Donna Bugat -v- State of Victoria, Australia & Ors: Re email from British govt: I am saying (for the avoidance of doubt) unlawful arrests of me inside & outside County Court in Melbourne, Australia on 21st December 2021 are inextricably linked to my being repeatedly unlawfully arrested in Parliament Square, Central London in UK, because I could not possibly be legally obliged to pay money to !! or need ‘permission’ of…any court ?? that is only entirely for political reasons, because people who are not labelled adopted do not need to do that to have a… free ‘replacement’ Australian passport in their own identity, so I guess I may be forced to start living at the airport in Melbourne in the next few days, if there is any further political delay with my new free ‘replacement’ Australian passport in my own identity, & compensation (18.05.2022)
Re: email from British government & free ‘replacement’ Australian passport in my own identity.
I consider it to be absolutely ‘normal’ for me to have my own identity and live in my own home.
The British Parliament would have considerable difficulty convincing a civil jury, politicians and public officials just somehow failed to notice the serious miscarriage of justice they were orchestrating… themselves, in Parliament Square, Central London. I did after all force ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 off the statute books.
Perhaps, politicians and public officials do not realise the importance and significance for me, of my having a free ‘replacement’ Australian passport in my own identity.
I cannot think of a reason (and the email sent to me dated 17th May 2022 did not explain) why I should or would ‘apply’ ?? to the British government for them to fulfil what they already know are their legal… obligations.
The legal reality is politicians in Australia are falsely claiming people who are labelled ‘adopted’ need to pay money !! to and have the ‘permission’ of courts (seriously ??) to be ‘allowed’ to use our own identity (while politicians are more recently clutching at straws also saying some people who are labelled ‘adopted’ in supposedly ‘open’ cases could be ‘allowed’ to use their own identity, which can only be because politicians are trying to distract from the illegality of imposing draconian lifelong adoption ‘court orders’ more generally too)
The facts are I could not possibly be discriminated against and need to pay money !! to a court and have their ‘permission’ before having a free ‘replacement’ Australian passport in my own identity.
**** The ‘replacement’ Australian passport in my own identity is supposed to be free:****
It is self-evident the only reason the politicians and courts falsely claim someone labelled ‘adopted’ by draconian adoption legislation has to pay money to and ‘apply’ for the ‘permission’ of a court to officially use our own identity and dispense with draconian ‘court orders’ politicians and courts know they were legally obliged to admit we were legally supposed to automatically ‘age out of’ at adulthood is to illegally delay !! and try to avoid the politicians… automatic ‘absolute liability’ to pay compensation for very serious legislative abuses of due process.
My general and shared recollection, is Westminster behaved very badly indeed over the ss 132-138 SOCPA 2005 legislation they also always knew was illegal.
If I have to go and live at the airport in Melbourne while politicians and public officials are illegally delaying giving me a free ‘replacement’ Australian passport, for what are really solely… political reasons, then so be it, because it is illegal to stop me living in my own home in Breizh, France with my own identity, while making me homeless !! in Australia. I shall if necessary find a good book or two and just curl up in a chair and quietly read it at the airport in Melbourne (albeit I would prefer to take a boat home)
It’s really not at all surprising or extraordinary in any way, that I would want the stability of living with my own identity, in my own…. home in Breizh, France, so I can make some new and happy memories.
What is completely unacceptable is that I had police, pushing and shoving me, and generally manhandling me while yelling in my face on 21st December 2021 (when I also have multiple serious illnesses) and why ?? Because I dared !! to assert my absolute legal right to use my own identity, and live in my own home in Breizh, France. Who could have known a state or two, could have made so much out of my living in my own home with my own identity, that is otherwise supposed to be such a ‘normal’ thing to do.
I know that no politician or public official cares about people labelled ‘adopted’ because not a single politician or public official in either Australia or the UK ever helped me as either a child or adult who was illegally labelled ‘adopted’. No politician or public official has ever (contrary to the musings of a Supreme Court in the ACT) ever made the slightest effort to address the serious legal failings of draconian adoption legislation… in a ’timely’ !! manner.
(My understanding is it is the ECHR in Europe who could only in the absence of agreement, remit to a civil jury, the extremely important legal issue of a legally binding ruling that Magistrates Courts in the UK are legally obliged to make and keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of proceedings to avoid members of the public being falsely accused of a ‘Contempt of Court’ in… political cases, which was somehow remarkably ’sidestepped’/‘overlooked’ by the Judiciary in the High Court in their landmark case about Brian and myself also ’reported’ in for example Murdoch’s ‘Law Reports’ in ‘The Times’. I, and a civil jury would of course also need a copy of what politicians have invented on my ‘PNC’ so that can be corrected too because it was all very clearly invented after Mothers Day 2006, where the government will remember even the Crown Persecution Service found they had to remove a malicious libel they very oddly published about me in 2008 which could only have been at the behest of the Johnson who was Mayor of London when they did that. It was presumably to try and ‘gloss over’ the very serious matter of my High Court ‘Habeas Corpus’ Court Order from 16th April 2008, etc etc. I guess it is true we did attract some ‘notable’ and ‘highly unusual’ cases in our time. There was certainly a lot of leaking by politicians and public officials going on in 2007, including according to Murdoch to him with regard to Mottram. In any event, the concept of a McKenzie Friend is still a work in progress with regard to for example courts and prisons, where ‘a’ view is primarily about being… supportive. I most certainly do not personally pretend to have any legal expertise of any kind although I do have considerable experience, I would never have wanted, in what is an unusually aggressive and so unnecessarily adversarial legal system. The fact is someone is legally entitled to the… legal assistance of their choosing, including a McKenzie friend who could be anywhere in the world because it is generally accepted legal assistance cannot legally be denied anywhere. All that Westminster is really worried about is if I should happen to one day become an Australian Ambassador to London, which I guess I kind of already was, just in a much better way, in Parliament Square, Central London.
It was a truly appalling way, to treat someone… already illegally labelled ‘adopted’ by a… court !!)
A kinder evolution is possible.
This statement is true.
Donna Bugat
(formerly known as Babs Tucker)
Donna Bugat 