Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re: I legally, officially used my own identity of Donna Bugat, as a voluntary unpaid ‘McKenzie friend’ by video-link over three consecutive days in criminal proceedings in Crown Court in March 2022 in UK while I am in Australia, that further proves I was not legally obliged to leave my own… home in Breizh, France in July 2019 because politicians have not formally disputed in writing including to any court, my compensation over officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation they were legally obliged to first do, incl. on Mothers Day 2006, that could only then have been remitted back to a civil jury to agree the compensation instead anyway (10.02.1962)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
I proved on Mothers Day 2006 in Parliament Square, Central London, in the UK, that the only legal issue was politicians were legally obliged to either agree or formally dispute in writing including to a court… my compensation for officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation (& ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005) where if politicians did dispute compensation, could only then be remitted back to a civil jury to agree the compensation instead anyway.
I legally used my own identity of Donna Bugat, as a voluntary unpaid ‘McKenzie friend’ by video-link over three consecutive days in criminal proceedings in a Crown Court (7-9 March 2022) in March 2022 in the UK while I am in Australia (& despite the time difference because while it was daytime in the UK it was night-time in Australia) that further proves I was not legally obliged to leave my own… home in Breizh, France in July 2019 to have a civil jury agree compensation over draconian adoption legislation I have legally officially renounced inside and outside courts of law.
The British Judge and Crown Prosecution Service were aware of my own identity of Donna Bugat, that was the name I officially used and was what I was called by the court in March 2022 in the UK, while my adopted identity was also independently confirmed to and by the court. The relevant government agencies in the UK were at all times aware I am in Australia.
I obviously do not, and have never given and would never give politicians… my permission for them to lie about my identity, and I do not reasonably believe politicians can use draconian adoption legislation to claim they can lie about my identity, or to force me to go along with them doing that which they would reasonably know they could not do, or repeat and justify before a civil jury. (It is presumably arguable that politicians misappropriated draconian ‘adoption’ legislation to cut and paste into their subsequent various versions of ‘surrogacy’ legislation that include the same claim by politicians that they can legislate to lie about civilians identities in numerous published documents where politicians and others have ‘commissioned’ children that inevitably leads to many of the same problems that were already long identified with regard to draconian ‘adoption’ legislation. The need for legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ vulnerable minors automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood (so people labelled ‘adopted’ can make the same decisions people who are not labelled ‘adopted’ do, as children and adults) is clearly more important than any politicians legislation to try and force vulnerable minors to call them a ’parent’ etc etc)
The peace and harmony of the rule of law, without which there can be no genuine democracy, is essential to try and help progress equality of opportunity for everyone.
It obviously does not in my own case make legal sense for me to have to keep repeating the same legal issues about my legally officially renouncing draconian adoption legislation with compensation in multiple civil jury lawsuits in any country that have only ever at most been, in the absence of politicians agreeing my compensation in a timely manner, about my having a civil jury (which I have never waived my legal right to) to agree my compensation. I did not waive my legal right to civil jury that politicians could not do with any ‘inquiry’ etc. I have provided the courts in Australia with the necessary witness statement from me (which is legally the same as any ‘form’ I have ever been asked to fill out or have filled out anyway, including elsewhere, because a witness statement is recognised as the basic foundation of the peace and harmony of the rule of law) including by email, the politicians do not formally dispute in writing, including in any court, about my compensation. The politicians would have had to formally dispute my compensation in writing, including to a court, and in a timely manner, for there to need to be a civil jury to settle the only legal issue of compensation, but no politician has ever formally done that, including to any court.
The only true legal position/due process there could possibly be, in the absence of politicians having formally disputed my compensation in writing, including in a timely manner, and to a court, is that there is no legal need for my case to be referred to a civil jury which I have never waived my legal right to, to agree my compensation instead anyway.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formally known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 