Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re: FAO Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police knows it has always been absolutely unlawful for state & federal politicians to try & take away my Australian… citizenship I was automatically born with along with my entitlement to an Australian passport in my own identity, simply because I have always refused to agree to being labelled ‘adopted’ by someone else & have a draconian lifelong ‘court order’ & state legislation, that my Australian citizenship & an Australian passport in my own identity has never been contingent on my agreeing to or having, that I could also not be arrested on 21st December 2021 inside & outside the County Court in Melbourne because politicians are also illegally punishing me by illegally restricting my freedom of movement & trying to make me homeless to stop me living in my own… home in Breizh, France (16.05.2022)
My own identity of Donna Bugat is essential to my peaceful freedom of expression and legal right like anyone else to self determination.
I… already automatically had Australian citizenship in my own identity… before I was labelled ‘adopted’ so state and federal politicians could not threaten to take away or actually take away my Australian citizenship from me unless I ‘agreed’ to also be labelled ‘adopted’ and go along with a draconian adoption ‘court order’ and legislation that perversely falsely claimed they could arbitrarily change whatever they wanted about my identity, nationality and citizenships. There is no legal document, or legislation that says my Australian citizenship later became contingent on my agreeing to be labelled ‘adopted’ and having a different name etc.
There is no way state or federal Australian politicians can rob me of the fact I first automatically have… Australian citizenship. That Australian citizenship does not impose any… obligation on me to agree to also be labelled ‘adopted’. The Australian citizenship came… before the label of ‘adoption’ despite the fact politicians and public officials have never treated me as having equal rights to/within Australian citizenship compared to Australian citizens (or indeed often citizens of other countries in Australia) who are not labelled ‘adopted’.
*******************
**** The… only reason politicians are illegally and maliciously refusing to provide me with an Australian passport in my own identity, (and therefore illegally restricting my freedom of movement and making me homeless because I cannot live in my own home in Breizh, France, is because I have always refused to ‘agree’ to someone else … labeling me ‘adopted’ to impose a draconian lifelong adoption ‘court order’ and legislation ****
The politicians are illegally punishing me without law for purely political reasons.
*********************
The timeline shows state and federal politicians have always illegally been trying to rob me of my Australian citizenship, because I have always refused to be labelled ‘adopted’ or go along with draconian… state legislation that is so unreasonable and unworkable whatever country I live in or have lived in, who all have their own convoluted ‘adoption’ legislation too that no -one who was labelled ‘adopted’ by… someone else could possibly keep up with. Politicians have never bothered to keep people… labelled ‘adopted’ properly informed about anything.
There are not too many adults who would genuinely claim to be surprised by state and federal politicians illegally threatening me as a law abiding private citizen with their using draconian adoption ‘court orders’ and legislation to illegally try and take away my Australian citizenship and refuse to provide me with an Australian passport in my own identity, simply if and because I refuse to… ‘agree’ to be labelled ‘adopted’ along with a draconian adoption ‘court order’ and legislation.
My Australian citizenship actually came first, and was something I was automatically born with… before politicians tall tales about what they call ‘adoption’.
The reason I was forced to leave Australia,when I was a teenager when politicians and courts also illegally failed to provide me with a copy of the draconian adoption ‘court order’ was because I always refused to agree to be labelled adopted, and politicians did not want that to be challenged in either an Australian or foreign court because it was all invalid and they would have to provide me with new documents in my own identity in whatever country I was living in, along with their having strict liability to pay compensation. What politicians label ‘adoption’ which has never had any logical connection to ‘child protection’ or the ‘best interests’ of a vulnerable child, is wholly political, and legally unjustifiable under any circumstances. What politicians call ‘adoption’ is simply a manipulative means for… politicians to try and avoid any… legal scrutiny like legally reviewable ‘care arrangements’ vulnerable children automatically age out of at adulthood, so politicians can use vulnerable children for their own ends, including to buy votes in the free for all of people who claim they are discriminated against if they cannot ‘adopt’ is used to hide the discrimination in labeling… someone else… ‘adopted’.
I conclusively proved in Parliament Square, Central London when I forced the political ban on peaceful freedom of expression by law abiding private citizens in ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books, that most politicians will primarily put their own interests first in any legislation, and in particular to where possible publicly portray they have legal immunity from the peace and harmony of the rule of law, which unlike the inequality that is what monarchy represents, is trying to promote equality of opportunity for everyone. The manipulative former British PM Blair who obviously did not act alone had been careful to make sure that before he committed the crime of aggression in the Iraq War, he helped establish an International Criminal Court that despite historical precedent refused to agree on what constituted a crime of aggression, that was at an arms length from the countries in the EU & the ECHR, along with making sure the Judiciary in the UK would say the crime of aggression was not justiciable in the UK because politicians like the unelected Lord Peter Goldsmith who was Blair’s Attorney General !! and the highest law officer in the country, who had also sat in the House of Lords since 1999 (& is currently on a ‘leave of absence’) had along with Law Lords who sit in the House of Lords not incorporated the crime of aggression into domestic legislation. The Attorney General who was the highest ‘law officer’ in the country, who could have advised politicians to incorporate the crime of aggression into domestic legislation didn’t (if it was actually necessary because of Jus Cogens or Universal Jurisdiction). It wasn’t that politicians schedule was just too busy, because of course politicians did cynically find the time to vote for the Iraq War (in the knowledge of what Blair & Goldsmith had done or rather not done) and then indeed ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 in the UK because as they say the peace and harmony of the rule of law are only words that are used by politicians, if they happen to be convenient. Of course, one of the major problems with the ICC is that it has proved to be a political rather than judicial organisation, focused on the interests of governments, rather than civilian populations. The greatest opposition to the Iraq War didn’t come from any politicians but from people from all walks of life in civilian populations. I personally knew because of my ‘lived experience’ being labelled ‘adopted’ in the global free for all of the multi-billion dollar adoption industry, that politicians don’t care about vulnerable children anywhere, so I was very serious about forcing the related ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books in the UK. The political debacles of the ‘landmark’ Contempt of Court case against Brian and myself in the UK, only highlighted the politicians illegally refused to make or keep accurate and contemporaneous records in the lower courts because otherwise they could not launder political cases through there, which was not as Murdoch’s Law reports in the Times etc claimed, merely the result of a legislative draftsmen’s oversight. The landmark claim against Brian and myself in 2010, allegedly over what politicians labelled Parliament Square ‘Green’ saw the Law Lords remit our case back to the High Court because everyone had suddenly started claiming that while the Attorney General did usually advise or act for the monarchy, who politicians had said they could legislate to give away some of the public land to, in Parliament Square, the monarch “could” (although the monarch had not said the monarch/y had) replace the Attorney General with the Mayor of London, that was novel, in many respects, and particularly in light of the Attorney Generals’ actions over the Iraq War. Of course it did not age well when I then won HQ11X00563 against Westminster Council, in Parliament Square, in the UK, because I have always said Parliament Square, Central London should remain a public space in perpetuity.
I don’t personally ‘reasonably believe’ politicians can claim they don’t need to make or keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of proceedings unless they might happen to feel like legislating to do so, but I do ‘reasonably believe’ politicians were illegally trying to avoid a… legally binding High Court ruling that lower courts must make and keep an accurate and contemporaneous reeord of proceedings:
Most people would agree there very much needs to be to an International Civil Court with the choice of civil juries and the ability to nullify unlawful legislation, for civilian populations, that could be based in Jerusalem.
Most people would reasonably believe the politicians et al had a legal duty to be clear among… themselves and… with the public about their own legal responsibilities… before maliciously taking members of the public to court (which I do not reasonably believe the monarchy who had failed to declare their own conflict of interest in signing the legislation that purported public land could be given away to them had done):
I think the monarchy were ‘professionally embarrassed’ because I know Murdoch’s version of a Law report in his Times, does not accurately reflect, how it all happened, including the actions of previous unelected… Attorney General’s like Lord Peter Goldsmith.
(Westminster were probably more worried about my becoming a ‘naturalized’ British citizen in my own right !! independent of any draconian adoption legislation etc, while I was in Parliament Square, Central London, because the Crown Court had tried to say Parliament Square was my ‘home’ in 2007, which I had not agreed to, after I was forced to sell my home in the UK, because I was blacklisted when I campaigned in Parliament Square, Central London)
The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police is legally obliged to confirm receipt by email, and that it was unlawful for me to be arrested on 21st December 2021, that he is legally responsible for, and only happened because I refuse to agree to be labelled ‘adopted’ because I have already pointed out I am legally entitled today, to an Australian passport in my own identity along with financial compensation so I can move on with my own life in my own home in Breizh, France. The state and federal politicians obviously have no legal authority to change… the fact I was automatically born an Australian citizen.
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 