional nationalities, so I am another hidden ‘off-the-books’ version of ‘inter country’ adoption with Australia as the original ‘sending’ country because that was a means to continue to punish me because I reject the cult of adoption. There is no legal representation for an adopted person to escape the cult of adoption, because the political cult of adoption want to force an adopted person to agree to any terms they want to impose, including if you want to leave the cult of adoption. It is not accepted by any part of the political cult of adoption, that an adopted person can openly speak out against adoption, let alone in a court, or with a jury.
I reasonably view adoption as a cult that tortured and attempted to murder me because I reject it.
- I have unimpeachable integrity defending peaceful freedom of expression, including as an adult woman and mother in Parliament Square, Central London.
The State of Victoria (Defendant 1) does not reasonably believe the unlawful state interference involving the torture and attempted murder of me because I reject adoption means I can be forced to just continue to go along with any or all adoption legislation because that is only forcing me to continue to be subjected to duress which is unlawful.
The State of Victoria (Defendant 1) have refused without lawful excuse to peacefully facilitate an easily accessible process in a timely manner for the mandatory recording by the State of Victoria of the unlawful state interference involving the torture and attempted murder of me because I reject adoption.
The State of Victoria are legally obliged to provide me with a mandatory public health order recording the unlawful state interference involving the torture & attempted murder of me because I reject adoption, so I can claim compensation & a permanent injunction against adoption legislation, and peacefully move on with my own life.
- The State of Victoria (Defendant 1) is already aware of the published highly unusual landmark ‘Contempt of Court’ case in the UK from 26th March 2007 about me (that is by no co-incidence one year after I was unlawfully arrested on Mothers Day 26th March 2006 so that my adopted name could be illegally leaked to the press, along with false information using the political facade of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 I helped to successfully repeal which is an unusual achievement for ordinary civilians):
________________
Hansard 23 May 2000 – 18 May 2006 – 23 May 2006 – 16 January 2012– 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.
16th January 2012
Baroness Vivien Stern who said in 2004 that she “became an illegitimate, unelected, absurdly titled player in the political House of Lords because… it is a dirty business”(PACE Law Review Volume 24 Issue 2, April 2004
7.57 pm (at the exact time I was being attacked in Parliament Square, Central London
Baroness Vivien Stern:
“Do we encourage groups to come here to see good practice: for example, in dealing with violence against women…
Lord Patten (from the BBC): ”Too many countries are failing to meet their financial responsibilities to NATO, and so failing to maintain appropriate and proportionate capabilities” Less diplomatically, I would say that most NATO countries are getting a free ride….I end on this point. In March this year, NATO, which is in high-profile difficulty, as many of your Lordships will know, hopes to begin to try to resolve at the forthcoming Chicago summit of NATO countries some of the difficulties that are facing it.
Baroness O’Loan: Legal aid is not being withdrawn for international child abduction cases. The effect of moving a child from Barnstaple to Belfast may be as difficult as moving a child from Barnstaple to Brittany. … There is the risk of psychological and emotional damage because of their inability to contact… the parent, or the risk that the parent who looks after the child ensures that the child has a distorted and damaged view of the action of the other…
27 January 2012:
Parliament Square:
Lord Marlseford & Lord Balmacara (about new legislation specifically targeting me used on 16th January 2012)… “we thought we had shot the fox…. this is a persil amendment,
________________
because the British Parliament with the knowledge of Australian politicians refused without lawful excuse to keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of legal proceedings, which could not merely be attributed to a legislative oversight because it involves the basic legal responsibilities reasonably expected of any state that wishes to claim it is decent and civilised.
The State of Victoria (Defendant 1) know it’s not like the all male robber media barons in Westminster could or ever did publicly stand in Parliament Square, Central London, themselves, consistently defending peaceful freedom of expression because they profit from the likes of the institutionally corrupt cronyism of the unelected British House of Lords who while voting to occupy the British Parliament, because the public cannot vote them out, could not possibly genuinely represent the peace and harmony of the rule of law and democracy.
It is a matter of fact the published ‘Contempt of Court’ case about me in the UK did not preclude me from suing the state with a jury over a refusal without lawful excuse to keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of unlawful state interference that was in all the true circumstances and beyond all reasonable doubt maliciously intended to cause me continuing and ongoing prolonged life threatening harm because I reject adoption and adoption legislation.
Suffice to say the State of Victoria & Ors (Defendant 1-6) have unlawfully been actively involved or complicit in the torture and attempted murder of me, and attempting to cover that up, while and because I reject adoption and adoption legislation.
The State of Victoria & Ors (Defendant 1-6) are not in any legal position to produce any qualified health professional to contest I am and have been caused prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm because I reject adoption, or to argue over any financial compensation.
- It is unreasonable for the State of Victoria (Defendant 1) to put an adopted person at such serious risk of foreseeable physical and emotional harm preventing my peaceful freedom of expression including to reject adoption, along with adoption legislation, and in particular when it is clear adoption is a wholly political construct.
It is more likely that not when the State of Victoria (Defendant 1) cease and desist using the medieval practise of forced conversions which are still unworkable when rebranded as adoptions, because there is a permanent injunction against adoption legislation which is an unreasonable state interference in the autonomy of an adopted person’s own peaceful freedom of expression, that the outdated use of adoption with also diminish, if not stop, elsewhere.
There are no known legal grounds for a state to use or be complicit in the unlawful state interference of the torture and attempted murder of an adopted person who rejects adoption, including to continue to use adoption. It is recognised by any decent and civilised society in Australia, the state use of torture and attempted murder or complicity in that against a law abiding defenceless civilian who is an Australian citizen and entirely legally and naturally rejects adoption and the accompanying adoption legislation highlights not only a democratic deficit but an absence of the rule of law. An adopted person who entirely legally and naturally rejects adoption and the accompanying adoption legislation including because a state has tortured and attempted to murder them while another is complicit because the adopted person rejects adoption and adoption legislation is obviously excluded from peacefully participating in any electoral process along with much else, in any meaningful way.
- It is a self evident matter of fact that a permanent injunction against adoption legislation and the Hague Adoption Convention involving 99+ countries who are part of the UK would be necessary to fully restore the right of people who have been adopted to claim political asylum. That explains why a person who rejects adoption must be legally entitled regardless of our race, religion, politics or none, to choose if they wish, to register to live in the Universal Old City in Jerusalem.
- I was refused public housing by the State of Victoria when I was forced through no fault of my own to return to Australia in July 2019, because adoption legislation was stopping me living in my own home in France, before I was illegally detained by the DHSS in hotel quarantine that had no legal scrutiny or easily accessible route of legal challenge in Melbourne in August 2020 during the ongoing global pandemic, because the State of Victoria knows I am legally entitled to compensation.
7. I understandably reasonably believe that the male who telephoned me on New Years Eve on 31st December 2019 to threaten me that any case involving my adoption would never under any circumstances go to any court (so there was no chance of my ever even having my own identity which proves adoption legislation is merely used as window dressing that can obscure the true political motives of any politician) was either Senator J McGrath or he knows the identity of the person. This is because Senator J McGrath had to illegally cover up corrupt payments including £160,000 from Vitol Oil (who have Lord Malloch ’9th July 2007’ Brown in the House of Lords) to the now former Tory MP and Minister Alan Duncan that resulted in my still outstanding High Court Habeas Corpus Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK that the Australian McGrath had to cover up for the British and American Johnson to even become the Mayor of London, which required them to cover up what Livingstone did to me too. It is undeniably true, there would not be a British PM called Johnson if my still outstanding High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order which would inevitably have included the ‘complications’ of my adoption, had not been covered up, including with my exile from the UK in 2013, and then from Europe too in July 2019. The complication of adoption legislation was considered a losing face exercise too far in a Westminster that was already finding it difficult to continue imposing the unlawful state interference of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 on freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London at the same time the institutionally corrupt British House of Lords who are also involved in adoption legislation and the Australian Constitution Act 9th July 1900 still continue occupying the British Parliament.
My personal view is the British Parliament had already decided to leave the EU by the 18th May 2006 when Hansard in the British House of Lords highlights almost word for word what Murdoch said himself in a public speech in 2008, about a trade deal based on expanding NATO and dismantling the EU. The freedom of movement of law abiding civilians in the EU only came about through legal cases, rather than political support, so politicians in Europe are generally ambivalent about the freedom of movement of civilians anyway, while the British House of Lords which has no comparable institution in for example Australia or the United States, looked increasingly out of place in Europe.
8. It is an undeniable fact that the sleaze-bag Murdoch who doesn’t put himself on page three of his beloved Sun, publicly lied through both his press outlets and in a public inquiry about a well established pattern of collusion between politicians, press and police including on 19th July 2007, 19th July 2009 and 19th July 2011 to illegally avoid legal proceedings like HQ11X00563 that directly involve/d both him and myself. There are no circumstances when it is legal for a robber media baron like Murdoch to publicly lie, which he did, about very serious legal proceedings brought against another person, me. It is self evident Murdoch was lying about legal proceedings involving me, to illegally try and avoid legal proceedings against him.
We obviously also have considerable differences over peaceful freedom of expression. Murdoch is an Australian born American citizen who is a monarchist and supporter of the British House of Lords in the UK, while my personal view is a genuinely independent Australia that then chooses to agree our own Constitution (rather than the one currently imposed on us by an Act of the British Parliament including the undemocratic House of Lords) is not anti-monarchist (because of course it would also still be possible to be part of a Commonwealth if it had a publicly elected Secretary General) but rather a positive sign of a maturing democracy.
9. My personal view is adoption information should be transferred from Adoption Victoria/DJCS to either a designated court office or preferably an independent genealogy archive type service, with an online facility too, so an adopted person can peacefully and freely access our own personal information in different ways and including at any time of our choosing with a unique identifier that could be given to an adopted person by a court. This would mean no adopted person ever has to have anything to do with, let alone be asked questions by or interviewed by Adoption Victoria/DJCS who are hardly independent, and will as a starting point… cover up the torture and attempted murder of an adopted person who rejects adoption and adoption legislation.
In fact Adoption Victoria/DJCS have only ever selectively given whatever information happens to suit themselves or politicians, that in my own experience is either deliberately incomplete, or often does not match with other publicly available records that I happen to know are correct.
Overall, Adoption Victoria/DJCS have no interest whatsoever in helping an adopted person with any legal problems caused by adoption, so from a practical point of view it is impossible to understand their true purpose, because there can be very serious legal issues an adopted person has to try and manage every single day.
Angus Knight illegally used my personal information to secure a multi-million dollar contract with the British PM Johnson in the UK (which they could not have done if I had my mandatory health order) that is reliant on Angus Knight covering up the torture and attempted murder of me because I reject adoption.
10. I am reasonably claiming from:
The State of Victoria (Defendant 1)
a) a mandatory public health order the unlawful state interference of involving the torture and attempted murder of me because I am adopted is recorded by the court, so I can claim compensation and a permanent injunction against adoption legislation etc that means I can peacefully move on with my own life.
b) unlimited medical costs for any medical treatment of my choosing anywhere, that includes travel costs.
c) $3 million dollars to buy accommodation of my own choosing in Australia that also takes into account the fact I have been stopped from living in my own home in France since July 2019, that has included my then being illegally detained in hotel quarantine in August 2020, during a global pandemic, while my case through mo fault of my own, has not been heard with a jury in a timely manner.
Murdoch’s Newscorp (Defendant 2) $3 billion dollars compensation because he has personally intended to cause me continuing and ongoing harm because I support peaceful freedom of expression that includes having my own identity that I should never need the permission of anyone else, including robber media barons like him, to have.
Senator J McGrath (Defendant 3) four times the salary he received for covering up what happened to me so Johnson could become Mayor of London etc.
Angus Knight (Defendant 4) $300 million pounds that is the amount of the contract they have with the British government to cover up the torture and attempted murder of me because I reject adoption.
DHSS (Defendant 5) are jointly and severally liable with the State of Victoria (Defendant 1)
Adoption Victoria/ DJCS (Defendant 6) who are also jointly and severally liable with the the State of Victoria (Defendant 1) make alternative arrangements paid for by them so adopted people have improved access to personal information that does not need to involve them, including because they are anything but independent.
The SRL in the County Court in the State of Victoria are legally obliged to to contact me or make an appointment to speak with me if they have any queries about my claim or it being issued.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Page 3
1. Place of trial-(if no place of trial is specified, trial will be in Melbourne)
2. 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.)
3.
4. ** 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]
5. The address of the plaintiff is – 64 XXX XX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX, 22450,Bretagne, France.
6. The address for service of the plaintiff is – XXXXXXXXXXXXX.com (because the plaintiff does not have a solicitor and is being stoppedfrom 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]
6. The email address for service of the plaintiff is- XXXXXXXXXXXXX.com
7. The address of the defendant is-
Defendant 1: State of Victoria, Parliament House, Spring Street, EastMelbourne 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 -v- State of Victoria & Ors (CI- ): Re The intention of my public health order is to expedite long overdue record of torture & attempted murder of me so I can claim compensation with permanent injunction against adoption legislation & restore right to claim political asylum to redress lack of genuine UN diversity by registering to live in Universal Old City of Jerusalem (12.09.2021)
For the avoidance of doubt the intention of my public health order is to expedite the long overdue record of the torture and attempted murder of me so I can claim compensation with permanent injunction against adoption legislation and restore right to claim political asylum to redress lack of genuine UN diversity by registering to live in Universal Old City of Jerusalem.
A kinder evolution is possible.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
____________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (CI – ): United States Supreme Court Fulton ‘foster care’ case is a political ’red herring’ that ‘sidesteps’ permanent injunction against adoption legislation because it is unlawful state interference in reasonable self defence of peaceful autonomous freedom of expression (14.09.2021)
I do undeniably have the ‘lived experience’ as an adopted child and adult of ongoing unlawful state interference in my own peaceful autonomous freedom of expression, in multiple countries that sell the rebranding of medieval forced conversions as a ‘make believe’ world of adoption
so I do know the likes of the United States Supreme Court’s Fulton ‘foster care’ case is a political ‘red herring’ ie:
- 27.10.2020: NBC: Opinion by Rabbi Silverman that critics of Amy Coney Barrett and her adopted children are wrong. So are her defenders.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/critics-amy-coney-barrett-her-adopted-children-are-wrong-so-ncna1244564 - 17.06.2021 supremecourt.gov 19-123 Fulton v. Philadelphia (06/17/2021) – Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf - 13.09.2021: NPR: Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett Decries Labeling The Court As Partisan
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/13/1036597871/supreme-court-justice-amy-coney-barrett-decries-labeling-the-court-as-partisan
What is really a self evident truth is that a permanent injunction against the arbitrary, indefinite discrimination of adoption will result in helping to make it harder for politicians et al to discriminate in legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood for vulnerable children who are separated from their families which could happen for any number of reasons, to anyone.
It would only be odd if I did not want a permanent injunction against adoption legislation etc, that has refused without lawful excuse and in a timely manner to record the torture and attempted murder of me because I legally and naturally reject adoption legislation.
No politician et al could reasonably claim and particularly in front of any jury, in any decent and civilized society, including in any court in a Contempt of Court case, it is merely a procedural or legislative ‘oversight’ to fail to record political persecution including the torture and attempted murder of me because I peacefully reject adoption legislation.
A kinder evolution is possible.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
__________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (CI- ): Re: permanent injunctions against legally unjustifiable adoption legislation & ‘Westminster system’ of corrupt cronyism incl. British House of Lords who sell nuclear ‘red herring’ to try & ‘sidestep’ genuinely democratic Australian Republic building local capacity in renewable incl. battery power & manufacturing industry etc that is a kinder evolution (16.09.2021)
I do know it is a legal impossibility for anyone to try and justify to any civil or criminal jury the inextricably linked absence of legal representation and the failure to record the unlawful state interference of the torture and attempted murder of me because I am an adopted person who legally and entirely naturally rejects adoption legislation.
There’s nothing about this that could be construed as merely a legislative ‘oversight’:
It is a self evident truth, a genuine and democratic Australian Republic that is adoption free and builds local capacity in renewable incl. battery power and a manufacturing industry in a country where people are interested in gadgets and cars is a kinder evolution –
22.03.2021: Pocket-Lint: Future batteries, coming soon, charge in seconds, last months and power over the air, include structural batteries could lead to superlight electric vehicles, vertically aligned carbon nanotube electrode, a cobalt-free lithium-ion battery for EVs, silicon anode lithium-ion batteries, lithium-sulphur batteries could outperform Li-Ion, have lower environmental impact, battery sourced from sea water out-performs lithium-ion, asymmetric temperature modulation, sand battery gives three times more battery life, grabat graphene batteries, laser-made micro supercapacitors, foam batteries, aluminium-air battery gives 1,100 mile drive on a charge
– compared to the same old legally unjustifiable ‘Westminster system’ of corrupt cronyism that has never cared about civilians anywhere while ripping off resources and people, including during an avoidable global pandemic.
A person who peacefully rejects adoption legislation which is entirely natural and legal reasonable self defence that also restores the right to claim political asylum, obviously has the legal right to choose to register to live in the Universal Old City in Jerusalem.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
__________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors (CI- ): I expect my 10th September 2021 jury claim is stamped on that date, with email confirmation from SRL & Registrar today, or there is a jury claim issued on the same date contesting that failure, because I remain legally entitled to a jury to redress the ongoing harm being caused, so I can peacefully move on my with my own life (17.09.2021)
I do know it is a legal impossibility for anyone to try and justify to any civil or criminal jury the inextricably linked absence of legal representation and the failure to record the unlawful state interference of the torture and attempted murder of me because I am an adopted person who legally and entirely naturally rejects adoption legislation.
I expect my 10th September 2021 jury claim is stamped on that date (with email confirmation from both the SRL and Registrar today) or there is a jury claim issued on the same date (because I was legally entitled to an alternative on that same date) contesting that failure because it is beyond all reasonable doubt that I remain legally entitled to a jury to legally redress the ongoing harm being caused.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
_______
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI- : Re Deputy Registrar’s email on 17.09.2021 which is misleading & means I would therefore like as… originally requested in person while I was in the court, a proper court hearing for an injunction with a judge and transcript over the weekend or on Monday 20th September 2021 (17.09.2021)
Re: email received from a Deputy Registrar on 17th September 2021 which is misleading.
The facts are the County Court already know, I attended the court in person and asked the court to put my notification to the court for an injunction before a judge… while I was there, which any person is legally entitled to do, and I offered and had the money to pay for that to be done, there and then.
It was the County Court who then spent an hour or so consulting elsewhere, before trying to say i should submit a civil claim first etc etc before then claiming to be handing that over to an SRL department who have never contacted me etc etc while ongoing serious harm is being caused to me.
In fact, anyone can turn up to court and ask for and have a proper hearing regarding an injunction, which is what I have already asked to do, including to make further directions regarding what could then be called my separate claim(It is not right that politicians are gaming the legal system in a free for all of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation that no reasonable or rational person would ever agree could be used against them, because it does not even provide them with the starting point of legal representation).
I would therefore like a time for an actual in person hearing with a judge for an injunction against adoption legislation, as originally requested, with the guarantee of a transcript either over the weekend or on Monday 20th September 2021.
The County Court can agree to my appearing in person in an injunction hearing, with a judge and transcript, which is what I requested when I attended the court in person (or I will alternatively obtain the same by other peaceful means elsewhere)
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
_____________
R-v- Donna Bugat @Magistrates Court in Melbourne, Australia ?: Re politicians et al failure to fulfil legal obligations to make basic disclosure of 23rd May 2000 and the torture and attempted murder of me etc in court proceedings including adoption legislation is an ongoing global miscarriage of justice that is legally unsustainable (19.09.2021)
Witness statement
__________
“I am not the Serious Organized Criminal” (22nd February 2006)
It’s exactly the same whether we are talking about adoption legislation or ss 132-138 of the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005 that illegally sought to ban peaceful freedom of expression too in Parliament Square, Central London.
_____________
This serves as my brief witness statement for the Magistrates Court that is not contested, that is in fact also provided for my own jury lawsuit in the County Court of Melbourne, where I do reasonably believe my case should be properly heard. There is no doubt a jury in the County Court would understand the undeniable fact I have been illegally denied legal representation is inextricably linked to the torture and attempted murder of me because I am an adopted person who rejects adoption legislation.
I am an adopted person born in Carlton, Melbourne, Australia.
________
Jurisdiction
I do not reasonably believe I did as a child or could as an adult commit any civil or criminal offence of any kind or be prosecuted in any civil or criminal court because I entirely naturally and legally reject adoption legislation anywhere in it’s entirety. Therefore I should not be treated as a criminal by any court, which is what has been happening for far too long.
So, either I am committing a criminal offence by rejecting adoption legislation, in a case that can be heard in the Magistrates Court in Melbourne, or the Magistrates Court must confirm on 20th September 2021 this witness statement is indeed for my lawsuit with a jury in the County Court against adoption legislation.
I am legally entitled to be able to safely move on with… my own life.
_______
I am also excluded from politics in any meaningful way because I reject the endless uncertainties created by adoption legislation. I could only really vote with my own true identity because otherwise I am just going along with adoption legislation myself. It is only through a permanent injunction against adoption legislation that it is possible to even restore the right to claim political asylum too.
It cannot be that adoption legislation is the only legislation in the world, it is not possible to have a permanent injunction against.
The fact is an adopted person is arbitrarily denied our own peaceful freedom of expression about our own identity, that can be very confusing and distressing for an adopted person. It is difficult to continually try and comprehend and contend with your own identity in part or whole being arbitrarily erased by adult strangers including if when you are mixed race and even that is changed to a different combination of nationalities, all while there is not even any legal representation for the myriad of legal problems that can be caused by adoption legislation, that can continue to multiply throughout your life. The legal reality is a jury would agree any nationalities or citizenships that were acquired by an adopted person through adoption would have to be transferred to an adopted person in our own right for us to choose to keep or renounce as we wish, so that we are not unnecessarily further inconvenienced because adoption legislation creates so much uncertainty. It is in any event incredibly difficult to distinguish what nationalities I acquired in my own right or through adoption, because of course adopted people have relationships where they also marry, divorce and have children in countries all around the world, and so on and so forth, just like anyone else.
I am legally entitled to be my own… mixed race nationality without being discriminated against on that basis too.
It has always been incredibly difficult for me to even be my own mixed race identity.
It is a legal impossibility for an adopted person to ‘comply’ with the vast array of adoption legislation in so many different countries.
The fact adoption legislation is of itself ‘null and void’ obviously does not preclude my suing for any prolonged and ongoing including life threatening physical and emotional harm caused to me by and through the use of adoption legislation against me. There could not be any legitimate adoption legislation that could legally exclude an adopted person suing for any harm caused to them by adoption or adoption legislation.
The adoption legislation is coercive and unfairly attempts to shift blame for any problems with adoption on to the adopted person, while also improperly discouraging an adopted person from rejecting adoption, despite the fact, there are no circumstances that exist that could possibly ever make adoption mandatory.
The political language of adoption legislation which consists of a multiplicity of ‘cut and paste’ versions that refer to ‘transferring’ vulnerable children from ‘birth parents’ to ‘adoptive’/’cultural parents’ is unworkable. The legislation does not as a starting point first and foremost uphold any peaceful autonomous freedom of expression by the person adopted or the usual basic disclosure requirements in court proceedings that also cannot substitute the right to claim political asylum. The record keeping in adoptions is abysmal in all respects, because the true identity of an adopted person was never considered important in the first place so there has always been selective record keeping according to what suits the politics of any day.
It is only genuinely legally possible for vulnerable children who are not living with their own parents to have legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood, that would in my own case have resulted in the proper basic disclosure having to be made, that would have reunited me at the earliest possible opportunity with my own little sister from the same mother and father and my own family.
No-one ever wanted the two sisters from the same mother and father ever re-united because it is a legal impossibility to explain why we were raised separately.
The fact a far safer and simpler alternative to adoption with it’s unworkable adoption legislation exists that can produce better outcomes for all vulnerable children who are not with their own parents, instead of pretending there is this ’make believe’ world of ‘perfect’ adoption, means that carers and people who are content with their adoption arrangements should have no problem making the transition to legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood instead that they can continue as they wish. It is legally impossible to impose adoption, to suit some, just like the fact some people did not oppose ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK, did not mean it could be imposed on everyone else.
It is not legally difficult to change the Hague Adoption Convention that includes so many countries, to a Convention that can instead be used to improve legally reviewable custody arrangements for vulnerable children who are separated from their families. The current Hague Adoption Convention completely contradicts the UN’s purported claims about the right of children and families who are separated to be reunited etc.
There need to be legally reviewable custody arrangements until adulthood, instead of adoption legislation, to stop as much politics as possible from interfering in what is really and can only be a legal situation.
I was sent away from Australia as a teenager as a punishment to further isolate me because I reject adoption, so I have lived all my adult life in exile.
I have no realistic expectation I would ever get a fair hearing from a Judge in any court who was using adoption legislation.
The British Parliament illegally enacted ss 132-138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (repealed on 31st March 2012) to also try and ban… peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London.
The District Judge illegally ordered the destruction of my defence/banner “on the basis” I might use my banner again, so there was very clearly political censorship of peaceful freedom of expression.
Westminster didn’t even like my pink sequinned banner that said “Peace, Love & Justice For All” either.
The successive governments were able to use the fact there was no realistic prospect of my being able to resolve the legal issues relating to my adoption, against me in the UK, to distract from their own failures of basic disclosure in court proceedings, there too.
The original ‘highly unusual’ malicious prosecution against me on 22nd February 2006 at Bow Street Magistrates in the UK, admits I was peacefully campaigning in Parliament Square, Central London, before any legal analysis would then observe that the government’s truncated version of court proceedings completely swerved off topic about even ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 to make gratuitous and legally irrelevant insults about me in a ‘case stated’.
I was in Parliament Square, Central London and I wasn’t even blocking a road etc etc.
The District Judge’s what was at best a personal opinion about my campaigning with Brian or what he might think about what my banner said was legally speaking entirely irrelevant.
The District Judge did not provide any legal grounds about why he said the top cop did not even need to produce the arresting police officer to explain why I was not for example summonsed instead or why I would need any permission in advance from any court to campaign with Brian, and vice-versa, with or without ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 or why the police or court could seize and destroy my banner (the order for the destruction of my banner was the only court order like that ever made related to a ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 case) that was not within the remit of ss 132-138 SOCPA 205 either.
In fact, the original unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution about me (which was far more offensive than admitted because the District Judge also said I should not as a single working parent living in my own home be spending my own money on peaceful freedom of expression, before I was blacklisted from my paid employment as a healthcare worker and forced to sell my own home) was intended to… distract from the fact the top cop and now Lord Blair failed in his legal obligation to make the basic disclosure that prior to the legislation, political parties had already previously agreed among themselves as shown in the British House of Lords Hansard on 23rd May 2000, to ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, so the legislation was veneer that was purely political.
That failure by the now Lord Blair to make that most basic disclosure over 23rd May 2000 tainted all court proceedings, and once done, meant the British Parliament was always going to illegally stop our own High Court civil jury lawsuits, that would inevitably also include adoption legislation.
The British Parliament… knew when they had me unlawfully arrested me on Mothers Day 2006 they were going to get New Scotland Yard to… illegally leak my adopted name with (proven) false information to the Parliamentary press gallery using ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005, to try and illegally stop what was really agreed earlier that day (by Inspector Lyons who the top cop could never produce in any court) which was that I had a High Court jury lawsuit from my unlawful arrest on Mothers Day 26th March 2006.
I was a… PRIVATE CITIZEN who is completely law abiding:
The British politicians knew a High Court civil jury would conclude all the political parties had previously made a prior arrangement among themselves to ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, and that the legislation was political, and merely a veneer to distract from Hansard in the House of Lords from 23rd May 2000 that should have been basic disclosure in all court proceedings.
The House of Lords Hansard on 23rd May 2000 & 23rd May 2006 were not mere “co-incidence” but a massive POLITICAL SCANDAL:
There was no way I was ever going to be given legal representation, and particularly with the additional ‘complication’ of my adoption in Australia.
I was just being terrorized (when I was literally… kidnapped here:)
The Australian government tried to dishonestly claim in 2006 that I was not an Australian citizen.
The highly unusual ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case about me in 2007 was contrary to what Lord Justice Thomas et al say, directly linked to the same District Judge from 22nd February 2006, who having failed to even produce a ‘case stated’ from 22nd February 2006 by March 2007, before he then illegally issued six further ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 summons against me on Friday 23rd March 2007 that were listed on Monday 26th March 2007 (which was intended to distract from Mothers Day 26th March 2006) could only falsely accuse me of a ‘Contempt of Court’… after he had placed the illegal summons ’sine die’ to try and… distract from his own involvement. It was a legal impossibility to explain why I should have been in court on 26th March 2007, which was only by happenstance anyway, because i was being a Mackenzie friend for Steve Jago when we noticed I was (illegally) listed too. The published cases over so many years show Lord Justice Thomas et al clearly know, politicians, police and courts had no problem delivering information including legal documents to me if and when it suited them. So when they failed to invite me to the hearing in the High Court in Tucker v DPP the High Court did accept papers that were filed that the hearing was invalid because the court failed to notify me of the hearing, by which time events “on the ground”in Parliament Square, Central London, had long overtaken the case anyway, because it was civil jury lawsuits they were trying to keep at bay because in the words of the High Court (“it would bring the High Court to a standstill”)
The ‘Contempt of Court’ case highlights it was clearly not merely a legislative ‘oversight’ by politicians who refused to have Magistrates Court make or keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of court proceedings they are legally obliged to make, that would also have helped stop political cases. The High Court knew it was really supposed to be our choice to have any re-hearing in the High Court, the politicians didn’t want to risk, including because of the failure to disclose the Hansard from 23rd May 2000, while the High Court relied on Hansard themselves to re-write legislation.
The British Parliament accumulated a staggering number of High Court jury lawsuits against them in a clearly defined… pattern of political persecution:
In fact it wasn’t until some time after 19th December 2007, and during 2008, that the top cop and now Lord Blair invented a limited ‘disclosure’ that he had not made in any of the previous court proceedings that “both houses and black rod” gave their full consent to my unlawful arrest and the illegal seizure on 23rd May… 2006. When I asked the legal department who delivered it, why they said that, they said they were trying to (belatedly) use it as legal cover for themselves. It was still a distraction they had clearly negotiated for themselves with the politicians because they were legally obliged to disclose Hansard from 23rd May 2000.
The “both houses and black rod” that was dated 19th May 2006 wasn’t actually produced until sometime in 2008:
The top cop Lord Blair was literally making up so many ‘excuses’ time and time again, as he went along, that he hadn’t previously used or relied on in court proceedings, including an undated ‘delegated authority’. He incredibly kept trying to maliciously prosecute a case against me that had been found to be “void ab initio” in 2006 (that didn’t improve with age by continuing to try and produce perjured witness statements from all and sundry afterwards including on the 12th December 2012) and the ‘no case to answer’ against Brian that involved me too in the Magistrates Court, they tried to prosecute in the High Court in the most extraordinary legal gymnastics.
I was literally sent a tapestry from Australia on 11.11.11 before the top brass in the MET police at New Scotland Yard in the UK were still trying to cobble together perjured witness statements on 12.12.12 to try and stitch me up in one way or another.
I have my still outstanding High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order in the UK from 16th April 2008 because corrupt payments were made including £160,000 pounds to the Tory Minister Alan Duncan by the now Australian Senator J McGrath (who worked with Johnson) and British Labour’s Lord Malloch Brown and Baroness Scotland et al by Vitol Oil during the London Mayoral election at that time, to also cover up a violent attack on me, so the now British PM Johnson could become the London Mayor, and boss of the top cop, which he could only do, for his own personal financial gain, by also covering up my High Court Habeas Corpus Court Order that also involved the former London Mayor Livingstone.
It clearly is not a ‘co-incidence’ that the British Head of ACPO, a Sir Ken Jones who could not credibly deny knowledge about what was going on, in the UK, was later made the DAC in Victoria, by… politicians, (when he was also promised Australian citizenship after Australian politicians tried to deny I am an Australian citizen) when Lord Blair was forced to resign, in reality so he could be elevated to the British House of Lords to keep his pension etc. So I do reasonably believe the torture and attempted murder of me in the UK was pre-meditated. Everything was beyond all reasonable doubt done with the knowledge of Australian politicians who had put in place the life threatening sequence of events through adoption legislation. The ss 132-138 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 legislation was a ‘cut and paste’ version of adoption legislation too, because it also tried to shift any blame on to a law abiding person.
I properly asked the criminal court and prosecutor (when the Labour leader of the Opposition Starmer was the DPP) in the UK for the CCTV that exists of the torture and attempted murder of me. There is no explanation of why it then came to be in the hands of a lawyer in the City of London who illegally attempted to impose conditions on my having the CCTV because in reality the British Parliament never intended to hand it over to me etc, although it does actually belong to me, and I would need to produce an expert witness to confirm it was the original copy that had not been tampered with by the government.
The Australian government were aware of the torture and attempted murder of me and staff from the Australian embassy in London came and spoke with me and told me they wrote reports to the Australian politicians who they said, didn’t care. it is irrelevant whether or not politicians care about anything, because I reasonably expect politicians to fulfil their legal obligations to make and keep proper records, regardless of their personal opinions or views they have not repeated in a court with a jury.
I was legally entitled to have and file the reports from staff at the Australian embassy in London they sent to politicians, in the court in the UK too, including in HQ11X00563.
(I have never personally come across a politician who cares about an adopted person who rejects adoption legislation)
The now British PM Johnson boasted in 2009 that it was chicken feed being paid £250,000 pounds by the Telegraph to pose as a journalist, while also being paid to be Mayor of London and the boss of the top cop, because of course he was only really being paid to cover up 23rd May 2000 etc and his involvement in the torture and attempted murder of me.
19 July 2007 – 19 July 2009 – 19 July 2011
The British PM Johnson maliciously prosecuted me while at the same time being paid as a journalist to write whatever lies he liked while also being the Mayor of London and boss of the top cop, before Murdoch was grandstanding at the Leveson Inquiry on 19th July 2011 (about collusion between politicians police and press which was still going on in Parliament Square, Central London) to try and avoid real legal proceedings in HQ11X00563. Murdoch was involved in a case where I was literally shockingly kidnapped from inside a court during live proceedings on 19th July 2007 to stop me giving evidence in court, before the Crown Prosecutor agreed it was my life being put at risk, and Murdoch later publicly broadcast the intention on Sky News on 19th July 2009, to illegally ‘remove’ us by any means, before he lied about court proceedings in an article in the Sunday Times on 30th January 2011.
It wasn’t legal and it wasn’t the last:
In April 2010 Murdoch had sent along his crime editor (I kid you not they call him that) from the Sun newspaper to try and bribe me to cover up an attack on me by a police officer seconded from Thames Valley by the National Crime Agency who they tried to claim meant no harm because he was drunk, despite the fact he was clearly wired. The police had suddenly appeared from no-where and whisked the man off, falsely claiming they arrested him on the grounds he was impersonating a police officer.
When a Daily Mail journalist illegally door-stopped me in a lift leaving the High Court on 23rd June 2010 when I was legally trying to blow the whistle (which was the same day Rudd and Gillard played bait and switch in Australia before the former Labour PM Rudd collected a £1.4 billion pound bonus from the British Tory party for the discredited zero hours contracts scam in the UK while Gillard wittered on with the political language of ‘forced adoptions; which could not be a legal term that the Liberal MP in Victoria at that time completely ‘bypassed’ before resigning last year and being replaced by a male politician because he is like Gove in the UK, adopted, and supports adoption, while politicians got free legal representation for… themselves from another ‘inquiry’) and I told the DailyMail to leave me alone because they were illegally involved in having me unlawfully arrested which the Daily Mail admitted was true, before they published an article… outside any court proceedings admitting they were part of an “undercover” (their own words) operation posing as protesters being used by Johnson the journalist against Brian and myself.
I can only speculate the revolving doors of politicians and press in Westminster had to primarily rely on themselves running an undercover operation paying journalists and special branch et al to pose as protesters against us because the cover up over 23rd May 2000 etc… originated in Westminster.
The British politicians and press et al lied about 16th January 2012 when they falsely claimed to have an injunction protecting their undercovers while I was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment purportedly through their use new PRSR Act 2011 legislation while… HQ11X00563 which they did not have a stay or injunction over, was still… ongoing because they… intended to illegally stop me giving evidence in a court.
The smoking email that was sent to me much later by Westminster Council (that is obviously part of a wider series of emails never showed to me because everyone named who was already lying, would have had to have lied in any reply to that email too) written by a Mr Gerard Clarke on 17th January 2012 (which is not the 16th January 2012) on behalf of another Home Secretary and former PM, TM.
It always proved to be a legal impossibility for politicians et al to explain how there was no injunction to protect already existing High Court civil proceedings in HQ11X00563 there was no stay over, from new legislation being used, including to bring new legal proceedings, but there could be an injunction (they claimed) to protect some people (ie an undercover operation) in (staged) legal proceedings over the later, new legislation, while the new legislation was also used on me, to try and stop me ever giving evidence in…. HQ11X00563.
I only received the smoking email… after I went to the High Court and paid for and asked to see a copy of the supposed injunction towards the end of January 2012, because it all seemed curious to me, only to be told by the High Court it did not exist. (It was later purported an injunction existed from 7 February 2012 but even so it was all quite incredible, and wasn’t the 16th of January 2012)
The press (it was unbelievable) cannot claim freedom of expression means they can publicly lie about legal proceedings involving them. When I asked the supposed senior police officer on 16th January 2012 what his legal grounds for what he was doing were he sarcastically said (which was recorded) while he was towering over me, and talking to a Sun journalist, that I should “ask the news media department at New Scotland Yard” which was deeply offensive (& presumably a reference to the fact New Scotland Yard which it was publicly admitted was working with Murdoch, would say whatever they wanted). The government illegally refused to produce a single basic disclosure from that major offensive on 16th January 2012 against me, that involved City of London police too that only published lies all over the ‘headlines’ and ‘news’.
It’s more than quite incredible that the now British PM Johnson’s City Hall, along with New Scotland Yard and the City of London could not produce a single shred of even basic disclosure for any court from 16th January 2012. The Leader of Westminster Council resigned on the same day and decamped to Switzerland, because he was recorded lying on camera about me to American news media in January 2011 too.
I am a private citizen and my adopted name was illegally leaked on Mothers Day 2006, along with false information, with the sole… intention of causing me very serious harm.
It is beyond all reasonable doubt the Baroness Scotland has lied to become the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, so she is also in breach of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, because she is covering up 23rd May 2000 etc too.
Murdoch is either the worst investigative ‘journalist’ or corrupt or both.
(My personal view is the all male robber media barons who are advertising salesman with a business model obviously based on profit, not peaceful freedom of expression, just hide behind the word ‘journalism’ to suggest they should have some superior rights over and above ordinary law abiding civilians)
Murdoch’s mouthpiece, the journalist and politician Gove who claims he is adopted is not discriminated against because he goes along with and promotes adoption… legislation because it is in his personal financial interest to.
There is huge pressure on adopted people to just go along with the ‘make believe’ world of adoption… legislation that also means accepting a judge can make whatever decisions they want too.
I would never personally after the lived experience of the gratuitous and legally irrelevant insults from a Judge purporting to use ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 to try and impugn my unimpeachable integrity on 22nd February 2006 invite the opportunity for that kind of freedom of expression from any Judge because I also reject adoption legislation.
I was exiled to France in 2013 where I lived in the nuclear free Breton Woods in my own home, in my own nature lovers paradise where I would have been happy to live forever but couldn’t because of the ‘ball and chain’ of the uncertainties created by adoption legislation that in the absence of adoption legislation (that also exists there) being repealed so the right to claim political asylum is restored too, forced me to return to Australia in July 2019 which I clearly did not voluntarily do.
The British referendum in 2016, was only a reminder of the already existing trauma surrounding the uncertainties created by adoption legislation that had already resulted in repeated exile.
The surreal “unable to locate the property” in France saga in 2019:
I don’t reasonably believe the French government would have wanted my adoption case going ahead in France, where there are also other Bugats mostly in the Catalan, Ariege, Andorran and Occitan regions of the Pyrenees, although I am Italian (Indeed there was an Alain Bugat who used to be head of the French nuclear industry, although it is said EDF who have a contract to along with the Chinese government build Hinkley Point in the UK, have been in financial difficulties for many years) I genuinely like France for many reasons (putting political parties to one side) because I lived in an autonomous region, which was interesting to learn about, and France is also a democratic Republic without the anomaly of the British House of Lords in the UK or State governors and a Governor General in Australia, which was also good to learn about too. It is also considered a more integral part of the culture to peacefully protest there, and it is also on the Mediterranean too which is part of who I am, that is very important to me that I missed out on by being adopted, along with France being part of continental Europe all of which I did personally prefer to living in the UK, which is not a criticism of the UK per se.
“I will be in on Monday morning at my home…”
It was quite self evident long before then that of course Murdoch and Johnson would benefit from my not only being exiled from the UK but being forced to leave Europe too:
Murdoch and Johnson might have been slightly more bothered about a public investigation in a court about what was going on (DPD is actually a French government owned company) :
It is beyond all reasonable doubt, the uncertainties of adoption legislation… illegally stop me from living in my own home in France or claiming political asylum, including during a global pandemic whose headline is “stay at home”.
The Australian embassy in Paris would not help me which they would have needed to do to try and resolve the legal issues surrounding my adoption, so there was no way I could resolve the legal issues surrounding my adoption, in France, which is very very sad, because I should have been able to stay in my own home which is obviously an especially big deal for an adopted person, and because my own home provided some stability too.
I was denied public housing by the State of Victoria because they do know they owe me compensation, before I was illegally detained in hotel quarantine in Melbourne in August 2020 during the global pandemic because hotel quarantine had no legal scrutiny by the DHHS et al either. I would never have voluntarily wanted anything to do with Adoption Victoria who are not impartial because they just sit there with their own legal entourage that isn’t about helping adopted people with legal problems arising from adoption and adoption legislation.
My home: (18.09.2021):
I now know Angus Knight illegally shared my personal information to get their £300 million pound contract from the British PM Johnson on the basis they cover up the torture and attempted murder of me etc because I reject adoption legislation.
This statement is true
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
_________
Donna Bugat: FAO Commissioner of Victorian Police. This is to notify you that I intend to exercise my peaceful freedom of expression in a public space, that includes imposing the reasonable & proportionate condition on police they do not come any closer to me than 1.5 metres (3 metres would be even more appreciated) (20.09.2021)
I am an adopted person who was born in Carlton, Melbourne, Australia, and my real name is Donna Bugat.
This is to notify the Commissioner of Police in Victoria (via the Police Federation of Victoria) that I intend to exercise my peaceful freedom of expression in a public space, that includes imposing the reasonable and proportionate condition on police they do not come any closer to me than 1.5 metres (3 metres would be even more appreciated).
I am copying this to the Magistrates & County Courts, and will keep a copy on my mobile phone.
I intend to peacefully continue to campaign for peaceful freedom of expression that includes using my own true identity, and banning the political football of adoption including the global Hague Adoption Convention that is personally causing me ongoing life threatening physical and emotional harm.
(I have acquired PTSD and multiple autoimmune and related illnesses from the prolonged physical and emotional harm caused by adoption legislation, because of course there isn’t really any such thing as equality, let alone that includes timely access to justice)
My legal point is adoption is a legally unjustifiable political interference involving multiple ‘cut and paste’ versions of adoption legislation to suit politicians, instead of what should really only be a legally reviewable legal process involving carers until adulthood who cannot change a person’s identity.
The political football of adoption that excludes me in any meaningful way from politics because I reject adoption legislation has seen me spend my whole life living in perpetual exile, instead of having the right to live my own life, in my own home, which is now in France, or claim political asylum.
I already know that politicians don’t care about adopted people who entirely naturally and legally reject adoption legislation because staff from the Australian embassy in London came and told me when I was upholding peaceful freedom of expression for everyone, in Parliament Square, Central London, that should have included my being able to use my true identity, they wrote reports to politicians who knew about and did not care about the torture and attempted murder of me etc because I reject adoption legislation.
Of course most people know that what politicians really care about is not finding themselves on a witness stand before a jury in a court of law trying to explain themselves.
The published court records show the British Parliament (with the knowledge of Australian politicians et al) illegally ordered the destruction of my single pink sequinned banner that said “I am not the Serious Organized Criminal” (the political ban on peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, was called ss 132-138 of the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005) on the basis I “might use it again” while dishonestly publicly claiming a single peaceful person could with ‘authorization’ have a static protest of 3 metres. In fact it transpires the British Parliament were illegally stopping the basic disclosure from being put before a jury in court proceedings of Hansard from the unelected British House of Lords on 23rd May 2000 confirming politicians had made a prior political agreement between all the political parties to ban any and all peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London.
It turned out I was in Parliament Square, Central London while there was all the political scandal about ‘collusion’ between politicians, the top brass at New Scotland Yard and the press, when Australian politicians dishonestly tried to say I was not an Australian citizen while at the same time Australian politicians were offering the British Head of ACPO Sir Ken Jones who became DAC in Victoria, Australian citizenship, etc etc.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
_________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: The Premier, Chief Health Officer, Commissioner of Police & Courts have no legal or health mandate to enforce political adoption legislation, so I am entitled to permanent injunctions etc against adoption legislation & Hague Adoption Convention etc (22.09.2021)
The Premier, Chief Health Officer, Commissioner of Victorian Police & Courts have no legal or health mandate to enforce political adoption legislation.
I am therefore legally entitled to permanent injunctions against adoption legislation and the Hague Adoption Convention along with compensation so that I can safely move on with my own life without further delay.
The political torture and attempted murder of me because I entirely naturally and legally reject political adoption legislation, and the cover up over that, are absolutely unlawful.
My legal point is the political use of adoption legislation is legally unjustifiable and unenforceable because it is not based on any legal or health grounds (and does not include proper basic disclosures, record keeping or due process) so only a legal process of carers with legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood is legally possible.
The fact the Premier, Chief Health Officer, Commissioner of Victorian Police, and Courts do not have any legal or health grounds to enforce adoption legislation, means the County Court has no legal authority to delay issuing my permanent injunctions against adoption legislation and the Hague Adoption Convention along with compensation.
The State of Victoria are obviously legally obliged to pay my court costs etc regarding adoption legislation that is not legally enforceable.
A kinder evolution is possible.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 