Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI-: Re my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ court order from 16th April 2008 (politicians & robber media barons who have no legal immunity have always tried to dodge) over Mothers Day 26th March 2006 etc that is still valid now & equally takes precedence in both County Court in Melbourne & ECHR etc because I am adopted person who rejects legally unenforceable & obsolete political adoption legislation anywhere (29.09.2021)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
I did not as a small child, and unlike adult strangers who are paid to do what they do, choose the legally unenforceable adoption of me using unworkable and obsolete political adoption legislation.
The courts have always needed my stand alone reasonable self defence of my own informed consent as an adopted person to my adoption at the earliest opportunity they did not have, including when I was along with an American friend, living on the Yad Mordechai kibbutz in 1984 in the only Jewish State on the Mediterranean where Jewish people have always lived, that is the only Jewish State in the world. The male who (for example) posed as my godfather at that time called Tudor Harvey Barnett, while he was Director General of ASIO in Australia, did not speak on my behalf or instead of me, including while still trying to hide my Mediterranean multi-cultural heritage… from me !!
The facts include the British Parliament who have no legal immunity, always illegally failed to disclose in court proceedings their political agreement to ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, prior to the political legislation of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that we proved was legally unenforceable, while the top cop at Newscorp Scotland Yard always also failed to disclose in court proceedings a witness statement from an Inspector Lyons on Mothers Day 26th March 2006. The robber media barons et al have (along with politicians) always ’sidestepped’ (dodged) etc the existence of my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ court order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 26th March 2006 etc. The fact members of the unelected British House of Lords change their own identities as adults for their own personal financial profit, does not change political adoption legislation is legally unenforceable and obsolete.
My High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 is still legally valid, including equally in the County Court in Melbourne and the ECHR in Europe etc, unlike legally unenforceable and obsolete political adoption legislation.
I personally faced British and Australian politicians et al maliciously using both legally unenforceable national (ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) and global (Hague Adoption Convention etc) political legislation against me.
Not great.
It was clearly exceptionally difficult for responsible adults without any legal representation to stop political legislation like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 that was legally unenforceable, so it is self evident there was never any reasonable prospect of an adopted child being able to stop legally unenforceable political adoption legislation that is obsolete.
The reason a former delinquent British Tory Minister for Vitol, called Sir Alan Duncan was paid £160,000 pounds by Vitol et al to commit perjury (that also omitted the prior political arrangement among politicians in Westminster to illegally ban peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, etc) was because he was…. already trying to avoid paying back money he had originally opportunistically and illegally made from having his snout in the political trough in the earlier Dame Shirley Porter Tory ‘votes for homes’ scandal about gerrymandering in Westminster that began wider political attempts to push poorer people out of London. That was before the political scandal of HQ11X00563 involving Westminster Council too. Vitol Duncan was obviously never interested in anyone’s peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London, when he went on TV while I was unlawfully arrested in 2008 saying peaceful protesters in Westminster were ‘lucky’ not to be shot and gassed, before launching into a vicious tirade specifically about our peaceful freedom of expression in Parliament Square, Central London which the interviewer had to step in and stop because it overtly showed undue prejudice etc etc. It’s obviously perverse that I was a single working mum, blacklisted from my paid employment because of my peaceful freedom of expression, so I had to sell my home, in the UK, which was not in London. It was later admitted Sir Alan Duncan was working with MI6 and armed mercenaries (which is well known widely for a long time is big business to the British Parliament) to then pose as protesters in Libya (and who it later emerged were being trained in the UK etc) all of which he could never credibly clam he did because he supports peaceful freedom of expression anywhere. It’s fair to say the sum total of Sir Alan Duncan’s political career consisted of trying to dodge my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ court order from 16th April 2008. A former Tory MP for Westminster was a sleaze-bag called Mr Field who was grandstanding on the ‘Intelligence Committee’ in the British Parliament, while the legal department in Westminster Council could not possibly have passed any financial audit either, including in particular during HQ11X00563.
Of course, the facts are the robber media barons know absolutely everything they ever published about me was completely untrue because they (along with politicians et al) have always been trying to ’sidestep’ (dodge) the proper context of my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus” court order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 26th March 2006 etc etc. It is essentially the same as pretending the by contrast legally unenforceable and obsolete adoption court order made against me, never happened, which it most certainly did.
My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ court order from 16th April 2008 in the UK that is legally as equally valid in the County Court in Melbourne and the ECHR in Europe (not least since however anyone looks at it there is universal jurisdiction in my case) that can include my French Saur (waterboard) bill, and be against the UN in Geneva too, along with substantial financial compensation for me, could possibly also naturally hasten the British PM and his lawyer Starmer who also poses as the so called Leader of the Opposition (who also worked with Johnson as the DPP, and while he worked for ACPO too, like Sir Ken Jones from ACPO who was the DAC in Victoria) resigning, along with their British House of Lords, because I am adopted and peacefully reject the legally unenforceable and obsolete political adoption legislation.
It is obviously seriously unreasonable to place an adopted person at such foreseeable risk of so much physical and emotional harm that in my own case has happened and is ongoing because I peacefully reject legally unenforceable political adoption legislation.
There are no legal grounds to punish me because I peacefully reject political adoption legislation that is legally unenforceable and obsolete.
It makes no legal sense whatsoever to even continue the arbitrary political interference of unworkable adoption legislation.
It is also a legal impossibility to (for example) explain how I came to be illegally detained without any legal oversight in hotel quarantine in Melbourne in August 2020 (when no-one ever asked a single ‘contact tracing’ question) that was after I was stopped from living in my own home in the Breton Woods in France in July 2019 (while the Australian embassy in Paris ’sidestepped’ any concern over my physical and emotional health and well-being)
The dysfunctional ‘Adoption Victoria’ whose incomplete ‘record keeping’ could only be construed as political, rather than in any way legal, fail as a starting point, and without reasonable excuse, and in a serious breach of the public trust placed in them while they have their own publicly funded legal entourage, in their most basic legal obligation to record the political torture and attempted murder of me because I am an adopted person who peacefully rejects legally unenforceable political adoption legislation that is also obsolete. It is a legal impossibility to try and shift blame on to an adopted person who never gave my informed consent to the use of legally unenforceable and obsolete political adoption legislation.
It is clearly unconscionable for any politician to use legally unenforceable political adoption legislation for their own personal financial profit, so the only way to peacefully and legally stop that is with the only legal reasonable and proportionate alternative of legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood.
I reasonably believe the legal reality is my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ court order from 16th April 2008 in the UK takes precedence in the County Court in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
A kinder evolution is obviously genuinely possible in the here and now (that cannot legally be delayed by for example any manipulative excuses from the likes of the British PM Johnson and his lawyer Starmer who poses as the so called Leader of the Opposition, along with their British House of Lords who are all the same to me, because at the very least they use legally unenforceable and obsolete adoption legislation as a political football)
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
______
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI-: Re my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 (politicians & robber media barons have always sought to dodge) provides my peaceful & legal right of reply everywhere that will always exist & confirms only reasonable & proportionate alternative to political adoption legislation I have never given my informed consent to, is legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood (01.10.2021)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
The legal reality remains the County Court in Melbourne cannot in the here and now produce my informed consent to the ongoing life threatening physical and emotional harm caused to me that could not possibly be ‘normalized’ by any procedural or legislative ‘gymnastics’ involving the arbitrary use of political adoption legislation.
My peaceful and legal right of reply though my Universal High Court ’Habeas Corpus’ court order from 16th April 2008 (politicians and robber media barons et al who have no legal immunity have always illegally sought to dodge) will always exist and be legally enforceable everywhere.
It is abundantly clear including from court records on 16th April 2008, that I did not give my informed consent to ongoing life threatening physical and emotional harm being caused to me.
The legal reality remains the only reasonable and proportionate alternative to legally unenforceable political adoption legislation is legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
___________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI-: My Universal High Court ’Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 means I am legally entitled to immediately have legal immunity from prosecution by politicians et al anywhere (by Australian politicians providing me with my own ‘diplomatic’ passport) along with substantial financial compensation because I don’t need anyone’s permission to have my own identity & choose to be Jewish with my own home in Universal Old City in Jerusalem on the Mediterranean (03.10.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
I did know when I was a small child that political adoption legislation is wrong, because it doesn’t make any sense to force something so extreme on vulnerable children, that is intended to be forever.
It is very distressing for me that the person called Tudor Harvey Barnett, who posed as my godfather, was also grandstanding as Director General of ASIO in Australia in 1984 when he did not speak on behalf of or instead of me, while incredibly disrespectfully still hiding my Mediterranean multi-cultural identity… from me !! while I was along with an American friend living on the Yad Mordechai kibbutz in Israel.
It does not make any legal sense and is not legally sustainable that I would need to pay money to and have the permission of any politician et al for my multicultural Mediterranean identity to be “officially” recognized, and for me to choose to be Jewish with my own home in the Universal Old City in Jerusalem in the only Jewish State in the world, on the Mediterranean where Jewish people have always lived. A Jewish State on the Mediterranean is stand alone reasonable self defence that has never been contingent on the likes of the Balfour Declaration or British mandate.
The reasonable and proportionate alternative to political adoption legislation is legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood.
In the true facts and circumstances of my case, what makes legal sense, is that Australian politicians (who have always like other politicians, and the robber media barons, dodged my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 over Mothers Day 26th March 2006 etc) are legally obliged to immediately provide me with legal immunity from prosecution by any politician et al (by Australian politicians providing me with my own ‘diplomatic’ passport) to help unravel the ongoing life threatening physical and emotional harm already caused to me, because arbitrary and unworkable political adoption legislation is legally unenforceable in Australia and elsewhere.
The reason successive British governments kept destroying my DNA, is not because they ever acknowledged the political persecution of me, let alone that it is absolutely unlawful, but because my DNA is evidence the historical revisionism of their “official” version of my identity, I have clearly never given my informed consent to, is untrue. It is perversely literally the existence of my DNA that led to the political torture and attempted murder of me, by the state, that is also why I do not have proper access to medical treatment. I obviously don’t need the “permission” of anyone else to have my own DNA that does actually naturally belong to and mean something to me. The politicians et al’s “official” version of me that is only about whatever happens to suit false profits, is completely disconnected from reality, including the peace and harmony of the rule of law.
The State of Victoria is also legally obliged to pay me substantial financial compensation, so that I can also easily access whatever medical treatment I give my informed consent to, at the earliest opportunity and in a timely manner, regardless of where I may choose to peacefully live at any time.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
______________________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI- : My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from April 16th 2008 means I am legally entitled to legal immunity of diplomatic passport provided by Australian politicians because my unlawful arrest & false imprisonment on 4th September 2006 proved Australian politicians would try & deny I am an Australian citizen to also try & dodge unworkable political adoption legislation is legally unenforceable (04.10.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
I have personally faced both national (‘British mandate’ ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) and global (Hague Adoption Convention etc) political legislation.
My unlawful arrest and false imprisonment on 4th September 2006 in the UK proved Australian politicians would try and dodge I had a) never given my informed consent to b) political adoption legislation that is arguably also an unlawful arrest and false imprisonment too, by c) also trying to deny I am an Australian citizen.
______
I did not know the identity of the male in ‘plain clothes’ I proved in courts literally abducted me following an ambush in a corridor on 4th September 2006 in the UK, before the British government also ‘allowed’ the male in ‘plain clothes’ to illegally hide and tamper with the CCTV, to try and ‘minimize’ what happened, while it was admitted they also illegally destroyed Steve J’s camera footage.
The British government had sought to hide I was tortured on the 5th August 2006 when I was clearly targeted, by first trying to maliciously claim I was being (unlawfully) arrested and (falsely) imprisoned for allegedly ‘breaching’ political ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation outside Downing Street, before hours later switching that to my allegedly ‘obstructing’ Whitehall, when I was on the errr… pavement, outside Downing Street (which was not unusual, and was while it was police who had closed the road for a march by thousands of other people, who were not arrested using ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 or for an alleged obstruction of Whitehall)
It is clear the real purpose of my unlawful arrest and false imprisonment on 5th August 2006 when I was so clearly maliciously targeted among so many other thousands of other people being in the same area, was to torture me.
I wasn’t doing anything different from what either, I often did, like on for example 25th June 2006 & 9th July 2006 when I had while outside Downing Street, already been unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned, before it was NFA’d, or compared to other people marching on that day, when it was the police themselves who had closed Whitehall for marchers, and when I was not on the road in Whitehall when I was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned so I could be tortured.
The CCTV showed Steve J was then also unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned on 5th August 2006 by twenty !! police officers which was extraordinary, for the alleged ‘crime’ of knowing me, which the government tried to illegally give him a ‘fixed penalty notice’ over on 5th August 2006, he declined to accept, while the government sought to completely cover up the torture of me. Two CPS lawyers I did not know, witnessed what we prove was my unlawful arrest and false imprisonment on 5th August 2006 outside Downing Street, and subsequently later tracked me down through the British criminal (in)justice system and came forward as witnesses for me, and lost their jobs.
On the 4th September 2006, the government illegally invited Steve J and myself into a corridor away from public view, on the false pretext of discussing 5th August 2006, to in reality ambush us, and at the very least, violently attack Steve J to try and illegally seize his camera, to illegally try and stop any independent record being taken of what was said and done, on 4th September 2006.
In the corridor which was out of public view, I saw a male in ‘plain clothes’ who I did not know and who had not identified himself to me, standing to the left of me, under a doorway beckoning to me with his arms, and out of view of any CCTV above the door, to go with him, which seemed very creepy and sinister behaviour to me, and in particular while to the right of me I could Steve J being attacked, by a violent group of thugs.
So I knew in all the true circumstances the sudden ambush of us, going on in the corridor, behind closed doors, and out of public view, was of itself, seriously illegal.
I wasn’t sure if the door directly in front of me, we had come through, would now be locked, so I slammed the door handle down and pushed the door open in one move, and then immediately ran to try and get far enough away to at least have time to try and phone Brian on my mobile, so he would know something illegal was being done to us.
I managed to get as far as a doorway that opened out on to the public street before I was abducted by the male in ‘plain clothes’ I did not know and who had not identified himself, who was now pursuing me while in the knowledge then, that members of the public had witnessed something strange going on, before Steve J was then alerting members of the public that we were being attacked.
The only reason I didn’t make it completely out of the building was because I realized it was probably too dangerous to try and leap down all the concrete steps at once, on to the pavement, outside the building.
I knew I had to then try and hold on to the door handle leading to the public street outside, because otherwise it is more likely than not the male in ‘plain clothes’ could have succeeded in being able to push me down the steps anyway, even just from the momentum of him recklessly and illegally grabbing hold of me.
It transpired the only thing the government cared about was who had seen one or both of Steve and myself, and what we had said or had been heard, by members of the public who had seen either one or both of us, and that in addition something odd was going on.
(I have PTSD so the combined affect of being tortured on 5th August 2006, which we already knew was deliberate and was being covered up, along with the unfolding and dramatically escalating state violence taking place in the sudden ambush in a corridor that was hidden from public view on 4th September 2006 caused me to have what is called a ’flashback’ to previous serious actual attempts on my own life in other countries, so I just did what I could peacefully do on 4th September 2006 to try and peacefully protect both Steve J and myself)
The government obviously knew I was trying to get help, which they were illegally trying to stop.
It was only after I had run to try and get help, the government then unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned Steve J on 4th September 2006 too, in the corridor, they had invited both of us into, because at the very least they wanted to illegally seize and destroy Steve J’s camera footage.
The government also then illegally failed to disclose their own CCTV from the corridor, before they also then ’allowed’ the male in ’plain clothes’ to illegally tamper with and edit the CCTV from the public area, that showed him, because the government did know that… ultimately it was going to be a civil lawsuit against them.
It transpired various government paper records from 4th September 2006 do not make any legal sense whatsoever and were falsified, after we were both unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned, that indicate it was more likely than not, the government had intended to murder me on 4th September 2006. That was before the later combined torture and attempted murder of me took place on a different 4th September, that Brian became a witness to, because he heard me scream, which he said was uncommon for me to do, just like he had said it was clear from even the CCTV that was disclosed on 4th September 2006, that something was wrong, that made me run to try and get help.
The British government had clearly intended to try and prevent any witnesses being present, along with destroying any visual evidence against them on 4th September 2006.
It was at that time the Australian politicians sought to illegally deny I am an Australian citizen so I do now also know beyond all reasonable doubt Australian politicians were illegally trying to stop my legally challenging the political adoption legislation illegally used against me in Australia too.
The only reason the British government could possibly have falsified numerous paper records on 4th September 2006 before perversely grandstanding in court on 5th September 2006, that I should be ’remanded’ to prison ‘pending’ a court ‘hearing’ on the non imprisonable alleged offence of ‘obstruct highway/Whitehall’ on 5th August 2006, that clearly never even happened, and where it was known the court could obviously not ‘remand’ me to prison ‘pending’ a ‘court hearing’ on a non imprisonable alleged offence, was to try and distract from the fact the falsified records that were made… after the ambush in the corridor, do indicate the government must really have intended to murder me on 4th September 2006.
Of course the fact the government subsequently falsely accused me of an alleged ‘obstruction’ of the male in ‘plain clothes’ on 4th September 2006, also failed in the courts, in due course, despite considerable ‘legal gymnastics’ by the government, that included illegally hearing the ‘cases’ from 5th August 2006 & 4th September 2006, in the reverse order to which the horrific incidents happened.
There was a curious case involving ‘satellite litigation’ over the political legislation of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 at Southwark Crown Court when the main Judge in the ‘case’ that was of itself a serious procedural irregularity anyway, suddenly declared a mistrial, because the main Judge said he owned a private company with the partner of someone who worked for the government and was appearing in the court, as a state witness (who was also very obviously and blatantly committing perjury anyway)
In fact, the private company the Judge referred to was used to illegally destroy Steve J’s camera footage from the ambush of us in a corridor on 4th September 2006.
So, the reason the state witness who was financially profiting from so blatantly committing perjury in a later case, was because they had also… previously financially benefited from using a private company, run by their own partner, we didn’t know anything about, to illegally destroy the evidence of Steve J’s camera footage on 4th September 2006, all of which, the person et al had illegally never disclosed in any court proceedings.
I properly asked in the Magistrates Court, for the CCTV of the torture and attempted murder of me on the later 4th September, so there is no legal explanation of why that later CCTV was not handed over to me in the Magistrates Court (the previous CCTV from the earlier 4th September 2006 had been handed over, albeit in an illegally ‘edited’ form and after Steve J’s camera footage had been illegally seized and destroyed by the private company) before a partner in a City of London law firm (also involved in trying to cover up 4th September 2006) illegally refused to hand over either the original copy of the CCTV (I should have had) or a copy of that later CCTV that clearly belongs to me, from a different 4th September of the combined torture and attempted murder of me.
There was no reasonable doubt whatsoever the British government tortured and attempted to murder me on the other, later 4th September. And the only reason I could not claim political asylum which of course I most certainly would have done, was because of the ‘paradox’ of…. political adoption legislation that doesn’t really exist to protect the adopted person.
It is clear the County Court in Melbourne, are legally obliged in any legal sense, to recognize my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008, over Mothers Day 26th March 2006 etc.
__________
A true wider legal point is Australian politicians were illegally trying to stop a legitimate legal challenge from me over my abduction as a small child through the use of political adoption legislation, by falsely claiming, when I was an adult, and I was in the UK, that I am not an Australian citizen etc etc.
There is no legal explanation as to how I could have possibly legally resolved the adoption case from Australia in the UK, while the Australian politicians were trying to pass the buck over my Australian citizenship which they could at best only illegally try on, because of political adoption legislation that illegally arguably switched my true citizenships.
I am undeniably an Australian citizen, (and Mediterranean) before my so called ‘adoption’.
It’s quite difficult for an adopted person who is an Australian citizen to try and legally resolve their adoption case in another country which I was legally entitled to do, when it was Australian politicians who were illegally trying to deny I am an Australian citizen.
In fact, it doesn’t make any legal sense to me to have political adoption legislation which is all about whatever might happen to benefit any… politicians et al, instead of legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood for all vulnerable children.
What does make legal sense is my having legal immunity from persecution from politicians by my having a diplomatic passport provided to me by Australian politicians, along with substantial financial compensation, so I can get on with my own life.
The legal reality remains, that regardless of me, political adoption legislation which has always adversely affected me personally, is legally unenforceable, and it just so happens that my own case really shows that.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
__________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI-: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in UK equally valid in County Court in Melbourne etc because I am same adopted person & combined effect of absence of legal necessity for informed consent from adopted person along with imposing unworkable conditions under duress on adopted person rejecting adoption meets legal definition of unlawful arrest & false imprisonment too, so Australian politicians legally obliged to provide me with diplomatic passport & substantial financial compensation (05.10.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
I was personally targeted maliciously and publicly with national ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation in Parliament Square, Central London, in the UK, that hid the use of global Hague Adoption Convention etc legislation, that is also political, being illegally used against me too.
The more I was maliciously targeted by political ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation (I was after all unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned 48 times etc) in Parliament Square, Central London, in the UK, by successive governments, the more untenable the hidden political adoption legislation being illegally used against me too, became.
My stand-alone reasonable self defence of peaceful freedom of expression means I am not legally obliged to pay money under duress to any court or to need their permission to have my own identity “officially” recognized.
The cloak of political adoption legislation globally that uses legally questionable and highly selective political record keeping and disclosure, arguably makes legislated ‘loopholes’ in ‘off-shore’ banking look quite transparent by comparison.
Politicians and the notably male dominated industry of robber media barons like to publicly grandstand about a ’make-believe’ world of adoption, but keep quiet about the ‘fine print’ of political adoption legislation that turns vulnerable children into chattels traded by states in a global marketplace despite the reasonable and proportionate alternative of legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood for all vulnerable children, separated from their own families for any reason.
The fact a state does not seek the informed consent at the earliest opportunity or indeed at all, from an adopted person, including when we are adults, while the state also tries to impose unworkable conditions under duress on an adopted person who rejects adoption and the accompanying legislation does meet the legal definition of unlawful arrest and false imprisonment.
The British politicians could only behave so appallingly towards me, because Australian politicians let them. The one thing that is clear about political adoption legislation is that it has never existed to protect an adopted person.
The reason British and Australian politicians have always illegally stopped even my unprecedented civil jury lawsuits about ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 is because I am adopted and the ‘fine print’ of political adoption legislation meets the legal definition of unlawful arrest and false imprisonment too. The political adoption legislation also brings the administration of justice into serious disrepute.
I personally associate unnecessary political adoption legislation with political persecution that has included the political torture and attempted murder of me.
My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK is equally legally valid in the County Court in Melbourne etc because I am the same adopted person, so it does mean that Australian politicians are legally obliged to provide me with the legal immunity of a diplomatic passport along with substantial financial compensation so I can peacefully get on with my own life with my true identity.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
___________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI-: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in UK legally valid in County Court in Melbourne, Australia etc proved onus is on government/s to prove they have informed consent from adopted person, so Australian politicians legally obliged to provide me with diplomatic passport & substantial financial compensation (06.10.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
The political adoption legislation cannot legally… reverse the onus on the state to prove their civil or criminal interference is ‘on the balance of probabilities’ or ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’… ‘proportionate, legitimate, accountable and necessary’ at all times in what is supposed to be a democracy with the checks and balances and safeguards of the peace and harmony of the rule of law.
It is well established it is not the case that anyone can just vote whenever they like, to do whatever they want, to someone else.
My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 (incl. Mothers Day 26th March 2006) where I proved the state cannot reverse either the civil or criminal onus on them, to prove their interference is legally justifiable, is equally legally valid in the County Court in Melbourne etc (including and regardless of how many court records etc anyone might illegally fail to disclose, tamper with or falsify etc, after I had… already proved in the highly unusual ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case in the High Court in the UK in 2007 about me, it is politicians who refuse to keep any accurate and contemporaneous records, including in all courts)
In the UK, the British PM (& journalist & former Mayor of London) Johnson’s lawyer primarily is and has always been the so called Leader of the Opposition Starmer (former DPP & ‘legal adviser’ on ‘human rights’ to ACPO etc, ie: Lord Blair, Sir Ken Jones as DAC in Victoria, Australia & Mr Simon Byrne in Northern Ireland etc) who have never had any legal immunity.
It is not the case that I am legally obliged to pay money to or have the permission of the County Court in Melbourne to have my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order that in my own case I… already have from 16th April 2008 in the UK that I have… already proved in court proceedings politicians and robber media barons have always illegally sought to dodge, that is obviously equally valid in the County Court in Melbourne etc.
The combined effect of the ‘fine print’ of political adoption legislation (falsely) claiming an adopted person needs to pay money to and have the permission of a court to entirely naturally and legally reject unworkable political adoption legislation meets the legal definition of unlawful arrest and false imprisonment etc too.
It is self evident the legal reality is the signatories to the Hague Adoption Convention can easily peacefully agree the reasonable and proportionate alternative to political adoption legislation is legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood for vulnerable children separated from their own family for any reason.
It remains that Australian politicians are legally obliged to in my own case, provide me with a diplomatic passport and substantial financial compensation, so I can peacefully get on with my own life.
I am the same adopted person whether I am in Australia or was in the UK, or France where I was living in my own home.
(The legal reality, the fact my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 is equally valid in the County Court in Melbourne etc could possibly hasten the … already long overdue, political resignations of Johnson and Starmer who I have… already legally proved in court proceedings cannot despite their publicly funded legal entourage, legally explain anything they have done to me, is clearly not a legal excuse to further delay.
I have… already legally proved on 7th May 2013 in court proceedings in the UK, when I was not in the UK and I proved I was not legally obliged to return, they would and did maliciously orchestrate additional political legislation specifically targeting me they could not legally use against me on 16th January 2012 etc that has… already included further unlawful arrests, false imprisonments and malicious prosecutions etc.
There is no legal onus on me to provide excuses for politicians maliciously unlawfully arresting, falsely imprisoning and torturing and attempting to murder me, who I am not legally obliged to trust.
It was always about what politicians et al illegally fail(ed) to disclose in court proceedings, including in a timely manner, that involves a multiplicity of serious breaches of the public trust placed in them as public officials, that includes their trophy CCTV of their political torture and attempted murder of me)
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
______
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors CI-: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in UK that is legally valid in the County Court in Melbourne etc means the Premier in Victoria who is a career politician has always known he can’t sue me in any court because I ‘reasonably believe’ & am acting in ‘good faith’ & in the ‘public interest’ when I honestly say, including ‘for the avoidance of any doubt’ he is a corrupt bully who has known for a long time he is legally obliged to resign (06.10.2021)
My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in UK that is legally valid in the County Court in Melbourne etc means the Premier in Victoria who is a career politician has always known he can’t sue me in any court because I ‘reasonably believe’ and am acting in ‘good faith’ & in the ‘public interest’ when I honestly say including ‘for the avoidance of any doubt’ he is a corrupt bully who has known for a long time he is legally obliged to resign.
The legal reality remains Australian politicians are legally obliged to provide me with a diplomatic passport, and substantial financial compensation, so I can peacefully get on with my own life.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
_________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: My Universal High Court ’Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in UK proves political adoption legislation is not legally justifiable, so simplest option for me is to be able to collect diplomatic passport & $1 billion dollars tax free financial compensation from Australian politicians at administrative office in County Court in Melbourne without further legally unjustifiable delay (07.10.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
The political science of adoption legislation cannot legally be prioritized over and regardless of any prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm and distress it causes to an adopted person who entirely naturally and legally rejects political adoption legislation that is not legally justifiable.
The onus on politicians to prove political adoption legislation is legally justifiable cannot legally be reversed by politicians who have dodged seeking and obtaining the informed consent of an adopted person anyway, including by trying to impose conditions on an adopted person who rejects adoption legislation, that involve claiming an adopted person who rejects adoption legislation needs to pay money to and have the permission of a court that in so claiming, meets the legal definition of unlawful arrest and false imprisonment etc.
My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK that is also legally valid in the County Court in Melbourne, proves political adoption legislation is not legally justifiable. I am therefore legally entitled to a diplomatic passport and $1 billion tax free dollars financial compensation from Australian politicians, so I can peacefully get on with my own life.
The legal reality is signatories to the Hague Adoption Convention can peacefully agree the reasonable and proportionate alternative to political adoption legislation is legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood for all vulnerable children separated from their own families for any reason.
The simplest option for me is to be able to collect my diplomatic passport and $1 billion tax free dollars from Australian politicians from the administrative office in the County Court in Melbourne, without further legally unjustifiable delay.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
___________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK means I am legally entitled to collect diplomatic passport & $1 billion dollars tax free compensation from Australian politicians at County Court in Melbourne without further legally unjustifiable delay, because Premier et al have failed to contest my choice of jury in a court etc (08.10.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
The political science of adoption legislation cannot legally be prioritized or take precedence regardless of any prolonged life threatening physical and emotional harm and distress it causes to an adopted person.
A diplomatic passport from Australian politicians can help to protect me, as a law abiding civilian, because Australian politicians have always in my own case knowingly breached the publicly funded public trust placed in them. It is well established it is not the case a revolving doors of politicians can do whatever they like to a law abiding civilian.
The important legal point is it is not the case it is only politicians who can confer a diplomatic passport, that can legally constitute part of a legitimate court order made, including by a jury.
(The legal reality is politicians who refuse without reasonable excuse to even comply with any pre-action protocol, or basic disclosures, don’t get to also choose to dodge having a jury in court proceedings against them which is quite different from them grandstanding for robber media barons or in a parliament, that even if they sought to do, would just constitute evidence to still be put before a jury, of political corruption)
It is self evident that if politicians who have an entourage of publicly funded lawyers, had ever had any ‘recognized defence in law’ they would have put it before a jury in a court of law, a very long time ago.
My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 in the UK, because Australian politicians have never cared about what is done to me, as a law abiding civilian, by politicians, means I am legally entitled to collect a diplomatic passport and $1 billion dollars tax free compensation from Australian politicians at the administrative office in the County Court in Melbourne, without further legally unjustifiable delay, because the Premier et al have failed to contest my choice of a jury in a court etc.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
__________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: My Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order means I am legally entitled to diplomatic passport & $1 billion dollars tax free compensation, that also means I can voluntarily help oversee an adoption tribunal with an administrative office, based in Old City in Jerusalem on the Mediterranean, to peacefully resolve any legal claims from adopted people anywhere who may choose to not go through onerous formal court proceedings elsewhere (09.10.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
The political science of adoption legislation cannot legally be prioritized or take precedence, regardless of any life threatening physical, emotional and financial harm and distress it causes to an adopted person who rejects the political science of adoption legislation at any time, including during wars and global pandemics.
The combination of falsely claiming an adopted person needs to pay money to or have the permission of any court to entirely naturally and legally reject adoption legislation meets the legal definition of unlawful arrest and false imprisonment etc. It also serves as a manipulative legislative excuse to illegally try and prevent lawsuits, including with a jury over any harm caused by the political science of adoption legislation itself that is legally unjustifiable.
(The fact some adopted people may not or cannot reject adoption legislation for any number of reasons, is legally no different from the fact some people could not or did not oppose political legislation like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK that was unworkable and could not be imposed on anyone. That did not change that people caused life threatening physical, emotional and financial harm and distress by peacefully opposing the political legislation of ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 remain legally entitled to financial compensation etc, including if they are like myself also adopted)
I do not need anyone else’s permission to be Jewish, and to live, work and retire in the Old City in Jerusalem on the Mediterranean.
A Jewish State on the Mediterranean where Jewish people have always lived that is also the only one in the world is reasonable defence that has never been contingent on the British Balfour Declaration, Zionism or whether or not all Jewish people agree with having a Jewish State.
The fact adopted people may not necessarily want a recognized political state for adopted people, does not mean there does not need to be any proper legal redress for any adopted people, who include people who were mixed race and changed to a different race/different mixed race, or religion and so on, who personally choose to identify in part or whole as our original mixed race with our own names. There should not be anything wrong about celebrating being your own original mixed race identity, if that is what an adopted person chooses to do. It is important that mixed race adopted people should not feel or find themselves shoe-horned into the ‘multicultural’ tokenism that serves nationalist politics, because being ‘mixed race’ is of itself and in its own right, also actually entirely natural.
An adopted person does not need the permission of anyone else to register to live in the Universal Old City of Jerusalem, regardless of their race, religion, politics or none.
It is legally possible for a court order, including from a jury, to include a diplomatic passport.
An adoption tribunal with an administrative office could be based in the Old City in Jerusalem, on the Mediterranean and hear legal claims from adopted people anywhere (who could also choose to have some or any hearings if they are necessary, done using the internet) who choose to not go through onerous formal court proceedings elsewhere. An adoption tribunal would only need signed and dated witness statements from an adopted person, including any information the adopted person thinks is relevant, prior to any joint discussion and/or agreement about redress. It makes legal sense that the signatories to the Hague Adoption Convention are legally jointly and severally liable for any compensation for adopted people, to stop adopted people being used as political footballs etc.
(It is clear it is possible for signatories to the Hague Adoption Convention to agree the reasonable and proportionate alternative to adoption legislation is legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood for vulnerable children who are separated from their own families for any reason. It is healthier for vulnerable children separated from their own families for any reason to instead of adoption, have their own identity, including name, cultural background, nationalities and citizenships, regardless of who their carer is, and where possible be re-united with family members including siblings. Where sometimes no re-unification of any kind with any family member is possible, or at least not until adulthood, the person in care still does in all the circumstances, nevertheless need to be supported to make their own properly informed decisions, wherever and whenever possible. It is possible for governments to confer additional nationalities and citizenships of carers, on the person being cared for, in the person in care’s own right, that only the person in care they are conferred on can renounce, and all of which cannot and does not switch, or erase the person’s existing nationalities and citizenships prior to their being in care)
My Universal High Court ’Habeas Corpus’ Court Order means I am legally entitled to a diplomatic passport and $1 billion dollars tax free compensation that also means I can voluntarily help oversee an adoption tribunal with an administrative office, based in the Old City in Jerusalem on the Mediterranean hearing claims from adopted people anywhere who may choose to not go through onerous formal court proceedings elsewhere.
I should be able to collect my diplomatic passport and $1 billion dollars tax free financial compensation from Australian politicians, from the administrative office in the County Court in Melbourne, without any further legally unjustifiable delay. That should include a signed and dated undertaking from Australian politicians, including they are jointly and severally financially liable along with the other signatories to the Hague Adoption Convention for an adoption tribunal (there could be a financial limit placed on compensation through an adoption tribunal) with an administrative office, based in the Old City in Jerusalem on the Mediterranean, overseeing legal claims for adopted people who choose to not go through other onerous formal court proceedings elsewhere.
(There are currently estimated to be over 5 million adopted people globally. So as adoption legislation naturally lapses because it is legally unjustifiable, minors who are adopted would transfer to legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood, and despite the fact not all adopted people whether minors or adults would necessarily choose to make a claim at either an adoption tribunal or in onerous other formal court proceedings, those options for an adopted person would have to legally remain open indefinitely. This is because the various ‘cut and paste’ versions of adoption legislation include adoption legislation that never sought or obtained the informed consent of the adopted person or even made it obligatory for the state to inform an adopted person they are adopted (so children of an adopted person who had passed away without knowing they were adopted may need or want to bring a claim) or that nationalities and citizenships were switched and erased, and so on and so forth, all without any proper legal representation for the adopted person, and all of which is information an adopted person has to peacefully try and process in their own space, and time, in their own way)
An adoption tribunal with an administrative office, based in the Old City in Jerusalem on the Mediterranean that would oversee any legal claims from adopted people anywhere who may prefer to choose to not go through onerous formal court proceedings elsewhere, can help to peacefully and sensitively redress personal, individual, inter-generational and legal problems that can arise across multiple states, and legal jurisdictions, from long standing political adoption legislation that is legally unjustifiable and often involves highly selective record keeping etc.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: P.S. I don’t think there are any people who choose to be in Melbourne because of politicians & I dare say a tourism advertising campaign that included politicians as a must see attraction for people, would be a major turn-off in Victoria (09.10.2021)
I don’t think there are any people who choose to be in Melbourne because of politicians, and I dare say a tourism advertising campaign that included politicians as a must see attraction would be a major turn-off in Victoria.
I also do not personally reasonably believe that politicians who ban peaceful freedom of expression of the peace and harmony of the rule of law by any law abiding civilian in the public space of a court, including with a jury, have any legitimate grounds to complain about or ban peaceful and socially distanced freedom of expression about that in public spaces outdoors, at any time.
The legal reality is law abiding civilians are legally entitled to easily accessible and timely justice in courts, including with a jury, regardless of the personal opinions of politicians who prefer grandstanding for robber media barons or in parliaments.
A country cannot even genuinely claim to be a democracy, when it does not include the checks and balances and safeguards of the peace and harmony of the rule of law, for everyone, while pointing the finger elsewhere, to avoid setting a good example itself.
There is sadly a totally unethical and quite deliberate political failure with regard to easily accessible justice for everyone.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
__________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: I am a private citizen & my Universal High Court ’Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 (there is no legal way to go ‘around’) means Labour Premier Andrews (who chose to protect British Tory PM Johnson) is undeniably corrupt & legally obliged to immediately resign, so political science of adoption legislation that is legally unjustifiable can end now (10.10.2021)
My identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression.
I did not… choose to be adopted as a small child but the revolving doors of politicians et al who hide behind an entourage of publicly funded lawyers, did as adults choose to be politicians et al.
I am a private citizen who is the Australian citizen, who is adopted, the… British politicians very publicly maliciously targeted on behalf of Australian politicians.
My case does prove there are unscrupulous politicians who will use adopted people as ‘political footballs’
It is obviously illegal for politicians et al to harm a law abiding civilian to try and dodge it is the political science of adoption legislation (like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK) that is legally unjustifiable.
There is no legal way ‘around’ my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008, that helps explain which politicians et al did and are doing what, when, and why.
The politicians were always illegally trying to stop our High Court civil jury lawsuits, in the UK, because it is unavoidable, the mere facts and circumstances of my adoption in Australia would have inevitably led to the political science of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation ending too, regardless of whatever else a jury lawsuit might happen to be about. The politicians don’t care about the privacy of an adopted person; politicians just care about maintaining the political science of their legally unjustifiable adoption legislation.
The British PM Johnson’s lawyer has always been the so called Leader of the Opposition Starmer (the fmr DPP & ‘human rights’ adviser to ACPO etc at an Australian called Robertson’s Doughty Chambers in London who generally pose as ’human rights’ lawyers for ‘celebrities’)
It is obviously undeniable, the only way Johnson became Mayor of London (also with the help of now Senator J McGrath in Australia) and also the British PM with the long time assistance of Labour and Starmer, is by illegally covering up my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008, because there is no legal way to go ‘around’ it.
It is true I did happen to briefly mention in passing to a Lord Neuberger in the UK (who now sits in a court in Hong Kong with a fmr Chief Justice of Australia called Gleeson) ‘words to the effect’ in ‘satellite litigation’ from politicians in April 2011 (about illegally denying me legal representation) it is and was a “cover up” in the UK (not long before a Sir Ken Jones, a fmr Head of ACPO in the UK, resigned as a DAC in Victoria, Australia when a Premier Andrews was a Health Minister) which of course remains absolutely true.
I then conclusively proved in further ‘satellite litigation’ from British politicians in HQ11X00563 (that did also include the illegal actions of Australian politicians) it was clearly illegal and completely unworkable legally for politicians to get any judge to try and rubber stamp a phoney injunction illegally preventing me having legal representation while politicians by contrast illegally hide behind a publicly funded legal entourage of lawyers, to illegally take me to court !! which is what the political science of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation does too.
The fact the… political science of adoption legislation is not legally justifiable is obviously not the first time politicians have enacted legislation they know (like ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 was) to be illegal.
____________
Premier Andrews could try standing on a witness stand in the County Court in Melbourne to try and say I am as a private citizen who is entirely law abiding and who is adopted, and whose adopted name was… illegally leaked to the press in the UK with false information, is a liar, but he would not sound credible because he would be lying.
It is not my ‘fault’ I was adopted as a small child, while Premier Andrews chose as an adult to be a politician.
The Victorian Labour Premier Andrews also chose as a politician to protect the British Tory politician and PM Johnson and not a law abiding private citizen and Australian. He could not say that in… choosing to do that, when he has had every opportunity to tell the truth, he did not… intend to harm me.
I am a private citizen, and there was never even any legal grounds to illegally leak my adopted name to the press in the UK.
___________
It could not look more ridiculous than a corrupt politician using the political science of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation (that is legally unenforceable) to falsely claim a grown woman needs to pay money to and have the permission of a court for my own identity to be “officially” recognized, so that politicians like Premier Andrews can save face over their dodgy political legislation that notably failed to even seek or obtain at the earliest opportunity the informed consent of an adopted person as a child or adult. Despite the reasonable and proportionate alternative of legally reviewable care arrangements until adulthood.
It is not legally acceptable that Premier Andrews is just another politician using me as a law abiding civilian who is adopted, as a ‘political football’ while kicking the political science of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation into the political long grass to… cover up he does also know, it led to the political and very much man-made torture and attempted murder of me, because I am an entirely law abiding civilian.
He just doesn’t want to take responsibility for his own role in the political science of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation, because it doesn’t… politically suit him. It is unlikely to ever… politically suit any politician, but Andrews happens to be the Premier in the here and now.
I am not exactly pleased I am not living in my own home in France, being able to get on with my own life, because of the political science of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation that I have never given my informed consent to.
There is never going to be a… politically ‘convenient’ time to end the political science of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation.
(It is obviously legally unworkable that politicians hide behind an entourage of publicly funded lawyers, that is by contrast illegally denied to a completely law abiding civilian who is adopted and rejects the political science of adoption legislation that is legally unjustifiable that takes an adopted person who rejects adoption legislation to court without any legal representation)
It is unavoidable and inescapable that a jury in a court could only conclude Premier Andrews (who is in practise protecting the British PM Johnson) is corrupt, and it is the political science of adoption legislation that is legally unjustifiable that led to the pre-meditated torture and attempted murder of me because I am a law abiding civilian who was adopted.
I obviously did not voluntarily return to Australia in July 2019, because my own home is in France, so Premier Andrews has had plenty of time to be honest and do the right thing, and he has not only chosen not to do the right thing, but to protect the British Tory PM Johnson, instead of a law abiding Australian citizen.
My legal point is the Labour Premier Andrews (who is in practice protecting the British Tory PM Johnson) is legally obliged to immediately resign over… his own corruption about the political science of adoption legislation that is legally unjustifiable so that the political science of adoption legislation that is legally unjustifiable can end now.
A country simply cannot claim it is a democracy or even set a good example as a democracy when it dodges the checks and balances and safeguards of the peace and harmony of the rule of law, when it suits politicians, pointing the finger anywhere else.
I have always been a law abiding private citizen (my adopted name was illegally leaked by Newscorp Scotland Yard with false information on Mothers Day 26th March 2006) who is obviously legally entitled to a diplomatic passport from Australian politicians and $1 billion dollars tax free compensation (I should be able to collect from the administrative office in the County Court) so I can peacefully get on with my own life (instead of being a political football)
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
____________
Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria & Ors: The corrupt Premier Andrews et al appointed Sir Ken Jones from ACPO in the knowledge it is not legally possible to go ‘around’ my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Court’ Order from 16th April 2008 so political torture & attempted murder of me in London, UK, while I was illegally being denied legal representation, while Jones was hiding behind a publicly funded entourage of lawyers, while posing as DAC in Victoria, Australia, was premeditated (11.10.2021)
The facts are the corrupt Premier Andrews et al appointed Sir Ken Jones from ACPO in the UK, as DAC in Victoria in the knowledge it is not legally possible to go ‘around’ my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008. So the torture and attempted murder of me in the UK, while Sir Ken Jones was hiding behind an entourage of lawyers as the DAC in Victoria, was premeditated.
I was illegally being denied legal representation in London in the UK, while Sir Ken Jones was hiding behind a publicly funded entourage of lawyers while posing as DAC in Victoria, Australia.
I remember Brian had asked me to go and speak with his lawyers in North London in person to make sure they had his written instructions because he was in Germany, and there seemed to be some confusion about his legal aid, in ‘satellite litigation’ from the government, so I had an appointment to pass on his instructions to his lawyers the day before Lord Neuberger et al.
I was waiting in the glass atrium of Brian’s lawyers offices, I had never been to before, when at some point I became aware of a male sitting the opposite side of the glass atrium staring at me, including rather malevolently. I realized it was one of the people who tortured and attempted to murder me. When I went in to see Brian’s lawyers and asked in passing, if they knew who the man sitting in the glass atrium was, and they identified that he worked for the government, I realized it wasn’t merely a co-incidence that he happened to be there, and that he must have been waiting to see those particular lawyers.
(Anyway, Brian’s lawyers claimed they had been informed in writing the day before the Lord Neuberger hearing that Brian’s legal aid was withdrawn. I passed along Brian’s written instructions that if that happened, his lawyers were instructed to appeal to the Legal Services Commission which he had successfully done before, and explained it was for Brian’s lawyers to ask for an adjournment for Brian and explain Brian was appealing the sudden legal services commission decision, a day before a hearing, which they failed to do. So I explained the legal situation to Lord Neuberger because it wasn’t Lord Neuberger’s place to adjudicate on legal aid, or just overlook Brian’s right to appeal the refusal of legal aid, which Lord Neuberger ignored. So the context in which I just left the court while Lord Neuberger et al were “in full flow” was because the hearing was legally meaningless however anyone looked at it anyway, which I proved when the politicians lost their further ‘satellite litigation’ of HQ11X00563 that had also started by then)
It obviously wasn’t within the remit of Lord Neuberger et al to make a decision on behalf of the Legal Services Commission about legal representation for Brian:
My legal point is while I was illegally being denied legal representation in the UK (that Australian politicians knew about) the Australian politicians were providing a publicly funded legal entourage of lawyers to Sir Ken Jones posing as DAC in Victoria, in the full knowledge it is not legally possible to go ‘around’ my Universal ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008, all of which does of course mean the torture and attempted murder of me was premeditated.
So the Premier Andrews is completely corrupt, because he was involved in hiring Sir Ken Jones as DAC in Victoria to provide him with a publicly funded entourage of lawyers despite knowing it is not and was not legally possible to go ‘around’ my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008 that directly led to the political torture and attempted murder of me, where I was still illegally denied legal representation, while Sir Ken Jones was hiding away with a publicly funded legal entourage as DAC in Victoria !! etc etc.
(No-one could have possibly thought the British government was going to ‘win’ HQ11X00563 that legally speaking did clearly involve Australian politicians and Sir Ken Jones)
It remains it is not legally possible to go ‘around’ my Universal High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008, so it is illegal for the Victorian Labour Premier Andrews who is undeniably corrupt to protect the British Tory PM Johnson (to protect himself) and not a law abiding private citizen who is Australian.
Most people would understand why as an adopted person, I peacefully oppose the political science of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation that can be used by politicians who are so completely and utterly unscrupulous and corrupt. I should have been able to be peacefully living in my own home in France, because I obviously did not voluntarily return to Melbourne.
No jury would take very seriously the political science of legally unjustifiable adoption legislation, that claimed I had to pay money to a court and ask for their permission for my own identity to be “officially” recognized.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 